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.

Obama signs spending bill with 9000 earmarks, quietly, behind closed doors, without media fanfare.

Obama gives Gordon Brown some DVD’s; it is unclear whether they will play in Britain.

The stock market goes up this week, which is the most increase in a week since the inauguration.

The Obama talking heads begin attacking Rush Limbaugh along with the media. One remark is played over and over again: “I hope he fails.” Few news people make an attempt to place this comment into context.

Media focuses more on Rush Limbaugh statement and on Obama’s graying hair than it does on the change Obama has delivered on his campaign promises.

Special scholarship program for minority students killed by Obama’s spending bill.

Several economists, who publically support Obama, publically question Obama’s economic policies.

Obama, who answers the question of the NY Times reporter, “Are you a socialist?” decides that his answer was not as good as it should have been, so he calls the reporter back to improve on his answer.

It appears as if there is really an early-morning strategy call which involves members high in the Democratic party, media matters, and others as well as some members of the media, where not only talking points are given, but public targets are set up as well. This may explain why many news services seem to carry the exact same news clips and a very similar story. This is how Rush Limbaugh can give an outstanding hour and a half message at CPAC, and yet every major media outlet plays the 5 second clip, “I hope he fails.”

When asked about the state of the economy and the effect of the Obaam administration on the recovery ahead, Newt Gingrich answered, “First of all, this is an 80 years experience...this is not politics as usual...this is much more fundamental than anything going on in Washington right now. One of the great mistakes of the depression was the passing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which created enormous pain in the world market. I would suggest that the Obama tax increases, including the energy tax increase in the budget and the war against everyone earning over $250,000/year are, in some ways, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of our time. You have a vice president who says, “Put them in the brig;’ talking about CEO’s.; you have a Senator from Missouri describing them as idiots. Now let’s say you are successful and you have money, and you look at this administration—do you really want to risk your money or do you want to hide it underneath the mattress? There are a number of successful investors who have told me, ‘I’m not doing anything; I don’t trust this administration.’ You have heard many in this administration talking about clawback; you heard Senator Schumer mention clawback; what is clawback? This means that whatever you thought you have earned is not yours. The government can intervene and take it back from you—after the fact. What about the mortage bill which just came thorough the house? A trial lawyer and a bankruptcy judge can rewrite mortgage contracts. What does that say to the next cycle of mortgage contracts? There must be built into the loan a risk factor to offset the possibility that this new mortgage may be rewritten. This administration’s anti-business, anti-success rhetoric and its tax increases are an enormous burden. The energy tax increase is as big of a threat as any income tax increase.”

Dennis Miller, “The administrative flow chart of the Geithner’s treasury department would look at lot like that of the Unibomber’s organizational flow chart.”

And Newt Gingrich one more time: “They can’t defend 9000 earmarks, they can’t defend an oppressive energy tax; they can’t defend having a tax cheat running the treasury department; so they decide, ‘Let’s have a fight about Rush.’ This is exactly the opposite of what Obama had promised in his campaign.”

When talking about the drug wars occurring at our border and spilling into the United States, Charles Krauthammer said, “The real problem is that the only way to approach the drug issue is in two ways: Either you legalize drugs here completely, or you do a Singapore, and you hang anybody who is caught in possession of a minimal amount of anything. And Singapore is drug free in an area of the world where there are a lot of drugs.

We are not going to legalize and we are not going to do a Singapore, which means we are going to have this issue alive and well and hurting us forever.

There is no escape. And having a drug czar appointed is almost comical. It is the least important, powerful position in the government, because we don't have any instruments that actually work.”

Obama, “We will need to act swiftly, boldly and responsibly...” on whatever bill or program Obama is trying to get through. It sounds great, but it is empty rhetoric; read what the bill actually says.

Charles Krauthammer spoke of “the joys of being a [political] cynic—you expect little, you get less, and you remain serene.”

Russia considers establishing bases and strategic bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. This would just be for occasional use.

North Korea warns us that, if we mess with their satellite, which appears to be a missile launch instead, they will consider that an act of war.

Two Trillion with a T on FoxNews tonight (Sunday night); this should also be available at www.foxnews.com under videos. If you don’t believe that FoxNews is fair and balanced, then you have not seen this show.

This past Friday, John Stossel had an outstanding special program. I don’t always agree with him, but he does make me think—which is much more than I can say about anyone else on network news.

Although John Stewart is quite on target, as well as funny, would he be doing this if Cramer was not criticizing Obama?

O’Reilly interviews Karl Rove about John Podesta’s 8:45 am conference calls.

(1) Newt Gingrich points out several of the failed promises made by Obama (which promises certain got him some of the votes he received). On several occasions he promised to reform earmarks and, at least once, he promised to end the practice altogether; and as president, he signs a spending bill with 9000 earmarks. Obama promised to place all bills online for 5 days so that the public can examine them. However, for the stimulus package, it had to be passed immediately. However, Obama took his own sweet time when it came to actually signing this bill, and this time would have allowed the public to read this bill before its passage; but it was passed without being placed online for more that a few hours in the middle of the night, and that in a pdf format, so that the bill could not be easily searched.

(2) For months, President Obama has decried out economy as being in a crisis state, teetering on a catastrophe. This has given him cover to pass the largest spending bills in the history of the US. Now, Obama tells us, that the economic crisis is “not as bad as we think.” He said, “Things are not as bad as they say and things are not as good as they say.” Who is they? Is he talking about him and his talking heads?

(3) Liberals were able, 30 years ago, to stop apartheid in South Africa, and to put the political power of this nation into the hands of the natives. Besides having a power-mad ruler who is running this nation into the ground, economically speaking, destroying all of the hope and potential of his people; now men are raping women in order to keep them from turning into Lesbians. There are 10 cases/week or corrective rapes.

(4) Just in case you don’t know what card check is; a union boss can come up to you and ask you personally to sign a card to indicate that you support a union; or people in the company can do the same. You either sign the card or don’t, right out in front of everyone. Secondly, once a union is formed, then the current proposed legislation also requires binding arbitration if 120 days pass without a new contract begin negotiated.

(5) In case you believe that more regulations and more federal agencies are the key to corruption, remember that the SEC did not figure out the Bernie Madoff was perpetuating the greatest fraud in human history; and this was despite the fact that they were contacted regularly by people who suspected that Madoff was doing something crooked. Furthermore, Madoff never made any stock trades; that could have been a clue that something was wrong.

(6) Even though the White House talking heads and their surrogates keep saying, “There is no other plan,” there are many. One prominent Republican stimulus bill will cost the taxpayer nothing and it focuses on energy production, which will produce jobs, wealth, and move us toward energy independence. Not too much of a shock that this bill is not under consideration by the Democrats.

(7) Most of us give money to a variety of charities. Let’s say you could choose the man you most trust in government, above all others. Now, do you want to decide where your charity money goes to or do you want him to make that decision for you?

(8) Generally speaking, and I am painting with a broad brush, the portions of the country which are doing the best in this economy are the states with little unionizing, with conservative principles and often Republican governors, and with small state governments (often called fly-over country). The states having the worst problems with this economy are those with liberal principles, larger state governments, a higher percentage of union members, with Democrats either as governors or the majority party in the state houses. Let me tell you that, from the standpoint of the economy, it is good to be a Texan.

(9) You may recall the Obama attacked Bush’s signing statements. Is it a surprise that Obama signed his own signing statement along with the spendulous bill?

(10) Chuck Schumer pontificated last week that Herbert Hoover did nothing about the Great Depression, and that is what the problem was with his administration.

(11) Herbert Hoover, whom I view as a dismal excuse for a Republican (I like Coolidge a lot more), raised taxes and tariffs when entering into the Great Depression. Neither he nor FDR knew what to do.

(12) You have heard about all the green jobs which are going to be created, right? According to FoxNews, the parts required to make turbines and solar panels are primarily manufactured outside of the United States, and that 70–80% of the cost of establishing a green energy source is the equipment itself.

(13) A provision either in the stimulus bill or the omnibus bill will eventually phase out the scholarship program offered to students in D.C. so that they can go to schools like the Obama children go to. Washington D.C. spends $14,000/student/year, so it is not a matter of not spending enough money. That is one of the highest cost/student/year in the United States.

(14) This was observed by someone on FoxNews: when small banks fail, they are taken over by the FDIC; when a large bank fails, we just keep giving them money. A bank, almost more than any other company, has easily separable assets. If big banks fail, why don’t we carve them up and sell them?

(15) 5 of the planners of the 9/11 attacks filed a 6-page with the court calling themselves terrorists to the bone and calling the attacks of 9/11 and proclaim that the charges against them are badges of honor. These are enemy combatants, which name should not be changed; and they need to be treated as such; locked up for war crimes until the end of the war, and then prosecuted for war crimes at the end of the war—even if this war ends in 2060.

$180 billion Bush-Obama spending stimulus (so described, because none of this spending was ever publically opposed by Obama)

$787 billion stimulus package which had to be passed so quickly that we had no time to examine it, and now we are being told it was not large enough.

According the Rasmussen, the Obama favorable to unfavorable scores are 53%–43%. This is lower than President George Bush had at this same time in 2001.

In case I did not give this number last time, 6000 people killed last year in Mexico in the drug wars.

By 2019, the national debt, based upon Obama’s budgets and rosy future, will be $23 trillion.

A recent election in North Korea elected Kim Jong-il with 100% of the vote; and, 100% of the registered voters voted. ☺

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

Obama speaks out in favor of earmarks which go to governmental agencies and signs a huge spending bill with 9000 earmarks in private.

Special scholarship program for minority students in Washington DC killed by Obama’s spending bill.

Clare McCaskill and Evan Bayh both speaking out publically against earmarks as Sunday morning talking heads.

[A new column by which you can determine if your news source is giving you all the news]

...if you think the Republican party is the party of no and that they have no alternative economic plans.

...if you think that Obama sounds very reasonable and that he is simply a pragmatic guy.

...if you think there is no connection between the fall to the stock market since September and Obama’s march toward the presidency.

...if you think that health care, education and energy conservation will be the cornerstones of solving the economic crisis.

...if you have heard “I hope he fails” from Rush Limbaugh, but cannot cite a single principle from his speech to the nation.

...if you think that 1 or 2 years from now, you will be better off financially because of legislation which Obama is proposing.

Expect new taxes on gas on the state and federal level. If they do not do this directly, then it will come indirectly through cap and trade.

O’Reilly predicts that the NY Times newspaper will be in receivership by the end of this year.

Rush says that Stimulus II will be out this summer. I concur with this prediction.

Our increased energy costs due to cap and trade will dwarf any tax break that anyone receives.

One of the talking heads on Meet the Press called Obama a moderate and spoke of pressures from Democrats and Republicans are keeping Obama in the middle. Despite Obama’s far, far-left policies, the media will more and more refer to him as a moderate and a pragmatist. On the following week, a different talking head (Evan Bayh) called Obama pragmatic and a pragmatist.

Schumer calls Geithner practical and non-ideological (that is almost a fulfillment of a prophecy).

Gay activism: A Canadian judge rules that a Catholic high school must allow a homosexual prom date.

Gay activism: A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

Gay activism: A Maryland Circuit Court judge has ruled in favor of a public school curriculum promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, anal intercourse, and transvestitism to 8th and 10th grade students, reports Catholic News Agency. The curriculum also teaches how to use condoms during unnatural sex acts and instructs students that homosexuality is innate.

Gay activism: Christian club is not allowed at Wright State University, as their charter because it will not use nondiscriminatory language in their charter (which would undermine their faith).

Gay activism: A new booklet from the Scottish Government telling schools to promote `gay rights' has prompted concern that parents will be denied a say in what their children learn.

It tells Scottish schools to teach pupils about homosexual issues, run `diversity events' for teachers and parents, and adopt a specific lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) `charter of rights'.

Gay Activism: In an effort to combat "homophobia," a Wisconsin public school teacher implemented a 38-day regimen explicitly designed to change the minds of students who did not view homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

Parents face court action for removing children from gay history lessons: is a story about a grammar school in London which celebrates “Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender History Month.” If a parent wants to keep their children out of school, the students will be considered truant, and this could result in court action, including spot fines and parenting contracts.

[I have done a similar article to this a couple of issues ago; I wanted to throw in some other things. Today, the day after I wrote this, Ben Bernache announced some bank reformation which is very similar to some of the things which I have recommended in here...and, what also happened on this day that Bernache made this announcement? The stock market went up 400 points—and it continued to go up all week].

First problem, are these companies which are too big to fail. We have poured billions upon billions of dollars into AIG and GM. This is just wrong. It is not up to the government to string these companies along, or to decide this company will be allowed to succeed, and another will be made to fail.

One of the things which Teddy Roosevelt did—and I will admit that, when I originally heard this in my history courses, it did not compute—that he was a trust-buster. Companies which had a monopoly were broken up by the government. It seemed unfair, but now, it makes more sense to me. This probably should have happened to Microsoft, and should happen with every single company coming to the government with their hand out, too big to fail.

First of all, management needs to be removed, and if it is a public company, then the board of directors needs to be replaced. The new board of directors needs to move one of the VP’s up (or someone else who is prominent in the company). These CEO candidates must submit a plan to make the company solvent. The board of directors must determine which makes the most sense. There are several factors which must be examined. Are the government regulations destroying the company? Are the unions bringing the companies down? For the big 3 automakers, they pay out a buttload of money to people who are not working. People are retiring on nice pensions at age 50 and 55, to be paid until they die, to be paid with health care. A company cannot sustain paying more money to non-workers than it pays out to workers. Furthermore, we taxpayers should not be paying for someone’s retirement. I think that it is great if some retiree worked out a great deal for himself via the union, but if it cannot be sustained, then it cannot be sustained.

Look, I like the idea of retiring in one’s 50's and then tooling around for the next several decades doing whatever; but, some companies, no matter what agreements they came to, cannot sustain these retirements; and the taxpayer should not be on the hook to guarantee such a retirement. This may not seem fair to the retiree who has been retired for awhile, but it is even less fair to the taxpayer to try to pay his retirement and medical. We have to live in a real world, and more and more people are living into their 70's after putting in 30 or so years in their profession. No matter what this profession is, no matte what agreements have been agreed to, no company can continue to pay a significant retirement and significant medical to non-productive former employees for decades. This, in part, is what has destroyed the profitability of US automobile companies.

When a company is about to go bankrupt, then all of the major players need to negociate this out, and there should be no guarantees (e.g., if the company goes bankrupt, that the taxpayers will then pick up the medical and the retirement). During this recession which we have been in, some companies have made things work by having their employees take off a couple of extra (unpaid) days each month. What will also have to happen is, some benefits are going to have to be lessened as well. Could that force some 60 year olds back to work? It is possible. The only concession I can see here from government is to substantially reduce the property taxes of such a one.

Back to the removed CEO (if he is determined to be the problem—and that is going to occur less often than you might think):

The old CEO should have to pay back at least half of his bonuses for the past 2 years, and the new CEO should be bonused only with stock which cannot be sold for 2 years. And these bonuses should be tied to performance.

If the unions cannot come to any sort of agreement, including a reduction of health benefits and/or retirement pay, then the government will have to step in and make a decision. Whoever is involved cannot be all Democrats or all Republicans.

Second problem: failing public companies—a good example is GE. There needs to be a predetermined percentage set up—say a company underperforms the market by 30%; which allows the government or a public regulatory board to step in, have a process by which the board of directors can be replaced, who will then replace the CEO. The old CEO will be fully or partially stripped of his bonuses, if he cannot show to the board of directors that government has put an onerous burden on him.

The problem here is, there are huge companies like GE, which Jeffrey Immelt has run into the ground, and this costs the investors money. If he has the board of directors stacked with people who will not get rid of him, he soaks the stock investors, runs the company into the ground, and pays himself large salary with large bonuses (along with the board of directors). A public company cannot be treated like a private company. They are partially supported with public funds, so they need to be answerable to the public when their company begins to tank.

The outgoing CEO of a public company should get either no bonuses or reduced bonuses, and the incoming CEO will be paid on performance.

#3: We are hired by companies, and companies must be allowed to make money and not be taxed onerously. Corporate taxes and capital gains taxes need to be eliminated entirely. The top tax amount for the wealth ought to be 30% or less. And everyone ought to have skin in the game; so everyone ought to pay taxes.

Furthermore, these tax rates ought to be tied to one another. Say the lowest level taxpayer should pay no less than a 5^th of what the highest taxpayer pays. Otherwise, people who have no skin in the game will continue to vote to have money taken from someone who earned it and given to them. That is out-and-out stealing.

The Democrats have been lying about how we cannot compete with other countries unless we have trade restrictions. All we need to do is remove the government taxes, and we will be more than competitive. The sales tax will need to be added to that which is sold outside of our country, so the government can take a bit of it.

#4: I really like the consumption tax, although it has been made too complex. Unprocessed food ought to be tax free; everything else ought to have a fixed tax, and it ought not to be different, because that only leads to corruption. There should be no tax rebate for anyone. Just a simple process: you buy something, you pay taxes on it. The best part of a consumption tax is, it is transparent, you know how much you pay in taxes, and everyone pays it: rich, poor, illegal aliens, criminals and law-abiding citizens. It is transparent, so everyone knows what they are paying, so that, when a politician promises to give you the moon, you know that you will pay for it.

I may be dreaming with the consumption tax, because it is too hard for the government to do deals under the table (special tax breaks, etc.).

On the government side, all governmental agencies, apart from the military and homeland security need to have their budgets reduced by at least 5% the first year and 5% the next. Whether this involves a reduction in pay, in the workforce, in resources, in retirement and medical, I really don’t care. However, that last place money is spent wisely is by the government.

All states which took money from the so-called Stimulus Bill will be given 5 years to pay it back. States will be allowed to lower the wages of state workers by as much as 10%, but they will not be allowed to lay off garbagemen, policemen, firemen or teachers (unless there is an actual change in an areas population).

Government would encourage oil and gas exploration in Alaska and offshore; as well as the building of more nuclear plants, including the miniature ones. In most cases, the lifting of restrictions will be all that is needed.

All farm and energy subsidies to be phased out over a 4 year period of time. Any sort of government subsidy and/or tax break to businesses to be phased out over the next 4 years.

All investment vehicles must be easy to explain and understandable to a person with an IQ of 90 and can be explained in 1 minute or less. All investment vehicles must pump money into a business rather than into someone who is holding your bets on the market.

Only people who actually buy and sell the items they bid on are allowed to buy and sell in the futures market. Or, those who are just speculating, must put in a much higher percentage than those who buy futures because they actually want that item 6 months from now.

Companies with fewer than 100 employees would not be required to carry unemployment insurance or medical coverage. People who work for such companies would not qualify for unemployment benefits.

I have additional suggestions for fixing medical insurance, but I will save those for another time.

Government can save money with regards to schools if a 70% tax credit was given to any parent who wanted to enroll their child in a private school. Education standards for graduation need to be lowered and not raised; if necessary, have 2 or 3 different types of high school diplomas. It is not right to take millions of our young people and try to make them all fit into the same requirements. Alternative certifications/degrees must be offered. In many cases, what would occur is, some public school buildings would be sold to private school corporations. This would have to be a gradual program, as there would be a mass migration out of the public schools to offer this all at once. The option of discipline, including swats, must be restored to schools which decide they want to use that to modify children’s behaviors. This would reduce the cost of education, prepare more children for college (as college-prep courses could actually become college-prep courses again) and the drop-out rate would be lowered, because not every kid is required to take a set of courses designed to prepare them for college.

At just the announcement of such a plan, the stock market would go through the roof.

You will note that most of this plan is virtually a cost-free plan where only government is really required to control their expenditures.

I'm beginning this week by doing something I don't usually do: thanking the New York Times.

Last week, this was the Times headline over a story about President Obama's budget:

And so I want to thank the New York Times for portraying the Obama budget for what it is: The most audacious attempt in generations to create a government-centered, bureaucratically controlled country.

Way back in November, when the Obama team was still flush with victory in the election, Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel laid out what he called "Rule One":

The Obama budget plan unveiled last week is proof that the goal of the administration is not economic recovery. The goal is an unprecedented shift of power to politicians and bureaucrats.

Ronald Reagan believed that at the center of American life was the individual. The entrepreneur. The worker. The doer. The family man and woman.

The Obama budget reveals a very different vision of the men and women at the center of American life.

They are the politicians. The bureaucrats. The interest groups that support an ever expanding government sector.

And so the American people are presented with a real choice: Which America do we want?

The first month and a half of the Obama Administration has presented Americans with another choice to make.

The choice is captured best in the administration's announcement last week that it intends to rescind the Bush Administration rule that allowed doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health care workers to refuse to perform acts that violate their religious and moral beliefs.

I'll have more to say about this in the future. But for now, let me just point out what it bodes for religious freedom in America.

The Obama Administration's reversal of what has become known as the "conscience provision" to protect doctors and nurses who have a moral objection to participating in or performing abortions is a direct assault on religious liberty.

It marks the establishment of a state-sponsored religion of secular leftism. And it gives this new religion the right to eliminate the religious liberty of all others that it deems inappropriate.

It, too, presents the American people with a choice of two competing futures. A future of traditional American respect for religious freedom. Or a future in which the values of the secular left over-ride our religious liberty wherever they come into conflict.

Concentrating more power in Washington politicians and bureaucrats means government dictating what it deems are the "right" choices to individuals and businesses, rather than giving them the freedom and incentive to make their own choices.

For example, in his address to the joint session of Congress last week, the President announced his intention to punish "corporations that ship our jobs overseas."

The United States imposes the second highest business taxes of any industrialized nation in the world. While countries like Ireland tax corporations at 12.5%, and even our neighbor Canada is moving its national business tax rate to 15% (the lowest among the G-7 countries), the United States taxes businesses at a whopping 35%. And a number of states have corporate income taxes on top of that.

Inevitably, high taxes in the U.S. cause some businesses to locate some or all of their business in lower tax countries overseas.

Don't Punish Businesses for Locating Overseas. Encourage Businesses to Come to America to Create American Jobs

But if President Obama were serious about wanting to create jobs, he wouldn't be thinking up ways to punish companies for wanting to relocate overseas.

If President Obama were serious about creating and keeping American jobs he would be thinking of ways to make companies want to bring their jobs and capital to America -- and keep them here.

Americans Solutions has created 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity. Our No. 3 recommendation for jobs and prosperity is for America to match Ireland's 12.5% business tax.

That would do more than anything in the President's budget to accomplish his often-repeated goal of "creating and saving" American jobs.

As it stands, what entrepreneur in his or her right mind would risk the time, effort and capital to start a business in America?

So Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) can act as income dictator and tell them how much they can earn?

So a hidden energy tax can dramatically increase the cost of manufacturing, not to mention heating the business and transporting employees?

Who wants to create a job in America at a time when Washington, D.C., not New York or Silicon Valley, is fast becoming the controlling center of American business?

Who wants to create jobs in America if politics trumps economics when it comes to determining who succeeds and who fails?

It's not just in the area of jobs that the Obama budget sends a message that he would shift power dramatically from the people to the politicians.

At a time when charitable donations are suffering because of the economic downturn, President Obama's budget discourages charitable giving by those Americans with the most to give by limiting the charitable giving deduction.

And at a time when cratering housing prices are driving the recession, President Obama's budget discourages home ownership by those Americans who could most positively impact housing prices by limiting the mortgage interest deduction.

President Obama's Budget Message: Bureaucratic government is the solution, and we no longer have a choice about it.

Another clue to how the Obama Administration views the intelligence and capability of the American people came when Attorney General Eric Holder recently called America "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race.

In my speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Friday I issued a challenge to Attorney General Holder that I repeat here:

Mr. Attorney General, the American people aren't cowards. Quite the opposite. They have the courage to demand that their leaders tell them the truth.

So in the spirit of courageous truth telling, I invite you to come to Detroit to discuss politics and race. I invite you to discuss the failure of the policies and institutions that you support in a city which those policies and institutions have failed more than any other.

Let's have the courage to debate the failure of the Detroit school system. Let's have the courage to discuss the bad policies, bad ideas and bad bureaucracies that have taken Detroit from No. 1 in the nation in per capita income to No. 62.

This is a serious invitation to the Attorney General to have a dialogue with me about what the residents of cities like Detroit need most: More talk about race, or leadership that believes they have a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just like the rest of us.

I've had some strong words for the Obama Administration today, but my real message is to the American people:

Now that President Obama has revealed the direction in which he wants to take the country, let's have a debate. Let's choose up teams.

If you believe the best way to create jobs is to give more money to bureaucrats in Washington and more power to politicians in Congress, you have a team.

If you think the best way to create jobs is to make life easier for people who want to work hard, take risks and create businesses and wealth, you have a team.

If you think America should be a place where politics trumps economics and religion, you have a team.

But if you think America is a place where freedom trumps it all, you have a team.

Mitt Romney probably would have had a handle on the economy by now, with a much lower government budget. However, during the primary, he unfairly criticized fellow Republicans (some of his ads were not altogether honest). He spend huge sums of money and still lost primaries. He was one of the biggest disappointments to me in his primary campaign. I have no problem with a Republican leader running ads saying, “This is what distinguishes me from the others.” However, when these ads are dishonest, I am turned off as a voter.

John McCain would have been right on 3 big issues: foreign policy, government spending and budgets, and life. However, it is unclear what he would have done with regards to the economy. It would have been smart for him to put this into his wife’s hands or to put someone like Mitt Romney up for Treasury Secretary.

Newt Gingrich is probably one of the smartest and well-spoken of the Republicans out there. He will be attacked on his personal life, of course (notice when Democrats do not want to argue issues, then they attack the opposition’s personal life). On the negative side, Newt has, on several occasions as a leader on the sidelines, focused on some fairly minor issues.

Bobby Jindal is one of the smarted Republicans and well-spoken, although his delivery of the Republican message was weak (the content was excellent, however). It would be best for him to turn Louisiana around before he runs for a higher office, and that seems quite likely. He is young and the more experience he gets, the better.

Sarah Palin has great conservative ideas. She was rolled out a little too soon, but then, to watch Democrats accuse her of not having any experience while salivating over no-experience Obama was a fascinating juxtaposition to behold. I don’t know who was in charge of her campaign, but they did a lousy job. She faced media types who wanted to bring her down, and faced them with little experience in dealing with them. Her first public interviews should have been with friendly and neutral interviewers (do any exist?) and then she should have done a live, unedited Katy Couric interview. Going from dealing with a press which loved her to a press which wanted to destroy her should have been more gradual than it was.

[Some of you may not understand why I place this in the Conservative Review, but I am one of those who believes that our political future is closely tied to our spiritual present]

A crisis of basic biblical and theological knowledge exists in America’s churches, and church leaders must do all they can to address this growing problem, so say experts monitoring the beliefs of people in Christian churches across the United States.

"The Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy," warns researcher George Barna. "How else can you describe matters when most churchgoing adults reject the accuracy of the Bible, reject the existence of Satan, claim that Jesus sinned, see no need to evangelize, believe that good works are one of the keys to persuading God to forgive their sins, and describe their commitment to Christianity as moderate or even less firm?"

Other disturbing findings that document an overall lack of knowledge among churchgoing Christians include the following:

●The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is "God helps those who help themselves"?which is not actually in the Bible and actually conflicts with the basic message of Scripture.

●Less than one out of every ten believers possess a biblical worldview as the basis for his or her decision-making behavior.

●When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embraced all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.

Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, asserts that biblical illiteracy is at a crisis level not just in our culture in general but in America’s churches.

"If it is true that biblical illiteracy is commonplace in secular culture at large, there is ample evidence that points to similar trends in our churches," he says.

Burge points to research at Wheaton College in which the biblical and theological literacy of incoming freshmen have been monitored. These students, who represent almost every Protestant denomination in the United States from every state in the country, have returned some "surprising results":

●One-third could not put the following in order: Abraham, the Old Testament prophets, the death of Christ, and Pentecost.

●Half could not sequence the following: Moses in Egypt, Isaac’s birth, Saul’s death, and Judah’s exile.

●One-third could not identify Matthew as an apostle from a list of New Testament names.

●When asked to locate the biblical book supplying a given story, one-third could not find Paul’s travels in Acts, half did not know that the Christmas story was in Matthew, half did not know that the Passover story was in Exodus.

Like Burge, George Lindbeck, the famous Yale theologian, has commented on the decreasing knowledge of Scripture from a professor’s perspective.

"When I first arrived at Yale, even those who came from nonreligious backgrounds knew the Bible better than most of those now who come from churchgoing families," he says.

"I have watched with growing disbelief as the evangelical church has cheerfully plunged into astounding theological illiteracy," declares Wells in his book No Place for Truth.

Biblical illiteracy is not just a problem for American churches. A scientific survey called PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) tested the knowledge of people in thirty-two industrialized countries. The results of the study show an "insidious biblical illiteracy" even in Christian circles, says Volker Gaeckle, dean of studies at Albrecht Bengel \ ?l'-brekht beng'-ul\ Center in T?bingen \t?'-bing-an\. "Churches should heed the PISA warning that text comprehension is a major problem."

Barna has gone to the heart of the matter by researching the beliefs of churchgoing denominational members in America. The results are shocking?a profound lack of belief in essential Christian doctrines.

In his study of the beliefs of mainline Protestants (including Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians), Barna documented a rejection of key Christian doctrines. Only 35% of mainline Protestant church members believe Christ was sinless; 34% believe the Bible is totally accurate; 27% agree that works don?t earn heaven; and 20% believe Satan is real.

Denominations which are more evangelical report higher levels of commitment to key theological truths than their mainline counterparts, but large percentages of people in these more theologically conservative churches still deny essential Christian doctrines.

Of Baptists (any type) in America, only 34% believe Satan is real. Only 43% believe that works don?t earn heaven. Although most Baptists affirm that Christ was sinless and that the Bible is totally accurate, the majority is not strong. Only 55% affirm that Christ was sinless, and 66% hold that the Bible is totally accurate.

Of nondenominational Christian churches, Barna reports that 48% believe Satan is real; 60% say works don?t earn heaven; 63% affirm the sinlessness of Christ; and 70% believe the Bible is totally accurate.

According to Barna, the denomination with the highest commitment to essential Christian doctrines is the Assembly of God denomination. In the AOG, 77% believe the Bible is accurate; 70% believe Christ was sinless. Yet only two-thirds (64%) affirm that works don?t earn heaven. Only 56% believe Satan is real. So even in the most theologically committed denomination, large percentages of people still deny essential Christian doctrines.

Barna is particularly concerned with the number of people in Christian churches who deny one of the most essential of all Christian doctrines?the sinlessness of Christ.

"Literally millions of Americans who declare themselves to be Christians contend that Jesus was just like the rest of us when it comes to temptation-fallen, guilty, impure, and Himself in need of a savior."

Why is belief in important Christian truths and doctrines at such a crisis level?

First, as Burge has explained, there is a general failing of the church to transmit our religious culture to the next generation. This includes an overemphasis on personal experience to the exclusion of serious Christian education.

"In short, the spiritual life has become less a matter of learning than it is a matter of experiencing," he says. "This has resulted in Christian ministries that put less premium on education than they do on personal development and therapeutic wholeness."

This emphasis on personal development has affected what is coming from our pulpits, according to Burge.

"Thus sermons become more therapeutic and less instructional; and the validity of what we do on Sunday morning is grounded in what we feel, not in what we think."

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Obama minions keep the wikipedia bio of Obama scrubbed clean. No mention of Ayers or Wright are allowed, and people are even penalized if they post and substantiate such an addition to the Obama profile.

A few weeks ago, I explained how inflation and the $250,000 and up tax bracket are going to squeeze incomes so that there is less disparity; someone wrote an article about this at American Thinker:

After months of dogging the economy, Obama has decided that it really isn’t all that bad.

Turns out that Maxine Waters was throwing political favors toward a bank she owned stock in? This is the same gal who told some executives, “I’m all about nationalizing your companies.”

41% of Americans now think that global warming is exaggerated. I wonder what that percentage would be if the newspapers and main networks actually presented this problem accurately?

Speaking of climate change, renown scientist John Kerry warns us that inaction when it comes to climate change is a suicide pact.

Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and Stanley Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized the assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched the launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh.

Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie to Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West Wing looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him look like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead energized the opposition.

Did you know these cameras were this good? You can zoom in on any person in this crowd, and if they are looking up toward the camera, you can recognize them.

Beginning in January 2008, California public schools must teach children as young as 3 to 5 years old that homosexuality is a normal, healthy lifestyle and that kids can choose their "gender." This means banning the terms "husband" and "wife" for the more progressively inclusive term "partner." "Moms" and "dads" will morph into sexually neutral "parents." Textbooks will be rewritten to blot out any reminder of married-couple-led families as a social norm. Gender-confused kids will get to use the restrooms of their choice. Any expression of negativity toward deviant sexuality will be punished as "bigotry." The coming changes are so radical that they produce gasps or professions of disbelief from people who hear about it from sources outside the mainstream media.

Illinois income tax to jump to 50% and those making over $56,000/year will see their taxes go up:

Judge decides that parents who teach their children creationism are short-changing their children and order these home-schooled children to attend public schools:

[To help you with the scorecard, Baire is the host, Barnes is a moderate Republican, Krauthammer is a more sensible conservative and possibly a libertarian; and Powers is a reasonably intelligent moderate liberal].

BRET BAIER, HOST: Five Guantanamo Bay detainees - most linked to the 9/11 attacks - got together in what they call a Shura Council and they came up with a six-page document that authorities have now released.

In that, quoting from this document, they say: "To us, they are badges of honor about the attacks, which we carry with pride. Killing and fighting you," about the U.S., "destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

"Our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of god - the Jews, Christians, and pagans. We are terrorists to the bone. So many thanks to god."

This coming out on a day we have just learned, breaking news from two sources, according to FOX, one counterterrorism official and one senior defense official, that the Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan was, in fact, a prisoner at Gitmo in 2007.

So, let's bring in our panel: Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, Kirsten Powers, columnist of The New York Post, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Fred, we are just learning about this operations officer being - used to be in Gitmo.

BARNES: The Associated Press refers to the latest free detainee who went back and became a terrorist again. There have been a lot of them. The recidivism rate has been very high.

And, of course, it's an argument for keeping Guantanamo open. It is the perfect place to have them. It is kind of a country club, even though they claim a terrible prison.

And you can't let them go. You can't let them go on trial in the U.S. because they didn't get their Miranda rights and so on, so that won't work.

I think the best thing to do would be to have a military commission in private, sentence them, leave Gitmo open and let them stay there for the rest of their lives, and not make them martyrs by executing them.

Their document - I love their document. They refer to the conspiracy charge against them as a very laughable accusation. There was just laughable stuff in here in this propaganda document where they talk about "We have news for you. You will be greatly defeated in Iraq, among other places."

KIRSTEN POWERS, COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK POST: I don't think in country clubs you're actually held against your will, so I really wouldn't compare it to a country club. I think it is, at the end of the day, a prison. These are a lot of bad people, not just these people, but there are a lot of bad people down there.

But that said, I think that these people should be tried and they all should be tried. And you can't keep people without charging them. The Supreme Court has said that.

And, you know, look, they have said they did it. They're proud that they did it. Put them on a stand and let them say that in front of a jury and try them and put them in jail. That's how they should be dealt with.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I guess the commander of - the enemy top commander in southern Afghanistan, he used to be in Gitmo, failed the 12-step rehab program they had for him when he was released in Afghanistan, probably the step about remorse and compassion.

Look, these guys are telling us who they are in this document. It's not a legal document. They don't recognize the authority of the courts, civil or military, whether established by Obama or Bush.

This is a propaganda document. And it tells us they are self-declared enemies and it is absolutely insane to want to treat them as criminals. This is a War on Terror and they are telling us "We are your enemy. We're not criminals."

That means in all other wars - as in all other wars - they ought to be detained without trial and without a lawyer and without Miranda, the way the Germans and Italians and Japanese prisoners in the Second World War were retained, until the war is over. And the war ends when Al Qaeda surrenders.

Until then, it's their war, which they started. They are the enemy. We detain them without excuse.

I think having them in detention and denying them habeas corpus is a principal that we ought to establish, and for another reason - we have more prisoners in Afghanistan held in Bagram Airbase prison than in Gitmo.

And if the Gitmo guys have the right to a lawyer and Miranda rights and a blog and all kinds of rights that you want to give them here in the U.S., why not the guys in Afghanistan?

And if you establish that, how does an American soldier take a prisoner in Afghanistan? He has to collect shells and accompany the prisoner on the flight to the United States in order that he can testify.

BAIER: It is a complicated issue, Kirsten, for this administration. How have they dealt with it so far in your eyes?

POWERS: Of course, it is very complicated, and it is much easier to talk about in theory than to actually have to deal with and to actually have to be letting people go who we know are dangerous, which is why I think it is important to try them.

But I do think that actually what Charles has brought up is probably going to become another issue. Human rights groups are already bringing it up.

POWERS: Yes, but I think the difference is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution follows people who are in the United States, so it's not a matter of your nationality. I don't think it necessarily applies in that case. And I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's a slightly different case.

And because the law of the land is that these people are supposed to have habeas and the Constitution follows them, then we are obliged to treat them that way.

BARNES: One of the things about this issue - this is one of the least complicated issues I have talked about in years. It is very simple.

And it is not a battle of public relations - that, gee, maybe some of the Europeans don't like Gitmo. Well, tough. This is a question of people who want to kill Americans. They want to kill them here. They want to kill them overseas. That is their whole goal in life.

And to let them go and to even create the possibility where they might be released by some judge is something you don't want to do. They have to stay in prison.

Look, after World War II in the Nuremberg trials, most of those Nazis were executed. I don't think these criminals would be.

BAIER: Now, Fred, but it's complicated when you say you want to close Guantanamo Bay and you don't have a way to do it.

BARNES: That's a complication that Barack Obama created for himself. All he needs to say is "I wish we had another place to put these guys, but we don't, so I think Gitmo is going to have to stay open a little longer." Very simple.

He may not want to reverse himself, but what is his other option? Does he have some other place to put them? Very simple, not complicated at all.

RUSH: So here's the long-ago promised analysis of the Democrats' latest strategery to portray ourselves in a war with the US economy. By the way, from JP Morgan Chase, I have some astounding numbers here, worldwide market cap losses according to certain dates. Here are the values of the WCAU World Market Cap Index on requested dates. The market cap index on the day Obama was nominated was $47.3 trillion, which means the total market cap of industrialized countries around the world was $47.3 trillion. On Election Day it had dropped to $34.4 trillion. On Inauguration Day, World Market Cap Index was $29.5 trillion. Today, the World Market Cap Index is $25.6 trillion. The world market cap, the wealth of the world has dropped by $22 trillion since Barack Obama was nominated. That's how much Barack Obama has cost the world, about $22 trillion in market cap, and it's continuing to plunge.

All right, Thomas Friedman, the highly respected, almost godlike columnist on foreign policy in the New York Times has a very funny, naive, and sophomoric piece today on the economy in the New York Times. The headline: "This Is Not a Test. This Is Not a Test." That's a takeoff on the old EBS warning, "This is not a test. This is a real warning. We're at war. Get under your desks. The Russian nukes are on the way." Remember that when you were in school? "It's always great to see the stock market come back from the dead, but I'm deeply worried," writes Professor Friedman, "that our political system doesn't grasp how much our financial crisis can still undermine everything we want to be as a country." Mr. Friedman, the political system knows exactly what's happening here, and they sit by and watch it. I could stop after every sentence of this piece, but I'd be here the whole hour doing it, so I will use discipline and only reply to the most sophomoric aspects of this piece.

He writes, "Friends, this is not a test. Economically, this is the big one. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12. Yet, in too many ways, we seem to be playing politics as usual. Our country has congestive heart failure. Our heart, our banking system that pumps blood to our industrial muscles, is clogged and functioning far below capacity. Nothing else remotely compares in importance to the urgent need to heal our banks. Yet I read that we're actually holding up dozens of key appointments at the Treasury Department because we are worried whether someone paid Social Security taxes on a nanny hired 20 years ago at $5 an hour." That's not why, Mr. Friedman, but even if it were, so here comes the excuse to get all kinds of tax cheats who might be brilliant -- anybody want to make the case for Geithner to me anymore? Can somebody explain to me why we had to have a tax cheat? He's the only guy that could deal with the banking crisis? He's incompetent! "Dozens of key appointments at the Treasury department 'cause we're worried --" I think we can't fill spots there 'cause nobody wants to work there, Mr. Friedman.

"Meanwhile," writes Mr. Friedman, "the Republican Party behaves as if it would rather see the country fail than Barack Obama succeed. Rush Limbaugh, the de facto GOP boss, said so explicitly, prompting John McCain to declare about President Obama to Politico: 'I don't want him to fail in his mission of restoring our economy.'" Now, this is the result of Mr. Friedman being ignorant, naive. He knows damn well -- well, maybe he doesn't. You know, I remember at the CPAC speech, when I mentioned John Kerry, and I pause and I said, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, and there was laughter from the audience. And then later when I read a review of the speech, some liberals were just aghast that conservatives would laugh at someone's service to their country. And I said, "We live in two worlds." I said John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, because he tells us every time he opens his mouth, particularly during the campaign, that he served in Vietnam. I was lampooning Kerry, not public service or military service.

At any rate, "the Republican Party believes and behaves as if it would rather see the country fail than Barack Obama succeed." Mr. Friedman, what we know is that the country cannot succeed if Obama succeeds with his policies. And that's what you're writing about. You're writing about the failure of the economic banking system. Obama's in charge of it, and you're blaming me and you're blaming Republicans. Obama's in charge of it, Geithner's in charge of it. They're ignoring the banking bailout, they're ignoring the banking business, they're ramming liberal socialist policies down our throats while everybody's distracted by this other thing and being distracted by this attack on me, in which you are now participating. We don't want the country to fail, and we have never said it. It is the exact opposite. We want everybody to succeed. We just know that Obama's policies will not bring that about.

"As for President Obama," writes Mr. Friedman, "I like his coolness under fire, yet sometimes it feels as if he is deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis, while pressing ahead on other popular initiatives." Thomas, I call this the Buffett-Welch-Barton Biggs head fake. He just has a paragraph about me and the Republicans wanting the country to fail, which is a lie and then turns around and scratches his head, "I love Obama's coolness under fire, but it feels like he's deliberately keeping his distance from the banking crisis. I understand that he doesn't want his presidency to be held hostage to the ups and downs of bank stocks, but a hostage he is. We all are." Mr. Friedman, you know what, you ought to write a column dedicated to Obama and just try and convince him to ask his buddy George Soros to fix all this. Tell George Soros he can stop shorting the US economy.

"First," writes Mr. Freedom, "to get out of a crisis like this you need to let markets clear. You need to let failed companies, or homeowners, go bankrupt, unlock their dead capital and reapply it to thriving entities." Mr. Friedman, this is why I characterized your piece today as sad, naive, and sophomoric. What is it I have been saying for two months? Let the failed companies fail! Don't bail out homeowners who can't pay the loans in the first place. Don't make the rest of us who are affording our mortgages, barely in some cases, pay for somebody else's, including their second loan. You are parroting me. How do we fix this? This is what I suggested that we do. People like you just made me a straw man. I want Obama to fail 'cause he's doing the opposite of what you're suggesting. Obama's bailing out losers. Obama's bailing out losing companies. Obama's bailing out losing homeowners. You say they should fail. I say they should fail. The market needs to cleanse itself. I'm getting blamed.

Anyway, it goes on. "President Obama announced today that he had invited the country's 20 leading bankers, 20 leading industrialists, 20 top market economists and the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate to join him and his team at Camp David." Tom, when are you going to realize that Obama has a checklist, and on the checklist is something like "banking problem"? So what he does, he'll convene these 60 or so people at Camp David for a couple days, he'll give them a lecture, they'll go have their little sessions and come out after their breakout groups, they'll report back. Nothing will change and he'll check the box off, "I've dealt with the banking problem." Because his purpose Mr. Friedman is not to deal with anything, it's just to keep that approval number up. He wants people like you and others who voted for him to think he's dealing with it or has dealt with it, or that he's paying attention to it, while it never gets fixed. So he's just got a series of checklists. He defines his success by how many of the checklist he gets through every day, bam, bam, bam, got that, got that, got that, got that, yeah, had the women's summit, yeah, had the health care summit, yeah, had the mortgage summit, yeah, going to have the bank summit up at Camp David, yep, yep, yep, what a good day's work, problem solved. Now let's go to the Wednesday night cocktail party with hundred-dollar Wagyu beef and whatever else the taxpayers are paying for before I hop on one of my two private jets for a dinner party weekend in Chicago.

Mr. Friedman, you gotta realize this is how he operates. He doesn't fix anything. He just wants people to think he cares about it, is working on it, and maybe has dealt with it. That's what got him elected. He's never fixed anything in his life, Mr. Friedman. He's never been an executive of anything. He's never solved a problem. He's simply taking advantage of them, Mr. Friedman, and you are right in there offering guidance and support along of the rest of the naive and hapless who have invested so much emotionally here that you've checked your intellect at the door before you went in to vote.

RUSH: I just heard Thomas Friedman lament that we can't get good people to help poor old Geithner because of the nanny tax problem. Well, this afternoon on Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, she talked to Barney "Fwank," and she asked him what Friedman said. Is there really a problem here? And here's what Barney "Fwank" said.

FRANK: The media is the problem here, in part. It is the over-focus on the part of people in media to relatively minor infractions that cause this. I guarantee you my colleagues would not, on their own, be doing this.

MITCHELL: I take your point, Mr. Chairman. You're right, and, ummm, we plead guilty.

FRANK: The people that -- who may be bringing us out of this are the average citizens. They are so now focused on real problems that I have found encouragingly they are much less interested in the gossip and in the trivia and even the -- the -- the minor infractions than they are in -- Are you gonna get credit for me? Am I going to get a job? What will happen to my health care if I lose my job? Adversity does seem to be concentrating mind, uh, in a very good way.

RUSH: Barney Frank blames the media for the fact that they're focusing on too many tax cheats who otherwise would be great employees at the Treasury Department. Andrea Mitchell says, "I take your point, Mr. Chairman, you're right, and we plead guilty." Moving on with the war. Moving on with the... (interruption) Nah. See, she does come off like a "butt boy" there. You know, they all are. People don't like the term, Snerdley. We have new people tuning in and they hear the term. They're not going to understand the humor with which we intend this. I apologize, folks. I know that there are millions of you new tuning in and you're just waiting for an excuse to tune out 'cause you're waiting for all these misconceptions you have to be confirmed, but call Andrea Mitchell whatever you want. For the media, she now accepts blame. Yeah, the media's keeping good people out of Treasury because they're focusing on tax cheats. Anyway, on Morning Joe, Scarborough today spoke with Tom Brokaw, and this is about the theme that's been advanced here that we are in an economic war, that this is the first day of 1914, that this is the day of Pearl Harbor! This is 9/12!

BROKAW: This is the economic equivalent of war. The country is being reset in every conceivable way -- economically, culturally, politically. We'll be looking back on this period of time and saying, "That was another beginning of another chapter in the American saga," and as I go around the country and talk to groups, I s-say, "You know, a hundred years from now the historian will judge this time not just by what Obama does but by, 'What will we do?'"

RUSH: "A hundred years from now the historians will judge this not by just what Obama does, but by, 'What we will...?'" Yeah. That's damn right more than he knows, and in ways he can't even imagine. Here is author Frank Schaeffer on MSNBC Live yesterday afternoon.

SCHAFFER: Republicans have become to our war against economic collapse, what Jane Fonda was what she was in Vietnam rooting for the other side. We're in another war now! This is an economic war, and everybody who loves this country has to stand together and back our president.

RUSH: Jeez! I don't know who this guy is, Frank Schaeffer, but now we're Jane Fonda, and whatever the president wants to do -- he's a king! Whatever he wants to do, we have to back him. No, we don't! We have the Constitution. We have separation of powers, and we do not have a king, Mr. Schaffer. But I'm reminded of this in Connecticut, April 28th, 2003, talking about backing our president.

HILLARY: (screeching) I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, "WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!"

RUSH: Pshew! Ugh! I get high blood pressure when I hear that. Doesn't that...? For you new listeners, especially you gentlemen, doesn't that...? That was Hillary Clinton. Doesn't that remind you of your first, maybe your second, or both your ex-wives? "I get sick and tired of people who say...?" I mean, that will send you down to Archie Bunker's bar faster than anything in the country, including your kid getting an "F" on the report card. But her point out there was, "We're not going to just sit around and blanketly agree with George W. Bush. No, no, no, no, no!" See, it was patriotic to dissent then. Now it's unpatriotic to dissent. You see how the left is allowed to change their definitions? All right. We've gotta take a brief time-out here. The next sound bite we have is with Chris Matthews and socialist California representative Barbara Lee. (laughs) Remember yesterday when I proclaimed, "Look, if Obama is the general in this war, 'This war is lost.'" That sent poor old Chris, who normally gets leg tingles on his show, over the edge. He's totally missing again, sense of humor and the irony, the sarcasm and the satire.

RUSH: Here's Matthews talking with Barbara Lee. MSNBC Hardboiled last night. Matthews is just livid, and no sense of irony. They have no... We live in two different worlds. I don't know if they even have any memory of things that actually happen that I play off of on this program. Listen to do so.

RUSH ARCHIVE: It's around nine minutes to one Eastern Time on March the 10th, and I, El Rushbo, proclaim: "This war is lost."

MATTHEWS: He's talking about the war on the economy, on the bad economy! Barbara! Congresswoman, um, Lee! What do you think of Rush Limbaugh saying that the Barack Obama war to save the American economy is "lost"?

LEE: Well, you know, for those who listen to Rush Limbaugh, so be it. Rush Limbaugh has no clue. The economy is not lost. The president is working very hard.

RUSH: That's a ringing endorsement isn't it? He's trying hard. He's working very hard. The economy isn't lost. Well, we kept hearing it was lost from these people for six years during the Bush administration. Folks, see, it's like at the CPAC speech when I said, "John Kerry -- who, by the way, served in Vietnam," and everybody laughed because we make fun of Kerry for telling us every time he opens his mouth that he served in Vietnam. Well, Chris (or whoever monitors this program for Chris) I want to take you back. We have two sound bites, both from Harry Reid in April of 2006.

RUSH: Harry Reid twice, before the surge began, declared: "This war is lost! This war is lost!" That's Harry Reid surrendering, Harry Reid trying to secure the defeat of American military personnel and their mission, Chris -- and I'm parodying Harry Reid! If Obama is the general of this war, it's lost. I said this date. I said, "Nine minutes to one o'clock Eastern on March 10th," because I knew I was marking it for the media, 'cause I knew what they were going to do! I love tweaking these people. I know how they're going to do it. "I, El Rushbo, proclaim, 'This war is lost.' If Obama is our general, 'This war is lost.'" Here, play these two Reid bites back together, April, 2006 -- only two years ago, Chris. You gotta have enough of a brain left to have two years worth of memory.

RUSH: Jack Welch up next. He was on MSNBC yesterday with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, and they had this exchange about President Obama.

WELCH: This guy is locked in another world and he's throwing all these initiatives into this game in the middle of a crisis. Focus on the economy! It's the economy. It's getting the banks going. It's a clear message to everybody, "All hands on deck. We have a crisis. Let's deal with this." Not one day carbon tax, one day take the kids out of the Washington schools. I mean it's -- it's crazy. People need a clear message.

RUSH: Now, what would you assume about Jack Welch? We have another bite, actually two more. What would you assume after hearing this? What would you assume, Mr. Snerdley? He really doesn't like the way Obama is running things. He's too scattershot out there. He needs to focus on one thing. You see... Again, I express my frustration over how few smart people actually understand liberalism, understand radicalism. Obama is taking advantage of everybody being distracted by the economy to ram through all these socialist-type proposals that are going to fundamentally alter the basic structure of the country. He's doing it on purpose. And these guys think he's just making some neophyte mistake, and needs to focus on the economy. He's purposely not focusing on the economy. Now, you just heard Welch say he's "locked in another world. He's throwing all these initiatives in the game in the middle of a crisis. Focus, focus, focus! Get the banks going! We got a crisis. I mean, it's crazy. People need a clear message," and then he said this.

WELCH: I love the guy. I think he's great. I think he's got a beautiful family. I think he's a good man, but these -- you bring up a comment about him, and all of a sudden you're a pariah! You're -- you're not American.

WELCH: My two trust fund daughters, if I bring his name up in anything other than a glorious --

RUSH: Well, now we know. He's getting beat up at home. He's getting beat up at home by his -- what did he call 'em? His two trust fund daughters. "If I bring up Obama's name in anything other than a glorious way, they yell at me. They don't have any critical thinking about (Obama) at all." Hey, Jack, you and I need to go have an adult beverage. (laughing) Yes, sir. One more example. (interruption) No. Not about women! No, no, I don't mean about that. He says you can't bring the guy's name up without hell being sent upon you. That's what I mean. Last night on Charlie Rose on PBS, he interviewed Traxis Partners hedge fund cofounder Barton Biggs, and Charlie Rose said to Barton Biggs, "What would you like to see from Washington today?"

BIGGS: I voted for Obama. I'm a fan of Obama. But I think that his tax program has really affected the market, and so I'd like to see him back off from raising the capital gains tax to 20%, the dividend tax to 20% and send a different signal. Don't tax the real entrepreneurial, long-term investment part of the economy. The redistributionist part of his social agenda has bothered the market a lot, and so he ought to step back a little bit from that.

RUSH: I tell you, I throw my hands up here. All of these smart people, they get it, folks. They understand the disaster here. They just are gutless. They're gutless to put any teeth behind what they really think. Well, I hope he changes this redistributionist part. I really, really like the guy. Did I tell you that...? I mean, is it wrong for a man to love another man? Is it wrong? I love Obama! I love the family! Why, it's the greatest thing that's ever happened to America. His policies are wrecking the country. We don't have much choice here. But I love the guy! My God, he's the greatest thing that ever happened.

I get the hell beat outta me at home by my trust fund daughters whenever I bring his name up. I love the guy! He's destroying our economy. What a great guy! Barack Obama! (sigh) I know. I know, Snerdley. Snerdley says, "You know, you gotta have a little humility here, Rush. You gotta have a little compassion, have a little understanding. These guys can see what they're doing to you, and these guys don't want to go through what you're going through." Is that your point? (sigh) Here's the answer to that. You know what the answer is? If more people just speak up and be honest, there wouldn't be just one to focus on. You can tell from these comments...

You can tell from Buffett, you can tell from Welch -- and these guys are business people, and there's not one like them anywhere in Obama's inner circle of advisors on the economy. And you can tell from Barton Biggs. You can tell they don't agree. They don't like anything that's happening here in terms of policy, "But, God, what a guy! What a great family! I love the guy. Oh-ho! I've never been happier with a guy. Is it wrong for a man to love another man?" If these guys would just open up, there wouldn't just be one person to fire at. We're talking about the future of the United States of America! "I really wish he'd change his redistributionist policies. A real entrepreneurial long-term investment plan for the economy, that's what's needed. I voted for the guy. Big, big, big fan! Tax program sucks, he's got a bunch of problems -- I love the guy! Oh, I've never seen a better-looking guy. Is it wrong for one man to love another man? They have ceded the territory to me. C-e-d-e-d, for those of you in Port St. Lucie.

RUSH: I wonder if James Carville and Paul Begala and Stan Greenberg are, even as we speak, conducting another one of their famous phone polls. This here Carville on the phone (doing Carville impression) "I just have a simple question for you. Yes or no. Do you loathe Warren Buffett? Is Warren Buffett a danger and a risk to America? Yes or no?" The same thing about Jack Welch. "Is Jack Welch a crook? Jack Welch a crook or is he a good guy, you tell me right now." And then they'll release the polls after they figure out how much damage Welch and Buffett are doing. Look, we're on a roll here, folks, we may as well stick with this. Jim Cramer, who, as you know, I came to his defense yesterday after he expressed stunned shock and dismay that his buddies in the Democrat Party, liberal wing, would target him and try to go after him. He was dismayed that I would defend him. He's dismayed that people who disagree with him a lot, but have one thing in common, might come to his defense. So last night on Mad Money -- that's the title of Cramer's show -- he had this to say about me and Obama.

CRAMER: Rush Limbaugh defended me as a wayward leftist who has seen the light. Hey, I'm thrilled to have allies and defenders. Lord knows I need 'em. But the truth is I actually agree with almost all of Obama's agenda right down to having the rich pay more taxes. I just think it's the wrong time. We need to declare war on unemployment and solve it before it gets out of hand. We need stop house price depreciation. Nothing Obama's done so far will defeat either enemy, and all the initiatives he wants to rush, like the tax hikes, changes in health care, take away the mortgage deduction, I mean good grief, he wants to take away the mortgage deduction right in the midst of the worst housing downturn in history. The tough cap-and-trade rules. Any of these could derail any chance of the economy turning around.

RUSH: After saying he disagrees with almost all of Obama's agenda, he then trashes it. You know what we've got here? I'll tell you what we have here, folks, speaking bluntly as is the only way I know how, these guys cannot admit that they made a mistake in supporting and voting for Barack Obama. That's what they don't have the guts to admit, not yet, not right now, they just can't make themselves do it. It's either that or they are afraid of their women at home, or they are afraid of the media who will ascend on them like the birds in the movie The Birds. They won't even be safe in phone booths. Either way, these people are a bunch of wusses. No wonder business in this country is in the crapper with leaders like this. For crying out loud, if they will cave to the right thing to do on something like this, imagine what goes on in the boardrooms or what has gone on in the boardrooms.

And, by the way, here's another thing. Drive-Bys, are you listening? All of a sudden now, starting yesterday with Buffett and moving forward into today, a problem with the economy is the equivalent of a war, right? It's a war and we have one commanding general, and that is Obama, one general, one war. It's a war now. We gotta focus everything on winning the economic war, right? What time is it? Well, I don't know what real time it is because our clocks are on a delay. Suffice to say it's around nine minutes to one Eastern Time on March the 10th, and I, El Rushbo, proclaim this war is lost. If this is a war, if our battle with the economy to straighten it out and Obama is our general, this war is lost. You may quote me. Here's more from Jim Cramer last night on Mad Money. He continued, after saying that he loves Obama, agrees with most of his agenda and then trashed it the rest of the sound bite, he continued with this.

CRAMER: I am taking enfilading fire from people I like, people I admire, people I agree with while being defended by, of all people, Rush Limbaugh, the standard-bearer for conservatives, someone who I respect as a radio personality, but whose views are virtually antithetical to my own. How the heck did I get dragged into this mess, becoming the target of the wrath of Obama's fans and the darling, albeit surely momentarily, of his critics?

CRAMER: It's not like my criticism of Obama's handling of the crisis is any more pointed than my criticism of the job the previous Republican administration was doing, or with its pernicious laissez-faire attitude toward Wall Street. So what gives here? The answer, I think, lies in the way the two administrations approach criticism. The Bush administration never questioned their beliefs, therefore never answered to anyone -- not Congress, not the press, certainly not me. They simply chose to ignore my warnings.

RUSH: Bush ignored him. No, Bush didn't decide to target a private citizen, Jim. The Bush administration remained above it. They did have their ideas. They're not running around responding to critics because, in their view, you weren't effective. The reason Obama's responding to you, Jim, is because your criticism of them is effective, you stand in the way. That's why they're coming after you. This is what guys on your side do, Jim. I'm only trying to help. It continued, ladies and gentlemen, this morning, back to Scarborough's show with cohost Mika Brzezinski. They have this exchange once again about me. They play a clip from yesterday's program and asked Cramer to respond.

CRAMER: I'll take the 50 G's I gave to Rendell back. How about the 20 G's I gave to Spitzer in that first campaign? I want that back. The money I gave to Corzine, I want that back. The Cory Booker money, I want that back. How about the hundred G's I wrote to the party to have a cup of coffee with Clinton? I want that back. I demand it. There should be like some sort of, you know, guarantee, because when they attack you, you should get the money back.

CRAMER: How much -- how much dough I gave to that darn party, I want the money back. No, it's fine. I mean, you look, they want to attack me, they should really -- they should lighten up.

RUSH: So last night he's all upset that I'm defending him. Today, he demands his money back from the Democrats because they're attacking him. So wherever you look, you will find Democrats and business leaders of one degree of prominence or another all denouncing every fundamental aspect of the Obama economic policy and agenda. I love the guy. He's so good-looking. Why, so svelte, so debonair. Oh, man, and the wife, you seen the kids -- oh, ho-ho-ho-ho. Is it wrong for one man to love another man? Economic policies are going to destroy the country. But damn, I love the guy, what a great guy.

RUSH: Look at how the media, look at how the libs, look at how the Democrats, look at how they cow people. They literally intimidate 'em and frighten them to death. Not me, of course, but all these other people. You have to bow down to Obama as though he's a god, as though he's a king, before daring to question the policy. Well, again I say, if our struggle with the economy is a war, this war is lost.

RUSH: Reed in Charlotte, North Carolina, hi, and welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, thank you for your production staff bringing some of those nuggets of truth that the liberals really never get to hear from Charlie Rose and CNN and Mika Brzezinski.

RUSH: She's very sensitive about the pronunciation of her name and if you can't say it the way it's properly pronounced in Poland -- which is Bz'zinski -- then Br'zezinski works.

CALLER: The sound bites last night from Barton Biggs, the ultimate bear of all time when he came out of hibernation on Charlie Rose, it's priceless. But the nugget at the end, Rush, I was wondering if you heard it, where he broke down to a 50-50 coin flip. Charlie Rose asked him how this would work out, and he said, "It's 50-50. A 50% chance it goes good and 30% chance we're in the doldrums like Japan for nine to 12 years, and 20% chance it's catastrophe." Nice! But don't worry, Rush. He followed that interview up with David (sic--Steven) Chu, the new energy secretary who talked about cap and trade and how it was going to help us out.

RUSH: You're welcome. I did not see the entire interview with Barton Biggs, but that's even better. Grab Barton Biggs. I wish...? What number is Barton Biggs? What number we have? Time is tight. What's the number? What's the number of Barton Biggs? Ah, we're not going to run out of time. Barton Biggs! Barton Biggs, number three. Yes! Audio sound bite number three, Barton Biggs. You ready? Let her rip.

RUSH: Yeah. "I love the guy! I voted for the guy! He's going to destroy us, though. There's a 20% chance that this plan will lead to catastrophe. But I love the guy. Is it wrong for one man to love another man? Because I voted for Obama, I love Obama, but there's a 20%..." Oh, God help us.

RUSH: Let's sum it up, Jack Welch, we got now Andy Grove, we got Barton Biggs, we got Jim Cramer, we've got Warren Buffett. They say that they don't want Obama to fail, but they know he is.

RUSH: Andy Grove, former Intel CEO, says in the Washington Post today, "We have gone through months of chaos experimenting with ways to introduce stability in our financial system. The goals were to allow the financial institutions to do their jobs ... I believe by now, the people are eager for the administration to rein in chaos. But this is not happening," and, "Until the administration does this, we should not embark on attempting to fix another major part of the economy." Health care system, energy, environmental policies, are fine and dandy. But we're not ready for this yet. This has caused the president to ask for time on this program to respond.

RUSH: A message to the nation from President Obama responding to Democrat voters: big business tycoons who voted for him and now admit publicly to having reservations about his policies, not so much their vote for him.

RUSH: Naperville, Illinois. This is Bill. It's great to have you here, sir. Hello.

CALLER: All this discussion about, you know, you wanting the Obama policies to fail brought to mind a lecture that I heard many years ago. I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Milton Friedman --

CALLER: -- either 1974 or 1975. He came to speak at Wabash College, and I always have remembered this lecture, and I thought it was kind of appropriate, and the theme of the lecture was:"All current government programs were bad, and all future ones are good."

CALLER: And I thought, "Well, isn't that ironic?" because all we're hearing from the Obama administration is, "Everything out there is bad, but we're going to make it good," and you look at all the programs and policies that they're putting forth have been tried before either domestically or in Europe, and people like Jim Cramer and Warren Buffett and Jack Welch all know this. And I just find it incredibly ironic that they've now come out. You know, they've known this for some time. In fact, Cramer, I just sent you an e-mail that I got a few months ago. He started on November the 7th about Geithner (scoffs), and for him to somehow have this revelation --

CALLER: Oh, no, no, no! He started complaining about Geithner November the 7th --

CALLER: I think it's in your in box. I sent it to you. I know you got a gazillion e-mails, but it will say "Jim Cramer" on the top line.

CALLER: And for these people to come along now and sit there and say, "You know, if I know these programs failed 50 years or 30 years ago," you know, what makes him think that Barack Obama is somehow going to make them right?

RUSH: This is a fascinating question, but I think your question is actually two-pronged, because the first question I would have is, if every -- and Freidman is right -- if every current government program doesn't work, well, whose are they?

RUSH: Whose are they? Now, we could say, well, they're the United States Congress. But the vast majority of the programs we're talking about that have failed are programs that were written by Democrats. The war on poverty, the Great Society, all of these things -- welfare -- are abject failures. But see, we're not allowed to look at them that way, just as back during the falling days of the Soviet Union, the American left said, "No, you can't look at it as a failure. We just haven't given it a chance. It hasn't had its full shot; it hasn't had its full chance." Just like war on poverty. "You can't say it's a failure! Besides, our good intentions are what matter here, not the results." That's why the question about, "Why new programs?" You ask about Buffett. I don't think they're that smart. They are skilled and talented in making money, but they don't evidence common sense -- or else their motivations are something other than what you and I understand.

CALLER: How you doing? I just wanted to talk to you about the business travel industry.

RUSH: I just thought of this. It will not take away from that which you wanted to speak about.

CALLER: Heh-heh. Because I believe you to be always correct -- most of the time, 99%.

RUSH: Thank you. I would think everybody would hate me by now like they did Bush. All right, go ahead. Thank you.

CALLER: Okay. (chuckles) Like I said, I wanted to talk to you about the business travel industry, and there's a letter the executives of ten major hotel chains sent to members of Congress.

CALLER: Yeah. I actually have it right in front of me, but the letter is basically scolding Congress for putting negative connotations on business travel and portraying it as "excess," and they're basically asking the government to tone down the rhetoric in the letter, and I think it's kind of sad that it's taken a letter like this to inform these people that they're kind of destroying the travel industry, intentionally or not.

RUSH: It's sad that it's taken a letter like this to... Do you think members of Congress are unaware that they're destroying the travel industry?

CALLER: Well, um, I mean, they might be aware of it. Some of them might be, some of them might not.

RUSH: How else do you explain John Kerry standing up there and ridiculing any corporation which does traditional travel and entertainment to reward, thank, and build a customer base? How do you...? How do you say Barney Frank is ignorant and does not know what he's doing? When Barack Obama stands up there says, "The days of taking a corporate jet to Las Vegas, thoooooooose are ov'a." How do you...? Where is the benefit of the doubt on this? They know exactly what they're doing! This is class envy. This is showing the little guy -- who's going to get nothing -- that the people they have been told to hate at the top of the ladder are gonna get creamed. So the little guys who are going to get nothing but 13 bucks a week are supposed to be satisfied that Joe Rich CEO can't fly his jet to Vegas anymore.

RUSH: What's sad about -- and I saw this letter. These hotel execs... Bill Marriott is on there. Somebody from Hyatt is on there -- which is amazing, because Hyatt is Penny Pritzker, you know, you can't tell when she's there and when Obama's not because they're joined at the hip. But Starwood, all these hotel chains. What's sad is these guys write a letter and publish it in a paper begging --

RUSH: -- the people who work for them to stop harming their business! "Uh, dear Congress, we think you're really hurting what we're doing here. We'd really like you to roll back your policies 'cause..." What we need is the Cessna guy all over the place, the guy runs Cessna who ran full-page ads to the business community saying, "Man up! Don't let these people talk you out of your way of life."

RUSH: All these letters of cowardice. This is what bugs me. We've got so many people -- big business people, supposed titans of industry -- scared of people like Barney Frank! That tells me Barney Frank's got way too much power and John Kerry's got way too much power, that these people are wielding their power to intimidate citizens. This is not how the Constitution was set up; this is not how the Framers envisioned this country. Citizens were not supposed to write letters, sheepish letters begging -- begging! -- relief from the paymasters in Washington. This is not how we're supposed to exist here.

CALLER: I mean, it's sort of upside-down land. But I just... I mean I basically want to know when is Congress or Obama going to experience their own collective, you know, Dukakis-and-the-tank moment?

RUSH: Now, see I'm a literalist. When I hear you say when is Congress or Obama going to experience their Dukakis-in-the-tank moment, understand Dukakis had no clue he looked like an idiot.

RUSH: He did and the Republican Party is the one that made him look like an idiot by putting a picture out. So these guys are getting exactly what they want, and until somebody is willing to make them look like Dukakis in the tank, the American people are not going to see 'em that way 'cause they don't. You know, we can't sit here... This is... Pardon me for getting worked up on this, but, "When is Congress going to realize it's doing X? When is Congress...?" They know! What is this about? Who are liberals? This is what they do! This is why I don't want them to succeed.

When are they going to figure out their mistakes? They're going to get away with as much as they can until they are defeated and in the minority. But, their objective is to see to it they're never defeated again. Why do you think ACORN is getting all this money? Why do you think Obama's reelection machine is getting all this money starting in 2010? Federal money is going to campaign coffers for Democrats in the guise of a stimulus bill. "When is the Congress going to realize? When's Obama going to realize?" That's the mockery! That's the joke of Warren Buffett and Andy Grove and Jack Welch: "Gee, I hope the president backs off.

"Gee, I hope the president understands. Gee, I..." You hope the president understands? We hope you will wake up and understand who it is you elected! "We hope the president will change?" (sigh) Yeah, I wonder how many Venezuelans are hoping Hugo Chavez changes. Well, you know it's not that many. His approval numbers are around 60 or 70%. You know why? He controls the media. It's approaching Saddam levels. There are food shortages, energy shortages. It's a typical socialist country. More and more people are living in poverty. He's taking from the producers and distributing it, keeping a lot for himself. But he controls the media.

Every day the media message is how great Chavez is! How compassionate and how wonderful, how he wants the best for everybody. "He's the protector. He's the guardian." People's lives are ruined; his approvals are in the seventies. He owns the media, and we ask, "When's Obama going to realize the policies are hurting the travel business? When's Obama going to realize that he's hurting the investor class? When's Obama going to realize that he's choking off an economic recovery by raising taxes? When's Obama going to realize...?" Ah... ah... People need to come to grips with the fact that long before Barack Obama announced his run for the presidency he had formulated plans to do exactly what the hell he is doing right now.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I, as you know, have dabbled in the stock market in my life, not nearly to the degree today that I have in the past. One of the things that I was told when I first got into the market was, "Don't play emotions," like don't choose a football team 'cause you like the uniform. Don't choose a stock 'cause you like the logo. Try to be as dispassionate about investing as you can, any investment. The more emotional you get the bigger problem you're going to have getting out of it when it tanks. You start personalizing a stock or a company then you're going to be in trouble." It's good advice, 'cause when the thing that you have this emotional investment in goes on a downward trend, you have to be able to have no feelings to easily let it go and do the right thing. Well, these business people, the Buffetts and the Andy Groves and the Jack Welches, I don't know what their political persuasions are. I'm assuming that they've been lifelong Democrats.

I'm also assuming that in the cases of people I'm talking about, the really hyper-wealthy, that they are equivalent to the Kennedy family. You know the Kennedy family is never criticized as being greedy or wealthy or unfairly rich, because the Kennedy family spends all of its public time spouting liberalism, talking about compassion, and they spread a lot of compassion around with other people's money. So the Kennedy family are exempt, they are excused from the normal characterizations of the rich. I would presume that that's the motivation of people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and other hyper-rich. They're already targets, so they cultivate a public image, "We're Democrats, we support Democrats." Of course Buffett was out there with Schwarzenegger when Schwarzenegger was sounding good at the beginning of his campaign to fix California when he was running for governor. Regardless of their political persuasions, I think these business titans have made an emotional investment in Obama.

I think a lot of Obama's voters have made an emotional investment, not an intellectually based investment, and they have no clue when to dump him. You make an emotional investment, and it's tough to let go of it, because an emotional investment you are investing yourself, not just your expertise. You are giving whoever you are emotionally investing with part of yourself, and it's hard to break up. Plus, the guy's the president, it's access to power. The guy's destroying the economy, but has a great-looking family, oh, he's a guy who looks so good and has an occasional cigarette, but still, oh, he sounds so smart. He's wrecking the economy, but I can't let go because I love the guy. So they have to tiptoe around it, write these little pieces, "Gee, I hope the president realizes that, ahem, I hope the president can realize that we need to end this chaos. Gee, I hope some of the president's advisors." So whatever their charts are telling them, their personal wealth charts, their own portfolios, whatever their head's telling them, their heart is saying, "I can't let go of the guy. He's the president. I supported him. I had high hopes. Gee, maybe he'll change."

They sound like disgruntled women in relationships. Why won't the guy change? Can you imagine Wilma Flintstone saying, "Gee, I hope Fred learns someday to stop drinking too much." Wilma Flintstone is going to be hiding the booze or whatever. They're so deeply emotionally invested in Obama, it's going to take something big to shake them out of their love and devotion to that investment and to get them to start having what they know is happening to become the dominate thought guiding their behavior, and at some time, stimulus 2 -- I have a story right here -- and I haven't had a chance to print this out. I just got it. I don't even where it's from. If somebody can tell me where KHQ TV is, I could tell you where this is from. You ever heard of it? Watch it be Port St. Lucie. I know, they don't have a TV station up there. Anyway, the headline: "'A Backlash Against Obama's Budget.' -- Business is marshaling its forces. The target is the aggressive domestic agenda laid out in President Barack Obama's first budget."

Private health insurance is mobilizing, real estate agents want to quash it, multinationals are up in arms, small business owners, and they are, small business owners are putting out some statistics, the trade group that represents them, putting out some -- (interruption) Spokane, Washington. Thank you. The story is from Spokane, Washington. The small business guys, their trade group is putting out statistics today of just how much damage. Now, there are these undercurrents. There is this effervescence out there. In addition to these professional large and small businesses, independent of Jack Welch and Andy Grove and Warren Buffett, in addition to the mom-and-pop small business people that make the country work, you've got individuals who voted for the guy who, folks, we know this to be true, who literally expected their gasoline tanks to never be empty by now. Obama was going to make sure there are two pickles on the big bun, not one. They painted their own -- and Obama encouraged this -- they painted their own canvas, it was a blank slate.

So bubbles are starting to reach the surface now, and we can roll this back, we can stop some of this. I know, got the Porkulus bill and that's big but some of it doesn't go into effect for a couple years or longer. Got this omnibus budget, and I know that welfare reform is gone, that was part of the stimulus package, by the way. Welfare reform is gone. The states now get more money for welfare per case they sign up. I'm not saying what happened wasn't devastating, but it doesn't have to be permanent. I'll tell you another reason I'm positive, folks. For all this attempt to demonize me that the Democrats are engaging in, with all these ads they're running, they are spreading my message to new areas and pockets of America, and since I am happy with everything I say, and since I mean everything I say, and since I believe everything I say to be accurate and correct, I'm happy that it's being heard by an increasingly large percentage of Americans. There's opportunity there. So, yeah, I'm frustrated by, "When's Obama going to change, when he's going to realize?" there's a lot of emotional investment here, the historical nature of his presidency, candidacy, and all that. But at some point all this is going to fail. And before the failure there are going to be a lot of smart people who realize we're failing and it's going to be big unless something is done about it.

Here is an article which will be almost universally ignored by the news media: Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

Here is a surprise; the League of Conservation Voters run an ad using Rush’s voice and actually play portions of his viewpoint, beyond taking one line out of context:

53% of Americans think that we are entering into something akin to the Great Depression (and Obama still has a 56% approval):

Many banks are having second thoughts about taking the stimulus money and they want to return it:

What Obama said to the NY Times reporter when he thought that he had not really answered the are you a socialist question very well:

OBAMA: See, uhhh, I -- I -- eh -- Just one thing that, uhh, I was thinking about as I was, uhh, -- as I was -- getting off the, uhhh, copter 'cause, I -- uhhh -- you know, it was hard for me to believe you were entirely serious about that socialist question.

OBAMA: Uhhhh, I -- I -- I did think it might be useful to point out that, uh, it wasn't under me that we started, uh, buying a whole bunch of (pause) shares of banks. Wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed, uhhh, a massive new entitlement, uhh, the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. Uh, and so I think that, uh, it's important just to note, uhh, when you start, uhh, hearing folks, uhh, throw these words around, thaaat (pause) .. Um, uh, we've actually been operating, uh, in a way that, uh, is entirely consistent with free market principles, uh, and that, uhhh, uh, some of the same folks who are throwing, uh, the word "socialist" around can't say the same.

OBAMA: Well... Uh, heh, heh, heh. I -- I -- I -- I just think it's c-clear that by the time we had, uhhhhh. By the time we, eh, uh, got here, uhhh, ummm, there already had been, uh, an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system, aaand, eh, eh, eh, y-y-yuh-y-y-yuh.... The thing I constantly try to emphasize to people is that, if coming in the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me, uh, to stay out of it.

OBAMA: Uh, you know, I -- I -- I have more than enough to do, uh, without having to worry about the financial system. Uh, and the fact that, uh, we've had to take these extraordinary measures, uh, and intervene, uh, is, uhh, not an indication of my ideological preferences --

OBAMA: -- but an indication of the degree to which, uhhh (pause) lax regulation, uh, and extravagant risk taking, uh, has precipitated a crisis.

Conservative Review
Issue #66	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	March 15, 2009