Rush Limbaugh Program - July 26, 2010, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 26, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:47

July 26, 2010, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Ladies and gentlemen, Wikileaks did not leak anything.
	I don't know who leaked it, but since there's no mention of Obama and his administration or regime in any of these tens of thousands of documents, I'd have to say somebody in the regime leaked them.
	But Wikileaks did not leak them.
	They just published them.
	WikiLeaks is just a sponge, a useful idiot sitting there over in the UK.
	And some disgruntled military guy in Afghanistan somehow has access to all of this and hands it over.
	In the meantime, have you, is Scooter Libby involved in this?
	Remember the Valerie Playman leak?
	And you remember how exercised the entire media structure was?
	We had to go get Valerie Play.
	We had to go get Scooter Libby.
	We had to put Parl Rove.
	We had to frog march him out of the White House.
	We had to put him in jail.
	And now, eh, it's okay.
	No big deal because this fits the template.
	U.S. bad.
	U.S. commits war crimes.
	So the media loves this.
	In fact, we're going to go back in time, and we're going to show you Obama back in 1987, maybe 93, whatever it was, Obama was big on bringing Daniel Ellsberg into Illinois to bottom line is a lot of respect for Daniel Ellsberg.
	Who did what?
	The Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War.
	Anyway, greetings, folks.
	Great to have you here.
	El Rushbow wired on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
	Email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
	See, I told you so.
	Here's Timothy Geithner, the tax cheat, the little egghead Treasury Secretary, never has held a private sector job yesterday on this week.
	Still needs David Brinkley.
	The fill-in host, Jake Tapper, said to Tim Geithner, hey, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said that the economic outlook unusually uncertain.
	Extending the Bush tax cuts would have a stimulative effect on the economy.
	Is the Fair Chairman right?
	It's responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2% to 3% of Americans, the highest earning Americans.
	We think that's the responsible thing to do because we need to make sure we can show the world that we're willing as a country now to start to make some progress bringing down our long-term deficit.
	Don't you think it will slow economic?
	That's a C, I told you so of huge proportions.
	Back when all of this economic disaster started, all of this purposeful destruction, I said, after you run up the debt, after you've got these deficits in the national debt so high, you're going to have to show the world that you're serious about it.
	And how are you going to do it?
	You're going to raise taxes.
	I mean, this is almost word for word what I said.
	In fact, Cookie, go back to our archives.
	Find where I said this.
	It has to happen in the last year and a half because it didn't say it till the Obama regime was imaculated.
	But I know we've got it in the archives.
	And it's just, it's crystal clear.
	You got Democrats now, as we talked about Friday.
	Well, maybe we need to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone.
	That's just campaign rhetoric.
	Folks, do you know of any Democrat that really wants to cut taxes?
	Have you ever heard of one?
	It's an election year.
	It's all election year mumbo jumbo.
	But extending the Bush tax cuts, that would delay the Obama regime of destruction of the U.S. private sector.
	Here's Geithner again.
	This is another question, Jake Tapper.
	Job creation has not gone as well as you've hoped.
	Geithner said, oh, yes, it has.
	We haven't created any.
	That was the idea.
	What more can you do? Tapper said.
	I know there's small business lending initiatives, but what more can you do?
	Given the lack of an appetite on Capitol Hill for any spending program, or Jake, lack of appetite on Capitol Hill for any spending programs.
	Jake, lack of appetite on Capitol Hill for any more stimulus.
	Jake, Jake?
	This is Jake's last Sunday, because next week, Christiana Monpoor comes back for a vacation in the south of France to take over for the show.
	Anyway, here's what Geithner said in answer to the question, job creation is not going as well as you'd hoped.
	Right now, the best thing the government can do, in addition to those things, is help create the conditions for the private sector to start to invest and hire again.
	Now, we've seen six months of positive job growth by the private sector.
	That's pretty good.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so there you have it, the tax cheek.
	Tim Geithner says the economy has now recovered sufficiently for government to begin to make way for private investment growth.
	Shouldn't the government have been making way for private business investment from the get-go?
	Shouldn't, I mean, in the real world, where economic growth is truly desired, shouldn't that have been the first thing on tap?
	But now all of a sudden, now the economy has recovered sufficiently.
	Where?
	The sales price, average sales price, average home fell $214,000.
	Where is this phantom recovery?
	Geithner says, we need to make that transition now to a recovery led by private investment.
	He said that on Meet the Depressed.
	Oh, yeah, we need to transition now to a, what, why?
	Government's done enough?
	Government's done.
	Now we're going to get this stimulation from the private sector.
	Recovery.
	These people, folks, are just mouthing a bunch of election year rhetoric.
	They have single-handedly destroyed all of this.
	They continue to.
	And when these Bush tax cuts will not be extended, and when they hit on January 1, when they drop on January 1, 2011, you can forget about guesses as to whether or not there will be a double dip recession or not.
	There most certainly will.
	There's a big story out there today, the Lockerbomby, Lockerbie bomber story.
	And for those of you that don't really know about this, the bomber did not blow up Lockerbie.
	The bomber blew up a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, and it happened to crash in Lockerbie.
	And that's why he's called a Lockerbie bomber, but he blew up a Boeing 747.
	We have the Obama administration.
	Last Tuesday afternoon, Obama talking with the Prime Minister David Cameron, joint presser.
	And Mimi Hall from USA Today got up and read the following question.
	It was given to her by David Exelrod.
	President Obama, how do you feel about a congressional investigation into this Lockerbie bombing stuff?
	I mean, would you like to see that happen, or do you think that that confuses the two events?
	I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.
	Well, that's just not true because the White House privately backed the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	That's right.
	This is from the Australian published today.
	The U.S. government secretly advised Scottish ministers it would be far preferable to free the Lockerbie bomber than to jail him in Libya.
	Correspondence obtained by the Sunday Times reveals the Obama regime considered compassionate release more palatable than locking up the bomber in a Libyan prison.
	The intervention, which has angered U.S. relatives of those who died in the attack, was made by Richard LeBaron, the deputy head of the U.S. Embassy in London a week before the bomber was freed in August last year on grounds that he had terminal cancer, from which he's apparently recovered.
	The document acquired by a well-placed U.S. source threatens to undermine Obama's claim last week that all Americans were surprised, disappointed, and angry to learn of the bomber's release.
	Scottish ministers viewed the level of U.S. resistance to compassionate release as half-hearted and a sign that it would be accepted.
	So the regime, this is big, folks.
	I think it's as big, if not bigger, than the WikiLeaks thing.
	The WikiLeaks thing, can we now call this the Democrats' war?
	They wanted it.
	From the first day we went into Iraq, they wanted to focus on Afghanistan.
	This is Obama's war.
	Can we now call it Obama's war?
	Yes, we can, and we will do so accurately.
	I still don't know what to call these people.
	They're not media.
	The flax for the ruling class.
	We'll, of course, not call it Obama's war, but it clearly is.
	White House backed the release of Lockerbie, the bomber.
	Now, remember, ClimateGate.
	Let's put all this in perspective.
	Climategate was a story because emails got out that were meant to remain hidden from public view forever.
	Information about the White House backing the release of the Lockerbie bomber was never supposed to see the light of day either.
	But it has.
	This is the same regime that desperately wants to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of New York City.
	The same regime that wants NASA to help Muslims feel better about themselves in math and science.
	The same regime that has not said a word about a mosque at ground zero, which is opposed by, I think, even 71% of New Yorkers and throughout the country.
	A mosque at ground zero is meant as a monument to our defeat.
	And we have a bunch of politically correct cowards who are afraid to stand up to this and say, no, no, no, no, because we still feel somehow the need to reach out, to have understanding with militants in the Islamic world.
	So we've got a mosque and ground zero, the regime has not spoken out against it.
	They want to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed of New York City.
	They want NASA to reach out to Muslims.
	The same regime that has spent millions of American taxpayer dollars supporting a constitutional referendum in Kenya, legalizing abortion there.
	The same regime that looked the other way when the Iranian people had an opportunity to take their freedom back.
	The same regime that has done nothing to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
	The same regime that has beat up on Israel like a rented mule.
	The same regime that lied about backing the release of the Muslim terrorist the world knows as the Lockerbie bomber.
	We now know that the administration backed the release of the bomber.
	Now, for those of you new to the program, never forget these two simple words.
	Liberals lie.
	That's all you ever have to know.
	To understand them, you must look at them ideologically.
	You must look at Obama and every Democrat ideologically because that's what they are.
	Before the Lockerbie bombshell, some recent history.
	To give the story context, this is the Politico.
	July 20th.
	I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, angry here.
	Play the sound by the guest.
	Number 22.
	This Obama, we now know the administration backed very privately, very privately, and by not objecting at all to the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	This is Obama last Tuesday.
	I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.
	It just isn't true.
	Now, the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally.
	It wasn't because of our so-called news media.
	They ignored it.
	It was U.S. Democrats who were flailing around for something to attack BP over that uncovered this.
	The liberal Democrats in this country wanting to savage BP over the oil leak discovered that the Obama regime supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	And they were searching around for something to attack BP over after the leak had been capped.
	The leak got capped too soon to be useful for this election cycle, the American left.
	So they started digging for dirt and they found this.
	The U.S. media didn't find it, and they wouldn't have reported if they had.
	This is reported in Australia.
	And their cries for an investigation into BP's involvement has come back to bite them on the backside.
	Somebody leaking Obama's memo.
	Somebody in the U.K. has leaked Obama's memo supporting the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	It was the Democrats are Frank Belaut-Lautenberg, Robert Menendez in New Jersey, Charles Schumer of New York, and Kristen Gillibrand in New York who called for this investigation of BP that released or revealed in the memo that the Obama regime supported the release.
	Now, I can imagine a lot of you saying, Rush, why?
	Why?
	Why would the Obama administration, why would the regime want to support the early release of the Lockerbie bomber?
	I'll tell you when we come back.
	And welcome back.
	It's Rush Limbaugh serving humanity as America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and the doctor of democracy.
	Remember now, it was the Obama connection to the Lockerbie bomber release only came out accidentally.
	It was because the Democrats, it wasn't because of the news media or whatever we're going to call these people, flax for the ruling class.
	It was, they ignored it.
	It was American Democrats looking for a new angle to rip into BP after they capped the well.
	They were demanding an investigation.
	So they were uncovering all kinds, they're looking for things.
	It was Lautenberg, Menendez, Gillenbrand, and Chuck U. Schumer.
	Here's how CNN put it last week.
	In the wake of turbulence of the rupture in April of a BP deepwater well, a rupture that is still releasing millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. senators grasped onto another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil giant.
	That quote is from a July 14th CNN report.
	Senators question whether BP played a role in Pan Am bomber's release.
	And even CNN could not escape the obvious, they said.
	The U.S. senators grasped on to another reason to scrutinize the troubled oil company.
	And when they started looking into it, guess what?
	They found a memo indicating the regime of Barack Obama had supported the early release of the Locker B bomber.
	And people said, why?
	I'll tell you why.
	It is because President Obama does not give a damn about what went on before he became president.
	He doesn't care about the people of this country, but he wants to give the impression that he does.
	He wants to give the impression that he's doing everything for them, for us.
	Just remember the context of the time.
	He wanted to make nice with the Muslim world.
	He figured, he figured out, look, the people on that airline, that airplane, Pan Am, were gone.
	Nothing he could do about that.
	Can't bring them back anyway.
	So turn the page, hit the reset button, make nice with the enemy.
	Also, show the Muslim world that you're different, that you're better, that you're not an imperialist American, that we can all get along.
	Remember the Cairo speech.
	Remember the desire to give Khalid Sheikh Muhammad a trial in New York City after the Sheikh had asked for the death penalty.
	This is the truth.
	And, you know, a lot of people have trouble with the motivations because, well, a lot of people have trouble with the actual fact.
	Why would Obama want to participate or okay the early release of the Lockerbie bomber?
	That's the question people have.
	Then when you tell them, as I just did, now, Rush, come on, you really think, yes, I do.
	And all you have to go do is go back and look at the context of the time, context being a big word now.
	And the context at the time was to show the rest of the world that we're new now, that we're different, that the rest of the world can love us and respect us, that we don't have the hatreds that we had when Bush was running the show.
	We don't hate the Muslims.
	We don't hate the Islamofascists.
	We're going to reach out to them.
	What happened before I got here, Obama says, is irrelevant.
	Now that I'm here, I'm the one you've all been waiting for.
	Now America is finally just.
	Now America has finally become truly moral.
	What happened before I got here doesn't count anyway.
	It doesn't matter.
	America was flawed then, but America's perfect now because I'm perfect or because I'm here.
	Can't bring the people on that airplane back.
	So turn the page, hit the reset button, make nice with the enemy, and then say, can't even call it terrorism anymore.
	There's no question why he supported the release here.
	We'll be back.
	Don't go away.
	You have got to be kidding me.
	You got to be kidding me, right?
	You're not kidding me.
	It's my fault.
	Greetings and welcome back.
	You'll find out what we're discussing in mere moments.
	El Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone at 800-282-2882 from the UK Guardian.
	By the way, one of the preferred publications on the receiving end of the Afghanistan war docks, Barack Obama is under growing pressure to release a letter that reveals the U.S. grudgingly supported freeing a Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds.
	The letter was sent to Scottish ministers by a senior diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in London last week, eight days before, by the way, this is July 25th this year, eight days before the bomber was released from prison because he was dying from inoperable prostate cancer.
	Obama regime has refused to allow publication of the letter in which the U.S. says allowing the bomber to live at home in Scotland would be far preferable to sending him back to Libya under the prisoner transfer deal brokered by the former Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2007, which makes perfect sense.
	It would appear that Obama was all for letting the mass murderer out of prison, but he didn't want doing so to help Scotland and BP to get more carbon-emitting oil from Libya.
	After all, he's got his priorities here.
	So it's very apparent now that the administration is making all of this up, that they did indeed give support to the whole idea of the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
	I think that story has as much impact as this WikiLeaks story.
	And about that, the release of some 91,000 secret U.S. military documents on the Afghanistan war is just the beginning, according to the WikiLeaks founder.
	Have you seen this guy?
	Have you seen this guy?
	Well, I just, you know, a 10-mile per hour breeze would knock the guy over.
	The documents cover some known aspects.
	In the troubled nine-year conflict, U.S. operations forces have targeted militants without trial.
	They've killed the enemy without giving them a trial.
	Outrageous.
	That's what's lurking in the next release of secret documents.
	American military have killed the enemy without giving them a trial.
	What have we come to?
	The documents cover some known aspects of the troubled nine-year conflict.
	U.S. Special Operations Forces have targeted militants without trial.
	Afghans have been killed by accident.
	Why, that is unheard of.
	That is unheard of in any war anywhere in the history of the world that civilians have been killed by accident.
	That's unheard of.
	Do you realize what this says about us?
	How guilty, how rotten to the core can this country be innocent Afghan citizens killed by accident?
	In the old days, it used to be on purpose, i.e., Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.
	In the old days, the definition of winning a war was killing people and breaking things.
	In the old days, there was no such thing as a surgical strike.
	In the old days, you purposely killed innocent civilians.
	That's what war was all about.
	That's how you won it.
	But now, all of a sudden, these big WikiLeaks documents say that Afghans have been killed by accident.
	Whoa, the incompetence of the U.S. military.
	It's actually non-news.
	Still, they are also included unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert operations against Taliban figures.
	Really?
	mean to tell me that in a war, the U.S. military is engaging in covert operations against the enemy?
	We are doing secret operations against the enemy.
	The enemy should never not know what we have planned for them.
	Is that what we're supposed to believe now?
	This is a crime committing covert operations against Taliban figures.
	Taliban's the enemy.
	What?
	Is it not fair to do secret stuff against them?
	We have to telegraph what we're going to do in advance so they know what's coming.
	And this line is merely a regurgitation of the two earlier points above.
	This is how thin the gruel is on all this.
	U.S. officials have been infuriated by alleged Pakistani intelligence cooperation with the very insurgent groups bent on killing Americans.
	Of course, anybody would be infuriated if it's happening.
	What's news about this?
	Still, they also included unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert up.
	That's the second time they mentioned this.
	White House National Security Advisor Jen Jones said that the release of the documents put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk.
	In a statement, he took pains to point out that the documents describe a period from January 2004 to December 2009, mostly during the administration of the Bush people.
	Well, these aren't just crimes.
	These are war crimes.
	We are sold.
	Do you realize what a rotten scum of a country we've become, all because of George W. Bush?
	Isn't it amazing that 91,000 secret documents have been published and not one of them mentions the Obama regime?
	Not one.
	91,000 pages.
	Not one of them even mentions Bush's tax cuts.
	Not one of them missions Obama at all or anybody in his regime.
	Jones noted the time period was before Obama announced a new strategy.
	Just in case there's any doubt that General Jones is working for the regime, it's an obvious requirement that any and all Obama officials must blame Mr. Bush, and Jones is right in line here.
	So now we have a strategy that will please the America-hating radicals at WikiLeaks, the America-hating radicals in this country, the America-hating radicals all over.
	We are doing secret operations against the enemy.
	We are accidentally killing civilians.
	And all of it happened before Obama was emaculated.
	And the Pakistanis are working with our enemies.
	Why?
	Who would believe that one group of Muslims would work with another against us?
	Who would ever think that?
	No wonder people are ticked off at this.
	This story goes on.
	Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Inter Services Intelligence, said today the accusations it had close connections to Taliban militants were malicious and unsubstantiated.
	The New York Times says the raw intelligence assessments by lower-level military officers suggest that Pakistan allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers.
	This is news?
	This is something worth being leaked?
	You had no idea how rotten your country was, did you?
	Now you do.
	The New York Times happy to point it all out.
	I wonder if this means Obama will be giving back his Nobel Peace Prize.
	WikiLeaks says evidence of war crimes in WikiLeaks doesn't say anything.
	Wikileaks is the vessel.
	WikiLeaks founder Julian Asang or Assang or Assange, however you pronounce it, says there appears to be evidence of war crimes in the thousands of pages of leaked U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan.
	The WAF told reporters Monday, by the way, we've got a, I think I've got a name.
	New name for the media.
	Partisan political operatives.
	That is much more descriptive of who they are and what they do than to just call them media.
	Now, remember, Obama had a historic speech in which, when he was a state senator, courageously announced his opposition to the Iraq war, talked about how he wasn't against all wars.
	He was for the war in Afghanistan.
	He said the war in Iraq was a distraction created by Karl Rove to distract from the terrible economy of 4% unemployment and 4% GDP.
	That's what Obama said.
	The Iraq war was a distraction created by Rove to distract from the terrible economy of 4% unemployment, 4% GDP.
	And here's the, you know, the White House, Jim Jones, everybody, they're saying that they are outraged, outraged at the release of classified documents, secret documents.
	Well, does Obama really object to the publishing of classified documents?
	When Obama was a student at Columbia, he thought Daniel Ellsberg was a hero.
	Does Obama really object to something that undermines the war effort in Afghanistan, a war he would love to get out of today?
	We have the statement by Jim Jones.
	The U.S. strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	But let's now jump forward to the politico.
	While a senior at Columbia University, Barack Obama, this is 1983, wrote an article angling for a nuclear-free world.
	And here's the excerpt where he expresses his excitement about bringing Daniel Ellsberg to campus to get students' minds right.
	It seems that here's what he wrote.
	It seems that students are fairly aware of the nuclear problem, and it makes for an underlying frustration.
	We try to talk to that frustration.
	Consequently, the thrust of ARA is towards generating dialogue, which will give people a national handle or rational handle on this subject.
	This includes bringing in speakers like Daniel Ellsberg to campus, publishing fact sheets compiled by interested faculty.
	So here's Obama, who couldn't wait to bring Ellsberg to the Columbia campus in 83.
	Ellsberg, who had leaked the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam War, he is all for leaking documents back then to undermine the U.S. military.
	Now all of a sudden he's opposed to these things that show up on WikiLeaks, which again, very suspiciously, contain not one mention of anything in Afghanistan since Obama was inaugurated.
	Daniel Ellsberg, very proud of the guy that runs WikiLeaks.
	Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers whistleblower, stated in an interview that the WikiLeaks founder is, quote, serving our American democracy.
	And he's not an American, by the way.
	And serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases in this country.
	So Ellsberg, of whom Obama was a huge fan, now turns out to be a fan of the WikiLeaks founder.
	Now, the name Wikileaks might ring a bell.
	Let's speak of some context here.
	You notice how very few, if any, of the partisan political operatives of the Democrat Party have mentioned the last time we heard from WikiLeaks, that was when they released a video clip of the 2007 Baghdad airstrike, which they purposefully edited and misrepresented to make it look like the attack had intentionally attacked two Reuters reporters when it had not.
	That's the Wikileaks that we're talking about.
	They had edited videotape.
	They tried to make people believe that the U.S. military had purposely attacked two partisan political operatives from Reuters when that is not at all what had happened.
	Wikileaks called it collateral murder.
	But it turned out that the Reuters political operatives were with a bunch of AK-47 rocket launcher toting terrorists.
	They were hanging around them.
	They were embedded, so to speak, with the enemy.
	And we were there to take out the enemy.
	And Wikileaks made it look like we targeted the partisan political operatives from Reuters.
	New York Times is among the several newspapers selected by the criminals at Wikileaks to publish their anti-American poison.
	Eric Schmidt, one of the reporters, the headline in disclosing secret documents, Wikileaks seeks transparency.
	Oh, isn't this just beautiful?
	Isn't this wonderful?
	Wikileaks wants transparency.
	U.S. military operations.
	Wikileaks.org, the online organization that was to post tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the war in Afghanistan, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal unethical behavior by governments and corporations, by one government and corporations.
	This is always the excuse.
	See how this always works?
	We've got to expose corporations.
	Expose the Bush administration, not the U.S. government, the Bush administration.
	The organization's website says, we believe that transparency in government leads to a reduced corruption, better government, and stronger democracies.
	All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community as well as their own people.
	We believe this scrutiny requires information.
	Oddly enough, it seems to be mostly the U.S. government that WikiLeaks accuses of behaving unethically.
	Why is that, I wonder?
	The question answers itself.
	How come we've never seen a leaked document about the government of the old Soviet Union?
	Or Russia?
	Yeah, have they never acted unethically?
	Why have we never seen from Wikileaks any documents from Cuba or from the CHICOMs or Iran?
	Where are the courageous researchers at Wikileaks?
	When are they going to scrutinize those countries?
	Wouldn't the world community benefit from knowing the corruption going on in the old Soviet Union in Russia?
	In China, Mongolia, North Korea, Iran?
	Why is it only the good guys?
	Us.
	Why is it only the good guys that somehow need to be scrutinized and held up and examined for corruption?
	Why is it only U.S. corporations are held to this high standard?
	Here's Howard Dean.
	Do we have time to play the?
	Yeah, we do.
	Howard Dean, everybody's going nuts over this.
	This is Howard Dean's yesterday.
	Well.
	Yeah, we have time.
	Squeeze it in.
	Here it is.
	The major problem here is that people really wanted change.
	You've got, for example, lobbyists who then went, I mean, people who worked for major insurance company, health insurance companies that ended up as chiefs of staff of people who had a key role in writing the health insurance bill.
	I mean, that kind of stuff is not supposed to be going on with the new election that we, the new regime, the new administration, and so forth and so on.
	He called it the regime.
	Howard Dean called Obama's administration a regime.
	I wonder.
	Wonder if anybody would be upset about that.
	Here's an interesting headline in the New York Times.
	Britain plans to decentralize national health care.
	It isn't working.
	National health care in the UK, the National Health Service, isn't working.
	They're going to decentralize it.
	They're going to take more and more of it into the private sector.
	The opposite direction, we're going.
	Details of that?

▲