Didn't we start to see that this was going to end up badly back during the 2008 campaign? Tens of thousands of people would show up a Obama campaign rallies where they would be handed mass produced signs simply saying "Change." Later the focus groups led the Obama team to add the phrase "we Can Believe In." That's it! These fools would grab those signs and wave them like the expressions were their own! Ask them what type of change and they would visit you with dumb stares and vacant expressions.

And didn't we all know that we were in a mess of trouble when, on election day, we were treated to cheering idiots saying that now they wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in their cars or making their mortgage payments! Don't laugh! These people actually believed that? Hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of people who couldn't have written one coherent sentence on the structure of our federal government actually thought that Obama was going to fill up their cars and make their mortgage payments for them.

And didn't we know we were really screwed when we saw that interview of Obama voters as they left the polling places. The film crew actually asked Obama campaign workers to select those who would be interviewed .. and yet they couldn't answer even the simplest of questions: "Who controls the congress right now?" "The Republicans!" These people were fools ... idiots ... and yet their vote counted the same as any American with an actual clue.

I guess there's no real point to this .... Just to say that every morning I wake up I expect to see more damage having been done to our country and our culture by this dangerous man placed into office by people who were seduced by slogans and others who voted for Obama because he looked like them. Maybe I'm just dreaming of a country where voters have to exhibit a modicum of intelligence before they're allowed to cast votes. And don't give me that "right to vote" nonsense. The right doesn't exist in federal elections. Someday, when the final history of our Republic is written, we're going to understand the long-term consequences of opening the polls to people without a clue.

Even I fell for this one. Last week I told you that The Community Organizer had done something admirable .. he ordered a cut in domestic spending; perhaps as much as 5 percent!

Well .. now I've read a bit more. Seems the cuts will only take effect for the budget that begins in October of 2010. That budget will not even be passed by our congress before the November 2010 vote. Get the picture? We're going to get all of these promises and lib service about spending cuts right up until the 2010 mid-term election, and then the congress will do what it always does ... spend more and more.

Window dressing. Obama is just trying to gain some favor for the mid-term elections with insincere promises. The question isn't how much Obama is going to cut spending; the question is how many voters are going to fall for this bunch of horse squeeze.

You saw it, didn't you? Barack Obama damned near bounced forehead off the floor when he met the Emperor of Japan. That's how deep his bow was. Obama does the same thing for Saudi princes. With the Emperor Obama didn't just dip his head .. he bent 90 degrees at the waist. Some protocol experts say that a deep, 90 degree bow represents a humble apology for some sort of a transgression. Don't know if Obama is smart enough to know that ... but it's worth considering.

In the meantime ... when Clinton was in office he, too, met the Emperor. Clinton dipped ever-so-slightly at the waist, and The New York Times gave him hell. The times said it was inappropriate for a President of the United States to bow before a foreign leader. Let's all hold our collective breaths while we wait for the Times to take America's Dear Leader to task on this one.

Controversy over how to handle KSM and his Islamic goon posse is nothing new. In fact, you may be curious to hear how Barack Obama wanted to see KSM put to justice back in 2006.

Quite a bit different than what he has made reality, now isn't it?

Yeah ... that's when the voters elected Barack Obama. If you've been scanning the Internet you've seen no shortage of news stories about disappointed - and sometimes disgusted - voters who actually thought they were voting for some type of wonderful change in Washington.

I think the retrospective on Obama's first year should really be saved until the one-year mark from his coronation, not the election. I will say this ... Obama has been far worse than I would have ever imagined. Any promises he made about transparency and bipartisanship in Washington have turned out to be a complete joke. He has shown absolutely no understanding of the role of capitalism and our free markets in the creation of our amazing standard of living in America. He has treated the Constitution as a nuisance rather than a blueprint for governance.

For many years I've been talking about politicians who believe that America's greatness comes from government. Obama is the embodiment of that principal.

Others have said this .. but Obama is completely in over his head. This is a job he was simply not prepared to handle. He became president not on the basis of accomplishment, but on the basis of charisma and a well-orchestrated campaign. His election was a crowning achievement of our system of government education. He certainly has the potential of destroying this country as we know it. The ballot box still works ... for now. I truly believe that 2010 may be the last chance we have to save our Republic from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Hoyer and the rest of the statist crowd.

In case it's still not clear to you; in case you're still wondering if you might be a racist or not ... I found some help for you. Just follow this flow chart!

You'll see that the chart came from "Missourah.com" You ought to check out the website. It's pretty good! Now bookmarked for use in my show preparation.

There is a column from the UK declaring that despite his rock star election, Barack Obama has failed to defeat conservatism in America. That's not just based on his opinion, it is based on Gallup poll trends since 2004. Like these for instance:

• Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.

• The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.

• Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)

• The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.

• The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.

• The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.

• Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.

Now remember that being a Conservative and being a Republican are very different. And they will continue to diverge so long as the Republican Party hangs on to this obsession with women's reproductive parts. But 2010 will be the test to see if conservatism translates into votes for Republicans ... or where else will they turn?

Barack Obama came out with this line earlier this week for his political opponents. He says that "just because I'm skinny doesn't mean I'm not tough."

But let me jog your memory for a moment. Remember during the election, we discovered all of these things that made you a racist when talking about Barack Obama? And if you'll recall, there was a columnist who actually proposed that referring to Obama's skinniness was racist. Timothy Noah's "When 'Skinny' Means 'Black.'"

Now I ask the question in this context, is Barack Obama racist?

Splashed all over the news lately have been reports of President Obama's golfing habits.  The reports say that Obama has already played as much golf in his first nine months as President Bush did in over two years.

Who gives a flying fornication?  It's a tough job.  This particular president is doing an abysmal job at it .. but it's tough.  I have no problem with PrezBO playing golf.  It's a game that teaches honor ... maybe some if it will rub off.

By the way ... as long as the media is pointing out the difference between Bush's visits to the links and Obama's ... maybe it would be nice to remind the people that Bush said that he didn't particularly want the Commander in Chief to be on the golf course while troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

.... that due to the amazing --- dare I say ASTOUNDING --- success of The Community Organizer in handling the job of our nation's chief executive, executive search firms around the country are combing the 'hoods for undiscovered community organizers! Corporations are eager to hire them to mirror the incredible success of The Chosen One!

Barack Obama says that he isn't losing any sleep over Fox News. I'll buy it. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are a lot of Obama officials and dogwashers who lose plenty of sleep over the fact that Fox News is VERY effective at poking holes in their White House bubble. But the latest comments actually come from the president himself. Obama says that Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio."

Here's the full quote: "I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes ... And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

Here again we see The Community Organizer focusing on three shows: Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. Two currently have talk shows. O'Reilly had one, but got his ass kicked in the ratings. So once again let's make this point: Obama's gripe with Fox News is with the opinion and commentary shows, not the news shows. It might be nice if someone would sit The Community Organizer down and try to explain to him the difference between news and opinion. Hey, PrezBO .. you're never too old to learn!

Knowing that the nation's schools are doing so poorly teaching basic math skills to our children; and assuming that parents, being the ultra-responsible lot that you are, will try to fill in the gaps with some home schooling --- I thought it might be useful to present you with some numbers you might want to use in your remedial education efforts. The added bonus here is that you can also use these numbers to reinforce in your children that President Barack Obama really is, as has been written, "sort of" a God and is clearly succeeding in his quest to lead America to a golden new economic age.

30,383 That's the number of jobs the Obama Administration claimed to have "saved or created" in a statement last Thursday. The trouble is, there is no clearly defined way to determine jobs "saved or created." You can pretty much choose any number and run with it. The New York Post tells us that the tab comes out to $71,500 per saved-or-created job. Ask you child what they think might happen if small businesses had this money through tax cuts to use to expand and grow their businesses.

48,000,000 Since we're speaking of jobs, that's the approximate number of people employed by America's small businesses - specifically the ones that employ between 1 and 49 people. Medium-sized businesses employing 50 to 499 workers count for another 42,000,000 jobs. What about large businesses that employ over 500 people? Try 17,000,000. Surprising, isn't it? Now while you're working through these numbers with your kids be sure to tell them that the vast majority of these small and medium-sized businesses report their business income on their owner's personal tax return. These business owners, then, will be the ones hit when Barack Obama gets his tax increases on people earning over $250,000 a year. They employ most of our workers, and they're going to take the tax hit. Ask your child how they think this is going to work out! If you work for one of these small businesses you may want to give that some thought yourself.

$2,300,000 That's the amount of borrowed stimulus money that was sent to beauty schools in the Tampa, Florida area to train hairdressers, masseuses and nail technicians. People who are already licensed to do hair, nails and give massages in the Tampa area are looking for work. There will be no jobs waiting for the students who use this money to get their "beauty" licenses. The Florida Cosmetology Association says only 1% to 2% of beauty school grads will be working in that field five years after graduation. Use these numbers to try to convince your child that there are better things for them to train for than cutting hair, polishing nails and giving massages in Tampa.

61.4% Percentages are fun! It's bonus time when you can use percentages to teach your children about the perils of debt. At the end of 1999, as we were moving into the last year of the Clinton Administration, the amount of money our government owed was 61.4% of our GDP; the total value of all goods and services produced in this country during that year. By the time George Bush was through that figure had gone up by 8.8 percentage points to 70.2%. Not good. But ... by the time Barack Obama gets his first year all wrapped up that figure will have risen another 20.2 percentage points to 90.4%! We're on a roll! And here's your final fun percentage figure: In 2011 that figure will reach the magic 100%. At that point we owe more than the total value of our economy. That has to be the definition of something! Bankruptcy? Oh ... and we're not even talking unfunded liabilities here.

Finally ...

9% That's an unemployment figure. That's how high Barack Obama said our unemployment figure would go if we did not quickly pass his super-effective stimulus plan earlier this year.

7.9% That's how high Obama said unemployment would rise if we would just give him over $750 billion dollars to stimulate our economy. We did; and ....

9.8% That's our latest unemployment figure. Looks like the stimulus worked! The figure includes hairdressers, nail techs and massage therapists - in case you're wondering.

#1 As in Rule No. 1. Elections have consequences.

I'm serious. You'd better be careful out there - we have a bunch of racists running around. Why do I say that? Because new polling from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation shows that 51% of Americans disagree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them. Now we know that The Community Organizer is so wise, so pure, so all-knowing; and he cares so much for each and every one of us ... even us crackers ... that there could be only one reason to oppose anything this wonderful man wants to do, and that is because we're racists! We just can't handle the idea of a black man in the White House - and we were fooled! We only found out he was black after we elected him! That's the only possible reason you could ever disagree with The Community Organizer on the issues that matter most to you. Not because you used your brain and an ounce of common sense to realize that things still aren't looking too good out there.

Because it's effective, that's why. I'm really enjoying this orchestrated Obama Administration attack on Fox News. It's the same old story line ... Fox News is biased. And it's the same old flawed story line. To prove bias these leftists continually invoke the name of Hannity, O'Reilly or Beck. These, in case you haven't figured it out, are opinion shows.

During the presidential campaign I challenged my listeners to come up with an example of biased reporting in any of the NEWS content on Fox News. They couldn't.

The left is so accustomed to controlling the media they just can't stand it when someone strays off the reservation.. and does it with such devastating effectiveness. Remember, Fox News has ratings way and above those of CNN. It's no wonder the left is upset.

I've been arguing for years that our tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet fighting this ridiculous, asinine War on Drugs.

So the Obama administration issued new legal guidelines yesterday, and guess what? I actually agree with him! This is for all of you who give me this line about "You are against EVERYTHING Obama says or does." Not true. I am against stupidity, and often times that comes cloaked under the guise of government.

But back to these guidelines ... federal drug agents will no longer pursue pot-smoking patients or suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana. Justice Department officials say, " ... it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law." Ghee, ya think?? This should have been a no-brainer, folks.

So which are the lucky states? Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

As an aside ... how many of you think I might have used a little weed to handle the pain after my knee surgery? Just wondering.

By the way, my hatred for our War on Drugs is not based purely on the fact that I like to stir the puddin'. There is evidence and studies to support the fact that legalizing or decriminalizing drugs can actually been a good thing. Take Portugal, for example. Back in 2001 it decided to decriminialize all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. There was no spike in usage. There was no public health crisis. In fact, the rate of drug usage is less in Portugal than it is compared to other European nations. The CATO Institute can give you all the hairy details.

You do want to watch that video. Trust me. -ww

By now, I am sure you have seen the pictures of "I Swastika Obama" etched into golf course in Massachusetts. The Secret Service is now involved to investigate the incident. Who knows, maybe it will be considered ... wait for it ... a hate crime!

Who does this suck for the most? The owner of the golf course. Whomever vandalized his green should absolutely be held responsible for the damage.

But we will see how far this goes with secret service investigations into a possible threat against Obama.

The Swastika is a super-charged icon ... and even if it does represent the very economic system Obama has brought to this country, it represents so much more. Yes, Obama is an economic fascist. We have to find some other way to bring this to the attention of the American people ... the Swastika ain't it.

Let's face it. Friday was not a good day not to be on the air. But who knew that these five leftists Norwegian Arctic Circle Moonbats were going to hand the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama?

For what? For not being George Bush, that's what!

Hopefully you weren't all that surprised.

Since I wasn't here Friday, let's re-post some of the comments I emailed back to the Web Wench from Texas ... and then add to those thoughts.

First - you have to come up with a definition of "peace." There's a Nobel Prize for physics and one for medicine too. In virtually every culture and every country in the world you define "physics" and "medicine" pretty much the same way. That's not the way its done for "peace." During the post World-War II the Soviet Union defined "peace' as "an absence of opposition to world Communism." As long as nobody was challenging their communist expansionism they felt we were all at peace. Let some country; like the evil United States for instance, challenge their plans for world domination and ... no more peace.

For me any definition of "peace" must have a component dedicated to freedom. You can, after all, live a life of peace in a jail cell, so long as there isn't someone there to stir things up. You're not free, but peace reigns. Web Guy forwarded some emails to me over the weekend that disagreed. These people said freedom was not a proper component of peace. Well ... see what I mean? There are perhaps as many different definitions as there are definers. I'm not at peace if I'm not free. Simple as that.

Now ... to Obama and the Peace Prize. I take you back again to that Pew Research poll conducted in Europe last year. Almost 60% of Europeans who responded to the poll wanted America to be less powerful in world affairs. That's not an uncommon sentiment over there ... not uncommon right up until the Germans or Russians come marching across a border.

So ... here we have these five Norwegian politicians; The Nobel committee. Can we reasonably assume that this committee reflects much of the European attitude? I mean, they're not exactly headquartered in Boise. They look at the nominations before them, and there's PrezBO! Now what has Obama done in the past nine or so months? Why, he's given the Euro-weenies just exactly what they wanted! Now we have a United States with a weaker presence in world affairs! Russia and China are striving for military domination. Obama backs off the American promise of a shield against Iran's missiles for Eastern Europe. Putin says "frog" and Obama jumps. Putin says "jump" and Obama asks "how high?" Then we have the Arab states reportedly working to replace the dollar as the petroleum trading currency. And last week there are suggestions that Obama is just going to declare that the Taliban are too entrenched in Afghanistan for us to possibly prevail there - a prelude to a cut and run. Does any of this sound like a projection of strength? Of course not. America is projecting feel-good, hopey-changey weakness at every turn; and this is exactly what Europe wanted.

So last week they delivered a message to Obama. Europe likes your style. You're giving us exactly what we wanted --- what we asked for. You're weakening the United States; for us, the key to peace.

Oh ... and don't forget the slap in the face for George Bush. Bush is in office for eight years. He responds strongly to the attacks from terrorist Muslims. He frees Iraq from a ruthless dictator and his rapist sons. He projects American strength .. and Europe hates him for it. So ... the Nobel committee comes along and delivers a slapdown.

For those who define peace as an living free of threats to your natural right to be free ... this just isn't your day, is it?

Well ... at least this will give Newsweek a reason to put Obama on the cover again.

But wait! There's more! If you act now ..........

With all that being said ... in case you are not aware, criticizing Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace prize makes you a terrorist. Seriously, folks. That comes from the DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse. He said, "The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize ... Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party." There's more to his rant. Woodhouse says, "The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim." By "the 2009 version of the Republican Party," I assume that he is referring to the Tea Party protesters. It is "that" type of Republican that has the Democrat boxers in a bunch.

Now we get it, don't we? If you aren't fawning over our new Nobel Peace Prize winner you're in the same bed with Islamic goons who kill innocents in Israel by lobbing rockets their way, and you're supportive of the Taliban's brutal efforts in Afghanistan. That's where political discourse has brought us today.

Hillary's state department also took the time to take a swipe at George W. Bush in the wake of Obama winning the Peace prize. Assistant Secretary PJ Crowley said, "Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes."

One thing for certain: If the Nobel Peace Prize wasn't all-but discredited when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, this ought to do it.

And the award next year goes to .... TA DA!!!! ..... Barack Obama! Oh, we know he hasn't made a movie yet. But he's going to, and it's going to be just stupendous! So we might as well get the award out of the way right now.

Hey, look you guys! Now we know what Neal did during his flight. Here's his take on the Nobel Prize news. -ww

So ... you want to know what is going on here? I mean, come on! Barack Obama, president for what, nine months now? And he gets the Nobel Peace Prize?

Hopefully you weren't all that surprised.

Let's work through this thing. First - you have to come up with a definition of "peace." There's a Nobel Prize for physics; one for medicine too. In virtually every culture and every country in the world you define "physics" and "medicine" pretty much the same way. Not so for "peace." During the post World-War II the Soviet Union defined "peace' as "an absence of opposition to world Communism." As long as nobody was challenging their communist expansionism they felt we were all at peace. Let some country; The United States for instance, challenge their plans for world domination and ... no more peace.

For me any definition of "peace" must have a component dedicated to freedom. You can, after all, live a life of peace in a jail cell, so long as there isn't someone there to stir things up. You're not free, but peace reigns.

Now ... to Obama and the Peace Prize. I take you back again to that Pew Research poll conducted in Europe last year. Almost 60% of Europeans who responded to the poll wanted America to be less powerful in world affairs. That's not an uncommon sentiment - right up until the time some other country is threatening to kick some international tail.

So ... along comes the Nobel committee. Can we reasonably assume that this committee reflects much of the European attitude? I mean, they're not exactly headquartered in Boise. They look at the nominations before them, and there's PrezBO! Now what has Obama done in the past nine or so months? Why, he's given the Euro-weenies just exactly what they wanted! Now we have a United States with a weaker presence in world affairs! Russia and China are striving for military domination. Obama backs off the American promise of a shield against Iran's missiles for Eastern Europe. Then we have the Arab states reportedly working to replace the dollar as the petroleum trading currency. Today there are suggestions that Obama is just going to declare that the Taliban are too entrenched in Afghanistan for us to possibly prevail there - a prelude to a cut and run. Does any of this sound like a projection of strength? Of course not. America is projecting feel-good, hopey-changey weakness at every turn.

This was a message to Obama. Europe likes your style. You're giving us exactly what we wanted --- what we asked for. You're weakening the United States; for us, the key to peace.

Oh ... and don't forget the slap in the face for George Bush. Bush is in office for eight years. He responds strongly to the attacks from terrorist Muslims. He frees iraq from a ruthless dictator and his rapist sons. He projects American strength .. and Europe hates him for it. So ... the Nobel committee comes along and delivers a slapdown.

For those who define peace as an living free of threats to your natural right to be free ... this just isn't your day, is it?

Well ... at least this will give Newsweek a reason to put Obama on the cover again.

Sadly, Neal is en route to Texas right now and can't be on the air with you all to discuss the Nobel Peace Prize award to Barack Obama. You know he really hates it, but who knew this would happen, right? But don't worry, we've scrambled up Herman Cain to come in at 10am ET and take your calls to discuss this development. And you know, you can always discuss right here in the comments. At 9am ET listen to the FairTax 101 special and in the information overload hour, Neal will answer even more questions from you about the FairTax. I'll post another thread for FairTax discussion so we can keep this one on the Nobel Peace Prize topic.

Since the campaign I had my doubts about the authenticity of Barack Obama's book Dreams from my Father. Like many, I suspected that the book was not written by Barack Obama but by one moonbat terrorist named Bill Ayers.

Well apparently Bill Ayers has admitted this to be true - he did write Obama's Dreams from my Father. At least, that is what he has told conservative Chicago blogger Anne Leary. She can tell you more of her run-in with Bill Ayers in DC.

As this story develops it will be completely ignored by the Obama Myrmidon Media (OMM) ... resulting eventually in embarrassment.

OK, so Chicago lost its Olympic bid. Big stinking surprise, right? There they were, Barack, Michelle and Oprah, traveling all the way to Copenhagen (on the taxpayer's dollar) to schmooze on behalf of the windy city, and Rio gets the Olympics. Maybe Oprah should have bought every member of the IOC a nice shiny new car. It really was rather sad to see that rock band up there in front of a few thousand Chicagoans trying to figure out what to play after the announcement was made. Any suggestions? How does that tune go.....?

Chicago!

Chicago!

We got our butts kicked.

Oh well, here's my problem. This got really absurd real quick last Friday afternoon. Across the web and the radio dial this whole Chicago/Olympics debacle suddenly became the sole and exclusive fault of just one man ... Barack Obama. He was the reason .. and the only reason .. that Chicago lost out.

Are you kidding me?

Let's consider some other possible reasons. First ... I went through the names of the members of the International Olympic Committee. Now this is probably not accurate because some of these gender-bending international names are hard to figure out; but I put it at about 89 men and about 17 women, give or take one or two of each, and maybe a few GLBTC types in there as well. Now ... have you been to Chicago? Have you seen the women there? Fine. They're OK, by Chicago Standards. And no ... Catherine Zeta Jones does NOT live in Chicago. Now ... have you been to Rio? Nuff said, right? Do the math; 89 men, 17 women voting on whether to hang out for the next seven years in Chicago or Rio. Now just how difficult is that?

Another comparison: Navy Pier to Rio's beaches.

Then there's the possibility that the president actually did make a difference when he went rushing off to Copenhagen; a negative difference. Not, however, because it was President Obama, but because it was the President of the United States. Look; many foreign countries are a bit weary of what they view as America throwing its weight around. Naturally, if they're attacked or buried under an avalanche or tsunami they would just LOVE to see some weighty American money thrown around ... but unless there's danger at the doorstep they want us to stay in the background for a change. Now I may see this as a dangerous policy, but I don't count. Perhaps the IOC saw a presidential visit as some sort of a mandate. Here's the American President over here telling us what to do again. Let's show him we can't be pushed around. Sure, some other heads of state made the pitch as well, but these buffoons couldn't get a Home Depot to move in, let alone an Olympics.

Then there's the Chicago reputation itself. Let's face it, Chicago is not known as the city of lights. I happen to love the place, but overseas Chicago is gangsters. It's Al Capone. It's the St. Valentine's Day massacre and Elliot Ness. Also .. even though I love visiting Chicago, once that jerk Daily plowed under Meigs I've wanted his butt in my briefcase. This isn't it, but it's good enough. Too bad Chicago had to suffer with him.

The point here is that a lot of conservatives are keeping themselves busy looking for a way to blame everything that is negative in their lives or every bad thing that happens to anyone who lives in or is associated with our country on Barack Obama. I think Obama is a dangerous man. Anyone who believes that America's greatness comes from government is dangerous to freedom. We have a community organizer who's primary political flirtation during his college years was with Marxism. I truly believe that this could be the man who ultimately destroys the dreams of our founding fathers.

Obama is dangerous and must be watched. Those who value freedom and independence would be well advised to chose their fights with Obama and the Social-Democrat Party well. If an alarm is sounded every time he scowls or steps on a crack then America's uneducated dumb masses will completely stop paying attention. A lot of political capital has been wasted ranting about something that really, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't make all that much of a difference; that being whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics. When a true threat comes along, how do we get the attention of a weary public? Let's forget this Olympics thing. It's over. The only real losers here are the corrupt Chicago political class that undoubtedly would have cashed in on this big time, and the unions that most certainly would have controlled every square foot of Olympic-related construction.

We could have a problem though. Isn't there a huge Jesus statue looking down on Rio? I guess the ACLU is going to have to get busy getting that thing removed before our athletes will be allowed to carry an American Flag during the opening ceremony.

It seems as though we've heard this line from Barack Obama before. Oh wait, we have ... during the campaign. For months we heard Barack Obama pin the hopes of our economic recovery on healthcare reform. Now the news has hit - our unemployment rate has reached 9.8% -- now is as good a time as ever to remember Rahm's advice: Never let a good crisis go to waste.

During his radio address over the weekend, Obama said that his healthcare plans would help to solve our unemployment problems because it would make small business startups more affordable. In Obama's world, forcing people to buy health insurance would allow aspiring entrepreneurs to feel at ease while switching jobs, starting their business and hiring workers. Obama said "reforming our health insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding our economy so that our entrepreneurs can pursue the American dream again and our small businesses can grow and expand and create new jobs again." By the way .. this was virtually the same speech Obama gave last July. He's getting a bit repetitive.

What Obama fails to mention is that his healthcare plans include tax increases on the very same small businesses and entrepreneurs he is relying on to kick start this economy again. Not to mention the fact that plans for mandatory healthcare coverage could significantly impact small businesses and their abilities to grow. There's a clause in the Senate's plan that puts insurance mandates on any business that employs 50 people. So ... if this goes into effect, and you happen to be employing 54 people when it does ... how many people get fired? I put the number at five. And if you're a small business that employs 49 people when ObamaCare goes into effect, how many people do you hire? I put that number at zero.

The National Federation of Independent Business says, "Forcing employers to offer health insurance, plain and simple, will cost America jobs and revenue, and inhibit small businesses from growing. It's a bad idea any time, but is particularly destructive in the current economic environment."

Barack Obama: "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game." [needs citation, I can't find verification that he said this. -ww]

Really? I guess that depends on what your definition of "one" is.

Well .. this certainly caused a bit of interest during yesterday's show. I got my hate-filled little right-wing talk show hosts on an article that detailed the lies - misstatements - half-truths - rhetorical tricks ... whatever ... that Barack Obama was using or delivered in his speech before congress. Turns out that South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson was a bit more than right when he yelled "you lie" at the president. Of course we now know that Wilson's outburst was driven by racism, not a concern for the truth ... but it does seem he was on to something.

Here's the story from the Wall Street Journal I was using yesterday to detail Obama's misstatements of fact. My listeners wanted me to list all 20 of the truth-challenged statements. So, here they are. For the explanations you'll have to click on the link and read the whole story.

Now I know you liberals and ObamaBots aren't going to read any further. This is too hard for you to deal with. The very idea that The Chosen one could possibly be wrong ... or, worse, actually lie to you is just too much for you to bear. So why don't you head over to The Daily Kos for your comfort food while people who actually care about the truth read on .....

Here are Obama's greatest lies ... misstatements ... and stretches of the truth as contained in his address before the joint session.

"Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer."

"There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."

"And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage."

"One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."

"Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne."

Rising costs are "why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance."

Rising costs are "why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage."

"Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it -- about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care."

At this point, Obama said, "These are the facts. Nobody disputes them."

"[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."

"Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have."

Requiring insurers to cover preventive care "saves money."

"The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple."

"There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

"Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Critics of the public option would "be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects."

"And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future." "The plan will not add to our deficit."

"Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years."

"The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes."

If this whole government health care thing is such a fantastic idea ... if the people want it so bad, then why does the president find it necessary or expedient to be so completely dishonest when discussing it with a national audience? Did he really think that someone wouldn't notice and list the outright lies and misstatements of fact? Did he really think he would get away with that "because she forgot to declare a case of acne" line? OK, I'll grant you, the myrmidon press wasn't going to blow his cover here; but what about those rogues on the Internet and the hate-filled, evil, violence-prone right wing radio talk show hosts? Did he think that they were somehow going to shrink before his superior rhetorical skills and the sheer power of his incredible personality?

Why is this all so important that Obama has to lie about it? Power, folks. Power. I know I'm repeating myself here, but I keep telling myself that every time I bring this up someone out there gets it. This is NOT about your health care. This is ALL about power. Control over your health care means power ... lots of power ... and power is what drives the very souls of the political class.

Florida governot Charlie Crist is now on record as saying that Barack Obama will not be reelected in 2012. Hopefully he is right. Let's all remember, though, that if Obama does fail to win reelection it will be for one simple reason ... and only one. Racism. There is no possible reason on the face of the earth not to support Obama for a second term. You're a racist. Simple as that. An Obama defeat in 2012 will be all the proof the world knows to know that America truly is a racist nation. Never mind that he was elected in 2008. We just didn't realize he was black then ... right?

Considering the latest headlines about ACORN, the organization has come under a lot of scrutiny. And with that scrutiny comes a topic that I touched on during the presidential campaign: Barack Obama's ties to ACORN. Stanley Kurtz and some other bloggers are doing some great research and uncovering more on characters like Patrick Gaspard. Ever heard of him? He is the White House Director of Political Affairs. He also has extremely close ties to ACORN and its CEO Bertha Lewis. Here's an example of what I mean:

So it's of interest that in late 1995, just as Obama was seeking New Party endorsement in Chicago, Patrick Gaspard was working as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. (This was reported in "Jersey Man Hopes to Create Third Political Party," NPR, "Morning Edition, " September 28, 1995). Then, in the July 2, 2001 issue of "The Nation," Gaspard and Bertha Lewis jointly published a reply to a June 4 Nation article by Doug Ireland which had been critical of the New York's Working Families Party (a successor to the New Party, led by New Party co-founder Dan Cantor, and largely controlled by ACORN and the SEIU). In the course of their letter, Gaspard and Lewis describe their extensive joint involvement in Working Families Party activities. The letter is signed: "Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP; Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP." This does seem to confirm and extend the new evidence of a close political tie between Patrick Gaspard and ACORN's Bertha Lewis.

We'll keep an eye on this folks. In the meantime, here's more.

Back in the 90s when news broke about Billy's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary came up with this line about a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Remember that? All this was just a plot of the vast right-wing conspiracy to ruin her husband's presidency! Well it seems as though Barack Obama, too, is going to suffer at the hands of the evil right-wing conspirators. That is, according to Bill Clinton.

Clinton says that the right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on Barack Obama. He says that "their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

See, this is a typical Clinton way of thinking. When things start to go downhill, blame it all on the vast right-wing conspiracy!

Barack Obama can't get healthcare legislation passed, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't commit more troops to Afghanistan, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stand up to Iran or Russia or Venezuela or North Korea, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't convince the American public that we must pass global warming legislation, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stimulate our economy to create more jobs, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Are you starting to understand how this works now, folks?

Barack Obama did a fine job of appeasing and apologizing at the United Nations. While his speech was filled with empty phrases like, "the people of the world want change," the part that got him the most applause was when he mentioned Israel. Need I remind you that applause from a group of dictators and despots is not exactly a good thing. Also .. do I need to remind you that the UN is and has been very much anti-Israel. The applause was no surprise.

As former UN Ambassador John Bolton said, Obama essentially put Israel on the chopping block. Obama said, "We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements ... The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. And nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks over a constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and its right to exist in peace and security."

One of Obama's audience members was none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is a man who denies the existence of the Holocaust and says that he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." I wonder if this statement by Barack Obama sent tingles up his leg? Can't you just see him sitting there grinning ear-to-ear as Obama carries his water to the UN delegates?

Now ... having brought up Obama's decidedly unfriendly stance toward Israel, there were some good parts of the speech. I particularly liked this:

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions,"

Well .. good for him on this one.

Still ... the three marquis speeches at the UN yesterday were Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, and our president. Nice imaging.

Just wanted to start your day off with a little tidbit that you can be sure to pass along to your liberal friends who are oh-so-convinced that George Bush is still the reason for this country's problems. We've heard Barack Obama touting this line for months ... the war in Iraq is taking a serious toll on the economy. Well as it turns out, Barack Obama should look himself in the mirror. Here are the details.

The Congressional Research Service tells us that the total cost of the Iraq war under President Bush was $622 billion. Do you have any clue how much Obama is going to spend on welfare, treating America's parasite infestation, in just 2010 alone? Care to guess? Well ... let's try $888 billion. Yup, you got it. That's about $260 billion more than the cost of the Iraq war under Bush. And what will we get for that money? An entrenched welfare class, that's what. Our parasite problem will become even worse. Frankly, we got a lot more bang for the buck out of the war in Iraq.

Just trying to keep the truth. I mean, where else do you think you will find these facts ... the mainstream media??

Have you ever heard me refer to our government schools as indoctrination
centers? If' you've listened for more than a day you have. Check out this video from a government school:

President Barack Obama is chairing a session of the UN Security Council. This is a first for a U.S. President. The session will be about nuclear proliferation and disarmament. The timing is a bit odd considering the announcement last week that the United States will not go forward with its missile shield in Eastern Europe.

This news comes from the Guardian in the UK. Apparently Barack Obama has demanded that the Pentagon conduct a "radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine" in order to prepare for deep cuts in the country's arsenal. Obama said that the Pentagon's first draft was "too timid" and wants options more "far-reaching" that are consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

Don't you feel safer now, folks?

Elections have consequences.

The fallout from Obama's media blitz over the weekend continues. The main issue that Sunday talk show orgy was his interview with George Stephanopoulos over taxes. According to Barack Obama, requiring everyone to carry health insurance ... and making them pay a fine if they don't ... is not a tax increase.

Unfortunately for the President, he was flat out wrong. In fact, the Max Baucus bill being debated in Senate committee probably as we speak says, "Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an "excise tax." The Democrat-controlled Senate says it's a tax increase. The dictionary says it's a tax increase. Obama says it ain't so. Hey, PrezBO! Looks like you're really not helping your credibility problem.

We can nail this down even better .. .this from Jake Tapper:

To be more specific, if a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income is between 100-300 percent of the federal poverty level, "the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500."

If a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income is above 300 percent of federal poverty level "the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year" -- with a maximum penalty of $3,800.

"Exemptions from the excise tax will be made for individuals where the full premium of the lowest cost option available to them (net of subsidies and employer contribution, if any) exceeds ten percent" of their adjusted gross income.

It's clear ... it's a tax. These penalties will be collected by none other than the Internal Revenue Service. If you fail to pay these "fines," you will be forced to at the point of a gun by the government or thrown in jail. Simple as that.

Obama wants to know the following: How do we balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another"?

Oh yeah ... I'm perfectly happy to tackle this one.

First of all ... the very premise of the question portends great danger. Sorry ... didn't really mean to use a word like "premise" here, but then again people who listen to talk radio are generally higher educated than the norm. You throw a word like "premise" to a normal gathering of government-educated myrmidons and you're going to get some mighty interesting stares.

So what IS the premise of the president's question? The premise is that we MUST, in fact, balance our freedoms with some mandate that we take care of one another. that we must balance our freedom with our need to "look after one another."

This is a delicate subject, I know. Once you begin to question this premise it is child splay for your detractors to say "So, you don't care about other people?"

Let me present you with a little "look after one another" scenario and see how you respond:

You're walking down the street with your friend. We'll call him Barack. As you're walking and chatting you notice a pathetic-looking man sitting on the sidewalk and begging for money. Barack pulls out a twenty and gives it to the man. Good for Barack. Barack then looks at you and says "Well?"

"Well what?"

"Aren't you going to give this man some money?"

"No, I'm not. I don't have any to spare right now. I have my own family to look after."

"So .. you don't care about the less-fortunate?"

"Don't give me that less-fortunate nonsense. This guy is here because he's a drunk. That wasn't a matter of luck, that was the inevitable result of his own life's choices."

"Well, I think you should give him some money."

"Sorry ... it's a free country. I worked hard for this money and I'm free to make the decisions on how I will spend it."

"Not any more," responds Barack, pulling out a gun.

Barack then points that gun at your head and tells you that, whether you want to or not, you are going to hand over some of your property to this man. Barack has the gun, he has the legal right to use it .. your freedom's be damned. Your property rights stop where the government decides someone needs to be "looked after."

There's another more subtle premise at work in Obama's comment. Apparently he thinks that the only way Americans will "look after one another" is through the processes of government. Private charity has always been more effective at taking care of those truly in need. It was government, not private charity, that chased the fathers out of the homes of countless welfare families. It was government, not charity, that created an mass chaos on Father's Day in most urban areas.

So .. the answer to President Obama is this: "You need to correct your premise, Mr. President. You don't balance freedom against our need to look after one another. Freedom is paramount. When people use their freedom to make the wrong choices and end up in need, they must rely on the private charitable efforts of individuals, service organizations, churches, synagogues and mosques. Once you have a government that is powerful enough to seize property from one individual solely for the purpose of transferring it to another .. freedom is in grave jeopardy.

But then I didn't have to tell you that, did I?

Barack Obama did a media blitz over the weekend, appearing on upwards of five different networks to sell his healthcare bill to the people. If this goes anything like his joint address to Congress, there may be a slight spike in support for his healthcare plan ... but that won't last long.

A bad plan is a bad plan .. and there's no way for Obama to dress this one up. People aren't buying it, and maybe that is because the people don't believe him. Like this, for example ... Obama told ABC that requiring individuals to have health insurance, or fining them in the amount of $3,000 if they fail to do so, doesn't amount to a tax increase. He says, "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase ... Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase."

First of all, let's address this comparison to the car insurance industry. We had heard this line repeatedly from Obama and his team. I can't understand why some of the brilliant minds in the media haven't done this already. Auto insurance and health insurance are two very different animals. You can start with the simple fact that driving is a choice. No one is forcing you to get a driver's license or a car. No license, no care, no insurance. Furthermore, so long as you keep your motor vehicle on your private property no insurance is needed in most states. You can drive your car or truck all over you farm, ranch, backyard or any property you own ... so long as it doesn't show up on a public highway you don't need to insure it. Auto insurance is a contractual arrangement between people who use public highways. You don't have to use the highway, but if you do you contract with other's who do to insure your vehicle.

Another point .. if you mooch rides from your friends, you don't need auto insurance.

With Obama's plan, the very fact that you're drawing breath is all that is needed for the government to step forward, put that omnipresent gun to your head, and say "Buy health insurance, or else pay the $3,000 fine"

And if you don't pay the fine? What then? Are they going to put you in jail? Are they going to seize your bank accounts? One think you can be sure of: The punishment the government cooks up for you miscreants who don't obey the government's mandate to purchase health insurance will certainly be more serious than the punishment that has been dealt out to Charlie Rangel for his tax evasion and avoidance shenanigans.

Now, back to this idea that this would not be a tax increase. I guess it all boils down to how you define the word "tax." If you will recall during the campaign, Barack Obama promised that he wouldn't raise taxes on 95% of Americans (even though half of Americans don't pay any income taxes). He then raised taxes on cigarettes. The dumber you are the poorer you are, and the poorer you are the more likely it is that you will be a smoker. So was the cigarette tax hike a tax on the very 95% of Americans that Obama said he would leave alone? Of course it was. The left will tell you, though, that it is the cigarettes that are being taxed .. not the people.

Webster's Dictionary has a definition of a tax. George Stephanopoulos pulled it out and used it on PrezBO yesterday: "tax"--"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." How does Obama's mandate NOT constitute a tax? Ditto for the penalty!

Obama's response to Stephanopoulos seems to be "Look, if I say it's not a tax, it's not a tax. I won. I'm the president. I get to define the terms, and when the government requires people to spend money on a particular product or face a fine .. it's not a tax."

Elections have consequences. One of the consequences of this one is that we now have to completely redefine the word "tax" in our vocabulary to make sure that nobody can ever say Obama raised taxes on those 95% of Americans he vowed to leave alone.

The healthcare debate was sidelined just a bit yesterday with the news of Obama's plan to scrap the missile shield in Eastern Europe. Let's just take a moment to noodle this one through.

If you'll remember, Obama made a grand speech in Prague back in April. During that speech Obama said that he would proceed with the development of the missile shield as long as Iran posed a threat to US and European security.

So what has changed?

Not only does Iran pose a threat, but in fact just days ago experts at the world's top atomic watchdog agreed that Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is well on its way to developing a missile system capable of carrying an atomic warhead.

Sounds like a pretty darn serious threat to me!

So the question is ... what does Barack Obama know that we don't? Here is a fantastic analysis of what Obama could possibly be getting from Russia in return for scrapping the missile shield.

So .. here's more change you can believe in. Countries in Europe that once thought the United States would be there to defend them no longer feel that way. Eastern European countries that felt the U.S. would defend them from Russian aggression no longer believe that to be so. Look for them to become much more friendly to Russian goals and initiatives now.

Elections have consequences. Elections in the U.S. have consequences for the people of Eastern Europe.

And just who didn't see all of this coming? Come on, folks! Having you been paying attention for the past 30 years? In virtually every state and community in this nation liberals have been blaming racism for any failure, miscalculation, controversy or outright act of corruption by black elected officials. There has been a standard operating methodology in place for all of the 40 years I've been doing talk radio:

1. Black citizen elected to office.
2. Black official runs into opposition to policy objectives or has a problem with corruption.
3. Black supporters and liberals blame the problems on race.

One-two-three. This scenario has been played out so many times in modern American history it would have been impossible to keep count. Now a black man has become president. Some fools thought that this would help our country move beyond racial division. Well --- perhaps it would have, if only evil white people had been smart enough not to object to anything this man might propose. But it didn't work out that way, so now the left and the media are finding racists under every bed, behind every utility pole and on every street in America. Newsweek Magazine even ran a totally absurd story about racism in babies ... putting a picture of a white infant on the cover with the title "Is your baby racist?" Read that story and you'll find that the authors think that it would be horrifying if a white child were to ever express pride in being white.

Last year, before the election, some of us predicted that if (or when) Barack Obama became president that this would happen. We said that every time his policies met with opposition the left would start screaming racism. So what happened when we said that this would happen? Well ... you guessed it. We were called racists. You just can't imagine how surprised and shocked we were.

So .. here is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine and the brilliant thinkers on the American left would have you believe of Americans right now:

• We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.
• We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.
• It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.
• We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors ... if the president just didn't have dark skin.
• We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn't been black.
• Most Americans - even ones that don't pay income taxes now - would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked ... so long as they are asked by a white president.
• We would have been thrilled, I tell you ... THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.
• It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes ... we're only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.
• Deficits? We don't care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president's spending habits ... just so long as the president isn't black.
• Government pork? Like we actually care? Look ... you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want - how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? - just make sure it's not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
• We wouldn't care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census ... just so long as the president isn't black.
• Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we're upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
• Every single member of the president's cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we're concerned ... just so long as the president is white.
• Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don't like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
• Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It's about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We're only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
• More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to ... just so long as the president is white!
• Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Yeah .. the moonbat left really has us figured out, don't they?

President Obama weighed in yesterday on Kanye West's boorish behavior at the MTV Video Music Awards on Sunday night. In case you slept through Monday, you can click on this video to see what happened.

Now West has apologized for this bit several times, and his apology seems genuine. But Obama has still weighed in on Kanye's actions. According to ABC's Terry Moran, Obama called West a "jackass" for his little VMA stunt.

Now we're hearing that Obama made that comment during a CNBC interview ... an off-the-record interview. Now ABC is apologizing for revealing the off-the-record comment.

Sure a lot of apologies going around.

Anyway ... it's nice to know that President Obama can recognize a jackass when he sees one. It would have been nicer if that part of the interview had been on the record.

There he was, our anti-capitalist president on Wall Street yesterday. He was there to proudly announce his intentions to pile a bunch of new regulations on our financial markets. Well ... at least he comes by that honestly. After all, if you distrust and even dislike the free marketplace, and if you have the power ... why NOT regulate? Obama sees the government as the only entity that can straighten out our economic situation right now, so to him Wall Street must seem like enemy territory.

Maybe someday Obama can make a speech in Washington and tell us about all of the reforms he's going to introduce to stop government from meddling in the free marketplace. Sure ... Wall Street had a ball creating all sorts of investment vehicles with these worthless home loans; and those investments finally tanked. But what about addressing the people who made those worthless home loans possible? Names? OK, how about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?

Just remember folks, Wall Street wouldn't have been able to aid and abet a financial disaster this way if our wonderful federal government hadn't enabled and promoted those worthless home loans. The source of the problem, President Obama, was Washington DC, not Wall Street.

And that brings us to .......

OK ... I need to take a time off from speaking to or writing for the more rational readers/listeners out there and address my liberal detractors. The rest of you can read along .. but this is such a basic lesson in logic that you may find it a bit plebian.

To my leftist bedwetting friends:

So, you got a little upset about my tweet yesterday, did you? Now let's see, what was it I said? Oh yeah ... here you go: "Obama on Wall Street today. That's like sending a child molester to speak to a kindergarten class."

Well, it didn't take long before you were chattering amongst yourselves. Yeah .. that evil right wing nutjob hate-filled radical right wing talk show host just compared your precious president with a child molester.

I'm not going to ask you if you're really that ignorant. I already know the answer to that one. I'm going to try to help, though, by explaining the construct of that sentence for you.

Now ... through your illogical liberal fog you are claiming to have read that tweet as comparing Obama to a child molester. Let's see if that is supportable.

The word "like" appears in the sentence. The appearance of that word would indicate that I'm comparing one action or object with another. Look at the word following "like." That word is "sending," not "Obama." Yup ... what I'm doing here is comparing an action, not a person. I'm comparing one action to another action, not a person to a person. What actions? The action of Obama going to Wall Street to the action of a child molester going to a kindergarten class. So your accusation that I'm comparing your God to a child molester is looking a little weak, isn't it?

The question remains; why would I see a comparison between Obama traveling to Wall Street to that of a child molester going to a gathering of children? That should be pretty easy, even for a logic-challenged liberal. That would be because I consider Obama to be just as much of a threat to Wall Street as I would a child molester to children.

Now I know this isn't going to make any difference to you. You know that your followers are every bit as challenged when it comes to logical thought as you are ... so you will continue to use this tweet to attack me. That's fine. When I'm not being attacked by blogs like ThinkProgress or Media Matters I start to worry that the content of my program isn't compelling enough. Your attacks serve as my validation. I just wanted you to see that your logic failures don't go unnoticed.

I would have thought that the 24/7 news cycle and the short attention span of Americans would have put this story to bed by now. But the fallout from Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst last week continues to make the news. I bring this story to your attention because I have been harping on the resurrection of the race card lately. Great recent example? The DC tea party this weekend. You do know that those people on the mall were all a bunch of racists, don't you?

Now Joe Wilson is a racist as well. He didn't yell "you lie" at Obama because Obama was lying .. he did it because Obama is black. Read this from Newsbusters.

The National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), also known as the Black Press of America, which is a non-partisan 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization, has decided to show its disapproval of South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's "You Lie" remarks by canceling a convention in the state.

"Rep. Wilson's remarks were racist, disrespectful and a disingenuous violation - not only of President Obama - but to the institution of the presidency and only solidified our position and the importance in not spending Black dollars where Black people are not respected," NNPA Chairman Danny J. Bakewell Sr. said in a statement.

Would somebody please have Chairman Danny Bakewell explain to me what was "racist" about Joe Wilson's outburst of "you lie"? I agree that is was disrespectful. But racist? That is one of the most overused words in the English language. When you hear someone yell "racist" you know you are listening to a limited intellect on a temper tantrumThe only reason his outburst is "racist" is because too many people are walking around this country with racial chips on their shoulder.

If Obama is so focused on health care reform, could someone please tell me why there are so many parts of the ObamaCare plan that benefit labor unions and promote unionization? Just another indication that this is not about health care, it's about control --- and paying off your friends.

If it is back, it won't be for long. Today Obama is going to give a speech on Wall Street. Literally. Obama on Wall Street. Wonderful. That's like sending a child molester to a day care center. Obama will be speaking just steps from the New York Stock Exchange, "[stressing] that regulators and legislators not only in the US, but around the world, need to take the next steps to tighten financial regulation."

Ten days from now, the G20 summit will work on their plans to curtain banking bonuses, as well as other means to regulate the global financial system.

Unfortunately the story today will be the classless rudeness of S.C. Republican Joe Wilson rather than the gaping logic holes in Obama's speech. Usually that type of boorish behavior is reserved for liberals when a conservative is speaking on a college campus.

Who will be the first to call Joe Wilson a racist?

Wilson can't claim a momentary and uncontrollable lapse of judgment. He walked in there with a sign that said "no bull."

Of course illegal aliens won't be covered. That would be because by the time this plan is put into effect they won't be "illegal" any more. They will have been legitimized by a Democrat party seeking more core voters.

And then there's this ... if illegal aliens aren't going to be covered, then why does he include the 10 to 12 million uninsured illegal aliens in the number of the uninsured when he's promoting ObamaCare?

One more thing ... Wilson's outburst would have been par for the course in the British Parliament. Ever listen to those characters when the Prime Minister is speaking?

Reports are that Chris Matthews was hospitalized last night with uncontrollable thrills running up and down his leg.

Obama says that monopolies can stifle competition. He's right. So where were his suggestions as to how to increase competition among private insurance companies? Obama's solution to health insurance monopolies? Give government the monopoly. A monopoly with guns. How nice.

Obama talks about right wing scare tactics used to fight his health care plan. Then he says that without his plan more people ... thousands more ... will die. So just who is using the scare tactics?

Obama wants to save money? How about curtailing whatever government program it is that buys electric scooters for lardasses. Do you know that taxpayers spend billions of dollars a year on this?

I only counted three "tax the rich" moments in the speech last night. Did I miss any?

Obama managed to get in a few slams against the evil "profit motive." In Obama's world anyone seeking to make a profit from their efforts is to be scorned. The desire to make a profit is always suspect.

Still pushing the "public option" - really a government option. Why so essential? This is the poison dart aimed at private insurers. This is the clear path to single payer. Obama knows it. Democrats know it. And they know that most of the great unwashed don't' know it.

No taxpayer money for the government option? Does he really expect us to buy that dog squeeze? As soon as the government health insurance option runs into trouble there will be "emergency" bailout bills presented in congress -- because to do otherwise would be to jeopardize the health care of millions of Americans, and we just can't do that, can we?

Obama says that no one would be "required" to chose the government option. Wiggle room: The law won't require you to join, but when your private insurance company is run out of business by the government plan you won't really have another choice.

Obama kept talking about competition. Fine. Then let health insurance companies sell their products across state lines. Also ... get rid of the asinine mandates. Why should you be forced to buy insurance that covers you for hair transplants in Connecticut? Why should some who doesn't drink have to buy insurance that covers alcohol rehab? Ditto for drug rehab.

Have you considered the possibility that Obama simply doesn't understand the American health care system? To put it bluntly ... is it possible that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about? Consider two points:

1. President Obama famously suggested that a doctor, faced with a child with a persistent sore throat, might simply decide to take the child's tonsils out in order to earn a bigger payday. Almost every mother who has taken her child to a pediatrician knows that a tonsillectomy would not be performed by the family doctor, but by a surgeon. Obama didn't know what he was talking about.
   
   
2. Obama also suggested that a doctor treating a patient with diabetes might just decide to amputate the patient's foot or leg in order to earn a $40,000 or $50,000 payday. Once again Obama fails to recognize that it would not be the diabetic's primary physician that would perform that surgery. He also didn't seem to know that the surgeon who does the actual amputation would make hundreds, not thousands.

This is basic stuff. Pediatricians don't do the tonsil surgery. Primary care physicians don't amputate limbs. Basic stuff --- but Obama was clueless. So this is the guy you want to trust to overhaul our health care systems? Yeah .. .works for me.

Well .. he stuck to the script, and by last evening the people who had been in such a panic over the president's speech to the nation's school children were looking, shall we say, foolish. It was actually a very strong event for Obama. He got to deliver a good positive message to the nation's school children and, in the process, he got to embarrass his opponents.

One problem .. the teleprompter. Obama delivered the speech at some high school near Washington and, predictably, had to use teleprompter. This meant that he was either looking 45 degrees to the left or right, but never directly into the camera. Most of Obama's audience was out there on the other side of that TV camera, and that's where he should have been looking. Not once did he actually look the children in classrooms across America in the eye. Since we're talking Obama here, I just had to find a criticism.

I'm sorry .. but this is about as lame as it gets. This chorus of "it wasn't the speech, it was the lesson plan" line the opponents of Obama's speech came up with yesterday would have been funny if it hadn't been so pathetic. Here's just one of the emails we received yesterday:

"The problem isn't Obama's speech. We knew all the time it would be very warm and fuzzy-innocuous, if you will. The real issue and problem is the teacher instructed fact sheets/student study guides and their scary agenda."

Grow up and admit it .. you blew this one. Obama and the Democrats played you like a banjo. Admit it and move on ... there's a government takeover of health care that needs to be fought.

Before we move on ourselves ... another email:

"Your attack on those that were opposed to the President and his minions original plan of propogandizing school children is eerily similar to Arianna Huffington's journey to kooksville. I hope you are not becoming the male version of Arianna."

By the way .. .my Townhall.com column yesterday "Republicans get Rolled ... and Deservedly So" was the second most read column on Townhall.com yesterday and received the second highest number of comments --- most negative. I was beat out in both categories by Thomas Sowell. There's just no way I could ever measure up to Thomas Sowell.

Okay ... I know that you are tired of it. By "it" I mean healthcare. But the issue is just too important. We are talking about 18% of our economy. We are talking about personal freedoms and your tax dollars. Tonight Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress to talk about healthcare. Now THIS is a speech that will matter a lot more to your life than the one he gave yesterday to your precious snowflake.

The biggest question about tonight's speech is whether or not Obama will push for a government healthcare option. There were hints yesterday that he might back off what the uninformed call the "public option," If he does you can bet that the government option will be waiting in the wings waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting American people just a wee bit down the road.

Other ideas are milling around Washington as well. Yesterday I told you about Senator Max Baucus and some of his proposals on healthcare. More details are now available. For instance, Senator Baucus' plan would call for fines of up to $3,800 on families who fail to obtain medical insurance. Super. Now can someone please tell me where you go in our Constitution to find a clause that permits the Imperial Federal Government to use force to make you buy anything? If I decide that I want to be responsible for my own healthcare, just who is the government to tell me I cannot? What if I win the lottery? What if I'm sitting on $150 million in cash and I decide that I will probably be able to handle any health care expenses by myself without dealing with a government or private insurance bureaucracy? Is the federal government really going to pull out the guns to force me to comply? That's right .. the guns. Remember, government is force. You stand up to the government and sooner or later the guns come out.

Oh .. and don't give me the argument that the government already forces you to buy auto insurance. That's just not so. You can own whatever car you want and refuse to insure it - so long as you don't take that car onto a public highway. You can drive around your farm, your private racetrack .. drive as much as you want without seatbelts, insurance, headlights, even brakes. Knock yourself out. When you drive on the public highways, however, you enter into a contract with the other citizens using those highways. That contract dictates that you have liability insurance on your car. Pretty simple when you apply a little rational thought to it, isn't it?

Today at noon Barack Obama addresses the nation's schoolchildren .. or a good number of them anyway. Many students won't hear the speech because of a rather severe miscalculation from the right. Republican screaming and wailing made it sound as if Hugo Chavez was flying in via Aeroflot to speak to our poor, innocent, unsuspecting angels. School districts reacted ... and millions of school kids will sit around picking their noses at noon instead of watching the speech.

So now the speech is out. As of yesterday afternoon you could read it on the Internet. I've read it, and if there is anything in there that I wouldn't want my child to have heard from a U.S. President, I certainly couldn't find it.

Egad! The speech is innocuous! What are we going to do now? I know! We'll all claim that Obama changed the speech after the uproar from the right! Well, duhhhhhh. Of course he did! Why wouldn't he! Well, actually he really didn't have to change it. It probably wasn't written by the time conservative boxers bunched up en masse. So Obama's speechwriters took their cue from the right and made the speech essentially bulletproof from the get-go. One sharp mind in a Republican strategy session could have seen this one coming from the next galaxy.

• President says he will give speech to schoolchildren.
• Republicans say the speech will be full of leftist propaganda
• Parents run in circles flailing arms overhead while screaming and shouting.
• Some school officials black out Obama's speech. (racist comment)
• Grinning speechwriters prepare speech with no leftist propaganda.
• Republicans look like fools.
• People now more reluctant to listen to conservative complaints about Obama.

Now how easy was that? For about three days we have parents, the Republican Party and assorted odds spinning around on their eyebrows and spitting wooden nickels over Obama's speech. He's going to indoctrinate our children. He's going to fill them full of socialist ideology. They're all going to come away from school today singing Kumbaya and waving red flags. They'll probably stop on the way home from school to buy a Che Guevara t-shirt from vendors the Democrats will have waiting out in front of their schools. Then the hopelessly indoctrinated kids will come home and destroy all the incandescent light bulbs and turn the spare bathtub into a recycling bin. Before they do their homework (reading The Communist Manifesto) they'll hide the car keys so daddy has to take mass transportation to work on Wednesday.

TeamObama must have loved this one. Talk about a hanging curveball. Once the manic inanity started all they had to do is sit back, prepare an innocuous speech for The One, and let the people scratch their heads wondering what in the hell the Republicans were so upset about!

Now that the speech is out .. and now that most stable people realize that there is nothing in the speech worthy of such an uproar ... it's time to change tactics. "It's not the speech! It's the lesson plan!" Oh yeah ... if that makes you feel better, go for it. You can just tell everyone that you really weren't upset about Obama actually speaking to the students ... it was the lesson plan that had you so angry all along. Yup! Works for me! Sure .. some Department of Education hack messed up the lesson plan, but that was so easily corrected and it was on to the speech. Now the next time the right comes up with an objection to some Obama concept, people who last week might have been on board will stand back and look at the Republicans with a jaundiced eye.

The massively dysfunctional Congress is back today .. with one thought in mind: Rescue Obama's presidency. The danger that this man and his congressional sycophants presents to this country is far from over. Obama will be doubling his effort to destroy much of America's private economic sector, starting with the seizure of the 18 percent of our economy represented by health care. This nonsense over the speech to the school children has boosted Obama's image as he and the congress get back to the business of promoting government. He will make a speech to the congress tomorrow night outlining his vision of government-controlled health care. No doubt his vision will contain many threats to liberty ... but opposing views will be filtered through the school speech debacle. Two steps forward and four steps back. Unless PrezBO really messes up his address to Congress tonight watch for his popularity ratings to rise. Thanks, Republicans!

A version of the foregoing Nuze segment about Obama's school speech appeared as a column at Townhall.com today ... and it wasn't what you might call "welcomed." You can click here to read the comments.

This new study endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan is making some waves. It says that Barack Obama is committing the same mistakes made by policymakers during the Great Depression. Here's a taste:

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiraling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs ... the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

If the American people knew beans about economics .. and hadn't been filled with myths about FDR ... we might have a better chance of surviving this.

This is a story that keeps on giving.

A lot of you have your thongs in a square knot over the fact that Barack Obama will be addressing school children next week. Some schools have decided that they are not going to show the speech. Others will require parent permission. But you parents are pretty upset. You're upset with me as well because I'm not all that upset. All I'm saying is to give the speech a chance. This really is a win-win situation for conservatives. If he says something that suggests "indoctrination," then conservatives can nail him. If he says something worthwhile, then what harm could it really do?

Question: What type of kool-aid do they serve in the green rooms of MSNBC? Have you been listening to these people? No wonder Dr. G and her bolt cutters have a bigger audience. Here's the latest example of MSNBC idiocy: Keith Boykin appeared on MSNBC yesterday to discuss this presidential address to students. Boykin says, "So much of the debate about President Obama has been politicized in an effort by some to delegitimize his presidency ... This is clearly much ado about nothing. We're talking about the President of the United States speaking to school kids. Why wouldn't schools want this to happen?"

Ok, I can agree with him so far. But then he goes on to say, "That's why our kids are so dumb today, because they don't want to have basic common sense in the classroom." Hey Keith, maybe our children are "so dumb today" because we send them to the government to be educated. Ever think about that?

President Obama has finally decided to take the reins and steer this healthcare debate. Next Wednesday he is going to address a joint session of Congress. This will be the first address to a joint session of Congress since President Bush gathered the clowns together after the 9/11 ISLAMIC terrorist attacks.

Clearly, Democrats in Congress haven't done all that great of a PR job when it comes to selling their healthcare plan. The hope is that PrezBO still has enough star power left to muster some support. Is he going to advocate a government option? Probably not. At this point, too much is riding on the success or failure of healthcare reform - the remainder of Obama's presidency, for example -- and a government option seems absolutely doomed for failure. That's a good thing because the government option was merely a not-so-suave way of getting to single-payer, and single payer means absolute government control.

There's that word again! CONTROL! My guess is that whatever you hear from Mr. Government next week, control of your health care will be hidden in the details. This, after all, is the goal. At the end this is all an exercise aimed to making sure that Democrats never lose control of the congress again. To get that sort of a grip on power they need an inseparable grip on you. Controlling your access to and paying for your health care would do it. So ... onward.

As soon as Obama plays his cards we'll get back into the game.

By the way ... did I mention that the 9/11 attackers were MUSLIMS?

Are we ready to chill out about Obama's speech to the nation's government school children next week? Is there a potential for a disaster? Sure there is, but I think it's unlikely. Obama isn't going to go on the classroom tubes and tell the kids to "go home and tell your folks to call their elected officials and tell them to support my health care plan. If you don't, you're gonna die." The White House says that the purpose of the speech is for PrezBO to "address the students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school." Who in the world wouldn't want this message delivered to our students? Do you think you would have had your panties in a wad if it was George W. Bush delivering the same message to the students?

Obama is in a position to do some good here. Many of these school children look up to him. They have no awareness of his flirtations with Marxism in college. They don't understand his complete lack of experience as he stood for election last year. They just know that he's the president, and that's important. Young black students see him as an incredible roll model. If he delivers them a positive message about personal responsibility we're all the better off for it.

All this doesn't mean we sleep through his speech. Let's watch carefully to see if there is any pro-big government propaganda that needs to be addressed. Until then ... find something else to get all worked up over.

Oh, I know .. the libs prefer to call it the "public option." The love to apply the "public" word to all things government ... schools, for instance ... because they know that word sets better with - the public! Go figure! Fact is, though, that it's government through and through .. and as Slobbering Barney would say, if you think that the government does things well ... what planet have you been living on? Government can't even handle a simple used care trade-in deal.

Anyway ..... word this morning is that Obama has abandoned his plans for a government-run health insurance program in his so-called health car "reform" plan. The approach here was clear. The government option was the path to a single-player health care system; and the single payer would be the (of course) the government. That would mean total government control over your health care ... whoever is paying the bills runs the show.

I love what Obama advisor David Axelrod said to Politico in an interview. "It's time to synthesize and harmonize these strands and get this done." Oh yeah! That's just what the American people have been waiting for. We're upset because there just hasn't been enough synthesizing and harmonizing. That's been the problem all along, right? That's what we've needed all along. Synthesizing and harmonizing. Put those elements together with all that hopey and changey stuff ... and we're in grand shape!

Cool it Boortz ... back to the issue ...

So Obama is going to present a list to congress of just what he wants in a new health care plan. Word is that the government option isn't going to be on that list. A fine list it is sure to be though. I can't wait to see what this community organizer with swell slogans is going to come up with.

The Obama White House knows how to boost those popularity ratings. Attack the evil greedy capitalists of Wall Street. So, according to Politico, Obama is going to call for some grand new restrictions on Wall Street. He wants to show his faltering supporters that he is determined to punish the evil capitalists who started all of this ....

... except it wasn't started by evil capitalists. It was started by government. It was government, not Wall Street, that decided anyone who wanted to buy a home should be able to do so. It was government, not Wall Street, that encouraged lenders to make loans who people who clearly could not afford to buy a home. It was government, not Wall Street, that set up a system whereby these worthless loans would guaranteed by government.

Not that anyone really cares ...........

By now, most of you parents have jeopardized your children's future by sending them off to the government to be educated. You didn't do it out of malice .. but do it you did. You put them on a school bus this morning where, essentially, they will go and learn to be good little government subjects. The government school goal is to make you're your spawn learn just enough to get by, but not enough to ask the hard questions or think for themselves. Don't believe me? Well that is, in fact, the purpose of government education. Don't take it from me, take it from this guy who was a helluvalot smarter than me. That guy would be H.L. Mencken. Here are two quotes I want you to absorb from Mencken about government education:

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all: it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality."

"And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps."

Well .. here comes some more rubber stamping. On September 8th ... that's next Tuesday ... your children are going to get a welcome back to school speech from none other than President Obama. Teachers are getting ready. Perhaps you would like to read this memo from the Department of Education as to how teachers should handle this first-ever event.

OK .. everybody out there just calm down. You should have seen the email that came crashing in last night ... Obama's little talk has a mighty good number of panties in a complete wad. So let's relax for a bit and see what Obama intends to do.

We get this preview from the DOE:

"The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."

As if that wasn't enough, as I told you the federal Department of Education has put together a worksheet for teachers across America so that they can properly prepare their students for the President's speech. There are some little gems in this worksheet that could be troublesome. Pretty much what you would expect, though, from government.

An example: In the teacher's worksheet the teacher is urged to discuss with the students the following questions:

• What do you think the president wants us to do?
• Does the speech make you want to do anything?
• Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?
• What would you like to tell the president?

Well .. how about a few more questions from the Talkmaster:

• What are the constitutional limits on this president's power?
• Is the president asking us to do things that are really outside of his designated powers?
• SHOULD we do what President Obama is asking of us?
• Do you feel the president was talking to you, or with you?

It's hard to really flesh this out until we hear Obama's speech. Trust me ... we'll be listening, and hoping for the best.

So Barack Obama is going to give this little speech to students across this nation. Yeah, yeah I know ... I'm sure that students in private schools will be watching too, but students in government schools will be REQUIRED to watch and participate.

So I've come up with a little treat of my own. Next week, I am going to give the Boortz address to government school students. This is the speech that students in this country SHOULD be hearing, but won't. I challenge any of you government school teachers to include my version of Obama's address in your lesson plans ... see how long it takes for your administration to put a stop to that.

Did you hear about this wack-job pastor out in Arizona? This guy thought it would be a good idea to get up to the pulpit and deliver a sermon entitled "Why I Hate Barack Obama." Not only that, but he explains how he "hopes that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and [he] hopes it happens today."

Recently the Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried a story about former Georgia Senator Zell Miller. You will remember that Miller delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention in Boston in 2006. This angered the looters. When the AJC reported that Miller was in the hospital being treated for a severe case of shingles the Democrats came out in force. In the AJC you can comment on the stories just as you can here in Nealz Nuze .. and ohhhh the comments. The liberals certainly didn't hold back in expressing their wishes that Zell Miller would die before he left the hospital. Somehow this didn't become an issue in the media.

But when a right-wing nut-case steps forward? Oh yeah! Now that's going to make noise .. and this so-called "Man of God" in Arizona is a nut-case. A sermon on "Why I hate (anybody)" has no place on any pulpit. Leave that stuff for the Mosques.

I strongly believe we're in a fight to save our Republic. People like this pastor do more harm than good. Hold down the rhetoric about Obama folks. Don't make it personal. Concentrate on his past, his inexperience, his fealty to socialism and totalitarian world leaders. On a personal level he gives every indication of being a pretty decent dude and we're not going to get anywhere hoping that something evil happens to him ... something other than not getting a second term that is.

Something is starting to stink in the Obama Justice Department. Just the other day I told you about the CIA investigations that have been ordered by Attorney General Eric Holder. Earlier in the year we had the same Attorney General dismiss a case involving the Black Panthers intimidating voters during the 2008 election.

Now we get this. The Obama Justice Department has killed the investigation into New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on pay-to-play allegations. For a year, federal investigators have been looking into the details of Bill Richardson doling out state bond deals to campaign donors. This investigation is the reason why he pulled himself out of the running to be Obama's commerce secretary.

All of the sudden, top Justice Department officials decide that they are not going to purse the indictments. To quote a Justice Department official, "It was killed in Washington."

This, my friends, is change you can believe in.

President Obama and the Democrats truly seem dumbfounded by America's response to their healthcare reform plans. Maybe this has something to do with it. Polling, studies and focus groups have been working for years to come up with precise language that would win over voters on the issue of healthcare. We are talking as far back as 2005, the Herndon Alliance met with the AARP, Service Employees International Union, the American Cancer Society and the liberal health-policy group Families USA in order to figure out how liberals could change the language of the healthcare debate.

This is why Barack Obama changed his rhetoric to "health insurance reform" rather than "healthcare reform." This is why he says phrases like " the mandatory purchase of health insurance would 'be affordable, based on a sliding scale.'" This phrasing "precisely mirrored language that had been poll-tested and put before batteries of focus groups by Democratic consultants over the past few years," according to the Wall Street Journal. "The words had been carefully chosen in an effort to take away the rhetorical targets of health-overhaul foes and replace them with terminology that would bring ordinary Americans on board."

So what happened? You happened. You, the American people, decided to wake up see right through the focus group rhetoric and transparent phrases. The Democrats have been working on this moment for years ... and they are losing the battle. I love it.

The Office of Management and Budget presents the sobering reality for the Obama administration. There is no way that the administration can deny these facts. It's time to wake up and smell the pork, fellow Americans: Our current level of government spending is unsustainable. This is the first year that America will run a trillion-dollar budget deficit. Over the next decade, Obama's budget plans to borrow another $9 trillion ... more than doubling our national debt. This year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household. The breakdown goes something like this: about $17,000 from taxes and $13,000 from borrowing. That is an increase of 22% in federal spending this year and a record 26% of the GDP. So you are saying, "Ah well this is just an extraordinary year and Obama inherited Bush's mess and blah blah blah." Well Obama's budget permanently keeps spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it was under George Bush.

In other words ... there is absolutely no way that we can continue the current level of government spending and expect this nation to survive. If the Republicans can capture that sentiment and run with it, maybe they will have a chance of winning some seats in 2010. However, what have they done to earn the people's trust again? Plus .. even if the Republicans do manage to come up with a viable plan to turn this spending and debt splurge around, how in the world to you get the Obama-crazed media to report it?

Either way, what Barack Obama is currently doing in Washington will be paid for for generations. The Heritage Foundation has done some research into Obama's spending habits. Here are just a few of the highlights .. things that your children can thank Barack Obama for someday, and things that you can thank those drivers with the Obama bumper stickers for today:

- The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.

- While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that each year Medicaid will expand by 7 percent, Medicare by 6 percent, and Social Security by 5 percent. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the $700 billion TARP financial bailout.

- President Obama claims that "we have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." This is not true. The President first creates a fantasy baseline that assumes the Iraq surge continues forever (which was never U.S. policy) and then "saves" $1.5 trillion against that baseline by ending the surge as scheduled. It is like a family "saving" $10,000 by first assuming an expensive vacation and then not taking it. Another $1 trillion in "savings" is actually tax increases (in other words, savings for government, not taxpayers).

- Federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) remained constant at $21,000 throughout the 1980s and 1990s, before President Bush hiked it to $25,000. In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household--the highest level in American history--and under President Obama's budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

- While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the "stimulus" was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession. This suggests that even if the President had not inherited a big deficit, he would have created one as a matter of anti-recessionary policy.

- The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

- The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush...

Barack Obama and the Democrats really have to get their story straight. First we have Barack Obama saying that a government health insurance option is absolutely essential in order to properly reform our healthcare system. Then his Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius goes on a talk show and says that a government option is "not the essential element" of reform. Then the White House has to back pedal and say that the White House was still committed to a government option. That leads to today ... now Barack Obama says that Sebelius did not misspeak and that the government option is not the only way to reform the healthcare system.

Obama, speaking to a conservative talk show, said, "We're happy to make sensible compromises. What we're not willing to do is give up on the core principle that Americans who don't have health insurance should get it. That Americans who do have health insurance should get a better deal from insurance companies."

So in the world according to Barack Obama, the imperial federal government should use its power of force to make private insurance companies offer "better" deals so people can afford health insurance. And if the private insurance companies won't do that, then he wants to set up a government option in order to stick to his core principle that "Americans who don't have health insurance should get it."

Note, please ... Obama offers no private sector solutions. Well ... that would be because he's just not a private sector kind of guy.

You will remember that we've talked in recent days about these people who showed up at an ObamaCare rally in Arizona. About six protestors were legally wearing guns on their hips. One was carrying a semi-automatic rifle. I've said that I thought that this was a bit over the top ... not a good idea ... but let's focus on what MSNBC's Contessa Brewer had to say:

"A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.

The reason we're talking about this--a lot of talk here Dylan--because people feel like yes, there are Second Amendment rights, for sure, but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. You have a man of color in the Presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists."

OK .. let's ferret out the "facts" contained in Contessa's news story.

• We had a rally for ObamaCare
• A man at that rally was carrying a semiautomatic assault rifle
• The man carrying the rifle was white.

Well ... listen to the show today. Perhaps some interesting news, and evidence of a coverup?

Barack Obama and the Democrats are starting to get the picture. And why? Because of all those KKK, Brooks Brothers-wearing, Nazi evil-mongers were making their feelings known at rallies and town hall meetings around the country. The message seems to have been heard, and the looters are starting to realize that their plans for a government-run health insurance option are not what the American people want. Well ... maybe they don't understand that it isn't what the people want, but maybe they understand that they won't be re-elected if they support it.

Well guess what happened over the weekend while you were enjoying a few days off? The so-called "public option" is now on life support. This from Senator Kent Conrad "...there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been." Conrad also says that it is futile to continue to "chase the rabbit." Why do we really care what Kent Conrad thinks? Well, he is one of the six members of the Senate Finance Committee who are negotiating a healthcare compromise bill. For now, he matters.

Well .. there must be something up the Democrat sleeves, right? You're right. The idea now is for the creation of creating non-profit insurance cooperatives. These co-ops would sell insurance in competition with the private sector. Level playing field? Hardly. These co-ops will have $4 billion in initial support from the government. Conrad's plan would place the co-ops under a national structure with state affiliates, however they would be independent of the government. They would also be required to have the same financial reserves as private companies.

Well, this certainly beats the snot out of government-owned health insurance companies ... but the devil is going to be in the details here. Just what degree of government control will there be? Will there be continuing subsidies? Non-profit means that they can't end the year with an operating profit. How about a loss? How will losses be funded?

Maybe the real story here is that, no matter how much the Democrats hated it, the people who showed up at the rallies and town hall meetings appear to have had an effect. These politicians are wondering if they can still count on the notoriously short memories of voters. Efforts like this are generally passed in off-years, and that would be because the politicians think you will have forgotten all about it by the next year when the election hits. Maybe that's changing.

Another thing about the public option: Is it possible that the voters have finally figured out that this is nothing more than a way to run the private insurance companies out of business? Are voters becoming educated? For now I'm going to think that's the case. Hope I'm not disappointed.

Obama had his healthcare town hall yesterday in New Hampshire. What a bore. I guess the reason it was such a bore was that so many of the questions were offered by Obama campaign workers and Democrat operatives. But what else did we really expect? Do you actually think that Barack Obama's staff would get away with filling an auditorium with anything other than a carefully controlled crowd? No way. That's the last image that America needs to see - Barack Obama being chewed out by angry Americans.

So the event turned out to be pretty dull. He told people not to listen to us hate-mongers. People who "scare or mislead the American people." Obama says that the truly scary thing would be if we did nothing about our healthcare system. He gave us the typical rhetoric: "For all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise, what you need to know is this ... if you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." But perhaps the most ironic line of the whole event came when he was trying to describe government competing with the private sector. Obama said, "They do it all the time ... UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Just what in the world was Obama trying to say with that line about the post office? Was he kidding? How in the world do you promote the cause of government health care by citing an example of how absolutely horrible the government is at doing things? And here's something else to keep in mind: UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete with the post office in the delivery of first class mail. They aren't allowed to leave packages in mail boxes. And so it will be with government health care. You are delusional if you really think that the Democrats will ever give the private sector to compete against government health care after the government system is fully in place.

And you do realize that many of the questions asked by those folks at the ObamaEvent were plants, don't you? That's Obama's style. Michelle Malkin has been doing a wonderful job keeping up with Obama's planned encounters with people at his various town hall meetings. You can read her full report right here. But let's take a look at one particular moment from yesterday's Obama town hall meeting

Remember the cute little girl who asked Obama how do kids know what is true and why do people want a new health care system? Her name is Julia Hall and she's 11 years old. Her mother is an attorney, Kathleen Manning Hall. On Kathleen Hall's Facebook page there's a picture of her with Barack Obama. She has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama, and her law firm has contributed thousands more. Now you tell me what the chances are that she was randomly called on at the ObamaEvent.

Look ... it 's the president. The organizers of that event could absolutely be expected to do everything they could to avoid an embarrassing moment for Obama. If you think that what you saw was really an open forum on health care ... well ... what can I say. You're an ... um ... and Obama voter. Simple as that.

Honestly the most entertaining thing that happened yesterday was not Barack Obama's townhall but Arlen Specter. Whew .. boy did he get his behind handed to him.

How's it working out for him so far? According to Rasmussen, after six months in the Oval Office, Barack Obama has a lower job-approval rating than did ten of the last twelve presidents at the same point in their presidencies.

Barack Obama has been far worse than I ever could have imagined. I don't think that one year ago anyone could have convinced me that he would have been this dishonest, this radical and this dangerous to the cause of freedom and economic liberty. I have serious doubts about the ability of our country to survive eight years of this man's politics.

Are people really starting to wake up? Where are all of those ice scrapers that someone turned into Barack Obama bumper sticker removers?

We've been through this routine before. The favorite buzzword of the left, and of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, was "change." My question was always, change from what to what? Well it seems as though we finally have an answer. The change that Barack Obama would like to see implemented is a change from a free market system to one of government dominance. At least when it comes to healthcare. He has launched an email campaign to ask his supporters to attend at least one community event on healthcare this month. He is apparently asking them to do this in order to combat the "outrageous falsehoods" that are "filling the airwaves and the Internet." He says that the only reason people are protesting his plans are in order to "scare people into opposing change."

"Supporting change." Doesn't matter what you're changing from and what you're changing too. Just support change. That's your duty as a good American.

Oh and by the way .. the title of this email he sent to his supporters was "This is the moment." Gag me.

Ok, so just to get this straight .. I wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. If you oppose Barack Obama's healthcare plan, you can consider yourself the following:

-A right-right extremist

-An unruly member of a mob

-A person who is not expected to dress respectably

-Desperate to destroy Barack Obama

-Unwilling to change

-Unwilling to "seize the moment"

-And you don't like change. In fact, you probably don't even change your underwear.

We've talked before on Nealz Nuze about the "Rahm Emanuel Factor." This is the notion that you are willing to make a deal on ANYTHING in order to maintain power. Rep. John Conyers (a Democrat from Michigan) says that Barack Obama has changed his position on healthcare because of this "Rahm Emanuel Factor." There is no doubt that according to Conyers, Obama did in fact believe in a single-payer healthcare system. But as we are now told, Obama has since changed his mind. Conyers says, "I'm just guessing now, because we haven't talked about it, but he wants it because of the Rahm Emanuel factor. Okay. I'm glad you asked me. The Rahm Emanuel factor, to quote him, is that, look, we want success, and we're willing to make a deal about anything. Does that make you feel pretty comfortable about health care?"

Conyers also believes that the current healthcare legislation in Washington will not keep costs down nor cover all Americans. Isn't that kind of the point for these Democrats? Oh wait, I forgot. It isn't. The point is to maintain power. Rahm Emanuel has figured that one out real well.

The media is starting to catch on to Barack Obama's latest sales pitch when it comes to government healthcare: ensure stability and demonize the insurance industry.

Pretty clever, eh?

The Politico writes, "Adding a populist punch to the pitch he first took on the road last week in Cleveland - that for the insured, reform means 'more stability and security' - the president detailed a list of consumer protections that he promised would be in any bill that reaches his desk. In so doing, he cast insurance industry as public enemy-in-chief." There are those words again: stability and security. Americans love the idea of security. They think that they love the idea of freedom. That's a bunch of horsesqueeze. What they really want is for the evil rich to pay their "fair share" so that they can enjoy the "freedom" of "free" government healthcare. That's another one of Obama's buzz words: fairness. At a recent healthcare townhall meeting Obama said, "So what we need, and what we will have when we pass these reforms, are health insurance consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and insurance companies are held accountable ... Whether or not you have health insurance right now, the reforms we seek will bring stability and security that you don't have today."

Maybe, just maybe, the people of this country are starting to figure this guy out. They are starting to realize that his administration is dictated more by focus groups and buzz words than actual sound policy.

Make no mistake ... this little White House beer party tonight between Obama, the whiney Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley is all about rehabilitating the image of Barack Obama. He stepped in it big time ... and now he's going to use Gates and Crowley to wash that stuff off his shoes .. .with beer.

Oh .. and the woman who made the 911 call because she saw someone she thought was breaking into a house? Well now she's being called a racist. Yeah ... a racist. So ... here are the new rules. If you think you see someone committing a crime your first task is to determine whether or not that person's color. If they are white, you call 911. If they're black, you simply turn and walk away. Whatever you do, do not call 911. That, of course, would make you a racist. Hard to believe (or maybe it isn't), but this woman is actually getting death threats ... death threats from people who are legally entitled to vote.

This lovely bible carrying case was spotted by a friend of the show. Oh, for those of you that think this is photoshopped, you can get your own here.

Man do I get the hate mail when I bring up the subject of Barack Obama's birth certificate. Apparently White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is just as frustrated as I am about this 'birther' crowd. Yesterday he was asked what he thinks it will take to make the birthers go away.

He says, "I almost hate to indulge in such an august setting as the White House -- and I mean this in seriousness -- the White House briefing room, discussing the made-up fictional nonsense of whether the president was born in this country ... If I had some DNA, it wouldn't assuage those that don't believe he was born here. But I have news for them and for all of us: The president was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the earth. He's a citizen."

Can you believe that we are six months into this presidency and there are still people out there who wake up every morning and worry about the fact that they believe Barack Obama is not a US citizen.

Isn't that what they're saying in the aftermath of Obama's little slam against the Cambridge, MA police? I'm getting a bit tired of hearing so many self-described experts telling us how this whole Henry Gates incident should bring us all to the table so we can have a dialogue on race.

Do we need such a dialogue? Oh hell yes we do. But it just ain't going to happen. In this age of political correctness the only possible direction such a dialogue could take would be a forum on all of the terrible things whites have done to blacks and all the things that whites need to do to make things right.

Do white wrongs have a place in the discussion? Absolutely. Racism, bigotry and prejudice ... all part of the equation. But that's not the entire picture ...

Let me share just a few of the things that would be taboo in such a dialogue. First, insofar as Henry Gates is concerned; I doubt very seriously that the dialogue would include any information as to what percentage of home break-ins in and around Boston and Cambridge are committed by blacks. There is no way you might be able to suggest that the police were acting on experience given the fact that blacks are more likely to be involved in criminal activity in the Boston area than whites or other minorities. And you damned sure wouldn't be able to bring the idea that much of the problems experienced by the black community are due to culturalism rather than racism.

Don't even begin to suggest that it might be black culture, rather than poverty and discrimination, which lead to high incidences of black crime. And for God's sake, don't mention the anti-education, anti-learning mentality that suffocates so many young black boys and girls. You know ---- the culture in which a young black teenager is accused of trying to "act white" if he or she so much as raises a hand to ask a question in class.

Yeah ... we need a dialogue. Let' me know when we can get that started. Every time I've ever even brushed those topics lightly on the air it has unleashed charges of racism --- the one sure way to discussing what really might be going on. So ... y'all just get your dialogue going and let me know how it works out for you.

Barack Obama has much of the country convinced right now that the only way we are going to turn our economy around is if we get the price of healthcare under control. Right? Was that not his message the other night during his presser? This all comes under the "never let a good crisis go to waste" dogma. Government spending is in crisis; so, whether it's valid or not, just tell the dumb masses that all we need to do in order to get government spending under control is to nationalize health care.

The Congressional Budget Office says that the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would actually save almost no money over 10 years. Let's compare. The total cost of this healthcare package is $1 trillion. That's according to the White House, but of course you know that is just the beginning. No government program since WWII has cost what original estimates predict. So the price tag is $1 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office says that this Medicare panel will save a whopping $2 billion over the next 10 years. Folks, that is a 0.2% savings.

But that's okay. Just continue thinking that the Democrats are doing this in order to cut your costs and provide you better care. The truth is that they are doing it in order to make you more dependent on government and to gain more power over you.

So how does the White House react to this news? The White House Budget Director Peter Orszag gets on one of the Sunday talk shows and says that this analysis "could feed the perception of the office's bias toward 'exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.'" Oh, so now the CBO suddenly has a bias. Then he goes on to say that, "The point of the proposal ... was never to generate savings over the next decade ... Instead the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term." Are you buying this, folks?

While the White House is not so crazy about the idea of taxing employee benefits, what it now considering is a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies. A top White House official told the POLITICO, "A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care costs ... The president believes this is an intriguing idea."

Even Barack Obama himself says, "What's being talked about now, I understand, is the possibility of penalizing insurance companies who are offering super, gold-plated Cadillac plans."

What an idea here! Once they get this in place they why not spread it to other areas of the market place? I have one great idea already! How about taxing "gold-plated" housing! Now there's an idea that any Democrat could fall in love with in a heartbeat. Here's how it would work. While there are so many Americans who cannot afford a basic one bedroom, one bath house of their own, how can it be fair that some Americans can go out there and buy a five-bedroom, five-bath mansion? The obvious solution here would be to pass a special tax on "gold-plated" mansions and then use the money to help the poor, poor, pitiful poor buy a home of their own! Hey! And once we get this in place for homes we can go after expensive automobiles! Yeah! I can see it now! A tax on "gold-plated" automobiles to help the great unwashed be able to afford transportation.

What a wonderful new Democrat idea we have here. I just can't wait to see it expanded.

Lou Dobbs is on the birther bandwagon. Since Neal just brought this up, here's America's Most Trusted News Source(TM) on the issue.

Have you been following this story out of Massachusetts?

Here's the basic set up. A woman sees a man who looks like he is breaking into a house. She calls the cops. The cops arrive to investigate the report of a burglary. The homeowner is inside and insists it is a misunderstanding and that this is his house .. no one was trying to break in. The cop demands identification. The homeowner refuses and gets upset.

Oh I guess I forgot to tell you one part of the story. The homeowner is black. The cop is white.

So the homeowner accuses this cop of racism. The only reason that the cop doesn't believe that he is the homeowner is because he is black. The cop arrests him and he is charged with disorderly conduct. The charges have since been dropped.

Then, Barack Obama holds a news conference. He is asked about the situation. Our wonderful president said during his press conference Wednesday that he was only "vaguely" familiar with what went on during the arrest of Professor Gates ... and then, being only vaguely familiar, PrezBO went on to say that the police acted "stupidly." The White House has since tried to explain what the president meant by that statement. Guess this is why the guy likes teleprompters.

Well ...thanks a pantload, Mr. President. Thank you so much for condemning the actions of the police in an incident that you were only "vaguely" familiar with. That ought to do wonders for the relationship between the police and residents of minority communities around the country. Nice move.

During the information overload hour today I'm going to read the entire police report of the incident. That's more than Obama did. You listen to the police report and then see if you agree that it was the police who acted stupidly, or did Professor Gates let that racial chip on his shoulder get a bit out of hand.

No, I did not watch it. Partly because I am lazy -- but mainly because I am going to do my own version of the press conference during the show today and I didn't want to hear any of the questions. No doubt I once again will outshine PrezBO when it comes to answering these questions ... and that would be because my answers will be straight; no BS. Tell what's really going on and let the chips fall where they may. If you want to hear my version, tune in today at 11AM EST for another infamous Boortz Press Conference, then we'll replay it during the Information Overload Hour.

I did, however, happen to catch some of the prepared remarks from Barack Obama. I just love how the AP describes it: "President Barack Obama sought Wednesday to cast the intensifying health care debate in terms that matter to ordinary people, promising to offer more savings, security and treatment to millions." Oh there you go ... using the word "security." We'll give Obama credit for that. He knows that the word "security" is much more important to the majority of Americans than the word "freedom." That would be why Hillary's attempted takeover of health care in 1993 was called the "Health Security Act." Much of governance today revolves around finding the right trigger word that resonates with the government-educated dumb masses. Get the right trigger word; like "change" for instance, and you can sell crap in a bag to most people.

If you're a bit more advanced in your ability to engage in rational thought - a disappearing trait - you will understand that Obama really gives a flying Krispy Kreme about the healthcare of "ordinary people." What Barack Obama wants to do is promise people "security" so that they will buy his takeover of almost 20% of our econmy and, thereby, become even more dependent on government. That's what this debate is about .. not about healthcare!

But back to the prepared remarks .. Obama wanted to remind Americans that "This debate is not a game." Pretty clever. He says, "This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they cannot afford to wait for reform any longer .. They are looking to us for leadership. And we must not let them down." Looks like PrezBO is consulting his team of behavioral scientists again. Obama is trying to paint a picture that he and the Democrats are the only ones who are taking things seriously in Washington. His opponents aren't really serious, they're just playing games. They're just screwing with him because they lost, and the people need to realize this or our country is doomed. For months now Barack Obama has made a point of telling the government-educated dumb-masses that the fate of our economic future is tied to healthcare reform. Not a bad tactic, actually. He knows that not many people are really feeling the pain of a broken system of health care, but the pain of our economic downtown has been spread pretty widely. So .... It's simple! Tie his takeover of health care to the economy, and the people will get on board!

Barack Obama and the Democrats keep reminding us that the healthcare industry comprises about 16% to 18% of our economy. Question .. is this necessarily a bad thing? David Gratzer, a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, says that regulation is in fact our biggest problem with healthcare. Here's a peak:

Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000.

The stark difference has nothing to do with each state's health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state's insurance pools are regulated.

In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin's insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.

The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention--not too little--is what's distorting prices from one market to the next.

So.... Just thinking out loud here ... but what if the people who live in New York were allowed to buy their health insurance from a company in Wisconsin? Do you think the competitive pressures from the Wisconsin insurers just might drive the cost of insurance in New York down? Now that's a free market solution .. and if there's anything missing from the Democrat side of this health care debate, it's free market solutions. By now you should know why. This isn't about delivering health care. This isn't about making health insurance more affordable. This is about making people dependent on government for their health care. You don't do that by making it easier for them to buy their health insurance in the free marketplace.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office reported that healthcare legislation drafted by the Senate would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit and only reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 16 million. Then in July, the CBO reported that healthcare legislation drafted by the House would add $239 billion to the federal deficit and actually increase healthcare costs.

Now, Barack Obama wants a meeting with the director of the Congressional Budget Office. After these CBO numbers .. which some Democrats have described as "devastating" .. it's time to pull out the big guns. Get this guy a meeting with the President. So the director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf went and had his sit-down with Barack Obama.

The Republicans smell something fishy. They believe that the Obama administration is trying to influence the CBO in order to get a more favorable cost projection on healthcare reform proposals. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell says, "It strikes me as somewhat akin to an owner of a team asking the umpire to come up to the owner's box." Finally ... something compelling from Mitch McConnell. A GOP aide says, "In all of CBO's 35 years, this is the first time a CBO director has ever been called into the White House to meet with a president in this way."

Do the Republicans have a point? Do you think that the Obama administration would be willing to use their influence and star power to cajole this guy into giving his proposals more favorable reviews?

Do a hog love slop?

If it were up to the Democrats, financial institutions receiving bailout money should be chastised for making a profit. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't we be rooting and cheering for companies like Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan to succeed? Barack Obama's National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers wants to make real sure that these financial institutions know who to thank for making a profit. He says, "Prudent financial institutions will recognize that the profits they're enjoying are in part a reflection of the commitment government and the broader society have made to the financial system that has enabled them to enjoy those profits." That's right .. you companies better enjoy those profits and remember that if it wasn't for the government you would be nothing!

All hail the Imperial Federal Government of the United States! Whatever you become in life you own to your beneficent government!

But he's not the only one commenting on the evil profits of these financial companies. The lamestream media is doing a pretty darn good job of it as well. Even our own president! Meredith Vieira on the "Today" Show interviewed Barack Obama. She asked him about these profits: "You know I wanted to ask you about Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan reporting these big profits in the second quarter ... And they're talking about bonuses for their employees. People hear that, taxpayers, and they're very frustrated." Oh yeah .. there's nothing quite so frustrating to the taxpayers than the thought of a company making a profit. Just pisses me off no end. Talk about playing up the wealth envy, Meredith. If these employees were able to turn these companies from the verge of bankruptcy to turning a profit, why shouldn't they receive bonuses? What is so terrible about rewarding people for hard work? Then Meredith Vieira asks, "Should taxpayers get a cut of those bonuses? Yeah ... here's an idea. Let's remove all the financial incentives from the executives and employees of any company that received bailout money or any help from the government. No matter how successful those companies may become, the people who brought them back to profitability should not be allowed to benefit.

Hey Meredith, you twit. I'll tell you what the taxpayers deserve. They deserve to get paid back. Trouble is, when they DO pay the government back that money will not be used to reduce the national debt, nor will it be returned to taxpayers. It will simply be spent on more vote-buying.

That leads to her follow up question ... have these financial institutions learned their lesson? Read Barack Obama's response very carefully. He says, "That's the point. That's the point, is what you haven't seen, I think, is a change in culture, a certain humility, where they kind of step back and they say, 'gosh, you know, we really messed things up. And so maybe we should be more focused on the products that we're providing consumers, let's make sure that we're operating in a more secure, safe fashion.'"

Humility? What in the hell does Obama know about humility? How about some humility from Barney Frank, from Christopher Dodd - from the people who protected Fannie and Freddie while this mess was unfolding? How about some humility from Bill Clinton over his grand scheme to make sure that every person in this country who wants one could get a home loan? The blame is shared. But don't expect our hyper-arrogant president to ever drop even the slightest suggestion that government may have been part of the problem.

Truthers take over Congressman Castle's town hall on heath care.

Let's start off with a little fun for today. I know you may be reading this before you've had your morning coffee, but even the government-educated could tell me what is wrong with this statement about government healthcare from Barack Obama.

"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system."

Well ... at least he got one thing right. Inefficiencies are just the beginning of our worries for a government healthcare system. Competition? Choice? Savings? Do you think that Barack Obama genuinely believes this line of dribble? The statistics are simply untrue. Don't believe me, believe the statistics. Are you ready? Here we go ....

Have you noticed something rather odd about Obama's seizure of America's health care system? This odd little fact has been hiding, as they say, in plain sight. The only people who are really pushing this government takeover of health care are "activists" or politicians. There is absolutely no public pressure to get this done.

Why so fast? It's depressing that Americans either don't care or are unable to connect some simple dots. Remember Rahm Emmanuel's proclamation that the Obama administration should not "let a good crisis go to waste"? It doesn't matter, you see, that the American people aren't clamoring for government health care. What matters is that the Democrats have the opportunity to seize control of one-sixth of the American economy, and they're going to do whatever they can to get it done. The biggest thing that the fascist Democrats have going for them right now is our economic downturn. There's your crisis. Now you take advantage of it ... you don't let it go to waste.

Come on now ... how many of you believe Obama when he says that the key to solving our economic crisis is to reform health care? Who is he kidding? The key to our crisis is to somehow cleanse our financial institutions of these toxic assets they're carrying (courtesy of the federal government) and get the banks lending and the people spending again. Health care plays no role here, but the Democrats want this power - this control - so they're using your economic angst to talk you into supporting their takeover of almost 20% of our economy.

We had better wake up, my friends. There are at least three inevitable results of this Democrat grab for power:

1. Higher taxes and costs for everyone,
2. Rationing of health care
3. A decrease in the quality of our health care

Better fight this now - once they get the power you won't have a prayer.

Not all that well, huh?

Have you gone from recognizing that the stimulus isn't working to actually trying to figure out why? Allow me to help.

Economists will tell you that the economy will really start to recover when people start spending money. Thus far, that isn't happening. The only stimulus money was actually put into the hands of the people was that pitiful $400 for individuals and $800 for families. Most of these people used the extra money not to buy something, but to either save or pay down some bills. They're scared, remain scared, and aren't in a buying mood right now. A one-time check doesn't really do it. They need to see a long-term and permanent increase in their take-home income, and thus a long-term increase in their ability to spend. How do you do that? Simple - tax cuts. Not just a one-time check, but a real tax cut. And not just a tax cut for the poor (who don't pay taxes anyway) and the middle class; but a tax cut for everyone, businesses included. Let the people who create the jobs keep more of the money they earn - and what happens? Do you think that somehow more jobs might be created?

President Hopenchange went the opposite way. Instead of a promise that people will be able to keep more of what they earn, his administration (and the entire Democrat party, for that matter) delivers a cacophony of rhetoric about increasing taxes on the very people we need to start the economic recovery. How smart his that? In the meantime they dump billions of dollars into idiotic government pork projects and call it economic stimulus.

It's the old Bill Clinton "You won't spend your money the right way" bit revisited. Just how long are we going to sit around and let these so-called "leaders" in Washington play us for such fools? When do the majority of Americans wake up and see this as the government power play it is? With so many Americans being government educated, there's not much real hope out there. Let's face it, the Republican Party sure isn't doing anything worth mentioning. They can't even come up with a counter-offer to Obama's socialized medicine.

Now ... Cristina has chosen some reading assignments.

Barack Obama knew that there would be a small window of time where he could get away with virtually anything, and still enjoy high approval ratings. Blame this honeymoon on the American Idol generation of voters who like the guy because he has a great bod and promised to raise taxes on the evil rich. Barack Obama knew that he had to get his big tickets agenda items - healthcare reform, global warming - passed while he still had popular support. There's that "never let a good crisis go to waste" bit from PrezBO's lead dog-washer, Rahm Emmanuel.

Warning Will Robinson! Warning! Warning! I now seems Barack's window of opportunity has closed - or is closing pretty quickly. The latest Rasmussen polls show that 32% of voters strongly approve of Barack Obama however 37% of voters strongly disapprove of his handling of the presidency. For those of you who are government educated, that means that more people think he is doing a lousy job compared to people who are still engaged in idol worship. Clearly some folk's subscriptions to People Magazine have expired.

Hmmm. I wonder if this conversion to digital television might have anything to do with this. Let's face it, the people who were unprepared and lost their analog TV signals several weeks ago were not exactly living at the top of the mountain. Could it be that these people, suffering from their inability to watch Entertainment Tonight or their soaps, have suddenly discovered other forms of entertainment? Like talk radio?

During his visit to Russia this week President Obama had something rather interesting to say about our armed forces. He said that "the future does not belong to those who gather armies." Really? Well, I have this question for our Commander in Chief. Which country do you think is more in control of its future ... the country that keeps an army, or the country that does not?

Too easy. Much too easy.

Dr. Anne Wortham is the author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness". She is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. Pretty strong credentials, don't you think?

In researching Anne Wortham I also found that she is a follower of Ayn Rand. That's why I haven't heard of her before. A black university professor who is a Rand fan?

Why bring her up? Because I've just come across a letter she wrote to her fellow Americans on November 6th of last year. I thought you might enjoy it ... so here goes:

There. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Taken in Hilton Head, SC .... clearly this person has no idea what they are voting for.

Joel Samuelson hits another one out of the park with his Independence Day cartoon:

I know, it's hard to admit that you were wrong, isn't it? I mean, after all, how in the world can you admit that voting for someone with absolutely no experience at all - a former ACORN street organizer - someone who gravitated to Marxist professors and communist student groups in college - someone with no record of significant accomplishment at any endeavor - and someone who ran for office on the basis of focus-group slogans - how can you ever admit that such a vote might have been a mistake?

Do you see our economy improving? Have you noticed the improving employment figures?

Are you impressed by the burgeoning national debt that your children are going to have to pay back?

Are you looking forward to seeing your health care rationed?

How about the nationalization of General Motors, Citigroup and others? That's why you put that bumper sticker on your car, isn't it? So Obama could use some of his immense business experience to run some of our major industries. You do know he will nationalize the banks soon, don't you? Is that the change you had in mind?

Don't you see how smart this "sort-of" God really is? He's raising taxes while other nations are lowering business and personal taxes to fight the economic downturn. You knew that he knew something that the other world leaders didn't know ... didn't you?

How about our shows of determination and strength to North Korea and Iran? Obama really has the Gargoyle and Shorty in a tizzy, doesn't he? And I'm sure you're very impressed by Obama's instantaneous backing of that wannabe dictator and Chavez acolyte from Honduras.

So ... still got that Obama bumper sticker on your car? It's one thing to have been so profoundly ignorant in the last election. It's quite another to advertise it.

North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is "concerned" about the situation.

Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be ... and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup.

Why the sudden decisiveness? Where were these strong opinions on foreign matters when Iranian authorities were trampling protestors and cutting off media access to the outside world? Where was this decisiveness when Kim Jong Ill decided that he was going to launch missiles toward Hawaii on the Fourth of July? Why ... NOW ... is Obama suddenly speaking out loudly

How about a little background. Are you really sure you know what has been going on in Honduras? Do you think that this was simply a coup? Let me give you a rough outline here, and then you can sit back and wonder just why PrezBO is in the weeds with Chavez and Castro on this one.

Mel Zelaya is, or was, the President of Honduras. He and Hugo Chaves were tight. So tight, it seems, that Zelaya wanted to emulate Hugo by changing the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for office until he durned well gets tired of it.

To change the constitution in Honduras you have to convene a constituent assembly. The president cannot do that. The Honduran congress must approve a national referendum calling for the constituent assembly to consider changes to the constitution. Zelaya didn't like the part about the constitution requiring approval of the congress before a national referendum could be called. So ... he decided to call one on his own.

OK .. so here we have President Zelaya calling for a national referendum when he doesn't have the power to do so. The next problem is obtaining ballots! Since the Honduran congress had not called for the referendum, as required by the constitution, the government certainly wasn't going to print the ballots! After all, how smart would it be to print ballots for an illegal referendum? So ... Zelaya had to get the ballots printed elsewhere. Here's an idea! Get his pall Hugo Chavez to print them! Yes! That will work!

So Chaves prints Zelaya's ballots and they're shipped to Honduras. Enter the Honduran Supreme Court. The court considers Zelaya's election in light of the requirements of the Honduran constitution, and rules the referendum illegal and unconstitutional. The court then issues an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with Zelaya's phony referendum. Remember, now ... all of this has one primary goal. To get rid of the term limits limiting Zelaya's rule in Honduras.

After the supreme court's decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells President Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya's referendum. So ... Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refuses to do so.

At this point Zelaya's ego is getting the better of him. If the military won't run his illegal referendum, he'll just do it himself. He gins up a mob and leads them to the military compound where Hugo's ballots are stored and then has his supporters begin distributing the ballots to the masses.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling the Honduran attorney general said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country.

Now ... does this sound like a military coup-de-etat to you? The attorney general and the military were operating in accordance with the Honduran rule of law. They acted under a valid court order. Coup? The Honduran congress has convened and designated a successor president, all in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Military coup? The presidential elections set for November .. the election that Zelaya was trying to get around ... will go on as scheduled. A blow for democracy?

Fidel Castro, Daniel Noriega, Hugo Chavez ... all on the side of Zelaya. But Obama? Obama fighting against the rule of law and for a wannabe dictator? What gives?