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.

I am on vacation in California this week, and Rush is out golfing. So this will be a shorter issue than usual. My apologies if any of the articles seem a bit rushed.

Cyber attack launched against White House, the Pentagon, the New York Stock Exchange, the National Security Agency, Homeland Security Department, State Department, the Nasdaq stock market and The Washington Post. In talking with my nephew, who reads this type of stuff, says that these attacks appear to be along the lines of a denial of service, as opposed to any real hacking (this means that thousands of computers have been compromised, and these computers all make attempts to contact these websites, rendering them essentially inoperable during the attack. The problem with the ability to make an attack is, many of our computers which are necessary for our military defense can be compromised before an attack.

USA Today reports that, now that the stimulus money has been examined, districts which voted for Obama will get twice as much stimulus money as those which voted for McCain.

Former Clinton strategist, James Carville, is assisting Ashraf Ghani as presidential hopeful in the upcoming Afghan presidential race.

Joe Biden: “Did the economic package that we put in place, including the economic recovery act, [was it] the right package? And we believe it is the right package, given the circumstances we’re in.”

Joe Biden: “We have to properly, effectively, adequately and transparently spend out the $787 billion...it’s our job and I think we are doing it well.”

Joe Biden: “There were many predicting that this [stimulus bill] was going to be wasted; that we were going to be out there wasting money. Well, that dog hasn’t barked...anyone would say, this [stimulus package] has been pretty well-managed.”

In the same interview, when being asked about the Iranian government killing demonstrators in the street, expressed optimism that, when it comes to nuclear talks, they will possibly be more reasonable. “If they decide to meet with us, then the protestors will have had a positive effect.” I did not get this quote exactly, but that was the gist. The idea is, even though the Iranian dictatorship killed it own people in the street and threw out journalists, we should still be able to work out negotiations with them with regards to their nuclear program.

“Winston Churchill saved western civilization and Princess Diana wore clothes nicely,” said Charles Krauthammer, commenting on where our society is at this time. A third of a million people attended Churchill’s funeral. 10x that many attended Princess Diana’s.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, justice Supreme Court: “I had thought that at the time Roe [v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”

Paul Krugman, from the New York Times, writes about those who deny global warming: “ So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political terms, it was a remarkable achievement. But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason - treason against the planet.”

Jules Crittendem comments on this: “It's time to establish an International Climate-Change Tribunal that has the authority to deal with Earth treason with the full weight of international law. Here's how it works. Traitors to the planet, once indicted by the tribunal, could be seized by any member state and taken to the international tribunal Bali to be held indefinitely while evidence and witnesses are gathered for trial. This kind of thing can take time and is legally complicated. It helps that the United States already has the authority to do this, since President Obama reaffirmed powers of extraordinary rendition and indefinite detention. So we're ahead of the game, and you know they'll expect us to do the heavy lifting, as usual. This isn't just about punishment. It's about re-education. They would need to be lectured a lot, for long hours, under bright low-wattage eco-bulbs, about the damage they have done to the environment. Might want to play a lot of Pete Seeger and Peter Paul and Mary to soften them up. Strict Vegan diet to cleanse their systems.

Joe Biden’s own semi-happy face which he painted on the Iranian government with respect to nuclear negotiations. He proposes that, sure, maybe they were harsh with demonstrators, but that doesn’t mean that they are unreasonable when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Geraldo/O’Reilly discussion about Michael Jackson; this changed my mind about Michael Jackson:

1) Hannity made this brilliant observation: Biden is now saying that no one had any idea how bad the economy really was. Throughout the entire campaign, Obama, his talking heads and Biden continued to say that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression.

2) Biden made that remark without offering up, “Here is what we should have done...” or “Now that we know how bad things are, this is how we are going to proceed.” On the other hand, this is Biden.

3) Mark Bellin mused, what if Michael Jackson, in 1990 (when his creative juices stopped flowing), instead of becoming somewhat of a freak, became a staunch, vocal Black conservative? How would Hollywood be dealing with his death today? Would there be Hollywood types flocking to this funeral and memorializing Michael Jackson? I think that the public as a whole would have responded in the same way; but I doubt that any strong liberal celebrities would be up front, claiming Michael for the Black race, as Jamie Foxx is doing.

4) A gal from EPA says that this huge Cap and Trade bill will have no affect upon carbon emissions.

5) Conservatives are very focused on individual rights and individual freedoms. Liberals are focused on group control. This is easy to see. Go to any tea party, and there are no matching signs; go to an Obama or a Democrat rally, and there are dozens if not hundreds of matching signs. Which people want to determine the kind of car you drive, the kind of food you eat or the kind of health insurance which you receive. Which side wants to put as much as possible under government scrutiny?

6) Krauthammer reasons, how can you call for a 2^nd stimulus package when (1) the first is a failure or (2) the first has not yet kicked in?

7) I was convinced by Geraldo Rivera that maybe, just maybe, Michael Jackson was an abnormal freak but not a child molester. Paying off people not to pursue child molestation charges quite obviously does not make him guilty. No doubt, his own lawyers said, “This is quick, cheap, almost painless; and the alternative could be quite ugly by comparison.” In Jackson’s trial in which he was acquitted, two of the players, including the lawyer, were paid off in the previous suit. To be quite honest, I was ready to make some insinuations about Jackson and raising 3 children who were not his own by blood. However, Rivera, in an interview with Bill O’Reilly, changed my mind, based upon several things which Rivera observed firsthand.

10–14% of the stimulus bill has been spent thus far. Remember the key phrases for stimulus bills? Targeted, temporary and timely. This was none of those.

Biden saying that they had no idea how bad the economy was, and then Biden on the campaign trail claiming the economy was the worst since the Great Depression.

[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.]

Nancy Pelosi describing Cap and Trade and health Care legislation as jobs bills.

Biden was asked about the stimulus package and the rising unemployment, and he said, “We had no idea at the time how bad things were.”

Follow up questions: “Does this mean that the Obama economists are not very smart?”

“You claimed throughout the campaign that this was the worst economy since the Great Depression; so you are now telling us that this is worse than the Great Depression?”

If you think that the G8 conference which resulted in leaders agreeing to keep earth temperatures from rising over 3.6° by 2050 means anything at all.

If Palin runs for office, we will hear the word quitter on the lips of almost every Democrat and Obama talking head. If she speaks and makes money (as many political figures do), she will be called an opportunist. Palin is seen as a serious threat because she can draw crowds which rival Obama crowds. Attacks against her will continue anytime that she is in the news.

One or more doctors on the Michael Jackson payroll will be arrested and indicted for manslaughter or 2^nd degree murder. They will be made examples of. Expect them to serve a lot of time when it turns out the Jackson did not have to die.

From the beginning of the stimulus package, I said that things would get worse because there was precious little stimulus in the hastily-passed stimulus package.

Sarah Palin resigned her position as governor of Alaska, and people have been all over this story trying to figure out what is up, and, if they are liberal, castigating her for it. Conservatives expression confusion, say it is a bad political move, or say it is a very savvy move.

I think we can possibly take her at her word. Her family was savaged and she was being attacked by people abusing our legal system. Being a governor was not fun nor was she advancing any conservative agenda. She was showing up to work and spending half of her time dealing with frivolous lawsuits. I have been sued once, and it was a minor deal, and the amount of documentation asked of me for a minor, meaningless lawsuit, was a box and a half of documentation. It was unreal. So, did she ant to remove herself and her family from that? Apparently she did, and she conveyed this in her speech (if you could call it that).

She talked about handing off the ball, and the most political aspect of this was possibly to get her lieutenant governor elected as her successor. He has a better chance of that if he is in office. All the pundits seem to miss this. If he is of a like mind, and if he can get more done than she can, than it is a good idea to pass the ball to him.

She spoke of supporting other candidates. Sarah Palin can do this better than anyone else in the Republican party. She could not do this as governor, because she would continually be attacked for ethics violations. Obama could, as a sitting Senator, run all over the country as a presidential nominee, but for her to do anything like that would have drawn all kinds of legal action. If she is the best for drawing a crowd, which means more money and possibly more votes and more Republican candidates, that is a good thing for the party.

What every pundit is focused on is, how can she run for president now? Palin may or may not be motivated entirely by power lust, which, if that is the case, will confuse left, right and moderate pendants.

Palin has a lot of options open to her at this time. She is going to write a book and there are rumors of doing television (no idea how true those are). In any case, doing political events, writing a book, and doing a few speeches in order to pay off legal debt is going to keep Palin very busy and in the spotlight still.

Now, if Palin runs about helping out this and that candidate, the Republican party will owe her. That can mean a cabinet position. Something like that can build up her resume. If she would like to be president—and there is the possibility that she is not interested—she is a young woman. She has several election cycles that she can wait out. By that time, she may serve as a Senator from Alaska, she may have a cabinet position or some other high level appointed position. Her family will have a chance to grow, so that they will no longer be attacked as children.

In 2012, she will be attacked as a quitter. In 2016, although that line will be used, it will only stick with those who already hate her (and this hard core group will diminish as time goes on).

Liberal Democrats are feel-good people. Find a slogan, relate it to helping the poor, the children or the environment, and liberals will eat it up. If it means more government, so be it.

What Congress has proposed, and what has passed in the House, is a bill called Cap and Trade. Essentially it means if you use electricity—especially the wrong kind of electricity—you will pay for your sins against the planet. You will pay for your short-sightedness. Obama, on several occasions, has spoken of his programs causing utilities to skyrocket and of driving the coal business out of business. It’s okay. Coal is dirty, it is a dirty business, and it is bad for the environment. So, with very little thought given to what is going to actually take place, Congress has proposed cap and trade.

No matter how you try to paint cap and trade, the end result is, we all pay more for utilities, and most of the money ends up going to the government. What will also occur is, lobbyists are going to try to lobby for their business. So, it is not going to end up being the dirtiest-businesses pay the most (which means we, as consumers, end up paying more), but many of the businesses which are dirtiest politically will pay less.

Liberals love complex bills because it covers up what they are doing. They could have made this simple. They could have said, from hereon in, you will be charged $10/gallon for gas (the excess going to the government) and 50¢ per kilowatt hour (the excess again going to the government). Add in a provision to allow for a certain amount of bribery to buy this or that business some relief. Most of the reduction in greenhouse gases would be that people would be unable to afford to pay for their fuel. That would be honest and straightforward, but too many people would understand what is happening, and it would never pass.

We get instead, a very complex bill, promsing a better environment, promises to penalize dirty businesses, with phrases like green jobs thrown in to make it palatable.

What is quick and simple, and does not involve a loss of jobs is nuclear energy. But, for years, we have been told, nuclear energy is bad and that we cannot store the waste. Nuclear energy means carbon-free energy production and it means that government ends up having less control and less of a roll in our lives. And, worse than this, for a liberal, is, people may not conserve their energy usage.

Personally, I get my energy from wind power, but do you know how much weight wind and solar power carry? About 1/6^th of 1% of our energy needs. If we passed an energy bill with nothing in it but a buttload of money for more solar and more wind power, the end result would not even put a dent in our energy needs. Not only that, but we would lose ground. Our dependence on foreign oil would be increased.

However, here is the key to cap and trade. Obama and the Democratic Congress have passed more pages of legislation than ever before in history. All of this costs money. How do you pay for it? In part by passing a bill with the words, a cleaner environment, green jobs and the words cap and trade in it. That is more money for government to pay for what it has just obligated itself for. It won’t pay for all of it or even a 5^th of it, but it will pay for some of it.

Another unintended result is driving businesses from the United States to another country. A business looks at all of its costs. If energy is much cheaper in another country, then that becomes a consideration in any business. If this business can be moved and make more money (by offering a product for a cheaper cost), then many will be moved. Bye bye jobs.

Cap and trade also taxes the poor, but liberals can argue and argue that this is not a tax, but a move toward energy independence and a greener world.

It is all extremely dishonest, but then, it’s government...what do you expect? However, no matter how the dice are rolled, no matter what form of cap and trade is passed, it will not mean more jobs (as 2.2 jobs are lost for every green job created) and it will not mean energy independence. And, when all is said and done, it will only mean a cleaner environment because people cannot afford to pay their light bill or anything else related to energy.

There are two real solutions out there. Nuclear energy and natural gas. The end result will mean less government, less government control, lower energy prices, and less CO₂ in our atmosphere (at least from the United States). I could care less about the final result of a sensible, realistic approach to our energy needs; but I certainly like the first 3.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through King Features Syndicate. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact: kfsreprint@hearstsc.com, or phone 800-708-7311, ext 246.

The cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives shrouded in a fog of willful ignorance and calculated irrationality.

No one could be sure what he was voting for - not after the 1,200-page bill had a 300-page amendment added at 3:09 a.m. the day of its passage. The bill is so complex and jerry-built that even its supporters can't know how, or if, it will work. And it's metaphysically impossible for someone to know whether the motivating crisis, impending planetary doom, will ever materialize.

The formulation of the so-called Waxman-Markey bill was less traditional legislative sausage-making than an unspeakable practice out of The Jungle. Its architects bought off every possible interest group no matter what the policy consequences until they had a bare majority to slam it through the House sight unseen (a physical copy of the final bill didn't yet exist when it passed). Mission accomplished, although at the price of a ramshackle bill that won't succeed on its own terms, even as it introduces costly distortions and invasive bureaucratic controls into the economy.

The basic idea of cap-and-trade is that government establishes an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions and then creates emission credits, which companies can buy or sell among themselves. It is essentially carbon rationing designed to suppress traditional sources of energy.

Because cap-and-trade is meant to create pain in an economy dependent on fossil fuels for 85 percent of its energy, the only way to make it politically salable is to vitiate it. Originally, the Obama administration counted on $80 billion a year from the government's sale of emissions credits. To win over industry, Waxman-Markey gives the credits away for free. Poof! There goes the revenue.

The bill bestows hundreds of billions' worth of credits on local electricity and natural-gas distribution companies, as well as on the auto, coal, and oil industries - basically anyone with the ear of a congressman or with a halfway-competent lobbyist.

Then there are the "offsets," the environmental equivalent of indulgences. A company maintains its carbon emissions but buys an offset for someone else to capture carbon or reduce emissions - say, by not cutting down a tree in a rain forest somewhere. Offsets are notoriously dubious. Waxman-Markey makes generous allowance for them anyway.

The upshot is that an Environmental Protection Agency analysis says that under Waxman-Markey, there will be no reduction in emissions by 2020. The progressive Breakthrough Institute estimates that emissions could continue at their current business-as-usual rate through 2030. Perversities abound. According to the Los Angeles Times, under the bill, the U.S. "would use more carbon-dioxide heavy coal in 2020 than it did in 2005." Time writes that "the total amount of renewable energy generation under Waxman-Markey would actually be less than the renewable energy that would have been produced without the bill."

Isn't saving the planet grand? Waxman-Markey creates an irresistible incentive for industry to repeat the games-playing of recent weeks, as it maneuvers for advantage in Washington and works to push the legislation's restrictions always off into the indefinite future.

Even if Waxman-Markey were perfectly formulated, it would reduce global surface temperatures by only one-tenth of 1 degree Celsius in 100 years. That's a negligible difference, purchased at a great price. The watered-down version is still so threatening to energy-intensive industries that it mandates tariffs on goods from countries that refuse to hamstring themselves so foolishly.

Democrats resorted to any expedient to pass Waxman-Markey as a long-term play: Get the bureaucratic structure in place, then work through regulators, the courts, and legislation to tighten the screws later. For them, that's the ultimate promise of the Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, the Carbon Market Oversight Interagency Working Group, the International Reserve Allowance Program, and all the rest of the vast regulatory machinery engendered by the bill.

President Barack Obama called it an "extraordinary first step." Extraordinary indeed.

The Obama administration doesn't want to hear inconvenient truths about global warming. And they don't want you to hear them, either. As Democrats rush on Friday to pass a $4 trillion-dollar, thousand-page "cap and trade" bill that no one has read, environmental bureaucrats are stifling voices that threaten their political agenda.

The free market-based Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington (where I served as a journalism fellow in 1995) obtained a set of internal e-mails exposing Team Obama's willful and reckless disregard for data that undermine the illusion of "consensus." In March, Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, asked agency officials to distribute his analysis on the health effects of greenhouse gases. EPA has proposed a public health "endangerment finding" covering CO2 and five other gases that would trigger costly, extensive new regulations of motor vehicles. The open comment period on the ruling ended this week. But Carlin's study didn't fit the blame-human-activity narrative, so it didn't make the cut.

On March 12, Carlin's director, Al McGartland, forbade him from having "any direct communication" with anyone outside his office about his study. "There should be no meetings, emails, written statements, phone calls, etc." On March 16, Carlin urged his superiors to forward his work to EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, which runs the agency's climate change program. A day later, McGartland dismissed Carlin and showed his true, politicized colors:

"The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Contrary comments, in other words, would interfere with the "process" of ramming the EPA's endangerment finding through. Truth-in-science took a backseat to protecting eco-bureaucrats from "a very negative impact."

In another follow-up e-mail, McGartland warned Carlin to drop the subject altogether: "With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate."

But, of course, the e-mails show that EPA had already predetermined what it was going to do - "move forward on endangerment." Which underscores the fact that the open public comment period was all for show. In her message to the public about the radical greenhouse gas rules, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson requested "comment on the data on which the proposed findings are based, the methodology used in obtaining and analyzing the data, and the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed findings." Ms. Jackson, meet Mr. Carlin.

The EPA now justifies the suppression of the study because economist Carlin (a 35-year veteran of the agency who also holds a B.S. in physics) "is an individual who is not a scientist." Neither is Al Gore. Nor is environmental czar Carol Browner. Nor is cap-and-trade shepherd Nancy Pelosi. Carlin's analysis incorporated peer-reviewed studies and, as he informed his colleagues, "significant new research" related to the proposed endangerment finding. According to those who have seen his study, it spotlights EPA's reliance on out-of-date research, uncritical recycling of United Nations data, and omission of new developments, including a continued decline in global temperatures and a new consensus that future hurricane behavior won't be different than in the past.

In April, President Obama declared that "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over." Another day, another broken promise. Will Carlin meet the same fate as inspectors general who have been fired or "retired" by the Obama administration for blowing the whistle and defying political orthodoxy? Or will he, too, be yet another casualty of the Hope and Change steamroller? The bodies are piling up.

Malkin is author of the forthcoming "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2009).

Although I have quoted from this, here is one man’s opinion of what we ought to do with those who are treasonous to planet earth:

Save the planet with a thesaurus? Here is a quote from a serious NY Times article on how global warming types need to change their language:

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about "our deteriorating atmosphere." Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up "moving away from the dirty fuels of the past." Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like "cap and cash back" or "pollution reduction refund."

Al Gore has likened the will to support climate change legislation to that of Winston Churchill in opposing Nazi Germany.

Barney Frank wants to spend the TARP repayment money; no need for it to go back to the taxpayer:

Do you recall how the press went after Joe the Plumber, who essentially asked a question that Obama gave the wrong answer to? Do you remember how when Palin began to draw Obama-sized crowds that the press attacked her unmercifully? Now, Sotomayor supporters are encouraging the press to dig up dirt on that #1 scoring firefighter in the Supreme Court case. Is this the kind of government you want? Is this the kind of press that you believe in?

RUSH: Now, yesterday, in discussing cap and trade, this abomination that was voted on and passed the House of Representatives on Friday, I was explaining what I'd missed and I apologized to you for missing something so blatant. Cap and TRADE. Trade. Who's gonna trade? Who's gonna monitor the trades? Who's going to do the trades? Who's gonna get the profit? Who's gonna get the fees? Who's going to get the commissions on the caps that are traded, the pollution credits and so forth? Wall Street! Goldman Sachs. And I speculated that these Republicans, particularly the Northeast Republicans, voted for this abomination because campaign cash from Wall Street firms weighed more than their constituents desire for the bill to not pass. Well, according to the Washington Examiner, Kevin Mooney:

"House Republicans who received campaign donations from environmental groups helped make up the narrow margin of votes needed to send the Waxman-Markey 'cap and trade' bill over to the US Senate. The legislation passed by a vote of just 219 to 212 on Friday with critical assistance from eight Republicans," and we identify them again for you. "They are: Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Mike Castle (Del.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Leonard Lance (NJ), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), John McHugh (NY), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Chris Smith (NJ). ... Political Action Committees (PACs) connected with the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Ocean Champions and Republicans for Environmental Protection have made donations to most of these same eight Republican lawmakers in recent election cycles, according to OpenSecrets.Org. Rep. Kirk of Illinois, for instance, was among the top 20 recipients of PAC donations from environmental[ist wacko] groups in the 2008 election cycle."

This story details all of the contributions to all of these Republicans. So it wasn't Wall Street money. It's even worse. It's environmentalist wacko money. Republicans! Republicans taking environmentalist wacko money -- and those of you who live in the districts represented by these people, you have to know that the money donated to them mattered more to them (you know, paying back that donation) than voting your desires. And probably what they instinctively think about this bill anyway. Here are some more details about the cap-and-trade program. You know, home sales, by the way... As Obama would say, "Most economists from across the spectrum agree." That's how he does it. "Economists from a wide spectrum of thought all agree..." Home sales are critical for the recovery of the American economy, and the administration is saying this, and it's true.

Home sales are critical. So why put these provisions in the cap-and-trade bill? Listen to this. "Homebuyers Beware. Trying to save up for a new home? You may have to save up a little longer for your purchase. The Democrats' bill would dramatically increase new home costs by mandating California's expensive new building codes for the entire nation. Immediately upon enactment, the Democrats' bill would demand a 30 percent increase in energy efficiency for new construction. A couple of years later, the Democrats' bill would require an additional 50 percent improvement. These numbers were chosen with no concern for cost to consumers or feasibility in implementation," and most people voting on it didn't even know these provisions were in the bill 'cause there was not a bill. So this is going to stifle the American economic recovery because it's going to stifle home sales. That's just one of two or three items I want to tell you about.

RUSH: We got a call from Honduras and I want to take it, it's Jim. Jim, I'm glad you got through to us today. Welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush, I appreciate you putting me on the line. I'm calling you right now from Honduras.

CALLER: I can't tell you, Rush, because that could possibly put my family in danger.

CALLER: No, I'm not kidding. If this situation gets any worse, Rush, Americans are going to be kicked out. If what Obama has done to support a known dictator in Mel Zelaya, who has been taken out by the government peacefully -- Rush, I need to tell you, it's not a coup, which is what is being reported by CNN. A coup did not happen, did not take place. It was peacefully done, there was nobody killed, there was nobody put in danger, and the military put the control right back to the Congress, and they peacefully took care of business.

RUSH: Yeah, I think a recap of what happened here is called for. There's a constitution. The current president wanted to violate it and continued to serve in office. The Supreme Court and the legislature there both agreed he couldn't do so. He ignored them. Then the military came in and replaced him. There was no violence, as you say. And as it is now, you have dictators Chavez and Castro, along with the US President Barack Obama, agreeing with the hopeful dictator of Honduras. It is an amazing and breathtaking thing to watch. I have some comments about this after you tell us what else you wanted to say about it.

CALLER: Yeah, Rush, I just wanted to let you know if they are allowed back in -- they are currently in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega is also involved in this -- if they are allowed back in the country, Chavez is threatening to attack this country. I don't know if you're aware, Rush, you probably are, that Ronald Reagan put two US military bases here in this country, and I don't know what's going to happen, Rush, but I'm afraid. I've been here 14 years as a missionary. There's many Americans here, and about 95% of this country, Rush, is against what's going on with the president that was taken out. There's a very, very small majority, basically your drug lords, your gang members, your thugs that are supporting Mel Zelaya and the rest of the regime from Venezuela and Nicaragua.

RUSH: It's amazing to watch, and, Jim, thanks so much for the call. It's great to have an on-the-site report from down there. Ninety-five percent of the Honduran people are opposed to their ex-president Mel Zelaya. During his campaign President Obama made a big deal of criticizing leaders who are elected democratically but don't govern democratically and he had a chance to show that, he had the chance to demonstrate that that in Honduras and he hasn't. He has sided with regional dictators in opposing what's gone on in Honduras. Now, I want to put it to you this way. You have the country, Honduras, you've got a president, and there's a constitution, and this president is limited to how many terms he can serve. He didn't like that. He wanted to blow that out. He undemocratically stated, "I'm staying in office." This alarmed their version of Congress, the legislature down there, and the Supreme Court. Both bodies told him he was acting unconstitutionally and could not do it. He ignored them and essentially told them to go to hell. It was at that point that the military went in and took him out peaceably.

The guy's got a point here, it really wasn't a coup. It was the constitution being upheld. It was not a government being overthrown. It was a government being upheld, a government being sustained and getting rid of somebody who wanted to turn into an Ortega, who wanted to turn into a Chavez, who wanted to become a Castro, and these are the people our president of the United States is siding with. Now, why? Why? I'm going to tell you something, folks. The Drive-Bys and the State-Run Media are not going to bring this up. But it's time to lay it out. The US foreign policy is out of control. There isn't one. I can't determine what our foreign policy doctrine is. It is a mess. It's incoherent. Our president is sending conflicting signals all over the world, and I think we're being laughed at as we stand up and support this dictatorship or would-be dictatorship and align ourselves with other dictators in the region.

You know they have to be laughing at us in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to Iran to everywhere around the world. They're laughing at us because they're laughing at the naivete or at the good fortune that they have witnessed in having this man, Barack Obama, be president of the United States. He certainly clearly seems to have inherited Marxist tendencies from his father, Barack Obama Sr. So I think the question needs to be asked point-blank, Mr. President, if your foreign policy doctrine, so to speak, is to endorse Marxist, leftist regimes, no matter how they come to be either by force or by ballot, then you should say so. He should be pressed to say so. Do you support and endorse Marxist left -- well, the answer is obviously, yes! He's very friendly with Ortega, he's very friendly with Chavez, and he hadn't met Castro yet but I'm sure that would be an old home meeting as well. Doesn't it appear this way, folks? He's endorsing and very friendly with Marxist leftist regimes no matter how they come to power. Now, why? Let us ask why, and let's get beyond the ideology.

I know some of you people are going to think that I've gone over the edge because I was up late last night 'til five o'clock working on a mysterious, secret big project, which someday I hope to be able to tell you about. But I think Obama is easily typecast. I think he has natural sympathies toward authoritarians. He has sympathy for dictators. He relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism. It's not me saying this. It's somebody from the American Thinker, the Nigerian woman writing last week referring to Obama as average African colonel. You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016. I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment, which term limits the president of the United States. He may not do it that way, he may not openly try to change the Constitution, but there might be this movement in the country from his cultlike followers to support the notion that a democratically elected leader, who is loved and adored has carte blanche, once elected, just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, the people want it, the people love it. I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016.

Now, I think the way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras -- look, they've gotta constitution. There are a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it and Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution. He sides with other dictators in the region. Regardless, one thing is clear here. Obama is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage. And I'll tell you, folks, this business about serving beyond 2016, when you look at Obama's followers -- and we've discussed it here -- they are a cultlike bunch. Their attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it's not issue-wise, it is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities, by the way, who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.

Let him succeed with amnesty for example and all the illegal aliens who were instantly made citizens, he'll be too important, just like right now he's too big to fail as far as the Drive-Bys are concerned, he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say. They wouldn't care a whit about the legalities that might be trampled. Half of them wouldn't care about the legalities anyway, and they don't even know about them because they haven't been properly educated. So, you know, I think this situation in Honduras is very instructive. I think anybody who thinks that he intends to just constitutionally go away in 2016 is nuts. I think that's what all this ACORN stuff is all about. I think giving ACORN money, fraudulent voter registration, whatever it's going to take, these are people who seek power for reasons other than to serve. They seek to rule.

RUSH: By the way, the new Honduran president said that he doesn't see any way to negotiate with the Obama administration and Teguc (Tegucigalpa) is awash in rumors that Venezuela is marshaling its forces for a possible invasion as the caller Jim from Honduras said. He's a missionary there. The Washington Post has this today. I guarantee you Chavez and Ortega will not let this stand. This was a move to take Honduras to a dictatorship. This is Chavez's dream, and it's just outrageous that the president of the United States is siding with dictators on this. Of course the rest of the world is siding with the dictators -- the World Bank, the United Nations -- but what would you expect? The United Nations is an organization of dictators and thugs, primarily, whose primary objective is to fleece the United States of as much capital, money, as it can.

And get this. State-Run Media, Reuters: "The US Treasury said on Tuesday it has targeted an Iranian-based firm for its ties to North Korea's missile proliferation network, a move that bans US companies from dealing with it. Hong Kong Electronics, located in Kish Island, Iran, has been named for transferring millions of dollars of proliferation-related funds to North Korea from Iran." Meanwhile, we are in the process of destroying our own economy. The president of the United States is telling Israeli Jews that they cannot build their own homes in their own country! He refuses to "meddle" in Iran, but he's meddling all over the place down in Central America and in Honduras. It's tough to keep up. We need to know: What is the Obama foreign policy doctrine? If it is the support of Marxist, leftist regimes, however they come to power, we need to be told. That needs to become officially stated US doctrine. Because right now his foreign policy is all across the board. It's just a mess. It's incoherent, as evidenced by all this garbage going on in North Korea and Iran. In case you missed it: the recount in Iran shows that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got even more votes, just like in our country!

RUSH: I am holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a great editorial carton by the great Ramirez in Investors Business Daily. It's a tropical setting. Four parrots -- Castro, Chavez, Ortega and Obama -- all squawking: "Restore the dictator in Honduras!" It's a fabulous cartoon.

RUSH: I asked for it and unbeknownst to me, I got it. I said, "What is the Obama doctrine?" If we're going to stand up for Marxist dictatorships around the world it's time to say so. It's time to say, "That's the American doctrine, the Obama doctrine." Last night on PBS, the Charlie Rose Show, he interviewed former Carter national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Charlie Rose said, "Do you see emerging from the White House an Obama doctrine?"

BRZEZINSKI: There is an Obama concept regarding the world. And it's a concept to which I generally share, that is to say we live in a world in which the population of the world -- for the first time in all of its history -- is politically awakened. A genuine political awakening of all the classes and masses in a society was a phenomena restricted to France alone, the French Revolution. But in the last 200 years, it has spread -- and in the last hundred years very rapidly -- and in the last 50 years almost everywhere. That politically awakened world cannot be dominated anymore by the West. Many people are really yearning and claiming self-respect because until recently they were dominated by the West, through colonialism and imperialism. And if we understand that -- if we don't act like a late comer to the age of imperialism in the way we treat others -- I think we can manage the world.

RUSH: Wait a minute! How can we manage the world, Zbig, if nobody wants us to anymore? We can manage the world but the West is not wanted anymore? The West can't. The world cannot be dominated anymore by the West, yet he says that we can manage the world. And here we're imperialists. Nothing we do is for good. We're colonialists and imperialists. So, by the way, I think Zbigniew Brzezinski is agreeing with me on the Obama doctrine. The Obama doctrine is that the "masses have awakened and that the West can no longer dominate the world." Now, one other thing. The masses have awakened politically is absurd. In this country, the masses are going to sleep politically! In this country, there is more political ignorance than at any time in my life. In this country there is more political disinformation...

Political awakening? Where? In Obama's brother's hut? In Rhodesia, Zimbabwe? Where is this political awakening taking place? All these people -- the masses, the classes -- rising up and demanding their own independence? Where? If you do that in Venezuela you get shot or you get put in jail. Same thing in Cuba. What the in the world is he talking about? He has just made the case for the Obama doctrine, and that is: "The United States is not a superpower. There's nothing exceptional, and we can't dominate the world." To say we dominated the world in a forceful manner is... (sigh) There's a reason Jimmy Carter was a rotten president. He had questionable people around him. The United States is exceptional. It dominates the world, as we've documented, in economic output, in lifestyle, in standard of living, in technology, medicine. It's simply because of our freedom, not because we're evil. We're not dictators. We're not dominators. We're liberators! And yet here's Zbigniew Brzezinski explaining the Obama doctrine as, "We're guilty. We're guilty of imperialism. We're guilty of colonialism, and so it serves us right to be cut down to size," and now we're imperialists. This is more left-wing claptrap. But there you have it: the Obama doctrine.

RUSH: There's a column by George Will today about the Supreme Court decision yesterday regarding Sonia Sotomayor, the Ricci case, the firefighters in New Haven. And it's a great piece by Mr. Will: "'Four Justices Unable to See Beyond Race' -- Although New Haven's firefighters deservedly won in the Supreme Court, it is deeply depressing that they won narrowly -- 5 to 4. The egregious behavior by that city's government, in a context of racial rabble-rousing, did not seem legally suspect to even one of the court's four liberals, whose harmony seemed to reflect result-oriented rather than law-driven reasoning." Mr. Will seems surprised. And I'm sure many of you in this audience were surprised, too. Folks, do you remember what F. Scott Fitzgerald said about the rich? He said, "The rich are different from you and me." Liberals are different from you and me. I think it's time to forget holding out hope for liberal judges, folks. They are not like us. They don't look at the judicial system the way we do. They don't look at the law the way we do.

The liberal brain fires in a totally different way, years and years and years of propaganda has robbed liberals of the ability to reason and think. They are programmed human robots. Somebody got hold of them, either in the sixties, in college, junior high, when they're watching cartoons on TV, Captain Planet, whatever it is, they don't think like we do. They just don't. I was not surprised at all. Maybe for a scant second disappointed, 5-4, but then I grabbed hold of myself in a moment of reality. Barack Obama is a liberal, a radical, and he thinks we need empathy on the court, and sure as hell, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissenting opinion, said the firefighters certainly deserve the sympathy of the court. No, they don't. They deserve the law. They deserve justice. They don't deserve sympathy. That's not what courts are about. But even though they deserve sympathy, they didn't get enough to win in the liberal mind. Why? Because liberals practice racism.

An Investor's Business Daily editorial calls it racial favoritism. Whatever it is, they side with minorities. They believe that the majority in this country is corrupt, immoral, and unjust, and must pay. And the court system is how one of the many ways that the majority is going to pay. The tax system and redistribution is another way the majority is going to pay for all of the pain and suffering it has inflicted on the unions and on the minorities and so forth. This is how liberals think, whether they're on the court or whether they're asking for contributions to ACORN. They're no different. Stephen Breyer, "We gotta look to foreign law if we can't find precedent in our own law to rule the way we want to." They don't think like we do. It's misplaced hope to think that liberals are going to see reason the way we do in the law. They don't look at the law as a means of finding legal adjudications to cases. They look at the law and the court system as a way to level the playing field according to their view of how it's unfair. Four votes could not possibly see the legal constitutional issues in this case?

This is very instructive for all of us to see just how the liberal mind operates. F. Scott Fitzgerald, remember the big book? The Great Gatsby. The rich are different. Needs to be updated. Liberals are different. Liberals function in a totally foreign way, and you have to apply yourself as I have done my whole life to understand these people. Most people don't care to go to that trouble because once you figure out who they are it depresses you even more.

RUSH: Roger Altman today in the Wall Street Journal. Roger Altman is a Clinton guy, an Obama guy, a Democrat. You might say that Roger Altman is a whistle-blower who blew the whistle on Obama's community organizer economics. He's not the first. We'd have to say that Gerald Walpin would be the first whistle-blower and they canned him. And they suppressed the second whistle-blower in the EPA who said, "Wait a minute! The thing you're relying on to say that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and it's causing global warming, the science isn't settled on it," they shut him up. Roger Altman, the third whistle-blower here. His piece in the Wall Street Journal: "We'll Need to Raise Taxes Soon."

This piece was published this morning. It might be wise of us to call Altman's office and see if he's there or if anyone can find him. Because remember now, Obama is out there saying if you're under 200 or 250 grand, you're not going to pay tax increase on anything. We already know this is a lie, but his own side has not defected until Altman did it. What Altman did today in the Wall Street Journal was blow the whistle on Obama's economic projections, community organizer economics.

Obama, in his budget, said that we would increase growth by 3.2% next year and 4% the year after and that going to increase our national debt by only $10 trillion in ten years. Now, according to Roger Altman and Goldman Sachs and the International Monetary Fund, growth will not be 3% or 4%. It's only going to be 2%. And what does that mean? It means bigger deficits than what have been forecast. Now, I've said all this and many of the conservative media have already told you we're not going to grow at three and a half or four percent next year or the year after, and the deficit projections here of ten trillion are going to be 12 to 15 trillion. The deficit projection for this year, $1.8 trillion, is going to go over two trillion. You've already heard this. What's noteworthy here is this is an Obamaite pointing it out.

We are learning the two most meaningless words in the Obama presidency are what? "Obama said..." (laughing) The two most meaningless words are "Obama said." They mean nothing. Whatever follows "Obama said" is irrelevant. Obama said passing the stimulus would hold unemployment to 8%. He's now praying it holds at 10%. Actually he's hoping it goes to 10%. It's a bigger crisis. He said the stimulus was so urgent, it had to be passed before it was read. But as of May 11th, only 6% of it had been spent. Obama said he would not have lobbyists buy influence. But the biggest lobbyist, the unions, are holding influence hostage. Obama said he won't raise taxes on anybody making less than $250,000 a year. The only straight talk Obama gave us is, "We need hope and change," and we certainly do, right now, need hope and change.

Change from Obama's community organizer economics. Roger Altman, "seriously consider a value-added tax..." "Household net worth has fallen more than 20% since its mid-2007 peak. This drop began just when household debt reached 130% of income," yada yada yada, on and on and on. "Mr. Altman, founder and chairman of Evercore Partners, was deputy secretary of the Treasury in the first Clinton administration." Here's the last line: "That's important, because it is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how." Rog, cap and trade is a tax increase. Health care is a tax increase. Everything Obama is doing is a tax increase! The stimulus is a tax increase. The deficits are a tax increase. (sigh) Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a tax increase. They're coming back for more, as though we haven't raised taxes yet. "We're going to need to raise them soon... value-added tax," Roger Altman, whistle-blower, the Obama administration.

RUSH: I knew it wouldn't be possible. I was trying to go through this program today without one sound bite from President Obama, but it's not possible. The president had a presser, some ceremony at the White House this afternoon to take credit for pulling us out of Iraq, which we're not doing. We're not leaving Iraq. We're pulling out of the cities, and it's up now to the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves -- and, by the way, all hell is breaking loose. Twenty-four dead in Kirkuk. The Iraqi security forces are now being tested by Iranian-sponsored thugs and terrorists in Iran. We announce the day we're pulling out, what do you do expect they're going to do? So we'll probably have to be back in there by tonight at some point, but nevertheless Obama is out there, and this is what he said.

OBAMA: Those who have tried to pull Iraq into the abyss of disunion and civil war are on the wrong side of history.

OBAMA: Finally, the very fact that Iraqis are celebrating this day is a testament to the courage, the capability, and commitment of every single American who has served in Iraq.

OBAMA: Through tour after tour of duty our troops have overcome every obstacle --

OBAMA: -- to extend this precious opportunity to the Iraqi people. We've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, and everyone who served there both in uniform, uh, as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

RUSH: I don't know about you, but this offends me. This is a guy who sought their defeat. This is a guy, Barack Obama, who voted against every progress-in-Iraq vote that came up. This is a guy who was out there impugning the United States military along with everybody else in his party, in both the House and the Senate. And everybody in his audience up there, other than the military people, wanted us to lose in Iraq. And now he runs around... I told you. I told you, folks, that these people were not going to lose it, that they were going to try to take credit for the victory. You didn't hear him talk about George Bush, did you? Not in this bite, no. It's all about Obama. Well, he praised the troops, and I don't... It's the first time. "Those who have tried to pull Iraq into the abyss of civil war are on the wrong side of history"? That was you and your party, Mr. President! You are the ones that would have lost it. It would have devolved into a civil war had he succeeded in getting our troops out of there.

"This day, which is being heralded as a great success for our troops," is only possible because you did not prevail with your party in the Senate, Mr. President. It's a little... It's offensive to me that he gets to run around and take credit, even though I predicted it. "Tour after tour of duty our troops have overcome every obstacle" including the Democrats in Congress "to extend this precious opportunity to the Iraqi people." Oh, now all of a sudden they care about the Iraqi people! They didn't care about the Iraqi people before. They didn't care about the Iraqi people when Saddam Hussein was doing anything to them. Last time they cared about the Iraqi people was when Bill Clinton wanted to do something about it back in the late nineties. Sometimes these people make me sick. This is just... You talk about hypocrisy? Barack Obama and his Democrats in the Senate were the biggest obstacle the US military faced in Iraq. Well, I'm not gonna say they're a bigger obstacle than the terrorists who were armed, but I'm telling you: the Democrats in Congress were an obstacle that our troops had to overcome, in addition to everything else they had to beat.

RUSH: You remember Joe Biden wanted to divide Iraq into three parts? The Democrats were never on board this other than, you know, a couple weeks after 9/11. After that they were nowhere to be found in support of the US mission or the troops. If you're going to have a ceremony congratulating the troops for a job well done, the stand-up thing to do would have been to have George Bush there to be part of it. Of course that's the stand-up thing to do, which we don't expect from this crowd.

Waxman’s questions the patriotism of the Republicans (a Democrat can question the patriotism of a Republican; a Republican cannot question the patriotism of a Democrat, even if it involves losing a war):

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.

This is an outstanding website which tells the truth about Obama-care and about what the mainstream media is hiding from you:

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 #83	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	July 17, 2009