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.

Government issues what amounts to a gag order against Humana for sending out information to its customers which was critical of Obama-care.

Democrats defeat a bill which was designed to restore water to the parched California farmers in central California. California Senator Diane Feinstein votes against this bill, invoking Pearl Harbor in her explanation as to why she was voting against it.

Senate health care bill allows jail time for recalcitrants who do not purchase government-approved insurance.

Iran test-fires short-range missiles as its elite Revolutionary Guards began war games.

There is a leaked memo from General McChrystal asking for 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. The rumor is, he has been told to hold onto this memo for another 3–4 weeks before formally submitting it to President Obama. In this memo, McChrystal warns that, without these additional troops, defeat is likely. Troop levels in Afghanistan have roughly doubled since Obama has taken office.

Federal authorities arrested a 19-year-old Jordanian citizen whom they said placed an inactive car bomb today at Fountain Place, a 60-story skyscraper in downtown Dallas.

Michael Finton, also known as Talib Islam, was arrested in Springfield, Illinois, and charged with attempted murder of federal officers or employees and trying to use a weapon of mass destruction, charges that carry a life sentence.

Two men charged in North Carolina last month with plotting terrorist attacks overseas also planned to attack the U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, authorities said on Thursday.

Twice in the past two days, SEPTA officials have alerted police to men taking pictures on the Broad Street subway line in South Philadelphia.

It has come to light that ACORN owns $50 million worth of real estate in NYC alone.

Yosi Sergant submitted his resignation from the National Endowment for the Arts (if you don’t know who he is, then you have not been reading this review very carefully).

Although Obama has taken credit in the UN for promising to shut down Gitmo, the White House also admitted this week that they would not be able to close down Gitmo within the self-imposed year time limit.

“It would only be fair to recognize that no other United States president would have had the courage to say what he [Obama] said,” praised Fidel Castro.

“We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as president of the United States" praised Libyan leader Khadafy.

“I just can’t take it anymore,” said Khadafy’s translator, about 45 minutes into his speech.

Chavez at the UN podium: “[It] Doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore. It doesn't smell of sulfur. It's gone. No, it smells of something else. It smells of hope.”

Rush Limbaugh: “It is a genuine freak show. It's the Star Wars bar scene, except that it's real and it's at the United Nations. “

Caller to the Rush Limbaugh show: “if Barack Obama were the leader or prime minister of any other country, our own delegation would have got up and walked out on his speech.”

Obama on the urgency of climate change: “Many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it - boldly, swiftly, and together - we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.

On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples - our prosperity, our health, and our safety - are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. And yet, we can reverse it.”

Along the same lines, President Obama also said this week, “Carbon emissions from cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps and imperiling the planet.”

Lindsay Graham, promising to stick by Obama to support him in the Afghanistan war effort: “I will be one Republican standing by this president and we will not to do him what they did to Bush. This is not Obama’s war in Afghanistan; this is America’s war. There is a way to win it, according to our generals on the ground.”

SE Cupp on health care reform: “The right is trying to lead and he [Obama] is trying to sell.”

John McCain on President Jimmy Carter: "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people and for them to exercise their God-given right to disagree with this administration. It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as if not the worst president in history, the worst president of the 20th Century."

Jim Traficant (former Democratic Representative, just out of jail): "I want to get the IRS, kick them in the crotch real good....I want to reform the Justice Department who investigates themselves when they commit crimes as they did in my case. It is going to explode before it is over...They have to throw the tax code out, abolish the Sixteenth Amendment and come out with a 25 percent fair tax retail sales tax," he continued. "We can give billions of billions of dollars to banks who won't lend it to people unless they have three dollars in the bank for every one dollar we borrow. I'm tired of seeing this money going all over the world."

Iran reveals a new uranium enriching site. After the UN talks, Iran begins to test short range missiles possibly capable of reaching Israel. It elite force, the revolutionary guard, is also involved in war games now.

It is pretty simple: Chavez and Ahmadinejad both fully understand that the U.S. has a president who wants to engage them in talks, so they have a little more than 3 years to move ahead militarily almost unabated.

Very young children in a public school chanting praises to our president (my understanding is, Nora O’Donnel said, “Well, he is the president”):

The Story of Stuff, a “documentary” put out by the TIDES foundation which is filled with distortion and false information (much like Al Gore’s film) and is played in most schools (it is 21 minutes long).

You know about Jay Walking and Jay Leno being able to find people who do not know much about anything; so Steve Crowder goes to UC Berkeley and asks them a few questions (admittedly more difficult than the questions asked by Jay):

Senator Diane Feinstein explains, in about a minute, why she voted against a bill to provide water for Californian farmers:

1) In addressing the United Nations, President Obama reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of the United States as opposed to other nations. The United States, whether addressing a disaster here at home or a disaster in another country—enemy or friend—is the first and foremost nation to dispatch aide and comfort. Individuals send money they have worked hard for; private organizations arrange to help those in need; and our government often dispatches troops and supplies as well. President Obama is very good at seeing what is wrong in the world but he does not seem to understand that there is a world leader in the realm of compassion and order, and that is the United States. It is a part of our essence; it is ingrained in our national fabric. President Obama will come and go, but the greatness and true compassion of the American people will live on.

2) Did I hear that news report correctly? Did the United States grow economically in 2006, and yet, simultaneously, cut our production of greenhouse gases? If this is the case, why is this not be shouted to the rooftops? Why is this not being touted as the solution to global warming?

3) As as observed on a Fox Panel: if the UN cannot control the length of Libyan leader Gaddafi’s speech (he was given 15 minutes; he spoke for 96), how can we depend upon the UN to enforce anything?

4) Where Is Attorney General Eric Holder when it comes to the investigation of ACORN and the NEA? Does he only go after people and groups with whom he disagrees?

6) ACORN happened to be behind in their taxes $800,000. Coincidentally enough, the Obama campaign contributed $800,000 to ACORN.

7) It is good to remind liberals that George Bush sought to both reform the secondary mortgage market (FNMA and FHLMC), which sent our economy into an economic spiral; and he tried to reform social security as well.

8) Natalie Arceneaux of the Civil Right said today (and I have been unable to confirm this), that the United States has committed $2 trillion toward the IMF (the International Money Fund). She also said that Obama has issued a blanket pardon to those associated with the production of the H1N1 flu vaccination.

9) As many have pointed out, President Obama had a Communist for a father figure; he said himself that in college, he intentionally gravitated toward the more radical teachers and circles of acquaintances; and he attended a church for 20 years which teaches Black Liberation Theology (which has its roots in Liberation theology, which is Communism made palatable for Catholics). Given these facts, the way that Obama would like to fundamentally transform America should not be a difficult thing to understand now.

10) An observation made by many: although Obama has repeatedly said that no nation ought to exert sovereignty over another, and that no nation ought to interfere with another nation’s business, the glaring exception to this is, Obama feels as if he has a right to tell Israeli citizens where they can and cannot build homes and supermarkets.

11) At what point do thinking-Democrats recognize that many of America’s enemies are (1) praising Obama and then (2) simultaneously stepping up their weapons programs? Are some lifelong Democrats going to realize that there is a problem here?

$2.5 million in the Stimulus package for Libya; and specifically $200,000 to go to a foundation of his son and another $200,000 to a foundation of his daughter.

Did your news source tell you about the Obama praise and worship singing done in our public schools?

Did your news source tell you anything about Social Security going broke—next year?

Surely Saturday Night Live will have a ball with the crazies who spoke at the UN in this past week, and then they will have Obama talking about how these are the kind of men with whom he can dialogue without preconditions.

Of course, it would be easy to parody the Obama Stephanopoulos interview on what a tax is. George could go to the bill itself, and show the headline of the bill, a huge tax increase on the middle class; and Obama would reply, “Now, George, the fact that you had to go to the bill itself tells me that you don’t really know what a tax is. That at the top of the page—it’s just words; they don’t mean anything.”

[This is a new column describing what various politicians have done which have set into motion various events which force their opponents to act; I will also apply this to the media and include both intentional and inadvertent chess moves. The idea is, in chess, you are always thinking several moves in advance in order to anticipate your opponents moves so that you have a strategy already lined up to defeat them].

President Obama goes to speak on 5 different media outlets, but snubs FoxNews (more specifically, snubs Chris Wallace’s program, which plays both on the Fox station and later on FoxNews). I think Obama’s intention was threefold: (1) Avoid tough questions, and thus make his healthcare plan (which does not yet exist) seem more palatable; (2) Marginalize FoxNews, indicating that it is not, from his standpoint, an important news source; and (3) To attempt to reduce the FoxNews audience, at least for this one day. I think that Obama avoided tough questions (except from George Stephanopoulos); however, I don’t think that he was able to move the support for Obama-care in his direction (it will show a temporary bump in his favor). Obama may have reduced viewer ship to FoxNews for one day (I have not seen the numbers, but I suspect that is the case), but many people must have turned to FoxNews for analysis (something which they do not get anywhere else).

President Obama has made it known that New York Governor Paterson ought to drop out of the upcoming governor’s race. Here is the chess involved: if Paterson runs in the Democratic primary, President Obama is going to throw his support to the white guy instead. That is problematic. If Obama can go out there and support white guy for anything, this tells Blacks that they can support a white candidate over Obama in the next election. So Paterson needs to go, before the primary.

Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) votes for transparency with regards to the Health Care Bill. She voted in favor to post the entire bill online for 72 hours prior to a vote. She was the only Democrat to vote in this way. Instead, a summary of the bill will be posted.

George Stephanopoulos questions President Obama about additional taxes, which he had promises over and over, would not occur, even going to the dictionary in order to read the definition of taxes to the president. The president chided him, saying something along the lines of, “If you have to go to the dictionary, then you know you’re in trouble.” I assume that this means, the president gets to define all of the terms. If he calls it a tax, then it is a tax; if he says it is not a tax, then it is not a tax. Plain and simple.

"Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?" the host asked.

Obama responded: "No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Stephanopoulos then offered the dictionary definition.

"I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam-Webster's dictionary:'Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,'" he said.

Visibly taken aback, Obama rejected the notion it was a tax increase and said pulling the dictionary out was a sign the host was "stretching" a little.

"No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said."

Social Security is going broke this next year; Medicare and Medicaid are going broke in our lifetimes; what do you think about initiating reforms to save these institutions before passing a huge government health care bill?

If you believed one word that Obama said during his media blitz about health care.

Obama is going to offer up reduced expectations for Afghanistan, and then begin to operate accordingly.

A Wall Street Journal panel member predicted 6 months ago that Obama would not have the stones to stay with Afghanistan, if it became unpopular. I don’t know if I reported this earlier. In any case, Obama appears to be waffling now.

I am beginning to wonder if it is Diane Feinstein who has some kind of a plan for the central valley of California. Will her husband or some relative or associate of hers purchase this land purposely devastated by the deprivation of water; and turn it into a power producing center (which, as I have mentioned before, will require a lot of water).

So, will Obama relinquish some sovereignty of the United States to the U.N., or to the G20 or to the International Monetary Fund? Will the trade-out put him as boss of the world?

Stealing is when I take money out of your pocket to do whatever I want with it (which could include giving to the needy).

Democratic socialism is when I vote for the government to take money out of your pocket to do what I want with it.

Quite obviously, Democratic socialism is incremental, and we have some degree of it now. The argument before us is, do we want more?

Another commentator (I think Charles Krauthammer) suggested that this was the Obama approach to the issues. You simply imagine something which you would like to happen, and, somehow, it will happen. It might require some really smart thinking and hard work, but, in his mind, anything can be done.

The closing down of the Guantanamo Bay Prison. Last year, at the beginning of his presidency, President Obama promised to shut down Gitmo within one year. Club Gitmo, although it has been trashed by the foreign and local media, was an excellent idea. Enemy combatants are taken away from the battlefield and housed for an undetermined period of time (too short, in some cases). Such prisoners was treated far too well, fed far too much (they have actually gained weight at Club Gitmo, something unheard of in a prison camp); and they are kept separate from the American legal system (you cannot try someone picked up on the battlefield like you try a common criminal in the United States). This also allowed CIA interrogators to obtain important information from recalcitrant terrorists by using harsh interrogation methods.

Now, personally, I would have run things differently, and not allowed such great freedoms to these prisoners (their almost unlimited ability to worship Allah, for instance); but, Gitmo was a good idea.

President Obama ran against George Bush, castigating him for Gitmo, and promised to close Gitmo down, without every thinking this through. Now that Obama is president, he is finding out that closing down Girmo is not something a president can do, using some really smart thinking and hard work. Any other alternative ends up being worse than Gitmo...and Obama is finding this out.

Personally, I think Obama has assigned this to another person so that, when the end result is not a good result, Obama will be able to distance himself from it. “I did not make these decisions.”

A second example is the idea that the US can negociate with thug presidents and make any sort of international headway. We were treated to the craziness of Khadafi and Ahmadinejad in their rambling UN speeches; and these are men who suffer from tremendous power lust as well as from Muslim indoctrination (although it is hard to tell how much they use Islam in order to maintain their power). However, what ought to be clear is that, unless these men are in fear for their lives, they will say and do anything to maintain their own position of power. There is no clever combination of words which will convince these men that they ought not to be arms-seeking thugs.

And the 3^rd example is health care. We have heard over and over again how Obama-care will provide cheaper and better health coverage; but that we can retain our own coverage, if we so choose. There will be no health care rationing, although 30 million people will be added to the health care rolls (without adding any additional doctors). It is going to be affordable, not add to the deficit, and 95% of Americans will not see their taxes raised.

If I believed this, I would be 100% behind Obama-care. I would be its biggest supporter. However, it will take a real Messiah to make the miracle of Obama-care as he has described it.

Political intimidation has always been part of the current Congress's health-care strategy: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu" is tattooed on every lobbyist and industry rep in Washington. But Max Baucus's latest bullying tactics are hard to believe by even these standards, as the Senate Finance Chairman has sicced federal regulators on the insurer Humana Inc. for daring to criticize one part of his health bill.

Earlier this month, Humana sent a one-page letter to its customers enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, which offer private options to Medicare beneficiaries. Humana noted that, because of spending cuts proposed by Democrats, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable." The Kentucky-based company also urged its customers to contact their Representatives. Pretty tame stuff, as these things go.

Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war. He complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal health-care agency, which on Friday duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was "misleading and confusing" and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.

"Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions," CMS concluded, ominously. Humana could be fined or booted from Medicare Advantage altogether.

"It is wholly inappropriate for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject-particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health-care reform," Mr. Baucus said in a statement yesterday, playing the role of Congressional censor. "The health-care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits covered under the Medicare program-and seniors need to know that."

In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.

A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts-as Humana correctly noted-mean that seniors may lose this coverage.

Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana's yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.

This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law. For months Humana and the wider insurance lobby have been among ObamaCare's most prominent cheerleaders, with the exception of Advantage cuts and the public option-even though they'll be converted into government contractors in the business of fulfilling whatever Congress happens to dictate. The insurers are willing to give up their remaining business autonomy because Democrats intend to mandate that all consumers buy their products-but as with Advantage now, that means government will control the funds upon which the insurers' survival depends. They'll have no choice but to genuflect, or else the political class will pull out the tire irons.

Humana merely made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, and now CEO Michael McCallister had better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make him an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.

President Obama yesterday did his best impression of a high-school soph omore participating in his first Model UN meeting, retailing pious clichés he learned from his pony-tailed social studies teacher.

Even Woodrow Wilson might have blanched at the mushy-headed exhortations to world peace and collective action better suited to a college dorm-room bull session or a holiday-season Coca-Cola commercial.

"No nation can or should try to dominate another nation," Obama intoned. "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold."

Has an American president ever expressed such implicit hostility toward his own nation's pre-eminence in world affairs? Or so relished in recalling its failings, or so readily elevated himself and his own virtues over those of his country?

Between America and the world, Obama adopts a happy medium. It is in this sense only that he is a centrist.

"For those who question the character and cause of my nation," Obama said, "I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." In other words, he's the redeemer of a nation sunk in war crimes (we condoned torture), high-handedness (we ignored the United Nations) and hypocrisy (we promoted democracy selectively) prior to the ascension of his blessed administration.

"We've re-engaged the United Nations," Obama bragged. "We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals."

And he thinks it's going to get him something: "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone."

Obama's mistake is in believing "the interests of nations and peoples are shared." They aren't. Georgia has an interest in becoming a strong nation capable of defending itself; Russia has an interest in quashing it. China has an interest in dominating all of East Asia; Japan and other neighbors have an interest in containing it.

Iran has an interest in gaining a nuclear weapon; Israel -- and the United States -- has an interest in stopping it.

On the latter, Obama was shockingly weak, if his weakness still retained the capacity to shock. He outlined with great specificity what the United States will do to reduce its own nuclear arsenal. We'll pursue a nuclear agreement with the Russians, move on ratifying the Test Ban Treaty, complete a Nuclear Posture Review, etc.

As for Iran, if it moves ahead on its nuclear program, it "must be held accountable."

How? Obama can't say, because Moscow and even Paris apparently haven't gotten word about the "new era of engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect." Both are making discouraging noises about any serious sanctions against Iran.

Obama's version of America leadership mostly consists of a public diplomacy of self-flagellation and rhetoric touting fashionable causes. He'll pursue global disarmament and fight global warming. Indeed, Laurie David, not Hillary Clinton, might be ideally suited to be his secretary of state.

Obama hopes that all our self-effacing niceness will catalyze the world into ending its "bickering about outdated grievances." No wonder he twice had to deny that he was being naive.

The president isn't wrong to talk sweepingly of peace. Ronald Reagan did the same thing, although with a concomitant emphasis on freedom. But Reagan realized the world wouldn't lead itself, at least not where we should want it to go.

Look no further than the United Nations, that incoherent collection of the world's finest democracies and most dismal dictatorships. At the end of his speech, Obama said the United Nations could be "a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority."

Immediately afterward, Moammar Khadafy took the podium for a rambling, 90-minute address. Even a first-time Model UN student might have noted the incongruity.

Everyone marvels at Barack Obama's rhetorical prowess. But don't be overly bedazzled. With these 13 easy steps, you, too, can give a Barack Obama speech.

1) Create a false center. In his speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama positioned himself between the Left's calling for a single-payer system and the Right's agitating to end employer-based health insurance. Presto - he's the very definition of a centrist. Anyone advocating almost any position can benefit from the same insta-centrism.

2) Scorn ideology. Obama warned against "the usual Washington ideological battles." Message: He has no philosophical commitments himself. He's pushing a Great Society redux only as a matter of practicality. Superficial pragmatism is the ideologue's best friend.

3) Talk about your openness to ideas from opponents. The more you do this, the less you have to adopt any of their ideas. "I will continue to seek common ground," Obama said. "I will be there to listen. My door is always open." While he does all this common-ground seeking, he will be whipping up the Democratic votes to pass a massive, liberal reordering of the health-care system. But he'll be listening!

4) Embrace empty symbolic measures as a show of reasonableness. The centrist, nonideological, open-minded leader needs something tangible to demonstrate all these qualities, lest anyone suspect it's a rhetorical put-on. This is why God, in his goodness, created the demonstration project. In a bow to Republicans, Obama blessed medical-malpractice experiments in the states. Thus, he takes the most tentative step toward a GOP idea while marching his Democrats toward an overhaul of one-sixth of the economy by Thanksgiving.

5) Make lawyerly distinctions too subtle for most people to notice. Never underestimate the power of the cagey formulation. Obama said people won't be "required" to change their current arrangements if they like them. That sounds reassuring even though it leaves open the likelihood that millions will have to change insurance as a result of his plan. (Caution: May require the aid of experienced policy hands and professional speechwriters.)

6) Say things just because they sound good. Why not? Obama always says he'll reduce costs even though the Democratic plans do little or nothing to reduce costs. That's his sound bite, and he's sticking to it.

7) Dissemble as necessary. Don't hesitate to brazen it out as needed. The House plan authorizes the secretary of health and human services to include abortion coverage in the public option. But Obama insists reform won't cover abortion, and accuses his opponents of lying when they say it will. Shamelessness has its advantages, especially if a compliant press will overlook it.

8) Make the price right. Washington's new standard for expensive is $1 trillion. Naturally, Obama's plan came in at $900 billion. He might as well have said it will cost $999.999 billion.

9) Never admit any cost or downside to what you are proposing. Even an unparalleled genius of an orator has trouble selling things people don't like. So don't do it. Obama stipulated the new taxes will fall on insurers and drug companies. And, oh yeah, don't say "taxes." They are "revenues" and "fees." Or, in the case of employers, it's called "chipping in." As for the Medicare cuts, all of them will come from "waste and fraud" and "unnecessary subsidies." See how easy this is?

10) Couple attacks on your critics as unworthy hacks with calls for civility. If you favor "a civil conversation," you can better dismiss your opponents for their "bickering" and "games."

11) Be sure to say something like "this is the time." Evocations of the urgency of the moment sound bold and determined. E.g., "Now is the time to deliver on health care," because "here and now we will meet history's test." The status quo can't be accepted: "Not this time. Not now."

At the height of their anti-Iraq War fever, Democrats accused Pres. George W. Bush of cooking up the war for political reasons. It must have been their guilty consciences speaking.

Democrats are the party of extreme situational politics on national security. Almost every major Democrat with presidential aspirations voted to authorize the Iraq War, then turned on it. As the Iraq War spiraled downward, many Democrats called for more troops, then resisted the surge. It has practically been mandatory for all good, card-carrying Democrats to trumpet the centrality of the Afghan War since 2003, using it as a rhetorical club to attack President Bush's focus on Iraq. Now that it is crunch time in Afghanistan, they've gone from resolute to flaccid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't "think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops." Once upon a time, she insisted, "We need to finish the job." Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is touting an implausible plan to train the Afghan army without any more American troops. Forgotten are the days when he browbeat Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for a failure to provide "the kind of commitment of forces or resources that our commanders on the ground are asking us for." And John Kerry, who used to be as gung-ho as John Wayne in The Green Berets, now sounds ready to revert to his usual martial role of leading the political charge toward defeat.

The Democratic vote that counts most is that of Pres. Barack Obama, who looks as wobbly as the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge. It's understandable that he'd want to deliberate carefully about a decision to send as many as 45,000 more troops. But on his Sunday-show marathon, Obama questioned the premises of the war. He complained of "mission creep" in Afghanistan and claimed, "I wanted to narrow it."

If so, this is the only news from his mind-numbing round of interviews. In August, he told the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Afghanistan is "a war of necessity," because "if left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." In March, he announced "a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He called for reversing the Taliban's gains by taking the fight to the insurgents, training the Afghan security forces and promoting a better Afghan government. If the mission "creeped," Obama did it.

If Obama never meant what he said about Afghanistan - or has changed his mind - this is the time to say it. Someone in the Pentagon, clearly irked by Obama's indecisiveness, leaked commanding Gen. Stanley McChrystal's new 66-page assessment of the war to Bob Woodward. The memo says that without a rapid injection of more troops to execute a counterinsurgency mission focused on population security, the war "will likely result in failure."

Obama has had only one meeting of his national-security advisers to discuss the memo, even though it was sent on August 30. But, hey, he has a busy media schedule. The White House has kept a lid on General McChrystal, lest he make a nuisance of himself by arguing the case for winning the war publicly. There are even signs that McChrystal - Obama's handpicked general - could yet experience the underside of a bus. In the Washington Post, an anonymous Obama official rapped McChrystal for getting out ahead of Obama by placing such emphasis on population security. The official must be unaware of the White House white paper released in March calling for integrating "population security with building effective local governance and economic development."

As the McChrystal memo makes clear, the task in Afghanistan is hideously complex and made all the more difficult by the government's pervasive corruption (symbolized by the recent fraud-plagued elections). Nonetheless, McChrystal believes that "success is still achievable." Unless, of course, Obama and his fellow Democrats are about to say "never mind" to their core foreign-policy commitment of the post-9/11 era.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.

"It was sad and it was frustrating," said Klaus, one of the world's most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.

"It's a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem," he said. "It's simply not dignified."

At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.

Klaus said there were increasing doubts in the scientific community about whether humans are causing changes in the climate or whether the changes are simply naturally occurring phenomena.

But politicians, he said, seem to be moving closer to a consensus on climate change.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon organized the climate summit to help create momentum before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on new targets for reducing so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

However, new proposals by China and a rallying cry from U.S. President Barack Obama did little to break a U.N. deadlock about what should be done.

Klaus published a book in 2007 on the worldwide campaign to stop climate change entitled "Blue Planet in Green Chains: What Is Under Threat -- Climate or Freedom?"

In the book, Klaus said global warming has turned into a new religion, an ideology that threatens to undermine freedom and the world's economic and social order.

During last year's campaign, Sen. Joe Biden famously remarked that, if his ticket won, it wouldn't be long before "the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" on foreign affairs. Last week, President Obama, brilliantly wielding the powers of his office, managed to fail that test not just once but twice, buckling in the face of Russian pressure and taking a giant wooden nickel from Iran.

With both a collapsing economy and natural gas reserves sufficient to produce 270 years of electricity, the surplus of which it exports, Iran does not need nuclear electrical generation at a cost many times that of its gas-fired plants. It does, however, have every reason, according to its own lights, to seek nuclear weapons-to deter American intervention; to insure against a resurgent Iraq; to provide some offset to nearby nuclear powers Pakistan, Russia and Israel; to move toward hegemony in the Persian Gulf and address the embarrassment of a more militarily capable Saudi Arabia; to rid the Islamic world of Western domination; to neutralize Israel's nuclear capacity while simultaneously creating the opportunity to destroy it with one shot; and, pertinent to last week's events, by nuclear intimidation to turn Europe entirely against American interests in the Middle East.

Some security analysts may comfort themselves with the illusion that soon-to-be nuclear Iran is a rational actor, but no country gripped so intensely by a cult of martyrdom and death that to clear minefields it marched its own children across them can be deemed rational. Even the United States, twice employing nuclear weapons in World War II, seriously contemplated doing so again in Korea and then in Vietnam.

The West may be too pusillanimous to extirpate Iran's nuclear potential directly, but are we so far gone as to foreswear a passive defense? The president would have you think not, but how is that? We will cease developing the ability to intercept, within five years, the ICBMs that in five years Iran is likely to possess, in favor of a sea-based approach suitable only to Iranian missiles that cannot from Iranian soil threaten Rome, Paris, London or Berlin. Although it may be possible for the U.S. to modify Block II Standard Missiles with Advanced Technology Kill Vehicles that could disable Iranian missiles in their boost phase, this would require the Aegis destroyers carrying them to loiter in the confined and shallow waters of the Gulf, where antimissile operations would be subject to Iranian interference and attack.

Interceptors that would effectively cover Western Europe are too big for the vertical launch cells of the Aegis ships, or even their hulls. Thus, in light of the basing difficulties that frustrate a boost-phase kill, to protect Europe and the U.S. Mr. Obama proposes to deploy land-based missiles in Europe at some future date. If he is willing to do this, why not go ahead with the current plans? The answer is that, even if he says so, he will not deploy land-based missiles in Europe in place of the land-based missiles in Europe that he has cancelled because they are land-based in Europe.

What we have here is an inadvertent homage to Lewis Carroll: We are going to cancel a defense that takes five years to mount, because the threat will not materialize for five years. And we will not deploy land-based interceptors in Europe, because our new plan is to deploy land-based interceptors in Europe.

Added to what would be the instability and potentially grave injury following upon the appearance of Iranian nuclear ICBMs are two insults that may be more consequential than the issue from which they arise. Nothing short of force will turn Iran from the acquisition of nuclear weapons, its paramount aim during 25 years of secrecy and stalling. Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read "apology"), and taking the nuclear question off the table.

We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program and Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Mr. Ahmadinejad's chief political adviser, predicted "the defeat and collapse" of Western democracy, the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons. Even the zombified press awoke for long enough to harry State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who replied that, as Iran was willing to talk, "We are going to test that proposition, OK?"

Not OK. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich at least he thought he had obtained something in return for his appeasement. The new American diplomacy is nothing more than a sentimental flood of unilateral concessions-not least, after some minor Putinesque sabre rattling, to Russia. Canceling the missile deployment within NATO, which Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian ambassador to that body, characterizes as "the Americans . . . simply correcting their own mistake, and we are not duty bound to pay someone for putting their own mistakes right," is to grant Russia a veto over sovereign defensive measures-exactly the opposite of American resolve during the Euro Missile Crisis of 1983, the last and definitive battle of the Cold War.

Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Reagan, and, defying millions in the street (who are now the Obama base), Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian president and the Russian prime minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.

This is a rush transcript of "Special Report With Bret Baier" from September 21, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Whatever decisions I make are going to be based first on a strategy to keep us safe, then we will figure out how to resource it. We are not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we're automatically going to make Americans safe.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, (R-KY) SENATE MINORITY LEADER: In my view, the president must soon explain to the American people his reasons either for accepting the McChrystal plan or, if he chooses an alternative, explain why he believes the alternative is better.

BAIER: There's the back and forth. As you see the newest FOX Opinion dynamics poll, do you support or oppose sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, there you see the breakdown, 50 percent opposed, 41 percent support.

This as the top U.S. commander on the ground in Afghanistan has put out a report, and it was leaked. He hasn't officially released it to the press, but it was in "The Washington Post," General Stanley McChrystal. In it, it says "With inadequate resources we will likely fail."

What about Afghanistan and the decision that lies ahead for the president? Let's bring in our panel, Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of "The Weekly Standard," Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer - Charles?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I think what's really important here are two dates. The first is August 30. That's when the McChrystal report was sent to Washington. That is three weeks ago. Obama has not had single meeting since then.

He says he hasn't reached a conclusion, I suppose because he is spending all his time preparing for Letterman and speeches to schoolchildren to focus on a war in which our soldiers are in the field getting shot at and, as the president himself is saying, without a strategy.

Now, the other date is the 27th of March, when Obama gave a speech in the White House flanked by his Secretaries of Defense and State, in which he said, and I will read you this, because it is as if it never happened, "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

So we for six months have been living under the new Obama strategy, of which he says today we have none. And his next sentence is, again in March, "This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review," not the beginning, the end of the policy review.

So it has been his policy, and now he tells us we don't have a cart and we don't have a horse.

What's happening here is he announced the strategy of counterinsurgency in March. He said at the time that we cannot afford an Afghanistan that slides into chaos. He said "My message to the terrorists who oppose us, we will defeat you," And now he's not sure he wants to defeat them.

BAIER: Now, Mara, we have been told by sources that the number is from 30,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops from McChrystal's request. However, we're also being told that he has been told not to send that official request to Washington. What about that?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: The president was asked about that this weekend. He said no, no, I am not telling them to hold off. But we want to figure out the strategy first. I think that the number...

LIASSON: The disconnect is that the president isn't ready to get the request. Now, he's not - at some point he's going to have to get it. And the other thing is that we now know a lot. This has been an extraordinary weekend. This is an extraordinary leak. Everyone knows now what the generals want. Now, maybe in the end, McChrystal will give him a kind of Chinese menu. You can have the deluxe version for 45,000 troops and we can still do a lot of this for 30,000, but I can still do something for you for 20,000. But the president did think he was going to ramp up in Afghanistan, and then a lot of things happened. Number one, his party doesn't want to send more troops. Number two, the election there is now contested. That makes this hugely more complicated. He has a corrupt government that he's going to be backing, in effect, if he's going in there with more troops. So I think this is a tough decision. I would say one thing to Charles. I agree it seems like it's been a long time since he announced his new strategy. The president doesn't have to decide now. He has to decide soon, but no troops are going to go till the first of the year anyway. So he has a little bit of time to get this right, and one of the things he has to do is explain to his own party in very strong, clear terms why he is doing this, and he is going to have to bring them along.

BAIER: Late this afternoon, Fred, there was an A.P. story about a U.S. official, not quoting, but citing a U.S. official saying the administration was looking at stepping up drones and the use of drones along the Afghan-Pakistan border. It seemed like a trial balloon to many of us here. But what about this decision-making process?

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, it isn't unusual. I think the normal procedure would be when the commander in the field sends in his report, what he wants you to do, and in this case, send 30,000 or 40,000 more troops, that's a part of it.

There had to be a decision not to send that in as part of that, and my understanding is that the White House told him don't send in that troop request yet, and so he hasn't yet. General McChrystal, look, we have to remember something about General McChrystal. He is Obama's guy. They fired his predecessor, General McKiernan because they didn't think he was doing a good job, so they brought in McChrystal. What is McChrystal's background? I was talking to Charles about this before the show, and he reminded me McChrystal was the ultimate search and destroy guy in Iraq.

BARNES: Special operations - you have your troops, you send them out on missions every day and bring them back into the post in the evening.

It is the opposite of counterinsurgency, but counterinsurgency was not McChrystal's thing. It was search and destroy, which was failing in Iraq. And then the policy was changed and they brought in counterinsurgency, the protection of the population. It worked. For General McChrystal, McChrystal in particular, to come now and say the solution here is a counterinsurgency strategy that is bigger and stronger than the one that the president had decided on back in March is quite a change. For McChrystal to believe that, it means that - I mean, I think that just adds so much emphasis and credibility to his request.

BAIER: How long does it take before this stalling of the actual request becomes a political problem for this administration?

KRAUTHAMMER: I'm not sure it's a political problem. I think it's a problem of what it does to the morale of the military and of the commanders in the field.

If you are in the middle of a war and you have an urgent request - this is not just a general but an urgent request - and the logic here, it is all spelled out in a sentence or two. It is not a difficult proposition. The logic is we're in a downward spiral. The enemy is gaining. We can stop them with American troops. Once they are stopped and the spiral is reversed, as happened in Iraq as a result of the surge, then the Afghan army can, in principle, at least, take over, as happened in Iraq. That's the idea. You either can act on that or not, it's not a complicated idea. Obama is not stalling because he's studying all this. Obama is stalling because, a, he doesn't know, and b, he doesn't want to go politically against his own party. BAIER: Five seconds - does he do it in the end?

KONDRAKE: I think in the end he commits more troops. I don't know if he gives them 45,000. I cannot imagine a Democratic president with no national security experience saying no to his generals.

BARNES: I don't think he will. Here he is going to back to re-decide what the objectives are in Afghanistan. We know what the objective is. It is to keep Al Qaeda out. And then decide the methods and then the resources, the troops, it will take a long time. It will be a big stall. I think he will say no.

BAIER: It looks as though the president will press ahead with investigations into CIA interrogations despite warnings that this will help our enemies. We'll get the panel's take on that, next.

OBAMA: I continue to believe that nobody is above the law, and I want to make sure that as president of the United States that I'm not asserting in some way that my decisions overrule the decisions of prosecutors who are - dare to uphold the law.

MIKE ROGERS, (R-MI) HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: You can't play like you're not involved. The president is involved. And it is sending a very horrible message to the people who are doing some pretty hard and dangerous work for the United States.

BAIER: Well, two days after seven former CIA directors asked the president to kill a potential investigation into alleged interrogation abuse by interrogators, he declined. And now Attorney General Eric Holder is moving forward, and the president is not stepping in. We're back with the panel. Fred, what about this?

BARNES: You notice those seven didn't ask the attorney general to back down. They asked the president to back down, because this is so obviously a presidential decision.

This decision is basically, are you going to prosecute the prior administration for one of the central policies of its national security policy, and that was strong interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorists who were captured to find out other plans they had. And they were successful. I mean, the president's excuse was I don't want to second-guess prosecutors. Well, we have already had prosecutors look into this case and found that it shouldn't be prosecuted. That was back under the Bush administration. But I mean this is so fundamentally a presidential decision. There is a piece by David Petraeus in a London paper last week where he was talking about Afghanistan saying it's hard in Afghanistan what we're doing, and it's hard all the time. That's what the presidency is like. It's hard and it's hard all the time, but the president has to step forward and make tough decisions like this, or he's abdicating his responsibility.

BAIER: Mara, the president says he doesn't want to step into this and overstep prosecutors. However, the attorney general did just that when he decided to move forward, as Fred mentioned, over what the eastern district prosecutors decided not to move forward. Now there's a story that Attorney General Holder didn't personally read the declinations, as they're called, of these lawyers who decided not to move forward with the prosecution.

LIASSON: I think even if he had read them he would have moved forward with this.

And I think that it's important for this administration to have its own prosecutors look at this independently, freshly. And I think the best political outcome would be for them to come to the same conclusion that the Bush prosecutors.

The base of the Democratic Party wanted an investigation of this. I think they're going to get that. I think the big question is will this prosecutor do what other prosecutors have in the past and kind of follow this wherever it leads him, or will he stay confined into this very narrow set of cases that he is looking at and come to the same conclusion that his predecessors did, that no prosecutions are warranted.

And I think that would be the best thing and that would comport with the president's style to look forward and not backwards.

KRAUTHAMMER: I agree with Mara that it is a decision meant to placate the left wing of his party. So it's political. It's not about national security or about justice.

This letter was signed by every living CIA director with one exception, Gates, who is now in the cabinet, so he couldn't sign it, and one other exception, Leon Panetta, who we know opposes these prosecutions and is in the Obama cabinet.

So what you have in total is eight of whom half were appointed by Democrats, and they all oppose it.

And what does Obama say when asked about this letter? He said yesterday "I can understand how these men would want to look after the agencies which they helped to build."

He doesn't even credit them with looking after the nation using their experience in these agencies, but, as always, he impugns a personal and parochial motive to anybody who opposes him and only he stands above it and speaks with truth and justice.

It's the way he does business. He can at least acknowledge that these men who were acting in the name of the nation and not in protecting agencies that they once had a stake in.

But go back to President Ford and what he did. Now, he stepped forward and pardoned President Nixon knowing it was going to hurt him politically but because he thought it was the right thing for the nation.

And now, what are we now, 35 years later, and most people agree he made the right decision, but it was a tough one.

BAIER: That's it for the panel, but stay tuned for the back story on the two words that received a lot of coverage last week.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems. It will take persistent action. So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.

BRET BAIER, HOST: President Obama speaking here at the General Assembly at the United Nations today, interrupted several times for applause. But what about the speech overall and the message it sent to the world? Let's bring in our panel tonight from Washington -- Steve Hayes, senior writer for "The Weekly Standard", Juan Williams, news analyst for National Public Radio, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. Alright Steve, let's start with you, an overview of your thoughts of the speech.

STEVE HAYES, SENIOR WRITER, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": I thought it was a terribly embarrassing speech.

Just think about the last sentence that we heard in the introduction there, "When you question the cause or character of my country, think about the concrete actions of the last nine months." Basically what President Obama is saying there, think about me when you think about the goodness or the greatness of the United States. I think that is an unbelievably arrogant thing to say, and, sadly, it wasn't the only thing that he said in the speech that was like that. I think the whole speech was filled with that.

I think what we saw today in so many ways is representative of the way that the Obama administration wants to elevate the United Nations and make it a serious global policy-making body. And it's also emblematic of the way that the United Nations is a broken institution. You have Muammar Qaddafi, a rogue dictator, a crazy man, speaking -- supposed to speak for 15 minutes, ends up speaking for some 90 minutes, filled with untruths, half-truths, complete nonsense. The United Nations was never able to enforce its resolutions on Iraq. It is not able to enforce its resolutions on Iran. It is not even able to keep Muammar Qaddafi from talking for more than 15 minutes. I think it was a dangerous speech in many ways.

JUAN WILLIAMS, NEWS ANALYST, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: Well, I couldn't disagree with Steve more. I thought it was a terrific speech.

And the reason I thought it was a terrific speech was President Obama laid out concrete steps that his administration has taken since coming into office to prove that they, in fact, want to work with the rest of the world.

When he talked about prohibitions on torture, when he talked about working on global warming, when he talked about working on the Middle East, even his meeting yesterday with the leaders from Palestine and Israel.

So what we see here is President Obama saying, I understand, and I think this speaks to something Steve was talking about. He says he understands that he is a symbol to much of the world.

And it's not about him personally, he said. He didn't say it in an arrogant tone. He said it was about the symbolism, the hope that the U.S. would begin to work, be less militaristic in its attitude. And so here is President Obama saying here are steps we have taken and now you guys have to step up, too, and work with us in terms of this difficult job of achieving world peace.

And he mentioned that the U.N., of course, was founded by an American president, Franklin Roosevelt, and he spoke about the need to really make the institution work. And I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that the international community has to work in terms of putting sanctions on Iran. And I think that's what it led up to. I think that would be the news that came out of the speech today.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I could see all the other nations racing to step up and do what the United States wants.

This speech hovered somewhere between embarrassing and dangerous. You had a president of the United States actually saying no nation can or should try to dominate another.

I will buy the "should try to" as kind of adolescent wishful thinking, but no nation can dominate another? What planet is he living on? It is the story of man. What does he think Russia is doing to Georgia?

But the alarming part is what he said in the same paragraph where he said that it is -- makes no sense anymore-- quote, "The alignments of nations that are rooted in the cleavages of the cold war."

Well, NATO is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. The European Union is rooted in the cleavage of the cold war. Our alliances with Japan and Korea and the Philippines, our guarantees to Taiwan and Eastern Europe are all rooted in the cleavage of the cold war.

Interesting noun, incidentally. So he is saying that is all now irrelevant. What does he think our allies are going to think who hear this?

Obama's speech is alarming because it says the United States has no more moral right to act or to influence world history than Bangladesh or Sierra Leone.

It diminishes the United States deliberately and wants to say that we should be one nation among others, and not defend the alliance of democracies that we have in NATO, for example, or to say as every president has said before Obama that we stand for something good and unique in the world.

And it is not the equivalent, for example, of the alignment of Chavez with Ecuador and Bolivia and Nicaragua and Russia and Cuba and Iran. And that's what I think is alarming about that speech.

BAIER: Steve, one of the things here at the United Nations, obviously, every year are the bilateral meetings that happen outside this building behind me. Yesterday we saw the Israelis and Palestinians meeting with President Obama.

Today President Obama met with the Russian president. And Russian President Medvedev, said this about possible sanctions on Iran. He said "Russia's position is clear. Sanctions rarely lead to productive results. But in some cases sanctions are inevitable."

HAYES: Well, I will believe it when I see it. The Russians have made clear in the past several weeks that they have very little intention of actually imposing new sanctions on Iran, and have spoken out forcefully, I think, against such sanctions. So has China.

If the president gets this as a breakthrough, I think it will be great. I think it's probably too little too late, but if he leaves the United Nations with that in his pocket and it is something that we actually see after the G-20 and after the October 1st meeting, good. I would be all for it.

BAIER: Juan, after that speech, the president's speech, can he twist arms with these countries to really step up in the Iran equation?

WILLIAMS: I don't think there's any question about it. I think that's what the headline is out of the speech. As I said earlier, I think he is leading the world community to the point of saying, listen, I have changed policy. I have taken concrete steps to open a more diplomatic approach to resolving problems, and now I need your help.

It's not in any way diminishing the United States. There is no need for chest-pounding by the United States. We are the big boys. We are the world's only superpower. You think it is to our advantage to have our president stand up there and bellow at people that we're powerful? It's not necessary. What's necessary is saying I need your help in this international community in terms of sending people to war when it's necessary, in terms of enforcing international law when a country like Iran becomes an outlaw. That's what he did.

BAIER: Charles, last word here quickly. You've said of other speeches by President Obama around the world that they are very apologetic in nature. Is that your sense in this one as well?

KRAUTHAMMER: This one was worse. When he (inaudible) about how he had reversed the course of America and how those who doubt our character aught look at our actions, among the actions he cited was our joining the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is led by the worst human rights violators on the planet.

It is an Orwellian, farcical organization. The idea that we should be on it is regrettable, but the idea that we should be boasting about it as an American achievement is a scandal.

BAIER: All right, panel, stand by. The president is said to be considering another strategy shift in Afghanistan. What happened to the one made last spring? We will ask the panel coming up.

OBAMA: Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review led by Bruce that I ordered as soon as I took office.

What I'm not also going to do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question. Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy, I'm not going to be sending some young man or woman over there beyond what we already have.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, (R) ARIZONA: Let me tell you what's the worst part of this is that the administration has told General McChrystal not to send his recommendation for the additional troops.

BAIER: Well, the first clip was President Obama back in March with a big rollout of what was said to be the new strategy in Afghanistan. The other one was last weekend, where he said we couldn't move forward without putting -- with troops before a new strategy is in place.

We're back with our panel. Juan, is this beginning to be a major problem for the administration that this sense that the request from General Stanley McChrystal has been held back by politics with this administration?

WILLIAMS: I think it would be a problem if the sense was that he was being censored, and I think that's what a lot of people who are proponents of immediately sending more troops to Afghanistan feel. But from the White House perspective, their perspective is, as you just heard from President Obama, let's settle the strategy issue first. Let's not just have the defense leadership, the military leadership, be the only voice in this discussion, because they're going to immediately ask for more troops because their attitude is going to be a surge.

WILLIAMS: I think that was an effort to say, listen, we have since then had an opportunity to take a look again. I mean, remember, we're here at the end of September.

Vice President Biden has been a very loud and insistent voice inside the White House counsels about the fraudulent election that has taken place since then, about corruption that persists and especially among drug dealers, some of them tied to the government.

These larger problems are just -- and of course the history of eight years of military struggles that have not resolved the issue there. So what you see now is the thought that, wait a second, if we put more money into Afghanistan as opposed to more boots on the ground, if we put more money in terms of economic development, education development, and then target specifically the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that's the war that the United States cannot lose. That's the war on terrorism.

And this is going to be President Obama's war very shortly, so he wants to get it right.

HAYES: Look, Bret, what the president is trying to do is come up with an explanation as to why he announced the strategy on March 27 and now says that he doesn't have a strategy. And he's having a difficult time doing it.

So what the White House has done in the past day or so is put out a new explanation. And the explanation they are using is the one that you heard Juan use, Juan say.

He said that the fraudulent elections or the troubles with the elections in Afghanistan have caused them to go back and revisit their policy, which I think is rather an extraordinary position given the fact that Hamid Karzai had been democratically elected.

He is not the friendliest leader to the United States right now. There are certainly serious issues with the election in Afghanistan this time around. But they're using that, I think, to take a look a second look at their broad Afghanistan policy.

And then you have an election in Iran that was stolen, openly stolen. Nobody thinks that was a serious election. And they won't alter their policy in Iran based on what everybody agrees was a fraudulent election.

I think this smells increasingly political and they're having a more and more difficult time explaining why they're announcing a new strategy or trying to come up with a new strategy when they announced one back in March.

KRAUTHAMMER: I think the Obama administration announcing that it's trying to change its strategy because it has just discovered corruption in Afghanistan is almost comical. Everybody has known. It has been around all along. It's not a new fact.

What is happening here we have on the one hand advice from our commander on the ground who wants more troops and who sees a strategy which is the only strategy that he thinks will work. On the other hand, the advice from the vice president, the sage of Wilmington, the man who proposed splitting Iraq into three, who wants a minimalist strategy of attacks by drones and kind of hands-off warfare.

Well, it's exactly the minimalist strategy that got us into the dire circumstance we now have in Afghanistan. It's the minimalist strategy that the Democrats attacked and demagogue for year after year and said it was inadequate, and it's the minimalist strategy that McChrystal, who is the world's expert on the kinds of hands-off drone attack, which he did in Iraq, has said has zero chance of succeeding in Afghanistan.

BAIER: All right, Juan, very quickly, we're being told that this request is going to come before week's end. We're almost there. Will President Obama accept the request from his general on the ground?

WILLIAMS: If you mean accept the request, I don't think there's any question. There is no disrespect for General McChrystal or the military advisors. And Bob Gates, the defense secretary, is right in the midst of all these counsels at the White House. So that's not the issue.

The issue to me is does he come up with a new strategy? If he doesn't come up with a new strategy, then the surge effort has got to be -- he's got to accede to that request.

GLENN: All right, now we have Erick Erickson on. He is from Red State, and he has the story of Bertha Lewis who is the CEO of ACORN. He got her he got her Rolodex. Well, let me start with this. Eric, how did you get her Rolodex?

ERICKSON: You know, it kind of came to me by chance. A guy who has read Red State for a long time, been e mailing with me for years happens to work for a very large company in Washington that ACORN hates and he got it from a friend who works with Bertha Lewis.

GLENN: They are saying that you stole it.

ERICKSON: Oh, Good Lord. I don't even know how he got it.

GLENN: Okay.

ERICKSON: So no, I spent a week and a half

vetting it to make sure it was legit and talked to lawyers for a week and they said go with it.

GLENN: All right. George Stephanopoulos was told by President Barack Obama, "frankly it's not something I followed closely on this ACORN deal. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money." A lot of people say, well, that's ridiculous because I mean, he worked for ACORN for a while, he's been close with ACORN. But what does, what does Bertha Lewis, the CEO of ACORN here in New York, what does this tell us? Why is this important?

ERICKSON: Well, it's important because in her Rolodex, in fact, more filled out than pretty much anybody in the list is a guy named Patrick Gaspard. He used to be the executive vice president of the SEIU. He is now Barack Obama's political director. He sits in Karl Rove's office and performs the job Karl Rove performed for George Bush. He's also the guy in the news this week who put the horse head in David Paterson's bed, told him not to run for governor of New York again. Not just Patrick, though. His brother Michael according to Bertha Lewis' contacts worked for the Advance Group. The Advance Group is the lobbying arm of ACORN. So you've got the president's political director and his brother in her Rolodex. One works for ACORN, the other one works for the president.

GLENN: Well, but why is that I mean, so. She's got their numbers. I'm sure I could get their office number and

ERICKSON: Well, it's not just their office numbers, cellphone numbers, home phone numbers, private personal e mail address. I'll put it to you this way. There are 2,000 contacts in her contacts list. Only 31 of them have home and office and cellphone number listed, and only five of them have home, office, cellphone and private e mail address.

GLENN: Who the
ERICKSON: Patrick Gaspard is one of the five.

GLENN: Who are the five?

ERICKSON: There's Wade Rathke who is the founder of ACORN, there's Patrick Gaspard.

GLENN: Which is SEIU.

ERICKSON: Who was SEIU and is now the president's political director. And then there are three other ACORN officials.

GLENN: Is there any way to get a sense of the ties to the White House?

ERICKSON: I think so. First of all, the fact that she has this guy, so much personal information about him and his brother works for ACORN. There's also Karine Jean Pierre who is the president's liaison to the Department of Labor. Now, her information in this contact list has been outdated. She used to work for John Edwards and that's how this still lists her employment, but it does have her cellphone number and her e mail address. And there's also Shaun Donovan who is the secretary of Housing and Urban Development who used to be in charge of New York's version of that.

GLENN: The Advance Group, registered lobbyists with the Advance Group is Scott Levenson. Is that the same dirt bag that I threw out of the studio that

ERICKSON: Yes, it is. And he works with Michael Gaspard, Patrick Gaspard's brother. Although you would never know that Michael Gaspard works there. He is not on their website, he is not listed in any of their lobbyist filings. It just so happens that he appears in Lewis' contact list as working there.

GLENN: So what do we do with this information?

ERICKSON: Well, I continue to mine it and look for information. For example, I'm finding this morning that there are contacts with the Bolivian ambassador to the United States and people who work for the Venezuelan embassy in Washington, which I find deeply interesting.

GLENN: Wait. Hold it just a second. Say that again, please?

ERICKSON: She has the ambassador of Bolivia's contact information and

GLENN: Hang on. Bolivia, Bolivia.

ERICKSON: Yes.

GLENN: Why do I know Bolivia?

ERICKSON: Might be from your first hour?

GLENN: Why do I know Bolivia?

PAT: Morales, right, the head of Bolivia who yesterday said capitalism, I think, was the real problem in the world?

GLENN: Yeah, capitalism didn't he say capitalism is evil.

PAT: Is evil.

GLENN: Yeah, capitalism is a real problem. It's evil.

ERICKSON: Right.

GLENN: Okay. So she has that. Who else does she have?

ERICKSON: She's got a couple of people from the political division of the Venezuelan embassy.

GLENN: Why would, why would ACORN, who's caring about just housing and taking care of the poor have

PAT: Low income Americans.

GLENN: Why would they have anything to do with the Venezuelan?

ERICKSON: Well, she also has some ties to Citgo in there and if you remember Citgo is owned by Venezuela and ACORN was real happy to help undermine some of the previous administration's positions on foreign oil.

GLENN: Well, but that was just through the Kennedys. That was just a nice, you know, Hugo Chavez came and I think it was Patrick Kennedy that helped them just get heating oil for the poor in New York. That's all it is.

ERICKSON: A total coincidence. And also the Eskimos in Alaska. Total coincidence. The other interesting thing, though, is she has ties to the Working Families Party. She is the co chair Working Families Party. ACORN has a history in this country of establishing political parties to run people. Now, they are a corporation, keep in mind. So they can't do anything political themselves. So they established these political parties other than the Democratic Party, run people on that ballot, the Working Families Party, also run them on the Democratic ballot and it's a clear signal to people that, hey, this is the ACORN guy; we should vote for him. That's how Barack Obama won his Senate election in Illinois or I'm sorry, won his election to the state Senate in Illinois. He ran as a new party representative and a Democrat. New party is ACORN's political party in Chicago.

GLENN: All right. Well, you just, you just stay on it, will you, and just I tell you what I'm interested in is I'd like to know more about the Venezuela connections, the Bolivia connections. I'm interested in the SEIU. There's a picture here on the on Red State of her Rolodex. What is that picture all about?

ERICKSON: That is the word cloud. I went through and put in every organization that's mentioned and weighted them so the names that are mentioned the most appear the largest. And so SEIU next to ACORN is the most heavily mentioned name. In fact, there are a couple of people who are listed as working for the SEIU or are in charge of segments of SEIU who have ACORN addresses in her Rolodex.

GLENN: Can I get a copy of this? Can you bring a copy onto the so we can show it?

ERICKSON: Oh, sure.

GLENN: All right. Is there any difference between SEIU and ACORN?

ERICKSON: You know, this contacts list seems to me to pretty much show that they are the same entity. The most interesting thing, Glenn, though is that a lot of ACORN e mail addresses, they assigned them based on position, not based on the person's name. So instead of GlennBeck@ACORN.org, it would be radio guy. And you can pretty much map out the organization based on how they've assigned these e mail addresses.

The New York Times released a new poll today finding that 55% of Americans believe President Obama has not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system and 59% said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were confusing. In a follow-up interview, Paul Corkery, a Democrat from Somerset, N.J, said: "The Obama administration seems to have a plan, but I'm not understanding the exact details." Corkery shouldn't feel that bad. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the independent nonpartisan agency responsible for reviewing legislative initiatives with budgetary implications, has no idea what is in the legislation either. During yesterday's Senate Finance Committee mark-up, the CBO realized only after the vote, that they had made a $600 million mistake in scoring an amendment by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI).

The issues that the CBO does not have enough information to analyze are not minor either. In letters released on September 22nd, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) respectively that his agency simply had not been provided with sufficient legislative language and time to analyze whether insurance premiums would go up under Obamacare or how many unauthorized billions of dollars in health benefits illegal immigrants would receive.

To ensure that the Senate would actually know what they were voting on, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered an amendment that would have required that actual legislative text, as well as a final Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of the cost of the bill, be posted for 72 hours on the Senate Finance Committee website for public review before the Senate Finance Committee could vote on its final passage. The Bunning amendment was defeated on a largely party-line vote, with all Senate Democrats - with the exception of Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)- voting against it.

Since proponents of Obamacare have shown themselves to be completely indifferent to what their legislation will actually do to the American people, conservatives have offered other amendments that would hold President Obama accountable for his promise that Obamacare would not cause Americans to lose their current doctor or health care coverage:

* Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify that at least 75 percent of the physicians in the United States would accept Medicaid patients before the proposed mandatory Medicaid expansions are implemented. That amendment was defeated.

* Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) offered an amendment that would have required the Secretary of HHS to certify Obamacare would not cause more than 1,000,000 Americans to lose the current coverage of their choice. That amendment failed on a party line vote.

* Another Hatch amendment provided that if the Medicare funding reductions in the Medicare Advantage program were to result in a loss of benefits for seniors using Medicare Advantage, those provisions would be nullified. That amendment was also rejected.

The majority in the Senate has completely gutted any semblance of transparency or accountability in the health care debate. They refuse to provide the legislative language and time necessary for the CBO to analyze their legislation and they have rejected all measures that would protect the Americans people from Obama's broken health care promises. Common sense dictates that Congress needs to step back and start over instead of passing a plan that would reorganize one-sixth of our entire economy without even understanding what the consequences to average Americans would be.

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said:

'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride..

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job.

'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletin board, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps.

Dems shoot down bill to provide water to parched California farmers; some news organizations begin to cover this problem:

RUSH: As promised, ladies and gentlemen, the Official Obama Criticizer, certified black enough to criticize, Mr. Bo Snerdley.

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, official Barack Obama criticizer for the EIB Network, certified black enough to criticize with a heavy dose of pure, unadulterated organic slave blood. I have a statement. President Obama, your weekend media blitz to again try and reverse your sagging fortunes implementing your socialist health care takeover failed. The only ones buying it are those who are already in so deep they can't see out. Nobody else wants in. And you've changed messages so many times you are quickly losing all credibility. It has become apparent that you view speechmaking and television appearances as a substitute for real governance. Given the state of our economy and our weakening defense posture, perhaps it is time for you to spend a little less time on television and a little more time coming to terms with the magnitude of failure your leadership is causing. It hasn't been a year yet, you have no major achievement, and you're racking up a string of disasters. Our economy is still in the tank. Our enemies, thanks to your ineffective foreign policy decisions, think we have become a weakened nation, and some are openly gloating about it. Respectfully, Sir, shape up or you will soon replace Jimmy Carter as the worst president in the last hundred years. And now and now a trans --

RUSH: Wait just a second. He said he has not racked up any successes. I beg to differ. Nationalizing mortgages and nationalizing the student loan program. Do not, Official Obama Criticizer, ignore those. While these other failures have happened, he is gobbling up the private sector like Pac-Man on steroids. Now back to the Official Obama Criticizer.

SNERDLEY: I revise and extend my remarks. You, Sir, have no major achievements and a string of disasters for the American people. For yourself, El Rushbo just named a few. And now a translation for our EIB brothers and sisters in the hood. What up, B? Yo, dog, check it out, yo. I mean you got some issues, yo. Remember, it's September, and, yo, bro, we still don't see no jobs out here, yo, ain't that much hope, and what be changing ain't changing like you said it was going to change. Bush is gone, yo, but you and your crew still raise him up every time somebody starts asking questions, where the jobs? When you not on TV speechifying, you and Michelle and the kiddies are out living large, man. We seen the pictures, man. You all been to Paris, out to dinner, New York, man, London, Harry Potter tours and all that stuff. But check it out, man, out here in the hood, man, nobody is chillin', everybody's illin', ain't nobody got the dough for them kind of vacations, yo. You know how bad it is, Bama? Man, people are starting to sell their bling, man. What's up with that?

Nobody can see what their stimulatin' money is stimulatin' man, unless you're stimulating employment. Oh, check this out, my mainness. Tell your crew somin' somin'. Stop whining about this race stuff, man, you HBIC now, yo, you the head black in charge, you in charge of everything, you running the show. You are the man, okay? So just bring it. You all don't have to come with this race stuff no more. You up in there, man. You up in the house. Bring it, okay? Tell your crew to stop making excuses. Now we see them boys up on Wall Street, you know, they kind of coming out rolling again, but we don't see you here. Here's another tip, yo, you making the Russians happy but you making the brothers yappy, okay? Ain't nobody got no spending money out here, yo. Okay? You worrying health care, that's not the deal, man, it's the jobs, the healthy jobs takes cares of the healthy health care, homey. So let me run this on you, man, step off the TV, we already know what you look like, we know you're in charge, stop spending, stop the grinning, get busy, get some jobs up here going or we going to break you off that hope and change thing next time election rolls out, yo. I'm telling you, you got that? You feeling me? That concludes this statement.

RUSH: And that is the Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley, certified black enough to criticize with 100% organic authentic slave blood. So the Official Obama Criticizer above criticism, and the Official Obama Criticizer found exclusively here at the EIB Network.

RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I showed up here in a great mood today, ladies and gentlemen. Like I showed up yesterday in a great mood and then this freak show at the United Nations started, led by the president of the world, Barack Obama. Folks, we got sound bites of this. This is scary dreadful. The mask came off. Obama took the mask off, and he is who he is. He was who he is today. He just ripped this country to shreds. He ripped Israel to shreds. He's promised we're no longer going to be a superpower. We're no better, we're no bigger, we're no different than any other nation, and he's going to see to it that this happens. The biggest applause line was when he said that the Israeli settlements are illegitimate. He challenged the legitimacy of them and the place erupted. And now Khadafy has been rambling on, it's hilarious, Khadafy's been rambling on here for over an hour. People are walking out. I mean it is a general freak show, look at it. It is a genuine freak show. It's the Star Wars bar scene, except that it's real and it's at the United Nations. Greetings, folks, Rush Limbaugh in Los Angeles. At 800-282-2882.

I got here in a great mood and I'm now peeved again just like I ended yesterday's show. Obama won this election by ten million votes but this is not what he had a mandate to do. I would describe what Obama is doing to this country as basically a coup. It is just frightening. He talks about a New World Order, and a New World Order is him. Obama is bigger than his country; he's bigger than the presidency; he is the world. He delivered the United States of America to global powers today, just handed us over on a silver platter without a gunshot, without a shot being fired. The United States has just surrendered and accepted all of the blame and guilt that the world has, that's why they love him at the United Nations. They love him at the UN. This collection of tyrants, thugs, weirdos, perverts, this collection loves this guy because he doesn't like America and they don't, either. So he goes up there, he rips his own country and they love it because they don't like America, either. This has been so sad and disappointing to watch.

He talked about Israeli occupation, the illegitimacy of the continued settlements. Barack Obama is deconstructing the United States of America, internally and now externally in terms of foreign policy. He's not an ambassador of our nation to the world. When our presidents in the past have gone to the United Nations, it has been as an ambassador of our country to the world. And he shows up just as he's done in other world tours ripping this country to shreds, criticizing it, telling the people at the UN that their negative thoughts of this country have been justified, but it's all different now, it's going to be better now because Barack Hussein Obama is in the Oval Orifice. There will be no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another. That will not succeed. That's the future America wants, Obama said, speaking for you and me. He goes up to this bunch of miscreants at the United Nations and says, "No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."

Okay, good. Good. I then assume that to mean that we will not be helping any of these countries that ask for our help anymore, since we're all equal now; we can cancel the foreign aid budget. We're all equal so they can fend for themselves. No one nation is going to be bigger or more important than any other. The next tsunami, wherever it happens, that nation's on its own. We aren't the United States of America anymore. We're not going to send anybody over there to help them out. Next time there's an earthquake, next time there's a typhoon, next time there's a meteorite that destroys some part of the world, "Hey, you get hit, it's your problem," is that what this means? Obama basically apologized for the United States and relinquished our superpower status today. He declared that the United States is no longer the world's leading nation. He declared that we are not different than any other nation and so, folks, the whole concept of American exceptionalism by the bye, it's history. I saw it. I heard it. It is a disgusting spectacle. And that pervert, Khadafy, is still rambling on. In one way it is hilarious, just to look at this. I don't have the sound up, of course, because I am hosting my radio show as you are glued to your radio. But I'm looking at these monitors to the left and, have you ever watched television -- you ought to try this, folks, to see TV the way I do. Watch it with the sound down. Watch it with the mute on.

People look hilarious when you are not distracted by what they're saying, especially this guy rambling on and on and on. Khadafy actually said, "It's just a shame we can't have Obama as president of the United States forever." We've only got a rare moment in time here while Obama, an African, is president of the United States to actually fix the problems of the world because once Obama's gone the American people, the United States, is going to go back to being its ugly self again. Khadafy's all happy that we have an African, you know, he heads up the African Union, whatever the hell that is, he's all happy that we have an African president. He keeps thumbing through a book, reading his notes, it's like the pages are out of order. The guy needs a prompter or even maybe a better teleprompter. But as for Obama, folks, here we have a man who has contributed nothing to the success of this great nation, and I want you to listen to me on this. I'm going to say this as often as I have to for it to sink in. Barack Hussein Obama, a man who has contributed nothing to the success of this great nation, Barack Hussein Obama has contributed no greatness himself, has made no contribution whatsoever that has furthered this nation's advancement, nothing at all.

Instead, Barack Obama is constantly tearing down this country. He is disrespectful of the American people, all who have come before us. He disrespects every president prior to him. He disrespects all who have built this great nation at enormous cost. In his mind, everything prior to his presidency contributed to an unjust and immoral United States of America. He's contributed nothing. He's a sponge. He simply soaks it up. He is the beneficiary of the greatness, all the greatness this nation has to offer and he trashes this country nevertheless like a spoiled brat, 1960s radical born of the middle class but constantly seeking to slay ideological images. I think it is important to point out this man has contributed nothing, not one thing to the greatness of this country. His daughters, the greatest health care system in the world, he has access to it. Does he praise it? No. He tries to rip it to shreds and change it. He doesn't see anything in this country that is worthy of praise, other than unions, minorities, and community organizers.

He sees no greatness in the traditions and institutions that define this country. And this is constant. Whether it's the economy, the judiciary, foreign policy, he's constantly tearing at the fabric of this nation, and now he took it to the world stage today at the United Nations. He says the United States cannot solve all the world's problems yet his Marxist agenda says the opposite when it comes to the domestic policy, that is that the federal government can solve all the nation's problems. So he's up there at the United Nations, he's telling all these people, hey, we can't solve all the world's problems, we can't go it alone, and we can't do it, we can't do that this, oh, oh, but domestically the federal government is the only outfit that can do anything, and it's going to be the only outfit that will do anything because we're going to trash everything in the private sector.

Our government is arrogant, he says, when it comes to international affairs. I mean that seems to be the theme of his argument. We're arrogant, we're conceited, we walk around with a big head, we strut around and we don't care about the world's poor, we don't care about the world's disadvantaged, we steal the world's resources, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Arrogant, he says we are, when it comes to the international affairs. But our government is compassionate and all-knowing when it comes to our own liberty here at home, our government is wonderful, now that he's in charge. Never, ever has it been better. But internationally we've been arrogant. I have also never, in my period of time listening to presidential speeches at the United Nations, I have never heard a president reference his predecessor in a derogatory way, ever. And Obama did it repeatedly today.

RUSH: Khadafy is still speaking, and it looks like he's reading from a shredded legal pad. This is a freak show. This is an absolute freak show. And of course Obama, I mean the way we have to look at this, Obama is the opening act for this. Obama opened for Khadafy. Well, I mean in his own words, Obama's no better, no wiser than Khadafy. We're all equal now. Nobody's better than anybody else. So we're looking here at somebody who's just as equal, a leader of an important nation as Obama is, Moammar Khadafy, who is a raging lunatic. Now, I know that he's also a terrorist and murderer and so forth. I love the guy, he has female bodyguards. He does, don't you love that? Female bodyguards. Now, according to the BBC there are at least 22 variations in the spelling of his last name. Some of them start with a G., some of them start with a K, some of them start with a Q, some of them start with an A, al-Khadafy. Now, I think the correct pronunciation we heard yesterday, Calypso Louie on the Al Sharpton show referred to him as "our brother Khadafy," and I like that pronunciation best, Khadafy. But I really feel like we're televising events inside a lunatic asylum and Obama is the headmaster of this crew. It would be funny if it weren't so serious. Let's go to the audio sound bites. You want to hear Obama relinquish American superpower status? Here you go.

OBAMA: For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office --

OBAMA: -- the use of torture by the United States of America. (applause). I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know America will live its values and we will lead by example.

RUSH: I tell you this, folks, I showed up here in a great mood, had a wonderful time last night, my first drive on the golf course yesterday, 300 yards. I saw Obama, I saw Hillary, I saw Pelosi, all three faces on my ball; I just nailed it. My ball striking yesterday was consistent; it was good all day long. I had a great time and I show up here and I see this freak show, I watch this, I listen to this: "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, look at the concrete actions we've taken in just nine months. We've banned torture." We already had banned torture. We don't do it. This is embarrassing to me. (imitating Obama) "We closed Guantanamo Bay. We're getting out of Iraq. Since I got here, our values are better and we're better. Before I got here everything was horrible. Now I'm here." This is right out of the stinking left-wing playbook of the things that they were all saying during the last couple years of the Bush administration: torture, Iraq, the world hates us, doesn't respect us. We're now running around, our president seeking to define this country by telling the world that we're going to do things they demand of us, we're going to dial it back, we're going to be more like they demand us to be. It's just infuriating. Here's the next embarrassing sound bite.

OBAMA: In Iraq we are ending a war. We've also reengaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the human rights council. (applause) We have signed the convention of the rights of persons with disabilities.

RUSH: Yep. We are going global. He's serving up the United States on a silver platter to the rest of the world. This next is unbelievable, an American president heralding the end of the United States as a superpower and leader of the free world.

OBAMA: Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. Power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. Nor world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the south and the north make no sense in an interconnected world nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War. The time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments, are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people.

RUSH: I'll tell you, this is the speech he's actually wanted to give. This is why he wanted to be president. He's now president of the world. He's bigger than this country, in his mind. In his own inflated ego he's bigger than the presidency; he's bigger than this country. No nation should try to dominate another? Power no longer a zero-sum game? And this, "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone." Wait a damn minute here, Obama. You and your liberal buddies are the ones who used to chastise America for acting alone. You got all over Bush for going into Iraq alone. All during the sixties you should we should talk to the Soviets, we shouldn't act alone, you are the ones that chastised us for acting alone. "We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Now, this is infuriating. America has always and first shouldered the burden of shared responsibility. We're a decent nation. We're an exceptional people. We've done things throughout our history for the betterment and the good of the world, and now this man is up at the United Nations before the Star Wars bar scene trashing the history of this country, ripping his own country to shreds and saying the days of American greatness are over because I'm going to tear it down. This speech is the one he wanted to give. This is why he ran for president, to be president of the world. You, the American people, elected this guy by what was the margin? Ten million votes. He didn't have this mandate. He was not elected to cut this country down. He was not elected to serve this country up on a silver platter to our enemies and the globalists around the world. We have a disaster on our hands. It's Barack Obama.

RUSH: Now, I want to talk to you a little bit here about my self-esteem 'cause I'm telling you, Obama is ruining my self-esteem. Two days in a row I'm feeling really small. I'm feeling worthless. I'm feeling like I have no purpose and no meaning to my life, it's all because of Obama. These damn liberals for years have been telling us that we have to build up self-esteem in people, we have to have self-esteem courses in our school system. People gotta feel good about themselves and particularly our children, our children need self-esteem courses, they need to love themselves. And so we need to constantly tell our children how great and wonderful they are no matter what they do. If your kid breaks a window, "Oh, Bobby, you're such a wonderful kid, we're so happy we conceived you, break another window, Bobby, here, use this baseball bat to do it. You're so wonderful, Bobby, you are the greatest kid we could ever -- Bobby, what do you mean you killed the dog? Oh, that's such a wonderful thing. We are so excited that you have taken initiative finally to do something on your own." We gotta build the kid's self-esteem, right?

Did they throw him off the stage or did he leave voluntarily? Khadafy, he's finished. He's being escorted out there by female -- well, no, he's shaking everybody's hand so I guess he finished on his own. The liberal-in-chief, the president of the United States, president of the world is going all over the world telling everybody how rotten I am as an American, how rotten you are as an American, how immoral we've been as Americans, how unjust we've been. We are mean; we are arrogant; we have stolen the world's resources; we have done nothing good for the world. He's running around telling anybody who will listen what a rotten bunch of people we are. This is starting to affect my self-esteem. Folks, I might have to drop out here, join a gang, and start a spiral of decline and delinquency. That's how destitute I'm feeling. In just two days this guy goes up and talks about the client and blames the destruction of the world on me and you. I don't know how I'm supposed to keep my self-esteem up. I don't know how I'm supposed to continue to like myself. I don't know how anybody in this country is supposed to feel good about themselves when this lamebrain we elected as a president is running around telling everybody all the faults that we have and all the problems that we've created.

Of course, he hasn't contributed any problems. He's The Messiah, he's the savior, he's wonderful, he's great, he's going to deliver the United States into a new era where it is cool to hate us, cool to rip us, and he's going to show the rest of the world how to rip us and how to tear us apart. He's going to show how it's done and the world's going to applaud. They love Obama because they hate this country, too. If my self-esteem is in the tank, I can't imagine yours, because my self-esteem, prior to yesterday, was in the clouds. I don't think there's anybody out there who loves themselves any more than I love me. And who could blame me? I mean look at my life. But two days, and I'm feeling worthless, I'm feeling like I'm just a wandering shred of human debris in one of the worst places anybody could live on the planet, the United States of America, a nation that has used and stolen and is in the process of destroying the planet. We have enslaved millions of people; we have stolen their wealth so that we might live lives of luxury. That's what he's telling us, that's what he's telling the world. And so, I'm sitting here so low when I look up I see the gutter. I can only imagine how you feel. I don't know if it can get any worse so I'm going to continue with the audio sound bites. Here is the president of the world getting the biggest applause of his entire speech.

OBAMA: We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (applause) The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions. The United States does Israeli no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians.

RUSH: Yeah, right on, right on, right on, right on. Crowd loved it, ate it all up. Do you hear this? We continue to emphasize America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. No, the Israelis, the Jews, they stink, too, according to Obama. Why, they can't build homes for themselves. Their nation's already been squeezed. Israel has given up land for peace I don't know how many times. That poor, struggling little nation, surrounded by enemies, posing such a great threat to the innocent and harmless Palestinians, people who put bombs on their four-year-olds and send them into crowds to die for Allah or whatever. And yet Israel is the problem. Why, building homes for its people, that's illegitimate. I'm telling you, when Obama says America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements he's not speaking for me. And I don't know how many Americans he is actually speaking for in this dreadfully frightening and scary speech today before the Star Wars bar scene. The world, ladies and gentlemen, is on the brink of destruction. We face daily a threat that could wipe us out. What is that threat? Muslim extremists? Terrorists? International thug cartels? No. No. This is the threat.

RUSH: The world is on the brink of destruction. We face threats daily that can wipe us out in an instant. What are these threats? Are these threats terrorism, Muslim extremists, international drug and thug cartels? No. No, no, no, no. None of that is the threat. This is.

OBAMA: The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders.

OBAMA: Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources.

OBAMA: Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear.

RUSH: We've got a kook! We have a left-wing radical kook who now thinks that he's president of the world. Friends, that is irresponsible, that is simply irresponsible and juvenile to go before the world and spew that bunk? Not one word of that is true, and then you add to it that he thinks we are the leading contributor to all of this coming devastation. Irreversible changes within their borders, our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. It's just outrageous, it is irresponsible, it is childish, it is juvenile, it is sixties left-wing radicalism they now seek to make mainstream. This is not what he was elected to do, even the people that voted for him. Let's categorize some of those people. The precious moderates and the independents who believed all that nonsense about postpartisan Obama, no more conflicts, no more racism, everybody would love one another with a new utopia. Why, we had never seen a politician like this before.

Never in our history as human beings had such a man trod the earth with the remarkable ability to bring peoples of all kinds together, remember that magic? There were actually some dolts in this country who voted for the guy thinking that was possible. I did my pre-interview yesterday afternoon for the Leno Show tomorrow. And one of the questions they want to ask me is, "Why can't we all just get along? Why can't we just compromise, Rush?" And I said to the pre-interviewer, you know what the purpose of a pre-interview is? I learned this long ago. The purpose of a pre-interview is not to find out what you'd like to talk about. It's to find out what irritates you. They keep goading you and goading you and finally when you raise your voice, you get a little mad, that's when they know what to ask you about. I know this is true, it's happened, so I purposely acted like I was being goaded so that they would ask me things I want to be asked. You can't trick old El Rushbo. I said to the person doing the pre-interview, I said, "How come you're always talking to me about this? How come you're always coming to people on my side and saying, 'Why can't you compromise?' When's the last time any liberal Democrat ever compromised with me on anything?"

I said, "Where is the compromise between good and evil? Where is the compromise between victory and defeat? Where is this?" I said, "Besides, why are you even asking me about this? Obama said this is what he was going to bring and make happen, and you're asking me?" There are people who voted for Obama thinking all this was going to happen, and now he's up there giving this country away, remaking it, reforming it, blaming it for everything that's wrong in the world, cutting it down to what he thinks is its proper size and then lying to the people of the world about the dangers posed by climate change? He describes things of biblical proportion when he gets into all this destruction. Good Lord, folks, this is just breathtaking to listen to this. So I'm thinking, how many of these precious, very intelligent, stupid -- we got some of the smartest dumb people in this country you could ever run into -- how many of them voted for this guy, now are thinking, "Wait a minute, this is not what I voted for."

He did not have a landslide victory. He had a ten million vote margin. Even scarier than that, though, is to start thinking about and conjuring up, envisioning the Looney Tunes people that voted for the guy hoping to get exactly what he's giving them, people who also have some giant guilt complex about this country. They think this country is the source of all evil in the modern world along with the US military and it needs to be cut down, there's a lot of those people that did vote for the guy. But I am confident the vast majority of this country, conservative people, are just listening in increased shock and horror every day at what they hear from this guy. You walk by a television, I don't care where you are, he's on it. Every day, night and day, weekends, wherever you see a TV, likely he's going to be on it. And I think at some point people are going to tune him out, which is not good. Oh, Obama again, screw it, move on to something else.

RUSH: Well, I mean this is a laugh riot. Khadafy is still speaking, going on 90 minutes now. He's in the middle of a rant about how it's the Arabs who have protected the Jews throughout history. He's saying to the crowd at the UN, the General Assembly, he's pointing at them, you're the ones who annihilated them, you're the ones who burned the Jews. You're the ones who gassed them. We have protected them. We're from the same race. We don't want any harm to come to the Jews. The Jews and the Palestinians all want to live under one state. It's you who hate. I mean this is hilarious. He's got a little white book that looks like a white dove logo on the front of it. I couldn't tell what it was. And he claimed the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the book. He reached around and threw it back up to the secretary general. I mean, it's a laugh riot. MSNBC, of course, is still sticking with the coverage. Fox has backed out of it. I mean they've seen the futility and the ridiculousness of this, but MSNBC still thinks this is worthy of coverage. On and on, he shows no indication of stopping. He said all medicine in the world should be free.

RUSH: We have a Khadafy sound bite. You know, it is striking to listen to some of these world leaders show up at this freak show every September at the United Nations, and start pounding the desk and giving their speeches. It's frightening, shocking, how similar they sound to America's Democrats, to America's liberals. Here is Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy right in line, bam, bam, bam, down the line agreeing with the American left.

KHADAFY: Medicine should be free of charge. Vaccinations should be given free to children so that capitalist companies make vaccinations and don't have to make a profit.

RUSH: Well, I mean so you got Khadafy trashing capitalism and capitalists, and so does Obama. (imitating Obama) "We're going to take those profits, insurance companies aren't gonna give 'em up easily, but I'm gonna take 'em. Same thing with Big Oil." You know these elitist academics, you don't want to get between them and a buffet. Free food and these people act like pigs in a sty. They love all this big money donated to their universities that pays their salaries, and they don't stop for a minute to think who earned it and how. No. They spend all their time in their classrooms trashing the people who earned the money and how they earned it. Obama does it. The Democrat Party does it, Pelosi, Harry Reid. And now Moammar Khadafy joins their parade.

RUSH: Details of the speech made by Moammar Khadafy at the UN are starting to trickle in. I'm not making this up. Khadafy called on the United Nations to open a new investigation into the assassination of John Kennedy. Khadafy speculates that Israeli Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist, because JFK wanted to investigate the Israeli nuclear reactor. So the new theory for JFK being assassinated is that Oswald did it because JFK was going to investigate the nuclear reactor. Ruby went out there, the Israeli Jack Ruby went out there and wiped out Lee Harvey Oswald. Moammar Khadafy also said the swine flu is not the big threat, that there is a coming fish flu. Now, this man is a kook. He is a literal freak. But here's the thing. He is inspired by Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the leader of the world's kooks now. Obama is a kook. I am convinced he is a left-wing radical freak. He is no different than the fringe people in his base. He is one of them, he just happens to sound a little smarter, he just happens to sound classically educated, but the man is a Loony Tune.

I have weighed this very carefully during the top-of-the-hour break, whether I should say this. But when I saw this little analysis, and it was on maybe some of your network newscasts at the top of the hour: Khadafy called for the reopening of the investigation of the assassination of JFK because somehow the Israelis were behind it because JFK was going to investigate their nuclear reactor. Now, Khadafy and other Looney Tunes are inspired by Obama. Oh, yeah, he's a son of Africa, he's president of the United States now and we hope that he's president forever, Khadafy said. I know it's funny, it's hilarious, but it's not at the same time. You can look at the United Nations as the cantina in Star Wars, the bar scene. And Obama is part of the crowd. He happens to be leader of it. Kooks and freaks on parade, inspired by Barack Obama.

Now, I was making a joke at the top of the hour. This often happens. I tell jokes about the left, and it turns out they're true. I said to Cookie, "Find me the sound bite of Obama accepting the legitimacy of the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," because he just said that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlements in Israel, Jews building their own homes. That's not legitimate. So I said, "Find the bite where Obama said that Ahmadinejad is legitimate." And, you know, I was making it up, but he actually kinda said it. Listen to this.

OBAMA: In their actions to date the governments of North Korea and Iran threatened to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I have said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

RUSH: Well, I mean we respect their rights as members of the community of nations. Iran and the Norks, we respect their rights as members of the community of nations. He would never say that about Israel. We don't accept as legitimate continued Israeli settlements. Citizen of the world. I mean he is, in his own inflated mind, he is the president of the world. I have said before, I will repeat, I am committed, I will do, I'll grant you permission or I will not grant you permission. We're going to do it as I say. We're going to do it as I think. He's a kook, a dangerous kook. Castro loves the guy. I mean look at the people that love the guy, Castro thinks he's the greatest thing since free rice cookers. I mean the Russians and the Iranians are laughing at him. They've tested him twice, and he just wilted.

Now, listen to this. Of all places, this is in the science section of the New York Times. This next story is in the science section of the New York Times. "In the early 1980s, according to newly released documents, Fidel Castro was suggesting a Soviet nuclear strike against the United States, until Moscow dissuaded him by patiently explaining how the radioactive cloud resulting from such a strike would also devastate Cuba. The cold war was then in one of its chilliest phases. President Ronald Reagan had begun a trillion-dollar arms buildup --" trillion-dollar arms buildup? What the hell is that? And we don't hear about trillion-dollar health care fraud? We don't hear about $12 trillion in deficit. Trillion dollar arms buildup? I know it's the New York Times, but still, trillion dollar arms buildup? The federal budget in 1989 was not even a trillion dollars, the whole budget when Reagan left office.

Anyway, "Dozens of books warned that Reagan's policies threatened to end most life on earth. In June 1982, a million protesters gathered in Central Park." This is true. "Some Reagan aides talked of fighting and winning a nuclear war." No, they didn't. They were expressing policy and the supremacy of the United States should we be attacked! Good Lord, this is published yesterday. "Dozens of books warned that Reagan's policies threatened to end most life on earth." The story is written by William J. Broad. "Barack Obama, then an undergraduate at Columbia University, worried about the nuclear threat and later wrote as a student and a journalist about ways to avoid global annihilation. The future president didn't know half the danger." How in the world do you take a story, the central theme of which is Castro tried to get the Soviets to nuke us, you throw in there that Reagan threatened the world. Castro wanted the Soviets to nuke us, they work into the story that it was Reagan who was a threat, dozens of books, and somehow they have to worm it in there that the kook-in-chief as a student was worried about nuclear annihilation and warning and writing of ways to stop it. In the eighties he was 20 years old, he was smoking whatever. You've seen the pictures, wearing the Panama hats.

"The National Security Archive, a private research group at George Washington University, recently made public documents that reveal the nuclear threat in new detail. The two-volume study, 'Soviet Intentions 1965-1985,' was prepared in 1995 by a Pentagon contractor and based on extensive interviewing of former top Soviet military officials. It took the security archive two years to get the Pentagon to release the study. Censors excised a few sections on nuclear tests and weapon effects, and the archive recently posted the redacted study on its website. . In the early 1980s, the study quotes [a Soviet general staff officer] as saying that Mr. Castro 'pressed hard for a tougher Soviet line against the US up to and including possible nuclear strikes.' The general staff, General Danilevich continued, 'had to actively disabuse him of this view by spelling out the ecological consequences for Cuba of a Soviet strike against the US.'"

Castro loves Obama. Castro is a freak. Castro is a kook. I mean these are dangerous thug murdering dictators, don't misunderstand. But all the world's raconteurs love this guy. They love this guy because he shares similar views about the United States with them. So Castro wants to nuke us, and the New York Times finds a way to put Reagan in the story as the big threat, and then includes Obama studiously working even as far back as 1985 on how to protect the world from a nuclear strike. I mean I want to throw up.

RUSH: We got a couple more sound bites here from Moammar Khadafy at the United Nations this morning. He spoke for 90 minutes, and again, it's the Star Wars bar scene. Keep in mind, now, it's an organization of kooks, by kooks, and for kooks, and the guy running it is the kook himself, Barack Obama, he is a kook, he's inspiring all these people. Here's number one of two bites of Moammar Khadafy.

KHADAFY: In the name of the African Union and in the name of 1,000 traditional kingdom -- African kingdoms in your own name, I would like to seize this opportunity to present the congratulations to our son Obama because this is the first time that he is attended with us the General Assembly in his capacity as the president of the United States, and we greet him because it is the hosting country of this gathering.

RUSH: And he continued to refer to Obama as our son, meaning a son of Africa. You know, Khadafy heads up the African Union, whatever it is, I think that's the name of it. He kept calling Obama "our son." Somebody call the birthers out there. Khadafy just may in fact be one. Here's the next bite. This is all you need to know about Barack Obama from the lips of Moammar Khadafy.

KHADAFY: This is an historic event. One day the black doesn't go where the whites go and cannot be in a bus where the whites is, now the American people, the black African Kenyan voted for him and made him a president, this is a great thing. We're proud of that. You are the beginning of a change. He did go for a change but as far as I'm concerned Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the four years or the next eight years and I'm afraid that we may go back to square one. How can you guarantee America after Obama? Can you guarantee after Obama how America will be governed? No one can guarantee America. We are content and happy if Obama can stay forever as a President of America.

RUSH: Now, what are we supposed to do here as American citizens? Here is this lunatic who openly applauded the return of the Lockerbie bomber, had his own son escorts the bomber back from the UK, gets off the plane out there in Libya, through a cheering throng, this lunatic shows up today, makes a speech, "We love Barack Obama, and we want Barack Obama to be president forever. If he can't be president forever it's back to square one." He's talking about our president. You know, Ahmadinejad is gonna speak tonight and he's got a big challenge. He's gotta follow Khadafy. I am not going to be watching it. I am going out to dinner tonight with some friends and I am paying people good money 'cause it's worth it to me to not have to watch it myself. They'll watch this and give us the sound bites tomorrow.

RUSH: Folks, now, don't forget, I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, it's actually a YouTube video, we got a transcript of it here, of June 11, 2008, and in it Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy says that Obama suffers an inferiority complex that might make him behave whiter than the white. And the inferiority complex that he suffers is that he's really a Muslim but he can't admit it. So Khadafy, you know, right out of the Star Wars bar scene today up there making a speech, "We love Obama, president forever, black man in Africa, our son." Now, you gotta keep in mind that Khadafy keeps calling him our son, Kenyan, Khadafy says he's a Muslim. Now, I'm wondering, did the Obama administration go to Khadafy today and say, "Look, do not celebrate Obama, it is not going to be helpful, Moammar, if you go out there and celebrate Obama." Just like they told him, "Look, the deal is, we're going to release the Lockerbie bomber, but you don't have a celebration for the guy," and they did do that, and Khadafy flipped 'em off.

Maybe the Obama administration did go to him and say, "Look, Moammar, we love you, man, but you can't start praising Obama. You can't start praising him because it's not going to help us." Maybe they did it and he just didn't listen to them like he ignored them on the Lockerbie thing. If I'd gone to the United Nations and made a speech and I've got Moammar Khadafy following me praising it, I'd really question myself. I would ask if somebody injected me with some mind-altering poison. It doesn't seem to bother these guys.

RUSH: No longer in love with myself. Barack Obama's seen to it the last two days. We teach self-esteem in this country, kids gotta love themselves, whatever they do, it's great. He just ripped me to shreds, ripped you to shreds, ripped our history to shreds, ripped the kitten to shreds. I don't know how we can go on. I just don't know how we can go on, and it's especially going to be tough for the children when this speech is played for them, mandatory viewing in schools over the next couple of days. I feel like I'm in a James Bond movie. I feel like Ernst Stavro Blofeld has taken over the UN and the world and the best spy that we have, me, is headed for the gulag, and Eric Holder holds the key. They're going to get rid of the best spies this country has. I mean the UN is filled with genuinely insane people, and they are being inspired by our president, a legitimate kook, insane people. It's a James Bond movie coming to life except the bad guys win.

All right, to the phones. People have been waiting patiently. We're going to start in Rochester, New York. Michael, welcome to the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: That's good. Let me throw a couple of things at you and you come back at me if one sticks, okay? First of all I heard Obama this morning talking, and I got a different view on it than you did. And before you reply, what he said, that you even just played on your bite, we respect their rights to be a community of nations.

CALLER: Now, you said earlier that he did not -- that he respected the elections in Iran, and I never heard the word election all through his speech. Now, wait a second. Then you said --

RUSH: No, wait just a second. He didn't say it in this speech. He did, in previous speeches, refuse to condemn the fraudulent election in Iran. He refuses to stand up and support the people who want to overthrow the dictator regime there. Look, Obama sides with the wrong side. He sides with the wrong people in Central America. His best friends, Hugo Chavez, give me the old days, folks, give me the old days. Where a genuine lunatic kook, Hugo Chavez shows up, says he can smell the sulfur in the room after George Bush has spoken because that means the devil had been there. And the place starts laughing. That was just, what, a year ago or two years ago? Was it one year ago? Now look at what's happened in one year.

Now the Chavezes of the world have taken control of the place, inspired by our president of the United States. And I have a first caller here who wants to say, "Oh, no, Obama didn't disrespect." I do not understand. You know, I'm an adult; I'm mature; I'm educated; I'm informed; I'm a patriot. I'm never going to be able to get my arms around the concept, understanding why people born in this country hate it. I'm never going to understand it. And even if it's not hate, they don't like it. I'm never going to understand it. The greatest country that's ever been, and somehow that's offensive to say to people, it certainly is offensive to Obama. I got calls from people saying, "Hey, I didn't hear him trash the country, I heard him say what needed to be said." I want to reach through the telephone line and I want to grab these little pencil-necked geek people around the neck and say, "Would you wake up?"

CALLER: I just had a couple of things to say to you. As I was watching this whole circus unfold today I thought of a line as Obama was speaking from my favorite movie which was Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and it says you can't respect someone who kisses your ass. And I am appalled that my president, the person that was elected by people in my country, would lower us down and basically sell us out for his version of respect. I don't think that those people will ever respect us. I mean for God's sakes we're sending them money and they're not respecting us --

RUSH: I mean some of these kooks think it's good. They're laughing at him. Khadafy thinks it's great that such a lunatic is running the country. We're weaker. The Iranians love it. The Russians love it. Obama is before our very eyes weakening the country. I haven't seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Now, I've tried to watch it a couple times. Everybody said you ought to watch it because it's practical jokes, it's right up your alley. I tried to watch it a couple times, it didn't grab my interest, but that's a great line. You can't respect somebody who kisses your butt. You said ass, but I'm host, I do not lower the standards of my own show, callers can but I won't. The only time I say ass is talking about Hillary's being too big to fit in a military uniform. But that's a true philosophy. In my own life, you can spot people that are brown nosers or suck up to you, and you don't respect them. And here's Obama, he's out kissing these lunatics' butts and they're not going to respect him. He doesn't understand why they like him. He thinks they like him because he's a fellow academic, finally got a smart guy, hated Bush, hate the war in Iraq, hate American imperialism. They like him because he doesn't like the country either just like they don't and the weaker America is the better off for them, that's what they all think, and he's fulfilling their desire, only he doesn't see that.

CALLER: Right. Rush, I'm a flight attendant. I'm appalled that they let someone come into this country and respect him, Khadafy, who supports people blowing me out of the sky. I'm appalled at that also. So I just wanted to give you those two points.

RUSH: I appreciate that. You know, that is also a good point. It wasn't very long ago they let the Lockerbie bomber out, the Brits did, and he goes home to a hero's welcome, and Khadafy's kid is on the plane taking him back to Libya and there's a big cheer for the guy when he gets off the airplane and Khadafy shows up and speaks for 90 minutes today, gets some applause -- Craig, did you hear me say that he demanded a new investigation of the JFK assassination? Because the Jews were behind it. We gotta find out, the Israelis were behind it. He also said don't worry about the swine flu. Fish flu is coming.

All right, who's next? We've got time for one more before the break. Tawana in Atlanta, nice to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: You know, it just occurs to me that if Barack Obama were the leader or prime minister of any other country, our own delegation would have got up and walked out on his speech.

RUSH: You know, that's an excellent point. In the days where the United States had self-respect, anybody trashed us at the UN, our delegation did, they got up and walked out. I think if Obama showed up today from another country and gave this speech, our delegation in the old days would have walked out. That's a brilliant observation out there, Tawana.

CALLER: I mean I'm thinking, you know, if I were a delegate, I would be sitting there having a huge conflict, because I would be saying, well, you know, what this person is saying is against everything that our country stands for, he's trashing my nation, he's trashing my allies, but he's my president. So do I get up, walk out based on principles --

RUSH: No, no, no, no. His delegation agrees with him. I'll tell you who ought to be afraid, is our genuine allies in the world, the Brits, sitting there listening to this. Anybody depending on us for economic and military security ought to be scared out of their wits after this speech today.

RUSH: Katherine in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Something you said earlier really struck a chord with me because for the past few weeks I've been telling anyone who will listen that everything Obama has been doing the past nine months, nationalizing the banks and industry and health care, it isn't merely chipping away at our democracy and our freedoms anymore, it truly is far more insidious, I really think tantamount to a coup. And just because he hasn't gathered up the villagers to storm the castle doesn't make it any less of a coup. I don't have my dictionary, my Merriam-Webster with me, but I do know that this guy is using his influence and his resources and his moronic followers to effect a profound change in our government. And it's even worse today because he has now thrown the United States of America under the bus on the world stage. The only thing I agree with Obama about is that we're not better. We are the best. And honestly, any American who doesn't know that and understand that --

RUSH: Well, let me address two things. You are right, and it did strike a chord. I did refer to this as a coup, a bloodless coup. He has delivered the United States to the global powers without firing a shot. Nobody fired a shot at us and he's surrendering. He's giving up the country so he can lead the world. Now, this business of when he says that we're no better, and your rejoinder is that we're the best, this is something that, when I rarely go out there and make a speech in public, I ask people to consider. I'm still in awe of it. There are nations, populations, groups of people, who have been around for who knows, thousands of years. We've been around for less than 250. In less than 250 years, less than 300 million people have produced a lifestyle and a country of roaring opportunity and prosperity, a living standard the likes that the world has never seen before. And we have shared our greatness, the things that we have learned and done with everybody around the world, we have shared our prosperity, we have shared our abundance.

And I asked myself, how did this happen? Because in terms of DNA, we are no different than any other human beings on the planet. Just because we're born here, and just because as a result of being born, that we're Americans, doesn't mean that as human beings we're better. We're not healthier, we're not fitter, I mean coming out of the womb there's nothing special about us. There's not a special American gene that God decides to implant in people before they're born, it's not that way. So how is it that if we're really no different, how did all this happen? And the answer to me is very, very simple, and it's what leads to the concept of American exceptionalism. And the whole notion of American exceptionalism is that we are an exceptional people because we were founded under principles that allow individuals to achieve the best they can. We have freedom, and we acknowledge the source of our freedom is God. And it's these unalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, they come from God, they are part of our creation, our freedom, the yearning to be free.

That's our spirit. It's our soul. We're all born with it, all around the world but the rest of the world has never been invested with that responsibility and freedom. The rest of the world, the history of the world is torture, rape, mayhem, dungeons, prisons, totalitarianism, thuggery. The exception to the normal human nature that has characterized human beings from the beginning of time, the exception is the United States. And this is what is so saddening, to watch it being torn apart, ripped to shreds, criticized, and not even understood because Obama is saying, no, there is nothing exceptional about our country. In his view, we are tarnished. In his view, we are stained. In his view, we have been immoral and unjust and our Constitution is flawed. It is negative. It is imprisoning. It doesn't recognize the concept of civil rights and human rights and all these other little bywords that leftists throw around and don't even understand the true meaning of. So while as individuals, as human beings we're no better than anybody else in the world, as a people, constituted as Americans, living under our Constitution, which gives us the freedom to be who we are, to do whatever we want to be the best we can be or to screw off and not do anything, we have had that freedom. And that has led to some of the most incredible inventions, the most advanced.

Look at what happened in the twentieth century in this country. Look at all the things that were invented that made lifestyles expand and grow and prosper, and life expectancy ditto. It's just amazing when you stop to think about it, and there have been people on this planet for thousands of years and never got close to us. This nation is truly blessed. What happened in Philadelphia with the Founding Fathers, a miracle 'cause that's not the history of the world, and that's the whole root, folks, when you hear the term "American exceptionalism," it's not an ego thing. It's not anybody saying, "We're better than you." It is that we are the exception to the rule of human nature. Study world history and you'll find out life was not a bowl of cherries. People around the world since the beginning of time did not have time to start things like the Center for Science in the Public Interest and run around and tell people to stop eating Chinese food and stop eating coconut oil-popped popcorn. But we have such abundance, so much prosperity, that worthless busybodies can become rich by defrauding people into contributing to their stupid scams from the contributions they derive their salaries and lifestyles and then they stick their noses in everybody's business.

People around the world didn't have time for this. They had to work to feed themselves first and foremost and then they had to stay alive. And we don't worry about any of that. Well, I take it back. We do worry about it to the extent that you listen to some of these nannies who tell you that caffeine is going to kill you or that cholesterol is going to kill you or that that green tea is what you gotta drink to stay alive. People are pounding this every day how we're going to die and yet the life expectancy keeps going up. American exceptionalism, Obama is just ripping it to shreds, tearing it down, and in essence saying it never did exist. We weren't and aren't exceptional. We're imperialist thugs. We torture people. We're closing Guantanamo Bay, we're getting out of Iraq, we are destroying the planet, he says. Our lifestyle, our SUVs, our carbon footprint is destroying the world, the climate. The man is a kook and he is a menace and he is purposely attacking the very foundations and institutions that made this the greatest country on earth. And he's inspiring our enemies at the United Nations to agree with him and speak up even louder.

RUSH: Burn in Salt Lake City. I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. By the way, New Madrid is a little town south of where I grew up. It's the site of the New Madrid fault. They're worried about an earthquake there someday that rivals the San Andreas. But I wanted you to know what New Madrid was because some of you might have thought he was talking Spain and didn't know how to say Madrid. There is actually a place in Missouri called New Madrid. You don't want to go there but it does exist. Okay, back to the call.

CALLER: Yes, sir, I escaped. Michael Moore has his new movie coming out Capitalism, and yesterday the president of Bolivia called capitalism evil. I'm ready to give up. Okay, it's evil, it's horrible. Can somebody name one thing that works better? Anything?

RUSH: No. But, you see, the problem with capitalism is it doesn't empower government and it doesn't empower people who run government.

CALLER: I don't really care about that, Rush. I just want to be okay. So if capitalism is so evil, and if everything that we're doing is wrong, what are we going to do that's better?

CALLER: I guess I don't, Rush. I got a couple things for you. I got one other thing. I called the DNC and asked them how -- my wife has chronic health issues and I don't have insurance. So I asked them specifically, how is this gonna work for me, how is it better for me? Can you name one government program that's not full of waste, fraud, and abuse? Can you name one government program that is run efficiently? And the lady said, "Is that a question?" And I said, "Yes, ma'am, it is." She said, "Just a moment." She forwarded me to the White House.

RUSH: The DNC couldn't answer your question, they forwarded you to the White House.

RUSH: Oh, so you didn't even get to talk to a human being, they passed you off to a machine.

CALLER: I called Nancy Pelosi's office and it went right to voice mail and my first thing I said, "My God you sure have your finger on the pulse of your constituents."

RUSH: You mentioned Pelosi. Before I went to the golf course yesterday I went by the Universal theme park out here at Universal Studios, and I ran into the shark from Jaws, and the shark from Jaws told me he's thinking of suing Pelosi for copyright infringement.

RUSH: Well, I was in DC last weekend, I went by the Lincoln Memorial and I swear Lincoln's face in the memorial moves more than Pelosi's does. Yes, Rudy, what's up?

CALLER: Hey, listen, I was listening to Obama's speech today and he was talking about the fact that the United States is ready for some international cooperation. Well, to heck with cooperation. What cooperation really means is we're going to sit on our hands and look around at each other and wait for somebody else to do something. What the world needs to be ready for is the United States to lead. Leadership gets things done. Cooperation, at least Obama's version of cooperation, has never gotten anything done.

RUSH: Well, depending on whose perspective. I think this whole notion of cooperation is absurd, as you do. But I still don't know what the objective is here. I know Obama is educated but I don't know how smart he is. There are people from his side of the aisle, people on the left who really believe that if we just show our enemies that we really don't dislike them, we don't harbor any ill will against them, and we're not George Bush anymore and we're not the old United States, that somehow they're going to turn around and like us. And that's, frankly, just absurd. The people that he's going to behave that way to are going to rub their hands together in glee, and they're going to say, "What a sap we have to deal with." I wonder, "Does Obama know that? Is there some other agenda?" Because clearly, for whatever reasons -- and they're diabolical, no matter which reasons you analyze -- whatever reasons, he is purposely deconstructing this country and taking the elements of greatness out of it.

Now, is he doing this because he thinks this will promote world peace, other countries will like us, or is he doing it simply because he despises the country as it was founded? It really doesn't matter. It's the fact that he's doing it in general, but I'll tell you, regardless his reason, it is weakening our security, it is making us far more vulnerable. Remember, Osama Bin Laden granted an interview to the guy now with the FBI, used to be with ABC News, John Miller, and Osama Bin Laden told John Miller, (paraphrasing) "When we saw you cut-and-run, when the United States and Bill Clinton pulled outta Somalia, that's when we knew you're not ready to bleed for your country anymore. You're not willing to fight for your country. That's when we knew you're a paper tiger." I mean I'm paraphrasing, but people who are hell-bent on evil -- and there are lots of them out there; we are a nation at great risk in a dangerous world -- are not going to be mellowed and tamed by some smart-sounding academic running around apologizing to them for all the evils his country perpetrated before he assumed office.

I'm back to imagining I go to the UN, I give a speech and I'm followed by Moammar Khadafy who endlessly praises me and asks that I remain president forever, and here's a guy, a well-known terrorist murdering thug who celebrates with gigantic hero welcomes the guy who blew up the Pan Am flight, the Lockerbie Pan Am flight, I wouldn't be happy about that. I'd be mad, I would be worried. If I were a Democrat Senate majority leader or if I'm the Democrat speaker of the House and I hear the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, basically parroting everything I say about the United States, we're causing the world to come to an end because of global warming and all this rot, I'd be very worried that totalitarian thugs and dictators sound like me. If I were Barack Obama, I would not be happy that somebody like Fidel Castro is singing my praises. Yet, that's what's happening. If I were Barack Obama, if I were president, I would not want to be caught dead in a picture laughing, smiling, and yukking it up with Hugo Chavez. I wouldn't be caught being given a book by Daniel Ortega. But Obama did all of that.

RUSH: This is from the UK Times. Story almost slipped by me. "People who emit more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace after an absence of half a century. Britain's first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended, after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees' personal emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights. Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as switching off the central heating or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit. Those who exceed their ration pay a fine for every kilogram they emit over the limit."

I'm not making this up. This is not from The Onion; this is not Scott Ott; this is not ScrappleFace; this is the UK Times' Ben Webster, environmental editor September 14th. I say, it nearly slipped by me. It's preposterous. This is just some kooky company, some kooky country, right? Could never happen here, oh, no could never happen here. But I again remind you, 25 years ago, Richard Lamm, the then governor of Colorado, said old people have a duty to die and get out of the way and he was savaged for it. He was pelted, he was lampooned, mocked, criticized, said he was cruel, and now 25 years later, we have a Newsweek cover, "The Case for Killing Granny." And we have a president who's going to put death panels in his health care plan to decide who does and who doesn't get treatment, 25 years. This is exactly the kind of stuff Obama would love to do as president of the world. The whole world is going to have to do stuff like this.

RUSH: TARP money. I know there are people who disagree with me. I have friends on Wall Street, "You're wrong about this, Rush. They needed that money. If we didn't infuse that capital, it would be like not calling the fire truck when your house is halfway burned down, it would be just the same." People are going to disagree with it, but one thing, and this is another thing I thought about after I watched the show, and I'm not criticizing myself, folks, don't misunderstand here, I'm not beating myself up, but I always recognize that no matter how good something is it can always be better the next time. And another thing I would have loved to add, "Okay, maybe we need to do infused capital, I'll grant you that just for the sake of discussion. But the way to prevent this from happening again is not to start capping how much people earn." And that's what we're doing. I mean it was all over the Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, last weekend and into Monday. New limits on what people on Wall Street and related type firms can earn. It's none of Obama's business, and this includes, by the way, companies that are not even taking and did not take bailout money. None of his business. Capping what people earn is not going to prevent another meltdown in the banking system or on Wall Street. That is not the solution. They're not fixing what's wrong.

RUSH: Okay. One more thing here on the financial crisis and then back to the phones. Now, one of the things that happened -- this, by the way, is true. Now, we can argue whether they needed the TARP money. People respectfully disagree over that. But most of the financial people I talked to, and most of the financial media people just bought Paulson hook, line, and sinker. "We gotta have it or we're going to die, the country is finished, world financial crisis, it's over. We gotta fix it!" What was going on was this. The people that were running banks and investment banks were able to leverage up their balance sheets by 30 times. Now, one of the ways that they did this and one of the things that led to them doing it was the subprime mortgage crisis. They had a bunch of horrible debt out there, worthless paper. And so they created new investment opportunities or products to insure against the failure of that bad paper. And then they started selling and buying and trading those things.

They had on paper all of this future money being repaid, all this money that they had lent, look at all the interest we're going to make but it was never going to happen because they were lending money to people that couldn't pay it back because of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton. And then these same people were running around saying, "Don't worry, if the money doesn't come in they'll bail us out." And Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd said, "Yeah, we will bail you out," and people were saying, "No you won't get bailed out," but the Democrats, I mean this was their hook, line, and sinker into getting more votes from poor people and illegal aliens and minorities, get 'em into houses they can't afford, make sure the Democrats get the credit for it, we'll pressure the banks to lend the money and if it doesn't work out we'll bail 'em out. And it's exactly what happened.

No other business is able to leverage up its balance sheet by 30 times. You own a radio station, you cannot legally run your books in such a way that your radio station's worth 30 times what it is, but this is what these investment bank guys were doing and then they were paying themselves on that basis which upsets guys like Leno. The only reason they were allowed to get away with it was Democrats in government, folks. Chuck Schumer big. These guys in New York, the senators and members of Congress, they're in bed with these Wall Street types. Everybody thinks these Wall Street types are big Republicans. It's the exact opposite. Anyway, you start talking about what people earn, the bottom line in preventing this from happening again is not in any way related to capping how much people earn at a bank or on Wall Street.

RUSH: And then there's this. Folks, I want to tell you something. I think this next story is absolute proof that the issue is dying. People are not hysterical over it enough so they make up more and worse sounding numbers. From Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post: "'New Analysis Brings Dire Forecast Of 6.3-Degree Temperature Increase.' -- Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century." This sort of reminds me of the minimum wage. Remember it had to be seven dollars an hour. And you said, "Wait, why don't they make it ten an hour? Why stop there? If seven's good, why not ten?" "Yeah, make it ten!" "How about $15 dollars an hour?" "Yeah, that's even better!" "Let's make the minimum wage $20." "That's even better. Exactly right." "Well, let's make it $30." "No, a little bit too high." Why? It's the same thing happening here. They can't get enough hysteria, people aren't buying into it. In the last 12 years temperatures have plummeted, they're not rising, so now they're giving more and more dire predictions.

But the thing about this is that they say, they admit that even if we implement every carbon emission program designed to stop it, it won't matter. Listen to this: "The planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program." I don't know about you, but out in Los Angeles the weather forecasters couldn't even get yesterday right and these guys are now talking about the end of the century. But even if we implement everything, it won't matter. That's dire, that tells me the issue is dying. 'Cause when you gotta throw that in there then why do anything at all? Why do anything at all if it isn't going to matter?

"The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year." Oh, I see. Scientific research now has an aim. They admit that scientific research has an objective and that objective is to marshal political support. "Even under the optimistic scenario of reducing carbon emissions somewhat, the average global temperature is likely to warm by 6.3 degrees." Okay. So we can do one of two things. We can ignore all of this and just take our chances, or we can go find a cave and live without toilet paper.

RUSH: Here's Obama last night, by the way. He was on Letterman. And now there's a story he's out playing basketball in New York this afternoon. Playing hoops with his -- with his best guy friend, a guy named Reggie Love. Out there playing basketball. I thought he was formulating a new strategy on Afghanistan. I thought he was -- troop requests, what are we going to do, need some more time here. Out shooting hoops after warning the world that we're about dead because of climate change. He's out shooting hoops, playing golf, going on Letterman. Here he is last night. Letterman says: "The stimulus. You're satisfied the level and degree that the stimulus has worked?"

OBAMA: If it hadn't been for the stimulus, you probably would have seen an additional, say, million and a half jobs to two million jobs lost, or possibly even worse. So--

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa -- stop -- we've had almost three million jobs lost. Up to 9.7% -- recue this -- unemployment with the stimulus. He promised it wouldn't be any higher than 8%! He's talking to a genuine idiot, David Letterman, trying to disguise himself as an informed American who happens to tell jokes: "So are you satisfied with the level and degree the stimulus worked?" And here comes the off the-repeated lie number 4,442, said for the one-gazillionthtime, "Well, if we hadn't done it, why, I don't know how bad it would be!"

OBAMA: If it hadn't been for the stimulus you probably would have seen an additional say, million and a half jobs to two million jobs lost or possibly even worse. So it's definitely worked as a tourniquet to stop the bleeding. The one thing that -- that I try to make sure the American people understand is that it took us years to get into the hole that we're in. We took a bad hit. We lost $5 trillion worth of wealth because of this crisis. We're not going to recover overnight. Unemployment is still gonna be a big problem for at least another year.

RUSH: Where do you go with this? Where do you go with this? I think you got, what is it, 4% of the stimulus has been spent. It kicks in in earnest next year (happens to be an election year, that's where a lot of the money is going to go). Yet we've applied a tourniquet, the bleeding has stopped? Yeah, I guess that's why we're going to extend unemployment benefits again. I guess that's why last month 42 states reported net job losses, up from 29 in July. But we've got that tourniquet on there! We've reduced our carbon emissions more in the first eight months of this year than at any time in our history! And we put a tourniquet on that economy, and we're going to have all kinds of competition in our health care plan! I -- I'm -- this can't -- this -- the American people are not going to accept this. This -- they're going to keep on, they're going to keep on doing this, this medium of the message business, he's going to show up on television all the time, too much, there is going to be a backlash against this man and his policies and this administration. The only question is when and if it will happen in time.

Here Letterman then says, "Well, whenever you invoke like Great Britain or Canada people start to shudder because, 'oh, my God it's socialized medicine, oh, my God it's socialized medicine,' and I'm not a socialist, but it doesn't sound that bad to me," says Letterman. In full, 100% doofus mode Letterman asked the question. And here is Obama's answer.

OBAMA: It doesn't sound bad to Canadians. They're perfectly happy with, with their system. (cheers and applause) Um, you've got every other advanced nation provides coverage for all of its folks. When I talk to other world leaders who are paying attention to this argument and they hear some of this stuff and, and, and these are, in some cases, conservative leaders. They're, they're heads of center-right governments. And they don't understand why it is that Americans would not want to, to, to set up a system that would save them money over time, would work better, would make people healthier.

RUSH: Uh. where do we start? "It doesn't sound bad to Canadians," and the doofus audience starts applauding to go along with the doofus host? They're "perfectly happy" with their system? They're not "perfectly happy" with it, nor are they happy with it in Great Britain! And here comes the old Clinton argument. Clinton used to (doing Clinton impression), "I go over there, I talk to these world leaders and they simply can't -- for the life of them -- they cannot understand why we haven't done what they've done. And I keep trying to tell them, 'Well, we're working hard, it takes a lot of work to change things in America, big country and so forth,' but they can't believe" -- and here Obama doing the same thing. They can't believe Americans wouldn't want to set up a system "that would save them money." Americans do want a system that would save them money! Americans do want a system that would work better! It just isn't Obama's! Do you -- he's out there telling this doofus audience the American people do not want an improved health care system, they do not want a cheaper health care system -- because that's what he wants everybody to believe his is.

I'm going to ask this question that I asked yesterday. I want you to stop and think about something. Name for me a major government program in the modern era, let's go to the -- including the twentieth century, start with FDR, name one that has not exceeded cost projections, that is not in bankruptcy or near bankruptcy, name one that has saved money, name a government program that actually reduced taxes in order to make the program happen, name for me one instance where any major government program has accomplished its objective. Name for me one government program which in fact has destroyed many of the people that it's trying to help, I can answer that -- that's almost all of them! Name for me a government program that has not wreaked havoc on the people it wanted to help. You can start with the war on poverty, you can start with Social Security, you can start with Medicare-Medicaid, you can start with the Great Society. You can start with the Cash-for-Clunkers program, you can start with the midnight basketball, the cops for the -- the -- whatever . I don't care what the program is. It doesn't work as advertised, it costs much more than ever projected, taxes have always gone up to pay for them. Why in the world -- where is the sanity in believing that this magical plan is for the first time in modern American history gonna lower taxes, going to lower costs, going to insure more people, going to squeeze the doctors and the insurance companies, and health coverage is going to get better? Where is -- it is insane to believe this! And yet people have an endless faith in their government to make this happen.

"When I talk to other world leaders" -- oh, you've got every other advanced nation providing coverage for all its folks? Well, you know what? We provide treatment for all of our folks. You can talk about coverage all you want, but people in emergency medical situations get treated. So I -- this -- this just lying through his teeth, with a putz as a pawn and a puppet to facilitate it -- it's just breathtaking. And then there was this: "A couple of days ago Jimmy Carter started talking about this behavior of speculating perhaps this unease, or poor decorum, is rooted in racism. Is he on to something there or is it just something to talk about?"

OBAMA: Well, I -- first of all, I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election. So -- (laughter) -- this is true.

OBAMA: And so the American people, uh, uh, I think, uh, gave me this extraordinary honor, and -- and that tells you, uh, I think, a lot about where the country is at.

RUSH: Now, he needs to do more of this, telling a joke about it, but he's sort of soft-pedaling the notion that it's not about race. (paraphrase) "They elected me. I mean how could they elect me if the country was -- had these arguments based on race and so forth." And Bill Clinton came out and said (doing Clinton impression), "Hey, hey, you know what, Jimmy Carter, I don't know what he's talking about. I mean these same people that oppose Obama opposed me, you know, and I'm not black that I know -- I don't know any black blood in my line -- but I'm not black, I don't look black. And they still opposed me so I don't think it has anything to do with race." So that's -- that's -- let's see. That's Obama in a small way, that's Clinton in a major way, who have now undercut the State-Controlled Media trying to make this and the Democrat Party all about race.

RUSH: Now, here's Clinton on Carter, Obama, and race last night. Larry King Alive, CNN, King says, "President Carter says racism is at the bottom of all this uproar. What do you think?"

CLINTON: I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president. But I don't believe that all the people that oppose him on health care and all the conservatives are racist. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then. Therefore, while I have devoted my life to getting rid of racism, I think this is a fight that my president and our party, this is one we need to win on the merits.

RUSH: I tell you, I'm going to throw up here. I mean this sound bite roster today has been -- I can't handle this. I walked in here feeling really good. Now, I overslept. I was up late last night, I always come out here and I have a lot of friends and I -- you know what I got to do last night? I got to go to a Monday Night Football party at William Shatner's house up in Studio City, great, great, great view. He's got a bigger screen than I've got. Now, no screen envy, it doesn't look as good as mine, but it's good, looks good, but I mean the thing is huge, he's got his own screening room. Of course he's in pictures, and I met Jon Voight last night and these guys are all Indianapolis fans so I decided to pull for the Dolphins just to make it a fun night. And I left shortly before the Colts went ahead with their final score because my intention was to go back to the hotel and stay on East Coast time and get to bed and I got back to the hotel and I fired up the iPhone, all kinds of e-mail stuff to deal with, distracting stuff. So I had to deal with that. And before I knew it, it was 1:30 or two o'clock in the morning here.

I can't set an alarm because I take my cochlear implant off, and the sun doesn't come up early enough this time of year to wake me up, so I just normally go to bed and I wake up every hour out of fear I'm going to oversleep. But for some reason, I woke up -- and I intended to leave the hotel at 5:30 -- I woke up at 5:55. Now, I've left instructions with the concierge, if you don't see me in the lobby, in the drive, if you don't see me by six, get up there and wake me up. So it's 5:55, I got out of bed, and, of course, I'm not dressed. I'm thinking, "Well, the first thing I gotta do is find the phone and fire it up and send a text message to tell everybody I'm up." So I did. Then I went about the preparatory routine in the bathroom. Then I find that the text message didn't go because of a weak AT&T signal. So I said, "Oh, no, I'm sitting here in the bathroom, and somebody's going to walk in here and I'm not dressed," and it happened. I said, "Oh, jeez." So I hustle and bustle, I get downstairs, we hit every red light possible coming in here. But I was feeling really good 'cause it was a great night, had a great plane trip out, everything hunky-dory, fine and dandy. And then I get to this audio sound bite roster today, and I want to throw up. Everything I've heard is just destructive as it can be; it's destructive to the American people; it's insulting to the American people; it is representative of a dramatic decline in the way we're being told to think, the way our culture is going, the way we're being raised.

I mean that Newsweek story yesterday, "The Case for Pulling the Plug on Granny" with the previous Newsweek cover being your kid is a racist by the time he's six months old. And now we got Bill Clinton. Did you hear this? "Let me tell you something, Larry, I believe some of those right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president." He says that, then says "I believe if he were white every single person who opposed him now would be opposing --" So what's this business of right-wing extremists out there who oppose him because of racial prejudice if everybody who opposes him now would be opposing them then? "Therefore I've devoted my life to get rid of racism." Right, you've devoted your life to getting rid of racism. Your party has promoted racism. Your party has done everything it can to divide people in this country. I don't care if by race, by gender, by sex, by age, that's how the Democrat Party survives. "My president and our party, this is one we need to win on the merits." These guys are doing everything they can to destroy every institution and tradition that defines this country's greatness.

I'm sitting here, and I know it's my job, but I'm earning it today. I want to throw up. Every sound bite I've played is nothing -- the only difference between a sound bite and a bag of manure is the bag. You know, the human characteristic that rubs me the rawest is lying and then arrogant condescension. And Obama is all three of those, and Bill Clinton is, too. And then you take Afghanistan with the general that he appointed saying it's 40,000 troops or we lose this in a year, and Hillary Clinton comes out and says the general doesn't know what he's talking about. Hillary Clinton, who we are led to believe once wanted to join the Marines or some branch in Chicago, but they wouldn't let her because she was a girl. And that wasn't the reason. The Army, the Marines do not have uniforms that fit that big an ass. And they don't have -- well, never mind. They don't have boots the right size, either. And now we get to listen to Clinton say right-wing extremists. This is guy who tried to blame me for the Oklahoma City bombing. All right, I've vented. I can't wait to hit the golf ball this afternoon. That ball is going to Obama and Clinton combined.

RUSH: I have a couple sound bites here I want to play for you. Bill Clinton playing the race card on both sides. We'll first go back to January 26 of 2008. It's in Columbia, South Carolina, outside a voting station. Clinton is speaking with reporters, and the reporter says to him, "What does it say about Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" Now, I'll guarantee you, Clinton hears that question and I starts seething inside. (doing Clinton impression) "You little pip-squeak, you're nothing but a reporter here in South Carolina. You're asking me how come it takes two of us to beat that kid?" But that's not what he says. You'll maybe remember this, here's Clinton's answer.

CLINTON: Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama is running a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere.

RUSH: I guarantee you they got the name and address of that reporter after this. That question. But he said, "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88." That's Clinton playing the race card. Well, of course he's winning here! Hell, Jesse Jackson won the Democrat primary. It's no big deal for a black guy to win the primary in South Carolina. That's what he's saying, and then he knew he'd said so, so he had to start covering it up here with the faint praise of what a great campaign he's running. Then Obama came back after that and then said Clinton played the race card on me, and Clinton said I didn't play the race card. The argument's about race -- do you remember during the Democrat primary the sole place where arguments about race were taking place was in the Democrat Party, in the primaries. It was the LA Times that gave us that column, the "Magic Negro." Now, here's Clinton playing the race card on the other side, May of 1993, White House Correspondents Dinner, Clinton talks about me, and I had just defended Janet Reno, who was being really treated rudely by John Conyers during a committee hearing on the Waco invasion.

CLINTON: Did you like the way Rush stood up for Janet Reno the other night on his program? He only did it because she was attacked by a black guy.

RUSH: There's Bill Clinton out there saying his party has done everything it can to rid this country of its racial problems. And it's just the exact opposite.

Tony Blankley had an absolutely great rant, it was on a program called Left, Right, and Center, and he was asked by the host about the coarsening of our culture. I'm going to summarize what Tony Blankley said because the host says, "Look at all the coarseness of the culture that's going on, with all these people making pictures of Obama as Hitler and," blah, blah, you've heard all this stuff, and Blankley said, "Well, the Democrats call people showing up at town halls an unruly mob. Then Harry Reid called them evil. And Steny Hoyer called them un-American. Then Pelosi called them Nazis. Then Obama called them liars. And then Pelosi suggested that they're assassins waiting and lurking out there." And the left guy on this program then cites three or four outrageous signs people are carrying at a town hall meeting and Blankley said, "You're showing me people at a town hall meeting, you're showing me people at a congressman's office or outside some government building holding a sign? I'm talking about the highest officers in our government calling over half the American people a mob, evil, un-American, Nazis, liars, and assassins," and that's exactly right. Now, you gotta hear Calypso Louie. Calypso Louie all happy that Moammar Khadafy is in town, he's on the Al Sharpton show. This is another show that has no listeners, and so if I don't play this, you would never hear it. But you gotta hear it. Calypso Louie on the Al Sharpton show talking about the arrival of Moammar Khadafy.

FARRAKHAN: The leader Moammar Khadafy along with many, many other African, European, and Asian and Latin-American, Caribbean heads of state are going to be visiting the UN and the United States. We have had a very long and fruitful friendship almost in the whole 40 years of his leadership of the Libyan Arab (jamaya liha). We wanted to come in to New York and say to our brother, "Welcome to the United States of America, and welcome to New York City."

RUSH: Well, there you have it. Calypso Louie, who voted for Barack Obama, who voted for Bill Clinton, who votes for every Democrat, can't wait to welcome brother Moammar Khadafy into town on the Al Sharpton show. Al Sharpton then says, "I understand Minister Farrakhan that Colonel Khadafy will be addressing the United Nations and I saw in the interview in the Amsterdam newspaper that you don't know exactly what he will say, but you think it will be historic."

FARRAKHAN: Well, you know, brother Khadafy has been on the terrorist watch list for the United States for a long, long time, and this country and others have put sanctions --

FARRAKHAN: -- way out of those sanctions, and this year Libya is a part of the Security Council.

FARRAKHAN: -- and it will be a Libyan diplomat that will head up the General Assembly and so brother Moammar Khadafy is coming to America to deliver a message.

RUSH: Thank you for speeding it up so it would end sooner. Back to the phones. This show today has been work. This show has been a challenge to my normal ebullience, my normal great festive cheery good mood. This has been a direct challenge. And Cookie, who puts the roster together, she's profusely apologized. It's not your fault, Cookie, it's what's out there. I mean it is what it is.

CALLER: I tell you, Rush, my main point and reason I called was I wanted your opinion, slash, what you thought the Founders would think of. Now, we're going to have national health care, and we're going to have cap and tax. That's anywhere from the rough estimate from three to ten grand out of my pocket again, because any raise I got in the last five years or for the next projected anything 'cause my union knuckleheads are little collectivists, it's gone. I lost 17 grand in the market. I'm just kind of trying to wait it out but I just wanted your opinion, sir, I respect you and I listened to you from the beginning, brother, because I'm a Rio Lindan for Rush.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that very much. I can only answer this honestly. If you think that all that's going to get swallowed up is your raise, is your raises, you are shortsighted. Your future will be swallowed up. The opportunity for prosperity of your children is being swallowed up. Money they haven't even earned is being spent. Not even taxed, just spent. So it's much more than just your raises. But the numbers you gave me, yeah, you gotta have a health care plan. If you don't you're going to get fined. The cap and tax is going to raise your electricity bill, all of these things, the cost of living and there will be middle class tax increases all across the board in a number of ways. Health care is going to be more expensive despite what they say. That's going to eat up the numbers that you gave me, but it's also going to prevent you from getting ahead or even getting even because more of what you earn is going to be taken from you. And which, by the way, is the plan.

CALLER: I think you made a good decision not turning the other cheek around Barney Frank.

RUSH: Yeah, well, people said I should ignore it. You know, but that would be turning the other cheek, which is what he would like.

CALLER: (laughing) Hey, I know you've had a tough time with the sound bite roster today but I heard something on there that might make you grin a little bit. Told the screener, Obama might have stumbled into something where he was right and probably doesn't know it. You know, he talked about on the Letterman show about the stimulus being a tourniquet. If I remember from my Boy Scout first-aid training you put a tourniquet on to stop the bleeding, yes, but you also know when you put it on you're probably gonna lose the appendage that's attached to it.

RUSH: Well, that's it, exactly right. The tourniquet equals death of something. And so if we have to apply a tourniquet to our economy, if that's what Obama says, and I've had some people e-mail me that point, and I guess I can agree with it.

Jeff in Buffalo, I got about less than a minute, but I wanted to get you on here.

CALLER: Good. Good, Rush. It's an honor. I wanted to comment on the lack of class shown by President Obama on asking Governor Paterson here in New York to basically withdraw from the next election. I thought it was in really, really poor taste, showed a lack of class. I mean there's no doubt that he's a complete failure. But I think it really, President Obama --

RUSH: A lot of Democrats in New York, "Hey, keep your mitts out of our state, Obama. You're doing a bad enough job running the country." It's a good point. It was a diss of Paterson.

This is quite fascinating: Castro, in the early 1980's, urged Russia to nuke the United States. Russia dissuaded him by pointing out that the radioactivity would also affect Cuba.

Despite the letter from 7 former CIA heads who warm Obama that going after CIA agents will have a chilling effect upon the organization, Obama allows Eric Holder to go right ahead with his investigation:

Stimulus money originally designed to go to stop the spread of wildfires is being diverted to build up DC parks (this simply helps you to understand what government will do when they have their hands on your money):

If you think that the key is letting a lot of liberals impose a series of regulations on health care insurers, read this first:

Regulations on small businesses in California have cost the state's economy $492 billion and 3.8 million jobs, according to a report quietly released by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office this week.

Of course, there are no death panels; but Newsweek publishes a story about killing granny:

in case you don’t think that this is leftist theme, here is an article from 1984: the very ill elderly have a duty to die:

Are there really 45,000 deaths per year because there is no nationalized health care?

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 website reveals a lot of information about politicians and their relationship to money. You can find out, among other things, how many earmarks that Harry Reid has been responsible for in any given year; or how much an individual Congressman’s wealth has increased or decreased since taking office.

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 #94	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	September 27, 2009