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.

Whatever health care bill there is, is apparently going to be named after Kennedy.

The U.S. Senate now working on a bill to give the president the ability to take control of the internet in an emergency.

ABC and NBC refuse to run an anti-Obama-care ad; NBC is pressing them to confirm the content of the ad as factual (or asking them to redo the advetisement). ABC claims the ad is partisan. Would they ever turn down an ad which supports Obama-care for the same reasons?

The investigation of Bill Richardson, former Democrat presidential hopeful, was stopped.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs mistakenly sent out letters to about 1,800 former soldiers informing them that they had been found to be suffering with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

Japan’s election moves from long-time conservative dominance to a left-of center control in a landslide election.

After the Obama administration determined that he made a mistake in the deficit of $2 trillion, Kimberly Gilfoyle remarked, “It’s become apparent that everyone in the Obama administration is really bad at math.”

Chavez joked on a live television broadcast,"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right."

Speaking of Obama: “I don't have the slightest doubt that the racist right will do everything possible to wear him [Obama] down, blocking his program to get him out of the game one way or another, at the least political cost." Who said this? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Janeane Garafalo? Nope, Fidel Castro just said that.

Karl Rove on the VA death book: “If you’re not worried about government health care, read this book and you will be.”

David Hedrick to his Congressman, “It is not your call to tell me that I can or cannot keep my medical insurance.”

‘[Obama] taxes people who work, gives money to those who don’t, and wonders why people aren’t working.” Lafferty (from Reagan’s administration). Rush also said something along these lines.

“[Obama’s strategy has been] to talk right and act left,” said Dines D’Souza.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." President Obama on the campaign trail.

And lest we forget, what Ted Kennedy said about justice nominee Robert Bork: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. Writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government. And the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is and is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy....America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be. The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

David Shuster memorializing Ted Kennedy on MSNBC: “Ted Kennedy, unlike so many politicians of this day, he didn't dabble in the small stuff, the petty personal attacks. That was not him. And, again, I think that's why so many people are feeling so sad not only for the loss of him, but for the loss, perhaps, of a political era.”

Kennedy expressing his opposition to Bush’s surge in Iraq: “All of us remember President Bush saying "I'm going to take my time and find a new direction." All of us remember that he said, "Do not rush me. I want to talk to the generals. I want to talk to political leaders. I want to talk to people all over this country and all over the world to find out a new policy." And then he comes out with his policy and what is it? It's a military policy to escalate in Iraq. That is the issue before the United States Senate. Many of us do not believe that this president is right on it. The Baker-Hamilton Commission did not agree with that policy, General Abizaid did not agree with that policy before the Armed Services Committee and the American people don't! We on this side are interested in protecting American servicemen from the crossfire of a civil war. Some on the other side are more interested in protecting the president from a rebuke for his policy of escalation in Iraq.”

UAE seizes shipment of weapons from North Korea destined for Iran. On the one hand, this is a good thing that the UAE stepped in. On the other hand, this makes it clear that North Korea is attempting to export weapons to countries hostile to us.

I had not heard about this before; it is a feature-length film called The Obama Deception. What I have seen so far is interesting and thought-provoking at the least (including Jesse Ventura’s opinions):

Glenn Beck had a excellent set of shows this past week, where he asks questions of the present-day administration and looks at some of the players in the Obama administration. This is about Green Jobs czar Van Jones (this is about Van Jones, STORM).

Glenn Beck, the one thing, which deals with what Obama has already said and what he is doing:

Glenn Beck: Part I: Know your Czars (watch this to the end; particularly the final 2–3 minutes):

When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn't just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.

This is a vet speaking at McCain’s townhall meeting; he expresses what most people believe about the present health care reform bill:

Associated with this is the 2007 Sick in America special that John did; part I:

Outstanding interview with David Hedrick, along with his opinions given at a townhall meeting. He is a disabled vet (I hope this guy runs for Congress).

Louisiana Congresswoman praises Cuban revolution and Castro’s health care system:

1) Since 70% of our economy is based upon our own consumption, then one of the solutions for our problems is fairly simple: make cool stuff to sell to other countries. People love American stuff. Making government bigger and bigger will achieve the exact opposite. Establishing more and more regulations will achieve the exact opposite.

2) It is fascinating that Attorney General Eric Holder has seen fit to reopen and previously examined case of possible CIA wrongdoing; and, almost simultaneously, the pay-to-play investigation of Bill Richardson was dropped, an unnamed source says that this investigation was killed in Washington.

3) Canada does have a thriving health care business, which is inexpensive, advancing technologically speaking, and you do not have to wait forever—these are veterinarians. The free market always makes it fast, cheaper and better.

4) The Obama deficit for just this year will be equivalent to all of the Bush deficits combined over a period of 8 years.

5) Dinesh D’Souza hit the nail right on the head when he said that Obama talks right and acts left. Over and over, Obama uses the accepted language of free enterprise and big business, while seeking to reduce the first and excessively tax the second. He is using field-tested words, which indeicate that our country is center-right; but he uses these words to sell far-left policies.

6) One of the things which the American people do not seem to grasp is, government regulations are often the problem rather than the solution. Deregulation of the airline industry (which Ted Kennedy supported, by the way) was a good thing which lowered air fair and increased air travel. Also, some government regulations are passed with a hidden agenda (giving one company predominance over another; causing problems which call for a government solution).

7) If Obama is able to push through an unpopular health care bill, I think we need to begin to be worried. Maybe he thinks he can get elected again without the popular vote?

30% is the approximate drop in the cost of lasik surgery over the past decade or so (this is hard to gauge as prices vary dramatically).

Washington is now spending $31,000 for every household in the United States and taking in an average of $17,000/household.

I envision a health care legislation musical taking place at the funeral of Senator Ted Kennedy.

For those who had townhall meetings and did not call the participants un-American, astroturf or anything else afterward.

Obama continues to talk about investments and competition, but he is really talking about government spending and reducing competition.

Will you try to get your health plan through, even if a clear majority of the people are against it?

If you thinkg Bush’s overspending was not any different from Obama’s overspending.

If you think that Obama, as commander-in-chief, has a different direction than Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This time, California courts will make an example of Michael Jackson’s doctor.

Dick Morris predicts a double-dip recession; and this recession will be followed by or accompanied with great inflation, known as stagflation. I heartily agree.

Let me go into a little intrigue: Obama will pass legislation which gives him expanded powers in the event of an emergency, which emergency could be economic.

There are a number of things which Democrats have promised us about health care reform:

2) This will eventually bend the cost-curve downward, and reduce the cost of medical care.

5) Medical costs are now skyrocketing because of the free market and greedy insurance companies.

6) Our new system will be uniquely American and not subject to the problems of health care in other nations.

10) This will remove the middle man—the insurance company—from between a patient and his doctor.

11) This will not lead to a single-payer (i.e., government-run) health care system.

So, in case you think otherwise, most people who oppose Obama-care know these talking points. It is not as if we cover our ears, causing Obama to repeat himself for the 1000^th time. Nor do we want to preserve the status quo (although we do prefer the status quo over Obama-care).

Here is the problem: We do not believe Obama and we do not believe the Democrats trying to sell this bill.

When an opponent of Obama-care makes this or that statement, they go to the House bill and quote chapter and verse. When supporters of the bill go about and sell it, they never quote chapter and verse. They simply give broad-based platitudes that almost anyone would approve of.

Many of the proponents of this bill have been caught in obviously lies. For instance, President Obama has said, he does not and has never promoted a single-payer health care system; and yet, we have audio and video recordings of Obama saying that he was in favor of a single-payer system and that the way to get to it is incrementally. Barney Frank has been recorded saying that he wants a single-payer system as well.

Those who are proponents of Obama care have, for the most part, demonized those who have opposed Obama-care, calling them astroturf (meaning that they are not a real movement but one ginned up by big insurance or big pharma) and call their actions un-American. At the same time, proponents of Obama-care tout their own supporters—many of whom show up in buses, with matching shirts bearing the names of various left-wing organizations, with pre-manufactured signs)—as the genuine people at these townhall meetings.

Many of these promises have been demonstrated to be false. If it is cheaper for an employer finds it cheaper to pay a fine and off-load his health care coverage (and a big headache and personnel as well), then some of us will not be able to keep our plans.

Many of these promises work at cross-purposes with one another. Insuring everyone means fewer doctors to go around, and therefore, health care rationing (at least in terms of time); it also means a greater cost if these newly insured do not pay for their own insurance. Insuring pre-existing conditions also works directly against bending the cost curve down.

Furthermore, almost every promise made by proponents of Obama-care has been shown to be false. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that, for one example, that the House bill will be anything but deficit neutral.

It boils down to this: we do not believe President Obama and what he says about his health care proposals (or what any of the proponents of Obama-care say) because...

1) Obama has already lied about his own position on a single-payer system. He could have said, “I have since changed my mind about this, but he did not even do that. He just lied.”

2) Obama and other proponents of Obama-care have lied about those who disagree with them. Anyone with a slightly open mind can view any townhall meeting and recognize who the private citizens are and who are the paid protestors.

3) Whenever the CBO gives its scoring of the bill (its cost, its coverage), it contradicts what Obama is saying.

3) Most people know that, when government gets involved, there is an increase in fraud, mismanagement, paperwork, and cost. Because of these things, Medicare, which is touted as what government can do, is going broke, it is a system filled with fraud and corruption, and it costs many, many times more than was promised to us originally.

4) As John Stossel pointed out, where do we see any improvement in medical costs? In lasik surgery, which is entirely a free-market entity. It is not covered by the government; it is not covered by medical insurance; so, even though improvements are made in the process, the costs continue to go down (30% over the last several years). When someone wants lasic surgery, they know they are going to pay money out of their own pocket, and they shop around. Providers, who are obviously making a lot of money, know that they have to keep their costs low, but their quality of service high.

So, it boils down to this: we know the talking points; we just don’t believe any of them.

KRISTOL [responding to a Democrat saying that the health care system is broken]: Tad is the best of the Democrats and -- but in a way, what he said, therefore, is particularly revealing. The system is not broken.

The American public do not believe fundamentally that our health care system is radically broken. They think it's swollen in terms of costs, it's inefficient, it's difficult to deal with.

Most people know perfectly well that today we get health care much better than we got 20 or 30 years ago. People are living, and living good lives, in a way that they couldn't have 20, or 30, or 40 years ago.

So fix the particular problems in the system. Juan said I said to kill it. I do believe we should kill the Obama proposal, but I said kill it and start over. And there are plenty of proposals -- let people buy health insurance across state lines -- that he could get huge bipartisan majorities for.

That's the problem. People do not believe the health care system is fundamentally broken.

Natalie Arceneaux has a radio program on Saturday afternoon, and she points out some of the problems with the proposed notion of health care insurance. I am essentially restating her position (since there is no transcript to go to).

Let’s say your uninsured house burned to the ground. Would you call up Farmer’s or Nationwide and apply for an insurance policy, so that you could get this burned-down house paid for? Of course not! They would laugh you off the phone.

Let’s say you have a wreck and total your car, which is not insured...would you call up Geico and apply for an insurance policy, so that you can get the insurance to pay for this wreck and to pay for your car? They would hang up on you.

The insurance model proposed by Obama and the Democrats does not match the insurance model of any sort on anything else.

Even if you want to argue, well, health care is a right; it is necessary to live; well, you need a house to live in and you need a car to drive to work in.

The only thing which makes sense is, when you buy insurance after the fact (when you decide

you need them to cover whatever illness that you have), such a model is sure to lose millions, if not billions of dollars. Now, as a government program, that makes sense. The government knows how to spend money and how to lose money. So, only in that regard, do the arguments of Obama and his talking heads make sense.

We are told that, radical Muslims make up only a small percentage of the total Muslim population; and that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and choose to live in peace; after all, Islam is the religion of peace.

Muslims—and Muslim nations in particular—are very different from us. Let’s say some eco-terrorist like Timothy McVey (who was an eco-terrorist and not some right-wing terrorist) commits some vicious act of evil in Scotland or some plane flying over Scotland (note, I have to make up an example here). And then let’s say that the Scots capture and try this man, but, after he has served a portion of his sentence, decides to return him to the United States. What kind of a welcome would he get? Would there be cheering crowds? Would the president, who likes the environment, come and meet this man personally? Would the president hug this terrorist? Of course not!

However, when the Scots released a murdering terrorist to Libya, he was met by a cheering crowd; Kadafy personally met him as he deplaned and hugged him. Do you understand just how confused that is? These people may not have the wherewithal to do what this man did; but they support him. He received the same kind of treatment which we give to our greatest soldiers (which ought to be given to every American soldier returning from war).

Do you see the difference? If this man were shunned or denounced, that would be one thing. However, he was greeted as a returning war hero (which he is to Libya).

White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician's duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient's needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.

"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."

Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)

In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

"However, other things are rarely equal-whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each-is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).

Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).

To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).

Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body-the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)-to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.

Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

I get steamed every time I hear one of these "Democratic advisors" utter their "talking points"! Ya know, these people are LYING! And they know they are lying! What's with that? Don't they possess even a shread of honor, or self-respect?

I know that the GOP, and some conservatives, exaggerate sometimes, but they can't hold a candle to the chicanery of the left, who seem incapable of addressing the issues with a genuine point of view, and operating honestly, in the full light of day. It always has to be back door deals, and contrived cirumstances, and putting in the fix on the sly. I swear, they can't go to the can without bending the rules to their advantage!

Maybe that's because they know they're wrong, and have a message the People will reject, so they can only gain and keep power by trickery?

One of their most spectacularly successful tactics is repetitious lies. They adopt an agenda, talking points, and repeat it incessently, asuming that a lethargic electorate will buy into their scam. The sad part is, millions do. People come home from work, turn on the TV, and have dinner watching MSNBC or CNN, listen to the lies, and just accept them without looking into the facts.

Case in point, their latest lie; "The Republicans don't want healthcare reform! They like the status quo, and big insurance companies have them in their pocket!"

BULL! The GOP has authored, I dunno, 30 proposals in The House, and the Democrats not won't even allow them to come to the floor for debate, much less vote on them.

Their campaign of lies destroyed George Bush, and the most prominent one; "BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD!" They blythely neglect to mention that our own CIA told the government it was a "slam dunk", as did four of our allies; France, Britain, Israel and Germany. Even then, Bush waited, and let the UN pass 23 resolutions, demanding that Hussein open his country for inspections. Only then did he attack, and only one Democrat didn't sign on to start that war...but they neglect to mention that.

Tell a lie enough times, and people will believe it, or enough of them. But there's one flaw in this strategy....it depends on a brain dead public, who are not informed of the facts, and don't care enough to study them.

Well folks, it looks like a lot of formerly slumbering citizens ARE begining to wake up, and look at what's going on. The tired old lies aren't duping so many people any more, and in their desperation, the Dumbocrats are resorting to every mean gimmick in their playbook!

Once people wise up, and see that they are being led around by the nose, they get REAL PISSED! And this is what's happening at these town halls. The maddest, most vocal town hallers are those who have been hornswaggled in the past. We will see much more of this play out, and the more desperate the Democrats become, the worse it will get. Friends and family are talking to people in their circles, all former dupees, and it's catching on. Obama's slick line isn't such a hit anymore, and it will continue to lose traction.

7. Announced we would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions while they're building their nuclear weapons.

12. Announced the termination of our new missile defense system the day after North Korea launched an ICBM.

13. Released information on U.S. intelligence gathering despite urgings of his own CIA director and the prior four CIA directors.

14. Accepted without comment that five of his cabinet members cheated on their taxes and two other nominees withdrew after they couldn't take the heat.

15. Appointed a Homeland Security Chief who identified military veterans and abortion opponents as "dangers to the nation."

16. Ordered that the word "terrorism" no longer be used and instead refers to such acts as "man made disasters."

18. Told the Mexican president that the violence in their country was because of us

19. Politicized the census by moving it into the White House from the Department of Commerce.

20. Appointed as Attorney General the man who orchestrated the forced removal and expulsion to Cuba of a 9-year-old whose mother died trying to bring him to freedom in the

21. Salutes as heroes three Navy SEALS who took down three terrorists who threatened one American life and the next day announces members of the Bush administration may stand trial for "torturing" three 9/11 terrorists by pouring water up their noses.

22. Low altitude photo shoot of Air Force One over New York City that frightened thousands of New Yorkers.

23. Sent his National Defense Adviser to Europe to assure them that the US will no longer treat Israel in a special manner and they might be on their own with the Muslims.

24. Praised Jimmy Carter's trip to Gaza where he sided with terrorist Hamas against Israel 25. Nationalized General Motors and Chrysler while turning shareholder control over to the unions and freezing out retired investors who owned their bonds. Committed unlimited taxpayer billions in the process.

26. At a press conference, he called the Police, responding to a 911 call, "Stupid" after he admitted he didn't know all the facts He didn't apologize, but to smooth things over, he invited the cop and the citizen to have a beer at the White House.

27. Passed a huge energy tax in the House that will make American industry even less competitive while costing homeowners thousands per year.

28. Announced nationalized health care "reform" that will strip seniors of their Medicare, cut pay of physicians, increase taxes yet another $1 trillion, and put everyone on rationed care with government bureaucrats deciding who gets care and who doesn't. Bloomberg: Daschle says, "Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them," while former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm says seniors have "a duty to die."

Different people have very different reactions to President Barack Obama. Those who listen to his rhetoric are often inspired, while those who follow what he actually does are often appalled.

New York and Chicago have both recently had their coldest June in generations. If they had had their hottest month, it would have been trumpeted from the media 24/7 by "global warming" zealots. But the average surface temperature of the earth has not changed in more than a decade, according to the Cato Institute.

Many years ago, there was a comic book character who could say the magic word "shazam" and turn into Captain Marvel, a character with powers like Superman's. Today, you can say the magic word "diversity" and turn reverse discrimination into social justice.

Someone pointed out that blaming economic crises on "greed" is like blaming plane crashes on gravity. Certainly planes wouldn't crash if it wasn't for gravity. But when thousands of planes fly millions of miles every day without crashing, explaining why a particular plane crashed because of gravity gets you nowhere.

What did we learn from the "beer summit" on the White House lawn, except that Vice President Joe Biden doesn't drink alcoholic beverages? Considering the many gaffes that the vice president has made while cold sober, the thought of an intoxicated Biden boggles the mind.

Seeing children repeating the cant they have been taught is not only depressing in itself, it provides a depressing preview of the future, when those children become voting adults, with a habit of reaching conclusions after hearing only one side of an issue.

Since no one seems overly concerned about putting a racist on the Supreme Court -- provided it is a politically correct racist -- the moral of the story seems to be that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, that doesn't matter if it coos like a dove at Senate confirmation hearings.

I hate seeing a referee keep giving warnings to a boxer for low blows. Taking a point away is the only kind of warning that is likely to make the low blows stop. The rules of boxing don't say you are entitled to one free low blow, much less repeated low blows.

Perhaps the scariest aspect of our times is how many people think in talking points rather than in terms of real world consequences.

Over the years, unions in the private sector have been declining, while unions in the public sector have been thriving. The United Automobile Workers are getting a big return on their investment in the election of Obama because the government takeover of General Motors makes the UAW more like a public sector union, whose demands can be met at the taxpayers' expense.

Recently I was foolish enough to try to reason with an environmentalist. But it became obvious that he had his mind made up and didn't want to hear any evidence to the contrary. The pope is more likely to have read Karl Marx than an environmentalist is to have read even a single book that criticized environmentalism.

With Velcro and other modern adhesives available, can't someone design a boxing glove that doesn't require fights to be stopped in the middle of a round so that loose tape can be repaired? Often the break in the action changes the whole tempo of the fight and can affect the outcome.

How long will it be before the public gets tired of the little know-it-all sermonettes by Obama -- especially since nothing that he is doing is actually working?

The 150-year prison sentence for Bernie Madoff has implications that go far beyond this particular swindler. There was a time when a simple life sentence would have kept him behind bars. But today the practice of overstating the sentences that will actually be served - - in order to soothe the public -- has gotten so widespread that a ridiculous sentence like 150 years has to be given, in order to try to make sure he won't be back on the streets again.

MANY OF THE issues of our times are hard to understand without understanding the vision of the world that they are part of. Whether the particular issue is education, economics or medical care, the preferred explanation tends to be an external one -- that is, something outside the control of the individuals directly involved.

Education is usually discussed in terms of the money spent on it, the teaching methods used, class sizes or the way the whole system is organized. Students are discussed largely as passive recipients of good or bad education.

But education is not something that can be given to anybody. It is something that students either acquire or fail to acquire. Personal responsibility may be ignored or downplayed in this "nonjudgmental" age, but it remains a major factor nevertheless.

After many students go through a dozen years in the public schools, at a total cost of $100,000 or more per student -- and emerge semi-literate and with little understanding of the society in which they live, much less the larger world and its history -- most discussions of what is wrong leave out that many such students may have chosen to use school as a place to fool around, act up, organize gangs or even peddle drugs.

The great escape of our times is escape from personal responsibility for the consequences of one's own behavior.

Differences in infant mortality rates provoke pious editorials on a need for more prenatal care to be provided by the government for those unable to afford it. In other words, the explanation is automatically assumed to be external to the mothers involved and the solution is assumed to be something that "we" can do for "them."

While it is true that black mothers get less prenatal care than white mothers and have higher infant mortality rates, it is also true that women of Mexican ancestry also get less prenatal care than white women and yet have lower infant mortality rates than white women. But, once people with the prevailing social vision see the first set of facts, they seldom look for any other facts that might go against the explanation that fits their vision of the world.

No small part of the current confusion between "health care" and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives.

There can be grave practical consequences of a dogmatic insistence on external explanations that allow individuals to escape personal responsibility. Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health.

Economic issues are approached in the same way. People with low incomes are seen as a problem for other people to solve. Studies that follow the same individuals over time show that the vast majority of working people who are in the bottom 20 percent of income earners at a given time end up rising out of that bracket.

Many are simply beginners who get beginners' wages, but whose pay rises as they acquire more skills and experience. Yet there is a small minority of workers who do not rise and a large number of people who seldom work and who -- surprise! -- have low incomes as a result.

Seldom is there any thought that people who choose to waste years of their own time (and the taxpayers' money) in school need to change their own behavior -- or to visibly suffer the consequences, so that their fate can be a warning to others coming after them, not to make that same mistake.

It is not just the "nonjudgmental" ideology of the intelligentsia but also the self-interest of politicians that leads to so much downplaying of personal responsibility in favor of external explanations and external programs to "solve" the "problem."

On these and other issues, government programs are far less likely to solve the country's problems than to solve the politicians' problem of getting the votes of those whose think the answer to every problem is for the government to "do something."

With all the reporters covering the major presidential candidates, it amazes me no one ever seems to ask the right questions.

For several days now, WND has been hounding Barack Obama's campaign about a statement he made July 2 in Colorado Springs - a statement that blew my mind, one that has had me scratching my head ever since.

In talking about his plans to double the size of the Peace Corps and nearly quadruple the size of AmeriCorps and the size of the nation's military services, he made this rather shocking (and chilling) pledge: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Now, since I've never heard anyone inside or out of government use the phrase "civilian national security force" before, I was more than a little curious about what he has in mind.

Is it possible I am the only journalist in America who sought clarification on this campaign promise?

If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?

I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

Now, maybe he was misquoted by the Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Tribune. I guess it's possible. If so, you would think he would want to set the record straight. Maybe he misspoke. That has certainly happened before. Again, why wouldn't the rest of my colleagues show some curiosity about such a major and, frankly, bone-chilling proposition?

The U.S. Army alone has nearly 500,000 troops. That doesn't count reserves or National Guard. In 2007, the U.S. Defense budget was $439 billion.

Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that?

At this point all I can do is enlist your help - and the help of every other journalist who still thinks the American people have a right to know the specifics about a presidential candidate's biggest and boldest initiatives before the election. I also want to ask radio talk-show hosts across America to start asking this same question. I have a feeling if others join our quest, we might yet get clarification on this proposal from Obama.

Who will Obama appoint to administer this new "civilian national security force"? Where will the money come from? Where in the Constitution does he see justification for the federal government creating such a domestic army?

But before we can hope to get to the specifics, we need much more in the way of generalizations from Obama.

Certainly there have been initiatives like this elsewhere - Cuba, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, North Korea. But has anything like this ever been proposed in a free country?

I have a feeling there would be more questions from the press if I myself had proposed the creation of something as preposterous as a "civilian national security force" than there has been about this proposal by the presidential candidate currently leading in most of the polls. I'm quite sure I would be hung out to dry as some kind of Nazi thug. Meanwhile, Obama makes this wild suggestion and it is met with a collective yawn from the watchdogs.

Ladies and gentlemen, these people set -- they opened the doors, they gave us the right, and today, ladies and gentlemen, in our cities and public schools we have 50% drop out. In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they're pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child.

Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic and lower middle economic people are not holding their end in this deal. In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on. In the old days, you couldn't hooky school because every drawn shade was an eye. And before your mother got off the bus and to the house, she knew exactly where you had gone, who had gone into the house, and where you got on whatever you had one and where you got it from. Parents don't know that today.

I'm talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was twelve? Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don't know he had a pistol? And where is his father, and why don't you know where he is? And why doesn't the father show up to talk to this boy?

[John Holdren is Obama’s science advisor; these are quotes from his 1977 book Ecoscience]

p. 837: Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

P. 786: One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption-especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Pp. 787–788: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Pp. 786–787: Involuntary fertility control...A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men....The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

P. 838: If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility-just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns-providing they are not denied equal protection.

P. 838: In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Pp. 942–943: Toward a Planetary Regime...Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime-sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

P. 917: If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Here is the entire article, and, at the bottom, is a link to Holdren’s book, online:

BEN BERNANKE, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Our objective remains constant, to restore a more stable, financial, and economic environment, in which opportunity can again flourish, and in which Americans' hard work and creativity can receive their proper rewards.

REP. TRENT FRANKS, (R) ARIZONA: I saw a statistic the other day that was pretty profound. It said the $12 trillion debt that we have now, if we paid that off at a million dollars a day and didn't go into debt any further and didn't have any interest on that debt, it would still take us 34,000 years to pay it off.

BAIER: The nomination of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke for a second term comes on the day when the White House boosted the projected ten-year deficit from $7 trillion to $9 trillion.

On average, deficits - that's the difference between spending and revenue each year, will average about $900 billion for the decade. We reported a lot of this Friday.

The public debt, now, that's the amount of credit taken out to pay for the yearly deficits, is now projected to hit $17.5 trillion by 2019. In that year alone, interest on the debt will equal $774 billion.

It's hard to get your head around all of this. That's why we have the panel, Steve Hayes, senior writer for "The Weekly Standard," Juan Williams, news analyst for National Public Radio, and Jeff Birnbaum, managing editor digital of "The Washington Times."

Jeff, first of all, this announcement about Bernanke comes on the day when this is bad news. Timing, coincidence?

JEFF BIRNBAUM, MANAGING EDITOR DIGITAL, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": It's a pure coincidence, I'm sure we all agree.

I think there's no question that the announcement of Bernanke, which is good news to the markets, was meant to offset the very bad news of the gigantic deficits.

BIRNBAUM: Well, the simple way to think about it is the largest ever deficit before this year's deficit was a trillion dollars less then not only what will be this year's deficit but also the projected deficit for next year.

It's a essentially one and a half trillion dollars this year and next year, and gigantic deficits.

It is astounding. I covered budgets for years in Congress and I remember the day that I heard that the deficit might go to $250 billion. And I got a bad feeling in my stomach when that happened.

Now, I mean, you don't even have a stomach anymore, so bad are these. And this news is very bad for Bernanke. You have to be careful what you wish for. He wanted to be nominated again for another four years, but he will have to face the gigantic task of managing the huge run-up in debt and the inflation that that will probably cause.

Balancing - dealing with inflation by raising interest rates and not causing a double dip, a second dip into a recession will be the monumental task he now faces.

BAIER: And Juan, in Washington, ten-year budget projections are usually wildly inaccurate.

BAIER: So this could be short of what it actually will end up being as far as these projections go.

BAIER: For the Office of Management and Budget to put this out, it is kind of like a car running into a wall. You see the wall down the road, but you keep on going. Isn't it amazing to think about this as the budget projection for a White House?

WILLIAMS: It is. On the other hand, OMB also says they predict that we're going to grow. They think that the recession is going to end shortly, and therefore, if you have growth, you could, in some ways, you know, produce revenue that would help to - I don't see how we would eliminate it, but diminish it to some extent.

That's the optimistic scenario. But it's much more likely here that what you have is escalating deficits over time, and the question is whether or not then you have inflation that comes with it that could, again, prompt someone like Bernanke then to say, you know what, we have got to do something about interest rates, we have to raise them from zero which they basically are at now, pump them up again to try to hold inflation in place. And that's going to anger a lot of people who are, I think, not Ben Bernanke fans, people on Main Street in this country who feel that he has done a lot for the banks, he has done a lot for Wall Street. Wall Street was rejoicing today. They like Ben Bernanke. He is one of the guys. He is one of the guys who arguably got us in this mess.

BAIER: So do you think that anybody in the White House believes that these numbers are unsustainable over the long term? I'm asking Juan. I guess, from the White House perspective...

WILLIAMS: I think that they believe that - they're still in this mode when I hear from them, they're in the mode that says, look, we got wars under President Bush. We had prescription - Medicaid prescription benefits under Bush that drove up the deficit. We've got tax cuts under Bush that drove up the deficit.

And all of that has contributed to this, and we are now trying to put the brakes on a recession. We had to spend this money.

STEVE HAYES, SENIOR WRITER, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Please, at a certain point they're going to have to stop pointing to everything and blaming George W. Bush. It is sort of laughable at this point, I think.

I think one of the ironies given what Juan just said is that in a sense, the re-upping of Ben Bernanke actually means that Obama owns this even more. He owns the bailouts in a way that he didn't necessarily before. He owns the recovery, both the stimulus side, which he was going to own no matter what, and the monetary side, which he wasn't necessarily going to own.

I think in a sense it makes Republican' arguments about the economy a little bit more complicated, because I think Republicans, even those who were skeptical of bailouts, were saying, look, the stimulus isn't the reason that we have had some recovery. It really was the Fed. It really was this injection of cash into the economy.

And now, by doing that, they will sort of by bank shot at least be giving President Obama some credit.

BAIER: Jeff, the White House came out earlier in the year, and Christina Romer among others had a pretty rosy projection of what the gross domestic product would look like over the upcoming quarters. Now they are saying the economy will contract by 2.8 percent this year. That's more than twice what they predicted.

BIRNBAUM: No. And so I guess we should be skeptical about these projections in general.

But they were wrong on the wrong side. Clearly, the economy, and they now admit it, is a lot worse, and so we should expect that they're seeing the future in with through rose-colored glasses, and that's a problem.

In other words, what we now see as gigantic, unmanageable deficits, and by the way, Juan, the White House agrees that they're unmanageable. They're trying to reel it back every chance they get, we should expect that those numbers actually will be worse, because the economy is probably not going to rev up enough to pull back those deficits very much.

So we should expect that the president will talk a lot about deficit reduction. The question is can he actually do anything about it? Can he come up with more than just superficial ways of reducing spending?

BAIER: OK, coming up, we'll discuss whether the just-released CIA documents vindicate former Vice President Dick Cheney's support for enhanced terrorist interrogation techniques. We'll be back after the break.

The public reports and the public just fictions for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question, which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?

And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?

BAIER: Well, the documents the president was talking about back in April were the documents requested by former Vice President Dick Cheney. Those, at least two of them, were released on Monday.

Vice President Cheney released a statement saying those documents released Monday "clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about Al Qaeda, which prevented terrorist attacks."

He said that "The president's decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."

What about the Cheney documents? We're back with the panel. Steve, we'll start with you. We learned tonight that there is at least one more document that has not been released in this series.

HAYES: Right. There is a - the document that was released yesterday that describes pivotal information gained from detainees as a result of interrogations is actually dated June 3. The one that Cheney requested was dated June 1st. There is, I'm told by an intelligence source, more information in the June 1st one.

We don't know whether that happened by accident or whether it was a withholding of information taking place here. But to the broader point, and to president Obama's point, I think the president was simply misrepresenting what is in the report, not only in the Cheney documents, but in the inspector general report itself, which was supposed to be for the left.

"The Big Kahuna," Rachel Maddow described it on her show as "The Big Kahuna," the inspector general report. This was going to vindicate the left on this issue. And it did precisely the opposite. I think you can draw direct lines from the enhanced interrogation techniques used to the information that they provided.

And forgive me, indulge me for reading one of these about Al Nashiri, who was the plotter of the USS Cole attack, "Following the use of EITs techniques, he provided information about his most current operational planning as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of the IETs." It doesn't get clearer to that.

So we can debate the morality, we can debate whether this was torture. We can't debate any longer about whether this was effective.

WILLIAMS: No. It seems to me President Obama had it exactly right when he said, listen, it doesn't come to the core question, Steve. The core question is could we have gotten this information in any other way?

Yes, under the enhanced interrogation techniques, better called torture, we got some information apparently that was viable and might have led to the prevention of future terrorist attacks, which is all to the good for America's security.

But the question is, was that the only way to do it? Could it be that these people were reacting to the fact of how long they have been held? Could we have done it in another way that could have been in comportment with our values as Americans, with our ideals as Americans? Could we have done it in a way that wouldn't have damaged our reputation?

You know, I had a friend write me and said "Yes, damage our reputation with a bunch of terrorists." But, no, it also damaged our reputation with, it seems to me, as much of the world that began to look at us in a negative height and did not support us in terms of sending troops to Iraq and now to Afghanistan.

BAIER: Juan, did you read the sections in these documents that said these suspects or suspected terrorists were unresponsive initially, and then became very forthcoming after these techniques were used, how do you interpret that?

WILLIAMS: There is no way to interpret but that in some cases the use of torture benefited U.S. intelligence, that in some cases it had the desired impact.

As I say, there are larger questions about whether or not we could have gotten this information otherwise. And now with this new organization that Vice President Cheney again, said that is an affront to the CIA, but the one that President Obama has put in place that will allow for other techniques to be explored.

You have people in the White House, national security, FBI, and CIA involved. It seems to me you will have the opportunity to find the very best techniques that do not require you to, you know, be pulling out people's fingernails.

BIRNBAUM: I think that the inspector general did fuzz up this issue enough so it will continue to be debated, though I do agree that it's quite clear that there is a connection between the enhanced interrogation techniques and the vital information that stopped anthrax attacks, bombers across the world, and even a possible attack on the Brooklyn Bridge, among other things.

I think that Cheney really does have a win, finally, here, that the CIA was able to get a lot of information using techniques that are now criticized that saved possibly millions of lives.

BAIER: This is not the end of this one. That's it for this panel, but stay tuned. President Obama is now apparently losing more support from a one-time very chose ally.

If you think the stock market rally is an indicator of good news, the past 6-month rally is only bested by one in 1933.

I recall one week-long period of time when Cindy Sheehan and a very small band of supporters demonstrated against President Bush in Crawford, Texas, and she got tons of media attention. Sometimes it led the news, and little or no coverage was given to counter-demonstrators who often outnumbered her. She’s back, but I doubt you have heard much about her in the news:

Tom Daschle seemingly dropped out from the Obama administration, when it turned out that he did not pay his taxes...however, he really did not (this is an interview done by Greta Van Susteren).

You may recall that Dan Rather presented evidence, which turned out to be false, that George Bush was, in essence, a draft-dodger. Part of the information, which Rather’s producer, Mary Mapes, had at the time was that W had volunteered to go to Vietnam. Bernie Goldberg has unearthed this essentially ignored fact of this program and the separation of Rather from CBS.

[Rush makes the argument that Obama is purposely destroying the U.S. economy; I don’ know if I am quite there yet]

RUSH: "The gross domestic product, the US economy declined 1% in the second quarter, better than expected." Well, let me tell you something, folks. I am Rush Limbaugh. I am EIB, always performing better than expected. There are never any unexpected lows or highs here. We only have the highest expectations of ourselves, and you do, too, and we meet and surpass those expectations each and every day on this program and therefore always performing better than expected. Rush Limbaugh, household name in all four corners of the world. So state-controlled Associated Press: "The gross domestic product declines 1% in the second quarter, better than expected." The bottom line is the economy is still shrinking! It's contracting. There's negative growth. One percent, big whoop, we're supposed to feel happy about this? The only thing that would make me happy about this is if I saw a story that said the government shrunk by 1%. Then we'd be making progress.

Now, did you see the new CBO projection on jobs for next year? "Two-point-three million more people will be unemployed next year than expected, according to the CBO." In other words, the projection of unemployment next year has now been upgraded 2.3 million more jobs, more people will lose their jobs next year, according to the CBO. Now, these unemployment numbers, folks, they are an indictment, and the State-Controlled Media will want to stay on the Kennedy situation here until these numbers are forgotten. In this scenario here the CBO is the prosecutor. These new unemployment projections ought to serve as an indictment on this administration. This is stunning information. To those people, how is that hope and change working for you out there, to all of you who trusted Obama to help the economy. I mean this is a bombshell story. And we're not even getting this story. What we're getting here is the gross domestic product declined 1% in the second quarter, whoa, whoa, what great news. The economy shrinking slower than it was. But it's not a bombshell story to those of us who warned you about Obama's objectives, but it is a bombshell to millions of Americans who voted for what turns out to be the fictional candidate, Barack Obama.

Obama got ten million more votes than McCain. I'd like to believe that none of the millions of people laid off during Obama's time in office will vote for him again. If that happens, a conservative will be elected in 2012 and we can work to fix what Obama has broken. By the way, Victor Davis Hanson yesterday at National Review Online addressed something that I have been addressing, he answered it, something that I have been asking. You look at the performance of the economy, and you look at Obama's ability to deal with it, stimulus was supposed to grow the economy, grow jobs, not doing any of that. Health care supposed to improve health care. It's not going to do any of that. None of these programs, not one of them, not one Obama initiative is working as intended. But yet it is, from his standpoint. He's getting a bunch of chaos, he's getting a bunch of angst, which helps him set up the government as the great savior, but Victor Davis Hanson points out with these out of control deficits, and we got the numbers in the last two days, $9 trillion deficit over the next ten years according to Obama, $7 trillion deficit over the next ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office. There have been some people who have looked at it and added the numbers up and think it's going to be $14.1 trillion.

Victor Davis Hanson says -- I'm going to paraphrase what he wrote -- very simple, the only way, quote, unquote, only way to deal with this is a massive restructuring of the tax code. The whole purpose of this, according to Victor Davis Hanson, is to raise taxes substantially on everybody, but primarily the wealthy. This is all about returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners. This is on purpose. This is wrecking the US economy for the express purpose of remaking America and getting rid of the wealthy. Everybody is going to end up being equal. It is obscene what is happening. I said this on Glenn Beck's show on television yesterday. I've been saying it here behind my own golden EIB microphone. All of this is purposeful, this wrecking of the economy, the job losses, all of it. This health care, he doesn't care about the specifics of health care. All he wants is something that's going to break the bank. Well, he likes the aspect of being able to control everybody's life with it, but the end result here is the giant redistribution. He is a redistributionist, and this is his way of getting there.

You get to the point where the only way we can deal with this, everybody is going to say the consensus is to raise taxes. Now, we all know that lowering taxes would be the correct way to generate more revenue. Revenue is not keeping up at all because taxes are low, people are losing their jobs, and it just breaks my heart, folks. To sit here and watch this, to watch the purposeful destruction of the free enterprise system, to watch the purposeful destruction of American capitalism, that's what we're watching right before our very eyes, and we're lionizing a guy who had a fundamental role in it all of his legislative career, and that's Senator Kennedy.

RUSH: Dave in Dallas as we head back to the phones, great to have you. I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.

CALLER: Yes. Pleasure to talk to one of our modern framers. My name is Dave from London. I grew up in socialist England under government health. I've lived in Dallas for 17 years. My question is, are beer and cigarettes more important than health insurance? If you take the uninsured, the people that can't afford health insurance, do they spend $200 a month on beer, cigarettes, cable TV, cell phones? I would say yes, the majority probably do. So they've already voted with their wallets that beer and cigarettes are more important than health insurance.

RUSH: Yeah, you know, this comes up a lot on the program. I don't know if you were listening yesterday, but we had a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, a liberal mind-numbed robot by the name of Christine call here.

RUSH: Okay. Well, Christine typifies the entitlement mentality that you know so well from Great Britain. Christine, it wouldn't have even occurred to her to drop cable TV or, I don't know if she smokes or drinks, but to drop other discretionary spending, it would never occur to her because health care is a right that government is going to pay for. And that's where a lot of people are with this. But more and more people in this country when they hear attitudes like that say, "Screw you," just like what you're saying. "Drop the beer and cable TV and pay for it yourself."

CALLER: I could add something else. If you go to England today you'll pay $8 a gallon for gasoline, your rent will be double what it is in America, the food costs will be much more, the basic living costs under socialism will cost more than the cost of health insurance. So capitalism equals lower cost, better quality of goods and services. There is no better place in the world than America where the average man, the poor man has got so much, whereas in the socialist countries, yeah, maybe you get free health care, but the health care is half as good as it is in America, and that's for everybody, but everything else is going to cost you more so you're going to be worse off, you're gonna get worse health care than the emergency room health care, and you're going to be paying more for basic living costs, so you're going to be worse off than you are today under Obama and socialism.

RUSH: Well, more and more Americans are understanding. And it's not socialism. It's actually fascism and I think we need to be precise about this. Socialism, technically, is when the government owns the means of production. And they don't yet. I mean they own a couple car companies and they're mucking that up. But fascism is where the private sector still owns businesses but the government runs it. The government, in one way or another is either in bed with the CEO or the management team or they rule by dictate and fiat. And fascism is a more apt illustration of what Obama's establishing and setting up here. But they both are horrible.

RUSH: Back to the phones to Fayetteville, North Carolina. This is Michael. Nice to have you with us, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's an honor to talk to you. Hey, I'm a soldier about ready to go to Afghanistan again and as someone who's fought in Iraq and Afghanistan I'd like to say that it's a complete slap in the face to see any Democrat take any kind of credit for any progress we've made in Iraq.

CALLER: Well, I mean you've heard President Obama, he gets up there and talks about the great progress we made and, you know, I've heard him say it before, so --

CALLER: And what I wanted to ask you about, though, was I'm originally from Nebraska, and there's farmers in our family, and he wants to pay for this health care by taxing people over $250,000 a year. Well, many of these people are farmers. They've already tried to tax them out of the field with cap and trade. Are they going to tax them out of the field and lead to a world food crisis with health care reform?

RUSH: They are going to tax everybody through the roof. It is going to be focused on people that are wealthy because that's who they can tax. That's really the point of all this. When you look at the stimulus plan -- see, this doesn't make any sense, this is not working, it's not going to work, it's not intended to work the way we all were told it was gonna work. Health care is not going to get better. It's gonna get worse. It's gonna get rationed. The economy, the energy sector, nothing is being improved here. Everything's being wrecked. The whole private sector is being dismantled in front of our eyes on purpose. While people are watching this happen, they're told, "Well, yeah, we're going to rebuild the economy in a stronger way where it will never, ever happen again. It's going to be tough sledding for a while but it will never, ever happen." Just today the CBO says, guess what, 2.3 million additional unexpected jobs will be lost next year. That's going to push us over 10% unemployment. Now, this is absurd.

The only explanation for this is to rack up so outrageous an annual deficit for so many years that they only solution is a massive tax increase. I was right about this from the get-go, Barack Obama's primary objective is to return the nation's wealth to it's rightful owners. This guy comes, if you look at some of his czars, for example, this Mark Lloyd guy, the diversity czar at the FCC, this is one angry son of a gun. I've heard him speak, I've read what he's written, this is one angry guy, angry at this country. And a lot of Obama's support people are angry, don't like this country, from Bill Ayers to Jeremiah Wright on down. They think this country was founded in an unjust and immoral way and it has been unjust and immoral since it was founded. And it's about time it changed, it's about time the little guy got his share because the little guy is only little because everything's been stolen from him by the big guys. And so that's where this is all leading. Yeah, farmers are going to get taxed, everybody's going to get taxed. Everybody's going to get taxed if there's no brake put on this, if the guy is not stopped.

RUSH: Muskegon, Michigan, this is Bruce. You are first. That carries pretty high responsibility to get things off on the right foot. How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing fine. Thank you, Rush, for taking my call. I'll get right to my point. I was listening to you and Glenn Beck yesterday talk about this Mark Lloyd, this new "chief diversity officer," and this is scary. I can't believe what I was hearing. You know, he's advocating charging $250 million to these radio stations if they don't comply with government programming. What gives him the authority or the right to define how a radio station should be broadcasting its broadcast?

RUSH: Well, he's the diversity officer at the FCC. He comes from John Podesta's think tank, The Center for American Progress. He's the guy that wrote that report saying that there's a terrible imbalance between liberals and conservatives on talk radio and it's simply not fair. What he's trying to do is... The Fairness Doctrine is not something that the Obama administration can implement because the time has passed, for one thing. The second reason they can't do it it's too obvious what they're going to try and do is an end run I don't think they're going to get away with it but I know they're going to try it. Now, this diversity czar it's called "localism."

The way they're going to try to get rid of conservative talk radio is with localism, and what they want is to divest ownership and have more minorities own radio stations. I mean, folks, there is a civil rights component to virtually everything Obama's doing, and the civil rights component is angry. This guy is an avowed Marxist socialist. This guy praises Hugo Chavez's takeover of the media in Venezuela. And his plan is to set out rules, content rules for diversity and fairness on the air -- and if a radio station fails to meet those rules, they must pay a fine of 100% of their operating budget that year. Well, that puts you out of business. If you have to pay a fine equal to 100% of your operating budget it puts you out of business. The only way to avoid paying the fine is to get rid of conservatives on the radio and hire locals and satisfy this diversity czar.

And, by the way, the fine money would then go to The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, go to NPR. Because they are adjudged to be fair because they are public radio. This guy has been very open and honest about what he wants to do. He's written a book, he's written articles about it and he's made speeches about it. He's Jeremiah Wright. I mean, this guy is an angry, black liberation theology guy. He's just filled with hate and rage, just like so many of these people in the Obama administration are. That's the plan. Now, I told Beck yesterday that I don't think they're gonna get away with it. The American people are not going to put up with it just like they're not putting up with health care. It doesn't mean they can't try it and it doesn't mean that the broadcasters won't be scared to death because it's Obama who holds the broadcast license in his hands now with these clowns running the FCC for him.

Mark Lloyd has already laid out a plan to deal with conservative talk radio in writing:

RUSH: Two articles on Drudge today that if they were forwarded to every e-mail address in the country would put an end to Obamacare. I've already touched on one of them today, but reading these two stories pretty much explains why Americans are attending town hall meetings in droves fully armed with information. We are not simply going to turn every detail of our lives over to bureaucrats! And the left has the audacity to say that they are the champions of privacy. That was the trump card in their arguments against the Patriot Act; that's their trump card for arguments for abortion. It was all about privacy. Well, when it comes to the details of every square inch of our glorious naked bodies, those days are over under this administration. Our tax information and medical treatment details will become Obama's bedtime reading.

How does telling Obama the results of my latest physical and what tax deductions I took on my tax return going to advance health care? But we're going to have to do that. First both the stimulus bill and the non-Kennedy care would make medical histories and tax records damn near public information. Under Obamacare, the details of your life would be shared like a joint and a hooker in the Democrat caucus. It's just amazing. Hee, hee. You like that one? Well, this is what it would be. The details of your life are going to be shared like a joint and a hooker at a Democrat caucus at the Democrat convention. "Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and 'other information as is prescribed by' regulation.

"That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner," the guy that heads up the death panel, "and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for 'affordability credits.' Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner" or the death panel guy. "The purpose, again, is to verify 'affordability credits.' Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a 'low-income prescription drug subsidy' but has not applied for it. ... A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the 'utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014,' but included only limited privacy protections."

This story is, again, from CBS News. So your tax return information is available to anybody in the government for any reason relating to health care at any time they want it. The second article comes from the UK. It explains how single-payer, universal, nationalized health care in Great Britain produces Nurse Ratcheds to care for their patients.

"In the last six years, the Patients Association claims hundreds of thousands have suffered from poor standards of nursing, often with 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment. The charity has disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff." Now, all of this has nothing to do with health care. It has to do with seizing liberties and controlling our lives. Seriously, does anybody have any questions at this point? We all know what the endgame here is. The question is: How many people want to live in this kind of a country and how many don't?

How many people want their tax returns available and their medical records available to anybody in government for any reason at all, primarily to determine whether or not you qualify for care? And there seems to be a horror story or two every week coming out of Great Britain about their National Health Service. Yesterday it was 4,000 women giving birth in hallways, latrines, elevators, and so forth in hospitals because there is a shortage of beds. Four thousand women! Now, the problem here is that once you get the "public option," you have nowhere else to go. There isn't going to be any competition, and you're just going to become a budget item. Every human being. And that's why these people showing up at town halls don't want any part of this.

RUSH: Betsy McCaughey, who is one of the people doing yeoman work deciphering the contents, the details of every Democrat health care plan that's proposed starting with Hillarycare, has another piece today in the Wall Street Journal entitled, "'Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief -- White House Health-Care Adviser Ezekiel Emanuel,'" brother of Rahm Emanuel, "'Blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'Overuse' of Medical Care' -- Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician's duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient's needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree. The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel.

"They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative. Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): 'Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.'

"True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care: 'Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,' he writes. 'This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.' In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. ... Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained 'to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.' One sign of progress he sees: 'the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.'"

Here is your death panel head honcho! He's Obama's lead advisor. I don't want anybody to ever call here again and tell me there aren't death panels. We've got a guy who says the problem with health care is the Hippocratic oath, and that doctors need to be retrained. They need to rethink end-of-life treatment and what's better for society at large rather than what's better for the individual patient. "'In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations,' he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line. 'You can't avoid these questions,' Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview.

"'We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions.'" So what happened? Did we get more machines because the market demanded it? "Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: 'Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity -- those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.' ...

"In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a 'complete lives system' for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. 'One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. ... Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one. 'However, other things are rarely equal -- whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each -- is unclear.'" Unclear? They're thinking about it! It's perfectly clear what their thinking is on this, and this is the guy that's the number one health care adviser to Obama.

And they can sit out there and deny death panels all they want, but his number one adviser is saying: We treat too many people and we gotta change the focus. "Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: 'Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. ... Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.' The youngest are also put at the back of the line: 'Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life." Do you understand? We are robots! He is looking at individual Americans, "Okay, how much has the government invested in them? How much has the government invested in educating them?"

Not their parents, not your family. How much has Washington, how much has the government invested if getting you born, in providing for you after you were born, in educating you? And if the government's invested a lot in you they have a reasonable expectation of a return on the investment so you might get health care, if you're young. If you're old, forget it. That's why people are showing up at the town hall meetings because people know all of this. "Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. 'The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind,' he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style.

"'Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda,' he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. 'If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort.'" This is what he's advocating: This miniature version of fascism. This is the man who's the number one adviser to Obama on health care, the brother of the chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Make no mistake where this is headed. Make no mistake. Obama's got cover. He's got all these other lackeys out saying these things while he's on stage claiming, "No, no, no, there's not going to be death panels! It's outrageous. I can't believe people are misquoting me, misinformation, the lying, and all of these targets my plan that are being lied about," and they're not being lied about, and this is not what the American people want. Go ahead, put Ted Kennedy's name on this bill and make this the most hypocritical decision you've ever made.

RUSH: Back to the phones we go to Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Hi Vickie, great to have you with us today.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I'm just angry. I love talking to you. But let's say they do it, they force it through against the will of the American people, which is shown overwhelmingly in every poll in the country. They do it anyway. I understand that they can and probably will most likely be voted out when they come up for election, virtually every one of them, I believe. And conservatives will be sent in in their place with an overwhelming mandate to get rid of it, get rid of government-run health care. However, in the meantime there are people in this country, people with courage, anger, and a brain who will not partake, who will not cooperate. Just like there are people who will not answer the questions in the census. There are doctors and patients who will not do what they're supposed to do. What will the government do about these millions of people?

RUSH: Now, that is an interesting question. The first thing to stipulate here is that if the bill passes, if it passes as it's planned now, it will be four years before it's implemented. And this is one of the reasons we ask, "What the hell is the hurry here? The thing doesn't get implemented until 2013, what's the big deal?" They wanted to get it implemented before all this rotten economic news and debt and deficit news hit. That is an interesting proposition. There will be a number of people who will just refuse to play, and they will become targets of the government. Now, with the empowerment of the IRS on here, you remember the IRS, if you don't play, you are going to pay. They are going to fine you, they're going to charge you as much as $2,500 to $8,000 a year taxes. The IRS is already an agency that is in existence that has a lot of people intimidated. I mean people do not want to get audited, people will pay their taxes, they're scared to death of the IRS, government's successfully built up this fear of the IRS over the years and that's why the IRS is the number one enforcer here because they've already got --

CALLER: Except, except that there are people with courage and anger enough to say, "Screw you, I don't do it, put me in jail," and they put, what, thousands and thousands of people in jail? What are they going to do? Have them all fired? What can they do? I don't have enough money to pay them anything.

RUSH: Wait a second. Wait a second. If this bill passes, I'm glad you asked the question. They're going to have access to your bank account.

RUSH: They're going to have digital online access to your bank account. I mean there are hideous things in this piece of legislation.

RUSH: They order every bank to turn over every account number to the IRS and they're going to be able to go in and if you don't pay they're going to debit your account for you.

CALLER: So you don't have any money, what do you do? There are people like my son who is 30 years old, he's professional, he's working, he's upper middle class --

RUSH: They will garnish your wages. What does the IRS do now when you're in arrears?

CALLER: Yeah, but if you're working for yourself, and you don't pay, what are they going to do, put thousands of people in jail?

RUSH: No, they're going to fine you. They're going to make sure that you pay. Even if you can't pay they're going to get their money and you're going to be in debt.

RUSH: No. They're going to take money that you don't have and put you in debt. Put a lean on your house or any number of things they can do, put a lean on your house, they can take away a car, whatever.

CALLER: But seriously, Rush, are you seriously saying that all of the people that have gone to these town hall meetings who are angry enough --

CALLER: They will all have their cars taken away; they will all have their jobs taken away; they will all be in debt?

RUSH: No. I'm saying that if that effort is made you're going to have even more angry people and you might end up with a revolution.

RUSH: All right. See, I just had to string you along to a commercial break here.

RUSH: My friends, don't doubt me on this bank business. Remember, the Obama administration succeeded in destroying Swiss banking. United Bank of Scotland gave up all those names of private accounts held by Americans so that Obama can collect their taxes, see if they're evading taxes. Now, they own all the banks, anyway, for crying out loud. How many banks does Obama own? Now, something else. You know, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's plan is already being carried out. The UAW. United Auto Workers wanted their retirement pension fund bailed out to the tune of $10 billion, and they got it. It's hidden in the health care reform bill, and they got it in exchange for supporting Obama's health care plan. "The UAW was among a number of unions to meet with Obama at the White House on July 13th --" this is in the Detroit News, by the way "-- to discuss health care reform and other issues. UAW legislative director Alan Reuther said last week the UAW had already taken an active role in pushing for health care reform."

So Ezekiel Emanuel's plan, "You want to be treated favorably, then you gotta support our plan." The UAW, no-brainer here, I mean they're Obama supporters, but what they got out of it is a $10 billion bailout, essentially, of their pension fund, which is in trouble. The story is three days ago. "The United Auto Workers is urging its members to back efforts in Congress to reform health care coverage, citing a provision that includes $10 billion to defray the medical costs of union members and others in retiree group health care associations." So they pledge their support for Obamacare, and bammo, they get a provision in the bill. And this is how Obama's doing it with Big Pharma and a number of others. It's got even some of the liberals out there a little bit in a tizzy because they hate corporations.

RUSH: From Colorado.com: Representative Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins, Colorado, yesterday that "Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system." That's exactly right, Representative Betsy Markey told a gathering of her constituents in Fort Collins, Colorado, she's a lib, that some people, including Medicare recipients, are going to have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health care system. Now, the last living Kennedy brother, Barack Obama, says no, that's not true. Obama is saying we're going to cut waste and fraud in Medicare; nobody is going to suffer any benefit cuts. But here are his Democrats running around, "Oh, yeah, you're going to get some, there are going to be some." Of course there have to be! There have to be. Folks, Medicare doesn't have any money; Social Security doesn't have any money; everything the Democrats have given us is bankrupt, including the country.

CALLER: Thank you. Good afternoon. First-time caller. I'm a group health insurance broker, Rush, and what we are experiencing right now, obviously, besides the fight of our absolute lives we are experiencing out of 111 groups that my small agency services, we're finding that more and more of them are calling or, as we speak to them, they're understanding and appreciating their type of health coverage much better than they did just say 12 months ago. And I really credit this to the fact of these town hall meetings that some of them have said they have attended. My father, who is also my partner, has attended. I have not been able to 'cause I do spend a good portion of my time on the road. But this has been, I'm sorry to say, this has been good for our business at this point. Now, obviously should a single payer, a universal health care system go into play --

CALLER: Yes, sir, you're right, and, you know, I'm a sole provider in my family with an autistic child, and my health insurance, though I sell the company in which I have my insurance through, doesn't provide for my son, because of state law, you know --

CALLER: Well, now, it covers it but because my group is not 50 or more, my insurer is not required.

RUSH: No, no, I understand that. No, your point is that a year ago people thought their health care sucked, that their insurance was a rip-off, and now they see what's going to be done, "Oh, no, no, we like it." They're telling you, "No, no, don't touch it, we like it."

CALLER: Out of 111 groups, Mr. Limbaugh, we have one out of 111, one is opening for this universal health care. Now, I suspect that --

CALLER: The average age, knowing the group leader, group leader is probably about my age, which is 38.

CALLER: Well, you know, in case he's listening to you, which I would truthfully doubt, I would have -- yes, sir. Yes, sir.

RUSH: Granted. That's why you know he's not listening, he's a brain dead liberal. But I will bet you, I will bet you you'll be surprised. If he's not listening he'll hear about it because you obviously have a lot of friends and you have a lot of associates, you got 111 groups out there that you insure.

RUSH: And there's some 38-year-old numskull out there in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, somebody will know who he is.

CALLER: (laughing) Well, yeah, but out of 111 groups he's the only one that has expressed interest in wanting that. I've had conversations with him, and it came to a point I was beating my head up against a well, I can't discuss this with him. He doesn't hear me, he doesn't listen. And so, you know, if I lose one group out of that we'll continue, but, you know, Ms. Pelosi --

CALLER: -- has her way and the president, we're already making strategy changes here to go to a property casualty. I'm opening up a property and casualty side on it as well.

CALLER: (laughing) I am not leaving. I am staying here and will fight the fight.

CALLER: I love our country, we have a great country, I have a great state, and I'm proud of my city, and I don't like the naysayers but you know they're out there.

RUSH: If he doesn't hear it himself he'll hear about it. Did you know that Rush Limbaugh was talking about you? "Why, what did I do?" You're a numskull on national health care, that's why. The whole country knows it. They just don't know your name.

RUSH: By the way, leave our penises alone, too! This is getting out of hand. There is a story that some officials in the Obama administration are pushing for circumcision for all boys born in the USA to fight HIV/AIDS. Not that I'm against circumcision, but it's a family's decision. Leave our penises alone, too, Obama! You know who's going to be really upset about this news? NOCIRC, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers. They're a San Francisco group, and they want to eliminate circumcision. So here's Obama out there saying we have to have circumcision of every young boy born in the country. This is not going to please the NOCIRC people at all.

Ted Kennedy tried to go behind Reagan’s back in writing to Comrade Y.V. Andropov during the cold war (full text of his letter):

Some surprising honesty; Democratic Congresswoman admits that Obama-care will mean that some medicare patients will see reduced health care for themselves:

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 #90	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	August 30, 2009