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).

Obama has never voted for lower taxes or a tax cut ever, not once, in his entire career. What people actually do ought to affect who you vote for.

Saturday Night Live political skits will suck without McCain and Palin. Left-leaning audiences will tolerate some guffaws over Biden’s gaffes (although no exaggeration is necessary here), Obama’s continual gaffes, his uh uh uh uh’s, and his vindictiveness toward those who do not support him may not be accepted as the realm of humor Saturday Night Live will be allowed.

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich. I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That's the American dream, that's the American way, that's terrific.

The point is, though, that -- and it's not just charity, it's not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it's that when we actually make sure that everybody's got a shot...everybody is better off. All boats rise.

John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don't know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness." Barack Obama. I.e., it is selfish for rich people to want to keep as much of their money as they can.

I should point out that it has been shown, time and time again, conservatives give more money to charities than liberals do by a considerable margin.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said on Good Morning America. Allowing that wealthier Americans would more, the senator from Delaware and running mate for Obama said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

"Raising taxes in a tough economy isn't patriotic,'' McCain said at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, "It's not a badge of honor. It's just plain dumb.''

Most watched and downloaded political video on www.YouTube.com (12 million views as of this writing):

Neil Cavuto interviews a former Clinton supporter who now supports McCain. She claims getting dozens of threatening and hangup calls since she publically came out in support of McCain. Good inteview by Cavuto (he is skeptical of what she has to say).

It’s worth a second listen; the Howard Stern show where Sal asks various New Yorker’s how they feel about Obama’s pro-life policies and his choice of Sarah Palin for VP.

If Obama wins this election, there is going to be a radicalizing of the news sources as well as government support for failing news sources. Story to follow.

If Obama wins the election, there will be (and this bears repeating) several major outbreaks throughout the world by vicious and crazy dictators. The news will downplay or ignore most of these stories (besides which, there will be no easy access for cameras and newsmen).

I used to think McCain would win this easily, based alone on Obama’s incredible negatives (with regards to his past, his association, his lack of experience, his philosophies). I must admit to still being dumbfounded at the idea that Obama could win this election.

[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]

The very day that Jeremiah Wright broke out into American consciousness, I told you that this would end Obama’s chances to be president. I still think that is the case, but I would never have anticipated Obama getting over 40% of the popular vote. I have to credit the news media for being so determined, for the most part, to hide any part of Obama’s background which might make him appear unseemly.

FoxNews played several speeches by Sarah Palin this week (there will be probably one or two more played on Monday). It is not a part of their regular programming, but they slip them in often early in the morning (7–11am).

I watched her carefully. On one of the speeches I observed, she had a notebook open in front of her (a binder) but I never saw her look down at the binder except once, and that was to turn the page. When the camera panned back, there were no teleprompters on stage either.

During a second speech, the cameras panned back and there were teleprompters, but at no time did she ever appear to read from them.

Secondly, one of the things which I have always liked at McCain rallies, and something which was clearly in evidence here was a lot of homemade signs, as opposed to the matching and color-coordinated manufactured signs at Obama rallies.

Part of our economy is based upon trust in the economy itself. The news media has hyped economic woes from the very beginning of this year, before there were any problems. The word depression was found in story after story after story. The last time the media hit the economy this hard was back in 1992 (and during the height of the media attack on the economy, there was a larger than 3% growth for that quarter).

Obama is on the cover of 5 magazines this month, 3 of which appear to proclaim him as the winner of the 2008 election.

I recall two pictures of McCain during this election. Over a year ago, his campaign was out of money, and I recall him carrying his own suitcases, alone, in an airport. He had been written off by almost every pundit at that time as being a viable candidate. And yet, there McCain was, carrying his own baggage, going from one townhall meeting to the next.

After McCain had clinched the Republican nomination, he spoke anywhere and everywhere, and, for much of the early campaign, without any security. I forget the place where he was speaking, but it was to a primarily Black audience, and McCain did not pander to them, but he set out his own platform, taking questions, and arguing and trying to convince individual members of the crowd of his positions. At the very end—and again, this was without the secret service—he wades into this very large crowd of voters who mostly did not agree with him, shaking their hands, continuing to talk to them individually.

I disagree with McCain on several issues, but I have never had more respect for any other political candidate.

Obama Speech-Writer Defects to McCain camp (yes, this happened, just this week; her name is Wendy Button).

First of all, I am not trying to be satirical here. There are open-minded liberals and open-minded Democrats out there. Many of them vote Democrat 90% of the time, but they will actually listen and discuss politics rationally without losing their tempers and without cutting off friendships and familial relationships over politics. These are the kind of Democrats who watch FoxNews and listen to Michael Medved; they may not agree with half of what they hear, but they recognize that they are getting a more balanced approach as well as a reasonable presentation of the conservative viewpoint.

Obviously, I am going to discuss Barack Obama, and ask you to take these considerations seriously:

The first concern to me is Obama’s relationship to the media, a relationship which transcends politics. They adore Obama, for the most part. One person once observed that, when he got off the plane, and walked by the newsstand, almost every single magazine had an attractive photo of Obama on the cover, with headlines which indicates the coverage inside was going to be favorable.

It has been shown by two independent groups that news coverage for Obama has been quite favorable and simultaneously quite negative with regards to McCain. If FoxNews were taken out of the equation, I wonder how even more lopsided this would be? They are not informing you and letting you make up your own mind; they are doing everything possible to sway or guide your opinion. Bear in mind, these are news stories, not just editorial positions on the editorial pages.

Personally, I become quite concerned when my news services are not informing my vote, but telling me over and over how to vote. This makes me wonder, when I see negative stories about McCain, Palin and even Joe the Plumber, yet I do not find as carefully researched stories about Obama. Did you know that Tom Brokaw just the there night on Charley Rose’s show bemoaned the fact that we do not really know who Obama is?

As you know, the Obama campaign has stopped cooperating with news stations which do not ask him or Biden the right questions. He expelled 3 newspaper representatives from his plane, even though their own reporting about him have been fair—those newspapers, coincidentally enough, just took a stand on their editorial page supporting McCain.

What is going to be the future of our news services under a President Obama? So far, he has never subjected himself to an open-forum of unlimited questions. He did open up to a news conference one time in Texas, and walked out after 8 questions. Even though he talked to Chris Wallace and to Bill O’Reilly, these were interviews carefully bounded by severe time constraints. Each person had Obama for 20–30 minutes only. So far, these are the only tough interviews that Obama has done.

Over and over again, in public speeches, Obama takes swipes at FoxNews and Sean Hannity (who, admittedly, is not the best interviewer in the world), and has indicated that he believes that FoxNews has treated him unfairly (which is not what the two independent media survey groups found).

Will there be fewer news sources under a President Obama? Right now, there is the Fairness Doctrine waiting in the wings, which several prominent Democrats have spoken about in the past month or two; with an Obama presidency and a super-majority in Congress, such a bill might be inevitable. As a Democrat, you may not care, at this point in time, whether Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity are shut up or not. If such a bill results in hundreds of talk radio stations retreating from their political format, this may not concern you, but it ought to. Any time political speech is limited, you need to be concerned. Such a bill exists and it being passed is a real possibility, not just some made-up idea.

Let me assure you that the result in the passage of the Fairness Doctrine will not mean that all of the TalkRadio stations today who feature Rush Limbaugh will also feature someone from the left to counterbalance; it will mean that almost every TalkRadio station will simply abandon its format, because (1) left-wing radio does not garner many listeners and (2) the paperwork involved in meeting such federal mandates is generally overwhelming and cuts deep into profits. When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect, there were no political discussions on the radio.

Secondly, Obama and abortion: Of course, he says, “No one is pro-abortion.” No candidate for anything would say, “I am for abortion.” But, even though giving human rights to fetuses is a decision above Obama’s pay grade, he has voted again and again and again to support abortion, including late-term abortion and including actually killing infants after they are born.

Obama carefully crafts his words when it comes to bringing in another doctor when a baby is accidentally born-alive during a botched abortion:

Planned Parenthood knows that Obama will stand by them no matter what; however, he is careful enough to craft his words so that he almost always sounds reasonable and as if he is against abortion (he did slip up once and spoke of his daughters being punished with a baby).

Thirdly, Obama’s associations concern me. Although Obama dismissed William Ayers as being just some guy living in his neighborhood, their relationship seems to go much deeper than that. Ayers hosted, in his own house, one of Obama’s early fund-raising, political coming-out events. Ayers is an ideologue, so why would he support a new candidate (Obama) whose views are fairly moderate? If Ayers were the only person in Obama’s background of such a radical stripe, and if their relationship had been completely examined, with an open news conference given by Obama, we might be able to forgive him; but there is more to Obama’s background than this. There is Father Phleger, Khalidi, and Jeremiah Wright. Why are these 4 men completely silent right now? Why is it impossible to approach any of these men and say, “We are live, you say whatever you want, go ahead...” These men have been approached and they will not talk. What exactly is that about? These are men with very strong opinions, very strong viewpoints, but they will not take the opportunity to present their opinions right now, when most of the country would listen to them. These are men with strong, revolutionary opinions, and any one of them could call a press conference and have coverage which would reach millions of people. They could sell their story and push the views to any magazine and gain a great deal of wealth. But they are all silent. A camera came close to Ayers, and he called the police (remember he bombed a police station) and he told the cameraman that he was on private property (Ayers is a self-proclaimed Marxist and anarchist). Their silence should concern you.

Speaking of Jeremiah Wright, he was clearly not just a tangential figure in Obama’s life history. He mentions Wright in his books, he bases one book, in part, upon a sermon delivered by Wright; he speaks of what Wright wrote in a church bulletin, and he treated Wright as a father-figure and as a religious guide to him, until Wright’s views became clearly known to the public. Now, Wright is not speaking to anyone. Obama was in Wright’s church for20+ years, attending about twice a week, according to his own testimony, meaning that he listened to over 500 Jeremiah Wright sermons, and yet, never heard any of Wright’s anti-white, anti-American views.

In case you forgot what Wright has said, here it is (Obama’s words are looped; Wright’s are not):

(Listen to Obama’s exact words at the end; he does know how to give the right answer).

Fourth: Obama’s honesty. Obama crafts his words very carefully, as he is a lawyer. When asked about Wright and the sermons many of us heard (and I listened to one sermon in its entirety), Obama did not say, “I did not realize that Wright was anti-American and anti-white.” He said, “I did not hear any of those particular sermons.” (not an exact quote). When first questioned about Ayers, Ayers was just this guy from his neighborhood that he just happened to run into now and again. Obama never revealed that he and Ayers together distributed about $50–150 million (we do not even know the exact amount yet) in funds designed for educational purposes, but some of which was given to ACORN and who knows where else. It was not given to any Chicago schools; that seems to be on of the few things which we do know.

When it comes to his views on abortion, even though Planned Parenthood see Obama as their #1 guy, Obama gives very careful, measured responses, obfuscating what his actual views concerning abortion are.

You have heard about Obama’s grandmother and how she struggled to give him all that she could. During this Obama infomercial and at other times, you may recall how his grandmother worked in a bomber assembly plant while his grandfather fought in Patton’s army. Have you ever heard that his grandmother was a successful banker in Hawaii? This is how she could afford to send Obama to an expensive private school. Obama rarely if ever mentions this when talking about his own background.

Obama gives us a rosy picture of how he will not change the taxes of 95% of Americans (most of them will get a tax break) including those who do not pay federal income taxes (40% of Americans), which amounts to a welfare payment, and, in my opinion, a bribe. At the same time, Obama promises a whole host of federal programs, the 3 most important of which will cost nearly a trillion dollars, which would mark the greatest increase of the federal budget of all time. Of course, he promises to take a scalpel to federal programs which are not working, but fails to ever identify a single federal program. Any economist can tell you that these numbers do not add up. The tax increases which he proposes will not, in any possible way, pay for his tax cuts to the middle class or to the huge federal programs which he proposes (federal health care mandates and federal pre-school education are two of these).

At no time, does Obama ever speak to the following: the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will remove all tax breaks which Obama has promised, except for those 40% who were not paying taxes in the first place, and therefore, were not included in Bush’s tax cuts; nor does Obama address (or even seem to realize) that the tax increases which he proposes (which will be two-fold; those he proposes and then the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts) will dramatically reduce small business expansion, and that will reduce job creation.

Fifth, Obama’s Economic plans reveal either an intentional act to obfuscate what he really plans to do or a complete misunderstanding of how our economy works. Businesses can, when unfettered, produce many more jobs than government can, and usually at about a fourth of the cost. Herbert Hoover and FDR both put forward a series of big government solutions, along with trade restrictions (something else Obama strongly favors), which solutions caused the depression to become the Great Depression and which caused the Great Depression to last for much longer than it should have. A myriad of governmental programs and what amounted to about a 90% tax rate for the rich essentially destroyed our economy for over a decade. Although the technology today is different, Obama is offering very similar economic approaches to Hoover and FDR.

Sixth, Obama’s Foreign Policy: when it comes to understanding the world, world leaders, and the actions of various governments, Obama is pretty much even with Sarah Palin. They have differing fundamental beliefs, but approximately the same experience. Her living next door to Russia is no better or worse than Obama’s few years living as a child in Indonesia. The only difference is, Obama seems to have the notion that he can talk and reason with the most unhinged of world leaders, and accomplish something meaningful in such a dialogue. During almost every presidential administration, including this one, there are ongoing dialogues at various levels, with enemies of the United States. Sometimes these are secret (which often allows other nations to save face), sometimes these are well-publicized, but, no president, until Obama, has ever promised to just go out and talk to any dictator in the first year of his presidency, with the child-like notion that he will be able to talk sense to them. Obama does not seem to realize that he will have people under him which handle most of these sorts of meetings, so that no dictator is given greater stature or prominence because he managed to get an audience with the President of the United States, without ever having to agree to a thing.

With respect to Obama and foreign affairs, I truly believe what Biden predicted, that Obama will be tested right out of the gate (which predictions I don’t think just came off the top of Biden’s head, but from security briefings which he had received within two weeks of making those remarks, which remarks have apparently resulted in an all but silenced Biden).

Seventh, Obama’s promise to fundamentally change government: Obama will not clearly identify his fundamental beliefs with regards to abortion, he misrepresents what he can do to our economy, and he hides, with words and possibly with coercion, his past. However, I do believe Obama here. If there is a super-majority of Democrats in Congress under an Obama presidency, he will see this as a mandate to transform and fundamentally change government, and I think that all but the most left-leaning of Democrats are going to be shocked and surprised as to how far this can be taken. Government is going to become a much greater influence in our lives from cradle to grave, because in order for government to do more for us, it will have to have more power. Right now, it is acceptable in the eyes of many to kill any fetus who might be born with a defect and to kill off a significant portion of African-American babies. By educating the population, how many types of people will an abortion become not a mandate but strongly recommended. Down’s Syndrome fetuses are fair game today. Some people were actually offended that Sarah Palin chose ot have a baby with Down’s Syndrome—women who purport to believer in free choice. Abortions under President Bush were dramatically reduced; what will happen under a president who is very pro-choice?

Obama favors appropriate sex education for all ages. He is not going to design the curriculum, quite obviously, but people with an agenda will. These will be very liberal people appointed by a very liberal president. If this sort of education is seen as being the best thing for our children, all of whom will have to attend public schools (unless a parent has enough money to send their children to a private school or are able to educate them in the home), how many things will come down from the government which will become a part of educating the whole child? If we are in economic decline, that will reduce the number of parents able to find alternative educational opportunities for their children, and

Obama does not support alternative education outside of the public school system.

Liberal thinking is very much a part of the public school system and our colleges as well. That certainly is not going to change under Obama.

Many of Obama’s sad stories are about seniors who are having problems with their retirement or with paying medical expenses. Here especially, Obama will want to insert himself. But, bear in mind, when the government becomes your sole protection when it comes to your retirement and your medical benefits, government can also regulate these things. If government has no problem with making decisions as to who ought to be born and who ought to die in the womb, it is not a big jump from this to, deciding who really should get medical care and who should not. At what point will there be governmental housing projects for old people not unlike those governmental projects developed for the poor and minorities? These people, in large numbers, depend upon government, and huge, housing projects are the end result.

I understand that these scenarios which I have suggested, may seem like science fiction, and I agree that Obama is certainly not going to put these things into effect in the first 4 years. However, that will be the general direction in which we move.

Eighth big concern: a Democratic super-majority: If the Democrats have a filibuster proof majority in both houses with a Democratic president, they can do anything, and I mean, anything. What is #1 for most people who have power? They need to make sure they can maintain this power. With a super-majority, do not be surprised is election reform legislation is passed which ends up favoring Democrats (this has already occurred at the state level in several states). People in power want power, they want more power, and they want money, both to spend to consolidate their power and simply for themselves. A super-majority in Congress and a Democratic president means, whatever they want to do, there is nothing that we will be able to do about it.

Problem #9: Obama’s choice of judges. This reason may not move you, but the job of a court is never to make the law, but to reasonably interpret it and to determine whether or not various bills and laws fall within the constraints of the constitution. At no time should 5 men be able to determine what the laws and policies are for our government, even if you or I agree with what they propose. It does not matter if you can point back to several court decisions which essentially made law, and this was within your philosophical scope of thinking; laws should be made by Congress or by a popular movement; when the courts decide these things for us, we have no recourse, as their appointments to the bench are lifetime.

Obama has never talked about getting judges who will, above all else, uphold the exact meaning of the constitution, but he does want judges who understand the plight of the little man and are willing to make judgments with great empathy. It sounds wonderful and heartfelt, but it is dangerous if such decisions result in what is essentially legislating from the bench. This means that 5 men (and/or women) can make decisions which will impact the United States, its foreign policy and its economic policies for the next few decades (as it will take that long to undo what they do). You may not understand or appreciate what these judges can do, but if they start to make a plethora of decisions where they are making policy and you do not like this policy, you will find that you have no recourse—their policies will become law.

Finally, Obama lacks true compassion: Obama’s care and compassion for those at the bottom rung of the ladder is what draws many people to him, but do not be confused by his rhetoric in this area. He has a half-brother who lives in a shack whom he speaks of in one of his books. Estimates are, this half-brother subsists on anywhere from $10–$30/years. Obama is a millionaire, and even though he does not feel a close kinship to this half-brother, it would take Obama very little to raise this young man out of his poverty. This man wants to be a car mechanic; Obama could make this possible, and never miss the money. Obama also has an aunt living in a slum in Boston. He has apparently never helped her out either.

Obama has talked about his great work as a community organizer in Chicago, and how he helped get men to be retrained when they lost their jobs and how he helped people to hold onto their homes—so why aren’t there 30 people, from this period of time in Obama’s history, coming forth, on video, saying, “This is what Obama did for me”? Such a video would be powerful, and his campaign staff knows it. Right now, all we have is Obama’s word on what he did as a community organizer.

When a fundamental pillar of a politician’s platform is his compassion and commitment to the downtrodden, I want proof. So far, all I have seen from Obama are just words. Where he could have shown compassion, he has not. He talks movingly about being his brother’s keeper, both in public forums and in one of his books; but his actions are not those of a man who is looking out for his fellow man.

If you are a Democrat or someone on the left, let me express my appreciation to you, that you have read this far, and have considered what I consider to be valid reasons not to vote for Obama. Whatever you decide in this election, I appreciate that you took this time to see things from the other side.

One of the losing election arguments for Republicans which may have some actual merit is, was Obama really born in the US? I have read through some of the arguments, and it seems semi-reasonable to me (it is claimed that some of his relatives were there when he was born outside of the United States). However, this is a losing argument and we may find out down the road, a few decades from now, the truth.

However, here is where we play a little connect the dots. Obama ran to be with his Grandmother during what might be her final days. He was only gone for a day, and there has been no news coverage on her condition or Obama’s visit, or anything that I have seen about Obama’s actual trip.

His grandmother is dying, and she essentially raised Obama, but Michelle Obama does not go to see her nor do the two children. Why?

Simultaneous to this trip, the liberal Republican Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama’s records (it is unclear as to which records she sealed). Now, why is this necessary? Why did it occur right when Obama had to make an emergency trip to see his grandmother? It might just all be a coincidence; however, I would be interested that, if Obama is elected, what sort of future links there will be between himself and Hawaii’s governor. Maybe I am being paranoid; I don’t know.

There is actually very little reporting being done on this, and the main source of this report is Jerome Corsi, who is not the most reliable person in the world. But Obama’s trip, the lack of information about his grandmother, and the sealing of his birth records all taking place at the same time is, at least, coincidental.

This needs to be balanced with the fact that this same governor has publically stated, not but two weeks or so ago, that Obama would not be a safe choice for our nation.

Follow me on this: Obama owes a lot to the mainstream media. They attacked and investigated both Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. They drudge up old and even unsubstantiated stories on McCain and print them on the front page. When Obama gives a speech about his connection to Wright, this speech is not only hailed as answering the question, but as one of the premier racial speeches of out time, which speech will be studied by school children for decades to come. And when Obama gives a second speech on Wright, because the first did not do the trick and because Wright is still out there being crazy and anti-American, and Obama is touted as heroic, standing for principle.

So, Obama owes a lot to both print media and to NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC (ABC seems to be getting more balanced in its coverage).

There are problems: newspapers are hemorrhaging money and network news is losing viewership. Of course, the reasons given are, there are now too many alternative news sources; people just don’t read like they used to; the internet gives immediate information; however, FoxNews is not losing viewers and when books by Bill O’Reilly or Dick Morris, these books jump to the top of the NY Times booklist, so someone out there still reads, and reads stuff which is more stale than what can be found on the internet.

The reason newspapers and many news stations are starting to die out is the same reason Air America cannot find an audience: their blatant hate speech and their undeniable slant is distasteful to Conservatives, moderates and even to some liberals, who are angered by the attempts of media to brainwash them.

However, they have been faithful to Obama so what will happen if he is elected president? He is going to reward his supporters. I don’t know how quite yet, but public radio is partially funded by the government, so it is reasonable that the government might begin to partially fund dying newspapers. What I think is also likely is, the government will become more involved with AP and other news services, so that the source of the news will be tainted from the very beginning. Government support will allow those in power to give the government’s side of the story from the get-go; and they will have the ability to suppress certain stories as well.

With regards to the television media, the government may begin to provide an AP-like service to them, thus relieving them of some of their costs. I think that this would have to be done in such a way so that, certain newscasters will be associated with CBS but not with NBC. These people would be working for the government, but they would appear to us as if they are working for specific stations.

Related to this: what about those news services which have not given Obama or Biden the kind of coverage they ought to get? Will they be banned from White House press corps? Will there end up being not enough available seats for everyone? They have done this during this campaign; will this be done under an Obama presidency?

Now, all of this is pure conjecture on my part. It is based on the fact that, print media and television news clearly stand behind Obama, and I believe that Obama will reward them. However, even though this is conjecture, recognize that there will be Orwellian-sounding bills which appear to do one thing (The Fairness Doctrine, The Media Fairness Act, Campaign Reform Measures, The Economic Fairness Act, The Information Accessibility Act) but will do exactly the opposite. These sorts of bills will be passed along party lines, losing many red-dog Democrats but picking up enough liberal Republicans.

These are minor things, but they are worth noting. The Path to 9/11 was a made-for-tv movie, a miniseries, put Bill Clinton is a bad light. This miniseries was quite popular, but it only played once, and has not been released to DVD. President Clinton in an unprecedented moment, went directly to ABC to either keep this miniseries from going on the air. He did not keep it off the air. However, he did get some edits and, although the DVD would bring in a lot of money, it has never been released.

The old At the Movies, with Roper and someone else, they ignored the movie Expelled; they did not even review it. No bad review, no good review. A lot of people watch this program in order to decide what movie they will see. If a movie is not mentioned, that is going to cut back on those who see the movie. There were not an inordinate number of movies out that week; they just chose to ignore it. Reviewers who reviewed it, said it was one of the worst movies ever made ever. It has one of the lowest overall ratings of any movie ever made. It was a good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed it. But, it dealt with intelligent design, and there are apparently some who would rather we did not see this sort of a movie.

Even more recently is the movie “An American Carol.” The new kids interviewing movies on At the Movies did not review this either. Again, there were not a plethora of movies released that week; however, if they do not review a movie, I am sure that affects tens of thousands of those who would otherwise see this movie.

There is no denying that this was one slick production. The music was outstanding (particularly at the beginning), the personal stories moving, and Obama’s rhetoric soaring at times. As you know, I deeply distrust Obama, but I found myself entertained and engaged throughout the presentation, much more so than listening to one of his speeches.

There is a significant portion of our electorate who really do not pay much attention to the election until October. They assume that all of the important information about these candidates has been unearthed, and they get much of their information from the political ads and from television news.

At several times in his infomercial, Obama spoke like a conservative. He spoke of cutting certain government programs which do not accomplish their intended mission and to use the money saved in order to fund his own ideas. He talked about how some common sense approaches to medical expenses would allow him to easily insert a government-sponsored/controlled program which would be much cheaper to the average family (I forget the figure exactly; was it $2300/year he would save the family?).

When proposing some early solutions, he points out that, “This will not involve additional government programs or government spending.” (not an exact quote).

If I knew nothing about Obama prior to this commercial, I would have concluded that he is a man who deeply cares about America, who has no political agenda to get in the way of practical solutions; a Democrat who is a little right of center.

As I write this, I have not seen any polling to take into account the response to this infomercial, but I am certain that this will garner Obama a significant number of votes.

On the other hand, since I have become so fascinated by politics, as of late, I know better. If there is a worker out there struggling, but is not on the Obama bus, that is a whole different thing. Obama and Biden have both belittled Joe the Plumber (they have also said, he’ll get money back on his taxes under Obama’s plan). It is unclear as to who has gone after Joe the Plumber to uncover as much as possible about his life—whether this was strictly the media or whether Obama’s team was involved; however, it has been shown that Ohio state computers and data banks were used to investigate Joe. That concerns me.

I also know that Obama has close ties to many people who are strong ideologues on the left. Obviously, none of this came up on his infomercial.

I also know that Obama has not given the press any real access to him. He’s done a couple of tough interviews, and limited the time to 15–30 minutes. Lately, when one reporter began to ask some tough questions, she and her television station were cut off.

One of the few times he gave an open press conference was here in Texas, and he got several questions he did not like, and walked out saying, “C’mon guys, I’ve answer like 8 questions already!”

What Obama and his campaign are counting on is political ignorance and style over substance. This is why ACORN is out there trying to drum up as many votes as possible from people who often know nothing about the election (junkies and homeless people). This is why Rock the Vote doesn’t particularly care whether those whose vote was rocked have any clue about the election or any of the issues. Rock the Vote wants their stoned little heads inside the booth voting for Obama.

They are counting on an uninformed electorate and, if necessary, some voter fraud, in order to achieve their righteous ends.

Obama’s biggest loss this past couple weeks was when he told Joe the Plumber that it was up to government to take some of Joe’s wealth and share it with those who have not done as well as Joe has.

Obviously, Obama put no thought into the possibility that Joe might acquire this wealth from working 80 hour weeks and that the money might get redistributed to people working 30 hour weeks. A more equal amount of money to spend is what is fair, in Obama’s eyes, no matter how this wealth was gotten.

Obama was later asked in a public interview if he regretted his answer to Joe the Plumber, and he said, “No.”

Most recently, a radio interview with Obama from 2001 was unearthed where he said the following:

Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

I have seen this distorted by the Washington Post to mean almost the opposite of what Obama is saying here; however, it should be clear that he favors redistributive change and that this change is economic, something which the courts are unable to do.

It is easy to connect all of the Obama dots here. He has gone to an anti-white church for over 20 years where the United States is said to be controlled by rich white people. Black people are being screwed economically and every other way by our government, according to this church. Black liberation theology is the theological basis of Reverend Wright’s church, and Black liberation theology comes from liberation theology, which is a Marxist approach to economics in many Latin and Southern American churches (they attempt to link Jesus with socialistic and Marxist thought). Jesus has since then even been called a community organizer.

Obama has had a fairly close relationship with William Ayers, who describes himself as a Marxist.

Furthermore, Obama has no real concept of economics. He believes that, if the people on the bottom rung of the ladder are given money from those at the top, they will both spend this money and improve the economy, as well as pull themselves out of poverty with this money.

Obama further doubles down on this plan by promising tax breaks to the 40% of Americans who do not pay federal income tax, which means there will be a remarkable flow of money for those who worked for that money to those who did not work for it, but deserve it because they are at the bottom.

Apart from the Washington Post, whose fact-checker tries to say, Obama was not speaking about redistribution of wealth during this radio interview, all of these things which I have stated are well known.

It seems that some of those in Ohio are indicating that weeding through the true and false voter registration is going to be nearly impossible, and that it is better to err on the side of more voters than fewer voters (better to allow some phoney voters rather than to suppress some actual voters).

I just got my second robo-call from Senator John Cornyn, using my first name, saying, “I am sorry to keep calling you, Gary, but it appears as if you have not voted yet.” It was well done and did not sound like my name was inserted. However, the real issue is, how do they know that I have not voted yet? I will vote early today; will I get a phone call tomorrow from John? If the secretary of state of Ohio is overwhelmed with voter registration and may not be able to really sort through them properly, how is the Republican party able to figure out that I have not voted and give me a call to get me off my sofa?

One of Bush’s greatest negatives, in my opinion, is his lack of fiscal responsibility (and McCain is almost his polar opposite here). Bush made a number of campaign promises, most of which he has attempted to keep. However, he never promised to curb government spending, and he has stood by this lack of a promise.

No matter who is president, and no matter if you were for or against them, there is generally going to be some things which you like about them and dislike about them, unless you are and out-and-out ideologue or too strongly partisan. Even though Talk Radio is strongly conservative, they have taken tough stances against Bush and against McCain on specific issues. Although various hosts have different positions, all conservative talk hosts deplore our out-of-control government spending (which was bad under a Republican Congress and now even worse under a Democratic Congress).

The biggest mistake I believe McCain made was, supporting the Bush-Pelosi mega-Bailout bill. I don’t know if that particular bill was necessary or not, and, maybe it was. However, nothing was done to convince the voter, so I was never convinced. Neither were a majority of Republican House and Senate members, who voted mostly against it. Had McCain taken an anti-Bailout position, this race would have been in the bag for him. He did not. Bad choice. This bill was supported by McCain, Bush, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, a majority of the Democratic Congress (but not all of them) and opposed by the majority of Republicans.

The second biggest mistake is McCain’s talking about stabilizing house prices and bailing out individual borrowers. First of all, the money involved in bailing out each borrower, when government costs are considered, will probably be twice what the borrower owes in the first place (given the investigative process which will be involved, and given typical governmental cost overruns). Also, what is wrong with housing prices falling until they hit bottom? This ends up being a good buying opportunity for others, including first-time home buyers. This would rid the market of those who took on a mortgage that they should not have. Furthermore, as Rush pointed out, there will be a number of people who are upside down in their mortgage, are not in financial trouble, but may fake financial trouble in order to get a free mortgage reduction. In a free market, there will be some failure. The government cannot stop all failure in a free society.

McCain’s third biggest mistake is trying to be a populist. Even though Obama is the most phoney populist this side of John Edwards, McCain cannot out-populist the populist candidate. He needs to allow for free enterprise solutions and explain to people how these solutions will affect them in a good way.

Fourth: McCain ought to emphasize that freedom in America is based upon a free economy. This is true freedom. The more freedom I have to make money, to work as I want to work, and to do what I will with the fruits of my labor, the more free I am. The more government steps in to fix this or that in my life, the fewer freedoms I have. The government has a bad track record when it comes to fixing the economy. Big and little businesses have the best proven track record when it comes to fixing an economy. Government needs to step back, and allow them to work their capitalistic magic.

Surprisingly enough, even CBS and the New York Times put out stories that Obama’s numbers just do not add up:

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the Nov. 3 edition of Time magazine just gave Barack Obama 13,000 words to a few hundred for John McCain. Starting with a corner shot on the cover, Obama is pictured 13 times throughout the magazine.

The only photo of his opponent in this election-eve issue is a goofy thumbnail of McCain under the Gaffes section of the Campaign Scorecard. Sarah Palin is featured exactly once, also, in the letters section under a quote from a reader who compares her to impersonator Tina Fey and says "They are both better entertainers than politicians."

As a well-documented member of Obama's adoring media paparazzi, Time seems to be competing with the TV networks for "most obsequious." According to a new CMI study, CBS, ABC and NBC ran 69 segments about Palin around the time of the vice presidential debate, of which only two were positive, 37 were negative and the rest neutral. But Time seems intent on outdoing them. This edition is so pro-Obama that it verges on a Mad magazine parody. The Obama pics are scattered through the first half of the magazine, amidst fawning features such as Joe Klein's "Why He's Winning." That piece, which was thoroughly crunched by MRC's Tim Graham in an Oct. 23 Newsbusters post, has a page and a half color photo of Obama surrounded by an adoring crowd. The next page shows Obama in a helicopter, with the facing page a portrait of Obama, chin in hand, looking positively regal.

Californian Congressman Darrell Issa asks for a bipartisan 9/11-like commission to study the current economic crisis:

"Members of Congress played too large a role in crafting the regulatory scheme that set the stage for this crisis and have received too much money from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Wall Street to conduct an unbiased investigation of what happened," said Issa. "The decision by House investigators to delay examination of the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until after the election - but instead focus on CEO pay - has undermined the credibility of the investigation. The American people deserve an unbiased and objective report on the causes and handling of this crisis that only an independent commission can provide."

Tito the Builder joins the McCain-Palin movement. He is disgusted with the press and how they have, for instance, gone after Joe the Plumber.

The Employee Free Choice Act, which both Obama and the unions are in favor of (what is key is, it would eliminate the secret ballot):

During the Great Depression, Hoover raised the top marginal rate to 63% from 25% and hiked corporate taxes, too, says Michael Aronstein, chief investment strategist at Oscar Gruss & Son in New York.

Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man", a detailed history of the Great Depression, has pointed out that Obama's economic policies are what Herbert Hoover adopted to transform a 1929 economic downturn into a Depression by sharply increasing marginal tax rates and protectionism.

She claims to be a former Hillary staffer who was later taken in by the Obama campaign and herein tells us the inside scoop on the campaign trail. I have no idea if this person is legit, and it may just be interesting fiction, but it is quite fascinating:

This is a video dealing with partial-birth abortion, which Obama supports (of course, he says, no one is pro-abortion; but his votes in the Illinois State Senate have resulted in many babies being similarly aborted. I am, at this time, unable to watch this video all the way through.

RUSH: Now, on Charlie Rose Show last night on PBS. Are they doing their pledge drive yet? Is PBS doing their drive? Because, you know, "Without your Pledge, we cannot dust." He had on Tom Brokaw last night, ladies and gentlemen. Here's a montage. Now, this is last night. As you listen to this, keep in mind everything you've heard from Brokaw and others in the Drive-Bys can for the past six months, three months, two months or whatever. This is a montage of Charlie Rose and Brokaw trying to figure out who Obama is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

RUSH: Incredible! (laughing) Let's send the journalist to find out! Why, have you guys ever thought of that, Tom? Have you ever thought about sending a reporter to find out who the guy is? Charlie! You got plenty of reporters there at PBS, at least on the... Have you ever thought about sending anybody out to find out who he is, besides the two books? (laughing) I cannot believe this. We know who his heroes are -- and, of course, that's the point! We know who his heroes are. We know who his alliances are with. We know who his friends are. We know that he chose them all. But to hear... This is last night. This is, what, four days, five days before the election. These are two of Obama's biggest media supporters! You gotta... I gotta hear this again. This is hilarious, because the answer to this is, "Hey, Tom? Talk to the bureau chief in Washington, the new guy who replaced Russert. What you do is, you assign a reporter to go out and find out who Obama is."

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

RUSH: Well, we know one of his heroes is a member of the Communist Party, Frank Davis. He mentored him in Hawaii. There's a lot we know, Tom. (laughing) Does this not ice it? Does this not ice...? We know as much as can be known about Obama, far more than he wants us to know, and here are these two pillars of Drive-By journalism. "I don't know. I don't know. It's an interesting question, Charlie. It's an interesting question." (laughing) I just think this is... "That's true." Two pillars of journalism, one has an audience and one doesn't, but it doesn't matter. They're both still pillars. Hey, Tom, Charlie, I think we can help here about his view of China. This was last night on MSNBC, and he was asked this question, Obama was. "Is there a possibility you could see in your first term if elected and we need an economic stimulus, an FDR style public works program?"

OBAMA: I've actually talked about this. I think we have to rebuild our infrastructure. Look at what China's doing right now. They, uh, er, uh -- Their trains are faster than us. Their ports are better than us. They are preparing for a very competitive Twenty-First Century economy, and we're not.

RUSH: Okay, Charlie? Tom? You just heard Obama say after you're wondering where he is on China, he thinks they're better than us! And, by the way, to be grammatically correct it would be "better than we." You don't say "better than us are." You say "better than we are." The trains run on time? All this infrastructure? Look at the infrastructure that cannot handle a .0001 earthquake! Basically a giant taking a couple of steps will crap some buildings over there. But here's Barack Obama singing, once again, the praises of China, a communist country -- and what? Criticizing the United States. It was an interesting point. It was a very interesting point to an interesting question. Tom Brokaw said it was "an interesting question," What is his attitude on China, the people advising him. Here it is. He loves China, he thinks the United States sucks. Barack Obama, last night on PMSNBC.

RUSH: This is hilarious now. As you know we have chronicled Obama's ceiling on tax increases -- I should say the floor, whatever. That number is 250K a year, and it goes down to 150 if you listen to Biden. By the way, they have sent Biden to the back waters on the campaign. Biden, you can't find him out there. He's in states, but you don't know where he's going. He's in Delaware. He's in a lot of other places out there, and they have enforced the teleprompter on him. They have enforced the teleprompter. I knew he would be the gift that kept on giving. Steven Greenhouse here in the New York Times. "For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama's Plan. "The center left Tax Policy Center in this story tries to help out the Obama campaign. They say that...

Now, get this. We've all heard Obama talk about a tax cut if you make less than $250,000. They say in the New York Times story today, "When Obama says he'll cut taxes on families $150,000 or less, that part is true," and this is in the New York Times! They're essentially calling him a liar. Not totally because anybody making less than a 150, I mean it's pretty true, Obama's plan is pretty true. This story ought to be called, "The Incredible Shrinking Obama Tax Cut," but the dirty little secret is once again, ladies and gentlemen, there will be no tax cut for anybody. The Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 expire in 2010. Everybody's tax rates are going up to the Clinton levels in the nineties, and if you're not paying income taxes -- and about 40% of Americans aren't -- how can you get a tax cut? How can you get an income tax cut?

You can't. You're just going to get a wealth transfer. You're going to get an income transfer. You're not getting a tax cut. So this is all smoke and mirrors, and it's all now starting to trickle out. Now, this story on Obama lowering expectations is again a UK story, the Times Online. It's by Tim Reid in Washington. I gotta tell you something, folks. The British papers are coming up with much more relevant news than our news media combined. "Barack Obama's senior advisers have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency if he wins next week's election, amid concerns that many of his euphoric supporters are harbouring unrealistic hopes of what he can achieve," such as he's going to keep them in their houses and keep their gas tanks full. He's going to pay for it.

"The sudden financial crisis and the prospect of a deep and painful recession have increased the urgency inside the Obama team to bring people down to earth, after a campaign in which his soaring rhetoric and promises of 'hope' and 'change' are now confronted with the reality of a stricken economy." We need to be very careful about this, folks. Obama is lowering his expectations. We cannot let him get away with this. There are two reasons, if not more. Obama has spent, what, a year and a half or two years making these promises, raising expectation. He has been the candidate of the lofty rhetoric. He has been promising hope and change! He's been promising to go wipe out all problems, he's going to make the United States loved by everybody in the world.

He has been lying about our country. He has been lying about his vision. But more importantly, he will go far in implementing his left-wing agenda of massive welfare redistribution and tax increases. He wants a single-payer national health care plan, all of those things. The point of this is, Obama's going to get most of what he wants to implement, but most of it won't work! This is the key. He's gonna get most of it, and most of it will not work. All of it so far will not work, not in the long term. So, they're putting out stories, "He's gotta lower expectations. People are expecting utopia out there! There's this euphoria." He created it! Obama created these expectations. Now he's got to lower them. Sad thing is, this whole campaign of fluff and imagery has succeeded.

But Obama has never been about the middle class. He has always been about destroying American society as it's constituted, and punishing success. What Obama wants to do is destroy capitalism and expand government, and that is the truth that this illusionary campaign has covered up throughout the past year and a half.

RUSH: Audio sound bites this morning on our Denver blowtorch affiliate KOA, Governor Bill Richardson.

RICHARDSON: What Obama wants to do is -- is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those.

RUSH: Well, all good, Governor Richardson, they've buttoned up Biden, but you've taken his place. They've got Biden on the teleprompter, now here's Bill Richardson saying it's down to $120,000. Anything above $120 and you get a tax increase. Let's go back, here's Obama, July 7th.

OBAMA: If Senator McCain wants a debate about taxes in this campaign, then it is a debate I'm happy to have, because if you're a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your tax.

RUSH: That's July 7th; it was 250. Richardson just today on KOA Denver, 120. Later in the campaign, just recently, very slyly, Obama reduced the number to 200.

OBAMA: If you have a job, pay taxes, and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut.

RUSH: And then the Chia Pet, Joe Biden, TV interview, October 27th, this week lowered it again.

BIDEN: It should go like it used to, it should go to middle-class people, people making under $150,000 a year.

OBAMA: As president here's what I'll do: Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year.

RUSH: So, as president, he'll cut taxes for every working family making less than 200. So we've gone from 120, to 250, to 200, to 150, now we're back to 200, here's Obama yesterday.

OBAMA: How many people make less than a quarter million dollars a year? Raise your hands. All right, that would appear to be the majority of you. Now, no matter what Senator McCain may claim, here are the facts. If you make under $250,000, you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, no tax. The last thing we should do is -- in this economy is raise taxes on the middle class.

RUSH: Well, you're going to do it. You're going to raise taxes on everybody, doofus, when the Bush tax cuts expire. Let's go back to Bill Richardson. This campaign cannot get this straight. This morning in Denver, via phone on KOA.

RICHARDSON: What Obama wants to do is -- is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those.

RUSH: So you can't keep a lie straight. This is the problem. The fact is everybody's going to get a tax increase. None of these numbers are right. I got an e-mail. This was fascinating. Very seldom people ask me how we do what we do here, they just accept it, this is broadcast excellence, and they just think this happens, which it does, I mean it's taken a lot of years to set up the system. "Rush, how are you so able to go back and get sound bites that you played years ago?" We have an excellent filing system, it's a great archive. Cookie Prayias does this, and it's magic.

RUSH: Sarah Palin was on WMAL today, our affiliate in the nation's capital. She was on with Chris Plante this morning, and he said to her, "Is the news media doing their job? Are you getting a fair shake?"

PALIN: If they convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.

RUSH: Right on the money. Right on the money. What she's basically saying here, you know, she went after Obama and his association with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, the media descends on her, "That's a distraction, that's racism, how dare you bring that up." If the media is going to intimidate people from asking honest, open questions about people, then I don't know what the future of the First Amendment's going to be. She's dead right. The New York Times, wishful thinking Drive-Byers, you think that she's a drag on the McCain ticket. Ha. If there's a drag on the McCain -- well, never mind.

"The world faces a growing risk of conflict over the next 20 to 30 years amid an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from West to East, the US intelligence chief has said. Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence, predicted rising demand for scarce supplies of food and fuel, strategic competition over new technologies, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction." How can this be? We are four days away from electing The Messiah! Wait, I forgot, Biden told us all this was going to happen. Biden told us that the little squirrel was going to get tested and make the wrong move and then beg for loyal support. Growing risk of conflict over the next 20 to 30 years, unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from West to East? We're the West! We are the West. Who are we transferring our power to? Transfer of wealth and power from West to East? Anyway, it's going to be bad out there, folks. So all you Obama supporters expecting utopia -- he-he-he-he -- get ready for the draft. Wouldn't that be ironic? Obama and Ayers and his anti-Vietnam buddies reinstituting the draft. It would be delicious, it would be ironic and delicious as it can be and they're probably going to have to because who's going to want to volunteer and serve this guy in the military?

RUSH: Yesterday on NPR, Lawrence Eagleburger -- a supporter of McCain, a former secretary of state -- was asked about Sarah Palin.

EAGLEBURGER: I don't think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency. Give her some time in the office and I think the answer would be she will be adequate.

RUSH: I do not understand these people on (supposedly on) our side. The answer about Sarah Palin is... Secretary Eagleburger, you're trying to get your friend John McCain elected. The answer is, "She's more qualified than Obama!" But, of course, he might suffer cocktail party invitation declines.

PALIN: You shouldn't be working for government. Your government should be working for you (cheers) and if you share that commitment and if you want to work hard -- if you know what hard work feels like and if you want to get ahead, and if you believe that America is the land of possibilities, and you don't want your dreams dashed by the Obama tax plan increases -- then, Pennsylvania, we're asking for your vote. (cheers and applause)

PALIN: Pennsylvania, the far-left wing of the Democrat Party is preparing to take over the entire federal government. Now, with Democrats in control of the House and the Senate, heaven forbid the White House -- and this isn't a mainstream policy, mainstream thinking in the Democrat Party. It is far left. Let's not entrust all the powers of the federal government to the one-party rule of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. (boos)

RUSH: There have been stories how she's "going rogue." (laughs) I believe 'em. None of this stuff is stuff McCain would say. She's on fire. Joe the Plumber in Elyria, Ohio, at a McCain Road to Victory Rally. This is the guy that the Democrats used Ohio computers to investigate Joe the Plumber addressed the crowd, said this.

WURZELBACHER: You know, get out there and vote. It's very important. You get out here. Get the American people back in charge of our government. Hold the politicians' feet to the fire when they mess up. That's what we're out here to do, all right? Smaller governments. You know, as far as everyone else here, you know, lots of questions have been asked. I'm going to vote for a real American, John McCain.

RUSH: Here is Barack Obama at the University of Missouri-Columbia last night with 30,000 mesmerized, mind-numbed robots in the audience.

OBAMA: ExxonMobil announced that it had made the greatest profits of any corporation in the history of the world: $14 billion in one quarter. That's all your money! You were, uhhh, paying it at the gas station.

RUSH: This is demagoguery, charismatic demagoguery. They didn't steal anybody's money, Obama, like you may have done or participated in with Tony Rezko! People purchased a product that ExxonMobil provided. They paid more taxes than any corporation in American or world history, Obama -- and without their taxes, you wouldn't even been able to dream about your redistributionist scheme. They paid a record amount of taxes. They didn't steal anybody's money. Again, the Democrat Party and their enemies list is America's leading corporations. America's leading corporations for advancement, improvement in quality of life, and for hiring people.

RUSH: NBC Nightly News last night, Brian Williams asked Obama, "It's said on both sides of the issue, if it's true, you're not going to call a future justice into the Oval Office, bring up the subject of abortion. How do you also avoid surprises? How are you going to determine who to put on the court?"

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that you -- what you can ask a judge is about their judicial philosophy. And so my criteria, for example, would be, uh, if a justice tells me that they only believe in the strict letter of the Constitution, uh, that means that they probably don't believe in, uh, a right to privacy that may not be perfectly enumerated in the Constitution but, you know, that I think is there.

RUSH: Okay, so basically he said that his favorite justices are Souter and Breyer. Those are the people he wants. Look, this guy wants to overthrow the Constitution. This guy wants the courts to redistribute wealth. He wants to do everything he can to break down the capitalist system. He's just said, (paraphrasing) "If they believe in the strict letter of the Constitution, they're not my guys." He's just admitted it, folks. The Constitution is not for Barack Obama. He's gotta throw it out, gotta find somebody to put on the court that will also throw out the Constitution, can't look at the original intent.

RUSH: "A Boston Housing Authority director says Barack Obama's aunt [Aunt Zeituni], a Kenyan woman who has lived in public housing for five years, is an 'exemplary resident' and only recently did anyone know of her connection to" Obama. Folks, this sickens me! This poor old woman who is living in her "Slum, Sweet Slum" is called an "exemplary resident," and nobody knew until yesterday when the UK papers got on it that she was related to Obama. God Almighty, help me! I am so deeply sickened by this statement. This woman lives in squalor! She lives in a place no human being should be, not in this country. She doesn't even have a decent cane to help her limp around her slum. Her slum was created by liberal policies and politicians, her slum in Boston... I mean, she's Barney Frank's close neighbor. Barney Frank, the subprime mortgage molester, the champion of all things liberal. This twisted bureaucrat in Boston calls her an "exemplary resident"?

RUSH: "A Boston housing authority director," that means the slumlord, says that Obama's aunt, Aunt Zeituni, has lived in her "Slum, Sweet Slum" for five years! He says she is an "'exemplary resident' and only recently did anybody know of her connection to the presidential contender." This housing authority guy, this slumlord, is not flabbergasted about her living conditions; he's flabbergasted that she's lived there for five years and he didn't know who her relative was: Barack Hussein Obama. This is how they look at everybody. And, by the way, let's go back to Obama's book, shall we, ladies and gentlemen? A portion of his own book, reading from his own book: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Listen, my friends.

OBAMA: If Jane or Zeituni ever felt ill, if their companies ever closed or laid them off, there was no government safety net. There was only family, next of kin, people burdened by similar hardship. Now I was family, I reminded myself. Now I had responsibilities.

RUSH: Well, you haven't met 'em, old buddy, old pal. There's no safety net for Aunt Zeituni? I think there is a safety net. It's called a Boston slum! "Slum, Sweet Slum." She's lived here for a whole bumbling of years; she's lived here for five years. Your aunt, Obama, has been living in a slum for five years. Your brother is living in a hut in Kenya, and he says, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper." This kind of stuff matters to me because there's so many people in this country who think Obama is going to take care of them. I don't have... Well, I don't think I've got the audio. Once again, I have this humongous audio sound bite roster. It is great, and I want to try to get to it, but there are people who have been interviewed on the street who are saying, "Obama is going to pay for my gas! Obama is going to keep me in my house!"

There are people who believe this, that's Obama trying to dial back the expectations now. (interruption) No of course it's not true, Snerdley. What, you think he's going to keep you in your house and fill your gas tank? There are people who actually think this. You can find them out on the street if you walk out there with a microphone and ask them. Well, that's exactly right. Snerdley has a rare but brilliant point. "Why wouldn't they think that based on Obama's campaign?" Why wouldn't they think that? That's exactly right. They're not thinking it, but they're feeling it. If they were thinking about it, they'd know it's not possible. But here's the point, and I know -- I know -- that many of you, many of you in this audience are Obama voters and I know that many of you are -- probably, not all of you, Democrats and liberals but some of you are -- that are going to vote for Obama. Don't I think that it's meaningful? Do you think it's relevant here? Play sound bite number one again. Here is Barack Obama reading his own book.

RUSH: Well, you're not meeting them. His Aunt Zeituni is living in a slum! Folks, Obama has lots of money. Barack Obama has. Ask yourself: If you had lots of money would you have a brother living in a tenement someplace, in a one-room hut that you would not help? Unless, of course, you'd already given the brother countless dollars and made every effort to help the guy help himself and after that he didn't help himself. "Okay, pal. You want to live in squalor? It's up to you." But you have a real-world experience, you have a real-life experience with Barack Obama and two relatives (that we know of) living in absolute squalor, and he is the man of great compassion, the man of great caring and concern. He's going to unify everybody and he's going to eliminate poverty -- except in his own family!

RUSH: The New York Times: "Mortgage Plan May Aid Many and Irk Others." Get this. This bailout, what a joke. You know what I'm enjoying? I don't like we got the bailout. So many people, including some on our side were so insistent we needed the bailout, we had to do it, we had to do it, we had to do it, and now that we see what it's being used for, which we warned them, now they're acting shocked, conservatives acting shocked that government would lie about what they're going to do with money that they appropriate or print. I'll tell you, I don't know when it started but this intellectual movement on the conservative side to believe in a big, interactive, compassionate government, somebody's gotta get these people heads together and knock sense into them. I don't know when this happened; I don't know how it happened; it's not good. So many conservatives thinking this is as an executive with Big Government, that we're in charge of, that reaches out to certain people that we need to help, show that we have compassion. Then when we do that and the government starts making all these stupid moves and the banks don't lend the money and they start rewarding the shareholders themselves, "Oh, this is not what we --" what did you think was going to happen?

So here we go: "As the Treasury Department prepares a $40 billion program to help delinquent homeowners avoid foreclosure, it confronts a difficult challenge: not making the plan too tempting to people like Todd Lawrence. An airline pilot who lives outside Norwich, Conn., Mr. Lawrence has a traditional 30-year mortgage that he has no trouble paying every month. But, thanks to the plunging real estate market, he owes more on his house than it is worth, like millions of other people. If the banks, which frequently lent irresponsibly, and many homeowners, who often borrowed irresponsibly, are getting government assistance, Mr. Lawrence says he believes sober souls like himself are also due a break. 'Why am I being punished for having bought a house I could afford?' he asked. 'I am beginning to think I would have rocks in my head if I keep paying my mortgage.'"

This is a guy whose legal, legit, got a mortgage he could afford, he sees everybody else being bailed out, said, "Why the hell should I not get bailed out?" We could have all seen this coming. "Washington and Wall Street are frantically seeking to stabilize markets by curtailing the onslaught of foreclosures. There are now at least four major plans to aid homeowners. But experts say it is difficult to design these programs in ways that reduce the indebtedness of the distressed without giving everyone else a reason to mail the keys back to their lenders." You know, I want to use the "n-s-s" phrase. No kidding, Sherlock, no kidding. Ask a beat cop, when you start giving things away, all of a sudden people who don't even live where you're giving it away hear about it and show up. I'll tell you what I'm going to do, I'm going to go out and I'm going to buy another mansion on the ocean, there's one for sale, I'm going to get a mortgage and not pay it. What's to stop people doing this? Well, not that, but I mean this guy's got a point.

"Michael H. Krimminger, special adviser for policy at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is working with Treasury on the latest plan, 'This is not about trying to create fairness. The goal is to keep people in their houses.'" That will surprise a lot of even our conservative intellectuals who think this is all about fairness. "Still, he acknowledged, 'a lot of people are angry because they feel some people are getting something they don't deserve.'"

They are! And a whole hell of a lot more are going to start getting a lot they don't deserve. But on the other end of the scale, if Obama is elected, we're all going to get the hose. We're going to get a lot of stuff we don't deserve, like tax increases. This just infuriates me. Everybody with a brain on our side used to know that this is exactly what's going to happen when you start bailing people out.

WRIGHT (screaming): Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! [snip] Hillary ain't never been called a nigger! [snip] Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky!

WRIGHT: He was riding dirty. [snip] In white America, US of KKKA: black men turning on black men. [snip] I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. [snip] Not God bless America, God (bleep) America! It's in the Bible. For killing innocent people, God (bleep) America! [snip] (screaming) And now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards!

RUSH: That is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Obama's pastor, the pastor Obama chose. Now, Jeremiah Wright has been Obama's pastor for 20 years. Why is 20 years in Wright's church important? Well, let's look at me and you. I have been syndicated for 20 years, nationally syndicated, available to every home in America for 20 years. Think about that. Every one of you in this audience who have been loyal, devoted listeners for 20 years, you've done so for a reason: You liked what you heard. You liked what I said. You liked the way I said it. You liked it so much you kept coming back for more. All you had to do was turn on the radio. Okay, Barack Obama and his family attended Jeremiah Wright's church of black liberation theology, which is Afrocentric Marxism, for 20 years.

Now, think back 20 years. All you had to do was turn on a radio. Obama had a little bit more effort than that. He had to get out of bed, do the hygiene thing, get the kids ready when they came along, and head off down the street to the church. They had to get up, get dressed, they had to drive to church, pick up the church newsletter to read later. Twenty years. Much like some of you have behaved over the years. I've had the Rush to Excellence Tours out there where you had to do more than turn on the radio. You had to get in your car, get dressed, pay a smidgen for a ticket -- the profits go to charity -- you go out there and you listen to the Rush to Excellence Tour, or public golf tournaments or whatever, Dan's Bake Sale, you made an effort to see, you made an effort to hear, and you made an effort, at least places where I was, to meet me.

Twenty years is a long time. Twenty years is a commitment. It says a lot about the person whom you made an effort to see and hear. A lot is learned in 20 years. Much is said. You who listen to me -- the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned El Rushbo Maha Rushie -- you understand this; you can relate. But Barack Obama, who made an effort, who chose Reverend Wright, who made an effort to go to his church every Sunday for 20 years, "I never heard him say all that stuff." Once again, folks, common sense and reality somehow escape Obama, and he gets away with creating an illusion that people somehow swallow.

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who watched Obama's little commercial last night, and you really think the times are tough in America, this economy is really just horrible, it's inhuman what people have to put up in this country. Can you believe having to cut back on the purchase of snacks for the kids and make half of what you used to buy last a whole week. I mean, that's a hardship, Obama told us this last night. And of course Ms. Sanchez having trouble with the milk and so forth. Last night on Your World with Neil Cavuto, he interviewed the founder of Jeno's Frozen Foods, Jeno Paulucci, who was alive during the Depression 79 years ago, and Cavuto said, "What do we risk doing when we keep comparing things to the Depression, do you think?"

PAULUCCI: I feel very sorry for the people today whose 401(k)s have gone down maybe 30, 38%; the housing, people with foreclosures and so forth, but we also gotta remember that we're living pretty high on the hog. Every child or person has got a computer, got a car. The World Series, 50% of the tickets were $1,500 or $2,500 the last two games.

PAULUCCI: Let's take a look at that Depression, because I was there. We had people jumping out of buildings. We had bread lines for a slice of bread and a scoop of water. We had cardboard jungles where people's families would live together. We had shantytowns that were called Hoovervilles. We had hobo jungles! My father used to make 25.20 a week; $4.20 a day, six days a week. He was put on one week every six. That meant $4.20 a week, and we had to pay a dollar and a quarter for rent, 'cause we lived in a flat that was about three rooms and a half. And so we survived. But, by gosh, we didn't have computers coming out of our ears.

RUSH: (laughing) "BlackBerry, strawberry..." That's Jeno Paulucci, the founder of Jeno's Frozen Foods, describing what it was like for the Great Depression. I know, look, my parents did the same thing. "When I was young..." This is a tough sell to people alive today who have never known anything like that. I can remember my mother and father, grandparents. That Depression was the most formative thing in their lives, and they insisted on my brother and I doing certain things: saving everything we could, going to college. They constantly told us how bad things were because they were afraid it could happen again. You know, I was a smart aleck little kid. I said, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, Dad. I understand it was pretty bad, but I look at you now, you came out of it okay, and, besides, I can just try to learn about it. I can't relate to it. I didn't live through it."

"You smart aleck! I don't want you to live through it again, don't you understand? That's why I'm trying to raise you to understand various things and so forth." So, this guy goes on Cavuto. I guarantee you if Ms. Sanchez or the babe that is having to cut back by half on the snacks for the kids because of the hard economic times, if they had to watch, this, they'd say, "Oh, he doesn't understand our lives! He just doesn't understand how hard it is, because..." Look, the point is: Look at the expectations we have. This is what I was talking about and have been talking about for months: the expectations we have precisely because we are Americans. There's one country in the world in the history of humanity that has produced those expectations, and it's us -- and that's why the election is so crucial.

That is why it is important that people understand the alternatives in this election. We've got the guy running in the Democrat Party who does not believe in our exceptionalism. He thinks it's over. He wants you to see this country the way those four families were portrayed last night. He wants that to be this country: in a constant state of need, with him as the great redeemer who is going to solve all this. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, gave his best shot on the economy and our way of life last night. He was with Larry Kudlow on CNBC. First question: "How worried are you about this tax and redistribution story, should Obama win?"

WELCH: Sunday's New York Times had a front page right-hand column talking about the looming unemployment. When you went to the jump page inside, you came to a two-page story on Rhode Island which for some reason the McCain camp has not jumped on. Rhode Island's unemployment is at 8.8%. There was story after story, very sad stories of two-income families being out of work, a hairdresser out of work, a restaurant closing. The New York Times, naturally, did not make the connection between taxes in Rhode Island and unemployment. 8.8% is 40% higher than the national average of 6.1.

WELCH: And Rhode Island's taxes, it's the 48th most unacceptable state for business.

RUSH: So the next question from Kudlow: "Well, let's just focus on, just for folks who may not be familiar, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. That's the one that would do away with the secret ballot in union organizing attempts. You ran a huge corporation, GE. What's your view on that impact on workers, the economy, or the unions?"

WELCH: But you don't have that today. You generally don't end up with that. You end up with... In 1973, 54% of the elections went to the unions. Last year, 54% of the elections went to the unions. But you had a secret ballot. You didn't have a bunch of goons going out and having people check off and coming and showing up at your front door with, "Here. Now, you have a union." Think what it will do to small business, Larry. Think what it will do, if we unionize it. We have three industries in America: airlines, autos, and teachers. Three of the most troubled industries we have.

RUSH: "All driven by unions," Jack Welch. I thought we had three, but that's it, just two, but he was on fire last night. Oh, we...? Yeah, see, I'm out of order here. Go ahead and play it. Let me find it, because I'll give people the question. We had 47 sound bites, and they never come in in the order I use them, so everything gets out of order, but... Well, I can't find number 17. Everything I'm looking for, I can never find. Just play the Welch sound bite. It will self-explain itself.

WELCH: Without question, Larry. I support a lower capital gains tax. I support lower taxes on capital. Capital is what drives productivity. Productivity is what drives competitiveness. Competitiveness is what drives jobs. I'm a jobs voter. That's why I don't want a Free Choice Act. I want people to vote for a union if they want one. If we get a jerk for a manager, let 'em have a union but I don't want them sneaking around in the night doing it. I can't imagine how a businessman can come out for Barack Obama with his policies.

RUSH: That's exactly Fouad Ajami's point in his Wall Street Journal piece. They're not thinking that he's going to be harmful to them, Jack! They think everything's going to be just as it is now except with a new guy that the world loves and so forth. Really, it's politics of emotion and so forth. Psychologically it's just the politics of vapidity. People taking leave of their senses for a moment or two, getting all caught up in a dream and devoid, absent reality.

RUSH: Karl Rove today in the Wall Street Journal. Now, listen to this. This goes along here with why I do not yet have a gut feel for what's going to happen here. "There has been an explosion of polls this presidential election. Through yesterday, there have been 728 national polls with head-to-head matchups of the candidates, 215 in October alone." Now, 728 national polls in this election, 215 in October alone. "In 2004, there were just 239 matchup polls, with 67 of those in October. At this rate, there may be almost as many national polls in October of 2008 as there were during the entire year in 2004," and there's so much disinformation in them. They are so conflicted. They are so confused. They are so all over the place. They are so tainted. So we've got over three-and-a-half times the polls in October this year as October of 2004! It's called information overload! We're being swamped with this stuff and it's tainted to begin with.

Now, another thing, the last caller is a fed-up old Democrat, wants to go with McCain. McCain's worked with Democrats, doesn't like Obama, thinks Obama is a socialist, thinks Obama is an extremist. Talking about the gut here. Talk about information overload. You don't know what to believe anymore. One of the websites that I track is called HillBuzz. Well, it's HillBuzz.wordpress.com. Now, this is a website ostensibly run by a bunch of women who want Obama to lose so that Hillary will have a chance in 2012. You ought to see this site. I mean, they've got McCain winning Iowa, they've got McCain winning Maine, they've got McCain winning New Hampshire, they've got him winning Ohio, they've got him winning Florida, on the basis that the media is not uncovering the depth of anger in the Democrat Party at Obama. And one of the reasons that these babes at Hill Buzz -- this is what they say. Now, I'm your host. I gotta digest all this, and it's a website, I don't know who these people are, and I don't know if what they're saying is true. It's anecdotal information on a website.

Now, people will look at it and they'll print it out, it has automatic credibility. Well, you can print it out, put it on a piece of paper, why, it has credibility. I can't look at it that way. But it's just overload. They say the big reason that there's so much anger out there, particularly among Hillary woman, so much anger is how Obama cheated in the Hawkeye Cauci. If you remember the polls in the Hawkeye Cauci, Hillary was supposed to do pretty well, but it was a caucus. She didn't work it that hard because she didn't think that it was going to be that important. Obama was -- this is what these people say. We know, by the way, this is true -- Obama was busing in all kinds of people from out of state, and in a caucus situation you vote in public, not in private. So you can be lobbied, you can be pressured, you can be stigmatized as a racist if you, you know, don't hold your hand up for Obama or write his name down on a piece of paper everybody is going to see you do, and they claim that they are livid. Well, I was looking at their latest post last night about how nobody in the media is picking up on how well McCain is doing in some of these battleground states, and I scrolled down, I don't know, because normally, you know, I value my sanity.

I do not read comments on blog posts on websites, because when you do that, you find out how dangerously insane a whole lot of people in this country are. It can destroy your faith in America faster than anything unless you have a great resolve to be able to read this stuff and understand you're reading posts by a minority of people, but it really tests your mettle, folks. I never read these comments because they're just lunatics. But for some reason, this little piece last night intrigued me so I started reading the comments, and I got down to this one. Comment 25: Sarah P. writing to the Hill Buzz website responding to their story of how really well McCain is doing with angry Democrats, and the media is not covering. "Okay, I want to clear my conscience a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow Clinton supporters out. I worked for the campaign--" Obama, "--and I can't wait for this week to be over. I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate, but over time I grew to love Hillary. The internal campaign idea, Obama campaign, is to twist, distort, humiliate, and finally dispirit you. We pay people and organize people to go on all the online sites and play the part of a Clinton or McCain supporter who just switched our support for Obama. We do this to stifle your motivation, to destroy your confidence. We did this the whole primary, and it worked. Sprinkle in mass vote confusion becomes bewildering, most people lose patience, they just give up on their support of a candidate and decide just to block out TV, news, websites, et cetera.

"This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement in vote turnout issues. Next, we infiltrate all the blogs, and all the YouTube videos, and we overwhelm the voting, the comments, all to continue the appearance of overwhelming world support for Obama. People make posts to the effect that the world has gone mad. That's the intention, to make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending. We have also had quite a hand in skewing many, many polls." I don't know how they've done that. She doesn't describe how they've skewed the polls. "Some we couldn't control as much as we would have liked, but many we have spoiled, just enough to make Real Clear Politics look scary to a McCain supporter. It's worked, although the goal was to appear 13 to 15 points ahead. You see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner. Go with the flow, become sheeple. The polls are roughly three to five points in favor of Barack. That's due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple. Our donors are the same people who finance the mainstream media. Their interests are tied. Barack then tends to come across as Teflon, nothing sticks, and trust me, there were meetings with Fox News, the goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch O'Reilly, he's become much more diplomatic and fair and balanced and soft towards Obama. It's because he wants to retain the number one spot on cable news and have access to the Obama campaign.

"Now all the media want access, and they're expecting more, and that's why nothing sticks to Obama. The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless the results. There is no true inauguration draft or true Grant Park construction going on. There will be a party, but we're boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up. Our goal is to continue to make you lose your morale. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key Republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all. There's a huge staff of people working around the clock watching every site, every blog, we flood these sites, we have had a goal to overwhelm. The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you got the picture. I'm saying this because I know Hillary was better for the country, and I now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her.

"To me, Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn't know him or his policies but now I understand more than I care to, and I realize his interests are more for him and the DNC and all working like puppets with Dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everybody dependent on the government. This means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don't see this as America. So I'm now supporting McCain. Sarah Palin's a huge threat. Our campaign has feared her like you cannot imagine. If it seems unfair how she's been treated, well, it's because she has had a team working around the clock to make her look like a fool," meaning the Obama camp has had a team. "This is a big conspiracy. I'm so shocked. We released a little blurb the other day that Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts toward 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, it's alive. David Axelrod, Plouffe, very smart, but it's a sticky, ugly, not very truthful kind of intelligence. It's not over yet but I think the machine is working. It's a hill to climb. I'll be quitting my post on November 5th. My vote will be for John McCain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position. I don't feel I had any part of anything I'd feel guilty for, but I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upset me. PS, my name is not really Sarah but I am a female and I understand your plight."

This is a post to a website that's run by Hillary supporters that are desperately trying to get people to believe that Democrats in droves are abandoning Obama like this woman here from the Obama staff. You read this and you don't know what to make of it. You read something like this, you want to believe it. There is a back up post, by the way, post 133. I kept going to see what people would say to this poster. The next poster says: "Regarding what Sarah P wrote, of course this is true. It's interesting this is supposedly written by an ex-campaigner but it was obviously already, that's what they do. A couple of times I went on to YouTube it's plain as day that professional commentators are at work. For example, you write something about Ayers, within three minutes there will be ten to 15 comments about how he was just a young confused guy or he's a respected educator now or he has no connection to Obama. They'll just repeat the same thing for the next five minutes and then you see the very same messages on other videos over and over. They rotate the points around or have one or two different words, I think YouTube blocks verbatim comments as spam so they have to change them up a little bit. A lot of this is blatant and undeniable, some of it's just a feeling or a hunch based on the decades of watching election campaigns and paying attention to how propaganda works and how people normally speak."

So there's two posts -- by the way, a lot of others agreed with this that were just putting in their two cents, not from actual hands on experience. You read these things and you don't quite know what to make of them. This is an example of the information overload. I don't know who the Hill Buzz babes are and I don't know if they can prove any of their claims but if their claims are true, then Obama is in huge, big trouble and nobody knows it, and you will acknowledge that that possibility exists because the media is not interested in any weakness Obama has. They're into covering it up. They are pushing his agenda of socialism. They are cheerleaders. So we don't know who to believe, and that's why there's no gut feeling here. That is why the best thing we can do is stay focused on the things we can prove and the things we can do, and one of those things is vote.

RUSH: Now, I want to ask, do the liberals sound confident to you, ladies and gentlemen? Erica Jong, Fear of Flying, told an Italian newspaper the following: "The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged. My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can't cure her ailing back for all the stress that has reduces her to a bundle of nerves." Jane, stay off your back. It might help. "My back is also suffering from spasms, so much so that I had to see an acupuncturist and get prescriptions for Valium." And then she said this, Erica Jong, to the Italian newspaper, "If Obama loses it will spark the second American Civil War. Blood will run in the streets, believe me. And it's not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets. Bush has transformed America into a police state, from torture to the imprisonment of reporters, to the Patriot Act."

They are deranged and delusional and they think they're going to lose, they think they're going to lose, the voting machines are rigged, it's over, these are the stalwarts of the American left, Erica Jong, Jane Fonda, both with tired and sore backs, worn-out backs. Let's see, who else in there. Well, Naomi Wolf, she lost her mind a long time ago, regardless the state her back is in. They really do. They think this is over and we're going to have blood in the streets, soldiers at Cheney's command putting down the next American civil war. Does this sound like a bunch of people who are confident to you?

RUSH: Here's Marcy Kaptur yesterday in Toledo, and a portion of her remarks where she is advocating a Second Bill of Rights.

KAPTUR: The Toledo Blade had it right. The other day they printed what they call the Second Bill of Rights. [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt talked about the right to a useful, remunerative job, to provide a decent living. He talked about the right of every business owner to trade with freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. Sound familiar? That's really why we're here. We're here in that legacy. We're here to say, "We are all together in wanting an America that is job rich with health and retirement benefits that are earned and belong to all and are secure!"

RUSH: All right, that's Marcy Kaptur, calling for the Second Bill of Rights. FDR called for this in 1944. The resemblance to Obama is striking.

ROOSEVELT: We have come to a clearer realization of the fact, however, that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry, people who are out of a job, are the stuff of which dictatorships are made. In our day these economic proofs have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a Second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all, regardless of station or race or creed.

RUSH: This is how long they've been fighting for this. They never go away. They never stop. "Necessitous men are not free men." For those of you in Rio Linda, "necessitous men" are people that are in of need things. "People that are in need are not free." Yes, they are! This is setting the stage. The government can eliminate your needs. The government can free you from worry; the government can solve all your problems. This is why I always said FDR -- the New Deal, Social Security -- was set up precisely to establish the Democrat Party as a majority party for the so-called downtrodden forever, by them wards of the state and then securing their votes because the Democrats are their sole means of support! Here's another bite from FDR. This is January 11th, 1944.

ROOSEVELT: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industry -- our shops, our farms, our mines of the nation. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation. The right of every family to a decent home. The right to adequate medical care. The opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. The right to adequate protection from economic fear, from old age and sickness and accident and unemployment. Finally, the right to a good education.

RUSH: This is just an incredible thing, ladies and gentlemen, as you hear FDR basically spell out what the Obama agenda is today: Second Bill of Rights: the right to earn of enough, the right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care, opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

RUSH: January 11th, 1944, Franklin Roosevelt. This is a fireside chat, a radio fireside chat, by the way.

ROOSEVELT: America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world. If history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called "normalcy" of the 1920's -- then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of fascism here at home.

RUSH: Folks, are you hearing this? This is just fascinating, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the icon to the left -- and by the way, they never say the era of FDR is over, do they? No, we only have numskulls on our side saying the era of Reagan is over. But we never hear FDR is over, and here's why. They emulate FDR is the guiding light here for Obama. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens? Well, once again, the world views America, we have to comport ourselves and structure ourselves in such a way that the world views us in a favorable light? For unless there is security here at home, there can't be lasting peace in the world. If history were to repeat itself, we were to return to the so-called normalcy of the twenties, which he called fascism, the Second Bill of Rights. And, by the way, this concept of the right to earn enough, the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, what is the right to earn enough? Who's going to sit there and determine that? It cannot be determined by anyplace other than the market.

Folks, do you understand what the money you earn is? It's not a welfare payment. It's not a business owner or manager or corporation deciding to provide you enough income to provide this or that. What we all earn is nothing more than our value. What we earn represents the value of what we have done for somebody else, or for ourselves. You don't have a right to what that someone else thinks your work is good for, meaning a third party. So here we have Second Bill of Rights, Marcy Kaptur yesterday openly advocating it. We go back and we find FDR from 1944 at a fireside chat, January 11th, basically spelling out the Obama campaign today, and I listen to this, and I realize how consistent these people are. They never stop. They just keep plugging away, and what they're plugging away for is the single largest oppressive government they can build. When FDR talks about individual liberty, he, like Obama, is simply lying through his teeth. "Necessitous men are not free men. Individual freedom cannot not exist without economic security and independence," and what he means by that is, of course, if the government doesn't provide economic security and independence, then there is no individual freedom. That is the biggest crock I have ever heard.

If there is no individual freedom, even for poor people in this country, then how in hell's name do people escape poverty and make something of themselves and it happens every day in this country, people from all walks of life. There are far more middle class and far more poor people than there are rich people, and most of the wealthy people and most of the highly achieved people -- I'm not talking about billionaires, I'm talking about most of the people, the millionaires in your neighborhood, they didn't start out that way. They came from somewhere, and they did it in the country with the single greatest amount of freedom the individual has ever had in the history of human civilization, the United States of America. Even back in 1944, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was doing his best to water down the basics of the founding of this country. It's just striking stuff. The battle's never going to be over, the war is never going to be over because battles are going to be fought continually over and over again, because this is who these people are. You might say, "Rush, they're saying such wonderful things for people. They want economic security, and they want freedom, and they want independence, and they want people to not be hungry and so forth." We all want that. We all want the same things. It's just this is not the way to provide it.

Folks, let me ask you again, we've been doing FDR's method here since FDR. FDR gave us Social Security. FDR set the stage for national health care. History has credited FDR for bringing us out of the Great Depression with these programs. These programs of his prolonged it. What got us out of the Great Depression was World War II and ratcheting up an economy to manufacture the armaments and materiel necessary to fight World War II. Everybody in the country was working around the clock, Rosie the Riveter, as an example. Even women went into factories, which was unheard of, en masse, back then. And since then what have we done? We've compounded it. We've had the Great Society. We've had the War on Poverty. We have had numerous social programs built upon social programs. We've had Head Start, we've had WIC, we've had AFDC. All the money, all the transfers of wealth from the producers to nonproducers should have cured all of these ills, should it not? And yet on a percentage basis we still have the same percentage of people in poverty, the same percentage of people in the lower classes, the middle class, the five quintiles. The percentages are pretty much the same.

None of this stuff has been wiped out, despite all these efforts by the government. The people who have escaped the lower socioeconomic realms in our society are those who did not rely on government to do it! This is the key, this is the important thing. They did not rely on an FDR; they didn't rely on a Barack Obama; they didn't rely on an LBJ; they didn't rely on affirmative action; they didn't rely on all these redundant programs built atop one another in order to escape whatever it was about their lives they didn't like. They used themselves. They ended up being their best resource, and I say to you again as I said yesterday, you are your best resource for fulfilling whatever need or desire or ambition you have. Your best resource is not somebody else. I don't care if it's your parents, I don't care if it's your family, I don't care if it's your president. You end up having to do it. If you don't do it for yourself, nobody else is going to do it for you. Nobody is going to come along and decide that a fair wage for you is $150,000 a year, and that's what you are automatically going to get paid. That will never, ever happen. I don't care if Obama gets dictatorial control of this country, that is not going to happen, it cannot happen. That's not what he wants anyway. He wants all of us in as much need and dependence as he can get us. He doesn't want prosperity for people. He doesn't want wealth for people. If he did, there would be no limit on who gets a tax cut.

Your American dream ends at whatever the figure is today, it's waffling now between $250,000 down to $150,000 in terms of annual income over which you get a tax increase and under which you get a tax cut. The evidence, ladies and gentlemen, is scattered across the world, but it is focused right here in the United States of America. Every effort to provide salvation for economically aggrieved, socially aggrieved groups by the Democrats has been applied. We have spent trillions, we have cared, we have used our compassion, and yet they still exist and they're still angry, and they're still hopeless, and they're still enraged. And guess what? They're still waiting. They're still waiting for a magic man to come along and finally do it right. There is no right way to do what FDR tried, what the Democrats are trying now, what Obama wants to try. There's no right way to do it. The evidence is worldwide that it fails. All around us we see people who have exceeded their own expectations. We see people who have exceeded the expectations of their families. We see people constantly who surprise everybody with their ambition, their work ethic, and their success. Those are the people, by the way, under an Obama presidency who will become the target. They become the object of punishment.

Those who do not go the proscriptions of a government assistance program of any kind get out of whatever circumstance they're in that they don't like, they use themselves as a resource, they become successful and prosperous, they open businesses, they hire other people, they try to grow, they do everything they can, they play by the rules as best they can. They, the ones who actually use the individual freedom this country provides that FDR and Obama are lying about, they who actually use the freedom are those who prosper. They are the ones who overcome. Those who sit around and wait for a resource other than themselves to lift them up are forever going to be waiting. If there's a recession, you don't necessarily have to participate. If there is high unemployment, you don't necessarily have to participate. The United States of America is one country where you can create your own job, if you choose. You don't have to. You can stay on unemployment or whatever and wait for something to come along that you like. Or you may say, "I don't want to leave town, I don't want to leave where I am," fine and dandy. Just understand the limits that all of us place on ourselves are self-imposed, folks.

We've all got shackles around us some way or another, we all have government regulations in front of us, or we all have other things we have to overcome. It's not a free ride and it's not an easy road but the simple fact of the matter is that there are people who escape their circumstances each and every day, and it's happened throughout the history of this country, and it's interesting, those are the people that the Democrat Party wants to target for your hatred. They want you to envy them; they want you to distrust them; they want you to resent them, and they want you to think they need to be punished, while everybody else that gets praised, everybody but the Democrats and the liberals and Obama sit down and say, "These are the people that make the country work," they're the ones that are waiting around for Obama to create magic, to wave a magic wand, to help them out of whatever mire they consider themselves to be in. Yet all around them they see people escaping, and they do resent it.

You remain the single best resource you have, and you full well know, after listening to Obama, that the more you succeed, the greater target you will become. Now, is this the kind of country we want? Is this the kind of president we want to have? Is this the kind of party we want dominating one-party rule, that targets successful people and seeks to punish them? I don't think so.

RUSH: Flint, Michigan. This is Don. Great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: My real concern about FDR's remarks are the same as Barack Obama's, that FDR made those remarks while men were dying in Europe defending that very same constitution. So I guess the Democrats, like you said before, have just remained ever so consistent on their theories. I cannot believe that the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces in 1944 had the nerve to have a fireside chat and say that while men were dying in Europe.

RUSH: Well, it's a great point, but you don't want to say that FDR sought defeat of his own country. Obama did. You know, that is a fundamental difference between the two. Obama and the Democrat Party of 2007-2008 actively sought defeat of the United States. FDR did not. FDR, with these fireside chats, he knew we were going to win World War II. He was pretty confident. He's setting the stage for an expanded, bigger government. This is the guy that packed the Supreme Court, or tried to. This is the guy who was doing all of this. All of this was done for the express purpose of establishing the Democrat Party as a monolith that would never, ever, be defeated. He wanted it. Here's a guy in 1944 looking at the American people and see, "They can't do things on their own. They're incompetent. They can't overcome the obstacles out there unless we, the government, are helping them," and, of course, nobody overcomes obstacles when the government's helping you because the government ends up being your largest obstacle.

RUSH: Some e-mails in the break say, "Well, what's the big deal about the FDR stuff?" Come on, folks! What's the big deal about the FDR stuff? We keep hearing about change and hope and a future? There's nothing new about liberalism. If you, as a voter, have rejected liberalism once in your life, you have a duty to reject it at every opportunity you have. It is a demonstrable failure. It is an attack on individual liberty. It is a system that creates as much misery as possible under the guise of creating compassion and hope. Now, if you found it within yourself to vote against liberalism in 1980 and 1984, I don't know how you can vote against liberalism and ever go back to it. You don't have to be an ideologue about all this like I am. All you have to do is be informed.

All you have to do is have to have a memory. Why would you want to repeat what happened with the Jimmy Carter years? "Rush, some of us old people would like to recreate the FDR years." Hey, you're living in them! You're living in them. How many are happy with your Social Security? How many of you think it's what you thought it was going to be? Where is that second home down in the Bahamas that Social Security and FDR was going to get for you? Where is all this plentiful retirement and security? Where is all this freedom from economic insecurity that FDR promised you with Social Security? Every time I talk to a Social Security recipient and that's all they've got, they don't have any security about anything. They're worried to hell it's going to be cut.

It's not going to be enough next year, what have you. There's no security with liberalism. There's no security to anything they offer. There's no security in their foreign policy, national security, there's nothing but chaos! There's nothing but crisis. There's nothing but tumult with liberalism. How anybody can vote against it once and keep voting for it after that mystifies me. There's no change. There's nothing new here with Barack Obama. It's rehash. It's just couched in rhetoric that is somewhat hypnotic. It makes you think that somebody's new, that we've never had a figure trod the ground, the political ground that has this messianic-type aura. It's a crock. All of this is a crock.

You know, you are either for the concept of individual liberty, prosperity, security, and freedom; or you're not! And if you don't want individual liberty, if you don't want the opportunities that this country provides for yourself and your family economically and socially -- if you don't want your country to be as safe and protected as it could be -- then by all means vote Obama, by all means vote for every Democrat you can find. If you really think that economic security is some politician who's going to make things right, is going to get even with these people who have more than they should, you go ahead and vote liberalism -- and you're going to stay exactly where you are economically, may even get worse, you're going to be miserable.

Unless of course you're some Hollywood leftist liberal in a high-earning business where you can afford to stupidly vote to keep other people who are not nearly as fortunate as you are imprisoned in the shackles of mediocrity and misery, because that's what liberalism produces. I guess this gets to the nub of it for me. You know, I get frustrated sometimes and laugh and am amazed at all this hullabaloo, this rigmarole that's all around us: "Change! Hope!" as though this country is finished. This country has become a joke; this country has betrayed its people. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the one country that does not betray its people, unless the liberals get unchecked, unfettered control of it. If you want to see what liberals do to populations, go to wherever they have run states or cities, unchecked for years.

I love Detroit, but, folks, you wouldn't want to move there. You wouldn't want to move to New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina, certainly not afterwards. Some people are, but... The governor of New York is now saying he needs a federal bailout because the drops on Wall Street have affected the salaries of the rich, the salaries of the rich. A lot of people are not doing as well. Bonuses aren't there. The New York state tax base, the New York City tax base is plummeting. They are going to have a huge budget shortfall and deficit simply because Wall Street -- the home of evil, by the way, the home of evil, greedy Wall Street guys -- because they're having a down year, it's bad news for New York state and New York City.

So while we're in the midst of a campaign with the very people who have sustained via their taxes the state and city of New York are being demonized and raked over the coals, we now have the governor of that state saying, "Hey, I need my hand in that $700 billion bailout stash! New York State, we need to be bailed out here. We're in serious trouble." Well, what the hell you expect, Governor Paterson, when you spend a career and life running around ripping the very people who provide you the money necessary to run that welfare state you call New York? See, folks, this is the irony. The very people that Democrats run against and try to get you as angry at as possible, are the ones supporting all of this; and when they're unable to for whatever reason, then all of a sudden the federal government's gotta bail out New York now. The federal government has gotta bail out that bank. The federal government has gotta bail out this business. The federal government has gotta give money to airlines so they can merge, what have you -- all the while demonizing the John Galts of the world. Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand.

So I don't understand intellectually and emotionally. I don't understand how you can vote against liberalism once and not keep voting against it forever. Because once you've voted against it, if you're voting against liberalism, you understand it. "But, Rush! Rush, Obama doesn't sound like a liberal." He doesn't? "No, Rush, he's talking about tax cuts." Oh. Good point. Obama, in order to win this thing, has to tack to the right. He has to sound what? He has to make you think he's a centrist. He has to try to make you think he's conservative. So, ladies and gentlemen... (sigh) I don't understand how you can be fooled over and over and over. Not you all specifically.

RUSH: This hypnotic induction that the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons has put out, I've now double-checked this. The people most susceptible to neurolinguistic programming are young people and highly educated people. They're considered to be especially susceptible to hypnosis. Now, I find it interesting, too, that many Jewish voters are supporting Obama. He is a candidate who has been endorsed by Hamas, has been called The Messiah by Calypso Louie Farrakhan, has been endorsed by Rashid Khalidi -- and of course the chairman of the parliament of Iran. The parliament leader in Iran has also endorsed Obama, and so maybe it is hypnosis.

When you watch his thing tonight, I want you to watch it with a new perspective. I want you to watch it in a different context. I want you to watch it in the terms of understanding socialism as explained as a very benevolent thing and something that benefits everybody. I guarantee you, you will hear Obama in an entirely different light. Now, speaking of this guy Khalidi. The Los Angeles Times has video of Obama praising Rashid Khalidi, who is a professed supporter of Hamas and Palestinians. He hates Jews, and he hates Israelis, and he hates Israel. The LA Times did a story on this back in April. There was a dinner honoring this guy, and Obama toasted him, and they won't release the video!

Now, bloggers are offering laid-off LA Times workers money. The LA Times laid off 75 people yesterday. A bunch of people are offering a lot of

money to former LA Times workers to somehow release this tape. The mainstream media is not interested. This is huge! The media, in the tank for Obama, is suppressing it. The more it gets out that it's being suppressed and the more people desire to see this and hear about what it is, it's going to pose a big problem for Obama as we've now got, what, six days to go before the election. It's a serious thing who this guy is. They've been able to keep a lot of it under wraps. Here is, by the way, speaking of that, an Associated Press video report of a Palestinian, Ibrahim Abu Jayab, campaigning for Barack Obama.

REPORTER: Like many of Barack Obama's supporters, Ibrahim Abu Jayab is working the phones in the final days before the election in an effort to court undecided voters. (phone rings) But Abu Jayab himself won't be casting a vote for his candidate. He's making his calls from his home in the Gaza Strip.

REPORTER: He says he thinks Obama can bring peace to the Middle East. The 24-year-old college student learned a few words of English and cold-calls random Americans, leaving messages asking for their support.

REPORTER: He's hoping the effort shows the world that there are young people in Gaza who want peace and are doing everything they can to achieve it.

RUSH: So we've got a guy in Gaza, the Gaza Strip making cold calls for Obama! He doesn't know much English so he's obviously calling in his native tongue. I don't know what it is, but who the hell is he calling, to do cold calls for Obama? (impression) "Abu Jayab from Gaza Strip," and then after that what does he say? "Vote for Obama! Vote Obama! Votobama! Votobama!" Probably that. "Votobama! Votobama! Votobama!" Who's paying for this? Have you checked your credit card lately, folks? (laughs) Have you found, like one woman did, $174,000 charged to your credit card? Oh, yeah! Mark Steyn has the story. One woman, just one, had $174,000 charged to her credit card. People using not her name, but just her credit card number. She ended up not being charged for it, but the Obama people got the money, and nobody knows where it's coming from. This is just one example; this is just one person.

"John McCain's campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003. The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian," says Ben Smith of The Politico as I read from his account here.

"[T]he video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of 'terrorism' and warning of consequences for US support for Israel, which [McCain spokesman Michael] Goldfarb described as 'hate speech.' 'The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job...'" Now, there's also something interesting about this tape. This party in 2003 features testimonials, encomiums, by many of Khalidi's allies, friends, and buddies. Obama is there. He was an Illinois state senator. Bill Ayers was supposedly there in 2003. It was sponsored by the Arab-American Action Network, AAAN, which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat's press agency.

Now, the LA Times has the video, and they are sitting on it, and they will not release it. Now, who knows? We're left now to speculate why they won't release it, beyond media bias, beyond being in the tank. Maybe they don't want see it. Obama is crafted this whole thing, "Ayers is just a guy lives in my neighborhood. Oh, I thought he was rehabilitated." Well, here, if he's there and on video in 2003, just five years ago. That puts the lie to everything Obama said about the guy. Plus, you add to the content of what this dinner was about, celebrating a Jew hater! And if Bernardine Dohrn happened to be there? They all signed the guest book or something, maybe not a guest book. The signatures are said to be on some acknowledgement of greatness for this Khalidi guy, and he is a friend of Obama's. He's not some guy who just happens to live in the neighborhood. So the McCain campaign is now demanding that the LA Times release this.

One of the great rights which I have heard my brothers on the left talk about is the right to privacy, and this right, while not actually found in the constitution, is used to support all manner of abortion and also used in an attempt to block the FISA Act (which bill Obama first opposed and then voted for). What about the privacy rights of an ordinary citizen like Joe the Plumber? When he was just a nobody, who just happened to ask a question which Obama answer in such a way as to reveal his true economic policies, state officials began to probe into Joe’s background, using confidential data bases and then making that information available to the public. What kind of privacy is this?

RUSH: We've got snow in London. Record cold swept over Florida Tuesday night and Wednesday night. We haven't been this cold in Florida in 122 years in certain parts of the state, and that coincides with Algore coming down here to finish off and close the argument for Obama in Florida. Record for October 29, the low was 33, second lowest temple ever recorded in October since 1850. It did hit 32 degrees in October 1989 but it didn't last long. Snow in London this early hasn't happened in I don't know how long. They're already having snowstorms that close schools in parts of this country and yet they tell us that the world is ending because of global warming. We do not know what to believe. Nothing that we hear is anything we can believe from anyplace in the media. So we just don't have enough information to work off of.

Obama speaks about his own non-traditional faith, his church, Reverend Wright, and his economic philosophies (for instance, his pastor represents the best of what the Black church has to offer):

Chicago Public Radio interview Obama (Obama will compare the US to Nazi Germany):

OBAMA: Just to take a sort of a realist perspective is that there's a lot of change going on -- on outside of the court, um, that -- that, you know, the judges have to essentially take judicial notice of. I mean, you've got World War II, you've got, uh, uh, um, the doctrines of Nazism that -- that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on, uh, back here at home.

OBAMA: To avoid being mistaken for such a sellout I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets. When we ground out our cigarettes on the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure, we were alienated.

RUSH: He sought them out. He sought out his friends carefully, the Bill Ayers and the Bernardine Dohrns, the foreign students, the

Chicanos, the more active black students, and the Marxist professors, the structural feminists. I don't know, what is a structural feminist? One who needs an IED or IUD or whatever? What is a structural feminist? It is an ugly image, a structural feminist. Support stockings, I don't know. Well, now, wait a minute. I take it back. I don't want to be insulting here. A feminist would not need an IUD, by definition. But other than that, I don't know what a structural feminist is. One more clip. This is Obama. This is from a Chicago radio interview in 2001. WBEZ, the host Gretchen Helfrich. She's interviewing Obama, and Obama I think comes close here to comparing the United States to Nazi Germany.

Redistribution of wealth has been a part of Obama’s philosophy for a long time:

Conservative Review
Issue #47	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	November 2, 2008