Rush Limbaugh Program - December 8, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 8, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:30

December 8, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	From safely ensconced in the heavily fortified and bunkered EIB Southern Command, I am Rush Lynn Bull, the most listened to radio talk show and host in a country meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
	I am America's truth detector and America's doctor of democracy.
	And you have EIB, an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact.
	And when you get it, you are cured.
	Great to have you here.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882.
	Let me finish now with the article here from Lisa Schifrin, because she's nailed it here.
	The reason people are still continually focused on this Tiger Woods business is that it's an act of betrayal, that there was a hoax perpetrated here.
	He was presented as somebody he's not, and people knew it all along.
	They knew it all along, but there was money to be made on both sides of it.
	There is money, hopefully, still to be made, so they're trying to repair it so that it can remain what it was.
	But I think the genie's out of the bottle on this now.
	And where you find a hoax, what do you always have to have to perpetrate it?
	You have to have a compliant media.
	Be it a global warming hoax, be it a financial crisis hoax, you have to have a compliant media going along with it.
	And the media in the Tiger Woods thing was also a beneficiary.
	I mean, television ratings, golf tournaments in which he played skyrocketed.
	And they wanted access to him.
	A lot of sports media, just groupies that have a typewriter keyboard or a computer keyboard or a camera microphone.
	These are groupies.
	They want access, want to hang around.
	And the only way you're going to have that access is to go silent on things that you know.
	If you succeed and are helpful in perpetrating the false image, the hoax, then you're going to be allowed access.
	See, the behavior of Tiger Woods was known to everybody except the public.
	They're shocked and stunned, and they feel betrayed.
	And this industry-wide cover-up of his cheating is not a small secret plot by dedicated fanatics.
	Rather, it is a set of interlocking self-interests manifested in sustaining the pristine image of this one sports icon to keep cash coming in.
	But enough about Tiger the Man, who is, after all, just a golfer.
	Let's move on to Tiger the metaphor.
	Because anyone with four functioning brain cells gets it.
	And if this comprehensive a charade can be sustained for a decade, as Woods and those around him amassed billions, it can happen elsewhere right in front of our eyes.
	If I were watching the public disgust with the newly revealed Tiger Woods from an office in the west wing of the White House, I would be concerned.
	Because Barack Obama is about as completely manufactured a Political character as this nation has ever seen.
	His meteoric rise without the inconvenience of a public record or accomplishments and the public's willing suspension of critical evaluation of his resume allowed his handlers and the media to project what they wanted to on his unfurrowed brow.
	Ironically, the parallels have nothing to do with race.
	The Obama campaign did explicitly attempt to borrow from the then universal Tiger Woods appeal to allay any discomfort voters might have had with a mixed-race politician as they constructed a persona that would make the American electorate comfortable with a barely known first-term senator with a left-wing voting record, a deliberately obscured personal and professional past, and no traditional qualifications for high office.
	Look at what's happened here.
	No traditional qualifications, no resume.
	It was all covered up.
	And we were all told, don't worry about it, this is historic.
	After a year in the spotlight, Barack Obama, hailed as a brilliant man and a creature of destiny who would heal all of us, is himself falling rapidly to earth.
	His 47% approval number is the lowest at this stage of a presidency of any president.
	George W. Bush at this stage was at 86% approval.
	That was after 9-11.
	Clinton was at 54% at this stage of his presidency.
	Obama's at 47 and plummeting.
	Thankfully, Obama's family life remains above suspicion.
	The flaws that were airbrushed out of the candidate photos are becoming glaringly obvious under day-to-day scrutiny of his public performance in the White House.
	And while it doesn't matter if another athlete is an adulterer, it matters a lot if the president is revealed to be an inexperienced, excessively ideologically weak man who is naive about the world and uncomfortable exercising American power during a time of war.
	It matters if nothing in his training would have equipped the president to understand what it takes to stimulate job growth.
	And I guarantee you, she's exactly right here.
	He has not been taught that.
	He's been taught that this country sucks, that this country is unfair, it's unjust and immoral.
	He's been taught that this country has destroyed the world by stealing all the world's resources.
	That's what he's been taught.
	That's what most people his age have been taught, particularly if they have his pedigree, his Ivy League pedigree.
	And then you add to it the Chicago thuggery, and you got quite a package.
	He has no clue how to end an overseas conflict successfully, not even interested in it.
	It matters that he is uninterested in the science behind global warming and wishes to use the issue to amass power and reorder society.
	It matters that he has no interest in the construction of policy.
	Ultimately, Tiger Woods is an exceptional golfer with a character problem.
	Barack Obama, by contrast, is not an exceptional or even particularly competent leader.
	I'm going to add an asterisk here because this is an ongoing dilemma.
	He is naive in the sense that he is ignorant.
	He has not been taught the right things about capitalism.
	That's why he doesn't like it.
	And so that may suffice in defining him as naive.
	But I don't believe for a moment that he doesn't know what he's doing.
	And in that sense, it's not naivete that's going on here.
	It is pure 100% deception.
	It's identical to what happened to us with Tiger Woods.
	We have been betrayed.
	We have been hoaxed.
	Well, I'm saying we and the collectives.
	I knew it all along.
	One of the big themes of the interview as they cut it up, I finally watched the Shatler interview last night.
	It was pretty good.
	And one of the themes was, I'm not a conformist.
	And I learned in the second grade when they spend time learning how to paste.
	I said, this is not for me.
	I hated being cooped up in a prison-like room that had windows where I could see freedom on the other side.
	And nonconformists won't wear jeans, although I got a pair recently.
	To emphasize my new Svelt self with the incredible weight loss.
	At any rate, I knew it all along because I know liberals.
	To me, the most effective way to expose liberals is to expose liberalism, i.e. use ideology.
	The Republican Party right now is caught up in massaging policy differences as though we just have a traditional ebb and flow of power here.
	Well, I got a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress.
	It's their turn for a while, so we'll do what we can here to slow it down, stop it, or what?
	No, we've never had anything like this before.
	And we were lied to.
	We were the victims of a hoax in order to get us here.
	And that's why is it 47%?
	Because people realize it.
	The independents are fleeing this guy in droves, and it's not because of anything the Republicans are doing to attract them.
	You know, when I see the generic ballot, the Republican generic ballot showing a big and widening lead, somebody tell me what known national Republican Party policy there is that's attracting people right now.
	There isn't one.
	It is strictly people abandoning Barack Woods or Tiger Obama.
	So there's an opportunity here to pick up even more of it if you come out and announce a national platform of what you as a party believe in.
	Because so many politicians, interest groups, and factions have an interest in Obama's continued presence, no one is ready to reveal the man behind the curtain just yet.
	But believe me, just as there were people who knew the real Tiger Woods, there are people who know the real Barack Obama.
	And Lisa Schifrin in this piece, the American Thinker, is exactly right.
	They are sweating bullets.
	Because they have to know this whole Obama persona is manufactured and presented to us on a teleprompter with a godlike reverb when he speaks.
	And there was no godlike reverb today at the Brookings Institution, and it sounded flat.
	Many voters who believed in the Obama magic, both from the center and from the far left, are increasingly dismayed watching the human god fall to earth.
	This is a major problem because the impulse of the betrayed is to tear their fallen deities to shreds.
	So that's Lisa Schifrin today in the AmericanThinker.com.
	So Copenhagen started yesterday.
	Remember the false, hoaxed, totally photoshopped pictures of polar bears frolicking on little small ice cube type things that were said to be the remnants of melting glaciers, and they were just ice flows, and polar bears hang around on them all the time because they're cold.
	It's ice.
	Polar bears hang around ice.
	You put one in a zoo in New York in the summertime and they have to put blocks of ice in there for the polar bears to lay on.
	So they put these pictures all around.
	Gore uses them in his movie and little kids, oh, no, they're dying.
	They're going to drown.
	Polar bears can swim 60 miles.
	Reuters has done it again.
	I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine stand pictures, starving polar bears turned to cannibalism on the second day of Copenhagen.
	It's from the UK Telegraph, and there is a picture of a polar bear eating another polar bear.
	New pictures show that polar bears are beginning to cannibalize each other as global warming destroys its hunting grounds.
	The images taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub that it has killed for food.
	Polar bears usually subsist on seals, but the melting of sea ice has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea.
	None of this is true.
	None of this is true.
	If you know anything about polar bears, and this whole article is based on a few photographs, and it is, little kids are going to be scared to death seeing this.
	But if you know anything about polar bears, you know that there are any number of reasons why polar bears attack each other.
	Anybody who watches nature shows, do you watch nature?
	Nature shows are about what?
	Animals eating each other.
	I used to watch those things.
	Where's the animal rights crowd on this?
	People love watching.
	I watched the Planet Earth show, the BBC put together Blu-ray.
	A lot of it is animals eating each other.
	The poor wildebeests seem to be targeted by everything that walks or crawls over in Africa.
	But did you know that polar bear males are well known for eating their young if given half a chance?
	They do.
	The mother, the female polar bear, has to protect the cubs from the father and other males.
	Polar bears are a vicious species.
	They're not this cuddly little old English sheepdog type thing.
	I mean, these are mean.
	People go out on ice flows to study these things and they attack.
	They have to shoot them.
	They're not at all in any way tame.
	And they're huge.
	They could rip you to shreds inside of five seconds.
	They wouldn't care.
	And Reuters would run a picture and blame it all on global warming, not the fact that a polar bear is a polar bear.
	Polar bears eat their young, if given half the chance.
	Males do.
	So another hoax, 100% total fraud on the second day of Copenhagen.
	We'll be back.
	Brief time out.
	We'll get to your phone calls next after this.
	Oh, yeah.
	More Obama job creation rebates for retrofitting windows in your home for energy efficiency.
	By the way, a dead polar bear is a good thing, right?
	I mean, no methane.
	No expelling gas.
	Right?
	Let me tell you something else about polar bears.
	And by the way, this is true.
	Brown bears and even lions do this.
	The male polar bear will attack and kill the cubs of another, not his own, but another.
	The reason for this is to send the mother, the female, back into heat so that polar bear can do a tiger woods and get some and also father his own brood.
	It's who they are.
	And it's not just exclusive to polar bears.
	A lot of birds do this.
	I mean, it's really, really rough out there in the animal kingdom.
	Very, very, very competitive.
	Nobody passing out welfare benefits there, except human beings who are excited about seeing these cuddly little things.
	So we feed them in zoos and so forth.
	But anyway, I promise we'll go to the phones.
	We'll do it now.
	We'll start in Wallingford, Connecticut.
	This is Sharon.
	Great to have you on the EIB Network.
	Hello, hi Rush Audio.
	Hello, i'm fine, thank you.
	Oh good um, I just wanted to make a comment.
	I was watching the Obama speech and um, after it ended, I was almost in tears as a small business owner.
	Um, he's clueless.
	There is absolutely nothing that he outlined today that is going to help small businesses.
	Really the last thing that?
	Hey, look at that, the Dow Jones Industrial Average now down 107.
	It was down 80 when Obama started, 72 when he started, or 80 now it's down 107.
	I guess uh, Wall Street's reacting the way you on Main Street are.
	I thought he offered some sort of a capital gains tax.
	Uh, cut to small business, did he?
	Well I, I could tell you this.
	I know most of what I had heard was about loans, small business loans, small business is the last thing they want to do right now is take out a loan.
	With all what's going on with cap and trade.
	We don't know where anything's going to happen exactly as far as that goes.
	Um, and there's, if a small business is brave enough right now to take out a loan, they're not going to take out a loan and hire people because they don't know what's going to happen.
	Excellent point.
	And it's not just cap and trade.
	You don't know what health care is going to force on you right, and you don't know what tax increases the guy's got planned exactly.
	And I just can't see any small businesses right now going to take a loan out to uh hire people when we don't know what's going to happen.
	See what once again?
	I mean, the hoax continues.
	This was.
	This speech was not about jobs.
	Everybody thinks it's about jobs.
	This speech was about, i'm great, my inheritor was horrible, or my predecessor was horrible, I inherited a mess and uh, I make really good speeches and uh, we've turned the corner and we've had the biggest recovery in 30 years, the biggest from contraction to expansion.
	It's all a lie.
	It is every.
	You can.
	You can stop this speech after every sentence and point out something about it was not true.
	And um, as far as our business, we're struggling and in fact we've been in business for 20 years and it's the first time where I actually have, because we can't afford a salary for me, so we're gonna have to.
	I'm gonna have to look for a job and again, and with the employment numbers it doesn't count.
	Um, I can collect unemployment because I own a business.
	Right exactly, self-employed people do not qualify for unemployment compensation.
	They don't want you being self-employed out there.
	They don't want to encourage that.
	They want to encourage dependency.
	Thanks, Sharon.
	This is Jeff in Youngstown, Ohio.
	You're next to the RUSH windblow program.
	Hive hey Rush uh, been with you since the beginning.
	Uh, the hypocrisy of Harry Reed, when his party presided over everything that has destroyed the uh black community, to use slavery as a uh a ploy to say that uh, we need to pass this health care because, guess what, they're going to require you to have health care.
	And since a lot of uh people uh uh, this going To hurt is going to be African-American people that are laborers, that are low-cost labor people, that are small business people, because guess what.
	They're going to be required to spend so much of their income on a premium that they're not going to be able to afford.
	This is not coming to you free.
	This is going to cost you.
	And then somebody to use slavery on top of that and say that this is what it's the same thing.
	They said, let's wait.
	Now, we're not saying let's wait.
	We're saying what you're doing is foolish here.
	This is ridiculous.
	And you're going to hurt a whole lot of people.
	And I hope that people look at this and cap and trade.
	And what they just came up with yesterday, that carbon dioxide, which we all breathe out, is a poisonous gas.
	So what's going to happen, then, Rush?
	They can then control the population because too many people breathing out carbon dioxide.
	They can control big business.
	They will control every job in the world till they destroy this economy and make us just as even with the rest of the world so they don't feel guilty or they think they've accomplished their case.
	I can't take it.
	I really can't take it.
	And I don't know why people, more people, not the 47% is way too high of a Jeff, my man.
	I saw no need to interrupt you because you got a gold star.
	This is a great call.
	I'm out of time here, but that 47% will continue to shrink.
	People are waking up.
	Keep in.
	Folks, I want to expand a little bit on the comments we just had from Jeff in Youngstown, Ohio, about Harry Reid and slavery, because it really is an abomination.
	Among the Democrats who voted to continue delaying the civil rights bill was Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered it for 14 hours.
	Historians note that it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, and the final vote to cut off debate saw 29 senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats.
	And then, of course, you had Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 days.
	The next year, Senator Byrd also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
	He still sits in the Senate and indeed preceded Mr. Reed as his party's majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989.
	For Harry Reid to say that Republicans obstructing the health care bill is no different than Republicans who tried to maintain slavery, it is just some I asked earlier if Obama put this thought on his head at the pep rally, Obama Hill for these guys up on Capitol Hill, the Senate on Sunday.
	Albert Gore Sr. was a huge anti-civil rights guy.
	J. William Fulbright, who was Bill Clinton's mentor in Arkansas, huge.
	All of these Southern Democrats, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat back then.
	He opposed it.
	All of these people that opposed the Civil Rights Act, had it not been Lester Maddox, Democrat, Bull Connor, all these people, had it not been for Republicans in the Senate, a greater percentage of Republicans in the Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats did.
	But as John Fund points out today, the real reason, the final reason that Harry Reid's comments were so inept and offensive is that the battles for civil rights he referred to were about expanding freedom.
	And that's not what his health care bill being debated in the Senate today does.
	It restricts freedom.
	The Senate health care bill creates 118 regulatory boards and commissions, new bureaucracies, that'll dictate the entire scope of health care.
	Fighting government-controlled health care, the most personal of issues to many people, can more properly be construed to be as a fight for freedom, not against it.
	So Harry Reid is so off the wall and so inept and so wrong about this.
	This is the kind of stuff that it smacks of desperation.
	Because the real problem Reed has is his own party.
	Right now, he's four votes short of the 60 that he needs.
	And they're putting out this news, again, another hoax that everything's hunky-dory, that the tone's changed, we're moving in the right direction.
	And they're trying to distract us with public option this, public option that, all of, it's all a public option.
	It's all about the federal government controlling every aspect of every human being's life in this country.
	That's what this bill's about.
	With health care and costs as the mechanism to achieve that goal.
	This is the way totalitarian systems seek to cement their power.
	They've all tried it with health care.
	The Nazis did it long before the Holocaust.
	We hear about the great health care in Cuba, do we not?
	We hear about, oh, healthcare is greater everywhere in the world, but here, right?
	I tell you, the only thing going on in the Senate that distresses me, and I've been told I'm wrong about this, I read a quote from Senator Kyle who said, we're not trying to slow things down here.
	We're offering amendments, and we don't want to be seen as obstructionists because we want the independent vote.
	The independents are moving to Republicans anyway right now.
	This must be stopped.
	Now, we got a call from Mitch McConnell's office yesterday saying, look, Kyle doesn't speak for the leadership.
	And we are trying to stop this thing.
	So that's what McConnell's office called HR.
	And HR dutifully reported back to me.
	Because it would do no good for HR to know it and then not tell me.
	So he told me.
	So I can then tell you that that's what they're saying, that they are trying to stop this.
	Good, because this is not something that needs to be debated, even on the merits or on the margins.
	This is something that needs to be stopped, just like cap and trade needs to be stopped.
	This is where we should all be proud to say, yep, we are just saying no to this.
	We're saying no to statism.
	We're saying no to Marxism.
	We're saying no to the overthrow of our Constitution.
	We're saying no to this.
	You fall into a trap when the media says, well, you never think what you're for.
	What are you for?
	We make it clear what we're for every day.
	When you are for personal liberty, freedom, and responsibility, that about covers it.
	And we're not going to debate the merits here of to what degree of tyranny are we willing to accept.
	We're not going to debate that.
	That ought to be the stance.
	You know, this is not your traditional ebb and flow of power from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party.
	This is something we have never had before in this country.
	We have never had so many radical, radical leftists who have never done one thing of note in the private sector achieve this kind of power.
	People who do not like the way this country was constituted are now running it.
	They are not traditional Democrats where you argue in the daytime, you go to a bar and have a drink at night, go out to have dinner.
	This is not who this is anymore.
	This must be stopped ideologically.
	This is not politics as usual.
	And it's not, this is not both parties are the same by any stretch of the imagination.
	Who's next?
	Scott, Jacksonville, Florida.
	Great to have you on the program, sir.
	Hello.
	Sleep number, bed, mega dittos from our number one listener, Jacksonville, Florida.
	Thank you, sir.
	You remember several years ago, Newt Gingrich was on the cover of Newsweek being the gingrich that stole Christmas.
	I do.
	Well, this past Saturday, Rush, the Democrats in the Senate cut over $40 billion from the Medicare home health benefit.
	Over $40 billion.
	And here, the Democrats, we've already talked about death panels.
	This is precisely what's going to happen.
	These folks, Medicare at home, who choose to be in their own homes, their funding is being cut.
	It has death panels written all over it.
	Well, and they're cutting nursing homes by $15 billion as well.
	But there's, you know, here's Scott, with all due respect.
	And I remember when Newt was not even proposing Medicare cuts.
	They just, that took that whole thing out of context.
	They said Newt wants Medicare to wither away on the vine.
	And now these guys in both the House and the Senate are proposing $500 billion in cuts in Medicare.
	$500 billion.
	Now, I don't believe that the final bill will have any Medicare cuts.
	Oh, snerdly, anybody who thinks the final bill is going to have $500 billion in Medicare cuts, if it does, if the final product of this has $500 billion in Medicare cuts, then that alone is a death panel.
	And that will convince me that this administration and the Democrat Party is totally on board with the elderly passing away because they represent a problem.
	They're informed.
	They're educated.
	They have a memory of a better time in this country.
	They can remember what gets us out of recessions.
	And they remembered thus that what we're doing now is not ever going to work.
	So I've always had the theory that the $500 billion cuts were just mentioned in the language so they get a favorable CBO score.
	And I've always been of the opinion by the time the dust settled, those cuts would not be made.
	But if they are, if they follow through on this, then people's deepest suspicions will be confirmed.
	They're essentially saying that elderly people, we're just not going to treat you.
	We don't have the money.
	It's not worth it.
	You're too old, and besides, you know too much.
	From the UK Guardian, the Copenhagen Climate Summit is in disarray after a Danish text leak.
	The UN Copenhagen Klein talks in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
	Now, this is news.
	Rich countries are about to wrest control of all of this from the UN.
	Well, the three countries that are being mentioned here are the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark.
	The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as the Circle of Commitment, but understood to include the UK, the U.S., and Denmark, has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalized this week.
	The agreement has been leaked to the UK Guardian.
	It is a departure from the Kyoto Protocol's principles that rich nations should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases while poorer nations were not compelled to act.
	The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank.
	It would abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding treaty the world has on emissions reductions, and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.
	The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as, quote, a very dangerous document for developing countries.
	It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations.
	It is to be superimposed without discussions on the talks.
	A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries, also seen by the Guardian, shows deep unease over details.
	In particular, it is understood to force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement.
	Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called the most vulnerable.
	Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance and not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tons of carbon per person by 2050 while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tons.
	Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion.
	It is being done in secret.
	Clearly, the intention is to get Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week.
	It effectively is the end of the United Nations process, said one diplomat who asked to remain nameless.
	Antonio Hill, the climate policy advisor for Oxfam International, said this is only a draft, but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get screwed.
	On every count, the emission cuts need to be scaled up.
	It allows too many loopholes.
	It does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed.
	Now, I am going to have to defer to climatologist experts and others, because this goes against a grain of everything we thought this Copenhagen thing was about.
	In fact, I've got a companion story here that's from Investors Business Daily, and it is an editorial.
	And there's a great chart here that shows the share of world GDP by region in $2,05 by year, starting in 1969 up until the present.
	And the lowest share of world GDP by region is the Middle East and Africa.
	Next is Latin America, then Asia and Oceania, then the United States and the EU 15, and it pretty much tied at about 28% of world GDP.
	And the theory of the IDB editorial is, well, they say the 16,000 delegates to the two-week-long orgy known as the Climate Conference at Copenhagen want to shrink global output of CO2, not because of hard science, but out of envy.
	Basically, what they're saying is that the real target of Copenhagen is the U.S. economy, which I've always thought to be the case of the militant leftist environmental movement and the United Nations.
	The United Nations is out to fleece the United States.
	And that's what the IBD, Investors Business Daily editorial, explains brilliantly.
	That the whole thing's a shame.
	It's not about climate.
	It's not about science.
	It is about stealing from the United States.
	Now we have in the UK Guardian Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after Danish text leak, which says that the UK, the U.S. and Denmark, and some other countries are going to steal this whole process away from the UN, put it over at the World Bank, and put emissions controls on developing countries, which will forever keep them poor.
	So we've got two competing interests here as to what this is really all about.
	Fleecing the U.S. or keeping the world's poor poor.
	If the U.S. is involved in this, to take all of this away from the I think, see, as I speak, my brain works.
	That's when my brain functions fastest, is when I speak.
	It's still about fleecing the United States, but keeping the money in the hands of the people who do the fleecing and not redistributing it to the world's poor.
	The World Bank is essentially controlled by who?
	Us.
	Who appoints the chairman of the World Bank?
	The president.
	It's even more insidious than I thought.
	Because we know that redistribution is happening in our own country.
	We know that keeping the poor poor is the objective here.
	In fact, not only keeping the poor poor, but making more people poor is the objective here.
	In order to do that, you shrink the private sector.
	You take as much money out of it as possible.
	You put it in the public sector, the government, where Obama and his minions get to run it.
	Then you run up this climate crisis here.
	That's why you don't believe the leaked emails.
	You try to sweep those under the rug.
	You still act as though there is a big crisis.
	And you go out and you limit emissions, but you first time you limit them on the poor people so you don't have to redistribute the money to them.
	You get to keep it.
	I think I'm pretty close here.
	I need to think about this a little more.
	But now we've got, as this fascinating, two competing theories as to what Copenhagen's really all about.
	And if the UK Guardian story is right, very few people really knew until they leaked the text to the UK Guardian.
	Anyway, quick time out, my friends.
	It's getting really interesting out there in Marxistville.
	Well, there's a new poll out on President Obama's approval.
	It's the Marist poll.
	And they have his job approval plummeting to 46%.
	Gallup has it at 47%.
	Also, a liberal group, a network of liberal groups known as the Velvet Revolution, have put out a figurative bounty on the head of the Chamber of Commerce.
	They want any dirt on this guy that they can publish to discredit him.

▲