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.

Iranian people demonstrate in huge numbers in Tehran and elsewhere over flawed election (election results were announced hours after the polls closed, even though the ballots would have had to have been hand counted, as they are not computerized). President Obama expresses concern.

It comes out that, Senator Dick Durbin, after a meeting which included Hank Paulson, cashed out $115,000 in stocks and mutual funds before the big crash.

David Letterman attempts another apology concerning his jokes about Governor Palin and one of her daughters.

2 weeks ago, 2 Japanese men in their 50's were stopped with $134 billion in US Treasury bills. This is about a tenth of our GNP. Although this story is quite significant, this story has gotten very little coverage.

As of today (Sunday), one news service tells us that there is an eerie calm in Iran, and that 17 protestors, so far, have been killed during the protests, and about 100 injured.

Gerald Walpin, Inspector General over AmeriCorps in Sacramento, was told by the White House to resign last week. He refused. By law (actually, by a law co-sponsored by then-Senator Obama), 30 days notice must be given, along with specific reasons for a firing. An inspector general’s job is to determine if there is government waste in this or that program, or in this or that organization. Walpin led a 2008 investigation which showed that Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who was actually the founder of this chapter of AmeriCorps, had misused $850,000 in AmeriCorps funds. There have been allegations that Michelle Obama has had a hand in Walpin’s firing, a charge which the White House denies. It is worth noting that the press hammered Bush for the firing of a few Attorney Generals for political reasons (even though they serve at the pleasure of the President) . Firing an Inspector General has the potential of being much more political, because they are watchdogs over taxpayer money. One of the questions being posed is, if Walpin is just too old to discharge his duties, then why is he not fired properly, as per the law?

Speaking of California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sent Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg a metal sculpture of bull testicles, indicating that California lawmakers need to have the testicles to make difficult budget decisions.

ABC has agreed to broadcast from the White House for a day, which will apparently showcase Obama’s health plan. Republicans and/or conservative groups will not be given any time on ABC’s airwaves—they cannot even buy it.

“The supreme leader [of Iran] is, by all accounts, the supreme leader,” said Joe Biden this past week.

“We just had a [G-20] meeting and the world is in a recession and what is the one thing every country agreed upon—that we need to have fiscal respons...we ne-need to have some control over the system so that it can’t run wild.” said Joe Biden, correcting himself just in time.

“Things are getting better [in the economy].” Joe “I got a million of them” Biden.

“Everyone feels mildly better about were the economy is going.” Joe Biden again (same interview).

“Now, Mr. Evil,...” And Dr. Evil stops and corrects him, “[Call me] Dr. Evil; I didn’t spend 6 years in evil medical school to be called mister, thank you very much.” Mike Meyers as Dr. Evil.

“I wouldn’t know a twitter from a tweeter,” Hillary Clinton said. Do you recall how people were astonished that John McCain did not use email? Speaking of which, recently I saw McCain, and he suggested, “Or you can simply email me.”

"You know, most people, when they read 1984, were scared. When Barack Obama read it, he started taking notes." Rush Limbaugh.

After Obama swatted a fly during an television interview, PETA spokesman issued the following criticism: "We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals. We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals."

Actually, right now, the protests going on in Iran is the break that we have been looking for. People who know something about foreign policy might be able to turn this situation to our benefit (as well as to the benefit of the Iranian people).

The Onion reports on Obama, coming out of a Denny’s, visibly shaken (there is a commercial first):

You may or may not enjoy this (nerds will). The PC guy (the nerdish one on the television commercials), did a bit at the Radio & Television Correspondents dinner. It was reasonably humorous:

Click on Reality Checks and choose Access Denied for an excellent O’Reilly segment:

Chris Dodd being interviewed by Chris Wallace on Health Care. If you listen carefully, you will hear a number of people-tested talking points in what Dodd says. This is a good interview to test your own critical thinking:

1) Vice President Joe Biden recently made a remark that the government health care option is simply adding some competition to the market. You cannot referee and play in the game at the same time (an observation made on the Laura Ingraham show).

2) Some liberals think that the government stepping in and fixing prices on medical procedures is a good thing, because medical costs and medical insurance costs have been skyrocketing. Do you know why these costs are going up so quickly? Because the government sets prices for medicare, and, in order to break even, prices are raised everywhere else. It is precisely government price fixing for themselves that increases the costs for everyone else. Think of it as a store. If Charley Brown can walk into that store and pay 80¢ on the dollar for whatever he wants (according to one doctor I listened to, it is actually less than that where he worked), then that store will have to charge Lucy more in order to make up that loss.

3) When examining liberal programs and proposals, there are two things you have to ask yourself: (1) is this really their end game or is this just the first step to something else that you actually don’t want; (2) what are the unintended consequences? I know a lot of liberals, and at least half of them are intelligent, well-meaning people who think that liberal programs are looking out for the little guy and the person who is temporarily having difficulty. The end result is often a government-dependent class, which continues to grow, does not leave this dependence paradigm, and learns to vote for whatever party is going to support them so they do not have to work. Conservative Republicans are not heartless. We believe in taking care of those who are really helpless. We believe that part of what defines a society is how it deals with its helpless members. However, this is not the same as creating a permanent government-dependent class, which is what we have done. I deal with this class of people day and night. They are out there and there are millions upon millions of them. They don’t have to work hard, they do not have to work a second job, they don’t have to get an education or training, and they don’t have to make common sense decisions; because the government will take care of them, no matter what they do or don’t do.

4) A good example of this is the free breakfast and free lunch programs at school. Did you know that some schools have just given up and provide everyone with a free breakfast and lunch? Did you know that 50% of the students is not atypical for the percentage of kids receiving a free or reduced meal? My family struggled financially, but the idea of not feeding us boys was never an option. That thought never occurred to my parents. This is what a normal parent is like. A normal parent does not decide, “You know, I’m just not going to feed my kids dinner.” Although I despise government interference, if there are parents out there who do not feed their children, that is a job for CPS. Can there be anything more basic or fundamental in the family unit about feeding your own children? And do not tell me they are poor and cannot make it and cannot afford food. Are you kidding me? With the abundance of food stamps and free food centers

(both governmental and private), you are telling me 50% (or whatever the number is) of parents are unable or unwilling to feed their children? This is the result of a government free food programs. It is called unintended consequences.

5) The argument against a government-run health care (or an additional option of a government-provided health care) is a simple thing to understand. The United States has the best health care system in the world. It is expensive, but a government-option is going to be far more expensive. The government option will cause many private health care systems to go out of business (Obama calls this “Eliminating waste and inefficiency,” and if anyone is an expert on waste and inefficiency...). What Obama is proposing is not only going to be expensive beyond belief (remember, whatever the initial promises are, double, triple or quadruple that for the real cost when government is involved), but it will not cover but about 1/4th of those without health care. So, why do we want to fix a system which is the best in the world, spending an incredible amount of money, which will drive legitimate businesses out of business, and end up not even insuring all the people it is supposed to theoretically insure?

6) Sometimes, people can be quite frustrating. Many will support government-run health care, not because they will like the results, but because it just sounds like it could be a good thing or they think they will somehow get it free or at a lower cost.

7) This has been stated in several ways by several people, but Obama does not have that freedom instinct nor is he able to easily shift gears. What is happening in Iran is historic and, with the right involvement by the United States, could actually turn Iran into a real democracy, which could then change the nuclear problem there. Quite obviously, it is a delicate fire which needs some encouragement. Obama should not be saying, to the Iranian mullahs, “You shouldn’t hurt these protestors; it is their right to protest;” he should be saying, “The United States firmly stands with and supports those who desire freedom and a true democracy in their country.” A green arm band (or a black arm band) worn by Obama would speak volumes to these people, and give them real hope. Obama needs to learn something from Iran’s soccer team, which team the Iranians dearly love, and whose members are wearing green jerseys and armbands to signify solidarity with the people of Iran. Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush would have expressed unequivocal moral support for those people in Iran who want freedom (and this is not the same as saying, “We are sending the troops in.” This is simply lending support and telling the people that we support them and our prayers are with them. 8) The Senate votes unanimously to apologize for slavery. Although conservatives speak out against this colossal waste of time, I want the Senate and House to find everything that they can think about to apologize for, and then to debate this legislation long and hard. That will keep them from spending more of our money.

9) What is happening in Iran could change everything. With the right amount of effort, Obama could not influence what is occurring in Iran, but we could end up with a pro-American government there. This would solve one of our two nuclear problems.

10) Where do you think the Iranians got the idea that free and honest elections could be had in the Middle East? You do know that Iran is right next door to Iraq, right? Also, have you noticed that many of the protestor signs are in English. For whom are these signs intended?

11) The president has a 15 person board to determine medical protocol. Not one of these 15 is a currently practicing doctor.

12) Members of the Iran soccer team are wearing green armbands to show solidarity with the citizen-protestors in Iran. Where is Obama’s green armband?

13) Obama complained this week of the negative stories on him at FoxNews. A commentator there said, “At what point did it become the responsibility of the press to put out positive stories on the president?”

14) According to Carrie Prejean, there were 3 other gay judges besides Perez Hilton.

15) Democrats do not want all people to be covered under government health care. They are fine with only 16 million covered by the proposed health care legislation. This gives them an issue that they can continue to bang the drums for (like poverty).

16) Chris Dodd recommends more competition in order to drive down the cost of health care; his idea of competition as being a government option. He also says that health care is too profit driven. Dodd also claims that health care today is far to bureaucratic. Government, I guess, is known for reducing bureaucracy? Then Dodd offered a plethora of solutions, none of which require a government health care option.

17) Even though one of the Democratic talking points about public health care is, this will be U.S. designed health care for the United States, and nor for Canada and Britain, it is still the government. It will cost too much, there will be more bureaucracy, and, like EVERY public health care system in the world, it will mean rationing of health care (the older you are, the less you will be covered; the more expensive the treatment, the less likely you will get it).

CBO estimate for government’s involvement in health care: $1.6 trillion over 10 years.

The Biden interview with David Gregory was pure gold. If it had been Sarah Palin, we would have heard sound bites looped together forever. A comedian could take this interview and almost do it word-for-word and it would be funny.

Some Democrats are beginning to realize that health care and the deficits could ruin them. Call your Democratic Senator or Congressman and tell them how you feel.

[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.]

Joe Biden: “Real reform will mean reductions in our long term budget. I have made a firm commitment that health care reform will not add to the federal deficit over the next decade.”

By the CBO numbers, your health care package will cost about $10,000/year/person covered and it will not even cover one-third of those who are not covered. Is that acceptable to you?

Government is known for cost-overruns, usually to the tune of 2x to 3x whatever your estimate happens to be. Are you taking this into account?

If you think that government health care will not affect your health care adversely of if you think it will be cheap or reasonable.

If you think that we are not facing skyrocketing inflation and skyrocketing taxes in the next 2–3 years.

What I just said. Inflation will skyrocket, starting within 6 months and continuing for several years, unless federal spending is curtailed.

Obama is still on the campaign trail; this time for government health care. Now, if this was such a good program, what does he have to sell it?

If you are a liberal or a moderate in favor of government-run health care or government inserting themselves as a competitive option, listen carefully to these numbers:

The CBO (the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) estimates that the cost of government going into the health care business is $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. They estimate that only 16 million of the 46 million without health care will be covered. That is a cost of $100,000/person over that 10 year period of time, or a cost of $10,000/person/year. I have cheap and lousy medical insurance, because it is what I can afford—I think I pay around $1000/year. Most people pay 2 or 2.5x as much. In any case, the cost for the average person’s health care coverage under our government is going to be about 4x as much as you are paying. And who gets to pay for this coverage? You and I.

Even if I agreed that it is my responsibility to pay for someone else’s health insurance, I sure don’t want to pay for coverage which costs 10x what I pay; and I am sure you do not want to pay for coverage which costs 4x what you pay.

Because there is no talkradio Saturday AM, I listen to NPR when eating breakfast and having my coffee, and it is an eye-opener. An expert was being interviewed about the regulations which Obama intends to place on the banking system, and he was asked to give an example of an immediate effect of Obama policies. He said that, no longer will some hapless consumer (my words, not his) put in an application on a mortgage which he cannot afford because his salary is too low. I was a realtor for about 15 years (actually, summers), and this was never the case. FNMA and FHLMC had strict guidelines about the overall debt obligation to salary and the house payment to salary. Since they would guy up the loans which mortgage companies made, mortgage companies held to those ratios for most of their loans (however many they sold to the secondary mortgage market). So along comes the Community Reinvestment Act, which is put in under Carter and modified dramatically under Clinton which kicked us into the economic crisis which we are in today. First, it changed or eliminated all the standards set by FNMA and FHLMC so that virtually anyone could buy a house, regardless of credit, income or rental history if they were a minority and/or a first-home buyer.

Many lenders were very reticent to go along with these practices so along comes ACORN (and other community organizations) which put great pressure on banks to make the loans which the U.S. government would buy (FNMA and FHLMC are quasi-federal organizations) so that, mortgage lenders began making these types of loans, which they knew would fail, but, since the government would buy them, they made anyway. If they did not, ACORN people would not just demonstrate against the bank itself, it would go to the homes of the bank heads and demonstrate there.

Quite obviously, there were lenders who, seeing these new regulations, just began making as many loans as they could.

So now, Obama proposes that he control the lending institutions who made all of these bad loans, and to regulate them so that they can no longer make these bad loans. That is how this is being sold. Government essentially creates this mess that we are in; they point their fingers at the mortgage and banking industry as if they are the prime cause here (changes in federal requirements in FNMA and FHLMC and then pressure from community organizations were the prime causes).

The fix here is simple—FNMA and FHLMC need to return to and hold to the standards which served our nation well for decades. Obama does not need to set all guidelines for lending institutions.

Liberals, because they refuse to believe that a Democratic presidents and community organizations caused this problem, think that, some regulation is necessary, so that the government essentially control all of our banking and financial institutions.

It would be as if—let me see if I can come up with some fictitious illustration here—the government set mandates and controls over some industry, like, say, the auto industry, setting up mandates which affect both the automobiles made and the interactions between labor and management, which will doom the company, and then government steps in and says, “You broke it through your corporate greed; now we have to come in and fix it.” Okay, not an example of something fictitious.

You must have a business or work for a business. So, government sets policies and regulations which essentially bankrupt your business. Your business is blamed for its evil practices and greed, and government steps in to either run your business directly or to dramatically regulate it so that you do not screw things up again.

What is it all about? It is about power and control. You may not understand a lust for power. We all have various lusts, e.g., materialism lust, sexual lust or power lust. Some of us more than others and some of us give in to these lusts more than others.

Some people are driven by power lust. It overshadows all that they do. Although some politicians see their jobs as public service, many of them simply desire power and control, because they can do everything better (in their own eyes). Their end game is power and more power and additional power.

If the government has complete control over our financial institutions, that is called power and more power.

It is not about regulating the banking industry so that they do not screw the consumer. It is not about providing government help to the medical industry to help those without insurance. It is not about taking an automobile company and saving it and its jobs. It is all about power and control.

Our founders knew this, and they did everything that they could to divide up power in ingenious ways: 3 branches of federal government; state versus federal government; city and country versus state government; etc. And, just in case no one understood that, they added the Bill of Rights, which restricted what the government could do.

No doubt, you have heard of Senator Barbara Boxer’s exchange with Brigadier General Michael Walsh. He called her ma’am, and she stopped him and insisted that he call her Senator. I have said stupid and thoughtless things in my life, and had I said something like this, I would have later apologized. When I taught college, it would be like me insisting that my students call me Professor Kukis—sure, I could require that, but, really, is it that important, even though I did work hard to become a teacher?

Anyway, it never occurred to me that anyone would defend Barbara Boxer and say, “Barbara—I mean, Senator Barbara—you’re okay.” And then I listened to NPR news and, yes, time was spent justifying her bitchiness (in fact, this segment was roughly equal to the time NPR spent on their Tea Party coverage):

It's usually an indication that you've reached a certain age or bearing that signals you are an elder, or someone who deserves a certain level of respect. Some women don't like it because it makes them feel, well, old.

During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee earlier this week, the junior senator from California and a brigadier general from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were discussing the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Study - the LACPR, in government jargon. Hardly the kind of discussion likely to go viral - until this exchange:

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CALIF.): You know, do me a favor, could you say "senator" instead of "ma'am"?

BOXER: It's just the thing. I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you.

General Walsh wasn't making a point about Senator Boxer's gender - as befitting a military man, he addressed the male senators as sir and Senator Boxer as ma'am.

But people can be touchy about titles, especially when they've worked hard to get them. If you slaved away on weekends and missed family dinners at home to be that senior vice president of your company, admit it - it would get under your skin a bit if someone introduced you at a large meeting as just a veep.

Whenever a president is referred to as Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama, you can be sure news organizations are being bombarded with e-mail. Not that news organizations don't have their own protocols. Certainly Daniel Schorr deserves his status as SENIOR news analyst, and NPR is happy to recognize that.

If you earned your Ph.D and you want to be called doctor, so be it. As for those who don't think much of titles, I would ask, what does it really take away from you to recognize another's achievement?

Sen. John McCain and many TV pundits were among those who have needled Senator Boxer over the exchange with General Walsh, even though there appears to be no hard feelings between the two of them. They are said to have had a pleasant phone conversation since the hearing.

So if Barbara Boxer wants to be referred to as senator instead of ma'am - what's the harm?

Titles have a function. They let us know what someone does. They let us know what level someone has achieved. And yes, sometimes a title is a signal: "I have authority over you."

The latter is particularly helpful with kids. Many children aren't allowed to address adults by their first names, but rather "Mr. Simon" or "Uncle Scott."

Allow me to add the comment, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton and Mr. McCain, would probably never stop someone mid-sentence, who calls them sir or Mr. ____, and demand to hear their title. Obviously, Ms. Boxer is fully within her rights to be called Senator; no one has ever argued that she does not have the right to be addressed in the way that she wants to be addressed. But anyone who just has to hear their own title, and insists upon it, just tells us everything that we need to know about him or her. From my perspective, it simply reveals a ruling class attitude.

[it is clear that the person whose name is usually affixed to this letter did not write it, although she did receive it and forward it; the original author may or may not be Franklin T. Bell. However, the content of the letter is good, nevertheless.]

I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States? This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You don't show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

You can't find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don't want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What's the matter with you?

I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members - on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven't said anything about that. Who authorized that? I surely didn't!

Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that's $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million - not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven't you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: First of all, I've got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, that's a pretty...

OBAMA: Well, that's a pretty big megaphone. And you'd be hard-pressed if you watched the entire day to - to find a positive story about me on that front.

Well, the question is: Is that true? Are we unfair to President Obama? Let's look at it methodically.

First of all, a study by the Pew Research Center said flat out FOX News had the most balanced coverage of the presidential campaign in the cable news world. That is irrefutable.

Secondly, the president is now moving the country left. So Reagan conservatives like Sean Hannity are going to have a problem with that. So will libertarians like Glenn Beck. There are very few conservative Republicans on TV, so that may be why the president is horrified by some criticism. I mean, everybody knows liberals own the media.

In the FOX lineup, Bret Baier seems to be neutral. So does Shepard Smith and Greta. FOX News commentators Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Marc Lamont Hill, Ellis Henican and Bob Beckel all generally support President Obama. Neil Cavuto's a fiscal conservative. As Cavuto said on his program Wednesday, he roundly criticized President Bush on spending just as he does President Obama.

And then there's "The Factor." Anyone who watches this broadcast knows I've tried hard to be fair to the president, often giving him the benefit of the doubt. Well, my job's to look out for you. So when the president's policies are wrong, in my opinion, I say it. Just as I say it when he does something right.

O'REILLY: President Obama did the right thing yesterday by listening to his generals and refusing to release evidentiary photos of American military people abusing prisoners.

I thought that Barack Obama did a good job over there. He's leaving with goodwill.

First of all, the president is smart to engage the Middle East and the Muslim world in general because there's no question that anti-American feeling among the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world is a major problem for the USA.

I thought President Obama did a good job in the pirate situation last week, deploying Navy SEALs and rescuing Captain Richard Phillips.

Oh, we could go on and on. Now, if the president thinks we have been unfair to him, he's always welcome to reply. His people can come on. He can issue a statement. I told that to the president directly, man to man, face to face.

So, I have to chalk this up to politics. There's no question the president receives very favorable treatment from most TV news operations and maybe that's skewing his thinking, because they love him so much, any criticism becomes a major event for him.

But there could be something else in play. In researching the president, I have found he has rarely been criticized in his life. So, the microscope he is under now, as intense as it is, he's a sensitive guy. And when he gets criticism, he's not used to it.

If any of you watching believe I have been unfair to President Obama, please e-mail me with specifics. We'll put them right on the air. And again, the Obama administration is invited on any time to discuss anything. That is fair and balanced.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have deep concerns about the election. And I think that the world has big concerns about the election. It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling - the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections.

BRET BAIER, "SPECIAL REPORT" HOST: President Obama today talking about the situation in Iran after meeting with the South Korean leader. This as thousands of opposition protestors took to the streets for the fourth straight day, loyal to Mir Hossein Mousavi, and also as Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei met with the presidential campaigns, saying that this investigation that they have launched will really only involve selected counties that may be in question as far as the voting goes.

So what about all this and the administration's response? Some observations from Fred Barnes, executive editor of the "Weekly Standard," Juan Williams, news analyst for National Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer - Charles?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I find the president's reaction bordering on the bizarre. It's not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader's gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.

And the president has said "I have seen in Iran's initial reaction from the supreme leader." He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.

So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader - it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.

And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It's about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That's the point.

What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways - suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.

And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1980, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it. And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NEWS ANALYST, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: The United States, I think, stands as a beacon to the world in terms of freedom and democracy.

We were in Iraq in terms of advancing democratic principles, and we have continued to be a force for democracy in the region, even though some have now questioned whether or not we were trying to do too much under the Bush administration in terms of advancing democratic principles.

But I think that what Charles is saying is short-sighted for this reason - it would give us great pleasure to simply vent, to simply say, listen, we stand with the people in the streets and what we are seeing from this absolutist, hard line regime, this Islamic rule as represented by the ayatollah and his guardian council, is not in keeping with democratic principles and the will of the people, and we are outraged, and we can't stand it.

We can go on like that, but, to my mind, what we are seeking to achieve requires discipline, because what we're seeking is a long-term goal, which is that we want to stop, ultimately, Iran from gaining nuclear weapons or attacking and threatening Israel. That's the key to the stability in that region.

And so we have a goal that goes beyond this immediate uprising of some sort in Iran.

And we don't know how it will play out. We don't know if, in fact, because we just heard from Mousavi today that he said he wants the demonstrations to stop. He said don't fall into that trap.

So if that's the case, this could play out for months and years, and our immediate goal of stopping them from having nukes is far more important.

BAIER: The president said two things today, Fred. The president said in an interview that there is not much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. And he also said that if he spoke up more, that it could possibly embolden the Ahmadinejad forces.

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": That is a totally false choice, well expressed by Juan Williams, as well, totally false choice between on the one hand, if we talk tough and we support the democratic freedom forces in Iraq - rather in Iran, that are in the streets, that want to have fair and honest elections, if we support them that somehow we will alienate this regime.

But it never works that way. Actually, you strengthen your hand, as Ronald Reagan found out in dealing with the Soviets. All of a sudden, they were making concessions on nuclear arms deals and so on that they had never even considered before.

So that is a totally false choice. And I think Obama should know better, as should Juan. He should know better, too.

Obama talks about, well, we had this election campaign, and there was a debate, and so on. And now we're going to check to see if the vote was counted correctly. He acts like it is Florida in 2000 between Bush and Gore.

The question here is the survival of one of the most hideous regimes in the world. And that's what's important.

And it's not Obama venting or anyone else in his administration venting. It's supporting the people in the streets, the democratic forces who want the president's support.

KRAUTHAMMER: If your objective is to denuclearize Iran, or at least blunt its program, the idea that somehow it's preferable, to, as Obama had done, to say we will remain engaged, implying he would accept negotiation with a discredited Iranian regime on the one hand, which will not succeed, and we all know that.

Whereas the only chance, short of a military attack, of stopping this program is with a revolution in the street, which would change the orientation of Iran and change it away from an existential enemy of America, Israel, and the Arab states. That's what's at stake.

And to say I'm going to sacrifice any support America could give in order that I'm going to retain the option of negotiation with hard- liners who are never going to yield on nukes, makes no sense at all.

Our only hope on the nuclear issue is a change of regime, and that all of a sudden has become possible almost in a miraculous way. It is still improbable, but it's possible, and we ought to throw our support and to show the demonstrators that they are not alone.

Look, here is one of my objections, and that is President Obama says it's meddling if we support the democratic forces in Iran. Meddling. That's not meddling at all. That's supporting the people who see America as a model that they like to emulate.

BAIER: President Obama vows to get tough with North Korea over its increasingly belligerent nuclear threats. He is talking the talk, but will he walk the walk? The FOX all-stars weigh in next.

OBAMA: North Korea has to make a decision, and understand that prestige and security and prosperity are not going to come through the path of threatening neighbors and engaging in violations of international law.

LEE MYUNG-BAK, SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT (via translator): As reiterated by President Obama, we agreed that under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.

BAIER: The South Korean leader standing alongside the president of the United States, talking about what's going to happen with North Korea. But what about what is happening and how North Korea will respond to all of this. We're back with the panel. Juan, is it tough enough?

WILLIAMS: Well, the language right now is tough, especially after the U.N. resolution was passed on Friday. But it lacks specificity. Exactly what happens when the U.S. or any other international force intercepts a ship that is carrying technology or nuclear material to the north? It's not clear.

Apparently we are not supposed to board that ship. Apparently we can steer them to port, but they may not choose to deal with us. So exactly what is it that the United States or anyone else is supposed to do?

I think that there has to be some clarity on this issue, and it has to be done in terms of the international community, and I'm especially thinking of Hu Jintao, the president of the China.

Exactly what is he willing to do, because he's going to have to deal with the ramifications, the consequences, because if there is instability in North Korea, the suspicion is there will be a flood of people over the border, there may be threats against China, maybe mass starvation.

KRAUTHAMMER: It is not going to happen. The Chinese have said that, and the Russians as well, that no force is to be used in inspecting these vessels. So it's a non-starter. Nothing is going to happen.

What I think is remarkable is that even though over the last 16 years in the Clinton and the Bush administrations we did not succeed in stopping, although we slightly slowed the nuclear program, look what's happened in the six months of the quote, unquote, "smart diplomacy" of the Obama administration?

Long-range missile tests, the explosion of a nuclear weapon probably a third the size of Hiroshima, the declaration that the plutonium the Bush administration had frozen will be weaponized entirely, the entire stock, and the declaration that the uranium program which the Bush administration talked about, which Democrats had said was an invention of the Bush administration, the uranium enrichment is going to start up. All of that and the seizure of two Americans. If that is not a repudiation, a humiliating repudiation of the Obama policy on North Korea, then nothing is.

KRAUTHAMMER: The Bush administration had the plutonium rods frozen and had a slowdown in those departments. There is a big difference.

BARNES: You know, that question that President Obama says the North Koreans have to answer - they answered it years ago. They don't care about being this prosperous accepted nation that gets along well with the Europeans, and so on. They want to be a nuclear power. That's what they want. They want nukes. And they're willing to proliferate them.

Look, I think this is a perfectly good step with these ships, but is it going to in any way seriously affect further development of nuclear weapons in North Korea or the proliferation of nuclear materials that they can send to other countries?

Remember, one, they're not going to board these ships. But there is also land and sea. I mean, how do nuclear materials get from North Korea to Pakistan? I think they went through China. How do all those North Korean officials get to Iran when they're having tests on missile tests? I think they probably go by plane. I don't think they go by boat.

So this is nice, but it doesn't do much. And, as Charles was hinting, anything that the Russians and the Chinese agree to is not going to have much effect.

WILLIAMS: Well, we can hope that - let's say, in fact, I will give credit to this for Bill Kristol. He said why not say to the Chinese that the Japanese and Americans will act if you don't act?

KRAUTHAMMER: It's a playing card we ought to play, and to play it now. It's a trump.

BAIER: Stay tuned for a unique perspective on Iran's current political situation.

Iran now faces a war with the internet; information is getting out of Iran, despite their crackdown:

Tom Colburn, U.S. Senator, lists 100 wasteful projects in the Stimulus package (remember, we were never really given any time to examine this stimulus package):

Sarah Palin would win a landslide just being herself if she allowed me and John Ziegler produce a "reality show" that follows the Governor and her family around 24/7. Don't air it on a news network but on TLC or BRAVO. Make it just as "real" as the other scripted reality shows out there. After one season Sarah Palin would have a substantial lead in any poll. After two seasons, people would be asking "Why can't Sarah Palin be president NOW?".

Obama’s doctor of 22 years disagrees with Obama’s plan; however, Obama’s doctor doesn’t sound like he has any sense either:

May 2009 State jobless rates (the states are listed about the middle of this article):

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm (one of the fascinating things is, most of the states which tend to vote liberal have high unemployment rates; and most of the states known for their conservatism have low unemployment rates).

City in Montana is requiring user names and passwords for social networking sites of all prospective employees:

RUSH: Byron York from the DC Examiner: "Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with investigators on the staff of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley at Grassley's offices Wednesday morning. The investigators wanted to learn more about the circumstances surrounding the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. According to Grassley, Eisen revealed very, very little, refusing to answer many questions of fact put to him. And now Grassley has written a letter to the White House counsel asking for answers. ... Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are: 1) Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing? 2) Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin's ability to serve as the Inspector General? 3) Was the communication about the Board's concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin? 4) Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen's review? 5) How many witnesses were interviewed?" And it goes on.

Do I need to repeat the details? Okay, Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, former NBA star, Phoenix Suns, he has a charitable foundation in Sacramento called the St. Hope Academy, and it's a place for inner city kids to go after school so they don't get involved in gang activities and drugs. It's been on hard financial times for quite a while. It received a grant of $800,000 from AmeriCorps. Now, AmeriCorps has some ties with ACORN, by the way. This stuff is so insidiously intertwined. They got a grant of $800,000 from AmeriCorps. Mr. Walpin is the inspector general for the agency that runs AmeriCorps, and it's his job -- one of them -- to determine whether the money is being used properly, whether any chicanery is going on, and Inspectors General are above politics, they are not political, not supposed to be, in theory, anyway. It turns out that he found much misuse of the federal funds by Kevin Johnson and the St. Hope Academy.

So he documented the evidence, he presented to the US attorney in Sacramento who is interim, sitting in until Obama appoints somebody because the Bush US attorney there quit after the inauguration. The interim US attorney in Sacramento said, screw this, there's nothing here. That made Walpin mad so he went to other areas to try to get something done, and in the process, a settlement was negotiated between AmeriCorps and Kevin Johnson's St. Hope Academy, where nobody admitted guilt of anything but they sent 400 grand back. Now, some of the allegations were that Johnson was using some of the federal funds for personal reasons and personal uses, and other people at the St. Hope Academy were doing the same, this is what Gerald Walpin documented. The inspector general was then fired by the Obama White House in a phone call. He was given an hour to either resign or be fired. The law says it takes 30 days to fire an inspector general. They're really supposed to be untouchable. Forty-five minutes after being given an hour, the White House counsel called back and demanded his answer. Walpin said I'm not quitting. So they began the procedure to fire him.

In the process, they have impugned his character, they have said that he's senile, that he was out of control in meetings, typical kind of stuff the Clintons said about the travel office people that they canned. So that's where we are, and Charles Grassley, even Claire McCaskill -- and Obama wrote the law, by the way. He cosponsored the law and voted for the law that sets up the way inspectors general have insulation from the normal political back and forth and what it takes to fire one and what the process is. He violated his own law, plain and simple, blatantly broke his own law. Gerald Walpin is fighting back. Gerald Walpin is not acting out of fear which is what the White House counts on everybody doing.

John Hinderaker today and our buddies at Power Line: "Fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin has responded aggressively to new claims by the Obama administration that he was fired from his job because he was 'confused,' and, perhaps, senile. Byron York records Walpin's response, which is, to say the least, coherent, much more than we can say for Obama's ever-shifting stories about why he fired an Inspector General who caused trouble for a prominent supporter of the administration. Byron himself notes that Walpin exhibits no sign of any 'confusion:' The White House suggestion that Walpin, who is 77 years old, is somehow mentally not up to his job and cannot perform his duties has caused great skepticism among Republicans on Capitol Hill. GOP investigators have talked to Walpin and found him entirely sharp and focused. 'He has been collected and coherent,' says one investigator. 'What the White House described is not the experience that we have had in dealing with him.'"

Now, as our Power Line buddies point out: "This is classic Obama: an Inspector General investigates how a non-profit in Sacramento uses AmeriCorps funds and finds that the head of the organization, a prominent Obama supporter, used a lot of the money to pay recipients to wash his car, run errands for him, etc. The Inspector General blows the whistle, and promptly finds himself in Obama's crosshairs. Obama, in his usual bullying way, first demands that he resign within an hour. When Walpin refuses to do so, Obama high-handedly fires him without stating any cause, in apparent violation of the 2008 statute, co-sponsored by Obama, which was intended to assure the independence of the Inspectors General. When Senate Democrats expressed their dissatisfaction with that end-run around the law, Obama invented a whole new story to the effect that Walpin had to be fired because he was senile and incompetent. Now Senate Republicans are pushing back, as Byron also notes, and the Obama administration is retreating in disarray," they are retreating.

"Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with investigators on the staff of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley at Grassley's offices this morning. The investigators wanted to learn more about the circumstances surrounding the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. According to Grassley, Eisen revealed very, very little, refusing to answer many questions of fact put to him. And now Grassley has written a letter." What this shows is you don't know how courageous Gerald Walpin is. We've been talking about this all day, about how let them run health care, let them run your credit card company, and your fear that because you're a Republican they will discriminate against you in health care or salary or other things that the government is in charge of salaries at your business, just that fear, when they actually do that kind of discrimination or not, that fear alone might cause you to shut up, clam upside down, and not criticize Obama or the administration, so you don't get noticed, so you sail through, and that would have been the easy way out for Gerald Walpin, who's 77. He could have gone on and split the scene, but he's fighting back, and now we see that Obama may have painted himself into a corner.

It's a great example of what can happen when you fight back. And that's the lesson here. The lesson is also, who are these thugs from Chicago running our country? That's obviously a lesson. But the other lesson is, look what happens, a great example of what can happen when you fight back. White House is reeling on this. They attempted to impugn the character and reputation of a fine man and he chose not to sit there and take it. And finally he's getting some backing from Republicans now who are getting courageous fighting this back. So, you know, I've often talked here on this program about how fear is basically an agent of paralyzation. Fear can paralyze people, and doing things out of fear -- sometimes it's avoidable, sometimes fear is a great motivator, but when fear is involved in every decision you make, you are bound to make incorrect decisions. In fact, the more fear you have the less action you will engage in, in the first place. It's a bad place to come from and the way to get rid of the fear is to confront it. It's a very difficult thing to do the first time, but once you do and you find out you survive, then the fear quotient reduces enormously.

Now, this senile assertion, there's also age discrimination here. They were trying everything in the liberal handbook to poison everybody's minds about this guy. I don't know what the status of this is but Grassley also wants to know what, if any, involvement Michelle Obama had.

RUSH: And the plot thickens, ladies and gentlemen. A mere four minutes ago Byron York posted the latest update on the whole firing of the AmeriCorp inspector general Gerald Walpin at the DC examiner. WashingtonExaminer.com, is the website. WashingtonExaminer.com. "A top White House lawyer called the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin an act of 'political courage,' according to House Republican aides who were in a meeting with the lawyer Wednesday. Norman Eisen, who is the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with staffers for Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday. Eisen, along with another White House staffer who accompanied him, 'wanted to talk broadly about inspectors general,' says a GOP aide familiar with what went on at the meeting.

"'When we pressed them on specific questions and documents, they said they weren't prepared to give us information on that.' In one exchange, according to the GOP aide, the White House lawyers explained that inspector general Walpin was not working well with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, and the administration believed that IGs should work well with the leadership of their agencies. Eisen said he knew that removing Walpin might be seen as an action that would raise questions. 'But (Eisen) said that what they did in trying to fix the situation was an act of political courage -- and 'political courage' is the phrase they used,' says the aide." Political courage? For the most powerful man in the world to fire a comparative peon is political courage? What's the political courage? What's the courage, facing the criticism from a few -- 10 to 15 or 20 -- people? What political courage? They broke the law that Obama wrote!

RUSH: You know, most people (and I'm one of them) they read 1984, and they were scared. When Obama read it, he started taking notes. This inspector general thing, Dan Riehl, at Riehl World View, posted last night (I guess early this morning) information and documentation on this. It's not just Gerald Walpin, but three IG firings now are being questioned. By the way, a review by Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light indicates that Gerald Walpin is probably a Republican. He donates to Giuliani and Lazio and so forth. This does not surprise us, because there's a great piece today at the American Spectator blog by Matthew Vadum (I hope I'm pronouncing that right: V-a-d-u-m) and the headline of this piece: "AmeriCorp and ACORN Go Way Back," and really when you read this story, that is a cancer. That is a cancer and it's out of control.

"The cynical, politically motivated, and apparently illegal firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin shocks the conscience. I'm not going to examine here the circumstances surrounding the termination of Walpin but I do wish to remind readers that AmeriCorps has long been ripe for abuse. ACORN took advantage of the federal agency a decade ago. As I wrote previously, ACORN, which is now notorious for its commingling of funds within its network of affiliates, used government resources to promote legislation. A congressional report noted that there was 'apparent cross-over funding between ACORN, a political advocacy group and ACORN Housing Corp. (AHC), a non profit, AmeriCorp [sic] grantee' that is a major affiliate of ACORN. The government-funded AmeriCorps, which promotes public service, suspended AHC's funding 'after it was learned that AHC,'" you get lost in all these acronyms, "'and ACORN shared office space and equipment and failed to assure that activities and funds were wholly separate.'"

"The report noted that, 'AmeriCorps members of AHC raised funds for ACORN, performed voter registration activities, and gave partisan speeches." ACORN Housing Corp. is supposed to be separate from ACORN. It's a nonprofit. It's an AmeriCorp guarantee. "In one instance, an AmeriCorps member was directed by ACORN staff to assist the [Clinton] White House in preparing a press conference in support of legislation.' ('Report on the Activities of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities During the 104th Congress,' Report 104-875, January 2, 1997) Aware of this kind of abuse, earlier this year Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) tried to block ACORN from using AmeriCorps funding to promote its own political objectives, but ACORN allies, including Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), helped to defeat Vitter's legislation."

Matthew Vadum at the American Spectator blog wirtes: "Incidentally, as I write this, ACORN donors are celebrating the 39th birthday of the radical activist group at a $250 a ticket gala reception at the National Education Association. Center for American Progress president John Podesta, SEIU union boss Andy Stern, and corrupt former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros are expected to attend." All of these things are happening. It's incestuous. It's a cancer. It's malignant. It's out of control. It exists strictly to serve Democrat interests, union interests, to grow government, and to punish Republicans like Gerald Walpin. Now, remember, folks, when George Bush fired eight US attorneys. Remember the hell that ensued, from the Democrat Party and State-Run Media at the time. They wanted Karl Rove indicted again. They wanted Alberto Gonzales fired. They did the hearings. They demanded these guys come and up testify before Congress, and of course that was well within Bush's right to fire US attorneys. They tried to make it political. We have blatant political firings of inspector generals in violation of a law Obama wrote, and the reaction in the State-Run Media is, "Ho-hum."

RUSH: Debbie in Jacksonville, Florida, hi, nice to have you with us on the EIB Network.

CALLER: And I just... Over the past few days, with the uprising in Iran, I have heard nobody even mention that this could probably be because Iraq is free and that the people in Iran want the same freedoms. And of course no one wants to give George Bush any kudos for that, but I really believe that that's what's going on.

RUSH: Well, you may have a point that there partial consideration has to be given to it. But I must tell you the Iranian population has long been simmering -- and a large percentage of it long simmering -- with opposition to the mullahs, the ayatollahs, to Ahmadinejad. That opposition has grown and grown and grown, and as the mullahs try to make the world think that they're engaging in a democracy by staging elections -- which are just fraudulent as they can be; they're just totally irrelevant elections; they're just for show for the rest of the world -- the Iranian people think, "Okay, well, we got a chance here," and then when they find out they've just been duped and they're participating in a fraud, they erupt, because they've been simmering for many years. I don't doubt that the situation in Iraq plays a role, here. That's a good point. I wish I could say it's big, but I don't know what Iranian media allows in. So whatever the Iranian population knows about Iraq has to be from word-of-mouth, people going with back and forth. I don't think the Iranian media is touting Iraq and freedom there. I know they're not. The mullahs are not going to do that.

I gotta take another brief break, ladies and gentlemen, the fastest three hours in media. I can't believe how fast time is flying today, but it is. So we'll take a brief time-out, we will continue straight after this.

RUSH: Brian in Kalamazoo, Michigan, great to have you. What's the population there, Brian?

CALLER: Oh, I think combined between Portage and Kalamazoo it's roughly a hundred thousand.

CALLER: Well, we so far have escaped a lot of the wrath of Granholm, but I'm not holding my breath.

CALLER: Thank you very much. Hey, Rush, just real quick. I have a nine-year-old stepdaughter and a son who was born two months ago Tuesday, and what an honor it will be to tell both of them that I got to speak to Rush H. Limbaugh III. Sir, I appreciate you taking my call, and I thank you very much.

CALLER: And the point I wanted to make, and after I make a point, I have one more quick thing, if you'll indulge me. But my point is about the criticism of Obama's silence on the Iranian election. And I look at it as he really doesn't have any other choice, and the reason is, is, what you're asking him to do is to condemn voter intimidation and voter --

CALLER: Sir, sir, but when you look at the way Holder and his Justice Department handled the Black Panthers in Philly, when you look at the fact that he's a product of the political machine in Chicago, and you look at the ACORN fraud, this is consistent with what he was raised on.

RUSH: The State-Run Media is not going to say, "Hey, wait a minute, you hypocrite."

RUSH: They won't. That's not the reason. That's not why he's not doing it. He doesn't want to offend the Muslim world. What do you think the Cairo speech was about? He does not follow in the tradition of every American president standing up for liberty. This guy doesn't want to offend the Muslim world. I really think that's part of the reason why he's dissing his gay supporters right now because homosexuality is kind of frowned on in the Middle East, the Muslim community. Remember Ahmadinejad, when he came to Columbia to do his version of Obama's Cairo speech, you remember that, folks? And what happened? He got a question about gay rights and he said, "Well, we don't have any of those in Iran." And the students in the audience started chuckling. He said, "What, you know something I don't? Where do they live?" Remember that? So Obama went over there, this big speech in the Muslim community, he made a big deal of his Muslim background, his background on Islam, he even had a mustache for one day, had a mustache. He didn't have his wife there, either. Women in the Muslim world are not on stage with their husbands when their husbands are leaders, and look, folks, I know this may sound a little harsh. This guy is doing more than he can to destroy Israel and the settlements than he is trying to hold to account a bunch of tyrants rigging an election. He's not standing up for freedom and liberty.

RUSH: Is there one thing the government runs that makes a penny of profit? Is there one thing? They can't deliver mail with a profit. FedEx can, and does. They cannot run a railroad with a profit. Amtrak is a horrible money pit. I know even some of our favorite people love to ride the Acela train, the Speed Merchant from Washington to New York. But they're losing money and it continues to be subsidized. They can't run most states with a profit. California with its population and its natural resources ought to be drowning in money and they are bankrupt.

The whole government should be profitable. It should be earning money on our money. You know, Obama has announced all these sweeping regulations of the banking sector and the financial sector and more regulators here. Would somebody tell me who's regulating Obama? Who's regulating Congress? There's a poll out today which I'm going to get to in greater detail as the program unfolds. It's an NBC poll. I think they've asked, "Who's responsible for the deficit?" Twenty-six percent say Congress; 46% say Bush; 6% say Obama. Now, that's its own lesson, and it dovetails with the call we got from Jeremy yesterday. You remember that call? Jeremy, an Obama voter, is unhappy with him. Why?

Because he sees Obama giving money to the big guys. He sees Obama bailing out big business. He

thought he and others in the "little guy" strata that voted for Obama were going to get the money, and a fascinating perspective. They don't see Obama destroying the private sector they see him building it up. They're still mad at him. That's why only 6% blame him for the deficit. But let me tell you where 100% of the deficit belongs, blame Obama and Congress. And if you want to get really constitutionally technical, it would be Congress. Not one penny in this country can be spent without the House of Representatives first authorizing it and the Senate agreeing and then the president signing. So the blame for the deficit is literally Congress -- and, of course, right now it's Democrat, and Obama's running that.

So it's the Democrats in Congress and Obama, 'cause the Republicans can't stop anything. They don't have the votes in either house to do it. They are responsible for it. Who's regulating them? These clowns that can't turn a profit with any government enterprise they run -- in fact, that's not even the question. How many things do they run that they do not destroy? They destroyed the black family with Great Society and the war on poverty. They've destroyed countless lives with all these so-called good intentions. Well who the hell is regulating them. Well, we are supposed to every two years at the ballot box. But that's a long time when you've got dominant one-party rule this way that doesn't even care about following the Constitution when enacting many of its proposals and laws.

RUSH: I was just talking about the call we got yesterday. We're going to get to the phones very quickly. If you're on hold, hang on. I was talking yesterday about the call we got from Jeremy. He was from Ohio, 33 years old. Family tricked him into voting for Obama. Well, they pressured him into voting for Obama. Now he's upset, he doesn't like Obama, but not for the reasons we all would think. He sees Obama helping the private sector. He sees Obama spending and sending all kinds of money to these places. He didn't see -- until I told him -- that Obama was destroying it. What he wanted, what he expected was Obama sending him money, the little guys. And here's another story. Same thing the caller said yesterday. It's as if every time Obama takes over a company, his voters see him as some kind of a super capitalist instead of a super socialist. No wonder his approval numbers -- by the way, they're coming down. Fifty-eight percent in one poll, 56% at NBC, 58% in another, coming down, dude, leveling off.

Chuck Todd, F. Chuck Todd at NBC says the honeymoon's over. I wonder if it was good for Chuck as it was for Obama. Seriously. Every time he takes over a section of the private sector these people think he's some super capitalist. There has to be a fundamental ignorance or lack of understanding of what Obama is doing. I guess the State-Run Media is doing a far better job than I assumed, because Obama is taking over, he's depleting funds from the private sector, just the opposite is perceived. This from the Wall Street Journal today: "Laura Zamora, 40, of Orange, Calif., voted for Mr. Obama but says she is frustrated by the economy and finds her support for the president waning. She says she's facing a possible layoff as a local government worker in California. 'He's bailing out the private sector. He's putting all kinds of money into the private sector,' says Mrs. Zamora. 'The money should be going to social programs, not to bailing out banks and GM. It should go to people who are unemployed.'"

This story is filled with other people who look at Obama's movements exactly the same way. We're going to have to recalibrate the way we comment on this. If the guy from yesterday was representative of a large number of people, and if Mrs. Zamora here is also, people that voted for him are starting to get unhappy with him, but not for the reasons that they ought to be. We'll take it, don't misunderstand, we'll take the anger. But it's disappointing in many ways. It does show these people expected Obama to send 'em money. That was the hope and change, money on social programs to help them. Oh, well, we'll comment further.

RUSH: Linda in Louisiana, welcome to the program. Great to have you here. How do you pronounce the city where you live?

CALLER: Of course. I was sitting here, and just, I can't believe I'm talking to you. I have been trying for ten years to get through, but anyway, to make my point, your screener said get to the point quick, so I'm reading in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers: "Obama lays down the law to Wall Street, Federal Reserve to police large firms judged a potential risk to the financial system." Of course now he has given new power to the Treasury department and the Federal Reserve, put major restrictions, all to do what? To clear up the credit crisis. I thought the credit crisis was caused by people like Barney Frank. This isn't going to help. But I do think if they're going to start checking all these things through the Federal Reserve, who we can't even look at, like credit cards, credit interest, savings accounts, mutual funds, and all that stuff, then they're going to wind up with a whole lot more information than we really want them to have.

RUSH: Well, not just that, they're going to be able to control what you can and can't do and the way that they are selling it, the way they're selling this is, they're complaining and whining about the unfair practices of lenders, banks, credit card companies, and this is to get even with them. This is to make sure your credit cart company doesn't jack up your interest rate without your permission an exorbitant level. So while everybody thinks that Obama is clamping down on the lenders with these new regulators, what he's doing again is expanding more federal power to where the federal government's going to be in charge of the lending industry in this country -- banks, credit cards, you name it. It breathtaking to watch. Every day, every day this little man-child reaches out and grabs something else. It's mine, it's mine, it's mine -- I won't make him sound like a child because he's far more dangerous than a child but, you see, this kind of fear that's arrived, invasion of privacy, they'll know everything about me. They're going to know that when they get your medical records digitized, which is going to be part of national health care under the guise of facilitating your care. But the purpose will actually be for them to know and to be able to blackmail you or use whatever information they have about you and your treatment, denying you treatment for this that and the other thing.

I'll tell you, the left is solidifying its control over as many public aspects of this country as quickly as possible. And the American people, they're starting to understand. They still like him, at least in the New York Times poll, not so much now in the NBC poll. But 2010 is where this Waterloo is going to be next met. What aspect of your private life aren't they going to be into? Well, I don't imagine they'll be in your bathroom. Not with cameras. They might be, who knows. They're trying to get into as many aspects of people's private lives as they can for the purpose of control. You know, you say that and people don't understand why somebody wants to control America, why would somebody? It's almost like back in the eighties, if you started throwing the word "communist" around to describe certain Americans, it wouldn't persuade anybody because Americans didn't want to think there were communists running around in the country, with any power. So to say now there are these authoritarians that are out there trying to wrest control -- I harp back on these two events, the call yesterday and the story in the Wall Street Journal today.

People that voted Obama who are getting upset but they don't understand what he's doing. They misunderstand totally. They were expecting Obama to throw shovels of money at them. Instead, they think he's bailing out Wall Street and big business. They think he's just another typical Washington Republican Democrat conglomerate politician who cares about big business. They don't see what he's doing to big business. They don't see that he's destroying future job opportunities, creativity, competition. They don't see the destruction the man is wreaking. They see him playing favorites, and they thought they were going to be the favorites, and now they're not. That's why they're upset. So that's at least a baseline from which to start. They're upset, not for the reasons they should be, but at least something there to build upon.

RUSH: Obama is on television again, and he's from the East Room of the White House, and he's taken over the financial industry here -- the credit industry, whatever it is he's taking over -- and he's recycling every lie! Every one. Every lie that was told during the mortgage crisis: that the lenders lent to people that shouldn't have been lent to and it was the lenders that were predatory and that the regulators were out to lunch.

Greetings and welcome back, by the way, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

I often talked about Ronaldus Magnus. Now, Jeremy hang on we're coming right to you here. I often talk about Ronald Reagan often and he did not have a conservative media supporting him and he did not have a Republican majority in the House or Senate. Yet he was able to get done he went he wanted to do, for the most part, especially in the first term. He had the ability -- with his communication skills and the power of his personality and issues -- to go over the heads of the media and communicate and connect directly with the American people but also he had three things. Reagan was a three-legged stool. Three things he said needed to be done coming out of the disaster of the Carter years. We need to defeat communism, we need to rebuild our military, and we're going to cut people's taxes to restore economic growth.

Now, all three of those things are very understandable. Every day Obama's out there with his professorial stuff that people take notes at Harvard and so forth and try to understand for final exams and then people can't keep up with it. Every day it's something new and not only new, it is huge! Cap and trade one day, then the next day we're back to nationalized health care. The next day we're going to run the car companies, then the next day we're going to run Wall Street. The next day we're going to cap the pay of everybody that gets paid in this country at the executive level. Next day it's back to health care, then today it's taking over the banks again. Every day, it's just... It never stops, and at some point this is going to have people if it hasn't happened already people's heads are going to start swimming. And, by the way, have the sea levels started coming down yet? Remember Obama said he was going to do that. (sigh) So it's just breathtaking to watch this. It's also maddeningly frustrating because I know at the same time there are some people out there lapping it all up.

RUSH: I'm sorry to do this to you, folks. It's a teachable moment. Let me find the stupid thing. Here it is. All right, another lie. Another lie here, White House East Room, Obama announcing his regulatory reform plan.

OBAMA: It is an indisputable fact that one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was a unraveling of major financial institutions and a lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess. A culture of irresponsibility took root from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street.

RUSH: Okay, so everybody gets blamed for this. We're all to blame. We're all culprits here. He's the one shining knight, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow coming in here and fix it all up. It was overregulation. It was government meddling that caused this. It was all the regulations. Do you know...? I saw this today. The airline industry is regulated by the FAA. There are 1,000 pages of regulations, which sounds exorbitant, does it not? There are 132,000 pages regulating Medicare. One-hundred-and-thirty-two-thousand pages of regulations, and one thousand pages regulating air travel in America. How many damn regulations are there in the financial business? How many tax regulations and all that garbage? It just infuriates me, and it just gets worse, as you know.

OBAMA: Loans were sold to banks. Banks packaged these loans into securities. Investors bought these securities, often with little insight into the risks to which they were exposed.

RUSH: Stop the tape right there! What we're talking about here is subprime, and he's right but he doesn't say "subprime." Those are worthless loans! They were made to people that couldn't pay 'em back and the banks that were forced to make the loans tried to come up with a scheme to make them worth something. So they packaged them as securities or... These are the things that became the toxic assets, essentially. And people did start buying this stuff, figuring that something would happen to it to give it value. But all of this happened because Democrats from Bill Clinton forward, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd demanded -- and ACORN demanded -- that people that could not ever pay a loan back or even qualify for one be given one, essentially be given a house! They were threatened by Janet Reno and others and regulators who tried to stop this were in turn threaten by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. All right, here's the rest of this.

OBAMA: And it was easy money, while it lasted. But these schemes were built on a pile of sand.

OBAMA: Meanwhile, executive compensation -- unmoored from long-term performance or even reality -- rewarded relentlessness rather than responsibility. And this wasn't just the failure of individuals. This was a failure of the entire system.

RUSH: (silence) The cough button is sticking. A little Inside Baseball broadcasting language there. Ladies and gentlemen, the problem, the system, the only system that failed here big time was government. Now, I'm not exonerating Wall Street people or Main Street people. But I'm not going to tell you this: Whatever problems existed in the credit markets, in the loan markets, whatever markets you want to talk about, not one of them was caused by how much anybody made. Not one. Executive compensation? "Well, there were no risks, Rush. They got paid regardless." Let me ask you, something. People don't understand how these people get compensated in the first place. Sometimes it's exorbitant. It's none of his business, by the way. It's the business of the shareholders and the board of directors and this sort of thing. But remember when United Airlines, way, way back was just losing like General Motors was losing, and we learned one year that the CEO of UAL corp. that year made $1.7 million or something and everybody was outraged. "How in the hell is a guy presiding over a company losing billions make that kind of money?" and somebody said, "They would have gone out of business if it hadn't been for the guy. Yeah, they might have lost billions, but they could have lost more and been out of business were it not for the talents of the guy." You know, when people get involved in business they don't know anything about and just use stereotypes and inuendo, which is what he's trading on here... (sigh) Private sector compensation is none of Barack Obama's business. It's none of Bill Ayers' business. It's none of Bernardine Dohrn's business. It's none of Jeremiah Wright's business. It's not Rahm Emmanuel's business. It is nobody's business. And if a company is going to overpay an executive or a series of executives and they go south, then that's the price. But we bailed 'em out! For the purposes of controlling them. Do one more before the break.

OBAMA: We did not choose how this crisis began but we do have a choice in the legacy this crisis leaves behind.

OBAMA: So today my administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system --

OBAMA: -- a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression.

RUSH: All that means is that he and the Federal Reserve and Timmy Geithner are going to run it. We're going to overhaul it; we're going to run it. He blames his predecessors again. "We didn't choose how this began." It's time to man up, Barack. It's unseemly to keep blaming your predecessor. Why stop at Bush? Why not go back and blame Hoover! We have to take a brief time-out. This is how he does this stuff. I just think it's not playing as well anymore. All these words are not leading to the hope and change that a lot of his voters thought they we're going to get.

RUSH: We talked about Gerald Walpin yesterday. He's the fired inspector general, and he's speaking out now. Until last week, you know, he was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which handles AmeriCorp and other things. This all revolves around a controversy involving Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento and his charitable operation out there called the New Hope Academy. They're outta money. The New Hope Academy is in dire straits financially, and they got an $800,000 grant, and some of the money was used -- according to the inspector general (these people are above politics) some of the money -- was used illegally. The US attorney out there failed to file charges. He didn't want to get involved in it. Walpin recommended that he do so. Walpin recommended that they not get any more federal money because that's the rule: You misuse it once; you don't get any more.

There are no charges but the New Hope Academy is refunding something like $400,000, almost half of what was given. The Obama administration fired the guy, and they've put out a story, ladies and gentlemen, and the Washington Post has it today. This story up to now is being carried by Byron York at TheExaminer.com and Fox News has been involved in this. So when it's time for the Obama people to respond all this they go to one of their state-run mouthpieces, the Washington Post. "The inspector general fired last week by President Obama appeared confused, disoriented and unable to answer questions at a late May board meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service..." That means he got fired for acting like Joe Biden at a meeting!

It says here was "confused" and "unable to answer questions," and that's a dead ringer for the vice president. So they can the guy and Gerald Walpin is now speaking out, saying that this explanation is "baseless" and "insufficient." "I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," said Gerald Walpin, and he is right on the money. And I'll guarantee you leading this charge from the White House is none other than the enforcer from the old Chicago machine, and that would be Rahm Emanuel.

RUSH: Windsor, Ontario, Ed -- this is in Canada -- great to have you on the program, sir. Thank you for waiting.

CALLER: I have a concrete example of the effect of the Ontario, Canada, health care system on one family unfortunately. Today's Windsor Star newspaper, page five, this gentleman, he's 30 years old, husband, father, has been in the system treated for cancer, but it's come back. He has stage four melanoma. He has inoperable tumors on his heart and his colon. There's one treatment available to him now, it's Interleukin 2. It's essentially unavailable in Canada. He and his wife, after hassling with the bureaucrats of the Ontario, Canada, health care system, which is so praised, two months of hassling, they got approved to go to the United States and have the treatment done and paid for. There are two world-class treatment centers in Detroit, about a half hour from his house. I'm looking at GM building in Detroit right now across the river.

CLARK: Okay. He did not get approved for Harbor Hospital or Karmanos Cancer Center in Detroit. He got approved by the Ontario system for the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. Instead of a half hour trip there and a half hour trip back -- I've had cancer treatment and I'm --

RUSH: -- that ought to send chills up people's back and the word is "approved." Here you're describing a Canadian citizen with stage four melanoma and only a couple treatments available.

RUSH: One treatment available. And he has only been approved to go to one hospital that happens to be in Buffalo, approved. That's where we're headed -- "approved." You mean to tell me this guy cannot get in his car and cross the border because if he goes someplace unapproved Canada won't pay for it?

CALLER: Oh, no, he'd be hooked for it, and no follow-up care because he didn't do an approved procedure.

RUSH: Approved procedure at an approved location, Canada single payer health care.

CALLER: Yes, sir. When you've had cancer treatment, and I've had it, a half hour ride home is plenty. But four hours I can't imagine, that's going to affect his -- well, his shot. You know, your immune system is weakened by everything --

CALLER: -- just the survival. That is not the only story. It happens to be right here on the page. The guy was not a person who abused his own health. He used to run the Detroit marathon. He is a kinesiologist, he works in the health system.

RUSH: -- in my version of freedom, who cares if he did? Health care ought to be available. There's nobody that doesn't abuse their health. Some might say that doing all that jogging is an abusive treatment to joints and this sort of thing, who the hell knows? This is all absurd. This is just 1984ish absurd.

CALLER: The worst absurdity, Rush, is -- and I've listened to you for a long time -- people do not understand, we have freedoms in Canada more than almost anyone in the world, but we have a lot of them just through cultural exchange with you people. They're here because they're here. You have these freedoms in law. You have the Constitution. You have all these things written down. No one in the world has these, and you're letting them get taken away. It drives us completely crazy.

RUSH: Thank you, sir. And you know why it's happening? Because people think that letting go of their liberty is giving them security.

RUSH: It's a great story, it's a great story in the sense of it's instructive. Details are not happy for this guy, but, for crying out loud, one treatment is available, it isn't available in Canada, he has to be approved. In other words, to take a step, save his life, requires the government approving it. That is going to happen whenever there's a government-run health care system. I'll tell you where this is headed, I can make this story worse. At some point, somebody's going to say, "Look, stage four, tumor heart, tumor wherever, only a couple places will do it, we're not going to approve any treatment, it's a waste of money, we don't have the money for it. I mean, this guy's near the end of life anyway, give him a patch and that's it." That's where we're headed with this because everything's going to be based on money and how we can't afford this, can't afford that, and a lot of people are going to get a death sentence that today don't. Thanks Ed. Appreciate the call. A lot of gold-mine calls on the EIB Network today.

CALLER: My question -- or I guess my comment -- would be: I was under the impression that when Mr. Obama was going to offer a health care reform plan that it was going to be on the same level that he and his family or the senators or congressmen have or representatives have along the same line as what they have. Is this plan along their lines?

RUSH: This plan is essentially whatever you need whenever you need it, at no cost.

RUSH: And I don't remember Obama promising that. I know every politician says, "You ought to have the health care that we have in the US Senate or the US House of Representatives." They always say that because people love hearing members of Congress rip government.

RUSH: But there's no way to provide it. I mean, you have 435 House members. You have a hundred senators. That's 535 people and you got 200 million people paying for it!

RUSH: If you can find 200 million people to pay for your health care, I guaran-damn-tee you it won't cost you a penny.

CALLER: It sounds pretty good. Now, I'm a senior citizen. When my husband was alive, I had insurance.

CALLER: Well, thank you very much. I'm a former Missourian. I'm a transplant. (garbled)

RUSH: Right. You do, as a seasoned citizen. You're at the point in life where you do need it.

CALLER: Right. Now, if he taxes that, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be able to afford that.

RUSH: You won't pay any see-able taxes on it. This is employee-provided benefits that they're going to tax as income but you're just paying for this out-of-pocket as though you're going to the grocery store every month, right?

RUSH: Depends on how you define a tax. I mean, depending on what Obama gets done here, your $363 a month might become $500.

RUSH: And you could view that as a tax increase. Or your option to buy it might go away.

RUSH: That's probably it. Your option to buy it is going to go away because whatever plan you're in, they might opt out of it to go into the government option, which is what a loooot of insurance companies want to do, what a loooot of businesses want to do. Trust me on this, my friends. Do not doubt me. (sigh) I'm happy to be able to help her straighten that out, though.

RUSH: To the phones. Manhattan, Kansas, this is Dale. Thank you for calling, sir. It's great to have you here with us.

CALLER: My question is -- and I'm throwing this out to you -- what exactly is the crisis in health care? I've been hearing about "crisis" in health care ever since the Hillary days. And quite honestly, I don't see it. Now, I'm not among the intellectual elite in this country --

RUSH: You bet. It's a great question. The "crisis" in health care is like the "crisis" in everything else: manufactured.

RUSH: Take a little survey. Dale, are you personally fretting? Are you in crisis mode? Are you walking around in a general state of fear over the fact you might get sick?

RUSH: Yeah, but are they worried about losing everything they own if they do get sick?

CALLER: Well, sure, but there's a real easy solution to that. I'm a small businessman out there -- and by "small," I mean probably microbusiness. I employ anywhere from six to ten people depending on the economy. I am able to offer my employees at no cost to them major medical coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas for $150 a month each. And I pay for that, by the way.

RUSH: Well, that's my point, that's my point. There is no... You're asking a very valid question. There is no crisis. The crisis in health care is in the UK. The crisis in health care is in Canada. The crisis in health care is in Cuba. The crisis in health care is with the ChiComs. The crisis in health care is with a lot of other places. The crisis in health care here has been manufactured. My point is, folks -- just ask yourself in your own circle of friends, your family, community, your neighborhood, whatever -- how many people do you know who are actually walking around daily in fear, constantly fear of an auto accident or a major disease is going to wipe 'em out? This is what we've been told every day, just like during the last eight years -- well, seven years prior to this year -- we were told the economy was sinking fast that it was approaching a recession.

It was horrible while unemployment was low, an historical all-time low of 4.7%. Now it's 9.4%. When it was 4.7% we were all being told daily by State-Run Media that the economy was in the tank and going south and it was horrible, it was horrible. And so they go out and do surveys and polls of people: "How are you doing economically?" "Oh, I'm doing fine, but I'm worried about my neighbor. I guess things aren't so good out there." It's the same thing with health care. "How is your health care?" "I pretty much like it, but I guess there's a lot of people out there uninsured and really have a lot of trouble out there." It's just been manufactured. There is no "crisis" in health care unless you want to talk about the 47 million uninsured, then if you break down that number, you find that 60% of them are illegal aliens. Others make income over 75 grand who choose not to have it.

That's the crisis -- and there may be people that costs are a little bit high, but that's because of government involvement. Heritage Foundation today, great stuff here. "Yesterday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a preliminary analysis of the Kennedy-Dodd health care plan, and the results were truly frightening. Assessing just Title I of the draft legislation, CBO estimated the plan..." Now listen to this. Look at me. "CBO estimated the plan would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit while only extending health insurance to a net 16 million more Americans." Now, I mentioned this earlier: $1 trillion for one-third of the uninsured. "As scary as that is, what is even more disturbing is what costs the CBO did not estimate: 'The proposal does not include a 'public plan' that would be offered in the exchanges, nor does it contain provisions that would require employers to offer health insurance benefits or impose a fee or tax on them if they did not offer insurance coverage to their workers.'"

In other words, the $1 trillion cost to insure 16 million uninsured does not include the public option! And the public option is the deal that Obama wants. This cost doesn't even estimate that. What Obama is going to do is throw this out. He'll say, "This is not accurate. We're not going to listen to this," and he'll have his own Office of Management and Budget do it. Now... "Even without the public plan, the CBO analysis undercuts one of the fundamental promises President Barack Obama has repeatedly made about health care reform. Speaking to the American Medical Association yesterday, President Obama promised: 'If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.' The CBO" -- the so-called nonpartisan CBO -- "disagrees. According to their analysis, while the Kennedy-Dodd bill would enable 39 million Americans to obtain health insurance, the plan would kick about 15 million people out of the system because their employers would no longer offer insurance..." The employers would opt into the public option. There are a lot of employers want to off-load this. "[C]overage from other sources would decline by 8 million." So 27 million people would be thrown off insurance rolls and have to go public option. You would lose your choice of doctor. "These numbers will only look worse once a public plan is factored in. And the public plan is just one of the biggest problems in the Kennedy-Dodd bill:

"An independent analysis by the Lewin Group, for example, shows that a public plan depending on eligibility and payments rates could result in up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage..." This is why it's Trojan horse and this is why he's denying this, saying it's not going to happen. But in the real world -- where they never score dynamics, they only score statics in these things. Score the dynamics and you got a bunch of businesses with a chance to off-load their health care expenses to the so-called public option, you don't think that some will do it? And the estimates of the numbers that want to do it will lead "up to 119.1 million Americans being switched by their employers from their existing coverage or transferred to government-sponsored coverage," the public option.

RUSH: Back to that CBO report, the public option not even part of this $1 trillion, Obama says nobody's going to lose their health plan. That's absolute BS. UAW, the big unions, big companies, they're going to dump all their health care costs on the taxpayers. That's why Obama and company are going to fight like hell for this public option. That's why we gotta continue --

RUSH: Washington Post today: "More Problems Than Solutions in Medicare Report." Now, this is not the CBO score of Obama's health care proposal. This is a separate report on Medicare. Now, keep in mind that Obama's health care public option proposal is essentially just expanding Medicare as it exists. In fact, they start the story this way: "Expanding access to Medicare will not solve the nation's health-care cost problem. That's the message of a report yesterday by a commission that advises Congress on the federal medical program for older Americans." Expanding access will not solve its problem. Of course not, 'cause it's broke!

"To eliminate wasteful spending, policymakers must transform economic incentives for doctors, hospitals and other providers of medical services -- though it isn't clear how, according to the report. As Congress and the Obama administration seek to restrain potentially crushing increases in health-care spending, the report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is emblematic of the larger debate: long on problems and short on solutions. ... To illustrate what it might take to save Medicare, the commission describes how primary-care doctors, specialists and hospitals could be reorganized into 'accountable care organizations' whose members would receive bonuses if the organizations met quality and cost targets." Oh, they want to have private sector incentives here, is that what they're talking about? "To ratchet up the incentives, health-care providers that fail to meet cost and quality targets could be penalized."

Now, the program here says this: "If current spending and utilization trends continue, the Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. ... Part of the problem is that Medicare's fee-for-service payment systems reward more care -- and more complex care -- without regard to the quality or value of that care." So we have two things that hit yesterday. We had the CBO report on Obama's health care plan -- well, it's the Kennedy plan, but it's the Obama plan being run by Kennedy and whoever else in the Senate. I forget who other guy with him is. Anyway, that would take $1 trillion over ten years just to insure one-third of the 47 million uninsured. And then the Medicare report says that the government's Medicare program is fiscally unsustainable. There's no reason to do any of this. There is no reason to do any of it, fiscally, common sense. The only reason to do this is if you are an authoritarian and you want to grab as much control of the US private sector health care system as you can. That's the only reason to do this, because there's not one commonsense or financial or fiscal or business reason to do either of these things that are being proposed. Like I said last week, can we just wait to see if anything else Obama does works before we mess up with one-fifth of the US economy?

RUSH: Rich Lowry makes a good point in the column today I read in the New York Post. "Back in the mid 1990s, Gingrich proposed slowing the rate of growth of Medicare and Medicaid..." Remember the Democrats produced this fraudulent commercial Newt saying, ah, we just want to let Medicare and Medicaid wither on the vine. He wasn't talking about letting Medicare and Medicaid wither on the vine. He "was clobbered by Democrats and the press for waging war on the elderly and the indigent. Now, almost every other day, President Obama finds another hundred billion dollars to cut out of Medicare and Medicaid," in order to pay for his big nationalized health care, and nobody is upset about it! Can you remember a time when a government official started talking about cutting Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid and nobody beefed? Never! Obama is getting away with it each and every day. People will takedown their security for liberty all too frequently.

RUSH: Let me ask you to consider another question, another point. Many people in this health care thing think what it's all about is them getting health care free 'cause it's unaffordable. They want their insurance free and their health care free. I'll ask you, the general audience, in addition to specifying how I just did it with people who think that health care is going to be given away. How many of you, at any time in your life, have gotten a comp of anything? Maybe it's a couple tickets to a game; maybe somebody gave you something, whatever. But just because it didn't cost you anything, did it mean it didn't cost anybody anything? Costs don't go away just because you don't happen to pay them. They'll come back and bite you in the rear end in you don't know how many different ways, what you're obligating yourself to -- or, in the case of Medicare, Medicaid, or health care, you think it doesn't cost you anything so it doesn't cost anybody anything? It's going to cost somebody something, and they're going to come back and get it from you one way or the other. Either your service is going to go to hell and you're not going to get as good coverage 'cause you're not paying anything for it. It's like Thomas Sowell said, he said this in a column in 2005: "Costs don't go away because you refuse to pay 'em any more than gravity goes away if you refuse to acknowledge it." Thinking that something doesn't cost you when it does have a price is the same thing as thinking gravity isn't going to kill you when you jump off the mountain.

This is only a logical step in government care. The government buys breakfast and lunches for the children of many parents; and now, it proposes to pay these parents to take care of their own children. Really...

This is fascinating. The NY Times changed a headline which put Obama in a negative light to one which treats him in a neutral way:

RUSH: A friend of mine, Steve Gilbert, just sent me something, and this is fascinating. He's got a blog, Sweetness & Light. It's from just over a year ago. I want to read this to you, and you are going to weep. This is from May 2nd of 2008, thirteen-and-a-half months ago. Headline: "Unemployment Rate Drops to 5%." Subhead: "Employers cut fewer jobs in April, jobless rate falls." Thirteen months ago the unemployment rate was going down. Looked at another way, more people were getting jobs. It was at 5%, 4.7% is considered full employment statistically. Now, listen to the first paragraph of the story: "Employers cut far fewer jobs in April than in recent months, and the unemployment rate dropped to 5%, a better-than-expected showing that, nonetheless, reveals strains in the nation's labor market." Thirteen months ago, unemployment was dropping and the Associated Press found that troubling. There were troubling strains in the nation's labor market even though there were fewer unemployment claims and fewer jobs were cut. Now, contrast that with unemployment news today. Today, when reporting the unemployment news goes up to 9.4%, it's totally positive. We reached 9.4% but employers laid off fewer people in this cycle, unexpectedly. And that's it. We're closing in on the bottom, hang in there, folks. Meanwhile, 13 months ago 5% unemployment, a drop portrayed as a bad signal, bad news. Amazing. Not surprised.

The Sacramento Bee employment chart. This is quite interesting; it estimates when your city is going to come back in terms of unemployment. This is a web-only resource:

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.

Politico.com is a fairly neutral site (or, at the very worst, just a little left of center). They have very good informative videos at:

On Obama (if you have not visited this site, you need to check it out). He is selling a DVD on this site as well called Media Malpractice; I have not viewed it yet, except pieces which I have seen played on tv and on the internet. It looks pretty good to me.

Conservative Review
Issue #80	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	June 21, 2009