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.

And if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, always remember: We do not struggle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places (Eph. 6:12).

President Obama, Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey all go to Copenhagen to lobby for bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016. Chicago was eliminated in the first round.

Tokyo governor warns that the 2016 Olympics could be the last Olympics for mankind because of global warming.

60 Minutes reveals that President has spoken to General McChrystal only one time in the past 70 days. They had a brief 25 minute meeting after this revelation after Obama had spoken in Copenhagen.

President Obama is now running commercials for his healthcare plan on FoxNews (and I assume, elsewhere).

Honors student Derrion Albert beat to death with a 2x4, having come upon a gang fight on the way home from school in Chicago.

Doctors march in the nation’s capitol over healthcare (her sign reads, the efficiency of the post office, the sustainability of social security, and the compassion of the IRS).

French president Sarkozy is reported as saying, Obama is "Incredibly Naive" and "Grossly Egotistical, so egotistical that no one can dent his naivete."

Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warns, "It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind...Global warming is getting worse. We have to come up with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long...Scientists have said we have passed the point of no return."

Vice President Joe Biden said the stimulus "by some estimates, saved or created 1 million jobs." And, despite negative job states, Biden remains optimistic, saying "today's bad news does not change my confidence in the fact that we are going to recover, we are going to be producing jobs...."

From a couple week’s back, Vice President Biden says the Stimulus Bill is "doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than most expected."

I don’t have an exact quote here, but Max Baucus, who is spearheading the healthcare bill in the Senate, has claimed that he cannot post the healthcare bill online for people to read first because it would take his committee staff two weeks to post the bill online. The quote which I do have is, "This probably sounds a little crazy to some people that we are voting on something before we have seen legislative language."

Michelle Obama, to the Olympic committee: "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days...so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."

O’Reilly talking points on Iran, with discussion to follow with Charles Krauthammer and Nancy Soderberg. Various alternatives to dealing with Iran are discussed.

Juan Williams and Karl Rove duke it out over the Bush administration (the first half is about Rove commenting on the Obama trip to Copenhagen):

According to the “Best in LGBT Media” this TIDES cartoon about a cross-dressing boy has been ordered by hundreds of schools in California. In case you haven’t seen it, you need to see it, and decide, what age level was this designed for? No one else but Fox seems to be covering this story.

Michelle Obama calls her trip to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics a “personal sacrifice.”

In case you haven’t seen it, Obama slips into Stepford Wife mode for UN photo ops (it is only 22 seconds, so you need to see it if you have not seen it yet):

SNL actually has a slightly critical skit on Obama, (but it is from a liberal perspective):

1) If you will recall, what destroyed our economy was FNMA and FHLMC took on gobs of bad loan debt as the action of our government. So, what is Obama proposing? A $30 billion bill to help low-income people purchase a house. What is slick about this sort of political move, it makes Obama appear to be compassionate and this bill will not blow up in the face of the public until 5–10 years down the road, when there is a Republican president.

2) Most experts agree that a VAT tax (a Value-added tax) will have ot be passed in order to support government healthcare reform. This is a hidden tax on everything. This is not instead of a federal income tax, it is in addition to a federal income tax. This is how most European countries make health care affordable.

3) Obama has been so ubiquitous in the media, that I watched him on FoxNews for nearly a full minute before I realized that this was an Obama-mercial for his healthcare bill (which does not yet exist).

4) Baucus claimed that it would be too difficult to post the healthcare bill online. So, the government taking over 16% of the U.S. economy, that they can do (which includes keeping computerized records); but putting the healthcare bill on the internet; now that is a little to difficult to do.

5) Had Polanski gone to jail and stayed in the United States, he would have had to register as a sex offender wherever he moved to.

6) So far, Congress has voted down amendments which would prohibit public the funding of abortion and the requirement of picture ID’s in order to receive medical insurance.

The super-rich are getting poorer with the 400 wealthiest Americans losing $300 billion of net worth this past year. There is an important lesson in this—the loss of wealth of the super rich did not raise the level of poor one iota.

$2.5 billion dollars of stimulus money is going to the Clinton Library for renovations.

$1900 penalty for not buying government-approved health insurance (in the Senate Health Care bill). If you do not pay this penalty, you could face a $25,000 fine and 1 year in jail. This is all tied to the IRS. So, if you are not watching FoxNews, have you seen this information anywhere else?

To pour salt on the wound, a huge number of Toyotas were solder under the cash for clunker program, and Toyota historically retains about 80% of its car buyers; so, cash for clunkers will have a long-term negative impact on the U.S. Automobile companies as well.

9.8% of people are now collecting unemployment; however, the actual unemployment numbers are probably around 17%.

22% of the survey respondents believe that members of Congress will understand the healthcare bill that they are voting on.

Do you think the Obama administration is proposing more government spending than American taxpayers can afford, or not?

Do you think the size of the national debt is so large it is hurting the future of the country?

When thinking about the national debt, which of the following would you rather do? Would you rather:

In order to have enough money for government spending, the Congress must soon vote to raise the country's debt limit from $7 trillion dollars to $9 trillion dollars. Which of the following is closer to your opinion on this?

1. In times of recession and war, we have no choice--we have to raise the debt limit to fund necessary government spending 25%

2. Federal spending is out of control; we must take a stand and not raise the debt limit. 66%

Based on what you know about the community organization ACORN and its activities, do you think ACORN is best described as a helpful, law-abiding organization or as a harmful, corrupt organization?

Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?

Since January of this year, do you think the country has become more united or more divided?

What do you think the president should be spending more time on right now - - fixing the economy or reforming health care?

There were some scores which I find hard to believe; a small plurality of people would elect a Democratic Congressman next time around. A clear majority (54%) see President Obama as a new kind of politician. And a large plurality believe that Obama’s policies have helped the economy.

83% of U.S. voters say legislation should be posted online in final form and available for everyone to read before Congress votes on it. The only exception would be for extreme emergencies.

However, on the other hand, there is this CBS, NY Times poll where they claim 65% of Americans want the public option in the health care plan (I heard Chuck Schumer quote this number on at least 2 different occasions).

Unemployment is currently at a 26-year-high of 9.7 percent and expected to continue rising. The last president to govern with such high unemployment was President Ronald Reagan.

But in 1982, when unemployment was rising similarly to the way it has in 2009 the network news media were merciless quoting attacks from Democrats, union leaders and the unemployed to attack Reagan's "sadistic" fiscal policies.

2009 was a different story, for a different president. Even though unemployment has shot up from 8.1 percent since February, network reporters looked for "hopeful signs" of an economic turnaround in their jobs report.

The Business & Media Institute just released a Special Report: Networks Flip Flop on Jobs that exposes that double-standard of unemployment coverage from 1982 and 2009 (See video below). The full report is available here, but here are some of our major findings:

Network Reports 13 Times More Negative Under Reagan than Under Obama: An overwhelming majority of stories mentioning the Reagan administration were negative 91 percent (20 out of 22) while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Additionally, Obama mentions were favorable 87 percent of the time, but there were zero positive mentions of Reagan.

Networks Connect Reagan White House to Negative Jobs Numbers Almost Twice as Often as Obama: Unemployment stories in 1982 mentioned the Reagan administration 71 percent of the time (22 out of 31), but 2009 stories mentioned the Obama administration only 40 percent of the time (14 out of 35).

Charles Gibson: 9.4% Unemployment `Good News' (Obama) and also `All' Bad (Reagan): The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and Obama. But ABC's Charles Gibson covered the identical rate very differently in 1982 than in 2009. Gibson told viewers May 7, 1982, "[T]here really isn't any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad." But by 2009, Gibson had turned into an optimist citing "good news" June 5 and "hope the economy may be finally turning the corner" Aug. 7.

The Obama’s discuss whether they ought to take the same flight into Copenhagen in order to have a small carbon footprint—then they break out into laughter.

After Chicago is rejected in its bid for the 2016 Olympics, Obama makes another speech, explaining painstakingly to the Olympic board, “Perhaps I was not as perspicuous as I should have been. The United States used to be a bad country; it’s not anymore. I’m president. The majority of the American people voted me in, and for the past 9 months, I have turned this country around. Let’s rethink this.”

Of course, he could bring in ACORN to independently monitor the results of the re-vote.

[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].

Can you find even one paragraph in any of the healthcare bills which deal with cost containment?

If you think Obama has a clear plan for healthcare reform; if you think Obama has a clear plan for victory in Afghanistan. If you think racism has anything to do with the present healthcare debate.

Obama’s policies will grind to a halt if he loses his supermajorities in the Senate and/or the House, and Obama will not be able to go to the middle. Bills will be passed over his veto.

There will be Republican contract with America which 70–90% of the Republican candidates will sign on to. The positions taken will be in conflict with Obama’s approach to governance.

This is from heritage, but it explains how the Dems will pass healthcare reform:

Even though we are in far worst economic shape today than we were in a year ago, there were gobs of stories which mentioned the Great Depression; now, stories either tout the economic rebound that we are in; or speak of the good aspects of our current economic situation. Even Seth Meyers, in Weekend Update on Thursdays, prefaced a skit with fact that we are in economic recovery.

As I have previously pointed out, Obama shows a profound disinterested in foreign policy (except to run around and get large crowds and apologize for America). I think it is his profound disinterest which has allowed the Bush policies to stay in place, for the most part.

If memory serves, I believe I said that Obama will not shut down Gitmo (unless the prisoners are moved to a prison camp outside of the U.S.

Obama is now linking job gains and economic recovery to the healthcare bill; pass the bill and the economy will improve.

One of the plans of the far left was to get so many people on welfare, that the system would grind to a halt and turn socialistic, in order to deal with it. Although that philosophy was abandoned by many leftist radicals, there appears to be the same approach, to drive our government so far into debt, to require so much taxation as to result in a virtual socialist government.

There appears to be a growing shadow government, of which the many unconfirmed czars are the most visible portion. With every 1000 page bill which is passed, more and more governmental regulatory boards are established, which unelected officials at the helm, ordering our lives for us.

President Obama has explained that, "We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end," and that we cannot, "simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation." But his strong and urgent verbiage seem lost on the stubborn budgetary numbers. In fact, spending has gotten so out of control that Congress will soon have to raise the total national debt limit just to not default on its bills.

The White House's mid-session budget review recently forecast that President Barack Obama's budget would create $9 trillion in new budget deficits over the next decade. This is on top of our existing debt, and more debt than America accumulated from 1789 through 2008 combined!

But it gets worse. The White House conveniently did not include the costs of a cap-and-trade system, the costly health care reform bill, extending "expiring" entitlements, as well as expenses incurred on the interest of the debt and more realistic interest rates. A more realistic budget deficit number would be $13 trillion over the next decade - making for a grand total of $20 trillion in national debt by 2019, which is nearly 100 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). To put it into perspective, that's more than $37,000 spent per household in 2019, compared with $25,000 per household in 2008.

The President has shirked his professed duty to clean up the budget and eliminate wasteful spending, and there is perhaps no more troubling amount of spending than what he has in store for welfare programs. Over the next decade (2009-2018) Obama will spend a staggering $10.3 trillion on welfare programs, including cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services for poor and low income Americans. President Obama will spend twice as much on welfare as President Clinton did, after adjusting for inflation.

* Over the next decade welfare spending will amount to around $300,000 for each person currently living in poverty, and $1.5 trillion for low skill immigrants.

* Obama will spend more on welfare in a single year (FY2010) than Bush spent on the Iraq war during his entire presidency.

* In 2010, welfare spending will cost each U.S. household $638 per month or $7,600 per year.

* The Census Bureau (which measures poverty) counts only four percent of total welfare spending as income when it calculates poverty and inequality in the U.S. Thus, statistics on the inequality of the rich and poor in America are grossly skewed.

Welfare spending at such a level embodies a gradual shift leftwards for America and it is the most apt example of a government premised on encouraging dependency while curbing initiative and freedom. Coupled with the overall budget picture - $13 trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years - more welfare spending is a poorly conceived remedy to the often overstated problem of poverty in America. Make sure to go here, to learn more about the pitfalls of welfare spending, and to read more about the projected budget deficits and what the President and his team missed go here.

Dr. Krauthammer spoke recently about Barack Obama and Administation. Here is a summary of his comments.

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay No Attention To What He Says; Rather..,WATCH WHAT HE DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada .

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND NATIONAL HEALTH CARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada . God forbid.

5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is re-elected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.

8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.

9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead tohyper-inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bail outs didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.

10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.

11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy.

There's something the U.S. government doesn't want you to know. And it's come out again in the new Heritage Foundation report on education. It conveys that the general public is increasingly dissatisfied with public schools, with a rising number opting for private education.

The report explains that during the 2007 and 2008 legislative sessions, 44 states introduced school-choice legislation. And in 2008, choices for private school were enacted into law or expanded in Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Today 14 states and the District of Columbia offer voucher or education tax-credit programs that aid parents with sending their children to private schools. But that may be short-lived.

Despite the growing public preference for private education, Congress recently canceled the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which was created in 2004 to offer students from low-income families in the nation's capital an opportunity to join the voucher educational community. The law provided $14 million in scholarships to help pay for tuition at private schools of their choosing. But no longer.

Why did Congress nix the program, especially when recent studies showed that students receiving vouchers since the program's inception were academically 18.9 months ahead of their peers? (I read the other day that 100 percent of Thurgood Marshall Academy's charter graduates are accepted to colleges.) And why would Congress phase out a program that costs $7,500 per student annually, compared with the $15,000 it costs in Washington's public schools to educate a child?

So its cancellation is not a result of costing too much, because it's half the price of public schooling. And it's not because of inferior quality, because the kids enrolled in the program were scoring higher than students in regular schools. There's only one reason Congress canceled it, and it comes down to this: federal control and educational indoctrination.

Of course, government officials won't admit to a blatant usurpation of our rights, but they will say their educational reform is seeking to help your children. They will say it is necessary to establish common educational standards. They will say that we need to leave education to the experts and not to parents. And I fear that too many of us simply will give in to the whims of the nanny state.

As I wrote in my new best-selling book, "Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America": "The reason that government is cracking down on private instruction has more to do with suppressing alternative education than assuring educational standards. The rationale is quite simple, though rarely if ever stated: control future generations and you control the future. So rather than letting parents be the primary educators of their children -- either directly or by educating their children in the private schools of their choice -- (government) want(s) to deny parental rights, establish an educational monopoly run by the state, and limit private education options. It is so simple any socialist can understand it. As Joseph Stalin once stated, 'Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.'" (Get a free chapter of my book at here.)

What's amazing, too, is how hypocritical it is for Congress to make this decision. The Heritage Foundation's report also conveys that 44 percent of current United States senators and 36 percent of current members of the U.S. House of Representatives have "at one time sent their children to private schools." While the foundation found that 11 percent of American students attend private schools, 20 percent of the members of the 111th Congress attended private high schools. And they want to remove the voucher option for private school education?

While the members of President Barack Obama's administration profess to have education as a top priority, they did nothing in March when Congress chose to discontinue the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Why? Because they all are in cahoots to not only choose our medical care for us, own the mortgage insurance and finance businesses, and place caps on corporate earnings but also control our educational choices for our children.

Our Founders' educational philosophy seems to me to be the charter of a true American system of education. But as we know, our nation's public schools, especially our nation's colleges and universities, are the seedbeds of politically correct and leftist indoctrination. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. It's a travesty that we have come to the point that we have to protect our children from the public school systems by looking to alternative methods.

If you have a good public school, congratulations. Stay active in the PTA, and attend school board meetings to keep it that way. For many parents, the only responsible choice is to send their children to private, parochial or Christian schools or to home-school their children. My wife and I home-school our 8-year-old twins.

What I also think is good about private schools is the students' wearing uniforms. Just like in my KICKSTART martial arts program for kids in Texas schools, uniforms in private schools give students a sense of pride and empowerment. They increase the atmosphere of respect. And uniforms make economic class more of a nonissue, making rich and poor students indistinguishable -- not to mention the fact that uniforms do away with young people's style of wearing their jeans down to their knees and showing their butt cracks!

Parents deserve educational choices; choice is what this country was founded upon. Government's controlling and monopolizing education is just another avenue for usurping power and control on the slippery slope to socialism. And it's unbecoming for our republic, whose Founders created a system of freedom, choice and minimal government intervention.

Is it merely coincidental that the private choice of home schooling was outlawed by the Soviet state in 1919, by Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1938, and by Communist China in 1949?

On Wednesday, President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly that "if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards . . . then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced." [Emphasis added.]

A day later, the president chaired a session of the U.N. Security Council. He turned it into a summit of heads of state and chose the agenda. He insisted - in the words of the advance American "concept paper" - that "The Security Council Summit will focus on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly and not focus on any specific countries" (emphasis added).

Obama pushed hard for the adoption of a new Security Council resolution, which was passed unanimously, and which never mentions Iran or North Korea. Upon pounding the gavel, the president proclaimed:

The resolution we passed today will also strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty. We've made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security. That includes full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea. Let me be clear: This is not about singling out individual nations. . . . [W]e must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.

However, speaking today in Pittsburgh, Obama admitted that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years. . . . The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. . . . Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. . . . [T]he size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow . . . [and is] threatening the stability and security of the region and the world.

In other words, when President Obama addressed the General Assembly and Security Council he already knew that Iran was ignoring international standards, and its latest violations endangered international peace and security more than ever before. And yet he deliberately refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Council summit - the same Council that he claimed bore responsibility for responding to such threats.

President Obama knew that if the magnitude of the Iranian threat were revealed yesterday, the emptiness of his resolution would have been embarrassingly obvious and his cover blown. In public, at the highest levels of the U.N, he heralded generalities as significant. In private, he was petitioning lower levels of the U.N. to act on startling specifics of the Iranian threat.

Why did the president not present this same evidence to the Security Council, the body with "the authority and the responsibility to respond"? Why did he not challenge world leaders to deal with the same Iranian threat that he privately was pressing upon U.N. bureaucrats?

There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb.

KRAUTHAMMER: To me, that is a lightning round question, but I will dig deep and I will give him credit for continuing the Bush policy of the rendition and detention without trial.

Rendition is handing over a bad guy that you capture abroad over to another country, which was denounced by the left in the Bush years as inhuman, and detention without trial of course was attacked by the Democratic left as a rape of the constitution.

So I'm glad Obama is continuing the inhumanity and the constitutional rape of the Bush administration. It shows a certain broadmindedness.

I will give him credit for one other thing, for having so depleted his political capital on health care that he really doesn't have the charisma and resources, political resources now to do a lot of mischief.

You might not have heard, but some key parts of the nation's most important anti-terrorism law are set to expire in December. When the Patriot Act was originally passed in the days following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress put time limits on three of its most far-reaching provisions: "Roving wiretaps," which allow investigators to keep up with suspects who use dozens of cell phones to avoid being traced; "business records" authority, which lets investigators ask a special national-security court for access to records of a suspect's dealings with private businesses; and the "lone wolf" provision, which allows investigators to track individual terror suspects even if they are not a member of a terrorist group, like al Qaeda. Congress renewed those provisions in 2005 and now must give them another four-year renewal, or they will disappear.

Some Democratic lawmakers have long wanted to weaken the act, and now, with big majorities in the House and Senate, they have their chance. But the renewal debate just happens to come at a time when recently uncovered domestic terror plots -- most notably the Denver shuttle bus driver and his colleagues caught with bomb-making materials and a list of specific targets in New York City -- are highlighting the very threats the act was designed to counter. Republicans are fighting to keep the law in its current form.

"These three provisions have been very important for the investigative agencies who are working every day to protect us from terrorist attack," says Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the committee. "Before the Patriot Act, terrorist investigators had far less authority to get records and documents than a DEA or an IRS agent."

Democrats have proposed a number of changes, all of which would weaken the law. Sen. Russell Feingold wants to do away with the "lone wolf" provision entirely. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, would make it more difficult for investigators to obtain business records. In addition, Leahy wants to return to legal standards that existed before September 11 regarding "national security letters," which are essentially subpoenas issued by the FBI and other security agencies. "They are going back to a September 10th mentality -- literally," says one GOP committee aide.

Even roving wiretaps, a widely accepted, common-sense feature of the Patriot Act, have come under question. At a Sept. 23 committee hearing, Sen. Al Franken, the newest member of the committee, challenged the constitutionality of such wiretaps, and in the process left an Obama Justice Department official -- who supports the law -- muttering in frustration.

That official, Assistant Attorney General David Kris, tried to explain to Franken that the law allows, and the courts have held, that investigators can wiretap a suspect based on a specific description of that suspect's activities, even if investigators don't know his name.

Franken, who pointed out that he is not a lawyer, was unimpressed. "That's what brings me to this," he said, pulling a copy of the Constitution from his coat pocket. He read aloud the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

Is the Patriot Act's roving wiretap provision consistent with the Constitution? Franken asked.

"I do think it is," Kris answered, "and I kind of want to defer to that other, third branch of government. The courts, in looking at -- "

Indeed it was. Maybe Franken was serious, and maybe he was just clowning around. But it didn't make for an enlightening exchange -- or bode well for the Patriot Act.

Now the committee is down to the business of crafting an actual bill to reauthorize the act. Republicans believe they can beat back some of the more sweeping changes, but they are under no illusions about the Democratic majority's power to chip away at the government's ability to fight terrorism.

"I'm very worried that we could end up weakening the act," says Sessions, "when we should be considering what we can do to make it stronger."

♦We're going to get a health care plan shoved down our throats that is written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it

Here is a resolution that you ought to support, no matter what your political leanings...read the bills before voting on them; and put them online for 72 hours before a vote:

www.balancecutsave.com for a Huckabee petition for President Obama to approach out economy by balancing the budget by cutting and saving.

If you think Roman Polanski ought not be bothered with his rape of a 13 year old girl several decades ago, here is some of the testimony along with a link to the complete testimony:

Michelle Malkin tells us who would get what, had the Olympics come to Chicago; this was going to be a boondoggle for supporters of Obama.

Apparently Valerie Jarrett owns some horrendous slum buildings (some without roofs), which would have been sold to the city and razed in preparation for the Olympics (which property has already made Jarrett a millionaire).

The NY Times admits that it was too slow on the uptake when it came to ACORN or to the Green Jobs [don’t call me] czar Van Jones, and they promise now to assign someone to watch opinion media in case any similar stories break. Glenn Beck, on his show, now, will stop now and again and make suggestions as to what the NY Times ought to investigate.

Report that Sarkozy sees Obama as naive and egotistical (video included, but it is not of Sarkozy):

Here is the NY Times/CBS poll which claims 65% of Americans want the public option (which seems so different from every other poll I have seen):

RUSH: As you know, President Obama is heading off to Copenhagen tomorrow to make a final pitch for the Olympics in Chicago in 2016. His wife Michelle (My Belle) is already there conducting big-time meetings. She said the most audacious thing which I'm going to analyze in greater detail in just a moment. She said, "It is a sacrifice for her to fly over there and make a pitch for the Olympics, that it is a sacrifice for her husband to fly over there to make a pitch for the Olympics, but that they are doing it for the kids." While American soldiers are being shot at and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan because of inaction and indecision and probably apathy on the part of President Obama, they have the audacity to say that they are making a huge sacrifice to go to Copenhagen when in fact they act like they're having a big party as they supposedly argue for the Olympics. We have an exclusive here on the EIB Network. We have President Obama, he's been working with the teleprompter on his pitch to the organizing committee, the Olympic organizing committee in Copenhagen, and this is a rough draft of what he might say to them.

A little sneak peek there of President Obama's presentation tomorrow to the International Olympic Committee.

RUSH: Michelle Obama is in Copenhagen to bribe -- uh, to pitch the International Olympic Committee into choosing Chicago. I'm wondering if the fact that as many Chicagoans as not want the thing, as many don't want it as do, I wonder if that will have an impact on the committee. And, you know, folks, Chicago... When you talk about Chicago you're talking pure patronage. The reason they want the games -- and I'm just guessing. I'm just throwing this out. I have no evidence to back this up. This is just the way my mind works. How many people in Chicago that are part of the Daley machine, how many people in the Obama administration from Chicago own some property that will have to be sold at premium prices to build the Olympic complex in Chicago? The Olympic village, venues and so forth? Yeah, we may as well say it's a Tony Rezko production. We know that Chicagoans stick together.

The machine guys stick together. They help you buy a house for very little and so forth. That's Rezko for Obama. So I'm just wondering how many...? You have to ask these things. This is how it works. How many Chicagoans in the Daley machine and how many Chicagoans like Rahm in the White House working for Obama, own property that they're going to sell at huge prices to have these Olympics take place? Always follow the money. Anyway, Michelle (My Belle) is over there. "In her speech in Copenhagen today, First Lady Michelle Obama said her trip to Denmark, along with the travel of her 'dear friend' and 'chit-chat buddy' Oprah Winfrey, as well as tomorrow's visit by President Obama, is a 'sacrifice' on behalf of the children of Chicago and the United States.

"'As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days,' the first lady told a crowd of people involved in the Chicago project, 'so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home. As first lady, as many of you know, I've made it a priority to bridge the gap between the White House and communities across DC and across the country.'" What the hell is she...? Bridge what gap between the White House and communities across DC and the country? What freaking gap is she talking about? "I've spent much of my first nine months trying to open the doors to the White House to kids who might not otherwise see themselves having access to these institutions, because that's where I came from -- communities like that where kids never dreamed that they could set foot in the White House, let alone live there ... And Barack and I made a point of doing the same thing when we lived in Chicago -- making the concerns of kids in all sorts of communities our own."

Do you want me to translate this, or do I even have to? I'm uncomfortable translating because I know I'm right about it. But that's a pure racial statement. That is a statement that illustrates the chip on her shoulder and on Barack's shoulder and on Jeremiah Wright's. And rather than feel because of Barack's election, rather than feel like some really great achievement has happened, the country's taken a great step forward, they still hold onto the anger and they won't let go of the anger. And they have to keep talking about the way things were, how rotten things were, despite how wonderfully positive they've changed. How rotten things were. "And so I'm going to keep reminding people how rotten things were!" "I've spent much of my first nine months trying to open the doors to the White House to kids who might not otherwise see themselves having access to these institutions because..." Anybody can go to Washington and get a tour of the White House any day.

Anybody can go to Washington and tour any monument or memorial any day. Nobody is stopping anybody from doing this. There are White House tours. If you know, you can call your congressman and you can get some sort of access to a White House tour. There's any number of things that you can do. Nobody's denied access to these institutions, for crying out loud! She's talking about the old disc'imination, discrimination. In her mind it hasn't ended. People still feel that way. This is what bugs me about all this, and this is what I mean by the chip on their shoulder they carry around. They still have a seething rage even though the country is where it is, and we've moved as far as we have. They still have a seething rage about it. You know Jeremiah Wright still has seething rage about it.

"Mrs. Obama said bringing the Olympics to Chicago is especially important right now because 'athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity.'" Athletics is becoming more of a fleeting opportunity? Listen to her explain that. "'Funds dry up so it becomes harder for kids to engage in sports, to learn how to swim, to even ride a bike,' she said. In addition, with childhood obesity on the rise, 'it is so important for us to raise up the platform of fitness and competition and fair play,' the first lady said." Well, now, how many decades have we had this worthless thing called the President's Commission On Physical Fitness? We've had all these athletes celebrities, nominated to head the thing up. And I don't know what the hell ever happens other than a softball game, a T-ball game, and an Easter egg roll.

What in the world here? Funds are drying up? It's harder to learn how to swim because funds had dried up? It's harder to learn how to ride a bike because funds have dried up? No! It's getting harder to ride a bike because certain school districts are telling kids that they can't ride a bike to school, nor can they walk to school. I've got that story somewhere here in the stack. 'Finally, having the Olympics in Chicago would be important to 'let people know that we understand that sports saves lives, that it makes dreams come true, that it creates visions in kids' heads to make them think they can be the next David Robinson, the next Barack Obama," who is a well-known sports figure, by the way. Barack Obama is a well-known athlete. Yes, that's what he's known for. "'[T]he next Nadia Comaneci, the next Oprah Winfrey...'"

Well, that's what she said here. "[W]e understand that sports saves lives, that it makes dreams come true, that it creates visions in kids' heads to make them think they can be the next David Robinson, the next Barack Obama...the next Oprah Winfrey."

Okay, I want to go back to it's a "sacrifice" for her and Barack and Oprah to fly in the epitome of luxury on government jets to Copenhagen and have a huge party. They're throwing a party over there as they argue and pitch for the Olympics. "As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me..." Who in the world is saying it's a sacrifice for you? Who in the world's running up to Michelle Obama and saying, "I really love the sacrifice you're making here, Michelle. There's a lot of things that you could be doing like bridging the gap between the White House and communities out there, but you took time off from that number one charge of yours of bridging the gap and you're out there. You're really sacrificing, arguing for the Olympics to come to Chicago. Great sacrifice to head over there to Copenhagen."

It's a great sacrifice to take your own plane when your husband's coming on his own plane two days later! Why, this is a marvelous sacrifice. We should all be grateful that the people living in the White House should make this kind of sacrifice and then have the courage to tell us that they know what a sacrifice they're making. Now, I'm like you. I'm thinking that Michelle Obama needs a little dictionary lesson. Let's not forget, this is the woman who is not proud of her country unless she's getting what she wants from it. She said during the campaign, the first time she'd been proud of her country, was when Obama was nominated or done something. So she sacrificed herself to get in a big, luxurious jet -- a Boeing 757 -- to fly to Copenhagen, where she's pampered and treated like she were a goddess. Yes, this is a sacrifice.

Meanwhile, we have had at least four of our voluntary military men and women killed while living in tents in the most godforsaken spot on earth while insane religious fanatics try to kill them. All the while she and her husband need a few more weeks to decide whether he can risk angering his base to send reinforcements to help them! So Michelle, you need to look at a Merriam-Webster Dictionary and study the word "sacrifice" 'cause it's obviously a word you did not learn in your Ivy League education. You're throwing a party. You're flying over on a 757. Your husband comes over later on a 747. You're with The Oprah. You're in a luxurious hotel suite sipping adult beverages throwing parties with canapes while these various people come and you give them a pitch.

And while all this is going on men and women who have volunteered to defend and protect this country are getting killed in Afghanistan while your husband dithers on whether to send them reinforcements 'cause he can't figure out if it will hurt his health care bill chances! She wants to tell us that people tell her that they're aware of the sacrifice she's making. Arrogance? Yeah. Hubris? Yeah. Class? No. Awareness? No. Sensitivity? Zero. Ability to relate? Zero. Total self-centeredness? Yes. Again, we can do this seemingly with practically every news story that comes down the pike. Barbara Bush, Laura Bush in Copenhagen, pitching the Olympics for Dallas or Houston -- and they're over there with Bruce Willis and the Oak Ridge Boys -- and Laura Bush says, "People have told me of the immense sacrifice that George and I are making to come here to lobby for the Olympics for Dallas or Houston." Imagine that happening during the Iraq war and either of them saying that, and imagine what the reaction to it would be. Today they marvel at the fact that Michelle's there, working hard to bring this home for Chicago. Bring it home now! Obama's going over there. They're talking about the bravery and the courage of our president to go over there and risk national and worldwide humiliation by having the games go to Rio and not Chicago. What a brave, courageous president this man is! While troops continue to die in Afghanistan with no apparent hope for reinforcements.

RUSH: Marcus in Boise, Idaho, home of Boise State. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Thanks, Rush. It's good to talk to you. Yeah, I just wanted to comment that I'm pretty much outraged that our president is flying over to another country to promote the Olympics in a city where our children are murdering each other in record numbers. I'm originally from Oakland, California. I had a son murdered there, my best friend was a victim of murder as well, a mistaken identity, and he was an athlete, a teammate of mine. And this has been a problem going on for a long time. I just don't understand why my people don't see that Obama is not like us. He's an elitist. He was groomed for this position. He never led the life that we did --

RUSH: They see it. I don't want to hear this, "Why don't people see it?" People do see it. Now, the people that voted for him may not see it yet, but I guarantee you some of the Wall Street people who voted for him see it. They're scared to say so. Charles Gasparino, New York Post yesterday, big column.

RUSH: If you were not here yesterday I want to review what the tactic is in the Senate to get a health care bill on Obama's desk in the next couple of weeks. And the source for this is the Heritage Foundation, and I've doubled checked it with a couple other people. It is exactly right. Here's how the process will work. Harry Reid is going to put... There's a bunch of different bills that he could attach one of the Senate health care bills to as an amendment. It was originally suspected that what Harry Reid would do would be to take a bill that the House passed long ago that's been languishing in the Senate, a bill that taxes the bones of employees who receive TARP funds. The Senate has not acted on that. And, remember, in the Senate everything has to get 60 votes other than budget bills. Sixty votes before final debate and final vote can take place. It's called cloture.

And there's no way that Reid can get 60 votes on a straight, down-the-line health care reform bill. It just isn't there. So the trick is to take a health care bill in the Senate and attach it as an amendment to another bill that could be related or unrelated. Now, the TARP bonus bill is unrelated. There are a couple of other bills -- "vehicles," they're being called -- that Reid could use and then call for a cloture vote. And because it's not the overall health care bill, it's likely the cloture vote would be lost because the people who are afraid to vote for cloture on a straight health care bill could then say, "Well, we weren't voting on the health care bill. We were voting on the TARP bonus bill," or one other, two other bills that Reid might use if not the TARP bill. So there are two health bills in the Senate: One from the Harkin committee, one from the Baucus committee.

Harry Reid takes the best of both, he merges them, creates one Senate bill and attaches that as an amendment to a bill that either has something to do with health care or in the case of the TARP bonus bill has nothing to do with health care. And once they get cloture, he could drop that combined bill to the floor of the Senate, which includes Baucus and Harkin, and then they'd only need 50 votes to pass that final product because Biden would be there to provide 51 if necessary. Now, one of the questions here is: Can they get Senator Byrd to the chamber? He's in poor health. If they can't get Byrd to the chamber, the only need 11 votes. You have to assume they're not gonna be able to get Byrd there. Now, we can also assume that we get all the Republicans and Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln; maybe Pryor, Landrieu, Bayh, McCaskill, Carper, Warner, Webb. But the Democrat side will get Specter and Bennett and Nelson and Shaheen and Conrad -- and, in that situation, our side would lose.

There are a lot of people working behind the scenes targeting these individual Senators in a number of different ways to try to influence their votes. But once this happens, if Reid is able to pull this off -- and, by the way, it's not guaranteed. This is fraught with obstacles for Reid, but I'm just telling you what the latest trick is. If they succeed, this would then go to conference. And the plan is for Harry Reid to drop this, say, TARP bill with the health care amendment that has passed the Senate over to Pelosi, where she would rubber-stamp it in the conference. It would then be agreed to -- and no amendments can be added in conference. They're all going to be done before that. So once the House and Senate agree: Bammo! The bill goes up to Obama's office. So the conference report would be put in play, and at that point there still has to be a vote on the conference report. The House and Senate both have to vote again on the final conference version, the combination of the House and Senate version.

So if Pelosi rubber-stamps what Reid sends her -- and that's problematic, too, because you've got so many disparate actors over in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus, the Barney Franks of the world, they may not agree to rubber-stamp depending on what's in the Senate bill that Reid sends over. But if all this happens, then the conference bill is in play and then more lobbying will take place with all the questionable characters in the House and the Senate. But the plan as it is now is for Pelosi to rubber-stamp what Reid sends over because they're working in advance on merging these two Senate bills to have it contain pretty much similar contents to what the House bill already has. And in this way, they get it on up there. The trick here, the trick here is that they would get to cloture without voting on a health care bill. They would get to cloture.

They'd get 60 votes on some unrelated bill with health care attached as an amendment, thereby getting all these Democrat senators who are scared to death to vote cloture for health care off the hook 'cause they can say, "Oh, I wasn't voting on the health care bill. I was voting on TARP bonus bill." The thing about a TARP bonus bill is who's going to vote against that on the Democrat side? Who in the world is going to vote against taxing bonuses paid to employees who work for TARP companies, people that got TARP money? The point is, folks, they don't have 60 votes for this because the American people do not want this. They do not want this version, either the Senate versions or the House versions. They don't have 60 votes. Harry Reid's trying to get around getting 60 votes without having to go to reconciliation because that's dynamite potentially for them. That's a violation of Senate rules. Reconciliation, 51 votes essentially could only be used to pass budget bills, by law, by Senate rule. So they're trying not to go that way, so this is a trick that they're trying to get around the fact nobody wants what they're concocting. It's a trick to get around this whole 60 votes business. I explained this in the first hour of yesterday. Susan called late in the show and cited it right down the line, almost verbatim. It was a beautiful thing. She got it, which means a lot of other people got it, which means the country is even more wired against this today.

RUSH: I don't know if it was the last liberal attached amendment trick to major legislation, but I do know that the Boland Amendment caused chaos and roiled this country. Do you remember what the Boland Amendment was? The Boland Amendment was an amendment -- back in the mid-eighties -- that was attached to a budget bill, and the Boland bill prohibited any financial aid to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua, the Contras. They attached it, this is something that they didn't vote on specifically in the House, they voted on a budget bill, they attached it, and remember all the hell it caused. Some were saying that it was even unconstitutional at the time. But that was again when the Democrats back in the eighties were siding with a communist satellite, a Soviet satellite nation of Nicaragua under the tyranny of Daniel Ortega who is, by the way, back now and yuks it up with Barack Obama when they have meetings down there in Central and South America.

So here we have an attached amendment trick where Harry Reid is doing his best to try to avoid having to get 60 votes. They don't have 60 votes. I should add this. The head count right now is they've got 58 votes for cloture on a straight down-the-line vote on either of the two health care bills in the Senate. They don't have 60 so they can't go the normal way. Health care, you know, taking over one-sixth of the economy as an amendment to a totally unrelated bill that will be easier to get cloture, and that's the trick, that is what they're doing, they are scheming against us, the American people. They know full well -- these people read polls better than you and I do -- and they know full well what our sentiments are. We want no part of this, and the numbers of people that want no part of this grow each and every day, hence the hurry and the speed and the necessity to get this done under parliamentary tricks. There's nothing about this, folks, that's illegal, I don't want to stress that they're violating any rules. They would be skirting that if they went the reconciliation route. They don't want to do that, that is their last option. Reconciliation is simply, you know, budgets, that's a constitutional requirement, so throw the 60 votes out, just 51 majority, simply majority to pass that, and that's what they're looking for to pass health care, and they're trying to get it by having one-sixth of the economy being taken over as an amendment to some unrelated bill.

This is all a coordinated effort with Pelosi and Obama and people in the White House. So that is the status of things here. But as is the case, they don't operate in secret anymore. They don't get away with doing this stuff in a clandestine way where people don't find out about it. People do find out about it, and it is simple to understand, when it's explained properly, it is simple to understand. So the Democrat Party and the left once again showing they have no respect for the will or the desires of the American people. Representative republic with a small R, an obstacle to these people. Your liberty is an obstacle to these people. Your freedom of choice is an obstacle to the Democrat Party in 2009 and has been for years.

Congress’s secret plan to pass Obama-care (step–by-step, how it will be done):

RUSH: Here's some compassion. Here is some real, genuine compassion. The Democrat Party, they own it, right? Liberal, they're the ones with the big hearts. They're the ones who really care. This is actually a great case of projection. Who is it is that has set up death panels? Who is it that has written legislation that will have bureaucrats decide who does and does not get lifesaving treatment based on whatever criteria they want to use? These are Democrat-written bills in the Senate and in the House. Not one Republican word in any of these bills, right? It's this public option that is going to determine who among us lives and dies on the basis of who among us gets health care, gets treatment based on whatever criteria they say is necessary. Last night on the floor of the House, Alan Grayson, a Florida Democrat, spoke about health care reform and said this.

GRAYSON: If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly! That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. Remember the Republican plan: Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.

RUSH: Now, that is simply outrageous. There is no Republican plan in any way, shape, manner, or form that comes close to this. The only plan that asks you to die and get out of the way is a Democrat plan. In 1984, Richard Lamm, Democrat governor of Colorado: "Old people have a duty to die and get out of the way." Back then he was laughed off the public stage. "How could you say something so uncaring? Die and get out of the way?" Twenty-five years later Newsweek magazine has a cover story: "The Case for Pulling the Plug on Granny." It's the American left that wants you to die. They want you to die in the womb, and they want you to die when you're no longer productive toward the end of your life. It's the Democrat Party that's obsessed with your death. It's the Democrat Party that is obsessed not with life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, but the exact opposite. They're the party of abortion and euthanasia. Slavery, not liberty. Everybody being created miserable and mediocre. That's how they would rewrite the Constitution. They're in the process of doing it now without actually touching the document. Now, let's go to Scarborough's show today on MSNBC. Mika Brzezinski is talking to Congressman Elijah Cummings of the Congressional Black Caucus. "Congressman, are you prepared to say that Grayson went too far in his language that Republicans want people to die."

CUMMINGS: I'm not prepared to say that. I see a lot of people in my community dying slowly because they don't have health care and don't have insurance, and so -- and many of them have been the victims. When I go to town hall meetings, and I ask, say, a 90% African-American audience how many know of people who have died within the last year that they knew or believe strongly should not have died because they didn't have insurance or were not treated properly, 90% of the people consistently hold up their hands.

RUSH: Now, I want to give you a comparison. Joe Wilson goes House to the floor during that joint speech and says, "You lie" to Obama. The Republican Party, despite Joe Wilson telling the truth, denounce him. "That was uncalled for! That was uncivil! We don't need that." A Democrat goes to the House floor and says, "Republicans want you to die quickly. Get sick and die quickly." They go to Elijah Cummings and he says, "Oh, no, I think it's absolutely right! In fact, black people are dying because of Republicans." They don't throw their own people under the bus. They amplify what they say.

RUSH: Speaking of Elijah Cummings, I don't believe anybody in this country is dying because of a lack of health insurance. But that's what Obama is saying, and Obama's a grand pooh-bah so Elijah Cummings goes out there and repeats it and so forth and so on, and that's how these things become mantras. Then the Drive-Bys pick it up, and before you know it 45,000 people a year are dying, dying, dying. And the Democrat Party is obsessed with death. Life, no. Abortion, euthanasia. Liberty? No. Slavery. Subordination to government. Pursuit of happiness? Not possible. I've yet to meet a happy liberal. They're angry, deranged lunatics. They don't want to enjoy life. If they become a vegetarian, everybody else must become one! If a conservative becomes a vegetarian, fine, whatever you want to do with your life is fine, you want to eat meat, go ahead. If a liberal buys a Prius, everybody has to buy a Prius! If a conservative buys a Prius he's made fun of by his friends, and eventually sells it.

RUSH: Bill in Indianapolis. Hello, Bill. It's great to have you on the program. Thank you for waiting, sir.

CALLER: Yeah. What a pleasure it is for you to get to speak to a happy, healthy ogler.

CALLER: That's right. My question is, I keep hear these from these liberal Democrats that 40,000 people die every year that do not have health care coverage. How many people with good health care coverage die?

RUSH: Well, that would be about, say 300,000 a year because of smoking, 400,000 a year because of obesity, 500,000 a year because of trans fats -- and I bet they all ate carrots, too, while they had health insurance.

RUSH: Forty thousand people are not dying because they don't have health insurance.

RUSH: Good health does not give you immortality. We die. Sometimes you die in an auto accident. Doesn't matter. Elijah Cummings is out there saying in his constituency, blacks are dying because they don't have health coverage -- oops, oops, health insurance! Health insurance! I would like for him to produce one death certificate of one of his constituents that says, "Cause of death: No health insurance." I want to see it! I want a parade. I want to see the caskets. I want to see the cemetery. I want to see the graveyard. I want to see the tombstones of all of his constituents who have died because they had no health insurance. They throw these numbers around which are cockamamie and absurd. So show us the cemetery! Show us the death certificate. If you don't want to do that, just give us the case examples. Say, "Person A, B, C here passed away because they didn't have health insurance -- meaning they got really sick and they didn't get covered, didn't get any treatment." Really? Did they go to the emergency room? Because it's a federal law you have to be treated when you go in there. These people are just a bunch of lying sacks of you-know-what, folks, through and through. It's all they know how to do.

The Alan Grayson video (and, he has 5 minutes; so does he spend anytime dealing with the actual healthcare bill?):

RUSH: Sarkozy. You know, we talked about him yesterday. Sarkozy is expressing all kinds of nervousness about Obama. Last night on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox she spoke with Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette who says that he has sources who have told him that Sarkozy has the same opinion of Obama that we do. Greta Van Susteren's question was, "Prior to this issue of Iran arising in Pittsburgh at the G20 and before that at the General Assembly at the UN, what was President Sarkozy's view of President Obama, and have they patched things up a little bit?"

KELLY: I have a friend who has -- one friend who is close to Sarkozy and another who is a member of France's external intelligence agency, and they both say that Sarkozy thinks that President Obama is incredibly naive and grossly egotistical, so egotistical that no one can dent his naivete, and he's very worried about what that means for the West, because the president of the United States is the leader of the free world, and if the president of the United States isn't going to lead the free world, it isn't going to be led.

RUSH: See, I go back and forth on this naivete business. I don't doubt that there's some naivete but I think that there's an incredible ego and hubris. But, see, I think all this is on purpose, from destroying the US economy, to creating as much welfare as possible, to creating as much dependence on government. I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but I really don't believe it's naivete. I think that Barack Obama and the gang which spawned him have an active dislike for this country as founded. You can hear it in all of his speeches. Every time he goes around the world, apologizes for the United States, that speech at the United Nations, everybody says it's sophomoric, probably was in a strict analysis on the basis of content and so forth, but if you listen to several things about it, you find there's hardly any naivete there. He essentially said, "My country sucked, my country sucked, and every one of you in this body who thought the United States was a bad deal, you're right. But look at what we've done to change it in the last nine months, look how much it's better since I'm here."

I don't think that's naivete. It is certainly ego. But, folks, we're dealing with a guy who is out to destroy the whole concept of the West, western civilization, the West in terms of a geopolitical organization of nations, out to destroy it. We've never seen anything like this. Gore Vidal even says that we're headed toward a dictatorship soon in the United States of America and this is in the UK Times. He voted for Obama. Now, Gore Vidal himself is insane, but this nevertheless is quite instructive. Gore Vidal famously switched allegiance from Hillary to Barack Obama during the nomination process, and now in this interview he regrets his change of heart. "How's Obama doing? 'Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we've had in that position for a long time. But he's inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He's acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.'

"Another notable Obama misstep has been on healthcare reform. 'He [screwed] it up. I don't know how because the country wanted it.' . America has 'no intellectual class' and is 'rotting away at a funereal pace. We'll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people.'" Now, this is in the women's section of the UK Times, the life and style section. But Gore Vidal, who himself is a left-wing lunatic, despite his lunacy is seeing the lunacy he's looking at when he looks at the White House. I guess it takes a lunatic to see a lunatic, to know one. See, the problem is, if Obama had more experience in the public or private sector, he never would have been elected president in the first place. The more we know, the more the myth of Obama fades. It was Obama's inexperience and platitudes that got him elected. It's his inexperience that's going to do great harm to the country and the world that we used to lead.

I think all the inexperience, all the naivete misses the point of what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with somebody who's got a chip on his shoulder, and it's been placed there from the moment he was born by people who reared him, by the church he went to, by his buddy Bill Ayers. If you just look at who his friends are, Valerie Jarrett, the Chicago machine, Richard Daley. Why is Obama off in Copenhagen? Now, there are many theories about this. Some people think, no, it's not in the bag, it's not in the bag, and Daley wants it. Daley made Obama, Daley opened up the machine to Obama, and Daley said you better get yourself over there and you better get this for me because I want all that money flowing in here for 2016. I need to keep going on my patronage and I need to get corruption -- you know the way the machine works. So Obama's been essentially ordered by Daley to get over there and get this done. That's one theory. Another theory is, it is done, and Obama's going over there just to accept the accolades and so forth. The theory being that he would not dare step foot in Copenhagen if there was a chance that Chicago would not be granted the 2016 Olympics.

Now, Michelle (My Belle) Obama arrived there this morning, two different airplanes. She flew her 757. He's going to fly the 747 tomorrow. A third 747 goes to provide communications over the Atlantic. All kinds of support people have to fly over in advance commercial, a bunch of military jets and cargo planes have to take the limousines and so forth, and this is not state business. It would be a mistake to focus on all the money that's being spent on this. Instead, they need to focus on the priorities and I really do believe, I thought about this, I really do think that it's not in the bag and I think that's why Daley ordered him to get over there. And Daley said, the mayor of Chicago, "Get yourself over there and you get this done." You owe us, is I think one of the things that's guiding this.

Mike, I'm going to interrupt what I told you about the sound bite order, because Gore Vidal says we really don't know who the guy is. Joe Klein said the same thing. Joe Klein, TIME Magazine, thinks that talk radio is the biggest problem facing America today. He was on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, Andrea Mitchell's show. She said, "We saw that even now with David Gregory on Meet the Press, any interview with Bill Clinton is just a rich mine of his knowledge, his assessments, his instincts. And I suspect that that's one of the reasons Obama had lunch with him in Greenwich Village two weeks ago to pick his brain." Now, these people are living in a fantasy world if they think that's why they had lunch together. But here's what Klein said.

KLEIN: He knows a lot. The other interesting thing is the contrast between these two men. Clinton is so wildly emotional and over the top, and Obama is so buttoned down. And it makes you realize how little we still know about President Obama, even after eight or nine months in office.

RUSH: Then what explains your slavish devotion to him, Joe, if so little is known about him? Joe, call me, I'll tell you everything you want to know about the guy, and I've never met him, and I've never covered him up close like you have, and I'll tell you everything you want to know. I'll tell you everything he's doing. And I'll be spot-on right. Let's go back to the archives. October 29th, 2008, Charlie Rose Show, PBS, he's talking to Tom Brokaw.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

RUSH: Yeah, that was a couple days before the election, three or four days before the election, and Joe Klein says eight or nine months later we still don't know who the guy is. Call me, Joe. Send me an e-mail, Joe, I'll tell you exactly who Barack Obama is and what's headed for this country. It's right out there for everybody to see. It doesn't take a neophyte to understand his economic policies are not designed to improve things.

RUSH: Saturday night, Washington, DC, Congressional Black Caucus foundation annual dinner, President Obama.

OBAMA: I was up in the G20 and some of you saw those big flags and all the world leaders come in and Michelle and I are shaking hands with them and one of the leaders, I won't mention who it was, he comes up to me, we take the picture, we go behind and, he says, "Barack, explain to me this health care debate." He says, "We don't understand it. You're trying to make sure everybody has health care, and they're putting a Hitler mustache on you. I don't -- that doesn't make sense to me. Explain that to me." (applause) He didn't understand.

RUSH: I wonder if Obama pointed out that the people carrying those signs around are Democrats, Lyndon LaRouchies. I wonder if Obama explained to whoever this was that asked him about this, "We have a First Amendment in our country, and some people don't agree with my plan." I don't even think I believe this. This was a favorite Bill Clinton ploy. (doing Clinton impression) "Yeah, you know what, I was over there at the G14, whatever it was, and I had some of these world leaders come up to me and say, 'You know, you're trying to do the greatest things for the people of your country. Why, why, why, why, why are your people so opposed to what you're doing?'" This is a standard ploy. Who was this world leader? He won't identify the world leader. Probably Hugo Chavez. Who was it? Certainly wouldn't be anybody from Canada, Great Britain or France.

No doubt, you recall how George Bush was excoriated over Katrina and not getting out there and just flying over it and how it was an expression of his hatred for Black people (despite the fact that there were American military boots on the ground immediately after the storm passed over). Where is the media when it comes to the flooding of the Atlanta and other places in the south? Where are Obama and Biden? Biden did do a flyover, promising, "We're going to have people come see you. This is not going to happen overnight. This is not going to happen tomorrow, but it's going to happen." Can you imagine had George Bush uttered these same words to the people of New Orleans?

Mom who watches friends’ kids for an hour before the bus is told to stop it or else:

Finance committee member promises that he won’t read the healthcare reform bill:

Obama safe-schools czar facilitated statutory rape (his claim, as I understand it, is he was a young teacher and did not really have enough guidance of what do to do in this sort of situation; and, at the same time, he brags that the boy left his office with a smile on his face):

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 #95	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	October 4, 2009