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

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time. I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

Obama’s pick for a commerce secretary drops out citing political differences with the administration (this time, not for tax problems).

Obama and his cabinet have placed the upcoming 2010 census under the authority of Rahm Emanuel.

The [first] stimulus bill passes both houses of Congress. Usually, when a spending bill goes through both houses, the compromise is usually larger than the Senate and Congressional version; this one was slightly smaller. All but 7 Democrats vote for this bill in the House (no Republicans vote for it); all the Democrats and 3 Republicans vote for it in the Senate.

Rahm Emanuel, concerning the recession: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Nov. 2008.

This is an old saying: Republicans are worried that you might not understand what it is that they are doing; Democrats are more worried that you might understand what they are doing.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on the Stimulus package: "With all of this you have to see the language. You said this --- I said that --- I understood it to be this way --- you know, we wanted to see it in writing and when we did that then we were able to go forward...Around here language means a lot. Words weigh a ton and one person's understanding of a spoken description might vary from another's. We wanted to see it. And not only just I had to see it I had to show it to my colleagues and my caucus. We wanted to take all the time that was necessary to make sure it was right." Which is why the final version of the bill was posted Thursday midnight with final voting to begin 9 or 10 hours later.

Michelle Obama, last year, when on the campaign trail: "You're getting $600 - what can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything, but maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn't pay down every bill every month. The short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good, and it may even feel good that first month when you get that check, and then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings." This is approximately what a married couple will receive from the Obama middle class tax cuts per year.

First most unstable nation in the world: Pakistan; second most unstable nation in the world: Mexico.

(1) Broken campaign promises: candidate Obama promised a more open administration, where what government did would be able to be easily tracked online. Bills were to be posted for at least 48 hours before being voted on, so that the public could see what the government was doing. Now, I understand that a president cannot abide by each and every promise which he makes; however, this would have been an easy promise to keep, and what better bill to begin with that the so-called stimulus bill. However, Obama and the Congressional Democrats knew that, every single moment that their bill was out, the greater was the opposition to this bill. Therefore, they felt it best to post the bill only in a PDF format (so that it could not be searched) and the final version was posted midnight Thursday and final voting began 9 or 10 am the next morning in the Senate. This was a bill which was about 1000 pages long which nobody read in its entirety before voting for or against it.

(2) I mentioned the 5-pronged attack which Obama and his Democratic Congress is making against the Republican party; I left out one: the census, over-counting Blacks and Hispanics, which will become a part of the census, and redistricting to ensure Democratic victories.

(3) Former President Bill Clinton started talking about the Fairness Doctrine (which would essentially end up restricting free speech on AM radio). I have heard it suggested that the Fairness Doctrine is subterfuge, and that free speech on the radio will actually be enforced through something called localism, where it will be decided by some board or some government employee that there are not enough local issues being presented on the radio, and so radio stations will be required to carry more local information. Whatever the approach, the end game is to reduce conservative talk hosts on the radio.

Clinton’s phrase was forced media accountability; look to hear that phrase used by someone else in the very near future.

One comment on this story: For all the tirades about Bush as a "dictator," he never did anything do abridge free speech. Anyone who supports this type of legislation restricting speech is following the true path to tyranny.

A significant number of liberals do not want free discussion of what they are doing.

(4) In one of Obama’s “Let’s pass this stimulus bill” speeches, he talked about the lost decade in Japan when Japan was suffering serious economic woes. He did not mentioned that Japan passed 8 stimulus packages during this time period, none of which worked. Obama gave this as an example of not doing anything in the face of economic troubles. Either he just lied to us again, or he is ignorant—you choose.

(5) Greta van Susteren made the following suggestion, instead of the stimulus package: “Try giving a payroll tax cut...if it doesn’t work, then it is easy to undo. This huge tax bill is not something which can be easily undone.” And all this time I thought Greta was a liberal or a left-leaning moderate.

(6) Greta also pointed out that, if the government cannot figure out how to count votes in Florida or Minnesota, then how can we trust the government to go and spend and keep track of $800 million.

(7) The Obama press conference was not. If you paid close attention, even though some of the questions got better, Obama gave a 13 minute answer to the first question and about a very lengthy answer to the second question; but did not answer either question. He simply used the question as a point from which to continue his speech. Obama was the first president to bring a teleprompter to a press conference.

The idea is, he is speaking over the heads of the press directly to the people. The primary difference between his approach and Reagan’s approach (he did the same thing), is that Reagan actually answered the questions.

(8) Remember when Bush left the podium and tried to exit via a door which was locked? We saw this video over and over again, even on the conservative stations. Did you see Obama do the same thing with a White House door (which did not open)? Very similar situation, but, the approach of the press is, “Bush is so dumb, he cannot figure out how to open a door” and “Obama is brilliant.” So, the first video is run over and over again; the second video is not.

(9) We have had several stimulus bills in the past. None of them have ever worked; not here in the US and not in foreign countries. Yet, some people were convinced that the Obama (so-called) stimulus bill was important to pass.

(10) George Will pointed out that Afghanistan is approximately the size of Texas and that our military there is about the same size as the New York City politce force.

(11) I have heard at least 3 liberals complain to me about Bush’s deficit spending (and I was forced to agree with them, at least to some degree—although the actual percentage of the GDP (gross domestic production) was not out of line with any previous president). However, not one of these libs has bemoaned Obama’s spending proposals, which will set unprecedented highs for our deficit as a percentage of GDP. We will move from 3 or 4% of GDP to about 12% of GDP, a percentage which has never been done by any previous administration before.

(12) Mark Steyn and others have made this observation: if the tax code is too difficult for such great minds as Geithner and Daschel, then perhaps the tax code is far too complex? McCain offered up a plan to simplify the tax code; Obama has expressed no interest in doing this.

From several sources: calls made to Congressmen and Senators concerning the stimulus bill are running over 100 to 1 against; the amount of public interest is similar to that when immigration was the hot issue. The main difference: before, Congressmen listened to their constituents; this time, they did not.

I located those numbers I was unsure about last week. There were possibly 400,000 people who were facing foreclosure who could potentially be helped by a Democratic measure to provide billions of dollars to help them save their houses. Government paperwork being what it is, last count, a few over 250 filed all of the paperwork necessary to get a mortgage break; and 25 were accepted into this government program. Mortgage relief is a stupid idea, whether offered up by Democrats or by Republicans.

Planned Parenthood claims to offer all options to expectant mothers. In 2006, for every 180 abortions they performed, one woman gave a child up for adoption.

Planned Parenthood has an annual budget of over $1 billion. We taxpayers cover approximately a third of that cost.

For every child up for adoption or child in family services, there are 3 families desiring to adopt (also, bear in mind that many families who want to adopt, would like to adopt more than one child).

Each year, over 1.2 million babies/fetuses are aborted. Although African-Americans and Hispanics make up 28% of the population, 60% of abortions are performed on African-Americans or Hispanics.

Although one hears about rape and incest as reasons for abortion, these victims make up less than 1% of all abortions; furthermore, 70% of rape victims choose to have their baby.

Although the statistics available tell us the abortions are necessary to save the life of the mother 0.2% of the time, nearly 500 doctors signed a public declaration saying that they are aware of no case where an abortion was necessary to save the woman’s life. Altogether, less than 1% of abortions are performed for the reasons of incest, rape or for the life of the mother, even though we hear about those reasons over and over again. 32% of women desiring an abortion claim that they do not feel that they are emotionally up to raising a(nother) child.

If abortion is illegal, won’t we return to “back alley,” “coat hanger” abortions? 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by physicians; there has never been any evidence presented that any child was aborted using a coat hanger.

What Obama can do well is campaign; will Obama continue to campaign every time a high profile bill is presented? I guess he will do it as long as it seems to work, which should be at least a few more months.

This first stimulus bill was just the beginning. Democrats have found that they can label welfare payments as tax cuts and a spending bill as a stimulus bill, and the media just goes right along with it. Since this bill is not going to get us stimulated, that makes way for another stimulus bill.

Even though the banks are now lending, and more responsibly, more money is going to be given to financial institutions.

Even though consumer spending rose by a small amount last month, government is going to keep us in panic mode for awhile (my guess is, a few months).

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.

The other night, I spent about 20 minutes discussing the stimulus package with an Obama supporter of my acquaintance. She is a person who believes that she studied the issues and the two presidential candidates carefully. Although she had no idea what was in the stimulus package, she did tell me, “Just give him a chance.” (a phrase I have heard on several occasions).

Mentioned some portions of the bill, e.g. the huge allotment for birth control (I don’t know if it is still in the bill; I have heard both ways). Trying to personalize things, I said, “Why should I take the money I have earned by working 50–60 hours a week to pay for the birth control products of some girl I don’t know who is not working but 10 or 20 hours a week?”

What surprised me was, this college-educated woman did not understand the relationship between taxes and government spending. I was both surprised and confounded by this fundamental lack of understanding. I tried to explain that the government does not actually make any money; all they do is spend it. Government can print money (which causes inflation), take is from taxpayers or borrow it (which must be paid back by either printed and inflated dollars or by taxpayers).

In trying to explain these fundamental facts, I don’t know if I made any headway whatsoever. I was quite surprised that such fundamental concepts were foreign to this friend of mine and somewhat frustrated in trying to explain how the government is able to afford to pay for anything.

However, Obama has reached out and touched the souls of many people. Julio Osegueda had an obasm when called upon to pose a question to Obama. First, he said, “Oh, this is such a blessing to see you, Mr. President! Thank you for taking time outta your day! (gasping) Ohhhhhhh, gracious god! Thank you so much! Oh! (gasping for air).” When I first heard this, I thought certainly, this is tongue-in-cheek.

Obama prompts him to ask his question. Osegueda, a communication major at Edison State College, asked the following almost coherent question: “All right, Mr. President -- heh, heh, heh -- my name is Julio Osegueda. I'm currently a student at Edison State College in my second semester, and... Okay, I've been at the same job, which is McDonald's for four and a half years because of the fact that I can't find another job. Now, with the fact that I've been there as long as I've been there, do you have any plan or any idea of making one that has been there for a long time receive any better benefits than what they've already received?”

Julio lives in an economically repressed area and he is in college as a communication major. Two things amaze me here: that Julio has a job that he has held for 4 years (particularly in an economically depressed area) and that he is in college. After hearing his question and hearing a CNN interview with Julio elsewhere, I hope that my money is not going to educate this person. I don’t think that anything actually took.

Why do we persist in telling every kid that he needs to go to college? Certainly, I will allow that speaking while in the middle of an obasm is a difficult thing to do. However, when listening to CNN interview Julio for 4 minutes, there is no reason to think that Julio was at a real disadvantage due to his excitement.

Now, my guess, concerning Julio’s question, is, that, after working for 4 years working at the same place and not getting ahead or getting additional benefits, that government under Obama is going to somehow pass legislation which is going to change that.

To me, this is stupid. What exactly does anyone with half a brain expect the government to do to make things better for those who are at a job which they are bored with and where they don’t make as much money as they think they ought to make? Is government going to require McDonald’s to give a full health care package to those making $7/hour? If such a one is making around $1000/month (if he is working full time; half that if work part time), then what is going to happen? Will government suddenly tell McDonalds, “You need to provide this kid with health insurance ($250–500/month).” It just does not make any sense to me to ask a question like this.

The one thing that Julio said which made some sense to me was that, he has not felt this good since he got a PlayStation 3 for Christmas.

Another woman, at the same Fort Meyers, FL rally, Henrietta Hughes, seemed to think that she was on the Oprah show when she was allowed to ask a question. Her question was: “I have an urgent need, unemployment and homelessness, a very small vehicle for my family and place to live in, we it need urgent, and housing authority have two years waiting lists and we need something more than a vehicle and parks to go to. We need our own kitchen and our own bathroom. Please help.”

Who are these people? Why are they allowed to vote? They are asking questions of Obama that I cannot imagine asking of any politician. However, somehow, in some way, Henrietta was led to believe that this is the sort of question that you ask a president at a townhall meeting.

I watched a panel show the other day, and some liberal Democrats were pointing out that George Bush did more to move us toward socialism than any other president from our past.

Personally, I was opposed to the Bush-Pelosi Bailout bill, which both McCain and Obama supported. Furthermore, what sense does it make for Obama to talk down the economy which he is in charge of now, when he voted for every spending bill which Bush offered up. I don’t recall Obama ever saying, “You know, we are spending far too much money here; we need to back up and tighten our belts here.” McCain did speak about Washington spending less money and he pushed for that regularly. Obama never did.

My point is, it if hypocritical to support the Obama spending bill and than, out of the other side of your mouth, to bash Bush for spending too much money. If Bush was wrong; then Obama was wrong; if what Obama has pushed through Congress is a good thing, then what Bush did was a good thing. The only time I could see supporting one president but not the other is the fact that the Bush bill only spent half of what they could have spent, leaving the rest for Obama, and that it was targeted toward loosening up credit, which was a real economic problem.

Miss Garofalo answered the question What are three things you'd like to really see Obama change in this country? in this way:

JG: I'd like to see him be a proud liberal and say it. You know what I mean? There's no shame in being a liberal - it's something to be very proud of. He should say it - cause he is one - and he should be proud to be one. And since it is clear and has been clear since Reagan that the republicans, the "conservatives" will NEVER play ball. NEVER. fu%$ um.

Their policies have destroyed us and most of the world - that's a fact not an opinion. Their policies of deregulation, pre-emptive strikes, unmitigated support for Israel to the detriment of the Israelis, Palestinian's, Americans, the British. Every single policy that "conservative republicans" have put forth since Reagan has destroyed us. And we affect most of the world, so why do they still get a say? That's what blows my mind. It's almost like self-flagellation or masochism in some way. We keep going to that portion. They are NEVER going to compromise. The thing is that the more you give in to something like that, the more they take advantage.

The reason a person is a conservative republican is because something is wrong with them. Again, that's science - that's neuroscience. You cannot be well adjusted, open-minded, pluralistic, enlightened and be a republican. It's counter-intuitive. And they revel in their anti-intellectualism. They revel in their cruelty.

I don't know if you heard me talking to Jenny a while ago, but I was saying that first you have to be an asshole and then comes the conservatism. You gotta be a dick to cleave onto their ideology.

Interesting, well-thought out answer. Read the question again if you want to be entertained even more.

In 2008, Janeane described those at the Republican convention as a gathering of "small-minded, very petty (and) mean" delegates and speakers who simply grinded out "red meat" for the "dopes" in the red states.

After the first set of elections in Iraq, Janeane belittled those who voted and the Republicans who were in favor of the Iraq war and setting up a democracy in Iraq: "The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a 'Daily Show' photo already, of them signaling in this manner [does the Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that."

On the Bill Mahr show, Janeane said, “Bill O’Reilly can kiss my fat ass.” I am assuming that she is setting aside a large block of time for this.

Did y'all hear the out takes of Barry's rant to his Dumbo buddies at their opulent retreat? It would seem that the president's "bipartisan" policies have been short lived.

The overwhelming impression I got from his remarks was that he thought he was talking to so many total morons, and judging from their response, he was. He said;

"The Republicans criticize this as a spending bill, not a stimulus bill. (wry smile) Well what do they think "stimulus" is? (audience guffaw) I mean, that's the whole point!"

Uh...Barry....those of us with an I.Q. higher than a gerbel have a question. We KNOW stimulus=spending, but spending on WHAT???

I mean, I give my kid ten bucks to pay for school lunches, but if they spend it buy a grocery bag full of bubble gum I get pretty upset! So Mr. President, your disingenuous remark is a titanic insult to my intelligence, and PLEASE O Mighty One, don't take offense and sick Geitner's IRS storm troopers on me!

In the last issue, I gave a fair detailed report on what was in the bill; here is an overview provided by www.bloomberg.com

The stimulus plan would provide a half-trillion dollars for jobless benefits, renewable energy projects, highway construction, food stamps, broadband, Pell college tuition grants, high-speed rail projects and scores of other programs. It would raise the nation's debt limit to about $12 trillion.

The package would restrict executive compensation at all companies receiving assistance from the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program, not just those receiving "exceptional" aid as the Obama administration announced last week. The legislation limits bonuses and other incentive pay at those companies on a sliding scale according to how much federal aid they take.

Bonus restrictions would be imposed on senior executive officers and the next 20 highest paid employees at companies that receive more than $500 million from TARP. Companies receiving between $250 million and $500 million would face restrictions on bonuses to their senior executive officers and their next 10 highest-paid workers. The limits would apply to the top five employees at companies receiving between $25 million and $250 million.

Other details of what provisions survived negotiations between the House and Senate were still emerging even as the plan headed for congressional passage.

Lawmakers dropped provisions barring funds from going to museums, arts centers and theaters. A ban on money to casinos, golf courses, zoos and swimming pools was retained. Lawmakers deleted provisions requiring businesses receiving stimulus funding to use E-Verify, a government program used to ensure workers are in the country legally.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today the stimulus package would cost $787 billion, rather than $789 billion lawmakers estimated earlier this week. The plan would pump $185 billion into the economy this year and $399 billion next year, the agency said.

"This country faces the greatest crisis that we've seen in terms of the economy since the `30s," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, said as he urged passage of the bill. "The other tool normally available to us is monetary policy in the form of low interest rates through actions of the Federal Reserve. We've already fired that bullet - - the only bullet left is fiscal policy."

A blonde and her husband are lying in bed listening to the next door neighbor's dog.

The dog has been in the backyard barking for hours and hours. The blonde jumps up out of bed and says, 'I've had enough of this'

She goes downstairs. The blonde finally comes back up to bed and her husband says, 'The dog is still barking, so what exactly have you been doing?'

The blonde says, 'I've put the dog in our backyard, let's see how they like it.'

RUSH: We have a lot of e-mails today from people who are fed up watching these CEOs being grilled by the real culprits in this economic decline. And, folks, I feel compelled to tell you what's really going on here. I know the CEO stuff is a bunch of BS. There were no strings attached to the money they got. There were no strings attached. Go back to the original TARP legislation, and you will read, as I have shared with you countless times prior, the Treasury secretary at the time, Paulson, today Geithner, and what a disgrace, what an absolute disgraceful performance he made yesterday. The markets, everybody looking for specificity, to come out with a concept, not a plan, stock market down 400 points yesterday, the world markets are down, and I maintain all this is being done on purpose. But regardless, this guy Geithner did not look like the only guy capable of doing this job as they said that he was as a means of overlooking his tax-cheatedness during his run-up to the confirmation. There were no strings attached to the money.

I just watched something fascinating on one of the cable news networks. You had the Ken and Barbie cookie-cutter anchors sitting there grilling, amazingly now, a financial reporter, business reporter from the Washington Post, a guy named Pearlstein, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, and this guy from the Washington Post, which stunned me, was actually talking sense about Wall Street bonuses and so forth, and these two anchors are so caught up in the hatred of capitalism, so caught up in the hatred of Wall Street, so caught up in spreading the Obama agenda -- it was on MSNBC -- that it was comical to watch. These people on TV have been caught up just like many Americans have, they want these people strung up and quartered. They want these CEOs hanged. They want these CEOs literally put in jail and punished, and they haven't the slightest idea of why, other than it's class envy, the rich get rich, the poor, poorer. It's the stuff that Democrats have been promulgating for years. And the reporter from the Washington Post was trying to explain that it was not the CEOs who paid themselves bonuses. They paid bonuses to employees down the line, and he gave the following example. Take your average Wall Street firm, and overall, it may be losing money, but in one department, the currency trading department, the people running that department are showing huge gains. They're showing huge profits. Their annual salary may be 50 grand a year. They are incentivized with bonuses. So they did get bonuses because their divisions, their departments did great guns, even though the overall company was down.

And these two anchors are going on and on, "Well, the company wouldn't even be in existence if it weren't for taxpayer dollars, there shouldn't be any bonuses paid with taxpayer dollars," and this reporter, you could see how frustrated he was trying to explain basic common sense to these people, but they are such slavish devotees of Obama that the common sense of it was just impossible for them to grasp. You have to understand the CEO business, and it breaks my heart to see these guys up there groveling. These guys all voted for Obama. They all voted Democrat. Every damn one of these guys, practically. But now they're expendable. These CEOs are nothing more than the latest enemies that the left needs. The Democrats in Congress have more responsibility for this economic crisis that these clowns on Wall Street do. I have no brief for these clowns on Wall Street. Don't misunderstand here. You give me the private sector versus the government and I'm going to side with the private sector most of the time and I'll deal with the excesses, let the private sector handle its frauds and its cheats and its excesses with the court system, but when government gets involved in this stuff, it never works right, it gets bloated, and we're at a dangerous point here.

What we are facing is a full-scale assault on capitalism. This money was given away with no strings attached. It is not proper for members of Congress now to call these people up, "What the hell did you do with the money we gave you?" They're the ones that didn't have any oversight attached to it. They're the ones in crisis mode who doled out the $350 billion, said, "Here, save our economy." Now, with no strings attached, and they still have to come up there and grovel like every other CEO. The automobile guys had to go up there and grovel. It is painful to listen to the opening statements these Wall Street people are making. "Please forgive us. We have lost touch with the American people. We do know we have an image problem. We're going to be working really, really hard." It's like they're up there talking to a firing squad. And as far as they're concerned, they probably think they are, because now they're totally in the tank, you know, they put their hand out, they took this money, and so guys like Barney Frank and the rest of them get to tell 'em how to run their business and tell them what a bunch of low-rent slimeballs they are in the process, which is what's happening.

But this, ladies and gentlemen, is not about the destruction of the reputations of these CEOs. The CEOs are simple fodder. This is a full-scale assault on the capitalist system. You destroy the reputation not of the executives, but of the entire system. These CEOs are simply there as symbols of capitalism, and they have put themselves in this situation, talk about bending over forwards and grabbing the ankles, this is what they are doing today, it's what they've done, they represent, as far as the Democrats and the media are concerned, the failure, the excess, and the immorality of the entire US capitalist system. This show today is designed to convince as many Americans as possible that the capitalist system produces nothing but cheats and frauds, like these CEOs are being portrayed. The left is constantly in need of a demon. They need an enemy to go point out what it is they oppose. They never explain their own plans, Geithner didn't yesterday. Obama doesn't get specific.

They're trying to hide the specifics of the stimulus bill, the Porkulus bill. They never get specific in what they believe in 'cause they can't win that argument, so they have to demonize virtually everybody they find in opposition. They need enemies, and the Wall Street guys are enemies, and they all donated to the Democrat Party. They all voted, or the vast majority of them, voted for Obama, and look where it got 'em. They are now expendable, because it's not Obama conducting the hearings, he can talk to them and say, "Hey, I can't tell Barney Frank what to do, I can't tell Nancy Pelosi what to do." So now they're expendable.

RUSH: I just got another e-mail here. "Dear Rush: Do the Democrats...?" Now, this is a valid question. "Do the Democrats really understand that they are destroying the source of the wealth that they want to redistribute?" Yes! Yes! These people are not uneducated and stupid. They know full well what they are doing. They are destroying the engine that creates wealth, the private sector, and they are turning it to the government. And you say, "But, Rush! But, Rush! Where are they going to get the money that they want to redistribute if they destroy the...?" Where are they getting it now? You think our taxes are covering all of this? Where are they getting it now? By mortgaging our future in debt to China and other countries and by printing it!

Damn straight they know what they're doing. This is a full-fledged attack on capitalism, and the Democrats, the leftist Democrats have been seeking this for the longest time. That's why they can't stop themselves. This is Christmas morning every day for these people. There's nobody that can stop them. These are things... Imagine yourself, and you have had this passionate desire for whatever it is, for years, and finally you get it -- and it keeps giving to you every day. You are going to overdose on it, which is what they're doing. For example, let me illustrate. It's not okay to have a corporate jet if you took TARP funds. Yet jet purchases stimulate the economy, which is what President Obama and the Democrats claim this is all about: stimulating the economy and jobs.

Yet, it's not okay to decorate your office if you took TARP money, and in this case the office was decorated without TARP money. But hiring contractors and decorators and buying furniture stimulates the economy. But if you do that and you're a Wall Street titan, you're going to be slapped down. Terry Moran of Nightline actually asked Obama last night, "Why don't you just fire these CEOs at the banks?" Can you believe that? A member of the mainstream media -- I got the audio coming up. I'll let you hear it in mere moments. "Why don't you just fire the CEOs at the banks?" With a compliant, uninformed, illiterate media like that helping to advance the cause... They are totally about ideology now. They are activists. You know, you have AIDS activists and you have gay activists and you have union activists, you have environmental activists.

The media today is a bunch of activists. They're not reporters. They're actors. "Why don't you just fire the CEOs?" and then Chuck Todd of NBC stands up at the press conference, the one on Monday night. "Well, don't you think it would be better to tell the American people to spend their money here rather than spending it over there?" This is obscene what is happening here. It's not okay to give bonuses if you took TARP money. But of course bonuses lead to spending in New York City, which stimulates the economy. New York State rivals California in budget problems. The limitation on CEO salaries in New York City and throughout the state, is going to cause a drastic reduction in revenue to the state. The feds don't care. The states have more of a concern about their budgets than the feds do, 'cause states cannot print money, but the federal government can.

These clowns do not care. They claim they want to stimulate the economy, and yet every action they are taking is reaming private sector activity by design. We had the story yesterday, General Motors. They are forced to "restructure" and present a plan that Congress approves of by March, if they are to hold onto their bailout money. So what do they have to do? General Motors says, "Well, look, we're going to have to fire 10,000 people and slash the salaries of several others," all white-collar, all nonunion. I thought that what Obama and the Democrats were doing was about creating jobs. It seems to me that virtually everybody involved here is losing jobs, is losing money, and is having the federal government come in and control more and more of their operation.

Now, Obama, Obama is out there bragging today that the CEO of Caterpillar has promised -- and Obama's going to Peoria tomorrow for big dog and pony show here. That's where Caterpillar is. Obama says that the Caterpillar CEO said, if this stimulus passes, I'm rehiring some workers. Drudge has made it a siren headline on his page. Now, how stupid do they think we are? They laid off 22,000 people at Caterpillar. How many exactly will be rehired? This is an abject fear in corporate America of Washington, DC, and the federal government. The Caterpillar CEO, the Intel CEO, they all can see what's being done to the Wall Street bankers today. They don't want to be called up there. They don't want to have their industries targeted. This is fear; it is extortion.

Of course, Caterpillar, you see, a lot of people think, "Well, if the stimulus package happens, it's roads, it's bridges. Hey, you need heavy equipment to build that stuff. Why, that could result in sales for Caterpillar." Well, yeah, but how much of this stimulus actually goes to infrastructure and shovel-ready jobs? From what we've been able to learn, 4% in the next two years. You know why the money is not going to be spent for the next two years? It's going to start being spent in 2010, at the end of 2010. That happens to be an election year, ladies and gentlemen. This Porkulus bill is as much about patronage and putting Democrats in bureaucratic positions of power throughout the federal government, throughout the state governments as is possible.

Imagine if Washington were Chicago and Illinois politics. This is what the Democrats want to accomplish in San -- well, they've already done it in San Francisco. But they want to accomplish it in every major city in this country. Every city totally run and controlled by Democrats, as it is the case in Chicago. A lot of them already are and you can see the state and the status that they're in. Why this doesn't make an impression on people is beyond me, but at some point, it has to. So Obama says Caterpillar CEO has told them the company will rehire "some" laid off workers if the stimulus bill passes. Another thing this tells me is that Obama needs to go out and he needs the private sector to sell this stupid thing -- and with the assault on capitalism that's taking place, believe me, you run one of these major corporations, you do not want the government coming after you.

Your first responsibility is to keep your company going. It's not to fight ideological and political battles in Washington. And so the Caterpillar CEO, he can see what's happening. He promises to hire some workers back, gets a lot of great PR. He probably gets some stimulus money here for new equipment sales to do all this road building and bridge building and whatever other myths there are in this stimulus bill. So let's review, question being: "Don't the Democrats realize that they're destroying the chief means of production of revenue that they want to redistribute?" Yes, they know exactly what they're doing. They don't care if they print money and run huge deficits. Power! Power is what this is about, never-ending entrenched power. So it's not okay to have a corporate jet if you took TARP money, but buying jets stimulates the economy.

You can't have a jet. Too many people don't understand it. It's an excessive thing to do. People have no clue the support systems, businesses that are necessary to keep these damn things in the air. Talk about building them, you know how many people work at factories that build these guys? Their jobs just as decent as anything else. They may be producing a very expensive product, but they have jobs that are being paid, and they're union people. Okay, so the airplane is built. Then it has to be completed. You have to do the interior. That brings in design specialists. It's private sector stimulus. Then it's gotta be inspected all the time. The federal government comes in, and the FAA is going to inspect the airplane all the time to make sure it's air-worthy. But you don't just put fuel in these things and go. You have to have a place to put fuel.

They're called fixed-base operations. They're just gas stations for jets. That's where the corporate jets go, and they pay for jet fuel, and they buy jet fuel, and that helps the people selling it. And there are line personnel that have to empty the toilets and service it and tow it. The number of people it takes to put a jet in the air is an incredible number; then you've got the catering businesses that service these jets and this is all money that's being spent. It's all private sector money. But because it's a corporate jet somehow it's stigmatized and the contributions made to private sector stimulus in the process of buying, flying, and servicing one of these jets is totally missed by people. Just like these two idiot anchors on MSNBC today who could not be made to understand in plain logic how the bonus system works as an incentive to do well on Wall Street.

So, no jet. No redecorating your office. It's not okay to give bonuses. However, it is perfectly fine to give money to Congress if you took TARP money. In fact, it's probably required, under the table. If you've taken TARP money, you're probably required to give money to members of Congress! Every single company whose CEO is at this hearing has given campaign money to members of Congress, including the Senate. Is that stimulus? Well, you might say it is. These people have to buy posters and signs and hire people to run their reelection campaign, but look at what is not prohibited. Members of Congress don't say, "You cannot use TARP money to make contributions to us." That's perfectly fine! They give out the money and somebody gives back, it's perfectly fine.

And speaking of excess, how about all these junkets these people take on our money, places they could not afford to go on their salaries, hotels they could not afford to stay at on their salaries and we pay for it? Charlie Rangel to the Dominican Republic, all these other junkets these people take under the guise of official business, staying at five-star resorts, and nobody cares. Nobody seems to be upset about that at all, as though members of Congress and the Senate are our royalty. People that don't produce a damn thing. People that do zip, zero, nada work, that makes this economy go. All they do is get in the way of it. Do you realize theoretically -- we'll never have the chance to prove it -- an economy will never go into recession by itself.

The whole point of people engaging in commerce is growth. Everybody wants to sell their product for more. Everybody wants to earn more. Everybody wants a better life. If people are just left alone, a recession cannot happen, in and of itself. A recession is caused by something -- and in this case, these poor schlubs at the CEOs of banks did not cause it. Government spending, irresponsible orders from government to banks, telling them they had to lend to people who have no business borrowing money. The banks then, in order cover what was worthless paper, came up with new inventions to try to give the paper value, and that didn't work out. It became a self-repeating cycle. But if Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had never gotten involved in seeing to it that "affordable housing" meant that anybody who wants a house could have it whether they could pay for it or not, we wouldn't be where we are today! Recessions are caused by intervention, obstruction, you name it. If left alone, economies do not go into recession.

RUSH: Obama was also on Nightline last night. Three sound bites here. The last one is the piece de resistance, talking to Terry Moran, the host. Terry Moran says, "You've been sounding some very dire warnings about the economy in recent days. How close do you think the country is to the kind of economic catastrophe that you're warning about?"

OBAMA: I'm constantly trying to, uh, to thread the needle between sounding alarmist but also letting the American people know the circumstances that we're in. We are in a perfect storm of financial, uh, problems and so this is a big, difficult situation. Now, uh, I think we've gotta keep perspective. Uh, we're not going through the Great Depression.

RUSH: That's the first time he said that. Most of the time he says "the worst economic time since the Great Depression" and it's going to get worse. "If we don't do my plan, we may never recover." You ever wonder why when Obama goes back and talks about the great economic collapses in the past, yet never mentions the recession of '81 and '82? There's a reason why he doesn't mention the recession of '81 or '82. The way we got out of it was tax cuts, supply side. Ronaldus Magnus. He cites FDR, which did not pull us out of the Depression. Next question... Well, they had this exchange about Obama's honeymoon, which of course we here at the EIB Network hijacked.

MORAN: Not a single Republican vote in the House on your first major piece of legislation.

OBAMA: Well, I'm getting a -- I'm getting a big honeymoon from the American people.

MORAN: Maybe you were too nice. If I'm a Republican senator or Republican congressman, I think you're a very nice guy, but maybe I don't have enough reason to fear you.

OBAMA: Heh-heh-heh-heh. Well, I'll tell you what. That accusation's... I think if I'm not mistaken was leveled at me a couple years ago, ummmm, and, uh, I'm going to be flying out on Air Force One in a little bit. So people shouldn't underestimate, uhhh, the -- the value of civility and -- and trying to get people to work together.

RUSH: Whatever the hell that means. Then there's this. This is an exchange about the CEOs and the banks. Now, this is Terry Moran who ABC News has judged to be informed, educated, sufficiently so to host a network program at night with a great brand and great legacy, Nightline.

MORAN: Why shouldn't you just fire the executives who wrecked these banks in the first place --

OBAMA: (chuckles) Keep in mind, though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed. So what we want to do is to say, "If you're going to take money from the taxpayers, then you're going to be constrained in terms of how you give yourself compensation, and shareholders are going to be empowered." Uh, if you're not taking money then, you know, we'll let shareholders and boards of directors, uh, handle things as they, uh, generally have handled them.

RUSH: Exactly right, which is why these guys should not have taken the money in the first place. But it's the question. This is supposedly an informed and educated person who's capable of carrying the Ted Koppel legacy of Nightline: "Why don't you [the president] just fire these executives who wrecked these banks in the first place and tanked the world's financial system in the process?" Why don't...? The president fire CEOs? He wants the president to have that kind of power. Of course the premise of the question was all wrong. It was not the CEOs at Wall Street that tanked the banks, or the world economy. Again, it's Barney Frank, it's Bill Clinton, it's Chris Dodd, it's Fannie Mae, it's Freddie Mac, it's the Community Redevelopment Act! It's the new definition of "affordable housing": you give people who can't pay for them, houses. Folks, as I said, the media, they're not even curious anymore. There used to be at least curiosity. One of the reasons you went into journalism was because you were curious and you wanted to be the first to tell people the real truth. They're just activists now, and they're uninformed at the same time. Pure and simple.

RUSH: Two fascinating stories here that illustrate how the left, how liberals look at corporate America, as though we don't know, but these are both fascinating stories. First, from San Francisco, a column by Caille Millner. "It is too easy to make fun of the people who packed Room 400 in San Francisco's City Hall to stop American Apparel from opening a store on Valencia Street in the Mission District last week." What you have here, there's a company called American Apparel and they wanted to open a store in the Mission District, and a bunch of people that lived there showed up at City Hall to oppose it. Ms. Millner says, "They are not serious people. They live in a world where facts like 27 vacant storefronts on Valencia Street and 9.3 percent unemployment statewide and nearly 600,000 jobs lost nationally last month do not matter. The few who read books know no authors beyond Naomi Klein." I never heard of -- who's Naomi Klein? You ever heard of Naomi Klein? Who's Naomi Klein? You've heard of her? Well, who is she? No, that's Naomi Wolf. See, you've never heard of Naomi Klein, either.

"They do not believe that the world has changed since the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle. ... What they want is magic. The word 'magic' kept recurring during the hours of public comment at the Planning Commission meeting where the American Apparel store's permit was up for a vote. 'Valencia Street is a magical place,' one speaker said. Another claimed that 'Our neighborhood is a dream, a delicate flower.' Others spoke of American Apparel as a 'parasite' on their 'ecosystem.' Several local business owners testified that it was their 'dream' to operate in such a 'magical' place, and noted, with horror, that they might have to make alterations to their business plans if a new store opened in the area. As it happens, American Apparel is somewhat of a magical company. The company makes its clothing in downtown Los Angeles, employing mostly Latino and Asian immigrants. It offers its workers health care. It pays more than twice the federal minimum wage. These used to be called progressive values, and I noticed that some of the people who did not want American Apparel bringing these values to the Mission understood that they should make an attempt to hide this fact. 'This is not about American Apparel,' Stephen Elliott told me. Stephen Elliott is the founder of the 'Stop American Apparel' Web site and the starting point of this 'movement.' Yet he insisted to me that 'if you allow American Apparel to come in, you're going to have a much harder time saying no to the Gap.'"

The Mission District has 27 vacate storefronts. The people that live there do not want those storefronts filled other than by people who are going to fail, you know, cheap little arts-and-crafts businesses and this kind of thing. "Though some claim that this was always about "formula retail," as I sat watching the Planning Commission meeting I noticed something else. Most of these people were happy to sacrifice other people's lives, other people's dreams, for their idea of magic. When a young man stood before the board and said that he only had health care because of his job at American Apparel, a voice in the overflow room called, 'Get a job somewhere else!' Another employee told a story about a young Latino man who was able to send money to his family in Central America, and this news was met with sneers. An American Apparel representative told the board that he had gotten messages from people threatening to throw a brick through the store window, and the crowd laughed. The commission voted against issuing the permit, and American Apparel is lucky. What a burden it would be to have a store in a magical place with such nasty elves." Caille Millner is a Chronicle editorial writer ripping up her own population. This is the liberal view of corporate America. They want blight. There's magic in blight. Do you remember after Hurricane Katrina, the left saying, "We've gotta restore the Ninth Ward to what it was." It was decrepit poverty. They talked about the culture and the history there, and they wanted it rebuilt exactly as it was.

RUSH: Next story, Wal-Mart wants to once again try to open a store in Chicago proper. "Big news in bad times: A major retailer wants to bring thousands of jobs to Chicago. But Wal-Mart's offer is running into the same roadblocks it hit several years ago." CBS 2 Eyeball News in Chicago is pointing out that, "You'd think the city would be begging people like Wal-Mart to bring jobs to Chicago. Not putting up barriers. Well, think again. There's quite a crowd on a rainy night at Chicago's only Wal-Mart; it's on the west side, built in one of the areas known as food deserts, where there are few other options for people. 'Now that it's here in our own community, we're hoping to keep the money inside the community,' said Kendall Joseph. More than 400 people work at Chicago's Wal-Mart, and are paid an average of $11.25 an hour. Success on the west side prompted Wal-Mart to propose another store, on the south side, in Alderman Howard Brookins' ward. 'The attorneys wrote the letter saying we would like to go to 83rd and Stewart last year in 2008,' Ald. Brookins said. The city said no. The city's former Planning commissioner says Wal-Mart wasn't exactly turned down, just told to go back to City Council, where it lost a bruising battle years before. Wal-Mart went elsewhere. Now, it has sent feelers to the city about five new stores, which will cost $120 million to build, with union labor, and eventually creating 2,500 new retail jobs. City labor leaders still say, 'No, thanks.'"

We're in a recession. Barack Obama of Chicago says, erroneously, that it's the worst economic times since the Great Depression. Everywhere I turn in this country where there is genuine private sector stimulus or there is private sector stimulus proposed Democrats are standing in the way of it. Where there are new jobs to be created in the private sector, Democrats somewhere are standing in the way of it, all because of an irrational hatred of a retailer called Wal-Mart and all because Wal-Mart is not unionized. So just as in San Francisco, in the Mission District, where a bunch of Looney Toons will fight to keep a business out of their community because it's too big, it's too corporate, Chicago turns down $120 million, 2,500 union jobs to build the five stores, and all the employment that would result.

RUSH: It reminded me of a story that I saw not long ago as I was coming back from vacation, and it was posted at the New York Post on February 7th by a man named Charles Platt. Now, Charles Platt is a journalist. Let me get his actual slug: former senior writer for Wired magazine. Charles Platt went undercover. He went to a Wal-Mart to apply for a job. He wanted to find out just what goes on there. He had heard so much criticism of Wal-Mart. He had heard Wal-Mart was destroying mom and pops and destroying the greatness of America, some of the foundational building blocks of America. He didn't understand the irrational hatred of Wal-Mart, so he applied for an entry-level job to find out what it was all about, and he started at the bottom. He went to I think Phoenix, it's a long story. We will link to this at RushLimbaugh.com.

He writes, "Some people, usually community activists, loath Wal-Mart. Others, like the family of four struggling to make ends meet, are in love with the chain. I, meanwhile, am in awe of it. With more than 7,000 facilities worldwide, coordinating more than 2 million employees in its fanatical mission to maintain an inventory from more than 60,000 American suppliers, it has become a system containing more components than the Space Shuttle - yet it runs as reliably as a Timex watch. Sheltered by rabble rousers who forced Wal-Mart's CEO to admit it 'wasn't worth the effort' to try to open in Queens or anywhere else in the city, New Yorkers may not fully realize the unique, irreplaceable status of the World's Largest Retailer in rural and suburban America. Merchandise from Wal-Mart has become as ubiquitous as the water supply. Yet still the company is rebuked and reviled by anyone claiming a social conscience, and is lambasted by legislators as if its bad behavior places it somewhere between investment bankers and the Taliban. Considering this is a company that is helping families ride out the economic downturn, which is providing jobs and stimulus while Congress bickers, which had sales growth of 2% this last quarter while other companies struggled, you have to wonder why. At least, I wondered why. And in that spirit of curiosity, I applied for an entry-level position at my local Wal-Mart.

"Getting hired turned out to be a challenge. The personnel manager told me she had received more than 100 applications during that month alone, chasing just a handful of jobs. Thus the mystery deepened. If Wal-Mart was such an exploiter of the working poor, why were the working poor so eager to be exploited? And after they were hired, why did they seem so happy to be there? Anytime I shopped at the store, blue-clad Walmartians encouraged me to 'Have a nice day' with the sincerity of the pope issuing a benediction. I found my first clue in the application screening process. A diabolically ingenious quiz probed for my slightest hesitation or uncertainty regarding four big no-nos of retailing: theft, insubordination, poor timekeeping and substance abuse. (The quiz also tried to make sure that I wasn't accident-prone.) After I cleared that hurdle, I was called in for an interview. At the Flagstaff, Ariz., store where I applied, this took place in a vinyl-floored, gray-walled, windowless room, tucked away at the back of the store and crowded with people sitting on cheap folding chairs at cheap folding tables. Some of these people were talking on phones, some were doing job interviews, some were typing on computer terminals, and some seemed to be eating lunch. I sat at a table that was covered in untrimmed fabric under a protective layer of sticky transparent vinyl."

It goes on to describe this whole process of being interviewed and finally getting the job. "After two additional interviews, followed by a drug test, before I received formal approval. It may have been one of the most intense hiring processes I've been through; hardly the schedule of a company that didn't care who it hired, or employees who didn't care about getting a job." It goes on to describe how everything the customer sees at Wal-Mart is actually true, the people there are happy, and they are happy to see the customers, and they want the customers to walk out of there happy. "On average, anyone walking into Wal-Mart is likely to spend more than $200,000 at the store during the rest of his life." The employees are told this, and that is why so much attention is made and given to the customer.

"Therefore, any clueless employee who alienates that customer will cost the store around a quarter-million dollars. 'If we don't remember that our customers are in charge,' our trainer warned us, 'we turn into Kmart.' She made that sound like devolving into some lesser being - a toad, maybe, or an ameba. And so we came to the Wal-Mart Pledge. Solemnly, each of us raised one hand and intoned: 'If a customer comes within 10 feet of me, I'm going to look him in the eye, smile and greet him.' Having pledged ourselves, we encountered the aspect of Wal-Mart employment that impressed me most: The Telxon, pronounced 'Telzon,' a hand-held bar-code scanner with a wireless connection to the store's computer. When pointed at any product, the Telxon would reveal astonishing amounts of information: the quantity that should be on the shelf, the availability from the nearest warehouse, the retail price, and (most amazing of all) the markup." And what this guy found is that these people at Wal-Mart have the ability, they each have their own departments they run, and they are autonomous. They can run their departments as they wish, they can order restock, they can order any number of items on the shelves they want, based on demand, they don't have to go through layers of bureaucracy to have the shelves restocked. They can do it themselves. They're trained to do it. They are made to feel like they are part of the management of the company. They are associates. They are not schlubs.

"I found myself reaching an inescapable conclusion. Low wages are not a Wal-Mart problem. They are an industry-wide problem, afflicting all unskilled entry-level jobs, and the reason should be obvious. In our free-enterprise system, employees are valued largely in terms of what they can do. This is why teenagers fresh out of high school often go to vocational training institutes to become auto mechanics or electricians. They understand a basic principle that seems to elude social commentators, politicians and union organizers. If you want better pay, you need to learn skills that are in demand. The blunt tools of legislation or union power can force a corporation to pay higher wages, but if employees don't create an equal amount of additional value, there's no net gain. All other factors remaining equal, the store will have to charge higher prices for its merchandise, and its competitive position will suffer."

Wal-Mart hires the best people they can find and then turns them loose. "You have to wonder, then, why the store has such a terrible reputation, and I have to tell you that so far as I can determine, trade unions have done most of the mudslinging. . If more than one million Wal-Mart employees in the United States could be induced to join a union, by my calculation they'd be compelled to pay more than half-billion dollars each year in dues. As a customer, I don't see why I should protect a business from the harsh realities of commerce if it can't maintain a good -- " He's talking about the mom-and-pop stores here. I gotta take a break here, but this is an excellent point he makes, Mr. Platt writing about Wal-Mart, about this mom-and-pop business, that Wal-Mart's putting them out of business, is bogus.

So this guy went undercover applied for an entry-level job in Arizona because he just wanted to find out what the hell is with this company that public sentiment seems to despise... Well, political sentiment seems to despise. The public loves the outfit. One of the things that he concludes with in the piece here is mom-and-pop stores. One of the main ways that a Wal-Mart is opposed in any community is it will destroy "Main Street," the mom-and-pops. So let me ask you people a question. How many in your lifetimes you've gone into a mom-and-pop electronics store, a mom-and-pop anything store, and they've got items there, and you say, "I want that TV." "Okay, we'll have to order that for you. It'll be ten days or so. You'll have to come back. We'll give you a call when it comes in." You go to the Wal-Mart and say, "I want this item." "Okay, fine. We'll box it up and you can take it out today."

Mr. Platt says, basically, "Why should I bank roll, why should I go to a mom-and-pop business that's not even going to put enough of their financial backing into an inventory and is going to cause me to have to wait for ten years?" He writes it this way: "As a customer, I don't see why I should protect a business from the harsh realities of commerce if it can't maintain a good inventory at a competitive price. And as an employee, I see no advantage in working at a small place where I am subject to the quixotic moods of a sole proprietor, and can never appeal to his superior, because there isn't one." This is just efficiency in the marketplace. By the way, that story happened to me. I was in Pittsburgh, and a new Zenith TV came out. I wanted to get one. I went in there. "Uh, well, fine. We'll have to order that for you. It'll be..." I had to go to the warehouse and get it myself two weeks later. I cared more about getting it than they did selling it! Anyway, "...I reached a conclusion. I came to regard it as one of the all-time enlightened American employers, right up there with IBM in the 1960s. Wal-Mart is not the enemy. It's the best friend we could ask for."

RUSH: Yesterday on a progressive talk station in Los Angeles a Hispanic host, guy name Mario, is talking to Bill Clinton on the phone, and the host says, "Is it time for some type of enforced media accountability?"

CLINTON: We either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows, and let's face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining, even when he's saying things that I think are ridiculous. I never minded having somebody be heard who disagreed with me. But if you only have one side like this blatant drumbeat against the stimulus program, this doesn't reflect the economic reality we're facing.

RUSH: All right, now, this is not accidental. This appears to be coincidental. Go on a leftist host show and here comes the question do we need some type of enforced media accountability. Has this nerd never heard of the First Amendment? That's constitutionally not permitted! Enforced media accountability is not permitted by the US Constitution. But it's not just coincidental that Clinton shows up and has this question asked, and has this answer. Here's a former president now in favor of the Fairness Doctrine. We've had members of Congress, from Dick Durbin, to Tom Harkin, Maurice Hinchey, they're getting ready to do something. They won't call it Fairness Doctrine, they'll go at it in a much more stealth way, but they're only going to go after a certain element of media, and that's conservatives on talk radio. They will not go after any other media platform. They won't go after blogs -- well, they may, but that's going to be more problematic for them. But they're not going to go after television, they won't go after newspapers 'cause they are considered "the press," and "the press" is mentioned in the First Amendment. We of course are not considered to be part of media. But it's dead serious. They want to wipe out all dissent. They want to clear the playing field. They don't want any dissent on the stimulus. (doing Clinton impression) "We gotta get rid of this guy, Limbaugh, he's entertaining, yeah, but to line up against the stimulus package like this, I mean we can't have that." We can't have that, huh? Let's go back and listen to his wife April 28th, 2003.

HILLARY: I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, we are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!

RUSH: Okay, aside from the first and maybe second wife similarities there in speech pattern, here is Mrs. Clinton defining patriotism as dissent against a sitting administration, in this case the Bush administration. Now her husband and no doubt Mrs. Clinton want to silence all dissent. They want to shut everybody up and they're making it look like it's just some coincidence. (doing Clinton impression) "That's right, Limbaugh was asked that question, what am I gonna say, I gotta be honest about it, but you're sitting out there and thinking it's some sort of conspiracy. Well, I think you ought to have your head examined." Mr. President we know full well what's happened, you guys have telegraphed it, you've made it plain what your intentions are. I have a plan on this, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, but I, El Rushbo, am not prepared today to divulge the plan other than to say I'm going to confront President Obama directly on this and I'm going to ask him for an answer up or down on what his intentions are regarding enforced media accountability.

He's got every one of his big minion supporters out there advocating for it. He publicly has said during last year's campaign that he's not focused on it, doesn't really care about it, he's not that interested. But of course he provides the leadership here, and I'm not going to ask it on my behalf. I'm going to ask it on behalf of my industry. When I started my program in August of 1988, there were 125 radio stations doing talk radio. Today there are 2,010, 2,020 radio stations doing talk radio. It's not our fault we have succeeded. It's to our credit. We've done so in the free market. Clinton talks about the big money that accrues, and that's not fair. Big money accrues to the Super Bowl, Mr. President, big money accrues to American Idol, big money accrued to The West Wing, programs with large audiences that succeed are going to attract, quote, unquote, big money. It's called business. It's the whole point. This is a business. There are a lot of radio stations. There are a lot of employees at these radio stations. Radio is a business that is highly regulated by the federal government.

I think it's time for those of us in radio to be told flat-out what the intentions of this administration are. There are a lot of jobs that will hinge on this. There is a lot of revenue that will hinge on this. These radio stations are owned by people, they have employees, they have made investments in any number of things in order to have these radio stations on the air, and I don't think the radio business is going to sit back and let this happen. But there's a lot of fear out there. JP Morgan Chase and Citibank announced today they're going to suspend temporarily all home foreclosures until Obama and Geithner come up with their plan. Now, what that means is that they are scared to death, they are literally scared to death of this administration and what they might do and how much they need more federal money. So they go up and they get grilled on Capitol Hill about having to show more compassion to people, so they have suspended temporarily all home foreclosures in lieu of Obama coming up with a plan. I have to think this is what it was like living in the Soviet Union. Remember in the Soviet Union we heard stories of people in their homes that go to their bathrooms and whisper when they wanted to tell each other what they really thought and warn them of what was coming? They were afraid they would be bugged if they were in public rooms in their house?

Have you noticed as you travel around and congregate with people, have you noticed some people want to whisper more and more to you what they want you to know that they think? They're afraid of being overheard by somebody, and maybe not it's an authority that's going to overhear 'em, they just don't want maybe their average citizen to overhear them and start browbeating and berating them. I notice this wherever I go, more and more people are whispering or talking very quietly about what they want, and it's really tough for me because, you know, I have trouble hearing when people are speaking normally. But when they start whispering it just frustrates me because I can't hear what they're saying. But I've noticed it happening more and more, people are just more and more afraid to say what they really think in a number of places. So we've got the bank CEOs scared to death. We've got one CEO that's standing up, Jack Pelton at Cessna.

RUSH: Okay, Bill Clinton has said we gotta have enforced media accountability. "All the big money has gone to support right-wing talk shows." Mr. President, if I may, all the big money is not in talk radio. It's all your Library and Massage Parlor. What I wouldn't give for the amount of money that's been donated to Bill Clinton and his Library and Massage Parlor! That's where the big money is in this country. Now, how unhappy can these Democrats be? They've got 60 votes in the Senate. They own the House of Representatives. They occupy the White House. They control the media. Just what do they want? Karl Marx said it. You know what "peace" is in Karl Marx's definition? The absence of opposition to socialism. That is peace. The absence of opposition to a leftist, to a socialist, and that's what they're aiming for this is a major transformation of the United States, as Obama promised. Let's not forget Clinton in 1994, June. He was flying in to dedicate some train station in St. Louis, and he called the morning show in our blowtorch affiliate there, KMOX.

CLINTON: After I get off the radio today with you, Rush Limbaugh will have three hours to say whatever he wants --

CLINTON: -- and I won't have any opportunity to respond. And there's no truth detector. You won't get on afterwards and say what was true and what wasn't.

RUSH: Isn't this amazing? That sounds like exactly what I'm saying about the Drive-By Media today. And he had the Drive-By Media totally in his tank, too. That was 1994. They're writing stories about the power crackling in his tight-fitting jeans as he strolled Catalina Island. We had Nina Burleigh promising a "Lewinsky," promising a BJ just to thank Clinton for keeping abortion legal. I mean, the press was totally in the tank. It's not really a new concept for them with Obama. It's just total now. It's 100%. Gone is any curiosity. Gone is any attempt to keep people in power, honest. They have aligned themselves with the Democrat Party and the leftist machinery of Obama. Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals number 13: "Isolate the target, polarize it, paralyze it." Make sure you pick an individual, not a group or a company. It has to be an individual. That's exactly what they did to Bush. Bush didn't respond. I do. Nevertheless, this is their attempt going forward.

RUSH: One more thing. Bill Clinton knows this. "All the big money's in talk radio." What big money? Where does this money come from? All the money in talk radio comes... Do you know where the money in talk radio comes from, Snerdley? Where does...? (interruption) Well, wait a second, wait a second, wait a second. Well, you're getting closer as you keep taking these wild guesses. I asked Snerdley, "Where does all this big money in talk radio come from, in any radio?" He said, "From advertisers, from big business, from commerce." Yeah. Where does that come from? Where does that money come from? From the audience, exactly right, the people that buy.

Mr. President, the big money in radio or the big money in Super Bowl or the big money in American Idol or wherever you want to go that there's big money, in the private sector, the big money comes from our audiences. The big money comes from listeners. Without them there wouldn't be any money. We don't run around fundraising. We don't run around asking for donations. Listeners! Loyal, lovable, totally appreciated listeners who purchase products and services advertised on radio. There is no "big money." There's no George Soros here as there is in Air America. There's no party behind talk radio, as with Air America and the Democrat Party. There's no big money here at all. There's certainly not any big money like you got, Mr. President, from the ChiComs and your illegal campaign donations. We in talk radio don't engage in crooked real estate deals.

We didn't bring in people to our studios for coffee and shake 'em down, promising not to criticize them on the radio if they will just pay us off. We don't bring in interns here and start using cigars in nefarious ways. We don't have massage parties here in our broadcast studios. Well, I can't speak for some of the long-haired, maggot-infested FM types and what they're doing in their studios. (laughing) But I haven't had one visit from a ChiCom advertiser. I haven't had a guy that owns a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock walk in to some office with $200 million in unsigned money orders for me for big money. I haven't people from Dubai, from the United Arab Emirates, from Saudi Arabia pay me 150 to $400,000 for a speech ripping my own country while I'm in theirs! I don't do things like this, Mr. President. My money, our money comes (just as government's does) from the American people -- and our money is puny compared to yours. Clinton Global Initiative? We don't have anything like that. What big money, Mr. President?

RUSH: Let's go to the audio sound bites. This is, let's see, Brad Sherman (Democrat-California) interviewing -- or interrogating -- the bank CEOs yesterday as part of the House Financial Services Committee hearing.

SHERMAN: I'd like you to raise your hand if your company currently owns or leases a private plane. Let the record show all the hands, uh, went up except, uh, for the, uh, gentleman from, uh, Goldman Sachs. Gentlemen, we know that it is extremely expensive to operate these planes, that you could sell them and generate capital for your company and that capital could be used to repay taxpayers malady. The big show of not buying one particular new plane flies in the face of how you're really flying.

RUSH: Folks, I cannot tell you how this infuriates me. This Sherman guy obviously is a dunce. For a member of Congress to be telling CEOs of anything, they have to sell their jets? Does this guy not understand, for crying out loud, this Congress is supposed to be about creating jobs, we're told. They're out there trying to destroy the automobile business. Now they're trying to destroy private aviation. Do they have no idea who it is that flies these airplanes and why? Do they have no idea who it takes to build these airplanes? The company that owns Cessna is based in Providence, Rhode Island. They just laid off 4,600 people! They just laid off 4,600 workers at the company that makes Cessna jets. Now, Cessna has one of their assembly plants is in Wichita, Kansas, of course. But the outfit that owns them is a company called Textron. Let's see, Textron...

I think their headquarters is in Rhode Island or New Jersey somewhere, but they announced layoffs of 4,600 people simply on the basis of what is being said by members of Congress about private aviation. They are stigmatizing the purchase of a business tool! They have stigmatized these jets to the point that they're nothing but toys for people, and that's not the case. Now, I went through yesterday what all is involved with a private jet. It's like anything else in business. It's like any other product. Businesses use these things as tools to maximize the efficiency of executives' time. They have business interests all over the world, and you say, "Well, they could fly commercial! I have to fly commercial." If they can afford a private jet, and if it makes business sense, what business is it of anybody else's that they make the decision to do that?

And it's certainly not those clowns in Congress. Now, you might say, "Well, it is now, Rush, because these guys are taking federal bailout money." I know. I know. I know. That infuriates me even more. But even as such, for a dolt like this guy Sherman to be standing up and demanding these guys sell their private jets? Cessna aircraft has run a full-page ad. Cessna says it's okay to have a private jet. Their ad in big block letters says: "Timidity didn't get you this far. Why put it in your business plan now?" and it's directed at business owners, CEOs, boards of directors. Did you get where you are by being afraid? Did you get where you are by being timid? Why be timid now? "A few months after lawmakers bashed hat-in-hand Detroit automakers for traveling to Washington via private plane, Cessna is making a bold case for corporate America to get back onboard." Cessna makes sense.

Hawker is a great airplane, too. They make Beechcraft. They "are launching marketing campaigns to convince executives not to let their wings be clipped," so to speak. "Timidity didn't get you this far. True visionaries will continue to fly." In other words: Don't let these little imbeciles in Washington guilt you out of a time-saving decision. "Support needs to be given to businesses that have the 'good judgment and courage' to use corporate jets not only to survive the current economic downturn but to find ways to turn the economy around, Cessna Chief Executive Jack J. Pelton said." This guy gets every gold star I have to offer. Jack Pelton is putting his career on the line, standing up to these people in Congress. He said, "The reality of business aviation is a far cry from the misconception of CEOs flying in large luxurious airplanes. Most of these aircraft are fairly Spartan, designed for business, with a cabin about the size of a minivan or SUV interior."

He's talking about his Cessnas. Now, the biggest Cessna private jet is the Citation X. [Ten] It is the fastest jet in the sky. I happen to think it looks like a pregnant cat. But it is the fastest jet in the sky. Arnold Palmer flies one, and I don't hear anybody telling Arnold Palmer to get outta his. Now, I've been in one, and they're fine airplanes. One seat on each side of the aisle. The center aisle is lowered from the floor so that you can stand up in there, and even at that you barely can. But when he says "Spartan," I know what he means. They are not gadzooks full of all this state-of-the-art electronics and so forth. If there is, you have to pay for it. Let me give you an example. DirecTV. You can have DirecTV in a jet if you want to. Do you know what it costs?

Would you like to know what it costs? Would you really want to know what it costs? It costs $600,000, just to have it installed. That's for four receivers. The antenna -- I'll tell you why it costs this much and why it doesn't cost you $600,000 at home. The antenna for DirecTV in an airplane has to be tiny enough to fit in the tail, at the top of the tail. Do you realize when you're flying an airplane at 500 miles an hour, the challenge of keeping that antenna locked onto that satellite when you're banking, when you're turning, when you're taxiing on the ground? This was a tremendous technological feat to get this done. You can now get wireless Internet in jets -- and, by the way, it's not just corporate jets that have DirecTV. JetBlue has it and a number of other airlines are now starting to put wireless Internet up there.

That costs another $500,000, and that's tricky 'cause that's satellite. That's in-orbit satellite. It's amazing the feat. Look at the people that invented it. Look at the people that designed it. Look at the people that market it and sell it. All of this is private sector stimulus. All the people that work at the plants that manufacture all of this are probably largely Democrat voters. They are the, quote, unquote, "little guy." Now, a jet just doesn't get built. It's got people that have to make it, design it, build it, complete it, do the interior. Do you realize the hassle that you have to go through to get one of these things certified to fly after it's manufactured? It can take an additional six weeks just going through the FAA to get the damn thing certified. Do you know what that costs? Then after you take delivery, you have to put fuel in it, whatever that costs. Somebody benefits. There are things called fixed-base operators on airports. They are just jet gas stations.

That's what they do, and they provide facilities for pilots to do flight plans, plan the next leg of their trip or whatever. It's a little step up from a gas station but it's essentially what it is. They all have employees. They all have employees, and then what do you think services this plane? When the plane comes, it's gotta be cleaned up, and the lavatory has to be cleaned and sterilized, and then the line crew has to come out if you're standing overnight and tow it someplace. I mean the support staff for an airplane is made up of, quote, unquote, "little guys," quote, unquote, "little people." So as a member of Congress, you start threatening these guys, "Sell your plane!" you're stigmatizing the whole corporate jet industry, and you're going to make it tough for other people because they're going to be guilt-laden and they're not going to want to be conspicuous.

So park their jets or they'll not buy new ones, and so the very people that exist to support them and keep them in the sky probably going to be laid off, too, from manufacturing on down to completion, all the way down to the FBO level. All the way down. A lot of airports, their number one service, number one traffic generator is private airports. Here in Palm Beach, in West Palm Beach, over half of the flights every year are private. The airport survives on it. It's just now been stigmatized. There are five or six FBOs at this airport alone. They're all over the place. This is no different than these people targeting the SUV. This is no different than the way they're playing the global warming scam. Meanwhile, it's okay for Nancy Pelosi to fly her 757 or whatever it is for her whole family to get from Washington to California.

It's okay for these guys to take junkets on these very planes, by the way. It's okay for them to take junkets or campaign trips as long as they only pay first class fare. Let's say you get on... I don't know what the direct operating costs of a Citation X are, but let me take a stab at it and if I'm wrong I'll apologize later. But let's say the DOCs per hour of a Citation X are let's say $2,500. It may even be higher. A Gulfstream IV, Gulfstream 550, the direct operating costs back when the gas was four bucks a gallon for cars, got up to $3,500, in some cases $4,000. If you go charter one, you're going to pay $5,000 an hour. Members of Congress can fly on these things. So let's say you go at $5,000 an hour. If you charter you get a four-hour minimum, so it's 20 grand minimum. Go to New York, come back five hours, something like that. Plus whatever time it's parked on the ground out of use. Reduced rate for that.

Let's say the whole trip can cost you 40 grand, member of Congress pays first class equivalent to fly on the airplane he's now trying to get the corporate CEOs to sell. It's the law. It's the law. They can't take gratis trips but they do have to reimburse at first class commercial rates for the same leg. The Citation X is the fastest airplane in the sky, if they want to really throttle it to the wall. It will outrun anything out there. Not by much. Maybe 25, 30 miles an hour, but to some people that matters who want to get where they want to go quick because they gotta get things done when they get there. The airplane has to be serviced. Every year it is federal law that you have to park the airplane for at least a week for an inspection.

Federal law, you gotta take it back to manufacturer, it gets inspected. Manufacturers have entire departments and divisions that just inspect aircraft. Once your airplane gets to 1,200 hours they have to tear it apart. They x-ray the wings. They do all kinds of inspections. These are safety regulations. Then they have to put it back together. This costs the owner. The owner pays the manufacturer, and whatever repairs have to be made, and engine. Depending on the airplane, depending on the engine, after you get to certain number of hours, the engine has to be overhauled down to zero hours, meaning rebuilt to brand-new. It can cost a million dollars an engine to do this.

Well, now, you may think, "Well, we don't have a million dollars to overhaul..." Well, somebody does and the people doing the overhaul are the little guys who are getting paid to do it. Now, all of this support system is now being threatened by the very people who claim to be for the "little guy." This Brad Sherman guy is a dolt! Who do these people think they are? If I would have been one of those CEOs yesterday, I woulda stood up and I woulda said, "Who do you think you are, telling me how to run my business?" Of course the answer would be, "Well, you took my money. You took taxpayer money," and I would have had to sit down. But then I would have popped right up and said, "It's the worst decision I ever made to take your money because you clowns don't know..." In the first place, I'd stand up and say, "You people put me in this position. You people forced me to make loans to people who couldn't even repay 'em."

You know, like I said yesterday, these guys and the CEOs yesterday, they are not the target. They are the symbols. What is on tap for everybody here is the full assault on capitalism. That's what's happening in Washington, DC, today. That's what's happening with these CEOs up there. Now, these costs that I mentioned about private aircraft? You think that's something? Try owning an airline and having to buy airplanes that cost 70 and 80 and a hundred million each and having to maintain those according to federal regulations, then sell tickets with competitors and you've got your own support staff. Aviation is not cheap. Do you understand what aviation requires? Do you understand gravity? Do you know what it takes to get something that weighs thousands of tons in the air, flying 600 miles an hour?

"Well, Rush, how come it can't fly at 300?" Well, it could, but you'd burn up far more fuel. You would waste fuel at 300 miles an hour 'cause you'd be much lower. You'd have much more air to fly through. Besides all of that... (sigh) Besides all that, in order to create the air pressure deferential that people call "lift," you have to have enough speed. A 747 fully loaded needs 10,000 feet of runway and it takes that much to get up to 120 miles an hour, ground speed. I think that's their rotate speed. That's when it will lift off but you've got to add speed to it to keep it there. That takes power. That takes amazing thrust. That takes all kinds of fuel. It's amazing that it's been invented, created, and that it works. But it isn't cheap. I don't care what kind of aviation you're talking about, even if they go to little Cessna 150, that's still...

That's quite costly, compared to driving in a car. It's not nearly as expensive as a jet or anything else, but the idea that things that cost a lot, that only people with a lot of money can afford to buy or use should be eliminated from our existence because not everybody can? When everybody benefits from it! You may not know a single person that flies a corporate jet, but if they are operating in a business environment, and it's a business that you happen to patronize... The Walmart people flying around in corporate jets. They have one of the most smoothly run business models in the country. I guarantee you benefit from their employees flying around, their management flying around. You just don't stop to think of it. But all of this is interconnected. None of it's a zero-sum game.

RUSH: By the way, folks, one more thing on these private jets, two things. One group I keep leaving out are the pilots. You need pilots to fly these things and they're not raking in huge bucks. I mean, they make more than national average by a lot, but you still need people to fly these. They have to go to school to stay upgraded and updated on the latest navigation systems or what have you. They have to constantly get recertified. There are people that run those schools. They get paid for pilot recertification. This is like this yacht business. You know, they raised taxes on the yachts and people went out and bought yachts outside the country, and the people that make the yachts lost their jobs. The yachts were sold elsewhere than here in America.

They repealed that tax, the luxury tax on the yachts. In addition, some of these corporate jet owners charter their jets when they're not using them. A lot of jet owners figure out, "I got nothing gained by this airplane sitting on the ground." So they will charter it when they know they're not going to use it and they'll try to defray. You don't make a whole lot of money chartering. You can if that's all you do, but at least you defray your own operating expenses. The people in businesses, it's like anything else. These people are not... It's not, "Hey, let's go by a big corporate jet! I'm a big CEO. I'm going to fly around." There are business reasons why this is done, in most cases. Look, they're bad actors throughout business and I'm not trying to make a brief here for every corporate exec as being clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, but I'll tell you something.

I know for a fact, folks, that I would trust and I would work for and I would promote and I would sponsor your average small businessman far more than I would want to go work for somebody in Congress running a business. You know, we Americans used to be proud that we built things. We used to be proud that we generated a national wealth and a gross domestic product that created opportunities for prosperity for anybody who wanted to access our great capitalist system. Anybody could take their shot at it. And we're stigmatizing that whole thing. We are being told that the achievers -- the builders of great things, the achievers -- they are somehow now to be suspected. They're suspects. We're to be ashamed of them. They are giving the world the wrong impression of America and so forth. I tell you, it frosts me. Just this whole business yesterday frosted me.

RUSH: One more thing about the private jet business from the standpoint of employees. In the case of a Gulfstream, it can take about 100 to 115 days to make an airplane, to build it. It's called a green airplane, before any interior is in it and before it's painted. It comes out of there in a hundred days, it's "green." It can take another 150 to complete it; meaning complete the interior, paint it, put all of the electronics in, everything that's going to go in this thing. It's able to fly, but when it comes out of the manufacturing plant but it's not able to carry passengers. It's not certified for anything other than test pilot activity. Now, the people who complete these airplanes and the people who make them -- they're two different plants at most manufacturers, Gulfstream example manufactures in Savannah, Georgia; and I think someplace else in Georgia, but they have completion centers in Appleton, Wisconsin; also in Savannah; and in Long Beach, California.

So when the thing's done they fly it because it takes longer to complete, they need more completion centers than they do assembly lines. To the people that do all this work, to them it's a work of art. They take their job as seriously as anybody else, and it's crucial. They're dealing with something that people are putting their lives on the line with. They're trusting their lives to these people that manufacture these airplanes. These people that work on these airplanes, inside and out, know that firsthand. They consider what they do to build these aircraft, works of art. They are not rich people. They are manufacturing types. They're assembly-line people. They're highly talented and gifted. They're woodworking specialists. They are electrical specialists, avionics specialists, but at the same time... They're in the process now that everything they do is being stigmatized by a bunch of dolt members of Congress who are trying to destroy them.

Well, they are in the process of damaging, whether they're trying to or not, all of these industries that all these "little people" who are supposed to benefit from all of this stimulus are working at. I just find it so strange that these people in Congress have no more respect for the people who do the real work that makes this country work, and yet they say they stand for 'em and they represent 'em when they are in the process here of targeting them. Maybe indirectly, but if you fix it so that nobody's got the guts to buy a jet, well, then nobody's going to have to build one and nobody's going to have to complete one and nobody's going to have to service one, and then the layoffs start -- and that's called "compassion." I want you to listen to this. After this dolt Sherman from California told these execs, "Well, you can sell all your jets, and you could put that capital to work for..."

By the way, this notion that they have to sell the jets 'cause they might have bought 'em with TARP money -- and they didn't. Nobody. Bank of America, Citibank did not buy their jet with TARP money. They ordered it four years ago. It probably cost them more money to not take it than to take it. The penalties for refusing delivery (snorts). I could go on and on and on about this. But they didn't use taxpayer dollars, but even if they did, what the hell's Barney Frank living on? What the hell's Nancy Pelosi living on? Obama? Every damn one of them's salary is taxpayer money, and they have all these perks and junkets and benefits. They dare sit there and tell private sector people what they can and can't do with private sector money? I tell you what. I damn well would love to be able to convene my own hearings and find out what all these people in Congress are doing with our taxpayer money and pass judgment on their use of it, just as they're passing judgment on everybody else's use of their own private money! All of their money that they live on and pay themselves is ours that is taken from us in taxes. Somehow "taxpayer funds" become holier than thou, except when they're in the government, why, there should be no questions asked! There shall be no doubt whatever. They are the modern-day royalty. Listen to the CEO of Citibank [Vikram Pandit], this is his opening statement yesterday.

PANDIT: I would also like to say something about the airplane that was in the news. We did not adjust quickly enough to this new world and I take personal responsibility for that mistake. In the end, I canceled delivery. We need do a better job of acknowledging and embracing the new realities.

RUSH: This is... He doesn't mean a word of that! He is just saying this to satisfy these nabobs up there. "We need to understand the new reality," and the new reality is that you're not going to let us buy these jets. The new reality is the government is going to tell us what we can and cannot do -- and that plane was purchased with money that that company earned or had or whatever long before TARP came long. Here is a Republican, Walter Jones of North Carolina, warning the bankers to show compassion.

JONES: At this time, to help the image of the banking industry, show compassion. Show compassion for that American citizen that's out there losing their jobs, having a cut in pay. You need to nationally speak to some of these things, all of you, if you issue charge cards, and say that, "Yes, we're going to suck it up, too, by the way, Mr. Taxpayer; and we're going to take less in interest so you can have a better quality of life and maybe meet some of your bills."

RUSH: "Have compassion." That's a Republican lecturing these guys. Now, I want you to listen to this next bite. This is... I know it's torture. This is Ruben Hinojosa (Democrat-Texas). He had this exchange with the bank of New York Mellon's Robert Kelly, State Street Corporation's Ronald Logue, Morgan Stanley's John Mack, Ken Lewis of Bank of America, and John Stumpf from Wells Fargo.

HINOJOSA: What type of outreach have all of you and your companies made to help home owners on the verge of losing their homes?

STUMPF: Congressman, we service one-in-seven mortgages in America, and we have doubled our staff to 6,000 people who spend -- make thousands and thousands of calls a day contacting people who are either past due or potentially would become past due.

RUSH: Okay, so the wizard of smart there, Democrat congressman Ruben Hinojosa, "What are you doing? What kind of outreach to help homeowners on the verge of losing their homes?" We don't sell mortgages, Congressman. We don't sell mortgages. We don't sell mortgages. Oh, we have a bill outreach program. Just idiots. They're just grandstanding idiots.

Again, from the only newspaper (insofar as I know) which is showing an increase in readership, the Wall Street Journal:

Obama promises $2.5 trillion more for the banks, even though 56% of Americans are against this:

Would you drive one of these? Green cars in the stimulus package (Rush thinks he might get a couple of these to tool around on for his own property):

Remember Clinton’s welfare reform? This stimulus bill will counteract this reform:

Conservative Review
Issue #62	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	February 15, 2009