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 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.

Prominent Senate Democrats Russ Finegold and Evan Bayh say they will vote against the most recent funding bill passed by the House—the one with 9000 earmarks.

Rush Limbaugh begins to refer to those in the press who will not ask any difficult questions of Obama as butt boys.

After being attacked by several prominent White House Democrats, Rush Limbaugh throws down the gauntlet, challenging President Obama to a debate on his program. The White House declines.

President Obama depends upon on a teleprompter in order to name Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his choice for Health and Human Services secretary.

A large number of demonstrators descending on the capital this past week promoting climate justice, which is a new sign/slogan to me. Luckily, they and the police dressed warmly for the event. There were a lot of anti-coal signs as well.

Al Gore compares the issue of climate change to that of civil rights in the 50's and 60's.

Andrea Tantaros: “[Obama’s proposed debt is] a national security issue...what happens if China decides to just stop buying our debt...we are at a tipping point...the way to get out of it is not punitive wealth transfer...I think the people think they elected Will Smith [as president].”

I usually ignore the remarks of actors when speaking about politics or economic issues; however, Robert Davi was on Hannity’s panel and actually said a number of things which made sense. “When you control people economically, you control their thought processes as well.”

“It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake.” Al Gore, at the ECO:nomics forum in Santa Barbara, California, when he refused to debate the merits of the global warming theory. Gore almost ended up on stage at the same time with Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who wants to debate Gore on this issue. A last minute change in Gore’s scheduled time to speak made certain that they would not be on stage on the same day.

Mexico city is the #1 city in the world for kidnapings for ransom; Phoenix is #2. Meanwhile, our Homeland Security Czar, Janet Napolitano, tells us that we have contingency plans in place in case the violence of Mexico spills over the border.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy has warned that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within the year. Will Secretary of State Clinton want to have a dialogue?

The complete Rush Limbaugh address to CPAC can be found on www.FoxNews.com under videos, under CPAC. For those of you who understand how to download torrents, you can get the complete speech here (it will take a few hours to download the entire speech; and don’t try this if you have just a telephone-internet hookup):

McCain (without a teleprompter, and possibly without even a speech written before him) rails against the earmarks and Obama’s promise of change:

(1) Obama has proposed more spending in 6 weeks than all of the previous presidential administrations combined.

(2) In 2.5 months, Obama has added more to the deficit than George Bush did in 8 years (which included two wars and Hurricane Katrina).

(3) Gay rights activists in California are now saying that a constitutional amendment violates the constitution. At what point did marriage become some sort of a fundamental right? The court will need to decide, are 4 people on the court superior to the majority of Californians who voted to amend their own constitution.

(4) President Bush ran up approximately $3 trillion over 8 years, and I heard many liberals and Democrats complaining about this. Obama could double this in his first year’s deficit. Is a high deficit still wrong? Yes, I know about the economic crisis; the Bush debt includes two wars, Hurricane Katrina, the first half of the TARP fund and the prescription drug legislation.

(5) When campaigning, Obama spoke quite disparagingly about Bush’s deficit. I don’t hear him talking about the deficit any more.

(6) Why is Congress investigating George W. Bush and WMD’s. For 2 years, they have held hearing after hearing after hearing on Bush, Cheney and Rove. Why are we not investigating the current economic crisis and its causes?

(7) Almost everyone heard Rush Limbaugh’s comment I hope he [Obama] fails. If your news source gave you the context, that is a good thing. If your news source did not give the context of this remark, then your news service is not making any attempt to inform you, but to control your thinking.

(8) Now and again, I listen to NPR. Last time that I did, I heard references to a world-wide depression (which is true, but we started it); the proposed cost-cutting measures of President Obama (that is such a joke), and some milestone reached by Houston light rail (I don’t know which milestone it was; 1000^th person hit?).

(9) There are so many earmarks in the Omnibus spending bill that no one can even agree on how many are there.

(10) FoxNews Special Report gave all of its viewers a list of the Democrats who opposed the Omnibus bill and of all the Republicans who favored it. For those of us who oppose the obscene spending spree which Washington has been on for the past few months, this tells us who we can contact to let our opinions be known. Believe it or not, there are some senators and congressmen who will actually pay attention to your phone calls and emails. Remember the amnesty bill? When a conservative Republican hears from his conservative base, or a moderate or liberal Democrat hears from his base, they pay attention.

(11) In case you did not know, there are an army of Obamatons out there who make phone calls and send emails to whichever Senator or Congressman they believe can be swayed. These people are contacted almost daily from several different sources and often with an agenda (I know, because I am one of those people—not an Obamaton, but I get the emails).

11% of all home mortgages either in default or delinquent. 20% of all mortgages are under water (i.e., they owe more than their home is worth).

Obama saves 25 jobs in Columbus, Ohio and gives a little speech there. These are state jobs and they will be cut next year unless they are funded. Meanwhile, 614,000 jobs were lost in the US economy in January and 697,000 in February of 2009 (these are the latest, revised figures). 8.1% unemployment in February is the highest unemployment since 1983.

40,000 pay over half of New York City’s budget. That is 1 person carrying the most of the load for 200, who ride almost for free.

7 million illegal aliens presently hold jobs in the US; a president concerned about the unemployment in the United States may want to look at saving these 7,000,000 jobs for Americans.

Obama seeks to reduce one department of the government; he wants to see the military shrink to 3% of GDP by 2016. Clinton did the same thing, and then, when George Bush attempted to fight the War on Terror, he was excoriated for not using enough of our resources. The military cannot be built up overnight. Bush worked with what he inherited.

Each year, $38 billion dollars from the US travels into Mexico for illegal drugs.

Civilians in Juarez 3.5 x more likely to die by violence than a civilian in Bagdad.

[This is a new weekly short comment column where Saturday Night Live ignores a good political skit because of their political leanings]

Vice President Joe Biden was asked what the Stimulus Bill had in it for small businesses. Biden seriously answered, if there is a bridge to get to your business, the stimulus bill will make certain that bridge is in working order to customers can get to you. Perhaps their Joe Biden character to give a long list of how the stimulus bill helps small business.

President Obama, when encouraging America to go back into the stock market, explained that the current profit-earnings ratio was good. How about an Obama explains the stock market?

Obama uses a teleprompter when naming a cabinet member. What if Obama’s teleprompter breaks down when naming this cabinet member?

Annette Bening and other Hollywood types travel to Iran to open up a dialogue. What wuold this dialogue sound like?

Speaking of celebrities, Susan Sarandon joined the climate change marchers in Washington DC as a foot of snow fell on them. Another easy target.

[Another new regular column; I am not anti-Democrat, nor do I think that everything said or proposed by a Democrat is wrong]:

Prominent Senate Democrats Russ Finegold and Evan Bayh say they will vote against the most recent funding bill passed by the House—the one with 9000 earmarks.

Washington Governor Chris Gregoire is seriously exploring budget cutting measures in the Washington state budget. President Obama, Gov. Arnold and the California Congress need to pay attention. She actually said, “There is no way to tax your way out of this problem; We have to live within our means.” She has cut 50 state boards or organizations and has required each state funded organization to justify their existence and worth.

If Obama knows anything about the economy (and I doubt that he does), then he will enact legislation which will actually be pro-business and pro-growth before the 2010 elections in order to keep Democrats in control of Congress.

Another alternative is to let the market rebound on its own, which it will do. It might get down to 4000, but it will rebound; the market cannot get down to zero.

Let’s suppose that, at heart, Obama is an anti-capitalist democratic socialist. Now, I know he says that he isn’t, but Obama says a lot of things. Right now, he has the opportunity to impose any kind of legislation that he wants—free health care for everyone and whatever benefits or wealth transfer he deems reasonable, if not eternal economic fairness controls. As the president, Obama controls the markets, to some extent. He can let business after business fail (after all, these are run by greedy capitalists who make far to much money on the backs of the people), and then he can swoop down, as government, with an unlimited pocketbook, and rescue whichever companies he wants to rescue. Obama can move more and more private companies into a joint ownership with the government, so that the government can fairly control these companies (think of hundreds of FNMA’s and FHLMC’s). If government is in control, then CEO’s can no longer make obscene amounts of money; the company cannot pollute the earth with whatever the latest pollutant is; and government can step in at any time, and lay down the law, because that is what is fair. Could this be the Obama outcome that he is after?

4 White House cabinet members contacted columnist David Brooks and described Obama as a pragmatist (I have not seen this presented in the news yet as a mantra).

Dick Morris, in his book Fleeced, which came out in March of 2008, predicted a market crash if Obama was elected.

The two logical alternatives is, either Obama knows what he is doing in the realm of economics or he does not.

Let’s go with the first option. Let us assume that Obama understands something about free enterprise and how the markets work. Right now, as we speak, he is doing nothing about it. He did not gather up his best economic advisors together to determine anything more than one number—about how large should a spending bill be, and then he had Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, actually craft the bill. Obama’s directive: “Make it about $800 billion worth of spending.”

In case you know nothing about economics and government, government spending has never stimulated the economy dramatically. A lot of people have tried a lot of things, and, so far, in our country and in every other country where it has been tried, neither government sending money out to the general population (the Bush stimulus bill) or huge government spending (the Obama stimulus bill) has ever jump-started an economy. The lost decade of Japan and the failed policies of FDR are historical testimonies to the failure of government to jumpstart an economy by spending a lot of money.

So, if Obama knows what he is doing, then he knows that all of these bills that he is putting out there and all of the gargantuan government spending is not going to cure our ills. However, he is following the advice of his chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel of not letting a crisis go to waste. In other words, if Obama knows what he is doing, then at this moment, he is not really concerned about the economy—he is just passing legislation which fits in with his ideology, and telling us that it is stimulative. Because he has such high positives, Obama can do this for some time. Stumping for these plans on the road possibly gives him more time as a popular president.

But, if Obama knows what he is doing, then he is not doing what it takes to actually get our economy moving forward. Within the next 12 months, Obama will have to pass legislation which would stimulate business, after he gets through all of his ideological legislation. That will tell us that Obama knows what he is doing, but is more concerned about his vision of what the country ought to be than he is with doing anything to actually cure the ills of the economy.

The second alternative, which is the most reasonable to me is, Obama has no clue as to what he is doing. Many liberals tend to lean toward governmental service of some sort, rather than going out on their own and starting up their own company. This describes Obama—insofar as we know, Obama has never been in charge of anything, other than a chunk of money secured by William Ayers for the Annenberg Project. However, apart from that, there is no indication that Obama has ever done anything completely on his own as an owner or businessman. I am unaware of his taking any courses in economics, although it is possible that he has.

For these reasons, I believe that Obama is completely out of his depth. What works for a capitalistic system is not within his own field of vision. He does not seem to understand that businesses and corporations and rich people provide jobs. When you tell an entrepreneur the sky is the limit when it comes to making money; then these entrepreneurs will work 16 hour days in order to make money, which is going to stimulate the economy. When you tell an entrepreneur go ahead, make some money, but the government is going to take 60% of it, then that person is no longer quite as enthusiastic. Nobody wants to spend over half of their work time working for the government and for government programs.

Some liberals and most socialists see the economy as a pie, and if a businessman takes two pieces of pie, then that means some person on the other end of the scale is getting no pie. That is, there is a fixed amount of money out there, and when businessmen make too much money, they are taking this money out of the pockets of their workers. Obama probably sees himself is trying to make things more fair, so that each person gets one slice of pie, no more and no less.

Such a vision of economics is wrong, and our recent history proves this. Over the past 20 or so years, the gap between rich and poor has widened. A rich person on the high end is making a much higher multiple of, say, minimum wage. However, if the pie model described above is accurate, then the poor would have less today than they did 20 years ago. However, that is not the case. The working and non-working poor in the U.S. have television sets, cable tv, cellphones, cars, etc. The greatest problem of the poor at this time is, they are overweight. They eat too much and they eat the wrong kinds of foods. What Communist country has this problem?

Obama must function within his own limitations. He does not know what really makes an economy work. Given the above examples added to things which Obama has said, indicate that, when it comes to this economy, he is a novice. When talking to Joe the Plumber, Obama talked of spreading the wealth around; on other occasions, he has talked about rebuilding the economy from the bottom up, by putting more money into the hands of the poor. He is not suggesting that the poor start working 60 hours a week; he is saying that he will take money from those who work 60 hours/week and give more of their money to the poor.

When growing up, Obama had a fatherly tie to a socialist; and when going to college, by his own admission, he intentionally hung out with the radicals on campus (which would be socialists, communists, and anarchists).

My point is, by training, by inculcation, by philosophy and by what Obama has said, he does not know anything about a free enterprise economy. He thinks that FDR was the savior of the Great Depression economy, despite history and despite what FDR’s own secretary of the treasury has said (“The New Deal is a failure”).

Obama thinks that more government spending will fix the economy. He thinks that if more money is taken out of the hands of rich people and put into the hands of the poor, the economy will grow. He thinks that, if you stop businesses and business executives from spending their money on conferences and junkets (which is devastating tourism within the United States), that things will somehow get better.

When Obama sees a business sponsor a golf tournament or hold a conference to show appreciation to their customers or employees, that is wrong, somehow, even though the stimulative effect of what they do is far greater than Obama’s own stimulative package.

My point is, Obama has no idea as to what he is doing; he has ideas and philosophies which run absolutely counter to the prosperity of a nation based upon free enterprise and personal liberty, and most or all of what he does is going to stunt our economy and delay economic recovery.

Quite obviously, not every president knows everything about everything. He has advisors. So stop and think—Timothy Geithner is either a tax cheat or too incompetent to figure out how to use TurboTax. When Obama crafted the first stimulus bill, Geithner had nothing to do with it (except, perhaps, to suggest the figure amount). Geithner did not gather together with other great intellects and craft the first stimulus bill. Congress did, as President Obama desired. So, either Obama has no interest in Geithner’s ideas or Geithner is doing something else and is too busy to deal with the stimulus package, which is supposed to lift us out of a recession.

When it comes to Geithner, there is something else we need to keep in mind—there are no entrepreneurs on Geithner’s staff, and there are key positions which have not been filled. Given that Obama has an unprecedented number of applicants to work for him (if the press is to be believed) and given that Geithner has at least two important positions beneath him which are unfilled, and given that our economy is the most important issue in most people’s minds, what is going on?

Again, we have some logical alternatives. As long as Obama’s approval ratings are around 60%, he does not have to try to fix the economy. If there are certain philosophical tenets which prospective under-secretaries must adhere to, maybe the Obama team cannot find such people (at least, such people who agree to those tenets and have not cheated on their taxes). These are key positions, and, given the state of the economy, they should have been filled with backups before Obama even took the oath of office.

My opinion here it twofold: (1) Obama has no clue as to what he is doing and (2) he thinks that his solutions which he has proposed (massive governmental spending), is all that is needed.

FDR presided over an economy which he fumbled with for about 10 years. He had no real historical perspective which would help to guide him at that time, and communism seemed to be very attractive at that time (many of his advisors had such leanings). I cannot blame FDR for getting it wrong because of these factors.

On the other hand, I do fault Obama; but, even more, the American people for electing him.

From almost the first day that Bush was determined to be the president, I began to get nasty anti-Bush propaganda. Some of it was quasi-intellectual, but much of it was obscene and nasty. From almost day one, I got email after email which belittled Bush and the people who elected him.

9/11—neither Bush nor Clinton took radical Islam seriously, nor did many people in the United States. Even years after 9/11, we were still discussing what percentage of Muslims were radicalized. What Bush did was go on the offensive against radical Islam. Since radical Islamic extremists do not operate directly out of a country, Bush picked two countries, with good reasons, and sent our military there. The end result was to establish a free democracy (an anathema to radical Islam) and to kill a lot of terrorists. Iraq had the added benefit of acting as a vacuum, sucking in radical terrorists from all over the Middle east. They came to Iraq and our soldiers killed them.

During all of the Bush presidency, there were no more attacks on US soil. We take that for granted now, but think back to the academy awards of 2002—they were almost not held for fear of a terrorist attack. They were scheduled, then put off, re-scheduled and put off again. Even Hollywood was scared of Islamic terrorists at that time. Now, we take this relative peace in our homeland for granted.

Katrina—although the federal government has never responded quickly or efficiently to major disasters, we had boots on the ground in the gulf coast region—New Orleans in particular—within a few hours of the storm passing over. However, due to a grand failure on the local level, our national guard faced an incredibly chaotic situation from the get-go, including gangs who actually shot at people trying to rescue them.

The local authorities, Nagin and the former governor of Louisiana, did not evacuate New Orleans, they did not use their resources in New Orleans (like the many school buses which could have been used), they had no provisions for those who went to the Superdome, and they told their police to evacuate. Every stupid thing a local authority could do was done. The governor even spent precious time arguing with Bush about the national guard coming in. On top of all that, all of this was politicized from the first day.

I speak with authority because I live in Houston, where we have had evacuations, where we have had five foot of glass in the street of downtown Houston after a hurricane, where we have taken into Houston, in two week’s time, 200,000 evacuees from New Orleans. I observed all of our local politicians working together; the party affiliation was never an issue, and things ran relatively smoothly. And, because you probably do not know, what happened in Galveston was far more devastating than what happened in New Orleans.

The economy under Bush (as under Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan) was excellent. We enjoyed over two decades of great American prosperity, and, just in case you did not keep score, the Bush economy was good for 7½ of his 8 years in office. I predict that, some day, we will look back wistfully to these 25–30 years as the golden age of American prosperity. Economically, we as Americans had little to complain about under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or W. Yet, we did. I think that, there is a very good chance that, within the decade, we will look back at the Bush presidency as the good old days.

Reagan, the Bush’s and Clinton were all good to great presidents. Under them, we really have no reason to complain about the economy. And yet, the people spoke, choosing a candidate with little or no experience, who came to the forefront by promising hope and change to an economy which will filled with hope, an economy which needed very little change. We became both spoiled and complacent as a people, and too easily led astray. We saw this year’s new model, and we did not bother to even look under the hood. It was just so shiny and new, we had to have it.

Now Obama is our president. To his credit, he has essentially continued the Bush policies with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. However, to his and our detriment, he has crafted an economic vision—a personal Garden of Eden economic state—which he is desperately trying to force the United States into. He has used our present-day crisis in order to further his personal vision. We had 25 years or more of great prosperity. We wanted change. We will get change. We wanted to abdicate our own personal responsibility; Obama is more than willing to accommodate us in that area.

If we ever get out of this in our lifetimes, remember for the future, don’t choose a president because he is shiny and new, or because he is good-looking and cool. Look under the hood; look at his personal history. Look to his values and what he has done in his life to indicate that he actually has values. As our economy sinks further and further, this becomes a teachable moment. In a democracy, we are all responsible.

Former Vice President Al Gore repeated his message that climate change is a planetary emergency at the WSJ's Eco:nomics conference in California. The Nobel-prize winner declined to take any questions from reporters, but he did receive a couple of challenges from attendees, including Bjorn Lomborg. But don't expect Mr. Gore to debate the merits of how best to tackle climate change anytime soon.

Mr. Gore stuck to his prepared script about the urgency of taking action to curb global greenhouse-gas emissions, down to well-worn phrases he trots out at conferences across the country: America is at "a political tipping point" on climate change, and even if Washington has failed to address the energy challenge in the last 35 years, "political will is a renewable resource."

But he was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

"I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a `on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

As long as he has a teleprompter, Obama is a marvelous speaker. He has also developed a new skill—misdirection. This is a skill a magician often uses; he focuses your attention in one place while he does something tricky elsewhere.

While he tries to get a spending bill through the Congress with 9000 earmarks, several members of his staff start talking about Rush Limbaugh. Is he really the head of the Republican party, etc.

600,000 jobs being lost each month; and Obama is talking to a gathering in Columbus, Ohio, touting how the stimulus bill has saved 25 jobs.

He goes on and on about how we need to fix health care, education and get some green energy programs going; when our problem is the economy.

What is sad is, many of our news sources are going along with this, putting up such ridiculous disputes between Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele, and yet all but ignoring the state of the economy and Obama not doing anything about it. He is unable to even fill the posts under Geithner, which should have been done months ago.

The idea is to find meaningless and ridiculous things to take up a 24 or 48 hour news cycle so that no one actually talks about what Obama and the Democratic Congress are really doing.

But don’t look at that; make sure you turn your eyes on some far more trivial matter. Maybe we can talk about Sarah Palin’s wardrobe again.

Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 - 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle. All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.

"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care, and education - importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The "day of reckoning" has now arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.

At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the entire banking system. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful homebuyers.

The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe in the first place.

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions - the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic - for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy - worthy and weighty as they may be - are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

There's a storm abrewin'.

What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes. I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all.

O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!!(sound familiar??? ) If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the wreckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall.

So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Ameicans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washinton , D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party", several sites will come up. If you aren't the 'protester' type, simply make your one voice heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others that feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock market speaks volumes.

This was not my idea. I visited the sites of the 'New American Tea Pary' and an online survey showed over 90% of thousands said they would send the teabag on April 1. Why, April 1?? We not only want them to reach Washington by April 15 but that is the day of fools. What other day would fit better than April 1st!!!!!!!! Will you do it? I will. Send it to:

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington , D.C. 20500

Forward this to everyone in your address book. Visit the website for more information about the 'New American Tea Party'. I would encourage everyone to go ahead and get the envelope ready to mail, then just drop it in the mail April 1. Can't guarantee what the postage will be by then, it is going up as we speak, but have your envelope ready. What will this cost you? A little time and a 40 something cent stamp.

What could you receive in benefits? Maybe, just maybe, our elected officials will start to listen to the people. Take out the Pork. Tell us how the money is being spent. We want TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Remember, the money will be spent over the next 4-5 years. It is not too late.

David Brooks, a right of center columnist, speaks critically of the Obama budget:

Then, within one day of posting this column, 4 members of the Obama cabinet contacted David Brooks (how many times did Bush have his cabinet members go and talk to political pundits or to talk show hosts?):

From a recent Pat Buchanan column: In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the Right.

The real Obama has stood up, and lived up to his ranking as the most left-wing member of the United States Senate.

60 Minutes on the Madoff scandal. What is important here is, the SEC is composed of lawyers who would not know corruption in business if it bit them in the foot. These are not experts in the area of finance (what a surprise!). They were told on at least 5 occasions by one person that Madoff was running a scam, yet were unable to catch it themselves. Somehow, Madoff was able to run an unregistered hedge fund, and yet the SEC could not, with prompting, even recognize that Madoff was doing evil.

RUSH: Let's go back to Election Day, 11/4/08. That was the day of hope. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 9625. At this moment, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is hovering around 6580. It is down over 3,000 points. That means that just since November the 4th, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has lost a third of its value, $3 trillion of wealth has been wiped out. Is this what you voted for? A record 31.8 million Americans receive food stamps at the latest count. That is an increase of 700,000 people in one month with the United States in recession. These are government figures. Food stamps, which help poor people buy groceries and People magazine and Pop Tarts are the major US anti-hunger program forecast to cost at least $51 billion in this fiscal year ending September 30th. That's up $10 billion from 2008. So we have 31.8 million Americans on food stamps. Is that what you voted for? The new government unemployment figure is out today, and it is 8.1%, over 600,000 jobs lost last month. "The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 8.1 percent in February, the highest since late 1983, as cost-cutting employers slashed 651,000 jobs." Is this what you voted for?

As predicted and predictable, both these figures, 8.1 and 651,000, "Both figures were worse than analysts expected and the Labor Department's report shows America's workers being clobbered by a wave of layoffs." Is this what you voted for? Charles Krauthammer in his column today in the Washington Post makes the case better than I made it yesterday. As you know, the Obama administration conducted another summit yesterday, a health care summit. They had their breakout groups, and then the groups came back and reported in to President Obama. President Obama has been saying that in order to get jobs back, in order to start creating employment, we need health care reform, energy reform, and what is the third thing he says? Da-da-da-da-da-da. Well, whatever it is, it's something irrelevant to why people are losing their jobs. People are not losing their jobs because of health care; they're not losing their homes because of energy concerns or any of that. This is all happening because of a banking system that is in disarray, and the administration has offered no plan whatsoever. Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary, can't even find a deputy assistant to take the job. Sanjay Gupta turned down the Surgeon General's job. Makes me wonder what his tax problems are.

I asked the question yesterday, the soonest we're going to get health care reform -- and, by the way, the Democrats are pushing for this fall, they'd like it as soon as they can -- if they get national health care, folks, the country as you and I have known it is over, but the failing health of Senator Kennedy is, as I told you way back when, the driving force here. The failing health of Senator Kennedy is already being used as an inspirational effort, or technique, to get national health care on the fast track. This is supposed to get you a job. You're losing your job and losing your house because of health care costs. And I asked you to think, you're expecting to be out of work until November or December, whenever they can get this done, if by then, and then all of a sudden once health care reform is done your job's going to come back?

Krauthammer says: "Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the earmarks. ... Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle." Krauthammer is accusing Obama of a brazen deception being at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan. "The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this: 'Our economy did not fall into decline overnight,' he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy--" even though we have our own all over the place, "--not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools. The 'day of reckoning' has arrived. And because 'it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.'"

Krauthammer writes, "Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people. At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation," it goes on and on and on. "But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy.

"And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing-in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis. What's going on? 'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. 'This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.' Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his 'Big Bang' agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy. Intellectually dishonest to the core." Obama deceiving the American people and it's working.

The latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll has an approval rating at 63% over the previous reporting period a week or ten days ago, at 60%. Does this puzzle you? Your economy is tanking all around you, your president is deceiving you as to why. Your president is further deceiving you as to the solutions. Yet his approval numbers go up, they slightly uptick to 63%. We are still at the stage, I told you all week long, be patient, it's going to take a while for people to see the deception, and they might not ever. You see, Barack Obama benefits from a truism here. It is not what he accomplishes. He doesn't have to accomplish anything to keep his poll numbers up, and this he knows. All he has to do is give speeches about what he cares about. Yesterday he cared about health care. And who doesn't? It's like the environmentalist wackos making you think they care about saving the planet, making you think they care about clean water and clean air. Who doesn't? So if you oppose clean water and clean air, you must want what? Dirty water, dirty air. If you oppose Obama on health care, you must want what? People to get sick and not have any way to get well. So it's not what he says, it's not what he accomplishes. It's what he says he cares about.

There's another poll out today, I think from Rasmussen. Thirty-four percent of the American people believe that they can't get a good job without the government being involved. Thirty-four percent believe the government is important to getting a good job. Not with the government, but outside in the private sector. But is this what you voted for? Somebody who says he cares about certain things, accomplishes nothing on them, deceives you as to the real problems, and in the process, takes no steps to fix them. Let me tell you what's going on here. We have a banking and a credit crisis. Obama and his team had a show gathering to focus on the problem, but they have done little, if anything, to so much as start fixing it. Any leader would keep focused on fixing that mess, but that's not the stuff that makes approval numbers rise, because there really isn't much he can do except shift people's attitudes about it.

So he's moved on to health care. This is highly visible, it's news leading, gets a great focus, plus it has the great liberal lion Teddy Kennedy pushing it. Before it's all over it will be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill. So when you have the banking and the credit problem still unfixed and with health care still unfixed, they'll move on to another caring story: alternate energy -- I don't know; your guess is as good as mine. But whatever it is, the approval numbers will go up because it's not what Obama accomplishes; it's what he cares about.

RUSH: There it goes, there it goes, stock market hovering down around ten or 20. Something just happened, market now down 75.72, and the administration, this is fine with them, this is perfect. They love seeing all this wealth destroyed. How do we conclude anything else when the administration tells us to hang on, we're going to fix this economy with health care reform? Health care reform is going to get you a job in a year, and then green energy, all this alternative energy gobbledygook and education. Did you vote for this? I'll tell you, my plate is getting full. Here I am trying to save the Republican Party, despite opposition from the Republican Party. Somebody's going to have to save Wall Street. Somebody is going to have to mobilize all these, quote, unquote, rich Republicans to get in there. The problem is nobody knows where the bottom is. That's not really the question.

I want to give you another way of looking at the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or the NASDAQ. Everybody is focused on the bottom, where is it gonna bottom out, how bad is it gonna get? Well, the figure I see most prominently, and I have no clue, by the way, I'm no Jim Rogers, I'm no Jim Cramer, and I'm no Larry Kudlow. The figure I see bandied about is 3000, 3500. We're at 6500 now, but I don't think that's the question, because it is going to bottom out at some point. My question is what's the new top? What's the new top going to be? We were, a year ago, at 13,000, less than a year, 13,000 and unemployment was low. Now it's all gone. Over $3 trillion of wealth is gone. When's that coming back? That's what I want to know. When, if ever, is that coming back? What's the new top? In other words, how much growth can we expect? The people who have skin in the game, in the Obama tracking poll, are still yanking out of it. I'll have to think about this over the weekend.

[As an aside, I have seen Whoopie Goldberg show up on both Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity’s shows and she is forthright and honest, and, as you well might expect, presents an opinion different from O’Reilly or Hannity. Both hosts treat her with respect, because she never tries to hide what she believes in or couch it in lib-speak. Now Whoopie recognizes that her chickens are coming home to roost]:

RUSH: Did you vote for this? There are people starting to have doubts. One of them is no less than Whoopi Goldberg, who went into a rant this morning on The View, talking to her co-host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck.

GOLDBERG: You remember that movie Network? If you are just fed up, at some point, just lean out your window (laughter) and scream, "I'm mad as hell," 'cause that's what's happening to me. I'm losing my mind, because I don't understand why -- like they -- one of the things that I saw recently, they have this whole thing about taxing "the wealthy." Okay. Now, I don't mind that. I don't mind paying a little more tax 'cause I make a good living.

GOLDBERG: But I don't want to get it coming and going. I don't want to get the federal raised and then the state raised and then the phone tax raised and then the television tax raised --

RUSH: That is Whoopi Goldberg on The View today. It sounds like she might want Obama to fail. It sounds like she might not be fully with the program. She's starting to ask herself, "I voted for this?" She's right about something here, something that we haven't talked about. The federal tax increase, when the Bush tax cuts fade into the sunset, that'll take it up to 39.6%, then the charitable deductions. Guess what? Guess what people are just now starting to figure out? "Well, you know, if he reduces deductibility on charitable donations down to 28%, that means a lot fewer people going to be donating in the private sector!" That's right. "Well, guess who's going to come and take over?" The government is going to be in charge of charity. This is the plan! Whoopi, you're on the right path. You gotta understand what all these taxes on you mean.

And you're right. The television tax... You're going to get a double whammy, triple whammy living in New York. How about this statistic: 25% of office space in New York is now vacant. I saw that this morning. I'm running that down. Twenty-five percent of office space in New York vacant? They're going to have to raise taxes, Whoopi. They're going to have to raise taxes. So, in addition to the federal, the states are going to see that, and the states are going to raise taxes, and then the city is gonna raise taxes. You're going to have taxes raised everywhere. I'll tell you, it's very simple, folks. It's because everybody is spending money they don't have. They are spending money that has not even yet been printed. They're spending money that has not yet been earned.

Your children's children, your great-grandchildren, they are broke the moment they're born. They are broke when they get their first job. Whoopi Goldberg is one of the 40,000 people in New York City that pay over half New York City's budget operations. Forty thousand people out of eight million, Whoopi, pay and make New York happen -- and the mayor is concerned that some people might start leaving if he raises their taxes. But he's going to have no choice, the way he thinks. Whoopi, I am number one. I got out of there in 1997, and they still audit me every year. You could be number two. You could tell Barbara Walters that you want a satellite studio in Florida, where there is no state income tax, same time zone, you could be on remote. You could see Robin Williams -- who's in the hospital down here, poor guy, with heart problems.

But if Whoopi Goldberg is starting to see this, starting to feel it... She thinks everybody is coming at her now. They're coming at her both ways. I don't care how long it took. I don't care why she started realizing it. The fact is, she has. I hope... I always run the risk here, folks, when I point these things out -- in trying to praise people, in trying to lavish praise on somebody like Whoopi -- that she'll be offended that I'm the one praising her and go back on The View Monday and totally change her opinion. Since I agree with her, she can't afford have that position and start back up her tax increases or what have you, but hopefully not.

RUSH: Squawk on the Street this morning, CNBC, cohost, the Street Sweetie, Erin Burnett interviewing Laurence Geller, the president, CEO of Strategic Hotels and Resorts, and the Street Sweetie said, "You own some of those hotels where you get those conferences, or you used to, in lovely, warm locations, whether it's Arizona, Mexico, Southern California. Has that business dried up?"

GELLER: The hyperbole and rhetoric was notched up to gigantic levels during this recent political debate season. The bookings of our meetings have cut down drastically. We've lost an awful lot of major businesses, and it's not just those receiving government bailouts that are affected, but there's a general fear of criticism by people not only making the bookings but people attending these conferences so it's really got out of hand because the meetings and conference business is absolutely essentially to this nation. We lost 200,000 jobs last year. We thought if things went the same way we'd lose 240,000. This year, since the hyperbole got ratcheted up to these levels, we're on track to lose 350, 400,000 jobs. The ripple through the economy is gigantic, lodging and tourism is the third largest retail business in the country.

RUSH: Now, I know what some of you people are thinking. "Well, Rush, who goes to these conferences? It's the rich and the semi-rich and the people that can take time-out to go to Vegas or Mexico or Florida, wherever they're going to these five-star resorts." Yeah, like the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO. But here's the thing, and I'm going to say this until I'm blue in the face. The people that do these meetings are stopping because they are afraid of criticism from the president of the United States. The president of the United States personally is shutting down a large part of the travel and leisure industry in this country, purely on the basis of class envy. But who is really getting hurt? Aside from the hotel owners, who works at hotels? Who works in the travel and leisure business? It's the very little guy, quote, unquote, that the Obama administration claims to stand for. The very little guy. If there are no guests arriving, if there are no conferences being held, if there's no food being prepared and consumed, if there are no hotel rooms being occupied, then there's no work for the maids and there's no work for the kitchen personnel, there's no work for any of the staff in the hotel.

But we all get caught up here in the notion, "Well, these people, they shouldn't be partying in a recession, it's bad form." I think it's just the opposite. I think it's inspirational. I think it can be motivational. Now, this is where my critics are going to say, "I can't believe how out of touch Rush is." What needs to happen in this country is examples of economic activity flourishing like Daniel Henninger wrote about in the Wall Street Journal. We need to see evidence of the idea of a thriving, free market, of a thriving capitalist market. Instead, we see just the exact opposite. While all this is happening, Obama's out there saying he cares about health care, so his approval numbers are going up, while he and he alone -- well, he's getting some help from Barney Frank and John Kerry, but the Democrat Party, let's say, are personally assaulting the travel and leisure business, except when they are engaging in the travel and leisure or their big supporters, the AFL-CIO are engaging. So the Street Sweetie then said, "Mr. Geller, do you believe that this is something coming out of the White House? Is it bipartisan on Capitol Hill? Who are the people that are pointing the fingers at your industry?"

GELLER: If you listen to the committee hearings, I think it's unfortunate, it's almost the lemming factor, one starts and then the other has to show they're more strident and stringent, and as you go around the committee, I don't know whether it's bipartisan or not. I can't say it's the White House or Congress. All I can say is the pernicious effect is pretty devastating. It's almost, a colleague of mine was complaining this week, it's almost McCarthyism directed against the hotel and travel industry. This is so silly, because it's the lubrication of business in these big meetings, these small meetings, convention communication, and the fear factor has got out of control. The fear of being criticized.

RUSH: Not just the fear of being criticized, the fear of being targeted, Mr. Geller, not just the fear of being criticized. It's the fear of being targeted by a government official, be it Senator Kerry, be it Congressman Frank, or be it the president of the United States is out there saying, (doing Obama impression) "You're not going to go to Las Vegas, not going to fly on any corporate jet, not while I'm here, not with this going on." So it has a rippling negative effect throughout the economy. Coming up sometime this month in Charlotte, North Carolina, there's a golf tournament, a major PGA Tour event. It's always been known as the Wachovia Open, or whatever they called it, Wachovia, the bank. Well, as you know, Wachovia was purchased by Wells Fargo. They're going to do the tournament. The way golf tournaments work, is that the sponsor, in this case Wachovia, would put up all the prize money and other costs, the PGA would do their things, charity would get some of the proceeds from ticket sales and all of this, and it was a win-win for everybody.

What's happened now is that the Wells Fargo CEO has said, "Well, we'll put three million into this this year, but we're not going to put our name on it. Since there is no Wachovia, can't be a Wachovia Open, we're not going to call it the Wells Fargo Open, so I don't know what they're going to call this thing, the Charlotte Open, I have no idea. I haven't kept up that much with it. All I know is that Wells Fargo doesn't want their name on this because of what happened to Northern Trust with the LA Open, which used to be the Nissan Open that Nissan pulled out. The PGA Tour is always running around trying to find new sponsors for things, because that's where the prize money comes from. That's who pays the pros when they win or finish in the money in these tournaments. I'm sure they're going to reduce the partying and what goes on at these things anyway. You know, a friend of mine, an acquaintance of mine is a former chairman of AT&T. You know, AT&T sponsors what used to be the old Crosby, the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am , and I once asked this guy, "What do you really get out of this? I don't know what it costs you, but I mean do you -- because it says the AT&T Pebble Beach -- do you have a bunch of people signing up for AT&T services from the public? How does this work?

He said, "You're looking at it the wrong way. Our marketing budget every year is hundreds of millions. This thing cost us 20. This is where we entertain our customers; this is where we thank 'em; this is where we appreciate them for being part of what we do; this is where we wine and dine our best customers. We're not so much using this to generate new, although we do, but it's normal business." Now that's not even going on. People are afraid to even thank their best customers. Now, believe me, he told me the total marketing budget for AT&T when he was there, and the 20 million -- maybe 15, the percentage of that whole marketing budget spent on that golf tournament is zilch, it's infinitesimal, but it's where they thank everybody, and let people come out, hobnob with the pros. Pebble Beach is a beautiful place to go, it's a week-long tournament, all these services are out there. It's a great time for people to go.

But now that's under assault, thanking your customers, trying to keep your customers, trying to grow your customer base. That's what Mr. Geller is talking about. That's why a lot of these things take place. But today we're being told this is just a bunch of Roman excess, it's just a bunch of irresponsible people coming out there and having a giant party at a five-star place while the rest of the country is starving and can't find a house and can't find a job and all this sort of thing, and it's an all-out assault on capitalism, there is an all-out assault on free markets, but because Obama says he cares about health care, his approval numbers skyrocket right up while the private sector crumbles bit by bit in front of our eyes.

CALLER: Rush, it's an honor. Hey, listen, your discussion about the damage to the travel and leisure, you're exactly right. I'll tell you something else: it actually started way back with the signing of Sarbanes-Oxley.

CALLER: I'm not kidding you, you know, we would have a major event for our customers for exactly what you're talking about -- to say, "Thank you for your business, your loyalty," whatever -- and we'd fly 'em down on those company jets to a golf event, a PGA event. And we'd put 'em up there for a couple nights, take them to the tournament. We could not give away badges to publicly traded large companies. If they wanted to come, they'd have to take a vacation day (which nobody did). They'd have to pay for their lodging. They'd have to fly; they won't fly on our jet. They'd have to fly on a regular airline. It was ridiculous. We would bring customers to our manufacturing facilities or our corporate headquarters, you know, to see how the products are made and what they're buying to meet our executives. And they would literally want us to invoice for any food and any expenses we picked up on their behalf.

RUSH: I know. I know. That's all because of Sarbanes-Oxley, which... What gave us Sarbanes-Oxley? Do you remember, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) That's right. Enron gave us Sarbanes-Oxley. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, are Enron times a hundred, if not more. That's a great call, Jeff in Springfield, Ohio. Thanks much.

RUSH: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very, very much. Thank you all. I can't tell you how wonderful that makes me feel. It happens everywhere I go, but it's still special here. [ Laughter ] If you all will indulge me, I learned something, I guess, it's early Friday morning that I didn't know. Friday morning is when I learned this. I learned that Fox, God love them, is televising this speech on the Fox News Channel, which means, ladies and gentleman, this is my first ever address to the nation. [Applause]

Now, I have someone in back taking phone numbers. In fact, I would like to introduce to you my security chief, a man who runs all of my security. His name is Joseph Stalin. Joseph, would you please -- [Laughter ] I am safe from any liberal attack, in public, because they would be afraid of offending Stalin. [Laughter] Now the opportunity here to address the nation, a serious one, it really is. And I want to take it seriously. I want to address something. I know that people are probably watching this who never have listened to my program and may not even really know what conservatism is. They think they do based on how they've been told -- the way we've been impugned and maligned and so forth. One of the things that is totally erroneous about me -- and I just want to get this up front -- is that I'm pompous. [Laughter]

And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true. I can tell you a joke to illustrate this. Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside." King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?"

"No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh." [Laughter]

And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here."

"He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."[Laughter] [Applause]

Now, seriously, for those of you watching on C-SPAN as well, and on Fox, I want to tell you who we all are in this room. I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party.

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause]

We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - -[Applause]

We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year. [Applause]

It was not us asking whether Barack Obama was authentic. What we were asking is: Is he wrong? We concluded, yes. We still think so. But we didn't ask if he was authentically black. We didn't say, as some Southern Christian Leadership Conference leaders said: Barack is not authentic, he's not got any slave blood. He's really not down for the struggle, but his wife is. So don't expect the race industry to go away. Southern Christian Leadership Conference -- you may not know this, because it wasn't reported in the Drive-By Media -- the racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side. We want everybody to succeed. [Applause]

You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us.

Well. Take a look, someone has to say this -- I am thrilled for the opportunity to say it in my first national address to the nation -- and I'm going to touch on this in more detail in a moment, but this is just to get you thinking -- take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]

For those of you just tuning in on the Fox News Channel or C-SPAN, I'm Rush Limbaugh and I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. [Applause] Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. [Cheers and Applause ] And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively. Some of us just haven't had the inspiration or motivation to do so in a number of years, but that's about to change. [Cheers and Applause]

For example, we gather here -- I understand that. I talked to David and Lisa in the super exclusive private green room that nobody, but about 55 people were allowed into, and they said that there's a sense of liberation here among all of you that are attending CPAC. I understand what the sense of liberation is about. But don't make the mistake at the same time of feeling liberated as thinking we're better and we can do better as a minority. Because we're not a minority. And if you start thinking of yourselves as a minority, you're going to be defensive. And you'll allow the majority to set the agenda and the premise and you're responding to it. The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that. [Applause]

Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use

these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause] President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen? How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me.

The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country. Why shouldn't that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment? Why is that now the focus of blame? Why doesn't -- Mayor Bloomberg the other day, ladies and gentlemen, resisting his Governor's call for an increased tax on the rich in New York had some astounding numbers. Eight million people live in New York. 40,000 of those eight million pay roughly 60 to 70% of New York's operating budget. He was afraid that if he raised taxes on those people some of them might leave. Mayor, one already has, by the way. [Applause] Stop and think of this, though. Stop and think of this. Forty thousand people out of eight million. He's right, if 10,000 of them leave, or 5,000, they've got a huge problem. Because New York has its own welfare state inside the one the federal government's created. They've got a dependency class that has grown up and been educated that their entitlement is to be fed and taken care of by these evil mean people who have more than they do. If New York City, New York State or Washington, DC were a business, these 40,000 people would be taken on golf tournament trips to Los Angeles, and they would be wined and dined and they would be thanked and they would be encouraged to keep it up. They wouldn't be told they're the problem. They wouldn't be told, except there's -- I pride my accuracy rating. There is one other business where the customer is always wrong and that's the media. Sorry about that. [Applause]

Have you ever called to complain about whatever they do? They say, yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. They hang up and say you're too stupid to know how they're doing what they're doing. You can't get it. You're not sophisticated enough. So that's another business where the customer is always wrong. But, seriously, the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. [Applause]

They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party. If anybody but government were doing this, it would be a crime. And many of us think it's bordering on that as it exists now. [Applause]

President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis, he is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. [Applause] In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster.

What's the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the '30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the '60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the Great Society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they're poor for what reason? They're poor because of us, because we don't care, and because we've gotten rich by taking from them, that's what kids in school are taught today. That's what others have said to the media. You know why they're poor, you know why they remain poor? Because their lives have been destroyed by the never-ending government hay that's designed to help them, but it destroys ambition. It destroys the education they might get to learn to be self-fulfilling. [Applause] And it breaks our heart. It breaks our heart. We lose track of numbers with all of the money, with all the money that's been transferred, redistributed, with all the charitable giving in this country.

Ladies and gentlemen, there ought not be any poverty except those who are genuinely ill equipped. But most of the people in poverty in this country are equipped for far much more. They've just been beaten down. They're told don't worry, we'll take care of you. There's nothing out there for you anyway; you'll be discriminated against. Breaks our heart to see this. We can't have a great country and a growing economy with more and more people being told they have a right, because of some injustice that's been done to them or some discrimination, that they have a right to the earnings of others. And it's gotten so out of hand now that what worries me is that this administration, the Barack Obama administration is actively seeking to expand the welfare state in this country because he wants to control it.

George Will once asked Dr. Friedrich Von Hayek, tremendous classical economist, great man, 1975, George Will, Dr. Von Hayek, why is it that intellectuals, supposed smartest people in the room, why is it that intellectuals can look right out their windows, their own homes and cars and look at their universities and not see the bounties and the growth and the greatness of capitalism? And Von Hayek said: I've troubled over this for years and I've finally concluded that for intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and all liberals, it's about control. It's not about raising revenue. You think Obama has any intention of paying for all this spending? Folks, if he had any intention of paying for it, he wouldn't do 90% of it because we don't have the money. [Applause]

They don't care about paying for it. All that's just words. All that's just rhetoric paying for it because he knows you have to worry about paying for it. He knows we all have to be concerned -- oh, except, wrong again. Except the words of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were given homes that everybody knew they could never pay for, and now Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the architects along with Bill Clinton of the policy that gave us the whole sub-prime mortgage crisis, get to sit around and act as innocent spectators to investigate what went on when they largely had the biggest role in causing it. [Applause]

Congressman Frank's definition of affordable housing is you get a house you don't have to pay for that everybody else in the neighborhood will pay for. Why? Because it's unfair that some people can have a house and some people can't. Geez, it's just unfair. So here we have two systems. We have socialism, collectivism, Stalin, whatever you want to call it, versus capitalism. Admittedly over on the right side capitalism there will be unequal outcomes because we're all different. And some of us care more and have more passion and we know what we want to do and others are still struggling for it. Some people are just going to work harder than others. Okay. You get what you work for. Those who have a genuine inability for whatever reason are taken care of. We're compassionate people. On the left side when you get into this collectivism socialism stuff, these people on the left, the Democrats and liberals today claim that they are pained by the inequities and the inequalities in our society. And they believe that these inequities and inequalities descend from the selfishness and the greed of the achievers. And so they tell the people who are on different income quintiles, whatever lists, they say it's not that you're not working hard enough, you could have what they have, perhaps, if you applied it. They're stealing it from you.

So what liberals do, and I say this again to the -- another thing, I know people in the country are watching. I was watching a focus group after some event this week. Might have been after Obama's State of the Union show. [Laughter] And they had -- it was a typical, you know, Drive-By Media focus group. They round up losers -- [Laughter] -- who hear Obama speak and think that the next day their gas tanks are going to be filled up and get a new house and a new kitchen and a new car. And so this one guy said -- oh, it was some guy responding to Bobby Jindal. Oh, by the way did you hear about Joe Biden? Joe Biden was mystified how Bobby Jindal got his shift off at 7-Eleven that night to make the speech. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Suspend speech for explanation. People watching at home. I'm glad this happened. Glad this happened. You think I just made a joke, an ethnic joke about Bobby Jindal, don't you? I didn't. I made a joke about the bigotry of the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden while walking through the train station he knows so well because he's such a real guy, that he made a comment that you can't go into a 7-Eleven without seeing some Indian guy behind the counter. They're all over the place.

Now, let a conservative say something like that and he's brought up before John Conyers' committee with Pat Leahy wanting at you next. Many people think I lose my place in these speeches because -- by the way what time is it? We have plenty of time. We have to be out of here by -- [Applause] We have to be out of here by 6:00 -- okay, depends on how you behave. I'll decide as we go on. What liberalism -- Democrats, for those of you in the country, I really want you to believe this because it's the truth. I'm not saying it just because I believe it. This is a core. I want the best country we can have. We want the most prosperous people. We want to be growing. We want to lead the world. We want everybody to come here legally. We want this country to be so damn great and we just cringe to watch it -- basically capitalism be assaulted and our culture be reoriented to where the people that make it work are the enemy. That's not the United States of America. The people that make this country work, the people who pay on their mortgages, the people getting up and going to work, striving in this recession to not participate in it, they're not the enemy.

They're the people that hire you. They're the people that are going to give you a job. They're the people that are going to give you a raise, the people that need you to do work for them. [Applause] President Obama, and take your pick of any Democrat, love to say we've tried it your way. Meaning Reaganism. We've tried it your way. We tried it your way in the '80s and it didn't work. We tried it your way eight years, the last eight years and it didn't work. Excuse me. Excuse me. Have you ever noticed those of you watching around the world in my first international address to the world, Fox is on some international satellites. They're watching this in the UK right now going (cringing). When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the '80s as worse than this one. Why does he leave it out? Because you know why he leaves it out, America? He leaves it out because we got out of that recession with tax cuts. [Applause] For those of you watching at home, I'm not nervous it's just really hot in here. These people are wired. We got out of the 1980s recession with tax cuts. Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration?

Now, this is not prosperity. It is not going to engender prosperity. It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom. It's going to be just the opposite. There are going to be more controls over what you can and can't do, how you can and can't do it, what you can and can't drive, what you can and can't say, where you can and can't say it. All of these things are coming down the pike, because it's not about revenue generation to them, it's about control. They do believe that they have compassion. They do believe they care. But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts. The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies no more father needed, he's out doing something, the government's the father, they destroy the family. We're not supposed to analyze that. We're not supposed to talk about that. We're supposed to talk about their good intentions. They destroy people's futures. The future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change, and it's not hope. [Applause] Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.

It is not their task, it is not their right to remake this nation to accommodate their psychology. I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. It's so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal it's hard to do because they're so unhinged now anyway, even after -- but all you have to do is say you know that the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That's the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the -- they're the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling.

I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged? There really is no reason to be afraid of them. And there's no reason to assume they're the minority. And there's no reason to let them set all the premises and all the agendas to which we respond to. I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here but everybody asks me and I'm sure it's been a focal point of your convention: What do we do as conservatives? What do we do? How do we overcome this?

Well, the one thing, and there are many, but one thing that we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas right now. I don't want to name any names. It's not the point. But I talk to people about the Obama budget or the Obama Porkulus bill or whatever else TARP 2 whatever it's going to be, and they start talking to me in the terms of process and policy. I say stop it. What do you mean? Who is setting the process or policy? They are. You want to tweak it? No. This is philosophy, folks. This guy, I forgot -- the guy in the focus group after Bobby Jindal said, I didn't want to hear him talk, he said: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, that's exactly what your future is about, who wins, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives versus liberals. The notion of partisanship, false premise. Let me define bipartisanship for you. Bipartisanship -- everybody seems to go orgasmic over the concept of bipartisanship. Don't worry, I checked with Fox, that word's okay. [Laughter] [Applause]

Remember, they covered the Lewinsky thing, so that's my -- bipartisanship occurs only after one other result, and that is victory. In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in Congress. What they mean is: We check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show and agree with them. That's bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them. And that has to be what we're focused on. [Applause] Why would any of us in this room who hold the core beliefs we believe, somebody tell me where is the compromise on all of this spending? Where is the compromise on all this punishment of the achievers. I don't know. [Laughter] [Applause]

Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal? Serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges. If we're going to convince the minds and hearts of the American people that what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principles, because our principles are not present in what's happening here. So where the hell do we go to compromise what we believe in when our principles are not their principles, they're just the opposite of what's happening? [Applause]

The American people -- it's a tough challenge. I admit -- I admit it's a tough challenge, but it's worth it. It's worth it. The way I just defined bipartisanship you could turn it around and liberals will define bipartisanship when we surrender and say okay we give. We're not quitting. We are not giving up. The country is too important. [Applause] There are certain realities. We don't have the votes in Capitol Hill to stop what's going to happen. What we can do is slow it down, procedure, parliamentary procedures, slow it down and do the best we can to inform the American people of what's really on the horizon. I know it's going to be tough. At some points, I don't think it can happen even right now. This is still the honeymoon period, and there's a lot of devotion to the Obama administration. It doesn't have anything to do with intellectual thinking, it's feelings. It's going to take some time for this to play out. But I spoke to David Keene, interviewing him for my newsletter. I asked him about this. He said they're going to overreach. Wouldn't you say they have? [Laughter].

They're going to overreach. At some point, at some point people have got to realize none of this is possible. You can't have people living in homes they don't pay for. You can't have people driving cars they don't pay for. I mean, you can for a while. But after a while the people paying for it -- screw this. We're not putting up with it. And you're going to see -- you're already starting to see evidence of these. All the tea parties that are starting to bubble up out there. Those are great. Fabulous. [Applause] And here's the big question. Here's the big question. And I ask this again in the context of my first address to the nation. [Laughter] You don't know how I love saying that, how excited I am about this. Aside from the bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are, that TARP is, it's not constitutional. Aside from that, where is the evidence that the people offering all of this have ever succeeded in any similar plans before? There's none. There is no evidence it works. [Applause]

So you say how is he getting it done? Dumb down public education. Emotions. And the

ongoing -- this is why I think it's such a waste for a man as gifted as President Obama with the communications skills, you know he could wipe out the Republican Party. He can wipe out the Republican Party if he would inspire this country to be the best it could be, but we don't have to worry about that because that's not what he wants. He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want. Because they think they can do it better. They see these inequalities, these inequities that capitalism produces. How do they fix it? Do they try to elevate those at the bottom? No! They try to tear down the people at the bottom. It's not fair you're up there. So they whack us. That's not what made the country great.[Applause] And no evidence of it is in play here.

John Kerry [Boos], who served in Vietnam. [Laughter] Think about this, and, by the way, Barney Frank got involved with this, too. Northern Trust, a bank in Chicago -- by the way, which holds the mortgage to the Messiah's house, purchased by Tony Rezko, Northern Trust holds the mortgage. Northern Trust was forced, like Wells Fargo was forced, to take TARP money. The Wells Fargo CEO said they were taken into Paulson's room and they were given until 5:00 to sign it. They weren't getting out until they did. They wanted it spread all over the banking business. Northern Trust was in there. They didn't want it. They took $1.6 billion. As you know, they went out and they sponsored the LA Riveria Open two weeks ago that Phil Mickelson barely hung on and won. [Applause]

And we find out they hired some liberals to entertain, but it still wasn't good enough. They hired Sheryl Crow. And they hired the rock crooner group Chicago, but they had the audacity, Northern Trust did, to entertain their clients, to try to reward their best customers, to get new customers, banking is in trouble, Northern Trust is trying to do what they always do, what all businesses do, and that is mine for new clients and reward existing good customers. Not since they took $1.6 billion, I guess. The haughty John Kerry wrote a piece of legislation said: He's getting sick and tired, sick and tired of these CEOs using taxpayer money to throw all these lavish parties. And I'm saying where do you get yours, Senator? [Applause]

Sad thing, sad thing is it works. They've created class envy in so many average Americans that they love hearing that. Yeah, you get even with those bank guys. How is it going to improve here? Let me ask a question for those of you watching my first national address. Take the favorite villain you've got, maybe it's John Thain at Merrill Lynch, because he used his own money, his company's own money, his company's own money, to redecorate a bathroom in an office for $1.2 million. By the way, to do that he had to hire a contractor. They got paid. Had to hire a designer and buy furniture, that's called stimulus. And he did it.

But all of a sudden John Thain's thrown out. John Thain is thrown out. He's humiliated and embarrassed; how dare he? He did it a year before they took the TARP money. And all these Congressmen are standing up saying this is not going to happen. We are not going to watch these people capping executive pay while Obama tries to live like one. You know, he's trying to emulate the lifestyle he is attacking. That's what liberals do. Two sets of rules: One for them; one for everybody else. But it's coming. See, if you think that John Thain or the Northern Trust CEO, if you love them getting attacked, if you love them being ripped, ask yourself the next day, do you have any more money in your pocket? Is your life any better because that guy got taken out or down by some haughty senator from Massachusetts?

If you ask yourself this, you'll realize your life is no better off. That the Democrats and Obama are asking you to feel better simply on the basis that they're going to get revenge for you, but your life isn't going to improve, somebody else's is just going to be destroyed and they want you to be happy over that. That's sick. And that is not the United States of America. [Applause] Besides, as far as John Kerry is concerned, if it wasn't for his varicose veins, he would be totally colorless. [Laughter]

Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were. We, ladies and gentlemen, have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a landslide victory, 52 to, what, 46. Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama. There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee. [Applause] I don't mean that -- I mean that in an instructive way, as a lead-in to what I'm talking about here. No humiliating defeat here. I can't -- sometimes I get livid and angry. We do have an organizational problem. We have a challenge. We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.

For the purposes of this occasion, I'm not going to mention any names, I bet with you I won't have to. People watching my first address to the nation might be curious what I'm talking about. They'll find out in due course, trust me on this. I cringed -- it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent conservative but Beltway establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over. [Crowd Booing]

And that we needed to adapt our appeal, because, after all, what's important in politics is winning elections. And so we have to understand that the American people, they want Big Government. We just have to find a way to tell them we're no longer opposed to that. We will come up with our own version of it that is wiser and smarter, but we've got to go get the Walmart voter, and we've got to get the Hispanic voter, and we've got to get the recalcitrant independent women. And I'm listening to this and I am just apoplectic: The era of Reagan is over? When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over? You never hear it. Not only that, the President of the United States today thinks he's FDR, thinks he's Abraham Lincoln, and sometimes, Tuesday night, thinks he's Ronald Reagan. Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections. [Applause]

We have to. You see, to me it's a no-brainer. It's not even something to me: How do you get rid of Reagan from conservatism? The blueprint -- the blueprint for landslide conservative victory is right there. Why in the hell do the smartest people in our room want to chuck it? I know why. I know exactly why. It's because they're embarrassed of some of the people who call themselves conservatives. These people in New York and Washington, cocktail elitists, they get made fun of when the next NASCAR race is on TV and their cocktail buds come up to them, those people are in your party? How do you put up with this? It would be easy to throw them overboard, so as to maintain these cocktail party/Beltway/New York City/inside-the-Beltway media relationships. But I tell you: This notion that Reaganism is dead, conservatism needs to be refined, let's take a look at this. We've got to go get the Walmart voter. I opened my remarks tonight by telling the people watching on Fox who we conservatives are. When I look out at you in this audience, I don't see a Walmart voter. And I don't see a black, and I don't see a woman, and I don't see a Hispanic. I see human beings who happen to be fortunate enough to be the luckiest people on Earth since you are Americans. [Applause]

Conservatism -- for us to make the decision that we've got to figure out policies, to get the Walmart voter -- psst, we've got most of them already, is the bottom line. Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don't check principles at the door. This is a battle that we're going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is. And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservatism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy. They think we need to be defeated. Why do you think -- you all in this room know this. For those of you watching at home, my first address to the nation -- [Laughter] -- I'm sure you paid close enough attention, that you knew at one time Senator McCain was the favorite Republican of all the cable news networks and the Sunday shows. And they would just -- I mean their tongues would be on the floor. The media people (panting) when they knew McCain was coming. And they would treat McCain as the greatest guy in the world. Did you wonder why? You were told he was moderate. He was not strict. He was not an authoritarian, he was able to walk to the other side of the aisle, able to get along with the enemy. And everybody wants love and bipartisanship.

That's not why they invited Senator McCain. They invited Senator McCain because he happened to be the loudest at criticizing his own president and his own party and that's what they want, is people from our side -- and there will be factions in our movement, folks, who are going to make an effort to say we have to grow, we can't stay stale, I think I heard the term used the other day. Nothing stale about freedom. There's nothing stale about liberty. There's nothing stale about fighting for it. Nothing stale whatsoever. [Applause] Freedom. Are you getting tired of standing up, I don't blame you. By the way for those watching on TV you think the standing -- people are just tired. They've been up and out of their chairs 100 times here. [Applause] Thank you. Freedom -- freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as we were endowed by our creator. And the United States of America is the place in the world where that yearning flourishes, where freedom is expected because it's part of the way we're created.

I loved it when the Soviet Union went down and the wall went down and the liberals in our country said you know they may not be ready for freedom over there. They've been oppressed -- yes, liberals will gladly tell you who can have freedom and who can't. And that's what the pieces of legislation are all about, folks, freedom, liberty, economic prosperity, they're all entwined here. We'll have to as a conservative movement understand that our job, after we come to an agreement among ourselves, which shouldn't be hard but it's going to be difficult because the people that think they're smarter than everybody else are going to be out there forging alliances with people that try to make themselves look like new power brokers, and they will become the spokesmen, by the way.

By the way, explain that to you. This is a funny story. Show you how I can hijack a news cycle even by doing anything. The Tuesday before the inauguration, President Bush invited me to the Oval Office for lunch. And it was on and off the record, some of the conversations. And he brought out, interesting, at the end of it -- my birthday had been the day before. He brought out a chocolate birthday cake, a microphone, and stood beside me with Ed Gillespie and sang happy birthday. Photographers taking pictures. I wish my parents were alive. My parents wouldn't believe my life. They came out of the Great Depression. They didn't think it was possible for somebody who did not go to college -- and even for people who did -- they didn't think this was possible. Life has changed so much for the better in this country. That's why I cringe when I see what is in store.

So as I'm flying home from lunch, I'm watching television and I see that the word has leaked out that Obama is hosting a dinner with conservative media pundits at the home of George Will. I said: I wonder who these people are? [Laughter] In the media, one of them is going to have to leak it. Sure as heck, one did. Now, we all know who were there. And let's see -- I can't remember all the names, so I won't mention any. But let me tell you Obama's purpose. Does anybody really think that Barack Obama had dinner with a bunch of conservatives hoping they would change his mind?

RUSH: Hell, no. His purpose -- and his purpose really wasn't to change theirs -- his purpose was to anoint them as conservative spokesmen. These are the people that Obama's willing to break bread with. These happen -- some of the people there happen to be the people who think the era of Reagan is over, who believe that conservatism needs to be redefined. Of course Obama would try to lure them in. Well, all of a sudden I land. I get home about 5:00, and my e-mail is jammed with questions from reporters, are you, is that why you took the day off today? Is that why you're not on the air? Are you going to dinner with Obama? By the way, I left out a crucial part of the story. Was this a Monday, Kit? It was a Tuesday. I had forgotten to tell my audience that I was going to miss the next day. I signed off the show saying I'll see you tomorrow. That's the last thing I said. The staff reminded me you're not going to be here tomorrow. I came up with a plan, that the guest host the next day would say that I was called out of town to Washington at midnight the night before. Just an innocent little trick on the radio audience. Everybody picked that up and thinks I'm invited to the Obama dinner. So those people that were invited to it got less coverage than I did and I didn't even know about it. [Laughter] It was fun. [Applause]

Conservatives are naturally happy. We seek happiness. We pursue it. It's part of who we are. So what can you do? Live your life. I swear, folks, you do not know in just the everyday life that you live in your homes, your neighborhoods, the favorite word of this administration, your "communities." Remember the root word there is "commune." [Applause] Be happy, live your life according to your values and principles. Know you're going to fail, no human being is perfect, you're going to make mistakes, but live your life -- you'll be stunned at how many people you impress. Don't be afraid to tell children that they're wrong. They don't know what you do. They simply haven't lived long enough. It's not their fault, but they're being fed a bunch of garbage in school and don't be afraid to tell them that they're wrong.

Don't go the Oprah route and say gotta be friends with my parents, my kids, first and foremost. Understand they're going to hate you for a while and they're going to rebel against you and someday they're going to think you're the smartest person they ever met. But you owe them the truth. You owe them the truth about things. You owe them the truth about morality. You owe them the truth about values. [Applause] You owe them the truth about politics. Next thing, we've got to stop treating voters as children. [Applause] Somebody says they want something that's bad for them, do you give it to them just to be nice? Or do you tell them, regardless of their age, no, you shouldn't have that? Well, it's none of your business. Maybe not. And then you back out of it. But you still have to have the ability to tell people what's right and wrong. And that's not authoritative. That's not authoritarian. And it's not trying to deny somebody a good time. It's not trying to interrupt somebody's hedonism, pleasure, it's about all of us with shared values trying to make sure that people live the highest quality lives they can. Ultimately, it's their decision as to what they do. But the point is, don't treat them -- especially voters -- as kids just -- they say they want it okay we'll come up with a plan to give it to you.

Have any of you seen the movie -- I'd never heard of it, but I happened to get a DVD the other day. Anybody see the movie Swing Vote with Kevin Costner? You know, it's kind of a moronic movie like most things out of Hollywood are. But this is fascinating in the way -- tell you a short story, because a voter screwup in New Mexico there's one voter who is going to elect the president. His vote didn't count because his daughter voted for him. I won't give the whole story away. But New Mexico's electoral votes, New Mexico's electoral votes determined it. And they have a two-week period before this guy can vote again. So the challenger and the president both relocate to where this guy lives in New Mexico and they end up like the Democrat played by Dennis Hopper stands for antiabortion. The Democrat candidate comes out with a commercial for life. The Republican candidate comes out, because this guy is an idiot and doesn't know what he believes, and every utterance that he makes these politicians react to it throwing their principles on the floor, just to get his vote. Sadly, this is what some of the conservative intellectuals in our movement want to do, essentially. And that we cannot do. We've got to stand for what we believe and treat people as adults and understand they can learn. [Applause] Go optimism.

Joe Biden, ladies and gentlemen, was watching CBS -- when did you start here? Thursday. You might have seen this. The days run together. It might have been Wednesday, but Biden was on the CBS Early Show. And he was asked -- the anchorette -- sorry. I'm trying to change my ways. I've been doing women summit programs so not to offend women. The anchor, Maggie Rodriguez, went out and got some man-on-the-street questions. And one guy, woman, I think question for Biden. What is in the stimulus package for small business? Biden was clearly stumped because there isn't anything in the stimulus package for small business. So what Biden said, honest to God, what Biden said was: Well, if there's a bridge to your small business, we're going to make sure that bridge stays open so that you can get to your small business and your customers -- honest. I kid you not. Now, of course, the media today is a bunch of hacks, they're out there as PR agents; they're starting to get a little embarrassed. Maggie Rodriguez says, Senator Biden, there's a website that answers all these questions. What is the name of the website and Biden says I don't know. He looks off stage. "Does somebody have the website number?" [Applause] I realize those of you watching at home during my first address to the nation, you have never heard liberal Democrats be made fun of in this way. Get used to it. [Applause]

Two other things and we'll get out of here contractually over time. The president's stimulus package, the TARP, the whatever, the budget, relies on one thing for its success. Well, aside from authoritarian government power. It relies on the complacency of the American people. It relies on their belief that they can convince the American people that there's such a crisis that only government, the only entity that can fix it is government, as Obama has said. So they get complacent and they sit around and they wait. See, this is something liberals will never understand about the United States of America and it's right under their noses, right in front of their faces, we are a competitive people. We strive, enough of us do, to be the best. We strive to win. We strive to avoid defeat. Enough of us still do. Don't believe otherwise. The liberals have made efforts to shut that aspect of our nature down. Wherever you live, I am certain that you, when you were a child or your kids today in youth sports are told not to keep score, because the losers, it's just not fair. They'd be humiliated, especially if one girl's basketball team can defeat another one 100 to nothing. And let's fire the coach who put that game together. It's so unfair. So let's not keep score. Well, here's the dirty little secret. The kids are keeping score. [Applause] You know they are. They don't want to lose. They know what winning and losing is. They're saying, well, why go out there and put on the pads and play football or T-Ball if the objective here is to not keep score. So they're keeping score. They get in the car with mom and dad and they tell mom and dad: Yeah, we kicked their butts tonight. Wait a minute, I thought you weren't keeping score. They weren't officially. They keep score. We're competitive people. Adults are doing the same thing.

It didn't take long for people to get fired up when they figured out that they're going to be paying mortgages for people who should never have been lent money in the first place for the bogus excuse of maintaining property values in the neighborhood. This is something that -- the complacency of the American people is something they're going to rely on along with their authoritarian efforts to control it. But they will not succeed at this. Because we're not quitters. We don't acquiesce. We're not going to give up the American dream and watch idly while it is restructured and transformed.

As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail.

This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!

RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [doing Harry Reid impression] "This war is lost. This war is" -- [Cheers and Applause] They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton -- [Crowd Booing] -- said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? [Applause]

Let me add a caveat here. My friends, I know what's going on. I know what's going on. We're in the aspects here of an historic presidency. I know that. But let me be honest again. I got over the historical aspects of this in November. President Obama is our president. President Obama stands for certain things. I don't care, he could be a Martian. He could be from Michigan, I don't know -- just kidding. Doesn't matter to me what his race is. It doesn't matter. He's liberal is what matters to me. And his articulated -- his articulated plans scare me. Now, I understand we can't say we want the President to fail, Mr. Limbaugh. That's like saying -- this is the voice of the New Castrati, by the way, guys who have lost their guts. You can't say Mr. Limbaugh that you want the President to fail because that's like saying you want the country to fail. It's the opposite. I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed. [Cheers and Applause] [Crowd Chanting "USA" ]

I want the country to survive as we have known it, as you and I were raised in it, is what I mean. Now, I have been called -- and I can take it. Pioneers take the arrows, I don't mind what anybody says about me, any time ever. I don't have time for it. I don't give other people the power to offend me. And you shouldn't either, by the wasted time being offended.[Applause]

I mean, there's some people you can't say you want the President to fail. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States, the Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents and policies and now wars for the first time, the Democrat Party doesn't stop at failure. Talk to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations and character, and I'm supposed to say I don't want the President to fail? [Applause] We're in for a real battle. We are talking about the United States of America -- and there will always be an America, don't misunderstand me -- we're talking about it remaining the country we were all born into and reared and grown into. And it's under assault. It's always under assault. But it's never been under assault like this from within before. And it's a serious, serious battle.

So as you leave here, as you leave here optimism, confidence, not guilt, it's not worth it. There's nothing to be guilty about. Don't treat people as children. Respect their intelligence. Realize that there's a way to persuade people. Sometimes the worst way is to get in their face and point a finger. Set up a set of circumstances where the conclusion is obvious. Let them think they came up with the idea themselves. They'll think they're smart that they figured it out. Who cares how you persuade them, the fact they can be persuaded is factually correct, it's possible. But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority. Stop thinking that it is being in the minority that liberates you. It is your beliefs. It is your core principles, it is your confidence that liberates you. It's not being in the minority.

In fact, for those of you watching my first national address and still hanging in there, we really are not that happy about being a minority and we're out to change it. [Applause] So I have -- I've gone over my allotted time by an hour. [Applause]

I want to thank all of you so much for everything that you have meant to me and my family in my life.

RUSH: I understand it's mutual. And I hear people -- you have made my heart grow so much that it barely fits in my chest cavity here tonight. But the things that by virtue of your listening to my radio show and being active in this movement that we all cherish and love, you have meant more to me, my family and my life than whatever it is I might mean to you, even though I know that's considerable. [Applause] You still can't outdo the absolute joy and awe and thanks I feel for all of you. I've been doing this for 20 years and the numbers just keep growing. And I can't tell you how appreciative I am and proud to be in a movement with the same passions, desires and core beliefs that all of you have, because we know that it's right for the country, and we know it's right for people. It's not something that has to be forced on them. It's not something that has to be authoritatively pressed on them. We are what is, and that's why we are an enemy because we're effective. The people that do want control look at us as the enemy. We're always going to be -- don't ever measure your success by how many Drive-By Media reports you see that are fair to us. Never going to happen. Don't measure your success by how many people like you. Just worry about how they vote. And then at the end of the day how they live, but that's really none of your business once they close the doors. Thank you all very much. It's been great.

[Those of you who are as old as I am recall that President Nixon had an enemies list, and this list included private citizens. Not only have members of the Obama cabinet attacked private citizens—Joe the Plumber and Rush the Limbaugh, but the media has joined up with them]

RUSH: It is on the record -- thanks to Politico.com -- since last fall, the White House, led by Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to Barack Obama, has been targeting me, your host, your harmless, lovable little fuzzball. Their standard operating procedure: they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is. They need a demon about whom they can lie so as to persuade average Americans that they're the good guys, the benevolent good guys, and the mean SOBs are their enemies trying to stop this great young little president from doing miraculous and wonderful things.

Here is a new ad that this union bunch is running in Washington, DC, ladies and gentlemen. And, of course, it's been picked up all over the Web. You guys, if you haven't done so, you gotta go to RushLimbaugh.com. The DNCC, whatever it is, they have a questionnaire up there. It's hilarious. I have to give 'em credit. You can see it right now at RushLimbaugh.com. It is a form letter where any Republican can send a note of apology to me. The note is an apology note to me, and you can fill in your name and the reason you're apologizing. It is funny. I had to laugh when I saw it last night. I instructed Koko, just put it up there, 'cause it's hilarious. It's as good as the old Saturday Night Live stuff back when Saturday Night Live was actually funny. But there's a new ad targeted at your lovable, harmless little fuzzball host from that union bunch. It starts today in Washington, DC, which means it's going to be all over the cable networks pretty soon.

ANNOUNCER: Who is the leader Republicans hailed as a hero last weekend? Was it Sarah Palin?

ANNOUNCER: Call the Republican leadership. Tell them to just say "no" to the politics of Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH: That's the union bunch. Can you just see...? (laughing) "Call the Republican leadership and say no to Limbaugh." (laughing) Now, ladies and gentlemen, the Politico story today. I got an e-mail last night from the writer of the story, Jonathan Martin, who did not tell me the full details of what the story they were working on was. He did not tell me that they have discovered that there is a team inside the White House targeting me and that they've been doing this since last fall, when they went out and did some polling data and found out I've got very high negatives among certain groups. So they thought, "Well, this is the guy to demonize! Since Bush is leaving, we need somebody," and so this is being led from the White House. There is an orchestrated attack, daily drumbeat on me from the White House. The participants here are James Carville, Paul Begala and Rahm Emanuel.

But make no mistake about it. Emanuel is the leader of all of this. Carville and Begala are just trying to ride my fame into their fortune and become relevant again. Begala and Carville, don't confuse them with the power brokers that are managing this. It all Emanuel. Begala and Carville are second-rate talking heads on CNN. CNN has no audience. Rahm Emanuel is the power behind the throne -- and don't let his effeminate nature and his ballerina past mislead you on this. He may look effeminate (he was a ballerina at one time) but he has the feral instincts of a female rat defending its young. Well, take a look. When Emanuel and Carville and Begala are together (and I've seen pictures) it looks like a reunion of the Village People. (singing) Y! M! C! A! They are really the official greeters in Roswell, New Mexico, in Area 51 where Carville was born.

My point here is that these are really odious, empty, nasty people who are feasting on their own arrogance. They are power hungry. But, you know what? They've never had a serious debate over ideas. Their goal is to destroy opponents, which is what they're trying to do now. They don't want to engage opponents. Their idea of victory is the destruction of the opponent. They're not for a level playing field. They want to clear the playing field so that their ideas do not have to undergo any scrutiny. So what do they do? They leak stories to The Politico intended to create impressions about their own importance and their brilliance, when in fact they aren't even bit players on the nation's stage. This is Emanuel, and this is Obama.

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn't President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it's on the record. They're claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let's have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues. Let's talk about free markets versus government control. Let's talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let's talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let's talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let's talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let's talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let's talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let's talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let's talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let's talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let's talk about your stock market. By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There's no "up and down" here. We have a plunge. The president yesterday suggested "we're getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest." Uh, Mr. President? There is no "profits and earnings" ratio. It's "price and earnings" ratio. He's the president of the United States. He doesn't know anything about the stock market. He's admitted it before. Let's talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it's a tracking poll? I'd love to talk to you about that. Let's talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let's go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party -- they think that's a great thing -- then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let's have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don't agree with you how wrong we all are. You're a smart guy, Mr. President. You don't need these hacks to front for you. You've debated the best! You've debated Hillary Clinton. You've debated John Edwards. You've debated Joe Biden. You've debated Dennis Kucinich. You've debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don't send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding -- and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He's got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine -- and we can question each other, in a real debate. Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you're too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I'm sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America -- and if he won't work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won't work, go get Bob Rubin. I don't care. Send whoever you want if you can't make it. You don't need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that's published today. You don't need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

In fact, Mr. President, you know what, I know these are tough economic times, and you're trying to convince people that you're "saving" the taxpayers money, that you're cutting spending, that you're cutting the deficit. In that vein, I, Mr. President, will send my jet, EIB One, to pick you up and bring you here and take you back to wherever you want to go. You'd love it. It's not as big and luxurious as your jet, but it's got enough seats for your Secret Service detail. But it is something to behold. I'm very proud of it, Mr. President. I worked for it. I paid for it. Taxpayers pay you for your travel. Nobody pays me for mine. I pay for it. I pay for the airplane. I pay for the travel. I pay for practically everything I do. We can talk about that, too. I could tell you what that's like.

And once you land, by the way, I have a fleet of SUVs because I have guests here all the time. I have four or five SUVs. I can send a caravan to pick you up. I'll even put you up at The Breakers. It's a five-star resort. I'll do it all on my dime. We don't want the taxpayers footing any of the bill for this -- and my jet burns a lot less fuel than your two and your C-130 to bring your limousine and SUV caravan here. In fact, you know what, Mr. President? I'll tell you what I will do, if you will do this. I will promise to order some Wagyu Kobe beef at $100 a pound, just like you serve at your cocktail parties and your Super Bowl parties. I'll get it from Allen Brothers in Chicago, since you like that. I know you like $100-per-pound beef. You serve it at the White House.

But I'll cover the cost. I will cover the cost, Mr. President, so that the taxpayers do not have to pay for it, as they did your Super Bowl party, and as they do your Wednesday afternoon cocktail party. So you have no excuses. Your flunkies are demanding this debate. Your flunkies are targeting a private citizen with an enemies list that so far has three or four names on it: Mine; Rick Santelli; Jim Cramer at CNBC; and let's not forget Joe the Plumber, who your allies in Ohio also tried to destroy. The difference is that Joe the Plumber does not have his own microphone every day. They're shutting Santelli up at CNBC. They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight. That isn't going to happen here, to me.

I'm calling. I'm ready. I'll do everything I can to facilitate it. You're a very courageous man, Mr. President. I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing. If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition. You have America's media in your back pocket. It's amazing. In 1972, Richard Nixon had an enemies list, and the media was outraged by this. They were outraged. At the same time, those who weren't on it were a little jealous. But they were outraged that a president would engage in this kind of behavior toward the media. Now they go after a private citizen.

Rahm Emanuel is leading the team going after a private citizen, and the Drive-By Media applaud, get on board and help further the mission. We live in different times. So if you can wipe me out -- and, by the way, Mr. President, and Mr. Emanuel: Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm wiping myself out here in the process. I want to thank you guys for elevating me beyond the stature I already earned and achieved, because now more and more Americans have the opportunity to learn who you really are, what your ideas will really accomplish, and what damage and harm I think your policies will bring for a very, very long time to them and to this country. So I want to thank you for the opportunity. Obviously, it's a threat targeting me. I've extended the invitation. I'm looking forward to hearing back from whoever in your cabal one way or the other on accepting my offer.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee goes after Rush on the Internet:

[do you recall Bush, Rove or Cheney or the Republican party going after civilians on their websites? Right now, the DCCC website is covered with attacks on Rush Limbaugh; in case you do not recognize this, they have an enemies list which includes private citizens; and yet none will come onto Rush’s show to debate him]

RUSH: All right, audio sound bite time, Robert Gibbs, this morning, White House press briefing, unidentified reporter. Now, get this question. It's a butt boy question. "The Republicans are criticizing the White House for engaging in the Rush Limbaugh issue. You and the president have used the term 'cable chatter' a lot. You guys have kind of decided that you've also said -- I've heard administration officials derided sort of superficial food fight political reporting, but you've repeatedly engaged in the podium with CNBC reporters as well as Rush Limbaugh, seems to feed that process that you're criticizing..." It's actually not a butt boy question. I take it back. I misread it when I read so hurriedly. "It seems that you guys are a little hypocritical, Mr. Gibbs. You decry what you are encouraging."

GIBBS: Look, are there days in which I just turn my television off? Yes. (nervous cackling) I wish I had a radio. I don't.

GIBBS: Maybe I should just hook my iPod up. Look, there -- there are days in which, yeah, y-y-y-you -- your head throbs from listening to arguments that aren't necessarily centered on d-delving into some important issue but founding two people at completely opposite ends of the spectrum to yell loudest in a seven-minute segment before we go on to something else.

RUSH: What? What I gather from that is that Mr. Gibbs doesn't have a radio. We can do something about that. We ought to buy Mr. Gibbs a radio and send it up there -- again, not using taxpayer money. I'm sure my Washington affiliate -- the giant AM 630 WMAL -- would be happy to assist me in getting a radio to the White House press secretary. Perhaps at the next press briefing somebody at WMAL could arrange for one of the reporters in the press briefing to actually present the radio to Robert Gibbs so he would have one. By the way, folks, I need to ask a question real quick. We just did the story here on the victims in the Obama War on Capitalism. Private sector jobs fell 697,000. What we're not being told is how many jobs were "saved." The president promised to "create or save" three and a half to four million jobs, but I haven't seen the "saved job" figures. Has anybody seen the "saved job" figures? I've not seen that report, and if somebody has that data -- maybe they're still working on that bureaucracy at the Labor Department -- I'd like to see the data on saved jobs. The unidentified reporter, by the way, answered Gibbs with this. "Shouldn't the White House lead the way in elevating the discourse?"

GIBBS: I won't kick the cable people out of the briefing room. I'm certainly opposed to doing something as radical as a -- as an idea as that. Look, it's out there, we deal with it, I don't -- I certainly criticize it and I even occasionally watch it.

RUSH: They're asking about cable TV (laughing) when in fact Rahm Emanuel and his merry band are targeting with an inside the White House operation -- a plumbers operation -- targeting me, an average citizen. Yes, a public figure, but not an elected figure. Targeting me and making me the leader of their opposition. And Gibbs says, "Ah, I can't kick the cable guys outta here," taking no blame for any of the partisanship that exists within our culture. All right, back to the phones. We're going to go to Hartford, Connecticut. This is Ferris. I'm glad you waited. Nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Well, we are certainly all Joe the Plumber, but no one more than yourself. I'm sitting here hammering away at my computer with your noise in the background, trying to make a dollar out of the 99 cents as are many people who are still productively working. And, oh, by the way, I do have the saved job figures. It's a percentage. It's 110% of all public, government sector jobs have been saved. Just as a sign.

RUSH: There aren't any layoffs and nobody is getting fired in the government. You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought of that. I shoulda thought of that myself. All these government jobs are indeed being saved.

CALLER: Well, we who are about to die salute you. "Nos Morituri Te Salutamus" is what the gladiators used to say, but we say it for a different reason, and I'm sitting here working away and thinking, "Somebody has to express gratitude for what you've done," and what I say for what you've done, nobody can understand the breadth of that, comparatively speaking. Very few people would know what it takes for a man to bring himself to the point you've brought yourself, and to rise to the level, to be able to be the leading voice --

CALLER: And I'm sure I speak for all my brothers, including my friend Cameron in Allison Park.

CALLER: Well, I think we must forget the sisters because, I'm going back to the days before we had women in combat, and the kind of combat that we're facing now, I have more respect for the ladies than to ask them to step up and follow people who lead like you do.

RUSH: Yeah, I know. but you can't. I'm begging you. I'm asking you not to leave the ladies out here. They fully understand what is going on here, just as you do. Look, I really appreciate what you're saying. I don't quite know how to respond to it, other than say thank you, but I really... I know you've thought about it, and you do understand what you mean and I appreciate it.

RUSH: You're welcome. I appreciate it. I'd love to expand further, but this isn't really about me. Thanks very much. I appreciate it, Ferris. John in Wilmington, North Carolina. You're on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: What I discussed with Mr. Snerdley, my call was the Democrats are giving you a great opportunity here in the fact that they have so much mainstreamed you in the media, and I can cite my wife as an example. She's probably one of the most outrageous liberals that walk the face of the earth. (chuckles) How we got along is strange, but anyway, we do. The point being that now she's actually paying attention to what you say; and for years she used to criticize me for even paying attention to you at all. So I think the Democrats have jumped the shark a bit here because I think they've run out of options and they're afraid of you. If they weren't afraid of you, they would just totally not even mention you.

RUSH: Well, here's the thing. If you read the Politico story, you find out that all this is being done on the basis of polls, that they went out -- Greenberg, who was also part of the flunky team of Carville and Begala, went out -- and did a poll of Republicans, and they found I had the highest negatives, even though I'm not in politics.

RUSH: They said, "A-ha! Limbaugh is the guy." Now, Carville tried to caution Bill Clinton not to do this back in the nineties, which is why it's Emanuel running the show. This actually goes against James Carville's instincts.

RUSH: So they're putting me up there. They're totally focused on polling data. I don't deal in polls. I deal in principle. And they have expanded my reach and given me a bigger shot at changing people's minds.

RUSH: You gotta hear this 'cause it dovetails in a way with the Politico story today about how Obama's minions -- well, his capo de capo consigliere, Rahm Emanuel, and the minions, Paul Begala, James Carville, made a project to elevate me to the leadership of the Republican Party last fall and then to begin targeting me from the White House, using leaks to butt boy media like Politico and columnists. It's working like a charm as far as they're concerned. So this morning on Morning Joe, the show hosted by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski on PMSNBC, they talked to Lesley Stahl of CBS' 60 Minutes and here was Mika's question. "I want to ask you what your take-away is of this whole Rush Limbaugh thing, and also the White House getting in on the conversation and then engaging TV hosts, that would be Santelli and Jim Cramer, certainly a departure from the White House we've covered in the past. You've covered in the White House. I wonder what you think in terms of your historical perspective, but also tactically."

STAHL: What we're looking at is a little bit of a cross between Reagan and how that White House operated, the good Reagan, first term, that was successful, and Clinton, because they're taking from Clinton I think the war room approach, the sunniness aspect of Reagan. He never really attacked with anger, and there's a lot of humor in what the White House is doing.

STAHL: It's kind of velvety and molasses really than the hard hit, and letting the Republicans hit back hard. We talked about the no-drama Obama. I really do think that the watchword right there is no anger.

RUSH: All right, so what we have here is White House velvet and molasses in their take-downs of Santelli, Rick Santelli, CNBC, Jim Cramer at CNBC, and of course yours truly, El Rushbo, the new leader anointed by them. "It's like Clinton, taking from Clinton in the war room." They're not taking from Clinton. It is Clinton's war room. It's Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, Paul Begala, and Stephanopoulos over at ABC. It is the Clinton war room. I don't remember, by the way, her references here to Reagan and how the White House operated. I distinctly remember both terms of Reagan he was despised. The media was as disrespectful of him in press conferences as they were of George Bush, and they thought the same thing of Reagan. They thought he was a dunce. They thought he was an idiot and they were always trying to trip him up, but he did remain sunny, he did smile all the while, and I guess that is why Lesley Stahl thinks that he won because he was really vicious, he was vicious, and Reagan was mean, but he did it with a smile. It was the other way around.

But now contrast this not to Reagan, but Nixon. If this were Richard Nixon doing this, Mika, if you ever get Lesley Stahl back, what you need to do is ask her the same question, but ask her to go back beyond Reagan and ask her how this measures up with Richard Nixon and say his enemies list, and then ask her what she thinks of going after private citizens like this. Mika, this is a huge, huge evolution in the Drive-By Media. In the seventies when you had an administration -- now, admittedly it was already the enemy, it was a Republican administration -- but when that enemies list was discovered, there was outrage, and it was part and parcel of the media support for impeachment once the Watergate stuff hit. There was some jealousy among those not on the list. But still, it was thought to be horrible, it was rotten, it was just terrible, why this is unbecoming of the president. They called it un-American, or it was not in America's best interests or what have you. So what you need to do is get her back on there and ask her to compare what this administration is doing with what Nixon did. That would be the more interesting answer from Lesley Stahl. I can't have her on, Mika. I have to keep this show open for if Obama accepts my offer to debate.

RUSH: Frank in Old Forge, Pennsylvania, nice to have you with us, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, mega dittos, sir. You are a national treasure. You have frustrated the Drive-By Media so much that they have now become the kamikaze media, Rush. They're throwing everything at you! They don't care about the integrity, the credentials. They're just trying to hit you with anything and everything. Rush, you, sir, are one of the best entertainers, a radio talk show host extraordinaire. You are not the elected leader of the free world. They anointed you as such. Rush, I'm very happy for your success and I'm happy that they are so frustrated that they have picked you as a target and not the socialist agenda of Obama or the fact that... I'm a school director here in Pennsylvania. Obama says he's going to get additional funds for school teachers? Rush, in Pennsylvania the taxpayer could be dead on the side of the road, they would never help a teacher. There is no problem with funding teachers in Pennsylvania. The media has to point this out. It can't be cart blanche, "Rush Limbaugh is no good, Obama bad." I'm just very happy for you, sir.

RUSH: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Folks, let me be serious about this. I don't know how to address these compliments other than to say, thank you. I really don't. I've got so many people who are worried about me, and I hear from them when I get home at night, and they ask, "Are you okay? How are you bearing up under all this? I understand, they may be using your name, but it's not just you they're going after. We're going to be there for you," and so forth. I appreciate all that. I really do. But, you know, when I've talked about work over the course of the years I've hosted this program, when I've talked about how lucky I was to learn at age eight, if not earlier, what I wanted to do -- that's so important to success. It's actually finding out what you love and then being able to do it, do it the best you can.

That's success. So I've been doing this all of my life. And I have -- ever since I started hosting talk shows, I have -- been subject to criticism and attack. Now I've got the people saying, "Can't you sue them for what they're saying about you." No, you can't. It's just the territory. It comes with it. What I tried to do is slap it right back at them and have fun with it. Frankly, folks, I don't want you to worry. I'm enjoying this. I am. I'm enjoying it. I was made for this. I was built for this. Let me expand on this work business. I admit if this were happening my first year behind this microphone, I would probably be a little panicked and I'd be backing off and I'm sure my broadcast partners would say, "Ooooh, maybe gotta back away here, a little bit too out front there," blah, blah.

But I am at a point where destiny has taken me, and the experiences that I've had leading up to it have prepared me for this. I'm made for this. I was built for this. I'm doing what I was born to do -- and don't worry. Without my enunciating it, 'cause, you know, magicians don't give away the tricks, but I have not lost focus of who I am and what I do, and that is my focus. (interruption) What? (interruption) Snerdley is so itching to say something, and you're distracting me. What? (interruption) All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. (sigh) Snerdley says, "This is different than anything that you have been in. This is the full force of the government coming at you. This is the full force of the president coming at you in the open, right out in the open, with the media proudly leaking the story of the operation."

It's not really the first time. This is my point. Don't forget Clinton telling a racist joke about me in front of 1,200 media people in Washington. Don't forget Bill Clinton tried to blame me for the Oklahoma City bombing. Don't forget that Clinton tried to get our radio station in St. Louis to button down on me when he called them from Air Force One, when he was going in to dedicate some train station or something in St. Louis. Of course, if you watch cable TV, I'm mentioned and attacked and mischaracterized all the time. To me it's not that big a step up from what I've been going through. So it's not impacting me the way it is people who are close to me. They think it's far more serious than I do. I think it's serious, but I think it's a teachable moment.

I think it's a learning opportunity for a lot of people. This is the Obama government in action. And also, here's the bottom line. That CPAC speech, when I accepted that, I said, "Okay, I'll come and do it." I did it only because they've asked me for ten years and I haven't gone. Okay, I'll do it. That CPAC speech has had more far-reach, deep impact than anybody will ever admit. That CPAC speech is largely why they're ramping up all this stuff at the White House. I know that. The White House is presenting me an opportunity to branch out beyond the confines of my normal format, radio, and at least get to the minds and hearts of Americans who normally aren't here. So to me it's an opportunity. I thank all of you for your support and kind words. I really do. I just don't know what more to say than that, and I feel like I should, so this is it.

[I will admit that, since the election campaigns, I have listened to a lot of talk radio, and one of the things which I picked up on is the vast army of Obama callers who pretend to be one thing, when they really are something else. “Hi, Rush, I am a life-long Republican, and I voted for Reagan and for both Bush’s, but I must admit that I am being swayed by this Obama fellow...” or words to that effect. There is an army of Obama supporters out there, and they are often very dishonest from the outset. Few of them call up and say, “I have been a liberal all of my life; I think that Bill Clinton was our best president and that Bush was our worst; and here is why I like Obama...” In fact, I have never heard someone preface their remarks in that manner. Since the White House has attacked Rush Limbaugh, these callers are coming back.]

RUSH: To St. Louis and Steve. I'm glad you called, sir. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush. I'm -- I'm -- I'm kind of -- uh, uh -- I'm kind of confused. I don't understand why you would want to have Obama debate you, uh -- and -- and the reason being -- and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to -- I just want you to be honest. For the past eight years, have you not embraced the policies of George Bush and the Republican Party?

CALLER: And if you have -- if you have -- if you have -- those policies, look where we are now. The policies didn't work.

RUSH: It's a nice trick. I know about certain population centers in St. Louis. I don't know where your house is and I don't know where you live, but we could find out.

CALLER: Uh, ooooh. You... For eight years you haven't ever discounted any of his policies.

RUSH: Not true. Sir? Sir? Who do you think helped lead the fight against Bush's desire for amnesty for illegal aliens? Who do you think led the fight against --

RUSH: I also announced that -- no, no. Don't change the premise of your question here, sir, or you're history.

RUSH: You called up with a false premise that I have blanketly agreed with George W. Bush, therefore how can I possibly debate Obama? I'm answering your silly question. I opposed the new Medicare entitlement. Republicans don't do entitlements. I cringed at some of the spending the Bush administration was doing. I came to the defense of Republicans in the House who were hornswoggled by all this because they dare not oppose their own president for the sake of party unity. I opposed the "new tone," Steve. I opposed from the outset the idea that the Bush administration was more friendly with its enemies than with its friends. I opposed steel tariffs. I opposed campaign finance reform. I opposed the education bill -- and that bailout didn't go well down here. I wasn't in support of that bailout, the TARP money. So nice try. That's why I say nice try. You need to expand your horizons on who I am, beyond some of these cheap little propaganda sites disguised as news sites. Who's next on this program? Rob in Binghamton in New York. Nice to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hello. My name is Rob Kilmer, and I heard what you said about debates, and I have a simple question for you.

CALLER: Yes or no: Are you willing to debate the future of this nation and defend your position, one-on-one -- in primetime, national television -- with a prominent Democrat, whether it's Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, whoever? I'm not talking a radio interview. I'm talking the real thing, a true debate. Are you willing to do it, or no?

RUSH: I establish the terms. The terms are the president of the United States. It's he who is attacking me.

RUSH: It's Rahm Emanuel, as opposed to Carville and Begala. They're just pretenders trying to get rich again on the back of my fame.

CALLER: So it has to be on your terms that you will defend your position, and -- and you want to convince everybody in the nation that you're right, as long as it's on narrowly defined terms.

RUSH: Why would I want to give a television network, any television network -- which for the last number of years has done its best to trash me, any of them -- why would I want to give them the benefit of this? I made my offer. It doesn't matter --

CALLER: Well, are you willing to defend your position in front of "a nationally televised audience" or not? Not radio. Not where you control the format. Have the guts to take your position out there. Risk it.

RUSH: There is no format. You missed that. There is no format that I create. It will be a standard debate, just like they do on television.

RUSH: Well, I'll do three if he wants to stay that long. I'll do six if he wants to stay that long!

CALLER: No, no, no, no, no. Are you willing to have traditional, televised debate?

CALLER: That's a -- That's a (stammering) proposal about you, not about your philosophy.

RUSH: You don't get to set the terms, either. The last I knew, President Obama has done all kinds of debates where the agenda has not been set by him, where the agenda has been set by Tom Brokaw or whoever the moderator is, Gwen Ifill or something. I think the onus is on President Obama to step out of his comfort zone. The onus is on President Obama. I extended the invitation. It's up to him. I'm here. I'm willing. I'm able. And they can put a camera in here. There's one in here already anyway. I hate it, but it's here.

RUSH: We have a new opinion audit. I have an official opinion auditing firm, the Sullivan Group in Sacramento. They just last week released an audit of my opinion since the election. As you know, I went into the election documented to be almost always right 98.9%. I have jumped a full tenth of a point. I have not been wrong since the election, according to Sullivan Group, the opinion audit now documented to be almost always right 99% of the time. I don't think people take the time to understand what that means. Do you realize over what a long period of time I have to be 100% right in my opinions to even move it a tenth of a point? Just stunning. I'm very proud of it. Greetings, my friends, I am Rush Limbaugh, your friend here at the EIB Network. 800-282-2882 if you'd like to be on the program. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

I made an offer in the previous hour based on what Obama's flunkies are leaking to the media and writing in op-eds, I have offered the president of the United States to fly him down here to my studio on my airplane to feed him with my food, to pick up his lodging at a five-star resort, all at no charge to the taxpayers, for a friendly debate and discussion, his ideas and philosophies versus mine. Leader to leader. By the way, the full details of that offer are now posted at www.RushLimbaugh.com. Since I made that offer in the previous hour our official screener of calls, Mr. Bo Snerdley -- we put two of these calls on -- has reported that many more of our friends the liberals are calling. We haven't heard from very many liberal callers in the past couple of months, six weeks, but today, we're being overwhelmed with calls from our friends the liberals after I have extended this challenge, offer, opportunity. And, of course, they are trying to get me to change the terms of the debate, and they are doing what liberals do.

But just to be firm and just to be clear here, I want President Obama. I do not want a flunky. I do not want an ex-president. I don't want Bill Clinton. I don't want Joe Biden. I don't want Carville, Begala. I want the president. I want this to be a debate, leader to leader. They say that I'm the leader of the Republican Party. President Obama says he is about bipartisanship. If they could broom me out of the way, they could have clear sailing. The dirty little secret is that they don't need one Republican vote in the House to get whatever he wants; he doesn't need Republicans to go along with him. But, he seems to want to be bipartisan. He wants to have Republican support for this. I'd like to talk to him about that. They made me the leader of the Republican Party. Here, grab audio sound bite number three. This is a Democrat support group, some union group, and they're running an ad on TV starting today in Washington, DC.

ANNOUNCER: Who is the leader Republicans hailed as a hero last weekend? Was it Sarah Palin?

ANNOUNCER: Call the Republican leadership. Tell them to just say "no" to the politics of Rush Limbaugh.

RUSH: I'll be glad to explain the "I hope he fails" comment face to face to our president. They've made me the de facto head of the Republican Party. Now, the two liberal phone calls that we had in the previous hour illustrate something I want you to all understand. Obama's people are scared. They said that I am the leader of the opposition. They are raising my profile as a leader of the party and I'm saying, "Okay, fine, let's debate here." Now we have callers trying to help The Messiah. He's afraid for The Messiah, and these callers know The Messiah wouldn't do very well debating me on the issues and philosophy on the radio. See, this is the way of our friends, the liberals. I make an offer based on what Obama's flunkies are leaking to the media and what his flunkies in the media are writing in op-eds, and they want to control the process. Just come to this forum. Just come to this forum and let's debate. I'm not negotiating terms.

Just come out of hiding, Mr. President, stop hiding behind your flunkies. Debate me right here on my radio program. You said you need diversity on the radio. You've said you want diversity on the radio, that there's too much conservatism on the radio. I'm offering you the biggest radio show in the country, to come on and get your ideas out there. Call it my offer of the Fairness Doctrine, extended to you, Mr. President. Not a flunky and not a former president, and not a secretary of state. You. Not Rahm Emanuel. He's got important work back in the White House advancing your agenda and continuing his off-the-record phone calls with media people, one of the purposes, apparently, is to demonize me. That's important work, but you can come here and defend your administration, and you can kill two birds with one stone: diversity in the media and bipartisanship. You're the leader of your party. You're the president. I'm the leader of your opposition, according to your flunkies. Nothing complicated here.

See, this frightens our friends on the left. They don't want Obama in a one-on-one debate or even discussion on the radio, certainly not without a teleprompter. They're scared to death of that. President Obama wouldn't even appear on Fox for a long time. Now, you liberals who are frightened and scared here, you're going to have to understand something. You made me the leader. You got what you wanted. Now, stop whining. You people won. You people should finally be happy, sitting on top of the world. I want Obama to debate me on the radio. That's my offer. It's not a negotiation. I mean you ought to lap this up. You ought to think that Obama could wipe the floor with me. He's so good. He's so authentic. He is the best communicator we've ever had. I don't know what you libs are afraid of.

By the way, this is a perfect example of an open public debate without the government mandating it. You liberals want that kind of debate on radio. You say you can't get your point of view heard on radio because conservatives dominate, look at my magnificence here, munificence, look at my grace. I am offering the leader of your party and of this country a chance to get on radio where liberals simply can't seem to make it work. You liberals want this kind of debate on radio, you do. You advocate for the Fairness Doctrine. You want a liberal debating me on radio. You have claimed I'm the leader of the opposition. I will not lower myself to debate the flunkies. I have made a public offer to debate the president on these airwaves. I do so without the government mandating it. You see how fair I am? I myself, Rush Limbaugh, the leader, offering the largest radio audience in the country to a Democrat who happens to be the president of the United States, and this is happening without any legislation on minority ownership rules or local content, or even the Fairness Doctrine.

You see, to my good friends the liberals, I am acceding to all of your desires in this. Everything you want to see happen to radio I'm offering it here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network. Now, Snerdley, look at me. I've made this very clear. I don't know how much of this you've heard because you're screening calls. Look at me. I am not negotiating with panicked liberal callers. The offer has been made. It contains every element of what they think needs to change about radio. There's already a camera in here, and this program's televised on my website each and every day. I understand the liberals are concerned. I understand our good friends are a little panicked over this, but you shouldn't be. You asked for this, and it's apparently what you didn't want. You wanted me to be the leader. Well, here I am. I lead. I don't listen to advisors, especially on the left.

RUSH: There's a story in something called the Washington Note today, and it dovetails with some of the bloom coming off the rose in the Obama Democrat alliance. It's not large right now. It's kind of like a little hole in the dike, not yet a fissure, but it is like a hole in the dike, and nevertheless, it is just mind-numbing to watch CNN and MSNBC. I know you're saying, "But, Rush, but, Rush, but, Rush, you used to say you don't watch it." Well, they're on now, the sound is down, I got the closed-captioning on. I don't watch them at home at night. I got other things to do that are far more fun and pleasurable. I don't learn anything from them anyway. But MSNBC has been running a story all day with the graphic at the bottom of the screen: "Obama Announces Plan to Cut Government Waste." Now, you and I will see that, and our heads will explode. Cut government waste, we say two things. First, the audacity of lying like that on the part of Obama. Secondly, the absolute sycophancy of the Drive-By Media to just happily report it, move it down the PR chain. If it were Bush announcing this, if Bush were doing all of this and then came out and said that he was cutting government spending and waste, well, the Drive-Bys would be convening roundtables on it right now, and they wouldn't run graphics that say "Bush cutting government waste." They'd say, "Bush cutting government waste, ha-ha," with a couple exclamation points behind it.

It's mind-numbing and breathtaking to watch this. Here's a guy who is the author of trillions of dollars of spending that we don't have, lying about the -- ah, ah, ah -- misrepresenting the fact that it's all about stimulating economy, and nothing could be further from the truth. It's Orwellian, it's 1984. Bipartisanship is partisanship. War is peace. Whatever he says the opposite is true. But whatever he says, the sycophants and the butt boys in the media simply repeat. Is that term starting to bother you, Dawn? Dawn is starting to shake her head in there. Well, it may be hysterical, but I can't think of a better way to describe what's going on in that White House pressroom. It's what I've always meant when I've said bend over, grab the ankles, people say, "I don't like that, would you stop saying that so much?" Kathryn said to me, "Gosh, I'm glad you didn't say that at CPAC." I said, "I didn't do it on purpose, half the audience would have got up and tried to do it, just to show what it looks like." Butt boy, that's what happens after you bend over and grab the ankles. How else would you describe what's going on up there?

Yeah, there's a long, long, long, long way to go here, folks. And remember this, at the end of the day the Republicans can stand for everything in the book. They can get their act together 120%. They cannot stop what Obama's going to do. The only place it could be stopped is if the Democrats in the Senate don't like something coming down the pike. Russ Feingold doesn't want this omnibus bill passed. He wants Obama to veto it. There are a lot of Democrats, moderate Democrats in the House even starting to break away from this. That's because their constituencies are advising to get away from it. The constituents don't like all this. There's still a group of people in this country who would normally vote Republican who are saying, "We gotta try something new, it didn't work the last eight years." See, there's so much ignorance. Ignorance is our most expensive commodity. The economy in the years post-9/11 were astoundingly, amazingly good. The economy didn't start going south 'til the Democrats took over the Congress after the 2006 elections. But everybody's been told for the last six years Bush is where all these failures are rooted, and there are people that believe that, and it's just going to take a while.

My buddy's friend, his kids are in college, he sat down and told them every day, intellectually, why global warming is a lie, why it's a hoax. They wouldn't believe him, primarily because he's dad, but secondly they believed the more influential figures of Algore and people in the Drive-By Media. Only when it never got warm, when it's still cold as it can be and record snowfalls are happening are they beginning to question this whole thing. So it's gonna take a while. There's a war on capitalism going on. It's gonna take a while. If Obama gets all these policies enacted, it's going to take that, and for those policies enacted to start having impact on people's lives for them to slap themselves upside the head and go, "What did we do? What is this?" And don't forget, this economy is a very powerful machine. And the entrepreneurs in this country are not going to sit around long and just lick their wounds over what's happening to them. At some point they're going to get back in gear, and some are going to do whatever they can to overcome the obstacles in their way, they're going to bring elements of the economy back and get ready for Obama to claim credit for it in the stimulus package.

By the way, even our buddies at Fox today, you know what I saw up there? "The first bridge to be repaired with stimulus money." I have been across this bridge. The Osage River Bridge and it goes over a tributary of the Missouri River. It's a dilapidated bridge, and so this bridge is the first bridge that's going to be stimulated with stimulus money. They sent a Fox reporter out there to show us what rotten shape the bridge was in and to explain why this one was chosen first. I read about this weeks ago, Snerdley. I'm just telling you they just got around to sending a crew out there to report on the first bridge that's going to be repaired with stimulus money. Well, people see that and they say, "Oh, stimulus plan working." It doesn't take much. A little battle here, but we are ready for it. We're born to do what we're doing. I was born for this. I was made for this.

Now, here's the story on the fissures, the dike, the hole in the dike, Obama, the Democrats. It's from the Washington Note. I'm just reading what it says here. "I can't get into names, but if a crafty business journalist got on the phone to the biggest billionaires and financial wizards who support the Democratic Party and Barack Obama, he or she would find a large passel of very frustrated economic elites who think that Obama's stimulus package and spending priorities are not going to either restore confidence and economic growth or reinvest in the backbone of the US economy in a way that can help generate recurring returns for future generations of citizens. The folks I am talking to are definitely not part of the market fundamentalist Robert Rubin fan club. They see the world differently, but I'm beginning to wonder if we really all should be very worried that some in Obama's economic kitchen cabinet (or who we think is in it) are so dissatisfied with the substance of the policy outcomes we are seeing thus far."

So this story is raising the specter that voters and contributors from the wealthy elite on Wall Street and elsewhere are starting to have some questions here about Bam's policies, like our buddies on the right. My good friend Christopher Buckley wrote back in October he's voting for Obama, "The guy is very smart, writes his own books, but if he takes this country this far left, I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough to --" I'm paraphrasing "-- I can't imagine he'd make the mistake, far left agenda." Buckley has recanted his vote. And of course David Brooks of the New York Times yesterday essentially said we are surprised by the Obama we're getting. Surprised by the Obama you're getting? You know, these guys, like Brooks, they're the ones that have all the great Ivy League education. These are the guys that are supposed to be the ones warning us, and they get roped in, they get sucked in by the same pedigree. Obama went to Harvard, gotta be one of us. Obama went to Chicago Law. Oh, Obama, gotta be one of us.

But you'll note, ladies and gentlemen, that it is the average, run-of-the-mill regular guys in the Republican Party and talk radio who are able to spot these frauds from day one. And yet we are called unsophisticated, unappealing physically, we shouldn't be the face of the party, we shouldn't be listened to. It's always these guys that have to recant their mistakes. So, in addition to our guys starting to have some problems here, all of a sudden we're being told in this story that Democrat elite rich people are having some doubts, and we're learning that some in Obama's economic kitchen cabinet are so dissatisfied with the substance of the policy that they are frustrated and don't know what to do. "I asked one of them who I assume can get through to the President or at least to Rahm Emanuel any time he wants why he doesn't make his case more clearly to the occupants of the White House. The response was, 'Yes, I can get through to Rahm Emanuel any time, but I get three minutes with him, and then someone else gets their three minutes, and so on. Rahm is the three minute guy -- and he's great during those three minutes,'" but that's all you get.

Note to those of you in the kitchen cabinet wanting to talk to Emanuel. You would get more than three minutes, but he's busy working on an Obama-directed plan to demonize me with James Carville, George Stephanopoulos and Paul Begala. Once they give up that project, you might get five or six minutes with him. "Wealthy donors on the outside of the political process probably should not be able to just call up the President and get their way -- but the frustration I'm hearing from a great number of these types of donors -- types who are not only wealthy and helped finance much of the Democratic Party's victory in November, but who are also smart and connected -- is that they are not getting through where it counts. The policy options they are proposing aren't getting into the basket of proposals that Obama is considering. In other words, some feel that Obama is not getting a full range of choices on the economy and is being provided a narrow band of views that fit the preconceived biases of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner."

The piece is written by Steve Clemons, by the way, at the Washington Note. Mr. Clemons, I know that you will hear that I commented on your piece, and since you have access to these kitchen cabinet people that donated big time to Obama and the party and are frustrated that they can't get through to him or to Rahm Emanuel in their policy ideas, I would like you to consider something. Mr. Clemons, Obama doesn't need a full range of choices. He doesn't need any advisors on any of this. Summers and Geithner are front men. Obama is doing exactly what he wants. Obama doesn't need advice to do any of this and he's ignoring your friends and your buddies, or these elite people because he doesn't care now that he's elected. Mr. Clemons, there is a war on capitalism going on, and I'll tell you what I think, and you can pass it along to your guys, I know they'll reject it. Don't use my name so that they will consider this. But I think one of the best ways, folks, to understand the philosophy -- and believe me, philosophies matter in politics, as much as policy -- the philosophy that's guiding what Obama's doing, none of this makes any sense.

You don't raise taxes in a recession; you don't punish achievers; you don't tell achievers they're going to be punished in the middle of a recession. None of this makes any sense if your objective is a genuine private sector recovery. But it does make sense if you have another agenda. If you have an agenda to destroy the private sector economy and replace it with a government economy that runs the show, owning as much of the means of production as possible, then this makes total sense what Obama's doing. Also, it helps to understand what Obama heard when he was in that church for 20 years, and what Obama heard when he was growing up, and who his influences and mentors were. You see, we in the New Media, Mr. Clemons, we thought that was all important. The other media didn't. Here's why I think it's important. I think he comes into office with a grudge. I think there's a chip on his shoulder and I think the best way to explain what's happening here is a very simple little phrase, one sentence: In Obama's eyes, the wealth of our nation is being returned to its rightful owners.

Now, what do I mean by that? Well, it's very simple. In Obama's world, and in much of the left -- and they have said this when they oppose trickle-down, supply-side, Reaganism, whatever, they have said that the wealthy in this country have stolen it. They have taken an unfair share. You see, Mr. Clemons, this is something your economic friends need to know. Obama looks at the world, our economy, as a zero-sum game. It's a never-changing size pie. Somebody gets hired, somebody has to get fired. Somebody earns a dollar, somebody loses a dollar. Nobody can earn two dollars separately at the same time. That's not how they view the world. So in Obama's world -- and this is what he's been taught growing up, this is what he was taught in school. He was taught that the wealthy, the rich, got it in unfair ways. They had advantages. They took money that was actually intended for the middle class and the poor. So what Obama's doing here is very simple, he's returning, in his mind, the wealth of the nation to its rightful owners. That's the only sensible explanation for Obama's economic policies. He doesn't care about the stock market. He said so. Doesn't even understand it, doesn't even understand that a PE ratio is price-to-earnings ratio, not profits-to-earnings ratio. He doesn't understand it. To him it's a tracking poll, and he ignores tracking polls, he's ignoring this. Stock market is the nation's wealth, one measure of it, and it ain't fluctuating. It's plummeting.

RUSH: Let me read to you some excerpts of Jim Cramer, Mad Money, CNBC on a website called MainStreet.com entitled, "My Response to the White House -- Now some, including Rush Limbaugh, would say I am on another enemies list: that of the White House. Limbaugh says there are only a handful of us on it, and if I am on it for defending all of the shareholders out there, then I am in good company. Limbaugh -- whom I do not know personally, but having been in radio myself, know professionally as a genius of the medium -- says, 'They're going to shut Cramer up pretty soon, too, but he'll go down with a fight.' Limbaugh is dead right. I am a fight-not-flight guy, so I was on my hackles when I heard White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' answer to a question about my pointed criticism of the president on multiple venues, including the Today Show." Here's what Cramer said about this (audio sound bite 15) last night on his CNBC show Mad Money.

CRAMER: I know Rush Limbaugh today said that I was on the White House enemies list and that they would try to silence me but I would put up a good fight. And let me tell you, I am really more of a fight-than-flight guy, for those of you who know my personal life.

RUSH: Jim Cramer is a liberal Democrat. He said this: "I had been a relentless critic of the Bush administration's 'stewardship' of the economy, calling repeatedly for changes to avert the disaster that I saw coming ... But Obama has undeniably made things worse by creating an atmosphere of fear and panic rather than an atmosphere of calm and hope. He's done it by pushing a huge amount of change at a very perilous moment, by seeking to demonize the entire banking system and by raising taxes for those making more than $250,000... I also made it clear in a New York magazine article that I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat..." Jim, I love you, but this really dumbfounds me.

It dumbfounds me on a lot of levels for a lot of people. How in the world anybody could have ever mistaken Obama for a middle-of-the-road, triangulating, above-politics kind of guy...? He was lying when he said he was going to get past the politics of usual. He's going to get past the bipartisan. He was gonna get past all the fighting and we're gonna be one. The sea levels are going to sink by four feet and we're going to have peace. Love for the country is going to be back. All of that crap during the campaign! I don't understand -- and Cramer's a smart guy, and David Brooks is a smart guy. Christopher Buckley is a smart guy. I don't just mean educated. How in the world do you not see a liberal when he's two inches in front of you? How do you look past it?

You have to have hope. You have to hope the guy ain't liberal 'cause there are other things about him you like, like that he can talk -- and now we know it's a teleprompter! The New York Times even has a story making fun of his teleprompter use today, when he introduced Kathleen Sebelius. The White House is doing it. The New York Times has a story that it's never seen that before. They do it under the guise of: his remarks are scripted; they never vary; they never wander. Their point is that Obama is so brilliantly on message. It's not it. You let him ad-lib and it's a risk. It's an accident waiting to happen. When Kathleen Sebelius got up to accept the nomination, teleprompter screens descended and she started joking, "Oh, where are they going? Where are they going?" Obama said, "They're for me. For me!"

Jim... "I favored Obama over McCain because I thought Obama to be a middle-of-the-road Democrat..." (groans) One of the most frustrating things in my life and my work in political things is the seeming resistance people have to understanding what liberalism is. Obama wouldn't have had a chance. Of course, McCain wouldn't call him a liberal. We wouldn't call him anything, because everybody's panicked and paranoid of charges of racism. Anyway, Cramer says, "If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general..." Listen to this. Jim Cramer, a guy who supported, urged everybody else to support and voted for Obama. "If that makes me an enemy of the White House, then call me a general of an army that Obama may not even know exists -- tens of millions of people who live in fear of having no money saved when they need it and who get poorer by the day." Jim Cramer acknowledges the mind-set that exists. That's who Obama's talking to when he says, "I haven't forgotten you." Those of us who listen to Obama say that, our retort is, "Please forget us."

This is a sad statistic: 34% Agree You Can't Earn Living in U.S. Without Government Help

Mayor Bloomberg recognizes that taxing the wealthy to the breaking point will hurt NYC:

Bill O’Reilly, by the way, suggests that this is going to blow up in their face. Most of the people in our country are moderates; and if they start to see the tanking economy harm them personally, but all they see from Obama is massive government spending and personal attacks on a private citizen, they are going to start to rethink this hope and change mantra. Obama will no longer be seen as the unifier and a man opposed to all things divisive; anyone who pays attention is going to see Obama for who he really is, as well as the Chicago-styled political machine which is backing him up.

Conservative Review
Issue #65	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	March 8, 2009