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.

The photos taken of Air Force One over the Statue of Liberty was first classified as Top Secret and not released. Since then, one photo has been released.

Michael Savage, SF conservative talk show host, is placed on list who are banned from going to England. This list includes Muslim extremists, jailed Russian gang members and an Israeli settler. Savage is on the list for using divisive speech on the radio. Savage considering legal action.

Colin Powell has said that the Republican party has moved too far to the right and that it is unduly influenced by hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh.

A 16 year-old, home schooled child is held under the patriot act. For years, those on the left moaned and groaned that this act would be used to subvert U.S. human rights. This could be the first actual case of that. Ironically, this occurs during the administration of a far-left president.

Obama partially reverses himself on the DC scholarship program. While he does not fully reinstate this program, he will allow it to run its course with the present-day enrollment. However, at this point in time, no new enrollees into this program will be taken.

Not too much of a shock: Nancy Pelosi did hear detailed information about water-boarding, and voiced no objection to it at the time. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was at another of these meetings. Over a dozen Democrats were in on these meetings.

Bank stress tests revealed; many banks, according to our government, need more money for a worst-case scenario. It is warned that if the U.S. government turns its preferred stock into common stock, that the government will be the controlling stockholder in many of our banks.

President Barack Obama proposed on Thursday nearly doubling funds to enforce U.S. tax laws next year, with an aim of more than quadrupling funding for tax compliance to $2.1 billion within five years.

Democrats would not give President Obama $80 million to close Club Gitmo without a plan.

Iran has shelled a Kurdish village in northern Iraq (5/4/09). Iranian helicopters stayed on their side of the border and sent missiles for over two hours today. This event follows similar action on Saturday.

3 more members of the media join Obama’s extended cabinet, making it now a total of 10 former members of the press working under Obama.

George Will, “Obama is less moderate than I thought. He is going to design our cars, our light bulbs. He is going to tell us where our houses should be built. This is supervisory liberalism of the most nagging and annoying sort.”

Stephanopoulos was admiring George Will’s tie and Will remarked, “You may admire my necktie—that is the silhouette of James Madison. This is the tie of the federalist society and when I wear this, sleeper cells all over the country are activated.”

"I will not support any kind of climate change bill... I don't care. Even if you fix this. I don't trust anybody anymore." Democratic Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson.

When comparing President Obama’s $17 billion in budget cuts to the president’s overall budget, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire said, "It's like taking a teaspoon of water out of a bathtub while you keep the spigot on at full speed, and the bathtub continues to fill up."

“I’m going to be Colin Powell’s angry hate monger of the day,” Mark Steyn when filling in for Rush Limbaugh.

James Carville said, “These tea baggers were a bunch of hateful old people.” Bill O’Reilly points out that Carville, born in 1944, is out peddling a book which could be more easily described as hateful than the words and actions of those attending tea parties.

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on Obama’s foreign policy: Obama means well. Just as Jimmy Carter, his policy godfather, meant well. But the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions - coupled with distressing naivete.

George McGovern: After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with -- the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.

UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge argues that perhaps we should McGovernize the legislative and executive branches:

The Obama adminsitration is populated for the most part by community organizers, academics, economists, and financiers. I doubt whether 1 in 100 has shared McGovern's experience of running a small business into which they have risked their life savings.

So here's my idea: We amend the US Constitution's provisions on the qualifications required of a President, Vice President, Senator, and Representative to mandate that they have started a small business into which at least 75% of their net worth was invested and have operated said business for no less than three years in order to be eligible for office. Then they too might be alarmed by government taking control of the basic management decisions that determine business success or failure.

Chris Wallace question, “Are we to believe that the Vice President of the United States is a crackpot?”

The Taliban takes over more and more territory inside Pakistan and it is moving closer and closer to the capitol city.

John Stossel is always interesting; this is his most interesting show, “You Can’t Even Talk About It.”

Here are some of the topics: let’s cancel pregnancy legislation; in order to preserve some species of wild animals, allow them to be eaten, skinned and farmed; let athletes take steroids; and let’s reduce medical benefits to older Americans. Stossel has a knack for finding topics which we all seem to agree on, and he not only takes the other side, but offers reasonable arguments for the other side.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020 (You will have to listen to a commercial to watch it, but you can watch the best quality this way).

As a caveat, Stossel says that older people collect 2–3 times the amount of money which they paid into medicare. However, had that money been invested, it would probably be worth 4–10x its original value (I have no idea if Stossel took inflation or investing into account here).

The GOP is putting out some very good political ads; this is the one about closing Gitmo:

Obama cites Winston Churchill as a man who refused to torture German prisoners. This is a lie, and Bill O’Reilly straightens Obama out (the script is below the tv screen):

I can’t help it; Sarah Silverman cracks me up. How old Jewish people and young Black dudes are alike:

Although this is just one instance of each, there are dozens of videos where the White House media did not stand for George Bush but did stand up when President Obama enters the room:

This was difficult to find; since Holder has talked about possibly prosecuting Bush lawyers, then we need to look back as to what happened in the Clinton administration, and what Holder knew about rendition (I could only find 2 heavily edited Q&A’s):

1) The biggest mistake of the Republican party is not to exploit school choice. Obama and Democrats are against it; and most Republicans and conservatives are for it.

2) Our politicians need to be honest with us about health care: it is expensive, and that is not going to change, no matter who is in office. Health care costs can be reduced, but don’t expect it to be free.

4) America seems to be catching on that global warming (at least, man’s contribution to global warming) is probably a lot of hype, and it scored dead last when compared with 19 other issues, right behind trade policy (yes, that did make me laugh).

5) Now the Republican party needs to put out ads on school choice (although, it would be better if more Republican governors ran more pilot programs on school choice, with the intention of not just giving a better and more appropriate education, but to reduce their state budget).

6) If a liberal politician wants to take a principled stand against Guantanamo Bay and against torture, fine. But, if many of them knew about it years ago, why are they suddenly feigning outrage today? And why won’t Democrats give Obama $80 million to close Gitmo? If it is wrong, then it is wrong; and you do whatever it takes to make it right. Don’t stick your finger in the air to find out that the public does not support you on this, and then change based on changing public opinion polls.

7) One of the things I held back on reporting last week was the allegation that we charged the Japanese with war crimes for waterboarding their prisoners. Quite obviously, it would make very little sense for White House lawyers to okay such a practice if we have prosecuted others for committing the same practice. However, the Japanese forced water into the stomach and lungs of their victims and many of their victims died as a result of their form of waterboarding. Degree is important. Having your car hit by another car at 2 mph is not that big a deal compared to being hit at 40 mph. Credit Ann Coulter for publically explaining the difference between American and Japanese waterboarding.

8) The correct justification for TARP and other forms of bailout are as follows: “We are the government and we screwed up our economic system. We are the problem and we are trying to fix the economy with some more tweaking. Bear in mind, the money all comes out of your pockets [the pockets of the taxpayers]. Remember that the government never actually pays for anything which we have done wrong, inadvertently or on purpose. We do not produce anything and we do not make a profit. We take money from those who do produce and use that money to fix whatever is wrong (in our own estimation). We will continue to give ourselves raises and we will continue to point our fingers at other villains, so you won’t get mad at us and you will vote us back into office.” Unfortunately, no Congressman is going to lay out this justification before you.

9) Since Iran is now attacking Iraq, perhaps it is time to send Hillary Clinton into Iran with a reset button? Or, maybe Obama has not yet apologized enough for the United States?

10) Am I the only one who finds Obama to be supremely arrogant to apologize for U.S. actions in the past? This is self righteousness, pure and simple.

11) Republicans are beginning to question Holder about his knowledge of renditions during the Clinton administration (under Clinton and Holder, detained terrorists were often spirited off to another country so that he could be tortured there).

Obama proposes $17 billion cut for a $3.5 trillion dollar budget. That is ½ of 1% of the budget; and 1/70^th of the deficit for this year.

Obama plans to spend $11,300 for each and every American; I wonder how much an economy would be stimulated if this money was just given to every American?

65 Congressmen have received 40 briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques over the past 7 years. But, suddenly, they find themselves shocked?

Remember that emergency stimulus bill which Obama said we needed to pass immediately? So far, 4% of the money has been spent from that emergency bill.

“All Fort Worth Schools were shut down because of the swine flu scare. They are reopening under the new name, the Joe Biden Independent School District.”

Collin Peterson, a Democrat from Minnesota, opposes Obama’s climate change policy—particularly on giving certain federal agencies carte blanc when it comes to making policy.

Even Democrats know what a mistake cap and trade is, and they are pushing back against Obama’s vision.

[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’ve got to say that President Obama just took chutzpah to a new level—at the podium, talking about going after tax cheats, with Geithner standing right behind him. And then he sends up Geithner to back him up.

EcoAmerica has recognized that people just are not as fired up about global warming as they used to be, so they send out a memo suggesting that we change the vocabulary and use language which will get people hyped up over global warming: Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about "our deteriorating atmosphere." Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past." Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like "cap and cash back" or "pollution reduction refund."

Why are the photos of Air Force One originally classified but you are going to released the photos of the harsh treatment of war prisoners?

You mean, it is possible, in your administration, for some clown to take Air Force One for a spin, and you don’t know about it? And a follow-up question, how is it possible in your white house for someone to take Air Force One out to fly low over New York City and not one single person questions the intelligence of this decision?

Is there anyone in your cabinet who has ever started his or her own business? Is there anyone in your cabinet who has invested their own life savings in a business?

If you think the world has entered into a new state of peace, given Obama’s brilliance and apologies.

It is going to take a long time for history to treat Obama honestly, but, for those who are objective, he is going to rank below Carter. Look for a comeback of the misery index (which much of the mainstream news will ignore).

I would not be shocked if the government, under a greater economic crisis in the near future, changed its preferred stock for common stock and began to set bank policy, as Obama has already done at GM. Obama will, of course, issue public statements saying, “I don’t want to run the banks.”

I think that Obama will either back down on closing Club GItmo or he will simply open another Club Gitmo elsewhere.

I said that, if the far left legislation has its way, then pastor-teachers will not even be able to teach what is in the Bible (that is, that homosexual acts are sinful). I did assume that this would come to pass as a result of legal rulings based upon the legalization of gay marriage. The Democratic legislature cannot wait for that. They want to pass a law:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96595 My guess is, this will cover pastors and religious parents who counsel against homosexual acts. Again, to all my liberal friends who have read 1984, we are moving into the realm of thought crimes.

During the election, the ailing economy—even before it was ailing—was a front page story day after day. However, the ailing economy continues to ail more, but, not as much coverage of it. The coverage is there, but it is not front and center any more.

Months ago, I said that the government will bail out the newspapers. This is under discussion in Congress right now. I suggested that the government may provide a free news service like AP, or pay for AP. Apparently that has not occurred to them yet. Don’t write and suggest it to them. If these dolts can’t think of that bad idea, don’t help them out. What is under consideration is tax breaks and possibly a non-profit status (like churches receive). This makes perfect sense, as they did worship Obama once they recognized his messiahship.

Remember the nightly body count and explosions that we saw on network news. These stories have disappeared from network news, even though some used to argue, they ran the stories because if it bleeds, it leads. Wrong, if it is bad for Obama, it is ignored or buried. If it is good for Obama, then it leads.

Environmentalists are fighting the solar panels in the Mojave Desert and wind farms of the Washington/Oregon border.

Although I never stated this outright, I really expected PAH-kee-stahn to become the new pronunciation of Pakistan, because of the way Obama pronounced the name of this country throughout his campaign run. He has moderated his pronunciation somewhat, so that it is a cross between the conventional way of saying Pakistan and the way that he used to say it.

When dealing with any sort of hate crimes bill, I am automatically against it. I do not want to open the door to thoughts being a crime. I realize that ship has already sailed, but there is no reason to pass any more (we ought to rescind all hate crime bills).

If I choose to hate this or that group of people, that should be my right. Now, if I commit a crime against this class of people, that is different. If I incite others to commit crimes against this class of people, that is different as well.

Our society is swiftly moving to a point where, you need to be careful about expressing what you think. This has been dramatic in the case of Carrie Prejean, Miss California. She expressed timid approval of heterosexual marriages over gay marriages, and she has been attacked and maligned ever since. On a real news station, MSNBC, there was a 5 minute segment on Prejean, which included someone calling her, “Dumb and twisted...this girl is a ding-dong, I didn’t even like her earrings.” Then this commentator starts talking about how Prejean had a sex-change operation and spent some time describing graphically what was done to her. Somehow, this passes for news, but all of this was predicated on Prejean stated her position on gay marriage, which is identical to President Obama’s position on gay marriage.

What happens when anyone else is asked a politically loaded question? The key is not giving the answer which most people agree with (most Americans are against institutionalizing gay marriage), but with giving an answer which is going to cause the fewest attacks. We already know that, if you express any reservations about gay marriage, you will not just be savaged on blogs and youtube, but on cable news as well.

HR 1913 makes it a crime to commit to commit a crime which is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the State, local, or tribal hate crime laws.

Sexual orientation covers a lot of ground, and can include pedophilia and necrophilia. Amendments were introduced to specifically exclude pedophiles, using the argument, “We all know that this law is to protect homosexuals, so it will not be misapplied to other forms of sexual orientation.” But that is the problem with a law—when you lay out in black and white what a law means, you don’t get to argue in court, “This is not what we meant.” The language needs to be included in the bill. The amendment to exclude pedophiles was voted down mostly on a party-line vote.

The Republicans tried something else: there are, on occasion, crimes committed against veterans, and, on occasion, because they are veterans. Why not include them as a protected class? This amendment was also voted down mostly along on party lines.

Murder is despicable, no matter what the reason. Whether motivated by hatred or by a desire for drugs or during the commission of a felony; and we have laws against murder. We do not need to examine a person’s thinking, because if the crime is particularly heinous in nature (e.g., dragging the victim behind a car), ideally speaking, the punishment will match the crime.

Why do our elected officials come up with legislation like this? 2 basic reasons: (1) this appeals to specific constituencies, to keep them voting for Democrats; and (2) when an horrendous crime is committed, almost everyone wants to do something about it. Legislators simply pass another law, because that is what they do.

Just in case you don’t think this kind of legislation is not misapplied, a 73 year old woman who passed out Christian tracts at a homosexual gathering was arrested in Philadelphia.

I believe, as do many other Christians, that homosexual acts are immoral and this is clearly taught in the Bible. Hate crimes legislation has already been used to persecute ministers who teach from the Bible. Even a civil suit can be problematic for a small church.

Finally, John Boehner (R-Ohio) argues that this kind of legislation places a higher value on some lives compared to others, which is simply unconstitutional.

This is an active issue; when you contact a Congressman or Senator, there are a few of them who will actually listen to you.

•Obama's first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus," cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years - $1.2 trillion vs. $650 billion.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise of "a net spending cut," his first annual deficit - not counting bailouts - being three times the worst deficit under President George W. Bush.

•Obama's objective in his first G20 summit - commitments to spend our way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 - was rejected out of hand.

•Obama's objective in his first NATO summit - commitments to combat troops for Afghanistan from "our European allies," which Obama and his party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone "enlightened" like him were running things - was predictably refused, with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.

•Obama's Defence Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile defence, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range, multi-stage ballistic missile.

•Obama's economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement had been candidate Obama's highest economic credential.

•Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100 Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90 American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.

•Obama's "tax cuts for 95 per cent" turned out to mean $13 a week from June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January - as compared with President Bush's 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus $300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election campaign by Michelle Obama.

•Obama's campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for businesses that hired new workers - repeated ad nauseam for weeks before the election - was discreetly retired even before inauguration day.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise that "lobbyists won't work in my White House," waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently re-defining his appointees' past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists into his administration.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.

•Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 - over $100,000 - and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras "shaking with outrage" and siccing the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by Obama's own legislation.

BRET BAIER, "SPECIAL REPORT" HOST: So what of the "Keep Terrorists out of America Act," its prospects, and the prospects of closing Guantanamo Bay?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I love the name of the bill. Imagine if you have to vote against the "Keep Terrorists out of America Act."

And, you know, the mainstream media portraying this as Republicans desperately seizing on an issue as a way to embarrass the Obama administration. Well, that's what an opposition does. And it isn't as if terrorists running around in America is not a serious issue.

But I think what is really interesting about it, and the reason it is going to get traction, is because it symbolizes the degree to which Democrats were hypocritical and irresponsible in attacking the Bush administration and all the measures it took in keeping us safe in the War on Terror.

For example, the wiretapping, which it attacked as a trashing of the constitution, is now being continued. We have the rendition policy, an attack on human rights, is also being continued. The military commissions, which Obama himself had said had been a failure, all of a sudden the Obama administration is resurrecting it.

Obama's idea is we are safer if the world likes us, and that's why you have to close Guantanamo and do all these other nice things. Now we're going to see whether the closing of Guantanamo is going to reduce the recruiting of terrorists, is going to make our allies help us in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and will make us more safe.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The way to make American business competitive is not to let some citizens and businesses dodge their responsibilities while ordinary Americans pick up the slack.

MARTY REGALIA, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ECONOMIST: The middle ground would be to sit back, take a careful look at the tax code in its entirety, and try to put together a tax code that will raise federal revenues while at the same time promoting economic growth and job growth.

Unfortunately, that can't be done with campaign rhetoric. It's going to take a reasoned, thorough look. And I don't think this administration really has an appetite for that.

BAIER: The president today, with his treasury secretary and IRS commissioner at his side, said he wants to close tax loopholes. He says he can collect $210 billion over the next ten years in new revenue, and he wants 800 more IRS agents to do it.

Let's bring in our panel, Jeff Birnbaum, managing editor digital of "The Washington Times," Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer- Jeff?

JEFF BIRNBAUM, MANAGING EDITOR DIGITAL, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": That old chestnut, it keeps coming back. We hear this every two years after an election, that loopholes can be closed, that, in particular, these tax havens can be shut down.

The only problem with tax havens is it requires cooperation of the other countries rather than us. There is not much we can do about these, except, as President Obama suggests, reversing the burden of proof so that people are considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent for sheltering taxes overseas. That's not going to happen.

And even more, the bigger part of this proposal, which is to change foreign tax - the foreign tax credit scheme, the most complicated part of the U.S. income tax.

It will unquestionably change the amount of money that multi- national companies based here will have to pay to Uncle Sam, making us, our companies, much less competitive overseas, while at the same time not creating any new jobs in this country.

I know that's the way the president proposed this, but, in fact, extending the research credit for our companies is going to happen anyway, whether he wants to or not.

So it would lose jobs overseas and not create them here. Even the Senate Finance Committee Chairman said this has to be restudied. It's not going to pass in congress.

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Yes. And also, the last time that the president tried to get something through Congress that business didn't like, which was this mortgage cram down proposal where bankruptcy judges could change the amount of money that somebody owes on their mortgage, he lost. So this is not a slam dunk, even though he does have a big Democratic majority now in both houses.

He did say, however, that this was the down payment on bigger tax reform. And that's a pretty interesting idea, that somehow or other, he would get everybody together and really figure out a plan to make the tax codes simpler and fairer.

Whether it would bring in more revenue or not is a separate issue. But if he is planning to do that in the next year or two, that could be a big deal.

BAIER: Charles, the pushback was quick. Not only Max Baucus, you had the GOP, of course, the Senate Leader Mitch McConnell warning that this gives preferential treatment to foreign companies and hurts U.S. job creation.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It does. But the economics of it are as bad as Jeff outlined.

The politics, however, are wonderful. I mean, first of all, Obama is sort of living out the Bill Clinton idea that he wakes up every morning finding a new way to help the American people. Every day you turn on your television, and there's Obama with a new idea that he's presenting, always himself, that is going to help America.

Secondly, who understands what these loopholes really are? This is extremely complicated stuff. And, as he presents it, who can be against tax haven or a tax loophole?

But the problem is that when we had real tax reform in 1986, what we had was a trade-off - a reduction of loopholes, which in and of themselves introduced inefficiency, but at the same time, in return, a reduction in overall rates, which also increase economic efficiency(sic).

With Obama, all you get is the so-called the closing of loopholes. One of the reasons that you have all these loopholes and these havens are sought is because America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the west. And that's why companies are looking for some kind of relief.

So instead of having a combination of closing loopholes and reducing rates, Obama is always is for increasing his revenue and stopping there, and promising that it's only a down payment for the future. I will believe the future when I see it.

LIASSON: Obama during the campaign did say he would be open to a deal where he would reduce corporate income tax rates in exchange for bigger tax reform. And he did say that again at the White House today.

LIASSON: That would have to be part of a bigger deal. But he has said that several times, that he's -

KRAUTHAMMER: But why is it that half of it is always kicked out into the indefinite future.

BIRNBAUM: The last time this happened was in 1986. And that was a rare moment where the government did not need to raise huge amounts of money to reduce a federal budget deficit.

The opposite is the case now. What's needed is a broad tax change that raises more revenue. And that's a much more difficult plight.

LIASSON: I don't think so, except a lot of companies who have these tax havens are getting TARP money. Maybe there's some leverage there for the White House.

BAIER: OK, with the Taliban stirring up trouble in Pakistan, are the country's nuclear weapons safe? The panel addresses the possibility of loose nukes, next.

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: We all recognize, obviously, the worst downside of - with respect to Pakistan is that those nuclear weapons come under control of terrorists.

I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see that in any way imminent whatsoever at this particular point in time.

But it is a strategic concern that we all share. And I'm comfortable that the military leadership, in particular, is capable of dealing with that particular issue right now.

BAIER: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs saying he is gravely concerned about the progress the Taliban has made inside Pakistan as that country continues to deal with the turmoil just 60 miles from the capital.

KRAUTHAMMER: Those words are hardly reassuring. You notice all the times that he was saying "right now," "it's not imminent at this point in time." Well, that implies that in two weeks or two months or six months, we're not sure.

This really is a dangerous situation. We're really as we were in Iran in 1979, except that there are nukes involved here. And in Iran, we equivocated. We did not support the Shah. We looked for so called moderates, and in the end we ended up with radicals in control, which is what we have today.

There is this talk in the administration trying to cozy up to the opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif, who's a dicey guy. He has a lot of ties with Islamists. He is not a reliable ally. He's actually probably a little bit stronger than the current president right now. But I'm not sure he's a good bet. I think our real bet in the - ultimately is going to be the army chief of staff, Kayani. Trained in the United States, we assume he's a friendly. All of the evidence is that he is.

And, in the end, with the army the only institution that works in Pakistan, we have to make contingencies for easing into probably a military government within a short time if the civilians lose control, as appears to be happening.

LIASSON: Yes, look, this is a really scary situation. I mean, there are reports that the United States has no idea where a lot of the Pakistani nuclear sites are. We don't even know where their weapons are.

And when the president was asked about this last week at the press conference, he said "I'm confident we can make these weapons secure." He didn't say "I'm confident that they are secure."

And this is a very fragile situation. And, hopefully, the Pakistani military can fight off the Taliban. But they haven't been doing such a great job.

BAIER: You know, Secretary of State Clinton testified that the president was confident based on assurances by the Pakistani government, a government that is -

BIRNBAUM: The real focus here has to be on the Pakistani military. The military in Pakistan is a highly professionalized group with very strong ties to the U.S. and the west.

If the military hangs together, and, hopefully, with the government there, but together, they can actually protect the nuclear weapons. And they probably know where the nuclear weapons are, unlike us.

And that, I think, is the focus of a lot of U.S. strategizing in that region, to make sure that there is military to military conversation protecting those nukes, because there is no guarantee that the government will hold together at all, even though President Obama this week will be meeting with the president of Pakistan.

BAIER: General David Petraeus last week, James Rosen reported, that he essentially gave two weeks before the government to really step up against the Taliban.

Look, we have one major asset in that region, and that's India. There's one country with a larger interest in the nukes staying in control in Pakistan than the United States, it's India, which, of course, would be a target. India, presumably, has excellent intelligence in that area, and India has a very strong interest in keeping those nukes safe.

So we ought to be working on contingencies with our ally India to seize or destroy these nuclear sites if the worst scenario happens in which the government collapses and the bad guys come into possession of the military assets.

BIRNBAUM: There's a danger of an intervention here that could be a problem - the Congress of the United States, they're thing of appropriating $1.5 billion a year for the next ten years. If they do so, they may also add all sorts of benchmarks and try to fiddle with the internal workings of Pakistan, which is not a very good idea.

1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11

2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.

4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!

5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15

6. "Mr. Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the 'teleprompt president' over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." -- Sky News, 3/18

7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.

8. Obama taps Nancy Killefer for a new administration job, First Chief Performance Officer -- to police government spending. But it surfaces that Killefer had performance issues of her own -- a tax lien was slapped on her DC home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew.

9. Turkey tried to block the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new NATO secretary general because he didn't properly punish the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed. France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel were outraged; Obama said he supported Turkey's induction into the European Union.

Liberals try to disguise the utter wussification of our interrogation techniques by constantly prattling on about "the banality of evil."

Start with the fact that the average Gitmo detainee has gained 20 pounds in captivity. There's even a medical term for it now: "the Gitmo gut." Some prisoners have been heard whispering, "If you think Allah is great, you should try these dinner rolls."

In terms of "torture," there was "the attention grasp," which you have seen in every department store you have ever been where a mother was trying to get her misbehaving child's attention. If "the attention grasp" doesn't work, the interrogators issue a stern warning: "Don't make me pull this car over."

Farther up the parade of horribles was "walling," which I will not describe except to say Elliot Spitzer paid extra for it.

And for the most hardened terrorists, CIA interrogators had "the caterpillar." Evidently, the terrorists have gotten so fat on the food at Guantanamo, now they can't even outrun a caterpillar.

Contrary to MSNBC hosts who are afraid of bugs, water and their own shadows, waterboarding was most definitely not a "war crime" for which the Japanese were prosecuted after World War II -- no matter how many times Mrs. Jonathan Turley, professor of cooking at George Washington University, says so.

All MSNBC hosts and guests were apparently reading "Little Women" rather than military books as children and therefore can be easily fooled about Japanese war crimes. (MSNBC: The Official Drama Queen Network of the 2012 Olympics.)

Given what the Japanese did to prisoners, waterboarding would be a reward for good behavior.

It might be: waterboarding PLUS amputating the prisoner's healthy arm, or waterboarding PLUS killing the prisoner. But waterboarding on the order of what we did at Guantanamo would be a reward in a Japanese POW camp.

To claim that the Japanese -- architects of the Bataan Death March -- were prosecuted for "waterboarding" would be like saying Ted Bundy was executed for engaging in sexual harassment.

What the Japanese did to their POWs made even the Nazis blanch. The Japanese routinely beheaded and bayoneted prisoners; forced prisoners to dig their own graves and then buried them alive; amputated prisoners' healthy arms and legs, one by one, for sport; force-fed prisoners dry rice and then filled their stomachs with water until their bowels exploded; and injected them with chemical weapons in order to observe, time and record their death throes before dumping them in mass graves.

While only 4 percent of British and American troops captured by German or Italian forces died in captivity, 27 percent of British and American POWs captured by the Japanese died in captivity. Japanese war crimes were so atrocious that even rape was treated as only a secondary war crime in the Tokyo trial, similar to what happens during an R. Kelly trial.

The Japanese "water cure" was to "waterboarding" as practiced at Guantanamo what rape at knifepoint is to calling your secretary "honey."

The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.

Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death.

Meanwhile, the alleged "torture" under the Bush administration consists of things like:

Finding out who started the tall tale about "waterboarding" being treated as a war crime after World War II would take the talents of a forensic historian, someone like Christina Hoff Sommers.

After years of hearing the feminist "fact" that emergency room admissions for women beaten by their husbands soared by 40 percent on Super Bowl Sundays, Sommers traced it back to an unsubstantiated rumination erupting from a feminist rap session.

But the lunatic claim was passed around with increasing credibility until it ended up being cited as hard fact in The New York Times, The Boston Globe and on "Good Morning America."

One of the earliest entries in the "waterboarding as war crimes" myth must be this October 2006 article in The Washington Post, citing a case raised by Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- and heaven knows Kennedy understands the horrors of a near-drowning:

"Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk."

Even if that description of what Asano did were true -- and it isn't -- the only relevant word in the entire paragraph is "civilian."

Any mistreatment of a civilian is a war crime. So every other part of that paragraph is utterly irrelevant to the treatment of prisoners of war, much less non-uniformed enemy combatants at Guantanamo, who could have been shot on sight under the laws of war.

What Americans need to understand is that under liberals' own "laws of war," they will invent apocryphal incidents from history in order to give aid and comfort to America's enemies and to undermine those who kept us safe for the past eight years.

"it was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009

"No, no. I have been practicing...I bowled a 129. It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something." --making an off-hand joke during an appearance on "The Tonight Show", March 19, 2009 (Obama later called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize)

"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances." --after saying he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepared to take office, Washington, D.C., Nov. 7, 2008 (Obama later called Nancy Reagan to apologize)

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

"What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who jumped in to correct Obama by saying "your Christian faith," which Obama quickly clarified (Watch video clip)

"I'm here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis." --speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

"Let me introduce to you the next President -- the next Vice President of the United States of America, Joe Biden." --slipping up while introducing Joe Biden at their first joint campaign rally, Springfield, Illinois, Aug. 23, 2008

"Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee -- which is my committee -- a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon." --referring to a committee he is not on, Sderot, Israel, July 23, 2008

"Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under a McCain...administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel's under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change." --Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

"Hold on one second, sweetie, we're going to do -- we'll do a press avail." --to a female reporter for ABC's Detroit affiliate who asked about his plan to help American autoworkers (Watch video clip)

"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon (Watch video clip)

"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" --after being asked a foreign policy question by a reporter while visiting a diner in Pennsylvania

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." --explaining his troubles winning over some working-class voters

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions." --exasperated by reporters after a news conference

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." --on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people.

Is there anything the government ought not to do on our behalf? Free cars from the government (which may include a AAA membership) in Massachusetts. If you want to make the logical argument, poor people need to get to work as well; how can they get to work without a car? Can you guess whether this governor has an R or a D next to his name?

Another example of why we conservatives oppose big government. Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is cutting some wages of union employees who are health workers. Given California’s precarious financial situation, Arnold and the California legislature needs to start making dramatic cuts. So, Obama has threatened to withhold $6.8 billion of stimulus money to California if Schwarzenegger makes these cuts. Bear in mind, this $6.8 billion belonged to Californians and California businesses in the first place (more or less). This is just another example of President Obama micro-managing everything that he can.

Another reason why you give government as little money as possible. Otherwise, they will just spend it on porn and horse manure.

Do you recall how far left a liberal George McGovern was? He has changed considerably, now that he has gone out into the real world:

Terror suspects in Great Britain get job benefits. This article reads, in part, In the latest example of soft-touch Britain, 22 out of 23 extremists who applied for the state benefit received it.

Yet none of them is available for work. Severe restrictions are placed on their movement because they are deemed a risk to national security.

Obama is reigning as a thug dictator (excellent article from an excellent website):

16 year-old arrested and held under the patriot act (this means without due process):

Environmentalists continue to attack green energy (how come greenies are never branded as the party of no?):

[This is hilarious; MSNBC, in another attempt to approximate news, wonder if the recession is over because Obama and Biden are out there buying hamburgers]

RUSH: Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, a thrill and a delight to be with you. Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program today. 800-282-2882, the e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.

RUSH: It was breaking news on MSNBC earlier this afternoon. They stopped in the middle of Andrea Mitchell's show for this just in!

MITCHELL: It strikes me that this is not the usual lunch joint for the president and the vice president of the United States.

O'DONNELL: -- they didn't want the fancy china and the wonderful creations of the White House kitchen --which, as you know, are fantastic. Uh, but this certainly gets him out into the neighborhood, and it's got that sort of, uh, real guy kind of quality.

RUSH: And those two real guys, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, left behind the fancy food at the White House. They went to a burger joint in Arlington, Virginia -- and what's-her-face, Kelly O'Donnell just happened to be along for the ride to report on the real guys and how they're out there at the burger joint. The only thing is: Did they use the public restroom, Kelly? Can you tell us if they went in there and washed their hands or used the public restroom? Imagine if they had done that! Well, that would really be real guys. Did they do that? Did they use the drive-thru? Did they actually walk in? Did they sit down inside the burger joint? Did they actually pay for it? Or was it comped? Kelly O'Donnell, who's at the burger joint, then added this, in this breathless breaking news event.

O'DONNELL: One of the things that we have been talking about, of course, uh, does deal with Ben Bernanke, who indicates that consumer spending is picking up a bit -- and perhaps the president O'Donnell pulling out a few dollars of his own pocket is another indication of that. Uh, Bernanke was telling members of Congress that the recession is likely to bottom out and then begin to end.

RUSH: Did I just hear what I think I just heard? Here. I have the transcript here. This is what Kelly O'Donnell said. "One of the things we've been talking about, of course, does deal with Ben Bernanke, who indicates consumer spending is picking up. Perhaps the president pulling a few dollars out of his own pockets is another indication of..." She did say that. She said that? The fact that Obama left behind a $75 to a $100 lunch at the White House and went and had an eight-dollar burger is a sign that the economy's bottomed out? She said that? Play it again. I know it's what the transcript says, but I can't believe that she actually said it.

O'DONNELL: One of the things that we have been talking about, of course, uh, does deal with Ben Bernanke, who indicates that consumer spending is picking up a bit -- and perhaps the president pulling out a few dollars of his own pocket is another indication of that. Uh, Bernanke was telling members of Congress that the recession is likely to bottom out and then begin to end.

RUSH: She did say that. The president makes $400,000 a year. Now, according to Kelly O'Donnell, he's been hoarding his money. But now he felt like maybe the economy was coming back enough that he could leave the White House and the $100-a-pound Kobe beef, and go out and get a burger with Plugs Biden at a burger joint? And this is a sign the economy's coming back? This makes me want to puke. This makes me want to throw up. You know, it makes me want to just say, "To hell with this, folks! Play a tape, I'm going home. I got guests coming in tomorrow. I got 16 more guests coming in tomorrow. I got lots to do, to hell with this." For crying out loud, can I...?

Hey, Kelly? Can I tell you how much money it costs me to fly to and from Washington tomorrow so maybe you could say I'm a sign the economy is coming back? Maybe, Kelly, you could say that I'm a sign the economy never went sour. Obama leaves the White House, goes and gets a burger with Biden, and it's a sign the economy is coming back because Bernanke says so? I know the Dow is down 37, but that's good. We want Wall Street to get creamed. Obama wants Wall Street to get creamed. Not "we;" Obama wants Wall Street to get creamed. He's in the process of creaming Wall Street. I'm sorry, folks, I'm sitting here in stunned disbelief. This is not even clever. I mean, I understand what they're trying to do.

Obama shows the economy, he's leading. He's showing leadership. It's okay now for you to go to a burger joint, because, what, before we were sitting at home eating because everybody can barely afford Campbell's cream of tomato soup, but now that Obama went without with Biden to get a burger we can all go out to Jack-in-the-Box or whatever? Damn! This is embarrassing.

[Here’s the video—remember, this is a real news station and this is, ostensibly, a real news report]

RUSH: I'm going to get to Chrysler. I'm going to get to Thomas Lauria. Lauria was on Fox this morning. Somebody's leaning on him. He won't confirm what he said yesterday. He offered no comment, but he did in a roundabout day end up confirming it later in the interview with Megyn Kelly. And we find out that Obama's whole plan to give the union 55% of Chrysler is unconstitutional. It's in the Fifth Amendment. It is unconstitutional. You can't take something without proper compensation, and proper compensation's not 30 cents on the dollar. There's a golden opportunity to blow up this sky-high. The United Auto Workers Union said, "Weeeell, we don't even want the company."

Have you heard this? The United Auto Workers said, "No, we don't even want the company." They have no intention of keeping their 55% stake in the new Chrysler. They're going to sell those shares in order to pay for a trust, to fund a trust that will take over their health care costs next year! It is so obvious what happened here. "Return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners." This was Obama once again jamming Wall Street, jamming the private sector, jamming investors and saying, "You guys take it on the chin! You've had a free ride for way too long in this country. People that supported me and gave me money, they're going to get paid back," and so 55% of this company, 55% of Chrysler is going to go to fund their health care trust.

Pure payback. Now, stop and think of the ramifications of that. We've all known that politicians pay people back. But this goes far beyond anything that we have recent experience with.

RUSH: I want to go to Thomas Lauria, who is a lawyer for the hedge fund. I'm having a mental block on the name of this group. But this is the one Obama publicly crucified last Friday, Thursday, whatever it was, whenever he announced the Chrysler bailout. And Thomas Lauria last Friday afternoon said that he was told by the White House that if his client did not go along with the bailout, that White House would sic the White House press corps on his client and destroy their reputation. So Thomas Lauria, the Chrysler creditors' lawyer -- a big Democrat contributor, big Democrat voter -- appeared with Megyn Kelly today on Fox News Channel. She said, "Let me cut to the chase here. I know that the White House has denied it. Do you stand by your initial statement that the White House threatened your clients if they did not go along with the White House deal? Were they pressured by the White House?"

LAURIA: The pressure has been, uh, I guess, indirect. Uh, they all felt like they were kind of, uh, called out by President Obama when he made his announcement in the bankruptcy last Thursday, specifically referring to as the, uh, "speculators."

RUSH: Megyn Kelly said, "Now, you remember President Obama saying, 'I do not stand with them.' Were you warned this was going to happen unless you went along?"

LAURIA: Totally surprised. I mean, I -- I -- I've been, you know, in this practice area for almost 23 years, and, uh, you know, every time you think that you've seen everything, you see something new. And, uh, I can tell you for sure that I have never, uhhh, been representing creditors or any stakeholder in a bankruptcy case or restructuring and, uh, been called out directly by the president of the United States.

RUSH: Next question: "Are you worried about death threats?" By the way, this hedge fund, whatever the name -- yeah, Perella Weinberg Partners -- they are getting death threats now. Perella Weinberg Partners getting death threats. It's probably ACORN people, just like they were harassing the AIG people. I'm sure it's coordinated. Obama has the network in place to do this. And so Megyn Kelly says, "Are you worried about death threats? Do you think that they have a handle here on the consequences of their remarks at the White House?"

LAURIA: I hope they do. You know, we've -- we've tried to communicate that. We've told the bankruptcy court, we're -- we're required, under the bankruptcy law, to make a disclosure of who our clients are, and we're going to be asking that we be able to file that disclosure under seal, laying out the, uh, issues and threats that some of my, uh, clients have been confronted with.

KELLY: Okay, let me ask you one more because I know you're in a position where you don't want to contradict your client but I want to ask you this. The White House has now come out and essentially called you a liar, because you earlier said that they made direct threats against one of your clients and they have said, and I quote that, that is "completely untrue."

LAURIA: I really don't want to comment but I'm sure that if people keep pressing, the truth is going to come out.

RUSH: Now, that's how the interview started. She asked him, "Do you want to confirm this?" He said, "I'm not. I'm not commenting on it anymore. I'm not commenting on it anymore." One of two things happened. Apparently his firm, his law firm told him to back off for supposed ethical reasons. Others have said the clients have asked him to back off because they were getting death threats, but there at the end of his statement he says, "I'll tell you if people keep pressing, the truth will come out." If you don't let this go, if you keep after me, I'm going to have no choice: the truth will come out here. So what he's saying, he's sending his own message. He's saying, "Don't mess with me. I'll go back on the record again, no matter what the consequences." I heard him say that the White House press reports were BS, that there were negotiations going into the middle of the night. There weren't. He was sitting by his phone after having made a commercially reasonable offer.

He got no phone call. There weren't negotiations. This was Obama pushing a button. This was Obama forcing the deal on these people. The White House favored one group of pension fund holders (the unions) over another, they demonized the creditor merely for making an offer. That's when Obama stood up and said, "These people wouldn't sacrifice! They stood in the way. They weren't sacrificing like everybody else." Well, the union was not sacrificing. Union had 55% of the deal. We're looking here at a thugocracy in the White House. This is not the first time. They came after me; they've gone after other people by name. They've gone after this lawyer now, Thomas Lauria. They've gone after the AIG people, and encouraged their minions to go protest at their homes. We've literally got a thugocracy that is operating out of the White House.

RUSH: Two related stories. This is from St. Louis, Missouri, the Fox affiliate there, KTVI, Channel 2: "Officials from Boeing and the Machinists Union, are warning that the proposed Pentagon budget could result in the loss of 30,000 jobs in the St. Louis area over the next three years. The budget stops production of the C-17 cargo plane, and cuts production of the F-18 fighter by [25%]. Nine hundred Boeing workers here work on the C-17, while 5,000 work assembling various versions of the F-18." Okay, so, St. Louis, Boeing says -- machinists union says -- 30,000 jobs in St. Louis lost over the next three years with Pentagon budget cuts.

Then you come to this story, from Reuters: "President Barack Obama's Defense Department plans to create 20,000 new jobs to manage a revamp of the way the United States buys billions of dollars of weapons each year, the Pentagon's No. 2 official told Congress. The Pentagon also plans to tie more contract fee structures to performance and will make sure that multiyear contracts are awarded only when 'real, substantial' savings result to taxpayers..." So all of these budget cuts that we keep hearing about, most of them are in defense. So we're going to lay off 30,000 people or they're going to lose their jobs in St. Louis working for Boeing, but 20,000 bureaucrats are going to be hired at the Pentagon to expand the Barack Obama police state.

And if you didn't know what was going on in St. Louis, you'd say, "Oh, Pentagon planning on 20,000 new jobs? Oh, Obama's investing in defense! Obama's investing in defense. This is absolutely fabulous." No, he's not. He's investing in bureaucracy. He's investing in absolutely more money and more people to be in the Pentagon bureaucracy. He is not expanding the Defense Department. Speaking of all this, let's go to the audio sound bites. We'll start here. This is February 3rd this year in Washington during the announcement that Senator Judd Gregg would be Obama's Commerce secretary nominee. President Obama said this.

OBAMA: The vast majority of the investments in the plan will be made within the next 18 months, immediately creating jobs and helping states avoid painful tax hikes and cuts to essential services. And every dime of the spending will be made available to the public on Recovery.gov so every American can see where their tax dollars are going.

RUSH: Right. All right. Now, let's go to forward to February 9th, six days later. Elkhart, Indiana, town meeting. After his opening remarks, an unidentified female audience member had an exchange with Obama, and she said my question to you is, "Sir, when you allocate the money for Elkhart, Indiana, will it come directly into Elkhart, or is it going to have to go around somewhere else?"

OBAMA: We're actually going to set up something called Recovery.gov. This is going to be a special website that we set up that gives you a report on where the money is going in your community, how it's being spent, how many jobs it's (sic) being created, so that all of you can be the eyes and ears; and if you see that a project is not working the way it's supposed to, you'll be able to get on that website and say, "You know, I -- I -- I thought this was supposed to be going to school construction, but, uhhhh, all -- I haven't noticed any changes being made."

RUSH: All right, so we were all supposed to be policemen, essentially. We were going to be able to go to this website, Recovery.gov, and we were going to be able to see how all the stimulus money was being spent. Ah, ah, ah! Not so fast. From USA Today "Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track "'every dime' of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring -- halfway through the program, administration officials said. Recovery.gov now lists programs being funded by the stimulus money, but provides no details on who received the grants and contracts. Agencies won't report that data until Oct. 10, according to Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which manages the website." So October 10th is the first chance anybody will have to see this. It won't be 'til next year. So once again it's smoke and mirrors. But it doesn't matter. I know it doesn't matter. It's just what he says and how he says it. It doesn't matter the details. So, once again, another promise or another claim or another assuredness or whatever. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all just 100% BS.

CALLER: I was wondering, yesterday I heard on the news about this Obama administration going after some of these offshore accounts.

CALLER: I'm wondering if you could shed some light on that. He's going after businesses and individuals. Could you expand on that?

RUSH: Very simple. It's very, very simple. You don't even need to understand the details. You need to understand how Obama looks at businesses and individuals in this country. They exist to fund the government and any opportunity that anybody takes, even within the law, to limit their tax liability, he's going to find 'em and he's gonna change it. He refers to offshore tax havens and loopholes. These are not havens and loopholes. They are laws. There's a reason that some companies do business overseas. Labor is cheaper, their market is over there, or what have you. Here's what you have to understand, all this is, Jan, and it's delivered, by the way, in the kind of language that's designed to please the little guy. These people, these companies are cheating America. They're avoiding their taxes. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the civilized, westernized, industrialized world. It is standard operating procedure that when there are tax laws that you can take advantage of that you take advantage of them.

All this is is a massive tax increase and the supposed beneficiaries of all this, employees, the little guy employees, they are the ones that are going to get hurt. Liberalism's prescriptions always hurt the people intended to be helped. What Obama should be doing and what he should have announced in January is a cut in the corporate tax rate and a suspension of the capital gains rate. This would have incentivized all kinds of investment and purchase of stock, equities, assets, in American businesses. It would have given them more capital to expand and higher. But that's not his objective. His objective is to control as much of it as possible. He wants to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners and American corporations have way too much of America's wealth and they've come by it by cheating people and fleecing people and Obama's going to get even with them. This is going to cause employment in other countries, allied countries to be lost. The Brits are already concerned about jobs lost because of this. This is just a tax increase, pure and simple, Jan, nothing more.

RUSH: To the phones, to Houston, this is A.J., great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, Rush, I'm trying to figure out this so-called president. The black kids in Washington, what are these kids going to do about these school vouchers now? His kids ain't going through this. Why is he sending these kids through these changes, Rush, and taking this money away from these kids in Washington? Now them kids going to have to go back to a public school. A lady was on Fox this morning, man, she was livid. The kid was about to graduate and the kid got (unintelligible). She's gotta work two or three jobs now just to go and pay to get this done. But even with that she's working to pay it anyway, but why are they taking money?

RUSH: A.J., let me jump in here, because there's something that you don't know. This was just posted 35 minutes ago --

RUSH: As of 35 minutes ago. I want to share the details with you. Your premise is exactly right. Obama proposes extending the DC voucher program. "President Obama will seek to extend the controversial --" there's nothing controversial about it. It works! "-- the controversial DC school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted." So he's still going to kill the program, A.J., but he's going to let it continue until everybody in it graduates. "Education Secretary Arne Duncan had told reporters that it didn't make sense 'to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning,'" but Obama did it anyway. Now, this is a flip-flop, a temporary flip-flop. But let me tell you what this program is. This is basically a voucher program where the children of inner-city parents can escape to good, qualified schools, and they are doing it, and they are getting great grades. They're doing great and the kids love the schools they're able to go to.

Well, of course, no liberal is going to put up with this. That's why Obama canceled it. The results don't matter. Well, in this case, they actually do, because this is embarrassing the public school system. Can I give you a theory? People say, "Why do they want to keep these inner-city schools open? Why do they want to keep inner cities in the blight circumstances that they're in?" Well, guess what happens to communities like that? People who can move out do. And what are you left with? A solid Democrat voter base. It's all about votes. It's not about educating kids. It's all about turning as many cities into Detroit as they can. That's what it's about. There is no commonsense reason in the world to close down a school where inner-city minority kids are excelling, no reason, unless it poses a threat to you. "Well, Rush, how would that pose a threat?" Well, educated people pose a threat to liberalism anyway. But the key here is that in these inner-city areas of cities, what do you think the voting percentages are, Democrat versus Republican? How many Republicans or conservatives do you think are going to sit around and live there?

They move out. It's happened in Detroit, it's happening in Michigan, it's happening in New York, it happened in New Orleans. They move out. It's not a race thing. It's an economics thing. People just move out. They go to places where there's a better quality of life. And when that happens, what you're left with is a solid Democrat voting city, community, state, what have you. So all hell was raised over canceling the DC voucher program 'cause it worked. So Obama's done a flip-flop and he's gonna let every kid in it, going to keep the program open 'til every kid graduates. Then he's going to shut it down, to which I have a question. Either vouchers work or they don't. Either they work or they don't. Obama doesn't believe in them. He wants to shut the voucher program down. He's said so. He doesn't believe in the voucher program. So why would he continue this program if it's a bad thing? He believes it's a bad thing. He says he believes it's a bad thing. If it's a bad thing, if it doesn't serve a purpose, in his view, he ought to cancel it, he should stick with the cancellation because he doesn't think this is a good program. Period. He's not concerned with the disruption to the kids here. I'll tell you what this is about. (interruption) What do you think it's about? Partially, public relations propaganda. But let's be specific because everything with Obama is a PR, propaganda.

What Barack Obama is worried about is that the black population will discover he really doesn't care about them. And that was starting to happen. You have parents of black kids who love this school, who love the whole concept in Washington, and their kids are excelling. A.J., from Houston, why is he doing this? He calls here. Why is he shutting the school? Doesn't make sense. The parents love it, people have heard about it, think it's great. And he is going to shut it down. Now he's going to let it stay open 'til everybody in it graduates. Then the parents will go away because after their kids have graduated, the parents go away, there are no new enrollees so no new parents to get mad, so the current parents that are mad and don't understand why we'd shut it down are happy, their kids go to school 'til they graduate, then you shut it down and there's nobody unhappy. What Obama has to do here is to make sure that the black population does not figure out that he really doesn't care about them, that they're just pawns.

You have to ask yourself this question. How in the world have we gotten to the point where a program that does not only a great job of educating children, but a better job of educating children, how have we gotten to the point where a program that does a better job of educating black children with less money than public schools is considered controversial? How in the hell have we gotten there? And how in the hell have we gotten to the point where a school that educates poor black kids better and cheaper, that that poses a threat to somebody and the school has to be shut down? How in the world have we gotten to this point? These kids going to these voucher schools have a great chance, at least a greater chance to succeed. Doctors, lawyers, hedge funds. And Michelle Obama is telling them, don't do that, don't do that, don't become doctors, don't become lawyers, don't become hedge funds, stay in your community and be a nurse, a community organizer, or what have you. And so you might say the worst thing the Obamas can have is an educated underclass because they don't want them escaping the underclass, regardless their race.

Somebody else is going to have to explain it to me if that's not right because I don't know how we've gotten to the point where I thought the whole point here was inferior urban schools and that was unfair, it was racist, it was bigoted, so here's a plan to elevate them, the kids love it, their parents love it, they're learning more, better grades, and a black president shuts it down. Somebody tell me why, if it isn't that he's worried about the political ramifications of this group of people becoming educated. 'Cause I'm going to tell you, folks, intellectually and emotionally, too, I do not understand how a school, a program based on vouchers, that educates blacks better than they are in the public schools, does it cheaper, is, A, called controversial, and B, needs to be shut down. It makes no sense, especially if you listen to the complaints of the leftist community over the horrible circumstances facing inner-city kids in education. Here's a solution.

You see, the left doesn't want solutions. The race industry does not want solutions. Solutions mean loss of jobs. Solution means happiness, solution means success, prosperity -- they don't want that. They want chaos and insecurity and dependency. This is just sick. He must have been catching all kinds of hell from somewhere, 'cause now he's going to extend the school until everybody in it graduates. That way no angry parents, no angry anybody else, but no new enrollees so no new angry parents.

Wall Street Journal on Obamanomics (again, this is why this newspaper is not losing readership):

ACORN, which has become synonymous with voter fraud, will be involved in the census?

Since there are some links you may want to go back to from time-to-time, I am going to begin a list of them here. This will be a list to which I will add links each week.

Conservative Review
Issue #74	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	May 10, 2009