In this Issue:

Racism in this Election (who’s really playing the race card in this election?)

One Idea to Make you a Billionaire (I’m serious here)

The Judicial Branch of Government (it sounds dull, but this is an important article)

The Rush Section

Bo Snerdley on Obama’s Racism Warning (☺)

Rush on Education Budget Cuts

George Carlin takes on the environmentalists

Rush wants to be subpoenaed

Rush on the Energy Crisis (Each Democratic talking point refuted)

The Brits on Climate Change

Good News is No News for Iraq

Sad but True (Liberal education is designed to keep young people from an education)

Scalia’s Majority Opinion (with well-known Second Amendment expert, Dahlia Lithwick ☺)

Additional Rush Links

Too much happened this week! Enjoy...

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).

Obama has already accused the Republican party, preemptively, of racism. "He's got a funny name, and, oh, by the way, have you heard that he is black?" (not an exact quote, but close). This is called "playing the race card" card.

Here is what you can expect: staged and fake racism; perhaps graffiti (I wrote this article before the news story of recent anti-Obama racist graffiti which has been found). Perhaps anonymous or semi-annonymous postings on youtube. We will not know who the perpetrators are. Our news sources will not investigate these acts of racism because, they will be afraid that these acts will be tied to the Obama campaign and not the McCain campaign.

Do you remember the "Iron my shirt" protesters at a Hillary rally? Completely set up. Hillary was locked and loaded with the perfect line.

So far, all racism has come from the Democratic side. How do you explain 90% of Blacks voting for Barack? That is racism; that is voting based upon his color. Barack the Magic Negro? This designation did not come from Rush Limbaugh, but from a liberal columnist. Is Barack black enough? This came from a liberal columnist. Was Clinton's remark that, "Well, Jesse Jackson won that state as well..." racist, or was drawing attention to that remark as being racist by Obama's campaign an act of racism. How about Ralph Nader’s recent remarks, where he accuses Obama of talking white. Nader isn’t a Democrat, but he is closely associated with Democrats, philosophically speaking.

Who made a distinction between Barack and Michelle Obama’s non-slave blood and slave blood? The head of a the SCLC, a civil rights group.

Awhile back, Michelle Obama volunteered that Barack could be shot while walking to the corner store. Her implication was, some white racist could do this, whether Obama was running for president or not; the plain truth of the matter, if Obama (or any other Black man) was ever murdered as a black citizen, it would be far more likely that a black man pulls the trigger). Today, it could be a different matter, as he is a presidential candidate, and there is that crazy element out there. However, black on black crime is an everyday occurrence in every city. White racist crimes against blacks are extremely rare and become front page news when they occur.

Democrats love to accuse Republcans of racism. Democratic National Party Chairman Howard Dean said, "The only blacks at a Republican gathering are the wait staff." (not an exact quote). Obama's own accusation before any racism is in evidence.

One thing should be clear, even to the most biased person: McCain himself would never make race an issue (but Obama and Obama supporters will, over and over and over again, make both race and age an issue). If any person connected with McCain's campaign even uttered a racist statement or was involved in a racist video being placed on youtube, that person would be fired and McCain himself would issue a formal apology.

Comedians on television will make comedy gold based on the fact that McCain is old; but none will make a joke based upon Obama's race.

My guess, and it is hard to quantify this, but, is there will be more white people who vote for Obama because he is black than people who vote against him for that reason.

Racism will always be a fact of life on planet earth. Is it good that we have a Black presidential candidate? I’m all for that. I was raised a liberal. However, we ought not vote for someone simply because of his race (or her gender). We ought not automatically give a candidate a pass and expect less of him because he is Black (could anything be more racist than that?). The way our press treats Obama oozes with reverse discrimination and preferential treatment. Such treatment insults both Barack Obama, implying that he is unable to defend himself in difficult circumstances, and this insults the American public. So far, in my opinion, this is the greatest act of racism in this election.

Every person ought to pay something by way of taxes. Social Security tax should really and truly cover what retirement is going to be, and everyone (if we keep this system) ought to pay a fair amount. What I mean is, enough to cover their own retirement, based upon actuary tables.

Illustration of a child—all children should grow up learning how to work for money. They should have an allowance and the parent should require work in exchange for that allowance. It does not matter if these parents are so rich, that even I think they ought to be taxed at a higher rate. Ideally speaking, they need to teach their children that work earns money.

Personally, I would love to see the lowest income tax rate, to be applied to all people (apart from FICA) to be 1/3rd the highest income tax rate. I would settle for 1/5th. The poor vote just like the rich vote; they need to have an investment in their vote. If they know their elected officials get $3000 of their money year after year, they might have a concern for how government spends this money. If all they do is, collect governmental benefits, then the poor will, for the most part, simply vote for whoever promises them the biggest and longest lasting benefits. Free health care, breakfast for my kids, free college for my kids? Where do I sign?

The more invested we all are in our government, the less likely government will simply bribe us for our votes.

I’m an idea guy and sometimes I don’t mind sharing these ideas. I am going to offer up one way for you to become a billionaire, but don’t expect that this is some idea that you can develop in your spare time out in the garage.

Establish a family-friendly television and movie studio outside of Hollywood. This would be established simultaneous with a family friendly cable television station.

1. There will be no uses of words or phrases which take God’s name in vain or use the name of Jesus irreverently.

2. There will be a list of words and phrases which you guarantee will not ever occur in your films or shows.

6. The term family will refer explicitly to a married man and woman with children and occasionally include an extended family, related by blood.

7. There will be no implicit or explicit homosexual relationships on or off camera.

8. There will be no implicit or explicit out-of-wedlock sexual relationships, unless an actual established historical fact in a historical documentary; and, in such cases, this will not be an emphasized relationship.

10. Although there will be no explicitly anti-American or anti-American military films released, historical films and biographies will not change the facts in order to present the United States only in a positive view.

11. All films will be released with a G or PG rating, which considerations will be clearly revealed prior to seeing such a film.

12. All those under contract to this studio will be subject to a morals clause, which could potentially affect this person’s residuals.

Such a studio would deal with family films, biographies and historical films. However, almost all genres will be fair game, including war films (for which I have an outstanding idea), fantasy films, science fiction films, comedies of all sorts, and independent films.

Film distributors will, at first, boycott films and film studio with these guarantees. Large churches with movie theaters will welcome these films. There is a huge viewing audience out there who desire these films. They are anxious for a chance to go to the movies without being shocked or having to wince through certain scenes.

DVD distribution is going to be easier, and such a studio is going to find ready alliances with Wal-Mart, K-Mart (I think) and Sam’s.

Sufficient actors, writers, and all related personnel will flock to such a studio. For some actors and writers, anything goes; for others, they feel as if they are being put again and again into compromising situations and roles.

Such a studio is going to face an uphill battle, but the end results are going to be quite rewarding for any person or group who is willing to put up the cash and take the risk.

I was raised a liberal, and, by age 17, when I began college, I had no clue that Republicans or conservatives were anything else but rich guys without compassion, who hated the environment and just wanted to hold onto their money. The idea that anyone could present a reasonable argument for any conservative point of view never had occurred to me. It seemed impossible.

My political science teacher in college was Gottlieb Baer, and this guy was fantastic. He was very German and very conservative. His lectures were interesting and his handouts were worthwhile. As a college student,, I received thousands of handouts from various teachers in all fields. I still recall some of his handouts, which were given to me about 40 years ago.

I rarely spoke up in class, and I soon recognized that Dr. Baer enjoyed debate, and he said a lot of very provocative things in order to get the ire of us liberals, and then, he would debate the point. I was quite surprised—not only was he able to make conservative positions palatable and reasonable, but he would debate circles around any committed liberal.

Dr. Baer, at that time, did not convert me, but he at least opened my mind to the possibility that my liberal training and belief in FDR and JFK could stand some critical thinking.

Dr. Baer’s mission, and this goes back to the 1960's, was to warn us about the courts. I recall that he gave us two supreme court cases—I forget the exact issue, but it was a substantial issue—and these cases were decided about 20 or 30 years apart, and the final decisions of the court, which had far-reaching implications, were absolutely contrary to one another.

In class, I pointed this out to Dr. Baer, not realizing at the time, that was his point.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) [This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Summation: the idea behind the Supreme Court was a body of men to whom the final appeal could be made in a court case, with regards to law and fact.

The original powers of the Supreme Court were quite limited. From almost the very beginning, judges have sought to expand their purview and their power.

We have essentially two conflicting points of view on the constitution: conservatives, for the most part, hold that the constitution says what is means and means what it says. Whatever

interpretation is done, has to be quite limited. Liberals, for the most part, view the constitution as a living document, one which may be bent, molded and modified, informally, by the courts, in order to allow for a particular point of view to be made law. When it comes to changing the law and when it comes to civil rights, the conservative wants to see these things changed by Congress, by a popular Amendment or law, ratified by the President of the United States. What a liberal wants is, if they have a particular agenda or a particular civil right (abortion rights, marriage between homosexuals, granting habeas corpus to war-time combatants who are non-citizens), it is much easier to affect the thinking of 9 men and women than it is to pass a law to that effect.

This has been a struggle for power which has quietly raged, going back to the founding of this nation.

Now, I fully appreciate the arguments of liberals that, if it is the right thing to do, then who cares how it comes about? The several court decisions with regards to civil rights are often cited.

The conservative point of view is, we may have a law on the books which is just not right; we may be denying civil rights where we ought to be granting them; but, let the righting of these wrongs be done by an educated population or by a Congress which represents us; and not by 9 Supreme Court justices. Obviously, depending upon Congress or upon the people themselves to do the right thing, may take longer; but, the end result will be, there will be popular support for such laws. Doing the right thing takes time. The benefit of doing the right thing in the right way is, 5 people do not have the ultimate control over our lives and our freedoms.

Let me give you a clue as to when the court oversteps its boundaries: if they base their decision on any law or tradition found outside of the United States, they are wrong. If they simply take the side of popular opinion, without actually consulting the constitution, they are wrong.

District of Columbia v. Heller: Does a state or local government have the right to effectively band the possession and use of firearms? What was being challenged was the constitutionality of provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 in the District of Columbia. What was being determined was, do individuals have the right to own and bear guns, or is this right only a collective right (whatever that is).

The D.C. law restricted residents from owning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. This law also required that all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." Essentially, this law meant that, if you face a home invasion, you cannot protect yourself, your home or your family with a firearm.

As most of you know, this D.C. law was struck down as unconstitutional, but only by a 5 to 4 vote. Behind the scenes, several justices took the 2^nd amendment and examined it word by word, going back to the time that it was written, and examined documents of that day and time, to try to determine the meaning and intent of this right. This is what a Supreme Court Justice ought to do—determine if law passed violates the constitution. 4 justices, as insane as it seems to me, believed that states or local authorities could effectively ban the ownership of handguns within the home. 4 justices sided with the constitution; the ones who did their historical homework.

There is one wild card in the Supreme Court, and that is justice Kennedy, who seems to be the tie-breaker on many significant votes; which means that this one man is essentially making the laws of our land (when the Supreme Court exceeds its boundaries and makes laws).

Kennedy v. Louisiana: Patrick O. Kennedy raped his eight-year-old stepdaughter, and Louisiana believes that such a man deserves the death penalty. He appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court, which decided that execution for child rape violated the principle that a criminal not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

This is a proper case to be decided by the courts and they got it wrong. The key to this decision is the word and. In order for a punishment to be struck down, it must be cruel and unusual punishment.

The majority opinion was, there was not a national consensus for the death penalty applied to a child rapist. They were wrong, and Kennedy was the deciding vote. A court should never make a decision based upon prevailing national opinion. If such public opinion is so strong, then let them vote on it.

Judge Alito, presenting the minority (and correct) view, argued that "The Eighth Amendment protects the right of an accused. It does not authorize this Court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society."

Let me insert some politics here: Obama voted against Alito and McCain voted to affirm his appointment.

We have an unusual situation, which has not been before us until now. Wars used to be country against country, the primary fighting done between military units representing each country. Radical Islam has changed all that: we have enemy combatants who do not wear a uniform, who are not associated with any particular country, in a war which may last many more decades. The Supreme Court, awhile ago, required that the President and Congress come up with a way to deal with these enemy combatants which we have captured and imprisoned (which is a reasonable request, given the altered circumstances). The President and Congress did, and the Supreme Court struck this down with this decision.

The appeal challenged the incarceration of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps. The case challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 (the act of Congress signed into law by President Bush).

This is an appeal which the Supreme Court should have rejected to hear. Effectively, what the court was deciding was, do enemy combatants have the same rights as citizens of the United States (which rights would, be definition, be superior to the rights of our own soldiers and the rights of illegal aliens).

Again, this was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy providing the deciding vote. Kennedy provided the majority decision report, which hinged, in part, on Ireland to provide for us an historical example which supported their point of view.

This is an example of the Supreme Court making a law; in essence, it has added an amendment to the Constitution of the United states which confers upon enemy combatants the same legal rights as citizens of the United States have.

This further puts our own soldiers at risk because they must now, collect evidence as if they CSI team while on the battlefield, while fighting with enemy forces. Such an approach is almost workable in a war as small as the one in Iraq, as ridiculous as the decision might be. Such a decision is completely unworkable in a real war where 4000 American casualties are occurring each month, instead of throughout 6 years of the war.

Such a decision also opens the door to providing all enemy combatants with full legal rights, even during a clear war between us and another nation.

This is based upon a precedent of some little known decision made in Ireland; it is not based upon our constitution. This will send military cases, involving sometimes confidential military information, to be placed into civilian courts before judges and juries who have absolutely no appreciation for battlefield circumstances or secret military intelligence.

Liberals have loved the courts making decisions and making laws were they ought not. At some point, this is going to backfire on liberals. A court which can bestow rights where they ought not, can also take these rights away. A court which can make law which you like with their judicial decisions can also make law that you don’t like. This is why liberals and conservatives both should support justices at all levels who do their best to interpret existing law as opposed to making law themselves.

Although I am not a big fan of wikipedia, the following link provides the best information which I have found on court decisions:

As mentioned earlier, Obama is warning his followers that Republicans are going to be playing the race card. Bo Snerdley, Rush Limbaugh’s call screener, responds:

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, official EIB Obama criticizer, certified black enough to criticize. I have a statement. Mr. Obama, your highly publicized attack on Republicans this week claiming they are readying a racial attack against you is unbecoming and indefensible. In fact, sir, your general attack on Republicans with no evidence to support it is an example of you using unfounded stereotypes to smear an entire group of people. It demonstrates your own bigotry. Your promise to change, your promise to bring hope, instead, what do we get? You revert to the status quo, race card and fear, in order to inoculate yourself and your party from intellectually honest criticism. It is your associates who utter racist and sexist remarks like Jerry Wright, Reverend Pfleger. It is your Democratic Party, your liberal media pals that put race out there time and time again. Bill and Hillary Clinton's race remarks, the smears about your drug days, the Muslim thing, the Hussein thing, all that came from Democrats. Now the SCLC saying you're not black enough because you don't have slave blood? What's that, Mr. Obama? And the entire country saw it, except perhaps you. That is, if we can believe you. After all, what you say one day changes like the wind. You're running for president, sir. Grow a set. Comport yourself like a proud, strong black man, not a weak, cowering victim.

And now, a translation for EIB brothers and sisters in the 'hood. What's up, easy money? I ain't trying to diss you, yo, but this race thing you fronting is counterfeit. Everybody scoped it, yo. It was your homeys that were out there flat blast jamming you on the race thing, not those punk ass Republicans. Those lames are too afraid to call nighttime dark because they think your homeys in the press will macaca them out of office. Yo, look, yo, man, they ain't going to use the race card on you, man. They ain't going to try to make the bodies drop on you like that. Check it out, man. It's been your boys out there with the race thing, man, your frontin' boy Jeremiah, your boy Farrakhan, your boy Pfleger. Your boys are saying you ain't even got slave blood, yo. What's up with that? Michelle got slave blood, you don't have none? Yo, man, come on. By the way, man, where is Michelle, man? You kind of keeping her out the spotlight, yo, man, she kind of looking lace, man, you got to get her some face time. Yo. But check this out. You trying to be smooth, you trying to spin this all out of control, accusing those punk ass Republicans of doing what your medieval Democrat racist brothers been doing all along, but it ain't going to play. Look, man, I told you before, you wanted the game, you in the game, so you got to play real and you got to get played out. You can't run with the lions at night and play with the kittens in the day. You talking all this change stuff, then change it up, yo. Get off this race thing and come for real about what you got, what you gonna get, where we gonna be if you get in, you feel me, bro? That concludes this statement.

RUSH: Audio sound bite time, Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, was on KTVA channel 11 last night responding to Democrats drilling in ANWR.

PALIN: I want to make sure that we're not just talking about the need to develop, to ramp up development, offshore and in ANWR, but we're asking them now, "What's your plan? If not domestic supplies being tapped into with offshore and with ANWR, then, Congress, what is your plan?"

RUSH: Amen! Here is a female Republican who is willing to gut it up. She sent Dingy Harry a letter. She challenged the Democrats to drill in ANWR. "What's your plan?" If we're not going to drill offshore and we're not going to drill in ANWR, what is your plan for more energy? And here was Obama in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He was at a campaign event. Here's Obama pretty much responding to Sarah Palin, whether he knew it or not.

OBAMA: We're not going to bring down gas prices easily, quickly. The only way to do it is to reduce demand, uh, over the long term in a serious way. And so, you know, I -- I -- I -- when John McCain says, well, we're going to drill our way out of the problem, or we're going to give tax cuts, uh, uh, hol -- or suspend the gas tax for 60 days which would save you 30 cents a day for 90 days for a grand total of $28, you know, then I say, you know, that's a gimmick. You're not being serious.

RUSH: I just can't take this man seriously, folks. I'm sorry. I listen and I want to laugh. Here's a guy who thinks you're paying too much for everything except gasoline. You're paying too much for health care. You're paying too much for tuition. You're paying too much for education. You're paying too much for this, too much for that. But not gasoline. Whatever amount that the gallon of gasoline might be reduced, it's insignificant. It's a gimmick. It's a trick. Yet these are the people supposedly concerned with the dire economic consequences brought on by the Republicans. We're not going to bring down gas prices easily, quickly? We're not? We're not even going to try? The only way to do it is to reduce demand over the long term?

No, it's not. You can conservative out the wazoo, Senator, and you're not going to produce any more. This is pathetic. We cannot afford this guy -- I mean financially. Forget all the other ways. We just can't afford him. The average American could not afford to pay for a Barack Obama presidency. It's just no more complicated than that. Now another one of the wizards of smart. Thomas Friedman, New York Times, was on Scarborough's show today, the cohost Willie Geist interviewed Friedman, said, "What's the direction? I mean, we've heard so much about offshore drilling, all these short-term solution, where should we be headed as a country, [wizard of smart]? What's the bottom line on all of this?"

FRIEDMAN: It's a policy that first of all starts with incentives for what I call radical "innovation," that's gonna give us abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons. For that, you need really the market signals -- gasoline tax, carbon tax -- that will stimulate a hundred thousand-man patent projects in a hundred thousand garages. Second thing you need is dramatic improvements in energy efficiency. That's standards for refrigerators and lightbulbs and mileage standards so we don't need so many electrons. And third, you're going to need conservation. How about going back to driving 55 miles an hour? You can save millions of gallons just there.

RUSH: Well, that's it. The wizard of smart, Thomas Friedman, wants to roll back our advancement, roll back our lifestyle and give us abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons. Yeah. For those of you... "You really need the market signals, gas tax, carbon tax, that will stimulate a hundred thousand man patent per check. He projects in a hundred thousand garages." You know, it's not electrons. It's not electrons that we need to be working on. It's neutrinos. If we could isolate and find neutrinos, put 'em in the accelerator, and find a way to harness their interaction with protons and neutrons, the neutrino could unlock every secret we have. Do you hear any research on neutrinos? The only people using neutrinos are people that are trying to manufacture plutonium, on their own.

You've gotta do it deep underground. But neutrinos? He's talking about electrons. Electrons are old hat. That's like trying to mess around with the atom. We already figured that out. Neutrinos! Neutrinos are the future. But besides all that, this is lame. This is lame lunacy. Roll it back to 55? All these people on the left want you to sacrifice your family's future, your growth opportunity, prosperity, and opportunity. We are a nation in a constant state of decline, as they look at it. By the way, you think these people are going to follow suit on any of this? You think they are? I mean, if we go 55, Friedman might have to drive 55, but other than that, do you think they're going to go sacrificing like they want you to? Heh-heh-heh. No way.

RUSH: Hey grab audio sound bite eight. The wizard of smart from the New York Times, the op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman, who is asked by Willie Geist on MSNBC, where, Thomas, all-knowing wizard Thomas, where should we be headed as a country? What is the bottom line on all this, Thomas? Please share with us your wisdom.

FRIEDMAN: It's a policy that first of all starts with incentives for what I call radical innovation, that's gonna give us abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons. For that you need really the market signals -- gasoline tax, carbon tax -- that will stimulate a hundred thousand man patent projects in a hundred thousand garages. Second thing you need is dramatic improvements in energy efficiency, that's standards for refrigerators and lightbulbs and mileage standards so we don't need so many electrons. And third, you're going to need conservation. How about going back to driving 55 miles an hour? You can save millions of gallons just there.

RUSH: All right, we all heard that together mere moments ago here on the EIB Network, and it got me to thinking. He may be right about one thing, and that is conservation. Why don't we just establish as a national policy now that we're going to end the hard copy, the actual paper, the dead tree editions of the New York Times and all other large circulation newspapers in America? Imagine how many electrons, Thomas, we could save. Imagine how much carbon we could save? Not just the trees that we would save, but how about all of the expense, Thomas, involved in transporting all these newspapers that are obsolete anyway now thanks to the Internet. If people want to buy a newspaper, let them actually pay ten to $15 a copy for it so that there will be fewer newspapers printed. We have to transport newspapers all over the world. How many trees does it take every day to be chopped down to produce newspapers? Newspapers, which have become sources of drivel to begin with. Why, Thomas, O wizard of smart that you are, are there no studies showing how much carbon is expended by the newspaper industry.

Let's examine all these ways that carbon is expended. We kill trees. Takes energy to do that. There aren't any Paul Bunyans out there anymore. And we have to regrow trees. That takes energy. There's fertilizer involved. You know what that means, Thomas. And the best fertilizer around these days is newspapers. Then we got transportation costs, Thomas. After the drivel is printed on the wasted paper, and then has to be transported to all these places, newsstands, news sites, homes, it's flown on airplanes. Then there are delivery costs. On and on and on, the cycle is endless. Newspapers, a resource-intensive and labor-intensive business. End 'em. Well, he's talking about conservation. What good are they anymore, particularly with the Internet. What literal good are newspapers? If you want to reduce the carbon footprint, let's just end paper copies, hard copies of the New York Times, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal. Let's just shut 'em down.

By the way, it may be happening anyway. Did you see the story in the New York Times yesterday: "Papers Facing Worst Year for Ad Revenue." Did you see this? "For newspapers, the news has swiftly gone from bad to worse. This year is taking shape as their worst on record, with a double-digit drop in advertising revenue, raising serious questions about the survival of some papers and the solvency of their parent companies. Ad revenue, the primary source of newspaper income, began sliding two years ago, and as hiring freezes turned to buyouts and then to layoffs, the decline has only accelerated." One of the problems of course is what's happened to the housing market. Real estate ads are not as numerous as they used to be. The LA Times is mentioned in this New York Times story as a paper particularly hard hit by falling advertising revenues. By the way, I wish to point out that our advertising revenues here at the EIB Network are not falling and they have yet to fall in 20 years.

But I wonder why advertising rates at newspapers are falling. Could it be that there is nothing worth in a newspaper looking at these days? Or maybe there are things worth looking at in a newspaper, but there are too many things that offend people in the newspaper that they don't want to have to read and put up with anymore, all the liberal bias that's not contained anymore to the editorial page, all over the newspapers. The idea that nobody is getting the truth from anything in the newspaper is simply a bunch of recycled AP garbage and agenda-oriented news. So if ad revenue is down and the paper industry is in deep doo-doo, and we must conserve as the wizard of smart, Tom Friedman, says, let's just get rid of the hard copies of newspapers. It's very intensive. Lots of trees could be saved, lots of fertilizer could be saved, lots of fuel, transportation costs could be saved. And a lot of minds, a lot of human minds could be saved.

RUSH: A lot of people have some other ideas here about what we can do to conserve needed energy using the brilliance of the wizard of smart, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. In addition, let's say we're not able to eliminate the hard copy editions of these newspapers, it's a shame, but it's a huge carbon footprint involved here in growing the trees, cutting the trees down, fertilizing the trees and transporting: Just tax it. Raise taxes on newspapers, have a newspaper tax, just like they tax us. Governments tax us to affect our activities. We want less, fewer newspapers sold. If you are going to read a newspaper, you should be the one to pay for the damage that manufacturing that newspaper costs every day, so put a two dollar surcharge tax on every newspaper, or more. I mean let's hit them the way they hit us. They're not immune from any of this.

RUSH: This next story, and, by the way, it's from the Associated Press. Yes, my friends, the Associated Press, the last remaining Drive-By Media monopoly and the headline: "Strained States to Make Cuts Felt by Everyone." This is another story of widespread gloom, widespread pain. It is by Andrew Welsh-Huggins, I'm sure a doctorate in Drive-By Media-ism, working for the Associated Press, which is out to pollute as many innocent Americans' minds as possible. "With a new fiscal year beginning in most states next week, budget cuts are about to bite." State budget cuts. Yes, that first sentence is supposed to send us to the corners, cowering in fear and quivering in panic. Oh, no! Our states face budget cuts, oh, no! "That means less money for school children in Florida." They've already got more than they need, and it isn't working. So what! "It means the end of help with utility bills for poor Rhode Islanders--" Poor Rhode Islanders? Ever been to Newport? Ever been to Providence? "--and a good chance tuition will increase at Auburn University in Alabama.

"'Everything is rising and you have to wonder -- when is it going to stop?' said Lauren Hayes, an Auburn senior. She's expecting a tuition hike, after state lawmakers reduced higher education funding by $157 million and the university responded by proposing a $660 increase for in-state students. Overall, the state fiscal picture is gloomy and the pain from reductions -- many of which take effect July 1 -- will be widespread." You want to hear some of these widespread doom and gloom things, folks? Hear this. "In Florida, basic spending on schoolchildren will drop by $131 per student. And bonuses for schools that earn top grades from the state will shrink to $85 per student from $100." (gasping) A $15 cut. "In California, with the nation's biggest anticipated deficit at $17 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed deep cuts in Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for poor families and children. In New Jersey, lawmakers have proposed eliminating free state police patrols for rural communities that lack police departments. Under the plan, those communities would pay a combined $12 million for the service, the first time they're being charged a fee." Really? "The fee doesn't sit well in Shamong Township, a 46-square mile municipality with a budget of less than $3 million and several state-owned properties, including a park and state forest. 'The state really is our biggest resident, and now they're going to charge us to police themselves,' township administrator Sue Onorato said. The survey also found that 18 states reported their upcoming budgets will be smaller than spending plans for the current year."

Have you ever noticed, folks, in all these stories, we're supposed to start crying, (crying) "They're cutting the state budget! The state's going to have to do with less." (crying) Meanwhile, whenever there are stories about how you have to drop latte from your daily regimen because it's four bucks, there are no tears for you. When your kids might have to walk longer distances to school in Montgomery County because of the price of diesel, there's only expressed pain for the school district. No pain for the kids that have to do the walking, no pain for the parents. We're supposed to feel so bad for the states. Could it possibly be that the states are already so bloated with so much money? If you looked into it, you would not believe the number of things the states spend money on that are totally irrelevant, and the states that are in big trouble, I wonder which party's been running 'em for a while, such as California. And I wonder what the income tax rates are in these states. I'll bet you they are pretty damn high already. I do. I get so frustrated. We're supposed to feel so sorry when government has to cut back. It's all our money. It never was theirs. If they misappropriate it, if they overspend it, and have to cut back, look at what happens. They make it look like suffering will be among the states, and occasionally a citizen here or a student there.

Okay, so we're going to have to cut back the amount of money in Florida we spend per student 125 bucks. From what? Twelve thousand a student, 9,000, whatever it is? A lot of people are having to cut back a lot more than that because of things out of their control largely brought on by irresponsible leaders. You can trace all these problems to politicians in both parties at the federal and state level. It's actually a matter of human nature. It's far easier to spend somebody else's money than it is your own, and it's not their money. And they think they've got an endless supply just by raising your taxes or increasing fees or what have you. And then we're supposed to cry, we're supposed to cry a blue river because they're running out of money. "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh, where you live in Florida, it might mean less alligator control. How would you like to lose a leg to an alligator because the state didn't have the money to come take it away from your property?" Fine, I'll get a gun and shoot the damn thing, Mr. Liberal. "You can't do that! It's a violation of the Endangered Species Act." I'll save myself if I have to. Why am I going to rely on the state anyway? "Some people have to, Mr. Limbaugh, because of their misfortunate, they're unfortunate, and they don't have as much and they have to rely on the state." Well, I know that's true. It would be wonderful if people could be taught to become more self-reliant, particularly when it comes to their needs. I don't care if it's federal, state, local, I don't care, any kind of government, when you start depending on them for your needs, you are a prisoner, you are a slave, whether you've got slave blood or not.

RUSH: Every time we get one of these sob stories, what is it that we get these sob stories? "The state's running out of money! Oh, no, it's horrible!" Have you always noticed that when the state is running out of money, the stories always focus on cuts in, quote, unquote, "essential services." Essential services like the fire department, the police department, alligator control, education, or whatever. Those are always the areas we're told about that we're going to have budget cuts, all these essential services. Have you noted we never, ever hear about cuts in the bureaucracy of these states? We never, ever hear that. The state is never going to cut back itself. The state's never going to be telling the AP nor the federal government, "By the way, We're going to lay off a thousand people here from the state department of education." Never. They won't do that. What they'll do is say, "Oh, my God, we gotta cut the amount of money per student that we're spending!" and this is how they get the public to get all wrapped up.

"You're going to take money away from my kid?" You ought to do some investigating, folks, in whatever state you live in. All this stuff is on websites. You ought to the find out just what your state budgets are every year. Find out, for example, if your state is trying to raise $5 million for a polar bear exhibit to amplify global warming, for example, while they are cutting "essential services" to you. I will bet you a dollar to a doughnut you can find things that you don't even know your state is spending money on, and when they come around to having to cut, they never cut themselves. They never reduce the bureaucracy.

RUSH: George Carlin passed away the other day in Santa Monica, California. A lot of people think of George Carlin as a wacko liberal satirist, controversialist or what have you, and on occasion he was. But he really skewered everything, and when it comes to the environmental left, George Carlin was one of us. We have some sound bites to illustrate this from Carlin appearances over the years.

CARLIN: Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90%, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important, so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

RUSH: This is great stuff. And of course these are the things the left ignores about George Carlin. But listen to this next one.

CARLIN: I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. There is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are (bleep) -- difference, difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years.

CARLIN: Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat, that somehow we're going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are! We're going away.

RUSH: George Carlin. (laughing) This was out of character for him for many of his monologues and his shows on HBO, but I wanted you to hear these because, dead right on the money. He even got some applause from his audience, which is also a healthy sign. Now we move on to June 18th, we're going back to last week, public access television show, Democracy Now, with host Amy Goodman. Why are we even worrying about what's on a public access television show? Cookie, you're working too hard. She has to watch all the media. Public access television show? You know, all this could mean is that the Drive-Bys are getting too predictable and there's nothing new there so she's gotta go to the outer reaches of the fringe. Public access television show? Where? Do you know what public access is? Do you know what public access on cable is? That's like where Al Goldstein worked. It's where Robin what's her name Byrd, the nudist in New York, it's where she had her channel, public access. Remember Robin Byrd? Cookie's watching public access. Amy Goodman? Public access. Anyway, they had Ralph Nader on. Ralph Nader on public access, and she said to Ralph Nader, "The meteorologists are talking 'extreme weather.' Those two words, but not global warming."

NADER: Yes, well, you know, the connection will be made more and more between extreme weather that's occurring all over the world, the increase in water vapor, the effect of that. It's amazing how some people who doubt global warming, I guess like Rush Limbaugh, want to wait until the oceans overcome our literal landscapes, and I don't know what more evidence they're going to require.

RUSH: Water vapor, more water vapor going up? Think back to what you heard George Carlin say. This is a classic example, here we have an arrogant, smug liberal or whatever Nader is these days, thinking that the world began on the day he was born. It's also distressing, what am I doing on public access? That is a tumble. This is one of the reasons I like satellite. There is no public access on satellite. Here's James Hansen. This screwball who 20 years ago testified before Congress that we only had 20 years. Now he's saying we've got 20 more, but this is our last chance. This the guy that wants to put the oil executives on trial for treason or high crimes against humanity and nature. This still has me offended because nobody knows who the oil execs are, nobody knows their names. How many times have you turned on the TV and seen a Big Oil exec out there saying anything about global warming? They don't talk about it. I do. If anybody needs to be brought up on charges, high crimes, treason, whatever against nature, it's me. After 20 years of hard work, to be ignored this way. The only solace is that it's some insane lunatic who has left me out of the mix. Here he is at a hearing with the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a portion of James Hansen's remarks.

HANSEN: These CEOs are the potential people, the captains of industry who could solve the problem. So I just want to draw attention to them, so I, in my opinion, I say that if they don't change their tactics, that they're guilty of crimes against humanity and nature, and they should be tried in one way or another.

RUSH: Now, when I hear this, you and I of course have the natural reaction, we split a gut laughing, but I wonder what these leftists out there and the ordinary Americans who buy into this, what do they think when they hear something -- I'm not talking about rabid leftists who would agree with this kind of deranged drivel. What about the average American? Who's really interested in whether or not global warming's happening or not? You know, there are these people that pay a little attention and they'll watch the Drive-Bys, and they'll hear these stories about the whales and the polar bears and so forth, and their kids will see Gore's movie and they'll go home and they'll go, "Mommy, Mommy, Mommy, we're killing the polar bears." Of course parents don't want their kids unhappy so they sign up. But what about these people that just see one or two reports a week about global warming, just a little concerned with it, but they don't really know for sure, and then they hear something like this. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the average, ordinary American's house, concerned about it, but it's not a big issue, what they think when some wacko nutcase from NASA who they don't know has been bought and paid for by George Soros says the Big Oil executives need to be brought to trial for high crimes against nature.

This is extreme. This is ludicrous. This is insane. This is stuff of satire, and I have this desire to understand how average Americans who pay scant attention react to this. Do they scratch their heads? Do they look at themselves and go, "Hmm, never looked at it that way." Do they think, "This guy is a kook." Because if they don't pay enough attention they can't have that much passion about it yet if they're just paying a little attention here or there. And face it, that's who these guys have to appeal to. You know, the global warming issue is just like any other political issue. It's got its passionate believers on both sides, but the people in the middle, the great unwashed, their lives are still focused on being first in line at blockbuster, if they can afford to get there. Hear this kind of stuff. These are the people that have to be persuaded, this is a big problem. I just wonder how they react to it. I guess there's no way of knowing, just one thing things that makes me curious.

"James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call..." (laughing) I hope I get subpoenaed. James Hansen "will today call for the chief executives of [Big Oil] to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that [Big Tobacco] blurred the links between smoking and cancer. Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress -- in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming -- to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the 'perfect storm' of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable. Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of [Big Oil] of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

"In an interview with the Guardian he said: 'When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime.'" Well, if that's the case, the entire NEA needs to be brought up on charges. What gets into textbooks is a bunch of BS and lies. But that is not the point. (Ooh, there's that ugly dog. That ugly dog that won the ugly dog contest -- the Chinese breed, three legs, one eye -- is a cute little puppy, cute little dog. They say it's ugly.) At any rate, I have not lost my place. Twenty years of fear, and he's going to go back for an encore performance today, to redo it, and now he wants these people put in jail! This is a NASA guy who is not even allowed to comment politically, and he's not been reprimanded for it, even when he was part of NASA and doing all this. Can I tell you a little story about 20 years ago and what happened?

I have this on good authority from a blog. Chris Horner at CEI.org remembers a Frontline -- the PBS show called Frontline -- interview with Timothy Wirth, who was Gore's buddy back then, who ran this committee where Hansen first testified. "Frontline interviewed key players in the June 1988 Senate hearing at which then-Senator Al Gore rolled out the official conversion from panic over 'global cooling' to global warming alarmism. Frontline interviewed Gore's colleague, then-Sen. Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner's UN Foundation)." Wirth, because it was PBS and a bunch of liberals, "freely admitted the clever scheming that went into getting the dramatic shot of scientist James Hansen mopping his brow amid a sweaty press corps." I have the transcript here, and this is what happened. "Sen. Timothy Wirth (D-CO): We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it.

"So we called him up and asked him if he would testify." Deborah Amos, the reporterette for Frontline: "On Capitol Hill, Sen. Timothy Wirth was one of the few politicians already concerned about global warming, and he was not above using a little stagecraft for Hansen's testimony. Timothy Wirth: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. Deborah Amos (PBS Frontline): Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? Timothy Wirth: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air-conditioning wasn't working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot. Wirth: Dr. Hansen, if you'd start us off, we'd appreciate it."

And then "Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table, and giving this remarkable testimony," he was all sweaty. Everybody in the room was sweating profusely, because they had turned off the air conditioner. So they used "stagecraft" to set all this up. Now, aside from the theatrics and so forth, stop and think of this. He wants to put Big Oil guys on trial and put them in jail for lying! This is an insult. I mean, if anybody's going to get sued, brought on trial, brought up on charges, thrown in jail, why not me? Nobody knows the names of these Big Oil guys! Big Oil guys supposedly have been lying about this for 20 years. I have been telling the truth about it for 20 years, which Hansen says is a lie. Come on, Dr. Hansen. You're going after Big Oil? I have been doing more to get the truth out about global warming than anybody at Big Oil. They're a bunch of cowards! They're running around funding all these alternative research projects, and they're showing up just recently that they finally got some gonads before Congress in these hearings. Come on, Dr. Hansen, be a man about this. Go after the real enemy: me. Those guys, they haven't convinced anybody of anything. They're just running around making their excess windfall profits. But I'm the guy you really gotta worry about in terms of dealing with the American people and public opinion on this. Come on, Dr. Hansen. Indict me!

RUSH: Saturday Fox News Channel, Bulls & Bears, the host, Brenda Buttner, is talking with Van Jones, the founder of something called Green for All, which is "an organization promoting a green economy." Van Jones said this about me and the energy crisis.

JONES: Here's the problem. The left wing had a crazy solution saying, "Hey, we're going to go with corn-based ethanol. That's going to solve our problems." Rush Limbaugh, I hate to admit it, had the right idea. He said, that's not going to work. It's going to drive up food price. Now here comes the right with another set of false solutions saying, hey, let's drill, drill, drill. We cannot drill and burn our way out of the problem. The problem is that demand is going up, up, up. We gotta cut demand --

RUSH: You know, can I give you a... (sigh) By the way, the theme of that message is I was right on ethanol so I have to be wrong now. You're only allowed to be right every so often with liberals. So I used up my right quota on ethanol but now I'm wrong about drill, drill, drill. What do these people say when they say we've got to reduce demand? They say we gotta stop growing. We have to have a stagnant economy. You know, all of this, everything... There's a story here from the AP on Sunday. I saw it late Saturday night. It's just typical. This is the Associated Press, which serves 4,000 newspapers. They are the Drive-By Media. They still have a monopoly. This is a piece by two people, Alan Fram and Eileen Putman: "Everything is Spinning Out of Control." This is a treatise on virtually every news story and item that the Drive-By Media has used to try to depress you for the last six or seven years and longer.

"Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift." They are not. "Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal." Not for first-time buyers. "Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism. Horatio Alger, twist in your grave," and it goes on. This is a two-page story when you print it out. It sets a record for concentrated, undiluted gloom and doom in one report -- and it was all over the country. I did a search for it; 3,400 different instances turned up in all the different newspapers that posted this thing on their websites, anyway; Saturday night and during the day on Sunday. It's just amazing to read this. These people are just beside themselves. There's nothing worth living for, except -- except -- when you go to the second page.

"American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the US has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation ... and Iran hostage crisis of 1980." Uh, the seventies, it was, Mr. Fram and Ms. Putman. Don't leave out Carter. The 1980s are associated with Reagan, you see. "[T]he dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s. 'All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored,' he said. 'Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again.'" That's the historian, Allan Lichtman. Then the authors, the writers of the story say, "Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House."

(gasp!) Can I translate this one-and-a-half pages of drivel and bilge? If you read this and you don't know how to read this, if you never had a therapist you're going to call one. I'm going to translate what is probably here 750 to a thousand words: "Vote Obama." That's what the whole thing adds up to: "Vote Obama." "Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House," (sigh) and then it has a couple closing paragraphs. But it's just typical of the Associated Press to try to depress people even more than they already are -- and then to, of course, blame it on George W. Bush. All of this is his fault and the Republicans' fault. Now, what do you think would be going on here if gasoline were under $2 a gallon or at about $2? Even if gasoline were two or three dollars a gallon? The economy would be humming, would it not be?

People would have more disposable income. Food would cost less. Retail sales would be zooming. Travel would be cheaper. Employment would be up more. Unemployment would be down less. And America would be happy, upbeat, and on the right course, right? Well, theoretically you would think so, but would Democrats in the Drive-By Media, probably not, but at least individual attitudes would be a little bit more optimistic. We'd have a vibrant economy, great progress going on in Iraq, and the left wouldn't stand a chance in '08, right? You almost have to admire them. For years they have blocked efforts to meet our energy needs. Now they're running against the economic damage that they created!

Does it sound familiar? They first dumbed down education, then they count on the uneducated to believe their own BS. I think, ladies and gentlemen, I have discovered a new political truth, and that is the greater the liberal failure, the more talking points they pile on. I mean, they're turning out BS -- Barbra Streisand -- faster than they can be refuted. How many of you have heard the following: We can't drill our way out of this. It's going to take years for oil to come online; it won't affect the price. It's the fault of the speculators. Big Oil has 68 million acres of leases that they're not even using, and there's solar and wind and hydrogen and biofuel that we could be using. You've heard all those, right? So have I. Let's nuke 'em one by one when we come back.

RUSH: All right, it's the gasoline. You've heard this from the left. It's been going on now for quite a few number of weeks. We can't drill our way outta this. It's going to take years to come online. It won't affect the price. (This is drilling.) It's the fault of the speculators. Big Oil has 68 million acres in leases they're not using. There's solar and wind and hydrogen and biofuel, blah, blah, blah. Now, before we start with the point-by-point analysis here, let me remind you that these are the people saying all these things who turned $2 corn into $8 corn through a series of equally wrong-minded Big Government schemes. These are people who have botched practically everything they have gotten their hands on, which is what I meant was by: the greater of liberal failure, the more talking points they pile on. The greater the failure, the more they try to pass things off as a success.

But for the sake of it, let's go ahead and dignify these talking points as if they were meant to be taken seriously. "We can't drill our way out of this" is a popular refrain from all of the liberals and Democrats throughout the country. Okay, we can't drill our way out of it. We certainly can drill our way into more supply, and more supply leads to lower prices. This is exactly what I mean. Liberals know this, which is why they're pleading and begging and threatening to sue OPEC for more drilling to help them drill our way out of it. It will take years to come online. You know, the next time an energy expert like Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer says this line, somebody should ask: How long is it going to take for alternative energy to come online, Senator Obama? How long is it going to be before we get that plug-in battery that Senator McCain wants to pay somebody $300 million to invent? How long is it going to take for these windmills you people are building to produce anything significant?

How long is that going to take? The next time Senator Obama starts talking about "the failed policies of the past" in the context of drilling for oil, ask him: "Senator, what the hell do you mean? Do you think the discovery and use of petroleum is a failed policy of the past?" How many years until alternate energy produces and distributes the equivalent of 21 million barrels of oil a day? They say it won't affect the price. Okay, how much will alternative energy reduce prices? Come on, liberal experts! You can call new oil to the day in a dollar. How about alternative energy? Well, look at ethanol. We know what it's done to the price of corn. Can we expect the same thing from anything else that you "solve"? Yes. Anything liberals solve, the price is going to quadruple beyond what their initial projections are. "It's the fault of the speculators," they say. Well, sure there are speculators. There are speculators in everything.

Speculators say that prices will go up, matched by speculators that prices will go down. The real question is: Are the speculators betting on supply and demand, or are they speculating that liberal energy policies will continue to drive prices higher? Just what are these speculators speculating? When Ahmadinejad once again claims to blow Israel off the map, what are the speculators speculating on? In that case they might be speculating, "Oh, my gosh. If that happens, there may be interruption over there." Okay, they might be bidding in price. When Chuck Schumer opens his mouth, when Barack Obama opens his mouth, when these people start talking about punishing Big Oil, raising taxes, taking their profits, what do you think they're speculating on? The doomed future of American politics if the liberals win?

RUSH: That's right, if he's going to put the Big Oil CEOs on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, of actively spreading doubt about global warming, I mean, who is the most qualified in this country to be put on trial for that? Me. Say that again? Well, Snerdley is right. Excuse me just -- Brian, there really is a problem here on the IFB. The volume is so low and that's why I had to ask him to repeat what I'm saying. Maybe we're going to have to look into it before the program ends in terms of fixing it. Yeah. That's right, Snerdley, I almost was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for telling the truth about the stuff, but I lost out to a truth denier, Algore. Call us deniers. At any rate, to the phones.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's very great to talk to you. You're so on with everything. We had yesterday a terrible day reading the first page of the Canton Repository. We get that only on Sunday, thank heaven, and we just canceled it this morning. They had that article that you were talking about, the doom and gloom, absolutely preposterous article. And we were just furious about it. And I was so happy to hear you carry on about it today, because I can't believe that anybody in our country today isn't just thrilled to be here. It just blows your mind, absolutely unbelievable.

RUSH: You know, it's a tough gauge. One of the things that happened over the weekend, I was getting ready to come back to work here after three days of blissful vegging, and I was going through some of these things, and I ran across the story that Obama is going to sit out there, he's already accusing the Republicans of using race to criticize him, to attack him and so forth.

RUSH: I got to thinking, here they go, and we always end up on the defensive. So now we have a bunch of people that have to run around saying, "No, no, no, we're not racist." No matter what it is, the liberals are always on offense and setting the agenda and causing us to respond to it. It's the same thing with this story. This story is nothing but doom and gloom. And when you read this story, let me ask you a question about this, Judy. When you read this story, did you at any time consider, "My gosh, there are people in this country who are going to believe this?"

CALLER: Well, I know people that would believe this that are doom-and-gloom people, and that's the maddening part is that there absolutely are people like this and you're going to have those people everywhere, and we live in what they like to call the Rust Belt, which is not really the Rust Belt. But I mean just, case in point, over Easter vacation, we took a family vacation. My daughter-in-law wanted to buy the new Wii game, which cost almost $300. We had to hunt, I mean literally hunt in three different states because we were in Florida, they were up here, we looked all over, you couldn't buy it. My son finally rushed over to a store that said they would hold it for him, but this is how bad off our country is that a $300 game is --

CALLER: I mean not just available, but people are grabbing them up the minute they come on the market. I mean, you know, don't tell me that people can't feed their families and they can't do this. People do what they're going to do, and we are so well off in our country, it's just unfathomable.

RUSH: You know, by any comparison, and despite all this that's going on, the opportunity of an improved future is still there, as much as it ever was. So many people in this country, the left, liberals, have for so many years found problems with the affluence and the greatness of this country, and they've been doing everything they can to tear down the image of this country in the minds of as many people as possible, and they have, as the AP story illustrates, willing accomplices in the media who are ready to do it. Folks, the Democrat Party right now, in this election cycle, wants you hurting. They want you suffering. They want gasoline prices to continue to rise. They want the price of food to continue to rise. They want you mad as hell at the Republicans for it. They want you to accept government-sponsored changes to so-called fix all this, as articulated by Obama. It's a cliche, but it's true. What's bad for America happens to be good for the Democrats, and vice versa.

A great article which deals with Saudi exports other than oil and energy alternatives (the article is better than I am making it sound):

RUSH: "The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans -- and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer." Now, the Observer, this appears in the UK Guardian. "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The findings come just before the release of the government's long-awaited renewable energy strategy, which aims to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next 12 years."

This is the second such poll like this I've seen where a majority of -- not just the UK, in this case it's UK, a lot of people throughout the entire European Union are not buying the notion that it's their fault. One of the reasons so that they have been suffering the consequences a lot longer than we have. People in the European Union and the UK have seen tax increases out the wazoo to deal with carbon footprints and global warming. Their taxes have gone up. They have seen no improvement in the global warming situation, and in fact the leaders keep blaming them. Even after all these tax increases, the proponents of manmade global warming continue to say, "It's getting worse, here!" So people in the UK, Europeans even are saying, "Wait a minute. You've raised our taxes -- we're paying out the wazoo for all these things, we've done all the things you've told us to do about changing lightbulbs, all this other crazy stuff -- and yet you now say it makes no difference?" So they're starting to doubt it. They're away ahead of the curve over there, way ahead of us.

RUSH: Iraq war news. The New York Times' Brian Stelter. "Getting a story on the evening news isn't easy for any correspondent. And for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is especially hard, according to Lara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News. So she has devised a solution when she is talking to the network. 'Generally what I say is, "I'm holding the armor-piercing R.P.G., [and] it's aimed at the bureau chief, and if you don't put my story on the air, I'm going to pull the trigger."'

What's happening here is that, "A decline in ... violence 'is taking the urgency out' of some of the coverage..." This is what news executives are saying: "A decline in ... violence 'is taking the urgency out' of some of the coverage," therefore, success in Iraq is not a story because the template -- the narrative, the action line -- does not include success in Iraq, and so these foreign correspondents, some of them who want to report good news, said they can't get their stories on the air. Then USA Today has a story today: "Roadside Bombs Decline in Iraq by Almost 90%." Roadside bombs decline by 90%? That is a story, but only in USA Today, it seems. So the good news that's happening in Iraq is purposely and studiously being avoided by the Drive-By Media, as we knew. We're not surprised by this at all.

CALLER: Good. I'm neither white nor old, but I have some credibility here, I suppose.

RUSH: Let's see, if you're neither white nor old, then you would be young and what?

CALLER: Exactly. Well, I have something to say as far as the Constitution. I know you were talking about our defensive position here.

CALLER: I gotta say this. I don't think enough people in the United States know what the Constitution is or know what it says. They know so little about it that they are not inclined to care much about decisions like this. And I'm speaking as a former school teacher, presently I am in the United States Army, so I'm now a soldier, that is an upgrade from being a school teacher in the Bronx, and --

CALLER: -- my students knew nothing at all about the Constitution or what it said. It was my job, or I made it my job to post the Constitution and presently, whenever I see people in the street, people in my church that know little or speak of it as they know much, but know very little of the Constitution, I give them a copy of it. I carry hundreds of copies in my bag and I give them out to people in my church, people on the street, so they can get informed and maybe start to care about this great document here inspired by God.

RUSH: God bless you, sir. You know, you're doing the Lord's work out there. I fear that you're right. I think people are aware of the Constitution. I think they think the Constitution is where they're going to get health care. The Constitution is going to mandate for them that they are going to have whatever they want, the Constitution says that. I think there's a way too large number of Americans who are not taught properly what the Constitution is, have no, no knowledge whatsoever of it, and therefore a lot of Americans born and raised here do not have really roots, roots, intellectual roots to the founding of the country to understand how special it is and why it's special and why it's great and why it has outrun the rest of the world in 225 short years.

CALLER: That's true. You know, you said earlier in the week about the dumbing down of education, and I'm telling you, it's absolutely deliberate, as a former school teacher, and it's part of the reason why people know so little about the Constitution. They make it a point not to teach it. They make it a point not to teach proper English. I was actually reprimanded for correcting students' grammar and things of that nature. It's just absolutely ridiculous. It's a deliberate attempt --

RUSH: Were you reprimanded for correcting their grammar because you were insulting them?

CALLER: Well, you know why it was corrected. Basically, it's judgmental to correct -- and I'm an English teacher at that, so it makes it even worse, but to get my graduate degree, I was taught that to correct a child's grammar is judgmental, it hurts their self-esteem, all the while here I am, black, Hispanic male, and I would argue 'til I was blue in the face that my ability to speak this language, to understand it, to read it well is the reason why I was able to get out of the ghetto, so to speak, and, you know, I cited people like Frederick Douglass who learned to read and became one of the most eloquent speakers and writers in America. But anyway, I was chastised for that in the schools because, look, I believe it's my duty to correct people's grammar, especially as an English teacher, regardless of the consequences, which ultimately were that I was fired.

CALLER: Sure. Well, not only as a teacher, but as a citizen of the US, it's my job to help young people especially to learn how to speak correctly, to learn how to read and how to understand what they read, but it's a deliberate attempt to dumb down education here in America. It's a sad thing, and we need to fight against it.

RUSH: Let me ask you about one thing that you said because I don't disagree with any of that. You said you joined the military. Where in the military are you?

RUSH: Army National Guard, and you described that as an upgrade from teaching in the Bronx?

CALLER: Well, I feel safer, A, because I don't have students attempting to swing at me, which did happen on occasion. But also it's a job, teaching in the Bronx, it's pretty insulting, you go to work, and under the guise of teaching, and all the while if you're honest with yourself, you know that your job is to keep kids down. And I'm sorry if that that sounds pessimistic, but it is the truth, it's whatever --

RUSH: You're a Hispanic-American. Let me share with you a story I have here from one of my stacks of stuff. I want to get your reaction to this. It's a story from North Carolina. "Dissatisfied with teaching in Spanish 85 percent of the time, a North Carolina superintendent is pushing for a proposal that includes a plan for a school where Spanish is the predominant language. Superintendent Peter Gorman pitched his proposal to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board today, with provisions to combine two of its dual-language programs and turn Collinswood Elementary into a Spanish-speaking school." The reason he wants to do this is so that Hispanics do not lose their culture. Given your experience as a teacher, if you have Hispanics in the country who are not encouraged to learn English, but instead are sequestered, segregated into their own school where they speak Spanish and maintain their culture, what's going to happen to them?

CALLER: Well, look, if you can't speak this language, you are a second-class citizen. There's no way around it. But sadly enough, I think that's exactly where the liberals want you so that you can continue to vote them in. But it handicaps you. And, look, I believe in full immersion. You come to this country, jump into an all-English environment. That's how you learn the language. That's how my wife learned the language, and it's the only way. This idea of putting people in ESL, I don't buy into it at all, and again I get into a lot of trouble for voicing these kinds of opinions, but it's true, everyone knows it, people are just afraid to say it.

RUSH: Joe in the Bronx. There are more like that than we know. There are more Joes out there than we know. Otherwise, we would be in the ash heap by now.

RUSH: We now go to the last page of the Scalia opinion, which we have posted at RushLimbaugh.com -- and I'm serious. When you have the time, it's about 63 pages, 60 pages, the actual opinion itself. But the first part of it is the breakdown of the original intent of the Second Amendment and the attempt to make it unambiguous. Scalia does this brilliantly, making sure that people understand. It's not ambiguous at all, when you know how they spoke back in those times. So here's the summation. "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self defense." That's the trigger lock. They even required you to have a trigger lock the whole time the gun was in the home. You were a sitting duck in DC!

Somebody breaks into your home under cover of darkness, you gotta wait for them to take action -- whatever they want, whether they got a gun or not -- and then you gotta call the cops and let the government protect you, and that's what this case was all about. "Assuming that Heller," Heller is a cop, "is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights," meaning he's not a felon, meaning he doesn't get into other kind of problems with the law, "the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." Then Scalia says, "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country..." I want you to listen to this very carefully. "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in the country and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many friends of the court brief who believe the prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," and then he cites some places where that's allowed, "but the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home." No government has the right to mandate that. "Undoubtedly, some think the Second Amendment is outmoded in our society, where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable. But what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered."

When I read this... See, it's so simple, so strong, so powerful in its simplicity, the role of the court. And then it got me to thinking. This case, as far as the liberals were concerned on the court, the four liberal justices -- Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens -- wasn't about the DC ban. This case wasn't about Mr. Heller. When you look at some of Breyer's dissent and when you read some of what John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent, what you learn is that the liberals on this court sought to amend the Constitution. They weren't pronouncing the constitutionality of a law. They looked at this as an opportunity to literally amend the Constitution from the bench, which is not permitted by the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has taken on the role, Marbury vs. Madison, of determining whether or not laws passed by Congress are constitutional. But to sit there and to take the occasion of this case -- DC vs. Heller, Heller vs. DC -- and use it as an opportunity to declare the Second Amendment, i.e., part of the Constitution as unconstitutional! Folks, if that doesn't tell you what their intentions are down the road, I can't think of anything else that I could use as an illustration to do it better.

RUSH: John Paul Stevens in his dissent on the DC gun ban bill today wrote that the majority, meaning Scalia and the gang, "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." Folks, that is scary. I know Justice Stevens has been around for a long time, but that kind of interpretation -- there is no way, I don't care how convoluted a way that you read the Second Amendment, there is nothing in it to indicate that the Framers intended to grant the federal government, elected officials, the right to police people. The Bill of Rights limited government, for crying out loud. The Bill of Rights told us what our freedoms and rights were, and where they came from, and they came from God, baby. They were not enumerated by man. They were not enumerated by government.

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights sought to limit government, and yet here is a justice of the Supreme Court suggesting that Scalia and the majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses. I'm telling you, this is too close, this 5-4 stuff. Four justices of the US Supreme Court came damn close to just obviating the Second Amendment from the bench, under guise of deciding some case from the District of Columbia? Let's go to the audio sound bites just to show you how much ignorance there is in the Drive-By Media. This is this morning on CNN. Tony Harris is talking to Dahlia Lithwick of Slate.com, a well-known Second Amendment expert, Dahlia Lithwick. Tony Harris said, "My thought was that it would be closer to a unanimous decision, but this 5-4 thing surprised me a bit, Dahlia."

LITHWICK: The really big, big metaquestion here, this question of, is there a personal individual right to bear arms really is fundamentally a very ideological one, it's a very political one, it has a lot to do with your Libertarian notions about the constitutional protections that you're afforded, and so I think at the end of the day what we're seeing here with this very, very typical 5-4 split --

RUSH: Dahlia Lithwick. Remember that name. A Supreme Court decision dealing with an amendment to the US Constitution, in her view, is ideological and political. I'm sure she believes this, I'm sure she looks at the court as a political arbiter. I'm sure she thinks the court's made a political decision here. I'm sure, because she probably went to journalism school somewhere -- hell, you don't even have to go to journalism school, just go to school anywhere in America and they will tell you that the Supreme Court decides political issues, the Supreme Court will tell us what we can and can't do. This is frightening, the level of ignorance. I'm not talking about intelligence. She may have a high IQ. Doubt it, but she might. But the level of ignorance, the inability to learn things and apply them to something as fundamental as the United States Constitution, see how it gets bastardized? Do you see how it gets torn apart in the hands of the opinion makers in this country? Scalia said it's an individual right, made it clear. The majority said the right to bear arms is an individual right. There's nothing ideological about it. There's nothing political about it. It's constitutional, Dahlia.

So you could take this decision to mean that there is a presumption that the Second Amendment actually means what it says. Can you believe we've gotten to this point where we have to have the court tell us, "Yep, says what it says." And that's why there is wording about the right to bear arms, otherwise that language has no meaning at all. You gotta read this Scalia opinion. The right to bear arms. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Zilch. It's a right. It is also saying that the court will not go through all these state laws to determine what is or is not constitutional. However, laws that bar the right to bear arms need to be very specific and aimed narrowly if they're to be constitutional, and that means aimed at felons, aimed at the mentally challenged, the mentally ill, certain places and so forth. This is crystal clear. Here Jeffrey Toobin, legal expert, CNN, talking to Heidi Collins at CNN. Listen to this question. Memo to Jonathan Klein running CNN: Do you understand how incompetent some of the people you have on your network are? Listen to this question. Heidi Collins to Jeffrey Toobin: "Specifically, Jeffrey, that's really what it's about, isn't it, the Constitution trumping policy?" The Constitution trumping policy? The Constitution trumping policy? (interruption) Yes, of course it is, but for this to be a question to a legal scholar? Here's the answer.

TOOBIN: This is just a big, big event in American constitutional history because the Second Amendment has been a true mystery.

TOOBIN: Now the Supreme Court, by and large just 5-4, has said that there is a constitutional right to own a handgun inside the home.

RUSH: Stop the tape here a second. The only reason, Mr. Toobin, anybody ever debated this is because people like you, liberals years and years ago tried to tell us it didn't mean that, and you've been passing laws throughout these local municipalities and states chipping away at the Second Amendment because you don't like it. Nobody had any question about this 'til you liberals got involved, tried to obfuscate it and confuse everybody about it. And now we have to get to the point where the Constitution, which is plainly clear in this case, has to be affirmed by the US Supreme Court? Here's the rest of the answer.

TOOBIN: It raises a lot of questions about the limits of this decision. I mean, how much gun control will be allowed. Certainly there is some. There was some discussion of military weapons. The court clearly is very concerned that there not be a constitutional right to own a surface-to-air missile. But how this gets translated into the real world is going to take many, many years.

RUSH: That's right, and you know why? Because the liberals are going to go out there and try to muddy this up like they have all along. They're going to start talking about the majority of the justices in this decision being extremists and nutcases. I have no doubt how they are going to react to this. Isn't this a case of the Constitution trumping policy? Geez. (laughing) I don't know. That just boggles my mind. "Isn't this a case of the Constitution trumping policy?" As though the policy has been screwed by the Constitution. Damn that Constitution, damn it, we had a great policy of protecting people, and now it's been trumped by the Constitution. I know that's how they think. The thing is, the DC gun ban, there was more crime in DC after they got this ban done and in place than anywhere in the country, and New York, too. Number two. New York, hell, the mayor up there is trying to tax you just for moving around. You know, wait 'til they find a way to put guns on top of the cranes before they fall and as a means of getting rid of them. Here's Obama, February 12th, 2008, during a forum sponsored by ABC TV and ThePolitico.com, the moderator is Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the District as well as gun control. You said in Idaho recently, quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you do support the DC handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?"

OBAMA: Well, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership genuinely. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so there's nothing wrong I think with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets --

RUSH: Another idiot! That's not what the DC gun ban did. It left guns in the hands of the illegals, it always does. I'm not talking about immigration here. The only people who had guns were the criminals, by definition! And the problem is the criminals could climb into your house anywhere in the district any time of night and you were stuck if they had a gun, even a knife. If you pulled a gun out you were liable, you were breaking the law before they were, unless you're Carl Rowan, that's right, Carl Rowan, late columnist, Washington Post, he got caught violating the ban, he said, screw the ban, I'm going to protect my family, big liberal columnist for the Washington Post. So here's the messiah, along with all the other leftists, openly, blatantly, apparently proudly exhibiting a total ignorance of the DC gun ban, thinking it's constitutional. Now, here's Obama yesterday on the gun case. This was in Chicago. An unidentified reporter said, "The Supreme Court's expected to rule tomorrow on the DC gun ban. Can you review for us where you stand on that?"

OBAMA: Why don't I wait until the decision comes out and then I will comment on it, as opposed to trying to prognosticate what the Supreme Court is going to decide tomorrow.

OBAMA: What I've said is that I do not -- what I've said is that I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment --

OBAMA: -- but I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some commonsense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact-intensive decision that has to be made.

RUSH: Okay, some more gibberish, absolute, total gibberish. Local governments gotta be able to keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers and children. Gun laws already do that, unless they're going to go violate the law in the first place or in the second place and get a gun. In fact, his comment here pretty much parallels some of the things that Breyer said in his dissent. "I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I don't think that precludes local government from being able to provide some commonsense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers--" those laws already exist. It's when those laws are broken and people aren't armed that they have problems. Anyway, so there's a micromanagement here. The Second Amendment is to be molded and flaked as these liberals want it to be. The Supreme Court struck it down for now.

RUSH: One of the problems that we're having here in our culture with all of this is the bastardization of the meaning of the word "right," as in, to have a right. For example, look what the left is saying today. We don't have a right to own guns. I mean, that would be their preference, that there be no Second Amendment. Just get four or five justices to wipe it out. We have no right, even though the Constitution specifically says we do. Yet, they further the notion that we all have a "right" to health care. We do not have a right to health care! That we all have a "right" to a home. We do not have a right to a home! That we all have a "right" to go to college. We do not have a right to go to college, because those are not rights! That we have a "right" to be free of the pollution of oil. That is not a right. I don't even want to talk about Reverend Wright, 'cause there we're talking wrongs. If we don't have a "right" to health care, what is it, then?

Would you call it opportunity? An option? A chance? Who says? Where is it written anywhere, where is it stated? And don't tell me that it just makes common sense. Where is it stated that we have a right to health care, or that we have a right to own a home, or a right to go to college? Where is it stated? Where is it? It's nowhere. It has been manufactured. The left has convinced everybody that they have these rights, and that if they are denied these rights that somebody must pay for it. Now, Obama. Obama says there's nothing wrong with taking illegal handguns off the street because of a violent society, the handguns being "illegal" begs the question since it's the issue that's in dispute here, whether owning handguns can be legal per se. But here's the question when it comes to Obama's comment and thinking. Obama wants to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution along with all the other liberals. They want to write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution.

Why? Because our society is too violent. Our society is too violent because everybody can get guns. So write the Second Amendment out, and nobody will have a gun. That's what they believe. Then, at the same time, Obama and his gang who want to get rid of the Second Amendment because our society is too violent turn around and applaud the same court for rewriting the Constitution to give rights to terrorists! Who are violent and seek to destroy the nation. So somebody please explain to me how it is that Obama and his group can celebrate a previous decision that says to terrorists, "Come on in! You've got full citizenship rights, you can come in and have access to our US court system and we know that you are violent and that you are murderers and you intend to wipe us out, but come on in," meanwhile, we gotta write the Second Amendment out of the Constitution because, tsk-tsk, our society is too violent -- meaning Americans are too violent. And, by the way, whoever said, as Toobin referred to, that the Second Amendment permitted surface-to-air missiles?

RUSH: We got Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision on the gun ban, the Second Amendment. He was in Pittsburgh today at the campus of Carnegie-Mellon University. Bloomberg TV, Peter Cook was interviewing the messiah and Cook said, "The court today, a very important ruling in regard to the handgun law in DC, 5-4 ruling, what's your reaction?" Now, keep in mind there's no prompter here.

OBAMA: I believe that the Second Amendment means something, that it is an individual right, and that's what the Supreme Court held, so I agree with that aspect of the opinion. What I've also said is that every individual right can be bound by the interests of the community at large. And the Supreme Court agreed with that as well. It looks to me that the DC handgun ban overshot the runway; that it went beyond constitutional limits.

RUSH: Stop the tape. Remember, we've got the sound bite, just played it last hour. Last year, maybe not even a year ago, he thought it was 100 percent constitutional. This is John Kerryitis. Every sentence has a "but." Well, I think the sun's going to come up tomorrow, but if it doesn't, John McCain will have the answer. Here's the rest of the bite.

OBAMA: Doesn't mean the local communities can't, you know, pass background checks, that they can't, you know, make sure that they're tracing guns that have been used in crimes to find out where they got them from. So there's still room for us to I think have some commonsense gun laws that are also compatible with the Second Amendment and, you know, the key is to try to stop using this as a wedge issue and let's figure out an intelligent way where we can stop having kids being murdered on the streets while making sure that law-abiding gun owners are protected in their rights.

RUSH: Wow! My friends, the radiance of this brilliance, even though he's in Pittsburgh and these words were digitally recorded, I am being overwhelmed by the unique unspoken brilliance emanating from the messiah. I have never heard this kind of clarity before, I have never heard somebody cut to the quick and take away the muck and make what's important visible as much as the messiah has done here. I am rendered almost speechless. (interruption) What brilliance? Maybe you're right. Maybe you're right. Just a bunch of gobbledygook. Here's the next question. A lot of Democrats will say the court got it wrong. You're not in that camp?

OBAMA: I am not in the camp of their overall reasoning. Now, you know, how they applied it and how they will apply it in the future I think is -- is the key question.

OBAMA: I think it's very important for everybody to understand that the Supreme Court ruling did not say that you can't have commonsense gun laws. It just said that this particular case violated the basic principle that people do have a right to bear arms.

RUSH: I was going to say this is dangerous, but it's actually eye-opening. This is a typical liberal. When he says he's not in the camp of their overall reasoning, how they applied it, and how it will -- Lord. He just said he approved it, he just said he liked the decision, he just said the decision was good, he said it was common sense. Now he doesn't agree with the reasoning and how they came to this decision. Look, like I said, I don't want to establish a habit here of breaking down and analyzing this guy or parsing his words. This is worth derision, this is worth being laughed at, to try to take this guy seriously is to fall into a trap.

Let's go to the phones. Bud in Austin. You're first today up on the phones, and I'm glad you held on. Thank you.

CALLER: I'm a law student here in Texas, and one of the privileges we've had -- because Justice Scalia is a very private person -- he will occasionally speak at different law schools, and we had that opportunity earlier this year. And of course someone asked about the Heller case, and like most justices or any good justice would say, he said that he couldn't comment on it because it was a pending case. But what his follow-up comment was -- and I know we've been speaking to original intent earlier in the show -- is that I don't care what the original intent of the Founders was. What I care about is the original meaning of the Constitution, what did it mean when it was first formed. And of course that right that was given to the people through the Second Amendment is the right to individually keep and bear arms.

CALLER: Yes, and then we get into this point today talking about these rights. Another beautiful point that he made was, what right -- because this is just a group of people that don't like a right that America has and the way it's used. And so they hire an attorney -- well, this is the opposite point.

RUSH: I've lost you. Wait, hold on a minute. I'm losing you. This is just a group of people that don't have --

CALLER: The city, DC, does not like this right. They don't like it. And so they're allowed to pass this law. And they're allowed to say, we're going to take this away. And one of Scalia's great points is, what gives you the right to argue in front of nine judges in black robes to take away the constitutional right that's been given, just like that? So it speaks to the heart of the greatness of the man.

RUSH: Well, okay, there's another way of putting this, and to me, this case, you wonder why did the Supreme Court take it, why do they reject certain cases, why do they take some. I don't know what the majority vote on taking this case was but I'll betcha it's pretty high because I think the liberals wanted to use this case to get rid of the Second Amendment. We're buying into the notion that this case was about Heller versus DC. Heller-DC was the vehicle. You read the dissents. I agree with you totally about Scalia, as everybody knows. You read the dissents, read Breyer and read John Paul Stevens and read some of the comments from the idiots in the media, and you will clearly understand that what they sought to do was make the Second Amendment unconstitutional on the basis it has no application to today because when it was first written, America was an entirely different country, which puts into great focus your comment on Scalia. He doesn't care about the intent of the Founders. He cares about the original meaning of the Constitution. Some might say, "Well, what's the difference?" It's a fine distinction. There's a fine line there. But this is scary. Four justices of the US Supreme Court voted to just get rid of the Second Amendment. That's too damn close. Once again, Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote. I don't know about you, but it kind of bothers me that our Constitution and the rights enumerated therein, at least as the court is currently constituted, hinge on how Justice Kennedy feels every day when he gets out of bed and goes to work. Four justices voted to get rid of the Second Amendment, four liberal justices. This is too close.

RUSH: To Kalamazoo, Michigan, this is Frank. You're up, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: As luck would have it, I just got my new issue of Newsweek, and she's also got a column in there.

RUSH: That doesn't surprise me. Newsweek's got a bunch of morons that write in there.

CALLER: All right, here's the title of her article: "The High Court: A User's Guide." I want to read you two sentences.

RUSH: Before you do this, let me give people one more bit of information about Dahlia Lithwick. She's a lawyer, she clerked for somebody on the US Ninth Circus, clerked for one of the judges on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. Now go ahead and read the two sentences.

CALLER: "Anybody who believes the current Supreme Court looks like America needs to take a few more trips on a Greyhound Bus." Here's the good part. "All the judges are white and/or old." Rush, I know you're tight with the brilliant conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

RUSH: Well, maybe Dahlia Lithwick knows something we don't know. Maybe he puts on black face before he goes out in public.

CALLER: How can this article get in Newsweek? Don't they have proofreaders? This is a national magazine. It's embarrassing.

RUSH: Frank, what she means is there's not one black attitude on that court. There's not one authentic slave blood black who is a liberal.

RUSH: There's no Thurgood Marshall. Clarence Thomas may as well be white is what she means. She's a liberal. The object of the court is not to look like America anyway. The court is not to decide cases based on the makeup of America, based on the demographics or any other categorization of the people who live here. She's a great object lesson because she has a total misunderstanding of what the court's about, she's trying to make that misunderstanding reality. She wants the court to sit there and push her left-wing liberal agenda, which is based, of course, on there's not fair distribution of results, of outcomes, goods, services and income; it's a very unfair society, we need to equalize people, grant them new rights and so forth. She looks at the court as a purely activist liberal machine, and it's pretty close. They got four solid liberals and Justice Kennedy decides how he wants to go case by case.

CALLER: I know. Anyway, I thought I heard that name. I never heard of the woman before, and I thought you might be interested.

RUSH: Read that last sentence again. It's in Newsweek, folks, in Newsweek, who, by the way, latest poll shows that Obama is up by how many over McCain, 15?

CALLER: "All the judges are white and/or old." All the judges are white. That's the first part of it.

RUSH: Yeah, and I know what she means. As I say, she's accusing Clarence Thomas of being a fake.

RUSH: Newsweek, if it's in there, they wanted it to say what it says, Frank. It's like if you watch a taped television program and there are obscenities or offensive things in it, they wanted them in there because of if it's taped they had a chance to redo it or take out the offensive things. Same thing. This thing that she wrote was submitted days before it goes to press, they proofread it, they proofread it again, they fact check it. If they didn't want it in there, it wouldn't be in there.

CALLER: Oh, it did. Then I heard you mention her name this afternoon and it rang a bell 'cause I was beside myself from reading it last night. Just no truth in this country anymore.

RUSH: No. No. There's no truth or very little truth in the Drive-By Media. There's plenty of truth in the country. For example, story out there today, OPEC predicting $175-a-barrel of oil by the end of the year. So? Hasn't happened. Media can't wait to run with that. All media, most media today, speculation on doom and gloom, the worst, rotten things that could happen. Experts say global warming could lead to more terrorism. I got the story, just saw it. Experts say global warming could lead to more terrorism. That's not news. It's not even fact. It's in the future, and nobody knows. You take a look, folks, I want you to make a study of this. It isn't hard. Go to any web page you like, look at the vast majority of the stories outside of sports and you will see that they largely deal with experts predicting doom and gloom down the road in the future, or governments doing it or whoever.

RUSH: Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan -- "no, I will not resign" -- today "called for climate justice, saying that it was polluters who should pay for the effects of climate change, and not the poorest and most vulnerable. He said funding--" it's always about funding, "--should be made available to help disadvantaged communities adapt to the effects of global warming as he urged for the international community to focus on adaptation measures. 'We must have climate justice. As an international community, we must recognise that the polluter must pay and not the poor and vulnerable,' said Annan. During the two-day conference, the Global Humanitarian Forum--" Do you realize how many organizations these UN snobs have to separate people from their money? That is what the UN exists for, to separate wealthy people from their money, wealthy countries from their money. Kofi Annan, fresh off the oil-for-food scandal, now wants even more of your money from which he can siphon his own little share.

Conservative Review
Issue #31	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	June 29, 2008