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

After traveling to Iraq, you refuse to say, “The surge was successful” and you have equivocated the reasons for the increased security in Iraq to things which you try to present as separate from the surge. You also have a plan for Afghanistan which essentially amounts to a surge. Two questions: what effect did the surge strategy have in Iraq and why don’t you call your proposal for Afghanistan a surge?

"In politics, you must never retreat, never retrace your steps, never admit a mistake--otherwise you are discredited. If you have made a mistake, you must persevere—that will put you in the right." Napoleon Bonaparte. Does this describe either of our presidential candidates?

A week or so ago, Jesse Jackson spoke of performing some impromptu elective surgery on Obama. It can’t be done—Obama doesn’t have what Jackson wants to cut off, and that is Obama’s problem.

This past week, before Obama’s trip, Obama said that he would travel to Afghanistan and to Iraq and further refine his policy. This is reasonable. This makes sense. We may think of him as a turn-tail and run liberal, but the idea that he would go to Iraq, speak to Petraeus, and further refine his policy makes complete sense.

An hour or so later, wearing the same suit, Obama made an clarifying public statement, to indicate that he has not changed his intention to bring all the troops home from Iraq, no matter what, within 16 months.

What happened in between? Left-wing bloggers just began to throw a fit. They suffered all of his attempts to move toward the center, but this was too much. He might talk to the generals on the ground and change his mind? Their anger and frustration was found all over the Daily Kos and at Huffington Post and even on Obama’s own site.

So, Obama not only backed off on basing his policy on the facts, but then issued an Iraqi policy before going to Iraq. We all saw the film of Obama making the basket in Iraq, but Obama lacks balls.

Obama started making statements about how Sean Hannity won’t say anything to his face. Hannity issued a public challenge to meet him and he would say everything right to Obama’s face. The ball’s in Obama’s court, but he has no balls. He won’t meet with Hannity face to face unless his numbers end up falling 5 or more points below McCain’s.

Obama made the statement, “And that is a debate I am willing to have anywhere at any time” with regards to something that McCain said; so McCain says, “I’ve got 10 public meetings coming up; I will meet and debate with you at any one of them.” Obama: “Hmmm, I guess I won’t.” No balls.

When it came to visiting the vet hospital in Germany, Obama found out that this could not be a campaign event. This is difficult for anyone to do, to go see our guys, shot up, without arms and legs, who were willing to give their lives for our country; and, these men, if they disagree with Obama, might tell him why. Obama cancels. No balls.

O’Reilly has asked him to come on to his program and Obama said that he would, but so far, no show. No balls.

Obama is all about appearances; he looked good in Europe, he looked good throwing the basketball in Afghanistan; he looked good and believable hanging with world leaders. He looks good in front of his adoring, swooning fans—both the media and his supporters. He’s all about looks; but he is unable to face conflict; he is unable to face difficulties.

We do not know all that a president knows. He makes decisions which affect the lives of millions of people. Tough decisions which a president makes can result in the death of hundreds, thousands or even millions of people. When a president has to face down evil—whether it be Hitler, Stalin, or Ahmadinejad—he has to know that he is facing evil, and he has to know that his decisions will affect millions of people, and that his decisions may make him a very unpopular man. Obama does not have it. He can’t talk to Hannity or O’Reilly one on one. His left-wing blogger support complain, and he gets right back into line. McCain challenges him to a debate, where he has no script, and he backs down.

Obama lacks what every president needs, and he has revealed that to us again and again.

On the other hand, even though I do not agree with all of his positions, I recognize that McCain has guts. He has spoken to groups of people who were 70–90% Obama supporters. I recall him once speaking to a large crowd made up primarily of African Americans (was this in New Orleans), and, as you might suspect, McCain did not agree with their general views nor did he pander to them. One of the most amazing things I saw was this fearless man, in order to discuss one on one some points of disagreement with this crowd, so he walks right into the middle of this audience to put forth his point of view—without any secret service men (this was before he was given a secret service detachment).

Many times, McCain has disagreed with his conservative base. One of the few times he has ever backed down is on immigration. He wanted comprehensive immigration and the people let him (and all other Congressmen) know that they wanted border enforcement first.

McCain will go on any program and take any interview. On his bus, reporters had almost 24/7 access to him. Contrast that with Obama, who, once when faced with 8 questions in a row for which he has not prepared, made a run for it. That happened here in Texas.

Do you know what gave Reagan gravitas with our enemies? He was tough and he was old and he had nothing to lose. Would he wake up some morning in a bad mood and send our military to wipe out Russia? Russian leaders did not know. Reagan was a loose canon in their eyes (and in the eyes of many liberals), and that toughness and nothing-to-lose attitude took down the Soviet Empire without firing a shot.

How will McCain seem to our enemies? Tough, old and with nothing-to-lose. Public opinion is not going to cause McCain to back down. Will he wake up some morning, in an old person fog and decide to attack Iran? Many people, including Iranian leaders, think that this could happen. Obama? Don’t make me laugh. Obama is afraid to even debate McCain; he’s afraid to face a tough interview with O’Reilly (he will eventually); and he is afraid of Hannity, lobbing pot shots at him from afar. Obama is great in front of adoring crowds. He is great for photo ops. He will fearlessly debate those who agree with him 97% of the time.

Obama has said that he would use "big sticks and big carrots" with Iran. Also, “Tough, serious direct diplomacy.” Give me a break. Obama is not tough enough to take on O’Reilly on the factor, a man who has been quite fair with Obama.

Obama cannot bring himself to say the words, “The Iraq surge is successful.” However, his brilliant, well-thought out proposal for Afghanistan is a surge (which he won’t call a surge, because, being an intelligent young man, he recognizes the irony in it all).

It is interesting that Obama has forever said that he must force the Iraqi government to stand up for itself, and we would do so by withdrawing our troops; but, for some reason, that is not his plan for Afghanistan.

McCain by as much as 5%; he’ll take as many as 40 states. Even though the press is revealing is little negative information about Obama as they can get away with, this long campaign is revealing that Obama is an empty suit with ultra-liberal, big government solutions.

Unconfirmed sources said that 8 years ago, McCain may have had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. Not that they were having an affair, but someone said, that someone else said, that McCain was maybe spending too much time with a female lobbyist. That is front page news in the New York Times 8 years after the fact.

On Obama's overseas international extravaganza trip schedule was to be a visit to the Veterans hospital in Germany. He gave the explanation that he did not want to travel on contributor dollars to go to this hospital. It was okay to spend these donations as a citizen of the world speaking to an adoring German crowd (warmed up by two preceding acts), and not as a candidate. But, somehow, visiting our disabled vets there would have been somehow morally wrong. Obama never thought to take a few dollars out of his own pocket as separate funds to cover a few hours with our wounded bets.

I suspect that Obama was exhausted during this trip, traveling thorugh several different time zones. Maybe this would not be a photo op (he has gone to Walter Reed veteran hospital before). Maybe seeing those guys and girls is difficult for him. Speaking to an adoring crowd of 200,000 world citizens is easy; speaking to several dozen vets who you voted against funding, not so easy. We don't know Obama's real motivation for not going; we only know that he did not go; and that was based on either his judgment or the judgment of those telling him what to do. In any case, this is just another example of his judgment.

He was against the Iraq war. He represented a very liberal Chicago area district at the time, and his own pastor was preaching against our involvement in Iraq at the time as well (one of the few times, perhaps, that Obama was there and listening). So, taking this stand was not necessarily courageous; it was in full agreement with most of his constituents, his pastor and spiritual leader, as well as most of those in the church he attended.

Obama looks good. He is probably the most visually handsome presidential candidate since Kennedy. He looks young and energetic.

With a prepared speech and a teleprompter, Obama is an outstanding speaker. On a recent speech given by Obama and by McCain, Obama stayed right on point, reading it word for word. McCain continually went off script, inserting whole paragraphs here and there.

Obama sponsored a buttload of legislation as a state senator of Illinois during his 7th year (if memory serves me correctly). I’ve covered the details of this several months ago in a previous issue.

Obama has never, insofar as I can recall, admitted to being fundamentally wrong on any issue, or to changing his mind on any issue. When accused of "flip-flopping," Obama either says, "Now, let me make this crystal clear..." or he tells the reporter, "I think you have misunderstood my position."

Obama is a principled man. If there are good and bad points to a piece of legislation, he will get right in there and vote present, indicating that, if some things were changed, he would vote for that piece of legislation.

Obama and his wife make a very handsome couple. George and Laura Bush look good; but not as good as Barack and Michelle. They are arguably better looking than JFK and Jackie.

Obama has 2 of the cutest little girls ever. It is clear that he and Michelle are devoted parents.

On Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe, he looked very presidential and very international; and he appeared to get al Malaki's endorsement (that is debatable). In any case, he appeared to look very presidential with foreign leaders.

Quoted from Michelle Obama from a public speech given July 16, 2008 (I may be off by a day on this):

"We have one candidate who essentially is telling us every day that the world as it is just fine. That what we've been doing for the last eight years is fine," Obama said. "Stay the course. Don't make too many changes.

"And then we have this other candidate - Barack Obama - who is saying every day that the world as it is not right. It's not good enough," she said. .

"I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did," Obama said. "Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."

First of all, Obama has preempted the Republicans from making a big deal out of his race. Who knows how many anti-Black ads that the Republicans had queued up and ready to go that Obama killed.

You cannot criticize his positions, his votes, his flip flops, his attempts to straddle both sides of many issued. Obama has already classified that as the same old ugly Washington politics.

You cannot criticize his wife. Even if she is out there speaking as a surrogate to groups of people, it is wrong and out of bounds to play back her words over and over again; or to question what she means, based upon what she says, like Sean Hannity kept on doing.

There have been so many attacks and so many smears against Obama, that he has been forced to set up a completely separate website, called www.fightthesmears.com where there are a whopping total of 9 disgraceful smears (as of July 25, 2008). I must admit that I have received as many as 2 or 3 of these smears by email. It seems like every 6 or 7 weeks, there is some brand new smear coming out against Obama. Fight those smears! (Rah rah rah!)

Thomas Sowell is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists. You may recall that, for several issues of Conservative Review, I have been talking about the government’s involvement in the recent mortgage crisis.

We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.

How did the government help create the current financial mess? Let me count the ways.

In addition to federal laws that pressure lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to, and in places where they would otherwise not invest, state and local governments have in various parts of the country so severely restricted building as to lead to skyrocketing housing prices, which in turn have led many people to resort to "creative financing" in order to buy these artificially more expensive homes.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve System brought interest rates down to such low levels that "creative financing" with interest-only mortgage loans enabled people to buy houses that they could not otherwise afford.

Since everyone knew that the Federal Reserve System's extremely low interest rates were not going to last forever, much "creative financing" also involved adjustable-rate mortgages, where the interest charged by the lender would rise when interest rates in the economy as a whole rose.

In the housing market, a difference of a couple of percentage points in the interest rate can make a big difference in the monthly mortgage payment.

For someone who buys a house costing half a million dollars- which can be a very small house in many parts of coastal California- the difference between paying 4 percent and 6 percent interest would amount to more than $7,000 a year.

For people who have had to stretch to the limit to buy a house, an increase of $7,000 a year in their mortgage payments can be enough to push them over the edge financially.

In other words, government laws and policies at federal, state and local levels have had the net effect of putting both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb.

Yet, when that limb began to crack, the first reaction in politics and in the media has been to look to government to solve this problem because- as always- it was called the market's fault, the lenders' fault and everybody's fault except those politicians who created this dicey situation in the first place.

[You get the gist of this—government causes this situation, blames everyone else for it, and then proposes to solve it, and we go along with it].

In last week’s issue, I explained, to some degree, what these institutions are (the secondary mortgage market) and how they work.

Politicians who either do not run again or get defeated often go to work at FHLMC or FNMA where they make substantially large salaries. It is always helpful in Washington to know someone.

FHLMC and FNMA also contribute a great deal of their money to political campaigns and to various political causes; there is, from what I can tell, no limit on what they can spend in this regard.

NLPC was also critical of the incredibly generous "golden parachute" Fannie Mae provided to fired CEO Franklin Raines in 2004. At the time Flaherty said, "Let me get this straight. Raines apparently cooks the books, brings disgrace to the company, and imperils Fannie Mae's standing with regulators, the Congress and administration. So for his punishment he is made wealthy for the rest of his life?"

On July 14, 2008, the NY Times printed the following editorial from Barack Obama, requiring no changes:

It does not appear to me that there is even one new thought in this editorial, and some of the phrases which Obama uses, he has used again and again and again in his various speeches.

McCain wrote the following criticism of Obama’s editorial, but the NY Times would not print it:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard but not hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City-actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his plan for Iraq. Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

According to McCain campaign staffers, the rejection came Friday night from New York Times oped editorial page editor David Shipley via email:

"I'd be very eager to publish the Senator on the oped page. However I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written," Shipley writes, according to a copy of the message provided to ABC News.

"It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

The McCain campaign has refused to rewrite the piece, saying that the Times' suggestions are tantamount to insisting that he change his position in order to get his opinions published. McCain has refused throughout the campaign to detail any specifics regarding timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq.

"John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times." said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Thumbs up to Tom Brokaw and his interview with Al Gore last Sunday. A good interviewer should attempt to elicit information from his subject and should ask a tough question now and again, as well as ask good follow up questions.

Al Gore spoke disparagingly about the political process, referring to it as trivial. Brokaw then asks him, “what about all the young people now involved in the political process?” (Not an exact quote).

Brokaw asked Gore whether he would consider being in Obama’s cabinet and or his VP and/or energy czar. Gore was pretty firm in saying “no” (which would involve a great pay cut for Gore, as well as debates and financial disclosure—neither of which Gore will do). Brokaw then makes the point that where else could Gore have such a great impact on this problem as a position of power where his hands would not be tied. Gore danced around the question, saying that he felt better as a spokesman getting out the global warming message. Since a majority of Americans believe that global warming is real and probably manmade, I think his job here is done (I am in the minority here). In fact, when it comes to getting the message out, I think it is either time for Gore to retire or to debate the issue. Obviously, if Al Gore was VP, he could do a great deal with regards to his belief in global warming. Again, doing that would require financial disclosures and debate—and I can guarantee you that Gore will never ever debate anyone on global warming ever—not ever.

Here’s a pretty good article on Gore ducking just one more effort to discuss the actual facts:

[this was taken from a discussion website that I go to, posted by Donna; I believe the observations were forwarded to her]:

Just a personal observation...as I watched the news coverage of the massive flooding in the Midwest with over 100 blocks of the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa under water, levees breaking, and the attention now turned downstream for when this massive amount of water hits the Mississippi, what amazed me is not what we saw, but what we didn't see...

1. We don't see looting.
2. We don't see street violence.
3. We don't see people sitting on their rooftops waiting for the government to come and save them.
4. We don't see people waiting on the government to do anything.
5. We don't see Hollywood organizing benefits to raise money for people to rebuild.
6. We don't see people blaming President Bush.
7. We don't see people ignoring evacuation orders.
8. We don't see people blaming a government conspiracy to blow up the levees as the reason some have not held.
9. We don't see the US Senators or the Governor of Iowa crying on TV.
10. We don't see the Mayors of any of these cities complaining about the lack of state or federal response.
11. We don't see or hear reports of the police going around confiscating personal firearms so only the criminal will be armed.
12. We don't see gangs of people going around and randomly shooting at the rescue workers.
13. You don't see some leaders in this country blaming the bad behavior of the Iowa flood victims on "society" (of course there are no wide spread reports of lawlessness to require excuses).

Re: Iowa vs. Louisiana :

Where are all of the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and helping the folks affected by the floods?

Where is all the media asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved the problem? Asking where the FEMA trucks (and
trailers) are?

Why isn't the Federal Government relocating Iowa people to free hotels in Chicago ?

When will Spike Lee say that the Federal Government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines ?

Where are Sean Penn and the Dixie Chicks?

Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes and big screen television sets?

When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a "vanilla" Iowa , because that's the way God wants it?

Where is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of cannibalism?

Where are the people declaring that George Bush hates white, rural people?

How come in 2 months, you will never hear about the Iowa flooding ever again?

[so that you get the joke, this message was given after Obama gave a 40 minute news conference, 6 or 7 minutes of which was Obama saying, “Uh uh uh...”]

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, Official Barack Criticizer for the EIB Network, certified, black enough to criticize with organic slave blood. I have a message. Mr. Obama, your overseas visit to, uhhh, um, Iraq, um, the war zones is (sigh), uh, proving to be a world-class embarrassment. Uh, aside from giving report to the efforts of, uh Mu-muk-muk... Muqtada al-Sadr who hates America, you've really said nothing there that you, uhhh, didn't say here, which, uhh, um it calls into question the -- let me think about it -- the, I should say the whole purpose of the trip. You continue to denigrate the efforts of our military and won't acknowledge their success -- and to make matters worse, your, uh, stuttering performance, uh, is, uh, now being, uh, held up to ridicule despite all the glowing reports from your public, uh, public relations, uh, uh, specialist, uh, agents in the media. Your performance, sir, has not made you look presidential. It has really, I want to say "harmed" your presidential chances in the eyes of those who take foreign policy seriously, uh. This has, uh, truly been a sad performance, sir.

A'right, dog. I'm going to come with it on you today. First up B. What's up with this Iraqi dealy, yo? We got to chill over there. We got issues here, my brother. Like gas prices, my man. You know what I'm saying? You're posing, man. You even got words how you're "pimping Bush's ride" over there, mang. And then you go over there and what's the first thing you do? You dis our troops, man! You givin' props to Mookie! Gee, man! Sadr yo? His boys was the ones flaming the IEDs on our boys and you are claiming they are the ones who want to cool us out? It was our guys that did that, yo? What you should have done if you had to go over there anyway, was just have a sit-down with old Mookie, mang. Pull out that New Yorker magazine cover -- you know, the one with you in the turban and Shelly with that AK wrapped on them, man. Tell them, "Yo, you see this, Bro? This is me and my shorty. We're going to come over there and whip some ass after I get in, yo, if you don't get things chilled." That's what diplomacy is. But then, no. What you do, man, is you give this guy props. And then, yo, look. Yo, what's up with all this stutterering, mang? You running for president, man, or are you trying to get Porky Pig's job with, "T-t-t-that's all, folks." Come on, main. Did Jesse snatch them baby makers from you, bro? What's up with that, man? You went to Harvard, yo! That's all you got: "Uh, uh, uh, uh"? Yo, even Reverend Wright doesn't come out like that. He makes it flow, man. You ever heard him say, "Uh, God d-d-d-damn America"? He make it flow, man. What's with you? Then, on top of all this, you, you go over there and you say the biggest problem in Iraq is that so many men are unemployed? No, no, no, man! The biggest problem over there is they ain't giving us our props, yo. We are the ones that killed off old Hussein -- I'm sorry, Saddam-y -- for them, man. We freed them, yo! We looking for work? You ought to go over there and tell them brothers, "Y'all need to start busy to build a pipeline to break us off some of that oil, you know what I'm saying?" But no, mang. You go over there and start talking about their unemployment? When was the last time he was in Kill-adelphia, yo? Brothers is trying to get paid over here, man, can't find no jobs. They unemployed? When's the last time you was down in Katrina, mang? Come on, Bro, what's up with that? You, you know, I'm about to check you off, Obama, man. You need to start listening. Every time you step out, you're chumping yourself, chumping off our country and our military, yo. This is not cool!

CALLER: Yesterday you were talking about Obama, and his response to the surge on how I think he said we don't know how that would have happened because we didn't use his plan or something. That's just... When you pointed him out to be a jerk, I was like, pumping my fist and saying, "right on," because I can't believe he's getting away with not as much scrutiny as he should be.

RUSH: No, no, wait a minute. Wait a minute. He is getting scrutiny and I want to show it. It's happening in small doses. Mike, run the sound bites 9, 10 and 11 here, maybe even 12. He is getting some scrutiny on this. There are people talking about it, but most in the media are trying to undercut it and ignore it and throw everybody else who's criticizing him under the bus because it's not about what Obama says. He's tripping up all over the place. He is rambling and incoherent in these answers, and yet they just stand there and fawn. But Katie Couric, of all people, really bore in on this surge business. So I want you to listen to this, Rick. This is last night. Now, not all of this aired on the CBS evening news. We were very resourceful. We found where CBS hid this. CBS hid this on their news site, their website: CBSnews.com. Now, some of this aired on the Evening News with Katie Couric or whatever it's called, but not all of it. Here's the first portion of her interview.

COURIC: You raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, "Why?"

OBAMA: Well, uh, er, ka, uh -- because uh, eh, er, what I, uhhh. What I was referring to and I consistently referred to is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country, uh, and --

OBAMA: L-l-l-et me -- Let me finish, Katie. The, uh -- What happens if we continue to put $10 to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops, uh, as we can muster continuing into Iraq, uh, there's no doubt that that's going to have an impact. But it doesn't meet our long-term strategic goal which is to make the American people safer over the long term.

RUSH: Once again, random incoherence here, putting down the surge. It worked. She wasn't satisfied. She continued on this same theme.

OBAMA: No, no. Of course -- of course I have. There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our US forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence. Just as making sure that, uh, uh, the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes, uh, decided to flip and work with us instead of with, uh, Al-Qa-e-da, something that we hadn't anticipated happening. All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence.

RUSH: All those things that we didn't expect to happen? We didn't anticipate this happening? "All those things have contributed to a reduction in violence." You take the surge out of that and none of this would have happened -- and once again he's a Democrat admitting that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq. He's been saying Al-Qaeda's in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda's not in Afghanistan. The Taliban's in Afghanistan. Rambling incoherence.

OBAMA: Katie, the -- the -- the -- Uh, you've asked me three different times and, eh, eh, I said repeatedly that there is no doubt that, uh, our troops helped to reduce violence.

OBAMA: Because -- because, uh, uh, i-i-it's pretty straightforward. By us putting $10 to $12 billion a month -- $200 billion -- that's money that could have gone into Afghanistan. Those additional troops could have gone into Afghanistan. That money also could have been used to shore up, uh, a declining economic situation in the United States.

RUSH: Pure pap. This is pure pap. Take the money and put it in Afghanistan? The war was in Iraq. Who cares why? This guy, he was honest yesterday. He said (paraphrased), "I needed something to disagree with Bush on! I needed something to get nominated to my party's presidential ticket. I needed to disagree with Bush. I needed, if I had to," like McCain said, "I needed to lose the war if I had to in order to get the nomination." That's what he's saying. He's getting really testy. The Messiah is getting very, very upset at Katie Couric, and yet she tried one more time.

COURIC: I really don't mean to belabor this, senator, because I'm really trying to figure out your position. Do you think the level of security in Iraq would exist today without the surge?

OBAMA: Katie, I have no idea what would have happened had we applied my approach which was to put more pressure on the Iraqis to arrive at a political reconciliation. So this is all hypotheticals.

RUSH: None of it is hypothetical! You blooming... You are glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, Obama! You wanted us to try surrender, dunce! You wanted us to try to surrender! That's what he was after. That's what his party was after. They met the political benchmarks. The surge worked every which way it was designed to work. And he's lamenting we never got a chance to try his plan? His plan was surrender! Beef up the political circumstance? We did that. In fact, I would suggest that the Iranian congress of parliament, is probably meeting more benchmarks for performance than the US Congress is.

RUSH: Calling Obama a liar, we found out that that doesn't affect how Democrats vote for their candidates. You can sit there and call him a liar all day long. I'm not even going there. He's incompetent as far as I'm concerned. He is inexperienced, incompetent, and he's dangerous.

He's a con man. Whether he's lying or not, who knows. All I know is that the kind of people who support him don't care. He doesn't have supporters. The people who support him don't think. He doesn't think. You know, they are all a bunch of reactors. You know, they're just sitting around thinking they got some guy who will snap his fingers and fix all the problems that they have in their lives. They are not interested in specifics. They are interested in how he makes them feel. If he lies, big deal. They don't take it personally because they don't think he's lying to them personally. So, that's the wrong way to go with it but at the same time having to sit there and, "I admire his success. He had a very tough primary campaign."

I'd just carry forth a theme. [Rush speaking for McCain] "I'm not frustrated, but I think, Katie, what this proves is that he is just not qualified for this job. He is just not qualified for it, Katie."

"Well, look, Katie, the facts on the ground are what they are. He doesn't seem to be able to comprehend it, something like that."

RUSH: The official climatologist of the EIB Network, Dr. Roy Spencer, a brilliant independent climatologist and scientist, former NASA, he's now at University of Alabama at Huntsville, testified before Senator Boxer's committee on climate change research, and they had the following exchange.

SPENCER: In conclusion, I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away in the coming years, as will the warming itself, and I trust you would agree, Madam Chair, that such a result deserves to be greeted with relief. That concludes my testimony, and I'd be willing to answer any questions.

BOXER: Okay. I also want to point out on that on your own blog you said you never were told you couldn't speak about your scientific views. And lastly, I guess is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Excellence in Broadcasting Network.

BOXER: Right. But I just want to point that out for people to understand. I just want to make sure everybody knows what's really happening.

RUSH: Oh, my, poor Dr. Spencer! Poor Dr. Spencer! Barbara Boxer attempts to disqualify his expertise by linking him to this program. Yes! (laughing) "I just want everybody to know what's really happening." What's really happening is that, what, did I write his testimony? Did I write his opening remarks? What happened, Senator? I'm going to make Barbara Boxer the official clown of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Can you believe this? Folks, I can't tell you how much I wish my mom and dad were alive to see all of this. To have a brilliant and independent scientist, a former NASA scientist, be insulted simply because he has an association, a tongue-in-cheek association. We don't have an official climatologist here. I just know Dr. Spencer and I learn from him. He's a scientist, a scientist that we all know and love and trust here. He's written a great book about global warming, and these snide little Democrats, these little liberals just have to go, eh, eh, eh. Dr. Spencer is now going to be more famous than he ever thought he would be. (laughing) Can you believe this? "I just want everybody to make sure they know what's really happening." What's really happening, Senator Boxer? What's really happening? (laughing) "I just wanted to point that out for people to understand." Yeah, like I wrote his testimony, I wrote his talking points, I even had a secret wireless communication in his ear. I was answering questions they were asking. (laughing) And Obama says there's going to be unity.

CALLER: Honor to talk to you, sir. I have a couple comments about what the environmentalists and the liberals have been saying.

CALLER: Specifically about the term "renewable energy." That term doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics that says energy can't be created or destroyed. The sun is constantly losing energy through light and heat and solar flares, and we capture the energy from it, we're going to use it and it's going to disappear from us, so I don't understand how they can use that term renewable.

RUSH: Here's the thing. That's a great point, and I would add to it the word alternate or alternative. It's clear to me -- see, if I were your age or a little older, and there was a liberal babe out there that I wanted to meet up with and see where it went, I'd start talking about alternative energy, and you'd own 'em. These liberal women, they just fall for that hook, line, and sinker. Alternative, renewable energy. Man, just make 'em think you're going to buy a Prius and you can have your way with them. You don't even have to actually buy the thing. You just make 'em think it. It's the most amazing thing. You can wrap a US senator around your little finger, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer just by running around talking about alternative fuels, renewable energy.

CALLER: I got to thinking, though, about the "renewable" word, and I could actually use it, because coal and gas originally came from the sun. Coal is from decomposed plants, those used photosynthesis, convert light into energy, and gas, I did my research, it comes from diatoms, which aren't plants, but they convert light to energy. So actually the coal and gas are a source of stored solar energy.

RUSH: Absolutely, you could say the same thing about other fossil fuels as well. You're very smart. You're a very bright guy. You've been thinking about this.

RUSH: Well, I'm glad that that happened, you know, because I get calls from people, Jacob, all the time who say, "We're going to hell in a handbasket, Rush, our culture is rotting," and so forth, and everybody seems to buy now this notion that the government needs to get big and supply everybody's wants and needs and so forth, and I always believe when I get calls from people your age all the way through college who are applying yourselves intellectually to all this, you know, you guys, you may grow up and be the ones that are the instruments of rolling back some of this outrageousness that your parents and grandparents happen to be accepting these days, I mean generically your parents, your elders. But I'm proud, it's great to have somebody like you in this audience, 16 years old and you've been thinking about this.

RUSH: It's probably higher. But you ought to try that on some liberals, "What do you mean renewable energy? You mean like coal?" (laughing) See what they do. The fact of the matter is that virtually everything we have on this planet would die, including us, without the sun. It would be the end of it. You want the oceans to freeze? He's right, even the sun is losing energy. It's not renewable itself. It's going to take billions and billions and billions of years, so they say, before it's expired. We won't be around to see it. By the way, Rasmussen went out and asked the American people what they think about Algore's panic. "We only got ten years to eliminate all fossil fuel generated electricity," yeah, ten years. "Only 33% of American voters believe Algore's proposal to switch all of the nation's electricity production to wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources in ten years is realistic. Beyond the Democrat Party base, most voters think Gore's plan will make energy prices go up." Thirty-three percent of Americans, only 33% -- that's pretty damn high. That number frightens me, actually, it's a little high. Because that means 33% of the American people are absolute idiots, and they gotta be just partisan liberals going gaga over whatever Gore says because Rasmussen says beyond the Democrat Party base, most voters think Gore's plan will make energy prices go up, as well as Algore's income.

RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. This is more Obama. Last night he was on with Terry Moran at Nightline, and here's a portion of an exchange that they had. This is Obama telling one of his disciples, you don't pin me down, you're not going to ask these questions, you're going to ask questions the way I want them asked.

OBAMA: Well, here -- let me -- let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know --

OBAMA: -- is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such-and-such a date, come hell or high water, we've gotten our combat troops, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months -- or 16 months, or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush, uh, uh, says he's doing, in which case I'm not doing my job as commander-in-chief.

RUSH: Whew. You know, the more of these I listen to, the more infuriated that I become. I mean, folks, this stuff just (beeping) can't take it anymore! Listening to all this rotgut garbage -- (beeping). I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he's doing in which case I'm not doing my job as commander-in-chief? He's not going to be pinned down on when we're getting down there. He's not going to be pinned down, not going to let Terry Moran pin him down, knew what the question was. So Obama telling the disciples. And of course they sit there, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, didn't mean to offend you, Messiah, didn't mean to offend you."

RUSH: This is, again, from the correspondent Terry Moran at the All Barack Channel, the American Barack Channel, and their program Barack Nightline. The question from Terry Moran: "Did Prime Minister Maliki say to you what he said to the European press, that he likes your 16 month timetable..." Is that what Maliki said? Did Maliki say, "I like Obama's idea"? I know he mentioned Obama in his statement, but did he say, "I like Obama's idea"? Of course not! It is not what he said. This is what I'm talking about. On the American Barack Channel on Barack Nightline, a reporter makes it sound like the brilliance and the uniqueness of Barack Obama is so penetrating and powerful that Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, has immediately adopted it. So, anyway, he talked to Maliki, and did he say to you what he said to Europeans about liking that 16-month deal?

OBAMA: Prime Minister Maliki stated was that he very much believes that there has to be a time frame built into whatever agreements are set up between the United States, uh, and Iraq, but again I think his view is that he wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out.

RUSH: Not even John Kerry did this. Not even Kerry went over there and talked to these guys and then came back and started talking about the negotiation of timelines, withdrawals, policies, and so forth. John Kerry didn't even go over there and pretend to be president and Obama is. And of course the sycophantic Drive-Bys are propping him all up in the process. Another question here from the American Barack Channel's Barack Nightline show. The correspondent Terry Moran said, "Based on what you have seen here, [Most Merciful Barack Obama], would you say that you were wrong when you said that the surge would not make a significant dent in the violence?"

OBAMA: I did not anticipate, and I -- and I think this is a fair characterization -- the convergence of not only the surge, but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of -- of Sunni tribal leaders decided they had had enough with Al-Qaeda. In the, uh, Shi'a community, uh, the militia's standing down to some degree. Uh, so what you had was a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think my assessment would have been correct.

RUSH: Whew! It is unconscionable. To me, it's bordering on traitorous. But it's reprehensible. It is outstandingly egregious. He didn't anticipate the convergence of the surge, but the Sunni awakening and the Shi'a stand-down and all that. He gave this answer today, again. We played this for you once. It's obviously now a stock answer that he has rehearsed, 'cause it was his answer in the press conference this morning. This sound bite you just heard was from last night. But as I say, this is typical. How in the world does he think all this happened? How does he think this miraculous political convergence took place? How does he think that the Sunni tribal leaders have gotten tired of Al-Qaeda? They coulda gotten tired of Al-Qaeda all day long, but until Al-Qaeda was kicked out of their provinces and their cities, it wouldn't have made any difference how tired they were of Al-Qaeda.

By the way, folks, the Democrats and Obama would never even acknowledge that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq! This was such a wasteful exercise. It was an unjust war. We shouldn't have been there. Now all of a sudden Al-Qaeda was there and the Sunnis and the Shi'a just got tired of them. Yes, just got tired of them! And had that not happened, Obama's idea probably would have worked; his assessment would have been correct. It's unconscionable. It is dangerous, maddening, 'cause this is a pure, unadulterated phony. This is an arrogant phony. This again, folks, is the pattern of the left. They cannot abide American success in any way, in any theater. No, no, no. We're succeeding in Iraq because of the tribesmen standing down and awakening. Not the US military, not our strategy, not our execution of the battle plan. Right. And we won the Cold War, and the Soviet collapsed not because of Reagan. It had nothing to do with America.

It had to do with Gorbachev. Had nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher, had to do with Gorbachev. Gorbachev knew you couldn't continue that way, glasnost, perestroika, brilliant! Gorbachev. I detest these people some days, folks, I detest them. To stretch credulity like this, to go so far out of bounds to avoid crediting your own country with success. Of course the Democrats can't, because they're invested in defeat. They were invested in losing in Iraq. So now that we've won, "It had nothing to do with Bush, had nothing to do with military. It was all the brilliance, the brilliance, the political convergence." The only problem here is that Obama is the only Democrat talking about the brilliance of the political convergence. Carl Levin, Pelosi, Reid, they're all saying that the Maliki government has failed to meet its benchmarks. In a sane political environment, this guy would be a laughingstock. Not just on late-night TV, but everywhere.

RUSH: Another network is coming under fire here for all-Obama-coverage, all-the-time is the National Barack Channel. "A mildly exasperated NBC News team [yesterday] dismissed complaints about overcovering Barack Obama's Middle East trip this week as a lot of 'hot air' ... 'We get criticized for not covering enough hard news,' NBC News President Steve Capus told members of the Television Critics Association. 'Look how many stories are being covered on the Obama trip -- Israel, the Middle East, the war.'" That's the point, Mr. Capus. You were supposed to be covering that place all along! But you haven't been until Barry takes his little summer camp trip over there, pimping Bush's ride, and you're adding insult to jury by making it look like Obama is coming up with brand-new policy ideas that everybody has articulated long before he thought of them.

You're crediting him with coming up with the idea and moving things along over there, when the president has moved things along and the military has moved things along. It's a disgrace what you are doing! It is an utter disgrace. It's journalistic malpractice, and it's the same thing over at the Columbia Barack Channel. The American Barack Channel, the National Barack Channel, the Columbia Barack Channel, they're all doing it. They're all in the tank. The tank is full! I mentioned this, ladies and gentlemen, at the top of the program. There's a new narrative, a new template out there, and isn't it just coincidental how this comes up? The new template is, "Voters don't care about the surge." David Shuster of the National Barack Channel on their piddling little cable outlet last night, or yesterday, whenever, said, "Americans don't care about the surge. They want the war to be over."

Uhhh, yeah, they do want the war to be over. They want the war to be won. The American people do not dislike the military. The American people do not want us to lose the war! The surge is instrumental in victory. And now try to establish the narrative that the American voter doesn't care about the surge. I, frankly... You know what? I don't think they're focused on the war as much at all. I think it's gasoline price after gasoline price after gasoline price, after the housing crisis. I think it's domestic things and the economy that has them absorbed and concerned. This Iraq business is not on their minds as it once was. But this whole notion that they don't care about the surge because Americans want the war to be over? The geniuses that are trying to promote this, that's the purpose of the surge! The ultimate outcome of the surge is to produce victory, which is how you define the war ending.

What is always fascinating about this kind of argument to me is the complete lack of appreciation for the devastation that would fill the void if we got outta there as Obama wanted us to do. If that had happened, if we had pulled outta there, what would the American people say then? If little Barack had actually gotten his way... He's been in the Senate 143 days. He hasn't contributed one damn thing to this victory. He has tried to secure defeat. Uck! I take it back. He has contributed one thing. He took off his American flag lapel pin. Aside from that, Barack Obama has not done one thing but try to secure defeat. Now he's over there rewriting history, claiming this whole victory was his idea, and it comes because of "a convergence of political events," not because of the US military, and certainly not to do with the American government. (sigh)

This is the kind of thinking, folks, that will inevitably lead to the defeat of this country. "People don't want the war? Fine! Don't fight 'em. People want government benefits no matter what? Give it to them. It's the only way to win elections." Create a bunch of dependent people, give 'em what they want. If they don't like war, then don't fight a war, even if US national security interests are at stake. Don't do it. The American people don't like war." Who the hell does? So if you're going to run around and say that the voters aren't even focused on the war and the surge, they don't care about the surge, then you're also saying, "The voters are dumb. It's not worth trying to persuade them. Don't bother explaining anything to 'em. Just try to figure out a way to accommodate 'em; treat them as stupid and respond to them accordingly." Hell, some of our pseudo-conservatives even taking up this whole way of thinking. You can read about it in the New York Times every now and then. Back to the audio sound bites. We continue now with the American Barack Channel and the program Barack Nightline. The correspondent Terry Moran said to Obama, "If we had followed your advice to withdraw in the face of this horrific violence, what do you think Iraq would have looked like?"

OBAMA: Nobody has a crystal ball. Uh, if we did, then you'd just hire the guy with the crystal ball.

MORAN: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

OBAMA: Uh, eh, um, well -- These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that w-what I am absolutely convinced of is that, uh, at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the, uh (pause), Bush administration at that time was one that I disagreed with.

RUSH: Do you understand what he just said? In the first place, he said, "We can't look back," after he just got through this whole press conference looking back and saying that his plan would have worked except for X, Y, and Z. Now he's asked by the American Barack Channel on Barack Nightline: Knowing what he knows now, would he be for the surge? No. No. No. "These hypotheticals are very difficult, but we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one I disagreed with." So the surge and its success is irrelevant. He needed something to disagree with Bush about, and he needed that in order to get the Democrat Party nomination. He needed that to get contributions.

So it's not about American military success, as I have been pointing out time and time again. It is not about that at all. It is about power with these people. It is about devising whatever lies in front of them in order to get that power, and he has just admitted it. And of course the sycophantic, slavish disciples in the Drive-By Media swoon. They think this is brilliance and honesty. However, I must be fair. There is one renegade in the Drive-Bys today. His name is Dan Balz, B-A-L-Z, and Dan Balz is writing in today's Washington Post. Headline of the story: "Obama Makes War Gains," subhead: "Maliki's Embrace of Withdrawal Timeline Confounds McCain." But then Balz in the story makes three points. Number one: "Obama has certainly not won the argument over Iraq policy. Far from it.

"His proposal to withdraw U.S. combat forces over a 16-month period still faces serious questions, including from some of the commanders who might be asked to implement it if he is elected. But the curious turn of events made for an unexpected opening act for the Democrat's week-long tour," his little college visitation tour, little summer camp to these "seven countries... Whether Obama can count on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the days ahead is another matter. The Iraqi government does not speak with one voice on this matter, and it is not yet clear how current negotiations with the administration will conclude... Beyond that, Obama's opposition to the troop 'surge' that has helped quell violence and US casualties ... leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment."

Shazam. Shazam! Dan Balz, the Washington Post. We have one fallout. We have one renegade; we have one traitor. We have a Judas. We have a Judas, my friends, among the disciples! "Obama's opposition to the troop surge leaves plenty of room for further questions about his judgment at that moment." "But as political theater," Mr. Balz writes, "the events of the past few days have played unfailingly in the Democrats' favor." Political theater. Amen, bro. And what makes it theater? There's an audience. Who's the audience? The Drive-Bys, the disciples. Two hundred of them are following this guy around, their tongues dragging along the concrete to the floors. They are the audience. They're writing the reviews; they are the critics. They so desperately want to be loved by The Messiah.

So they have thrown their professionalism down the toilet and flushed. They have thrown their integrity in the sewer. They have thrown their independence, their objectivity, their fairness, their judgment, whatever, out the window in order to be close to The Messiah; in order to get a Democrat in the White House.

CALLER: I'm glad you took my call. I'm sitting up here with my head about to blow up listening to Barack Obama saying knowing what he know about the surge, you know, would he support it, and knowing what he know, and he said no, no. The surge wasn't meant for more than that purpose, to save lives. The soldiers, how many soldiers, thousands of Iraqis' lives have been saved, thousands of probably soldiers lives have been saved, and he said he wouldn't support it.

CALLER: And so, what does that mean? Does he care about the Iraqis? Does he care about the soldiers?

RUSH: Well, he cares that there are unemployed Iraqis. He said that in a previous sound bite. There are too many unemployed Iraqis. But you're right. Up 'til now, the Democrats would have been perfectly fine with Saddam still in power, with his rape rooms and torture and all that. We had no reason to go in there. They ever cared about the Iraqi people. Now all of a sudden, he cares about the unemployed Iraqi men and women. But you're right on the money. This guy, he needed a political issue, he needed something to disagree with the Bush administration about for his campaign, for his fundraising, and he admitted it.

CALLER: And you know, I care about the surge because I'm a black man from Detroit, and I'm a Marine, I served in Vietnam from '65 to '66, and this is for my brothers that are serving now, you know, he doesn't care anything about it, if he did, you know, he would have said he would support the surge, you understand, because it would have saved countless lives and that's what I'm so angry about now.

CALLER: So thanks for taking my call. Also, the guy on MSNBC, the one that said the surge didn't matter, it matters to me.

RUSH: That's excellent. Of course it's successful, and the purpose was to achieve victory and save lives. You are absolutely right.

RUSH: My pleasure, Jesse, thank you very much for calling. One thing you gotta remember about the Most Merciful Lord Obama, he's not a thinker, folks. He is not a thinker. He has learned what he knows. He has been indoctrinated in all of these Ivy League schools and classrooms. That's why he has the view of Middle America that he does, and that's why he has the view of the US military that he does. In fact, that's why he has the view of America. You will find a concentrated anti-American bias particularly in the Ivy League but on many college campi. So that's what he's learned. He's been taught. He's not a thinker. And you can see he's not a thinker when the teleprompter is away, when the teleprompter is not there and not on, the guy has trouble. They joke about McCain with the prompter, it's the other way around with Barack Obama.

RUSH: Beverly in Quitman, Texas. Yes. Beverly, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Hello, Mr. Limbaugh. East Texas greetings to you. As a mother of a son who's on his eighth time overseas, I want to tell you how much you encourage us; because day by day we see the discouragement that the mainstream media offers, and listening to you -- accompanied by my prayers for my son -- gives me courage. He left his wife and his new baby daughter, which they named Liberty. And our son tells us that each time he goes to war, he always knows that he's fighting for the country's liberty. So the reason of naming her Liberty was that when he goes now, he can say, "I'm fighting for my country, Liberty, and I'm fighting for liberty." So thank you, sir, for all you do for us military families.

RUSH: No, no. The thanks are owed to you and to your son, and it's a debt the American people can never be able to repay. I just have so much empathy. I can't imagine what it's like. Your son has been instrumental in the success of the military operations there, and we've got a presidential candidate, a Democrat, who cannot bring himself to credit the people who deserve it.

CALLER: Yes, sir. He demeans and disrespects the military as does the mainstream media. I didn't think anybody could be worse than John Kerry and Bill Clinton. The night that John Kerry reported for duty, my husband -- who is a two-tour Vietnam helicopter pilot and career officer (he crashed and broke his back in Vietnam) -- when he heard Kerry say, "Reporting for duty," I thought he was going to have a heart attack in the living room. But now watching the progression and the degrading of the military as if we're numskulls. My son graduated -- our son graduated -- from the Military Academy. It took an amazing amount of intellect and stamina to graduate from that fine academy. And watching this, it just discourages me so much that the mainstream media is feeding Kool-Aid to so many people. But when we listen to you, we are reminded why he fights.

RUSH: The latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006. We mentioned this last week, but it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more in tax than they already do. Let me go through the numbers for

you. Wall Street Journal has an op-ed today on their website. "The top 1% of taxpayers, that's defined by people who earn $388,000," almost $389,000; $388,806 is the number. If you earned that or above, you're in the top 1%. "In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years. The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904, paid 71% of all income taxes. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom. But that's going to be a challenge, because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes."

Now, we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That's true. "The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income." In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive. Yes, even at 35, 36%. And what this proves is the old adage that when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue. Listen to these numbers. "In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income. They paid 25% of all taxes. In 2000, they paid 37%. In 2005, they paid 39%; and 2006, 40%." So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes. The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%. In 2000, they paid 56%; in 2005, paid 60%. The top 10% now pay 71%. But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.

"It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates, and the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition. But, nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich and it's a figment of their imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006, from $136 billion in 2003." What happened in 2003? We rolled back the Clinton tax increases! "No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003."

RUSH: I want to go back and mention something to you. The Lord Messiah, Barack Obama, the Most Merciful, has said, has he not, ladies and gentlemen, we need 10,000 at least, 10,000 more troops in Afghanistan, right? He said we need more troops, we need a surge. We need more troops. We have dropped the ball. We need more troops. So someone needs to ask Senator Obama, "We used more troops in Iraq, and it worked, but you won't admit it. You say that it was political pressure. Well, why send more troops to Afghanistan, Obama? Why not just pressure 'em? Let's just pressure 'em. In fact, why don't you just cut to the chase and surrender? That's what you wanted to do in Iraq. Where's the consistency of your policy?"

RUSH: Grab audio sound bite number 26 first, Mike. I didn't know we'd get to this this early. I asked Cookie to put together a little montage here of all the stuttering around that Obama did in his press conference today and I want you to hear this because -- and we didn't repeat anything here. It goes 46 seconds, and we're doing this because we hear constantly, "What a great orator and a great communicator! Ohhhh, this man is smooth!" Just listen. This is a great illustration here of what happened when you take the teleprompter and your prepared remarks away from the dude.

OBAMA: Uh, uh, are, uh, uh, uh, um. That's -- that's a bunch -- so -- so let me tick these off. Deh... Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, um, uh. So the issue is not a perception that, uh... Weh, weh, let me put it this way. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, We're -- we're trying to -- you know, we've got a bipartisan group here and -- and -- and, uh, uh, uh, uh, um, uh, uh, uh.

RUSH: Now, this is nothing new to me, folks. I have been noticing this throughout the whole campaign, throughout the whole primary campaign. When this guy's doing a press conference, he's doing a town meeting, "Uh, ah, uh, ah," and everybody talked about what a great orator he is. Today it reached the boiling point with me, with all this pap coverage that he's getting, and all the lies the media telling about this guy and how he's the prime mover behind all these policy changes over there. I'm watching him stutter around outside at this press conference, speaking so slowly, without any energy. He can barely be understood. He's babbling about things I can't even keep up with.

RUSH: Now, Cookie cut it down to seven-and-a-half minutes, eight minutes is just too long. Seven-and-a-half minutes. We're not going to be able to squeeze it all in here. I want to hear this myself. What this is, not one repetition of one stutter from Barack's press conference in Amman, Jordan, this morning. It started about ten o'clock. I watched it, my friends, and I was struck by all of these. You know, the context here is, "He's such a great orator, such a great communicator! The guy just penetrates you with his oratory and his language." Now, listen to this.

OBAMA: Uh, uh, I also want to thank, uh, uh, uh, the, uh, this, uh, well, uh, uh, eh --

OBAMA: -- uh, uh, uh, you know, uh, uh, uh, uhh, is...? Uh, is of -- of their work, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, we, uh, uh, I called, uh, uh, and I'm -- I'm -- Uh, with, uh, uh, as, uh, that, uh, and uh, uh, um, uh -- And we have to do this, uh, uh. As -- as well as, eh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Well, uh. I, uh, uh, uh, um. We, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh. Uh, now, uh, right now and then identify if -- if, uh, you want to, uh, uh, uhhhh. Ummmm. That's -- that's a bunch. Umm, so let me tick these off. Um, it is true that, uh, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh. What, uh, uhhh, uh, and, uh, uh, in I-iraq, uh, uh, are seen as, uh -- and so, uh, uh, uhhh, uh, uh, and if I was -- i-if I were in his shoes, uh, uh, uhh, and so, uh, a, uh, um, uh, from some -- someplace else, uh, theeee, uh -- and, uh, t'see, uhhh, that, uhhh --

RUSH: We're going to let it keep running. We're going to go to a profit center time-out.

RUSH: We're going to let it keep running. It will still be playing when we get back.

RUSH: The Obama montage of stutters from the press conference today is still rolling, folks.

OBAMA: -- uh, eh, eh, uhh, uhhhh, uh, and -- and, uh, because it -- it -- uh, and, uh, on the other hand, uh, I -- I -- I think that, uh, uhhh, uhhhh, uh, uh, uhhh -- and so I think what the United States can do i-is -- is -- is to, uh, uhhh, uhh, there -- there's been, uh, uh, ah! I am so, uh, uh, uhhh, uhh -- that -- that -- uh, aaaand, uh, uh, uh, uh, eh, that uh, so, uh, uh, and, a-a-and, uh, and that's what I think is so important. L-l-l-l-let me, um, um. I'll -- Uh, um, um, uh, um, would -- would...? Um, uh, um, um, uh. I -- I think that, uh, uh, uh, um, uh. With its -- And so, um --

You may recall that, several issues back, I spoke of working in a poor part of town where nearly every person I saw was overweight.

RUSH: I didn't mention this when this happened, folks, and many of you are going to think that this is harsh and callous. There was an NPR story out of Ohio about a poor family that because of the status of the U.S. economy, could no longer afford to eat meat. Did you see that story? They could not. It was a mother and daughter. You couldn't tell which was which in the picture. Honest to God, folks, you could not tell which was which. This tag team had 800 pounds. That was not mentioned anywhere in the story, but the picture, you couldn't miss this. So we have NPR dutifully reporting the squalid conditions, the poverty-level conditions. These poor Ohioans have to work in the only place that they can possibly get a job is within walking distance. I forget what the company is, but the company's getting ready to move. And it was just one of the biggest sob stories I have ever read and it was all great detail here. I read this, and my mouth is hanging open. I'm looking at the accompanying pictures, my mouth is hanging open. I cannot believe I'm reading this. I'm just going, "Damn, how does this story even get written?" At least if somebody at NPR was thinking, "Don't publish these pictures..." My friends, I kid you not. You are looking at combined tonnage here of 800 pounds, this mother and daughter in the story about how they couldn't afford meat. They can afford something. I think, folks, a lot of it is probably delivered.

RUSH: It was NPR that did the story on the mother and daughter in Ohio who can't afford meat. It was on All Things Considered. The headline here is, "For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach -- A generation ago, the livelihood of Gloria Nunez's family was built on cars. Her father worked at General Motors for 45 years ... Nunez and her six siblings grew up middle class. Things have changed considerably for this Ohio family. Nunez's van broke down last fall. Now, her 19-year-old daughter has no reliable transportation out of their subsidized housing complex in Fostoria, 40 miles south of Toledo... "

Now, that's all you need to know. Now, for those of you watching on the Dittocam, I'm going to attempt to zoom in so that you can see the picture of the subjects of this sob story. Keep in mind now: "For Some Ohioans, Even Meat Is Out Of Reach." This is a terribly sad story. Let's see. I'm trying to do this at the same time. All right, there we go. Do you see that? Let me straighten it out here. I'm giving the people watching on the Dittocam a chance to see this. That's the lovely mother and daughter family no longer able to afford meat. Well, you can't tell which one's the mother and which one's the daughter.

That's what I was saying. You just can't. Now, I don't know. When I saw this, I said, "How in the world do you take this seriously?" Now, I realize this is a tease for those of you that aren't able to see the program on the Dittocam, but that means you should sign up. You should become a subscriber. You can watch the program here every day at www.RushLimbaugh.com. Yeah. Here, okay. People want to see it one more time. I'm going to throw it up there one more time. Here we go. Is that focused? Is it focused? Okay, good. That's the Nunez family after the van broke down. You see what I mean about this? They're getting something to eat, and somebody has to be delivering it to them.

Al Gore likes to say that mankind puts 70 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every day. What he probably doesn't know is that mother nature puts 24,000 times that amount of our main greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- into the atmosphere every day, and removes about the same amount every day. While this does not 'prove' that global warming is not manmade, it shows that weather systems have by far the greatest control over the Earth's greenhouse effect, which is dominated by water vapor and clouds.

Did al-Maliki really support Obama’s plan and does Obama have a clue about the mid-east region?

RUSH: And finally this, ladies and gentlemen, from a Kansas City website: "Global warming and kittens. While it may seem hard to see the connection between the two -- a climate phenomenon that melts glaciers and acidifies oceans, and cuddly, 4-ounce balls of fur -- experts say there could be one. Scripps Howard Foundation, each spring, the onset of warm weather and longer days drives female cats into heat, resulting in a few months of booming kitten populations known as 'kitten season.' 'The brain receives instructions to produce a hormone that basically initiates the heat cycle in a cat and those instructions are affected by the length of day and usually the rising temperatures of spring.'" So? The days always get warmer and longer in the spring. What the hell is this? Now we're going to have more cats?

Conservative Review
Issue #35	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	July 27, 2008