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.

The British press feel about Obama as does most of the American press. After a presidential news conference, the British press applauded him.

Outside the G20 in English, there was a very well-organized demonstration by anarchists, anti-war demonstrators, and eco-types.

The Congress passes a massive Obama budget without any republican support and a handful of Democrats voted against it as well.

7 Iowa Supreme Court justices decide unanimously that gay marriage is now legal in Iowa.

A federal DC judge has made his ruling than 3 Afghanistan detainees can challenge their status in court.

It comes out that the NY Times killed a story which linked the Obama campaign to ACORN (the Obama campaign sent names of their donors over to ACORN to draw from was one of the connections). This is the same paper that printed the front page story of not an affair or even an alleged affair which John McCain had 10 years ago, but of a relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist which one or two of his unnamed staffers from that time period where they thought the two spent too much time together over a relatively short period of time. That story was written up as a possible torrid love affair between McCain and the lobbyist based entirely upon unnamed sources.

Charles Krauthammer with respect to Obama’s warning the North Koreans: “The two countries [the US and England?] will come together with a, quote, stern and united response, which means there will be a useless Security Council resolution with six adjectives instead of the usual two.

But that wasn't the hilarious part. The hilarious part is that the U.S. communique left out the word "stern." So it looks as if our position will be that we if the missile is launched we are going to have a flabby united resolution at the U.N.”

“This budget upholds the principle of responsibility. The budget resolution begins a process of turning around a Republican legacy of deep deficits, mounting debt, and economic decline due to the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policy ,” from a portion of Nancy Pelosi’s speech about the $3.3 Trillion Congressional budget. Has any mainstream newspaper or television newscast called her on this? This is a budget which will lead to a doubling of the national debt in less than 4 years, and a tripling of the national debt in about 10 years.

Senator Harry Reid told Obama, with regards to increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, “Whatever you do, don’t call it a surge.”

CEO’s from the most powerful banking associations met with President Obama, and I can almost guarantee you, you have not heard what went down.

"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent on an international market."

But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that."

"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

Nick Robinson [a British journalist]: "A question for you both [President Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown], if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?"

Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama, without a teleprompter, starts speaking. Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... [pause] if you look at ... [pause] the, the sources of this crisis ... [pause] the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to [pause]... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... [pause, close eyes] I think what is also true is that ... [pause] here in Great Britain ... [pause] here in continental Europe ... [pause] around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... [pause] the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... [pause] So at this point, I'm less interested in ... [pause] identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... [pause] drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... [pause] there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... [pause] I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.”

My apologies if you fell asleep during this answer.

Glad that Obama cleared this up for us. Notice, not one word about FNMA or FHLMC, which are highly-regulated semi-government bodies, or about the legislation and pressuring from some groups, like ACORN, which required that home loans be given to people with poor credit, low income and little or no money (in case you did not know, we the taxpayers paid all or most of the down payments, prepaids and closing costs of those who took on these sub-prime mortgage loans).

North Korea launches a missile capable of carrying a nuclear weapon. Although they claim that this missile was to put a satellite into space, no such satellite was launched. Obama warns that he just might go to the UN and issue a stern warning and a very stern UN resolution. I believed that an emergency UN meeting has been called.

I have personally run into problems with my computer playing YouTube videos. If that is the case for you, then download RealPlayer for free http://www.real.com/realplayer?src=null&pcode=rn and it will allow you to quickly download any clip and it will play on your computer. These clips will be located wherever your downloads go and can be quickly and easily erased. Some of them, I guarantee you, you will save, and send along to others. Furthermore, in case you were unaware of this, RealPlayer allows you to download virtually any video clip from the Internet.

Neil Cavuto asks Congressman Grayson a simple question about 10 times. This is all about a law which is about to be passed in Congress, which basically says that some bureaucrat (or worse, group of bureaucrats) will be able to determine the bonuses of anyone in a company receiving TARP funds. If you think that is reasonable, then you need to see this video, because you have not thought it out far enough. Some of you recall what 60 Minutes used to be like, and, although it was always slanted, it still went after bad guys and it came down hard. That is what Neil does here.

Watch “Gloves off” when it comes to the government attacking private citizens and opposing politicians.

This seems, at first, like a fairly simplistic explanation of radical Muslim infiltration, but this is an outstanding overall picture of what is going on:

1) What we do not need are bureaucrats given a lot of leeway behind the scenes to make decisions when it comes to business. This is one of the reasons our tax code is so screwed up; politicians put onerous taxes on this or that business, but, behind closed doors, they negociate subsides to these same businesses.

2) I am one of the people very much in favor of a simple consumption tax and the abolishment of the income tax, corporate tax and capital gains tax. I do believe that the government needs money to operate, and I have no problem with that. And, I further understand that, some things the government does, I am not going to like. However, when you tax productivity, you reduce productivity. This way, when rich people buy big things, they pay big taxes; and when poor people purchase little things, they pay paltry taxes. This would simplify taxes no end. This would encourage businesses and productivity. Finally, this would end government subsidies and tax breaks, which are often given out as political favors. A consumption tax is above board and transparent. Huckabee has made this more complex, and has some sort of forms filed in order to get some of your taxes back. I don’t think there should be any back and forth tax time as we have now. You buy something, you pay taxes on it. The only modification I would have is, fresh foods—vegetables, meats and fruits—would be exempt from taxation. Processed foods would be taxed.

3) Sounds like one of the results of the G20 conference will be tighter controls over hedge funds, one of the investment vehicles which did not cause our present recession.

4) Obama now owns GM and the war in Afghanistan. At some point in time, his failure or success in these areas will impact his being elected for a 2^nd term. Both of these would be difficult to deal with, but much more so for Obama. Obama has a lot of support from the unions and has rarely taken any stand against the unions. The unions and particularly those who are retired from the auto industry, are bleeding the auto-industry dry. In good times, the auto-industry does fine, but not in bad. But, Obama has not been willing to go in there and demand dramatic concessions from the unions and from the retirees. The problem with GM is not a management problem; it is a recession combined with a onerous union concessions which were made. One thing which gets Obama out of this, but it won’t happen fast enough, is hyper-inflation. Suddenly, the extremely high union salaries and retirement benefits are no longer too high. The trick is, how does he keep GM going without bailing them out month after month after month?

5) Afghanistan would have been a problem for any president. This is not a war which is easily won; not nearly as easily as Iraq can be won. This means a commitment of troops over a very long period of time, and, at the same time, there will be this constant urging from the far left for the United States to cut our losses and bring the troops home.

6) Why is the stock market up and continuing to go up? There are several reasons. There are a number of indicators that the recession is nearly over (see the article below on that); the mark to market rule was changed (this is a change in the way asset values are determined, something which conservatives have been calling for, for a long time); housing sales are up (meaning housing may have hit a bottom); and factory orders are up. Furthermore, Obama’s stimulus and government programs have not kicked in yet, which is also a good thing for business.

7) Bill O’Reilly was audited 3 times under Clinton, until he threatened to sue; Rush Limbaugh is audited every single year by New York, primarily requiring him to prove that he does not live in New York (this is despite his radio program emanating from Florida 5 days/week). This is how enemies of the government are attacked and harassed.

8) The Death Tax was supposed to disappear in 2010. However, Obama’s budget keeps it at a 45% rate for those who make to much. Where is this found in the budget? In one sentence in a footnote.

9) This government intends to have its tentacles in the car companies, in the insurance industry, in banks and in health care. That is not for the future; that is happening right now. If government involvement in FNMA and FHLMC seemed imprudent to you, you have not seen anything yet. If there is a lot of money, if there is a place to put in government jobs (e.g., on the board, regulators, etc.), then government is making it so that these industries will be places for government bureaucrats to go to. Whnever you think, yeah, this is what we need; more government oversight; always remember, FNMA and FHLMC, where this economic mess all started, was loaded with government involvement and oversight.

10) AIG was not a poorly run company. One section of AIG brought the company down. When it appeared as though Senator Dodd was going to be involved with oversight, an email went out to the employees of AIG to support Dodd financially (which they did). The amendment which preserved the bonuses of the executives at AIG is called the Dodd Amendment. Government oversight and regulation sounds good; the actual execution often ends up making things worse than they already were.

11) People are motivated by extraordinary lusts, and those with political power often want more and believe—many sincerely—that they know how to run things better than anyone else. What we are seeing with Obama is an enormous power grab, where Washington will have a say, if not controlling power, in the function of banks, insurance companies, car companies, and in medicine. They want to determine who can be lent money (which is VERY political), what kinds of cars we can drive, who will be covered and for what, when it comes to health care. And don’t forget, there is so much money in these industries that it boggles the mind. Government wants this power and control and right before our eyes, it is taking it; and it wants the money. They will tell you day in and day out, top business executives are corrupt, they make too much money, and they are driving this recession; government is good, they are looking out for you, and all government wants to do is make some sensible regulations. I hope you do not believe that.

12) Probably the stupidest thing Obama has talked about is about nuclear disarmament. As the world superpower, with nuclear weapons, we seem to be unable to stop North Korea from launching missiles or from developing nuclear weapons; and we are unable to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons; so, somehow, on some planet of love and holding hands, we are going to toss our nuclear weapons out, and North Korea and Iran are just going to go along with it. Is it possible for Obama to be this stupid? Does he think that really tough diplomacy—and I mean double-extra, super tough diplomacy—is going to actually dissuade North Korea or Iran? If you actually think this, I am amazed that you are even reading this far. However, just watch—Iran is nearly there when it comes to developing atomic weaponry, and you know what is going to stop them? A surgical attack by Israel—and we will see this in the next few years. We should be a part of that attack, but I don’t see Obama as having the nerve to do it. However, right here, I believe that Obama is 100% sincere and that he believes that he will begin world nuclear disarmament (and I am sure that a healthy percentage of his followers believe that he will bring this to pass as well).

13) How is it possible for Obama, who has a relatively coherent Iraq and Afghanistan policy, who realizes that it takes soldiers with weapons killing bad guys; and yet, somehow, living in this same world, thinks we can eliminate nuclear weapons?

The Bush budget has about a $400 billion deficit in 2008. The Obama 2009 budget is estimated to quadruple that and his 2010 budget will nearly triple Bush’s highest deficit.

Private sector in US cuts 742,000 jobs in March. Was this on the front page of your paper?

Obama pledges an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan; his generals would like to have 10,000 more. His visit to Europe G20 results in Gordon Brown offering up a few hundred more British troops (but only as security for the August election); Belgium offers 35 more, Spain 10 more; and no additional troops from France. Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark are thinking it over. Even though Obama believes that Afghanistan is the real war, he was unable to convince any of our allies. However, this just in: Europe will pledge several thousand non-combatant troops.

Obama takes a total of 5 questions at his Strausbourg townhall meeting, all in English and all from Americans.

If you have paid any attention to the chaos occurring on our southern border, then no doubt that you have heard, 90% of the guns that they are using came from the US. No less the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has told us this. What’s the problem? The problem is, it is not true. 90% of guns collected which have serial numbers have come from the United States. There are all kinds of guns taken from the drug lord minions without serial numbers.

President Obama gets the Queen of England an IPOD (which is actually a better gift than 25 DVD’s that won’t play on a region 2 English DVD player); she gives him an autographed photo of herself.

SNL refuses to let their Obama character fill his speaking with long aaaaand’s or a series of uh’s. When Obama is not on teleprompter, he constantly does this (I believe that he has been recently coached to use a long and instead of an uh whenever possible). So far, I have observed 3 different Obama’s and none of them use these affectations which are present in every non-teleprompter moment of Obama speaking (in fact, this is generally how you can figure out whether Obama is on teleprompter or not).

After the North Korean missile launch, Obama gins up a foreign crowd, telling them they can ignore the voices which tells us nuclear disarmament is impossible, and backs it up with “Yes, we can!”

20 House Democrats vote against Obama’s budget; 2 Democrat Senators (Evan Bayh—IN and Ben Nelson—NE) vote against it.

Nelson issued the following statement: The administration inherited a lot of red ink in this budget, along with our ailing economy. But this budget still has trillion dollar-plus deficits in the next two years, and adds unsustainably to the debt. These are tough times, and the federal government needs to take a lesson from American families and cut down on the things we can do without. I respect the Administration offering an honest budget. but it just costs too much.

Bayh’s statement: [U]nder this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014. As a percentage of our gross domestic product, it reaches a precarious 66.5 percent. The deficit remains larger than our projected economic growth, an unsustainable state of affairs. This budget will increase our borrowing from and dependence upon foreign nations. I cannot support such results. We can do better, and for the sake of our nation and our children's future, we must. I am not a Dem, but if Democrats had to win this election, why couldn’t it have been Hillary and Bayh?

[New Regular Feature: More than any president that I recall, President Obama tends to use language very carefully, to, in my opinion, obfuscate what he is doing rather than to clarify. This seems to part and parcel of the Obama campaign and now of the Obama presidency. This has become a mainstay of the Democratic party as well.]

economic justice = taking money from people who make too much money and giving it to those who don’t make enough (also known, inarticulately, as spreading the wealth around)

inarticulate = saying what you really mean without filtering it through code-language (or, Obama-speak)

In Iowa, Obama promised principles and not polls, employed 6 campaign pollsters at the time that he said this. As a matter of interest, presidents have use pollsters as far back as Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush had the smallest budget for pollsters, but still did polling.

Newspapers and other news sources also use Obama-speak; the AARP website called Obama’s new budget ambitious.

The website Think Progress is for media accountability, which means, if a news service leans to the right, then it must be curtailed, regulated by the government and/or ridiculed (most of their anger is directed toward Bill O’Reilly). No such approach is applied to NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN (which seems to be getting better?), MediaMatters, AP, Reuters, NPR (public radio) or public television. So there is no confusion here, no one speaking from the right is calling for government regulations for left-of-center news services (although several would like to see government funding for public radio and television cut off).

Toxic assets = sub-prime mortgages which the government required banks to give to unqualified buyers. Not exactly a euphemism, but obscures the exact nature of these assets.

Obama, at the Strasbourg, France townhall meeting, said that he had come to "take some questions. You know, oftentimes during these foreign trips, you see everything from behind a window. And what we thought was important was for me to have an opportunity to not only speak with you, but also to hear from you, because that's ultimately how we can learn about each other."

He took no questions from any of the thousands of French citizens who showed up as a part of this leg of his listening tour.

Back under the quotations, I posted that of Nancy Pelosi railing against the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policies while boasting about the new budget.

Obama says, “I have no intention of running GM.” Then he fires the CEO, is changing the board of directors, and has determined that certain trucks and SUV’s will no longer be produced, and cancelled the production of the Chevy Volt. Again, do not listen to what he says; watch what he does. He is also going to stand behind the GM car warranties.

You equate Obama’s overspending with Bush’s overspending. If someone questions you about Obama’s budget, you immediately retort, “Well, he inherited a huge deficit from Bush.”

You were upset about the AIG bonuses, but haven’t given much thought to the FNMA and FHLMC bonuses (which are higher).

Until the press begins to call Obama on his double-speak, he is going to continue to do it, unabated.

Iran will be stopped from developing nuclear weapons—Israel will attack Iran and destroy the cities where they believe that these nuclear weapons are being developed. Obama will just stand by and watch. This occur within 2 years.

I forgot to mention this, but Sean Penn was awarded the academy award because of the subject matter of his film (Harvey Milk, the homosexual SF politician). Bill O’Reilly made this prediction sometime ago, and I repeated it. The film won 2 Oscars, and received 40–50 nominations for a variety of awards, and won 30 of those awards.

Obama warns Executives—“I am the only standing between you and the pitchforks!”

On Bill Bennet this am, Seth, his young sidekick, made this point, quite eloquently. Since they do not post their transcripts online, I will try to reproduce his thoughts and add a few of my own.

Do not call a Democrat a socialist or a Marxist or a fascist. They may have leanings in those directions, but Democrats are Democrats, and those Democrats who are liberal, need to be clearly identified with who they are, what they believe and what they do. Democrats tax and spend; this is their essence. They may tell us that they are doing this for the common good, for hungry children, for more jobs, for making the environment better, but, you can depend upon a Democrat to tax and spend.

But what about Bush? Didn’t he drive up the deficit? Did he not spend too much and tax too little? Bush’s deficits were around 4% of GDP, which is average or below average as far as deficits go. Obama’s first deficit will be 14% of GDP, which takes us back to FDR’s highest spending during WWII. No president in between came anywhere close to what Obama proposes.

Secondly, Congress always kicked back to Bush a higher budget than he proposed to them. The highest budgets came from—surprise—a Democratic Congress. Should he have vetoed these budgets? Yes. Many a Republican believes that, and many right-wing talk show hosts complained about Bush’s budgets. However, compared to Obama, Bush is a piker.

Now, you may say, what about Clinton? Bill Clinton dealt with a Republican Congress for most of his 2 terms; and he had a conservative advisor (Dick Morris) who guided him so that he could work with conservatives. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton worked together to produce a balanced budget, which I believe, as a conservative, is a good thing. Save deficit spending for serious national crises (like 9/11).

Democrats believe in more welfare, a more distribution of wealth, in more abortions, in greater union activity, more government involvement and more government mandates (e.g., what color cars we can drive, what kinds of cars we can drive, what kinds of light bulbs we can use, etc.). Democrats will expand all forms of government and all government programs, except for the military; they will often cut the military budget.

Democrats will pour lots of money into education, which seems like a good thing; but the end result is very poor performance in our public schools, regardless of the huge amounts that we spend, and higher and higher college tuition. College is a business. When you make more money available for people to go to college and when you do everything possible to convince all high school kids that they need to go to college, what is the result? College presidents are not stupid people. They continue to raise tuition, raise teachers salaries and raise their own salary. Our old paradigm of the struggling college professor is quite outdated. The average college professor is making $80,000–100,000/year and teaching fewer classes than he did 20 years ago. Whereas we are in the midst of an economic downturn, colleges continue to raise their tuition and raise teacher salaries.

Democrats believe that the money you earn is theirs first, and ours second. It does not matter to a Democrat whether you work 80 hrs a week to achieve financial success; they want as big of a cut of your money as they can get away with. They may not themselves give much of their own money to charity and to the needy, but they are all about giving your money to what they believe are important causes.

Democrats believe in character assassination, and, when they cannot argue successfully politics, then they go after your personal life. Now, they might tout themselves as the party of the homosexual and of homosexual rights, but if you are a Republican and you tap your foot in a public bathroom, all hell is going to descend upon you. If you are a Democrat and you have sex with a page of the same sex or you allow a prostitution ring to be run out of your apartment, that is no big deal.

Simply identify a Democrat as a Democrat, and make certain that his predilections—to tax more, to spend more, to increase government size and spending, to decrease military spending, to exercise more control over the public for our own good, to pass legislation which will increase abortions—are clearly tied to his party.

1. The Conference Board's index of leading economic indicators has risen for two months in a row.

4. The Baltic Dry Index, which measures the cost of shipping key raw materials like copper, steel and iron, has more than doubled from its recent lows.

5. Existing-home sales rose in December, and participants in our weekly survey think that another rise took place in January.

8. Thanks to lower interest rates, applications for both new mortgages and refinancings of existing mortgages are rising.

9. Real hourly earnings rose 4.5% in December following a 3.3% increase in November.

16. The money supply is soaring, a sign that there's plenty of liquidity in the economy.

17. The 3-month London interbank offered rate, a measure of banks' willingness to lend to each other, has dropped to 1.2% from close to 5% a number of weeks ago.

18. Other measures of the state of the financial markets, like the TED spread and the 2-year swap spread are down, as well.

20. The corporate-bond markets are thawing out, too; some $127 billion in dollar-denominated debt was issued in January, the most for any month since last May.

A Spanish court has begun steps to open a criminal investigation against some members of the Bush administration for alleged crimes involving the War on Terror. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Justice Department lawyer John Yoo are three of the Americans being targeted.

Now we're used to this kind of stuff in the far left here in the USA, but the Spanish action raises the bar. And Spain must be held accountable for that. The action is being driven by a man named a Gonzalo Boye, radical left lawyer in Madrid.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported Boye's beef, but did not report this. Boye served almost eight years in a Spanish prison for collaborating with terrorists. He was sentenced in 1996. Now that seemed to be a mighty big omission by The New York Times, does it not?

We called the Spanish ambassador in Washington, Jorge Dezcallar to appear with us this evening. The ambassador says he cannot comment, which of course is loco - of course, he can comment.

So here's the deal of Spain: If this action goes forward, you'll be insulting America, implying we are the problem in the terror war. You're also diverting attention away from the true evil: Islamic fundamentalist killers who have attacked your own country.

Finally, unless this action is condemned by Spanish or Prime Minister Zapatero, then I am not going to that country. And I'm not optimistic that Zapatero is will do the right thing. He's a socialist. And Spain has not been a big supporter of the USA. In fact, once Zapatero took over from Prime Minister Asnar, a good guy, that country began imposing tougher sanctions on Iran for example and is Iran's third biggest trading partner. Isn't that nice?

Spain also has been soft on Hamas and Hezbollah. And while it's true Spain has 800 troops in Afghanistan, is part of the NATO force, it has rejected President Obama's calls to send more troops, preferring to let the USA do most of the fighting.

A few years back, The Factor called for boycott of France because the corrupt President Jacques Chirac was doing back-door deals with Saddam Hussein. When President Sarkozy was elected, we lifted the boycott because he's a terror warrior and doesn't hate the USA.

So for now, the Spanish prime minister needs to step up and stop the madness. And the ambassador in D.C. needs to get out from under his desk.

The president continued meeting world leaders Thursday, trying to blunt the recession and rally support for the war in Afghanistan.

Meantime, a new FOX News Opinion Dynamics poll shows his job approval slipping a bit: 58 percent of Americans approve, down from 63 percent a month ago. And 32 percent disapprove, that's up 6 points from the last survey.

Talking Points believes fear is driving the president's numbers down. Some Americans believing he has not been effective on the economy so far. Others feel his policies are too socialistic with the Congressional Budget Office estimating the USA will run up about $9 trillion in deficit over the next 10 years.

Some conservative pundits actually believe President Obama is a Star Chamber guy - a man who secretly wants to turn America into a progressive country modeled on Western Europe. Also, they think he wants to lessen the power of America and sign up for a one-world combine of governance. In the past, that kind of thinking was labeled loony, but that's changing.

Writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, the former prime minister of Denmark says:

"In Europe, we have been protected from the worst effects of the [economic] crisis thanks to welfare states built up over the past 60 years to cushion citizens from the threats posed by the free market. We can all count on state health care, social housing, education, unemployment support and other universal, tax-funded services. The simplistic dictum of more markets and less government championed by Reagan, Thatcher and their ideological heirs has failed on a momentous scale. I am hopeful that the G20 will make progress. We must keep up the pressure by demanding a globalization that works for everyone and forge new alliances and new lines of communication across national boundaries. We must develop new, progressive ways to achieve global justice."

Global justice requires that a one-world government seize private property and distribute it so that every human being has roughly the same amount of resources. The Denmark guy's vision is nothing new, but it's now being recycled as justice.

In America, there are a number of powerful people who subscribe to the theory, including billionaire George Soros, former Obama and Clinton adviser John Podesta and Vermont senator - a senator - Bernie Sanders.

Some believe Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and President Obama himself are sympathetic to the one-world global justice view. By the way, I wrote about this in my book "Culture Warrior." And now the far-left movement is gaining power as I predicted it would.

Key question: Where does Barack Obama stand? Are the right wing pundits correct? Is he down with the global justice jihad? There's no hard evidence to suggest that he is, but he has not repudiated the false vision either. Until President Obama does, speculation will rage.

If you want to see Obama-speak done by an expert, here is the link to Pelosi’s summation of the 2010 budget after it passed:

You may have noticed that, even though some banks are repaying the government, we do not hear government officials heaping them with accolades for doing the right thing. Stuart Varney suggests that Obama does not want the money; he wants the banks.

That same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now.

Here is a list so far of government people who are making millions from this economic crisis:

ACORN employees across the country have been indicted for voter fraud and, by its own admission, the group has submitted at least 400,000 questionable voter documents, according to a New York Times report dated October 24, 2008.

Now, two whistle blowers, Anita MonCrief and Marcel Reed, who used to work for ACORN, have testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that the organization took money to intimidate capitalist organizations like the Carlyle Group and H&R Block and worked closely with the Obama presidential campaign to get voters to the polls. It is here where the story begins to rise to the next level.

Despite the North Korean missile launch, Obama believes that we can move toward and achieve world nuclear disarmament.

"I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence," he told an adoring crowd that waved miniature American and Czech flags. "But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." And the crowd cheered.

Headline: In a blaze of dazzling light from above, disciples witness the First Coming of Obama.

It says a lot about a man, how he makes his big entrance. A motorcade says brute power, as everyone stops to make way for The Leader and an arrival that no one can ignore. But a helicopter out of the night sky? An other-worldly presence coming down out of the starry heavens, bright lights cutting through the darkness as the divine presence comes down to earth?

That is how Barack Obama arrived in London last night, with a deafening chugga-chugga of helicopter engines as he landed by the US Ambassador's residence in Regent's Park. This is how the Second Coming will be, if the Lord chooses to make His appearance in a VH-3D helicopter fitted with anti-missile flares.

And, just in case you didn’t know, the government is here for you in these troubled times:

[Penn Jillette is one of the few celebrities who is not a part of celebrity Hollywood/NYC group-think; I don’t agree with him all of the time, but I appreciate his opinions]

RUSH: To Stanton, Michigan, or what's left of it, anyway. This is Dawn, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. I would like to address the lady who wanted to know what smart is. I consider myself very intelligent. I'm not very smart. The person who walks off the curb into the line of traffic and has to run back to the curb to be safe is smart. The person who looks both ways first before crossing the street is intelligent. I pray that your intelligence sees us through this mess that all of our men fought for in World War II.

RUSH: Now wait, you're really taking this seriously, and I find this fascinating. William F. Buckley wrote a piece for Playboy back in the eighties and it was entitled, "Redefining Smart," and his premise was, he calculated at what point during the course of human civilization was it possible to know everything man knew, and at what point was it simply impossible to keep up with all of the new knowledge that was charted and published, at what point did it become impossible for somebody to know everything that was known. Well, that happened long ago, many, many centuries ago. It is impossible to know everything, so the question, "Who's smart?" Would you go through that again? Because you said somebody that dashes into traffic, sees a car coming, and comes back is smart.

CALLER: Right. But the person who stands on the curb and looks both ways to see what traffic is moving is intelligent. That doesn't mean stand there for an hour.

RUSH: No, I understand. But what's smart about dashing into traffic? Oh, you mean without looking?

RUSH: Right. Well, see, I think groupthink is the absolute antithesis to smartness and intelligence, and that's what Ivy Leaguers come out with. They are groupthinkers, liberals are groupthinkers, they come out thinking the same way, they have the same worldview. It's astounding how identical they all are. Isn't it astounding how identical all liberals are in what they think, what they say and how they say it, and how they arrive at what they believe and how they refute what they don't believe? It's identical, no matter who it is. It could be Obama, it could be Bill Ayers, it could be Jeremiah Wright, it could be some toad on a blog. They are identical in what they believe, cause they feel it, they're identical in how they say it. Well, they're not all college graduates, but it is what college is for. It's to conform. It's to take all these budding young individualists and bend 'em and shape 'em and flake 'em and form 'em. Here, let me play a couple sound bites for you. This is fascinating. Last night on Larry King Live, Penn Jillette who is a renowned magician, and he's also a Libertarian, he was on with Terry Holt, a Republican consultant, or was, and the intriguing, struggling very hard mightily against formidable odds, Stephanie Miller, who is said to be a liberal radio talk show host but one must have an audience, and it's debatable.

I was on instant message last night, and somebody sent me a note incredulous that MSNBC had hired another full-fledged liberal. The note said, "They're going to have trouble. If this administration steps in it, if there's a Lewinsky-type thing, their audience is gonna vanish 'cause they're not going to be able to defend it." And I said, "Their audience is so small at MSNBC that if they lost it all it wouldn't make that big a difference." So, anyway, these are the guests. Stephanie Miller, who always has the kindest and most insightful warm things to say about me, Larry King, ditto, and Penn Jillette. This is a couple sound bites here about individualism, interestingly enough. Larry King, every one of his guests who he thinks is not liberal, he asks, "Penn, do you want Obama to succeed?"

JILLETTE: Well, the nice thing about hoping is that it doesn't work, so that you don't have to worry very much about what you're hoping. If what succeeding means is taking away -- giving too much of a safety net so that we can't live like Vegas, there's no reason to gamble if you can't lose, and I think it's really important that people have a chance to win and to fail, and I think too much of a safety net, it's just less fun to live.

RUSH: And he's exactly right. Obama is trying to tell people he's going to have a warranty for them, a lifetime warranty against failure. It's like promising you're going to go to Vegas and you won't lose. Nobody else is going to win, either. Your feelings won't be hurt because nobody else is going to win, but you aren't gonna lose. And Penn Jillette is saying we can't do that, can't do that. So this brought the following question from Larry King, "Stephanie, do you want him to succeed no matter what the success brings?"

MILLER: Rush Limbaugh said if Obama fails, America wins. How does that make sense to any rational person? You know --

KING: If his programs brought about health insurance that pleased all, taxes that pleased most, a better way of life for a lot of people, then that's the kind of success you would think you'd like.

JILLETTE: If you please everybody on anything you're doing something wrong. But luckily there's no chance of that. I just think that individuals are more important than a whole kind of groupthink and that individuals can do more than a top down kind of thinking. I don't think the government can solve all our problems or should try.

KING: We do have 300 million people. You can be individuals as much as you like --

RUSH: Somebody's gotta think for the masses. Larry King. Stephanie, what is so difficult to understand? It's entirely rational if Obama fails, America wins. "Limbaugh said it, it's gotta be extremely outrageous and obscene, forget it." Why don't you stop and think about it for just a second, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction. What does it actually mean for Obama, if Obama is going to run the automobile business? It's ridiculous to have to waste time running through this. If Obama is going to sincerely dent the engine of productivity that made this country great, what in the world is successful about that? (impersonating King) "Well, somebody's gotta think for the masses. We got 300 million people, you can be an individual all you want." No, we can't, Larry, that's the whole point. We can't be individual all we want. For crying out loud, Larry, we got people feeling guilty that they have jobs, who the hell do you think is enforcing that kind of thing? Guilty if we have a job, "I feel so bad, whaaa! I can't talk about it, whaaa!"

Anyway, Penn Jillette, a lone voice of reason on Larry King Alive. (impersonating King) "We have 300 million people, somebody's gotta think for the masses." Amen. There you have it. Need somebody to think for you, you idiots, you dumb rear ends, you are too stupid to think for yourselves, you are too dense to come up with the right answers. We have to think for the masses. I want to know at what point in American history that happened. When did that start, Lar? Take me from the Constitution forward, when did somebody think for the masses? Oh, yeah, oh, yeah, you might be able to say FDR did. Boy, those are miserable times for people that were alive. We don't want to say that, of course, because that's not politically correct. By the way, Dawn was calling from -- (interruption) what's the matter? What did I do now? Okay, okay, okay. She gets looks on her face, I say, "Oh, no, what did I do now?" It wasn't me. Snerdley said something in there. Dawn, the caller was calling from Michigan, right, Stanton, Michigan? She didn't catch that. I said, what's left of Stanton, Michigan. There's a reason for that.

This is from the Detroit News. Headline says it all: "Leaving Michigan Behind: Eight-Year Population Exodus Staggers State' -- Outflow of skilled, educated workers crimps Michigan's recovery. The state loses a family every 12 minutes, and the families who are leaving -- young, well-educated high-income earners -- are the people the state desperately needs to rebuild." Why are they leaving? Snerdley, where are they leaving? Jennifer Granholm. In the last two to three decades, could somebody name for me what party governed Michigan for the vast majority of the past 20, 30 years? What party governed Detroit for as long back as anybody can remember? Democrats. A teachable moment here. In this whole story there's not one mention of high taxes. There's not one mention of high taxes here. Crumbling education, crumbling infrastructure, crime, and now the government taking over General Motors -- so more Democrats running that industry.

RUSH: You know, folks, I normally don't do this. Those of you who listen regularly to this program know this, but I'm going to make a brief departure. I'm going to address again both Stephanie Miller and Larry King. Normally people talk about me and I just leave them alone, because everybody does -- and if all I did was respond to people who talk about me, that's all we would do here, and we still couldn't squeeze it all in in three hours. But Stephanie Miller on Larry King Alive last night said, "Rush Limbaugh said, 'If Obama fails, America wins.' How does that make any sense to any rational person, y'know?"

Stephanie, let me explain it so that you might understand it. Remember all those times, Stephanie, that you said that you wanted Bush to succeed? Do you remember, Stephanie, all those times you said you wanted Bush to get his tax cuts passed and you wanted his tax cuts to succeed? Do you remember, Stephanie, all of his Supreme Court nominations? Do you remember how you advocated for his Supreme Court nominations to succeed, Stephanie? Stephanie, I remember you were one of the most prominent supporters of the war in Iraq. You were hoping President Bush succeeded! You wanted President Bush's war in Iraq to succeed. I remember that, Stephanie. Didn't you say all of this, Stephanie? It's axiomatic presidents, whatever they do, must succeed? It's irrational...?

That's what we say about kings, Stephanie. We want kings to succeed. We want our slave masters to succeed. But we're a representative republic, and we have separation of powers. What sane person wouldn't have wanted Bush to succeed, Stephanie? What sane person wouldn't? And, Larry, for you, as for somebody "thinking for the masses..." I love this. Larry, we are not masses. We're individuals! We live in a society governed under a Constitution that protects the individual from the government. Larry, you might want to educate yourself about your country and its history and educate yourself on freedom. But do you know what's the funniest thing about Larry King saying (doing King impression), "Somebody's gotta think in d'masses"? Larry King doesn't think he's the masses. See, he's an elitist. But the masses are you faceless dorks who can't fend for yourself.

"You need the health care, and you need people paying your mortgage!" But Larry King, he's not the masses. Larry, let me give you a clue: to Barack Obama, you are no different than anybody else in "the masses." You are to be controlled; you are to be made subject to the whims of government and the administration. This is what I find most hilarious about this. All these elitists saying, "Somebody gotta think for d'masses!" Larry, you are the masses. With this bunch of... You think you're exempted 'cause you're one of them. You think you're exempt because you're a good liberal you work in the media you work at CNN. You. Are. The. Masses. You just don't think so. You don't sound any different than any other liberal anywhere. There's nothing to differentiate you from any other liberal. You're not alone. You are the masses. You're a robot! I saw the Japanese are going to put some robots up on the moon. So? Obama's got 300 million robots in America! Who needs them on the moon?

RUSH: We go to Fairfax, Virginia. This is Andrew, and welcome, sir. It's nice to have you with us.

CALLER: I'm a new listener. I go to George Mason University, and I'm in a journalism class and was assigned to a chapter on you in a book. It's called Mightier Than the Sword by Rodger Streitmatter, and I feel like you are portrayed in an unfair light. Everything I've learned about you has put you in a negative light, and I want --

CALLER: "Rush Limbaugh," and it's called "Leading the Republican Revolution," and the chapter does capture your success and details your -- you know, your extremely successful career. And I'm new to your show, and researching you, and I've been truly captivated by everything that you've done. But everything that I read on the Internet and hear from people, especially in a college where the atmosphere tends to be more liberal, always seems to be negative. So I figured I want to get words from you that you would say to, you know, a journalism class for some details.

RUSH: First of all, let me be sure. I want to make sure I understand. You're not refuting the textbook. You want to refute what you have read about me on the Internet that doesn't jibe with what you know, or...?

CALLER: Well, the textbook. I'm saying although it does detail your success, everything --

RUSH: Can you give me just a couple of examples? You don't have to go into details.

RUSH: 'Cause I need some guidance here on what to refute. Can you give me some examples how it slams me. I can guess, but I want to hear from you.

CALLER: There's a section in the chapter called "Reign of Error" saying how you refuse to admit that you're wrong and your facts are constantly wrong.

RUSH: The "Reign of Error" was a report put together -- what year was it, Snerdley, '93, '94? -- by a liberal media watchdog group called (this is oxymoronic, by the way) "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting," and what they purported to do was there's 24 or 25 items, I believe, in it, in which they accuse me of either lying or making things up. They released this to the Associated Press. The Associated Press ran with it all over the country. We replied with our refutation of every item, and they refused to print it. There's a similar group now called Media Matters for America which listens to all 15 hours of this program and will pull two sentences of a ten-sentence point in our monologue, and take it totally out of context. The purpose of the "Reign of Error" report, Media Matters and so forth, is to purposely misstate what I have said to ruin my credibility with people who have not listened, so as to create the illusion that I am something that I am not among people so they will not listen. The last thing these people want people doing is actually listening to me, as you did. What you read about me actually made you want to listen, and you heard enough that it doesn't kind of jibe with what you've read that you wanted to talk to me about it. Am I correct?

CALLER: And I wanted you to... I think everyone, you know, everyone in the class -- well, I'm not going to speak for everyone in the class but I think most people would probably think of you in a negative way, and before I even begin my presentation, they're going to say, "Oooh, God. This is the Rush Limbaugh chapter, you know?" So I want to have something positive.

RUSH: -- that you spoke to me, that I kept you on the program for whatever number of minutes it's going to end up being here, like nine minutes. That you were able to tell me whatever you wanted and that I calmly and coolly listened to you and answered every question that you had. You want to know basically what you can say to people. This is a very, very important question, Andrew -- and by the way, I want to hold you through the break --

RUSH: -- which is coming up here in couple of minutes, because I want to spend a little bit more detailed time with you. But this is a very, very important question. There's no wrong answer to it. It's going to help me determine what I say to you.

RUSH: I detected that you are a little intimidated of standing up in front of the class to do your assignment, present your assignment on me because you think that most in the class have already made up their minds about me, even though I guarantee you -- and this is a point you must make to them -- they've never listened, and you must issue them the challenge to listen. They're in a journalism school, and they're about curiosity, and they're about finding truth, and they cannot possibly understand truth if they haven't listened themselves. That's the first thing you tell them, and you did. But are you alarmed? Are you a little bit worried about what they might think of you by what you have to say?

RUSH: Don't be afraid of what people, particularly who are uninformed, think of you. You are going to be standing before the class more armed with factual information than any of them have. You will have been the reporter. You have gone out and you've gotten the story and you're going to report to them. Don't worry what they think of you. You can't control their thoughts anyway. You have no control over what they're going to say, so it should not intimidate you into factually reporting what you have learned. So I gotta take this break. We call it "an EIB Obscene Profit Time-Out" just to irritate people like your fellow students while everybody is losing money, we're earning it. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. So you just sit tight, and we'll come back and I'll explain this in greater detail.

RUSH: We rejoin Andrew in Fairfax, Virginia, who is a journalism student at George Mason University. There's a textbook that his class has been assigned with a highly critical chapter of me after acknowledging career accomplishments and success, and Andrew has a presentation on this chapter before his class. How much time do you have, by the way, to get this done, Andrew?

CALLER: Well, I've put together my presentation, but I don't present for another two weeks.

RUSH: Okay. Very good. I want to repeat what I said. The first thing I want you to tell them is that they're in a journalism class. And you are quite unique in one way, and that is, most of the existing journalists in America today -- the vast, vast majority, well over 90% -- who report on me, never call me, never ask for my reaction to what they are going to report about me. They take it from what I told you: Media Matters or other left-wing "watchdog groups." Their purpose is not to get it right. Their purpose is to discredit -- and it's not just me. It's any prominent conservative, because I feel they don't think they can win a substantive argument. So the way they attack is to try to discredit people who threaten them in the arena of ideas. I clearly represent a threat. You've done something as a student that most practicing journalists today do not do. You have called me. You have asked for my reaction to this. You ought to get an A for that alone.

RUSH: I'm serious. Now, here's another thing. The essence of your chapter on me, I'm guessing, based on the "Reign of Error" that you mentioned, is that I lie, or I purposely get things wrong, or I make things up, or I just say things that I know are wrong to advance my cause. Am I pretty close there?

RUSH: But as far as the factual aspects of my presentation on this program, or wherever I speak -- as far as whether I make it up or lie about it or whatever -- the greatest source for information on my show, the greatest source for proof of what I actually say every day is my website: www.RushLimbaugh.com. On my website, there is a complete and total transcript available for every word I utter. There are links to the news items or stories or reports that I have used to make the statements that I make. Why would I lie all the time when I provide the proof right there for everybody to see? Critics never mention this. The journalists never go to my website. They rely on others who take out of context what I say. The other thing I want you to tell these students is that I am a soul mate of theirs. You and your students -- because of your age and your future and where you are in life -- you're very focused on yourselves as individuals, and I am the greatest asset individuals in this country have.

I believe that the smallest minority in the world is the individual, and I believe if you do not respect individual rights, you do not really respect minority rights. The individual is unique. No two people are alike. I resist the tug of popular sentiment. Please quote me: "I resist the tug of popular sentiment to basically conform with movements and ideas that are not based on thought, but rather are based on raw emotion." I have nothing but a fervent desire for everyone in your class to succeed, to be the absolute best they can be based on how willing they are to work hard, use their passion and the ambition and God-given talent that they have been given. I have no desire for anyone to be held back. I do not see people as men, women, black, white, red, green, orange. I see Americans. I see human beings. I see human beings who, unfortunately, are co-opted into a conformist way of thinking that it is in itself erroneous -- such as all the reporting about me and all the opinions of me that have been formed by people who do not listen. So part and parcel of what you must do, after you have repeated what I have just told you -- are you recording this?

RUSH: You are. This will also be available at my website, every word I've said to you. So if somebody wants to say you're lying about what I said, it's right there on my website. We'll have the transcript up. We're going to put this, Andrew, on the free side, so that every one of your students can see it.

RUSH: At some point. You can see it tonight, too. You do not... By the way, are you a member of my website? Are you a subscriber?

RUSH: Well, we're going to make you one. You're going to be after this phone call.

RUSH: That will let you access everything, and you should do it. The Essential Stack of Stuff, the archives, the backup. My website is an encyclopedia of virtually every important thing that's happened in this country since I have been on the air, and there is proof of the things that I have said. It's a goldmine for you. You must, when you make this presentation, say that one of the problems that you found going through this chapter in the textbook is that it doesn't jibe with what you know as a listener to this program. You don't recognize the Rush Limbaugh in that chapter based on two things: what you know by listening and now what you've learned by discussing this with me. Now, is that enough? You can move on to some of the other things that are said that have nothing to do with accuracy and honesty and all that?

CALLER: Well, every section seems to throw in your... I guess... They don't say "racism," but your comments towards women and homosexuals and racial minorities.

CALLER: They mention, I quote: "Many Limbaugh critics believe their nemesis dipped to his lowest point in 1989 with 'caller abortions.' The offensive gimmick reinforced Limbaugh's anti-abortion stand..."

RUSH: Okay, okay, okay. Now, I'm going to walk you through this, because that's classic. In the first place, "Limbaugh's critics believe..." Are they identified?

RUSH: No! But they are given credence, are they not? The "critics" automatically have it. This is a journalism, by the way, trick, and it's standard operating procedure. They could report on the fact in the New York Times tomorrow that a cure for cancer has been found, and they would find "critics" to disagree with it or find problems with it, Andrew. It's part and parcel of the formula you people are taught. There's no good news. There's only news, and somebody who has an opposing view. Now, caller abortions. I happen to be... You're recording this, right?

RUSH: I happen to be pro-life. I've been pro-life all my life. I believe in God.

RUSH: I believe that all human beings have a yearning spirit to be free, that we are endowed with it. I believe the founding documents. I believe that our existence is owing to a Creator who created us with inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Our Founding Documents, Declaration of Independence mentions these rights. They don't come from people, they come from God. Life. Somebody has to stand up for life; somebody has to defend it. Now, anybody can go on the radio and say, "I'm pro-life, and those pro-abortionists are wrong!" Big whoop. What I've always strived to do, Andrew, is illustrate my opinion. Sometimes... I have a phrase: "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." So the caller abortion was -- and I will admit, it irritated a lot of people. It caused... And the reason why, Andrew, is because it made people confront the reality of their belief. Do you know what the caller abortion was?

CALLER: It was a, I guess a sound bite "with a vacuum sucking sound followed by a bloodcurdling scream." That's what it says in the textbook.

CALLER: Well, it says whenever you wanted to end the call, that you used the caller abortion.

RUSH: That's a classic example of how what I do was distorted. That was actually a brilliant illustration of my belief about this. This took about 30 minutes to do, to set up, which also made it great radio. It gave us a lot of time spent listening on the ratings. But basically I wanted to illustrate this, and I looked at my telephone, and I asked the question, "When does a call become a call? Does the call become a call when you dial? Does the call become a call when you connect? Does the call become a call when I answer, the moment of conception? You call me. Your line connects with my receptacle. Bam! I answer the phone. Is that when the call begins?"

So I called the phone company, Andrew, and I asked them, "When does a call begin?"

I said, "Well, does a call begin? When do you start charging for a call? When that call has life? When is there...? When you start billing for a call, does it happen at the moment the person has dialed it? Does it happen while it's ringing? Does it happen with a busy signal, which means there's call control on it? Does it happen when somebody answers?"

And they said, "Well, a call begins when it's answered. A call takes two people."

So, that was to illustrate: When does life begin? See, I believe it can only begin at conception. When else can it begin? So I wanted to illustrate using the phone, making a phone call. Then I got a bunch of people pretending to be scientists and so forth on the phone to discuss this in great detail. But I said, "Until I decide to answer, that call's nothing but a blinking light. That call has no life. That call has no meaning. That call has nothing to it until I answer it," and then what happens? When I answer that call and I don't want it? What if I've made a mistake answering that call? What if it's a bad call? What if it's somebody who's not going to enhance the radio program? What do I do? I didn't want the call. I took the call. I made a mistake! I went out there and I conceptualized the phone call, and now I'm stuck with a call I don't want.

Well, I do what we do in the pro-choice movement: I simply abort it and pretend that the call never happened! So I turn on the suction device and I suck the call right out of the phone. That, to me, was brilliant, Andrew. I hope you're recording this, and I hope you read this to your class. Because everything that's done here, Andrew -- whether it be done with humor or seriousness or with a satire or a parody, everything that's done here -- is designed to make a point. Nothing is done here frivolously. I don't do anything just to make people mad, because that's going to happen anyway when you tell anybody what you think. By definition, people are going to not... Why do you think Tiger Woods doesn't tell you what his politics are? Because he wants to sell all of his endorsed equipment to everybody, not just Republicans or Democrats.

But that's not my business. My business is to tell people what I honestly believe. I love America. The racism and sexism and so forth? Yeah, I came up with the term "feminazi," to describe the 12 women to whom the most important thing in the world is every abortion possible taking place -- and the reason people get mad at that's 'cause it's dead-on accurate. As for racism, this is a constant, average, everyday charge the left makes against conservatives trying to fulfill the stereotype that we're racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes. But the truth about that is you can tell your class this: I look at the majority of the black population in this country and I cry, 'cause I see that they have been conditioned to believe that the Democrat Party and large government programs are going to raise them from the life of bondage they believe that they're in.

And after 50 years of voting Democrat, after 50 years of complaining about the circumstances they're in, after receiving all these benefits the Democrats have passed out (AFDC) they're still complaining. Their lives have been stolen from them. The federal government has become the father; the father has become absent. Single mothers are raising kids in neighborhoods and schools that you would not send yours to. The Democrat Party refuses to close them, and insists that those people still go to those schools while still voting Democrat. I think it's a shame. I think the federal government and the Democrat Party has destroyed the black family. I love Americans. I love human beings! I want the best for them. I want what's happened to me to be experienced by every damn person out there, and the people standing in the way are my enemy -- and that would have to be liberals in the Democrat Party. Now, hang on. I'm going to give you information to be a subscriber to the website.

RUSH: All right, Andrew, one more point that I want to make for you to include in your presentation to the students on the caller abortions. Your textbook says that critics say I reached a low point with the caller abortion. Let me ask you a simple question. If a fetus is not a human life, why would a caller abortion offend anybody? If a fetus, a human fetus is simply an unviable tissue mass, there could be nothing conceivably upsetting about it. The truth is, it is a baby, and the pro-abort, political pro-abort groups, the NOW gang and other feminist groups, they know it's a baby, and thus they hate me for exposing their mind-set. But if a fetus isn't a human being, why would a caller abortion upset anybody?

And finally, Andrew, this. I understand caller abortions are offensive. But then why is President Obama to be praised for his anti-life positions? Do you realize President Obama three times as an Illinois state senator voted for legislation that would allow doctors to kill a baby successfully born during an abortion? Now, what's really controversial, Andrew? A bit, a vacuum cleaner with callers being sucked off a phone, or an Illinois state senator who's now president voting three times to allow doctors to kill a baby after it's born because the mother wanted an abortion? Ask your students to consider that.

RUSH: I have a sound bite I want you to hear. It is from former labor secretary Robert B. Reichhhh, but it may as well be any liberal. It could just as easily be Barack Obama. It's on CNBC this morning, and they had a discussion on a program called The Call, on Obama's budget and the national debt. By the way, the budget passed in the House and the Senate without a single Republican vote anywhere. There are some things that didn't make it; they're going to have trouble. They're not gone. Cap and trade in big trouble. Card check in big trouble. The charitable donation, some Democrats are balking at that. But the budget outline, the blueprint was passed, not the budget itself, but the blueprint was passed with not a single Republican vote. And, of course, the Drive-Bys are going, "This is horrible, why, this is just bad for bipartisanship."

The Democrats don't need a single Republican vote. If I were the Republicans I wouldn't vote for one shred of this. I'd try to stop as much of it as I could, but make them own this. When 80% of the people in this country think that this economy is owing to George Bush and the banks and corporations, then the challenge is to turn this into Obama's economy as fast the hell as you can, and that means staying away from it and not voting for one aspect of it. In fact, Obama lost in the House 20 Democrats from the previous vote on this. This has got to be turned into Obama's economy and Obama's budget. Now, here's Robert B. Reich talking about something that's very interesting.

REICH: Tax cuts are fine, but what we know about tax cuts is that they don't always stimulate growth nearly to the extent that direct government spending does for two very obvious reasons. One is that a lot of people, if they get a tax cut, they are going to save it or they're going to pay down their own debt. That may be good for the individual, even if they do spend they are often going to go to the mall and buy something from another country.

RUSH: We have to do a stimulus instead of tax cuts because the American consumer is too stupid to know what to buy. That's the umbrella under which this statement was made, but I want to parse this even further. First place, he's lying through his teeth. "Tax cuts are fine, but we know that tax cuts, they don't always stimulate growth nearly to the extent that direct government spending does." Well, Secretary Reich, that's just disingenuous of you. That is purposefully dishonest. What's the new unemployment number, 669,000, 8.5%, some stimulus, huh? Some stimulus, Secretary Reich. We've had trillions of dollars in stimulus since last year, and we're losing jobs, and I thought the purpose of the stimulus was to create jobs! So all this damn government spending is better at creating jobs in the private sector than tax cuts are? "A lot of people get tax cuts, they're going to save it, they're going to pay down their debt, that may be good for the individual," but not good for Democrats. It's all about the individual. It's his or her money.

If the individual wants to retire some of their debt, which they have been preached to for decades to do, even in this Washington Post poll, 70% say that our economy's in bad shape because you have been irresponsible with your credit card. So it ought to follow that if you get a tax cut and you pay down your debt, your fellow citizens will love you. But regardless, you are the individual, and it's nobody's damn business what you do with your money, as long as we're living in a moral society and you're not breaking the law with it, it's nobody's business. But the Democrats and the liberals are going to make it their business 'cause you're not smart enough to spend it on the right stuff to cause economic growth. "It may be good for the individual." Self-interest, the individual, the world's smallest minority. The individual, working in his or her own self-interest is what built this country. And then, "even if these individuals do spend, they're often going to go to the mall and buy something from another country." Do you realize just in how much contempt the Democrat Party holds you? Do you realize what a bunch of brain-dead idiots they think you are? And a bunch of brain-dead idiots voted for them. Why would they not think it?

RUSH: Have you seen the protests over the G20 today? I mean these are whacked out people, and they are seriously angry. Folks, I have to be honest here with you, as I always am. I'm shocked! I'm stunned. I mean most of these people are anti-capitalist. Don't they realize that they have one of the premiere anti-capitalists leading the G20? And that would be our president, Barack Obama? These people are shouting some of the craziest things, like, "Ban money." They're throwing rocks and bottles at buildings. They're gaining entrance to these buildings to trash the inside. It's sort of just interesting to watch this, because I've been under the impression that the United States is now thought of differently around the world, that the people of the world love the United States. We got rid of George W. Bush, and we don't even have an American president, according to them. We now have a European president. And yet these people are still fit to be tied. And they're angry as they can be, and it's perplexing to me.

Now, what is President Obama at the G20 to do? I want you to keep this in mind as we go through the audio sound bites we have coming up here in mere moments. He is there, is he not, to advance US interests? That's traditionally why leaders of these things go to these meetings, to advance the interests of their own countries. As you will hear, however, from the audio sound bites, and exactly as I predicted to you yesterday, President Obama is doing the exact opposite. He is once again criticizing the United States; he's accepting the blame and apologizing for the financial distress that the world has faced, and he has promised that the United States will no longer be the voracious consumer that it has been, meaning the United States will no longer usurp and steal and take its unfair share of all the world's resources. Those days are over.

While this is happening, he's being lectured on spending by the ChiComs, by the French, by many in the European Union. They're pointing fingers at us, and they're saying, "You guys started this, you created the world problem," and Obama is sorta winking at them and saying, yeah, yeah, yeah, you may have a point there. It will be interesting to see as this thing goes on how extensively President Obama does indeed project US interests or advance them.

RUSH: How about this headline. It is from Reuters. It is the latest unemployment numbers. "US Private Sector Axes 742,000 jobs in March."

US private sector axes...? US Economy Loses 742,000 Jobs? 742,000 people lose their jobs? No!

It's "US private sector -- the evil capitalist sector of the American country! Yes, the evil capitalist side -- fired 742,000. But the precious and lovable government didn't do it. Rick Wagoner, he's gone. Yay! Yaaaaay! We got rid of Rick Wagoner, and you're next if you're a banker on Wall Street."

All right, straight to the audio sound bites here. We have some doozies. By the way, it's the G20, this is a Drive-By Media, reporting the protests at the G20 and some of what Obama did. But this is great. You know, one of these groups, this massive group of liberals with too much time on their hands. Have you looked at the throng that is over there protesting everything? What do they do for a living? Are they just perpetual students, all obsessed with what people think about them? They're just a bunch of people, and everything is about them. Me, me, me, me, me. So they actually storm their way into a Royal Bank of Scotland or United Bank of Scotland building, and some of the staff inside the building on the upper floors grabbed some ten-pound notes (like ten dollar bills) and just started waving them at them, you know, just taunting them. At least the people inside had a sense of humor about this. All right, up first is Richard Engel, NBC Today Show today. He's their correspondent reporting live from the protest at the Bank of England in London.

ENGEL: The message here that capitalism isn't working. They don't want to pay for what they consider to be a banker's crisis that has caused many corporate failures, unemployment. I'm sitting next to an effigy right now, a dummy dressed in the uniform of a banker, a dark suit. He has a -- a noose around it. And many in the financial sector in this country today are trying to take precautions. There are some radical groups that are calling on direct action to be taken for some bankers to be attacked. So far, the protest here has been quite festive. There are people with music. There are families here.

RUSH: Festive? The protests are festive? (laughing) They're breaking in banks; they're breaking windows. The riot police and Scotland Yard were totally unprepared, and they were driven out. It's festive. It's a festive protest, and of course "families" were there. Is this a school day over in the UK? What the hell are families doing there? Here's another thing, ladies and gentlemen (and I mentioned at the top of the hour). "The message here is that capitalism isn't working." Where? There isn't capitalism in the UK! There isn't capitalism. It's starting to make a little comeback in France, but throughout much of the European Union they're talking about Western-style, socialist democracy. Germany is starting to break out a little bit, but what capitalism? This is anti-US.

This is an anti-US protest -- and as I said, I'm a little perplexed. They're out there bashing capitalism, and one of the premiere anti-capitalists in the world is attending the G20 who just happens to be the president of the United States. These people ought to be festively celebrating, because they've got an ally. The president of the United States himself is an anti-capitalist, as evidenced by his policies, as evidenced by his desire to take over large gulps of the US private sector. Now, this next bite, you gotta listen to this the right way. But to me, it's a See, I Told You So. We finally get the truth about all these protesters, and who they really are. This is from PMSNBC this morning. The cohost Tamron Hall talking to ITN reporter Damon Green live amongst the protesters of the Bang of England -- well, the Bank of England. Well, it could be the "Bang" of England today what they're doing out there. The anchor, Tamron Hall says, "It seems there are a number of different groups represented, but is there a larger organization there represented or is this just a hodgepodge of anger?"

GREEN: This is not even really a coalition. Everyone is here, every group is represented. If you look at the various placards, no two placards are the same. There are people protesting against pollution of the oceans. There are people protesting against growing debt in the developing world. There are people protesting against the war in Iraq. I've even seen protests of Transsexuals Against the War. Everyone is missing George W. Bush. If he were president of the United States there would be a unifying character here -- everyone would be protesting against him -- but you have Barack Obama, things are different.

RUSH: Just amazing! For years, ladies and gentlemen, again -- and I must honestly say, I do feel a little trepidation about saying, "I told you! I told you," but we've been doing this 20-plus years now, and for these 20 years I have said things, and among the things I've said is, that these protesters are just every liberal group in the world showing up protesting their little pet cause. When you did have Bush, the media would report them as being unified against something -- and they are. They're unified against freedom. They're unified against liberty. They're unified against capitalism. These are people with basically meaningless lives -- in their own estimation, not mine.

They basically feel like they're just lost in a sea of humanity with no purpose. This is how they try to get noticed. Facebook is not enough for them. MySpace, not enough for them. YouTube videos, not enough for them. They gotta go out there where they know there are real cameras and live television and they've got to be seen. They have to be part of the story. They want to matter! They want to make it look like their lives have meaning. It's the media who reports them as unified against a certain figure. So of course knowledge of these protests could be against Obama. Noooo! Why, he's loooooved and adored over there in Europe. If that were the case, there wouldn't be protesters, would there? And then this idiot, Damon Green of ITN, says everyone's missing George W. Bush?

Everyone? How about you, Mr. Green, miss George W. Bush? How about your buddies in the UK Drive-By Media might miss George W. Bush? These people aren't missing anything. They're throwing rocks and bottles and in one case I read that they're launching missiles at the windows of this bank. What are they missing? They're hitting the target. "Everyone's missing George W. Bush. If he were still president, there would be a unifying character here -- everybody would be protesting against him -- but you have Barack Obama and things are different." How does he know? Now, the next is this ITN reporter, Damon Green, live amongst the protesters at the Bank of England. He added this...

GREEN: This is not a protest at aw'll against, ah, President Obama. He is a US president who enjoys enormous popularity in the United Kingdom, popularity no American president has enjoyed here, ah, for many years. Perhaps Bill Clinton at the height of his powers, then you have to go back possibly to JFK to a president who was so universally adored here.

RUSH: So it can't be Obama. They can't be protesting Obama because "he's universally loved and adored here, perhaps more so than any president ever," except Bill Clinton, "at the height of his powers"? Well, if this is the case, if these protesters love Obama, why didn't Obama call on them to stop? Of course Obama loves this, the chaos, the confusion, the... (interruption) "I Love Obama" signs? I haven't seen any "I Love Obama" signs. Have you? There were a few "Yes, we can" signs? Well, that's the Obama slogan from Grant Park when he accepted the Democrat nomination -- or won the election. But I haven't seen any "I love Obama" signs. Have you? I haven't seen them. Now, here's the real story on the protest. This is from Fox News, and the correspondent Greg Palkot who is live amongst the protesters.

PALKOT: Police clashing with protesters. Police are now estimating 4,000 protesters doing something what they call a "G20 meltdown," in honor of the G20 economic summit tomorrow. They were targeting the Bank of England as their principal villain in what they see as a financial catastrophe hitting the planet. The police --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait! Stop the tape. This idiot, Damon Green just said there's nobody there, or nothing there that was unifying. There was no "unifying character." But apparently the unifying character is the Bank of England. Here's Palkot and the remainder of his report.

PALKOT: -- did a pretty good job of holding them off. There are 23 arrests there, some injuries. Windows were smashed and protesters got inside, threw furniture out. It should be noted, guys, that the Royal Bank of Scotland was a benefit of a UK bailout, including an executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland who got a clean million-dollar-a-year pension from that. So there's a lot of populist anger here.

RUSH: Right. So we do have a unifying place, the bank, and apparently we have a unifying principle for these nomads, and that would be bailouts. What we have here is populist bailout violence from a good reporter, Greg Palkot at Fox News. Let's go back to me on this program yesterday. I gave you a prediction on what would happen here at the G20.

RUSH ARCHIVE: I guarantee you, don't fall for all these reports that this G20 is on thin ice and is going to fall apart, that these European leaders going to tell Obama to go to hell or all that. It's going to be just the opposite. Mark my words. He wouldn't go otherwise. He's not going to go-go unless this is all etched in stone before he gets there.

RUSH: Any president would do that. I mean, these kinds of things... They're not going to get the Russians to agree with him on Iran and slow them down, but they're going to put out a statement, all is hunky-dory. It was lovely and wonderful. We got a great statement, a mission statement to move forward. Nothing is going to get done but they're going to portray it as though great accomplishments have taken place, and that's already written. It's already done. You don't go over there if you're sure that Sarkozy gonna walk out. Sarkozy is not gonna walk out. These are mindless threats here. That's Sarkozy campaigning to his own people. So here is Obama himself now: this agreement has already in place. The See, I Told You So continues. Here's Obama talking about the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev of the KGB.

OBAMA: Uhhh, I am very grateful, uh, to President Medvedev for taking the time to, uh, visit with me today. I -- I -- I'm particularly gratified, uh, because prior to the meeting, uh, our respective teams had worked together and had developed, uh, a series of approaches --

OBAMA: -- to areas of common interest that I think, uh, present great promise. What I believe we've done today is a very constructive battle that would allow us to work on issues of mutual interest, uh, like, uh, the reduction of nuclear weapons.

RUSH: Now, at that point Medvedev with his hand over his mouth (snickering), and then quickly recomposed himself when he heard President Obama say, "Yeah, we made great strides here get into nuclear weapons,"Medvedev could barely contain himself. The teleprompter made Obama said that, and it was just... (laughing) Medvedev could hardly wait to get out of that room and call Putin and say, "You won't believe what he just thinks we agreed to!" (laughing) But, did you hear? Just to show you I know what I'm talking about: "I'm particularly gratified because prior to the meeting our respective teams worked together and developed a series of approaches to areas of common interest that I think present great promise." So they had all the substantive talks before Obama gets there with Dmitry Medvedev.

I will wager you, they may have talked about nuclear weapons, but there's no framework for the Russians to reduce them. I just love Medvedev. (laughing) The Russians are saying, "This is going to be so easy." Gordon Brown. I told you that, you know, yesterday -- this is Fox. No, I take it back. It was PMSNBC. They were doing a story, an advance story on the G20, and this was before they started running stories on the countdown to Air Force One's touchdown at Stansted in England. "Air Force One to touch down soon!" (panting) "Barack Obama to deplane soon!" (panting) Prior to doing those reports, they actually were having a discussion, and they had the Chyron headline the bottom of the screen, "Can Obama save the world economy?" Can Obama save the world economy? Here's Gordon Brown. He finally got his joint press conference with Obama and a portion of his opening remarks.

BROWN: I want to thank you for your leadership, your vision, and your courage which you've already shown in your presidency, and congratulate you on the dynamism, the energy and indeed the achievements that you have been responsible for. Your first 70 days in office have changed America, and you've changed America's relationship with the world.

RUSH: So here is a full-fledged, committed global socialist praising the president of the United States for all of his achievements in the first 70 days -- a global socialist happy with the changes Obama has made, and "you have changed America's relationship with the world," which is why all of the losers that make up the protesters are breaking bank windows! (laughing) But the slobbering, the slobbering! This guy, folks, I'm telling you: if he keeps this up throughout the G20, Gordon Brown will come down with anal poisoning and may die from it.

RUSH: Let's grab a couple more Obama sound bites, ladies and gentlemen, confirming what I predicted he would do at the G20. Here he is part of his joint press conference with the prime minister of the UK, Gordon Brown.

OBAMA: People losing their homes, losing their businesses that they worked so hard for, losing their health care in the United States, people around the world who were already desperate before the crisis, and they find themselves even more separate afterwards. That's what our agenda has to begin with, and that's where it will end.

RUSH: There you have it. I mean he's being very up front and honest. People losing their homes. No, they're not. We are paying them to stay in their homes. We're paying their car payments, now, too. Losing their businesses that they worked so hard for, losing their health care in the US. People around the world who were already desperate before the crisis, they find themselves even more in crisis afterwards. That's what our agenda has to begin with. May I translate this for you? What this means is he's not only going to redistribute your wealth to its rightful, quote, unquote, owners in America, he's going to spread it around the world. He's going to take care, and he's going to redistribute the wealth of the world to its rightful owners. He then added this.

OBAMA: We must not miss an opportunity to lead, to confront a crisis that knows no borders. We have a responsibility to coordinate our actions and to focus on common ground, not on our occasional differences. History shows us that when nations fail to cooperate, when they turn away from one another, when they turn inward, the price for our people only grows. That's how the Great Depression deepened. That's a mistake that we cannot afford to repeat.

RUSH: What in the hell is he talking about? The Great Depression deepened because nations turned away from one another? I can think of two, Japan and Germany. I don't know what he's talking about here, but he's certainly sounding globalist, is he not? And then, ladies and gentlemen, the obligatory conclusion.

OBAMA: I would say that if you look at the sources of this crisis, the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system. I had a professor when I was in law school who said some are to blame but all are responsible, and I -- I think that's the best way for us to approach the problem that we have right now.

RUSH: Touchy-feely New Age gobbledygook. Some are to blame but all are responsible? He was reacting to a question, and the question was, "The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the US for causing the crisis. France and Germany blamed both Britain and America for causing the crisis. Who's right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate, about what to do now?" And Obama agreed. He basically apologized on behalf of the United States for causing the world financial crisis. His answer was, "I would say if you look at the sources of the crisis, the US certainly has some accounting to do with respect to our regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial --" it's our fault, apologize for America. That's why, Snerdley, you were all convinced yesterday he was going to go over there and this thing was going to fall apart because you fell hook, line, and sinker with the media reports that the French were mad, that the Germans were mad, that the UK were mad, they were mad at Obama, going to blame Obama, and the one thing you forgot was that Obama would agree with them. You got a bunch of people at the G20 blaming America, as they always do. What's new is that we now have a president who blames America, too, and agrees with them.

RUSH: I just got a call from the EIB PR Department. Let me give you this story. The EIB PR Department, the Media Relations Department just got a call from WNBC-TV in New York. That's Channel 4. Channel 4 has requested a response from me regarding a statement made by the (chuckles) Governor of New York, David Paterson, in a press conference this morning. We do not have audio of this. I have not seen any audio of this, but some reporter from WNBC asked the governor of the state of New York what he thought about my saying I'm going to leave New York because of his tax increases. And the Governor of New York, David Paterson, responded that if he had known Rush Limbaugh would leave the state of New York, he would have raised taxes sooner.

Governor Paterson, if this is the case -- if you don't care about the revenue that you confiscate from me -- then call off your audit dogs, because I've been audited for 12 straight years by New York State and New York City! I've been audited 12 straight years. So call off your audit dogs, if you don't care about the money that you were confiscating from me for your wards of the state! So a governor -- a governor of a state! -- has actually told reporters that he's so happy I'm leaving, he would have raised taxes even sooner if he knew that would have forced me out of New York State. I'm wondering: Has a governor of any state ever said anything like that about a private citizen? Are you just as happy with all the other New Yorkers who are going to leave, Governor Paterson? Because there will be others.

Governor Paterson, do you know that you have an exodus on your hands from Long Island, and for a long time you've had an exodus on your hands from Long Island moving to southern states like North Carolina and Florida because they're sick and tired of the property taxes, the state taxes, the city taxes, and all the other taxes? So are you going to be happy that other taxpayers decide to leave New York, or just me? Just me? What an honor! What an honor. Folks, is there any other private citizen, any other -- who is not a criminal; you know, who is an upstanding citizen, a man for the ages. Is there any other governor who has ever excitedly said, "If I would have known he was leaving the state, I would have raised taxes sooner," or what have you? Hubba hubba. You know, I haven't even cracked any David Paterson jokes, unlike others in the media have.

RUSH: Well, it has happened again, folks. I've always said if you place a bag of manure in front of a Democrat they will certainly step in it, and New York Governor David Paterson certainly has. He's now joking about raising taxes an astronomical amount in New York State. I need to clarify something about this because, as is the usual case, the real crux of my comments here about leaving New York have been missed, on purpose. I am technically not leaving New York because I'm not there now. I moved out of New York in 1997. Every year I sent them letters saying, "Sorry. I miss you, but I've moved. I now live in Florida, and it's why I'm not filing a tax return." In 2002, I got a letter and an audit from 1997 through 2001 -- and it took two years to prove to them where I was every day of the year 14 different ways, and I have been audited every year since.

The way the first audit ended up is that when I do work in New York, I pay a per diem tax like athletes do, when they go in and play. They pay their taxes in New York State and the City, when they go to play the Mets or the Yankees. It's a mess, but that's what it is. We negotiated that; it's all done. Now I get audited every year on the number of days I'm there and I have to prove it, and it's just not worth it. And now he's raising taxes to boot on all of this, and finally I've reached the tipping point. So I am going to cease doing business in New York. I do not live there! That's what makes all of this ridiculous. I do not live there, and I've been audited by that state and the city for 12 years. So, with the tax increase and the fact that I'm rarely there and have to go through all this hassle, it's sayonara.

I'm not leaving. I already did. I'm just not going to be doing business in New York anymore. And if the governor is happy about that, then he can go tell the wards of the state that I'm supporting that they're going to have to find somebody else to provide the tax revenue. All right. Just to clarify that, because everybody reporting on this -- of course -- is getting it from everywhere but me. Like I told the college student yesterday who called in the last half hour of the program, "I've got a website. Everything I say is transcribed. No journalist ever calls me. Very few ever call me to find out, 'Did you really say what they say you said here?'" That never happens. They just run with what the left-wing media "watchdogs" say I say. So this whole story of leaving New York has been distorted and misreported, which is the standard, so I spend some time here to correct it.

RUSH: North Wales, Pennsylvania, Adam, we go to you first on the phones today, sir. Great to have you with us. Hello.

CALLER: I just wanted to, I guess, say I feel for you a little bit with this taxes in-New-York situation. Not too long ago I live in Philadelphia, and I move out of there, I was just getting nothing for my taxes. They have a 4.3% city waste tax, I don't even work in Philadelphia, and the things they're talking about now, they're not going to lower it, they were planning on lowering it, they might raise it, they're going to raise the sales tax, stop plowing roads. I live on a back road, so they would have stopped plowing that. They're going to start cutting back on trash removal or charging for trash removal, and I'll tell you, I got the biggest raise in my life when I moved out of Philadelphia. I very proudly -- and you know yesterday you were talking about cars. I drive a Mustang V8. I proudly get about 16 miles a gallon and I was going through three-and-a-half gallons a day paying 4.3% of my paycheck to Philadelphia, paying much more in rent than I needed to, I moved to North Wales, I'm much closer to work, I couldn't be happier. People at work notice I'm in a better mood ever since I moved and stopped having to pay taxes.

RUSH: Moved out of Philadelphia, yeah. Well, you know, I want to make something plain here. This, as far as I'm concerned, I don't live in New York. I moved out of there in 1997. I'm going to stop doing business there. These coming tax increases are punitive. They're not going to work. They're punishing the achievers. Taxes on the wealthy need to actually be cut, but what everybody's missing here is I've been audited every year by these people. I'm not even a resident. I've been audited for 12 years and his is the tipping point. I'll tell you, the governor telling people, had he known his tax increases could drive me out any sooner he would have raised them sooner? Governor Paterson, I saw what was coming in '97. That is why I left there for a no-income tax state. The difference -- you would not believe the net difference. I'm not going to of course get into specifics of numbers, but it's absurd the level of taxation there.

See, I think property taxes and taxes in general, for example, Manhattan, the streets ought to be paved with gold. You look and most everybody lives in a high-rise building or some kind of building. There are multiple residents per address. The property taxes and taxes they are paying, the streets ought to be paved with gold with the revenue that they are collecting and the revenue that people are paying there. And, of course, it's just the opposite. So, Governor Paterson, if you're so ecstatic I'm leaving, if you don't care about the tax revenue my doing business there creates, then call off the audit dogs. It's meaningless, right? Doesn't matter.

RUSH: New York governor David Paterson, the unelected governor who will never be an elected governor, his polls are in the tank. And I guess, you know, by liberal standards, in liberal terms, being an unelected governor, he's an illegitimate governor. Remember they said Bush was an illegitimate president because he wasn't duly elected, so maybe Paterson, in the eyes of your own comrades, you are illegitimate as a governor.

Five minutes of explanation to James Madison, and he'll have a pretty good idea what a motorcar is (basically a steamboat on wheels; the internal combustion engine might take a few minutes more). Then try to explain to Madison how the Constitution he fathered allows the president to unilaterally guarantee the repair or replacement of every component of millions of such contraptions sold in the several states, and you will leave him slack-jawed.

Wall Street Journal on what Treasury Secretary plans to do and alternative approaches:

Obama has proposed that the write off for charitable organizations be reduced. How about Obama’s personal approach to giving? Less than 1% of his 2000–2004 tax returns.

Nearly 2700 emergency room visits from 9 people in Austin, TX over a period of 6 years.

Best argument for Obama’s vision of America: people who are so dumb, they need the government to take care of them from cradle to grave—911 call, “Help, I am locked inside my car!”:

Conservative Review
Issue #69	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	April 5, 2009