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

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or 3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail at this attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along with my opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of this week’s news as I possibly can. The first set of columns are intentionally designed for a quick read.

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.

Although Obama released the CIA documents on how the US used techniques to gain information from enemy combatants in the name of transparency, it has come out that the Obama administration blacked out specific portions of the documents. What was blacked out? According to people who were actually involved, they blacked out the records of how successful these techniques were. Former CIA officials warn that Americans will die because of this action of the Obama administration. Do not expect any front-page stories on this in your newspaper.

It has also come to light that the previous 4 CIA directors and Obama’s present CIA head all advised against making these documents public.

President Obama asks his cabinet to find $100 million worth of cuts in the current budget while he asks for $100 billion for the International Monetary Fund.

Although President Obama has, on several occasions in the past, talked about looking forward and not backward, when it comes to those involved in enhanced interrogation techniques, this week, he left this door open, saying that it was up to Eric Holder, the Attorney General.

Both Janet Napolitano and John McCain talked of the 9/11 terrorists crossing the Canadian border.

Vice President Dick Cheney on the release of enhanced interrogation techniques: "One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is that they put out the legal memos. but they didn't put out the memos that show the success of the effort...There are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified. I formally ask that they be declassified now."

Rep. Joe Barton to Al Gore: “In your listing of environmental problems attributable to global warming, you did miss a few: the Dallas Cowboys have not won a playoff game in 10 years.”

"Let me assure you and repeat what President Obama said, we are committed to Iraq, we want to see a stable, sovereign, self-reliant Iraq," Hillary Clinton at a townhall meeting in the US embassy at the Iraq capitol. I guess I am a little mixed up; I thought it was Obama and Clinton who were pledging to pull the troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible?

“How honorable it is to take the position, ‘Even though these techniques [or harsh interrogation] work, I don’t want them use’?” General Hayden, considering President Obama’s position on past CIA interrogation techniques.

A letter read on O’Reilly’s show: “If waterboarding was called an underwater contingency operation, liberals would not be so upset over its use.”

North Korea, Russia, probably China, and Pakistan are all going to require someone who knows something about foreign policy dealing with them (Israel is going to take out the nukes in Iran). Obama knows nothing about foreign policy—who our friends our, who our enemies are, what works with whom—and Hillary Clinton is quite the lightweight to in this area (although she is more knowledgeable than Obama and slightly more experienced in this are, as well is a bit more moderate). Just realize this—if Obama thinks the wise thing to do is to reveal our interrogation techniques and all of the careful backup procedures which the Bush administration required, to an enemy that we are currently at war with—against the advice of 5 CIA directors (which includes his own man)—why do you think he has any idea how to deal with any of these countries?

[With regards to the YouTube problem, which I have had on two computers—for reasons which I do not understand, the volume on the YouTube videos themselves on my computer were turned down all the way. Don’t ask me why or why that was the case on 2 computers. If you have this problem, then check the volume on the video itself (it is at the bottom of the video on the right-hand side)—for all I know, I may be the only person in the world with that problem].

I don’t know this guy until this week, but Representative Rohrabacher interviews Clinton (broadcast by C-Span); the best part is the final minute or so:

Dave Letterman has pissed me off in the past, although I did enjoy his last interview with Bill O’Reilly. In any case, this is the Cheney-Pelosi blink off:

Here is the controversial answer which Miss California gave to Perez Hilton (listen to the crowd’s response in the background):

I’m not sure if I would classify this as must-see video, but this is Perez Hilton stating his entire case as well as the way the Miss California should have answered the question in order to make him a happy man.

Chris Wallace had a great interview with a former CIA head General Michael Hayden this past Sunday was excellent.

Click on “what happened yesterday” (excellent short video for any day of the week):

If you want to hear Shepherd Smith drop the F-bomb on FoxNews, then go to youtube and look for Shepherd Smith swearing.

1) It is very hard to get a Democrat to consider the reasonableness of his positions. However, how much sense does it make to be overly concerned about pouring water on the faces of 3 murderous terrorists (with physicians standing by), and yet be in favor of the killing of literally millions of babies (er, fetuses)? What sense does it make to assume some moral high ground (the United States does not torture, referring to the waterboarding of 3 terrorists) when we subject our own soldiers to this exact same training? How moral is it to refrain from harsh interrogation techniques when doing so might save hundreds or even thousands of Americans lives (to say nothing of the lifetime of suffering of those who remain behind)? What normal parent (include Democratic parents) would not go to far greater lengths if it involved the safety of their own children? A normal parent would, if need be, remove every single finger, one-by-one, from a terrorist, if it meant the safety of their own child.

2) My problem with Club Gitmo? Prayer rugs and the Koran. What sense does it make to keep these animals fired up? Allow an optional Christian church service, tied to some privilege, and nothing more. We have several Christians from the Muslim community in the United States who are great people, including one former terrorist. We are stupid to ignore our great heritage when it comes to dealing with terrorists. Although I like and respect President Bush, this is one area when his reading of history did not pay off (in case you did not know, Bush was an avid reader—probably more than any other president).

3) We all know that, if Bush was not aggressive in dealing with terrorist prisoners and another attack like 9/11 occurred, Democrats would have been calling for his resignation and/or impeachment long ago (this is a point made by a liberal Democrat who opposes torture, by the way).

4) The only reason that some take such a radical position on enhanced interrogation is Bush-derangement syndrom. Bush clearly approved of it, he used it, and he was successful in its use. Nothing can make the far left more angry than this.

5) Notice how this happened: the banks are capitalized (given money) by the government, preferred stock is taken to protect the government’s money; then the banks are encouraged to lend this money out liberally. Then comes the stress tests along with the threat of nationalizing the bank (which essentially comes from converting preferred stock to common stock). We could see national ownership of some or even most banks by the end of May. At this time, to most of us, this seems beyond incredible. I feel a little like an alarmist nut to even write this. But, it can be done, and everything is set up to allow this to be done.

6) Obama proposes to cut $100 million dollars from a $3.7 trillion budget. This is nothing, but the law of large numbers works in Obama’s favor; it sounds as if he is cutting a lot of money from the budget because people cannot relate to these large numbers.

7) In 90 days, Obama has spend more than was spent on the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War and Hurricane Katrina combined.

8) Did I wake up in Bizarre world? I saw photos of Code Pink protesting the bailouts and Congress giving away our money. How is it that I now agree with Code Pink?

9) There is a symbiotic relationship between Obama, NBC news and GE. GE owns NBC and NBC has supported Obama throughout the election and continues to do so. This support is even more marked on MSNBC where people at the tea parties were called tea-bagging racists. GE’s stock has dropped in value over the past few years far, far more than the market in general (over 70%, if memory serves) with Jeffrey Immelt at the head. If Obama pushes through Cap and Trade and so-called Green Technology, GE is poised to make millions if not billions from this government policy. When this green legislation goes through, note that our government is going to buy a whole lot of GE stuff. O’Reilly was pulling all of this together this week.

10) Dianne Feinstein, who is not on the Congressional Banking Committee, has gotten billions of dollars funneled to FDIC. About this same time, her husband bought a lot of stock in his own company. How fortunate for the Feinstein family that FDIC has chosen Mr. Feinstein’s company to deal with all of the FDIC repossessed properties, which is going to earn him millions of dollars.

11) After 9/11, Eric Holder offered up the opinion that the Geneva Convention did not apply to terrorists.

12) I wonder if those who oppose vigorous interrogation techniques identify more closely with the terrorists than with their victims.

Liberals support the first, but not the second; conservatives support water-boarding, but not abortion. Which makes the most sense to you?

Right now, there are 20 ongoing criminal investigations into the distribution of TARP 1 funds. This is why conservatives and libertarians do not like to put government and large sums of money in the same room.

8 members of Congress received 30 briefings on enhanced interrogation; Congresswoman Pelosi was among these 8.

George Soros and his hedge fund made $2.9 billion betting against the United States economy. He also donated over $32 million to liberal candidates and liberal causes across the United States (which generally will affect business adversely, so that Soros will make even more money).

Obama proposes to spend 31.3 trillion over the next 8 years; more than Clinton and Bush combined.

It should be noted that most polls have Obama favorability ratings in the mid 50's to mid 60's, even though his policies (those noted above) have very unfavorable ratings. People do not spend a lot of time following what the government is doing, and most would prefer not to. It takes awhile for Obama’s persona to be associated with his actions and philosophies, which were hidden throughout most of the campaign.

51% have a favorable view of the tea parties, despite the one-sided or no-sided media coverage.

Obama is now telling credit card companies how much interest to charge. In an SNL skit, he needs to be in his office calling in business after business, and telling them how to run their businesses...including street vendors. He starts out talking to them about CEO and president compensation; then he talks to some of them about the prices that they charge. Then, he should tell them which commercials he likes and which he does not. He should review the labels on their packaging and delve into the most minute points of their business.

Patrick Leahy and John Conyers (do I have the names right?) want to have a public investigation of the so-called torture techniques employed during the Bush administration. Please, please, please do this! A number of Democratic Congressmen were aware of these techniques years ago after 30 briefings on enhanced interrogation, and it is reported that some said, “Is that all [you’re doing to these men]?” (or words to that effect). Furthermore, it needs to be shouted from the rooftops that this is as far as the Democrats will go when it comes to dealing with terrorists. We need a Democratic tenet: “I don’t care what anyone says, we will never, ever cause a terrorist prisoner any discomfort, because we are a moral people and we take the moral high ground.” Democratic candidates need to speak this proudly wherever they go.

[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. Another aspect of this is offering up a slogan or an attack upon some villain rather than to make a clear statement or to give a clear answer.]

I think that this brouhaha about possibly investigating and even prosecuting some of those higher ups who had a say in the enhanced interrogation techniques is a subterfuge. The previous week, we had the Tea Parties, and previous to that, there was a fair amount of information out there (maybe not in the mainstream press) about Obama’s unbelievably large budget. He wants this budget passed, and he does not want the American public, some spurred on by conservatives, to complain to their Congressmen about his proposed record-breaking deficits. It should be obvious that any conservative patriot is going to throw a fit over some sort of a truth probe to examine torture; so this changes the conversation for a week.

With regards to enhanced interrogation techniques and the prosecution of those who gave legal opinions of same as well as the prosecution of those who ordered these techniques used, will you give your definitive position? You have said that you are looking forward with regards to investigating these matters, but most recently, you have indicated that you are going to let Eric Holder make the call. You are the President of the United States; take an unequivocal stand on this matter.

You think that the US should take the high moral ground by only using the Army Field Manual when it comes to interrogating terrorists.

You hear Obama is thinking about cutting $100 million and you think this is a meaningful amount. When Robert Gibbs says, “Only in Washington is $100 million not considered much money.”

I think that, not only will we be hit by terrorists, but that it will be dramatic and more widespread, taking in 2 or more cities simultaneously. Here is a piece of the puzzle: there is such a hatred for Bush and all that he did, that some people cannot let this go—and some of these people have Obama’s ear. So, what was very humane coerced interrogation was not only completely dismantled, but the careful attempts to keep the detainee safe is now out there for our enemies to see. Not only will this give an interrogator pause before questioning a terrorist, but terrorists know now that they have nothing to fear from us when we capture them.

As the far-left goes after Bush—and those with Obama’s ear and Holder’s ear encourage them to go after Bush, and as Napolitano continues to function as someone who has not a clue, our major cities become easier and easier to target. Plus, because of the outrage on the left, these terrorists, I am sure, have figured out how to get around wiretapping (i.e., by developing a code).

There was a lot I did not like about McCain, but unlike Obama, I am positive that he would take the War on Terror seriously.

Do you know what kind of plant produces energy without a carbon footprint and without using an inordinate amount of natural resources? A nuclear power plant. Do you know what power source has about the smallest footprint for the energy produced? Nuclear power plants. So, you know what will never be a part of Obama’s energy plan? Nuclear power plants.

Months and months ago, I told you that liberals cannot let go of their hate. I said that it will not disappear. Here are a couple of related links:

Obama will divide the nation as no one else if the Bush cabinet is investigated over torture:

I would hesitate to specify a percentage, but there are a considerable number of far-left people out there who are going to be satisfied with nothing less than a televised trial of Bush, Cheney and Rove for ordering torture:

Environmentalists are up in arms over the solar panels in Barstow, CA. Now, they do have a point—16 billion gallons of water per year are required in order to make these solar panels work.

It has not happened yet, but they are testing the waters—a government bailout of newspapers (I predicted this before the November election):

All week long, the primary focus of Talk Radio and FoxNews has been the definition of torture, the release of our enhanced interrogation procedures, and the possible prosecution of attorneys for giving an opinion has been discussed. All of this was put on the table by the Obama administration.

When the classified documents were released, that caused a reasonable uproar; you do not give away all of your secrets to your enemies. In fact, these papers should have never been released ever under any circumstances. But they were; so a discussion must take place. FoxNews and Talk Radio gave this issue some airing out.

With the release of the documents, Obama spokespersons were out there on the Sunday shows assuring all that the Obama administration was all about looking forward and not backwards (i.e., they were not going to investigate the Bush administration and prosecute members of his administration). Then, Obama changes his mind and says, “It’s really up to Eric Holder; whatever he wants to do; that’s how our system works.” (Not an exact quote).

So, discussion ensues about the idea that you can prosecute lawyers who give a legal opinion; the discussion continues when it comes to prosecuting members of the Bush association, like some banana republic would do. The discussion continues with the far-left and all they have to do is harangue Obama, and Obama will give in to their demands.

And then, Obama changes his mind again, and decides that his administration is all about looking forward. So, no prosecution and no so-called truth investigations. At least, not for this week. Obama can change his mind at any time about this.

So, is Obama this much of an amateur? Does he really have no idea what he is doing? Does he send out his people on one day to say one thing, and then he goes out 25 hours later, saying something else, and then, 4 days later, changes his mind again? It is possible. Obama is an amateur and the last place he belongs is in the White House.

However, his campaign crew, many of whom are still with him, are not amateurs. Although they did not run a flawless campaign, the media covered up enough of what went wrong, so that most of the viewing public did not have a clue. But I digress.

If I was to make an educated guess here, it is this whole torture thing—besides being a very naive philosophical position—was cover.

The Obama administration is considering converting government-held preferred stock to common stock, giving the government a 51% control in 500 financial institutions. Did you know this happened? Probably not.

There have been hearings on climate change in Congress, where scientists like Al Gore are allowed to participate (Gore has already become a multi-millionaire from Global Warming and this will make him even more money) but scientists like UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Monckton has the additional expertise of being subject to Draconian climate control laws. From what I have read, mostly politicians have testified. What is out there right now is either a bill from Henry Waxman or possible carbon control measures coming out from the EPA. This will cost every family thousands of dollars each year (unless they just choose not to heat or cool their houses); and it is questionable whether there will be any appreciable affect upon the amount of CO₂ in the air (when it comes to things which cause CO₂, man is way down on the list, and whatever change takes place in the United States, apart from, say, China or India, is going to be minuscule). Did you know these hearings were going on? I doubt it.

The week before, all the conversation was about the tea parties and the budget and how Obama is dwarfing all presidents with how much he wants to spend—even regular newspaper people are questioning Obama on this—so, that conversation and line of questioning needs to be nipped in the bud as well.

Get torture out there, which fires up the right, and these other 3 things fade into the background.

I don’t know how organized my thoughts are going to be on this, because I am quite emotional about this issue (I will admit to that).

First off, what Obama did cannot be undone. He did two things: he released documents concerning our enhanced interrogation techniques which our enemies can read and train for. What is abundantly clear is how careful we went about enhanced interrogations. We had limitations as to how long and how often various techniques could be applied, and doctors standing by just in case. These techniques, which were developed over time and found to be effective, are essentially lost to us now.

Secondly, Obama sent a chill up the spines of CIA officers, White House lawyers and even cabinet officials, who worried that they might face millions of dollars in lawyer’s fees to defend themselves for attempting to protecting our country and yet remain civilized.

If we get hit again—and I am certain that we will—we no longer have these tools in our arsenal, our enemies by reading all of these memos can tell that no permanent damage would be inflicted by US interrogators, and CIA operatives (as well as White House lawyers) will think twice about enhanced interrogation techniques of any sort, even when thousands of American lives are at stake (which they were when these interrogations took place). Even under a new, realistic president, everyone involved is going to be gun-shy when it comes to interrogations.

These were rookie actions by an ideologue president and no matter what his reasons—because he really believes this stuff, he was pressured by the far-left of his party, he used it to cover up the other stuff he was doing—Obama has put our country in danger for years to come.

We have no working definition of torture, so that self righteous liberals can essentially call anything they want torture. Although I am against the US government defining torture (although I am fine with the CIA defining it), our media needs to define it. I am tired of listening to sound bytes where the word torture is used and it has no meaning whatsoever.

The left loves to correctly define words, and when listening to liberals talk about the tea parties, it appears as though their biggest problem with the tea parties is the name, and that these demonstrations are not an exact replication of America’s first Tea Party. Half of NPR’s coverage on this subject was about the name and why it was no good (in their opinion).

To me, it is a lot more serious to throw around the word torture when it evokes so many different images in the listener’s mind.

Most Americans agree that putting some people in jail for a long time is a good thing and definitely unpleasant. However, simply because it is unpleasant does not make it torture. Along these same lines, the restriction of freedom, which includes the restriction of reading material, activities and food consumption are simply a part of the incarceration process—none of which is pleasant, but we cannot define these things as torture (otherwise, every prisoner in America is being tortured every minute of every day).

Personally, I think that if you single out a particular prisoner—perhaps because of heinousness of his acts—and inflict additional pain and suffering on him, above the norm, for no reason apart from some sort of revenge, that might be seen as torture, even though many of us would be tempted to do so.

However, if you single out a prisoner because of his rank and knowledge, and you interrogate him harshly, then we begin to get into the grey area of torture (not too grey for me but apparently for my liberal friends).

At this point, some will invoke the Army Field Manual, which essentially forbids a soldier from inflicting discomfort upon a prisoner in order to gain information from that prisoner. This is done as a protection of that soldier, who is mostly likely to be emotionally involved, and want to take out a lot of anger on this prisoner. This is not the upper limit of what we do; it is the upper limit of what we allow a soldier in the field to do. Now and again, a soldier might have to go Jack Bower on us, under extreme conditions; but for the most part, this limits and protects the soldier.

When it comes to knowledgeable prisoners of high rank, then a majority of Americans have no problem with making such a one very uncomfortable. Then there are a lot of issues which come into play. How sure are we that this person knows something? If he gives us information, do we have a way of verifying it? Again, I will agree that making someone uncomfortable simply because we are mad at him is not right. However, what we do to a prisoner as compared to the pain and suffering which would result from not questioning him, has to be taken into consideration. There are people who will be tortured for the rest of their lives because of family and friends which they lost on 9/11. At this point—and I am going to put myself at odds with a lot of people—I would apply the liberal mother test. If this man stood in the way of a liberal mother and her child, what would the mother be willing to do? I might draw the line at permanent physical damage, but not necessarily, depending upon the situation. Few liberal mothers would be willing to take the so-called high ground and say, “Well, I am willing to let my own child die because it is just wrong for me to let this man suffer any sort of discomfort.”

Given what we know now, which is essentially everything, President Bush and the CIA acted prudently in these matters. Given the many prisoners which we have had and given that we only water boarded 3 of them shows great restraint on our part. Given that we had doctors standing by and a myriad of legalistic limitations again shows great restraint on the part of our president and our CIA.

Personally, it makes me proud to be an American and glad that Bush was my president. Had Gore, Kerry, Clinton or Obama been faced with the same difficult decisions, I would be fine with them doing these things as well.

4 previous CIA directors and Obama’s own CIA director told him not to release these CIA documents. This is an area where President Obama had absolutely no expertise and these 5 men did. At the very least, he should have talked to these men for hours before even considering the release of these memos. No matter how strong your opinions are and how powerful you are, you need to pay heed to the experts.

What sense does it make to release the CIA enhanced interrogation documents without releasing the proof that these acts saved lives?

George Tenant, a CIA appointee under Clinton, has testified that we learned more information about Al-Qaeda through these techniques than all of the rest of our intelligence combined. Does this not count for anything in Obama’s mind?

Right now, as we speak, Obama is conducting a study on the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation as versus using the army field manual to interrogate prisoners-of-war. Would it not make more sense for him to wait for the results before making the decision he made? Wasn’t he elected because he was so smart and had so much foresight and could make such great decisions? How smart is it to make a decision before your own study is completed?

A so-called truth investigation by Congress is being demanded by some. I think that almost any conservative would stipulate that President George Bush was very hands on when it came to harsh interrogations. I am sure that you can draw a straight line from him to the interrogations which occurred. I am sure that he and top aides discussed this process and approved it. I doubt that anyone, conservative or liberal, believes it to be any different. So what we really need to ask is, once this is determined, what then? Why don’t we get some truth when it comes to the end game?

Law 13 When Asking for Help, Appeal to People's Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude

I heard about this book from watching a DVD (Studio 60); as one of the characters began to tick off the various laws, I knew exactly who was using most of these laws.

Quite obviously, the person you are thinking of did not follow each and every law (or I would have listed all 48), but someone in his group read this book by Robert Greene and applied it.

I just heard about this story, and I must admit to being somewhat skeptical—but not entirely. This was on Mike Huckabee’s show, and from what I am reading, it appears to be legitimate.

Apparently, there is a treaty out there which we may ratify, and within this treaty, there are put forth rights of a child which would supercede parental rights within the United Sates.

Treaties are ratified in the Senate, so this would be in the hands of your Senator.

As you know, each state has its own laws on home schooling. Ratifying this treaty would put home schooling under the governance of a 10 member board in Geneva.

President Clinton signed this treaty but did not send it to the Senate, as he knew it would not be ratified. George Bush would never sign anything like this, so it has just been sitting there in limbo. However, a President Obama may be very well-disposed toward the notion of a international body being able to set the laws for what parents may and may not do.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC (Convention of the Rights of a Child).

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

5. A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

8. C hristian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Maybe this particular story will help you to understand why conservatives think that reducing taxes on the rich and reducing government spending is the right thing to do. We do not want government put into the same room with money or with businesses because things like the John Murtha Airport are the result of government spending our money. Here is the basic story:

The John Murtha airport sits on a windy mountain two hours east of Pittsburgh, a 650-acre expanse of smooth tarmac, spacious buildings, a helicopter hangar and a National Guard training center.

Inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day, no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays, all bound for Dulles International Airport.

The key to the airport's gleaming facilities -- and, indeed, its continued existence -- is $200 million in federal funds in the past decade and the powerful patron who steered most of that money here. Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is credited with securing at least $150 million for the airport. It was among the first in the country to win funding from this year's stimulus package: $800,000 to repave a backup runway.

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

CNN's Larry King turned horndog Wednesday night during his controversial interview with the father of Sarah Palin's grandchild.

LEVI JOHNSTON, EX-FIANCE OF BRISTOL PALIN, FATHER OF BRISTOL'S SON, TRIPP: You know, Larry, that I'm a gentleman, you know. And I don't, you know, kiss and tell. So, you know, I don't think that really -- that really matters. I mean...

KING: And how about the part, though, that -- well, first you said you practiced safe sex most of the time, right?

Luckily, for viewers of CNN, the subject of 'teabagging' and the 76-year old host did not come up.

[At what point did our society decide that these are reasonable questions to ask in an interview? Is there any other purpose here besides arousing prurient interest or trying to further destroy Palin? I hope the Bristol Palin now understands that safe sex was not the key here; no sex would have been a much better choice].

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."

The Canadian press has continued to rip Ms. Napolitano a new one, when she tried to equivocate the northern border of the US with the southern border, writing:

Of course. Because everyone can see conditions along the Canadian border and the Mexican border are exactly the same.

Mexico is a horrifically violent country currently in the grip of a civil war between competing drug lords. John Culberson, a Republican congressman from Texas, told a House of Representatives hearing that "Mexico is more dangerous than Iraq ... There were more deaths in Mexico than there were in Iraq."

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren't enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

An article on Obama cutting $100 million from the budget reads: “To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year-approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year." This is why mathematicians teach ratio and proportion, so that we can bring these number down to earth. The entire article:

Obama asking to save $100 million is like asking a family which makes $60,000/year to figure out a way to save $6:

1984 is here (the thought police). Julia Ward believe that homosexual acts are wrong (as do I), and when called upon the counsel a homosexual as a part of her counseling degree, she said that someone else could do a better job counseling this person. She was removed from the counseling program. You must believe as your teachers believe, or you cannot graduate with a degree.

Here is the MP3 file where Michael Medved interviews David French, the attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, involved in Julia Ward’s case. You can get the details in this very interesting interview:

FInally, an article about global warming which makes sense: overweight people are partially to blame for global warming (so it is really Al Gore and Michael Moore who are killing the polar bears):

Capitalism 'threatens life on the planet' (as say the Communist dictators in Central and South America):

At least this man is honest—he opposes torture even if it would save a city (just how far detached a Democrat can get from reality):

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative. Taken from Obama’s Poll Numbers are Falling to Earth:

A similar story: Obama joins Clinton, however, as the only two elected presidents in Gallup's polling history to watch the balance of opinion become more negative as Americans see them in action through their first month.

Dems saying “Is that all?” when it came to being briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques:

One of the big stories this week, ignored by the media: Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon's $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project -- the Defense Department's costliest weapons program ever -- according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027491029837401.html (along these same lines, we are so tied together by computers that huge sectors of can be shut down—power completely removed—for months via computer; Bush began working on the problem and Obama continues to work on it today; this would be a good argument for neighborhood grids to be run by outhouse-sized nuclear reactors, but that will never happen under Obama).

Skeptic not able to speak alongside Gore (it is unclear whether he will be speaking in Congress or not):

RUSH: By the way, this is Earth Day, ladies and gentlemen. Well, what am I going to do for Earth Day? I'm going to have every one of my cars driven as much as possible today. I've got my airplane flying to Los Angeles and back. Let's see, all the lights are going to be on, the air-conditioning down to 68 degrees in four of the five houses. The property manager likes it at 65. We're gonna have all kinds of beef. I'm fixing Allen Brothers all weekend long. I personally am going to see to it that we lose two acres of rain forest. Actually, the rain forest is replacing itself at a rate more rapid than it's being lost. I have some incredible statistics today with Earth Day as well. Our Morning Update today, we honored some great people that are always condemned and criticized on Earth Day, we're going to expand that today.

But here's a little taste, a story, no kidding, one in three children fear the earth apocalypse, one in three children, according to a survey, aged between six and 11, fears that Mother Earth won't exist when they grow up. Why do they think that? Algore, their stupid, idiot teachers, and the American left. Fear. Crisis. So if kids don't think the earth's going to be there when they grow up and then they hear solutions to how it can be there when they grow up, they're going to go along with it, right? Like giving up a little freedom, a little prosperity, having their parents' taxes raised, having their parents drive around a bunch of little jalopy cars. This is exactly the game plan.

RUSH: We have an extended Earth Day update coming up today, ladies and gentlemen, in the next hour of broadcast excellence, honoring all of those who have actually improved life for millions, billions of human beings. They are the ones who are condemned on this day. We will honor them.

RUSH: It's Earth Day today, and of course the purpose of Earth Day is to spread the hoax of global warming and human destruction of the planet. It was interesting, last night the History Channel -- sometimes I wonder about these people -- they did a story on the earth from a purely left-wing slant that ended up just condemning the left. It was sort of like they did one of their Modern Marvel shows on oil, and everybody thought that the purpose of this was going to be to cream oil, and actually did just the opposite. It illustrated how important and natural oil is, all the derivatives that we get from it and all the people that work in that industry. The point last night was to show what the earth would be like if there were no humans. If the left got what they wanted, if they got mass euthanasia, if the Obama administration and the UN turned into the Hemlock Society and we all drink the Kool-Aid and we all die and there are no human beings left, what would the earth look like? And it was fascinating. Okay, this is what the left wants, we are the problem, and what the left totally misses -- for example, they gave an example of your average US city. You take the human beings out of it, wherever the city is, large or small and in a short period of time, five years, everything will start crumbling, everything will start falling apart.

The vermin will infest the place, animals will populate all over the place, the earth simply reclaiming what it once had and never really lost. We think we put up concrete buildings and skyscrapers that we're destroying the planet. Concrete comes from the earth, doesn't it? I mean, do we import anything from Mars? Do we import anything from the moon? Do we import destructive materials from Pluto? No. Everything on the earth is from and of the earth, including us. We just happen to be the smartest living organisms on the planet. And, of course, because we're the smartest, we are supposedly the most deadly and the most dangerous and the most polluting and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But have you seen these stories, just an example, we get them every now and then, some old lady with 50 or 75 cats in her house passes away and nobody knows about it for a month or two. Finally the odor, the stench is so much that somebody has to go in there and they find the house littered with cat feces. And yet we're the polluters.

You gotta put people with hazmat gear on to go in there and clean up after cat poop, when some old lady assumes room temperature, or some woman doesn't feed the cats and they start eating the furniture and so forth. Concrete, asphalt, toilet paper, plastic grocery bags, all comes from the earth. It doesn't come from anywhere else. Yet we are accused of destroying the planet when we simply use what God provided on the planet. This History Channel show went to Chernobyl. It was a town near Chernobyl that had been evacuated, a town of about 50,000 people. They went in there with their Geiger counters, and they weren't wearing any protective gear because the radiation levels barely registered on the Geiger counters, so they're walking through this town that was evacuated after Chernobyl, which for those of you in Port St. Lucie and Rio Linda, it's a nuclear plant that had a leak, a supposed malfunction. They walk through there and buildings in the town, some had fallen apart, they were crumbling to shreds, all over the place the animals had moved in. The place was a junkyard, was an absolute junkyard, all the weeds, grass, grown over everything. But it was natural; it was the earth in its natural state, and this show attempted to show how beautiful the earth would be, and it ended up doing just the opposite.

But what it illustrated, and I guess you need some kind of a belief foundation to look at it and see it the way I did, but you have to see that everything here, everything, the Golden EIB Microphone, every element is from the earth. Every element of our plasma TV, California's going to ban 'em because they destroy the environment. Every element's from the earth. We couldn't destroy the planet if we wanted to, and yet "One out of three children aged 6 to 11 fears that Mother Earth won't exist when they grow up, while more than half -- 56 percent -- worry that the planet will be a blasted heath (or at least a very unpleasant place to live), according to a new survey. Commissioned by Habitat Heroes and conducted by Opinion Research, the telephone survey polled a national sample of 500 American preteens -- 250 males and 250 females. On a sliding scale of anxieties, minority kids have it worst." Well, of course, and after them, the women.

"Seventy-five percent of black children and 65 percent of Hispanic children believe that the planet will be irrevocably damaged by the time they reach adulthood." I should also point out that minorities are more likely to be in public schools that force defamatory, lying through their celluloid movies like Algore's, An Inconvenient Truth. Other interesting findings: "Fifty percent say that hurricanes and tornadoes are the natural disasters that scare them the most. Twenty-eight percent say that they fear animals, such as polar bears and penguins, will become extinct and disappear from the planet." That's why this dummkopf woman jumped in the polar bear exhibit at the Berlin zoo. I will guarantee you -- and this might count against the opinion audit 'cause I'm offering an opinion here, and I don't have any backup for it because they say they don't know why this idiot woman jumped in the polar bear exhibit. I'll guarantee you she'd seen something, Algore's movie or a website -- that fraud picture with the polar bears on about three square feet of ice that was supposedly a melting glacier -- and she wanted to jump in there and hug 'em and tell 'em, "Don't worry, we're looking out for you, and we love you," and probably wanted to blame Republicans and Bush.

The polar bear mauled her. So it's no wonder you've got these kids fearing the apocalypse, which is exactly what the left wants, folks, it's exactly what the Obama types want, because this kind of fear leads to two things: It leads to asking somebody to fix it, and who's that? Government. And then whatever government does to ostensibly fix it is unanimously wildly supported. If it means making your parents drive piddly little tiddlywink cars, if it means your parents pay more taxes, fine! Parents these days will go along with it just to get the kids to stop nagging them. "Girls worry more," according to the survey. "Sixty-seven percent of girls ages 9-11 versus 60 percent of boys ages 9-11 worry that the earth won't be as good a place to live when they're adults. Fifty-seven percent of girls ages 6-8 versus 43 percent of boys ages 6-8 worry that the earth won't be as good a place to live when they're adults. Urban kids are more anxious than suburban kids." Well, it's working. This is exactly what the objective of the climate change global warming hoaxers is, is to inculcate little kids with fear that the earth will not exist. It is preposterous, plus it's wrong and it's irresponsible.

RUSH: Today is Earth Day, ladies and gentlemen, in my official role as America's Anchorman, I take great pleasure in leading our nation in a solemn tribute to some of the pioneers who have contributed to the well-being of planet earth and its inhabitants, us. Today I think, and we here at the EIB Network do celebrate the vision, the ingenuity, and the spirit of achievers, men and women who have contributed to the earth. We begin our salute today by honoring a group of people unmarked, uncommented upon by history: the first coal miners in America. The first coal miners in America were farmers. They dug coal from the earth, and they sold it by the bushel. Their efforts at the dawn of our nation grew into an industry that, today, fuels our modern energy needs. They burrow into the mountains of earth. They get their hands dirty to bring up a resource that powers our lives. So all of the coal miners of America, past and present, and their daughters, happy Earth Day, because the world would not be the same, the earth would not be as productive, the earth would not be as advanced, human civilization would not have advanced as it has without the world's coal miners. Happy Earth Day.

Next, we turn our attention, ladies and gentlemen, to Charles and Frank Duryea. On September 20th, 1893, these brothers constructed and tested the first gasoline powered automobile. Yes! They were also the first to incorporate into an American automobile business. Other early auto industry giants include Ransom Olds, who invented the first assembly line. His company, Olds Motor Works, produced the first mass produced cars in America. Henry Ford came up with the first conveyor belt-based assembly line, and the rest, as they say, is history. Today we travel the earth in gasoline powered cars, and we owe these icons a debt of gratitude. Instead, they are impugned, besmirched, lied about. Without the bountiful oil inside the earth, not only would cars be idle, so would our present-day oil-based economy. So vast is oil's reach, we can't even list all the uses of oil or the millions of products that mankind uses on a daily basis, and oil is au natural. It was produced by the earth, it continues to be produced by the earth, it is there for us to use, and we celebrate the ingenuity of the people who discovered it and found all of these miraculous, marvelous uses for it. How oil gets to us from deep inside the womb of Mother Earth is a testament to man's ingenuity.

Two early figures must also be mentioned. Ludwig and Robert Nobel, who founded the Nobel Brothers Company of Oil Manufacturers in Russia back in 1879. From these captains of industry came the first oil pipelines and the very first oil tankers. It was not Niarchos. These oil tankers bring oil over land, the pipelines oversee and the pipelines transmit it over land. They had a third brother, Alfred Nobel. He helped us and the earth in another way. He was the inventor of dynamite which helps us both to get what we need from the earth and to build things on the earth and to kill evil people so that they cannot kill even more. It is Alfred Nobel whose earnings continue to fund the Nobel Prize and whose legacy has been taken over, co-opted by lefties. But the three Nobel brothers, Ludwig, Robert, and Alfred are still due many noble thanks this and every Earth Day.

The British company, JCB, cannot be overlooked on Earth Day. In 1953 this outfit invented the front loader. The front loader fueled a boom in construction that continues to this day. They pioneered most of the modern day earth-moving hydraulic machinery that has moved so much earth around and brought so much prosperity and civilization to the people of the earth. They have enabled the building of highways that our gasoline powered automobiles traverse, creating the travel and leisure business.

Next we honor on this Earth Day an inventor whose legacy has spread all over the earth, Gordon Dancy. Ever heard of him? Gordon Dancy invented the first high density plastic grocery bag, which can handle up to 40 pounds of stuff, more than your average homeless person can carry. That singular invention has benefited our daily life on earth in multitudinous ways, and yet various cities want to outlaw this amazing invention because somehow it pollutes. Yet it is from the earth, actually a derivative of oil.

We cannot forget the man who is perhaps America's greatest inventor of all time, Thomas Edison. His incredible inventions defined our modern world. Among them, the incandescent lightbulb, so we can see earth at night, and see each other at night, and protect ourselves from the evil people that dynamite hasn't yet killed. Thomas Edison, in 1882, built the first successful coal-fired electric generating station, which allowed electricity to be supplied to homes. Today coal-powered generation stations are mankind's primary source of electric energy. Thomas Edison is a hero to America and all mankind, and on this Earth Day we salute Thomas Edison and so many other capitalist inventors whose efforts have brought so much joy to us, the billions of people who inhabit our dear old Mother Earth. And now even Edison is being besmirched with the invention of the spaghetti lightbulb.

And how can we forget the Wright brothers, Wilbur and Orville? The first to fly a motorized airplane, which has led to man walking on the moon. But today, airplane flight is considered destructive to our planet, polluting the skies. All of it lies. And our deepest gratitude goes to one inventor and creator who is always criticized on Earth Day. I'll tell you who that is, when we come back.

RUSH: I got a note from a liberal during the break: "You didn't mention two inventors that we despise on the left, Marconi and Bell, because if it hadn't been for Marconi, we wouldn't have you, Limbaugh, and if we hadn't had Bell invent the phone, there would be nobody to call you." So the left today is cursing the inventions of Marconi and Alexander Graham Bell. But without question on Earth Day and every day, we owe our deepest gratitude to one inventor who is without equal. As long as men and women inhabit the earth, our very existence will be tied to his remarkable and unequaled creations, too numerous to mention, too complex to ever fully understand. He is known by thousands of names, but we call him God, the sole creator of the heavens and the earth. What incredible arrogance to believe that we limited human beings can destroy that which we cannot even begin to understand, much less create on our own, and that is earth and all of its glories. So today, on Earth Day, we here at the EIB Network thank God for Mother Earth and for allowing us to live in the greatest of nations on that earth, the United States of America. Jurassic Park, remember the book by Michael Crichton? Charlton Heston called here one day and wanted to read the foreword. So we said, "Have at it."

HESTON: You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

RUSH: Nor would the earth miss President Obama. Charlton Heston, at his request, reading the foreword to Jurassic Park.

CALLER: Thank you for everything you do for our country. I just wanted to comment on something that you discussed the other day regarding how you would hope to invoke an intellectual response from your audience rather than emotional.

RUSH: No. My audience, I think most of my audience does react intellectually. It's left, the people reacting emotionally to Obama, even to me. I'd love to be able to get past their emotion to get through to their brains, yes.

CALLER: Well, I agree with that a hundred percent, and I wanted to say that I believe that most of your audience does do that. And I started thinking about that myself, what do I do, and the first thing I thought about was, "Do I agree? Is this good for myself, my family, my country?" But then immediately I come up with an emotional response, and sometimes a very strong one, where I believe on the left if something is said, they come out with immediate emotional response, based on an agenda, where I believe I would come out with an emotional response first based on an intellectual --

RUSH: Well, of course, intellectual creates the emotion in learned people, in people that are paying attention. The problem with people that have a strict emotional response or an emotional attachment to an agenda is that you can't get to them. There is no rationality for their belief, that's why you can't argue with them. You make a fool of yourself trying to argue with somebody who is simply emotionally attached to something.

CALLER: It is so extremely frustrating. When I see this happen on a daily basis, and I think somebody brought this up the other day, I'm wondering, they can't be thinking about the facts. They have to be thinking about an agenda that

RUSH: Well, they live in a worldview that's a cocoon, and it's created in their emotion. In many cases, the people we're discussing, it's a desire for utopianism where everybody loves everybody and there's no crime and there's no arguments and there's no differences between people. They all have same amount of money, same housing, same car, nobody has any advantages and so forth. Anything that challenges that worldview, they cannot deal with and they strike out and try to silence it. They don't want to hear it. And that's what we're up against.

CALLER: Well, please keep telling it -- and like you said, I also want to thank God on today.

RUSH: Well, thank you very much. The big problem is that we have irresponsible politicians that play to that emotional cocoon worldview simply to get votes. They're called demagogues, and the current demagogue is Barack Obama.

RUSH: The US banking group, Wells Fargo (my bank, by the way), said today that it earned a record profit of $3.05 billion dollars in the first quarter following its acquisition of Wachovia. The Wells Fargo president and chief executive John Stumpf with the quote of the day: "The best way to generate capital is to earn it." Now, in the Obama administration, this could be a hate crime, because the Obama administration, the best way to generate capital is to print it and to borrow it and then to give it away or to tax it. But Stumpf says to earn it.

RUSH: The Heritage Foundation, even the Drive-By Media yesterday on these $100 billion budget cuts out of a $4,000 billion budget or debt or $8,000 billion new spending, debt, whatever you want to call it, Heritage Foundation, we talk about them a lot, AskHeritage.org, I'm a member, only costs $25 to become a member. You can spend more if you want. But I swear, folks, there are more things available at Askheritage.org, than I see anywhere else.

They have a great, great chart, a great visual effect today. I'm going to show it to you on the Dittocam here, but you won't be able to make out 'cause the resolution is not high enough. You really need high definition to see this. But what they've done here, imagine the sun, and the sun represents the $3.69 trillion 2010 proposed budget of Barack Obama. And then inside the sun you have the $787 billion Porkulus bill and the $410 billion appropriations bill. And up at the top, a microscopic dot that is about the size of Pluto compared to our sun representing Obama's requested budget cuts of yesterday. It's the tiniest little dot, smaller than a period on your computer page that represents the size of the budget cuts compared to the sun, or the whole budget of 2010. Everything here is just smoke and mirrors, and even the Drive-Bys yesterday were all over this kind of peppering that clown, Robert Gibbs, about all this.

RUSH: Here's more on the Obama budget cuts. Show prep for the rest of the media. That's what this program is. Let's return to me, yesterday on this program. This is what I said about these budget cuts.

RUSH ARCHIVE: [T]his gets back to the emotional connection. This is what people want to hear. They don't hear the end details. Plus, a hundred million sounds like a lot more than eight trillion, because one hundred is bigger than eight. A hundred million sounds bigger than four trillion. Four trillion is the new spending and debt. "A hundred million? Why, that's a lot of money," people think. People want to hear he's gonna cut spending, he's gonna cut the budget. I'm sure they've got internal polling data that shows these tea parties are successful and these tea parties are a problem. So they're responding to the tea parties here. That's all this is, and so they're responding to the tea parties with chump change, with irrelevant numbers.

RUSH: And so now we have a montage of a bunch of Drive-Bys repeating this essentially throughout the day.

JOHN HARWOOD: Anybody who thinks Barack Obama is ignoring those tea party protests ought to look at what happened today when the president gathered his cabinet officers together and told them all to look for 100 million in savings.

RICK FOLBAUM: Maybe President Obama was listening to tea party protesters last week.

MIKE VIQUEIRA: The White House also very concerned that Republicans are after them every day about profligate spending. We saw those tea parties.

LARRY KUDLOW: In response to the tea parties last week, the president is proposing a pathetic hundred million dollar cut in the budget!

RUSH: Larry Kudlow there on the tail end of the montage. So you see, this program is show prep for the rest of the media. There's no question that the tea parties are upsetting... Look it, folks, you gotta understand these people. They're running around and they're telling everybody, "You don't dare oppose Obama. He's the most popular man in the world. Obama's the most popular man ever! He's the most popular man in the country. He's the most popular man in the world." In fact, did you notice that Michelle did not go to the Summit of the Americas and show off another new classless wardrobe? Why do you think she didn't go, Snerdley? Give me two guesses. Why did Michelle (My Belle) Obama not go to the Summit of the Americas?

And don't tell me she had to tend to the garden in the White House. It is because she overwhelmed his popularity in Britain. All the press was about Michelle, the new Jackie O. Michelle this, Michelle that. Michelle's wardrobe, Michelle here, Michelle there. The friendship with the queen, arm around the queen. I'll guarantee you, this whole image of Obama as The Messiah is the one that's predicated on the fact that nobody is more popular than he is and nobody has ever been more popular. "And you can't oppose Obama," they say to the Republicans. Why, he's the most popular man in the world. You want to take him on, go right ahead," and so here come the tea parties. Here come the tea parties, and the tea parties demonstrate he's not the most popular guy in the world.

He's not all that popular in this country. He is among Democrats. But the Gallup poll is out today. They've got some interesting information. "Big Gov't Still Viewed as Greater Threat Than Big Business -- In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future -- big business, big labor, or big government?" Fifty-five percent say that big government is the greater threat to big business. Only Democrats reverse and cite big business. The rest of every other demographic holds firm. "In fact, independents' view did not change much over the period. Solid majorities in both polls saying big government is a greater threat. Eighty percent of Republicans view big government the biggest threat to the country, up from 68% in December 2006.

"At the same time, Democrats' perceptions of the greater threat are completely reversed. In December 2006, 55% of Democrats said big government posed the greater threat. Thirty-two percent said big business did. In the latest poll, a majority of Democrats now view big business as the greater threat, 52%, while only about one in three think big government is." So the Democrats are in the minority when you break down the poll, and they're in the minority in the general poll over what poses the bigger threat, government, big government, or big business. So in the midst of the so-called never-before-seen popularity, here come the tea parties. So Obama has to hustle together, put a phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roller mythical budget package, budget cut together, and that's what it was yesterday.

RUSH: If you want to know the root of Obama and the left's actions when it comes to releasing the CIA interrogation memos and now putting greater constraints on people in the field who go interrogate captured prisoners, there is a simple reality to explain it above and beyond the liberalism and the extreme leftism that is these people.

To explain it, let me proclaim an established truism. It is this: Barack Obama thinks he's better and more moral, more special than any president we've ever had. He's The One. I firmly believe he's gotta messianic complex. But even if you don't believe that, you can listen to him speak just the last two or three days or the sum total of his speeches and you know he thinks he's special. And this country was immoral and unjust until he came along -- and now we're on the right road. Okay, if you have that established: America sucked, America had problems, America was not the best she could be, America was immoral and unjust before Obama gets here. That means everybody was immoral and unjust, from George Washington on to George W. Bush. So what's Obama up against? In the world of protecting the United States, nobody's done it better, recently, than George W. Bush and his administration. After 9/11, not one single attack, by terrorists, on this country's soil. That's unarguable.

You can argue if you want, but it's inarguable. If you want to be wrong, go ahead and be wrong. So you have that as a baseline. You have that as a foundation. The simple reality is that Obama and his people cannot deal with the previous administration's success in stopping more terror in America. Obama's entire popularity poll existence, relies on the fact that people think he's special, better than ever before, that everybody came before him -- especially Bush -- was the absolute pits. They can't afford for one aspect of the Bush administration to be portrayed as successful. So, tearing up every aspect of the Bush administration's counterterrorism and defense posture to protect this country, which worked, has to be torn apart in order to keep Obama up on the pedestal. He's supremely narcissistic, a man about whom this country is devoted to him. This is all about him. This has nothing to do with the country. It has nothing to do with our way of life. Every aspect of his presidency is about building him up, making him appear to be savior, messiah, whatever term you want to call it -- and don't think others are doing it. He's inspiring it.

RUSH: This morning on Joe Scarborough's show, PMSNBC, he had Elijah Cummings, Democrat, Maryland on. Scarborough said, "So you visited Latin America, you went to Colombia, you saw the president this past week getting criticized. How do you think he did?"

CUMMINGS: What has happened with President Obama is that, as in the elections, a lot of people underestimate the man who I believe is a great leader. He takes leadership to another height. Now, I understand the Chavez situation and people are trying to figure out, did he smile, did he -- you know, but I think Barack Obama is above that and I think that a lot of times people are operating on a little bit lower level than he is. His leadership is a leadership that this country has not seen a lot of.

RUSH: There you have it, the messianic complex come to life in Elijah Cummings. This sort of sums up the emotional attachment Democrats have to Obama, whatever he does is good. Why? Because it's him doing it. And, by the way, it's so good nobody has ever done it this good before. He's above all this stuff, shaking hands with Chavez. Don't forget, either, that Elijah Cummings is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which idolizes Fidel Castro. So it's not as though Chavez and Castro are looked upon with disfavor by Elijah Cummings. Scarborough then said, "It's been quite a 90-day time period. George Bush reached out to Vladimir Putin early, thinking it would yield results. Didn't. And so you believe that if this president reaches out, has his hand slapped, he'll pull back?"

CUMMINGS: I believe that. And I think leadership, you know, I've always believed that leadership, true leadership is always before its time, and I think that you have to -- and I think Barack believes it -- that you've gotta act on what you believe is right, and then sometimes you gotta wait for the critics to catch up.

RUSH: So not only is he unlike anybody we've ever had, he's so far ahead of us that we are blinded by the light, as we look at his trail. He's so far ahead of us, folks, that all we see is the dust in which he is leaving us. He's so far ahead of his time. And people ask me, "How the hell could he have gotten elected?" I give you Elijah Cummings who represents the mind-set, the ignorance of the average Obama voter. This kind of idolatry of political people has happened before, but it's not healthy, pure demagoguery.

[Obama continues to pummel Bush and Cheney, particularly in the one area which no one can argue with]

RUSH: Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, interviewed Dianne Feinstein, Senator from California, for nine minutes last hour. Not one question on the Washington Times story on DiFi funneling money to her husband. Here is that story: "On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms, the Washington Times reported on Tuesday." Do I need to define this for you? All right, you've got an agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Senator Feinstein intervened.

She "isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments -- not direct federal dollars. Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show [Sen.] Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) -- the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman -- had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks."

She sends a letter just days before the FDIC awards her husband's company lucrative contracts in collecting on foreclosing houses, $25 billion. So the way this looks to the educational observer is that DiFi wants her husband to get the grease of a federal contract so she sends a note over to the FDIC, and they follow through. Her husband's name is Richard Blum. "Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, are a power couple in both Washington and California who sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Mrs. Feinstein also is mentioned as a candidate for California governor," and, by the way, the mayor out there of San Francisco has just announced his intention to run for governor.

That would be Gavin Newsom. So this is Dianne Feinstein acting in President Obama's era of responsibility. If she is to be true to Obama's hopes for his new and improved America, she maybe ought to think about resigning. Let's go back and let's listen. Here's what Obama said in his immaculation address. "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is the sapping of confidence across our land, a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sites.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage -- and those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government." Dianne Feinstein just blew that to smithereens, seeing to it her husband's company gets $25 billion to collect on foreclosed properties. It's excessive; it's reckless -- and, of course, it isn't "fair." It just isn't fair.

RUSH: Amarillo, Texas, this is Andrew. Andrew called us, what was it, last week, Andrew, that you called us?

RUSH: That's right, called the day of the tea parties, and you weren't quite certain what their point was because you were convinced that most people loved Obama because you thought that's what the media was saying. So to what do we owe this great pleasure of your calling back?

CALLER: Well, I would just like to tell you, coming from a Democrat -- once again, I can't stress this enough -- coming from a Democratic point of view, when I called your show, I did not get what all these people had this grievance, this grievance with President Obama for, I did not get it. After going to the Amarillo tea party, in front of the post office, talking to people there, I began to realize what they were saying, and it started to hit me. How much truth they had with this single subject here, how much truth they were speaking. I realized, you know, all the different packages and plans Obama had put in place since he has been in office, and, like I said, it hit me like a ton of bricks after interviewing all these people, talking to all these people, how much they are right and the government is overspending, overspending with our money.

RUSH: Now, this is fascinating. Let me ask you a question about this. Going to the tea parties and talking to the people there was the first time, I'm assuming, I'm asking, the first time you had heard the real reasons they were there?

RUSH: The real reasons they were there you had not heard because you had only been informed by virtue of the media?

CALLER: -- that these people were just protesting the presidency, I guess you could say, they were mad, that's what I was hearing from CNN and MSNBC.

RUSH: Yeah. And so now your eyes have been opened, and you've learned exactly why these people were there. Did you learn that they're not threatening to you?

RUSH: No. Well, they were portrayed that way as being threats to America, threats to Obama. That's why I asked.

CALLER: Oh, they were very polite people, they were very polite. As a matter of fact, I introduced myself coming from a Democratic point of view, and they were still very nice to me and let me talk to them.

RUSH: I'm sure they were eager for you to understand how they felt since they finally had a chance to tell you directly. These people know that what they believe and stand for is being inaccurately reported in the media. I'm sure they looked at the opportunity to talk to you, as just that, a great opportunity. I'm glad you went, Andrew.

RUSH: So where are you now, after you've gone to the tea party, after you understand where these people are coming from, and you've agreed with some of what they believe.

CALLER: Yes, I do, and even hitting on today's subject, today's subject with Hugo Chavez, I am a firm believer that, for God's sake, that is a man, Hugo Chavez, who called President Bush the devil, who just last month called Barack Obama himself an ignorant man and has done nothing but tear down the United States. Why would we want to be associated with somebody like this?

RUSH: Well, that's a good question. It's an excellent question and you're right, he did call Barack Obama an ignoramus. This was back on March the 2nd or the third or somewhere around there. At any rate, and then he gave him the book to help enlighten Obama about the destructive tendencies of the United States of America in this hemisphere so that he no longer would be an ignoramus. And Obama accepted it, smiling, with handshakes and so forth. You know, here's something for you to ponder, and I mentioned this at the beginning of this hour. Barack Obama is far more willing -- and of course we've got a lot of liberals out there, "We need to talk to people that disagree with us, Mr. Limbaugh, we need to talk to people that have problems with us." Fine. Obama's willing to go talk with all the anti-American tyrants he can find. He won't talk to me. He will not talk to any conservatives. He tells America not to listen to me. He tells members of Congress not to listen to me. But there he is down there buddying up, kissing ass with Hugo Chavez. You ask why would he do this, and he's smiling.

Let me tell you something. When he goes down there, Andrew, this is something for you to consider, when he goes down there and says: (paraphrasing) "The stale arguments and stale debates of the past, I'm not interested. We've gotta move forward. I'm glad they didn't blame me for what they don't like about this country when I was only three months old." He didn't say, "How dare you insult my country in front of me." He thanked them for not insulting him. So the thing to conclude here, and it's hard not to conclude this, that he has a degree of agreement with them in their view of America and wants to change America so that they don't dislike it as much, but he wants to change America on their premise, not ours. It's also abundantly clear to me, Andrew, that this is all about him. Obama foreign policy, Obama domestic policy is all about him. It's not about the United States of America. He's on a cult of personality tour, and I think he buys into this notion that he's messianic, The One. He's the one we've been waiting for, essentially. I'm glad you called back, I'm glad you went to the tea parties, and I'm close to saying to you, Andrew, welcome home. By the time you call back, I think I'll be able to full-fledged say, welcome home.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thanks for the line. Like I said, I'm from Amarillo. I just have a quick question for you. I mean, I am all for people protesting. I mean, it's their constitutional right. But as a young registered Democrat, what I do not get -- and I was hoping you could explain this to me -- is why people are protesting our president, and a policy, more importantly, that it seems to have already have positive effects on the middle class. I mean, why are people so outraged with what he's doing right now when it seemed to be for the good of Americans?

RUSH: Okay, I'll be willing to answer this. If you really want the answer, I'll be glad to.

RUSH: Okay. In the first place, the middle class is the one that is been devastated. Six hundred thousand Americans a month are losing their jobs. The Obama administration itself says that whatever has been done, they say that will improve this, but it won't happen this year. We're looking at an unemployment rate of 10% by the end of the year, according to government projections. That's number one. The middle class is not being helped. Nobody is being helped here. This is... What you have here is people who are trying to hold onto individual liberty that is being lost because of an expansion of the federal government that has never happened in this country before, and they are scared. The foundation of this country was the individual: individual freedom and liberty, allowing people to pursue their own self-interests to become whatever they wanted to become -- nothing or anything -- based on whatever their ambition and desire and so forth. And that opportunity is shrinking because more and more of the private sector where all those opportunities are, is being taken over by the federal government. These people are also protesting the fact, Andrew, that we are printing and borrowing money to the point that people who are not even born yet are already in debt to the tune of $36,000 to $46,000 to the government. That's how much is being spent on their behalf and they're not even born yet, two generations down the line. This is based on a genuine anger that the Constitution as the building block of this country is being slowly chipped away and replaced by an ever-expanding government whose objective is to direct and be in control of as much life as possible.

CALLER: I understand that, sir. You know, the point of whether, you know, Republicans, Democrats, you know... Republicans, you want smaller government. I understand that. But what who don't get is how people... I can understand people protesting.

RUSH: Okay, hang on. I've gotta take a break. Hang on through the break, because this today really isn't about Republicans and Democrats. It's about freedom and liberty.

RUSH: We rejoin Andrew in Amarillo. I didn't mean to interrupt you there, Andrew, but I had to go to a commercial break. You started to ask me about... You understood the first thing I said, then you started talking about Republicans and Democrats, and you don't quite understand what the protests are about. Is that right?

RUSH: Well, when I said it's not really about Republicans and Democrats, the issue that these people are upset about is not really about Republicans and Democrats. But the reason they're out there may have something to do with the Republican Party. I think a lot of these people at the tea parties are wandering around without any leaders. The Republican Party has right now -- and this is just the vagaries of politics -- there's no single Republican who would either seek elective office or is in elective office that is providing a national leadership around which people can rally and who's carrying the torch for them. So these people were simply saying, "Nobody is standing up for us in Washington. We're going to stand up for ourselves." They're doing it peacefully, and they're very, very upset. You know, the old... You sound like a nice young guy. How old are you, Andrew?

RUSH: Nineteen. Well, every generation of parents has wanted a better life for their kids: more opportunity and more freedom, more economic opportunity and so forth. Today's parents think it's going to be tough the way this government is spending money and piling debt on future generations, taking over operations of the private sector like the automobile business and the bank business, when they don't know how to do it. Nobody in government has the slightest idea about running a car company -- building cars, designing them -- or, you know, running banks. And these people are a little frightened, and they're alarmed that nobody is standing up for their interests. There are 55 million of them.

They're not all going to show up at the tea parties, but 55 million people voted against what's happening here with the Obama administration, because what's happening here -- and you're only 19 -- what's happening is that the foundation of the country is the Constitution of the United States, which... Well, the Declaration, the founding document: We are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights -- among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These people see the Obama administration as assaulting all three of those things: life, liberty, people's freedom is being impinged upon. When you impinge upon their economic activity and you impinge upon their ability to produce, examine, provide income for themselves and their family, you are infringing on freedom -- and the pursuit of happiness? There's not a whole lot happiness in America today, have you noticed, no longer where you look?

RUSH: Do you believe that it is proper that people should sacrifice for their government?

RUSH: Yeah. Like this is tax day. It's April 15th. Should we look at April 15th, we all pay our taxes, as a day we are sacrificing for our government?

CALLER: I'd like to think it's a day that we're helping our government. I don't know if that would be the same as what you're saying. I think paying your taxes --

RUSH: Well, it was a little bit of a trick question. Every American will sacrifice for his country. But sacrificing for the government? What is so omnipotent and all-wonderful about government? Does government never make a mistake? Has government replaced God in many people's lives, whatever God you have? Andrew, if you look, starting in 1964, Lyndon Johnson with the Great Society and the War on Poverty, we have spent close to $11 trillion to eradicate poverty in this country -- and the people in poverty, expressed as a percentage, are still the same as in 1964. The ideas that are being tried by Obama today are not new. They failed in the thirties and FDR tried to get us out of the Great Depression. It was World War II that did that, not the New Deal. People know this doesn't work.

Individual prosperity and a growing economy is not the result of a bigger government. It's the result of people like you. You're going to be either in the workforce or soon entering the workforce using whatever desire, ambition, and talent you have to be whatever you want to be and to do it as well or as best as you want. And the idea that after you've invested in yourself and your education and your time and your passion, and after all of that, that somehow you automatically owe people who are not working a portion of your income because that's how "fairness" is defined, is not how a great country progresses. Rather than take from you -- which is going to happen all of your life if Obama gets everything he wants. You're going to be paying taxes like you can't believe, in order to pay for what has already been spent here and is on the books to be spent. What we look at is people who are perhaps not doing as well as they should.

We look at those who are capable as opposed to those who genuinely aren't, who are all willing to help. Those who are capable but aren't need to be inspired somehow. They don't need to be made victims of. We don't need to look at them with pity. We need to look at them as potential, as people who have not been inspired somehow to find the best in America and to be the best they can be. They don't know how good they are! Those of us on the right, conservatives, we love everybody, and we want everybody to experience the marvelous wonders of the freedom this country provides. And the bigger government gets, the tougher it is to achieve, and the more people government wants to make victims that they'll take care of because they're not capable, is destroying those people's lives. Everybody who... All things being equal.

We're not talking about people who have genuine mental disabilities or some other things that limit them. Those people -- we're a compassionate country -- we'll take care of all of them. But if you're genuinely able and a government or a politician or some political belief looks at you and says, "You know, you're just not capable. You're a victim because there are either racists out there or bigots or sexists. We're going to take care of you." The government can't take care of you and make you prosperous. They can keep you dependent, but they can't make you prosperous, and we look at that as destroying people's lives. So these people, rather than inspiring them to be the best they can be... We want a great country. Great country's made up of great people. A great government does not make a great country. Government is not the country. We are the country. We, the people, we're the country. We just want the best for everybody.

RUSH: So this is about people who agree with what I said, to one degree or another, who are genuinely outraged that the obstacles being placed in front of them are becoming larger and larger and larger, and they don't want what President Obama's trying to do to succeed.

RUSH: So protests. Do you ask why ACT UP protests the Catholic Church on condoms? Do you ask why Code Pink protests the US military? Do you ask why anti-globalists will protest world -- what is it? -- world trade, world court, whatever it is, the arbiter of NAFTA? There are all kinds of them. The left owns the public protest as an operational bullet point. Do you ever ask why they're protesting?

CALLER: Because those are... All the things that you said are issues that are issues that I'm not... I can't speak about because I'm not fully aware of them, and I haven't seen them. I have seen people protesting out in front of our post office. I have seen them protesting out in front of the courthouse, things that I know about. These things that you're saying, I haven't seen.

RUSH: Wait, wait. You're talking about, you're seeing people today? You're talking about the tea parties, protesting in front of the post office?

RUSH: Okay. But you have not seen, you have not seen like the Cindy Sheehan-led protests against George W. Bush over the Iraq war? You've not seen...?

RUSH: Why don't...? But you don't question that but you do question these people today who probably many of them for the first time in their lives, Andrew, are protesting? The left-wing, Democrats, liberals and so forth, whatever you call them, they own the public protest as a means of advancing their agenda. The people protesting today, this is a first for most of them.

RUSH: So it's not unfair that they should protest. I mean, they've got a genuine grievance just like the other people protesting think they do.

CALLER: Well, yeah. Like I said in the beginning, I mean, I am -- I am all for people protesting. It's a constitutional right. I just want to know -- and you've helped clear some things up for me, Rush, and I thank you for that. But I just want to know why some of these people who are... I'm driving by and they look so angry, so disappointed, in something that's a hundred days in -- or a little bit over, I'm assuming; a hundred days in -- for a policy that in my mind it seemed to be working. We're hearing things on the news about President Obama meeting with different people who have already seen the positive effects of his policies.

RUSH: Ah. Okay, so you're watching the mainstream media, which are stenographers for the Obama administration. They have cast journalism aside. It isn't working. Andrew, now, honestly. How can you say his plan to rebuild the middle class is working when 600,000 Americans a month lose their jobs? When businesses left and right are closing? When the automobile industry, domestic, is about to shut down? How can you say it's working? Is it working in your personal life? Is your life better off because of the last 70 days?

CALLER: Past 70...? My personal life, no. I'm assuming my parents' life, my grandparents'... I haven't seen any change, really, in my personal life, however, in the past 70 days.

RUSH: Well, I have. (laughing) I have, but I don't want to focus on me, because everybody always does. The answer to this question, "Why are these people protesting, it's only been less than a hundred days," because in their minds if it's this bad after 70 days, "What's it going to be after four years? What's it going to be after a year," and they want to try to slow it down. They know they can't stop it, Andrew, because there aren't enough Republican votes in Washington to stop anything President Obama wants to do.

RUSH: They're trying to slow it down. These people are patriots. They love the country. They love the country as it was founded. Anger and so forth? Hell, I've been angry most of the day here

RUSH: -- over just things that have happened in the news. But anger, by the way, for the past six years has been the exclusive attitude of the American left. Look, I appreciate your call. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you. You're 19, and if there's no stop to this, if it's not deterred, you are going to grow up and start working in an America unlike this country has seen since the thirties. The life that your grandparents or parents live is going to be much, much tougher for you to achieve, and that's by design. Anyway, I must take a quick time-out here. I'm glad you called, Andrew. Thanks. Call back anytime. We will be glad to talk to you.

The smartest approach to the environment? Step up economic growth. In case you did not realize it, the more advanced the nation is, the more eco-friendly that nation is.

Jonah Goldberg writes: One of the most important events of our lifetimes may have just transpired. A federal agency has decided that it has the power to regulate everything, including the air you breathe.

Our green society and our green education system is ruining the childhood of millions of children (and I bet that most liberals do not care, because they think our world is going to end in a few years):

At least Americans have a some sense still, and fear big government more than they fear big business:

Conservative Review
Issue #72	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	April 26, 2009