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).

I did not report on this, but Obama lawyers are quietly going after his critics. Don’t look to read about this in the lame-stream media.

Describe your executive experience in detail with respect to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

“McCain prowled the [debate] stage like Yosemite Sam after the dynamite failed to go off.”

The unedited version of last week’s Saturday Night Live Sketch (for as long as it lasts):

If California cannot get funding from the federal government for its current debts, Arnold will pursue offshore drilling and legislation will be introduced to block lawsuits from environmental groups before the drilling begins.

McCain will still win, but not by the majority I have been predicting. Had McCain come out against the bailout, he would have just about run the table on the states. I would have guessed 40–48 states. His mistake to side with Bush and the Democrats will reduce him to a 35–40 state win.

[A disclaimer: I do not have the gift of prophecy—no one does at this time—but these are reasonable predictions based upon the political climate and being able to read the historical trends of the day]

Obama is promising a tax cut for 95% of all Americans. He does not explain whether this will occur before or after he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire. That is, is this tax cut a tax cut based upon Bush’s tax cuts never having existed? Furthermore, 35–40% of Americans do not pay income tax. They get all of their money back. So, their tax break is actually a check from the government for being alive and having a job, unrelated to taxes they have paid.

Obama has a minimum of $800 billion of government programs which he wants to start up as quickly as possible (when asked to explain what programs he would cut, he launched into the programs which had priority to put into place, which includes health care for all and a universal voluntary child education program—free pre-school are two of his programs). He will cut $50 billion from the Iraq War (he is not going to remove all of the troops; he has said so publically).

That leaves $750 billion that he needs to raise. Obama has not given us even a clue where this will come from, apart from his use of the scalpel on our present budget (he claims, overall, that there will be a budget cut). At no time, as far as I know, has Obama even begun to explain what exactly his scalpel will cut.

Mara Laison on FoxNews perpetuated the lie that Obama and Ayers’ children merely attended the same schools together as recent as last Tuesday. Ayers’ children are about 20–30 years older than Obama’s. What happened? Were they held back?

For the past month, I have been referencing Stanley Kurtz and his heroic journalistic work regarding Barack Obama. While dozens of journalists are digging up such important stories as troopergate and pointing out that Palin, as mayor, welcomed the Alaskan separation group to her city for a conference, Kurtz has been forcing the opening of the records of Obama’s early work with Bill Ayers and the $50 million dollar Chicago Annenberg Project (which records have just been opened in the past couple of weeks).

This was a project ostensibly to improve education in Chicago. None of the money went to any school or to any project to help kids with, say, math or science, but it was funneled off to various radical organizations, one of them being ACORN. ACORN pressured banks to make high risk loans, using the Community Reinvestment Act (passed by Carter and modified by Clinton). They literally harassed banks and their employees, which included demonstrations even outside of their own private homes. They sued some banks. These banks agreed to make a few high risk loans, but they explained that FNMA and FHLMC would not buy this paper, so ACORN used their Washington lobbyists and their ties to the Democrats in order to get FNMA and FHLMC to change their standards, which got lowered considerably. These high risk lending practices spread throughout all of our lending system. Obama was involved in actually training some of those who pushed for these things.

Were some banks at fault? Definitely. Some banks then, with the new lower credit standards, began to make loans in accordance with these standards, since they could now sell these loans to FNMA and FHLMC.

Were some Republicans at fault? Certainly. There were laws passed under Bill Clinton which modified the Community Reinvestment Act, which laws lowered the standards of FNMA and FHLMC. Some Republicans voted for these laws.

Bear in mind, these two institutions hold most of the paper (loans) for the mortgaged houses throughout the United States. This is possibly the largest set of assets held by any group insofar as I know. When you mix Washington, Washington bureaucrats, and lots of money, the result will invariably be gobs of corruption.

What this one lone reporter is doing, while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AP, etc. have assigned their reporters to investigate troopergate and such, is uncovering some of the most important information about Obama which is out there, which has impacted and possibly has set into motion the very economic crisis that we find ourselves in the midst of.

17 times, Bush has proposed legislation to put FNMA and FHLMC under stricter regulations. As recently as 2 years ago, McCain proposed similar legislation, not to de-regulate but to further regulate FNMA and FHLMC. So, when Republicans are painted as de-regulators who just want to let Wall Street run wild, that is simply a false allegation. It is an over-simplification. Those who fought against such regulation were Democrats, including Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters. Dodd and Obama are the highest recipients of monies from FNMA. At least Dodd and Rangel have gotten special housing loans as well (and there are probably others).

As I have suggested before, there needs to be a full-on investigation of FNMA and FHLMC. I do not want people crucified for making stupid errors of judgment; just fired. However, where there is clear corruption, those men, Democrats and Republicans, need jail time.

The housing loan market is filled with non-performing loans to the tune of about 5%. This came about due to poor lending practices mandated by the federal government and organizations like ACORN made an impact as well, harassing some banks into making bad loans (and petitioning FMNA and FHLMC to lower their standards to purchase these loans). There was also an incredible inflation of property values in California and Florida, and many investors were caught with their prices down, and many simply walked away from upside down loans (owing more than the property was worth).

Because of the reduced lending standards, many mortgage companies made loans to people they should not have loaned money to, as FNMA and FHLMC would now take these loans off their hands.

At one time, a home loan was seen as an almost risk-free investment. 99% or more of them would be paid back on time. So, in order to raise money for more mortgages, mortgage-backed securities were sold, once to be thought to be almost as stable as money market funds. Bad loans, bad mortgages changed that, and these securities began to tumble.

If one sector of the economy crashes, it often brings along with it other sectors.

Credit begins to tighten up, not just for the housing market, but for all markets. A strong business which has made provision for such an occasion is fine, but most businesses live off of credit, even to make their payroll. All of a sudden, a huge number of businesses have limited resources for credit; and some have no resources for credit. This brings them down.

The high oil prices, for several months, caused a strain on millions of businesses, cutting deeply into the profitability. These companies began to stagnate in value or drop in value.

We have two sets of investment vehicles which function almost on automatic pilot: mutual funds and hedge funds. The former is highly regulated and, if you did not know, this is the combining of the money of thousands and even millions of people, which then buys into various stocks and develops a very large stock portfolio. Hedge funds, insofar as I can tell, appear to function the same way, but without regulations.

Here is how they are automated. A fund manager determines which stocks to buy and sell, and often has stock-selling built into this portfolio. That is, when a particular stock drops 10–20% in value, that stock is triggered to be sold, and this can result in a huge market sell-off by hundreds of mutual funds and hedge funds all on the same day. The fund manager sets these percentage triggers and, in most cases, they happen automatically. Let’s say, GE or GM drops 15% in value over the period of, say, 3 months, this would trigger the sell of all or part of the shares owned by mutual funds and hedge funds, and the volume is so great, that further drops the price of GE or GM.

Another piece of this puzzle is dishonesty, both on the part of congressional oversight (Barney Franks and Chris Dodd in the mortgage industry) and of various CEO’s and company heads. If the value of a company is not accurately reported, or determined by very clever accounting, a false value for a company ends up inflating the price of the stock, as well as automatically lining the pockets of CEO’s and company heads, who are paid on bonuses based upon the value of a company and its stock. When the actual value of the company becomes known, its stock prices begin to tumble.

There are other big players in the stock market, individuals who invest millions. They can withdraw funds, either out of panic or in cold calculation, which causes the market to further drop.

Personally, I don’t see us as continuing this free fall for much longer, but, of course, I could be wrong here.

What people love is stability. We like to see our stocks steadily go up. When we do not know what the government is going to do or what the market is going to do, it is human nature to pull money out. This is why most individual buy high (after a long period of stability) and sell low (after a sudden market drop).

When we begin to hit a bottom, big investors are going to swoop in and buy as much as they can buy from fundamentally sound companies and companies they trust to rebound. That could be what is going on at this time. So the market has some wide swings up and down. If they perceive a company as being a sound investment over the next several years, and they see the stock of that company way down, they buy big.

If you invest in stocks, I recommend companies with low P/E’s. That is price to earnings ratio. A low P/E is under 10. This means that they are making money and the price of their stock is relatively low. Buy a company that you understand, that makes sense in the future; and if they are paying dividends, so much the better. That means they are making enough money to pay you for investing in them. If the company has a lot of cash, even better. That means they can weather the credit crunch.

William Ayers was a terrorist radical from the 1960's and 1970's who was involved in the bombing of several buildings including the Pentagon.

One of Obama’s earliest explanations of their association was made to George Stephanopoulos, "George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George." (Sen. Barack Obama, ABC Democrat Candidates Presidential Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08). It has also been stated, by Obama or his campaign, that they simply had kids who went to the same schools together.

Obama himself told Bill O’Reilly, when asked about this relationship: "I know thousands of people. Right? So, understandably, people will pick out folks who they think they can score political points with," Obama stated.

Addressing Ayers specifically, Obama stated, "Now on this Ayers thing...Here's the bottom line, this guy did something despicable 40 years ago. Here's a guy who does something despicable when I'm eight years old. He and I know each other as a consequence of work. He's not part of my campaign, he's not an adviser of mine. He's somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know." In the back of your mind, you ought to wonder, hmm, what educational issues were those and how did you know about that, Mr. Obama?

More recently, the website, www.truthfightsback.com proclaims, Barack Obama lived in the same area of Chicago as Ayers, and Ayers has been a respected, politically active member of that community for years. Considering that, it's actually remarkable how little the two have to do with each other. Early in Barack Obama's career, he attended one reception in his own honor at Ayers' house. They also were separately asked by a Republican-created charitable organization to serve on that organization's board. And that's it. "Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment," reported the New York Times. There's no friendship between the two, no relationship, no history of working together.

Obama’s own website, explains, William Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, with whom Barack served on the board of an education-reform organization in the mid-1990's. According to the Associated Press, they are not close: "No evidence shows they were "pals" or even close when they worked on community boards years ago ." This is Obama’s site; yet, instead of quoting Obama saying, “We were never close; we were never friends” it quotes the AP instead.

All of the quotes on that page are from newspapers and the AP. Obama does not himself make a clear statement anywhere on this page.

Later, Obama said, “I was not aware of his radical affiliation or his radical actions.” (Not an exactly quote).

Later, Obama said, “I thought he had changed his mind about such radical actions.”

Nowhere on either website do we find that, in 1995, that William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn hosted a meeting of Chicago liberals in their home, at least in part, to launch the political career of Barack Obama. This was a fundraiser for Obama. So, they knew each other barely, and then, one day, there was a party at the Ayers-Dorn household, and Obama just wandered in off the street? And then everyone said, “Hey, he’s a good guy; let’s give him money and political support” ?

Nowhere on either website do we have any mention of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where a $50 million grant was obtained to reform Chicago’s educational system.

Ayers was one of the original grantees of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, or CAC, a school reform organization in the 1990s, and was co-chairman of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, one the two operational arms of the CAC. In 1995, Obama became chairman of the CAC under Ayers' leadership.

The CAC distributed this $50 million education grant, but not to any school or to any sort of math or science or academic program. The CAC just recently released these records, and they are being gone through at this time.

WND first reported Obama served on the board of the Wood's Fund, a liberal Chicago nonprofit, alongside Ayers from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund's website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000.

CNN, surprisingly enough, recently printed a fairly objective story on this. Quoting from their story:

"The specific job of the board of directors was to give out the money," said Stanley Kurtz, a conservative researcher for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and frequent Obama critic.

"Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave money to what they call external partners and these partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups," said Kurtz, who also has been reviewing the Annenberg Challenge's recently released records.

The board, for example, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bill Ayers' small schools project. The project promoted alternative education, including projects like the Peace School -- where the curriculum centered on a United Nations theme -- and another school where the focus was African-American studies.

The funding, according to Kurtz and records CNN reviewed, came directly from the Annenberg foundation which Obama chaired. The project shut down in 2003 after achieving "little impact on school improvement and student outcomes," its final report stated.

1) Obama has been dishonest and disingenuous about this relationship from the beginning. Obama never offered any information about the fund-raiser which took place in the Ayer’s home, which appears to have kicked off Obama’s political career. He has never revealed anything publically about the CAC. Honesty and candor should be fundamental to a man running to become our president.

2) There area plethora of radical associations in Obama’s past, none of which does Obama fully explain, and most of whom are redefined by Obama and his campaign as more is known about these people (Obama presented about a half-dozen different, evolving accounts of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright). How many people of this type are going to be in the 3000 positions which Obama fills?

3) There has been a pattern of deceit on the part of Obama and his campaign to intentionally downplay Obama’s early political relationships, and to dishonestly portray these relationships. For a man who has the thinnest record on record of any presidential candidate in the history of the United States, these early associations and alliances are quite important.

4) Almost no one in the news is making any attempt to uncover or investigate any of these things. If anything, based upon Obama’s own website, most of the news services are actively involved in downplaying Obama’s past as much as possible (www.FighttheSmears.com is filled with news article after news article assuring us that there is very little to be made of the association between Obama and Ayers).

To be honest, I do not understand campaign finance reform. Somehow, there is this $1500 limitation, and yet, hundreds of thousands of dollars are given by some organizations, and somehow, bundlers are allowed to hold concerts, dinners, etc. and send millions of dollars to various candidates. McCain did have a hand in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform, which needs to be either thrown out or redone.

Barack Obama received $126,349 from FNMA and FHLMC. Although Obama has received less money than Dodd, Obama’s contributions represent a much shorter period of time.

How can governmental institutions and partial-governmental institutions be allowed to give money to any candidate or to any cause?

In the McCain/Obama debate, notice that there was not a single question on abortion. Obama has a position on abortion even more radical than Planned Parenthood. He has argued in favor of killing babies born alive in a botched abortion. There was born-alive legislation in Illinois, and Obama not only voted against it, but he spoke against it.

There were no questions about investigating the government oversight of FNMA and FHLMC or investigating the executives or investigation of the reasons which led us to this unbelievable bail-out, which at least 70% of the American electorate opposed. I want to hear all 4 candidates’ proposals concerning such investigations.

Obviously, there were no questions about the Annenberg Challenge grant and what Obama had to do with the distribution of $50,000,000 for education, although not a dime of it appeared to go to any school or to any math or science program. No questions as to how William Ayers picked Obama to assist him here. Since Obama over and over again says they were just people who knew each other from the same neighborhood, why did Ayers pick Obama?

There are investigations about ACORN and fraudulent voter registration in every key state. Why were there no questions about ACORN and about Obama’s close association with ACORN?

ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) seems to have 3 main functions. They have worked to obtain home loans for people who do not qualify for these loans. They are involved in voter registration, which appears to be rife with voter fraud (they are at work in all of the battleground states, and there are about 14 ongoing investigations in many of these states into ACORN’s involvement with voter fraud). They also function as petitioning our government for certain things, like the lowering of the standards of FNMA and FHLMC. That is known as being a lobbyist.

• Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.

• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

1) Obama, as a community organizer, organized demonstrations, impressing Madeleine Talbot, leader at Chicago Acorn, to the point where she had him train her own staff. It is unclear as to how many of these helped organize the demonstration against the Chicago City Council when, on July 31, 1997, 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. pushing over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session. As an aside, this was not the result of frustration of being kept out of council meetings, because many members of ACORN were already in the meeting. His work with Talbot appears to be the reason Obama was chosen to represent ACORN in the legal action mentioned above.

2) When Obama served on the boards the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, millions of dollars were directed to a variety of various liberal organizations, including the Chicago chapter of ACORN.

3) ACORN supported Obama early on in his bid for the presidency, receiving over ⅔^rds of the votes when in competition with Clinton and Edwards. From Obama’s own site: When Obama met with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and his beginnings in Illinois as a Project Vote organizer, saying,"I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work."

Bear in mind that ACORN is supposed to be a non-partisan group, but they clearly support Obama; and, when involved in such functions as getting out the vote, whose vote do you suppose they are getting out?

This non-partisan group receives about 40% of is monetary support from taxpayers.

3) Although I have heard that Obama’s own campaign has sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ACORN, I have not been able confirm that yet.

4) This is a very minor, but interesting connection. ACORN has a very local, in-your-face approach to politics and political change. Members will go so far as to protest outside of the private home of a mayor (4 busloads of them). Obama has recently advocated a similar in-your-face approach to his own supporters when facing down conservatives and moderates.

There is a lot to investigate here, but don’t expect ABC, NBC, CBS, AP or any newspaper to do so. They are too busy examining Palin and Troopergate.

This is not difficult to understand. There is a policeman who carries a gun who just happens to be an in-law of the Palin’s and has made actual threats against his ex-wife. Palin thinks that it is prudent to remove such a man from the police force and to take away his gun. This is called common sense; this is called being prudent. Those who see this as some great scandal simply do not like Palin.

If this man was not connected to Palin, just about every liberal alive would be calling for this man’s badge.

At what point will you admit, not only is man not causing global warming, but global warming is a myth, and, at this point in time, a short-term weather pattern.

31,000 scientists this year signed a petition saying that, in their opinion, man is not the cause of global warming.

About the only person who is doing any sort of actual investigation in Obama’s background is Stanley Kurtz who is determining, from the original documents, exactly what the relationship between Obama and William Ayers is.

(Remember, camp Obama needs to keep this away from the public for just one more month).

This was from a couple weeks ago, but it was great; a reporter asks Newt Gingrich about Palin’s lack of experience:

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, Official Obama Criticizer for the EIB Network, certified black enough to criticize by the National Association for Peace, Love, and Social Justice. I have a statement. Mr. Obama, you are now the leader of the Democrat Party. You call the shots, at least in theory. So when can we expect an edict to abolish the divisive, harsh, racially charged rhetoric from your Democrat Party subjects? Recently James Carville hinted blacks would riot should your standing in the polls remain but you lose the election. Prior to that one of your Hollywood minions, Sandra "Barnhardt," said Sarah Palin would be gang raped by big black brothers if she dared set foot in New York. Your party's labor leaders are now accusing their own members of harboring racial attitudes, racist attitudes, for not supporting you. Harry Reid, your Senate majority flack, claims it's racist to talk about your association with your advisor, Franklin Raines.

SNERDLEY: (laughing) With Franklin Raines. Sir, this has got to stop. You have the power to tell your Democrat lackeys, your subjects, to stop taking the racial low road -- if you have the onions. Or has the Reverend Jackson made good, sir, and surgically removed them?

And now a translation for EIB brothers and sisters in the hood. Ma brutha, what's up, EZ Bee? Yo, check this out, yo. It's time for you to lean on your homey Democrat boys and hip 'em, man. You got to ease up on this race tip, yo, you feel me? You HBIC, now, man, this is -- oh, HBIC? You the Head Brother in Charge, yo. You was raised up in Hawaii, you don't know that. Okay, cool. All right, dig this, man.

Your boy Carville, man, he's out there hintin' the brothers gonna rise up in the streets if you lose, man. What's up with that? Like we supposed to be some kind of riot force on the white boys' cue, man? What's up? Okay? Then you got this Sandra Barnhardt girl, yo. The big black brothers going to come out and, like, gang rape McCain's hockey girl if she kicks it in New York? Like that's what the New York crew is, mang? We just like a bunch of rapists like where? Yo, man, let me give you the 411, man. Your girl, Sandra Barnhardt, you ever seen her, man, up close? Yow, boy. You could toss that girl over a prison wall, man, the homeys, man, even if they doing life, would toss her back out, yo, come on, man. She ain't got no juice. All right, man, this is ill, man.

You out here, man, talking all this stuff, man, your boys out here like this Jim Crow stuff, man! Blacks going to hit the streets, yo. They going to riot, yo, and do all this, man. Then you've got your boy Dingy Harry Reid, man. So now it's racist, right, to say that you and Franklin Fannie Mack-Daddy Raines were kicking it together. Anybody knows they were kicking it together, man! That's not racist. This wasn't about race, man. This was about the money, yo. That boy clocked a hundred million dollars out of Fannie Mae. I'd be kicking it with him, too, yo. Okay? So check this out, man. This thing, man, all this race stuff, man, y'all got to chill on this, man.

Here's the deal, man. If you win the election, you gonna need to hold this race card 'til you start trying to roll out all them big programs, yo. Then, when the Republicans start trying to rise up on them, that's when you say, "Racist. Racist!" Right now, what you doing, man? You just punking yourself, yo. All you doing is scaring people, man, out here talking about rioting in the streets. Man, only thing people going to be rioting on, yo, is if they keep, man, losing their homes, yo, while your boys in the Democrat Party keep taking their money. A'right? That's the serious word. That concludes this statement.

CALLER: Rush, it's a true honor to talk with you. I've been calling for years. Mega dittos from the heartland.

CALLER: I actually graduated from the school there in Cape, so I feel like I have an association with you.

RUSH: Oh, you went to Southeast Missouri State University, a place I almost flunked out of.

CALLER: Well, that makes two of us. It was a long time ago, but it's just amazing that I finally got through and have a chance to talk to you. I got two issues I want to hear you say something about. One is the American dream. I've heard the Democrats talk about wanting to restore it, but evidently only up to $250,000, and then you're the devil. And when I think the American dream, I think of guys like you and Bill Gates that just kept going and that's what we all want. And I don't understand why they can talk about like that but have a limit on just how far the American dream can go.

RUSH: You're exactly right. I love that relationship that you have made here. They love the American dream up to $250 grand then you become the devil, then you become the enemy. You are so right, and you went to Southeast Missouri State?

CALLER: I have another point. The other thing that I hear about, this thing with Bill Ayers, this guilt by association, that the Republicans are saying that we shouldn't do that, yeah, but guilt by association in trying to tie McCain back to Bush, isn't it the same thing? What's the difference?

RUSH: The difference is that the Democrats and the media can defend the alliance. It is not an association with Bill Ayers, it is an alliance. They can defend that, and they can try to diffuse it, but they're on the attack. You're right, there is no difference, no difference whatsoever, except Bush is guilty and Bill Ayers is not, in their minds.

RUSH: Here's Tom in Williamsburg, Virginia. Great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. Mega dittos from Williamsburg, the heart of the historic triangle and where the revolution was started and successfully concluded against tyrannical government and oppressive tax --

CALLER: Ha-ha. My comment concerns this orgy of media reports about comments they have made at the McCain and Palin rallies. Quite frankly, I think you pointed out very well that the media is now in the business of making news rather than reporting news, but they want to make this news to report it. I believe wholeheartedly that these are probably media plants that are making these comments that are made just so that the media can make reports on them.

RUSH: That's an excellent point. I would not put anything past 'em. I wouldn't put anything past the Obama campaign to infiltrate these things and have some of their own supporters dressed up like clean cut Americans. Remember all the plants at the Hillary campaign?

RUSH: They do this. And you're exactly right, to go and shout these things so that the Drive-Bys have a story. So they get what they want out of it. That's an excellent thought. I applaud you. That's almost as perceptive as our guy from St. Louis who came up with the notion the Democrats love to talk about restoring the American dream, up to $250,000, then you're dead, then you are the enemy, then you become a target. Folks, can I give you the truth about Democrats and the American dream? They don't want it available. Because the truth is, everybody is a target when the Democrats run the show! You think that if you make less than $250,000 a year you're not going to have a tax to pay or a tax increase, you think you're going to get a tax cut? Think again. Democrats do not cut taxes. They do not cut taxes on anything or anybody. They do not cut taxes on any activity. The American dream has an entirely different definition to Democrats and liberals than it does to you and me. Their American dream is the United States becoming a full-fledged, acknowledged, unmistakably socialist country.

RUSH: The Democrats and the American dream, ladies and gentlemen. By handing the American dream of home ownership in a systemic way to those who weren't qualified to have it -- and, by the way, the Media Circus blog, MediaCircus.com: "Updated: Obama Sued Citibank Under [Community Reinvestment Act] to Force it to Make Bad Loans." There's a lawsuit here that ACORN filed against Citibank. It was settled out of court, and the parties listed include "Obama, Barack H., Illinois." Obama was part of the group that sued Citibank to force it to make loans to people who couldn't pay for them! His fingerprints and those of other Democrats are all over this.

You hand the American dream of home ownership in a systemic way to those who weren't qualified to have it, and you have thus torpedoed the American dream that those who earned what they had; tanking the market, frozen lines of credit. People who went out and earned it and worked for it and experienced the American dream have now had their American dream punctured because a bunch of people who couldn't qualify at the time were given access to the American dream: home ownership. And to make up for the depleted coffers of their precious government, they want to put up obstacles to the American dream that people earned by hitting the tax advantages of 401(k)s, now. If you missed that, it was in the first hour. To Democrats, the American dream is a non sequitur. There's no such thing.

RUSH: The crowds that are greeting Sarah Palin are huge. I don't know if you've noticed, but Barry's crowds are shrinking. When was the last time you saw a video piece, a television report of an Obama crowd? The Greek rally at the convention was the last time. When you see Obama on television now it's just a head shot of him at the podium with the selected white supporters carrying a sign sitting behind him. But they don't show you the whole crowd. I've got eight pictures here, Sarah Palin and McCain are drawing crowds that are overwhelming the places that they have decided to hold these rallies that they're having. And the crowds are getting somewhat raucous out there, Palin whips them up into a frenzy.

Mary Mitchell, a wuss, wimp columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times says that Sarah Palin should be censured. She says that "Sarah Palin should apologize to the Obama campaign and the American people for her role in bringing out the worst in her supporters." This is laughable. Come on, Mary. Grow up. This is the big leagues. How about the people in your party? I know you're a Democrat, Mary Mitchell. You can't deny it, all you liberal media people are Democrats. What about the incitement of this whole country that you and your fellow journalists have engaged in along with the Democrat Party? You have gendered up hate for this president. You have ginned up a despise for the US military. You have sought to convince the American people their country is worthless and sinking into an abyss. You have been doing it for six years. And you dare say Sarah Palin should be censured for bringing out the worst in her supporters. How about the worst in your readers that you bring out, Mary Mitchell? How about the worst the Drive-By Media has tried to bring out in every American. You want every American detesting the institutions and traditions that have defined this country's greatness. It has been shameful what you and your cohorts in the Drive-Bys have been doing the last six years regarding this president and this country. And now you demand Sarah Palin be censured for her role in bringing out the worst in her supporters? How many movies have your supporters made about the assassination of George W. Bush? How many books, Mary Mitchell, have people who read your work, how many books have they written about the assassination of George W. Bush? And you say Sarah Palin needs to be censured.

"During a campaign rally yesterday, Clearwater, Florida, supporters turned on the media," writes Mary Mitchell. Hey, Mary, people have been turning on the media for I don't know how long. Have you noticed how many jobs have been lost in Chicago newspapers, Ms. Mitchell? Hope yours is next. Have you seen how many jobs lost at your sister paper, the Los Angeles Times, Ms. Mitchell? Have you seen how many layoffs at newspapers, editorial newsrooms all over the country? You think only now the people of this country are turning against the media? Let me tell you something, Ms. Mitchell. A lot of Americans are going to be voting against you as much as they are voting against Barack Obama because you are the same party. You have long ago sacrificed any respect that you once had as an industry. You have tarnished and you have destroyed the legacy, the reputation, the image of what a decent journalist is. And now asking for Sarah Palin to be censured because you can't stand criticism, because you can't stand her crowds criticizing the media. Who are you people? Do you think you're God? Do you think you are above everything you dish out? You're the classic examples of not being able to take it but certainly being able to dish it out.

You people, Ms. Mitchell, you couldn't stand one investigative report on your life. You wouldn't hold up, and yet what do you do and what is your career? The attempt to uncover whatever you can make up about people that you don't like so that you can destroy 'em. Let somebody undertake an honest investigation of you, from your high school days on, see how you like it, see how you bear up. Now you want Sarah Palin censured? Who are you, Joe Stalin? Is that what you want to be? You want to be Lenin? You want to be Gorbachev? Who the hell do you want to be, Ms. Mitchell? Censure Sarah Palin? By the way, she is not alone. We have a montage, ladies and gentlemen, of Drive-By Media attacking McCain-Palin supporters as violent nuts and wackos. These are the same, Drive-Bys, as I mentioned, who have incited rage and hatred against George W. Bush and this country in general for years. These are the people who write books and movies and plays about assassinating the president of the United States and get critical acclaim. These are the people who let Code Pink into every congressional hearing on the war. So a montage of journalists all upset about what's happening with McCain-Palin supporters.

MITCHELL: McCain crowds have been increasingly rowdy. Someone shouted, "Off with his head!" about Obama.

MATTHEWS: Appeal to the nuts. When you hear people yell, "Kill him, terrorist," yelling out from the crowd.

VOICE: People gather shouting out comments about Barack Obama like, "Kill him, terrorist, treason."

WITT: Kind of incited these crowds and I think that does get into dangerous territory.

KORNBLUTT: A full bore attack on Obama's character, suggesting he's yellow, disloyal, and doesn't belong.

RUSH: That was Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel, from The Nation. You know what's happening here, they're talking about the media, not Obama. But you know what's happening here, what's happening here is that there is finally a candidate who is speaking up for these people, a candidate who connects with this base. Our base is so fed up with the media that this is simply the release of all of that passion that leaders are not leading on. And that is attacking the very people trying to destroy us as a political movement. Attack conservatives, attack the Republicans. The Republicans don't defend themselves. They try to make nice with these attackers in the media. Palin's not doing that, and people are finally standing up and cheering, after about 15 or 20 years of having to swallow this garbage every night and every day watching this stuff on the press.

RUSH: So, the media is scared, the media is frightened when they show up at McCain-Palin rallies. It's so sorry! Don't we feel so bad for the poor media? They're so fearful. Maybe we need to do this, folks. Maybe we need to call the United Nations and get some peacekeepers to show up in their little blue helmets -- United Nations peacekeepers with little blue helmets -- at McCain-Palin rallies to protect 'em. This way we could prevent mediacide. The only problem with bringing in the UN peacekeepers is the women and children aren't safe. UN peacekeepers have been known to sexually attack the people they're protecting. By the way, just to refresh your memory on this Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun-Times, she is a racist nutball. She had a column on September 14th.

"Sarah Palin," she wrote, "makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt. ... Sarah Palin makes me sick because although black Democrats have been responsible for giving white candidates the boost they needed to beat their Republican opponents in tight races, these voters are now being insulted by feminists who say they will cross over into the McCain camp because of her." So she says, "I hate... Sarah Palin makes me sick," and she's not inciting anybody, is she? How many anti-war Bush rallies at the Pentagon or in Washington have there been where Bush is hung in effigy? This notion that... You people in media really are a bunch of cowards. You are gutless, spineless wimps. You can't handle a little criticism. You're above criticism? Ha!

RUSH: This is Gina, in Jacksonville, Florida. Hi, Gina, nice to have you on the EIB Network.

CALLER: Unfortunately, I'm just livid about some of the media today describing McCain-Palin supporters as violent, angry, and how she's whipping them up into this frenzy. I happened to be at the McCain-Palin rally on Tuesday, and I took my 12-year-old daughter, and I saw no such thing. I heard no one saying "kill him, hang him," and all these other crazy things that people are accusing the supporters of saying.

RUSH: I think the rally they're talking about was in Clearwater -- I've gotta go back -- see, I put all this stuff in the bottom of the stack. Let's see. Yeah.

RUSH: Clearwater, in a rally yesterday -- well, wait. This is dated October 7th, two days ago. Whenever, it was earlier this week, and it was in Clearwater, Florida, the supporters turned on the media.

CALLER: Yeah. Well, I just personally, from personal experience, people were happy to be there at the rally that I was at. I didn't hear any of that kind of thing, and I just take great offense to it, because first we're being called racists because we're not going to vote for Obama.

CALLER: Well, I'm mad, I'm angry, I'm livid, Rush, and I'm just so glad that you're out there speaking for us, because no one in the media is listening.

RUSH: They are doing their best to impugn you and McCain-Palin supporters like they impugn the US military. They want you portrayed as a bunch of lunatic redneck hicks. Don't make me go through this again because I'm going to get red faced and livid all over again. They ignore the people in their party that urged the assassination of Bush, via movie and via book, and they critically acclaim both, the movies and the books. These are the people that hang Bush in effigy at anti-war rallies. These are some of the meanest, most vile people in the country, the supporters of the Democrat Party and the Obama ticket. They are deranged, they are unhinged, and they are genuinely dangerous. The media will not talk about that at all. They praise them as being activists and getting involved. These lunatics are the same people that run these websites, and they are sources for the Associated Press. Make no mistake about it, the enemy in this campaign is not just Obama and his cronies. The media is as well. If are there outbursts at the media at McCain-Palin rallies it's because for 15 or 20 years, I traced this back to the budget battle of 1995, and the school lunch program, if you people remember, we were accused of wanting to starve children and our party didn't say diddly-squat.

The budget battle in '95 and all these little school kids, you remember from New Orleans, were encouraged to write, "Don't let me starve," and they were going on TV, Democrats running television ads, "Don't let me starve, Republicans want me to starve," as though their parents would let them starve, and there was never a cut in the school lunch program to begin with. There was a reduction in the rate of growth. There was never a cut. That was shortly after the Republicans took over the House, and there was excitement and Republican voters had made that happen, and then all of a sudden just a year later, two years later, we get the budget battle, the government shutdown, the school lunch program, and Republicans sat on their hands and for 15 years Republicans have not defended themselves, therefore their supporters, against these attacks. Sarah Palin comes out of the woodwork like an angel bestowed from on high and reams these people a new one every time she opens her mouth, and our crowds are simply cheering. The media is, "Oh, I feel threatened, why, this is dangerous, why, they're hurling insults at us." This Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun-Times, wants to censure Sarah Palin for turning the crowds against the media. You are jaundiced cowards in the media. Go call the UN peacekeeping force in there to protect you. Get the people in the blue helmets, as I said in the first hour, just guard the women and children because they tend to rape them when they're keeping the peace in places like Africa.

RUSH: Remember, Hillary had some plants. This is back in the New Hampshire primary, after she'd come out of the Hawkeye Cauci in stunned defeat. And remember these guys stood up, "Hey, go back to the kitchen, iron my shirt, iron my shirt!" Hillary planted those people in there. You know it happened. (laughing) So it's entirely possible that this is all a ruse as well.

Kathy in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. That's a beautiful place. It really is. How are you, Kathy?

CALLER: I was actually at the Lehigh University rally in Bethlehem yesterday, and I was also offended by the characterization by the media, because the only irrational lunatics I saw at the event were the four to five protesters out in the parking lot. That was it. The line to get in wrapped essentially two times or more around the building, and it was a peaceful gathering of women, children, senior citizens, college students, small business owners. It was a wonderful, peaceful crowd.

CALLER: No attacks on the media. I think there was some frustration with the media, but no attacks at the media.

CALLER: I didn't hear that. I saw a really excited crowd. I saw frustrated Republicans that --

CALLER: It was an absolute overflow crowd, and I talked to some people who had gotten there at eight in the morning. The doors didn't even open 'til 10:30. I was also amazed that there weren't, you know, this is a college town, this is at Lehigh University, and there weren't student protesters. There didn't seem to be much of a base of people who were there to support Obama. I mean, it was the four to five protesters.

RUSH: Four to five protesters. Let me ask you a question about your local media. Did these four or five protesters get a whole lot of attention in your local media?

CALLER: I don't think they really did. I think the four to five protesters, though, were actually the ones who were trying to egg on the crowd, because they were kind of bantering at the crowd as we stood in line.

RUSH: Ah, yes, so it would fit with our previous caller's theorem that these things are planted. Well, that's an interesting story. I know what you're saying is true, too. It's the case with all these rallies, and I've got some pictures here somebody sent me. If your rally in Lehigh was anything like these pictures, it's just overwhelming the venues where they're being held. I mean these people are inside, outside, and it's huge, and Obama's rallies are getting smaller and smaller.

CALLER: I think they could have filled the stadium if they could have gotten access to it.

RUSH: Now, let me ask you a question, Kathy. You're obviously very intelligent. How is it that with no encouraging media whatsoever, the only media on McCain-Palin is how he's an old white guy and she's nothing but a brain-dead populist and a librarian, how is it do you think that they are drawing such large, enthusiastic crowds?

CALLER: I actually think there's a lot of excitement about Palin and the message that she sends. I mean I think she stands for -- I think about it for myself, I have two sons, ages 17 and 20, and for me she would be the ideal spouse for them, and I know if I raised a daughter, she would be a child that I'd be very, very proud of.

RUSH: Interesting. Well, I have a theory about this. Thanks very much for calling. My theory on this, even I, my friends, will admit, I've admitted it to you on previous occasions. Even I, the valued El Rushbo, sometimes get sucked in by a devious, deceitful media. Sometimes even I. Doesn't happen often, and when it does, I tell you. It's a teachable moment. What this is telling us is that Palin -- you gotta throw Yosemite Sam in there, too -- Palin and McCain have a genuine direct appeal to millions of Americans, that millions of Americans do not need to be primed and pumped and PR'd about their greatness, their brilliance, or their excitement by the media. These are people, Palin, who can on her own, all that has to happen is somebody locally says McCain-Palin coming to town for a rally, maybe the local media, TV, do a little story on it, bam, oversold, sellout, raucous crowds. And the media is doing nothing to promote this, folks, is the point. The media is doing what they can, in fact, now, to impugn these Palin rallies by impugning the people that show up. So don't think the media has to be on your side in order for you to win.

RUSH: Ellen in Rocky River, Ohio, it's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Listen, I wanted to let you know that a friend of mine, my son and his girlfriend went to the McCain-Palin rally last evening in Strongsville. There were probably minimally 15,000 people, far more attendees than could be admitted to the rec center. So the majority of us stood outside and waited for four hours in line. There was no vitriol being spewed. There were some political conversations, you know, that you would expect with like-minded people. But it was a very orderly, very peaceful group of people just wanting to hear what Senator McCain and Governor Palin had to say.

RUSH: All right. I want you to listen to this montage, again, because, folks, if you're just tuning in, what got all this started is people have been at McCain-Palin rallies are calling to defend the comportment and behavior of the people attending these rallies. The media is out there saying that the attendees at McCain-Palin rallies are saying, "Off with his head," that they're" threatening" the media, that they're saying horrible things about Obama and so forth. And the sorriest excuse for a journalist ever, Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun-Times, said that Palin should be censured because she's turning her crowd against the royalty of the media. So I want you to listen to this. It's a montage. We have Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington; John Roberts, CNN; David Rodham Gergen, CNN; Chris Matthews; Alex Witt; Ann Kornbutt -- blutt -- Washington Post; David Wright, ABC; and Katrina vanden Heuvel, Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel from The Nation. They're all talking about this. So this is why callers are responding to this.

MITCHELL: McCain crowds have been increasingly rowdy. Someone shouted, "Off with his head!" about Obama.

MATTHEWS: Appeal to the nuts. When you hear people yell, "Kill him, terrorist," yelling out from the crowd.

WITT: People gather shouting out comments about Barack Obama like, "Kill him, terrorist, treason."

KORNBLUTT: Kind of incited these crowds and I think that does get into dangerous territory.

WRIGHT: A full bore attack on Obama's character, suggesting he's yellow, disloyal, and doesn't belong.

CALLER: None of it. And if I can tell you one quick story, 'cause I know your time is limited, but as we were all waiting in line and slowly move ahead because (as a previous caller described) the lines twirled around numerous buildings. There was a gentleman whom I knew had to be from the media, although I didn't recognize him. He had a microphone in his hand, and right next to him was someone with a camera. So as I'm passing him, I said, "Make sure that you report the attendees accurately." I didn't really think he'd respond, but indeed he did, and I think he was kind of taken aback that somebody might challenge his journalistic integrity. He asked why I would suggest that he wouldn't do that, and I said, "Well, it's really quite obvious. You rarely report the Republican attendees very accurately." And then with that, of course, he tried to engage me and of course I was a willing participant in, you know, why I would choose to vote for McCain as opposed to Obama because Obama was better on the economy. I stopped him dead in his tracks and reminded him that really was a specious argument.

RUSH: Wait a second. I have lost you here. He asked you a question who you're going to vote for, McCain or Obama because why would you vote for McCain, because Obama is so much better on the economy? The reporter said that to you?

CALLER: He was trying to lead me in that direction, and I quickly reminded him that I believed his argument -- and my daughter would love this expression, the argument -- was a canard. Clearly I don't believe Obama is better on anything, much less the economy. But he persisted, and I said to him, "Number one, I reject your argument out of hand that Obama would be better for the economy. He's an anti-capitalist. He's anti-business. He's anti-everything I hold dear. But even if you were right -- and I don't expect that you are -- what good is a sound economy if we're not kept safe?" That seemed to surprise him. So he said, "So you think McCain would keep you safe?" I said, "Indeed I do." He said, "So you think that being kept safe is more important than a sound economy?" So I had to remind him that clearly a sound economy is of no value if you have terrorists at your doorstep. So actually it was kind of an interesting exchange.

RUSH: Okay, let me tell you what's going to happen to that exchange, because when I was much younger in this business I thought that when journalists asked me a question, they really wanted my answer. It took me a long time to learn that they don't care what you say. It is their question and how they can then cut up what you say. The whole point of that interview was to portray you as a typical McCain-Palin nut and kook. And they're going to take that interview and splice you with one or two words, maybe a sentence, with others that he had talked to, to do a cross-reference of people who are so out of touch and so dangerous. I guarantee you, that's what that was.

RUSH: That's why you cannot accept the premise. You started out with this exactly right. It was very good. You don't accept the premise.

CALLER: Well, I agree with you that's probably what he was going to do or has done, but as you've said for so long, those of us in middle America are so outraged by what the media says, does, doesn't say, and doesn't do, that when you have an opportunity -- regardless of what he's going to do with the interview; albeit, you know, short as it was -- I made it clear. Even if it's one person, I needed him to know that I know what he does, and I felt better about that.

RUSH: Well, that's good. That is excellent. There are very, very few exceptions to this. Trust me. Don't doubt me.

RUSH: You will never change their minds. Don't ever waste time actually debating a journalist. You will never change their mind. They'll make you think they're engaging you and debating you. They're not. They have an agenda, they have a narrative, and they have a template and you're either going to fit into it or not.

CALLER: Yeah, but particularly from the BBC. But I would agree with you. I didn't see any of the national media. Our local affiliates were all there.

CALLER: But there was nobody.. At least I didn't see anyone, but then we did not get into the rec center. But McCain and Palin did invite two of the Cleveland Browns.

RUSH: Joe Thomas, yeah. He mentioned someone else today I think in this rally, too, as well as the two Cleveland Browns players as having endorsed him.

CALLER: Well, it was a wonderful rally and it was worth standing in line for four hours.

RUSH: People are doing this all over the country. They're standing out in the rain in Pensacola, Florida, for an hour to get into these things. There's genuine excitement at these McCain-Palin rallies, and the Obama rallies are not that way. They don't have this kind of excitement. The Drive-Bys know it, too. They sense this. I'm glad you called, Ellen.

RUSH: This business about "sacrifice" from Tom Brokaw of Jurassic Park last night, "Uh, Obama (grumbling) sacrifice. The American people, sacrifice." Why is it always the American people, in the eyes of the left, who have to sacrifice? How about the government sacrifice a little? Do you notice the government will never do with less? How about bureaucrats sacrificing a little bit? How about some politicians sacrifice by resigning, and letting other people take a whack at governing. Senator McCain who talked about Eisenhower having written two letters prior to the D-Day invasion, one thanking everybody for their hard work and a successful mission, the other his resignation if it didn't work. There are a bunch of Democrats with their fingerprints all over this financial mess, who if they had any honor would resign, but, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no!

Five congressional hearings are going on in this financial mess, and not one of them is about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Christopher Shays, a moderate, is fuming. He's a moderate Republican from Connecticut. He's fuming over this, and he has been promised by Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman that they'll eventually get to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. No. The people that have their fingerprints all over this got to design the fix, and we see how that's going. Where is the DJI today? Two hundred and something it's down today. I'm hearing the "experts," whoever the hell they are -- I don't think there are anymore -- staying the bottom will be around 85 or 8700. That means we've got a long way to go here, folks, before we bottom out if this clown happens to be right.

How about Frank Raines and Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson? Why don't they sacrifice a little? They walked away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a bunch of money they didn't earn after having cooked the books. Why don't they sacrifice? How about ACORN? Why don't they sacrifice? Stop stealing elections; stop engaging in voter fraud. How about Obama support those who actually sacrifice: military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world? Those are the people who really sacrifice, and these are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party the last six years impugned, impugned their honor, impugned their mission, proclaimed their mission a failure, said we couldn't win. They tell us, they ask us, "What will you say to the American people (slurred) sacrifice?" said Tom Brokaw of Jurassic Park.

When the left talks of sacrifice, they don't mean working with your church or your local charity. What they mean is: You support socialism. Now, H.R. Kit Carson, the trusted and loyal chief of staff of mine, here at the EIB Network said, "I thought the dumbest question was the one Brokaw asked these guys about who their next Treasury secretary would be because Hank Paulson would not serve beyond the end of President Bush's term." I'll tell you why that question was asked. From the standpoint of the elites in Washington and New York, it was not a stupid question at all. Now, look at me and follow me on this. I will begin this little explanation of why that question about who the next Treasury secretary is going to be is so important to people like Tom Brokaw of Jurassic Park, and everybody else in the Drive-By Media and everybody who lives in the New York-Washington corridor.

Remind me again, folks, why we even need a Constitution, now. Why, we've got the feds. The individual is no longer the foundation of the country. That's what this bailout is telling us. We aren't the answer. The American people, our individual efforts, productivity, ambition, creativity, we aren't the answer. Not according to these people. No, we are the burden. The federal government now runs things. Our economy -- and here's the answer to your question, "Why was this question about the next Treasury secretary so important?" Because the economy is now run by the Treasury secretary. Well, it is! The $700 billion bailout gave him exclusive authority to "ensure" the welfare, economic welfare of the country. The Constitution doesn't say "ensure." It says "promote the general welfare."

The reason Brokaw asked that question is, I'll guarantee you, Herbie Allen and his good buddies in the media who go up there in Idaho every summer for their Big Media summit wanted him to ask that question to find out who these two guys say is going to be the Treasury secretary 'cause the Treasury secretary is running the economy. You and I are a burden; we are not the answer. The Treasury secretary is bailing us out. The Treasury secretary is buying up our bad decisions. The Treasury secretary is providing cover for Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The Treasury secretary is our economy's messiah. The Treasury secretary! How backwards is that? I guess if we're going to have the Treasury secretary take over the economy, we need to let the attorney general take over the writing and enforcement of laws.

We have a crime problem in this country in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Detroit. You have murder rates that have Iraqis glad they don't have to live here. It's a crisis. It's time for the attorney general to ensure the safety of every American, just like the Treasury secretary has the authority now to ensure the welfare of every American. Forget local anything. We need action! We need the people who created the problem to step in and fix it. So the attorney general gets to write all the laws from now on and enforce them. All we need is one more dependable liberal on the Supreme Court to work hand-in-hand with the Treasury secretary and the attorney general. That way, seven people can run the country. We don't even need a president!

We can elect a president to be a figurehead. He'll go to funerals. The vice president, who knows what the hell he'll do now. But we're going to have the Supreme Court working hand-in-hand with the AG and the Treasury secretary. Seven people, that way, can run the country. The liberal majority in the Supreme Court (five of those people) and then the Treasury secretary and the attorney general. Forget innovation. Forget creativity. We need central planning, and execution of the central plan. We should shut up. We should sit down. We should turn on the network television and wait. We shouldn't pray! No, no, no. We don't pray. We hope. We hope for the best. We have the Fed. Not as in "fed up," but as in the Fed and Big Brother.

It comes from the Treasury secretary and soon from the attorney general. "Change!" That's where it's going to come from. Change will no longer come from the ground up. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, you don't elect the Treasury secretary, nor do you elect the attorney general. Nor do you elect the Supreme Court justices. The individual -- if this all plays out the way Obama and his buds have it figured -- will have no role to play. You have a right to health care. You have a right to have your welfare ensured by the Treasury secretary. The government in Washington runs our lives. The Constitution is becoming more irrelevant by the day. The federal government doesn't promote the general welfare anymore; it now ensures it with $700 billion. They are going to ensure our economic welfare with $700 billion, as if it's possible.

You have to hear some of the post-debate commentary. Do you understand now why the Treasury secretary question was so important to the very people...? That question was not asked so that McCain and whoever, Obama, would answer it for the American people. This was for the markets. This was for the whole cabal now that put this bailout together. They want to know. They wanted to hear what the candidates would say. McCain, who did he say, Meg Whitman? He didn't say Buffett last night, did he? He did? He said Obama's looking at Buffett. Oh, yeah, as though Buffett really wants the pay cut. Of course, you give Buffett $700 billion to play with or George Soros, I can see where they might be attracted to that. Meg Whitman of eBay, on the very day that eBay -- she's not there anymore, but on the very day that eBay -- announced, what was it, 1,500 layoffs, 15% of the workforce? McCain likes Meg Whitman for the Treasury secretary.

RUSH: Audio sound bite 35. Remember now, in a brilliant monologue mere moments ago, people were telling me they thought the stupidest question that Tom Brokaw asked last night was asking Obama and McCain who their Treasury secretary would be. It's not a stupid question, because there are people in important places who want to know that because the Treasury

secretary is now running the US economy, according to the bailout bill. The Treasury secretary in the bailout bill right there in the Preamble, shall use the bailout bill and all associated funds to ensure the economic welfare of the people. That's an impossibility. That is central planning. More central planning. Obama in Indianapolis at a campaign rally.

OBAMA: You heard Senator McCain say, "Well, we do not need any government involvement in health care." What he didn't mention is, he's got healthcare from the government.

OBAMA: You know, I -- I -- I -- Let me tell ya, I -- That is something that always burns me up, when I hear folks who are getting paid by the government, have health insurance from the government, are happy with it, would not trade it in for anybody (sic), but suddenly, they say, "Nah, nah, you -- the American people, the folks who are paying our salaries who do not have health insurance or are paying too much for health insurance, that somehow you do not want government involvement."

RUSH: A nice little trick there from Barry Obama. The government does happen to be the employer in this case. It is not a national government-run health care system. It may be pretty good. In fact, if it's as good as Obama describes it, and these guys say we all should sacrifice, how about them sacrifice by giving up some of their great health care coverage that they supposedly have? Anyway, you see what's in store. We now need government-run health care, because it worked so well for Senator McCain.

funny. It's amazing that this skit made it on the air. It has vanished from the website of NBC's Saturday Night Live. It's a seven-minute sketch. We're not going to play the entire thing. It's a mock news conference among congressional leaders explaining the bailout bill. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are explaining while inadvertently admitting that it was Congress that blocked reform and effective oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They have two actors that portrayed a real-life couple, Herbert and Marion Sandler. And they explained, as you'll hear coming up, how these two built a mortgage company that specialized in subprime mortgages that they then sold to Wachovia for $24.2 billion in 2006. It was one of the worst acquisitions by any company ever, and it helped precipitate the collapse of Wachovia last week. So that's the setup. Where we join them now is Pelosi says, "In the past few weeks, this debate has focused on the wisdom of government intervention. What wasn't talked about is that behind every home foreclosure there's a story of real suffering by real Americans, people who but for the grace of God could be you or your neighbor, and today we'd like to introduce you to some of them. Michael McCune and Jerome Gant, two ordinary Americans whose only crime was to play by the rules and that now find themselves facing eviction from their homes. Please, you two, tell us your story."

MCCUNE: Well, to start, I -- I still don't understand how this happened to me. I mean I fit all the requirements for a subprime mortgage: No credit history.

MCCUNE: Well, anyway, I was talked into a "balloon mortgage" where you move into the house and then you get to live in it -- and you don't have to, like, pay money or anything to the bank, but then later you do.

MCCUNE: Yeah. I mean you could say I'm a double victim since I've never had a job and now I don't have a home.

GANT: Well, I'm a triple victim because I've also been charged with arson for allegedly setting fire to the house they evicted me from.

RUSH: That was Pelosi. Now, then she introduces the couple, and they have a Chyron. "People who should be shot" is the Chyron graphic under this section.

HERBERT: My wife and I had a company which aggressively marketed subprime mortgages and then bundled them as securities to sell to banks such as Wachovia. Today our portfolio is worth almost nothing, though at one point it was worth close to $19 billion.

RUSH: And this is a real-life couple, this couple Herbert and Marion Sandler. They started the company that ended up being sold to Wachovia, subprime mortgages, worthless mortgages, $24.2 billion. The Wachovia CEO wanted to get in on this action, and this is what precipitated Wachovia having their big problems last week, now being fought over by Wells Fargo and Citibank. Now, this was Saturday Night Live, and it's hilarious. We've got the link, and we will put a link to it at RushLimbaugh.com so you can see it as well as. We've cut out the opening of this thing. It's Bush speaking, and he's standing there with Pelosi and Barney and they go through the motions of blaming it all on Bush and they portray Bush as an idiot not even knowing he's being insulted and this sort of thing. That was typical. This is not -- and, as I say, you can't find this on NBC's Saturday Night Live website because this couple and others have obviously complained to NBC.

RUSH: I'm going to play audio sound bite two again here before going on to audio sound bite three because I want you to know who the Sandlers are, Herbert and Marion Sandler. They were major donors to Air America, the left-wing radio network that bombed. They also are major donors to ACORN, the housing lobby of community organizations to which Obama has close ties. Its fingerprints are all over this subprime problem. ACORN, of course, is a major player in pressuring the banks into making more subprime mortgages. The Sandlers also donated $2.5 million dollars to MoveOn.org, the group that ran the General Betray Us ad in the New York Times. This is who was parodied and just destroyed on Saturday Night Live. I wonder if these are the two people, Herbert and Marion Sandler, that Obama was talking about back on July 29th, 2008, when he made a speech before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials when he said folks were "tricked" into buying homes. I wonder if the Sandlers are the people Obama is saying tricked people into buying homes. Here is that sound bite again. It will be followed by a bite in which they just destroy George Soros.

RUSH: Herbert and Marion Sandler being parodied by Saturday Night Live and the Nancy Pelosi character. Here now, Saturday Night Live making fun of Barney Frank and George Soros.

FRANK: Let me say something else here. You know, many of you are probably wondering, where did that 700 billion missing from our economy go? To help answer that, let me introduce our good friend, billionaire hedge funds manager George Soros.

SOROS: So what became of that $700 billion? Well, basically belongs to me now! Actually, it's not even dollars anymore, but Swiss francs, since I have taken a short position against the dollar.

SOROS: You're not to speak. I don't like you. Yes, the US dollar will have to be devalued sometime next week, either Tuesday or Wednesday. I haven't decided which yet. It will depend on how I feel.

SOROS: Yes. Could I just add that, even though you know what's coming, you won't be able to do anything about it.

RUSH: So they just launched on all the people that have their fingerprints all over this problem. This was an assault on Democrats and Democrat contributors on Saturday Night Live, and it's now not available except on select websites in the blogosphere.

Mary Mitchell complains: Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt. She talks about how much Sara makes her sick, over and over again. Bush-derangement-syndrom has morphed into Palin-derangement-syndrom.

I had to read most of this article to make certain that Mary Mitchell did not have her tongue in her cheek; but it appears that she is just wearing her heart on her sleeve.

Obama’s real problem with Ayers is not that Ayers is a former terrorist, but...

“You've got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don't despair: You can still buy a house." So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left "community organizers" called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Worst debate ever — we are fighting a war on two fronts, Russian may want to gobble up surrounding free countries, the stock market is in a free fall, and Bush has proposed the largest bailout in human history, and McCain and Obama managed to be dull while debating these issues:

This is an excellent article which follows, year by year, the history of FNMA and FHLMC.

Conservative Review
Issue #44	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	October 12, 2008