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.

My internet was out for most of Sunday, which is why I am sending this out so late on Sunday.

Just like last week, if you want information on Obama-care, try FoxNews or TalkRadio. They actually examine the nitty gritty of the Health Care Bills which are out there. If you don’t know any specifics on Obama-care, you can only blame yourself.

Newsweek Magazine, on its cover, proclaimed The Recession is Over! Good to know.

Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted in a Boston court that he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. A federal jury orders him to pay $675,000 to four record labels.

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has begun to hold townhall meetings in foreign countries.

President Obama offers, in a speech, to meet with any member of the Congress to go over the Health Care Bill line by line. Tennessee Congressman, Dr. Phil Roe, formally accepts the President’s offer.

Some monies from the stimulus bill went to Midnight pornography and to obscene art house revues.

BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.

BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.

“I love these members [of Congress] who get up and say, ‘Read the bill.’ What good is reading the bill if it is 1000 pages and you don’t have 2 days and 2 lawyers to find out what it means after you have read the bill?” Democrat John Conyers about the Health Care bill, and why he won’t read it.

Way cute S E Cupp: “I have a beer summit in my apartment almost every night—what’s the big deal?”

Henry Gates Jr: "The national conversation over the past week about my arrest has been rowdy, not to say tumultuous and unruly. But ... there's reason to hope that many people have emerged with greater sympathy for the daily perils of policing, on the one hand, and for the genuine fears about racial profiling, on the other hand."

Barney Frank believes that a government insurance plan is a good strategy to achieve single-payer health insurance:

Interesting talking points and O’Reilly v. Rove concerning oil speculation and the price of oil (O’Reilly is bragging that he has always been right about this and Rove disagrees):

Daisy the Dog returns after being separated from her family for 10 months after Hurricane Ike (commercials come first).

1) Byron York made the astute observation that (1) the House and or Senate, if they pass nothing related to health, then they are seen as losers; or (2) they pass some anemic measure which has no real affect upon the health system, except for maybe onerous regulations; and it will be something which can be taken apart on their recess and thrown back in their faces.

2) I’ve been avoiding making too many comments about President Obama, the cop and the Harvard professor, although Jon Stewart hit the nail right on the head by saying the President acted stupidly. I think Obama’s initial remarks and animation are key to understanding his character and his ingrained bias. However, I have heard several Black commentators and pundits who say that their parents taught them to be deferential to policemen for reasons related to prejudice and profiling. When I am stopped by a policeman, I always say yes, sir or no, sir; and I have great respect for the badge and for any man (or woman) who enters into that profession. Not only is deference the smart attitude, it is the right attitude, no matter what color anyone is.

3) A Black man is far more likely to be the victim of a Black on Black crime than he is to be victimized by racial profiling. When a Black man is the victim of a homicide in America, the killer is much more likely to be another Black man.

4) A simple logical point, made by several people: if the government is having trouble running the cash for clunkers program, which is relatively simple (and, which budget appears to have tripled within a month), how in the world does it make sense for us to trust them with our medical system.

5) Here is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, cuts the California state budget by 20%. President Obama and his staff cut the deficit (not the budget) by 0.006%.

6) If you want to bring up Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush, it is helpful to keep in mind that, 6 years of a Republican Congress, where spending bills originate, presented Bill Clinton with a balanced budget (this was Gingrich and Clinton working together; Clinton being advised by conservative Dick Morris). All that is a good thing. George Bush, under a Democratic Congress (again, when spending bills originate), ended his presidency with a staggering $439 billion deficit. Obama, however, will quadruple that amount in his first year.

7) When it came to deaths in Iraq, the media banged a loud continuing drum. However, we do not hear that same drum when it comes to Afghanistan, despite July being the deadliest month for US soldiers.

8) Glenn Beck asked some excellent questions. Right now there are about 10,000 pages of health care bills in the House and Senate. Obviously, no Congressman of any stripe will read all of these. Few, if any, will read even one bill all the way through. So, so wrote these bills? Who stands behind these bills? How did they come about?

9) I just heard an interview with a doctor during which I learned one new thing—if a doctor wants to treat a patient for free or for a reduced fee, Medicare and Medicaid object, on the grounds that, everyone ought to be required to pay the same amount for the same care. Although the doctor was not specific, there appear to be government hoops through which the doctor must jump in order to take on a charity case.

0.006% deficit cut made by Obama and his cabinet (which is approximately 0.003% of the budget)

70% of network news coverage of Obama-care has been favorable. 9% report that the cost will be over $1 trillion.

50% of those murdered in the US are Black males (that is not a profiling problem; that is a crime problem)

65% of Americans want fewer services and lower taxes from the federal government.

During a press conference, Obama riffs on the things which doctors do in order to make more money.

Evan Bayh gave an interview to FoxNews the other day, and sounded sensible. Obama often sounds sensible, but his rhetoric is not back up by actions. He sounds like a moderate and even like a conservative at times, but he never acts this way when it comes to domestic policy. Bayh has a track record of being fiscally responsible.

There are still a few blue dog Democrats who are holding out on this health care initiative. It is hard to figure out who is going to exert the most pressure on them: their constituents or Nancy Pelosi.

NPR actually did a story on Sunday morning which indicated that the public was quite critical of the health care bills before Congress. Although their language was not very strong, it was clear that most Americans are opposed to a government involvement and/or takeover of the health care insurance industry.

[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.]

“If you like your current health care coverage, then you will be able to keep it.”

Who exactly wrote the various health care bills for Congress? Were any lobbyists involved in the writing of these bills?

Do you expect that your health care legislation will be more or less successful than the stimulus bill?

Over 80% with health care insurance are happy with their coverage; it is hard to find anything that 80% of any group is happy with. Shouldn’t health care reform only deal with the smaller percentage of those unhappy with the situation?

You have promised to go over the health coverage bill line-by-line with interested Congressmen; are you willing to have this televised?

You have not said you are sorry about accusing either the Cambridge police department or to Office Crowley. Is no apology forthcoming?

You have apologized over and over again for America’s wrongs; has there ever been a clear instance of you apologizing for something which you got wrong?

If you think the opposition to health care reform is primarily being ginned up by the insurance companies.

Most political pundits are predicting unemployment of hitting a high of 11% or so. I think that it could go much higher. Even though we have seen a slowing of the rate of job loss, I think we are looking at a true unemployment of around 15–20%. It is not that our country is in the Great Depression II, but that Obama has no idea how to cope with unemployment and business. His mind has no experiences in that arena of thinking, so all of his solutions involve more and more government, which means more and more taxes and more and more bureaucracy. Obama will certainly not get all that he wants, but he and other very liberal Democrats are going to slip highly socialistic proposals into various bills. Look for, at the very least, an increase of federal organizations like Americorps, which will do a significant amount of hiring over the next couple of years.

Not only will Republicans make significant gains in Congress in 2010 (possibly taking over the House of Representatives), but Obama is not going to know what to do with them, except demonize them over and over again on television. Right now, even while the Democrats can pass anything that they want to pass, Obama still blames Republicans for the Health Care Bill stalling. George Bush, when the Democrats took over Congress, acting like he could hardly wait to work with Democrats (he was famous/infamous in Texas for working across the aisle). Obama has no clue as to how to do this. He understands how to strong-arm his own people to get them to vote with him; but real compromise confuses and frustrates him. Look for there to be a real slow-down in government action as well as a continual demagoging of Republican obstinance. Every talking head from the Obama camp with repeat and re-repeat this message for months.

Obama, if he does not compromise on anything, is going to lose a lot of votes which he got in 2008. He needs to gather a whole lot of votes. He is going to get some of them through voter fraud; and he is going to get a lot more from previously-illegal immigrants whom he will grant a voting citizenship to.

Obama is unable to extricate himself from his ideology; his automatic response, as well as his animation, when it came down to saying something about a cop and a Black professor, was quite telling.

This is going to be very easy to understand: why have health care costs increased so much?

1. Medicare and Medicaid drive costs upward. If you pay attention here, this is easy to understand. Milk now costs about $3.50/gallon so let’s pretend there is a milk store, and the government goes to this milk store to buy milk. However, they will only pay $2/gallon of milk and they buy up half of this milk’s store merchandise. Milk stores need to make money, or they go out of business. So, if they normally sell milk at $3.50/gal in order to make a profit, now they have to charge $4/gal or more in order to stay in business. Just because the government goes into the health market and determines, “We will only pay so much for this procedure” that does not drive down the cost of that procedure for anyone except government. The price of that procedure is increased for everyone else.

2. Quite obviously, when people without insurance go to the emergency room for their primary care, the costs there are significantly higher than going to a doc in the box. So hospital costs have risen when they treat patients who do not pay them. Who pays more? Insurance companies, which mean, we pay more.

3. There is this mindset that, I ought to be able to go to my doctors office and get my needs met for next to nothing. We do not expect, as a society, for someone else to pay for our mortgage or for our food; but, somehow, over the years, we think that we should not pay much when we walk into a doctor’s office or into a hospital.

4. Scientific discoveries, new procedures, medical equipment, and new drugs. The United States of America is on the cutting edge of medical advancement; no country comes near us in this field. Scientific advance costs money.

5. Doctors are now paying hundreds of thousands of dollars each for medical malpractice insurance. I have been to court, and once you get into court, it does not matter who is right or wrong; it is all about who is the most sympathetic (especially in front of a jury). Furthermore, paying off patients is sometimes easier and cheaper than going to court. Every time a dollar is paid to a patient, whether the suit has merit or not, that money comes out of our collective pockets. Along with the additional costs to doctors means that doctors now do more tests for patients who come in, because if some $2000 test manages to catch a problem in that 1 of 10,000, that is a lawsuit averted. More tests mean higher costs for all of us.

No matter where you come down on the government health care debate, are these real issues addressed by any of the health care bills which are out there? If government runs a system, can we be confident that they will save money? What is the history of government involving itself in the private sector. When government takes over an industry, do operating costs go up or down? Is the end result more or less bureaucracy? If you think more bureaucracy, is that in itself not an increase in cost?

This is one of the simplest programs ever; trade in your car for a car which gets better gas mileage, and the government will give you $3500 to $4500 as a rebate. Not a very difficult or complex program, on the face of it. But, it’s the government, so don’t be so certain.

First of all, it is a success, so the original budget, $1 billion (a number pretty much pulled out of the air) is already exhausted. So, not a surprise, the budget will be tripled in a quick Congressional vote. This is our hard-earned tax money going to someone to give them a good deal on a car. These numbers are essentially pulled out of the air. These Congressmen have no idea how successful the program will be or how much it will cost, so running out of money almost immediately is not a surprise. It happens all the time.

First of all, in order to qualify, your car that you trade in must have gas mileage which is a specific amount less than the car which you are purchasing. The numbers are found on, from what I can tell, a government-website which tells you which cars get which mileage. However, there is a problem here—the values found here have been changed as recently as this past week, so that, you might buy a car on Monday, for which your trade-in qualifies; but by Wednesday, that same car no longer qualifies. What to do? It’s the government, so you know this solution will not be easy.

Secondly, it is the car dealers who are on the line here. The dealer makes the deal, gets the car, and then must fill out the paperwork, which, what a surprise, is quite extensive. If anything goes wrong—like the mileage estimates for either car changes or the government runs out of money—the car dealer is out in limbo. He is on the hook for $3500–$4500. Already, some dealers are signing agreements with car buyers to allow the car dealer to take the new car back, if there is a problem. Then, the car dealer is left with the problem of having a car which was once new, but now it is used, and worth considerably less.

Thirdly, there is a great market for our cars in Mexico and in some other countries. They cannot afford new cars, but they can afford used cars. However, in the cash for clunkers program, the car which is traded in must be trashed. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions. So, even if it makes economic sense, car dealers have no say in this matter. Trade in a car and it is trashed.

#4: Who buys used cars besides Mexico? Students, poor people and the lower middle class. What happens when you simply removed thousands of cars from the used car market by destroying them? Prices for used cars go up, negatively impacting the pocketbooks of the poor, lower middle class and students.

#5: At what point does this program stop? How many billions will be spent? What will happen to the car market when this program ends? In case that is not obvious, sales of new cars will suddenly plummet, unless this program is run forever.

#6: I have heard liberal pundit after liberal pundit pontificating about how this program is a great success. I agree, that if you give a large enough sum of money to someone to do something, they will do it. Tax something if you want to reduce its use or purchase; subsidize something if you want to increase its use or purchase. That is not rocket science.

So, as you can tell, there are a myriad of problems with this relatively simple program, the size and scope of which is relatively small, compared to the overall federal budget.

It is these people who want to run the health care system, which is 16% of our nation’s economy. The number of variables and interrelationships in the health care system, besides its size, completely dwarfs this cash for clunkers. Yet, somehow, some people think the government can handle it.

I have no idea what is going to happen with the health care bill. Obviously, the Democrats will not pass something which is as radical as they have on the table right now.

However, far left Dems want to see a single-payer system (where government runs the health care business), and that simply will not pass. However, the insertion of a government option has a lot of appeal to the left and the far left, as they realize, this can lead to a single-payer system (by the way, there will never be a single-payer system per se, as Congress will not subject themselves to that kind of health care—so some small portion of health care will remain privatized). However, moderates and conservatives, those who are paying attention, know that a government option is a Trojan horse, designed to move us toward a single-payer system.

At some point, people will realize that no matter what bill is passed, it will not even put a dent into the 45 million (or so) who lack health insurance. There are many liberals, who feel guilty about our health care system, who are going to have problems with a big government program which does not actually provide health care for a very large percentage of those who are not covered (even though this bill will be sold as providing health care for all, the end result will not cover even an additional 10 million). Whether these people turn against health care legislation is going to depend upon the press making this information available (which they will not do, for the most part).

Blue dog Democrats are now being squeezed. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama (as well as others) are meeting with them and reading them the riot act. “If you don’t vote with the president, we will run someone against you in the Democratic primary and we will slime you in every way that we can. Furthermore, the Democratic party will give you no money to run on.” However, when these blue dogs go home, their constituents, at around 5 to 1 (or as high as 10 to 1) will express vehement opposition to a government health care option. These will be moderates and Democrats who will tell them, “If you sign on to this health care bill, we will vote you out of office; count on that.” What will these guys do? I think that Pelosi will get them to fold; however, it is hard to figure out how much she will give up in this health care bill.

If Obama does not pass something, then he has a problem with his left and far left supporters. They swept him and the Democrats into office. There are some knowledgeable people on the left who realize, Dems can pass any piece of legislation that they want to pass. If they don’t pass a meaningful health care bill (containing at the very least, a public health care option), these supporters will go ballistic. Obviously, they will not vote for a Republican or for a Libertarian (for the most part), but a significant number could stay away from the polls in 2010 and 2012 (as happened with some conservative voters in 2008).

So, it is a mess. Obama has to pass something; the Dems have to pass something. They cannot let this go down in flames. However, what they are unable to do is to really and truly compromise. Republicans would vote for a health care bill which was started from scratch and did not have a public option in it.

As a conservative, there is nothing more that I would like to see than the Dems stall out at this point and degenerate into chaos. That would be cool. The worst legislation for our country—even worse than the so-called Stimulus Bill and the 2009 Budget—is Health Care reform and Cap and Trade Legislation.

So, what I am saying is, I predict chaos, I hope for chaos, but I suspect that many of the structures of Dem Health Care legislation will be slipped into unrelated bills from now until Obama is voted out of office.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms. To top of page

Leave it to Bill Maher, perhaps the most blunt left-wing guy in the country, to say what many far-left people really think, while talking about Sarah Palin:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Do you think she has a future nationally as a presidential candidate?

BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": I don't know about a presidential candidate, but I would never put anything past this stupid country.

BLITZER: So people are already complaining that you're calling the United States a stupid country and giving you a chance to clarify.

Gov. Palin is obviously a fuse on this. The left despises her. But the truth is the governor did a pretty good job in Alaska. Her approval rating when she left office was 54 percent, despite spending a lot of time outside the state. Mrs. Palin is portrayed by the left as dumb, but how does that square with her solid performance in office? No, she did not study at an Ivy League college, graduating from the University of Idaho. But again, she did the job she was elected to do.

So let's compare her to a darling of the left, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Barack Obama's good friend. Gov. Patrick has a law degree from Harvard, so he's a smart guy. But his approval rating now stands at an embarrassing 36 percent and the state is in chaos.

So Palin is dumb, but Alaska is running fine. And Patrick is smart, but Massachusetts is failing. Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of stupid theory?

Eighty-seven percent of American adults ages 25 to 64 have graduated from high school or college, compared to 85 percent in Britain and 67 percent in France. Obviously, we, the people, are fairly well-educated.

The far left ignorance meter is simply driven by ideology. If you disagree with their polices, you're a moron. Some on the right do that as well.

I enjoy debating with Bill Maher, but sometimes he pontificates without knowing the facts, like when he said Iraq should be divided:

MAHER: The partition is the most logical plan, the thing that could possibly get us out of there.

O'REILLY: OK, but in order to have the partition work, you'd have to keep U.S. troops there for probably three, four more years to supervise that kind of a partitioning of the nation.

MAHER: I don't know those kind of details. I don't think that would probably sail in this country since two-thirds of the country is already against us being there.

Now, I would never say Mr. Maher is dumb, even when he's light on details, as Sarah Palin sometimes was. Maher is witty, often misinformed, sometimes simply wrong. But to question his intelligence would be unfair, just as he was unfair to call America a dumb country.

'Special Report' Panel on Whether Government Will Coerce People Into Health Care Choices

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We don't want to ration by dictating to somebody, OK, you know what, we don't think that this senior should get a hip replacement. What we do want to be able to do is to provide information to that senior and to her doctor about this is the thing that is going to be most helpful to you in dealing with your condition.

BRET BAIER, "SPECIAL REPORT" HOST: There was President Obama today answering a question from senior citizens at the AARP, concerns about end-of-life issues as written in the current, one of the House bills, House Bill 3200. Some of the concerns in there very specific. The president trying to answer and calm some of those fears. Let's bring in our panel, now, Byron York, chief political correspondent of the "Washington Examiner," A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of "The Hill," and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Let's start on this specific concern about end-of-life issues and whether the government is going to get in between the patient and the doctor deciding how the medical care will move forward. Byron, what about this?

BYRON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, "WASHINGTON EXAMINER": This is the notorious page 425 that the AARP mentioned today, which says that there will be consultation between a caregiver and a patient to discuss things like hospice care and other issues, other end-of-life issues. And the question is whether there's any coercive element to this.

And I think the problem for Obama is that it mixes in with what he said a few weeks ago, that health care forum at the White House, when a woman got up and her mother was 100 years old and needed an operation. But she was vigorous, she got it, and now he she is 105 and still vigorous. And was there some way to take her spirit of life into account?

And Obama has said maybe it would be better to opt out of the surgery and take the painkiller. I think that was kind of a chilling remark to a lot of people.

Senior citizens vote in large numbers, and I think this is going to be a big issue in August.

BAIER: The White House, A.B. is saying that this particular section of this bill is not mandatory. It's a consultation. It's to try to drive costs down in the long haul.

But Republicans, critics, say this is a slippery slope when you start getting down this road.

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, "THE HILL": This is part of a larger problem, which is the White House has never had a plan, and so they've never been able to sell a plan. The president went out before the American people in a primetime press conference with nothing to back last week. He can't have another one.

He has wasted the power of the bully pulpit speaking in generalities. He is not able to talk his way out of sections of the House bill now, because he is not backing specifics. He is still in a hands-off mode.

This is politically untouchable. It is the ultimate frightening rationing scenario, and this will be pounded on by Republicans during the August break. And if you think the House bills are looking unpopular now, they're going to look much worse mid September.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST : Byron talked about Obama's answer about the woman 100-year-old woman who should had the pacemaker, and he said, well, perhaps she should have had a painkiller.

Well, that not only is chilling, it is a revelation of abysmal ignorance on the part of the president. You don't treat an arrhythmia with a painkiller.

This is a guy who wants to run one-sixth of our economy in health care, and he doesn't know the most elementary things about it.

But on the larger issue here having to deal with end-of-life care, I looked at the language. There is no requirement that you be counseled, because it would be inherently coercive. If you're dying and a government official shows up and says I want to discuss options including your death, that obviously is going to be kind of a coercion.

But the idea that it is important to do it years in advance is nonsense. We heard Senator Grassley say this stuff ought to be decided when you're 50 and not when you're 80. What doctor when he has an 80-year- old with pneumonia will look at a document signed 30 years earlier and say he decided he didn't want to have extra treatment, so I'll pull the plug?

The idea of advanced directives, as it is called in the lingo, or living wills are determinative, is absolutely false. It almost never applies. It only if you are in a coma or demented, and even in those cases, it's the wishes of the family which almost always overrides everything in writing.

BAIER: Where do you think we are on the big picture of getting anything through before the August recess, which is the end of next week? The House - the Senate - the Senate Finance Committee is still back and forth. A.B. what is your sense of things on both sides?

STODDARD: I cannot imagine the House having a floor vote, and it's actually hard for me to imagine the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is at a standoff and has been for over a week, producing something by Friday. Because the blue dogs and the conservative Democrats on the House side are actually waiting for a Senate mark.

That Senate mark coming from the finance committee chaired by Max Baucus has now been expected for more than two weeks. Almost two weeks ago he said something should come today. He couldn't even give just a page, a few paragraphs to the president to come and talk about in that press conference.

That could come out. I can't imagine the finance committee is going to do a full markup of a full bill by the time they leave on August 2.

And that's what wavering Democrats want. They want what they think will be the final legislation, which is the Senate finance bill, and they want it passed, and they want to talk about it over the recess. I don't see it happening.

BAIER: And Senate Republicans, some of them now vocally are saying they're concerned that Senator Grassley from Iowa may be giving up too much at the negotiating table, the ranking member of the Senate finance committee.

First of all, the House goes out on Friday, so that's just not going to happen. But everybody wishes they could have this bill, or Democrats wish they could have something from the finance committee, because it would be a little more conservative. It would have a more centrist and moderate feeling imprimatur than the House bill and the Kennedy bill in the Senate. This is all about August. Nothing will be passed by any House before then. It is about August when everybody goes home. They talk to their people in their states and their districts. Democrats are deeply worried are about this, and you get pressure on both sides. There are certainly Democrats who are unhappy with Max Baucus for continuing to talk to Grassley and the other Republicans. But it seems to me that Republicans have a lot of leverage here, because if they go without a bill, they have August to talk about the House version and the Kennedy version.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think three things will happen. There will be no House bill by the recess. I doubt that the Senate will produce - the Senate finance committee will produce a bill by the recess.

But I'm sure there will be a bill by the end of the year that will pass. It will be extremely watered down because the president has to have a bill he can call health care reform. Otherwise, the presidency is over, and the Democrats know that, and they will pass something that will look like health care reform.

BAIER: And does he take it on the political side from the left if it doesn't include a public option?

KRAUTHAMMER: He will, because he will always have his left, but he has to have a center here. And without it, he gets nothing, and he has to have something.

BAIER: The defense secretary gets a firsthand look at Iraq one month after U.S. troops left the big cities. We'll talk about how it is all working, next.

ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We will have withdrawn all our combat units by the end of August 2010. And we will stick to our commitment to withdraw all of our troops by the end of 2011. Those are the commitments we have made. Those are the agreements that we have signed with the Iraqi government, and we will implement those agreements as written.

BAIER: Defense Secretary Gates in Iraq today, following up, of course, on a recent trip last week of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to the White House, in which he said that things are going well in Iraq, and the Iraqi forces are working well with U.S. forces. That trip, that visit, did not get a lot of coverage, and the prime minister is happy about that. And the "Washington Post" saying "The lack of focus on Iraq at the public level is a reflection of the fact that while Iraq was once a very hot part of the globe, not it has settled down. In the past it was all about Al Qaeda and about militias and about guns. This is evidence of our performance in achieving victory over those forces. This is a success." We're back with the panel. What about that - Charles?

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I think in part he is right. I mean, the coverage of Iraq is driven by three factors - American casualties, media interest, presidential interest.

Our casualties are at a record low. The media interest is zero, a, because if you run a good news story, it's a retroactive vindication of the Bush administration and nobody in the press wants that. If you run a bad news story, it's a story that might imply that Obama is losing the war already won.

But a third factor here is presidential interest. Obama is not interested in Iraq. He is only interested to the extent that he doesn't want to lose this war, but he wants it off his plate.

What is so interesting about the Maliki statements when he was here with the president is he spoke about possibly having American troops beyond 2011. Obama did not, and we just heard Gates say we're absolutely out of there.

And also, Maliki when he was here spoke about the importance of the second agreement we signed. It wasn't only a strategic forces agreement. It was a strategic cooperation agreement, and he talked about Iraq being an ally of the U.S. in the region. Obama said almost nothing about that.

The Iraqis want us in in the long run as an ally, as a protector, airpower, et cetera. Obama has no interest in this.

STODDARD: I think that no news is good news. Charles is right. Violence is down. It appears to be stable.

But the Obama administration cannot take their eye off of Iraq. They need to be vigilant and focused on this, because the gains remain fragile and reversible.

And if you look at the government, it's not stable. They're not providing the services for their citizens. We don't know - there's questions about their own military readiness, obviously, or we wouldn't still be there advising them.

They are like teenagers who want to be free from us, but they need a quick bailout if something - if trouble arises.

But if you look at the fact that political reconciliation, which the surge was designed to foster, has not really started to occur, there's a long way to go. And I think it will be trouble for Barack Obama's administration if he doesn't make sure that he keeps it as stable as it is now.

YORK: He almost has a domestic incentive to not pay a huge amount of public attention to it. If you look at the opinion polls, the areas where he's working hardest, health care, economy, stimulus, auto takeovers, those are areas where his poll numbers have fallen quite a bit.

The only areas where his poll numbers are really good is in his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And so right now, the public seems fairly happy with this just one number on the casualties. There have been fewer casualties, American casualties, American deaths in Iraq, in all of 2009 than there were in May of 2007 alone.

That factor, the relatively small number of American deaths is, I think, driving the relatively low interest, and Maliki's visit and the war in general.

KRAUTHAMMER: What we have is a difference in the visions of McCain and Obama. McCain spoke about a presence in Iraq in the future, like our presence in Korea, where we stay in garrisons, no Americans are killed, and we have an ally and we have a lot of influence in the region.

Obama argued against it as a candidate, and he looks as he is really against it as a president. And I think that would be squandering an amazing asset achieved at terrible losses, terrible cost of many American lives and treasure. And yet it now is a relative success.

There is an opportunity of cooperation. Having an ally in the most important nation in the region, in the most important strategically important area in the world in the Middle East, and to forfeit it out of disinterest or out of ideological aversion to anything Iraq would be, I think, a terrible mistake.

KRAUTHAMMER: Among the Sunnis and the Shiites, yes, but the real issue is the Kurds. And that's an argument over territory and oil, and traditionally those are hard to solve short of armed conflict. And they're not that far away, the Arabs and the Kurds.

The $1 billion "Cash for Clunkers" auto bailout Congress passed last June has run out of cash after one week. The House of Representatives is already readying a bill to pump another $2 billion into the program, setting a new land speed record for expanding foolish programs.

There are so many valuable lessons to be drawn from this sorry episode it's hard to know where to begin. But the most important is the clear warning it sends for health care reform.

The Cash for Clunkers program is pretty simple. The government pays buyers up to $4,500 to trade in an old car to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car. There was never any doubt it would work in the sense that people with old cars would take the cash. If you pay college kids to drink beer, you're likely to be successful increasing beer sales. The issue in both cases would be whether the program was wise. The answer in both cases is pretty obvious.

But this was a simple program, and Congress botched it twice over, once by thinking it was a good idea and again by underestimating the demand and hence the cost. Congress is now debating a radical, government-driven restructuring of about a sixth of the economy, perhaps the most complex, most personal part of our economy - the health care system. Want to know the outcome if Congress were to send the President the legislation he wants? Look to the Cash for Clunkers program for a clue and multiply many times over.

We definitely need health care reform for all the reasons the President so eloquently and repeatedly reminds us. But as Stuart Butler explained, we need to start with those incremental reforms we understand fully and on which there is broad agreement, moving forward with further reforms in coming years as we learn more about what works and what's a clunker.

If you watch television you've seen the ads: "So bring in that old jalopy and get up to $4,500 towards the purchase of a new or select used vehicle. That's right, get up to $4,500 for that old piece of junk, plus you keep the rebates. You have to hurry! Since funds are limited for this program it's first come, first served!" Well, we're about to find out just how limited those funds were. The Obama administration's cash-for-clunkers program has been such a "success" that in just the first week of full implementation, the $1 billion originally allocated for the program is about to be exhausted already. Does this mean the program is over? We don't know. Nobody does. And that is just the beginning of why this program is a perfect illustration of why Obamanomics will fail.

Does Nothing for Environment: Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are open to allocating more money for the program, but only if the rules are changed so that the program might actually do something for environment; because right now it is not. Edmunds.com auto analyst Jessica Caldwell explains why: "What you buy has to have an increase in fuel economy from what you traded in. But in some cases, that increase can be minimal. Owners of large pickup trucks like a Ford F150 only have to buy a replacement that increases efficiency by one mile per gallon. And they still get a $3,500 rebate. The environmental impact is negligible and the impact on national fuel demand and consumption is very small. The only real benefit in a like-for-like swap can be improved emissions standards on newer vehicles. Rather than discourage those people, they included them in this program." Caldwell didn't even mention the pollution costs of actually building a new car and the disposal of the old car, rather than just the pollution caused by driving the vehicle.

Hurts Working Americans: The federal government's push to help auto makers has unintended consequences which will hut many lower-income Americans. Economist, Freakonomics author and New York Times blogger Steven Levitt writes: "People who drive clunkers are generally not in the market for new cars. Presumably their replacement car will be a used car. The increased demand for used cars will lead to higher prices for used cars." Driving up the cost of older cars may be an intended consequence for policymakers to encourage people to buy new, but it's a bad deal for consumers.

Hurts Charities: Speaking of ads, you probably have heard a ton on the radio from charities asking you to donate your old car in exchange for a tax deduction. Do a Google search of "Donating Cars for Charity," and you will see a list of charities that cash-for-clunkers is taking money from.

Further Entangles Government in Market: The program has already spent $150 million and has another $800 million to $850 million in obligations. What that means is that the nation's auto dealers have already paid car buyers almost a billion dollars but are still waiting for their cash from the federal government. The USA Today reports: "Carmakers and dealers have booked expensive advertising to capitalize on buyers' interest in CARS, and now will be left promoting a tie-in with a discontinued government program - one that wasn't supposed to end until Nov. 1. "Disappointed," said Chrysler spokesman Scott Brown. "It's too late to recall the ads," says Beau Boeckmann of Galpin Ford, the nation's largest Ford dealer, in Los Angeles. "We had increased our ad budget to get the word out. We are very heavy on radio, newspaper and getting direct mail together," Boeckmann says. "Now what do you tell people when they walk in" for a clunker deal? "It's tough."

Only Adds to Debt: Just this week, President Barack Obama told Business Week: "We're not going to be able to drive the next big stretch of economic growth through debt." But the first $1 billion was also deficit spending, and the extra $3 to $4 billion needed to fully fund the program will also have to be borrowed. And much like most government programs, Congress was incapable of actually estimating how much it would cost. They are now facing the prospect of tripling down on a program only a week after it began.

When President Obama bailed out General Motors he told the nation his administration "[would] not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations." But despite what he may believe, his cash-for-clunkers program does exactly that: it significantly interferes with the day-to-day operations of millions of companies nation wide. In that same Business Week interview mentioned above, Obama says: "What you haven't seen from our Administration is a suggestion of a bunch of command-and-control, top-down, heavy-handed bureaucratic regulations that would bog businesses down." But that is exactly what the cash-for-clunkers is. The fact that Obama doesn't understand this basic economic fact should truly frighten all Americans as he plots more non-"command-and-control, top-down, heavy-handed bureaucratic regulations" for the health care, energy, and financial sectors. As one auto dealer told CBS News: "If they can't administer a program like this, I'd be a little concerned about my health insurance."

* According to a Pew poll released yesterday, Americans oppose Obamacare by a 44% to 38% margin, and among those Americans who say they know a lot about the legislation, opposition rises to 56%.

* According to Gallup, Seniors are the most opposed to Obamacare with 72% of them reporting that they expect their health care will either not change or get worse under President Obama's plan.

* The nation's largest general-construction industry trade association, the Associated General Contractors of America, announced yesterday that President Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan is having little effect on job creation.

* Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are now pushing for another $88 billion stimulus package, on top of the President's existing $787 billion commitment.

* Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) wants to give the federal government a direct role in deciding how much executives on Wall Street are paid, banning "incentive-based" and giving regulators nine months to hash out the details.

Story and Video of Representative Dr. Phil Roe accepting Obama’s offer to go over the health care bill line by line:

RUSH: This morning on MSNBC -- Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington -- was discussing the new MSNBC Wall Street Journal poll that's not good news for Obama on health care.

MITCHELL: You've got 47% of the people at our NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll who have health insurance --

MITCHELL: -- who don't like what the president's doing. The problem he's got, 47% of the people who have got coverage don't want change. They don't like what they're hearing. Now, they may not know what's good for them, but the problem is that he always knew he was going to have to persuade people with insurance. That's the largest, not the people without insurance for expanding coverage. So they've gotta real problem.

RUSH: "They may not know what's good for them." That sums it up, folks. That's how the State-Run Media propagandizing for Obama. These 47% of the people who don't want it, they don't like it, they don't want any part of it -- and actually in most polls it's over 50%, but they may not know what's good for them. But that's still a problem for Obama. They may not know what's good for them. So, the conclusion is: Obama is brilliant. The plan is flawless. The plan is so good for all of us. We're just too stupid to know what's good for us. Andrea Mitchell calls herself a journalist. Remember when Bill Clinton in Buffalo said, "Well, the reason I'm not crazy about tax cuts is 'cause I don't think you'll spend the money as well as we will."

Do you remember that? We don't know what's good for us. That's a foundation of liberalism. You're too stupid, you're too ungrateful, you're too obtuse. You're too stubborn. You're just dumb. You don't know what's good for you. So Andrea Mitchell and Obama have to do everything for you. You're even too stupid to know what's good for you in the cash for clunkers program. We have to tell you what kind of car you can drive because you're too stupid to drive a real car!

RUSH: This is Politico.com. This is an illustration of this: "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety -- welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress. On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs..." Mobs! Mobs, they are calling them and these mobs are engaging in "disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control. 'I had felt they would be pointless,' Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told Politico, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district.

"'There is no point in meeting with my constituents and listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.'" Oh. So all of you people who care enough to show up at a town hall meeting host by your congressman, you're just an unruly mob, out-of-control. That will be why they don't do these. "Well, these people have been turned into mobs! Talk radio, Limbaugh, turned them into mobs. You can't even have a intelligent discussion out there," and if these congressman refuse to have their town meetings and get the word out that they don't want to do it because the voters are unhinged and just an unruly mob, they're going to pay for this in spades.

So here's Politico doing their best to spin this for members of Congress and make voters look like they're just unruly mobs. They're unhinged. This is dangerous because it overlooks the fact that when voters ask intelligent questions that the politicians cannot or will not answer with truth, they are then called wild mobs that need to be ignored. Tim Bishop: "Well, it'd be pointless. They're an unruly mob. You can't have an intelligent conversation." Translation: "I don't want to deal with the fact these people know how I'm trying to trick 'em. I don't want to deal with my constituents who know I'm trying to sell 'em down the river. I don't want to deal with my constituents who actually know what I'm doing and what I'm going to vote for. So I'm going to call 'em an unruly mob and say that they're unhinged and unintelligent and it makes no sense for me to talk to them."

So I think either way, they have the meeting or they don't, they lose. I think the opposition to this, the energy on this is even more than it was to the amnesty bill. That was an e-mail phone call event that happened before the recess. These clowns are going to be going home during the recess or avoiding these town meetings, and the targets, even The Politico says here: The targets in these cases are House Democrats, not the Republicans. This is a purely Democrat Party problem.

Dems are now being schooled as to what is in the health care bill (that most of the House Democrats voted for already):

RUSH: The liberals in the Drive-By Media once again are trying to ignite a race war between Obama and me and talk radio. So I think it's very important. Let's go back to February 22, 2008, you know, 16 months ago, maybe 18 months. I did the math fast in my head. Year-and-a-half. From me on this show, February 22, 2008.

RUSH ARCHIVE: "If Obama gets elected president wouldn't it be good to get this done, Rush, and then we could end the civil rights squabbles that we're having." It wouldn't do that. Folks, it wouldn't do that. It might even exacerbate them. Let me explain how. It takes somebody like me who can read the stitches on the fastball. Let us fast forward to January of 2009. Obama has been inaugurated president and he proposes his first bit of legislation. And let's say that it's, I don't know, some civil rights oriented thing, and a bunch of people start howling. You know that the race industry can't wait for this. Any criticism of Obama, the first black president, is going to be met with charges of racism by the likes of the Reverend Jackson and Sharpton. It will make their race business all that much more prominent.

RUSH: Okay, that's enough. I just wanted you to get the flavor of my prediction, that the problems of race in this country would not at all be eliminated or ended because of his election, in fact, be exacerbated. So let's move now to yesterday, NBC Nightly News, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, did a report on the right wing's racist attacks on the first black president. Now that he's having trouble in the polls, it's an all-out push to play the race card. Here's her report. It's a montage. Glenn Beck is in this and you'll hear me.

MITCHELL: When the first African-American president criticized the police, his political opponents who have huge followings were off to the races, and to the commentators, at least, it was all about race.

BECK: This president I think has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Let's face it, President Obama is black and I think he's got a chip on his shoulder.

MITCHELL: So even though Barack Obama's election was a milestone for the country, we have a long way to go.

RUSH: All right, so this is exactly what I knew was going to happen, and let's not forget the incident that has ignited this. It was Obama and I said the day it happened he's the one that struck the match and it's so unfortunate. He's the one doing the beer summit today to try to make this go away. He's the one doing the beer summit bringing these two combatants in there and trying to make peace, smoke the peace pipe, or what have you. His comment about this was rooted in a racial attitude about racial profiling and even launched into a discussion. So now all of a sudden, the people who simply point this out, "Oh, such a shame, we have such a long way to go. Even though we have our first black president, we have such a long way to go," laments Andrea Mitchell.

Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon, was with Chris Matthews last night on his show. And remember, if Obama and Sonia Sotomayor make racist remarks and we call them on that, we're only doing it because we are the real racists. See, that's the template here. We are projecting our racism on the pure postracial messiah who is intent on absolving white people of their sins, this is the template and they've been waiting for this, I guarantee you, because that's why I predicted it in February of 2008. So Matthews asks Joan Walsh, the editor-in-chief of Salon.com, "I think a lot of this is aimed at telling people who are racist on the other side, 'Hey, you're not so bad. He's as bad as you, he's a racist too."

WALSH: I see it with both Glenn Beck and with Rush Limbaugh. There's a clear case of projection here, w-where these guys -- with really suspect racial feelings and perceptions -- are projecting their own hate and their own divisiveness onto a president who, as you said, had a white mother, was raised by white grandparents, and there's absolutely no evidence at all that he anything but loves white people. Obama got to where he was, in my opinion, largely because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way.

RUSH: Whoa, my goodness gracious! And who is it that's got race pouring through their mind and bloodstream? Did you hear what she said? Largely Obama got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard, and we really like it when black people make us feel that way? And somehow I'm projecting race? I'm a commentator of a guy who accused a white cop of a racist act when it wasn't. My point is, Obama, in fact in his book, and I think we've got the audio of it somewhere. I want you to play cut 5, and then I want you to get 16, 17 and 18. So let's listen to Joan Walsh. Let me take a break 'cause I'm up against it. We'll take a break and we'll come back, this is Joan Walsh and then listen to Obama read from his own book.

RUSH: Okay, let's go back to Joan Walsh on Hardball last night talking about all of this unfair racism that we "project" on Obama.

WALSH: I see it with both Glenn Beck and with Rush Limbaugh. There's a clear case of projection here, w-where these guys -- with really suspect racial feelings and perceptions -- are projecting their own hate and their own divisiveness onto a president who, as you said, had a white mother was raised by white grandparents; and there's absolutely no evidence at all that he anything but loves white people. Obama got to where he was, in my opinion, largely because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way.

RUSH: Obama threw his own grandmother under the bus as "a typical white person." Remember? It was in the race speech, where he also threw Reverend Wright overboard. So Obama "got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard." What, not be racist? And "we really like it when black people make us feel that way." We really like it when black people tell us we know you're not racist, is that what she's saying? Yes, my friends, she's saying that -- and that's as race-oriented as you can be. We conservatives are colorblind. We don't even see people that way. He started it. Let's go to the book. Now, we don't have this particular bite, but I remember Obama in one of his books -- and I've heard the audio portion of it, said, "The way you have to deal with white people..." I'm paraphrasing. The way you have to deal with white people show 'em you're not a threat and you mean them no harm and then everything is fine. He really loves white people. Here's the first one. This is a portion of Obama reading from his book: Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

OBAMA: That's just how white folks'll do you. (sic) It wasn't merely the cruelty involved. I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know they were being cruel in the first place, or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.

RUSH: Oh, this sounds like a lot of love for white people. And here's Obama bring up the book Heart of Darkness and what it taught him about white people and why white people hate.

OBAMA: So I read the book to help me understand what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons, the way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.

RUSH: "So I read the book to help me understand what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons, the way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate." That doesn't sound like a guy who loves white people, Ms. Walsh. These are his own words! He supposedly wrote these words and he now concludes by reading more from the book.

OBAMA: The emotions between the races could never be pure. Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our commons or our salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.

RUSH: Joan Walsh: "Obama got where he is because he makes white people feel like he knows we're all trying really hard and we really like it when black people make us feel that way." What a dense, shallow person. (interruption) It is. It's almost like the "Magic Negro" thing. When you get down to it, Joan Walsh is almost saying, "Hey, you know, this is a guy that doesn't scare us." Only she's saying it in reverse: "We are the ones that don't scare him." It's like Joan... (interruption) No, it's not magic. It's Joan Walsh is the magic white. Joan Walsh is describing the magic white. Now, I just want to make sure I have this straight.

It turns out I am the racist. Now, you people have been listening to this program for 20 years. I have been hosting it for 20 years. I have never said, and you've never heard me call my grandmother "a typical white woman." You've never heard me call any black person "a typical black person." The truth is, Ms. Walsh, President Obama is so race-obsessed he writes a book about the father he never really knew subtitled "A Story of Race and Inheritance." He marries a woman who's lucky enough to get into Princeton but writes a book about how she's always an outsider in white culture. Then the two of them sit in Reverend Wright's hate temple of black liberation theology for 20 years -- and I am the one with the race problem, Ms. Walsh? The problem is people like you being in the media, Ms. Walsh.

CALLER: Hi. You know, this whole beer gathering thing is to me seems like Obama just cutifying the whole issue and, you know, just kind of smooth it over and it's just kind of getting annoying.

RUSH: Well, you know what's going on here. This is a photo-op that's designed to show Obama bringing the races together. All this is is a diminishing of the White House. This is not presidential. This is something that diminishes the office of the presidency. It's all about him. It's all about him trying to say and illustrate that he can bring about the end to this racial divide when he's the one that caused all this and started it to reach the degree to which it has.

RUSH: Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief, Salon.com -- also known as the "Magic Honky" -- is the real racist. The real racist is Ms. Joan Walsh with her race-based, maternalistic attitude toward black people who have, in her small little mind, no responsibility for their own actions. This flap over Gates and the cop, Sergeant Walsh, happened as a direct result of actions and words. Both Gates' actions and Obama's words. But that doesn't matter a hill of beans for the Magic Honky, Joan Walsh, who see blacks as perpetual victims in need of her white protection. She sees black people as needing to constantly be reassured by her that she understands that they understand that she is trying real hard not to be a racist. Now let me share with you again from the book Dreams from My Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance.

That's the title that Obama gave his book: Dreams from My Father, A Story of RACE and Inheritance. And again, Ms. Walsh, I have never on this program referred to anybody as a "typical black man" or woman. Obama sat in Reverend Wright's hate pit for 20 years. Obama called his own grandmother "a typical white woman." Page 94-95 of the book Dreams from My Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

That's him describing an "effective tactic" to deal with white people, who, according to the Magic Honky, Joan Walsh, loves white people. We're waiting for the sequel to Dreams of My Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance. It'd be: "Dreams of My Typical White Grandmother." What I know some of you are saying, folks, because I have empathy. I know what you're saying. "Rush, why do you spend so much time on this?" Because for 21 years people like Joan Walsh, Chris Matthews, and whoever have been trying to label -- not just me, but all of you who are conservative -- as inherently racist just because of your political views. And here that doesn't stand. The president of the United States tried doing that against me in the early nineties and now this bunch in the state-controlled media trying it again. This all happened because of actions by Gates and words by Obama.

RUSH: Here is Obama in his own words, describing his tactic in getting along with white people.

OBAMA: It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time.

RUSH: Yeah. But according to Magic Honky, Joan Walsh, he's always loved white people. So there he is in his own words from his book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Well, clearly it's how he fooled Biden. Biden, oh, it's great we got this clean, articulate black guy finally running for president. That teed off Al Sharpton to no end. This is how he fooled Biden, no question. (interruption) Hm-hm. Don't tempt me, H.R. Do not tempt me. No, no, no, no, no, no. You're not suggesting I say that in reverse, are you? That's right. That's why you don't have a microphone. I'm just going to say that that's how H.R. approaches me, just make it look like I have nothing to fear from him.

RUSH: This is from yesterday: Barney Frank "threatened banks Wednesday that if they don't volunteer to save more homeowners from foreclosure, Congress will make them. In a sternly worded statement, Rep. Barney Frank said Congress will revive legislation..." In fact, I was in a fog much of yesterday because the sound bite roster was so big. Cookie, I know you're monitoring out there. Was Barney Frank in this thing from our stack yesterday? If it was give me the bite even though I'm going to report this. If we have that bite of Barney threatening the banks, I want you to hear it. "In a sternly worded statement, Rep. Barney Frank said Congress will revive legislation that would let bankruptcy judges write down a person's monthly mortgage payment if the number of loan modifications remain low."

We don't have audio of that; it's just a statement. Do you understand this? Here's a guy who this week alone has said it's not his job to help anybody make money. Here's a guy who created, was part of the creation of this very problem that has led to the subprime mess, led to the foreclosures. And now here's Barney Frank saying they, the government, will require bankruptcy judges to tell banks to lower monthly payments so people can stay in their houses. So, what? Barney is going to write legislation requiring banks to lose money. And again, he is going to write legislation that will make banks do things they would not otherwise do! You know, this is why... I had a call yesterday, "Why are you defending the banks?" I'm not defending these charlatans. Folks, this is not how we fix this, though.

You do not have leftist radicals who are clueless about how life actually is lived -- who are clueless about how markets work you, just don't have them -- running every aspect of the private sector 'cause nothing they've ever run ever works anyway. But philosophically it's wrong. Morally it's wrong. Constitutionally it's wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the entire Obama approach is immoral in its scope. Not only is it unconstitutional, then you throw Barney Frank and the rest of these clowns in, and we're dealing here with something that is breathtaking to behold what these people are doing. And I think the more they keep doing this, the more damage they're going to do to liberalism than has been done in decades. They're going to make it impossible for people not to see who and what liberals are and do.

RUSH: Now, Obama is out there doing another one of these town hall meetings today. He's in North Carolina. We have some sound bites here. I'm... (sigh) Once again as I look at the transcripts of these sound bites, I'm confronted with the challenge of: "How do I say to people the president of the United States not telling the truth?" Here's sound bite number one.

OBAMA (sped up): I don't know whether you've seen the latest cover of Newsweek magazine on the rack at the grocery store, but the cover says, "The Recession is Over."

OBAMA (sped up): No, I imagine that you might have found the news a little startling.

OBAMA (sped up): I know I did. Here's what's true. We have stopped the free-fall. The market's up, and the financial system is no longer on the verge of collapse. We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the recession.

RUSH: Oh, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the recession. This is the guy whose number-one advisor, David Axelrod, when the market was plummeting, went out and said, "We don't pay attention to the stock market. Stock market's like a tracking poll," and Obama said this, too. "The stock market's like a tracking poll. We can't make policy based on the stock market. It's like you can't make campaign strategery based on the daily tracking poll of how you're doing." Now all of a sudden they want to cite the stock market as evidence the recession "may" be over. But that's a real credible source, Newsweek magazine: "The Recession is Over!" CNN: "The recession is over!" Seventeen percent unemployment in Detroit announced today. More job losses are being announced by American businesses and corporations. We also know, ladies and gentlemen, President Obama knows he's in trouble. This next sound bite will illustrate and explain why he's in trouble because we know what he does when he is. He does one of two things when he gets in trouble.

OBAMA (sped up): When my administration came in office we were facing the worse economy of our lives. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. It was nearly impossible to take out a home loan or an auto loan or a student loan, and loans for small business to buy inventory and make payroll. And economists across the ideological spectrum, conservatives and liberals, were fearing the second coming of a Great Depression.

RUSH: Okay. So it's bash Bush time! Go back, bash Bush. That's always worked for Obama during the campaign, he thinks it's gonna work. Blame Bush. All of this that you're experiencing -- every dime of it, every ounce of the problem -- is George Bush. The Wall Street Journal has front-page story on Monday: Lending institutions are not lending. Once again, he's not telling the truth. They are not lending. Lending institutions will not make loans to businesses to make payroll! They will make loans if a business wants to expand, but there's no expansion going on, not system-wide. So go back to blaming Bush for everything, 'cause the numbers are down. This next one is just... Well, it's as big a stranger to the truth as anything he said.

OBAMA (sped up): Less than one month after taking office we enacted the most sweeping economic recovery package in history. And, by the way, we did so -- we did so without any earmarks or wasteful pork barrel projects, pet projects that we've become accustomed to. Not one was in it! One-third of the entire Recovery Act is for tax relief for you, for families and small businesses. One-third of it. Ninety five percent of you got a tax cut. You may not notice it because it's appearing in your paycheck on a weekly base -- uh, uh, uh, uh -- every time you get a paycheck as opposed to you getting a lump sum. That's money in your pocket to buy cupcakes and other necessities of life.

RUSH: (laughs) He said it's money in your pocket to buy cupcakes. He must have read the story out of Port St. Lucie where the Weight Watchers demonstrator was caught shoplifting cupcakes. (laughing) This whole sound bite, folks... "We enacted the most sweeping economic recovery package in history, no earmarks or wasteful pork barrel projects"? It's all pork! There is no economic expansion in the stimulus package. Yesterday we told you about the two or three billion dollars being spent on toilet refurbishing. We had the story of the state of Oregon yesterday. They're touting all these 3,000 new jobs that they have created with their stimulus money. The jobs last 35 hours! The jobs last one week, and now Obama says his program has been so great and so cool that you can now go out and eat cupcakes! This is a huge change from when he said he misread the economy. Now, it's the end of the recession! It's the beginning of the end and now you can go buy cupcakes. One-third of the retiree act is tax relief? The tax relief is eight to 12 dollars a paycheck, and that ends in January. We also know that barely 6% of the stimulus will be spent this year. None of this is true. So it's bash Bush, lie about the economy, and then lie about his stimulus package. Breathtaking. We have two more. Here's the fourth one.

OBAMA (sped up): I can't help but remember those same critics contributed to a $1.3 trillion deficit that I had when I took office.

OBAMA (sped up): I mean, seriously! I -- I -- I'm now president so I'm responsible for solving it but I -- I do think we should (sic) have a selective memory in terms of spending habits. You hand me a $1.3 trillion bill and then you're complaining six months later because we haven't paid it all back. That was partially a result of two tax cuts that went primarily to the wealthiest few Americans --

OBAMA (sped up): -- and a Medicare drug program that wasn't paid for! You passed a prescription drug plan and didn't pay for it. Handed the bill to me.

RUSH: I tell you, this is childlike. This is just embarrassing childlike behavior. Crying and moaning and whining about the "cost" of Bush's tax cuts. That's campaign rhetoric, too. We know that their internal polls are bad. We know their internal polls are bad. This is just rehashed campaign rhetoric. The deficit that he inherited is $1.1 trillion. The deficit at the end of this year is going to be over $2 trillion, close to $2 trillion. He's added, or will add by the end of the year, $1 trillion to what he inherited. He has not -- and nobody said, "Pay back that deficit in six months." That's not what anybody said to him! Nobody's complaining because he hasn't paid back that deficit. We're complaining because he's destroying the US economy while growing the US government. Well, if... (interruption) You know, that's a good point. That's a good point. If there is anybody in the world who told Obama, "You better pay back this deficit fast," it's the ChiComs.

The ChiComs are not happy with what Obama has done. They're not happy at all, and they're letting little old Timmy Geithner know about it. Geithner says, "Dooon't worry. We're going to get those deficits down." Geithner is promising that we're facing massive tax increases. I need to slow my brain down here and come up with the appropriate words because this is immature; it is incompetent; it is childish; it is purely, 100% partisan and politics. There's no governance here. There's no acting presidential here. This is just embarrassing. Whining and moaning and making things up about what was demanded of him, and then blaming these tax cuts that spurred economic growth after 9/11. Finally here's the last bite.

OBAMA (sped up): We will stop insurance companies from denying you coverage because of your medical history. Many of you have been denied insurance or heard someone who was denied insurance because they got -- had a preexisting condition. That will no longer be allowed.

RUSH: "We will stop insurance companies from denying you coverage because of your medical history. Many of you have been denied..." You seasoned citizens are going to be denied coverage because of your medical history and your medical future. So bash the insurance companies again. Bash the US private sector, demonize someone. There's your president, folks. Barack Hussein Obama is out acting like a spoiled brat Chicago thug who's not getting his way who has resorted now to campaign rhetoric as though he really hasn't done anything yet other than come in and act as savior and his acts are working. I think -- and I said this a couple weeks ago. I think in the White House that there's a lot of instability.

If you listened to these bites, I think Obama is losing it. The prescription drug act was paid for. The Bush entitlement, it was paid for. Even though it shoulda never been done, but it was paid for. If he opposes it, then eliminate it. If we've got this big boondoggle out there that's not being paid for then eliminate it, right? No. Childish, instability, losing it, blame Bush. And for all of Obama's talk about the Bush deficit, he just pushed through Congress a ten-year plan that will increase the deficit by $10 trillion and maybe twice that. So why did he do that if he opposes deficits, if they're so bad, if they're so rotten? We're dealing here on one level with an utter rank amateur. He is dangerous because of what he believes, what he's trying to do, and the effect he has on a certain percentage of people in this country.

But this is... This is losing it. This is just childish the way he's talking. You could tell he's on defensive. This man doesn't have any experience with being criticized or laughed at. He's led a charmed existence on a pedestal, and all of this magic that he had is falling apart on him. He's no longer at 65% in the approval numbers. He no longer 85% loved and adored. They've had to stop work on the sculpture out there at... Where the hell is it? Out there by... Where all the presidents are carved in the rock. I'm having a mental block. (interruption) Yeah, Mount Rushmore. They had to stop the sculpting. Did I tell you about the dream I had the other night? I woke up. I thought I was in a desert, and I was in a bunch of slaves and I was carving a sphinx with the Obama face on it. I thought I mentioned that.

RUSH: It was just two weeks ago the liberals were starting to demand another stimulus plan because this one wasn't doing the job. Now today the recession is over. And that stimulus plan is so great, you can now go out and buy cupcakes and one-third of it was tax cuts for you and there isn't any earmarks or pork in it. Oh, it's the greatest thing in the world. Just two weeks ago, Biden was out there saying, "We guessed wrong here. The economy is much worse than we thought." Now all of a sudden it's a success. But don't be puzzled, ladies and gentlemen, the illusion of success has to be maintained until he gets this health care bill through. Have you noticed at the health care town hall meeting we just played these sound bites from, four of the five sound bites are about the economy and the campaign rhetoric that got him elected, bring his numbers back up.

RUSH: We have a couple sound bites here from President Obama, who's out there at the town hall at AARP headquarters. By the way, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, when she introduced the show, she actually said Obama was appearing before a willing audience. A willing audience! (laughing) That's an interesting way to describe a bunch of people that have been picked and chosen and screened: "a willing audience." As opposed to people who don't want anything to do with this. So we have these two sound bites. See. New wrinkle he rolls out here. Listen to this.

OBAMA (sped up): We also want to start rewarding doctors for quality, not just the quantity of care that they provide. Instead of rewarding them for how many procedures they perform or how many tests they order, we'll bundle payments so providers aren't paid for every treatment they offer when they chronic -- to a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how are they managing that disease overall.

RUSH: Oh, no! This is getting worse by the day. Now Obama and his panel are going to judge the work of the doctors, not just the quantity? They are going to determine whether or not the doctor did the proper number of tests and handed out quality care? My gosh, folks. This is becoming more and more Orwellian every time this man opens his mouth about it. We want to start "rewarding" doctors? Doctors work! They get paid. What is this reward business? Who are you to reward them anyway? Who the hell are you? Your career has been five minutes. You spend 150 days working in the Senate. You organized riots and communities and stuff in Chicago. And he's now going to run the medical business and appoint people to determine how well doctors are doing their jobs? Listen to that again. Play that sound bite again. Play that sound bite again. Play that sound bite again.

OBAMA (sped up): -- we'll bundle payments so providers aren't paid for every treatment they offer when they chronic -- to a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how are they managing that disease overall.

RUSH: How would you know? How in the world would you know? Bundle payments, so providers aren't paid for every treatment they offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes? (interruption) What's the question? Official program observer has a question. What's the question? (interruption) Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. Mmm-hmm. Well, that's a good question. The program observer has just asked me, some patients are lousy patients. Some patients refuse to cooperate. Some people with diabetes go in and get the insulin shot and think they can have a piece of cake and a bowl of potato chips or what have you. And then, you know, not long after they're on dialysis. Well, I can answer this question for you. You are going to be denied coverage if you aren't trying to help do the right thing for yourself. You are not going to be treated. You are going to be deemed too expensive. The investment in you is not going to be worth it. Where else can this possibly go? Just listen to this one sound bite? If I'm a doctor in this country and I hear that -- if I'm one of the 40 willing people at this put up, phony seminar today and I hear this man who nobody knows, say this? We know more about his friendship with "Skip" Gates than we know about his five-minute career. He's going to sit there in judgment of the quality of the work doctors do? I can't wait to listen to this next sound bite. I can't wait to listen to this next sound bite.

OBAMA (sped up): Here's a guarantee that I'd make. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance.

OBAMA (sped up): If you have a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.

OBAMA (sped up): Let me also address I think a misperception that's been out there, uh, that somehow there is any discussion on Capitol Hill about reducing Medicare benefits. Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.

OBAMA (sped up): Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system.

OBAMA (sped up): It works. We don't want to change it. What we do want is to eliminate some of the waste that is being paid for out of the Medicare trust fund that could be used more effectively to cover more people and to strengthen the system.

RUSH: Ugh. Next he's going to do a seminar on how the build a bubble car, and he's going to sit in judgment of the people that do that. There are cuts in Medicare! Heritage has found them. Let's tell you something else, folks. At his press conference last Wednesday night, he insulted doctors by accusing them of doing unnecessary organ removals to line their pockets. He's insulting them again here. They don't do quality work. He's going to reward them if they do quality work. And let me tell you the clincher here. How in the world can they possibly know whether you've got quality care without getting into your medical records? That's the only way they can know. They're going to digitize them, make it electronic. How else? They can't have an Obamacare bureaucrat in every doctor's office watching the procedure, grading it on a clipboard and sending the results back to the Oval Office.

They can't do it that way. No. He's insisting it's not government controlled. It's not going to cost any more money, you're not going to lose your doctor. Your doctor might get canned if Obama doesn't think you're doctor is doing quality work. And if you are an uncooperative patient -- you know, if the doctor diagnoses you got high cholesterol and prescribes whatever the drug for that is and if you don't take it -- well, how are they going to know whether you're taking the medicine or not? They know it, it will be prescribed, but how do they know whether you're taking it? What if you go in and the doctor says, "Have you been taking the medicine?" You say, "Yes" when you haven't. Well, then you've just created a problem for the doctor. This is so insulting. He insulted insurance companies, too, Wednesday night. Their profits are immoral. We're going to squeeze those profits.

But you're going to be able to keep your doctor, gonna keep your insurance plan, gonna keep everything. The hubris, the absolute hubris. Where are just loads and loads of people asking, "Who the hell are you to judge the quality of medical care? Who the hell are you? Show me in the Constitution where this fits the job description." Play sound bite 28 again. This is mind-blowing.

RUSH: As though a disease is "manageable" in every patient. Look, I understand this guy better than anybody, and I am still stunned by this. There ought not be one doctor in this country supporting this. There ought not be one nurse because they're going to be culpable, too. You know, they're in the game. And let's get into dentistry now and start judging the quality of that, and how much dentistry is cosmetic and is going to be taxed at 10%? Now, remember at the infomercial that ABC did for Obama back in June -- or maybe it was earlier this month, I forget. But last 30 days or so. It was the infomercial on Wednesday night from the East Room with Obama taking questions.

Remember the woman that got up and asked him about her 100-year-old mother who was taken in and the doctor said, "You need a pacemaker. I can't do anything else for you, and I'm not going to put a pacemaker in you. You're a hundred years old." So the woman and her mother went to another specialist who said, "You know, you've got a lot of spunk. I'll be glad to do it," and five years later she's perfectly fine with the pacemaker, he's 105 years old. This woman whose mother got the pacemaker at age 100 asked the president of the United States... Now, stop and think of this. I can understand this question being asked of Fidel Castro. I can understand this question being asked of Hugo Chavez. I can understand some serf citizen pleading with his leader to let his mother live. But I can't imagine that in this country, and it happened.

This woman stood up: Are you going to take into account, Mr. President, Dr. Obama, are you going to take into account a person's "spirit" and their desire to live? Do you know what Obama said? "Look, the first thing for all of us to understand is we actually have some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care, and we can't get into spirit and spunk. We as a culture and as a society can start to make better decisions within our families and for ourselves. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know, 'You know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having this surgery but taking the painkiller.'" That question was asked, and that answer was given in the United States of America. That question was asked in the White House.

Those are the kinds of fearful questions people who live in banana republics ask, and the answer is always no unless the family is somewhat prominent. Now, I also want to share this quote with you because the Republicans send out mail, newsletters to constituents. Representative Ken Calvert, who is a Republican from California, attempted to mail a newsletter to his district covering the issue of health care, and the Democrats made him remove that quote of the president I just read to you from the newsletter. He was forced to remove that language -- it was called "offensive" by the Democrats. "He was forced to remove that offensive language before Democrats on the Franking Commission would approve payment of postage for the mailing." Connie Hair has this as Human Events.

Now, here's this great wordsmith. Here's this Great Communicator who's really got a communication problem these days. Here's this smart, elegant, young, articulate president, and he's saying so many things that are embarrassing that the Democrats are not letting Republicans put his own words in mailings that they're sending out. This is the United States of America. You doctors out there, you know what you're facing if you stay in this business and this thing happens? You are going to be become indentured federal servants, and you're going to have reports -- who knows how often, on your work -- patient by patient. And somebody in Washington is gonna say whether or not you're doing quality work. And if it's judged that you're doing quality work -- and I'll guarantee you this: The odds are that if you are a Republican doctor and you have not donated to Democrats, and there's no record of you making campaign contributions to Democrats or Obama, your work will not be judged as often as "quality" as Democrat doctor donors' work will be judged as quality. You're going to be filling out these reports or somebody is and they're going to be getting into patient medical records to find out what you've been doing in order to judge your work. And then they're going to "squeeze" your costs and payments. They're going to "bundle" payments, whatever the hell that means. Sounds like we're in the bundle-payment business. How would you like to have a job where you get paid in bundles, whatever the hell that is. And all of it from Washington or some mythical insurance company.

RUSH: I've been told what bundling payments is. You know what it is? Well, tell me. I want to make sure that the caller is right because we know I am. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Hm-hm. Right. Yeah, they basically withhold payments and they send a bunch of payments at once in a bundle, so there's no cash flow for the doctors here. It's just whenever the government gets around to doing it. And of course if they don't do it, where else are you gonna go? There's nowhere else, they were going to have a monopoly on this. You know, I cannot tell you, folks, how offensive this is and how dangerous. We are at a dangerous time in this nation's life. We have a president who doesn't know up from down. We have a president who knows nothing about anything in the private sector. All he knows is that he doesn't like it. He thinks it's unjust, it's immoral and it's unfair. The wrong people get rich. The wrong people get poor. And he's bound and determined to fix it.

So now he's setting himself up, after putting doctors down again, as the judge of the quality of their work, or some agency that he's going to appoint. I'm sure that his agency will be full of other doctors. You know what, Mr. President? I got an idea for you. As I look at it, the thing you do run is an absolute embarrassing mess. The United States government is a mess. We are bloated with debt. You have taken money from grandchildren not yet born in order finance this destruction of this capitalist system, private economy that you don't like because you don't think it's fair. The federal government is an absolute disaster. You do run that. How about increasing the quality of services of the federal government? Notice that he never does anything about what he is actually in charge of? He is reaching out to be in charge of everything else but what he's in charge of. He takes no responsibility for anything that he is already running. He always takes and talks prospectively because that way he can avoid accountability.

RUSH: We gotta ask ourselves a question. Why all these attacks on doctors? The cosmetic surgery tax is an attack on doctors. Saying that pediatricians schedule unnecessary surgeries for kids so they can line their pockets is an attack, and now this man is going to judge their work? And he doesn't apologize for what he's doing to impugn an entire profession. In whose polluted mind are doctors the enemy? But they damn sure appear to be with this man. Just like the Big Oil executives are the enemy and just like the insurance agents are the enemy. Wall Street executives are the enemy. Car executives are the enemy. Is Obama going to protect the doctors from the folks with pitchforks? What is the reason for the attack, the demonization of all of these different endeavors? He's demonizing them to clear the field, folks, like the car execs and like Wall Street. Doctors are being undermined and attacked in order get this stupid bill passed. He wants as many people to think that the problem in health care is two things: their greedy doctors and super greedy insurance agents. I'm seething, that first sound bite we played, he's going to judge the quality of their work and bundle their payments. All right, we've got four more and a doozy when he talks about death, but, here, let's just get to them in order.

OBAMA (sped up): You get these stories where all -- there's a trillion dollars here, trillion dollars there. After a while, it starts being real money, even here in Washington. So I understand people being scared that this is going to be way too costly. It's not that costly if we start making changes right now. We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on earth, 6,000 more than the people who live in Denmark or France or Germany or -- every one of these other countries spend at least 50% less than we do and, you know what, they're just as healthy.

RUSH: I'm just. (pause) very few things can render me speechless. Okay, well, Mr. President, the next time one of your two little girls gets sick, fly 'em over to Denmark. Don't burden the US health care system, which is the best in the world, and the best costs. Let's just keep firing away. I don't know how much longer I can objectively analyze this drivel. But here's another one.

OBAMA (sped up): I do think this is a concern that people have generally. My interest is not in getting between you and your doctor.

RUSH: Stop that tape. Go back and grab number 28. I do think this is a concern. "I have no interest getting between you and your doctor." Play cut 28 again.

OBAMA (sped up): We also want to start rewarding doctors for quality, not just the quantity of care that they provide. Instead of rewarding them for how many procedures that they perform or how many tests they order, we'll bundle payments so providers aren't paid for every treatment they offer when they --

RUSH: That's enough. That's enough. Okay, so reward the doctors for quality health care and then here, number 31 again.

OBAMA (sped up): I do think this is a concern that people have generally. My interest is not in getting between you and your doctor.

OBAMA (sped up): Although keep in mind right now insurance companies are often getting between you and your doctor.

OBAMA (sped up): What we just said is we just want to provide some guidelines to Medicare and -- and, by extension, the private sector, about what works and what doesn't. Some of you may have heard we wanted to set up what we're calling an IMAC, an Independent Medical Advisory Committee, that would, on an annual basis, provide recommendations about what treatments work best and what gives you the best value for your health care dollar.

RUSH: For crying out loud, you're going to need to go to a library before you go to the doctor. There's always a "but," there's always an "although." My interest is not getting between you and your doctor, although keep in mind right now insurance companies are often getting between you and -- yeah, yeah. Hate those insurance companies. We're going to get even with them. We'll get even with the doctors. Here's the next one.

OBAMA (sped up): The reason this has been controversial is a lot of people have heard this phrase "socialized medicine." And they say we don't want government-run health care, we don't want a Canadian style plan. Nobody's talking about that. We're saying let's give you a choice --

RUSH: Wait a second! Stop the tape! We just got through listening to three sound bites where some of the most intricate, delicate, complicated, complex, control of the health care system was just explained, and now he says that that's not going to happen. Here, play 32 again. I promise not to interrupt.

OBAMA (sped up): The reason this has been controversial is a lot of people have heard this phrase "socialized medicine." And they say we don't want government-run health care. We don't want a Canadian-style plan. Nobody's talking about that. We're saying let's give you a choice, you can choose the private marketplace or this other approach, and I got a letter the other day from a woman who said, "I don't want government-run health care; I don't want socialized medicine, and don't touch my Medicare." (laughter) And -- and -- you know, you know, I wanted to say, well, you know, I mean, that's what Medicare is, is it's a government-run health care plan that people are very happy with.

RUSH: Medicare is a government-run plan that people are very happy with? We don't want to run your government, though, we don't want to run your health care, keep your option. Folks, this man is prevaricating. None of this is true. This is just breathtaking, that this took place inside of a half hour. Now, this next one, he gets a question, this a tele-town hall is what they called it and he got a call. The caller said, "I've heard lots of rumors going around about this new plan. I hope the people that are going to vote are going to read every single page. I've been told that everyone that is of Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This bothers me greatly. I would like for you to promise me that this is not in the bill."

OBAMA (sped up): I guarantee you first of all we just don't have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody to -- to find out how they -- they want to die. I think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills -- and I actually think this is a good thing -- is that it makes it easier for people to fill out a living will. Everything is going to be up to you. And if you don't want to fill out a living will you don't have to. I just want to be clear, nobody is going to be knocking on your door, nobody is going to be telling you you've got to fill one out, and certainly nobody's going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on, you know, some bureaucratic law in Washington.

RUSH: That's exactly right, the bureaucrat's going to make the decision, you aren't. You're not going to have to any say in the matter, and it's in the House bill. Once you reach, I don't know what the age is, it's in the 60s, every five years some counselor shows up to start counseling you, "Okay, we both know that you got a lot more years behind you than you have in front of you and we gotta talk about what the next few years hold and look at your health as it is now and, oh, by the way, here's this living will we want you to fill out." When he says they don't have enough government workers to go around and counsel people, the answer to that is, "We don't have enough yet, but we can get 'em. We can get 'em from the union; we can get 'em from the service employees union; we can get 'em from the teamsters." How would you like some of those guys coming in to counsel you at your end of life? Well, I know, it does sound funny. I'm telling you, this is frightening, and it's real. Medicare can only work, folks, because of private doctors, private drug companies, private innovations in health care. That's the only way. There's nobody in government right now making our health care system work. They have nothing to do with it. But all of a sudden, for some reason, enough people -- it's not a majority, but clearly a lot of people think this man is qualified to design this and manage it.

RUSH: I want to play an Obama sound bite, play it again here because I think in this sound bite he's got a question: "Am I going to be able to see a cardiologist if I have a heart condition or other specialist or is that all going to be primary care? I'm calling it 'rationing of care.'" That's the question, and here's his answer, and I think in this answer we don't even need doctors. We're not going to need them. This is his answer.

OBAMA (sped up): I do think this is a concern that people have generally. My interest is not in getting between you and your doctor, although keep in mind right now insurance companies are often getting between you and your doctor. What we've said is, we just want to provide some guidelines --

OBAMA (sped up): -- to Medicare as and by extension the private sector about what works and what doesn't.

RUSH: Okay, stop the tape. We don't need doctors. Just put out the list of what works best. Just put a list out! Medicare can handle this, right? Just put out a list of what works best and have somebody do that. Can you imagine the president of the United States has to say, "I don't want to get between you and your doctor"? That's something Mikhail Gorbachev would say, except they didn't have many doctors over there.

CALLER: Rush, it's a true honor. Mega dittos from a conservative entrepreneur in Cleveland.

CALLER: You got it. My point is, I think that our president and his liberal agenda and his Chicago thug politics are coming to a head, and I think that the American people are finally waking up and I think the door has been open over 30 or 40 years of them manipulating education. I think Obama's trying to kick the door wide open, and I think it's too early and too soon. I don't think they have the power to do it, and I think people are coming alive and realizing what his true agenda is, and we're going to put a stop to it. I think if we can win some seats in 2010 --

RUSH: Let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. I do believe this. I do believe more and more people are saying, "This is not who we thought we were voting for. We thought we were voting some magical postracial, postpartum (I said it on purpose) postpartisan, politician." They're not... This is not who people voted for, but he doesn't care. He can see the polls now, Fred. He can see that nobody wants his plan and that nobody wants his cap-and-trade plan. It's not going to stop him. Whether or not... You know, I think there have been so many instances in history where people should have seen the follies of liberalism that they would never, ever get elected in large numbers ever again. But, they do, because they are filled with deceit.

Obama would not have gotten elected had this agenda been perfectly laid out as he's executing it. It wouldn't have stood a chance. That's why people are starting to say, "This is not the guy I voted for." Then you got some people just scared to death like these poor people, these 40 or whatever was willing participants in the tele-town hall today. They're just scared that they're going to lose their medical coverage and treatment, and anything that they can hear that reassures them that's not going to happen -- it may in fact get better and a couple billionaires going to actually pay for it! -- at some point in your life, that's really all you care about. So anyway, it's been a great day for eye opening. It's still shocking. We are at a perilous path. These are dangerous times in our country. I hope Fred from Cleveland is right about the number of people waking up. But as my good friend Michael Ledeen says: Faster, please.

Andy McCarthy's Brilliant Piece on Obama's Honesty (McCarthy does deal with the Obama birth certificate, but intelligently; not like some of the crazies who are out there):

I have heard, by the way, several theories on why Obama’s birth certificate is not released:

1. He is not a U.S. citizen (this is highly unlikely, seeing as how a Republican Governor has seen the birth certificate and agreed he was born in the U.S.). There are 2 birth announcements in 2 Hawaiian newspapers and a certificate of live birth.

2. There is something on the birth certificate which would be problematic: Obama is shown to have dual citizenship, in Kenya and the United States; or, his religion is listed as Muslim. In either case, it is understandable why this would not have been released.

3. The Obama camp knows that there are a handful of vocal crazies out there who really believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and it makes the Republican party look bad for them to go on and on about the birth certificate.

Harry Reid tries to sneak card check into health care legislation (there is gonig to be a lot of this over the next several years):

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 #86	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	August 2, 2009