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.

President Obama holds second press conference and vows to “save and invest” rather than to “borrow and spend.”

Obama proposes incredible, far-reaching powers to be placed with the Treasury Secretary. The Secretary would be able to seize any sort of monetary business if he believes that there are problems which could affect the United States, and he would have the power to fix them. These are far greater than the powers than those given to Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson. These new powers would include the power to limit executive pay of a private company—even companies which have never taken money from the government.

It just came out this week that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief-of-staff, made $320,000 while working 14 months for FHLMC.

Congress quietly lets this retroactive 90% angry tax quietly die. 2 or 3 stories in every news magazine and many front page stories in the newspapers for a week, and suddenly, this anger and outrage has disappeared.

This just in—members of Hezbollah are entering the United States using Mexican drug cartel routes.

Lovelle Mixon kills 4 policemen in Oakland, CA, and is killed. Dozens of people march in protest—over Mixon’s death and what it represents!

The other day, a local weather person said, “There is no expectation of snowfall [in the Houston area] in this latest series of storms.” I think that this marked the first time in American history than any weatherman used the word snowfall in a Houston area, March forecast.

What appears to be record-breaking river heights are occurring in Fargo, ND for an on-going flooding of this area.

California proposes outlawing black cars. Obama, in his online townhall meeting, talks about smart meters, which is going to end up being one more way for government to control its citizenry. Even California rejected these smart meters.

We are beginning to see more stories on the drug wars in Mexico. Even though two weeks ago, Janet Napolitano the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said that we have contingency plans just in case the drug violence in Mexico spills over the border. Hillary Clinton, on Greta’s show, did not say anything that stupid. Perhaps 340 kidnaping last year in Phoenix was a clue that there are drug-war problems in the US.

The US has begun to discuss moving Gitmo prisoners into society—possibly here in the United States—and, of course, funded by taxpayers.

When on Greta’s On the Record show, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made an informal plea to the North Koreans that she wants to talk with them.

Even though there are still very enthusiastic supporters for Obama out there, his poll numbers are dropping almost daily, and his electrifying speeches have become a rather tedious set of talking points. Normally I would put this under short takes, as opposed to the news of the week, but this general assessment is found both on the left and the right; and the poll numbers are easily quantified.

Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner expresses an openness to a world currency. No one of this rank has ever suggested such a thing before.

There are about 107 trucks from Mexico which the Teamsters do not like being in our country. The Omnibus bill requires them to unload their trucks at the border so that US teamster trucks can deliver the goods. In response, Mexico is putting tariffs on American products, which is going to have a much greater affect on the American worker and cost the US hundreds of millions of dollars.

“People always make better decisions for themselves than does their government...our founding fathers mistrusted any concentration of power and designed the constitution to restrict governmental power and to spread these powers among competing interests.” I forget who, but I think this was Newt Gingrich.

“You cannot spend your way out of a recession or borrow your way out of debt,” Daniel Hannan addressing English Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“It is common sense to spend less money to get out of debt. Anyone but a politician understands that.” Daniel Hannan.

Nina Easton, when discussing government having additional power over private business sector: “When was the last time that the government ran an organization well?”

“The government runs a deficit with the social security system, with the postal service, Amtrak, and practically never balances its own budget. Now, they propose to tell AIG what to do.” I think Brit Hume.

When discussing integrating Gitmo detainees into civilized society, Charles Krauthammer proposes, “I would give them a GM dealership in Pakistan, thus killing 3 birds with one stone.”

Iran develops a nuclear warhead; North Korean develops a long-range missile; put them together...

If you have not seen this, it is fantastic; Daniel Hannan excoriates Prime Minister Gordon Brown for his overspending:

It appears as if California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is losing his way. In this short video, he relates the melting down of guns which have been turned in, to a plot point in Terminator 2:

(1) Was anyone as unimpressed as I was by Obama’s online townhall meeting? If you don’t think much about it, the concept sounds great—real people can ask real questions of the President of the United States, and get real answers from him. However, what was done (and any president would have done the same thing) was, Obama’s staff cherry-picked the questions, wrote up answers for Obama to read from a teleprompter—most of which would sell his huge budget proposal—while making it all sound as if the president is really talking to the hoi polloi.

(2) Have you ever noticed that Republicans and conservatives are characterized as racists or homophobes by those in the Obama administration, but, Obama has friendly, soft-spoken videos for America’s greatest enemies (an observation of a tv commentator).

(3) When questioned about his budget, Obama quibbles about the most meaningless things. First, he bemoans that he was left with a deficit from President Bush, and then he argues that his people do not agree with the CBO estimates of future growth. Obama was left with a deficit which he voted for, supported, and not once, did he publically denounce Bush’s budgets. Nor does Obama ever mention that a budget begins in the House, so that the last two budgets began in a Democratically controlled Congress. Secondly, under Obama’s rosy predictions, we will be $7 trillion more dollars in debt, and under the more realistic CBO estimates, we will be $9.7 trillion underwater. Neither guesstimate is very encouraging.

(4) Ann Coulter observed that those organization which the Obama administration wants control over did not put us into the crisis that we are in now. It was these highly regulated agencies e.g., banks, FNMA, FHLMC, credit reporting agencies, insurance companies, etc. which are the organizations which not only failed, but put us in the economic crisis that we are in.

(5) Obama realizes that, if he keeps up all of this angry rhetoric against Wall Street executives, then it is going to be hard to find anyone who will invest in these sweet toxic asset bundles.

(6) Always keep your eye on George Soros, who funneled millions of dollars to many far left causes and websites. In 2006, Charles Schumer and Henry Reid killed legislation which would have subjected Soros’ hedge fund (and others) to scrutiny and regulation. Somehow, in the past few years, Soros has made millions of dollars. He bet against the mortgage market and he bought Indymac, which purchase was subsidized by tax payers.

(7) We like to think of AmeriCorps as young people giving a few years of their lives to teaching underprivileged children in bad areas. The Senate, this week, just voted to more than triple the size of AmeriCorps. Think uniforms, think reeducation camps, think strong political bias. There are 5 campuses and their mission is to strengthen communities in partnership with, among others, community organizations. They are not yet fully given over to far-left causes, but Obama’s reign has just begun.

(8) If you think that the government ought to have more power over large financial institutions, remember the SEC and Bernie Madoff—after being contacted by several people on several occasions warning the SEC that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme (he did not buy any stocks), the SEC, for 2 decades was unable to figure out the Madoff was doing evil. Remember how closely allied Congress has been with FNMA and FHLMC, and that when Bush said that these organizations needed some overhaul when it came to regulations and oversight, many Democrats stood up and defended these institutions, saying that everything was okay (2006; you can find the videos). Remember about how well Congressional oversight worked when it came to Indymac, Citibank or Bank of America. Remember, all oversight is, is another unelected government position or board where politicians go to find a cushy job when no one will elect them anymore.

(9) What Obama, or someone in his administration, needs to do, is to release a public service announcement. “You might being sitting on your couch right now, firing up a blunt, and you think that you are pretty cool; but hundreds of people are dying so that you can get high. Do your part to stop the killings; stop using drugs.”

(10) The words freedom, liberty and human rights were not used when Obama addressed Iran in his YouTube-ian video.

(11) Brit Hume points out that the very worst thing that could happen with Obama’s plea to Iran to talk would be for them to have extended dialogues with us. Many people in America would think that Obama diplomacy is working, while Iran continues to work on building a nuclear bomb.

(12) When discussing abortion, most republicans begin with the idea that it is wrong, and then we discuss the law. Most Democrats first emphasize that it must be legal, and then they will discuss the morality of it. Michael Medved repeated this observation which he credited to someone else.

(13) We have access to the serial numbers of the US guns seized in Mexico. Even though we have a very small contingent there on the border, why are we unable to trace these down? It only stands to reason that there are a small number of Americans making these guns available to Mexican gangs.

(14) I personally have no problem with President Obama going out there into the public eye, including using such forums as Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, in order to explain what he is doing and what he proposes. President Bush should have done more communicating like this. The problem I have is, Obama is not presenting his proposals honestly. He remains in campaign mode giving vague but nice-sounding generalities to describe what he is doing.

(15) The News is making it sound as if Obama was kidding when thanking himself when he read the Irish Prime Minister’s speech from his teleprompter. Rush says, “Fine, now let’s see it on tape.” How is it possible that no video tape of this public news event has surfaced? If this were the case, it would cast Obama in a very favorable light...so where is the video tape?

66% of Republicans believe that media coverage of global warming is over-exaggerated. 44% of independents believe that. 22% of Democrats think that global warming is being hyped too much by the media.

Along these same lines, British scientists warn that there is now only a 50-50 chance of saving the earth from a warming catastrophe over the next century.

A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Scientists meeting in Copenhagen dismissed those estimates as too conservative, saying new data suggests that sea level rise could exceed 39 inches and is unlikely to be less than 20 inches.

President Obama claiming that his new budget was one of “save and invest” instead of “borrow and spend.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a television show, makes an informal plea to the North Koreans to let them know that she wants to talk with them.

Evan Bayh is still sounding sensible and is organizing a group of moderate Democrats to band together on some issues.

You still believe that global warming is an imminent catastrophe than man can solve by changing out lightbulbs, driving smaller cars and going green.

Even though the press is solidly behind Obama, and may give up the phrase the war on terror, it is highly unlikely that they will use the Orwellian substitution overseas emergency contingency.

If Obama continues to change the language as he has over the past few months, the phrase Orwellian language will someday (a decade from now) be called Obamian language.

I think that there is a very good chance that there will be a coordinated attack by radical Muslims against the United States. I believe this will show greater coordination than 9/11.

Dick Morris and Rush Limbaugh have both predicted that Geithner’s plan to sell of toxic assets is designed by Obama for failure. The attack on corporate executives will keep any sensible investor from getting in bed with the government on this toxic asset deal. I think that there is a great possibility that Democratic supporters like George Soros will buy up these assets for pennies on the dollar, getting government (taxpayer) guarantees besides.

Obama is continuing to campaign. His 2^nd news conference was not providing us new information about this or that, but Obama selling his budget. It was a political commercial.

In Oregon, environmentalists are opposing wind turbines because they hurt birds. In California, environmentalists are opposing both wind power and solar panels out in the desert.

I must admit, I really expected this AIG bonus pay to go somewhere—for retroactive taxes to be levied against AIG employees and for this to be successfully challenged in court (which cost would have exceeded the cost of the bonuses themselves). However, since some people have given back their bonuses and since some legislators realize that, despite the popularity of stealing money away from Wall Street Executives, that would not only be unconstitutional and immoral, but would stand in the way of government doing any amount of hand-in-hand work with any company in the near future (e.g., find someone to sell toxic assets to). However, it will be interesting to see what those who returned their bonuses will do. Obviously, they will have a more difficult time in court retrieving their bonuses which they gave back (some in fear for their lives).

Throughout these few short weeks of the Obama administration, language seems to have become an important factor. Now, every president, when trying to sell a controversial program or action, tries to dress it up as well as he can—Bush and the Iraq War or Bush and social security are clear examples of this. He knew that what he wanted to do was going to be controversial, so he cast his vision in the best possible light.

Obama has taken this one step further. Not only did he present an intentionally obscure vision throughout his campaign (hope and change), he is not only continuing in this vein, but intentionally obscuring his future plans. In his 2^nd press conference, delivered this week, Obama said that his new budget would “save and invest” instead of “borrow and spend.” His new budget promises to borrow (or print) more money than has ever been done before, and continues the mad spending spree which the Democrats have been on over the past 2 months. In fact, his spending proposals are so radical that even some prominent Democrats (particularly those up for reelection next year) have expressed their concerns publically. In any case, there is just no way this new budget could be reasonably characterized as save and invest.

We no longer have a war on terror, but, instead, the phrase overseas emergency contingency is being used (but it does not seem to be catching on, as it is so hard to remember). The Obama administration will not use the terms enemy combatants, terrorism or even illegal immigrants.

Obama brings this clever language to his YouTube-ian message to the mullahs of Iran—he addresses them, as I heard one commentator say, as if there has been a misunderstanding between our countries; as if some harsh words had been exchanged during a heated moment, and Obama is ready and willing to press the reset button with them, so that we can start anew as fellow citizens and countries on planet earth. “I’m sorry, dear, it’s my fault; what can I do to make it better?”

The problem is, Obama’s nuanced language thrills those who are enamored of him, and sounds thoughtful to those who like him, but it is lost on those whose desire is to crush our country and kill our degenerate citizenry.

For me, as a conservative, it no longer matters to me what Obama says. He cannot convince me with his words, no matter what they are. I want to see what he actually plans to do. He could take out a Ronald Reagan speech, dust it off and give it, but I no longer believe a word that he says.

This all goes back to the truism, Republicans are concerned that you might not understand what they are doing or why they are doing it; Democrats are worried that you might understand what they are doing or why they are doing it. Hence, the intentional obfuscation of their plans using misleading, Orwellian language.

In a related story, Obama does not have a monopoly on Orwellian language. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is a government organization in England and Wales whose function is to ration health care.

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Myth Six: Universal Coverage Can Be Achieved by Forcing Everyone to Buy Insurance

Myth Ten: Government-Run Health Care Systems in Other Countries are Better and Cheaper than America's

These are chapters of a book which you can purchase, but which is available for free online as well:

Government health care programs are thought to be more efficient than private medicine. Yet, Ms. Pipes notes, "tens of thousands of foreigners come to the United States every year for medical treatment. They're usually seeking advanced and sophisticated procedures that are simply unavailable - or rationed - in their home countries."

It is still widely argued that government administration is more efficient than private insurance, yet Ms. Pipes details how "government itself is the middleman," with extensive state and federal regulation and expensive cost-shifting by Medicare and Medicaid. She observes: "Studies show that Medicare officials waste as much as $1 out of every $3 the program spends. That's hardly a system worth expanding."

The second myth is that Americans spend too much on health care. There is no intrinsic reason why it would be better to spend an additional dollar on beer than on medicine. As Ms. Pipes points out, it makes no sense to mention costs without considering benefits. She writes: "When we talk about re-tooling our health care, we should be careful to also recognize what is good about the current system. Most everyone has a friend or relative who is alive today because of an advance - probably a very expensive advance - in medical technology or drugs."

Ms. Pipes next rebuts the claim that 46 million people lack health care. She ably deconstructs this oft-cited number: Lack of health insurance does not mean lack of health care, and the vast majority of the uninsured are either middle- to high-income people who choose not to buy insurance, noncitizens or people eligible for other government medical programs. This does not mean there are no hardship cases, as Ms. Pipes acknowledges, but the number of chronically uninsured who most need assistance is about 8 million, a much more manageable number.

Myth four is that high drug prices push up health care expenditures. In fact, the increase in pharmaceutical expenses lags behind that for medical treatment generally. Moreover, medicines often substitute for more costly alternative treatments such as hospitalization and surgery. "In reality, prescription drugs reduce medical spending."

Related is myth five, that importing drugs would reduce medical costs. Importing pharmaceuticals from government-run systems really is importing drug price controls rather than drugs. Anyway, Ms. Pipes notes, when people claim medicines are cheaper overseas, "they're referring to a very narrow category - brand-name drugs that have been approved and price-controlled by foreign governments." Even in the best case, the practice isn't going to save much money.

Myth six is that forcing people to purchase insurance is the answer. Ms. Pipes reviews the dismal experience of states that have proceeded down this road, urging advocates at least to "be honest about the sacrifices required: Higher taxes, forced premium payments, one-size-fits-all policies, long waiting lists, rationed care, and limited access to cutting-edge medicine." This is no health care answer for America.

Ms. Pipes punctures another common fallacy, that prevention programs save money. Yet government increasingly seeks to regulate personal behavior in the name of reducing medical expenses. She warns: "Today's soft-serve despots are yesterday's prohibitionists."

Yet another myth is that new government initiatives are necessary to cover the poor. In fact, genuinely poor Americans are covered by existing programs, though design flaws - such as low reimbursement rates - discourage doctors from accepting Medicaid patients. Given the outcome of poorer care mixed with excessive costs, Ms. Pipes notes acerbically: "The last thing these people need is more and larger government health care programs - which after four decades of trying, have proven to be incapable of providing a level of care that's comparable to what's available through the private sector."

That information technology can dramatically reduce health care expenses is myth nine. Writes Ms. Pipes: "There are currently at least 12 different federal agencies with overlapping oversight when it comes to health care technology. This dirty dozen already produces mountains of red tape and conflicting rules."

Last but not least is myth 10, that foreign government-run systems are better than America's system. Her short critique is devastating: Nationalized systems deliver waiting lists rather than treatments; outcomes are not better overseas; care is rationed; and access to advanced procedures and pharmaceuticals is limited; people suffer and die from bureaucratic and budgetary imperatives.

HILLARY CLINTON, SEC'Y OF STATE: It is drug demand in the United States which drives the drugs north across our border. If there were not such a high level of demand, it wouldn't be so profitable and you wouldn't have these drug gangs fighting for territory because they make so much money selling drugs to Americans.

And you know what? Mrs. Clinton is mostly correct. Without the American drug market, the cartels would be far less powerful.

However, Mexico would still be corrupt because that country has never been able to develop a vibrant middle class or build a solid economic base, and that's all on Mexico. We have nothing to do with that failure.

But back to the drugs. The baby boomers are mostly responsible for the drug problem in the USA. The Woodstock generation thought it was cool to get stoned, and that has carried over and gotten even worse in our permissive society.

The far left wants to legalize drugs, even though that policy has failed everywhere it's been tried. Go visit Holland and find out. The far left also wants to allow many drug criminals to evade prison. They consider selling heroin, cocaine and meth a "non-violent crime," even though those drugs enslave and kill.

So there are very mixed messages on the drug front in America, and millions of folks buy and use illegal narcotics, a selfish act that helps killers.

Secretary Clinton also mentioned gun smuggling from the USA to Mexico. There are about nine guns for every 10 people in this country because of our tradition of self-reliance. The Second Amendment rightly gives Americans the right to defend themselves.

Take it from me: The authorities cannot protect you from harm. Just look at what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. Anyone caught in that town without a weapon was in grave danger from roving criminals.

And there is no question that thugs are using guns to do an enormous amount of damage, so here is the solution that Hillary Clinton should embrace:

1: All gun crimes should be federal. Anyone committing a crime with a gun or smuggling guns faces a minimum 20 years in prison. That will make the risk-reward on gun crimes very tough.

2: The National Guard should finally be stationed on the Mexican border in force to assist the Border Patrol. That would immediately make it far more difficult to smuggle drugs in and guns out.

3: A national media campaign using President Obama as a spokesperson should inform Americans that buying illegal drugs is self-destructive and un-American. Since President Obama has some drug experience, he is the right person to get this message across, especially to young people.

As for Mexico, President Calderon is a brave man who is trying to defeat these vicious drug lords. The USA should stand with him.

Via the National Center for Policy Analysis, Hoover Institution senior fellow Scott Atlas identifies 10 things you probably did not know about health care:

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade. The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country. Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

Do you want to see how well socialized medicine works around the world? Hundreds of links to hundreds of stories on various aspects of government-run medicine: This includes about a 100 links (I didn’t count them) about government interference in US health care.

This is a partial listing of approximately 170 Tea Parties which have taken place or will take place. It is my understanding that there have been about 300 total which have either been planned or already taken place. No doubt, you have seen a few videos of AIG protestors, some which arrive organized and in buses (belonging to who?). There are often 50 or 60 and I have no idea how many of these protests have taken place. In fact, the little news I have gotten just tells me that they are occurring, but very few facts or details. However, people show up to these tea parties in the 1000's and they are occurring all over the United States, uniting both liberals and conservatives who are concerned about bailouts and the waste of the taxpayers’ money.

RUSH: "A United Nations document on 'climate change' that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes -- all under the supervision of the" United Nations. Now since Obama's in the White House, all pretense is off. The man-made global warming hoaxers are making it very clear what their objective has been all along, and that is fleece the United States of America. It's a giant money grab, and now they're being open and honest about it.

"Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations 'information note' on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009." Blandly discussed? Blandly. Do they know that if this ever gets out, it will never pass? Or will it? You know, I know that 62 million Americans voted against Obama, but I still wonder where we are on things like this. "The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a US State Department spokesman, it can come up with an 'effective framework' for dealing with global warming."

In other words: "Damn the consequences! If we can claim that it fights global warming, we will do it." It fits right in, ladies and gentlemen, with Obama's plan to destruct the foundation of capitalism in this country and replace it with a giant government and a huge, huge welfare state. I'm not going to go through this whole story. It's a Fox News website story. But when you analyze what the UN climate change treaty is all about, you find that all it is about is the redistribution of wealth. Here, let me give you an example here: "When it comes to the results of such reform, the note says only that it could have 'positive consequences for alternative transportation providers and producers of alternative fuels.'"

Let me translate. This means they'll put out of business current transportation providers and standard fuel producers. "In the same bland manner, the note informs negotiators without going into details that cap-and-trade schemes 'may induce some industrial relocation' to 'less regulated host countries.'" Now, if this was really about climate change, really, they would not allow less regulated countries. This is spreading the wealth around, period, using the climate as an excuse. "The note adds only that industrial relocation 'would involve negative consequences for the implementing country, which loses employment and investment.' But at the same time it 'would involve indeterminate consequences for the countries that would host the relocated industries.'"

This is nothing more than a giant, global redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Man-made global warming, the hoax that it is, has always been nothing but that -- with the accompanying gigantic growth-of-government from nation to nation occurring at the same time -- and the loss of individual liberty and freedom. Tell the people in Denver! Tell the people in Fargo! I woke up the other day looked at the weather, and it was 35 degrees in New York! And you know, more and more people are starting to ask, "What is this global warming?" More people are starting to consider the notion that we actually may be in a cooling phase, 'cause there hasn't been any significant warming in years.

RUSH: This is Bill, Bloomfield, New Jersey. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Yeah. I'd like to talk about this global warming folly. Um, we already have a solution for this, and it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. It will be good for the environment, and it would it would keep gas prices low.

RUSH: Well, but wait. I'm not trying to be contentious for no reason, but as I said earlier here on the program: We try to derive truth. We try to find truth and we espouse it and expose it. There is no global warming. So when you say that we have a "solution" to it, you know, I throw my hands up. There's no "solution" to it because there isn't any global warming -- and I don't care if there is warming or cooling, there's nothing we can do about it! We're just human beings. There's not a damn thing that we can do to cause it or to stop it. We're just prisoners here.

CALLER: I agree. Let me rephrase that. What we can do about this massive government intervention into our economics.

CALLER: What we can do is mandate... I don't like mandates, but they're mandating everything across the board now. But if they want to put a good mandate in, they can mandate that all cars sold in the United States will be flex-fuel cars. That would be cars that run either on gasoline, ethanol, or methanol, or a combination of the three. That would create a free market incentive for companies to install pumps. That's where the problem is. We don't have the pumps for these cars because there are about a half a million cars that have already been manufactured in the United States that are flex-fuel.

RUSH: Okay. Well, here again, I realize you're trying to help -- and I admire people who think outside the box, and you're thinking outside the box. So congratulations. Sincerely. But ethanol is a disaster. Sorry, Iowa, but ethanol is a way for congressmen to get votes in the Hawkeye primaries, the Hawkeye Cauci. Ethanol, it costs more to make it. It costs more to transport it. It causes a shortage of a food crop for people around the world. In Mexico...? Have you seen the price of tortillas in Mexico?

RUSH: Seriously, it's their bread. I'm not making any jokes. It sounds funny. But we're getting so far off the deep end. There's nothing wrong with gasoline. There literally is nothing wrong with gasoline. I love gasoline! You know, I love Jet A. I love oil. We're not going to run out of any of it for a long time. Mother... Invention is the mother of necessity, and I admire all these people coming up with alternatives and so forth. But if people are motivated to come up with alternatives... Necessity is the mother of invention. What did I say? Mother is the necessity of invention? I love my mother. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is what I meant to say. Thank you, official program observer. But I --

RUSH: No, you'll have a chance to say it in just a second. I just think that trying to find an alternative fuel for something, for a nonpolitical reason. Yeah, let's come... Why doesn't somebody find a way to make water, particularly saltwater, fuel? The sea levels are going to rise anyway. What are we going to do with it? Find a way to make saltwater run automobiles.

CALLER: I believe it's too expensive to separate the hydrogen molecules, but the key here is the methanol. I agree with you about --

RUSH: (snorts) Nothing is too expensive in America anymore when the government does it! We have to learn this. Nothing is too expensive.

CALLER: The private companies can produce the methanol. That's the point of it. It creates a free market incentive.

RUSH: Well, let me ask you a question. They're not going to do it unless it's mandated, so where's the free market?

CALLER: The only thing... The only government control over this would be the mandate, and that --

RUSH: No, it won't stop there. See, once you get the government involved in anything, there's no, "By the way, you gotta make ethanol, methanol, and you're out of it." (snorts) They're going to tell you the formulation, how much it pollutes. You're going to have CAFE standards with it, and pay off the farmers, pay off the mob, pay off. Get the government involved. You know, if you'd just get out of this and let the market deal with it. The oil companies are in business for what reason? To explore, find oil. They're in the energy business. I guarantee, when they think they're about to run out, long before we know about it, they'll come up with alternatives. That's their business, if you just leave 'em alone.

CALLER: Congress will free our oil. We can't dig for our own oil. It's like a brick wall.

RUSH: I know. I know. Get government out of it. We've got plenty of it. Go drill -- as you say, dig -- for our fuel. All of these common-sense things are right out in front of us, and yet who's putting the obstacles in our way? Not just government. You've gotta specify: Democrats, liberals.

RUSH: What do you like about methanol? First, tell people. I'm afraid that people in San Francisco think you're saying methadone. What is methanol?

CALLER: Yes. It's easier to put out. It's a safer fuel also, and it can be manufactured by private corporations.

RUSH: Well, the mileage of your average Indy 500 car is what, two miles a gallon. Now, granted they're running 200 miles an hour.

RUSH: I'll look it up. (sigh) I just know that whatever it costs, you're going to have to triple it with taxes and everything else.

The FoxNews story on this UN document (with a link to the document, which I personally could not find online apart from this link).

RUSH: John in Sacramento, my adopted hometown, great to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Yes, sir. And I'm going to refresh the host by getting straight to my point. George Soros recently -- I just read this online here this morning -- he said two things. He said, "I'm having a very good crisis," to the UK Daily Mail. He also said, "In a way this is the culmination of my life's work." He's made billions, as in with a "B," as everything's gone down, and of course he's selling short or doing what he's doing and making all this money, in the billions, saying, "I'm having a good time, this is the culmination of my life's work," and I think he tipped his hand. I think he's wanted to bring America down financially, and I think that's the point of what he's saying, quietly. "I made a bunch of money by bringing down the capitalist system, and I'm proud of it." I'm reading between the lines there, but that's what it sounds like to me.

RUSH: I don't think you have to read between the lines with Soros. George Soros destroyed the British pound selling it short. He has gotten wealthy by damaging currencies of other countries and so forth, and make no mistake he does have a bugaboo about the United States of America. That's why he supports political candidates who also want to see us drastically reduced in size and power and want to change the country. For him to run around and say, "Yeah, it's a very good crisis, been very good to me," he did earn $1.1 billion, you're exactly right, selling short, which means one of the primary fundraisers and contributors to the Democrat Party is betting financially on the United States plunging economically. So far he's getting rich, $1.1 billion. He's worth $11 billion.

RUSH: Where are the people saying, "Gosh, George, don't you have enough? Isn't it enough, George?" Of course, when one of these guys is your primary underwriter, there's never enough, but this is who the Democrats' number-one moneybags is.

CALLER: Yeah, he's not saying, "I want America to fail," he's saying. "I'm betting on it, I'm betting on America to fail."

RUSH: Something else he said, this dovetails, you know Obama is out there spewing negative stuff. Yesterday before his virtual town hall, "Well, those jobs aren't coming back and we're going to lose more jobs this year and it's going to be tough out there," da-da-da-da-da-da. George Soros said commercial real estate values are going to plummet an additional 30%. There's no way around it. There's no avoiding it. You start talking that way, you're trying to make it happen, a 30% plummet in commercial real estate value. Thanks for the call, John.

I was channel surfing out there last night and I stumbled across Hannity and his Great American Panel, and I gotta give a shout out here to one of the participants on the Great American Panel, Clay Walker. He's a country music star.

Hannity asked him some question: "Tell us about the mating habits of the Australian rabid bat in relationship to the plunging GDP leverage levels against our gross output." And the guy said, (paraphrasing) "I don't know what you're talking about and I really don't have an opinion." It was a question about the economy, and the guy said, "I don't know enough to tell you what I think." When's the last time you saw somebody honestly say, "I don't know enough to answer that. I strum my guitar." But then this guy said, "You know, it's really strange, Sean, I was downstairs at the Rockefeller Center mall and the place is jam-packed. People are in line to buy food." And he said, "Wherever I go, I don't see all this evidence all of recession because the people that are out are spending and they're buying food and they're going into restaurants and so forth." And I've talked to some of my restaurant friends in New York, and I remember in 1994, '95, Wall Street had a plunge at that time and New York restaurants were in trouble.

I've talked to some New York restaurant people, they claim that they're doing fine, they claim that everything's okay, it's not as bad as it was then. Then I hear we've lost 600,000 jobs last month, 600,000 jobs before that, we're up to 8.1% unemployment and there are layoffs. The New York Times -- (laughing) -- New York Times laid off a hundred people on the business side of the paper. They're telling all other employees they're going to get a 5% reduction in their salaries and then they hope the unions will go along. They're going to talk to the guild members. "We hope the members will go along." If the unions don't go along, they're going to have to lay off more people at the New York Times. So the job losses are real, there's no question. I'm not disputing that. But now I'm starting to ask myself, "Are these job losses really the result of a plunging economy, or are they in part businesses getting rid of people 'cause what they fear the future holds based on Obama policies?" I think it's probably a little bit of both. Everybody that talks about this I get the sense from listening to them that this is not like the Jimmy Carter misery index years. Gasoline price started to rise, but it came back down. I'm sure they go to Ohio or Michigan, those people have been in recession long before this one started, and California's in bad shape. I'm not denying any of this, but the people who are still working are apparently not staying home eating Hamburger Helper.

RUSH: Look, folks, it was Clay Walker. I got people saying, "No, no, no, Rush! It was John Rich." I know John Rich. I was at Kobe Club in New York one night having dinner, and this giant entourage of people, led by Randy Jackson of American Idol walked in, and the next thing I know, the waitress brought over an adult beverage, and said, "It's from..." You know, my hearing in there was horrible, and I couldn't hear. So I asked the waitress come closer. "Who is this from?" She said, "Big Rich." I said, "Big Rich? Who the hell is Big Rich?" She said, "No, no. John Rich of the group Big & Rich," and he came over and said hello. I know John Rich. John Rich is a great guy. It was Clay Walker last night who told Hannity, "I don't know. I can't answer your question. I haven't the slightest idea." That's refreshing. You know, some of these celebrities that get invited to these newsmaker panels try to act like they know it all. It was just refreshing. The guy said, "I don't know. If I had a thought on it, I would tell you, but I don't know enough to have an opinion about it."

RUSH: Senate Budget Committee -- sorry, they need to rename themselves. The Senate Screw-The-Budget Committee. The Senate Screw-The-Budget Committee passed a spending bill that will triple our national debt, and they know they are doing it. And Warren Buffett, I hold you responsible, Paul Volcker, you, too. Lawrence Summers, Christina Romer, your names are going to go down in history. A spending bill that will triple our national debt and you say nothing? Of course, what can they say? "We are just following orders." Shame on all of you! Shame on every economist who does not speak out. Shame on every journalist who doesn't report the obvious. Shame on every citizen whose kids are going to get stuck with this knife in the heart of responsible government. The very idea in the United States of America anyone could suggest a plan so irresponsible, let alone vote for it, this could never have happened in our nation's first 232 years. Big deficits traditionally come as surprises, things that you don't factor: a war, floods, famines, acts of God. But this budget is acts of man. This budget is acts of men and acts of men and women.

Now, look, it's one thing to vote for Obama, one thing to root for Obama, but to go along with this hopelessly irresponsible scheme is nothing less than a national tragedy. And, folks, don't get suckered in by the story line here that we have to do this, we have to do this because of the economic slowdown, because the dirty little secret is, the truth, this idea was hatched long before this slowdown started. This is who Obama and the American left are. This plan has no relationship to the realities on the ground in the American economy today. This plan is being ramrodded through, this irresponsible budget with total disregard for the practical realities based on current circumstances. Obama spoke of alternative energy before the slowdown; he spoke of universal health care before the slowdown; Obama spoke of federalizing education before the slowdown; he spoke of home mortgages, income redistribution, all of these things, before the slowdown.

Now, some of you out there are moved by stories of predatory lenders. You get all upset about all the stories of all the greed that takes place in the private sector, and yet all of you are being taken in by predatory politicians. We keep hearing about toxic assets on Wall Street. Let me tell you where the real toxicity is, if I can borrow the term from John Armor today. The real toxicity is in the US Congress. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, for example, just to name two, are toxic congressmen. They are toxic. They are poison members of our government. If the war, for example, costs $700 billion, and of course that was outrageous spending, it was irresponsible. Well, this spending spree of Obama's will add ten to twelve times that amount to our national debt. I ask myself, can this really be happening? And it is. And then I ask myself, can this be stopped? Well, there aren't enough Republicans, nor responsible Blue Dog Democrats to stop this. We don't have any checks and balances. We have no mainstream journalists to report reality. We can't even count on late night comedians to get this right because everybody is enthralled to Obama, for whatever reason.

The only real check and balance we have right now is the ChiComs and the European Union. Judd Gregg said it yesterday. We, with our level of debt based on this budget, could not even be admitted to the European Union, which is the focal point of western socialism today. We couldn't be admitted, our debt ratios and leverage are so high we couldn't qualify for admission to the European Union! So the only real check and balance we now have is the ChiComs. You might be thinking, "What are you talking about?" Well, the Chinese hold all of our debt, and the ChiComs are going along with this notion of a single currency 'cause they think that we might do something to devalue our dollar even more. I mean every time Geithner opens his mouth, folks, it's an earthquake in the financial markets. So the ChiComs, the question is, will they pick up the tab for all the trillions we are spending but don't have? They said they're wary of it. We don't have a check and balance in the Senate. We don't have a check and balance in the House of Representatives. We don't have a check and balance setup in the media. The ChiComs, the ChiComs are our last hope!

Yes, I realize what I'm saying Snerdley, which is why I'm saying it. By the way, for this I will not apologize. The only check and balance we have on all of this purposeful irresponsibility is the communist Chinese 'cause if they refuse to keep buying debt then maybe something can change this. I have warned you and warned you again, if President Obama succeeds with this our nation fails, our nation is unalterably changed for generations. Here are the names of the Democrats on the budget committee who voted in favor of this: Patty Murray of Washington, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Bobby Byrd of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Florida, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the lout, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, and Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat Virginia.

The ChiComs remain our lone hope for a check and balance to this absolutely irresponsible, purposely irresponsible spending in echoing the Obama $3.6 trillion budget on top of all this other printing-of-money spending that we are doing. And in the meantime -- and I'm going to get into this more -- Obama's announced his new Afghanistan policy. We have an inept secretary of state running around the world begging -- wait 'til you hear the audio coming up -- begging the North Koreans to call her. She is begging the Mexicans. I mean, both big-time communists and small-time communists are on the march, and we are on the run. And we are running around promising a new era of diplomacy. We're sending videos to Iran. All of this was part of the plan long before the budget slowdown happened. This is what Obama wanted and intended to do all along during his campaign.

RUSH: We have some Gallup poll information on public opinion regarding the Obama budget. "While lawmakers on Capitol Hill battle back and forth over President Barack Obama's proposed budget plan, Americans' views are holding steady. Four in ten have a positive impression of the plan..." Now, check that wording: "America's views are holding steady." What does that mean when you read that? -- "Whoa, Americans are big on this," and then you read "four in ten have a positive impression of the plan and just over a quarter have a negative impression -- hardly changed from views expressed a month ago. A third still don't know enough about the budget to have formed an opinion either way." People increasingly don't know enough. In fact, more people say they don't know enough than in the last month. I think this is just denial. Public support is steadily dropping. It was 44%, now it's 39%. If you look deep in the story, public support is dropping. It is not holding steady. So I guess there's an opportunity here, ladies and gentlemen, but there are no checks and balances in Washington. Republicans don't have the votes to stop it. Nobody in the Obama administration is going to stop it. None of the big time corporate titans who voted for Obama are going to stop it.

RUSH: Doug in Great Falls, Montana, I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: I'm a black-haired, brown-eyed Irishman, Irish-American so I have no blame, I'm not culpable for anything to do with this thing.

CALLER: Yeah, yet. I paid my taxes and my mortgage my whole life, so I guess I'm to blame somehow.

RUSH: You are. You're one of these people that won life's lottery, you're able to do all that. They gotta get even with you.

CALLER: Yeah, that's right. Hey, quickly to the conference they want to have on Afghanistan and bringing all these countries like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia to the table, that's analogous to bringing a fox, a wolf, a duck and a frog and a turkey to a dinner. You've got people with completely different worldviews. They want completely different outcomes. To be that naive to think you're going to get progress from that cast of characters is ludicrous.

RUSH: Well, now, wait. Don't be so hasty here. Give me the list of countries that you mentioned again, just 'cause I don't have it in front of me.

RUSH: All right. So here are the countries that Obama's having a conference with on Afghanistan. We've got the Saudis. We got the ChiComs, we got Russia, we got Iran. Three of them want us to fail.

RUSH: Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan. I don't know where Pakistan stands, but we know that the ChiComs, the Russians, and the Iranians want us to fail. So they would see this as an opportunity.

RUSH: Some might say Obama wants us to fail. I mean he's cutting the defense budget. I don't think he wants us to fail in Afghanistan but your take on this is exactly right. These people have nothing to do with Afghanistan, and they don't care, their national interests don't dovetail with ours in Afghanistan. Most of these nations love the chaos that American foreign policy entanglements create for us here because they think it distracts us. I'll tell you, the ChiComs, as I said in the first hour, the ChiComs, their biggest concern here is our budget, is our economy. Folks, we don't have any more checks and balances in this country. We've got the most irresponsible budget that's been presented, tripling the national debt. The budget deficit, ten trillion over ten years, it is unheard of. It will destroy, as the guy from Great Britain said, Mr. Hannan, "When you're in debt you don't borrow more. You cut back."

It's the exact opposite of what we need to be doing, but there aren't enough Republicans in the House to top stop it so there's no check or balance in the House The RINO Republicans in the Senate, probably not enough Republicans there to stop it. Our biggest friend on this is the ChiComs. The ChiComs, the communist Chinese are the only check we have on this irresponsible budget. The check that they provide is, "I'm not buying your debt anymore. If you're going to go this irresponsibly into debt, you're gonna make your debt worthless to us and we're not buying it anymore." Now, stop and think of that. The only check we've got to this destruction that is Obama spending and budgeting and so forth is the communist Chinese.

RUSH: For those of you who read the book 1984, Big Brother was everywhere, no matter where you went. Big Brother was on television, on the radio. It didn't matter where you went. I have a simple question. When do all television sets just eventually default to the Obama channel? There has to be an Obama channel now, and at some point the government, the FCC, is gonna encode broadcast signals so that your TV or your receiver defaults to the Obama channel all the time. It's the same thing with your computer defaulting to the Obama page. Last Thursday we had Obama on Leno. On Sunday, we had Obama on 60 Minutes. On Monday, we had the networks replaying Obama on 60 Minutes and Leno.

On Tuesday, we had the all-channel press conference -- Tuesday night. Now, wait a minute. Scratch that. On Thursday we had Leno. On Friday we had wall-to-wall media coverage of Obama on Leno. Then on Sunday we had 60 Minutes. Monday we had wall-to-wall media coverage of Obama on 60 Minutes. On Tuesday, we had the all-channel press conference from the White House. Yesterday, wall-to-wall media coverage of the Obama press conference. Today, Thursday, is a virtual town meeting in the White House: Obama doing an Internet online town meeting. Tomorrow, it will be wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama town meeting. I don't know how many of you read Orwell's 1984, but the supreme leader was Big Brother, and not only was he on TV 24/7, you couldn't get him off of television. So we have audio sound bites from Barack Obama all over television today. He had an Internet town meeting that the networks... Well, the cable networks spent some time televising. We have three sound bites, one of which you just heard. Here is, let's see, this is a question for the president from Harriet in Georgia.

HARRIET: Hello, President Obama. Here is my question for your online town meeting. When can we expect the jobs that have been outsourced to other countries to come back and be made available to the unemployed workers here in the United States? Thank you so much for all your hard work. God bless you.

RUSH: Now, before we play... (laughs) I don't believe any of these questions actually came from people that just created the question. But before I play you Obama's answer, let me remind you of IBM yesterday. IBM announced layoffs of American workers and said that the work being done by the laid-off Americans would be picked up by IBM employees in India. In essence (this was in the Wall Street Journal yesterday) IBM is outsourcing jobs. So here's this question from Harriet in Georgia: "When are you going to bring these jobs back and make them available to the unemployed workers here in the United States? Thank you so much for all your hard work and God bless you." Here's Obama's answer.

OBAMA: The answer to the question is, not all of these jobs are going to come back, and it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back because, frankly, uh, there's no way that people could be getting paid a living wage on some of these jobs, at least in -- in -- in order to be competitive in -- in international setting.

OBAMA: So what we've got to do is create new jobs that can't be outsourced, uh, and -- and that's why energy is so promising. I don't think that we've lost all the jobs we're going to lose in this recession. We're still gonna be, uhhh, in a difficult time for much of this year.

RUSH: Well, that's inspiring. The jobs aren't coming back. We don't want 'em back. They don't pay very much; we need new jobs that can't be outsourced. (There's no such thing.) We need new energy jobs. We can't blame this on the teleprompter. I don't think the teleprompter is making him say this. I scoured. I watched. I couldn't find any evidence that the teleprompter is there. I'm sure the teleprompter's feelings are hurt. Wait, I take it back. I take it back. The teleprompter was there in his opening statement. The teleprompter was there, and then what he would do is he'd turn his back to the camera to read the question on his giant monitor that people had sent in, then he would turn back. There was a teleprompter there! Maybe the teleprompter did tell him to say it.

I don't know if he knows the questions in advance. It would be easy to sit there and be cynical and say that Obama's people wrote the questions and then wrote the answers and all of it's on the prompter. But even if they did write the questions, they had to do it through real citizens, and he's got a network of people that go for this. ACORN. He's got a bunch of people that would go for this. But forget that for a second. This answer: "The jobs aren't coming back, and we're going to lose more jobs this year. But that's okay, because we're going to create new jobs; we're going to create energy jobs, jobs that can't be outsourced." So I hope all of you losing your jobs out there are inspired here by the fact that you're losing jobs to outsourcing and those jobs are gone, they're not worth it anyway and they don't pay much money. I don't think IBM's paying chump change even in India, ladies and gentlemen.

But regardless, your president is not inspiring. Your president is not giving you any hopefully signs of improvement in the economy this year. He wants you depressed, he wants -- and it's all stuff he "inherited." He opened his little statement today on the prompter, prompter told him again to say that he had inherited all this. This guy is a gutless wonder. He is seeking as much chaos and depression among average Americans as he can get. Now, here, this again. This is part of his response to Harriet. Now, remember, Harriet said, "Hello, President Obama, my question for you, when can we expect jobs that have been outsourced to come back and be made available for the unemployed workers here in the US? Thank you so much for all your hard work. God bless you." (kissing sound) Please call me when Michelle is out! He tells her those jobs aren't coming back, we need new green jobs, and then this was the next part of the answer.

OBAMA: We could set up systems so that everybody in each house have their own smart meters that, uhh, will tell you when to turn off the lights, when the peak hours are, can help you sell back energy, uh, that you've generated in your home through a solar panel or through, uh, eh, other mechanisms. All this can be done, but it also creates jobs right now. Our biggest problem, we don't have enough electricians to lay all these lines out there.

RUSH: We've been laying lines in this country ever since the '90's! We've been laying lines in this country since the 1800s. We got cable lines into every home in this country practically. We got telephone lines. We got computer lines. We got wireless. We got Wi-Fi! We got more ways into your home than you know! There was an explosion of electricians. With the housing boom, who the hell do you think wired all those houses that were built? A shortage of electricians? But aside from that, folks -- aside from that -- "We could set up systems so that everybody in each house have their own smart meters." You see, you are too stupid to know when it's peak usage, despite the fact that your Drive-By Media and utility companies are warning you every five seconds every day when it's a hundred degrees in August.

You might also know you're at peak usage when you're in brownouts in California. (Thanks to Enron. Yes, we know.) But you're too stupid to know even this so you need a smart meter in your house. A "smart meter" is called a thermostat. And many people already have them in their homes. But according to Obama, you don't know how to use them. So we're going to put another thermostat in there that's going to send out little warnings or red lights to start blinking when you're at peak usage and you can then turn off your lights, and then you can turn down or up your thermostat, whichever is called for -- and then we're going to help you sell back energy that you've generated in your home through a solar panel. And we can create jobs doing this right now.

How? Obama just said that the federal government is going to find a way into your house to tell you how and when you can set your thermostat. And he wants to hire a bunch of new government workers to get in your house to do this. Remember, in the UK, they've already spent 30,000 pounds (we had the story yesterday) with spy planes flying over neighborhoods with cameras that produce an infrared reaction and they can detect homes that are overusing the approved amount of electricity and energy. We don't even need electricians in your home. We can just have spy satellites do it. The point is the Obama administration wants to know when you are breaking the rules. The Obama administration wants to know when you are exceeding your allotment.

All this couched in, "You can save the planet and we can help you do it!" It's tyranny: pure, unadulterated tyranny.

RUSH: Looks like I was right, ladies and gentlemen. It looks like it's a little soon to say definitively, but it looks like some high-powered opinion leaders on the left are starting to come around now. Something's just not quite right with this Obama guy, and what he's trying to do here. Great to be back, great to be with you, Rush Limbaugh, behind the Golden EIB Microphone here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. As I told you all along, folks, what has apparently been the plan here, drive down the economy, not just sit by and let the economy sink, but drive it down, drive it down, create all kinds of class envy. These protests over the weekend at the homes of AIG executives in Connecticut sponsored by ACORN, subgroups of ACORN, Obama coulda shut that down, he coulda told these guys this is going a little bit far, 90% retroactive tax rate and so forth. So they've been driving down the economy so that they'd have the excuse to go in and seize control of troubled companies. Now companies are possibly being seized or could be seized, even companies that are not taking TARP money.

I saw this headline on Saturday night, Sunday when I was working on show prep for today: "The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said." What this is all about is returning the nation's wealth to its, quote, rightful owners, unquote, the poor and the middle class. This is a bunch of people that believe a bunch of things. One of the things they believe is that the nation's achievers and so-called wealthy have acquired their wealth by stealing it or not allowing others to have it, and this has created the middle class and the poor, and so we've gotta go get that money back, and that's what we're in the process of doing. Remember Obama told some people in a California town meeting not to be investment bankers, the same thing his wife did during the campaign in Zanesville, Ohio. I tell you, this is one angry guy. He's a bad guy, he's one angry guy, his wife is angry, everybody around him is in full rage, although they're probably happy now to see him sit around.

Now, on Sunday it was interesting. The New York Times had four moderate hit pieces on Obama, the lead editorial, Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, and Maureen Dowd, and then yesterday Paul Krugman with another hit piece in the New York Times on Obama objecting to this toxic asset plan that Geithner's up announcing today in hearings before Barney Frank's committee. So you had four people in the New York Times raising red flags. Now, most of what they were raising flags about was Obama's substance. The poor performance on Leno, the laughing on 60 Minutes, he's not the guy, he's not the smooth, suave guy they thought that he was. There was some disconcertedness with some of the policies. But where we are right now, see, the left believes in the ideas. This is the conundrum for the left, or the dilemma. The left believes in what Obama wants to do. They believe in seizing as much of the private sector as possible and taking it over. They believe in punishing achievement, they believe in all of this. But they're concerned about Obama's style now. Most of these pieces in the New York Times on Saturday were devoted to Obama's style not being as smooth and suave and cool and calm as he was during the campaign.

What you have to understand about leftists, they can never and they will never admit that their ideas are bad, they will never admit that their policies are bad. They never admitted that what was going on in the Soviet Union was bad. They came up with other excuses, "Well, they had the wrong leaders. Who was going to follow Yuri Andropov?" They loved Gorbachev because he was relatively young and stylish, and they thought that Gorbachev could finally bring it off. They're not going to rip Obama's plans. So that's why they're starting to rip Obama a little bit, and it's a mild rip, don't misunderstand. It's a mild ripping. But at least it's a ripping, and it's happening within two months, 60 days of The One's inauguration. So you can't rip the plans. Well, Krugman is. Krugman is just distraught over this toxic asset deal, and I have to tell you Krugman may be more right than wrong. This is a tough thing to explain and understand, which is one of the reasons why it's being done. But Krugman's complaint is the toxic asset plan, which caused the market to go up nearly 500 points yesterday, it's down 83 today. They gave the plan all this credit yesterday. Actually it's housing starts, surprisingly higher than what the experts said.

Speaking of that, every month we get new economic figures, and every month everybody's shocked and surprised by them, whether they're up or down, they're surprised by them, the experts. Anyway, this is a tough thing to try to explain to people, which is I think part of its allure to people in government. It's complicated. The whole concept of toxic assets is complicated. How do you explain to people what a toxic asset is? After you've explained what it is, how many people still are going to understand it? So okay, we gotta get the toxic assets off the books. The real crux of the plan here is that the Obama administration needs the private sector to bail it out of this. That's why private sector investors are being given the chance to go in and buy these things up, try to set a price for them and then they get to keep a majority of the profits. The private investors that take the risk here will get to keep the majority of the profits and nobody knows if this is gonna work. Nobody has the slightest clue. We won't know until it gets underway. We're not going to know for a year or two whether this has worked. If it works, investors get the profits rather than the taxpayers. If it doesn't work, and the reason they need the private sector is because they've so maligned the public sector, so maligned Wall Street and so forth that they can't appear to be doing anything that favors them.

So they're trying to get any of you in the private sector to want to invest in these things, these toxic assets. If there are losses, the government takes the heat. The taxpayers will absorb every loss. So there's no downside -- and this is what Krugman doesn't like -- there is no downside for the private investors who are going to take a risk buying up and then reselling these toxic assets. There is no risk. The taxpayers absorb any losses. The private sector investors get whatever profits there are. But then the private sector guys have to be worried about, okay, if there's too much profit, am I going to get a 90% tax break? Can't show too much profit here, this administration is making it clear they don't like profit. I'll tell you what, these private sector people who are going to start this plan had better get a prenup on this marriage from the Obama administration, they'd better get a prenup, because if they don't get a prenup, if they make too much money they're going to end up being demonized and what happened today on these hearings on Capitol Hill is going to be totally ignored. We're going to forget it just like we forget the fact that everybody knew about the AIG bonuses. This remains one of the biggest feints, one of the biggest distractions, this whole AIG bonus thing, it is an outrage.

We don't have a Constitution anymore. Do you realize that if they can just singularly disregard the Constitution in this 90% retroactive tax on bonus payments, then what good's the Constitution anyway? They can just discard the Constitution anywhere they want. Very, very serious stuff that is happening here, folks. There are as many people that don't like the Geithner plan as do. In fact, there may be more people that don't. Washington Post today, "Geithner Seeks Broad Power to Seize Firms." So they get to make taxes high, they get to make regulations impossible, they get to make unions strong, and then when your company fails, the government can go in and seize it. They are raising the chances, they're raising the odds against success with every passing day, as they talk about raising taxes, increasing regulations such as the EPA and carbon dioxide becoming a poison, cap and trade, making the unions stronger with card checks, after they have made it doubly tough for anybody to run a profitable business, then they can go in and seize it, when you can't make a profit. This is all part of a plan. This is not a rescue. This is a plan. They are focused on the destruction of the private sector. This is an all-out assault on capitalism.

The Obama administration is going to ask Congress to give the Treasury secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of nonbank financial companies, like large insurers, investment firms, hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy, this from White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. They're going to use it until they get control of as much in the private sector as they want. They are going to use the line that any collapse would damage the broader economy. That's why we had to bail out the banks back in October, November, they're going to use the line as long as it continues to work on people. If you're the government and people believe you, and you keep running around talking about, "My God, there's going to be a collapse if we don't seize this hedge fund the country is going to collapse, oh, no, it's horrible." "Okay, go ahead and seize it and save us, President Obama, because we don't want the economy to collapse." They're going to keep using it as long as they can get away with it, and you'd have to say they're getting away with it. You see the opposition to it on Capitol Hill? The Republicans have just told Cheney to shut up. Republicans on Capitol Hill, "Yeah, we're trying to reinvent ourselves. Cheney comes along, we love Cheney, but he's not popular. Everybody hates Cheney. We wish he would just shut up."

They're trying to reinvent themselves? How so? We have a glorious, golden opportunity to poke all kinds of holes at what the Democrats are doing, and there's barely a whisper from Republicans in Washington. The government right now, folks, at present only has the authority to seize banks, but Geithner is going to advance the argument that the government needs more tools in its arsenal in order to right the nation's economic ship. Don't let a good crisis slip through your fingers, and so it's going to continue to be portrayed as a horrible economy and getting worse, the government needs even more power to save it, I warned people, I predicted this. This is the aim from the get-go. Create a crisis, create a collapse, create all these things, chaos. It's all about chaos. The more chaos, the more people will seize or relinquish, I should say, their own freedom and let the government do what the government says it has to do in order to save things. At the end of the day what people have lost is their freedom and their liberty. "Giving the Treasury secretary authority --" this is from the Washington Post today "-- the power to seize a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process. A Treasury secretary, a member of the president's cabinet, would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve, and other regulators, according to an internal administration document."

So they're going to get rid of the independent agencies that examine the health of various aspects of the economy, they're going to turn that over to Geithner. Geithner is going to get total control over determining whether something needs to be seized or not, whether it's working or not. It just keeps on coming, folks. There's nothing on the road to stop these people, no boulders in the way, and even if there were boulders, these people are in a jet. They're flying over the land, they're not driving over it, and they're proceeding full speed ahead with Barney Frank running cover for the Democrats and all that they're doing as he chairs his committee up on Capitol Hill.

RUSH: Let me read a little to you here from this story on March 21st, three days ago, from the Connecticut Post. "Hollywood has its bus tours of celebrity homes. New York City has its bus tours of mob hits. So why not pack a bus with community activists, invite a representative from every media organization in the free world and see the Fairfield County mansions of the 'filthy rich and most recently infamous' -- American International Group executives. After all, these are the people who packed their wallets with millions in taxpayer bailout bonuses for helping take their company and the US economy down the tubes, organizers said. And that's exactly what the Working Families Party and ACORN did Saturday morning."

Now, listen to this, though. The writer, "Unfortunately, traffic and the slow-moving caravan of news media that followed only allowed the bus enough time to stop near the estates of two Fairfield AIG executives, both who promised to return their bonuses after their names were disclosed. The media, from as far away as Montreal, Germany and the Netherlands, outnumbered the demonstrators by three-to-one. And the demonstrators played to the boom mics, clicking camera shutters and whirling videotapes with a noisy but well-mannered demonstration outside--" and they give an address here of one of these executives' houses. "The protest took place under the watchful eyes of nearly a quarter of Wilton's 44-member police force and four private security officers." Then they talked about the place they first stopped and they describe the house. "The Colonial home, surrounded by neatly trimmed rhododendron bushes, appears to have been expanded at least three times. Between Wednesday's naming of Poling and Saturday's bus tour, the executive hired two security guards and lined his yard's border with small white flags warning of an Invisible Fence for an unseen guard dog." And then it just goes on and on and on and on and on.

They finally talked to a protester, Asaad Jackson from North Hartford, "'This is nowhere even close to what it looks where I live in north Hartford,' said Jackson seeing a half-dozen huge homes, some housing their own swimming pools, gazebos and backyard patios; another has its own fenced-in, regulation-size, blacktopped basketball court waiting for a quick pick-up game. "'It's like comparing a rosy red apple to burnt toast, and that's not even the best metaphor,' said Jackson, 24, who teaches African percussion and the trumpet in Hartford." Where, on the street corner? Couldn't they name the institution where he teaches it? "Aside from the mansions, there were the police cars. Several parked at the street entrance, another parked outside Poling's home. The only time Jackson says he sees police in his Hartford neighborhood is when they're looking for someone." I've covered about half the story here. No, Mr. Snerdley, there is very little outrage about this among people willing to publicly express it.

Here's the end of the story. "The more he saw Saturday, and the more he heard, the more incensed he became. 'Because the American taxpayer now owns 80 percent of AIG, they should have full access to anything and everything they own, including their country club memberships, their recreation facilities, their built-in swimming pools, but we'll do it on a schedule,' he said. 'America has stopped being a country that cares about its people. It's all about greed.'" That was one of the protesters on the bus. "The bus loaded up again. The media caravan aligned behind it," and because they spent so much time, they bypassed the next executive, and drove to the headquarters of AIG Financial Products in Wilton, Connecticut, to continue to protest. It's a banana republic. This is banana republic-type stuff.

In fact, I read some stuff over the weekend, I don't think I printed it out because it's all premature right now, but from some left-wing blogs. That term was actually used by a left-winger. This is absurd, he said, I mean there are banana republics that wouldn't think of doing what this Congress did last week on the retroactive 90% tax increase on AIG bonuses. There are some people, they're starting to talk about it, but with the people you mean, Snerdley, the opposition? Nope. They're scared to death of being demonized and vilified.

All right, let's go back to the phones. People have been patiently waiting. Betty in Everett, Pennsylvania. Great to have you with us on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Quick question. Do you not think that this thing with AIG taking back the bonuses is setting a dangerous precedent for the future, as to the government interfering --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait. You mean AIG giving them back or the government taking them back, which do you mean?

CALLER: Well, basically the government's forcing them to give it back, and if they can tax their money at a hundred percent, where does this stop? At what point does the government maybe go further down the road and say, and we wouldn't we even be talking about AIG not taking government money if the government can say, well, AIG has to give their money back, those executives made too much money, well, at what point --

RUSH: Well, Obama's already talking about it. He wants control of the financial sector, and Barney Frank today was talking about legislation that would tie executive pay to performance, federal legislation. The Obama administration is wanting to do everything it can to take over and regulate as much of the financial industry as it can, the banking business, and even other businesses, but your larger question I think is very good. Let's look at something here in progress regulation. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 the top marginal tax rate was 70%. When he left office it was 28%. When Bill Clinton came into office he got the top marginal rate back up to 39.6%. The Bush tax cuts came along and they lowered them back to 35%. The Bush tax cuts will end after 2011, I think. At which point Obama is not going to extend them, so it will go back up to thirty-nine six. Throughout all of this the Democrats have done everything they can to make sure they do not mention the number 40. They know they're on thin ice raising taxes here, so the 39.6, that was the first incremental step, just let the Bush tax cuts expire. Now you are right. Look at what has happened. Using mob rule and populist psychology, they've got the figure at 90% now. They have the figure at 90% and nobody's objecting! The people who are now faced with the 90% tax rate, rather than fight it, are giving the money back. So there is no 90%, there's a 100% tax rate now. They were paid money contractually. They're giving it back to avoid the hassles of working with government. The Constitution now doesn't exist. Ex post facto doesn't exist, bills of attainder doesn't exist. If the Constitution can be tossed aside this easily, then they can throw any part of it aside.

RUSH: Totally. But nobody's stopping them and nobody's upset. In fact, they're ginning up national support for all of this. So whereas they were afraid, Obama was afraid to actually talk about raising taxes to 40%, look what they've done. They've thrown the figure of 90% out there. That was the top tax rate when JFK started lowering taxes, and his rates got 'em down to 70, his cuts got 'em down to 70. So 40 years ago we had a top marginal rate of 90%, we had a whole bunch of rates, the top one was 90, but there were all kinds of tax shelters. There were all kinds of incentives to put your money someplace to avoid paying the 90%. Those things don't exist anymore. Now they've got that 90% number out there, and nobody's objecting. So, yes, you're right about your contention.

CALLER: And would you please at some point in one of your shows address how hypocritical Obama is being on almost every level. That's all, I won't keep you anymore. But I think you need to do a show on just how many hypocritical things he is doing and the Democrats are doing.

RUSH: Well, we could do that, but I think it's worse than hypocritical. Hypocritical doesn't begin to describe it. And, by the way, hypocrisy is not an indictment of Democrats. Democrats are hypocritical every day, and they're never held to account. Hypocrisy only damages Republicans. We're missing the boat if all we want to say about Obama is he's hypocritical. Obama, while everybody stands around cheering, is taking away individual liberty and freedom as quickly as he can, while smiling and laughing about it on Leno, smiling and laughing about it on 60 Minutes with Steve Kroft while his mindless Obamabots are out there cheering for him at every town meeting and so forth. He's taking away freedom, incrementally each and every day, making another big grab at it. That's not hypocrisy. That's tyranny.

RUSH: We have a little snippet here -- it's a montage, actually -- of a report on the ACORN protests of AIG executive homes on Saturday on the NBC Nightly News with the reporter Mike Taibbi.

TAIBBI: While no one says that a populist rage is unjustified, there are those who argue that beyond a certain point, it's unhelpful. And while some say the real problem isn't millions in bonuses but the billions funneled to AIG's corporate partners --

TAIBBI: -- it's easier to scream about one company and a roster of its executives.

TAIBBI: Or to stage a bus tour of some of those executives' homes as happened today in Connecticut, and to aim that anger at the big picture, an economy that wouldn't be stabilized even if every penny of every bailout bonus was paid back ten times.

RUSH: That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. None of this is all raw emotion. You can give people the facts left and right about the size of the bonus. In fact, it's even worse than that. You can say, "Yeah, $165 million in bonuses versus 700..." What is the other number that's being passed around? What was it, two or three billion for something or other. Anyway, 165 million sounds larger than two or three billion, because 165 sounds bigger than two or three or even eight or even ten. So you have a bunch of ignoramuses in this country whose emotions are being played, and they're being ginned up and they're joining these protests and so forth. Nobody is going to do anything to stop it.

Nobody's going to stand up and oppose it, especially if most of the people on the protest tour are minority and most of them are very poor. Nobody wants to be critical of either group. So you have to sit there and so I understand where they're coming for. I know where they're coming from. It's a shame and so forth. (interruption) Well, Snerdley, I agree that somebody better stop it now, but I don't know who's going to stop it? The Obama administration... (interruption) The president is not going to speak out against this. The president is encouraging this. The president could stop this with a snap of his fingers. The president loves this. It's his group! ACORN got stimulus money to do this kind of thing. It's his group. This is where he trained: ACORN. This is exactly the kind of chaos that his administration wants.

They're doing everything they can to take over as much of the private sector and regulate it as they can, as soon as they can. There's no mystery about it. The real surprise is it's not the country you and I grew up in. I told you, we're a bipolar country now. There's so many people looking at this, they see what it is, and they're not at all bothered. Even the ones who are not particularly in favor of something like this, they think it's just going to pass. It's only because of the dire straits the economy is in. Things will eventually straighten out. They don't have the slightest concern about it that they're willing to voice publicly.

RUSH: Eva, somewhere in New Jersey. She's not comfortable identifying her exact location.

RUSH: Well, we'll soon find out why she doesn't want you to know where she lives. Hi.

CALLER: No, no, I live New Jersey, and the reason I'm calling is because actually the article in the New York Times that I didn't read but I heard about, it made me so upset that it broke the straw on the camel that I was -- you know, I felt like a camel, but the bottom line is, just to make a long story short, my husband works for AIG, and he has worked for AIG, I don't know, 15, 20 years, something like that. He works -- and I pretty much am going to repeat to the same extent the story that I heard from, you know, it was quoted to me over the phone from the New York Times. He works incredibly long hours. We have four kids, he barely sees them, his assignments are from state to state, sometimes he spends the week, sometimes really years from one location to another, and he did receive a bonus, one of the AIG bonuses. It is a very small bonus compared to those bonuses that I hear about, and I'm not sure, and that hurts me a lot, I'm not sure to what extent the public is really aware of what most of those bonuses are about.

RUSH: No, they are not. The country has been led by a tyrannical mob, the country has been worked into a frothing frenzy by a tyrannical mob, and they don't care what the bonuses are about. All they know is that the bonuses are their money and that this money is going to people who botched and destroyed the company.

RUSH: I know it's totally untrue, but this is what the administration is putting out. You've got the president of the United States lined up against your family. That's what you have to realize. The president of the United States has seen to it that busloads of protesters, if they find out where your husband and you live, will show up on a bus tour to protest you.

RUSH: Hang on 'cause I gotta take a break. This is one of these things in broadcasting called a hard break, it doesn't move.

RUSH: We want to go back to Eva in Greenwich, New Jersey, whose husband works for AIG. Eva, are you still there?

RUSH: What you're getting calls about today is a piece in the New York Times, a resignation letter sent to the CEO Ed Liddy by an employee named Jake DeSantis. She told us earlier that friends of hers were calling and quoting elements or parts of this letter that's printed today as an op-ed in the New York Times. It's entitled, "Dear AIG: I Quit." He was working for a dollar, like the CEO. He's in the Financial Products Division, which is the one that's been portrayed here as evil to the core, and he was working for a dollar in lieu of the bonuses that were due on March the 13th. Now, if he even gets his bonus, whatever net he gets he's giving it to charity, he's getting out of there, he wants nothing to do with it anymore, he's fed up. Your husband works for AIG, you had one more point to me you wanted to make, but you needed more than ten seconds to do it.

CALLER: Yes. My husband works for AIG, and he's also a recipient of one of the bonuses. It's a small bonus, but it's also this deferred compensation bonus. It's not based on performance. It was promised to him a year ago. It was a part of his salary that was withheld. It's not about the money that I'm so outraged about. Money is very little. What I'm outraged about is about the media and even more about the attitude of the public about the stonewalling of AIG employees, about the fact you have to have barricades in front of the building, about the buses that are being sent to Connecticut, you know, executives, about the threats that are being sent to our children. My husband took it so much to his heart, exactly to his heart that last week he ended up being admitted with a very severe chest pain to the hospital, he was worked up to a heart attack. He's still being worked up. He was discharged two days ago, they are very concerned about him, he's supposed to be on very strict bed rest. However, my husband, as a loyal AIG employee, went to work yesterday, and went to work today. Tomorrow he's getting a stress test and other tests done.

My point I'm trying to make is I am -- as you can pick up my accent, I grew up, you know, I've been here for 20 years, but I grew in a up in a socialist country, and I learned to question and be inquisitive about media. And I'm shocked here at American public about the fact that they never question the media and they never question the lack of ethical backbone that mainstream media does not have, I mean they don't have any ethical backbone. The facts that they present are extremely selective and, not to mention, are opinions. And, you know, my family became an innocent victim of the situation, and what I realize is that it's not only about my husband, it's not only about me, yesterday I wanted my children to watch the president speak, I wanted to discuss it with them, my oldest daughter is 12, and my husband said to me, "Maybe they shouldn't listen to it because he's going to smear AIG, I would like them to be proud of me," and that really broke the camel's heart, you know, it was the straw that broke the camel's leg, whatever you say --

RUSH: Twelve, ten, eight and six. I assume the twelve and ten-year-olds are who you're talking about when you said it broke their hearts when they saw the president rip daddy's company.

RUSH: Here's what I'm saying to you. The media is who they are. Those of us native born Americans have been marveling at the ongoing dwindling professionalism, the ongoing increased activism, the abrogation of any sense of responsibility in terms of their reporting. It is what it is. I think you need to redirect your anger and your family's anger to President Obama and his administration. And I'm serious, Eva, because it is his administration and the Democrat Party, his colleagues in the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives who ran a sham, a fraudulent show last week. They knew all about these bonuses, the stimulus legislation required these bonuses to be paid, with no limits on them. These members voted for it, and they conducted a program, a show last week acting as though they had no clue and that they were screwed and that they got the shaft and they wanted to find out who's responsible, when it's them. I think your anger should be more properly channeled at the president of the United States. The president of the United States coulda shut down these protests.

The president of the United States could have stood up and said, "Wait, we don't need to have this kind of behavior toward these AIG people." He wants it. The president of the United States wants you feeling threatened, he wants the American people hating you and your company and your husband's company, he wants the chaos, he wants the people of this country to think that the private sector is all AIG, that there's no difference in any private sector company, large or small, from AIG. You're all corrupt, you're all cheaters, you're all thieves, and he's going to fix it. And he's going to fix it by taking over these companies, and he's going to make fairness the order of the day. And he's going to take all of this money that your husband and all the other people that work there make and he's gonna give it to the rightful owners of the country, the poor and the middle class companies like your husband's have screwed and shafted. That's his motivation. That's his objective. That's the Obama plan. So your anger should be more properly directed at him, just as you saw last night and just as your kids saw last night.

It is not presidential for the president of the United States to stand up and to denounce a single company like this for the express purpose of creating mob behavior and a mob mentality. This is his life. What do you think a community organizer does? A community organizer, for ACORN or anybody else, goes to the downtrodden in any community and says, "You are here, and you are where you are because they have given you the shaft, they have taken what is rightfully yours, they are the people we need to protest and punish to get back what is rightfully yours." He's just taking it now beyond the stages of Chicago to the stages of America. That's who Barack Obama is. He is behaving as any community organizer does, who is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, whose objective is chaos and the destruction of American capitalism, or capitalism anywhere. So you can sit there and act outraged at the media, but the media are just slaves to Obama, and they're going to follow his lead. So your anger here needs to be taken to the top. Eva, I'm glad you called. Thanks very much. I appreciate it, and I really feel bad for you.

Which leads to a question: Why not [listen to Rush Limbaugh’s show? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind. Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.

Don't believe me? Well, then, gird your loins. Gather your courage. Accept the Limbaugh Challenge. See what happens.

After running a campaign against the $1 trillion deficit he "inherited" from President Bush and the Republicans, Obama quickly matched it. During his first 50 days in office, he and his Democratic-controlled Congress spent $1 billion an hour.

Under Obama's proposed budget, the overall national debt doubles in five years and triples in 10.

Not exactly "moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," as he promised.

How does Mr. Responsibility explain the disconnect between this reality and his absurd claims? By insisting that Republicans were worse.

Conservative Review
Issue #68	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	March 29, 2009