Conservative ReviewIssue #23 Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and V iews May 4, 2008

The Wisdom of Pastor Hagee

Pastor Hagee is a figure on the religious right whopublically supports McCain. Because of theObama/Wright debacle, people (read, Obamasupporters) are trying to find any religious figureconnected with any candidate in any possible waywith either McCain or Clinton.

Pastor Hagee has been quoted as saying "Do youknow the difference between a woman with PMSand a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answeris lipstick.

Do you know the difference between a terroristand a woman with PMS? You can negotiate witha terrorist."

I just read this in an article as one of the reasonsMcCain should distance himself from Hagee'sendorsement. Either the author of this article hasno sense of humor, or (more likely) it was writtenby a woman with PMS.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/hagee_2781___article.html/mccain_church.html

(Hagee is not McCain's pastor, btw)

Clinton on the Factor

I hope you saw the Clinton interview done by BillO’Reilly this past week. Both O’Reilly andSenator Clinton shined. This was the first time Isaw Clinton laugh where it appeared to be realand not some sort of a cackle. What I am sayingis, she did not use her laugh to deal with a

question she cannot answer, but that it wasgenuine.

O’Reilly moved the interview along. Even thoughhe repeated a couple of questions that Clintonwould not give a full answer to, he did not poundher with these questions. We are allowed todraw our own conclusions; O’Reilly doesn’t beatinto us, “Clinton could not give us a satisfactoryanswer here.”

In some interviews, Clinton (and othercandidates) go into talking points; given anyquestion, they morph into one of their talkingpoints. I did not get this much from Clinton. Sheand O’Reilly interacted well.

If you think you do not like O’Reilly or if you thinkthat you do not like Clinton, this interview mightchange your opinion on both of them.

No matter what side of the aisle you are on, thisis Senator Clinton on her toes, giving reasonableanswers to good questions. Don’t get mewrong—I am not a Clinton supporter by anymeans; but I have to admit when she does a goodjob. Here, she does a good job. She also cracks ajoke, and it is obvious that this was off-the-cufffrom Hillary herself and not something which waswritten for her.

Part I:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V8YUbvwRecc

Part II.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_5yg0EasR7M

Jeremiah Wright Explains Himself

After giving one of his 793 speeches this week,Jeremiah Wright took questions. He referredseveral times back to his [softball] interview withBill Moyers on public television. He made at leasttwo points when asked these questions and onMoyers' program. "You have not seen or heardthe entire sermon" and "Certain news media justtook these comments and looped them." [Theseare not exact quotes]. Let me deal with thesetwo points: I have heard one entire sermon, andwhat he had to say about the United States wasnot softened by hearing the entire sermon. Itwas the most outrageous part of the sermon, buthis remarks were in no way softened or mitigatedby the rest of the sermon. Secondly, I have neverheard Wright's comments looped. I have heardthem played many times, but looping is whereyou take a few seconds of a video or sound byteand play it over and over again in succession (likewhat was done to Rush Limbaugh when he madecomments about Michael J. Fox; that waslooped).

Now, even though Wright made those commentswhen speaking to Moyers and during thisquestion and answer period, he did not denounceor put into a softer context any of the remarkswhich he made. When he answered questionsabout any set of specific remarks that we haveseen as a sound byte, he justified what he said. The only time I heard him back off on any ofthese public remarks was concerning the UScreating AIDS to destroy Black America. He keptcarefully saying, our government is capable ofdoing such a thing.

The key to his interview from a politicalstandpoint is, Wright calmly explained andjustified his crazy remarks delivered in the bitsand pieces of the sermons which most of us haveseen. In other words, despite Wright’s objectionsto how he was portrayed in the media, he stillstands by his insane opinions (that we are morallyequivalent to Al-qaeda, that we deserved theSeptember 11 attacks, and that the USgovernment has done things specifically againstthe African population, like AIDS).

For those of you who are Christian, Wright wasalso asked about what Jesus said. "I am the way,

Page -2-

the truth and the life, no man comes to theFather but by me." This was quoted and he wasasked if he believed that Jesus was the only wayor if Islam, for instance, also provided a way toGod. Jeremiah Wright refused, as a pastor, toconfirm what Jesus said, and quoted Jesus saying,"I have other sheep" (which refers to Gentiles).Wright meant that, there are other ways to Godbesides through Jesus. This helps to explain whyWright has more in common with Louis Farrakhanthan he does with, say, Billy Graham (or PMSjokester, Hagee).

It is my opinion that Wright is enjoying this 15minutes of fame, and I would not be surprised ifhe continued to give more and more speechesand offer to answer questions as well.

(I wrote this the day that Wright gave this speechand then answered questions).

Obama’s Early Response to Reverend Wright

On The View, a couple weeks back, Obama saysthat “I did not vet my pastor;” indicating that hewas not really aware of all Wright’s crazy views. This is nonsense and a lie, which I will cover in

more detail in a later story. Wright’s church, theTrinity United Church of Christ (not to beconfused with the Church of Christ), recognizedLouis Farrakhan (the leader of the Nation ofIslam) publically in several ways, giving him anaward, and Wright went with Farrakhan to meetMuammar el-Qaddafi in Tripole, and Obama,Wright and Farrakhan all attended the MillionMan March.

A point I have made several times: if we can, withthe internet, figure out what Wright’s church is allabout, how is it possible to Obama, after 20+years, to be ignorant of church doctrine?

The Obama Reaction

Many of the news services have beendownplaying the Reverend Wright situation.Several weeks ago, when the first set of Wright

insanity first began, I said, "This is the end ofObama." He probably will not get theDemocrat nomination and he certainly will notbe elected president because of Wright. As faras I know, I was the only person who statedthis as a certainty. Several of the news servicesI listened to soft-pedaled this Wright business,saying, it was taken out of context, it was a fewsound bytes out of a 30 year history, etc. etc. I never bought into that. The key was thecrowd--their enthusiasm, their shrieking withpleasure--it was clear that these were not justa few outrageous things which Wright said outof the blue.

When Obama distanced himself this pastTuesday even further from Wright, he had nochoice. Already, two anti-Democrat ads hadbeen run, linking Democrats to Obama and

linking Obama to Wright. No way, would Obamabe elected with ads like that coming out.

Here are these ads:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JhpcIH_Hw18

Page -3-

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sS5sEbh03aE

No matter who says what about these ads, theywould bring down the Democratic party thiselection. Obama had to stop the bleeding.

Obviously, it would have been has Wright founda far corner of the earth and hid until mid-November. It appeared for awhile that is what hewas going to do. However, when he came back,and started spouting his nonsense again, Obamahad no choice. Even though Wright made somelame excuses for the sound bytes, he came rightback and justified what he had said in the past.

Even though much of the press over the pastmonth downplayed what Wright had to say,Obama no longer could. He finally condemnedWright’s remarks as evil and ridiculous. But, as Isaid, he had no choice.

Wright had a relationship with Farrakhan goingback nearly 30 years. Wright did not suddenlybecome a fanatic. His theology is known as BlackLiberation theology, and it has been around forawhile.

In his condemnation of Wright, Obama says, “Thisis not the man I knew 20 years ago.” Poppycock. Obama is an intelligent man with splendidcredentials. He is not stupid.

The Timing of Obama's Repudiation

We live in a world of instant, immediateinformation. On Monday, Wright gives hishorrendous talk and QandA in Washington D.C.Monday night, Obama gave a short, perfunctorymessage about Jeremiah Wright. It was not amessage of strong condemnation. He simplystated, "Wright does not represent my opinion."(not an exact quote).

The next day, Obama gives a speech where heunequivocally threw Wright underneath the box.So, what happened over the 15 or so hours inbetween Obama knew what Wright said; heprobably had the transcript and/or video in handMonday night. Do not be confused about this.When Wright talks, no one listens more carefullythan the Obama campaign. Wright has single-handedly destroyed Obama's chances to becomepresident. So, you bet they knew what he said.So, why didn't Obama say more than a fewgeneric words?

Two things. A speech had to be written tounequivocally throw Wright under the bus, and,most importantly, polling had to be done. Theyneeded to know, how are Wright's remarksplaying in North Carolina. Obama, a few weeksago, was going to take North Carolina andprobably by double digits. How are theyresponding to Wright's remarks? North Carolinawas polled. Obama's people wanted to knowhow this played out in the minds of the voters inNorth Carolina.

Rush has an excellent rant on this, which I willinclude with this issue.

Page -4-

Options of Obama

Obama spent 22 years in Jeremiah Wright'schurch and, as recently as 2006, gave $27,000 tohis church. If memory serves, he gave $13,00 tothis church the year before. Recently, Obamadisowned Wright in no uncertain terms. Thisgives us 3 possibilities:

1) Obama secretly agrees with Wright. He eitherhad these positions before attending this churchor eventually developed these positions. He hasdenounced Wright out of political expediency. Ihave not heard any political pundit who believesthis. I do think that going to church has affectedObama's wife, and that she has bought into whatWright is teaching to some extent (or she heldthese views prior to attending this church). When it comes to Obama, I am unsure. ARassmussen survey has over half its respondentsthinking that Obama shares some of Wright’sracist views.

2) Obama joined this church at a time when hehad no street cred, having been raised inIndonesia and Hawaii. He had no real connectionwith liberal Blacks, and this gave him thatconnection. Attending this church is how he gotelected to the Illinois state senate and eventuallyto the United States Senate. This was a politicallyactive and aware (if not brainwashed) churchwhich was vibrant and growing; and the pastorwas not above supporting his man, Obama, as acandidate, from the pulpit. Obama recognizedthat Wright was a crackpot, but he was also apolitically powerful crackpot. When he claimednot to know what this church was about(something that anyone with google can figureout in about 60 minutes), Obama was lying. Hewent to the church out of political expediency; heknew what Wright believed and taught, and wentanyway. How much he believed and how muchhe rejected will probably never be known.

3) After 22 years, Obama was not smart enoughto figure out what kind of a church this was. Thechurch was politically advantageous to him,maybe it did some great things in theneighborhood with Obama liked, but he attendedthe church, gave the church 10's of thousands ofdollars, but never understood what was beingtaught. If this is true, this means that Obama hasa personal relationship with a man for 22 yearsthat he never figured out. This same Obamathinks he can go out and talk to anyone ofAmerican's enemies, take the measure of theman in a few hours or a few days, and being ableto talk things out and get peaceful solutions forAmerica.

No matter which of these scenarios you believe,none of them distinguish Obama as a man ofcharacter, a man of intelligence or a man ofexcellent judgment. There are only these 3options.

About Issue #22

I was in severe pain when I wrote this issue, andmy spelling and sentence structure reflected that. I have since gone back and fixed most of thoseerrors. A corrected issue #22 can be found here:

http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview22.htm

http://kukis.org/blog/ConservativeReview22.pdf

The Wright Stuff

(or, Will Rev. Wright Shut up?)

There is nothing that Obama would like morethan for his former pastor of 20 year, theReverend Jeremiah Wright, to shut his big mouth. But what are Wright's needs? It appears that hemay have a book coming out in October. Themore controversy that he stirs up, the more likelythat he will sell a lot of books. He has been in thelimelight in a congregation for the past 30+ yearswhich he built up from nothing. His former

Page -5-

congregant, Barack Obama, the first possibleBlack candidate for president, has dismissed hisravings as ravings. The stuff which he preaches tohis congregation, Obama has repudiated in thestrongest terms. The man Wright has supportedfrom the pulpit for president has just told theworld that he, Wright, is a paranoid, racist fool. Although I do not have evidence for this, I will betyou dollars to donuts that Wright is responsibleto a great degree for Obama's political success. I can bet that Wright got his congregants to goout and vote and to get their friends andneighbors to go out and vote. Now, Obama, whoowes him--and in Wright's mind, might even owehim the vice presidency--has told the world thatWright is a madman. He is not just a man whowas brought up in a different world, but he is aman with ideas which are flat out false--thesesame ideas which Wright has been teaching hiscongregants over the past 30+ years.

Wright is not going away. He is not going to shutup. He is going to stand up and tell everyone thatObama knew his positions and that Obamacannot pretend that he did not know what Wrightwas all about.

Wright's church bought him a million dollar +home in a very white, gated, golf coursecommunity. Wright is going to be paid by thischurch for the rest of his life. If the top Blackman in the United States publically denounceshim as a crazy old coot, what is going to happento his pension? Are his congregants going to behappy to support him in a grand lifestyle for thenext 20-40 years if Obama has dissed him?

Wright cannot afford to retire where people seehim as a crazy old Black man. He lives in a greathouse in a neighborhood run by rich whitepeople. He does not want to step out of his doorand his neighbors dismiss him as a loon. He doesnot want the press to treat him as a crazy oldBlack man. Up until a few days ago, he was seenas a great, Black theologian; whose character hadbeen questioned by the corrupt conservative

media; the media which is stuck on stupid. Now,Obama threw him under the bus. How is themedia going to see him now? If Obama disseshim as a crazy old coot, how will the mainstreammedia see him?

Now, do not think this is going to dissuade Blackvoters from voting for Obama. One thing whichliberals are famous for is, they can hold twoopposing positions in their thinking at the sametime. Some can continue to attend Black Liberationchurches—churches which Obama hasdenounced—and vote for Obama, the man whohas denounced their beliefs.

One more thing: Wright pedals racism. This iswhat he sells from his Chicago pulpit; this iswhere he makes his money. If Obama is derailedfrom the presidency, this fits with Wright's view--that we live in a bigoted, racist nation. So, ifWright contributes to Obama's losing this race,that is fine by him.

Where is Wright?

I think that Dennis Miller gave the bestexplanation here. After Wright stated all of hisinsane ideas publically calmly in answer to severalquestions, Obama had no alternative but todisown this man. The outrageous things which hesaid in his church were not impassioned wordssaid in the heat of the moment, but what heseemed to believe and what he taught hisparishioners. So, after Obama disowned thisman, someone probably sat Wright down andexplained, "A Black man out of your congregationhad a chance to become the president of theUnited States. You probably just ruined hischances. Every time you publically open yourmouth, Obama's chances for becoming the nextpresident of the United States are lessened. Doyou want to be forever known as the idiot whokept the first Black man from becomingpresident?"

Page -6-

What is Ignored in Wright’s Q&A?

Twice, Wright made references to his becomingthe Vice President. The first time he said it duringthis Q&A, several people chuckled, as I did whilewatching it. Wright made a funny remark, and Iwas willing to concede that.

1 or 2 minutes later, Wright again speaks aboutbecoming Vice President. I think this was sincere. I don’t think he was making a joke. I think thatWright thought that Obama might really choosehim as a running mate.

This should tip you off as to how far removedfrom reality that Wright is. I grant you, this is justconjecture on my part, but he mentioned the vicepresidency twice.

These are Distractions!

Michelle Obama was on CNN with CarolineKennedy trying to turn the page on this Wrightbusiness. Obama has spoken of these variousthings as distractions. For an outstandingcommentary on these distractions, seeKrauthammer’s column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042402983.html

You can certainly google for Michelle’s interview,but all it is, is her and Caroline saying absolutelynothing, except to repeat over and over again“The American people are ready to turn the pageon this controversy.”

Here is Michelle’s side of the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Wright’s First Speech

Wright gave another speech earlier this week, butit was lost in the fury of his Q&A. Prior to this,he spoke at the NCAAP about the education ofBlack children and how they were short-changedby our education system, because they learndifferently than white children.

Wright: American children have a different way oflearning. They are right brained, subject orientedin their learning styles. Right brain - that meanscreative and intuitive.

When they were desegregated in Philadelphia,several of the white teachers in my school freakedout. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay intheir place - over there, behind the desk. Blackkids climbed up all on them because they learnedfrom a subject, not from an object.

Charles Krauthammer responded to Wright’srant: This is complete rubbish of the worst kind.And I'm speaking here choosing my wordscarefully. This is the worst kind of crackpotpseudoscience. It's not just idiotic, it's alsodemeaning and dangerous.

This is the stuff of eugenics, of NAZI racialtheories, and of white segregationists whocreated separate school systems under the sameassumption that blacks are of a different specieswho think in a different way and who learn in adifferent way.

Page -7-

And when Wright says that blacks areright-brained and whites are left-brained,meaning verbal and creative - I'm sorry,left-brained meaning logical and mathematical -what he is saying is that African-Americans areOK in doing hip-hop but not math.

This is just astonishing stuff. But what's worse isthe reaction of the audience. He said it at ameeting of the NCAAP, which historically, half acentury ago, had brought the case in the SupremeCourt which overthrew separate schools, whichhad been based on the assumption of a separateintelligence, of a different intelligence.

And for the people in that audience to applaudthis kind of destructive nonsense was tragic. Itwas a measure how those who call themselvesthe "civil rights movement" have degeneratedover half a century.

A more compete story can be found at:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353971,00.html

However, Krauthammer’s remarks give us the gistof the argument against Wright’s science.

Rush and Al Gore’s Religion

RUSH: Here is David in Lakeland, Florida. You'renext on Open Line Friday. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. I was just calling about, I'vebeen reading online recently about all this moneythat Algore now has at his disposal through allthese investment funds, and the last total I sawwas about $1.9 billion earmarked for clean techinvestments and different funds and differentinvestment firms --

RUSH: Most of them are fraudulent. It's a gianthoax.

CALLER: Well, but when you think about it --

RUSH: Basically it's planting trees, you know, andturning chicken manure into some kind of fuel todo with your lawn mower. Who the hell knowswhat it is. All a big joke.

CALLER: Yeah. Well, I think we've reached thispoint where we need to start talking about theseglobal warming people and all the different thingswe need to do. We need to give it its own newterm, and I'm thinking Big Weather is what weneed to group all these people under now. Imean, what's the difference, Big Oil makesprofits, Big Weather? You know, it's the samekind of thing, just they're trying to put a differentspin on it, but ultimately money and control iswhat they're after, Big Weather.

RUSH: I'll tell you something, I feel good aboutthis. We can call 'em Big Weather. That's not abad idea, but I think there are better ones. I thinkwe're winning here. Algore's had to go out andinvest $300 million in this thing, get people likeNewt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi sitting in a blackand white TV ad on a couch outside inWashington talking about their mutual interest inall this. It must mean that his movie didn't work. But here's this story again, this time in the UKTelegraph: "Global warming will stop until at least2015 because of natural variations in theclimate."

We talked about this yesterday. This is aboutocean currents in the Pacific, in the Atlantic, andthey naturally cool the planet. Nothing we'redoing. Every bit of damage we're doing is on thewarming side, right. So all of a sudden herecomes a massive movement, is going to cool theplanet, for 15 years! And then global warmingwill resume. Well, one of two things is going onhere. Either the global warming crowd knowsthere isn't any warming, and that's probably thecase, and the second thing we can say is wait aminute, wait a minute, now, wait a minute, ifthere are natural cooling cycles (gasping) might

Page -8-

there also be natural warming cycles (gasping)? And the reason that's important is because all thewarming is being attributed to you and me, notthe ChiComs and not the Taiwanese. It's all ourfault.

Here's the best idea. John Coleman, founder ofthe Weather Channel, has proposed taking Algoreand other environmental wackos to court. He didso at a conference in New York in March. Sincethen, John Coleman has received thousands andthousands of e-mails with lots of support andthousands of these people want to donate to alegal fund to sue Algore. He hopes that the courtcould be the venue to settle the debate overwhat he calls the biggest scam in history andexpose global warming alarmism as silly hype. Ithink it's maybe our only alternative to justhunkering down and waiting it out. He claims themainstream media ignores what those skepticalof manmade global warming have to say whilethe educational community does not even debatethe issue. "Without the media and theeducational institutions," said Coleman, "whatresource do we have to counter these people? We're not going to be heard unless we can find aplace to be heard, and a court of law may be aplace where we could get a fair hearing. If thejudge had a nonpolitical, scientific approach inreaching a decision, we could win this lawsuit. It's something that's in the works. I have noannouncement to make now, but numerouspeople are involved, and it remains a validpossibility." That would be awesome. Thatwould be fabulous.

Here are the articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml (it isexcellent!)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/02/venture-firm-puts-millions-green-companies-gore-has-stake-in

Out of Touch?

I was recent told by a liberal that Bush was out oftouch because he did not know the price of gas. A president does not do self-serve; a presidentdoes not even open his own doors.

An example of this is, Hillary Clinton could notfigure out how to work a self-serve coffeemachine (I believe she had to position the cupand press a button):

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/30/video-smartest-woman-in-the-world-tries-to-work-the-coffee-machine/ (Link from Rush’s site)

Look, it is a fact of life—no matter whatpoliticians say, they are out of touch. It comeswith the territory.

Throw Obama under the Bus?

I don’t think that I have had a negative thing tosay about the super-delegates in the Democraticparty. In fact, it is possible that they are a goodidea. Since the media does not vet Democraticcandidates, we will never know when suddenly,one candidate becomes unviable, because sometruth leaks out.

This is what has happened to Obama. He seemedlike the perfect liberal candidate. More taxes,more government programs, unity forDemocrats, and, bonus, he’s black.

However, with Wright, it is clear that Obamacannot be elected president (even if he ranagainst Ron Paul).

Page -9-

The Democrats have a system to deal with this:the super-delegates. Even if Obama is ahead inevery way possible, the super-delegates canoverthrow this mandate of the people, so thatthey have a better chance of getting an electableDemocratic nominee.

There is only one catch: Obama’s black. Whatwill happen at the convention if he is not thenominee? You know how angry and crazy the lefthas been over the past 7 years. Could they getworse? Is that possible?

Secondly, what will blacks do if their candidate isnot elected? Originally, Obama was not acandidate of race, but now he is.

In any case, Rush had a good rant about this, andhow Democrats do not need to fear losing theblack vote:

Rush on the Black Vote

RUSH: Now, for those of you who are Democratsuperdelegates; may I have your attention,please? As you know, I addressed your fearyesterday, and I know how you people arethinking. You're in the depths of fear over what todo now, because it's clear that you, thesuperdelegates, are going to decide who is yourparty's nominee; and in the process, you aregoing to be committing political murder againstone of these candidates. You alone are going todecide, and it used to be six months ago youwere proud to be able to do this because youwere operating from the context of confidenceand inevitability. It was like a slam dunk. Nowyou're operating from fear, and incorrectdecisions are made during times of crisis and fear. And the greatest fear that you superdelegateshave... I mean, you can see the trend lines here.

You know what's happening. The bloom is off therose. The messiah, it has turned out, cannot walkon water. Mrs. Clinton's been hanging in there.

She has got the testicle lockbox, and it's openingand shutting on schedule. You can see the trendlines, but you're scared to death to take this awayfrom Obama because he leads in delegates; andyou're really frightened that you are going to losethe black vote, perhaps permanently, if you takeaway the nomination. It must be apparent to youthat Senator Obama will not lead you to victory. You have to know this. But you fear that denyinghim support will create a permanent fissurebetween black voters and Democrats. NoDemocrat has the courage to examine this flawedpremise. It is up to me to advise and address yousuperdelegates to consider some facts. PresidentJohn Kennedy and his brother Robert Kennedywiretapped Dr. King. Black voters stayed withDemocrats. Democrats stood in the schoolhousedoors vowing, "Segregation forever!"

Democrats voted against landmark civil rightslegislation; Republicans passed it. Blacks stayedwith Democrats. Bull Connor was a Democrat. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democratscreated the welfare state, destroying millions ofblack families. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Democrats bent over forward for the teachersunions, ruining public education for generationsof black kids; leaving them unequipped toparticipate as equals in American society. Yet!Black voters stayed with Democrats. Democratsurged the early release of criminals to furtherprey on law-abiding black citizens. Blacks stayedwith Democrats. Democrats threw blacks underthe bus during the immigration debate. AfterRosa Parks finally moved to the front of the bus,Democrats threw blacks under it during theimmigration debate because Hispanics are nowthe largest minority voting bloc. Blacks stayedwith Democrats. Democrats have not supportedblacks achieving power.

Carl McCall was running for governor of NewYork, and was denied funds from Terry McAuliffeat the Democrat National Committee. Thisaudience contributed to McCall's campaign. Civilrights icon Maynard Jackson wanted to be head

Page -10-

honcho of the Democrat National Convention. He was denied. Blacks stayed with Democrats. Earlier this year in Selma, Alabama, Mrs. Clintonshows up; mocks the way black people speak. Her husband, Bill Clinton, the reputed "first blackpresident," shows up in South Carolina and playsnot the race card, but a whole deck of race cards!(doing Clinton impression) "Obama? Ha! Ofcourse he gonna win. I mean, it's like JesseJackson. I mean, he's the black guy." Blacksstayed with Democrats. You superdelegates inthe Democrat Party, you're worried aboutdenying Obama the nomination because you fearthat your black voters will abandon youpermanently? Come, come! Review your historywith me once again. You Democrats have alreadydone far worse to black voters than yanking thenomination away from Barack Obama. Have nofear, superdelegates. Be confident. Blacks willstay with you. So will Jesse Jackson, so will AlSharpton, and you can have them.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We'll start in Canoga Park, California. HiFred. It's great to have you with us, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I think you're a racist.

RUSH: Well, that's refreshing. Why, Fred?

CALLER: Well, I -- I think you're insinuating thatblacks are too stupid to have a learning curve.

RUSH: No, I think you're inferring that.

CALLER: No, I think you're saying it.

RUSH: I'm not. You're inferring it. I'm notimplying anything. I stated facts.

CALLER: You're saying that --

RUSH: All these things happened, and Democratscontinued to get the votes of the majority ofblack voters. It's just their political allegiance. It'snot a comment on race or intelligence.

CALLER: Well, you're saying there's nothing theDemocrats can do that -- that'll stop the -- theblacks from voting for them, that the blacks aretoo stupid to even vote in their own bestinterests.

RUSH: No, no, no, no. I didn't say that! You'reputting words in my mouth.

CALLER: Oh, you didn't say that? You didn't saythat blacks keep voting for stuff that's not in theirown best interests and that they can't learn?

RUSH: I didn't say that. I did not say that. This isa classic illustration. You heard what you wantedto hear based on your own biases and prejudices. I simply recited some facts for you. These are notarguable. These things I said are not arguable. Now, you want to talk about why blacks continueto vote for Democrats despite this? I'll be glad totell you about that.

CALLER: Yes, let's -- let's hear the Rushpsychology.

RUSH: For 50 years, black people in this countryhave been told by elected Democrats thatRepublicans and conservatives are racists, sexists,bigots, and homophobes; that they have nodesire for them to become equal or progresseconomically -- and then you couple that withministers like Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wrightreinforcing what other black leaders like AlSharpton and Jesse Jackson do, and it all becomesvery simple. They have been scared to death. Black voters have been told for 50 years thattheir lives will be ruined if they vote forRepublicans, because Republicans don't careabout them. When you vote out of fear, it's thesame thing the Democrats have done with elderlypeople, our seasoned citizens and Social Security. It's almost predictable that every election cycle,the Democrats, somebody, will predict or tell oldpeople -- with phone calls, robophone calls, pushpolling or even blatantly out in the open -- senior

Page -11-

citizens that Republicans want to take back theirSocial Security.

I remember in 1988. I was in Sacramento,California, and Alan Cranston (the Senator fromCalifornia then) was telling people on televisionout there, Republicans wanted to kick seniorcitizens out of their homes if Reagan wasreelected. Now, if you're a senior citizen and youdon't pay a whole lot of attention and you hearthat and you're a Democrat and you have partyloyalty going into this and you hear Cranston saythat, and all you have is your Social Security;you're not going to take the chance thatCranston's wrong, because if he's telling you,"He's in the Senate. Why, he's a powerful man.He's a United States senator!" If he's telling youthat Republicans will kick you out of your houseor take your Social Security away, you're notgoing to take the chance that he's wrong. It's thesame thing with the black population here. For50 years they have been lied to. They have beenmade to live in fear of Republicans. It's gotten tothe point here, Fred -- this is undeniable.

Black people in this country who have achievedgreat things without going through the DemocratParty civil rights prescriptions to do so -- and I cangive you a host of names if you want -- areroutinely savaged and destroyed or at leastattempts are made to destroy them, as UncleToms. For example, Clarence Thomas, ShelbySteele. There are a number of highlyaccomplished black people who have becomeRepublicans, and they are held out as traitors. How can you explain it otherwise when youngblack kids are told in school if they learn to dowell on tests, they're being "too white"? Who'stelling them this? It isn't us. It's the DemocratParty and its agents. All I'm trying to do is makeit easy for the superdelegates, here. They knowthey got a problem. The problem is that Obamacannot win. But they are afraid to pull thenomination from him because he's getting 80% ofthe black vote; and they think the black vote willnot show up in November and vote Democrat,

and I'm simply trying to tell them that there's a50-year history of showing that they have donefar worse.

I mean, what worse can you do than destroy theblack family with welfare, that didn't work, andtook the place of the father and the husband? What more can you do to black people thandestroy their family? And Democrats still vote forthem. I have said on this program for countlessyears, countless times: If it were me, and I'vebeen holding out hope and listening to thepromises of a political party for 50 years -- andafter all those 50 years I'm still complaining andwhining about same circumstances I was in 50years ago -- I'd begin to question my vote. "Waita minute. You know, you guys keep promisingthese things, and nothing ever happens. You keepblaming the Republicans for my problems. Youpromise you're going to fix 'em, and then youforget us after the election. I think you're takingus for granted." I would start to question it. Butthat hasn't happened. It has not happened. TheDemocrat Party is perceived in the minds of 80 to90% of the black population, as its only hope. This is the result of fear that's been instilled. So,this little litany of things I said to try to assure thesuperdelegates that they could do what theywant without any fear whatsoever, blacks willleave them; is unarguable. It's pure, 100% fact.

Entertaining Democratic Primary

As I said, the left is getting crazier and crazier. What about those on the left from Florida? Iftheir voices are not heard, what are they going todo?

I guarantee you that this Democratic conventionin Denver is going to be the highest-ratedconvention of all time.

The insanity of the left, which has been focusedon President Bush for the past 7 years is nowgoing to be focused on whether or not they get

Page -12-

their way. It is going to be fantastic! This will bea reporter’s dream. Suggestion: wear a bullet-proof vest and headgear. Carry a backup meansof recording the excitement.

Here is one example of many; Rosanne Barrwants a rumble in Denver:

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/04/air-americas-roseanne-barr-wants-1968.html

Rush on Democratic Floridian Anger

RUSH: Let's get that audio sound bite fromFlorida, shall we? It's number two, MisterBroadcast Engineer. This was yesterday inWashington, and this is a portion of a group ofprotesters outside the Democrat NationalCommittee. It is obvious to me that Senator KenSalazar of Colorado is going to have to hire or atleast purchase some more letterhead, 'cause he'sgonna be sending out letters left and rightdemanding that there be condemnations of allthese Democrats threatening civil unrest at theDemocrat National Convention. This is anunidentified female protester.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We will shut down theconvention! (cheers and applause) Nobody isgonna get in until Florida goes in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If the Florida delegation isnot seated, we will March on Denver. (cheers andapplause) We'll take all the buses willing to go toDenver (cheers and applause) and we will shutthat convention down before it gets started.

RUSH: Senator Salazar, we are going to find outwho this group is, Florida Democrats protestingoutside the Democrat National Committee, sothat you can send a letter to whoever their bossis demanding that they be reprimanded. Ladiesand gentlemen, the voices you just heard, sadly,are our neighbors. These are people who live --well, not that close to me, but they are

dangerously close to Snerdley and Dawn andBrian. I have a moat that protects me from thesepeople, but these are our neighbors, Democratsfrom Florida still reeling over what happened in2000, demanding that they be seated at theconvention in Denver. And if they're not,promising all hell will break loose before the thingeven gets started.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'll play audio sound bite number twoagain. If you're just joining us, ladies andgentlemen -- you're a welfare recipient justgetting out of bed -- and you missed this, FloridaDemocrats, our neighbors here, went toWashington yesterday to protest outside theDemocrat National Committee.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We will shut down theconvention! (cheers and applause) Nobody isgonna get in until Florida goes in!

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: If the Florida delegation isnot seated, we will march on Denver! (cheers andapplause) We'll take all the buses willing to go toDenver (cheers and applause) and we will shutthat convention down before it gets started.(cheers and applause)

RUSH: Once again, I'm actually thinking of buyingsome letterhead myself for Senator Ken Salazarbecause he's gotta send a lot of letters here tothese people.

Rush, on the Truth

CALLER: Well, we not only trust you, we believethat we understand you; and one of the thingsthat we understand is that the liberals don'tunderstand you, and that is a great source oftheir confusion. Because you tell them the truth,and that confuses them about what the truthmight be.

Page -13-

RUSH: Exactly! Because they don't deal in thetruth, somebody that does confuses them. Weeven had this happen: George Bush, after he wasinaugurated in 2001 started pursuing hislegislative agenda and there were a coupleDemocrats that said, "Wait, wait, wait! He's doingwhat he said he was going to do." You rememberthat? "He's doing what he said he was going todo!" We at Operation Chaos have telegraphedevery move. We have given them countless headstarts to stop us. They haven't been able to. Theycan't stop us, even knowing full in advance, wellin advance what we're going to do.

Rush on Clinton’s Ignorance

Rush here is commenting on one aspect ofO’Reilly’s interview with Clinton:

RUSH: O'Reilly said, "Oil prices. You want us tosuspend the federal gas tax. So does McCain.Obama doesn't. But when I hear that, I say, 'It'sthe same old politician stuff because theDemocrat Party was opposed, is opposed toANWR drilling.' You voted against nuclear energyseven times. And I'm saying to myself, 'Bothparties, both parties have sold the folks out onenergy, when the folks are getting hammeredand they should be angry at both parties.' Wheream I going wrong?"

HILLARY: Well, here's what I think. I think there'splenty of blame to go around. We're not actinglike Americans, Bill. We're not in charge, and Iwant to put us back in charge. I also want to takeon OPEC. You know, OPEC is a cartel, it's amonopoly.

O'REILLY: You want to take them on?

HILLARY: Yes.

O'REILLY: They don't care what you say. They'rein Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

HILLARY: Nine of the 13 biggest oil producingcompanies that are in OPEC are also members ofthe WTO. I would file complaints. I would alsochange the laws so that citizens and businessescould file anti-trust actions. We're going to beginto hold them accountable.

RUSH: What the hell is she talking about? Whyare any of you afraid of this ditz? Did you justhear what she said her plan of action is to bringdown oil prices? Lawsuits! Against bin al-WeidTaliban Asheed Sahib Skyhook. Do you knowwhat bin Talawad Kalabi Asid Sahib Skyhook isgoing to do when he sees Mrs. Clinton's lawsuitat the World Trade Organization? He's going tomake a paper airplane out of it and send it backover here on one of his Airbus A380s. This is howthey want to fight terrorism: with lawsuits! OPECis not a monopoly. There are many oil producingcompanies that are not part of OPEC. This isincompetence on parade.

Rush Interviews Andrew McCarthy

Rush rarely does interviews; however, he is oneof the best in the biz.

McCarthy wrote Willful Blindness, and how we donot seem to recognize where we are in historyand who are enemies are.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWM1ZDFmOTllMzgxNTY5ZGUyMzVjNTJiY2YzNWY5YWE=

RUSH: Now, as you know, folks, we don't do toomany interviews here. We're not on the authorcircuit. Friends of mine, however, do writebooks; and I try to have them on, especially inthis most recent example. Andrew McCarthy haswritten a book entitled Willful Blindness: AMemoir of the Jihad. Its timing is beautiful,because we have been so successful in thwartinganother attack, terrorist attack on our country,that it is easy for people to assume the threat hassubsided when it really hasn't. I welcome to the

Page -14-

program, Andy McCarthy, good friend, how areyou sir?

MCCARTHY: Happy to talk to you, sir.

RUSH: It's great to have you here. Now, let's getstarted with this, because there's a lot to discusswith you. There are three themes in Andy's book,folks. The first theme is that a foreign threat tonational security is fundamentally a political issueof self-defense that would involve military. It'snot a legal issue involving lawyers and criminallaw. The second theme is that we have been atwar with these people -- declared by them --since the late eighties, early nineties, and itwasn't taken seriously until 9/11. The third oneis what's fascinating to me. I can't wait 'til we getto that portion. It's "You Can't Take the Islam Outof Islamic terrorism." Andy tried the blind sheik,and I'll let him tell you the story when we getthere about preparing to cross-examine the blindsheik. He expected to find that this guy was justa fringe nut, making things up -- and nothing hesaid was made up about Islam. So let's startwhere you think we need to start for people tounderstand the threat that we still face, andmaybe you want to do that by starting at thebeginning and how you became aware of it.

MCCARTHY: Well, I knew nothing more aboutradical Islam, Rush, in 1993 when I got broughtinto this than, you know, anyone who's had afairly good education in the United States; whichis to say, you know, maybe the barest headlines,but not a whole lot of substance underneath that. The whole experience was really an eye-openerfor me in many ways. Probably most basically, byrealizing that the people who founded ourcountry had a much more humble and better ideaabout how the country would need to bedefended. They didn't assume that Americawould be forever, and they certainly were notunder a delusion that we could be protected byour legal system from foreign threats to oursecurity. They had a very strong conviction thatthere had to be an accountability nexus between

the people who made national security decisionsand the people whose lives were at stake. Andwhat that meant was that the courts essentiallywere going to have no role in national security. They had an important role in our system, but notin protecting our nation from foreign threats. Iguess what my battle scars are about is trying tobasically square that circle, trying to use ourcriminal justice system as a means fromprotecting us from people who actually mean usan existential threat to our system.

RUSH: All right. So what are the numbers? Through the Clinton years and even prior to that,we sought to deal with this threat via the courts,indictments. How successful have we been?

MCCARTHY: Well, if your point of reference isnational security, it's an abysmal failure. Most ofthe time when I talked about this it turns out tobe at law schools, where what they're interestedin is due process, and they look at it and say, "Butlook, you convicted everyone. You know, youbatted a thousand," which obviously you can't dobetter than that. But in point of fact in eight yearswe took out 29 people, which, when you considerthe fact that, you know, between the time thetrade center was bombed in '93 -- which I think isthe declaration of war -- and the time it wasdestroyed on 9/11, we had an enemy that wasgrowing bigger and bolder, attacking us aboutonce a year, and our response to it -- even as theattacks became more ferocious -- was essentiallyto add more counts to the indictment, which isreally not impressive to people who are willing toimmolate themselves in terrorist attacks.

RUSH: We indicted Bin Laden, right, in 1998? This was before all the embassy bombings andthe millennium plot, the USS Cole and 9/11. Weindicted Bin Laden, and yet, we don't have BinLaden. So tell me something: Why is it? Is it apolitical issue, is it ideological? Is it most of thepeople that want to use the legal system to goafter these people, are they liberals? Are they on

Page -15-

the left? What is their philosophy behind this isthe best way to go about it?

MCCARTHY: Well, I think it's a variety of differentexplanations for it, but I think the predominantone is mainly a human nature-type element,which is that we'd like to believe we're in morecontrol of this than we are. One way that youcan convince yourself of that is that you take it onin court, which really does not require you to goto a war footing; and then you look at the bottomline, and you seem to be convicting people -- andas I try to explain in the book, you know, with allthe appearances that you have in court, and allthe proceedings, pretrial, post-trial sentencing etcetera, you know, four people can look like 40 or400 people pretty soon. You know, and it's a realopportunity if you want to use it that way -- andI think a lot of our politicians have wanted to useit that way -- to make it look like you're doingmore than you are actually doing at a low cost. But you can't put the costs off forever, and I thinkwe found that out on 9/11. The reason that it'sso obvious, I think, that the criminal justiceapproach is too paltry a way to respond to this is:Why haven't we had another attack in sevenyears? Now, some of it is unquestionably luck. But a lot of it is the fact that we're killing andcapturing terrorists. In a single day of combat inIraq or Afghanistan, we will often take out morepeople than we took out in the eight yearsbetween the bombing of the trade center and thedestruction of it. That is very meaningful in termsof confronting people who mean you real harm.

RUSH: Explain something to me, if you would. How is it that some people think that, with thelegal system -- the foundation of it is thepresumption of innocence.MCCARTHY: Right.

RUSH: Presume everybody that comes to courtis innocent in our domestic legal system. Howcan anybody think that will apply to armedmilitants under declared hostilities against the

country? Not individuals. How can anybodythink that that would apply?

MCCARTHY: They can't if they actually sit downand think it through logically, but that's not theway it works, and it certainly was not the ethos ofgovernment when I was in it. What people thinkinstead of the logic of the point that you've justmade --

RUSH: Yeah?

MCCARTHY: -- is that it is important in terms ofnot only our self-esteem, which is generallyspeaking their self-esteem, but our, quote,unquote, "image in the world."

RUSH: Right.

MCCARTHY: You hear a lot about, "We need tobring terrorists into our system, give them the fullpower of due process that we would give to a taxcheat," and get them convicted under all thosepresumptions that you just described, and thenthat way we can feel good about ourselves.

RUSH: Yeah, but they wouldn't be convicted.

MCCARTHY: (laughing) No, right.

RUSH: By the time you let the defense bar atthese guys --

MCCARTHY: Oh, that. (laughing)

RUSH: -- they wouldn't be convicted. That's thewhole point, and, you know, some people are ofthe opinion that there is a group of people in thiscountry that would love to have the enemy win,by hook or by crook. Close Guantanamo, bringthose prisoners here, make them subject to USconstitutional rights when they're not evencitizens; all for the purposes of embarrassing thecountry, primarily due to a hatred of George W.Bush.

Page -16-

MCCARTHY: Yeah, it's hard to argue with thatbecause that's exactly what we're seeing. And asyou pointed out a second ago, Bin Laden himselfis case in point of the limitations of the criminaljustice system if what you really wanted to dowas take on this threat. I've heard nonstop abouthow we went to Afghanistan, we did a lot ofdamage and we broke a lot of things but wedidn't get him. Well, it's not like he just started in2001. He had something of a career before then,and we did indict him in the spring of '98.

RUSH: I'll bet he was quaking in his boots, too.

MCCARTHY: Yeah, well, it hasn't seemed to domuch to him. We actually indicted him evenbefore the embassy bombings and there'sprobably about six weeks time between the timewe indicted him and the time the embassies weretaken out. So, look, if you are trying to do is stopthis enemy from having an ability to projectpower on the scale of a nation; you're never,ever, going to do it by indicting him in thecriminal justice system. It just can't work.

RUSH: Talking to Andrew McCarthy, author ofWillful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. We'llcontinue right after this.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We're talking with a good friend of mine,Andrew McCarthy, author of Willful Blindness: AMemoir of the Jihad. Andy, let's explain topeople your direct involvement with this. Youwere at the US attorney's office SDNY, for thoseof you in the know, Southern District New York. You prepared for trial; you're on the prosecutionteam I think with Pat Fitzgerald, correct?

MCCARTHY: That's right. Actually we like to sayhe was with me, back then.

RUSH: Yeah, well, I like the way that sounds.

MCCARTHY: (laughing)

RUSH: So who were the suspects, who were thedefendants in this case?

MCCARTHY: Well, the World Trade Center hadbeen bombed when I got brought into the case. There was already four people under arrest forthat, and the trial was being prepared by anothergroup of prosecutors, but what we found rightafter the Trade Center bombing was that thissame organization was plotting something thatwas even more ambitious and horrifying, whichwas an attack that would be simultaneous againstthe Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the UnitedNations complex on the east side of Manhattan,and possibly also the FBI's downtown Manhattanheadquarters. And they were going to try to hitthem all at the same time. But we had thefortuity of actually having an informant who hadinfiltrated the organization.

Regrettably, he had infiltrated it before theTrade Center bombing, but in a dispute with theFBI he left the investigation and then was broughtback in after the Trade Center bombing. So wemanaged to stop that attack, I was brought in atthe investigative stage. I think the interestingthing about that is not so much my participationin it as the fact that there really is no substitutefor human intelligence. It's really the onlyterrorism attack that we stopped by anythingother than dumb luck, which I think is sort of alesson we should have learned by now. But I wasbrought in basically to run that investigation andthen try to bring in indictments that was going totarget the organization that had carried out notonly the Trade Center attack, but this otherattack, and really kind of bring it back to where itfirst began here in America.

RUSH: And this is where you first came intocontact in a legal sense with Sheik Omar AbdelRahman. He was the mastermind, the leader, theguru of this gang?

MCCARTHY: Yes. And he actually had aconsiderable history before he ever got here. He

Page -17-

has taken credit for it, and I think credibly, havingissued the fatwa for the murder of PresidentAnwar Sadat in 1981, the Egyptian president whocommitted the great crime of making peace withIsrael. He was murdered, and the murder wascarried out by Egyptian terrorist organizations. Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik, was a majormover and shaker in those circles, and then hegets himself basically to Afghanistan, where hehooks up with people like Bin Laden and Zawahiriand, you know, the other names that were nothousehold names like he was back then, but havebecome that way for us and ultimately came toAmerica in 1990. And the way he got herebasically is an unfortunate comedy of errorswhich seems to be a running theme in my book,but, you know, basically we didn't put him on theterrorist watch list when we should have.

RUSH: But we knew he was a terrorist when welet him in?

MCCARTHY: Correct.

RUSH: Did he come in through JFK and ask forasylum, did he use that method?

MCCARTHY: No, he came in a variety of differentways, and he didn't have to ask for asylum untilthe end because we just let him in. It really wasawful. I mean, he was on the list, but we didn'tread the list and then when he got here it turnedout that, you know, one office is investigating himand the other is giving him a green card as areligious instructor, you know, not our finesthour, but unfortunately a sort of a steady themeof all this. You know, if we look back at the 1993attack, we had very good reason to know that itwas coming. We had the FBI conductingsurveillance in the late 1980s of these guys asthey were conducting paramilitary training out inLong Island. We had, you know, a CIA angle tothis because they were basically funding largeparts of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, and theywere doing it through the Pakistanis who werevery sympathetic to the most anti-American

elements of the mujahideen, and then we hadthis murder of Meir Kahane, the founder of theJewish Defense League in 1990 where thatmurder was committed by a guy named El SayyidNosair, who was actually reporting to the BlindSheik even while the Blind Sheik was over inEgypt, and though it was quite clear from thestuff that was seized from him that he was part ofsomething that was much bigger and had muchmore ambitious designs than just the murder ofKahane, there was a decision made at that timeto treat that murder like it was the work of a lonegunman, in order to prevent any religiouselement from getting into the case, which I thinkwas a big mistake unfortunately.RUSH: Well, there you go, the legal situationagain, the legal circumstance seems to be presentin this in misjudging the way to actually go aboutthis and assessing the threat. But I can't help butgo back to say you only learned all this becauseyou had an informant. It's beyond dumb luck, buthuman intel is how you learned about all this.

MCCARTHY: Yes.

RUSH: And that, of course, helped you prepareyour case. What was your role in the trial againstthe Blind Sheik?

MCCARTHY: Well, I was the lead prosecutor, andthat informant turned out to be the main witnessin the case, and he was my witness, so I spent,you know, quite a bit of time studying what hehad done and also, you know, having to do theother odds and ends that you do when you do acase like this, one of which was to try to getprepared in the event the Blind Sheik decided totestify, which, you know, ultimately he didn't dobut that didn't mean we didn't have to preparefor it. And that was an eye-opener. In fact, thewhole experience in watching the dynamic of himand other people in the Muslim communitythroughout the trial was a real eye-opener forme. I wanted to believe in 1993 the stuff that wewere putting out, you know, that he basicallyperverted who was otherwise a peaceful

Page -18-

doctrine. But what I found was going through allof his thousands of pages of transcripts andstatements, was that when he cited scripture tojustify acts of terrorism, to the extent he wasquoting scripture or referring to it, he did itaccurately, which shouldn't be a surprise.

RUSH: So you went in thinking this guy might bea fringe little kooky and perverting Islam, and youwere stunned to find out that everything he saidor proclaimed had a root basis?

MCCARTHY: That's correct. There's no other wayof putting it. And it shouldn't have been asurprise. I mean, he was a doctor of Islamicjurisprudence, graduated from Al-AzharUniversity in Egypt. Why in the world I wouldhave thought that I or the Justice Departmentwould know more about Islam than he would isbeyond me now that I look back on it, but backthen I was pretty confident that we must havebeen right when we said that he was basicallyperverting the doctrine.

RUSH: Look, I've got less than 45 seconds here,and I want to spend a little time on the secondtheme. We've jumped from one to number threehere. The second theme, we touched on it a littlebit, we're at war, they declared it, we haven'treally accepted it, I want to ask if you think -- youcan ponder this during our profit center time-out,Obscene Profit Center break coming up, you canponder whether or not we have gone soft again,and I don't want to put words in your mouth, butthe time in your book I think gives me someindication of the answer. We're talking toAndrew McCarthy, author of the important andtimely Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. And we got one more segment with him. I'msure you have the time. I didn't ask you if youcould go longer than a half hour.

MCCARTHY: I'd be delighted.

RUSH: All right, we'll be back and continue afterthis.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And we resume our conversation withAndrew McCarthy; author of Willful Blindness: AMemoir of the Jihad. If you just missed it, we justfinished a discussion of Andy being the leadprosecutor on the conviction of the Blind Sheik --1993 World Trade Center -- and I want to repeatthis point because I think it's crucial. In preparingfor the prosecution and possible witnesstestimony on the stand of the Blind Sheik -- whoended up not taking the stand -- you had toprepare for it, and you assumed him to be afruitcake. Nobody, nobody's religion couldactually have things in scripture that he wasciting, and you found out everything he said wasthere. It opened your eyes, and I think this is thekind of thing... We're in the middle of apresidential campaign, and you've talked aboutthe notion here that they declared war on us, youcite 1993. We didn't take it seriously until 2001. Do you think we still take it seriously?

MCCARTHY: We're taking it less seriously. I thinkthere was a time right after 9/11, probably I putit at about 18 months -- probably into the Iraqoperation, so longer than that -- that I think wereally were taking it seriously. We certainlychanged our enforcement methods. The JusticeDepartment still had a role, but it was much moresubordinate. The military was out front, which itneeded to be in that phase, but there was arealization that it needed to be a wholesalegovernment approach. But when I read thingslike what we've heard in the last few days abouthow we're getting guidance inside thegovernment about purging our lexicon and sayingthings like jihadism and mujahideen and the likeand --

RUSH: Wait. Wait, wait, wait! Whoa, whoa,whoa, whoa! Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who's getting what? Guidance? Who in thegovernment is sending this out to who?

Page -19-

MCCARTHY: Well, the reporting that's come outsince -- I guess it was about April 24th -- is thatthe internal syncing at least in parts of theadministration -- and this is something the StateDepartment's pushed for a long time -- is that wemake a mistake call jihadism, jihadism; becausethere are all kinds of jihad, not just forceablejihad. This is how the thinking goes. And, by theway, while there may be all kinds of jihad, jihad isa military concept. That's how it grew up. That'sthe reason there is a Muslim world in the firstplace. But secondly the idea is that when you callthem jihadists, you are somehow emboldeningthem as if what they were relying on is how weregard them rather than how they seethemselves. And that you also --

RUSH: So what are we supposed to call 'em?

MCCARTHY: Well, I'm down to thinking -- as Iwrote in a piece in National Review a coupleyears ago, I think maybe -- we should just call it"Mabel" or something. Because it seems likeeverything that you say that touches on this...We're so intimidated by the idea that there's areligious label on this and everybody is so afraidof their shadow to talk about it, that wheneveryou say what is obvious -- which is that you can'ttake the "Islam" out of Islamic terror and that themain cause of this is not democracy or lack ofdemocracy; or, you know, ancient hatreds or theeconomy, poverty, or whatever our excuse is thisweek. This is driven by doctrine. You know, wehave poor people all over the world. They're notall committing terrorism.

RUSH: Are the leaders of this movement peopleof wealth? We know Bin Laden's a man of greatwealth; his family was. I don't know aboutZawahiri, but he was a doctor in Egypt. Whatabout Rahman? Are the leaders of this movementwho are getting hold of these young kids at veryimpressionable ages and turning them into littlehate missiles, are they wealthy people? I mean,so many people in this country believe that it isour usurpation and actual stealing of the world's

resources leading these poor people, thesenomads with nothing, and they just hate us forthat reason?

MCCARTHY: You know, that's a great point. Theideology that we're talking about here is 14centuries old. It existed and thrived before therewas a United States. It has commanded theallegiance of the old and the young, the rich andthe poor, the educated and uneducated -- tosome extent, Sunnis and Shi'ites, princes andpaupers. You know, you can't pigeonhole onerationale for why it exists other than the obviousone, which is that it's a matter of doctrine andthe people who believe it believe it's a divineinjunction and that mankind doesn't have a rightto make laws which run afoul of what theybelieve is the law that was handed down by Allahdirectly to Mohammed 14 centuries ago.

RUSH: We live in the United States of America,and the people who live here, many of them havenot traveled abroad; and as a result there aremany things that they take for granted and one ofthe things I think a lot of people take for grantedis that we're pretty much like the rest of theworld, except they're very impressionable andthey're told that the rest of the world hates us.They despise us because of our affluence,because our productivity, because we are a smallportion of the world's population and we use amajority of the world's resources. All thesethings, and the education system labels guiltthroughout our society. You mentioned thesepeople in the fourteenth century. One of thethings I constantly try to tell people is that -- todemonstrate the true greatness of westerndemocracies, representative republics and awestern civilization, a culture. We are all born aslittle savages. If we were not raised by parents --if we were not instructed in right and wrong,morality and so forth -- we would turn outhowever we did. These people remind me of justthat. They're being raised to behave and think asthey do. I'm talking about the jihadists, thisculture that's 1400 years old. Human beings are

Page -20-

not by instinct, not by nature good. That has tobe programmed into them, it has to be raised inthem -- and these people of course have adifferent definition. They think they are good,they're doing everything in the name of God, andyet their crimes are against humanity.

MCCARTHY: You know, Rush, that's exactly right. It actually brings me to another memory of thedynamic between the Blind Sheik and thecommunity, which was an eye-opener and afrightening one to me. We had very long defensecase in the case. It actually went on for about twomonths; and during the course of it, any numberof moderate people came in -- and they reallywere authentic moderate people. There's no wayon God's green earth they ever would havecrossed into terrorism activity. But every now andthen when they were on the stand, a question oftheology would come up, of doctrine. You know,"What does jihad mean? What does this conceptmean?" and at least three different times, theyanswered, "I wouldn't be competent to say. You'dhave to ask someone like him about that."

RUSH: Meaning Rahman.

MCCARTHY: This was the homicidal maniacsitting in the corner of my courtroom. What itflagged for me was even though these peoplewere very moderate and peaceful people -- you'dnever see them be terrorists -- they were willingin a matter of importance in their own doctrineto rely on his viewpoint of it. The second thing is,the world is exactly as you've described it, andevery place is not America. When you gooverseas -- and particularly when you go to partsof the Muslim world where there's rampantilliteracy and where they think that learning theKoran is really the kit and caboodle of what youneed in the way of education -- these fiery clerics,whatever we may think of them, are powerfullyinfluential in those parts of the world; and it's notan accident that when you have the cartoons --the Dutch cartoons come out or you have thiswoman in the Sudan who, you know, named the

teddy bear Mohammed -- it's not a big surprisethat you get riot on demand. When these guyssay, "Islam has been insulted," when they say,"Islam is under siege," a lot of people snap to.They're very influential. It's frightening, and Ithink that we underestimate at our peril howmuch influence they have.

RUSH: We're in the middle of a presidentialcampaign, and the sum total of discussion on thisfocuses on distorting McCain's statement that ifwe have to stay in Iraq a hundred years, we'll doit; talking about ending torture (of course we'rethe guilty ones); closing Guantanamo; getting outof Iraq. There is literally hardly any discussionabout the war on terror other than theDemocrats promising -- just as they promised tolower gas prices after they won the House in2006 -- that they're going to get Bin Laden. It'snot part of the presidential campaign. Granted,there are more pressing issues daily that peopleface and see now with economic circumstancesas they are. What's it gonna take? (chuckles) Ialmost hate to hear the answer to this. What's itgoing to take to wake people up again to theexistence of this threat, and just because we'vethwarted one on our soil for seven years;however we've done it, doesn't mean the threat'sgone away or is any less intense. What's it goingto take?

MCCARTHY: Well, I hope it doesn't take anotherattack, but it's probably going to take at least asense that we could be attacked that certainlyisn't present for us now -- and in terms of whatyou're talking about now, you know, I haven'tbeen the biggest McCain fan to the planet, but letme give him this much of his due. He wants toget the job done in Iraq at least insofar as itmeans defeating Al-Qaeda there. I can't stress topeople how important that is. Even if you don'tagree with why we went to Iraq in the first place-- and, you know, say we should never have beenthere --the fact is that the worst thing we everdid was pull out of Lebanon in 1983 when theMarine barracks got hit. The next worst thing we

Page -21-

probably ever did was pull out of Somalia whenthat got ugly. These people -- and when I talkabout "these people," I mean people like BinLaden and the Blind Sheik -- if used to a fair theewell as a recruiting tool this notion that they'rethe strong horse, we're the weak horse; and ifthey make it ugly enough and bloody enough forus, that we will pull out. It's like when a verystrong team plays a very weak team in sports. The strong team can never give the weak team asniff, because the minute you do and they start tothink they can win, and they start to believe inthemselves, they become much more efficient. Itbecomes much more easy for them to recruit, toraise money, to do all the things they have to doto take on a superpower. What they have goingfor them that we don't, is they have basicallyeradicated our threshold idea of what is civilizedbehavior. They are willing to do anything to win,and they're absolutely sure that history is on theirside. Unless we become more sure than we arenow that we're right, and that we have a need toshow them that however long it takes, we'regoing to do what has to be done to win; youknow, we can't rely on the fact that we're a superpower and that it's inevitable that we'll win thisthing.

RUSH: Andy McCarthy, thanks so much for yourtime. This is a book that if you don't want to getscared too much, you should read. It's timely andit's important, and we just scratched the surface. The title of the book: Willful Blindness: A Memoirof the Jihad. Best of luck with it, Andy, andthanks so much for your time here today.

MCCARTHY: Rush, thank you. I appreciate it.

RUSH: You bet. Andrew McCarthy. END TRANSCRIPT

Kay Baily Hutchinson on Ethanol

Rush conducted this short phone interview:

RUSH: I'm really excited to have with us for acouple minutes here, Senator Kay BaileyHutchison from Texas, and I wish to speak to herabout this ethanol problem because she's reallyon the case and has written an op-ed piece inInvestor's Business Daily about this. SenatorHutchinson, welcome to the program. It's alwaysnice to have you here and talk to you.

SEN. HUTCHISON: It is great to be with you, Rush. We are listeners in our family. We think you havedone a great job for kind of changing the thoughtprocesses of America.

RUSH: I appreciate that.

SEN. HUTCHISON: It's great to talk to you.

RUSH: What's going on with this? Where are weheaded with this? Why is it that you are one ofthe few voices in the elected government that'strying to stop the growth of ethanol, given theproblems apparently related to it?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, of course there are manyinterests that don't want to stop this ethanolmandate; and I think that the time has come forus to really, Rush, look at the things that we cando that might bring the cost of fuel and the costof food and gasoline at the pump down. Wecan't do a lot, but one of the few things we coulddo is put a freeze on this ethanol mandate andjust let's take a pause and not have this kind ofrequirement where we are on the one sidesubsidizing this product, but on the other side theprice is so high that it's causing really a rippleeffect throughout our food industry.

RUSH: And around the world.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Yes.

RUSH: I mean, even Prime Minister Brown issuggesting something similar to your idea, thatit's just gotten out of hand. It's just typical. I'msure people behind this, at some point -- I'll be

Page -22-

gracious -- had good intentions, but theunintended consequences of this make it clearlya boondoggle. But there's some politics involvedhere. I remember talking about this, Senator, notlong ago on the program; and I was besieged withphone calls from people in Iowa who said, "Rush,don't you know who votes for Republicans outhere?" meaning agricultural people and this sortof thing. So that's a factor in this, too. Do youfeel like you're taking any kind of a risk byproposing this?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, yes. I mean, they're in adifferent system, and they're used to it, and wehave to understand everybody's problems. Butright now the price of corn is so high, farmers aredoing great; and we don't need a mandate. Theprice will stay high, but it will just come downsome, and it will also -- I mean, yeah, I think themarket can work here. I think that farmers willcontinue to do well. But the emphasis on corn isnow crowding out people who used to plantwheat. The emphasis on ethanol is also affectingsoy and maize and palm oil. It's havingunintended consequences. I think when we dosomething in Congress and it has an unintendedconsequence, our responsibility is to assess thesituation. We're on the brink of recession. We'renot technically there yet, thank goodness, but weneed to assess where we can make a difference,and this is one area that would be relatively easy.

RUSH: Well, to us out here, it seems like ano-brainer. There are problems related with it. It's not the sole reason why transportation costsare up and fuel prices are up and food prices andscarcity are happening, but it's a contributingreason. Those of us out here who, you know, wedon't understand the day-to-day workings ofwhat goes on in these bodies such as the Houseand the Senate; it looks to us like it's not working. Stop it. It just isn't working. We've tried it. Theintentions might have been honorable, but it isn'tworking, so we move on. But if we're not going todo that, it's going to keep wreaking this damage

-- and you're right, it has ripple and residual,ancillary effects throughout the culture.

SEN. HUTCHISON: I met with a group of peoplewho process chickens -- Pilgrim's Pride, AndersonFarms, Tyson -- and they are shutting down partsof their plants, their operations. They are allgoing to report drastically reduced, not justprofits, I mean losses. They're going to have biglosses at the end of this month. And they're justsaying, they have got to have some relief. Isympathize with them. They're putting the foodon the table for us, and I've talked to cattleproducers. I've talked to pig producers. They areall saying the same thing: The cost of food andthe cost of fuel, is just killing their ability tocontinue to operate. So I think it's going to getworse, and I'd like to try to do something thatmight mitigate this and not cause the crisis.RUSH: But this is just one element. I know theagriculture community likes this. It's somethingvery profitable for them. But at the root of thisyou find liberalism. You find the environmentalmovement. This is all part of global warming; thisis all part of reducing carbon emissions, reducingdependence on oil and so forth; and none of thatis possible. Yet we go down this road becausepeople want their lives to have meaning, and sothey buy ethanol thinking they're saving theplanet and so forth. It's a devious scheme thatwe're up against. This food price, this is serious,Senator. I remember the first time I learnedwhen I was a young boy that the profit margin ingrocery stores, on food -- not the ancillary thingsthey sell, but the profit margin on food -- was oneto one and a half percent. I asked my dad, "Howcan they survive?" He said, "Son, people have toeat. Food is not a commodity. It's not somethingthat you can mess around with price-wise likeyou can other things, like electronics ortelevisions or whatever."

SEN. HUTCHISON: Right.

RUSH: Everybody has to eat. So it has to beaffordable for people from all economic ranges,

Page -23-

and it's not now. I mean people are reorientingthe way they live based on the price of gasoline,and the price of milk and rice and so forth. Thisis going to have devastating consequences if theproblems here that cause this are not reallyaddressed, and that's why I hope you succeed. Your column is very courageous.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, thank you very much. Iappreciate it. I have gotten the same kinds ofcalls that you have, but it's just, something thatwe've got to say, "Look, we did have goodintentions, but now we have a lot of otheralternative fuels." What we need to do is drill forour own natural resources.

RUSH: Amen!

SEN. HUTCHISON: We need to go into ANWR.

RUSH: Amen.

SEN. HUTCHISON: We need to go into the OuterContinental Shelf where we have our ownresources that can help us through this. We needto continue to do research into other forms ofrenewable energy. Besides solar and windenergy, we can also use waves and currents inthe Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and Pacific. We've got so many alternatives that we need topursue. We need more nuclear power plants. Weneed more refineries. These are things thathonestly, Rush, the Democrats are stopping inCongress. Every time we put forward somethingthat could really make a difference, theDemocrats are stopping it.

RUSH: Why do you think that is, Senator?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, I think they wronglybelieve that it's going to hurt the environment todrill in ANWR.

RUSH: Yeah.

SEN. HUTCHISON: ANWR is an area the size ofthe state of South Carolina. The part that wouldbe drilled is an area the size of JFK airport orWashington National Airport or Dallas Love Field. It's an area the size of an airport that would bedrilled because the new technology allows us todrill underground for just hundreds of yards andyou don't have to have a lot of wells to drillanymore. But they're not acknowledging that. The people of Alaska want this. They have hadreferenda. They want the jobs, they want theeconomic security, and they know it won't hurtthe environment. Yet we cannot get a billthrough Congress that would allow drilling in thatsmall part of ANWR. These are the kinds ofthings that just don't make sense when the priceof gasoline is so high.

RUSH: Ah, sadly, they do make sense if youunderstand Democrats. I know you do. We'retalking, by the way, with Senator Kay BaileyHutchison from Texas. Now, yesterday thepresident made a presentation on energy andsaid much of the same thing you just said here;and Senator Schumer from New York went outand responded to it and said, "If we starteddrilling in ANWR today we wouldn't have a dropof oil for ten years." Well, of course, Bill Clintonvetoed the first time this came up in 1994. Wecould have been at this four years according tohis ten-year plan. He also said something thatmathematically doesn't make sense. He said thatthis million barrels a day that ANWR wouldproduce would reduce the price of gasoline or oil-- I forget which one he specified -- by a penny. Well, that's absurd, because when the price ofoil... When we lose a million barrels in the supply,does the price only go up a penny? They're usingscare tactics, here. We need resources. We needour oil, and you got Schumer out there saying,"No, it wouldn't matter," and they're misleadingpeople thinking that there's a substitute for itright around the corner when there's not.

SEN. HUTCHISON: You're right. When PresidentClinton vetoed ANWR, we would have been

Page -24-

producing. But I totally disagree and reject theargument that it would be ten years. We couldstart drilling in ANWR, and I think within a coupleof years you would start seeing the results. Butmore important, if we were drilling there andpeople in the market, in OPEC -- if the peoplewho are hedging in the market for futures in thisoil industry. If we were drilling in ANWR -- do youthink the price would stay up? No. People wouldknow that there would be an availability. Theywould know that there was going to be a realdifference in what we could produce. The onemillion barrels a day is the amount we importfrom Saudi Arabia every day. That's what wewould be getting from our own resources andcontrol it; and that doesn't count what we coulddo if we were drilling off the Atlantic and thePacific, in environmental safe ways. That's thekey. If we took control of our own destiny, wecould become energy independent andself-sufficient and not depend on places thatdon't like us very much like Venezuela.

RUSH: All this makes so much sense that we outhere don't understand why it isn't done. Weunderstand the politics of liberalism and theDemocrats trying to create as much chaos as theycan for reelection purposes in November, butthey consistently oppose this kind ofindependence; despite the fact they're the onesclaiming and whining and moaning howdependent we are. But they're the ones thatalways stand in the way of becoming energyindependent, and there has to be more to it thanjust their own desire for electability. I think it's alittle bit more hideous than that. I know youwouldn't want to comment on that. But this isreally serious stuff to all of us. The price ofeverything going up all based on the price of oiland energy. It's all related. There's an ideologicalgroup out there, the environmentalists, who areget... They're the only ones that are happy withthis. They're getting everything they want out ofthis. Of course, the people they donate to andvote for are thus happy about it, too; and thecountry, in the meantime, suffers.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, Rush, if we would do this-- if the Democrats and if the people understandthis issue enough to force them. If we could openrefineries, make it easier to do so; open nuclearpower plants, which is the cleanest form ofenergy at the best, most efficient prices that wecould possibly produce it; and drill in ANWR, theOuter Continental Shelf and deep drilling in theGulf Coast, we could be a country that doesn'thave to rely on anyone else. I think we need tomake this an issue in this election.

RUSH: I couldn't agree more.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Don't let the Democrats get bywith saying, "Oh, it's just terrible that the price ofgasoline is high, and it's the president's fault." Itis not the president's fault. It's the Democrats inCongress who continue to keep us from drilling inANWR. We had almost enough, 60 votes, to passthat last time. We were one vote short, couldn'tget it, and so here we are again.

RUSH: Quick question, last one. I know you haveto go. Senator Obama's running a campaign on"unity" and solving these kind of problems. Couldhe bring people together on this, Senator, torenew our effort to become energy independent?

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, I haven't seen any ideasyet from the Democrats that would actually makea difference in our energy independence. That'sthe key. It's walking the walk as well as talkingthe talk. We've got to have real action whichcould be done right now in Congress today. TheDemocrats are in control of both houses, and yetwe can't even get free trade agreements withColombia much less an open trade --

RUSH: Oh, that's dead, and that's just to protectthe unions.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, it's just wrong. We'vegot to have action, and we could make adifference in our energy independence -- and wecould certainly make a difference in price,

Page -25-

because I think the price of oil would start fallingwhen the other countries that produce oil seethat we are taking our destiny in our control. Icannot leave before I say that I listen to you onWBAP when we're home in Dallas. So I hope thatyou keep running there so that all thesemessages get out.

RUSH: Thank you, Senator, very much. Iappreciate that. It's nice to get so much timewith you today. We really appreciate it.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Thank you, Rush. It's great tobe with you.

RUSH: Same here. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchisonof Texas.

More Info:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=294015465776712

Rush: Obama’s Courage

At first, Obama was praised for his courage fornot throwing old friend Reverend Wright underthe bus. Now, he is praised for throwing Rev.Wright under the bus.

Discuss:

RUSH: This I predicted. I'll give you an examplehere last night. For those of you who weren'there yesterday, I want to validate that I predictedthis. This is what I said on yesterday's program.

RUSH ARCHIVE: So we'll watch the Drive-ByMedia tonight do their best to spin this into anact of courage, something that's worthwhile ofthe Kennedy School of Government's award forthe Profile in Courage. You know, every yearCaroline Kennedy awards a Profile in CourageAward to a great political operative. TheKennedys have endorsed this guy, right? The

Kennedys have endorsed this guy. So this is goingto be spun as an act of political courage today.

RUSH: We have put together, ladies andgentlemen, a montage of the Drive-By Media thelast 24 hours. We have here the Reverend AlSharpton, former president Jimmy Carter,Democrat analyst Tanya Acker, the ReverendEugene Rivers, Pat Buchanan, Chris Wallace ofFox, David Mattingly at CNN all talk about BarackObama's courage.

SHARPTON: Barack Obama showed a real profilein courage.

CARTER: I think it's very wise and courageous.

ACKER: He did something politically courageous.

RIVERS: He was very courageous and is to becommended for the courage he exhibited.

BUCHANAN: You feel sort of anguish for BarackObama.

WALLACE: You could feel his personal anguish.

MATTINGLY: A very private anguish.

RUSH: Whereas the reaction on this programwas precisely the right reaction. The Drive-ByMedia, left and right, you heard Pat Buchanan inthere, the left and the right talking about howthis was courageous. This is a classic illustration.I know these people like every square inch of myglorious naked body, ladies and gentlemen,predicted this right down the path. Newspaperstories, our old friend Carla Marinucci in the SanFrancisco Chronicle: "Obama Praised forRebuking His Pastor." Here's a quote from JamesTaylor, who teaches politics and black history atthe University of San Francisco. "Wright 'seemsto have gone on a path that might actuallybenefit Obama in a twisted way,' Taylor said.'Now, instead of being associated with him, wesee a break -- so now it's Barack Obama versus

Page -26-

Jeremiah Wright. And that's more to (Obama's)advantage.' ... But his handling of the Wrightcontroversy, many political observers said,appeared to be effective. Barbara O'Connor,professor of political communication at CaliforniaState University, Sacramento, 'He satisfied theconcerns of those willing to be satisfied. ... He'sbeing intellectually honest.'"

Professor O'Connor, he was everything butintellectually honest in this speech. In fact, wehave learned, ladies and gentlemen, that theprimary reason why he did the speech was thathe did polling the night before to find out wherehe stood on this. That's why he waited all thattime from Friday when Wright appeared on BillMoyers, then did the press club thing on Monday. Obama reacts yesterday. He was polling it. I'llhave the details coming up. The New York Times:"'Mr. Obama and Reverend Wright.' It was themost forthright repudiation of an out-of-controlsupporter that we can remember. We would liketo say that it will finally take the racial charge outof this campaign. We're not that naive." And thenthey go on to say that McCain ought to now stopthe North Carolina GOP ad and let's have a realdiscussion on race. I kid you not. I predicted this,folks. Boston Globe today, Peter S. Canellos,"Candidate Faces Down his Former Pastor, butWhat Took So Long?" Obama did disinvite Wrightback in 2007, and we're going to get into thedetails of this, ladies and gentlemen, because theDrive-Bys, we knew what they would do. Theywould do everything they could to paper over thefact that this was a damaging speech that Obamadid, the little press conference yesterday. Let memake a brief observation.

Let me give you the poll data first because I'msure you want to know this. This is from Ace ofSpades, which is a blog. "The word on the streetis that Barack Obama did not repudiate or further'distance' himself from Wright last night, butrather waited until today, because he was pollingon whether he should make the move all night. That's the word on the street. The word from

Mary Katharine Ham's dad confirms that, as he, aNorth Carolina resident, did receive just such apoll," on Monday night. So Obama was pollingwhat to do. Everything about this man is straightdown the line average, typical, run-of-the-millcookie-cutter politician. He just happens to be anextreme left-wing radical. Another question Iwould have, ladies and gentlemen, for you. Is itlikely that we know Barack Obama's preacherbetter than Barack Obama does? Well, that iswhat it is being made to sound like. I think this isa crucial point, my friends, because we are beingtold here that Barack Obama didn't know what hewas doing, didn't know what his preacher wassaying.

The story is now coming out, Barack wasn't evenin church that much, and that's why he didn'thear some of these things. So we knew Wrightbetter than Obama. Does that make any sense? Obama chose the guy. This guy is his preacher,and yet Barack has to go out, "I didn't know anyof this." The dirty little secret here is that Obamadidn't give a rat's rear end what Wright wassaying until Wright went after him. When Wrightwas going after America and ripping America toshreds with his hate America rhetoric that wasfine with Obama. But when he went afterObama, that made it personal, and he hidesbehind the notion that Wright was amplifying allof this beyond the sermons and beyond thepulpit. Everybody's been smoked here. Thepeople on the left, the Obama supporters want tobe smoked. They bent over forward and grabbedthe ankles and say "have at me" and do whateverit takes. The story is out today that thecongressional superdelegates, "It's over." Theyhave chosen Obama, not officially but somebodyhas done a head count. The congressionalsuperdelegates have chosen Obama.

It's in The Politico today. "Obama May Win HillSuperdelegate Fight." Superdelegates are notmoving. They're just waiting to announce forObama. They've already decided. There's amajority of them in Congress just waiting to

Page -27-

announce and so forth. But I want to go back tothis business that we supposedly know JeremiahWright better than Obama does. He went to theMillion Man March, and who was the speaker atthe Million Man March? Louis Farrakhan. That'swhere he got this big speech on the number 19. This Wright guy I think is probably Nation ofIslam. His bodyguards at the National Press Clubare Nation of Islam. He knows everything Wrightstands for. Obama's church gave Farrakhan theDr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award, didyou know that? Obama's church gave Farrakhanthe Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Trumpeter Award. It is absurd, ladies and gentlemen, to believe thatObama knew less about this man than we do, butthat's what he's asking us to believe, is it not?

Much more straight ahead. Lots to do on theprogram today, not through with the Obama stuffbecause there's some stories in the press thatcontradict, most notably the New York Post heretoday with Fred Dicker, what this is all about withObama and his preacher. BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You remember Barack Obama complainedthat George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibsonin the Philadelphia debate -- and Mrs. Clinton, ofcourse -- were dwelling on distractions by goingafter Obama and Reverend Wright. They werejust distractions. "Can't we get back to theissues?" Well, a question, ladies and gentlemen. If that's true, why has Obama acceded now anddecided to dwell in the distractions himself? Which is what he did yesterday. Barack Obamalaunched an entire news cycle over this very issuethat just days ago he condemned as a distraction. Nothing has changed about Wright's message. AsI so keenly, brilliantly pointed out yesterday:There's nothing Wright said over the past fourdays that he hasn't said in the last 20 years. What apparently miffs Obama is that he'samplifying it from beyond the pulpit and that he'staking it out on Obama personally. But Obama'sacting like, "This stuff is offensive. I can't dealwith this stuff."

I refuse to believe that Obama did not know this. I refuse to believe that I, El Rushbo, and you, theaudience in this program, know more aboutReverend Wright than Senator Obama does. Irefuse to believe that. Yet that is what we arebeing asked to believe. The only thing that'schanged is that Obama's no longer able to duckand deny this. So now, because of Obama's ownchoosing, it is a major germane issue. It's not adistraction any longer. So was he telling the truththen or is he telling the truth now? As we havelearned, polls are driving his reconsideration toaddress Wright's message. It is simply impossibleto believe that he could have been unaware of it;even if he attended infrequently, which is thelatest attempt they are making: "Well, he didn'tgo that much." Black liberation theology isracially oriented. It's the opposite of whatObama claims to stand for. He chose a churchespousing liberation theology.

Yet he's running on a completely differentideology. So he chooses one thing for his privatelife -- and that would be spiritual nourishmentfrom a racist anti-American divisive pastor --claims on the other hand that he will lead thecountry to unity in his public life. To me, this istypical liberalism, promoting the lie that he candivorce his private self from his public one. Barack Obama has fully exposed himself as acon-summate fraud. And, by the way, some ofyou might say, "Con-summate? It'sconsum-mate!" No. Well, it is. It's both. Back inthe old days, in the glory days of radio, beforethere was television; if you wanted to go to workfor NBC you had to go in and do a live audition,and they gave you sentences, and one of thewords that they gave you was "consummate,"and if you didn't pronounce it con-summate, youcouldn't pass the audition. I kid you not. It hassince evolved to consum-mate, but the originalpronunciation in the official annals of NBC -- backin the old days when there really were broadcaststandards -- con-summate was the way that itwas pronounced.

Page -28-

That's just a little aside. Now, Barack Obama saidyesterday, "'I am outraged by the comments thatwere made. I am saddened by the spectacle thatwe saw yesterday.' The candidate said that afterwatching Wright's appearance Monday, 'Whatbecame clear to me was that he was presentinga worldview that contradicts what I am and whatI stand for.'" When did that become clear,Obama? None of this, none of this washes. Thesycophantic treatment and reaction to this in theDrive-By Media is precisely why there is a NewMedia. That was journalistic malpractice the waythis was reacted to last night and the way that itwas reported. And I want to go through a couplesound bites here to illustrate some of thecontradictions. Now, remember, Barack Obamadid his best to distance himself from JeremiahWright. But before Obama spoke -- and this iskey -- when Wright was on Moyers and whenWright appeared at the Press Club, the Drive-ByMedia, both nights, tried to sanitize Wright.

They all said, "Oh, what a great speech this was!What marvelous, marvelous intelligence this manhas!" They did everything they could to spin andrecast the actual words and intentions ofJeremiah Wright. So after the Drive-By Media,which is in the tank for Obama, goes out andspins Wright as, "Hey, that was really great. Thatwas good," Obama then goes out and says, "Ican't handle this. I'm not going to listen to this. Iam disowning this man." But the Drive-Bys are sofar in the tank, Obama contradicts his ownbackers in the Drive-By Media, and yet theysweep it under the rug. Now, what we've donehere is I've put together some examples of theaudience applauding various things that Wrightsaid at the National Press Club. Some of theapplause is tepid, but some of it is not. We'veleft the applause in so you can get an idea howthe audience reacted to the words of JeremiahWright.

WRIGHT: This most recent attack on the blackchurch -- it is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. Itis an attack on the black church. (wild applause)

RUSH: Right on, right on, right on! Keep in mind,Obama has disavowed all of this. Here's the nextone.

OBAMA: I do not subscribe to the views that heexpressed. I believe they are wrong. I think theyare destructive.

RUSH: So the media and everybody in theaudience is applauding what Wright said, andObama is denouncing.

WRIGHT: You cannot do terrorism on otherpeople and expect it never to come back on you.Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wrightbombastic, divisive principles. (applause)

RUSH: Right on, right on, right on, right on. Some of the tepid applause. Here's Obama.

OBAMA: When he equates the United States'wartime efforts with terrorism, uh, then, uh,there are no excuses. Uh, they offend me. Uh,they rightly offend all Americans, uh, and, uh,they should be denounced.

RUSH: See, but he's just learning this? He's justlearning this? We're dealing with a typical liberalhere, folks. He's tried every which way. He's triedas hard as he could to keep Jeremiah Wright inthe close circle. Finally, it got to the point wherehe couldn't because he was polling it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: It was reported yesterday, ladies andgentlemen, that Barack Obama was angry;seething, in fact. I didn't see this, but I sawsomebody slinking, shoulder slumped. I sawsomebody defensive and quiet, a little bit sad;maybe, depressed. I didn't see this anger. But alot of people said that Obama was very madabout this yesterday. Andrea Mitchell, NBCNews, Washington, was on the Scarboroughprogram today on MSNBC; and he asked her,"What do you think of the Obama statement

Page -29-

yesterday? Was it enough to finally put thisbehind him?"

MITCHELL: I should point out that, quite to mysurprise, when he was out on the stump lastnight; once again, Obama was kind of trivializingit, saying, "Well, my opponents are making fun ofme," and, "They say that I don't put my hand overmy heart," and, "They talk about my, you know,former pastor's crazy statements." So he wastrying to blame it on McCain, Hillary, whoever;rather than on what he earlier said in a very in a,you know, specific and dramatic way.

SCARBOROUGH: Wow, that's interesting.

MITCHELL: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: So he's downplaying it again assilly?

MITCHELL: Well, out there on the stump he was. Only hours after this, as I say, very public divorce.

RUSH: All right. So right after the very big publicdivorce, the big press conference where he wasangry and hurt, Obama is back to calling Wright'scontroversy silly. In other words, the pressconference was an act. The press conference wasstaged for the Drive-Bys. When Obama gets backout and is talking to the peeps and the voters,he's not continuing. "I was mad. I was hurt." No,no, no. It's all back to silly. This whole thing wasa show yesterday, and the Drive-Bys fell for it, astypified... Now, Scarborough is not a Drive-By, buthe asked a question here that a lot of theDrive-Bys were asking of each other last night: "Do you think he put it behind him? Do you thinknow we put it behind him? Gosh, I hope..."They're not analyzing it substantively. "Do youthink he put it behind him? Do you think this is allit took? Can we get this behind him, now?" That's what they want, and that's of course goingto be up to the Reverend Wright. BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To Gainesville, Florida, Alan, welcome tothe EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. This is Alan fromGainesville, Florida.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: I want to tell you that you're a veryimportant part of our family. We listen to youevery day. I have a couple homeschooled boys athome, my wife and I, and we listen to you everysingle day.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.

CALLER: A very personal relationship. You know,when we listen to you on the radio, we really feelthat you're part of our family. We even call youUncle Rush. But the reason I called is to tell youabout my father-in-law in Maryland. He's amechanic, a lifelong Democrat, all his friends arelifelong Democrats. I was talking to him aboutOperation Chaos. He told me that he is part ofOperation Chaos, but he did not change hisregistration. What he did is vote for Clinton inthe Maryland primary, all his pals voted forClinton, all their wives voted for Clinton, all theirrelatives voted for Clinton. They were allregistered Democrats. The reason they wantedto vote for Clinton, to, you know, corrupt the --not corrupt, but, you know, change the outcomein Maryland 'cause Obama was very popular inMaryland.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: But then they told me, "Well, whatwe're going to do, we're going to vote for Clintonand then we're vote for McCain in the generalelection."

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: Without changing the registration.

Page -30-

RUSH: Yes, this sadly doesn't surprise me. This issomething that we haven't discussed much. It'sa phenomena that we know exists, OperationChaos operatives who are already Democrats. This is something that the Drive-Bys -- and Ihaven't wanted to talk about this, 'cause thiswould alert the Drive-Bys and the Democrat voterregistrars to look at their own voters rather thanOperation Chaos operatives, and you can't havea better stealth operative than somebody who'salready a Democrat, who is following ordersi s s u e d b y m e , C - i n - C U S O C , t h eCommander-in-Chief US, Operation Chaos. Butnow we're near the end of the process. I thinkwe can readily acknowledge and let it be knownhere just as you've done here that there areplenty of Operation Chaos operatives who havealready registered Democrats because they areDemocrats.

CALLER: You have Operation Chaos membersembedded in the university faculty here. Theycome to my office, they close the door, and theysay, "Operation Chaos."

RUSH: In Gainesville? No kidding. Gainesville. Well, now this is something. You are alerting meto troop levels that I was unaware of.

CALLER: We're here.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. Alan, thanks somuch for the call.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush.

RUSH: Appreciate it. Faculty members at theUniversity of Florida come to his office and closethe door and say, "Operation Chaos." (laughing)

Brad in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, welcome tothe EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's a real pleasure.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Oh, you're welcome. I listened to thebusiness yesterday with Obama denouncingReverend Wright, and I thought I'd listen to howChris Matthews and the Hardball people dealtwith it. They had a roundtable and AndreaMitchell was there and another fellow and somefemale reporter. And it was going about as onemight imagine with those folks --

RUSH: Let me --

CALLER: -- female reporter says, "This might beto Obama's advantage." And she alluded toHillary in New Hampshire breaking down andgetting sort of the sympathy vote.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And she then said, "Obama is havingtrouble with the white women voters," and shesaid how they then might feel sorry for him, sothey played the victim card a couple of hoursafter this announcement, and I thought to myself,"Isn't Rush just going to love this."

RUSH: We predicted it. We predicted sympathy,that they would be sympathetic, and that theywould say it was courageous. Now, a question,because I saw a little bit of Hardball yesterdayafternoon. Is the female reporter you're talkingabout Tamron Hall? Was she from Chicago?

CALLER: Yes. Yes, she was because she attendedthat church of Reverend Wright's.

RUSH: I watched this and I was fascinated by itbecause she's an anchor! She's a news anchor atPMSNBC, and they had her on offeringcommentary because she's from Chicago, and soshe was the south side of Chicago expert in theroundtable yesterday.

CALLER: Hm-hm. Yes. That's correct.

RUSH: That's who it was. All right.

Page -31-

CALLER: That was she, hm-hm.

RUSH: Look, I appreciate the call out there, Brad. Thanks very much. Yeah, it was a sympathy play,and "Is this going to be it? Can we get this behindhim now?" They so want this to be over, becausethey are in the tank for Barack Obama.

Obama praised for rebuking his pastor

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/29/MNDF10DP4I.DTL&type=politics

Page -32-