Conservative ReviewIssue #73 Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and V iews May 3, 2009

In this Issue:

This Week’s Events

Quotes of the Week

Joe Biden Prophecy Watch

Must-Watch Media

Short Takes

By the Numbers

Polling by the Numbers

Saturday Night Live Misses

Yay Democrats!

Obama-Speak

Questions for Obama

You Know You’ve Been Brainwashed when...

Predictions

Prophecies Fulfilled

Missing Headlines

Obama’s First 100 Days By Karl Rove

FDR and Obama: Their First Hundred Days

By Burton Folsom, Jr.

Muslims: 'We do that on first dates'

by Ann Coulter

Churchill Didn’t Torture? by Jonah Goldberg

O’Reilly’s Talking Points

'Special Report' Panel Assesses PresidentObama's First 100 Days in Office

Andrew McCarthy's Letter to Attorney GeneralHolder (in case you have not read this, it isfantastic!)

The Fox Panel on Obama's Comments AboutWaterboarding

Links

Additional Sources

The Rush Section

Rush Rocks Milken Institute Forum

Sign Your Life Over to Obama

Obama Is Vulnerable Now

Teacher Scolds Student for Reading Fox News

Picking a Supreme Court Justice

Obama Uses Chrysler to Achieve Social Justice

Additional Rush Links

Too much happened this week! Enjoy...

The cartoons come from: www.townhall.com/funnies.

If you receive this and you hate it and you don’twant to ever read it no matter what...that is fine;email me back and you will be deleted from mylist (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

Previous issues are listed and can be accessedhere:

http://kukis.org/page20.html (their contents aredescribed and each issue is linked to) or here: http://kukis.org/blog/ (this is the online directorythey are in)

I attempt to post a new issue each Sunday by 2 or3 pm central standard time (I sometimes fail atthis attempt).

I try to include factual material only, along withmy opinions (it should be clear which is which). I make an attempt to include as much of thisweek’s news as I possibly can. The first set of

columns are intentionally designed for a quickread.

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge forthis publication. I write this principally to blowoff steam in a nation where its people seemedhave collectively lost their minds.

This Week’s Events

The H1N1 virus appears to at first be a greatproblem (our own Vice President warns againstany sort of public transportation), and now, lessand less thought it given to its seriousness.

President Obama gives his 3 news conferencerd

in 3 months, taking only 13 questions from thepress.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter announceshis retirement.

Chrysler declares bankruptcy.

April marks the deadliest month in Iraq in 7months.

Jihad attacks in the 2 weeks ago (April 18–24)have gone up; there have been 38 attacks whichhave killed 268 people. In the past week, therewere 30 attacks in 7 countries taking the lives ofover 200 people, which included 2 beheadingsand several women and children suicidebombers.

ABC News, which almost blew a gasket ofthe outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame(until it became apparent that Bush, Roveand Cheney did not do it), ran names,addresses and photos of CIA officersassociated with enhanced interrogation(Sean Hannity pointed out thedisconnect).

Jack Kemp passes away.

Air Force One and one fighter jet cause abig scare when it flies low of New YorkCity, costing taxpayers $329,000. President Obama promises andinvestigation (how is it possible for thepresident not to know this happened; this

is a lot more than one of the Obama kidsgrabbing the keys to the car and taking off).

Page -2-

And what you did not read in your newspaper:

3 of the 5 Muslim terrorists who planned to killsoldiers at Fort Dix were sentence to lifeimprisonment. Although where these men camefrom, how they came to live in the United States,and how their plot was uncovered would havemade fascinating reading; this was deemed anon-story by mode media outlets (all of them hadjobs and/or businesses in the United States).

Attorney General Eric Holder’s former law firm,where he once was a partner, represents 17Gitmo Detainees. If Holder begins to investigatethose responsible for the legal opinions offeredto Bush, what impact will that have upon hisformer law firm? Taxpayer money may be usedin order to integrate some of these prisoners intoU.S. society.

President Obama signs into law the Edward M.Kennedy Serve America Act of 2009. ThinkAmeriCorps crossed with ACORN. It is not thereyet, but it will be.

The fortune 500 companies experienced an 85%drop in earnings this past year, which is thelargest 1-year decline in the 55 year history of thefortune 500 list. How do you think this willimpact our economy?

And although this is not a big story, you did nothear about it: Michelle Obama wears a pair of$540 sneakers to a feed the hungry event. IfSarah Palin’s wardrobe needed to be on the frontpage of every paper for several days, ought notMrs. Obama be subject to the same scrutiny?

What was overblown?

Arlen Specter leaves Republican party.

Quotes of the Week

When shown a video of a million tea bags aspurchased by various tea party protestors, JonStewart said to them: “You bought a million teabags to protest wasteful spending. Now, are youprotesting wasteful spending or irony?”

Speaking of irony, Pelosi on the budget outlinewhich was just passed: “It is a budget whichreduces the deficit.”

Obama on the tea party attendees: "Those of youwho are watching certain news channels onwhich I'm not very popular, and you see folkswaving tea bags around, let me just remind themthat I am happy to have a serious conversationabout how we are going to cut our health carecosts down over the long term, how we are goingto stabilize Social Security." Let me remind youthat FoxNews, the only station which carried any

Page -3-

real coverage of the tea parties, is the #1 cablenews station, its ratings are generally higher thanCNN, MSNBC and Headline News combined. Furthermore, Obama is not going to have aconversation with anyone about these things.

Rahm Emanuel when touting the achievements ofPresident Obama: “We have passed the largestrecovery act to put Americans back to work. Wehave stabilized the financial system. We havehelped Americans to keep their homes andmillions can now refinance. We have started theprocess to end the war in Iraq and we have begungetting credit to flow to small businesses.” So, Iguess that everything is okay now, or going to beokay soon?

Dennis Miller, “How did we come to the pointwhere Miss USA gets tougher questions than thePresident of the United States?”

Dennis Miller: “Helen Smith is Janet Napolitanobefore you add water.”

Caller to Rush Limbaugh program, with regards toAir Force One flying low over New York: “Obamais trying to delegate responsibility, which youcan't do, something I learned when I was in theNavy. You can delegate authority, but you cannot

delegate responsibility.” I realize that what he issaying may not sink in at first.

Peggy Noonan on the media coverage of the TeaParties: “I also think that it is hard for us who gotmost of this [information] through newspapers,tv and the web to understand just how large thisthing was, because the coverage was so politicallycharged. Liberal newspapers were subtlydismissive and conservative coverage was morethan subtly supportive.”

George Will on the Tea Parties: “What this wasabout—as was the Boston Tea Party—was barelyabout taxes but about Parliamentary role ourlives...it is the view that we are now in a thirdwave of government: the expansion ofgovernment of the New Deal; then the expansionof government of the Great society; but thosepeople who rallied there were saying this [whatgovernment is doing today] is somethingdifferent; they are erasing the line between thepublic and private sector.”

Joe Biden Prophecy Watch

Apparently, just about anyone can hop in AirForce One and take it for a drive. Obama did notknow it was gone (or so he says) and there wasapparently not a single person in the WhiteHouse who said, “Hmm, flying an airplane lowover New York City? Doesn’t sound like a goodidea to me.”

Must-Watch Media

Although I like Hannity must less than I likedHannity and Colmes, his production crew hit itout of the ballpark with Obama’s First 100 Days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doqYZ0RC7a0

Page -4-

Beck had a pretty good show on Tea Parties,although it admittedly peters out at the end;however, it had a strong start and a good middle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItJuednTRe8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfQ0SZa3n-A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBMHQq0ngnw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX05XLXiRFA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5rJtoMC-FM

Cavuto interviews Javier David, who was one ofthe people who attended one of the tea parties(this is one of the better interviews I have heard):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy1OmPNJQSs

Laura Ingraham interviews feminist Gloria Feldtregarding the Miss California controversy. Ms. Feldt makes remarks about the breastimplants which Miss California (Carrie Prejean)received from the pageant, but denies that shehas slammed Prejean in any way. If you want anyfeminist support, you had better tow the lineinsofar as leftist philosophy goes. That means,you do not speak out in support of traditionalmarriage (unless, of course, your name is Obama,and then nothing will be said):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MhRyv234PA

The above + Laura’s talking points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUd15ZXvHeg

The Republican do you feel safer ad:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/05/01/after-100-days-do-you-feel-safer

Joy Behar and Ann Coulter have a talk about whatthe new justice ought to be:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/05/02/ann-coulter-debates-joy-behar-round-two

Sam Donaldson apparently thinks that Castro hadKennedy assassinated (or, at least, he sees it as astrong possibility):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG9flT9Qimc

Short Takes

1) Up until now, we have shown great progress inIraq. As President Obama begins to movesoldiers out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, violencein Iraq is on the uptick. Despite Obama’s myriadof apologies, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is well aware of ourpolitical situation, and Democrats, who werefiercely anti Iraq War (for the past 2 years) arenow in charge. If they keep up the pressure, willObama and a Democratic Congress fold?

2) Another (partial) lie I am tired of hearing: thatthose who participated in the Tea Parties have noconcept of the original Tea Party. All most peopleknow about the original Tea Party is the rallyingcry of “No Taxation without Representation.” However, what most people do not know(including Janeane Garofalo), is that the taxed teawas no more expensive than the untaxed tea. Parliament gave the struggling East IndiaCompany exclusive rights to bring their tea to theUnited States, and Britain reduced the levy on thetea, but added a tax to the tea paid for by thecolonists. The end result was cheaper tea. So itwas not the amount of the tax the colonists weredisturbed about; it was that there was any taxwhatsoever. Fast forward to 2009: there is talkof a carbon tax or a carbon emissions cap and

Page -5-

trade; the end result is going to be much higherenergy costs. Of course, Obama promises torebate some of this money to the consumer. Now, although this was not altogetherintentional, do you see the parallel now?

3) Do not forget, the highest Bush deficitsoccurred during the Democratic Congress; andspending bills are initiated by Congress.

4) Do you remember just how ballistic the presswent over the firing of a 8 U.S. Attorneys? Thiswas despite Clinton firing 93 attorneys (includingthe one who was investigating him and his wife). Where is the outraged press concerning EricHolder and his former law firm?

5) Lies I am tired of hearing: that the informationabout the torture was already out there (whatwas not out there was how restrained thistorture was and that we had doctors standingby).

6) Lies I am tired of hearing part II: theinformation gotten from torture could have beengotten in some other way. This is offered withoutany proof whatsoever or with distortions.

7) Lies I am tired of hearing part III: [so-called]torturing was a recruitment tool. Will fanaticalIslamic terrorists see that these memos are outand that Obama will no longer torture and thendecide, “No more reason to fight the greatSatan.” They will use the memos alreadyreleased to recruit more terrorists, telling them,“This was the most the United States was willingto do and now they are not willing to even dothis.” They will also use the photos which areabout to be released as a recruitment tool.

8) Michael Steele determined that his family of 4(him, his wife and 2 children) that the Obamadebt placed upon his family is $500,000.

9) As a candidate, President Obama expressedessentially the same opinion as Carrie Prejean(Miss California). Where was the outrage againstObama?

10) Before the Great Depression, unemploymentfigures for Blacks were around 3%, slightly lowerthan for whites. Since then, there have beenumpteen programs to fix all of the problemswhich Blacks face. Now, regardless of where youstand on the political spectrum, do you think thelast 60 years has helped African Americanseconomically? In case you need help with thatthought, right now, unemployment for Blacks inmany large cities is in the 15–30% GreatDepression range.

11) This is the first time I have heard a presidenttell us to wash our hands and cover our mouthswhen we cough. The fact that Obama is telling usthis should be a clue as to how he thinks of theAmerican people—not smart enough to deal withthe flu.

12) Obama did say something complimentaryabout Bush and what was done during the bird flu

Page -6-

epidemic; I must admit, I almost fell out of myseat when I heard that.

13) I was glad to see that Bill Kristol agrees withme that, since the enhanced interrogationmemos are now out there, let’s have a frank andopen investigation of all aspects of this (I am surehe regularly checks CR before forming anopinion).

14) Biden, almost on script for once, says that weneed to reduce our energy costs and reduce ourmedical costs. So we are going to put these twothings in the hands of our federal government,because it is so famous for controlling andreducing costs?

15) One of the Obama proposals, which I admit,I did not quite get at first—government providedinternet, particularly for rural areas. Iunderstand, of course, that a liberal likesgovernment-sponsored everything, but they keyis, if the government subsidizes it, then thegovernment has a say as to regulating it.

16) One of the most peculiar arguments from theleft is, torture doesn’t work. If it is absolutelywrong and immoral to use enhanced

interrogation, then any additional argument isspecious. Although Obama was factually wrongabout Churchill being unwilling to treat Germanprisoners harshly even though England was beingbombed, his philosophy is clear: if the UnitedStates was being bombed, it is still immoral totreat prisoners harshly in order to obtaininformation which might protect Americans.

17) We will find out if Obama has any moralfiber. We know that he believes torture to bewrong and that enhanced interrogation underthe Bush administration was torture, in hisopinion. As Americans find out more andmore about this issue, and line up againstObama, what will Obama do? Will he take areal moral stand or will he just let this issuefade into the background?

18) What demonstration during the Bush yearsmatches the tea parties of Obama’s first 3months?

By the Numbers

The April 2009 Jihad Report:

Jihad Attacks: 158 Countries: 15

Page -7-

Religions: 5 Dead Bodies: 715

Those viewing the Obama Press Conferences: February 9: 49.5 millionMarch 24: 40.4 millionApril 29: 28.8 million

You no doubt heard that 90% of the guns seizedin Mexico came from the US. Wrong. 90% of thetraceable guns came from the US. In total, that is17% of the guns seized by Mexican officials.

It is typical for 35,000 to die from the regular flueach season.

Polling by the Numbers

100 Day Approval Ratings:

Ronald Reagan 67% Jimmy Carter 63 George W. Bush 62 Richard Nixon 61 George H.W. Bush 58 Barack Obama 56 Bill Clinton 55

A new Rasmussen Reports nationaltelephone survey found that 41% wouldvote for their district's Republican candidatewhile 38% would choose the Democrat. Iknow most of you did not see this in yournews reports.

Rasmussen: 58% disapprove of declassifying CIA memosbecause it compromises national security. 28% approve, believing this to helpAmerica’s image abroad.

37% of voters now believe the U.S. legalsystem worries too much about protectingindividual rights when national security is atstake.

21% say the legal system is too concerned aboutprotecting national security. 33% believe that the balance is just about right.

46% of voters disagree with Obama's decision toclose the prison camp for terrorism suspects atthe Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba 36% agree with the president's action

Gallup: 51% of Americans in favor of an investigation intothe use of harsh interrogation techniques onterrorism suspects during the Bushadministration. Count me as one of those; and Iwant those self righteous Democrats who havehad a sudden conversion, like Pelosi, who claimnot to know what was going on before. 42% opposed

55% of Americans believe in retrospect that theuse of the interrogation techniques was justified,while only 36% say it was not

Saturday Night Live Misses

Obama being asked the kind of questions he is

Page -8-

often asked at press conferences. Game show where people have to identifywhether some action is a college fraternityinitiation or whether it is torture used on ourenemies. The writer could simply google hisscript.

What Obama says versus what he does.

Obama being stumped, confused, andmisdirected by his own teleprompter.

Feminists who take shots at Miss California.

Rahm Emanuel painting such a positive picture ofwhat Obama has done so far.

Robert Gibbs at a press conference.

Yay Democrats!

House Democrats John Barrow, Dan Boren,Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Joe Donnelly, BillFoster, Parker Griffith, Suzanne Kosmas, FrankKratovil, Dennis Kucinich, Betsy Markey, JimMarshall, Jim Matheson, Mike McIntyre, WaltMinnick, Harry Mitchell, Glenn Nye, TomPerriello, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague all votedagainst Obama’s 2010 budget outline. Senators

Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson vote against Obama’sbudget.

For some of these spending bills and bailouts,various Congressmen are receiving high volumes of calls against the massive spending which theyare doing, often 80% and above opposed to thisCongressional spending spree. A majority ofDemocrats are ignoring the public in this regard.

Obama-Speak

[New Regular Feature: More than any presidentthat I recall, President Obama tends to uselanguage very carefully, to, in my opinion,obfuscate what he is doing rather than to clarify. This seems to part and parcel of the Obamacampaign and now of the Obama presidency. This has become a mainstay of the Democraticparty as well. Another aspect of this is offeringup a slogan or an attack upon some villain ratherthan to make a clear statement or to give a clearanswer.]

President Obama: “I will do whatever is requiredto keep the American people safe.” But, asMeatloaf sang, “I won’t do that” (enhancedinterrogation). Personally, I want a presidentwho is willing to go to jail (because of whatevertechniques he authorizes) in order to protect theAmerican people. I want a president who hasenough acorns to do what his own wife would do,if it came to the safety of his own children.

The contradictions between Obama's words andactions are many. He opposes big government,and then he vastly expands it. He says he favorsbipartisanship, but doesn't practice it. He says heis against earmarks, and then signs the largestpork package in history.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/when_the_obama_backlash_comes.html (this is anexcellent article)

Page -9-

Obama has discontinued one line of GM car (thevolt) and fired the CEO of GM; but he comes outand says he has no interest in running GM.

Questions for Obama

These are questions for Obama, Axelrod, oranyone on Obama's cabinet:

Just to be absolutely clear, President Obama: youwould not authorize any extreme form ofquestioning (e.g., waterboarding) of enemycombatants, even if the end result would berisking the lives of Americans?

You Know You’re Being

Brainwashed when...

If you have not seen on your news station Obamabeing unable to continue his speech when histeleprompter gets messtup.

If you think that Obama, as a Senator, hadnothing to do with the deficit he inherited.

If all you know about Rush Limbaugh’s recent 1.5hour address is, “I hope he fails.” If you do notknow a single other quote, then you have fallenfor what the media wants to spoon feed you.

If you think the Republican Party is the party ofno and has not made any contributions to whatwe ought to be doing.

If you think that this is the greatest economiccrisis since the Great Depression (although, it ispossible that we could get into Jimmy Carter erastagflation and unemployment).

If you think that Obama’s story about Churchillnot using methods of enhanced interrogation (heused the word torture, of course) while Englandwas being bombed is true.

Predictions

The Stimulus Bill was not really a stimulus bill, buta bill which would pour huge amounts of moneyinto the economy (paid for by taxpayers) over thenext several years. Although this, in part,accounts for the uptick in the stock market, thereis nothing put forth by Obama or Congress whichwill strengthen business. The stock market willcreep up, with a lot of sideways movement,mostly in tandem with stimulus bill spending, andthen go into another free fall. The stock marketwill, of course, be impacted negatively asconsumer confidence diminishes (which it will)and if unemployment continues to rise (which itwill).

Although Obama has recently spoken again aboutour dependence upon foreign oil, I can guaranteeyou that, unless the carbon tax or cap and tradeare so onerous as to increase gas to $5/gallon, wewill fall behind in this area.

Page -10-

Quite obviously, nothing will be done in theObama administration or with a DemocraticCongress when it comes to nuclear power.

What will be fascinating is when, in 2010, thereare a majority of Republicans in the House. Obama has almost never compromised, he hasnever been a unifying political figure, and he hasnever dealt with people who (1) are opposed tohim and (2) have the actual power to oppose him. You will see Obama campaign mode like you havenever seen before and, if it does not work, it ishard to figure out what he will do. Nobody hasever said no to Obama before, so things could getvery ugly.

Missing Headlines

Obama Stumped without Teleprompter

Only 17% of Guns Seized in Mexico from US

Biden Puts Foot in Mouth Again

Come, let us reason together....

Obama’s First 100 DaysBy Karl Rove

While officials in the Obama White Housedismissed yesterday's "100 Days" anniversary asa "Hallmark Holiday," they understood it waswhat sociologist Daniel J. Boorstin called a"pseudo-event." By that, Boorstin meant anoccasion that is not spontaneous but planned forthe purpose of being reported -- an event that isimportant because someone says so, not becauseit is.

What happens in a president's first 100 daysrarely characterizes the arc of the 1,361 thatfollow. Jimmy Carter had a very good first 100days. Bill Clinton did not.

Still, a president would rather start well thanpoorly -- and Mr. Obama has a job approval of63%. That leaves him tied with Mr. Carter, onepoint ahead of George W. Bush, and behind onlyRonald Reagan's 67%. Four of the past sixpresidents had approval ratings that rangedbetween 62% and 67%, a statistically insignificantspread.

Mr. Obama is popular because he is a historicfigure, has an attractive personality, has passedkey legislation, and receives adoring presscoverage.

However, there are cautionary signs. Mr.Obama's policies are less popular than hispersonality, the pace of polarization withRepublicans has proceeded faster than ever inhistory, and independents are thinking more likeRepublicans on the issues and less likeDemocrats.

The first 100 days can reveal a pattern ofbehavior that comes to characterize a presidency.In this respect, there are two emerging habits ofTeam Obama worth watching.

One is the gap between what Mr. Obama said hewould do and what he is doing. Hisadministration is emphasizing in its official 100days talking points steps he has taken to "deliveron the change he promised." During thecampaign, Mr. Obama denounced the $2.3 trillionadded to the national debt on Mr. Bush's watchas "deficits as far as the eye can see." But Mr.Obama's budget adds $9.3 trillion to the debtover the next 10 years. What happened toObama the deficit hawk?

From Mr. Obama's Denver acceptance speechthrough the campaign, Mr. Obama did notpublicly utter the phrase "universal health care."Instead, his campaign ran ads attacking"government-run health care" as "extreme." NowMr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhallmeeting last month, "Why not do a universal

Page -11-

health care system like the European countries?"Maybe because he was elected by intimating thatwould be "extreme"?

Another emphasis in the Obama 100 days talkingpoints is that the president is a decisive leader.However, Mr. Obama is enormously deferentialto Democrats in Congress and has outsourcedformulation of key policies to them. He appearslargely ambivalent about the contents ofimportant legislation, satisfied to simply signsomeone else's bill.

On the $787 billion stimulus package, he specifiedless than a quarter of the bill's spending and letHouse Appropriations Chairman Dave Obeydecide the rest. On cap and trade, Mr. Obama iscomfortable to let Democratic Reps. HenryWaxman and Edward Markey write thatlegislation with virtually no White Houseguidance. On health care, the White House isproviding very little detail. Mr. Obama tees up anissue, but leaves its execution to congressionalDemocrats.

This leadership style may be a carryover from hisSenate years, when he was unusually detachedfrom the substance of legislation. Mr. Obama'sfocus on broad descriptions of a goal will producelaws, but handing over control of the processmay produce deeply flawed products.

The stimulus bill turned into a liberal spendingwish list that will retard, not hasten, recovery.Already, with mounting job losses the gapbetween the 3.675 million jobs he said he wouldcreate or protect in his first two years and the

number of actual jobs in the economy hasrisen to nearly five million. Reaching his jobtarget now requires creating 249,400 newjobs a month for the next 20 months.Democrats will not fare well in next year'selections if there is a yawning Obama "jobgap."

Democratic congressional leaders areecstatic about Mr. Obama's willingness tooutsource major legislation to them. Theythrive on sausage making and, with thepresident's popularity high, they appreciatethat his strengths are not their strengths.Yet Mr. Obama clearly did not gain theirrespect for his legislative abilities during hisSenate years.

Mr. Obama is a great face for theDemocratic Party. He is its best salesman

and most persuasive advocate. But he isbeginning to leave the impression that he is moreconcerned with the aesthetics of policy ratherthan its contents. In the long run, substance andconsequences define a presidency more thansigning ceremonies and photo-ops. In his first 100days, Mr. Obama has put the fate of hispresidency in the hands of House Speaker NancyPelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Hemay come to regret that decision.

[Ann makes the same point I made last week (butmore humorously); when it comes tointerrogation methods, is that all that we do?]

Page -12-

FDR and Obama: Their First Hundred DaysBy Burton Folsom, Jr.

On April 29, the U.S. will have survived the firsthundred days of President Barack Obama. Ofcourse, unemployment is up and the stockmarket is down, but the president's optimism isstill unbounded. Mr. Obama's staff is encouragingwriters to find parallels to FDR and his firsthundred days as president 75 years ago duringthe Great Depression. Let's take the challenge:Here are three points of similarity between thetwo presidencies.

First, President Obama, like FDR, has used theeconomic emergency to pass massive spendingbills. For example, Obama warned of direconsequences if Congress failed to pass his 1,100page emergency "stimulus bill" of $787 billion.Congressmen had no time to reflect on the bill, oreven read it. They passed a bill that would spend$25,000 per second every second of the year2009--without serious debate. In doing that,President Obama was taking a page from FDR'semergency banking bill, which the House passed,sight unseen, after only thirty-eight minutes ofdebate. As Congressman Robert Luce ofMassachusetts responded, "judgment must bewaived. argument must be silenced, we shouldtake matters without criticism lest we may doharm by delay." The atmosphere in the House in2009 was almost identical.

Second, President Obama, like FDR, has alreadybegun centralizing power in the executive branch.For example, Obama is already trying to movethe Census Bureau into the executivedepartment, from the Commerce Department, tocontrol the counting of the U. S. population forthe 2010 census -- which will help to determinecongressional representation and federal funding.In FDR's first hundred days, he moved to controlthe currency -- the banking bill gave him controlover the movement of gold, and the ThomasAmendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Actallowed the president to issue greenbacks or

tinker with gold and silver, as he saw fit, topromote inflation.

Third, President Obama is following FDR byvilifying businessmen. On TV, we see Mr. Obamapointing his finger at bankers, cajoling executivesat credit card companies, and regularlydenouncing "Wall Street greed." In doing so,Obama has followed FDR's script. In his first dayin office, Roosevelt set the tone for his relentlessattacks on businessmen: "rulers of the exchangeof mankind's goods have failed through their ownstubbornness and their own incompetence.. Themoney changers have fled from their high seats inthe temple of our civilization."

What is disturbing about these parallels to FDR'sfirst hundred days is to contemplate the next2,500 days of that bygone era. Where did thecries of emergency, the centralization of power,and the vilification of business take the nation?The answer is class warfare, a deeply dividedcountry, and 18 percent unemployment. TheGreat Depression of the 1930s lingered -- andlingered, and lingered. It could do nothing else.Massive federal spending merely transferredmoney from the wallets of average Americans tothe hands of federal bureaucrats. As taxes rose toa top marginal rate of 79 percent under FDR(Obama has already promised to raise the current

Page -13-

marginal rate on top incomes), entrepreneurshad no incentive to take what capital they hadleft and start new businesses, or expand existingones. Uncle Sam wanted almost four out of fiveof their last earned dollars for taxes. Classwarfare, and the redistribution of income, hadknocked the creativity out of a generation ofentrepreneurs -- some of whom in the 1920s hadeither invented or expanded the production ofradios, talking movies, air-conditioners, zippers,scotch tape, and even sliced bread.

In running for re-election in 1936, FDR said, "They[businessmen] are unanimous in their hate forme -- and I welcome their hatred." He had found,as his speechwriter Ray Moley pointed out, that"every time they [businessmen] made an attackon him. he gained votes and that the result ofcarrying on his sort of warfare was to bring thepeople to his support." In other words, FDR haddiscovered a striking paradox: Attackingbusinessmen, and raising their taxes, preventedthe Great Depression from ending, but it wonvotes from Americans who came to believe thatbusinessmen were their enemies and FDR wastheir "fireside chat" friend.

As in the case of FDR, President Obama will soonapproach a fork in the road -- does he cut taxrates on income and capital gains, and giveincentives to entrepreneurs to invest, or does hecontinue to vilify businessmen and risk anotherGreat Depression?

Muslims: 'We do that on first dates'by Ann Coulter

Without any pretense of an argument, whichliberals are neurologically incapable of, themainstream media are now asserting that ourwussy interrogation techniques at Guantanamoconstituted "torture" and have irreparablyharmed America's image abroad.

Only the second of those alleged facts is true: Thepresident's release of the Department of Justiceinterrogation memos undoubtedly hurt America'simage abroad, as we are snickered at in capitalsaround the world, where they know what realtorture is. The Arabs surely view these memos asa pack of lies. What about the pills Americanshave to turn us gay?

The techniques used against the most stalwartal-Qaida members, such as Abu Zubaydah,included one terrifying procedure referred to as"the attention grasp." As described in horrifyingdetail in the Justice Department memo, the"attention grasp" consisted of:

"(G)rasping the individual with both hands, onehand on each side of the collar opening, in acontrolled and quick motion. In the same motionas the grasp, the individual is drawn toward theinterrogator."

The end.

There are rumors that Dick "Darth Vader" Cheneywanted to take away the interrogators' Altoidsbefore they administered "the grasp," butDepartment of Justice lawyers deemed this toocruel.

Is Shariah law coming to a court near you? Get"Stealth Jihad" - Robert Spencer's expose aboutefforts to quietly establish the Muslim system inAmerca

And that's not all! As the torments were graduallyincreased, next up the interrogation ladder came"walling." This involves pushing the terroristagainst a flexible wall, during which his "head andneck are supported with a rolled hood or towelthat provides a C-collar effect to preventwhiplash."

People pay to have a lot rougher stuff done tothem at Six Flags Great Adventure. Indeed, withplastic walls and soft neck collars, "walling" may

Page -14-

be the world's first method of "torture" in whichall the implements were made by Fisher-Price.

As the memo darkly notes, walling doesn't causeany pain, but is supposed to induce terror bymaking a "loud noise": "(T)he false wall is in partconstructed to create a loud sound when theindividual hits it, which will further shock andsurprise." (!!!)

If you need a few minutes to compose yourselfafter being subjected to that horror, feel free totake a break from reading now. Sometimes a coldcompress on the forehead is helpful, but don't letit drip or you might end up waterboardingyourself.

The CIA's interrogation techniques couldn't bemore ridiculous if they were out of MontyPython's Spanish Inquisition sketch:

Cardinal! Poke her with the soft cushions! ...

Hmm! She is made of harder stuff! CardinalFang! Fetch ... THE COMFY CHAIR!

So you think you are strong because you cansurvive the soft cushions. Well, we shall see.Biggles! Put her in the Comfy Chair! ...

Now - you will stay in the Comfy Chair untillunchtime, with only a cup of coffee at 11.

Further up the torture ladder - fromGuantanamo, not Monty Python - comes the"insult slap," which is designed to be virtuallypainless, but involves the interrogator invading"the individual's personal space."

If that doesn't work, the interrogator shows upthe next day wearing the same outfit as theterrorist. (Awkward.)

I will spare you the gruesome details of the CIA'sother comical interrogation techniques and leap

directly to the penultimate "torture" in theirarsenal: the caterpillar.

In this unspeakable brutality, a harmlesscaterpillar is placed in the terrorist's cell. JusticeDepartment lawyers expressly denied theinterrogators' request to trick the terrorist intobelieving the caterpillar was a "stinging insect."

Human rights groups have variously describedbeing trapped in a cell with a live caterpillar as"brutal," "soul-wrenching" and, of course,"adorable."

If the terrorist manages to survive thenon-stinging caterpillar maneuver - the mostfiendish method of torture ever devised by thehuman mind that didn't involve being forced towatch "The View" - CIA interrogators had anothersadistic trick up their sleeves.

I am not at liberty to divulge the details, except tomention the procedure's terror-inducing name:"the ladybug."

Finally, the most savage interrogation techniqueat Guantanamo was "waterboarding," which isonly slightly rougher than the Comfy Chair.

Thousands of our troops are waterboarded everyyear as part of their training, but not until it wasdone to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - mastermindof the 9/11 attack on America - were liberalconsciences shocked.

I think they were mostly shocked because theycouldn't figure out how Joey Buttafuoco endedup in Guantanamo.

As non-uniformed combatants, all of thedetainees at Guantanamo could have beensummarily shot on the battlefield under the Lawsof War.

Instead, we gave them comfy chairs, free lawyers,better food than is served in Afghani caves,

Page -15-

prayer rugs, recreational activities and top-flightmedical care - including one terrorist who wasreleased, whereupon he rejoined the jihadagainst America, after being fitted for anexpensive artificial leg at Guantanamo, courtesyof the U.S. taxpayer.

Only three terrorists - who could have been shot- were waterboarded. This is not nearly as bad as"snowboarding," which is known to causemassive buttocks pain and results inapproximately 10 deaths per year.

Normal human beings - especially those whogrew up with my older brother, Jimmy - can'tread the interrogation memos without laughing.

At Al-Jazeera, they don't believe theseinterrogation memos are for real. Muslims look atthem and say: THIS IS ALL THEY'RE DOING? Wedo that for practice. We do that to our friends.

But the New York Times is populated with peoplewho can't believe they live in a country wherepeople would put a caterpillar in a terrorist's cell.

Churchill Didn’t Torture?

In his press conference Wednesday night,President Obama offered a nice little sermonetteon "shortcuts."

Asked about his decision to release the "torturememos" and ban waterboarding, Obama said: "Iwas struck by an article that I was reading theother day talking about the fact that the Britishduring World War II, when London was beingbombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees.And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,' when ... allof the British people were being subjected tounimaginable risk and threat. ... Churchillunderstood, you start taking shortcuts, over time,that corrodes what's best in a people. It corrodesthe character of a country."

Churchill and Great Britain didn't quite take thefirm stand against "torture" that Obama suggests.During the war, the Brits ran an interrogationcenter, "the Cage," in one of London's fanciestneighborhoods, where they worked over 3,573captured Germans, sometimes brutally. The FreeFrench movement, headquartered in London,savagely beat detainees under the nose of Britishauthorities. From 1945 to 1947, Col. Stephenshimself ran the Bad Nenndorf prison nearHanover, Germany, where Soviet and Naziprisoners were treated far more brutally thanthose at Guantanamo Bay. Stephens wascourt-martialed, and cleared, for some of thealleged atrocities.

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/05/01/article/jonah_goldberg_obamas_facts_wrong_on_churchill_torture

O’Reilly’s Talking Points

A new Rasmussen poll on President Obama issomewhat startling and worth analyzing becauseRasmussen is very accurate.

According to the data, 34 percent of Americansstrongly approve of the president's jobperformance, while 32 percent stronglydisapprove. So that's why the debate over BarackObama is so raucous. He may be a popular guy,but the country remains divided on the job deal.

Also, 73 percent of Americans now expectgovernment spending to rise. That's up from 54percent last November.

But get this: Just 69 percent say Barack Obama isa political liberal. What? Where are the other 31percent? Oh, they think he's a moderate orsomething.

Page -16-

Are you telling me that a third of the countrydoesn't know the president is a liberal guy? Canthat be possible? Sadly, the answer is yes.

The president presents himself as a moderate, aman who believes in tradition and a free marketplace. But that is not who the president really is,and his voting record, his appointments and hisvision for the country prove it.

President Obama really believes the federalgovernment has an obligation to insure a certainquality of life for everyday Americans. He reallybelieves he can convince the world to help usfight evil people by using logic and reason. Hereally believes that evil people should not becompelled to divulge information, even inlife-death situations. He really believes thatwealthy Americans owe a large chunk of theirprosperity to other folks not as prosperous. Andhe really believes social engineering, notself-reliance, should be the theme ofgovernment.

Those are all liberal tenets, but apparently 31percent of Americans do not know this.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having a liberalbelief system. But the president's job is to solveproblems and keep us safe, and herein lies theproblem.

The best example I can give you is nationalsecurity, your personal safety. By reversing theBush anti-terror policies, Mr. Obama has tied the

hands of American counter-intelligence agents.No longer are they on the offensive. Someexperienced agents have quit; others are phoningit in.

According to Stratfor, the USA is reverting back tothe failed counter-intel policies before we werehit on 9/11. The enemy well understands the shiftin American policy and is stepping up terroractivity in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, while atthe same time Iran and North Korea continue togive the world the middle finger.

So presidential rhetoric aside, the unintendedconsequences of the president's first 100 dayshave dramatically altered the terror battlefield.No question.

The president is a sincere man. I believe that. ButI do not believe he truly understands evil, and hisliberal policies will have a very hard timecontaining it. Wait and see.

And that's "The Memo."

'Special Report' Panel Assesses PresidentObama's First 100 Days in Office

Thursday, April 30, 2009

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: You may not alwaysagree with me, but if you take a look at what Isaid I was going to do when I was running foroffice and you now look at what we are in themiddle of doing, we're doing what we said we'ddo.

SEN. JON KYL, R-ARIZ.: This will go down in historyas the most expensive 100 days for the Americanpeople.

HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.:Someone asked me, what mark would I give the

Page -17-

president in his first 100 days? I'd definitely givethe president an A.

SEN. KIT BOND, R-MO.: Message to theadministration: Get a new calendar. The electionis over. With victory comes responsibility. It isnow up to the Obama administration to keep ournation safe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, HOST: Well, there are some of thesights and sounds of President Obama's 100thday in office. It has been an interesting 100 days.

As you look at some of those images, here aresome excerpts, a brief one, from tonight'sopening remarks at the prime-time newsconference.

He says: "All of this means you can expect anunrelenting, unyielding effort from thisadministration to strengthen our prosperity andour security in the second 100 days, third 100days and the days after. We're off to a good start,but it is just a start."

Let's bring in our panel: Fred Barnes, executiveeditor of The Weekly Standard; Juan Williams,senior correspondent of National Public Radio;and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.

Charles, your thoughts on the 100 days?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATEDCOLUMNIST: Well, he told us a completely unrealmark, that it was a Hallmark holiday. And then hejets off to Missouri to celebrate, spewing carboninto the atmosphere as he goes. But that's howObama is: He always has it both ways.

I think it hasn't been the most important 100days. I think it has been the most revealing 100days in our lifetime. After all, this man when hewas elected was one of the great mysteries ofAmerican politics. He was the most unknown,

untested, untried, and really un-figured-out manever to ascend to the office. And in the first 100days, he has told us who he is.

Before his inauguration there was a big debate. Ishe a centrist who talks a good centrist game, or ishe a leftist who talks a good centrist game? Nowwe know.

He is a man who has expressed in the jointaddress to Congress, in the budget, and again inthe speech he gave to Georgetown a few weeksago, a radical domestic agenda which involves, ashe puts it every time, a holy trinity of health carereform, by which he means nationalizing healthcare, and he wants to federalize education withessentially a federal guarantee of collegeeducation and to seize control of the energyeconomy with a carbon tax.

And this is all in the service of leveling thedifferences between rich and poor and levelingthe differences between classes.

That's as radical an agenda since FDR and I thinkeven more so, since FDR entered office willing toexperiment. Obama knows where he wants to goto establish more social democratic America andhe has told us exactly what it is in the first 100days.

BAIER: Juan, we should point out the DemocraticCongress passed the press president's budgetoutline today without a single Republican vote- Juan?

JUAN WILLIAMS, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT,NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO: I think that whatCharles calls "radical," I would call "necessary."Clearly the country is in very dramatic anddesperate times with regard to the economy.

We're in the midst of war, and we have to takesteps there to protect ourselves. So he sentadditional troops in Afghanistan.

Page -18-

He has made a decision on Iraq that is consistentwith what he promised to do during thecampaign. Actually, he has extended thattimetable a little longer, and instead, he is goingto keep 50,000 troops there.

So I think on the national security front, I don'tthink this is very radical. In fact, I think in someways it's a continuation of the Bush policies.

If you're looking at the domestic side, I comeback to the fact that I think this is a dramatic,desperate time in terms of dealing with theeconomy. In fact, in the comments that he willmake tonight, he talks about trying to pullAmerica out of what he called "the wreckage ofthis recession."

And I don't think if you're unemployed, and if youlook at the unemployment rate right now, if youlook at the high level of poverty in the country, Idon't think you'd say that's radical to say we'regoing to step in and spend a lot of money interms of stimulus.

There are some economists who think we haven'tspent enough as a percentage of GDP to reallymake this correction.

But I still think it's a lot of money because ofdeficits. And I think the Republicans have beenwise to say watch for that spending, becauseyou're putting the burden on future generations.

But that's not to say that you shouldn't doanything, and the Republicans have not come upwith other ideas for how they would get us out ofthat position.

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE WEEKLYSTANDARD: Juan, Juan, Juan, please. They getlittle attention, but Republicans have come upwith alternative, an alternative budget,alternative health care plan. They have all that.Look, it's all about Obama now, so the Republicanalternatives don't get attention.

One thing is for sure. Obama says he is doingwhat he said he would do, and that's just notright at all. I don't remember him saying that hewould expand the role of government in the first100 days.

And I think these 100 days not only revealing, butalso important, because he has expanded the roleof government so much, he has increased deficitsand wants to continue these huge deficits at thirdworld, Argentine and Bolivian levels, that we'venever seen in America before. He certainly didn'ttalk about that.

Remember what he said, Juan. He said "I'm goingto be a save and invest president, not a borrowand spend president." He's a borrow and spendpresident.

Now, look, what's happened is enormouslyimportant. This is the most important 100 days ina long, long time, because he's changed thewhole direction of government in a short periodof time, and plans to continue on the new path.That's for sure.

WILLIAMS: Don't you think it's out of necessity?

BARNES: No, I don't. Look, did he have to takeover General Motors and Chrysler? Does he haveto own 80 percent of AIG? Does he have to havethe power to tell banks how much to have andto...

(CROSSTALK)

- and how much to spend? None of that stuff wasrequired.

WILLIAMS: If you want to save GM, you gotta dosomething.

BARNES: No. You can let them go bankrupt, andthat will save them.

Page -19-

KRAUTHAMMER: I'm critical of Obama, but I'mnot sure I'm ready to call him a Bolivian yet.

(LAUGHTER)

Andrew McCarthy's Letter to

Attorney General Holder

May 1, 2009

By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) andby regular mail: The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.Attorney General of the United StatesUnited States Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20530-0001 Dear Attorney General Holder: This letter is respectfully submitted to inform youthat I must decline the invitation to participate inthe May 4 roundtable meeting the President'sTask Force on Detention Policy is convening with

current and former prosecutors involved ininternational terrorism cases. An invitation wasextended to me by trial lawyers from theCounterterrorism Section, who are members of

the Task Force, which you are leading. The invitation email (of April 14)indicates that the meeting is part of anongoing effort to identify lawfulpolicies on the detention anddisposition of alien enemy combatants-- or what the Department now calls"individuals captured or apprehendedin connection with armed conflicts andcounterterrorism operations." Iadmire the lawyers of theCounterterrorism Division, and I do notquestion their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear -- mostrecently, from your provocativeremarks on Wednesday in Germany --that the Obama administration hasalready settled on a policy of releasingtrained jihadists (including releasingsome of them into the United States).

Whatever the good intentions of the organizers,the meeting will obviously be used by theadministration to claim that its policy was arrivedat in consultation with current and formergovernment officials experienced in terrorismcases and national security issues. I deeplydisagree with this policy, which I believe is aviolation of federal law and a betrayal of thepresident's first obligation to protect theAmerican people. Under the circumstances, Ithink the better course is to register my dissent,rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by bothyou and the President, it is dismayingly clear that,under your leadership, the Justice Departmenttakes the position that a lawyer who in good faithoffers legal advice to government policymakers-like the government lawyers who offeredgood faith advice on interrogation policy-may besubject to investigation and prosecution for the

Page -20-

content of that advice, in addition to empty butprofessionally damaging accusations of ethicalmisconduct. Given that stance, any prudentlawyer would have to hesitate before offeringadvice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing(including my proposal for a new national securitycourt, which I understand the Task Force hasperused), I believe alien enemy combatantsshould be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or afacility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted inthe venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed bythe Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet,as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, inyour considered judgment, such notions violateAmerica's "commitment to the rule of law." Indeed, you elaborated, "Nothing symbolizes our[administration's] new course more than ourdecision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree,that Guantanamo has come to represent a timeand an approach that we want to put behind us:a disregard for our centuries-long respect for therule of law[.]" (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminaland ethics investigations of lawyers over theadvice they offer the government, and yourspecific position that the wartime detention Iwould endorse is tantamount to a violation oflaw, it makes little sense for me to attend theTask Force meeting. After all, my choice wouldbe to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate inthe United States about how to handle alienterrorists captured during a defensive warauthorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of ourfellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially,there have been two camps. One calls forprosecution in the civilian criminal justice system,the strategy used throughout the 1990s. Theother calls for a military justice approach of

combatant detention and war-crimesprosecutions by military commission. Becauseeach theory has its downsides, manycommentators, myself included, have proposeda third way: a hybrid system, designed for therealities of modern international terrorism-a newsystem that would address the needs to protectour classified defense secrets and to assureAmericans, as well as our allies, that we aredetaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both themilitary and civilian justice approaches, have allagreed on at least one thing: Foreign terroriststrained to execute mass-murder attacks cannotsimply be released while the war ensues andAmericans are still being targeted. We havealready released too many jihadists who, as nightfollows day, have resumed plotting to killAmericans. Indeed, according to recent reports,a released Guantanamo detainee is now leadingTaliban combat operations in Afghanistan, wherePresident Obama has just sent additionalAmerican forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bayas a human rights blight. Consistent with thathyperbolic rhetoric, the President began hisadministration by promising to close thedetention camp within a year. The President didthis even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is atop-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that ournation is still at war, and (c) concede that manyGitmo detainees are extremely dangerousterrorists who cannot be tried under civilian courtrules. Patently, the commitment to closeGuantanamo Bay within a year was made withouta plan for what to do with these detainees whocannot be tried. Consequently, the DetentionPolicy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at thebest policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policythat has already been adopted: to wit, theObama administration policy to release trainedterrorists outright if that's what it takes to closeGitmo by January.

Page -21-

Obviously, I am powerless to stop theadministration from releasing top al Qaedaoperatives who planned mass-murder attacksagainst American cities-like Binyam Mohammed(the accomplice of "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla)whom the administration recently transferred toBritain, where he is now at liberty and living onpublic assistance. I am similarly powerless tostop the administration from admitting into theUnited States such alien jihadists as the 17remaining Uighur detainees. According toNational Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, theUighurs will apparently live freely, on Americantaxpayer assistance, despite the facts that theyare affiliated with a terrorist organization andhave received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL IDAct), those facts render them excludable fromtheUnited States. The Uighurs' impending releaseis thus a remarkable development given theObama administration's propensity to deride itspredecessor's purported insensitivity to the ruleof law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President,as he takes these reckless steps, from touting hisDetention Policy Task Force as a demonstrationof his national security seriousness. But I candecline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admirethe dedication of Justice Department lawyers,whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in theSouthern District of New York. It was a uniquehonor to serve for nearly twenty years as afederal prosecutor, under administrations of bothparties. It was as proud a day as I have ever hadwhen the trial team I led was awarded theAttorney General's Exceptional Service Award in1996, after we secured the convictions of SheikhOmar Abdel Rahman and his underlings forwaging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the awardfrom Attorney General Reno-as I recounted inWillful Blindness, my book about the case,

without her steadfastness against oppositionfrom short-sighted government officials whowanted to release him, the "blind sheikh" wouldnever have been indicted, much less convicteda n d s o d e s e r v e d l y s e n t e n c e d t olife-imprisonment. In any event, I've alwaysbelieved defending our nation is a duty ofcitizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservativepolitical views aside, I've made myself availableto liberal and conservative groups, to Democratsand Republicans, who've thought tapping myexperience would be beneficial. It pains me todecline your invitation, but the attendantcircumstances leave no other option. Very truly yours, Andrew C. McCarthycc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePueNational Security Division, CounterterrorismSection

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050109/content/01125109.guest.html

The Fox Panel on Obama'sComments About Waterboarding

Friday, May 01, 2009

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Waterboardingviolates our ideals and our values. I do believethat it is torture. That's why I put an end to thesepractices. I am absolutely convinced it was theright thing to do, not because there might nothave been information that was yielded by thesevarious detainees who were subjected to thistreatment, but because we could have gotten thisinformation in other ways.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Page -22-

BAIER, "SPECIAL REPORT" HOST: One of thepresident's answers to one of many questions onwaterboarding and enhanced interrogationtechniques. What about this and these subjectsfrom last night's news conference? Let's bring inour panel, Bill Kristol, editor of "The WeeklyStandard," Mara Liasson, national politicalcorrespondent of National Public Radio, andsyndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.Charles, let's start you with.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATEDCOLUMNIST: Well, when you hear him airily saythat we could have gotten the information fromother means, you have to ask yourself, isn't thatexactly what was attempted. And the reason theyresorted to the enhanced interrogation isbecause it didn't work.

And in the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, theguy who they knew was the mastermind behind9/11, the man who boasted of personallybeheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife, hewas asked politely about the plans that he knewabout, and his answer was "Soon you will know,"meaning you will be looking in the morgues,counting the American dead, looking in hospitals

at those who were destroyed, bodies destroyedin a future attack of which he will tell you nothingright now. That's why they used enhancedinterrogation, which worked.

There was also a question of timing. It is true thatyou can use the good cop routine, in which youearn the trust of the prisoner over time and getinformation. Nobody denies that.

The problem is it can take weeks or months orlonger. And after 9/11, we did not have theluxury of weeks or months or longer in a situationin which America had been attacked and weknew almost nothing about Al Qaeda and itsplans. That was a matter of urgency.

And to airily say today we might have used othertechniques I think is incrediblyirresponsible.

BAIER: Mara, intelligence officials says 14of the 16 high-value targets we capturedwere trained to resist interrogation. Isn'tthe president opening himself up with thisanswer?

MARA LIASSON, NATIONAL POLITICALCORRESPONDENT, NATIONAL PUBLICRADIO: You know, this is the mostcontroversial decision the president took.And I thought his answer last night wasreally interesting on a lot of levels.

He said at one point he thinks that theAmerican people over time will recognizethat he made the right decision, that it'sbetter to stick with who we are even

when we are taking on an unscrupulous enemyand not use these techniques.

That was a recognition that the public is split onthis, unlike some of his other issues where he'sway ahead of the Republicans. People be approveof what he is doing on big margins. On torture,

Page -23-

it's about half and half of what people thinkabout this.

And I think in terms of him opening up, he alsosaid he knows that in the end he will be judged ascommander in chief by whether he keeps theAmerican people safe.

If there is another attack, of course he is openinghimself up to this. Did he do everything hepossibly could to prevent this? Was theresomeone in custody who could have had theinformation?

He knows that this is a really difficult area forhim, and that it is impossible to prove hisargument that we could have gotten thisinformation from other means. Maybe we couldhave. Maybe we couldn't have. There is no way ofknowing.

And to make the argument that we're safer now,it's also impossible to prove, unless we justcontinue to go on without another attack.

All he can say is I have put this nation on astronger moral standing because this countrydoesn't torture, and kind of leave it at thatwithout the other arguments.

BAIER: Bill.

BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD":I think it's a little worse. I mean, the presidentsays he believes we could have gotten thisinformation without using the enhancedtechniques.

The CIA in the memos that the presidentreleased, the Office of Legal Counsel of Justicequotes the CIA saying you have told us that youwould have not been able to obtain thisinformation from these detainees without theseenhanced techniques.

The actual legal memos tell the CIA you can't usethe enhanced techniques unless you only thinkyou have to, and you only can think you have toif the regular techniques don't work.

They tried the regular techniques first. I don'tknow if the president has not read the memosthat he released, but he is not just saying whoknows, it is hard to say. Now he is saying that Isuppose these CIA agents were inept in using theregular techniques, didn't want to use the regulartechniques.

They tried the regular techniques. They didn'twork. That's why they went to three instances ofwaterboarding. That's why they went to a fewdozen instances of the enhanced interrogationtechniques.

BAIER: I want to turn the corner to anotheranswer play a quick sound byte from thepresident last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I am always amusedwhen I hear these criticisms of, oh, Obama wantsto grow government. No. I would love a nice leanportfolio to deal with. But that's not the handthat's been dealt us.

BAIER: Charles, do you buy it?

KRAUTHAMMER: Look, that's a very cleveranswer. Look, it's true he's not interested inrunning GM or Chrysler. He was not elected inorder to be charge in AIG or Citicorp.

However, he's announced over and over again hewants to run American healthcare, a sixth of theU.S. economy. He wants federalize education.And he wants to have control of our energy,decide by the federal government what kind isused, how much, and at what price, which isessentially a way of controlling the entireeconomy since it all depends on energy. So he

Page -24-

wants to expand government and make it large,except not in these small areas in which hementioned. A clever answer, as always, butslightly disingenuous - actually, largelydisingenuous.

BAIER: Mara?

LIASSON: That was in answer to the questionabout what he was going to do now that he isgoing to be a majority shareholder in a number ofcompanies - automakers, financial institutions. Insome cases, the U.S. will be the majorityshareholders, and shareholders have some rightsand some responsibilities. And how is he going toexercise them?

And I think what he was saying there was, youknow, I have a lot of other things I want to do,transforming healthcare and energy andeducation. Running these companies is the lastthing he wants to do.

And it comes with all sorts of conflicts of interest.Does he want to enact industrial policy throughhis ownership of these companies, or does hewant to try to get the highest return for thetaxpayers' dollars, who are now invested in thiscompanies? It's going to be a lot of headaches.

BAIER: Bill, quickly, overall thought about thenews conference - were you enchanted?

KRISTOL: It was an enchanting evening.

No, actually, I wasn't. The media is totallyenchanted. The reviews are unbelievable. "TheNew York Times" reporter asked - was soenchanted that he asked Obama what he foundenchanting. And then everyone was enchantedwith each other.

I actually think, and Charles has pointed out, he istoo clever by half. This is wearing thin. If he wantsto say we need to take control of the autocompanies, we can improve their performance.We need to take control of the banks, we need tochange the healthcare system, say it and makethe argument for it.

The disingenuous of "I didn't want to do any ofthis. I'm just forced to do it" is wearing a littlethin.

LinksA few weeks ago, I explained why Obama isdisingenuous when he complains about thedeficit he inherited. As a member of Congress,where all spending bills originate, Obama votedfor all of the deficits which he now attributes tothe previous administration. If you will recall,Bush even trimmed the Democratic budget (butnot enough, in my opinion). AP finally does astory on this (and on other Obama myths):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_fact_check_obama

The Miss California organization pays for breastimplants? This is quite weird, and I am having

Page -25-

trouble believing it, is that the organizationMiss California paid for these breast implants? Co-director for Miss California, Keith Lewis,says that is the case (he also says that somegirls just opt for using chicken cutlets and tapein order to improve their bust size. Does thismean that anyone who goes this high in theMiss California contest can make some sort ofa formal requests for bigger breasts, and theMiss California organization will pay for it? How long has this been going on? Do all MissWhatever-State get breast implants if they askfor them? Do they have to win their state inorder to get implants? I cannot believe thatthe media is not exploring this story in moredepth. There has to be before and afterphotos of these various contestants; canCarrie be the first (if, in fact, this actuallyhappened). And where is the outrage against theMiss California organization? Is this right orlegitimate for such organizations to hand outboob jobs?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/miss-californias-breast-i_n_194385.html

Interested in global intelligence?

http://www.stratfor.com/

While the 200,000 or so tea party demonstratorsfunctioned without incident, May Daydemonstrations in Europe erupted into violence(there were only 700 demonstrators in Berlin).

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1299732.htm

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-39377820090502

When we ought to use torture (CharlesKrauthammer):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108.html

Additional Sources

April is the deadliest month in Iraq in 7 months:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090502/D97TQAA80.html

The Fort Dix 5:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518251,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470897,00.html

Eric Holder and Gitmo Detainees:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/29/republicans/

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDBhMjU4NGNiMGQzMjQyZGQxMzA0MjZiZTY4NjcxNjg=

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/WhiteHouse/Cabinet/DOJ/90123144-

Page -26-

U.S. guns seized in Mexico:

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2009/04/02/factcheck-90-of-guns-seized-in-mexico-do-not-come-from-us/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

The original tea party:

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm

The Rush Section

Rush Rocks Milken Institute Forum

RUSH: Last night I was in Los Angeles, flew outthere right after the program yesterday --actually, Beverly Hills. Michael Milken, who is afriend of mine, who I've met during charitableendeavors, he runs the Prostate CancerFoundation. I actually met him via our, youknow, Night of the Century cigar nights thatMarvin Shanken, Cigar Aficionado, puts on everyyear in New York, canceled this year, by the way.They didn't want to do the deal this year becauseit would be ostentatious to have a black-tiedinner at a restaurant in New York during theeconomic downturn, so they didn't have it thisyear, but Milken has this thing every year calledthe Milken Institute Global Forum, and he bringsin people from all over the world, some of thewealthiest tycoons in the world, and it's athree-day seminar, and there are programs,speakers, panel discussions all day long. Lastnight was a debate, and the participants in thedebate were Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, andWillie Brown, the former mayor of San Francisco,and the speaker of the California assembly andmyself with Ed Gillespie, who is the former

chairman, Republican National Committee, andhe was the assistant to George W. Bush after KarlRove left.

The moderator of the debate last night was theestimable Frank Luntz, and I will admit this, we'vegot audio sound bites from it, but it was aprofound challenge. I tried to warn 'em aboutthis. It was in the main ballroom of the BeverlyHilton, which, if you're a pop culturite, if youwatch the Golden Globes, it's the same place thatthey do the Golden Globe awards. But theacoustics in there were just such that I wasunable to understand one word any of the otherparticipants were saying, other than Gillespie,who was seated to my left. I got most of what hesaid, but the sound system speakers were in frontof us, and there was nothing but reverb and echo. To this moment, I can't tell you one thing HaroldFord said last night. I know a couple things thatWillie Brown said. But I was unable to interact asa result of this because I had no clue. I wasturning my head toward them and I was coveringmy ear to try to hear them. It wasn't room noise,it was just the reverberation and echo. A lot ofpeople, even though I go to great pains to explainit, it's hard to understand, if you can hear it, theythink it's automatic you can understand it. It'shard to explain to people how, yeah, I hear thenoise, but I can't make out the words. 'Causenobody's experienced that, that can hear.

If you don't use hearing aids, if your hearing isnormal, if you can hear somebody in a crowdedroom, if you can hear the words, you can make itout, but that was not the case and often isn't thecase for me in crowded circumstances or placeswith bad acoustics. So I was unable to interact. I was able to answer Luntz's questions about this,but, folks, I've got the audio from it. It wentabout an hour and ten minutes or so. I flew backand we touched down about five o'clock in themorning here, and I slept about anhour-and-a-half on the airplane. I knew if I wenthome and tried to sleep two or three hours, Iwould feel horrible all day today after having

Page -27-

awakened after only two or three hours. Thesekinds of nights with only 90 minutes sleep I tendto get giddy during the course of the program. Yes, the staff looks very much forward to thiseach and every time. So, anyway, I want to talkto you about the audience that was there. Now,I didn't have a chance to meet the audience. Wewere in a greenroom, so to speak, backstage, thespeaker's prep room, but I knew who they were.

These are the Masters of the Universe. These aresome of the most achieved, some of the mostaccomplished financial and business people fromall over the world, including here in the UnitedStates. And they've been corrupted, theseMasters of the Universe. Not all of them, butmany of them, I could tell by the applause I got. They don't really dig many of Obama's policies,but they love him, and they don't react well tocriticism of him. It was disappointing, in a way,because there's a definite left-ward tilt in thecorporate world, not just corporate America, butin the corporate world, and these are the peoplethis man is targeting. For example, last night, oneof the comments I made, I said, "Look what'shappened to the hospitality business. Obama isactually urging people not to go to Las Vegas." Well, now, were there people in that room lastnight who own hotels in Las Vegas and somebodytold me after the evening was over, somebodycame and said, you know, somebody shouted"screw Las Vegas" when you said that. So hereyou have a room of highly achieved tycoons whohave the same attitude as people who have fallenvictim to class envy in the middle class orwhatever.

It was interesting. It was very fun. It was a lot offun, it was friendly, and I've met Harold Ford andWillie Brown numerous times before, get alongwith both of them, we had a great time, fistbumps with them all night long, and WillieBrown's a fun guy. But there were so manycliches last night, "The last eight years of Bushwere just horrible. We need to resurrect Americafrom the horrible last eight years." What do you

mean? We had a great economy the last eightyears. In this room, you could hear a pin drop. It's like they just don't hear this. Everybody hasso bought into the myth that everything thathappened the last eight years was a totaldisaster. It was an eye-opening experience, andwe'll talk about it further as the program unfoldsbefore your very eyes and ears.

RUSH: We're gonna start with audio sound bitesfrom the debate last night, the Milken globalforum, Milken Institute Global Forum. Thesubject was Obama's first hundred days, variouspolitical topics. And the first sound bite here, themoderator had asked everybody to rate Obama'sfirst hundred days. Harold Ford gave Obama anA-minus, Willie Brown gave Obama a straight A,and then they asked me for my grade, and this ishow it started.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Barely a D. (laughter and cheers) Now, look, we have been chatting backstagebefore we came out and it's very lively, and rightnow we're all friends. (laughter)

LUNTZ: (snickering)

RUSH ARCHIVE: But these three people are allinvolved in electoral politics. That's theirbusiness. And I'm not. You know, I look at thesein an entirely different way. (laughter) No. Getting an audience and getting votes are twodifferent things. I don't pander. I don't lie. Idon't say things I don't believe to get anaudience. No, no. Everything's from the heart. I mean, when I say, "I want Barack Obama to fail,"I mean it. (laughter) But let me tell you -- let medefine it. I do -- and he has not failed, by theway. The country is going to need to beresurrected if he's not stopped. I do not want thefederal government and the United Auto Workersowning General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford. (applause and cheers) In fact, I'm afraid if you gobuy a car in the next six months you're going toautomatically be registered as a Democrat. (laughter) It's going to come with an Obama

Page -28-

hood ornament and a built-in bumper sticker thatyou can't remove. (laughter) And you're going togo out and all the union guys are going to be thesalespeople. If you don't buy it's either yourkneecaps or your signature. (laughter) I don'twant the federal government owning the banksand the financial system. (applause)

See, I have a different view of government. I amreally, really fed up, more with the US Congressthan I am with Barack Obama, because SpeakerBrown is right: Barack Obama is who he is. Hetold everybody what he's going to do, and he wasgoing to do it. Most of his supporters really don'tcare what he's doing. He's a cult-like figure. Hemakes them feel good. All of these... Like theairplane, Air Force One. His own office of militarywhatever it is in the White House. You can't getmore "we" than his own White House staff, andhe said, "I learned about the flyover in New YorkCity the same time you didn't." He didn't know? I'm sure that his supporters are going to say sixmonths down the road, "He didn't know this wasgonna lead to even more unemployment. Hedidn't know," because there's a cult-likeattachment to him. But the US Congress, thesepeople have helped create the problems in thesubprime mortgage mess, the banking systemthat we have, and it offends me that they get tosit around and act like spectators like they hadnothing to do with it and then bring everybody inand crucify 'em. If we're going to do that, thenbring Barney Frank in and crucify him and ChrisDodd, and (applause) some of the other peoplewho forced the banks to go do something. Wehave really, really, really big problems.

RUSH: So those were my opening remarks lastnight at the Milken Institute Global Forum, andwe have, let me see, how many more sound biteshere? Three, four, five... Looks like we've got sixof them. So we've got five more to go.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I don't really remember the questions thatI was asked -- and, again, I have a hearing

problem, and I had trouble interacting withpeople. So I basically said what I said in responseto questions that I got from the moderator. Here's the second sound bite.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Let me sum up the Barack Obamadomestic agenda in one sentence and idea: Ibelieve it is Obama's purpose to return thenation's wealth to its "rightful owners." I believethat Barack Obama comes from a life experiencethat believes that the wealthy, the accomplished,and the achieved come by their gains in anill-gotten way, and they need to have it takenaway and redistributed. See, I believe thesmallest minority in the world is the individual.And if you don't respect the individual, then youreally can't say you're for minority rights. We'reall different. We were all endowed by our Creatorwith certain inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuitof happiness. The Democrat Party is notsupporting any of those three. They're notsupporting life. They're not supporting liberty.We're losing liberty every day.

Page -29-

RUSH: Again, the audience here was 1,500 to2,000 of the wealthiest tycoons from all over theworld. In that bite you could hear, you couldhear a pin drop in there, right? Because I willguarantee you, they're not hearing these kinds ofthings either at things like this or within eventheir own closed circles. In the next bite, I takeon the myths of "green energy," the Busheconomy. You will hear the audience groan here.

RUSH ARCHIVE: This notion that we have tobecome a collective and all work together towardwhat? A lawnmower with two seats on it and callit our new car? (laughter) Green energy, which isa total myth. The eight years of Bush were adisaster? The eight years of Bush as a disaster, isa media myth. (groaning) The economy, underthe Bush admin... He can tell you better than Ican, but the economy during the eight years ofBush, coming out of 9/11, tax cuts created allkinds of prosperity for people. This belief, though,that somehow the rich take what they have fromthe middle class and the poor is just silly. Look atwhat President Obama has done to thehospitality business. Talk to anybody in Las Vegas.He's urging people not to go! CEOs are afraid tofly their planes 'cause they're going to be tattledon. So if you have this class envy that is sopopular -- that all we're here to do in America isget even with those who have achieved -- thenthis administration is for you. Otherwise, we areheaded to a place where we are going to have tobe resurrected.

RUSH: I remember now. I was following acomment that Willie Brown made, that BarackObama is "resurrecting" this country from theprevious eight years, which were a disaster. Now, the next... The estimable moderator, FrankLuntz, ran around and asked everybody about theAIG bonuses. Should the AIG bonuses have beenretracted? Should they not have been paid?Should the executives at AIG have been forced togive them back? And, of course, Mayor Brown,Congressman Harold Ford, said, "Yes, yes! Getthat money back! That's outrageous. They

shouldn't have that money," blah, blah. Theywent to Gillespie; Gillespie offered what he hadto say, and then they came to me, and they said,"Okay, what about the AIG bonuses?"

RUSH ARCHIVE: These bonuses, folks, areirrelevant! It was 100-some-odd millioncompared to $176 billion they were given. Wheredid that money go? Some of it went to GoldmanSachs. This business of harping on the achieversis nothing but pure political class envy that isdesigned to appeal to the lowest commondenominator of American voter, which right nowmore and more of them are having to beunemployed. (applause) This is about building theDemocrat Party. It's not about building America.All this talk... There is not one governmentprogram of any size that has worked. We startedthe War on Poverty; we still got it at the samepercentage. We have started the Great Society.None of these programs work, but we're notallowed to say that. We're not allowed to look atthe results. We're supposed to look at the goodintentions of the people who do them. Thiscountry is in debt to the point that people whohave not yet been born are broke! (laughter) Wehave tried spending money to fix problems, andit never works. And the premises here, "Whatwould you do different? What would you do withthe TARP money?" Why do we need TARPmoney? (applause) "What would you do with thestimulus?" Who says government can stimulatethe private sector? It cannot. Governmentstimulates the Democrat Party. (laughter)Nationalizing businesses, nationalizing banks isnot a solution for this Democrat Party; it's theobjective. And that's not what this country wasfounded on, and it's not what made this countrygreat, and it's not how individuals andentrepreneurs prosper. The environment'sgetting much, much tougher. All of thesepremises... AIG bonuses are irrelevant.

RUSH: Now, I think the money quote, if I haveallowed the money quote myself -- May I moneyquote myself? Yes. "Nationalizing businesses,

Page -30-

nationalizing banks is not a solution for thisDemocrat Party; it's the objective." It's simple,sweet, brief. "Brevity is the soul of wit." (interruption) You don't think that's the moneyquote, Snerdley? (interruption) Mmm-hmm. Well, okay, yeah, yeah, "Government stimulatesthe Democrat Party." Yeah, okay. I said thatbefore, "Government stimulates the DemocratParty." True. All right. Next, I guess there was adiscussion of the tax code and raising taxes andhow that was justified and so forth. It got aroundto me, and this is what I said.

RUSH ARCHIVE: What is the purpose of the taxcode? For Barack Obama, the purpose of the taxcode is to take money away from people so thatthey become more dependent on government.Pure and simple. What's the proper amount oftaxation? As little as possible to inspire people towork their asses off, so they will work hard andpay as much taxes as their rate requires.(applause) Ronald Reagan takes office 1980, '81.The top marginal tax rate is 70%. Total take to theTreasury, $500 billion. Eight years later, the toprate's down from 70 to 28%; the take to theTreasury is $950 billion. Look at the Bush taxcuts. They generated revenue for Washington.They also created individual liberty and freedomand entrepreneurism. That is what the DemocratParty doesn't like. The more people freed, themore people entrepreneurial, the more peoplewho are independently achieving, the less chanceyou have to control them. So this notion, youknow, we're gonna... I guarantee you thatObama's tax increases are gonna reduce theamount of revenue that Washington produces.The deficits are going to be twice as high, at least,than what he's projecting, because the revenue'snot gonna come in. Look, we're losing 600,000jobs a month. They're saying it's not going toimprove until we get to 10%. Would somebodytell me how an unemployed person contributesto deficit reduction? It just doesn't happen. So allof this is just... We're 180 degrees out of phasehere in terms of, "What's the goal? Raise revenue

to run the government. How best to do that?Turn the American people loose.

RUSH: It really is. This is a point that I've beenarguing with Democrats and liberals about all mylife. If you really want to raise revenue to theTreasury, there are blueprints of how to do it. Kennedy cut taxes, raised revenue. Reagan did it. Bush has done it. Raising taxes on people doesnot raise revenue. Raising taxes depresses theactivity that's being taxed. It causes less of thatactivity to take place. But as I say, there werejust so many myths and cliches that were beingdiscussed last night that it afforded me theopportunity to speak outside them. This is... Iguess we're getting toward the end, and they hadto get on to foreign policy, and this is what I hadto say. I think Luntz was asking people, how is itfor the president to run around and speak to ourenemies. And this was my contribution to that.

RUSH ARCHIVE: The United States is a greatnation at great risk. We have a lot of enemies.The enemies range from people who don't like usbecause of our size, our achievement, oureconomy, our productivity; they don't like ourway of life; they don't like our allies. Talking topeople who dislike us, this is Conflict Resolution101 from the seventh grade. It's not going tosolve any problem. We cannot. It really pains meto see the president of the United States goaround the world and apologize for this countryhoping that... (applause) I know what he's tryingto do. Barack Obama thinks that -- and a lot ofDemocrats think -- the country is unjust andimmoral, has been for a long time, compoundedunder Bush. I know what the template is. Andthat if we just run around and say, "Look, we'redifferent. We're morally superior. We're betterpeople. We're different now. You can trust us.We're not from the old country here that wasracist, sexist, bigoted, and so forth and so on,"and I think all that does is convey weakness toour enemies. I think it generates laughter. I thinkMahmoud Ahmadinejad's insane. He's sworn toblow Israel off the map. He believes -- and his

Page -31-

fundamentalist religious beliefs are what propelhim. The idea that we can somehow changeMahmoud Ahmadinejad's attitude towards us byhaving talks is ridiculous.

RUSH: To the phones, and we're going to go to LaJolla, California, we have somebody who was inthe audience at the Beverly Hilton last night forthe Milken Institute Global Forum. It's Noni. AmI pronouncing that right? Hi, Noni. Welcome tothe program. Nice to have you here.

CALLER: Thank you so much, Rush. It's apleasure.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: Yes, I was at the conference last night. My husband is there right now, and when he'dheard that you were on the panel he called and Iraced up yesterday afternoon. He was able to getme a pass. And, Rush, I was thrilled to be there. I absolutely loved your tie. And we were at atable of ten people. Our host and hostess, shewas from Russia; he was from Budapest. Andprobably out of the ten of us, four were

conservatives, the others were liberals. Andacoustics were bad in that room, Rush. I couldtell you were having trouble hearing, but I justwanted you to know that you did have many fans

there. But when you were speaking, ofcourse, the liberals at the table severaltimes were booing, and my one Russianhostess was cheering, and I was a littlebit more conservative with my clapping,because I didn't want to embarrass myhusband, who is not as outgoing aconservative as I am. And she just said,"Noni, don't hold back. I was in Russiawith a socialist. I wasn't able to get myfeelings out, and I lived in New York andI was intimidated by liberals," and shesaid, "No more." So I just really enjoyedit, Rush. You did a great job.

RUSH: Thank you, Noni, very much. Itwas fun. It was fun, but the acousticswere bad. I couldn't hear what any of theguys up on stage with me were saying,but I could gauge reaction, I coulddistinguish between applause and boos

and hisses, and I could hear silence, I could hearwhen they were doing nothing. And I loved itbecause I guarantee you there were a lot ofpeople in that room who showed up not havingany idea they were going to hear anything closeto what I said, and I'm sure that a lot of peoplewere, "Whoa, what is this?" They are thinkingabout it a lot today.

CALLER: You made it entertaining. I mean peoplewere laughing and I think they were enjoying youin spite of themselves. I mean, it was just great,and I think my husband is definitely more of a fannow than before. I mean I listen to youconstantly, and he doesn't listen to you as much,but I think after last night, he's come around.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate it, that's great. I'm gladthat you were able to get through today, Noni,and I'm glad that you were able to get up there tosee it. Mr. Milken only called me last Wednesday

Page -32-

to ask me if I could do this, and I was fortunate tohave the date open. He also just secured SpeakerBrown, Mayor Brown late last week as well, too. He always had Harold Ford and Ed Gillespie. Butit was fun. I enjoyed it. I'm glad you were there. I'm glad you called. Thank you so much.

CALLER: Thank you so much, Rush.

RUSH: All right.

Sign Your Life Over to Obama

RUSH: This is April the 29th, 2009. What are youdoing today, ladies and gentlemen, to honor thisday? What are you doing to honor April 29th of2009? It's one of the greatest days in our nation's233-year history. April 29th, today. A day shalllive in ecstasy. Because today, ladies andgentlemen, is the one-hundredth day of the reignof The One. The Messiah. Lord Barack Obama theMost Merciful. We are blessed with the smartestpresident in our nation's history, but he is morethan smart, ladies and gentlemen. He is wise. Barack Obama not only knows what's best for ourcountry. He knows what's best for your family. Heknows what's best for your children. BarackObama knows what's best for you. Amidst suchgreatness, what are you doing to honor theone-hundredth day of Obama?

I'll tell you what I would like to propose, ladiesand gentlemen. I would like to propose, sincemost of the country -- no, not most, but a decentportion of the country -- has already effectivelydone this. I would like to propose the ObamaPower of Attorney Letter for any and allAmericans to sign on this, the one-hundredth dayof his magnificent presidency. You can honorPresident Obama and at the same time sign overcomplete control of your life to him, because heknows what's best for your country. He knowswhat's best for your family. He knows what's bestfor your children. He knows what's best for you. Why not sign over complete control of your life

to President Obama, with the Obama Power ofAttorney Letter? No more worries about taxes. Obama will take what's fair. Career decisions? You're worried about career decisions? Noproblem!

Obama will tell you what to do. He will tell youwhere to do it and he will tell you what yourcompensation will be. (For those of you in RioLinda, that's your salary. For those of you in PortSt. Lucie, it's your wages.) Regardless, Obama willtell you what to do, where to do it, and what yourcompensation will be. Health care? No worries! Sign it over to President Obama in the ObamaPower of Attorney Letter. Obama will assign youa doctor, Obama will tell you when you can gosee your doctor, and Obama will tell you and yourdoctor how much your doctor can charge you. And you won't pay. Obama will pay! Whowouldn't sign the Obama Power of AttorneyLetter? He's gonna get you a job. He's going totell you where to do that job. He's going to tellyou how much you're going to make. He's onlygoing to tax what's fair. He's going to assign youa doctor.

He's going to assign you a health care plan. He'sgoing to tell you your doctor how much or howlittle the doctor can charge, and Obama's going topay for it. You will not have to pay a thing. Youwon't have to worry about what to wear; youwon't have to worry about what to think. Youwon't have to worry about where to pray. Youwon't have to worry about what car to drive,because the smartest and wisest man in historywill plan this for you. He will decide for you whatyou are to wear, what to think, where to pray,and the kind of car you should drive. Best of all,the power goes not to President Obama for amere four-to-eight years, but to Barack Obamahimself for his entire lifespan, because, ladies andgentlemen, do you realize how rare it is that aperson of such magnanimity and greatness andcompassion and intelligence walks among us?

Page -33-

Do you realize? Obama's greatness cannot becontained by a four- or eight-year presidency. The greatness of Barack Obama is such that evenafter he leaves office, he should still run your life. He's that good. He's that compassionate. He'sthat understanding. Turn over every aspect ofyour life to Barack Obama -- not the president.Barack Obama the man. All it takes is yoursignature; notarized, signed by two witnesses andyour spouse. The Obama Power of AttorneyLetter. You will never again have to make one ofour irresponsible, ill-considered decisions everagain. Obama will make all of the wrongdecisions for you. As the years go on, we willhave testimonials from people who have signedthe Obama Power of Attorney Letter, who willtell us how Obama has just made their lifeperfect. I have a sample of what the ObamaPower of Attorney Letter is. It's very simple. Ihave it right here. (shuffling papers) I'm holding ithere in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.

"I (fill in your name and address) do herebyappoint Barack Obama, my attorney in fact, toact in my name, place, and stead in respect tothe following matters: the vehicle I drive, thesalary and bonuses I receive, the job I get, theeducation my children get, all medical matters,and all tax matters. This durable power ofattorney shall extend through his entire term aspresident, and beyond: through the rest of hisremaining years as a mortal walking the sod ofplanet Earth," and then you simply sign it, andyou get a notary public out there to day-date andsignature it and so forth, and your problems areover.

Your cares have ended; your worries cease toexist, all because you realize the greatness youfound yourself among on the one-hundredth dayof his presidency: blessed with the smartestpresident in our nation's history, more thansmart, he's wise. He knows what's best for ourcountry; he knows what's best for our allies. Heknows what's best for the world! He knows

what's best energy-wise. Why, you sign overyour power of attorney to Barack Obama, andyou never again have to worry about a thing! McDonald's will always have McNuggets, andyou'll never, ever have to call 911 when theydon't. There's also a simpler way, ladies andgentlemen, to sign the Barack Obama Power ofAttorney Letter, and that's just vote for the guy.

Obama Is Vulnerable Now

RUSH: I want to take the occasion while I haveyour attention here. This press conference lastnight, again, there was not a single questionabout the shrinking gross domestic product, orshrinking economy. Not a single question aboutthis massive debt that's being piled up forgenerations. Not a single question about theoutrageous budget that was just passed byCongress. Not a single question aboutnationalized health care plans. This is such anopportunity, such an opportunity for anarticulate, attractive conservative candidate totake Obama and the liberal media apart. This isnot the time for a conservative Republican tothink, "Okay, I gotta go be a little like Obama inorder to get votes." That's not how he's gettingthem. He's not getting votes, he's not getting themajority of his support from policy.

He's getting the majority of his support frompersonality, celebrity, cult-like characteristics, butnot from policy. The biggest mistake theRepublicans could make is to look at this and say,"I guess we need to come out with our ownversion of a national health care plan, just asmarter one. I guess we need to come out withour own version of bigger government." No! It'sjust the opposite. Never, ever has there been abetter time to contrast the views of the foundingprinciples of conservatism with what is happeningnow. There is such a hunger. Do you knowyesterday Obama went out there to that townhall in Arnold, Missouri, Fox High School? Did youknow that there were hundreds of protesters

Page -34-

outside? There were. I didn't know it, either, 'tilI got a newspaper story about it.

Hundreds of protesters outside! There is ahunger for an alternative way to manage thiscountry's affairs. I think -- I really do -- the way Ilook at this, Obama is extremely vulnerable to afull-fledged conservative attack right now. Thepublic hates the media, for good reason. Lastnight's press conference being just the latestexample. His policies are not all that supported. His policies are radical. His policies aren't gonnawork. That press conference last night, it was aworthless exercise in inside-the-Beltway gameplaying. The public learned nothing, but theyswooned. They swooned and they felt good, butthey didn't learn anything. But our side shouldhave. Our side should have been uplifted by thefact that he's getting weaker in terms of policy,and he's vulnerable.

RUSH: It is, folks, it is a golden opportunity. Obama and the Democrats own everything. Thisis the time to provide the contrast. Look, thepresident of the United States moving heavenand earth to fix General Motors, Chrysler, and abunch of banks, moving heaven and earth. Andwhat is he doing in the process? He's putting hispeople in charge. The United Auto Workers insignificant ownership positions of both GeneralMotors and Chrysler, the Treasury department inbanks. Meanwhile, institutions of the federalgovernment are in far, far, far more trouble thanGeneral Motors or Chrysler. In the private sector,if a business fails, you go to bankruptcy, youreorganize, hurts a little awhile, you come backstronger. The market has winners and losersevery day. Not everybody in the market's smart. They get outsmarted, some people getoutworked. It's the way it works. Governmenthas a monopoly on everything it does. And rightnow, for all the trouble General Motors andChrysler and the banks are in, how about SocialSecurity? How about Medicare and Medicaid?

While the president's moving heaven and earthto, i.e., supposedly fix these private sector firms-- actually take them over -- he's also responsiblefor fixing Social Security. It is going broke, and wedon't hear a single proposal from him on that,because we cannot hear from President Obamathat anything about the government is wrong atall. There is no mistake, there is nothing goingwrong, there's no crisis and no emergency ingovernment. All of the crises, all of theemergencies are in the private sector, and that'swhy we need to remake America. Medicare,Medicaid, going broke. His proposal is to takeover the entire health care system, which iscompletely opposite of what the lessons are fromgovernment running Medicare and Medicaid inthe first place. President Obama does not fixanything. President Obama does not reformanything. He just keeps grabbing and spendingand dictating to enhance his own authority, andthat of the government. And in the process, theObama administration is killing the United Stateseconomy as he remakes America. Now, the economy is going to fight back. Thereare too many millions of Americans who are notgoing to sit out there and take it. They want thebest life has to offer. They know that they'reAmericans and they're going to do what theyhave to achieve it, regardless the penalties thatthey will face from Obama, and regardless theobstacles put in their way. And as these millionsof Americans, many of you among them, fight toimprove your lives despite the penalties comingin taxes, despite the obstacles, you're going to beinnovative, you will go to work, you will try tocreate, you will try to produce. That's who weare, and that's how we work. And this is going tobring the economy back. The economy will comeback. It's just that Obama's making it much moredifficult. He is punishing us, smearing us,denouncing us. Barack Obama smears anddenounces, punishes those who seek success forthemselves and for others. Says he wants toremake America. He is never asked, "Under whatconstitutional authority are you free to remakeAmerica?" He's never asked, "Remake it from

Page -35-

what?" He's never asked, "What's wrong with orabout America?" Now, he will apologize all overthe world for things he thinks we have done orthings that we are that are immoral and unjust.

Somebody in the press corps never stands up --golden opportunity for a Republican or aconservative here once again -- "Mr. President,don't you recognize America is a magnificentcountry, the most magnificent country, made upof millions of people who are inventing andproducing on their own, without you yelling atthem and telling them how to work and how tolive and behave? How did these people, how didthis country get so great before you came along,Mr. President? How is it that we came todominate and rule the world for good before youcame along? And since you've come along, Mr.President, all you've done is impugn, criticize,punish, and put obstacles in the way of peoplewho are truly great in this country." I just look atthis and I'm stupefied why there's any fear. Ifyou're going to be afraid of somebody's effect onpeople, and if it's going to silence you, "Well, wejust gotta let Obama run his course," we're goingto have even more problems. Mr. President,when you say you're remaking America, are youcondemning the American people? What do youmean, remake America? Who is America? TheUnited States of America is her people. Going toremake what? The United States of America isnot the United States government. The UnitedStates is her people. Are you condemning theAmerican people?

This is really radical, folks, remaking America, hesaid it last night, remaking America starts now. When we call President Obama on this remakingAmerica nonsense, truly a radical notion, why,we're told that we're overreacting. And onceagain, he's praised by the media for remakingAmerica. But when he's criticized for it, we'retold we're overreacting. Just give him more time. This is why the media are a joke and why I see somany opportunities for a conservative to take onObama and whip him politically. Americans love

their country. They don't believe it's a nationbuilt on hate. They don't believe America's anation built on class warfare. Americans don'tbelieve that this is a nation built on governmentpower and so forth. Obama has been able toslither and slide between the lines, been able tosay he stands for America's traditions while hetrashes them. It's not that he is so clever or sogood at spin. It's that we lack the leadership toseize the moment and call him on this phoniness.

Teacher Scolds Student for Reading Fox News

RUSH: Mitchell, 18 years old, Traverse City,Michigan. Hello, and welcome to the RushLimbaugh program. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, how are you doing?

RUSH: Good.

CALLER: I was just calling to talk to you. I'm asenior in high school and today I was on theInternet reading Fox News, and my teacher cameup behind me and found out I was reading FoxNews and yelled at me in front of the whole classand said I was not allowed to read Fox News inclass, that I'm only allowed to read BBC and stuffof that nature.

RUSH: Wait a second. I want to get a picturehere. You've got your computer on in class.You're legally allowed to have the computer on inclass?

CALLER: Yes. There's a whole bunch ofcomputers in the classroom. It's a computerclassroom and I'm sitting there, and he comes upbehind me and I'm reading Fox News.

RUSH: What is the class? Is it computer science? What is the class?

CALLER: It's a video production class, and I'malready done with the video I was producing, so...

Page -36-

RUSH: So you're reading Fox News, the teachercomes up and spots that, says, "You can't readthat!" in front of the whole class?

CALLER: In front of the whole class. And then heproceeded to give me a ten-minute lecture onwhy I can't read Fox News.

RUSH: Summarize it in 30 seconds.

CALLER: Something like they actually know thatthey have, you know, conservative views they'retrying to push on me and all these differentthings that there are speaking points that theytell their reporters to report on to get me tobelieve certain ways and that I can only listen toBBC and other news venues.

RUSH: Did your teacher say anything about me?

CALLER: No, but I pulled up the Rush Limbaughpage directly after that, just to tick him off somemore, but he walked away because he was somad at me before I could show him.

RUSH: Well, you must try. That's great. Now, thisis fabulous. That's guts! That's courage! Tell himhe can't listen to Fox, pulls up my website. Do itagain with the teacher behind you. Be defiantthere. Because we lie. We lie. We're "spreadingpropaganda." It's scary. It is really scary to findout just how ignorant and stupid so manyAmerican teachers in this country are. They'rejust activists. They're nothing more than activists. They're not teachers at all.

Picking a Supreme Court Justice

RUSH: I guess about 45 minutes ago I'm sittinghere minding my own business, botheringnobody in the process of doing show prep and Iget an e-mail from a Drive-By Media guy that Ilike, Chris Cillizza, who writes the blog The Fix atthe Washington Post. And he says, "I'm doing astory here on Souter and the Supreme Court

nomination that Obama's got coming up here,and I want know if you think that the Republicanswill be making a mistake by really opposing thisor should they not do anything?" I'mparaphrasing the question. I wrote him back andI said, "I look at all of this from a differenttemplate than you guys do." I said, "The fun forme is going to be watching all the nutcases on theleft go wacko trying to convince Obama to pickone of their own. The Republicans, you know,any time they seriously contrast themselves withObama, I think it's a win-win for them." But Isaid, "You're focused on what the Republicansare going to do. When did it change that youdon't focus on the people who have power? Imean, you continue to look at the Republicanshere, but the Democrats are the ones that havepower, and the real fun for me is going to bewatching all these wacko fringe nutcases fromthe blogs and everything else start pressuringObama to pick somebody like Ward Churchill."(laughing)

Now, we've got some great audio sound bites ofwhat Obama thinks of the court anyway. That'scoming up on the program today. I also toldChris, I said, "I'm also going to keep a sharp eyeto see if his nominee has a tax problem becausethat seems to be standard operating procedurefor Obama cabinet picks, and now we'll see if it

Page -37-

holds for Supreme Court nomination." Thesearch will be on for a Supreme Court nomineewho has a tax problem. Supreme Court justiceDavid Souter leaving the Supreme Court in Juneso all the liberal eyes now turn to Obama for areplacement. A name, his first appointmentdestined to be reported. By the way, whoever hepicks, just like Gibbs is the greatest PR guy, thegreatest spokesman ever, whoever he picks,we're going to hear it's the smartest, the best,nobody could have ever found a person this goodand this qualified to be on the Supreme Court. We all know the nominee is going to be a liberal. I mean, that's a given. Will it be anAfrican-American liberal? Will it be a femaleliberal? Will it be an African-American femaleliberal? Or will it be an African-American femaleliberal from Chicago? Or will it be a Latina, aHispanic woman?

Now, the early betting right now is on SoniaSotomayor, who is Hispanic, and it's a little earlyto go on that stuff. As I say, whatever namessurface there are going to be some leftistsunhappy about it. Now, you have to understand,too, that when liberals start choosing nomineesto the Supreme Court, they don't necessarily gofind people who have any knowledge of the law. Obama looks at the Supreme Court -- you'll hearthis coming up in the sound bites -- Obama looksat the court and he wants people who have theproper feelings. He wants people who empathizewith the downtrodden. If they know the law, somuch the better. But do you know a SupremeCourt justice does not have to be a lawyer? ASupreme Court justice does not have to have everargued a case in court.

Let's go to the audio sound bites, and let's listento what the Drive-Bys are saying as regards theSupreme Court opening created by theannounced retirement of David Souter. We havea montage here today: Robin Roberts of ABC,George "Stephy" Stephanopoulos of ABC, ChuckTodd from NBC, and Chris Wallace of the Fox

News Channel talking about who Obama mightpick.

ROBERTS: It's widely expected that this selectionwill be a woman.

STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama has saidthat he wants to add another woman to thecourt. I would say the leading candidate is JudgeSonia Sotomayor. She would be not only awoman but the first Hispanic.

TODD: ...the pressure to appoint a woman. Butthe Hispanic community really would like to seethe first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

WALLACE: A lot of pressure to appoint a woman,lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the firstHispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor,uhhh, you know, an appeals court judge andHispanic woman. You heard it here first.

RUSH: Well, the pressure already being broughtto bear, according to the Drive-Bys, for anHispanic woman. The pressure, it must beunbearable for Obama. The pressure beingbrought to... By the way, somebody sent me anote during the break saying I mispronouncedSonia Sotomayor's name, that her name isactually pronounced Sonia So-to-my-or, not as in"mayor." It's spelled S-o-t-o-m-a-y-o-r. Theseguys all pronounce it Soto-mayor, as I did, but I'mtold it's pronounced So-to-my-or. Regardless,we're covering our bases. Who is she? She is ajudge now on the court of appeals. I'm not surewhich circuit she's on, but she's one of thesejudges that allows her personal views to be afactor in the way she decides cases. She gave aspeech at Berkeley in 2002.

She said "she believes it is appropriate for a judgeto consider their 'experiences as women andpeople of color' in their decision making, whichshe believes should 'affect our decisions asjudges,'" and that's right up Obama's alley. That's, as you will hear in the program today,

Page -38-

exactly the kind of judge Obama wants. In recentcase, Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor waschastised by fellow Clinton-appointee JoseCabranes for going to extraordinary lengths todispense with claims of unfair treatment raisedby firefighters. Judge Sotomayor's panel [ofjudges] heard a case raising important questionsunder Title VII and equal protection law, butattempted to dispose of the firefighter'sarguments in a summary order, until called out byJudge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreedto review the case."

Anyway, that's the big name. There are othernames on the list, too. You're looking women:Elena Kagan, Diane Wood. We'll see, but it's notgoing to change the balance of anything, folks. Imean, Souter for the most part votes with thelibs. Whoever Obama picks is going to be a lib(probably with a tax problem) and so the balancewon't be upset. It's just that we gotta get ayounger lib. But we all knew this. I mean, this isthe exact kind of thing that was going to happenon Supreme Court nominations, what withObama winning the presidency.

RUSH: Let's go to sound bite number four. Showyou that the -- as the way the libs look at judges,Supreme Court or otherwise, it's all aboutidentity politics. On the Today Show today, MattLauer talking to Chuck Todd. "Why don't we takethese two things and combine them; the pressureto appoint a woman, the pressure to appoint anHispanic. We look at somebody like SoniaSotomayor, who is a Hispanic woman, a federalappeals judge. What are her chances" old Chuck?

TODD: Well, I think a lot of people look at themand they -- they seem to be pretty good. She's,uh, both... Uh, checks a lot of boxes on theacademic front. She's, uh, been on the federalbench quite a bit, so she certainly has thequalifications. Uh, the background is veryimportant. We heard President Obama asCandidate Obama talk about somebody whodidn't necessarily grow up of privilege or grow up

in the academic world, and so she does check allthe correct boxes.

RUSH: So you see, it is exactly as I said at the topof the program: Judicial qualifications are not theprimary concern. Empathy, feelings, identitypolitics. You gotta go get a woman, gotta go geta Hispanic woman. Now, this is the mediaspeculation here. The media is attemptingobviously to shape this, and we don't know towhat extent the Obama White House has leaked,if anybody, Sonia Sotomayor's name. But you cansee that clearly there's a steamroller effect heregathering for her nomination. And nobody'stalking about her legal qualifications. That side'snot. They're talking about the things that younotice about her when you look at her. She's awoman and she's an Hispanic, and somehowthat's all you need to be qualified.

RUSH: Okay. So according now to the Obamaadministration, folks, we are now profilingcandidates for the Supreme Court. They have to"check all the right boxes." That's what ChuckerTodd said at NBC. That Sonia Sotomayor, why,she checks all the right boxes! We're seeking outcertain races and sexes. Profiling is bad for lawenforcement, but good for judicial selection. Maybe Chucker Todd can tell us when it'sappropriate to use race and gender and when it'snot. I guess it's perfectly fine for liberalDemocrats to use race and gender, "make surethey check all the right boxes," in other words:profile. So profiling. This is what I meant. This iswhat I meant when I said, "The fun for me isgoing to be watching all these liberal groups gonuts advocating for the people they want Obamato pick."

And they're gonna go nuts on the basis of identitypolitics and profiling and all that. Rememberwhen George W. Bush appointed AlbertoGonzales for attorney general, the first Hispanicever. Alberto Gonzales was attacked. Bush got nocredit for the appointment with the media. When Bush's father appointed the second black

Page -39-

to the court, it was the same thing. It wasn't areal Hispanic, and Clarence Thomas wasn't anauthentic black guy. So both Clarence Thomasand Alberto Gonzales were under attack from dayone. But now, the Obama administration isprofiling for Supreme Court nominations. Let'ssee what kind of scrutiny Obama's nominee gets. I can tell you, there won't be any scrutiny. Whatwe're going to get is, "Why, this is the smartestwoman," or smartest Hispanic, or smartestwhatever they pick.

"Ever! This is the most qualified judge ever! Oliver Wendell Holmes is on third base comparedto this person." It's just going to be the samehype that we got about Robert Gibbs, about howthere's never, ever been a better pressspokesman, press secretary than that idiot. It'sgoing to be the same thing. There won't be anyscrutiny. To give you an illustration, thishappened today on Scarborough's show onPMSNBC. He was talking to Tavis Smiley. He's onPBS. He "checks all the boxes," too. Tavis Smileyis male, he's black, he's minority, and he works atPBS. So Tavis Smiley is a perfect guess for NBC.He checks all the boxes.

And Scarborough said to Tavis Smiley, Tavis,"Let's talk about identity politics. ThurgoodMarshall replaced on the court by ClarenceThomas. Do you think that African-Americansdeserve to have a justice on the court thatrepresents the majority of their....?" Joe! Joe,please, say you didn't ask that, Joe. Joe, Joe, Joe,Joe. I don't care who the guest is. What are youdoing? I love Joe Scarborough. Asking TavisSmiley, "Do you think that African-Americansdeserve to have a justice on the court thatrepresents the majority of their...?" Joe, you'vegot a book coming out on conservatism, and youask that? Anyway, here's what Tavis Smiley,which, again, perfect guest for MSNBC, he"checks all the boxes." He's black, he's minority,and works at PBS. Here's his answer.

SMILEY: I think that every president ought toconsider how the court ought to be balanced. Asan African-American I will sit and tell you that I donot agree with... There's almost nothing thatClarence Thomas has ruled on. I could think ofone case where he ruled on in a cross-burningcase which shocked the heck... I mean I almostwent into full cardiac arrest when he came downon the right side of this cross-burning case.

SCARBOROUGH: (cackling)

SMILEY: But it was in fact a cross-burning case,and my thing is if you can't get that right, JusticeThomas. Having said that there is anAfrican-American on the court and if identitypolitics go into play here this is not a Hispanic onthe court. And I don't think you ought to, youknow, pick and choose based upon ethnicity. ButI think it is true, though, that we live now, Joe, inthe most multicultural --

SCARBOROUGH: Right!

SMILEY: -- multiracial, multiethnic America ever,and that everybody in this great country deservesto see himself or herself represented --

SCARBOROUGH: Right!

SMILEY: -- in the court system.

RUSH: (laughing) That is just stupid. That is aperfect illustration of what the hell is wrong withthe whole culture and the whole country. Tavis,your Clarence Thomas' remarks are justembarrassingly naive and ignorant. Asians don'thave anybody in the court. I don't hear themcomplaining. Even beyond that, though, he sayshere, "I don't think we ought to do identitypolitics," and then goes on to lay out how weneed to have virtually every... Folks, we've got somany mutts in this country now. There's been somuch... I don't know how you do this. We're notjust Asians anymore or white Americans.Everybody is something. We've all got so much...

Page -40-

Whatever happened to the concept: We're alljust Americans?

What about finding people with the bestqualifications? This is, after all, the SupremeCourt! Anybody ever found a logical reason to goout and find the best judge, the best candidate,the best American you can find? Now we'rebeing told that it is not only okay, it is requiredthat we profile, and in this opening, "We gottaget the female Hispanic on there. We gotta getthe female." To listen to this stuff is just... I sithere and laugh about it, but it's a greatillustration of what the left has done to our entireculture. Merit doesn't matter. Pandering tominorities is everything. Here's Obama. Now,this is July 18th, 2007. This is in Washingtonduring the annual Planned Parenthoodconference. Obama said this about the SupremeCourt.

OBAMA JULY 2007: We need somebody who'sgot the empathy to recognize what it's like to beuh, a -- a -- a young teenaged mom. Uh, theempathy to understand what it's like to be poor,or African-American, or gay, or disabled.

RUSH: Well, this is two years ago, ayear-and-a-half ago now. That's PresidentObama, before Planned Parenthood. We needsomebody with empathy, that knows what it'slike... This has nothing to do with legal cases.(interruption) Well, I'm sure we could find one,Snerdley. No, here's what we need. We need ateenaged single mother who is gay, who's alesbian; who's dirt poor; African-American; anddisabled. Or, if we can't find that person, weneed a bigger Supreme Court. So... (sigh) I'm surewe can find in any blue city a poor minorityteenaged mother who can barely get around. Disabled, lesbian, had the kid with surrogacy orartificial insemination. I'm sure you can find it.You know they're all over the place. You can findone. Whether they're qualified to be on the courtdoesn't matter. Because their qualifications,Obama just said what they are. Now, here he is

again in Las Vegas. This is November 2007. Andit's presidential -- Democrat presidential debate. Barack Obama and the moderator Wolf Blitzerhave this exchange about the Supreme Court.

OBAMA NOVEMBER: Sometimes we're onlylooking at academics or people who have been inthe courts. If we can find people who have lifeexperience and they understand what it means tobe on the outside, what it means to have thesystem not work for them, that's the kind ofperson I want --

BLITZER: Thank you.

OBAMA: -- on the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Thank you.

RUSH: Fine. That means we can be get criminals,too. Obviously if you're a criminal, the systemhasn't worked for you. (laughs) So we need to getlawbreakers. We need to add lawbreakers to theother lists of identities. Who's going to vet thesepeople? You know, I'll tell you where we're goingto get the next nominee, if it's not Sonia. I mean,Sonia Sotomayor may be good, but she doesn't fitall this stuff. She is sadly lacking in thequalifications Obama himself has laid out. Itseems to me that to find the next Supreme Courtjustice or nominee, we're going to have to go tothe Jerry Springer Show, and he's the guy that'sgoing to vet them.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What sound bite did I leave off with? We're up to number eight? So I left off withnumber seven. Play number seven again. Here'sBarack Obama November 15th, 2007, Democratdebate, presidential debate, Wolf Blitzer andObama have this exchange.

OBAMA NOVEMBER: Sometimes we're onlylooking at academics or people who have been inthe courts. If we can find people who have lifeexperience and they understand what it means to

Page -41-

be on the outside, what it means to have thesystem not work for them, that's the kind ofperson I want --

BLITZER: Thank you.

OBAMA: -- on the Supreme Court.

BLITZER: Thank you. RUSH: And he also said he wants them to bepoor. Clarence Thomas grew up poor, Mr.President, just to throw that in. By the way,Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. This is going tomake the Mexicans and the Cubans angry. Therewill not be unity here on the Hispanic side. SoniaSotomayor is Puerto Rican, and that's ignoringthe Mexicans, and that's ignoring the Cubans. And, by the way, folks, since Obama says "what itmeans to be on the outside, what it means tohave system not work for you," we gotta get anillegal alien on the Supreme Court. We need anillegal immigrant on the Supreme Court. They fitthe definition of what it means to be on theoutside, what it means to have the system notwork for them. The court is looking at foreignlaw more and more. Shouldn't we have arepresentative from the United Nations on theSupreme Court? I find it curious, folks, I find itvery, very curious that nobody has mentioned aMuslim or an Islamist. I mean, they live here,too. And they suffer, as we all know, vastdiscrimination. So what Obama's really lookingfor here, folks, what he really means with allthese comments, he's looking for a radical who isa minority, who will use the court to advanceObama's political agenda. This is what it all boilsdown to.

If he's looking for a criminal, talk about a guy whochecks all the boxes, Alcee Hastings. Black,former judge, impeached as a judge, now amember of Congress, he's a confirmed criminal. And criminals, you know, the system's notworked for them. We need a criminal. We needan illegal immigrant. We need a Muslim, Islamist;

we need a single mother who is gay, very poor. I mean, these are the qualifications Obama isthrowing out there. It's looking worse and worsefor poor old Sonia Sotomayor as the day goes onhere. She simply doesn't check enough boxes. Chuck Todd says she checks all the boxes, but aswe listened to Obama describe his ownqualifications, Sonia Sotomayor is a piker. Here. Let's go to May 11th, last year, CNN's LateEdition, Wolf Blitzer interviewing Obama, andBlitzer says, "Are there members or justices rightnow upon whom you would model, you wouldlook at? Who do you do like?"

OBAMA: What I do want is a judge who issympathetic enough to those who are on theoutside, those who are vulnerable, those who arepowerless, those who can't have access topolitical power, and as a consequence, can'tprotect themselves from being dealt withsometimes unfairly.

RUSH: He wants a judge sympathetic enough tothose who are on the outside. Get Saul Alinsky. Just go resurrect Saul Alinsky. Exhume the bodyand nominate him because that's what this is,Rules for Radicals, put one of these clowns on theSupreme Court, and the more boxes you cancheck off on the identity politics side, the better. Now, I have a See, I Told You So here from myown program October 28th last year. This is whatI said on this program about then-SenatorObama's philosophy of the Supreme Court.

RUSH ARCHIVE: You know legal justice is anentirely different thing than political andeconomic justice. And Obama wants the court tobe concerned with economic justice. He wantslegal cases that end up before federal courts,including the Supreme Court, he wants judges onthose courts to look at economic and politicalaspects of the case, not the legal definition ofjustice, because the legal definition of justice isnot what he's interested in -- economic justice,punishing achievers, labeling them guilty whenthey haven't done anything.

Page -42-

RUSH: Returning the nation's wealth to its,quote, unquote, rightful owners, and whereverhe can advance that agenda, Supreme Court's agreat place, these people end up for life there. So let's go back to 2001, Chicago FM radiostation, the host interviewing state SenatorObama. And her question, "We're joined here byBarack Obama, Illinois state senator from the13th District, senior lecturer in the law school,University of Chicago." And this is what Obamasaid about the redistribution of wealth.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failuresof the civil rights movement and its litigationstrategy in the court, I think where it succeededwas to invest formal rights in previouslydispossessed peoples so that I would now havethe right to vote, I would now be able to sit at thelunch counter and -- and order and, as long as Icould pay for it, I'd be okay, but the SupremeCourt never ventured into the issues ofredistribution of wealth and sort of more basicissues of political and economic justice in thesociety.

RUSH: There you have it. That's Barack Obamaeight years ago in Chicago on an FM radio station,redistribution of wealth, economic justice. That'sthe court. That's what it's to be used for. In thisnext bite he's very upset, the Warren Court wasnot radical enough.

OBAMA: As radical as I think people tried tocharacterize the Warren Court, it wasn't thatradical. It didn't break free from the essentialconstraints that were placed by the FoundingFathers in the Constitution, at least as it's beeninterpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it inthe same way that generally the Constitution is acharter of negative liberties, says what the statescan't do to you, says what the federalgovernment can't do to you, but it doesn't saywhat the federal government or the stategovernment must do on your behalf, and thathasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of thecivil rights movement was because the civil rights

movement became so court focused, I think thatthere was a tendency to lose track of the politicaland community organizing and activities on theground that are able to put together the actualcoalitions of power through which you bringabout redistributive change. And in some wayswe still suffer from that.

RUSH: So there you have it, his own words, andhe's not changed. Redistribution of wealth,returning the wealth of the nation to its rightfulowners, that's the purpose of judges, that's thepurpose of courts. And here again, he talks aboutAl-Qaeda is not constrained by Constitution. Here he explains what that means. He feelsconstrained by a Constitution, series of negativerights. It says what the government can't do,what the government can't do, but theConstitution doesn't say what the governmentcan do, and he wants to change that and hewants to have judges on the Supreme Court thatare going to facilitate and implement his radicalsocial agenda. It has nothing to do, per se, withjustice, legal justice, or the law.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/01/interest_groups_begin_to_weigh.html

Obama Uses Chrysler to Achieve Social Justice

For example, "Peter A. Weinberg and Joseph R.Perella are part of a band of Wall Streetrenegades -- 'a small group of speculators,'President Obama called them Thursday -- whohelped bankrupt Chrysler. That, anyway, is theWashington line. ... But now the two men, alongwith a handful of other financiers, are beingblamed for precipitating the bankruptcy of anAmerican icon. As Chrysler's fate hung in thebalance Wednesday night, this group refused tobend to the Obama administration and acceptsteep losses on their investments while morejunior investors, including the United AutomobileWorkers union, were offered favorable terms." I told you, explained all this yesterday. This is likehow it's done in Argentina. The bondholders get

Page -43-

the shaft, the banks get the shaft, and the unionowns the company. "In a rare flash of anger, thepresident scolded the group Thursday as Chrysler,its options exhausted, filed for bankruptcyprotection. 'I don't stand with those who held outwhen everyone else is making sacrifices,' Mr.Obama said. Chastened, and under intensepressure from the White House, the investmentfirm run by Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella, PerellaWeinberg Partners, abruptly reversed course. Ina terse statement issued shortly before 6 p.m.Thursday, Perella Weinberg Partners announcedit would accept the government's terms."

Now, listen to this next passage in the New YorkTimes. "Whatever the outcome, this bit ofbrinkmanship," on the part of these two guys, thehedge fund as they were called who wanted tohold out, they were being told to cash out at 20cents on the dollar. Now, these people holdinvestments of average people. It's not thesetwo guys single-handedly putting their ownmoney into Chrysler and extending debt toChrysler. It is people who invested with them. Soit's not just these two guys that are going to lose;it's everybody who invested with them, and yetthey are portrayed as the villains! "But whateverthe outcome, this bit of brinkmanship -- whichmany characterized as a game of chicken withWashington -- has become yet another publicrelations disaster for Wall Street." How about aPR disaster for Chrysler? A public relationsdisaster for Wall Street. The only reason it's a PRdisaster for Wall Street is because that's what

President Obama wanted the perception to be bysingling them out, tarring and feathering thempublicly yesterday was unnecessary. He did nothave to do it. President Obama had his little hissyfit.

Now, let me explain this, you get into finance andit gets convoluted, but it was clear that Obamafavored the UAW at the expense of thebondholders. There's no question, 'cause theygot 55% of the company, folks. He insisted thatthe bondholders settle for pennies on the dollar. The bondholders are the private sector here. Many of the bondholders, not all, but many ofthem were the big banks and these hedge funds,these Perella Weinberg Partners here that you'veheard besmirched. The big banks went alongwith what Obama demanded, but the smallmajority of hedge funds did not. The bondholders committee representatives fromCitigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase,Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer Funds, PerellaWeinberg Partners, Zeron Funds, so forth and soon, the big banks went along, the hedge fundsheld out. And Obama accused them of holdingout for a bailout. They were not holding out fora bailout, they were holding out for a properreturn because they were carrying Chrysler debt.

So here's the money question. Did the big banksdecide out of the goodness of their hearts to goalong with Obama and settle for pennies on thedollar, or did they do it -- there's three possiblereasons. They did it out of the goodness of theirhearts; they did it because TARP money was sentto them under the table to cover their losses. We'll never know if that's the case, but it's a goodbet. Maybe they didn't suffer losses. Maybe thebig banks didn't really -- remember, those guys allvoted for Obama. Public assumption iseverybody took a bath and that's what makes thedeal fair. Everybody sacrificed, except the UAW,Obama's real friends. The third possibility toexplain why the big banks rolled over is they'rejust scared to death because the Obama

Page -44-

administration, Treasury department, has theirfuture in his hands. So, of the three possibilities,goodness of their hearts, they got secret slushmoney under the table from TARP, or they'rescared to death because the Treasurydepartment holds the future right in their hands. I vote option three. I vote that the big banksrolled over 'cause they're scared to deathbecause wherever I go, I don't care who I interactwith, they're scared to death of thisadministration.

There is genuine fear of the government fromaverage Americans buying up guns andammunition like they never have before, topeople on Wall Street, to big businesses, there isabject fear. So I vote for number three. We'llnever really know. What we do know is thatObama got angry at the holdouts. What we havehere is a new Fairness Doctrine, the ObamaFairness Doctrine. Didn't need Congress, didn'tneed the courts for this. It's not about radio, it'sabout everything. Here's the scenario. Obamalistens to all sides, and all sides end up thinkingObama understands and agrees with them. Obama, after listening to all sides, then plays

Solomon and pronounces what's fair. And if youdon't accept his fairness -- he-he-he -- you aredispatched to Messiah Park, not Fort Marcy Park,you are dispatched to Messiah Park. Sure, ofcourse the listing is just an exercise. He's got hismind made up. He brings these people in theroom just to do a snow job on them to makethem think they've got a chance at changing hismind. That's why he had dinner with theconservative columnists. It's all for show; it's allPR. This guy is a committed ideological, liberal

leftist who's putting on a show foreverybody.

I told you in December the UAW wasgoing to get this company and return thenation's wealth to its rightful owners. And this is exactly what's happened. Butthere are also consequences to leftism,liberal, when you do things. Here's astory out of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is a gold mine of information, actuallypretty good reporting. It's by AngelaTablac. Angela, I don't want to ruin yourcareer by praising you, I know that's apossibility here, but it's actually a goodjob of reporting. A quote from the story: "The thing Obama does not control yet isif the consumer buys their vehicles,"meaning after all of this is done, the onething that hasn't been taken intoaccount in any of this, is there anybody

who knows how to build a car now at Chryslerthat people are gonna want to buy? And whatwe know is that the people Obama's put incharge here have never had that job, they'venever had that responsibility from his car czarteam to the union. But this story is about all ofthe unemployment that's going to happen in theSt. Louis area as a result of the bankruptcy.

Obama's yesterday talking about all the jobs hesaved. This story is about the plant closings in theSt. Louis area and the jobs that are going to belost. Chrysler plans to permanently close Fenton,Missouri's pickup assembly plant, there are two

Page -45-

of them there, about a thousand people workthere, and the mini-van plant. That was idle lastyear by the end of 2010 as a part of a broaderplan to unload excess manufacturing facilities. For the second time in its 84-year history,Chrysler has hovered near bankruptcy. To helpChrysler, the federal government agreed to giveit up to $8 billion in additional aid and to back itswarranties. I'll tell you, that's something else. The bondholders, here's the government passingout $8 billion, and the bondholders, the ones thathold the legitimate debt, get none of it, they getthe shaft 'cause they're Wall Street, and Obamaloves the New York Times writing about this asanother PR disaster for Wall Street. That's thenation's wealth.

The federal government in this deal alsopromised the UAW that it will protect workers,retiree health care benefits during thebankruptcy. The union gives up and sacrificesnothing, other than some of these jobs that arebeing lost, in St. Louis. They're not going toresolve the legacy costs. Nobody's intending toresolve the legacy costs. You mean the inperpetuity payment to people who have retiredof health care benefits and pension? At somepoint it will be off-loaded and Obama will take itover at the federal government. But basicallywhat you have here, the investment bankersstood up against a deal that shafts them royally. Obama went out and smeared them publicly, andthey caved. And that's reported as a PR disasterfor Wall Street. Now, since all of those whomade out in the deal agree these guys are goingto lose in court should they go, even thoseinvolved in negotiations see little upside infighting. There's a zero chance this group will beable to get anything more in bankruptcy court,given that 90% of the lenders are lined up againstthem, the hedge fund people.

Washington Post: "Obama Vows Swift OverhaulAs Chrysler Enters Bankruptcy." Negotiationsdominated by banks who are at the mercy ofgovernment. That's option three as to why the

big banks rolled over. So who owns the companyat the end of the day? Says it right here. "Thenew majority owner will be Chrysler's unionretiree health fund, which would receive a 55percent stake in the new company. Fiat would geta 20 percent stake, with its share potentiallyrising to 35 percent over time based onperformance. The United States would take 8percent, while the Canadian government, whichis also providing financing, would receive 2percent." But Chrysler's UAW union retiree healthfund is the proud new owner of Chrysler whenthis is all over at 55%. "Those negotiations hadbeen dominated by four large banks that own 70percent of Chrysler's debt -- Goldman Sachs,Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley. Eachhas received government bailout loans throughthe Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program."They said they'd be glad to cave 'cause theirfuture is in the hands of Tim Geithner, Treasurydepartment, and Barack Obama.

RUSH: This is George. You're up first on OpenLine Friday. It's great to have you here, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Hey Rush, Blagojevich for SupremeCourt dittos. How's that? (laughs)

RUSH: (chuckles) Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Hey, you know what? This example ofObama and what he's doing with the Chryslercreditors is a perfect example of the cram-downthat the senators just voted down. I mean,instead of having the court say to the banks, "Youhave to adjust the rates," now you have Obamabasically saying, "I'm the judge and jury now. Youcreditors have to reduce the rates on Chrysler."

RUSH: Okay, wait.

CALLER: It's absolutely ridiculous.

RUSH: Wait a minute. You're jumping the gun onsomething here. Let me tell people the story thatyou're talking about. The Senate yesterday

Page -46-

"handed a victory to the banking industry onThursday, defeating a Democratic proposal thatwould have given homeowners in financialtrouble greater flexibility to renegotiate theterms of their mortgages." Essentially, theSenate yesterday refused to let judges fixmortgages in bankruptcy, which means that acontract is still a contract somewhere. Here's aquote from Senator Durbin of Illinois. Well, nota quote, but, "In recent weeks, major banks andbank trade associations worked closely withSenate Republicans to stop the measure. TwelveDemocrats joined all the Republicans in votingagainst it." It was a cram-down-your throat policythat the Senate defeated. So your point aboutthis again is what?

CALLER: That this is exactly what Obama wastrying to do to the creditors like Oppenheimer ofChrysler. He was basically trying to force them,through fear, to reduce the debt on Chrysler --which would have, like you said, brought theshare up to 20 bucks.

RUSH: What do you mean? What do you mean"trying"? He did it.

CALLER: Well, exactly. And to your point aboutoption number three, it's out of pure fear.

RUSH: Absolutely. Everybody's running in totalfear of the guy.

CALLER: Yep.

RUSH: Folks, a lot of these banks want to give theTARP money back, remember? And he won't takeit back. Obama won't take the TARP money back. He wants in. These guys voted for him. In a way,it's sweet justice, except that the Americanprivate sector gets shafted again.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Rod in Detroit. Hey, Rod. I learnedsomething today that I didn't know. Dave Bing,

the former NBA great, is going to run for mayorthere.

CALLER: That is correct. He is running, althoughI'm not -- well, at least he's a guy that's got a littlebit of experience and gumption. We won't evengo there with respect to the former mayor.

RUSH: Well, yeah, I can understand that. KevinJohnson, who I knew when he played for thePhoenix Suns, now the mayor of Sacramento, isgoing out there to help Bing in his mayoralcampaign. Anyway, you didn't call about that. What was it you called about?

CALLER: Well, first, mega locomotive engineerdittos to you. This is a second-time call, and I'mmost honored to speak to you. I wanted to talkto you, we have one American firm alreadymaking what I consider to be the world's highestquality, most fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Myquestion to you, will the Chrysler bankruptcy,specifically Obama, the Obama administration'sprop up and free transfer of this company toanother loser company, Fiat, help spur a sales lineof Ford Motor Company products? I was justwondering how you think Americans will respondto this overt attempt on the part of the Obamaadministration to prop up Chrysler.

RUSH: It's all going to depend on whetherChrysler makes cars people want to buy. It won'tmatter to people if Chrysler survives, howeverthey survive. I mean people are not going to beideological when they go in there. You mighthave some people that refuse to simply 'causethey're Obama people. If they make cars peoplewant to buy, that ought to be the soledetermining factor, and with the United AutoWorkers pension fund owning 55%, I don't knowwho the car guys are at the United Auto Workers. There may be some guys in there that know howto design cars that are frustrated. You can findtalent everywhere. Wherever they find it,whoever can design and build cars that peoplewant. Problem is that Chrysler is going to be

Page -47-

forever under the direction of Obama, and theSierra Club is probably going to be the onesdesigning Chryslers, which means you're going tobe buying lawn mowers and all that with a coupleseats on them. It's tough. It's going to be verytough. Rod, thanks for the call.

[Like many of Obama’s dealings with business, hehas to identify a bad guy so that the public canagree that this is the person who needs to losethe most money]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/business/01hedge.html (you will need to sign in orregister to read this article; but it is free)

[This is why Chrysler needs to be in a bankruptcycourt, rather than in the economic redistributivejustice court of President Obama—a look at whothese evil investors really are]:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113484242375207.html

Additional Rush Links

9/11 isn’t over yet, and the failure of the Obamaadministration:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475338

When George W. Bush was in office, we heardconstantly about the poisonous nature ofAmerican polarization. For example, Democraticpollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a bookarguing that "our nation's political landscape isnow divided more deeply and more evenly thanperhaps ever before." One can charitably say thiswas abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. Butmore deeply? Feh.

During the Civil War, the political landscape wasso deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died.During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary

ardor threatened the stability of the republic. Inthe 1960s, political assassinations, riots, andbombings punctuated our political discourse.

It says something about the relationship ofliberals to political power that they can overlookdomestic dissent when they're at the wheel.When the GOP is in office, America is seen ashopelessly divided because dissent is the highestform of patriotism. When Democrats are incharge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare theculture war over and dismiss dissent as the scarywork of the sort of cranks Obama's Departmentof Homeland Security needs to monitor.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQ4NTNiN2E0MDE0ZDg3M2NiYzAzNTEwNmIxMzc1MmM=

Obama cannot disown the deficit he inherited:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html

This is quite fascinating, the idea of giving theauto companies over to the unions. Let’s just layaside that this is as dishonest as the governmenttaking your house away from you and giving it toa non-working welfare family who need a house. If the union runs the auto company, there aretwo important considerations: (1) If you recallCommunism ideology, this is it—puttingownership of the means of production into thehands of the people. (2) We will now have a freeand regular flow of money (probably) fromgovernment to a huge company run by unionbosses. Do they milk the government for all it isworth, killing GM slowly, or do they stealeverything they can, knowing that this will allstop in 3.7 years? Those are my comments; buta related (and excellent) article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124104678893870699.html (another outstanding article from heWall Street Journal, the only newspaper inAmerica which is gaining readership).

Page -48-

Watchdogs Are Heeling for Obama

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/04/29/former-usa-today-reporter-watchdogs-are-heeling-obama

Likely Obama judicial candidates and what weknow about them:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/Conservatives_target_Sotomayor_Kagan_Wood.html

Obama’s first 100 days from a national securitystand (heritage.org is a great organization):

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2412.cfm

So, do you remember all of the hoo hah aboutSarah Palin and her outfits, and how, not onlywas this blown way out of proportion, but thefacts were mostly distorted. Most peoplethought that she was the small town girl who wascut loose in some huge department store, with anunlimited budget and told to go for it. Nothingcould be further from the truth. But, what wewill not hear about? Michelle Obama wearing$540 tennis shoes to a feeding the poor event. “They’re just shoes; get over it.” My problem? Just look at these shoes. She got ripped off.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html

Page -49-