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.

President Obama reverses himself on releasing photographs of prisoner abuse from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he does not issue and executive order which would end this process. Therefore, this will still go to court. Obama also reverses his position with regards to military tribunals and keeping prisoners from the battlefield indefinitely without trial.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gives her 5^th explanation of what she remembers from her one CIA briefing, and ends the briefing by accusing the CIA of misleading Congress on enhanced interrogation techniques, drawing parallels to the Bush administration and their misleading Congress with regards to weapons of mass destruction. The next day, Leon Penetta, Obama’s appointee to run the CIA, affirms the truthfulness of the CIA.

California has recognized that it needs to cut some of their expenses, like union jobs and salaries, in order to reduce their deficit. Obama says no and will withhold stimulus funds if California does such a thing.

Previous Vice President Al Gore, apparently setting himself as the standard, says that he waited 2 years after the election before criticizing the Bush administration.

School assignment for at least 110 Freshmen high school students in Pueblo, Colo: plan out a terrorist attack in the U.S.

During a press dinner, comedian Wanda Sykes, who began with a fairly good routine , eventually suggests that Rush Limbaugh was the 20^th terrorist, but was too strung out on Oxycontin to get on the plane; and that, since he said, “I hope he fails” she hopes that his kidneys fail. I think this marks the first time a public citizen was castigated in this way and probably the first person where death was wished for him (in jest, of course).

“Under tough interrogation, you want it to stop; under torture, you want to die.” Ollie North, making a simple and succinct distinction.

Jonah Goldberg, when told that he should not comment on Obama’s huge proposed deficits, since the Republicans had large deficits as well, answered, “Since Bush played with matches, we can no longer complain about arson [under Obama]?”

President Obama speaking to the press corps, “Most of you covered me [during the election]; all of you voted for me.” They responded with laughing and applause. More than a grain of truth in that bit of humor.

President Obama said, “We will stop letting companies that create jobs overseas take deductions on their expenses when they do not pay any American taxes on their profits.” If you know anything at all about business, this makes little sense. Companies pay taxes and take deductions for their expenses. If a company is not paying any taxes, then of what use are their deductions? If their legitimate deductions (known as expenses) reduce their profit, then, this in turn, reduces their tax liability. If you are paying taxes, then deductions are a factor. Obama is essentially stating here that, he is going to disallow expenses which a company incurs in order to make or sell its products simply because this company is overseas. This makes absolutely no sense! Let me see if I can simplify this: an American company sets up a lemonade stand overseas. It costs them $100 for products, employees, etc. for this lemonade stand. They make $125, so their profit is $25. Obama wants to disallow their expenses and tax them on, according to his own words, $125! Either Obama has no clue as to what he is saying (which is very possible) or he simply wants to disallow legitimate expenses which are a part of doing business. I have not heard a single news organization or economist which has picked up on this.

Although this is 8 minutes long, it is jaw-dropping to hear sense being made in our Congress. Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) takes Al Gore to task over global warming (along with several other Republicans). This will be the closest you will ever see Al Gore to debating this issue, and you will see why Al Gore will not debate this issue. Watch this to the end; the last 20 seconds are quite funny.

I certainly don’t share the same views as BarelyPolitical, but sometimes, they do make me smile:

It was difficult to find the full video of this; Carrie’s entire speech after Donald Trump said that she would remain Miss California (most were edited or of a poor quality).

Gore characterizes Bush policies as un-American in September of 2002, in less than 2 years after Bush was sworn in (Gore’s official time period that a VP must wait before being critical of the current administration); also, this was 1 year after 9/11 (story and video both).

This is why I love Lynn Cheney; and, you may be interested to note the absolute hatred which is expressed below this vid:

This is one of O’Reilly’s best interviews (he interviews a feminist and a gay rights activist about Carrie Prejean):

1) Wanda Sykes observed that the press was able to take several photos of Obama without his shirt, but none of him smoking.

2) Al Gore complained that he waited 2 years to dis the Bush administration (not true, by the way), but that Dick Cheney is out there right now criticizing the Obama administration. Bill Kristol observed that, from day one, the Obama administration and Obama himself have been criticizing the Bush administration on a variety of issues; so it is only fair and reasonable for Cheney to answer some of these criticisms and to push back. Continuous public attacks should allow for a public response. Personally, I wish Cheney did more of this while in office.

3) A commentator on the Wall Street Journal Report (an excellent show), observed that, insofar as the Obama administration is concerned, the rule of law is only one factor to be considered, and not even equally to such concepts of social justice and the public good. When determining the bonuses for AIG execs, whether a GM CEO should stay or go, or determining how to divide up assets for Chrysler and GM, contracts have been routinely ignored. “When the president does it, it’s not illegal.”

4) Obama is keeping several Bush policies intact—policies which he railed against as a candidate. Indefinite prison terms for some Gitmo detainees and military tribunals for others. He also has decided not to release photographs of prison abuse (although he has not gone so far as to sign an executive order to stop this process from going any further). I think on the latter, he is just testing the water. Railing against these Bush policies made good talking points and appealed to a bumper-sticker mentality; however, when faced with the real world, Obama is finding out just how wise President Bush was. Those on the far-left have not caught up to Obama yet.

4) For those in California, who think the solution to your problems is legalizing marijuana, so that you can tax it—cigarettes and alcohol bring in about $2 billion a year to Texas, but cost about 10x that amount when it comes to accidents and medical costs . California would also see an influx of stoners on a level never observed before; as well as increasing drug traffic between California and neighboring states.

5) Pelosi illogic: she either was briefed on waterboarding or she was not. If she was, then either they told her they were going to water board in the future or that they already had. Assuming that she is telling the truth, and that the CIA presented waterboarding as an option for the future, were they not then looking for her input or reaction? Why brief Pelosi on something which may or may not occur in the future? It is more likely that Pelosi is lying, was briefed on waterboarding, and that it took place previous to her briefing (which is in line with when the first terror suspect was water boarded, and agrees with Porter Goss and his lawyer, both in that same meeting). This means that first, Pelosi is lying and second, saw no reason to object to waterboarding. Now, if Pelosi gets a pass, by saying, “Well, at that time, things were more intense, after 9/11;” then the Bush administration ought to be treated the same way, as they could not afford to take this matter lightly.

6) Dead people are receiving stimulus checks because of problems with the social security computer system and its records. Remember that Obama has been touting for over a year just how much money will be saved by the government computerizing all of our medical records. Do you see a disconnect here?

7) A lot happened this week. Still, NPR’s program, Wait, wait, don’t tell me listed as the top story for this week, Carrie Prejean and her keeping her Miss California title. Obama’s budget, his speech warning us about unsustainable deficits and Pelosi’s ever changing story about her knowledge of Enhanced Interrogation techniques did not make the cut of the top stories on this NPR program. The explanation is quite simple, and Rush Limbaugh has explained it on a number of occasions. Much of the media has a template into which it fits its stories. If these stories do not fit their templates, they ignore them or bury them. This is why, if you don’t listen to FoxNews, you have no clue as to the ties between GE, NBC and Obama’s programs which he is putting out there this coming week. You have no idea that there is more to ACORN than being simply a corrupt public/political organization. These things do not fit the template of most news papers, so they are ignored. But, are there topless photos of Carrie Prejean? Should she be condemned as a phoney Christian because of them? Should she lose her crown over these photos? Now, that is big news, and that was the big news this past week.

8) Speaking of stories you may not have been informed about, do you know that many of the dealerships which GM and Chrysler are shutting down have been profitable even in this recession? Who has determined what plants get shut down? Is this at all related to the tinkering and involvement of the government? This ought to be a major story. Who is doing investigative journalism here? No one right now.

9) Part of the news these past 2 weeks are more and more taxes which Obama is going after. If you drink cokes, Obama wants your money. They are no good for you, Obama knows this, and he is going to help you out by taxing you on it. Other taxes that he has proposed? Well, all of those American companies which have gone overseas have unfair tax advantages, and Obama is going to take care of those as well. Why are these companies overseas? Some of them have set up individual stores there (like Starbucks) and already pay taxes to the government there. Some have production plants which can make products for cheaper than here. What is going to happen when Obama goes after these companies? Do you think they will see the error of their ways and run back home and open up these same plants here in the US? Obama just wants their profits, and they will either remain and pay excessive taxes or they will close down whatever plant or store they have overseas, negatively impacting thousands if not millions of workers overseas. It boils down to this: Obama and the Democratic Congress are spending billions of dollar, at a rate never seen before...and they need to get money in order to do this. So they figure out various taxes which they can couch in terms which sound good to the average Joe. But do not kid yourself. Obama is not looking out for you and taking on the evils of society; he just wants more money to spend.

10) Along these lines, I watched a video of Obama, and one of the immoral deductions that these offshore companies are taking are expenses; yes, that is exactly the term that Obama used. Remember, Obama has never started or run a business, as is true for most if not all of those in his inner circle. So, the idea that a business ought to make a profit, and that profit I determined by revenue minus expenses possibly does not even occur to many of them.

11) So, how fair is this? California spends money like there is no tomorrow, is unable to pay, so Texas taxpayers need to pay California’s bills? That is taxation without representation.

12) One of the reasons I favor a long and drawn out Truth Commission over the U.S.’s conduct in a war, and for this to take in the past 3 administrations, is, that will slow Congress down on the spending spree it is on.

13) Although Glen Beck sometimes has some crazies on his show, some of whom have some pretty goofy ideas, he has recently been looking at ACORN. There is a former funeral home in New Orleans, and in that funeral home are housed 270 related non-profit organizations and corporations. Wade Rathke, a New Orleans resident, is founder of ACORN and also founder and chief organizer of Service Employees International Union, which donated $33 million to President Obama's campaign last year. His brother Dale, ACORN's chief financial officer, had embezzled $948,600 from Citizens Consulting Inc., the ACORN affiliate that handles ACORN’s financial affairs. He is not in jail, however. Apparently someone wrote a check for $1 million and everything is fine again. ACORN and its hundreds of affiliate organizations received $10 million of taxpayer funds last year and could receive as much as $8 billion this year (if a Barney Frank amendment goes through). Right now, the information about these 270 organizations, ACORN and how money is transferred between them; and, quite obviously, if individuals are pocketing millions, this is an unknown right now. However, at least when it comes to appearances, ACORN has a lot more going on that being a corrupt political operation.

14) This is not rocket science; the government controls billions of dollars which is not theirs. If an administration is corruptible, then their supporters are going to get this money. ACORN and GE are merely two examples of groups which are pocketing or will pocket millions of our tax dollars.

This should not be exactly news, but on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC, during the first 50 days of the presidency:

Obama’s 2010 deficit: $1.84 trillion (4x Bush’s highest deficit). Half of Obama’s 2010 budget is a deficit, and since health care and cap and trade are still on the table, he is not done spending yet.

Bush deficits were typically 2–3% of GDP (which were below the average of Clinton’s deficits). Obama’s deficits, right now, will be 12.3% of GDP (however, given the way our economy is going, I suspect that they will be much larger).

Remember that emergency stimulus bill which had to be passed immediately? Only 6% of the funds have been paid out so far.

Obama gives speech complaining about high deficits. Perfect for Seth and Amy’s Really bit.

These are all for Obama. Obama decides not to release photographs of detainees being mishandled. Obama changes commanders in Afghanistan. Obama is dealing with Pakistan and Afghanistan as an one problem. He is getting good advice from his generals and he is taking this advice. Obama also reverses himself on military tribunals for some Gitmo detainees and keeping other indefinitely. He recommends quick response to problems in Sri Lanka.

[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.]

"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," President Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

He added that holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy." He also called current deficit spending “unsustainable.” This is the very same president who proposes a budget this year with a deficit 4x higher the Bush’s highest deficit (under Democratic Congress).

This one is for Pelosi: “Are you willing to put yourself under oath and answer questions about what you know about the enhanced interrogation techniques?”

If, from Rush Limbaugh’s 1.5 hour speech, the only line you know is, “I hope he fails.” Particularly if you do not even know the context of that statement.

Karl Rove will be interviewed this week about Bush firing 9 district attorneys. At the same time, the Obama administration is examining a list of attorneys to replace the existing district attorneys with; attorneys which more agree with their politics. You are brainwashed if you see nothing wrong with this picture.

Obama is going against the far-left on several military positions; I think he will eventually decide that Gitmo is a good place to keep open. He may say something like, “But we will not add any additional prisoners to Guantanamo Bay” or, better yet, “We will reserve Guantanamo Bay for the very worst of the terrorists captured on the battlefield.”

Afghanistan is a winnable war, but it is hard ot tell whether Democrats will have the stomach for it, even though both Clinton and Obama portrayed this as the real war (since there were/are a lot of terrorists in this region and NATO is nominally involved and Osama might be around here somewhere). However, Democrats are going to continue to push back against this, and more and more of them are going to vote against war funding, especially as the deficit grows. Expect to see some bills offered up with timelines (not this year, but maybe the next).

For this next one, and it is quite serious, you may be agnostic or atheistic, and therefore, you are certainly welcome to ignore the theological intertwining of this. In the Bible, in the end times, there will be Jews scattered throughout every nation and they will be the basis of evangelization at the beginning of the Tribulation. Satan, who counterfeits what God does, is counterfeiting this as we speak, spreading Islamic Arabs into all countries. We have already observed how Arab minorities behave differently, depending upon their relative percentage to the overall population. In the next 10–30 years, we may see a huge unified Islamic uprising, in dozens of nations, some of them even taking over large European nations. There will very likely be a simultaneous set of attacks in dozens of nations in dozens of places within these nations. In nations with large Islamic populations (say 20–50%), there may even be an armed takeover of many cities. Even moderate Muslims will be drawn into this.

Okay, let’s just going on an imaginary journey. But stick with me, there is a point to this. Let’s just pretend the Exxon Oil also owns Haliburton and Fox television stations. Let’s say that, not only is there a very pro-Bush, pro-conservative, pro-Republican coverage on the news, but on late night programs, there are jokes which typically ridicule prominent Democrats, liberals, and liberal programs. Let’s say that certain conservative issues crop up in almost every prime time television shows.

Do you suppose there might be some news coverage on this? Do you think that NBC or CBS might draw some connections here? Do you think there might be some articles in the New York Times on this?

Now let’s say there is a company called GE, which owns NBC and has influence over their television coverage, including sitcoms and late night programs. Now let’s say that maybe GE not only supports Obama and Democrats and Democratic programs, but stands to make billions of dollars if public health care is passed or is cap and trade legislation is passed?

Do you think something like this warrants news coverage? It does. Only FoxNews is covering it.

Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded. Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy wants an independent investigation of Bush administration officials. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers feels the Justice Department should investigate and prosecute anyone who violated laws against committing torture. Are these and other similarly minded Democrats willing to have Mrs. Pelosi thrown into their stew of torture conspirators as an accomplice?

It is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced. She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans. It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising.

[I have been reading Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and have been meaning to write on it for sometime; it is closely related to the Democratic party’s tactics over the past 8 years; O’Reilly covers one of those strategies here]:

Robust debate is vital to America. It can put complicated issues in focus and sometimes exposes charlatans. Stating your case with strength and dignity is the sign of a patriot.

But in today's political landscape, ridicule is on the rise, and both the left and the right are using it:

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC: She lied. She avoided taking personal responsibility. She blamed others.

MICHAEL SAVAGE, RADIO HOST: I don't know who that sick, fat pervert is, and I never want to hear his name.

LOU DOBBS, CNN: We'll be talking also about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Guess what? That little love affair with his fellow socialist Barack Obama didn't last long.

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR: To be fair, Obama is the person now most likely to put - or to have poison put in his coffee by Hillary, but that's only because Bill Clinton stopped eating and drinking around Hillary years ago.

JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Bush was even kind of a walking punch line. I mean, he's just, you know, and he doesn't mess up as much as Bush.

MICHAEL MUSTO, VILLAGE VOICE COLUMNIST: I know for a fact that Carrie Prejean was Harry Prejean, a homophobic man who liked marriage so much he did it three times. Now he's a babe who needs a brain implant. Maybe they can inject some fat from her butt.

Now, let's put this into perspective. Talk radio has always had its share of hate-mongers. Some right-wingers make a living doing this. And on the left, the Air America network was all hate all the time, but went bankrupt.

Then a few months ago, the Obama administration tried to brand the Republican Party as a place of fanaticism. The White House actually increased the power of Rush Limbaugh by trying to ridicule him.

But here's the question: Are these tactics an accident, or is there something deeper here?

Enter far-left philosopher Saul Alinsky, a Chicago rabble-rouser who died in 1972. Hillary Clinton actually did a thesis on Alinsky while studying at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Before he died, Alinsky wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals," and here is where the politics of ridicule was defined. According to Alinsky, in order to change America into a far-left bastion, traditional Americans must be marginalized. Alinsky lays it out in radical rule five: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

That is exactly the tactic the hate-mongers at NBC are using, and very close to the White House-Republican deal.

Alinsky also laid out how to attack opponents in rule four: "You can kill them, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." Alinsky's saying that because no traditional person is perfect, any sin can be used against them. The American press does this all day long.

The Alinsky principles are followed by a variety of left-wing organizations, including the Developing Communities Project in Chicago, where Barack Obama worked in the late 1980s. That's not to say the president is a disciple of Alinsky's, but he surely knows what the man put out there, as do many committed liberal Americans.

So the politics of ridicule is no accident. It is a game plan, a blueprint. It is currently being used by a major TV news organization, and perhaps by the White House itself.

President Obama did the right thing Wednesday by listening to his generals and refusing to release evidentiary photos of American military people abusing prisoners. Many of the abusers are now in prison, as our justice system does not permit random violence against captives.

But the ACLU is not satisfied with the convictions. It wants to damage America and put the lives of American service-people overseas in even more danger. That is the truth. The ACLU does not care about these brave men and women at all.

O'REILLY: The ACLU, which sued to get the pictures released, wants to inflame the world against the USA. That, of course, will put our troops and diplomats in even more danger and make it harder for the Obama administration to get cooperation from other countries. Does the president understand that?

ACLU chief Anthony Romero is the big villain here, but he is not alone. The publisher of the Los Angeles Times, Eddy Hartenstein, saw his paper editorialize for the release of the photos today. And radical-left George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley is making the far-left rounds promoting the release of the pictures. We used to respect Turley, but no longer. He has really gone over to the dark side.

Anyone - anyone - who wants those pictures in the hands of our enemies is no friend to America or to the military, and it is time that clear-thinking people hold the haters responsible. America has more than 200,000 men and women in the field overseas protecting us, and some loons want to hand the enemy inflammatory pictures? No. The lunacy stops here.

A new FOX News poll says a whopping 77 percent of Americans believe the pictures would cause a backlash against American troops.

Once again, the people know the score. Every member of the ACLU is guilty. Every one of them. There is no excuse to support this organization.

Going forward, the Obama administration must take the case to the Supreme Court. Period. No backing down. The president can also issue an executive order in the case, even if the courts continue to do the wrong thing.

Lives are on the line, and this time the enemy is not just the terrorists - it is some of our fellow Americans themselves.

Some experts think the environmentalist movement has an image problem. According to them, greens are losing the battle against primeval despoilers of Nature's awesome bounty because they continue to use antiquated, in-your-face terms like "global warming," "cap and trade," and yes even "the environment." So says a new report by ecoAmerica, a cutting-edge, Washington-based nonprofit that specializes in environmental marketing and messaging, as reported in the New York Times (henceforth known as the Green Lady).

According to ecoAmerica, which has conducted rigorous, focus-group research in this area, environmentalists are taking it on the chin because politically charged terms like "global warming" conjure up images of hirsute, confrontational '60s types. "When you say 'global warming,'" Robert M. Perkowitz, ecoAmerica's president and founder, told the Times, "a certain group of Americans think that's a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues."

Sadly, Mr. Perkowitz never explained how this "certain group" manages to draw a connection between global warming and gay marriage. And it must be said, I'd love to see his raw data on the subject.

In any event, to right the listing ship of sustainable biodiversity, ecoAmerica recommends that environmentalists mothball the textured scientific lingo and get right down to the nitty-gritty. That means ditching excessively technical terms like "carbon dioxide" and substituting catchy phrases like "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past."

EcoAmerica also recommends jettisoning the cumbersome term "the environment" and replacing it with the infinitely more felicitous "the air we breathe, the water our children drink." The organization probably got paid tons of money for this high-level research, so its advice should not go unheeded.

Clearly, ecoAmerica is on to something with this bold initiative. But perhaps the subtle neologisms it's proposed don't go far enough. No one pays any attention to bloodless expressions like "depletion of the ozone layer" anymore. Moreover, "depletion" is a stupid word, since what it's supposed to decry is "catastrophic destruction" of the ozone layer, not its mere shrinkage.

What is needed here is more graphic language that the man on the street can understand. Thus, instead of saying something like "If mankind continues to deplete the ozone layer, we will cause irreparable damage to the environment," activists should say: "If we keep using the dirty fuels of the past to mess up that awesome thing in the sky that prevents our butts from like totally frying at the beach, then we might as well just spew filth into the air we breathe and the water our children drink and all curl up and die right now. Am I right, or what?"

Anyone can see how more colorful, less partisan, less politically rancorous language would enable environmentalists to seize the higher ground. Now it no longer sounds like some prissy elitist's butt that's going to fry. It could be somebody in a trailer park. Maybe even Dick Cheney.

There are many other environmentalist catchphrases that could use fine-tuning. "No carbon footprint" is a term so trendy, so precious, that it cannot help but reinforce the image of environmentalists as condescending do-gooders. Surely something less deviously euphemistic would work better.

Instead of hanging a sign in the window reading, "As of midnight Tuesday, this dining establishment will no longer leave a carbon footprint," restaurant owners could hang a placard reading: "Starting Tuesday, we will no longer allow disgusting fumes to belch all over the food your kids are eating and stinking up the air you breathe. We already warned the cook."

Similarly, instead of talking about "the melting of the polar ice cap," a phrase too apocalyptically antediluvian to scare anyone anymore, environmentalists should start referring to "dead polar bears in your driveway." "Degradation of habitat" could be replaced by a more evocative phrase like "torching Bambi's crib."

The one term environmentalists should probably deep-six, though, is "biological diversity." The ding-dongs who confuse "global warming" with gay marriage might think that biological diversity refers to features of the environment that only ethnic minorities care about. At this rate, we'll never get the planet back in working order.

For over a year after the murder of 3,000 innocent people in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, shell-shocked Americans were gripped by other horrific images of terrorism across the globe.

Palestinian suicide bombers blew up Israeli civilians during a renewed intifada. Pakistani terrorists attacked India's parliament over the disputed Kashmir region. Other terrorists in Pakistan beheaded U.S. journalist Daniel Pearl.

Islamists killed over 200 at a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia. Chechnyan separatists stormed a Moscow theater and took over 800 hostages; over 100 died before the nightmare was over.

In the U.S., John Allen Mohammed and his young partner were busy murdering citizens in counties adjoining Washington, D.C. - a city still jittery from anonymous anthrax-laced letters sent in late 2001 to various media organizations and two senators.

In other words, Americans in 2002 were scared of the spreading worldwide conflagration of radical Islam, and looked to the president to keep them safe. And he did - to bipartisan applause.

By the end of Nov. 2002, the Bush administration had created the new Department of Homeland Security. We all began removing belts and shoes, as well as surrendering any liquids in our carry-on luggage, at the airport. Air marshals began flying selected routes. The recently passed Patriot Act allowed American anti-terrorism agents to intercept phone calls and e-mails of suspected jihadists.

At the newly opened Guantánamo Bay Detention Center, jihadists were detained. While specific dates of who was briefed when concerning the waterboarding of certain detainees are now being debated, it seems clear that select members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, became aware of the practice - and that no objections were publicly voiced.

And former Clinton Justice Department official Eric Holder - now the attorney general - even declared in a 2002 interview that none of the terrorists detained at Guantánamo were protected by the Geneva Convention statutes concerning prisoners of war.

In October 2002, Congress, with a majority of both Democratic senators and representatives, authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein.

A number of liberal journalists also endorsed the Iraq War. By November 2002, after almost two years in office, George Bush enjoyed an approval rating of over 60 percent.

Now, seven years later, we live in a different world. Since then, some unforeseen events have transpired - and other predicted events have not.

The U.S. has not been attacked again in the manner of 9/11 - although almost all terrorist experts had assured us we would be.

After a three-week victory in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein and won the support of nearly 80 percent of the American people, an insurgency grew that would eventually claim over 4,000 American lives. Terrorists almost toppled Iraq's nascent democracy until Gen. David P. Petraeus's troop "surge" quelled the violence.

By then, politics had begun to change. Most who called for invading Iraq long ago abandoned their own zeal and advocacy - and loudly blamed the Bush administration for the violence of the postwar occupation. (Now, they are largely silent about the quiet in Iraq that the Obama administration inherited.)

Of course, had we suffered another major terrorist attack between 2001-2009, critics would have damned the Bush administration for its perceived laxity as vehemently as they now do in quieter times for its supposed extremism.

Opportunism, not principles, guides most in Washington. Almost no proponents of the Iraq War withdrew their support right after the successful three-week effort to remove Saddam. Had there been little Iraqi violence during the transition to democracy, former supporters would probably still be vying to take credit for the war's success.

Consider also the dexterous Obama administration's own about-face. It still finds it useful to damn the old Bush government's embrace of wiretaps, military tribunals, and renditions - even as it dares not drop or completely discount these apparently useful Bush policies, albeit under new names and with new qualifiers.

If we get hit again by a major terrorist attack, you can bet that today's cooing doves will flip a third time and revert to the screeching hawks of 2002 - and once again scream that their president must do something to keep us safe.

It turns out that a veteran organizer and speaker for Obama and fellow Democrats was probably not ever a veteran, but had served time in a mental institution.

There is little doubt that Strandlof had a remarkable ability to fool people, something aided by the fact that among his fabrications was his claim that he suffered a severe brain injury, which helped cover behavior that associates now concede was often erratic and strange.

Republicans turns the tables on Eric Holder, questioning him and his future policies (like, shutting down Gitmo):

Secured creditors for Chrysler have been offered roughly 30 cents on the dollar for $6.9 billion in debt (a secured creditor is one who loans money to a business with the expectation of being the first person paid when that business is dissolved). The same offer would give unions a 55% of the stock of this company. USA Today and MSNBC are saying that this is a bad deal for the unions because the company is losing money right now. The UAW spent nearly $5 million in independent expenditures to promote Obama's campaign, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

This is quite amazing: Forbes Magazine asserts that federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by social security and medicare under current law over and above the payroll tax.

More can name a judge on American Idol than all 3 branches of the federal government (I actually came upon conflicting reports, some saying 2/3^rds and some saying 3/4^ths could name a judge on American Idol, which leads me to believe that half the newsmen out there cannot convert a percentage into a fraction):

Obama will withhold funds from California if their governor and legislature attempts to balance the budget by reducing union salaries, benefits and jobs.

RUSH: I have a question for you, folks. What motivates Dick Cheney? Dick Cheney was on Face the Nation yesterday. We have some audio sound bites here. Before playing the sound bites, I want to pose some thoughts to you. Dick Cheney has all the millions he needs. He doesn't need money. He has no future political ambitions. He coulda run in 2000; he coulda run in 2008; he doesn't want to run for elective office anymore. What motivates him? He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak. What motivates Dick Cheney? He also knows that he is toxic to the Drive-By Media. He knows that the Obama administration and the Drive-By Media despise him. He could sail away into retirement, go hunting and fishing out in Wyoming, wherever he wants, what motivates Dick Cheney to continue to speak out? What is it that you think motivates Dick Cheney? Let's go to the audio sound bites, and we'll start here with this question from Bob Schieffer: "You said, for example, the Obama administration has made this country less safe. That's a very serious charge. Why have you taken that approach?"

CHENEY: I think the issues that are at stake here are so important, and in effect what we've seen happen with respect to the Obama administration that came to power, is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11.

RUSH: Now, Bob Schieffer was stunned. Bob Schieffer could not believe what he was hearing. Bob Schieffer is said to be -- I've never met him -- Bob Schieffer is said to be one of the nicest guys in the Drive-By Media in DC. But he was shocked that Dick Cheney suggested we are less safe because of the Obama presidency. How could Cheney say, let alone suggest, we are less safe? How could he prove we are less safe? See, the conflict here as far as Bob Schieffer and the Drive-By Media is concerned, is that the left has been saying for the last eight years that we are less safe because of the Bush presidency, because of all the torture. Somebody asked me -- I had a bunch of friends in for the weekend -- what do you think is going to happen if we do get hit again, another terrorist attack, what's going to happen? Do you think Obama's going to get blamed? No, Obama is not going to get blamed for anything ever. Why do you think they're setting up all this torture stuff? Why do you think they're closing Gitmo?

They have said for eight years that Bush created more terrorists. I'll guaran-damn-tee you, folks, if we get hit again, what's going to be blamed is torture, Abu Ghraib, Club Gitmo, that's why Obama's releasing the memos, that's why Obama is releasing or wants to release the pictures. And here's Dick Cheney, one voice from elected Republican politics, Dick Cheney is out warning everybody that what Obama is doing is endangering our country. What motivates Dick Cheney? He doesn't need money. He doesn't want to run for political office. He doesn't want to run Club Gitmo. He's not hot for interns. What motivates Dick Cheney? Next sound bite, Bob Schieffer: "Should we take that literally? You say the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland?"

CHENEY: That's my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9/11. What I find deeply disturbing, and I think that to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it's fair to argue, and I do argue, that that means in the future we're not going to have to the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years.

RUSH: He's exactly right about this. He is telling the world, he's telling this country, one voice, one Republican has the guts to go on television and say this stuff. But what motivates Dick Cheney? And Bob Schieffer, he's totally incredulous because, of course, the template for the last eight years the Drive-By Media has been we're less safe, day after day, Sunday after Sunday, Sunday show after Sunday show for eight years, week after week, we're less safe. Every time, by the way, a Democrat would appear with Bob Schieffer or Stephanopoulos, Russert, David Gregory, whoever, in the last eight years and claim that we are less safe because of George W. Bush. That charge was never challenged. Schieffer didn't challenge it. If it was ever challenged, it was not really challenged, the question was asked in such a way to give the guest a chance to amplify the point of how greater in danger we are because of the Bush administration.

What motivates Dick Cheney? He knows the media hate his guts. He knows the media hate George W. Bush. He has all the money he needs. He has no political ambitions. He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak. What motivates Dick Cheney? Next question from Schieffer: "Do you have any regrets whatsoever about any of the methods that were taken, any of the things that were used back in those days? Because there's no question it was a different time. The country's mood was different. We had just been through something here that had never happened before. In retrospect do you think we should have done some things differently back then or do you have any regrets about any of it?"

CHENEY: No regrets. I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I'm convinced, absolutely convinced that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives.

RUSH: And the Drive-Bys are still stuck on Bush placed us more at risk, Bush and Cheney made us more dangerous, made this country less safe. And now here's Dick Cheney, a lone voice who could avoid all of the grief that he gets. He doesn't need it. He could go hunting; he could go fishing; he could learn to play golf; he could write memoirs. He doesn't need the money. He has no political ambitions. He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak. He knows he's toxic to the Drive-By Media. What motivates Dick Cheney? Question from Bob Schieffer: "Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat. Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn't have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them. Where do you come down on this?"

CHENEY: If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican.

CHENEY: I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama. I assume that that's some indication of his loyalty and his interests.

RUSH: Bob Schieffer just incredulous during the entire interview. Of course, Colin Powell endorsing Barack Obama and then out saying that the Republican Party is going to have to realize Americans want bigger government and higher taxes. And Cheney said, I didn't know Colin Powell was still a Republican, Bob. What motivates Dick Cheney? He doesn't need the money. He has no further political ambitions. He is not hot for interns. He is not a torture freak. He knows that he is toxic and despised by the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party and the left in this country. What motivation does Dick Cheney to have to go out and say these things? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?

Dick Cheney is not concerned about legacies. He's smart enough to know that the legacy that that's written about the Bush administration is going to be BS until this generation of writers has assumed room temperature and moved on, so he knows he can't correct the historical record. He's going on these shows to talk to the American people. He's one Republican voice. He's also saying we shouldn't moderate as a party. We only win when we are conservatives and have a conservative candidate to offer, and principles. We shouldn't moderate. Dick Cheney knows that people in the middle of the road get run over. Dick Cheney knows that there really is no such thing as a centrist. Dick Cheney knows that there's really no such thing as a moderate. Dick Cheney is one lone voice in the Republican Party. What motivates Dick Cheney? He's not hot for interns. He has all the money he needs. He's not a torture freak. He doesn't want to run for political office. Dick Cheney is motivated by love for his country.

RUSH: To Ogdensburg, New York. Susan, thank you for waiting. I appreciate your patience, and hello.

CALLER: Just his love of country. I love my country, too, but I love my family. I have children in large cities. I expect this country to keep us secure. And I do not understand. Don't the media have family members? Doesn't Congress have family members? Aren't the...? Sometimes that's how I approach it, when I call their offices.

RUSH: It's hard for somebody rational like you to understand the quest and desire for power at all costs -- all costs, whatever it takes to quarry it and hold it. Also, the liberal mind is an irrational mind.

RUSH: The liberal mind, they don't think that we are being placed at greater risk by releasing terrorists into the general population. They think the rest of the world hates us as they hate us --

RUSH -- and that we must apologize that there's nothing special about America. There's nothing exceptional about America. We're no different than any other country but we act as the big guy on the planet with our big military and our big police force and we run around and we conquer countries, they think, and we make people mad. They think terrorists hate us because of our support for Israel, because we have raped the world of natural resources. They think everybody is like them. And when they have disagreements with their own country and then other people do, they're kindred spirits. So they think that by showing the world that there's a new America, with an America that doesn't threaten them, an America that has no intention of harming them, that all these people are going to love us. They really believe that. Now, that's irrational. It's irrational when you're dealing with criminals in your neighborhood. It's irrational. But they have been able to insulate themselves from some of this harm, and so you're asking the same question when you say, "Do they like paying higher taxes?" Well...

CALLER: (giggling) Well, I have to say about Dick Cheney and George Bush: they treated Americans as individuals, and I saw that when they would meet the veterans and meet the families, individual families that came back and had funeral services for their loved ones. It was so touching to see them reach out individually with compassion. That, to me, is a mark of a great administration.

RUSH: Well, they're decent people. You know, they might have done some things policy-wise that befuddled people and did some damage to the identity of the Republican Party with excessive spending and so forth, but they're decent people, and they're rational people. I mean, look at me. In 12 weeks... On Tuesday before Obama is inaugurated, I'm invited to the White House for a birthday lunch by the president, and I'm toasted. Twelve weeks later, I am Public Enemy #1! That's in 12 weeks, in the same country. So you have to understand, you know, where these people are coming from. And they think the biggest threat to them exists in this country, not outside this country -- and if you don't understand that about them, nothing else that they do will make sense to you. By the way, here's Cheney, one more sound bite from Bob Schieffer yesterday. Bob Schieffer said, "President Obama said that Guantanamo is going to be closed within a year. It proved to be a little more complicated than perhaps some in the administration thought it was going to be. Now you've got Congress in a real uproar about if these people are brought to prisons in this country. We've had resolutions introduced up there on the Hill that unless the state legislature gives the-go-ahead, you can't put 'em into prison anyplace in a particular state. But can we ask other countries to take these people back, Mr. Vice President, if we're not willing to release them in our own country?"

CHENEY: These are the worst of the worst. This is the hardcore. You'd have a recidivism rate out of this group of maybe 50 or 60%. They want to get out because they want to kill more Americans, and you're just going to find it very difficult to send them anyplace. There's been some talk on the part of the administration about putting them in the United States. I think that's going to be a tough sell. I don't know a single congressional district in this country that's going to want to say, "Gee, great! They're sending us 20 Al-Qaeda terrorists." It's a graphic demonstration of why Guantanamo is important. We had to have a place, a facility where we could capture these people and hold them until they were no longer a danger to the United States. If you bring 'em to the United States, they aquire all kinds of legal rights and as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said when we captured him, he said, "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer." That's the kind of problem you're going to have with these terrorists.

RUSH: Right. So, try to understand the liberal mind-set on this. This is pure irrationality to release terrorist prisoners at Guantanamo Bay into the United States. And Eric Holder went to Germany last week, or two weeks ago, the week before last, trying to convince other countries to take some of the properties. And they said, "No way, Jose!" All these countries are out there condemning us for having Club Gitmo and condemning us for whatever is going on there, but when we say, "Okay, fine. Help us out. We're going to close it down. We're going to do what you want. We're going to get rid of this bad vibe the US is putting out by having this prison open," they don't want anybody! And, meanwhile, members of this administration are saying, "Well, we might have to release them just in the general population," 'cause this administration thinks that most of them are innocent, that they have had their human rights violated by the United States of America.

We owe these prisoners a debt. We have unfairly incarcerated them. This is pure irrationality. Now, vice president said, "Ah, it's going to be a tough sell," I don't think there's a congressional district in the country that's going to be happy to hear they're getting 20 Al-Qaeda terrorists to move in. I have to disagree with the vice president here. I don't know that, if a congressional district doesn't want them, that they can stop it. This president is willing to intimidate anybody to get what he wants, and if he wants to close Guantanamo Bay, if he's insistent on doing this, for whatever reason, and he has to release these prisoners into the United States, then that's going to happen, whether some congressman doesn't want them in his districts or some senator doesn't want them in his state. I don't see anybody standing up and stopping Obama anything, do you?

Here's Scott in Cincinnati. You're next, sir. It's nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Rush, I see no progress in the economy right now. I see no progress in our foreign policy. I see no progress in unifying the country. Yet all this president has to do is get up and dispense a little bit of rhetoric and he's off the hook. When will he be judged on his results instead of his rhetoric? And also regarding Nancy Pelosi, I feel that her carbon footprint is so big that she should be known as "Bigfoot" instead of Madam Speaker.

RUSH: (laughing) Look, this is the question everybody's asking: "At what point, will Obama own all this?" Well, try never. Right now, we just got the budget news today: $1.8 trillion budget deficit, four times the record high. And who are they blaming? Blaming Bush. Bush made 'em do it. Bush so wrecked this economy, so wrecked this country that these drastic steps are necessary. Obama, he has to do this. I think the effort is going to be made by this administration, that whatever negative economic circumstances there are will always be passed on to Bush. Whatever is good, they'll claim credit for. If unemployment starts to come back, if the GDP starts going up, they'll claim the credit for it. As long as you have a compliant, sycophantic, slavish Drive-By Media, willing to sing the public song and lyrics written by the White House, then you're going to have a majority of the American people buying whatever they're being told. So... Yeah, the effort should be made by Republicans to attach all this to Obama. He owns it, and the Republicans' only way they can do that is to contrast conservatism with what's going on now.

The biggest mistake Republicans could make is to follow Colin Powell's advice. The biggest mistake they could make is to move to the "center," because there is no "center." Centrists move and float. Moderates do the same thing. "Centrism" is a left-wing code word, like "bipartisanship" is a left-wing code word. "Centrism" just means agreeing with Democrats, just moving in their direction. That's all it is. If the Republicans do not contrast themselves... That's why I was praising Dick Cheney in the first hour of the program. "What motivates Dick Cheney?" Love of country, national interest. He doesn't need this abuse. He's the lone voice. But if we're

going to moderate and try to make ourselves look like we're on the same page as Obama; well, he's going to get all the credit for all the good, we're going to get all the blame for all the bad, and there's going to be no reason to ever vote for Republicans. I don't care what the wizards of smart say about rebranding or repositioning the Republican Party, but if you try to make it look like Democrat Party Light, then you're never going to be able to peg Obama and tie Obama to the disaster that his economic policy is going to be.

RUSH: Hey, Dick Morris even gets it right here. He's got a piece in the New York Post today -- well, actually a couple days ago. This is on Saturday: "Despite Gen. Colin Powell's advice that the Republican Party must move to the center, now is not the time for triangulation by the GOP. It is, rather, the time for the Party to stand firm and fast upon its principles and let this nation come around to its way of thinking, driven by horror at the consequences of Obama's program. The leftist challenge brought by Obama is no longer a theoretical one to be parried by adroit positioning. He means to pass the ultimate left agenda and has the votes to do so. When he is finished -- well before the 2010 elections -- our nation will be unrecognizable. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. Those who produce the most will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing and receive government welfare. Our health care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship."

Obama's Brave New World will be the subject of the 2010 elections. Dick Morris says that he and his group, his wife, believe that "Congress will be swept from power as a result," that the Republicans can make significant gains in Congress in 2010, if they do the right things, and moderating and moving toward the center will not result in winning back significant seats in Congress. You're going to have to add inflation to all of this, the recession, all of this debt is going to lead, the printing of money will lead to inflation, high unemployment will continue. "Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need," and that's on the agenda today, downsizing health care, reducing costs, how is he going to do that, unless he shrinks the system. Morris writes this: "All America will be watching the Obama fallout. Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative."

Now, I'm talking about this because Morris is echoing sentiments that I have been promoting all the past two or three weeks. It's a golden opportunity for the Republican Party to contrast itself with this mad, insane liberalism. Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative, a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted if they are to benefit from this catastrophe. "If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, splitting the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties. ... There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- as the financial crisis and deep recession now pose -- we look to the left and to the right for alternatives, for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over or split the difference are ignored. Such was the fate of Bush Sr. in 1992 or of McCain in 2008." They tried to paper over the differences. They didn't want to full-fledged take on the liberalism that was being proposed. "But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them." That's what Morris defines as triangulation.

But that comes later, that's what he advised Clinton to do in his second term. That is not what's happening now and shouldn't happen. "This process of polarization, debate, synthesis and action is how America has always moved ahead. Because we are not Japan, we use the debate to see the options. And because we are not Italy or France, we come to conclusions and act upon them, leaving the debate far behind. Now a great debate has been born," thanks to Obama. "The thesis is Democratic Socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism." What are we going to have? If there's nobody out there explaining free market capitalism, promoting it and suggesting it, campaigning on it, then there's no alternative and there's no reason for people to vote Republican. Now, I'm sorry, wizards of smart in the circle of brains that's inside the conservative movement have said, well, the American people want the Colin Powell way, bigger government." No! Even if they do, it's not what we stand for! Your kids want more ice cream. Do you let 'em have it whenever they want it? Yeah, I'm sure some of you do. Your kid wants a brand-new car when he's 16. Do you give it to him? The American people want a bigger government. Is it good for them? No! Stand for an alternative. If you don't, there's no reason to vote for Republicans. They have to be an alternative. They can't be the same as Democrats.

By the way, I will point out once again, say what you want about what the Democrat Party has become and how insane and irrational it is, when they got shellacked in 2000 and when they got shellacked in 2008, when they got shellacked in 1994 in the House races, they didn't say to themselves, "Whoa, we gotta become more like Republicans." They went through the motions of trying to say they had to attract values voters. What did they actually do? They moved Pravda left. They moved so far left, and then as they moved left, they used their buddies in the media to help destroy the reputations and credibility of those who had won the elections. They didn't try to become like us. They did just the exact opposite. So our wizards of smart said, well, we must become more like them because that's what the American people want. It's easy to do but you'll never win anything, and it's certainly not leadership.

RUSH: Cameron in Hartford, Connecticut. You're next. I'm glad you waited. Hello, sir.

CALLER: There are no words to adequately describe our appreciation for your program and your individual accomplishments as a patriot.

CALLER: And we appreciate you. But on the Cheney matter, I was sitting here in the back of the classroom waving my hand -- you couldn't see me -- when you first posed the question today as to what motivates Dick Cheney to do this. And I got the answer and I've got a word in my answer that I don't hear that often from you and that's the four-letter word, the L-word. And I said, "I think that from what I know of Cheney, it is love of country and concern for country," and then of course shortly thereafter you came out and gave the right answer, but he is a true statesman.

RUSH: I must have been communicating with you telepathically out there, Cameron.

CALLER: He is a true statesman at a time and place where there aren't any, virtually, except for very few rare individuals. And for the same reason that Bush 41 picked him to buttress up Bush 43's presidency as his VP, to make up for the old gravitas factor. It's obvious that... Dick Cheney is a remarkable individual. No, he's not hot for the interns; and no, he doesn't need the graft -- and sure, we hear stories about the Carlyle Group and Control Demolition, Inc. (sic) of, uh, Baltimore, Maryland, owned by the Loizeaux family, but --

RUSH: If you're going to start down this road, put 'em all in there. Halliburton.

CALLER: Yeah, but Cheney is a remarkable individual. Again, I'm looking for others besides him, but I see few.

RUSH: He is the only one. That's why I opened the program today with the question: "What motivates Dick Cheney?" He goes on Face the Nation, he's doing interviews, and he is telling the people of this country the dangers posed by this president and this administration. He is warning that our security is being endangered. He's the only Republican, and he doesn't seek it. I said, "What's his motivation? He doesn't need the money; he doesn't have any more political aspirations. He's not hot for interns. What is it?" I asked this repeatedly during the first half hour of today's program. What motivates Dick Cheney? Love of country, national interest. He knows that they're going to try to destroy him as often as he speaks up. He knows it. That's the MO, the modus operandi of the Obama Democrats, is to destroy anybody who speaks up. That's why they're... Look, folks. Outside of this one story on the Associated Press wire that I just shared with you about the debacle and disaster that will be become the US economy with Obama in the way and doing what he's doing; who, besides a few people on the radio, are talking about that? Who, besides a few people, are warning you, just like you were warned of what the debacle of global warming was? And I'm going to tell you something. I normally don't pat myself on the back. But today, global warming is an issue that has the concern of 30% of the American people. Years ago, it was over 50%. Years ago, it was just a matter of time before we got economic policies based on global warming.

Cap and trade is now what they're down to. They're still trying to advance the whole agenda, but the American people aren't buying it. It's going to be tougher. And that's because somebody spoke up day in and day out and said, "This is a hoax! This is BS." That somebody...was me. And there's me and there are others standing up saying this Obama economic "fix" -- the stimulus package, Porkulus package, TARP, bailouts -- ain't going to do what he says it's going to do. It is not going to get you a job. It isn't going to make you richer. It's not going to make us more prosperous. It is going to remake and reorder this country, and everybody is going to be poorer! They don't like that. They don't like opposition. They don't. So they have no choice but to try to discredit and impugn everybody who speaks out against them. And Dick Cheney is refusing to be intimidated.

RUSH: Well, the real Obama budget is out, not the blueprint, and it's even worse. The Obama budget deficit is to top $1.8 trillion. All of this was predicted! All of this was predictable. Every element of this budget story -- and there are three primary elements to it -- "With the economy performing worse than hoped..." That was predicted. That was predictable. We've "stimulated" the economy with gazillions of dollars since last fall. It has not brought any sign of recovery whatsoever. It never was intended to, if truth be known. "With the economy performing worse than hoped, revised White House figures point to deepening budget deficits with the government borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends." We need to substitute a word for "borrowing," and that word is "printing."

The government is printing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year. That is a double wowza! The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion -- $1.8 trillion! -- the budget itself is going to be $3.6 trillion or $3.8 trillion. They say we're out of money, states say they're out of money, cities say they're out of money, local communities say they're out of money, feds say they're out of money. They're not out of money; they are simply spending it and taking over a larger percentage of the gross domestic product or the nation's economy. "A budget deficit of $1.8 is about four times the budget deficit record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as structural imbalances between what the government expenses and what it takes in."

Do you need me to translate this for you? The unprec... (interruption) You do? I need to translate? "The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession..." Why? What is it about a recession that causes red ink to expand in Washington? The best way to teach sometimes is to ask. What is it about a recession that creates red ink? Well, the answer is very simple. Lost jobs. Lost jobs mean lost income tax revenue, a total loss of Social Security payroll taxes and everything else. You add to that that a record number of Americans are receiving unemployment compensation. Red ink? Loss of jobs equals loss of tax revenue? Okay. The Wall Street bailout? What about that? What about the Wall Street bailout is causing the deficit to balloon? Well, we had to print money for it, for one thing, we didn't have it. We were already in budget deficit. Have the Wall Street firms rebounded?

Have they rebounded, or have many of them shut down and purchased one another and is Barack Obama now not in charge of them? What did the Wall Street bailout accomplish other than getting more and more Americans to hate Wall Street (other than getting more and more Americans to hate the wealthy and to hate business)? The new enemy, the new enemy in Barack Obama's "class warriors America" is the wealthy and big business. So of course we bail 'em out; it doesn't work; then we hear about their bonuses and then we hate 'em. The cost of President Obama's economic stimulus bill. Hmm! Why would that lead to red ink? Well, because we don't have the money. We're "stimulating" a bankrupt economy -- or a bankrupt government is stimulating an economy with money it doesn't have. You figure it out.

It's gotta print it, it's gotta borrow it, but it doesn't have it. You have an economy in recession being "bailed out" by a bankrupt government that doesn't have any money! It would be one thing if the government was flush with cash and was offering bailouts, but the government doesn't have any money. And when the government doesn't have any money, they panic, and then they're gonna raise everybody's taxes and they're going to go out there and do whatever they have to do, if they have to print it, whatever. They're hiring new people left and right while every other job sector is losing jobs -- and "the structural imbalance between what the government spending and what it takes in." Structural balance is a bunch of gobbledygook that can best be defined as surefire greed. If there is greed in the United States of America today, it is found in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC.

"Greed" is to be found in the offices of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and every other Democrat in Washington. That's where the greed is. That's where the "structural imbalance between what the government spends and..." What do you mean, structural? There's nothing structural. It's criminal! Not structural. This is not the way the government was designed. The government was not designed to spend more than it takes in. This is purposeful! "As the economy performs worse than expected..." Worse than expected? Anybody with half a brain knew this was going to be the case with all of this government spending. This government is usurping much of the private sector. The private sector can't possibly recover when the government's taking over more and more of it.

The two don't go together. "As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits, and food stamps." But in the Oval Office of the White House, none of this is a problem. This is the objective! The objective is unemployment. The objective is more food stamp benefits. The objective is more unemployment benefits. The objective is an expanding welfare state. The objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's, quote, "rightful owners." Think reparations. Think forced reparations here, if you want to understand what actually is going on.

So I don't see any concern from Washington about any of this budget deficit stuff. In fact, not only do I not see any concern, there is this little ditty to add to the news: "High US budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on Monday. Orszag, writing in a blog posting, also said that the administration's latest budget deficit estimates ... reflect the latest data on tax receipts, federal bailouts and other government costs." So George Bush was so bad and so rotten, that the only way for Barack Obama to repair and resurrect the country from eight years of the disaster of Bush was to create budget deficits four times larger than Bush's.

Bush made him do it! This will be the excuse that is used every time bad news is reported or bad news is known : "We have no choice. Bush made us do it!" Eight years of vilifying Bush, trashing Bush will pay off, because the dunderheads that are devoted as a cult-like group to Barack Obama will simply believe what is offered. "[G]loomier deficit picture reflected weaker tax receipts..." What could they have done to perhaps increase tax receipts? What could they have done? I proposed it myself! I proposed it in my legitimate bipartisan budget proposal in the Wall Street Journal: cut the corporate income tax rates; stop all this notion of raising taxes on business, businesses overseas; and eliminate capital gains for a year or so, just holiday it to reincentivize investment.

If you want more revenue flowing into Washington, you're going to have to get people working again, and to do that you're going to have to cut people's taxes somewhere along the line to give them revenue to hire workers, hire employees. You're going to have to cut taxes somewhere so that there is private sector economic growth. But the private sector economic growth, that would put a monkey wrench in the plans of Barack Obama, who uses all of these crises as excuses and/or reasons to involve the federal government as the Robin Hood, as the white knight, as the savior that's going to fix all of this. Of course, even their own news releases admit that nothing's getting fixed. But that's because of Bush.

RUSH: Well, President Obama has just finished talking about the unsustainable cost of health care and how his administration is gonna fix it, gonna lower the cost of health care. He's got an idea for cutting costs. He's going to nationalize health care. Now, this is from the guy who is proposing a single-year budget deficit of $1.8 trillion, and he's going to save health care. It's absurd! Just today, he announces a budget deficit of $1.8 trillion, which is a record times four, and he goes out on the same day and says he's going to do magic and reduce health care costs by nationalizing it? How will President Obama and the government cut health care costs if they can't cut any other costs that they're responsible for? Well, the only answer would be to ration health care, to limit access, to create long lines and delays. But Obama doesn't care because his goal is to force everyone into the same kind of health care, regardless how hard they work, how much they earn, how responsible they are with their money, or how poor that health care is. Because what Obama's doing is redistributing wealth, including health care. And if that means less health care for those who can afford it, then so be it.

We all have to sacrifice, as Obama likes to say, even though he never sacrifices. He said that 46 million people are without health care. It's a lie. It can be torn apart. Levin, in fact, breaks it down in his book, Liberty and Tyranny. But the Census Bureau has the numbers to put this lie to the myth. But again, if a liberal lies on television and the media doesn't report it, is it a lie? If the nation is in $1.8 trillion of debt, in debt by that amount, $1.8 trillion just from his budget, and another nine trillion down the road as all of his budgets get added up, how can the government, as an entity, afford to take over the health care system? This was my question a moment ago. How can a government that has no money bail out failing businesses? How can a government that is $9 trillion in debt take over anything, including health care? How can they do it? Nine trillion dollars in debt. They can't afford to take over a kid's lemonade stand on Main Street USA. They are out of money.

When Obama says, as he's saying now in his remarks, that he wants to get costs under control, what does he mean? Well, he means he's going to squeeze the doctors, he's gonna squeeze drug companies. Costs under control? Are we going to have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, less hospitals, less medicines, fewer procedures, fewer technologies? We have a right to know how he's going to control costs. Are you going to control costs by making sure doctors don't make as much, fine, where are you going to get the doctors then? Are you going to control costs by saying drugs are not going to be as expensive? Good, where are you gonna get the companies to make the drugs? "Oh, Mr. Limbaugh, we'll import them from Canada like we should be doing now." Oh, I got you. Barack Obama has yet to show in any way how he will control the cost of anything, including his ego. This is why we have a runaway budget, and this is why we're heading toward a cliff and eventually over and off of it with our debt. And after his speech, he leaves the podium, no questions. There are no questions suitable to be asked of The One.

RUSH: Rasmussen has a story out today on a poll they did on cap and trade: "The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called 'cap-and-trade' legislation being considered in Congress. So wide, in fact, that few voters even know what the proposed legislation is all about." They were given multiple choice options when asked what they thought cap-and-trade is. "Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform." Thirty percent of the people in the Rasmussen survey had no idea what cap-and-trade is. Only 24% knew, 30% didn't know, another 29% thought it was something to do with Wall Street, 17% thought it applied to health care.

"Democrats are pushing the legislation on Capitol Hill, but Democrats around the country are a bit less likely than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party to know that the concept has something to do with the environment. This helps explain why some Democratic pollsters have advised the president to back away from the term cap-and-trade to describe what he wants to accomplish," 'cause people don't know what it is. I would think that would be to Obama's benefit. If they don't know what it is, if they think it has something to do with Wall Street or health care, they'll support it! "There is always political danger when major legislation is enacted without engaging the public in the debate."

How much legislation is even read by people who vote on it anymore, much less involving the American people in debate? "Sixty-nine percent (69%) say health care issues are more important while just 15% say global warming is a higher priority. While the public view is clear, opinion among the Political Class is more evenly divided: 45% say health care is more important while 38% name global warming. Seven percent (7%) of Americans belong to the Political Class, and another seven percent (7%) lean in that direction." The bottom line is they do not know what cap-and-trade is -- which, I guarantee you, is to Obama's benefit. I would venture to say that the vast majority of Obama voters have no idea what he really stands for, what he's really doing and the damage that he is causing them. It may be that they will never admit it even when they are forced to. Who wants to admit that big a mistake? This poll does not surprise me.

RUSH: This is an AP story from this morning: "Counties suffering the most from job losses stand to receive the least help from President Barack Obama's plan to spend billions of stimulus dollars on roads and bridges." Now, this has been learned, strangely enough, as a result of an AP analysis. "Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work --" and, by the way, we need to make a point about this. The Obama people say, Bernanke and some others say the recession is going to end in the last quarter of this year and the economy is going to pick up. Jobs will trail, because they're remaking the economy. They want to go all this green stuff and so forth, but point is that the recession, let's hypothetically say that they're right, they say the recession will end before the stimulus spending actually gets into gear. Most of the stimulus spending is 2010. You know why? It's an election year. And members of Congress will be able to go back to their districts and say, "Hey, look what we're doing here, we're bringing home the bacon. For every dollar I bring home from Washington, it's less you have to be taxed here at home." That's what they say. Of course that's all BS, because the taxes are going up in the states, the cities, municipalities as well.

So you might ask a rational question. If the recession is going to come back before we start spending all the stimulus money, maybe we don't have to spend the stimulus money. Oh, no, no, no, you make a mistake asking a rational question because the stimulus money is not to stimulate anything but the Democrat Party. The stimulus money, the purpose of the stimulus money is to stimulate the Obama presidency. It's not to stimulate the economy. As predicted the economy is going to come back despite this, and it's going to come back, it's going to start coming back before this goes into play, the stimulus bill. But that didn't stop the AP. I'm surprised this got reported, but I'll tell you what they say here. "Although the intent of the money is to put people back to work, AP's review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide reveals that states are planning to spend the stimulus in communities where jobless rates are already lower," or where unemployment is already high, it's okay. They're not going to spend the bulk of the money where there are most people unemployed.

"One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn't receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with its 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse." You voted for it. Does it make any sense to you? We were going to do roads and bridges, infrastructure to get jobs. People didn't think about it, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense, you need people to build roads and bridges," so we're going to build all these roads and bridges or make these repairs in places with low unemployment. "Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.

The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan. The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs."

I can't believe they issued this. Who are these guys? Matt Apuzzo and Brett Blackledge. They are not long for this world, media world. I mean, wait 'til Gibbs and the White House press people see this. Of course, you know what? I take it back. Nobody's going to ask 'em about this. This report will be out there, some newspapers may run it, some not. But they'll never be asked about it. "The very promise Obama made --" this is written by the AP "The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs. The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required. 'It's not fair,' said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. 'It's a joke because we're not going to get it, because we don't have any projects ready to go.'"

Well, I have a question, if you don't have any projects ready to go, might it also be that you don't have any work that needs to be done? Now, who lives in these struggling communities? Who lives there? Who lives in these struggling communities with high employment thinking they're going to get stimulus money? Who lives there? Who do you think lives there, the Henriettas of the world? Do you think poor Democrat voters are the ones that live in these high unemployment areas that are not going to get stimulus money? So it's his own voters who thought that he was going to buy 'em a car and a new kitchen sink that are not going to get any stimulus money. Get this next paragraph: "The early trend seen in the AP analysis runs counter to expectations raised by Obama, that road and infrastructure money from the historic $787 billion stimulus plan would create jobs in areas most devastated by layoffs and plant closings. Transportation money, he said, would mean paychecks for 'folks looking for work' and 'folks who want to work.' 'That's the core of my plan, putting people to work doing the work that America needs done,' Obama said in a Feb. ... Also, Congress required states to use some of the highway money for projects in economically distressed areas, but didn't impose sanctions if they didn't. States can lose money, however, if they don't spend fast enough."

What did I tell you? What did I tell you? The stimulus bill was not about stimulating the economy, and it wasn't about stimulating poor Democrats. It was about stimulating the Democrat Party and stimulating Barack Obama. Because while AP is going to report this, I will guarantee you that all these stupid websites that Obama puts up there where we can track where the money is going, I'll betcha it's a wholly different story. I'll bet the government's websites suggest that all this money is going to all these depressed areas and they'll have pictures of dilapidated bridges that are in the process of being repaired and so forth, and they're all going to be Photoshopped. Such a disconnect out there. "The AP examined the earliest projects announced nationwide, the ones most likely to break ground and create jobs first. More projects are continually being announced, and some areas that received little or no help so far may benefit later. The Obama administration could also encourage states to change their plans." So even after they dumped totally on the plan, they have to end here by saying: well, Obama could fix this, and he might want to fix this.

[Do not forget that the most popular, shovel-ready job out there right now is the border fence; that has been ready-to-go pre-stimulus; Obama has essentially stopped building the border fence]

RUSH: I want to move on to Obama's next takeover of health care. He's going to have a couple of meetings today, and after these meetings, it will be fixed. Health care will be fixed. Here is, after he participated in the roundtable with business leaders, about a dozen of them, Obama went out and said this.

OBAMA: The country is geared up. Businesses are geared up. Families are geared up, uh, to go ahead and start solving some of our extraordinary, uh, health care system problems. Yesterday we focused a lot on cost. Uh, one element of cost, uh, is that where companies are able to take initiatives to make their employees healthier, to give them incentives and -- and mechanisms, uh, to improve, uh, their wellness and -- and to prevent disease, uh, companies see their bottoms line improve. And so what we've done is to gather together a group today of some of the best practitioners, uh, of prevention and wellness -- wellness programs.

RUSH: Now, I can't cite the data to you now. A couple weeks ago or within the last two weeks, I read this, but there have been studies on all this "wellness" business. Keeping people healthy, relatively healthy early on does not save a dime. It does not save a dime on health. All of this is a myth. But, you see, yesterday they fixed cost. See that? Yesterday we focused a lot on cost, and today we had providers in. Today we had the providers in. So we got the providers to go along with our reduced cost plans of yesterday, and, voila! Health care is fixed. Then he added this...

OBAMA: When you hear what Safeway or Johnson & Johnson or any of these other companies have done, what you've seen is sustained experimentation, uh, over many years and a shift in incentive instruct so that employees see concrete benefits as a consequence of them stopping smoking or losing weight or getting exercise; working with providers, uh, so that the provider incentives, uh, are aligned with the employee incentives as well and changing, uhhh, the culture of the company. Now, if we can do that in individual companies, there's no reason why we can't do that for the country as a whole.

RUSH: Well, sheesh! (laughing) I'm just... I'm at a loss. This is not an abstract theoretical argument here. This is absolutely... (sigh) (drumming fingers) It's bull feathers. If we can change the culture of the company, well, then we can do that for the country. Change the culture of the company. Barack Obama, once again with his tentacles, is digging deep into the private sector to change the culture of the country. This is just absurd. "Employees see concrete benefits as a consequence of them stopping smoking or losing weight or getting exercise, working with health care providers so that the provider incentives are aligned with the employee incentives..." What is this? This is gobbledygook! This is bureaucratese. This is utopian bull feathers. None of this can happen. This is not why we have medicine in this country.

These are the wrong foundations. People want health care 'cause they get sick. You can exercise all day long. You can diet all day long. You can do everything he just said and you're still going to catch a virus or you're still going to get in an auto accident, or you're still going to get cancer! Something's going to happen to you. You want to be about to... Look, fixing health care is simple. It is not complicated. It's only complicated because the simple fix runs opposite in the direction everybody wants to go. The simple fix to health care -- and I mean to say simple -- is like it used to be, where the patient is the consumer. When the patient pays what it costs for health care, that's when health care costs come down.

When somebody else is paying for it other than the patient, you can come up with all the incentives you want, and they aren't going to matter a hill of beans. The biggest incentive to bringing health care costs down is if you pay. It's the same thing keeping hotel costs down. You pay for the hotel room you can afford in the hotel your budget can afford. Right now, health care is priced so that hardly anybody can personally afford it. You think this is by accident? It by no means is by accident. It's by design. Cutting the consumer, the patient, the sick person out of the equation, and farming the decision over cost and treatment either to insurance companies or the government and not the doctor or the patient?

Somebody tell me this makes sense. It doesn't make sense in any way, shape, manner, or form. But you lure a bunch of consumers and patients into this because they think it's all free. The company's paying their health insurance or somebody else is paying the bills. They got a co-pay here, then they get all caught up in the fact that, "Well, it's a preexisting condition. I can't transfer the insurance." What a bunch of... What a mess. What an absolute gobbledygook mess. It's so damn complicated precisely because people like Barack Obama have had their hands on the health care business since the sixties, and maybe even prior to that. Now, you're probably saying, "But, Rush! But, Rush! How do you get it to the point where patients pay?" Well, that would definitely be almost impossible to do now. I mean, we found a way to educate kids, right?

We found a way to take kids in poor inner-city schools and with a voucher program with their parents in charge of how much money they have to spend, send them to better private schools in Washington. Black kids, right? And we know that it worked. Guess what? Hee-hee-hee. Shutting down the school. President Obama is shutting down the school, 'cause it doesn't fit with his image of what this country is all about. The private sector is not allowed to excel. The private sector excelling means that somebody's getting screwed, in his world. The government in charge of everything means everybody gets treated fairly even if at the end of the day we are all treated miserably! So now we get all these "incentives." You're going to have to lose weight, stop smoking, all this stuff, and you're going to be incentivized to do that how?

Well, the businesses are going to be incentivized to cut costs. But you're not paying anything anyway as far as you're concerned. Your business owner is getting soaked, but most average Americans don't think they're paying anything. It's a "benefit," and when all this doesn't work, stand by for the next step: which is taxing the benefits that you get at your job, that are health care as income, imputed income. If your employer has to pay ten grand a year for your medical insurance, and your dental plan, and whatever else he offers you, you're not taxed on that right now. The day is coming where you will be. I mean, it's imputed income. You're getting it. It's transferred from one entity to you. It's not a gift. Somebody is having to pay for it. So that will be the next thing to come down the pike.

RUSH: I found it. Here it is. It's from the New York Times. It's an op-ed piece from October 7 of 2008: "'Campaign Myth: Prevention as Cure-All' -- In a presidential campaign that promises straight talk and no gimmicks, why do both candidates champion one of medical care's most pervasive myths? The myth is that like magic, preventive medicine will simultaneously reduce costs and improve health. ... It may sound like common sense. But it is still a myth. The term 'preventive medicine' no longer means what it used to: keeping people well by promoting healthy habits, like exercising, eating a balanced diet and not smoking. To their credit, both candidates ardently support that approach. But the medical model for prevention," is not about that anymore.

"But the medical model for prevention has become less about health promotion and more about early diagnosis. Both candidates appear to have bought into it: Mr. Obama encourages annual checkups and screening, Mr. McCain early testing and screening. It boils down to encouraging the well to have themselves tested to make sure they are not sick. And that approach doesn't save money; it costs money. Increasing the amount of testing for an ever-expanding list of problems always identifies many more people as having disease and still more as being 'at risk.' Screening for heart disease, problems in major blood vessels and a variety of cancers has led to millions of diagnoses of these diseases in people who would never have become sick." I will bet you you've experienced this, because I have. You go into the hospital with an upset intestinal tract, and four hours later you've had three different tests in four different machines to figure out whether or not you got cancer.

The doctors do this out of two concerns. One, they want to find out what's wrong with you, and, two, liability concerns. They're afraid you're going to sue 'em if they don't diagnose the problem. None of this saves any money. In fact, it discourages a lot of people from going to the hospital with a problem, 'cause they know what's wrong with them. I got an upset stomach; I got a blockage; I got something. Something's wrong here. They don't want to spend two days in the hospital missing work to get all the tests to find out what they already know 'cause they've had it before. The point of all this is it doesn't save anybody money. All this preventative stuff, all this incentivizing, you can go out and do all the exercising you want; you can go out and do all the balanced eating you want. Go ahead and do that; they're still going to tell you, "Go get tested." Test for this, test for this, test for this, test for this. Go get tested and you're going to get diagnosed as, "Well, you're showing a tendency here. Well, we got a little problem that we see here," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Costs are gonna add up. Meanwhile, you're doing everything Obama says. You're exercising -- and I'll bet half of you aren't going to do that, you're going to stop smoking and you're going to eat balanced meals and all this and you're going to do this to make the company boss happy, the boss is going to make you do it to make the government happy. We're all going to end up wearing uniforms here and we're going to get memos every morning in our computers from Washington telling us what we have to do every day in order to qualify to be in their good graces.

CALLER: Hey, you don't have to worry about a Democratic Congress taxing sugar, once they discover how unpalatable it's going to make that Kool-Aid for their minions that they've been dishing out. That will be shelved. I want to get back to a point that you made that was a good one about the health care costs really reaching the level that they should be once a consumer pays, allowing free markets to work. About 70 years ago there was an association founded to pay for hospital costs only, that ultimately evolved into the Blue Cross association, the ultimate concept of insurance, a lot of people putting away a little money every so often into a bucket, then when someone got sick and had to go to the hospital, they used it. And the buckets were full everywhere. There's a lot of reasons the bucket's emptied, but one of the big ones is that insurance companies started to invoke a practice of medical underwriting so instead of just saying if you're single, here's how much it costs, you know, for a single policy each month or if you're a family policy here's how much it cost. They started asking a handful of questions and it got to be more and more intricate over the years as to what they would ask and how they would adjust the rates based on that, but when the premiums, the amount you paid for this coverage were simply based on whether you were single or family and certain guidelines were put into effect like, you know, you had to have 75% of the employees at a company participate, it worked out very well. And it's a situation that could work out well again because it would reduce premiums, it would allow more people to be covered. It's simply one that's probably not being brought up because of the lobbying power of the insurance industry.

RUSH: Well, this is a toughie. All I know is that everybody involved on the provider and insurance side and the patient side hates the system. Everybody hates it. The only people who like it are the people trying to fix it and make it worse than what it is by building on what already exists that everybody hates. And by that I mean Obama relishes the opportunity to get his hands around this and make it single payer, government-provided, public option, no private option, that's what they're shooting for. You're going to hear some Democrats stand up and say, "I will not stand for no private options being available." That's just a smoke screen. They're going for public option only, meaning registered government paid for, government this, you're still going to have insurance companies, but it's all going to be funneled and controlled by the government. It's about control. It's being sold to us on the basis that it's streamlined, going to make it more efficient, going to make it cheaper. None of that will happen. Wherever this has been tried, Canada, Great Britain, Cuba, it doesn't work. It's a triumph of emotion over common sense to think that just because we're gonna do it, the same way these people have tried it, it's somehow gonna work. It's not.

I would think everybody involved in this would love to get back to a system where it's market driven, where the consumer, in normal, every day medical care, we're not talking about catastrophic injuries, that's where you need the big time insurance, auto accidents, catastrophes, major diseases that require a lot of hospitalization. But normal everyday health -- when this broke down is when people demanded insurance for a $60 checkup. When every time you wanted to go to the doctor for a sore throat you wanted somebody else to pay for it, once that started, it was over. That's the kind of stuff, if you just price it at a hospital room, just price it to what people can afford. But we've long passed that point in time. I mean, how many of you have looked at your hospital bill and you've seen a Band-Aid for, what, $150 bucks, five hundred bucks for a Band-Aid in Wellington. And you ask yourself, "How in the world can this Band-Aid cost $500?"

Well, there is an economic reason for it, and it is not greed. Because I'll guarantee you the hospital charging 500 bucks is still losing money at the end of the year on gross operations. They still need to go out and find wealthy people to donate the such-and-such cancer wing or the such-and-such diabetes wing. Five hundred bucks for a Band-Aid. They are forced to charge that from people who can pay because of all the people who refuse to pay from illegal immigrants and others who refuse to pay at the emergency room. A Band-Aid costs $500 because not everybody's paying for what they get. Plus, medical malpractice and all of these things get rolled in, tort lawyers. It is such a convoluted mess. And there is no fix that involves the biggest convoluted mess in the world, the United States government, getting its hands on it even more.

RUSH: Here's Chris in Dayton, Ohio. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Great. I just wanted to kind of make a few points, but I wanted to disagree with how a lot of people or a lot of individuals compare "Obamacare" to the Canada health care system, European health care system. I disagree. We don't need to use that as an example. We have good examples here in America. Obama care is pretty much a single-payer system as it has been proposed. Well, we have something like that already in place. America pays veterans health care. We have a veterans health care system that is a single-payer system, regulated health care. If you want to see how special that health care is, all it takes is a quick trip down the medical health care center to sit in line, wait for your care, avoid being seen, see non-providers, and even then being refused care when the money runs out at the end of the fiscal year. The second example we have is also, we have a current health care system for the military. Several years ago they instituted something called TRICARE. If you recall, there was a guaranteed health care for retirees, and they basically reneged on that, and they said we had to go outside.

RUSH: Exactly right! Exactly. That is an excellent point, and I'll add a third one. The VA is constantly complaining about what? Government promised and government-run health care. That's an excellent point. You don't have to go to Canada or the UK. It's actually the point I've been trying to make. The people who have been running this already have broken it, and now they come along and, just like every other disaster, are claiming they're going to fix what they broke, and they're only gonna make it worse.

RUSH: The EPA put out a memo. It's an Obama administration memo. This memo admits that CO2 is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. This memo alludes to the fact that there is no proof. Somebody in the Obama administration really goofed up.

Now, you haven't heard about this, you had to have seen C-SPAN to know about this, but this memo is out there that CO2 is not a pollutant, that there's no evidence that CO2 is leading to the warming of the planet. There is a memo that pretty much debunks everything environmental wackos and global warming people are putting out, and it came from the Obama administration. And what's interesting about it is that the EPA was just given the authority by the Supreme Court to regulate CO2 as a pollutant. So the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had a hearing on the proposed fiscal 2010 budget for the EPA. Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, had a conversation with the EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson. Now, Barrasso opened and he said this.

BARRASSO: In a memo that I received this morning, and it's marked "deliberative attorney-client privilege," nine pages, you are mentioned on every page of this memo, it is a White House memo, counsel in this administration repeatedly, repeatedly questions the lack of scientific support that you have for this proposed finding. It's here. Nine pages. This is a smoking gun saying that your findings were political, not scientific. Here, page two. There's concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.

RUSH: Folks, do you understand what you're hearing? This is a Republican Senator from Wyoming talking to the Obama EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying White House counsel's put together a memo saying everything about CO2 is a myth, that there was no science in the formulation of this, that it was pure politics. He then said this to her.

BARRASSO: Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the US economy, including small businesses and small communities. How do you square that when you say, "I don't want any overriding effect on the economy or small businesses," but this own internal document marked deliberative attorney-client privilege says everything you're proposing is going to have serious economic consequences for our businesses in this nation. Would you like to comment?

RUSH: Lisa Jackson. Here's her answer. It says the memo is basically only somebody's opinion.

JACKSON: The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that EPA owed the American people a determination as to whether greenhouse gases, either in whole or individually, endanger public health and welfare. We reviewed the science of it; we went through interagency review through the White House, so again I'm not sure what that document may say. It's deliberative, so obviously it's people's opinions.

RUSH: It's people's opinions in the Obama White House. CO2 not a pollutant. CO2 can't be said to be raising -- all of this is speculative, that it has all been arrived at politically, not with science. That treating CO2 as a pollutant, which is the precursor, by the way, to Obama's cap-and-trade, somebody put this together in the White House, and this has to be a huge leak, attorney-client privilege. I mean, whoever put this to paper has seriously undermined the cause. Of course, without C-SPAN or me telling you this you wouldn't know about it, I'm sorry. Nobody knows this. She says, "Well, it's just somebody's opinion." And then she went on and added this.

JACKSON: I have said over and over, as has the president, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions and that the best way to address them is through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap and trade. Under the Clean Air Act have the potential to regulate all those sources you talk about now for other contaminates -- schools and hospitals and farms and Dunkin Donuts, and we don't because we use -- we -- we make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and with an eye towards understanding that we don't want to unduly affect those who can least afford to pay. So I do believe that the regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it, but we're not at that point yet.

RUSH: She didn't answer the question. She did not answer the question in any way, shape, manner, or form. She said, nah, this is somebody's opinion, precursor to cap-and-trade, then she throws in this business that they're not going to tax people who can least afford to pay it. But the dirty little secret is that that's who always gets hurt with liberalism. That's who always gets hurt, the people who can least afford it. The little guy either loses his job, increased taxes or what have you. But there you've heard it, this memo is out, attorney-client privilege from the White House, the Obama White House, and just to paraphrase what Barrasso said, it's nine pages, Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator mentioned on every page, the memo questions the lack of scientific support for the finding that CO2 is a pollutant. It's a smoking gun memo saying that the findings were political, not scientific.

On page two, quote, "There is concern that the EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have no demonstrated, direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects. Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the economy, small business, small communities." Obama administration's own memo, own lawyers. I don't know how this got out, and I don't know how Senator Barrasso from Wyoming got it, but he put it to Lisa Jackson. This is, again, not a surprise to me because we exhale CO2. If it were a poison it wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive.

RUSH: You've got a mix of incompetence and radicalism that is posing a huge threat to the future of the country. There's no question about it whatsoever. "What do you mean, incompetence, Rush?" Well, the New York Times has the truth today -- and, by the way, it really would be a mistake to say it's incompetence. This was the way the plan was written. "Nearly three months after President Obama approved the $787 billion [Porkulus] package intended to create or save jobs," and, by the way, that was always gets me: saving jobs. How the hell do you calculate a "saved" job? Honestly?

You can't. You cannot! Now, they're doing it. They've got their websites with a running total of jobs "saved," but you can't do it. It's a lie. It's a myth. But I digress. We are 90 days after this stimulus package, $787 billion that was going to "create or save jobs." How much money has been spent? Six percent of it. In the middle of "the worst economy since the Great Depression," in the middle of "we're going to put people back to work," in the middle of, "We're going to have make-work projects! Roads and bridges are shovel-ready! We're going to get 'em to go! Caterpillar is gonna go back to hiring people. When the stimulus bill signed, we're gonna be bats out of hell putting this company and country and economy back together."

Six percent of the money has been spent, and most of the 6% has been spent for "social service payments" to the states: food stamps, welfare, you name it. But this was the design. We tried to tell everybody. This is why the Republicans didn't vote for this thing. You can say this is incompetence. I say it's a lie. I think it's misleading. I think it's purposeful. This is about expanding the welfare state. "The stimulus bill has directly injected $45 billion into the economy mostly to help the states cover the cost of Medicaid and unemployment benefits, one-time, $250 checks that were mailed to Social Security recipients last week and income tax cuts that began to take effect this spring." Somebody -- AOL or somebody -- is doing a poll on these tax cuts. Fifty percent say that the $13 a week is making no difference in their lives.

Nine percent are saying it's making a big difference, fifty-eight percent say no difference, and the others don't know. So you have to combine the "don't-knows" and "no-differences," because if you don't know if it's making a difference, it's not making a difference. I know it's not gonna be permanent. It's going away. You're going to be paying that back next January, this tax "cut" that you're supposedly getting. "At the same time..." Get this from the New York Times: "At the same time, some economists have questioned the administration's claims the bill has saved or created 150,000 jobs." Some economists are questioning? What is happening here? "At the same time, some economists are questioning..." Six percent, and it's all gone to non-producers! It has not gone to out-of-work people to help them get a job, because it was never going to in the first place.

RUSH: Let me translate all of this for you. It's very simple. Pelosi is out there flailing around with version 5.0 on torture and what she knew; when she knew it. You can't look at that as an isolated thing. You got Pelosi flailing around on torture; you got Obama doing a 180 on the interrogation photos, and now you've got Obama doing a 180 on detainees. We may keep 'em indefinitely and we may not try them. So Obama has employed the Bush policy. Can I translate all this for you? Very simple: Dick Cheney gets results.

Greetings, my friends, and welcome. It's the Rush Limbaugh program, this the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

The headlines tell the tale. Pelosi says she's not complicit version 5.0, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times: "Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely Without Trial." New York Times: "Unease Grows for Democrats Over Security." This story is about the left losing its will on Afghanistan. Jack Murtha saying, (paraphrasing) "We're still waiting for a plan here from President Obama." Chris Cillizza, DC Post: "The Left Rises up Against Obama," coming to grips with Obama not being the liberal hero people thought that he was. Of course, a little aside there, if this was such an overwhelmingly liberal nation, why is Obama making all of these changes from his campaign to governing? I'm going to get into that as the program unfolds, because there are answers to this. Then the next story, "Why doesn't Obama want us to see what's in the photos?" That's from McClatchy. And then this, the LA Times: "Democrats' Bill Would Bar Guantanamo Transfers to the United States"?

Dick Cheney gets results. This is why the Drive-By Media is begging and demanding and making fun of Cheney: shut up, Dick, shut up, go away, don't you understand you're hated? Don't you understand you have no credibility, Dick? Don't you understand you're destroying the Republican Party? Go away, Dick. They say the same thing to me. Dick Cheney gets results. This starts on Sunday. Here we are at Thursday. And the Bush policy on dealing with interrogations, and dealing with photos of interrogations and dealing with detainees is still in place. Dick Cheney gets results.

RUSH: Dick Cheney gets results. There's a headline in the Washington Post today, a story by Dan Balz, and I want to read the headline to you: "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Republicans Wince." Really? Looks to me like it's Pelosi and Obama who are the ones wincing. This headline needs to be rewritten: "As Cheney Seizes Spotlight, Many Democrats Wince." Let's get on with that news from the Wall Street Journal. "Obama Considers Detaining Terror Suspects Indefinitely -- The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on US soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held" at Club Gitmo.

"The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison." Now, there are a lot of things happening here. Obama campaigned to shut down Gitmo and release the pictures. He apologized for America, and then all of a sudden gets into office, and says, "I'm going to close Gitmo January 2010," but they didn't figure out how. He didn't know how. They had to come up with a way to do it and so Eric Holder goes over to Germany and starts asking our allies, "Hey, we're going to get rid of some of these terrorists. We're going to keep some ourselves. How many would you take?"

"Well," Holder says, "you wanted us to get rid of them to say you would love us again!"

So they don't know what to do. So now they're going to have to hold them "indefinitely without trial." The American left is on fire today because this is the Bush policy, this detaining terrorists without trial! What is known is, by the Obama people now, these are deadly people. These are deadly, dangerous people. And they just can't release 'em. The rest of the world doesn't want them. Now, this is the story that I think Pelosi leaked. Rank-and-file Democrats "are growing uneasy over the Obama administration's national security policies." I think this is Pelosi fighting back, 'cause she knows she's in the crosshairs now. When Steny Hoyer went out there and said, "Oh, yeah! We need to have hearings on Pelosi. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah!"

The Democrat infighting is on display now. This story is in the New York Times: "Congressional Democrats are voicing growing unease over the Obama administration''s national security policies, including the seemingly open-ended commitment in Afghanistan and the nettlesome question of what to do with prisoners held at" Club Gitmo. David Obey "said he would give the White House a year to demonstrate progress [in Afghanistan], just as he gave the Nixon administration a year to show progress in the Vietnam War inherited from the Johnson administration." I read that this morning -- well, actually I read that last night. I was up late doing show prep. David Obey from Wisconsin has been in Congress since the Vietnam War! He was sworn in in 1969! It's 2000. These people are there way too long. And he's saying, "Just as I gave Nixon a year, I'm going to give The Messiah a year and get his act straight in Afghanistan!"

I'm going to send David Obey a note, "How much time did you give Lincoln on the Civil War?" So anyway, the wheels are starting to come off here a little bit, because these were fundamental elements of Obama's identity during the campaign. These are the fundamental elements that attracted the left and emboldened them. Anti-American military: embarrass them, humiliate them, make them lose. Terrorists are the good guys! We shouldn't be capturing them. We are the reason they are terrorists. Now Obama is not releasing the pictures -- although that, folks, there's more to that than meets the eye, too. He could have done this with an executive order. Instead, he has decided to oppose it at the Second Circuit, and I'll guarantee you that his buddy, Greg Craig, is going to file a half-assed brief and that these pictures are going to come out in about a month.

RUSH: Back to this New York Times story: "Some liberal Democrats are expressing outright opposition to continuing the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, and are planning to vote against the spending bill" to keep the operations going." Jack Murtha has a quote in this New York Times story: "We keep asking for a plan [from the administration]. I think the Democrats are nervous just because they haven't seen a plan yet." The Murtha quote in this is, to me, a further indication that this story is a Pelosi leak, fighting back against the administration. Now, here's Chris Cillizza. "The Left Rises Up Against Obama" is the headline. Here's one of the key pull quotes from Cillizza's piece in the Washington Post:

"To be clear: it's not immediately clear that liberals are abandoning the president in droves. Rather, as happens with almost every president, elements of the base are coming to grips with the idea that Obama may not be the liberal hero that people thought he was when he was first elected," and they're rising up over the photos; they're rising up over detainees being held without trials. They're rising up over expanding operations in Afghanistan. Tad Devine, a Democrat media consultant, says, "Politically, not reversing course could have had much worse consequences. I think it is the right move, and that makes it a smart move politically." So once again the Democrats talking about the photos here, and they're looking at all of this within a political context, and everybody is saying, "What happened? What happened to change Obama's mind?"

I'll give you a couple possibilities in just a couple seconds. But I want to make an objection. Cillizza's piece here, "The Left Rises Up Against Obama," "[E]lements of the base are coming to grips with the idea that Obama may not be the liberal hero that people thought he was when he was first elected..." If this was a 60% liberal nation, if all of this personal approval for Obama, this job approval, these 60% numbers, if all of it was based on liberalism and ideology, he wouldn't have a problem. He could do whatever he wanted to do here. I mean, we're being told that conservatism is dead and this is more evidence that it is not, and this is why I continue to implore people to start drawing contrasts between themselves, the Republican Party, and Barack Obama.

Now, as to these pictures, these 44 photos that the ACLU is just up in arms about and that Obama has decided not to release, there are a bunch of theories about this. One is, "Well, Rush, you know, he can't release them 'cause he's got this trip to Egypt coming up soon, and he doesn't want to inflame the people in that part of the world, and he doesn't want to make it any more dangerous for him when he goes over there." The other theory is that somebody (some adult somewhere) got to him and said, "Mr. President, you're not campaigning anymore. You yourself, Mr. President, pointed out when the photos of Abu Ghraib were released, how horrible this made America look and how at risk, at greater risk this put American soldiers on the battlefield, and that's why you wanted to bring 'em home and so forth. If you release these pictures, you are engaging in the same behavior you condemned."

That's another theory that's out there. The political theory is, "I gotta do this. I gotta be seen as protecting the troops! I mean, they're mine now. Afghanistan and Iraq are mine," and like I told you during the campaign: these people are not going to saddle themselves with defeat here, folks. They're not going to lose this when they're in charge. They're not going to lose in Iraq when they're in charge. They're not going to lose Afghanistan when they're in charge. Not on purpose. They may lose it, but they're not going to do it on purpose. They're not going to saddle themselves with defeat here. But the third answer, the third possibility is the one that I like the best. The miniature timeline of these photos is that the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in the midst of a lawsuit, ruled that these 44 pictures must be released.

When that happened a short time ago, the Eric Holder-led Justice Department did not object, and many people are asking, "Why the hell not? Why did the department not object?" And the reason for that is that the top leadership of the Department of Justice is nothing but a bunch of radical leftist ideologues. Holder didn't object -- and a lot of people start asking, "Why didn't these guys...?" You know, they represent the United States of America. Their client is the United States of America! That's who the Justice Department represents. They represent the government. That's their client, and they're not looking out for their best interests to have these pictures released.

So then Obama says he's thinking seriously about releasing the pictures, and the left goes (applauding), "Yay! Dude, way to go! Right on, right on, right on!" The adults in the country say, "No, this is not good. We're still on the battlefield, and these are not going to help our efforts in Afghanistan," and they point out to Obama, "You own them now." So what Obama did -- and this is classic Obama -- is Obama yesterday goes out... Let me get the sound bite on this, because it's later on in the roster. Grab, let's see, eight and nine. Let me see if we go to number ten. No, just eight and nine. Here's the first of two sound bites yesterday afternoon at a press conference, Obama talking to reporters about a flip-flop on the photos.

OBAMA: The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.

RUSH: Now, that's an interesting statement, because the left -- you know, his base -- has anti-American opinion. They don't like this country. Obama's militant base doesn't like this country and they thought he was one of them. And he may be, but his own political survival and instincts are going to trump that. He owns Afghanistan. His base wants anything that will inflame anti-American opinion out there. They thought that was what he was about. So he still has to placate these people. Now, yesterday instead of doing this flip-flop -- here's the second sound bite, by the way.

OBAMA: Let me be clear. I am concerned about how the release of these photos would be, uhh, uhhh, uhh, -- would impact on the safety of our troops. Uh, I have made it very clear to all who are within the chain of command, however, uh, of the United States armed forces that the abuse of detainees in our custody is prohibited and will not be tolerated.

RUSH: Yada yada yada yada yada. Okay, so, what he did is he instructed the Justice Department to appeal the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision to release the photos. He didn't have to go to the Justice Department. He could have issued an executive order. This is key. This is important to understand. The fact that he opposes the release of the photos means nothing, because all they have to do at the Justice Department -- let me tell you how these things work. His legal counsel is Greg Craig, the lawyer representing Fidel Castro and the father down there in Cuba in the Elian Gonzales story. All they have to do is write a pitiful brief. All they have to do is instruct the Justice Department lawyers or even Greg Craig himself, in their appeal, to write a half-assed brief.

When you write a half-assed brief, an incompetent brief, or one without passion, you're sending a signal to the judges that you don't care how they rule. So we'll see. If they file a half-assed brief on this and send a signal to the justices on the Supreme Court to uphold the Second Circuit, then the pictures will come out. I don't know how soon the appeal will be heard, but the bottom line here is that opposing the release. This is what's incredible. He says, "I oppose it!" He's acting like an innocent bystander here. He's acting like members of Congress after the subprime crisis: "Whoa, wha' happened? Well, we're not going to let this happen again! We're going to get whoever is responsible for this, and we're gonna nail 'em to the wall." Obama is acting like, "I -- I -- I oppose the release of the pictures. I'll do what I can. (mumbling)"

He could prevent this with an executive order. The statute in this case permits it. But he's not doing executive order. He's letting the Justice Department object and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. If they file a half-assed brief, the judges look at the government's brief and say, "They really don't care about this. Okay, we'll side with the Second Circuit," and the pictures will come out. So therefore, just because he opposes the release of the pictures does not mean they will not be released. So he's gonna, I think, get two birds with one stone here. And when the pictures come out, when the court rules against the government, he's gonna go on television and say, "I tried everything I could," whatever the teleprompter tells him to say. But he's going to have it both ways, his buddies on the left are going to get what they want: the pictures released. And he's going to be able to say, "I stood up and opposed it," when the truth is, an executive order will take care of this hook, line, and sinker once and for all right now, but he's not going that route.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. I just had a question. Do you think it's possible that President Obama came into office with a liberal mind-set that he was fed for years in the academia, no real-world experience, and he comes in with an agenda, and then all of a sudden he's confronted with the real world, good and evil?

RUSH: Well, there are two answers to this. Let me answer this as David Brooks, David Frum, or others might answer it. We have to give Obama credit. When he does the right thing, we have to give him credit. This is the absolute right thing to do and we've known all along that Obama was not the liberal crazy that everybody thought, he's a modern centrist governing from the center and therefore, Obama, this is a wonderful and great thing to do. We've gotta lead the charge, Obama did the right thing. That's the pseudo-intellectual conservative view. The truth is he's incompetent. He is every bit the radical leftist he's always been. This isn't changing his mind about anything. What is happening, if anything, is that the import of his job, you know, he's got a very fine line to walk. I was just talking about this. His base loves anything that inflames anti-American opinion. During the campaign he inflamed anti-American opinion. As a senator he voted to inflame anti-American opinion. In his early days as president he ran around the world apologizing, inflaming and encouraging anti-American opinion.

But now, I'm telling you, somebody got to him, because, look, he followed his instincts. His instincts were to release the pictures. His instincts were to let terrorists go in the United States on the street. Somebody somewhere said, "Wait a minute, for your own self-preservation, you can't release these pictures. You're in the Senate, you're on the presidential campaign talking about how all this torture has ruined our image. Well, you're America now, pal. If you release the pictures, it's going to hurt you politically." Don't mistake a political calculation -- Karl Rove said the other night that this bunch spends two hours a night in the White House going over the day's polling results, to figure out what to do and where to be and what language to put on the teleprompter for The Messiah to repeat, two hours a night. So what has happened here, somebody said it's going to harm you. Remember, everything's about him. These pictures are gonna harm you. You want to harm America, you're taking care of that domestically. If you want to harm America, just keep doing your domestic policy and save your butt with these pictures. And don't release these prisoners. The Germans wouldn't take 'em, the French, Spain. No, to answer your question, he's not learning the truth. He's having to set himself aside in one area, and it's gotta be painful. I'm sure Michelle is giving him grief up there in the residence like you can't believe.

RUSH: We're gonna go back here to the archives of our audio sound bites, and this is about the Gitmo detainees. Do you remember two days after Obama was immaculated, he had all these executive order signings, and one of them was about an executive order calling for the closure of Club Gitmo within one year? See if you remember this.

OBAMA: What we're doing here is to set up a special interagency task force on detainee disposition. They are going to provide me with information in terms of how we are able to deal with the disposition of some of the detainees that may be currently at Guantanamo, that we cannot transfer to other countries, who could pose a serious danger to the United States but we cannot try because of various problems related to evidence in an Article III court. So this task force is going to provide us with a series of recommendations on that. Is that correct, Greg?

OBAMA: And detainee policy going forward so that we don't find ourselves in these kinds of situations in the future.

OBAMA: And that we are providing clear guidance to our military in terms of how to deal with it.

RUSH: No teleprompter that day, so Greg Craig was the teleprompter, telling Obama what to say. So okay, we're going to close Gitmo, we're going to figure out how it never happens again, just like we're going to make sure there's never an economic boom again, we're going to make sure these kind of detainees are never detained again, we're going to have a policy going forward so we don't find ourselves in these kinds of situations in the future, then Greg Craig says, and there is clear guidance for the military as well, and that we are providing clear guidance for our military -- what happened to that executive order. What happened? (laughing) Well, obviously still in force.

CALLER: You know, I'm just a truck driver, too, and I've got an observation. This photo deal was done by a three-judge panel -- or three-dud panel -- on the circuit court. Isn't there nine on there? And if Obama was really serious about this, couldn't he appeal to the whole panel?

RUSH: Yeah, you could ask for what's called an "en banc," and you could ask for the entire panel to review it. And they may. They're going to file an appeal. Well, maybe they're not going to ask. I'm going to have to check with my legal buddies to find out exactly what legal procedure they're going to do. All I know is, the Justice Department is going to appeal it. But the point is not which court hears it next. The point is, no court needs to hear it next. Obama could prevent the release of these photos with an executive order. And in fact, somewhere up on Capitol Hill today -- I just got a brief glance at this earlier in the program -- they were interviewing Lieberman.

The crawl at the bottom of the screen, the Chyron graphic said that an amendment is being proposed to keep these photos from ever being released. So somebody somewhere in Congress, in the House or the Senate is very much up to speed on the possibility that these could eventually come out and they proposed an amendment to keep them locked up. None of this is necessary. Obama could keep those photos under lock and key with an executive order, and he didn't do that. So, you know, you could ask for the whole nine or 12-judge panel on the Second Circuit to hear it, but no court needs to hear it.

RUSH: You ask and I get the answer. We had a caller who wanted to know, "Couldn't Obama, the DoJ, ask for the Second Circuit to have the whole panel hear the appeal?" That would be en banc. The ruling of the three-judge panel was on September 22nd, last year. The Bush Department of Justice did seek an en banc review of the Second Circuit. That was denied. They denied that application March 12th this year. So the Bush administration did appeal. That was when on March 12th, shortly after that, when Obama, Holder, and the Department of Justice, decided not to appeal after the en banc hearing. So now the DoJ, they're probably out of time to ask the Second Circuit to reconsider, since it's already been two months since the Second Circuit denied reconsideration. And, you know, Gibbs said yesterday the new argument Obama supposedly thought up was actually already presented to the Second Circuit, or rejected. Gibbs said that yesterday in his press briefing, so now they have to go to the Supreme Court and they have to do that within 90 days of March 12th, which means they have to do that by early June.

[As I said earlier, I wish Bush, Rove and Cheney had gone out and done more of this during the Bush years]

RUSH: About this house that looks like a trailer and cost 900 grand. The floors blew up because the pipes froze. No electricity, no gas. The future! It's the future of environmentally clean and green living. We're going to spend whatever the budget number is, $6.4 billion, and that's just tip of the iceberg. It's going to end up being more than that. We're going to spend billions and billions and billions to "green up" schools, right? We're going to do to the schools what they tried to do in Troy, Michigan, with this house. We're going to find out that the pipes are gonna freeze. We're going to find out the roof is going to collapse when your average thunderstorm goes through there. We're going to find out that they're going to end up full of mold because of lousy air circulation. The kids are going to get sick from raw wood rot and mold and insects.

But here's the thing about it. We know all of this, you know why? Because we've lived it, and because it was intolerable, we decided to improve it. So we came up with air-conditioning, and we came up with proper fabrics and tools and equipment to manufacture a roof that will stay on and pipes that won't freeze. Advancing our lifestyles got rid of all the kids getting sick in school from wood rot, maggots, insects, collapsing roofs and pipes that burst.

And we're headed back in that direction because that supposedly is gonna save the planet. Next thing you know, we're going to go back to the horse and buggy and our streets are going to be dirt and mud with horse manure in the middle of them. It's natural! That's what's idiotic and insane about Obamanomics. We've been there, and we didn't like it, and we improved our quality of life, and we made things cleaner. You can't tell me that a bunch of mold and bursting pipes and rotted wood and collapsed roofs is progress. Because, my friends, it isn't.

RUSH: Do you remember, folks -- speaking of "environmentally advanced" buildings. In 1994, some of you who are new to the program, of course, will not remember this because you weren't here to hear me say it originally. In 1994, I purchased a condominium in Manhattan, fashionable penthouse on the Upper East Side -- and after the typical year and a half to two years of renovations, lawsuits, lies and stuff in Page Six about the whole process, moved in. One week after moving in, I am in my fashionable new bathroom preparing for bed. A thunderstorm goes nuts outside. I mean, it was just kabooming all over the place. The rain was pouring down. Within five minutes, water was pouring through the light sockets in the master bathroom. I mean, as fast your bathtub faucet will produce water. In the dining room, every opening possible, water was flowing, being flooded. One week after moving in.

In the kitchen, same thing, through the spots, the lights in the ceiling. Bam! Water was just pouring down, one week after moving in. I'm watching this running around grabbing pots and pans from the kitchen, which were meaningless, but I was trying to do something to get the water and keep it from damaging. The bed was soaked, and I said, "How the hell did this happen, and why did nobody tell us this when we were looking to buy it?" You know what I learned later? There was a smaller penthouse above mine, and the people up there had a lot of terraces, and they had turned it into a garden. They essentially had a roof garden up there, and they had... Well, I'll be charitable.

They had failed to follow various codes and so forth in putting it together, and the membranes in the ceiling (the floor) that were supposed to be there, were there, but they were not done properly, and that amount of rain, flash thunderstorm, just soaked it. That's what got into my apartment below. Now, I mention this not because I want sympathy, because it's not that at all. I mention this because roof gardens are the latest craze, on school roofs. Yes! We don't have enough trees out in the front yard. We don't have enough grass. We have to put a roof garden up there to help save the planet from global warming.

Well, I've lived under one. And, by the way, this went on for four years. Even after they supposedly fixed it, it kept leaking, only not the full force, faucet-type flow of water. It was drip, drip, drip, but I eventually had to rip out a lot of ceilings, put it back in, curtains and so forth. The damage was incredible, all because the people up there wanted to be able to go outside to their roof garden. (interruption) Ah, the insurance company paid, yes. Of course, that was a hassle, too. It's always a hassle. Yeah, but they tried not to. I mean, they tried to blame the building, the building said, "No, it's not us. It's the tenant." The tenant said, "No, it's the building." Other people said, "No, it's your fault for not checking before you bought the place."

It was typical of the way these disputes go. That's not my point. My point is, I've lived under one of these damn things, and I've had my property destroyed. We're going backwards with all this environmental rotgut. Okay. (interruption) What? What's the moral of the story? What is the...? (interruption) Mmm-hmm? Mmm-hmm? No, I didn't know because it was much smaller. The roof garden... The building was tapered. They had more outside square footage than they had inside their apartment. Actually the condo they had was smaller than mine. Mine was the whole floor, and theirs was the whole floor, but theirs was about half the size and then outside that is where the roof garden was. (interruption)

Well, it's easy to see now. Yeah, I shoulda bought both. Right. Easy to say now. Actually if you can think that way, I should have bought the top three. 'Cause then when the middle one got damaged I would have had someplace to go while fixing the middle floor, but there wouldn't have been damage because I wouldn't have built a roof garden up there! I'd have built standard patios, put a barbecue pit or whatever up there, and lived a normal life up there rather than wandering around a bunch of weeds! (sigh)

Has this ever happened before? President Obama looks at the Chrysler ad budget and says, “Cut it in half.” Wouldn’t it be cool if Obama did that to every federal agency and program out there?

Republicans:: “How is it possible to even explain what Obama’s budget is and how detrimental it will be for America?”

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 #75	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	May 17, 2009