In this Issue:

Predictions

Observations of the Week

Missing Headlines

Obama “Meets the Press”

Foreclosure Moratorium

Global Warming Update

The Washington Atheists

Talking Points Memo 12/8/08

by Bill O’Reilly

Links

The Rush Section

Remember Obama’s Changing Stories?

Obama’s vision for America

How Did Michelle Obama Get Her Job?

Would You Buy a Car from Congress?

Rush Has Been Fired too

Additional Rush Links

Too much happened this week! Enjoy...

If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

I do not accept any advertising nor do I charge for this publication. I write this principally to blow off steam in a nation where its people seemed have collectively lost their minds.

"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody can do anything about it." An old (and wise) proverb.

James Taranto (partially quoting Blagojvich): [Blagojevich] "You might hear a couple of words that you might not hear publicly, but those are only adjectives to describe maybe some of you," he told reporters.

ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that he thinks that they should put this all together and then have HARRIS or somebody go talk to the Tribune owners and say, "Look, we've got decisions to make now. . . moving this stuff forward (believed to be a reference to the IFA helping with the Cubs sale) . . . someone's gotta go to [Tribune Owner], we want to see him . . . it's a political f---in' operation in there." . . . ROD BLAGOJEVICH said Tribune Owner should be told "maybe we can't do this now. Fire those f---ers." . . . ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that "our recommendation is fire all those f---ing people, get 'em the f--- out of there and get us some editorial support." . . . ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will appoint "[Senate Candidate 1] . . . but if they feel like they can do this and not f---ing give me anything . . . then I'll f---ing go [Senate Candidate 5]."

As you can see, ROD BLAGOJEVICH employed the expletive in question as an adverb, a noun and a verb as well, so that he was lying when he said "only adjectives." Or maybe he's just modest about his dazzling verbal skills.

Newt Gingrich: “Secretary Paulson will go down in history as the worst secretary of the treasury ever.”

Bill O’Reilly interviews Deepak Chopra and his son Gotham (two nice guys who are completely removed from reality—they think, for instance, that if we start to send doctors to Muslim counties, that Muslims will start to love us) and then, in another segment, Ted Turner (who did not even seem to be aware that the North Vietnamese slaughtered over 1 million people in the streets after we left Vietnam); and so Dennis Miller observed, “These 3 guys make Bush seem like Stephen Hawkins on a Ginkgo Biloba drip.”

1) Charles Krauthammer pointed out that preventative medicine does not reduce medical costs. He cites smoking as an example of this—we have reduced smoking in the United States, with the result that people are living longer and, as you get older, you require more health-related services.

2) The United Auto Workers Union put the kibosh on the auto bailout bill. There was only one hurdle, and that was to set a date certain for UAW contracts to be negotiated for a significantly lower amount. UAW said no, and the auto industry is not bailed out.

3) These various bailouts, which will possibly keep us from experiencing any short-term discomfort, will likely foist long-term discomfort to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. They are the ultimate legacy of the Me-generation. Could we also list universal health care—coming to us just when Baby Boomers need it most—as a part of this legacy?

4) Dick Morris points out that, when we go from 250 million people to 300 million people covered by the same number of health care professionals, the end result can be nothing other than rationed health care.

5) Bear in mind, right now, most people think we are paying way too much for health care. Who in their right mind thinks that, once government gets involved, that costs will go down?

6) Jeremiah Wright is back, and he pointed out to his congregants that Dec. 7^th marked the day that we dropped bombs on Hiroshima. So, he is not just a brilliant theologian, but an historian of note as well.

7) Al Gore does not want any sort of cabinet position with Obama. First of all, no way will he take a salary cut (he makes far too much money on global warming); and, if he became the global warming czar (ahem, climate change czar), he might be forced into revealing how much money he has made on this global warming scam.

8) The biggest problem with the auto industry and the UAW is that people are paid not to work, and paid handsomely for this. This includes retired workers and those who have been laid off. There are previous employees who make more in retirement than they did as employees. This is killing the big 3 automakers. California is beginning to discover the same thing, as many of its public employees begin to retire. They have been promised such a nice retirement package throughout the years, that they are driving California into bankruptcy.

9) Keep your eyes on Bob Corker (R Senator of Tennessee) who is one of the few voices of reason in this whole auto bailout fiasco.

10) Charles Krauthammer believes that Obama has very little interest in foreign affairs and is going to leave most of that in the hands of Hillary Clinton and Bob Gates. His interest is in huge public works projects, ala FDR, to fundamentally change out society.

11) Do you recall how no Democrat seemed all that concerned about William Jefferson having $90,000 in his icebox, but, with Blagojevich, he has got to step down immediately?

12) It is also interesting that District Attorney Fitzgerald has suddenly stopped the Blagojevich investigation before other Chicago politicians get too drawn into this process? Most of the time, these investigations are allowed to play out, so that all the corruption can be excised.

13) One of the things which is ignored when Obama talked about his massive public works program is the environmental impact, and the opposition he will face from environmental groups. When FDR did these massive public works programs, there was nothing which stood in his way.

Chris Wallace interviews Condoleezza Rice on FoxNews Sunday. Excellent interview. Also, she gives an outstanding justification for our involvement in Iraq, even knowing what we know today.

The visuals of their newest plant is amazing, and it will take more than 50 years to deplete the oil supplies in this one plant.

Senator Corker answers a few questions on the auto-bailout (credit CNBC for this interview):

A mini-nuclear plant is about the size of a small shed and it can power 20,000 homes. One company plans on producing about 400/year.

In the Netherlands a wind farm consisting of 9 turbines (each taller than the Statue of Liberty or Big Ben—just over 300 feet or 94 meters in height, with 40 meter blades) can also power up 20,000 homes. The footprint for 9 wind turbines would be somewhere between 2 and 4.5 acres (which would allow for 20–50 mini-reactors).

Although the mini-nuclear reactor will function 24/7, other power backups must be designed for any wind farm, as the wind does not blow 24/7.

1) Although Obama is probably relatively clean with respect to Blagojevich, will there be a sacrificial lamb offered up from his cabinet? I give this a 50-50 possibility, before knowing the facts, that Rahm Emanuel may get offered up. If Emanuel was the one who dropped the dime on Blagojevich (unaware of the wiretaps), he would stay on Team Obama. No matter what Obama has denied so far, Emanuel has talked to Blagojevich about who ought to fill Obama’s Senate seat.

2) Depending upon Obama, mini-nuclear reactors will become the new thing for new neighborhoods being built. Although there will be a big deal made of the first several mini-reactor neighborhoods (with demonstrations as well), soon (in the next 10 years), they will become commonplace, and a mini-power supply will be set up much like a water district or water source for each neighborhood is set up.

Bear in mind, environmentalists will, at some point in time in the next 2 decades), begin to demonstrate against wind farms.

3) Bill O’Reilly predicted, and I concur, that there will be several Oscar awards for “Milk.” This is how Hollywood reacts to prop 8. I would add, “Milk” will take home at least 2 major Oscars.

4) This is pretty obvious, but I am going to lay it all out just the same: the UAW (the United Auto Workers) is going to give up little or nothing with respect to the auto bailout. The UAW are part of Obama’s constituency and part of the Democratic constituency, so they just need to hold on for a little more than a month, and Obama is going to give in to their demands. That is why the head of the UAW can blatantly lie to the media (Ron Gettelfinger, the president of the UAW, has been saying stuff like “Our workers make the same as the workers of the foreign car companies in the US” and “We have already give significant concessions”) and why he killed the auto bailout deal, which simply required him to give the go-ahead to the Democratic Senate. He has blamed the Senate Republicans for the death of the auto bailout. He is figuring that George Bush will step in and give an interim loan to the automakers (he will) and that Obama and company will keep the automakers solvent for the next 4–8 years (depending on the length of his presidency). However, look for much of this auto legislation to be tacked onto other bills after the first one that Obama signs. There will be the addition of “Oh, yeah, let’s give the automakers another $15 billion” as a part of a stimulus bill or a part of a major government project. What I don’t know is, will the news media keep us informed?

If Bush is able to get some legislation through which requires some real UAW concessions, then I will be quite impressed. However, I just don’t see that as happening.

5) Obama is going to have to get realistic about the detainees in Club Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay). There are 250 people left there, many of whom cannot be convicted in a US court for perpetrating and/or conspiring acts of violence against the US or US soldiers. Many of these men were picked up on the battlefield and, quite obviously, no evidence was gathered like on a crime scene. Some of their home countries will not take them back; some will take them back and they will be tortured there; and what president will say, “Hey, we don’t have enough to convict them in the US courts, so we are going to do the moral thing and just cut them loose in the US.” If Obama does this, he will be a one-term president. The left went crazy over Club Gitmo, and any discomfort which these terrorists had been subjected to, but, absolutely no real alternate solution has ever been offered up. It was just a another talking point used to bash Bush.

6) With regards to the long-term effects of Blagojevich on Obama, this is certainly going to be more than a 24 hour cycle over even a 1 week cycle story. However, even though the press seems to finally being doing its job, I don’t know how much they are going to push this. However, I bet that Kass’s columns in the Tribune have given them somewhat of a boost of readership. There are two things which are going to be potentially embarrassing to Obama: Rahm Emanuel’s language when shooting the breeze with Blagojevich and if Rahm said, “Let me talk to the boss man, and I will get back to you on the terms for this Senate seat.” (he will have enough sense to speak in code).

Now, do you know what really might entangle Obama? If it turns out that Michelle Obama got her cushy job at the hospital through corrupt politics.

I have been hoping that Obama is going to be more of a realist than an ideologue, but, at least according to his words, that is not going to be the case.

On December 7, 2008, Obama was interviewed by Tom Brokaw for Meet the Press. To a conservative like myself, when it came to domestic policy, it was a rather disconcerting interview.

Brokaw also conducted one of his worst interviews ever. Brokaw: “Sixty-seven years ago this day, one of your predecessors, Franklin Roosevelt, faced Pearl Harbor....What are the differences between his challenges and the ones that you face?” Are you [bleeping] kidding me? My apologies, but Governor Blagojevich has convinced me that I need to pepper up my language a bit. Our economy is like the economy passed of from carter to Reagan (and, to a lesser extent, like the economy under Clinton in 1993 and the economy which Clinton handed off to Bush in 2001). Obama, to his credit, pointed out that times were not nearly as tough right now as they were for our grandparents.

When talking about the auto manufacturers, Obama blamed management for their bad decisions, for their failure to adapt to a changing world, but at no time did he say anything negative about the UAW or their benefits packages or the fact that millions of dollars are spent on people who are not working. If Obama is unable to identify one of the basic causes of the auto industry problem, how can he come up with a solution?

The same can be said about Obama and the current mortgage crisis. If he cannot admit or does not recognize the part that government played in screwing this up, how can he be trusted to fix it?

Obama suggests a mortgage moratorium, flippantly, as if that would not have any sort of negative ripple effect on anything. I will cover that in the next story.

Brokaw does ask at least one reasonable question, “What about the one paying his mortgage? How should he feel about his neighbor getting bailed out?” (Not an exact quote). Obama answers by saying his house is on fire, and the neighbor would certain run to his rescue (a really lame analogy).

Brokaw does a lame job when it comes to asking about the Obama tax cuts. He does not ask about those 40% who do not pay federal income tax—will they get a tax break? Nor does he ask about those small businesses (currently responsible for producing 40–60% of our new jobs) who file as individuals (and are almost all making over $250,000/year).

When answering Brokaw’s softball question, Obama, as he did in the campaign, misrepresents the Bush tax cuts as giving disproportionate tax cuts to the wealthy. That irritates me no end. I am not in that high tax bracket; however, anything over 25% strikes me as being too high of a tax rate for anyone.

Obama again reiterates his position that society will economically benefit from the bottom up. That is, give the money the wealthy make to the poor, and the economy will improve. Spoken like a man who has never had his own business and has never made a business risk in his entire life.

When dealing with the automaker problem, Obama mentioned plug-in hybrids. Now, that confuses me. Hybrid vehicles are those which run on gas and battery power. The battery is powered up by the alternator while the car is running. So, why do you need to plug the car in? I only mention this because, not only should a president be willing to reveal the causes for our problems, but they should know something about those things which they are going to propose as solutions.

Another of Obama’s solutions was quite fascinating: We have a enormously inefficient building stock, and we can save huge amounts of energy costs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by simple things like weatherization and changing the lighting in, in major buildings. That's going to be part of our economic recovery plan. It actually allows us to spend some money, put some people to work right away, but it also creates a long-term, sustainable energy future.

So, if I understand him correctly, we are going to hire an army of men to change out light bulbs? Did any of the comics pick up on this and write jokes about, “How many Obama workers does it take to change out a light bulb?”

Let me add, having been a janitor for many years, that all federal building already have employees who change out their light bulbs. Furthermore, almost all public buildings have long fluorescent tube lighting; few have incandescent lighting.

There is one more thing I wanted to point out, which just struck me as being flat-out strange: one two occasions, Brokaw suggested certain politicizes to Obama:

MR. BROKAW: A number of people--Paul Ingrassia, as a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter from The Wall Street Journal has said we ought to have a government-structured bankruptcy and maybe even an automobile czar of some kind. One name that has come up is Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, the parent company of NBC. Does that kind of plan have any appeal for you?

Brokaw’s second suggestion: Why not take this opportunity to put a tax on gasoline, bump it back up to $4 a gallon where people were prepared to pay for that, and use that revenue for alternative energy and as a signal to the consumers those days are gone? Obama, to his credit, properly answered this question as well. People are in hard times right now; why should we increase their fuel costs?

I wonder if this is going to become a part of future press interviews with Obama? “We got you elected, now here is one of the good ideas which I think you ought to implement.” When Obama began to give a fairly good answer to this (“We don’t want the government to run companies”) Brokaw made another attempt to sell this idea.

OBAMA [concerning appointing Gen. Shinseki to a position which would not have him involved in strategy and tactics with regards to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan]: I think that General Shinseki is exactly the right person who's going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home.

MR. BROKAW: He's the man who lost his job in the Bush administration because he said that we would need more troops in Iraq than Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld thought that we would need at that time.

Wasn’t Obama against the surge? And why do you take a man who understands current strategy and tactics and put him in a position which he will have nothing to do with strategy and tactics? General Shinseki is a good man; why not appoint him to a more appropriate position?

I don’t care who proposed this (I think both Obama and McCain have suggested this), it is, to quote Rod Blagojevich, “...[bleeping] stupid.”

If you are reading this, you are probably employed or you may even employ a few people. Let’s just say the government stepped in and required that all employees be paid X amount of dollars this year (whatever, $50,000; $250,000) or let’s say that the government stepped in and required that you begin to sell this or that product or X amount of dollars. You do tax returns, so the government now requires that you charge every person $25/return or they require you charge $500/return. Or, let’s say that you have some outstanding bills out there, and the government arbitrarily decides, you need to forgive that debt or you need to reduce that debt by half. Do you see the chaos which would follow? People would get fired or laid off, fewer products would be sold (or more, if you are required to sell at a below market amount).

You just do not go into a business and change the rules on them—you just do not require that they change the amount that they pay their employees or change the amount which is charged to their customers. It does not work. The end result is a myriad of unintended consequences.

What is even more ridiculous is, the government put all of these things into motion in the first place. There are tons of bad loans out there because the government said, “We will buy these loans from you.” No bank is going to lend money to someone who is unqualified for the loan if they have to carry that loan on their own books. However, if the government says they will pick up the risk for that loan and then strongly encourage you to make such loans, then you are going to make bad loans.

The solution is not to try to take these bad loans and make them into good loans. At best, today, the government might suggest that a mortgage company look hard at their foreclosures and determine is there some way of retaining that person as a mortgage holder. However, this would be a mortgage company decision, not one made for them by Barney Frank, who knows little or nothing about the mortgage industry (or is dishonest about it).

What happens is, some people who should not have had loans in the first place go back to renting (almost no one loses their mortgage and becomes destitute, as they get to live in the house for 5-6 months for free). Investors and home buyers with good credit snatch up these housing deals and, slowly but surely, the market corrects itself.

The housing problems were imposed by government, and more government meddling will not fix the housing problem. We have the government pull back, we let the market correct itself, we let the housing market find its own bottom, we let mortgage companies choose who they will lend to, and, in a year or two (or, three), we will be back to a normal market.

Are there difficulties and unpleasantness for some home owners? Of course. However, for others, their taxes drop (because the value of their house drops), and that is the silver lining. It is not all smiles and candy canes, but that is the price that we pay when the government is allowed to interfere to promote social change.

I have lived in the Houston area for 30 years now, and I recall it snowing two times in the past, and once when I was in California. Snow in Houston really does not look much different from a thick frost anywhere else.

The other night, it snowed here, and it was a glorious snow. The snow came last Wednesday night. I looked out the window (it was nighttime, but there was a lot of light that night), and I saw a still white blanket spread over everything. There was at least 2–3 inches of snow sitting on top of my car. It was wonderful, and one of the most picturesque snows that I have ever seen. The previous snows here in Houston could not be compared to this one.

Massachusettes and New Hampshire both under weather-related states of emergency:

I know that there have to be people in these regions who are praying for global warming to come quickly.

As you know, one of the controversies in Washington State is, a realtor put up a manger scene in the state capital (I think that there may be some connection to the Federal holiday called Christmas). The atheists—who have done this elsewhere, figured this would be an idea time to get their message out there (the winter solstice being a notable atheist holiday)

Rather than display the universal symbols of atheism (the walking fish called Darwin?), the posted the following sign:

"At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Apart from the Christian faith, there really is not a lot of reasons for atheism to exist. They have to let Christians know that they (the atheists) are the ones who use reason (implying that those with faith do not), and that those who believe in any sort of religion are placing their faith in myths and superstitions which hardens their hearts (against reason, I suppose) and enslaves minds (for instance, all of the people who go to church voluntarily?).

I dropped an email to the realtor who put up this nativity scene, and suggested that, if the atheists get to spout of with their rhetoric, than we ought to be able to quote a few verses, such as:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth (John 1:1–4, 14).

As He spoke these words, many believed upon Him. Then Jesus said to the Jews who believed on Him, If you continue in My Word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:30–32).

Thomas said to Him, Lord, we do not know where You go, and how can we know the way?

Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. And from now on you know Him and have seen Him.

Jesus said to him, Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father? (John 14:5–9).

It would be fascinating to me to see, how many atheists and agnostics respond to what Jesus said as opposed to the number of Christians who respond to what some atheist said.

"The left-wing media is spinning many policy issues negatively until Barack Obama takes office. By ramping up the negative, the media can provide Obama with a cushion on the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq and other difficult problems. President-elect Obama had nothing to do with any of this - he just continues to be the beneficiary of an ideological press that loves him. By spinning the economy negatively, the media is hurting you. That's not to say the economy isn't a disaster, it is, and that's on President Bush and both political parties. But there is some good news that is largely unreported. Americans actually spent more money this year than they did last year in the days following Thanksgiving, which should have been front page news everywhere. So, what should we do? Those of us who have secure jobs should buy local, we should tip generously this Christmas season, and give as much to charity as we can. To those who are getting hammered, keep the faith, things will get better. Finally, tell the kids what's happening. This recession should be a great learning experience for all of us, even the media."

The Factor welcomed Fox News analyst Karl Rove, who contrasted recent headlines with those during the Clinton administration. "Go back to March of 2000," Rove proposed, "when the stock market peaked and we saw a 39% decline in the Dow Jones and a 78% decline in the NASDAQ before the markets bottomed out. I don't remember news organizations treating the precipitous decline in the markets under Clinton with the scare words they're using today, and the unemployment rate is lower today than at some times during Clinton's time in office." The Factor again lamented the general decline in media standards. "The press is so dishonest now that it's very troubling, and it's a calculated dishonesty."

[Here is a comparison between how the economy is being covered today and how it was covered 15 years ago]:

Why the Blacks do not buy into the so-called civil rights aspect of gay marriage:

John Kass is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, and he knows Chicago politics. If you want the most insightful approach to Blagojevich and his relationship to Rahm Emanuel and to Barack Obama, this is his main page:

This is Kass’s most recent column, about how Emanuel is the guy behind the guy:

What they do not tell you is, these meters will be able to limit your electrical usage, either through billing you much higher amounts during heavy usage times or by simply reducing the electricity available to your house.

http://christiannewswire.com/news/671308906.html (The biggest mistake that Bush made in Iraq was not to insist on anti-authority Iraqi Bill of Rights which included freedom of religion, back at a time when we had greater influence there).

Lousy title, but filled with good information. Just what concessions has the UAW offered up? How do the auto workers of the Big 3 compare to their foreign competitors?

[During the Obama campaign, when any problem arose, Obama just kept coming up with a new and improved answer/explanation until he found something that the media liked. He is doing the same thing with his team’s contact with Blagojevich].

RUSH: Let's go to the audiotape because the media is doing their best to cover the tracks on Obama here, but it's getting tough to do. He's in the middle of all of this! I mean, this is the cesspool that gave birth to Obama. Here is Obama late yesterday afternoon in Chicago. An unidentified reporter said, "Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?"

OBAMA: I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening. And as I said, uh, it's a sad day for Illinois.

RUSH: Where's your anger, buddy? You're Mr. Ethics. You ought to be livid about this! Of course he's not livid because anybody in the Chicago political machine knows what the hell goes on there. Snerdley said, "How long have the Daleys owned Chicago?" I said, "Probably since the fire, which they probably started." Joking. I'm joking. So did you catch here, Obama, "I -- I had no contact with the governor or his office so we -- uhhh, I was not aware of..." However, back on November 23rd, Chicago, Illinois, Fox News political reporter Jack Conaty is talking with Obama senior advisor David Axelrod. Conaty says, "Has Obama expressed a preference, however, who might replace him in the Senate?"

AXELROD: I know he's talked to the governor, and there are a whole range of names may of which have surfaced and -- and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.

RUSH: All right. Now, ladies and gentlemen, they put out a statement yesterday from the Obama campaign basically saying that Axelrod was wrong, that Axelrod misspoke, that Obama had not talked to the governor, but they have a problem with that now. Because on November 5th, KHQA CBS TV in Illinois (I think it's Quincy) the reporterette Carol Sowers, reportedly the day after the election, November 5th, quote: "Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the US Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled. That's one of Obama's first priorities today. He is meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon [November 5th] in Chicago, to discuss it." Now, this is two separate sources, one of them Barack's own spokesman or campaign guru, David Axelrod, "Oh, yeah."

On November 23rd, "Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. He's talked to the governor about a wide variety, wide range of names take over that seat." They say, "No, no, no. Axelrod's wrong." Did this reporter just make this up? I never heard of Carol Sowers, but did she just make it up that Obama was going to talk to Blago the day after the election? She had to be told by somebody that the meeting was scheduled. Of course, the website reporting this could be a hoax. We have to cover all bases. There are so many rumors on the Internet these days that you can't tell what's what. Maybe the meeting was scheduled and canceled.

Anyway, Senate Candidate #5 in the complaint was one who was offering, apparently, Blagojevich some loot in exchange for being selected, and ABC Brian Ross says that Senate Candidate #5 is the son of the Reverend Jackson. That would be Jesse Jackson, Jr.

He's the anonymous Senate Candidate #5 whose emissaries, Blagojevich, reportedly claimed offered up to a million dollars to name him to the US Senate. According to the FBI affidavit, Blagojevich stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate #5 that provided Blagojevich with something tangible up front. Jackson, Jr., said, "I don't know," when he was asked if he's Candidate #5, but he said he was told, quote, "I am not a target of this investigation." Let me tell you something. Jesse Jackson, Jr., has a regularly scheduled appearance on our affiliate in Chicago, The Big 89 WLS, and he canceled it yesterday. These guys in Chicago... I mean, the cockroaches are scrambling. Imagine Patrick Fitzgerald with a giant can of Raid and the Democrats are all scrambling like cockroaches because they don't want to be caught up in this and nobody knows where it's going and people are starting to ask today the question I asked yesterday.

Why the hell stop the investigation? If you've got this massive corruption going on, unheard of before, why stop it? Lots of people are asking that. And, of course, the rule of thumb answer is, "Well, we couldn't let this go appoint somebody to the Senate. Why, they'd be tainted, had to stop that." Yeah, right. By the way, Dingy Harry said, "I don't care who he appoints. If he appoints anybody, we're not going to confirm 'em. It ain't going to happen." The Supreme Court might have something to say about that. Good Morning America today, Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer had this exchange about how well Obama speaks, like I said yesterday.

OBAMA: I had no contact with the governor what -- or, uhhh -- or his office, uhhh, and so we -- I -- I -- I was not aware of, uh, what was happening.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That telling move from "we" to "I" was interesting by the President-elect Obama. I think that's because he can't be sure that no one connected to him in any way spoke with Blagojevich or emissaries of Blagojevich. The reason they can't talk about it, they say, right now is because this is an ongoing criminal investigation and they want to make sure that they have their stories straight before they go out and say anything more publicly.

RUSH: (laughing) Well, they're marveling at how quick he catches himself once he got one foot in the sinkhole. It's Clinton all over again. This is proof of the assertion that I (and I alone) made yesterday trying to help everybody understand Obama is not what he says, folks. If you attack him and parse him on what he says, you're going to get nowhere. His supporters support him because of how he says what he says.

RUSH: He didn't go out there and say, "I was mistaken." The campaign released or the office of the president-select issued a statement saying, "No, he didn't say that. Or he said it, but he was wrong, the governor never talked to Obama about this," and vice-versa. But there's a problem now because this reporter, Carol Sowers in Quincy on November 5th, CBS station, I think, reported that Obama was gonna go talk to Blago that day about who would fill his Senate seat.

CALLER: You know, here's the thing that I find amazing. I know that they think that we're all stupid. I understand that, and given the outcome of the election, I can understand why they think that. But we're not. Not every single one of us is an idiot. So if we're to believe that Mr. Axelrod was indeed just mistaken, then we also have to believe that he, the man who had Obama's ear from day one of the campaign, the man who orchestrated every move of the Obama campaign, the man who pulled the strings and told him what to say at every public appearance, because he saw what happened whenever he went off script --

RUSH: It's just too much to believe that Axelrod would go out and tell the truth and the campaign would say, "No, he's wrong, he's lying." One other point here, Cheryl, to add to the sitcom script. One thing that has come out -- and Patrick Fitzgerald made it plain and clear -- Obama was not involved. And how is Obama not involved? Well, because Blagojevich knew that Obama was not willing to give him anything in exchange for the Senate seat. How did Blagojevich know that? Why did Blagojevich call Obama the MF-er? It's because Obama wouldn't give him anything for it. Now, who told Blagojevich that Obama wouldn't give him anything? So somebody from Obama's campaign, if not Obama himself, was talking to Blago. But they're denying it. It seems to me they can admit they were and they didn't want anything to do with it because of what Blago was demanding, but they're denying, when the complaint makes it clear that they were talking.

The Associated Press is piling on Obama today. After the first story, "Questionable Associations of Obama," they actually ran a story saying that he knows Blagojevich, he knows Tony Rezko, he knows Jeremiah Wright, he knows Bill Ayers, he knows Emil Jones, he knows Rashid Khalidi, and he knows Michael Pfleger. These people in AP, they're shameless, telling us all these things now. And then there's this from Liz Sidoti: "President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal -- not of his own making -- is threatening to dog him. Obama isn't accused of anything. But the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, has been charged with trying to sell Obama's now-vacant Senate post gives political opponents an opening to criticize him. A slew of questions remain. ... Despite all that, at the very least, the episode amounts to a distraction for Obama just six weeks before he's sworn into office while he works to set up his new administration and deal with a national economic crisis. It also raises the specter of notorious Chicago politics, an image Obama has tried to distance himself from during his career." Yeah. They gave birth to him.

"There were signs the continuing investigation could still involve Obama. ... More details on the case could be forthcoming." AP says Obama's not out of the woods yet. They are clearly piling on our president-elect, ladies and gentlemen. It's unbecoming of the Drive-Bys to behave in this manner, but they are certainly doing it. I wonder if Fitzgerald could get all these guys summoned to a grand jury. I think he knows how a grand jury works. He convened one for two years to nail Scooter Libby. These guys need to go to the grand jury and tell their stories. That could be somewhat fascinating. Back to the audio sound bites. This is like a Drive-By montage on how this whole thing is just a sad, sad distraction.

RUSH: Okay, so that's the byword now, it's just a distraction, and Jeffrey Toobin said "solely a distraction." They are convinced, ladies and gentlemen, of his, not just innocence, but I mean his purity. He is so pure that even surrounded by scandal, he is unaware that it's taking place and he is incapable of being smeared by it or touched by it. And they are so sure, which is why I'm so sure, that Obama has nothing to do with this and has no culpability whatsoever because the Drive-Bys clearly know him better than I do, and they have vetted him and they know all these things. They would have told us if there were any questionable character traits held by Barack Obama. And listen, Jonathan Alter on MSNBC last night had this to say about Blago.

ALTER: I would not rule out the possibility that Blagojevich will start trying during this case to try to take down Obama with him and spread a bunch of lies about him. It's very, very possible.

RUSH: Whoa! That's quite an assertion from the anointed Jonathan Alter. He knows that Blagojevich will probably start telling lies about Obama to try to take down Obama with him. He's going to spread a bunch of lies. What lies could he possibly tell that anybody would believe? Because Obama has been vetted. What could Blagojevich say that anybody is going to believe now? Especially since Jonathan Alter has warned us and has sort of set the table here to expect Blagojevich to lie. Well, what could he possibly lie about that anybody would believe? Folks, corruption, nationalization, and propaganda. Those are the three words that describe America today. Corruption, nationalization, and propaganda. Vladimir Putin is looking at the United States right now and saying, "Damn it, they're beating me to it." This is quite a trifecta when you stop and think of this: corruption, nationalization, propaganda. We have come a long way, baby, but that's where this country is. We're being run by corrupt politicians who, with the help of propagandists in the media, are destroying the private sector.

We're on the way to becoming a socialist country. We no longer believe that the private sector can do a better job of running businesses than the public sector. Does it not frighten you a little bit that whenever any private sector business is in trouble, everybody says let the government run it, let the government fix it. The government can do it better than these frauds and these cheats. This is incredible, ladies and gentlemen. We no longer believe in risk. We no longer believe in reward and the possibility of failure, and it is failure where life's real lessons are learned. We're becoming soft out there, and a lot of people want to stay that way as a country. So the Big Three defects: corruption, nationalization, propaganda, they're all related. They work together quite well, they reinforce each other. These are the three legs of the stool of liberalism: corruption, nationalization, propaganda. There are no ethics when you have corruption, nationalization of propaganda, no ethics. And so nobody can violate any ethics. They exist to make the individual subservient to the state, and they are winning for now.

Remember Senator Moynihan? Senator Moynihan of New York talked about defining deviancy down. That's when things got so bad in a certain area that you can't fix them, you don't even try anymore and say it's normal, normal behavior. We can't stop it; we can't fix it. We have done just that. It used to be considered deviant to cheat, lie, and steal. Not to Charlie Rangel, and not to anybody in Charlie Rangel's orbit. Tell it to Barack Obama. He worked closely and helped the careers of Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers and Blagojevich and vice-versa. But it's not considered deviant to cheat, to lie, to steal. It's now clever. It's clever to be able to get away with it. Obama knew these people were corrupt. But they had no impact on him. He knew, he had to know, he came from this cesspool. He had to know that there was a corrupt place. It didn't taint him. I know, I know, he bought his house with a little help from his convicted friend Rezko. I get by with a little help from my friends. But everybody does that. Everybody has connections.

Do you realize in America, nobody does anything on their own, folks? This is the lesson you are to learn. Hard work does not get you where you want to go. Ambition is not the answer. Connections, getting help, getting sweetheart deals, not even paying wholesale, much less retail, having it given to you, that's a measure of power, that's the measure of character. So of course Obama is untainted, even though a felon arranged the purchase of his home for him at below market prices. That's brilliant. That shows he understands how the system works. You know, it used to be considered deviant to even suggest the federal government should own and operate American businesses. Today, it isn't just an option to take over an industry in a down business cycle, which is caused by corrupt liberals. It's the answer. The answer is to have the government take it over, the only option. And we're supposed to feel good about this. It used to be considered deviant to withhold news or knowingly lie and smear people who did not share the politics of the reporter or the media outlet, but tell people like Dan Rather and others who get their own television shows by doing exactly that, smearing people simply on the basis they have a different political ideology than the reporter does. So the country will now accept almost any behavior without objection. In fact, I'm not so sure that deviant behavior isn't now the preference.

RUSH: What is one of the problems, ladies and gentlemen, that exists for Blagojevich here in selling Obama's Senate seat? What's one of the problems? One of the problems is that Blagojevich is trying, among other things, to get himself a high-pay job, and he wanted to get his wife a high-pay job, right? This is called out-of-control corruption, selling the Senate seat. Well, now, how do you think Michelle Obama, our first lady select, got her six-figure community outreach job at the Chicago University hospital? She got it after her husband was elected to the state Senate where he could hand out earmarks. What, Snerdley? Well, I know it's a coincidence here, but still, we need to mention this. And even before that, he was asking for a job for Michelle. We had this July article from the New York Times. "Soon after, the faculty saw an opening and made him its best offer yet: tenure upon hiring, a handsome salary more than $60,000 he was making in the Senate seat, or the $60,000 a year in teaching part time, a job for Michelle Obama directing the legal clinic." And the New York Times, I mean, they think this is brilliant maneuvering on his part. Obama was seeking jobs for his wife just like Blagojevich was doing in selling that Senate seat.

[Interestingly enough, the link for this story still exists, but the story is no longer there]

RUSH: Holman Jenkins has a piece in the Wall Street Journal today. It's very good. It is entitled, "Would You Buy a Car from Congress?" It's a good summary. It hits a lot of points that I have raised. Congress screwed all of this up with their little CAFE standards and now they're pretending to do something to fix it, but all they're doing is feathering the nests of their unions and others and they're persisting with policies that are killing the industry. That is what they're doing. This bailout is a mandated continuation of failure.

Holman W. Jenkins, Wall Street Journal: "Leave it to Bob Lutz, GM's voluble vice chairman, to puncture the unreality of the auto bailout he himself has been championing. In an email to Ward's Auto World, he notes an obvious flaw in Congress's rescue plan now taking shape: The fuel-efficient 'green' cars GM, Ford and Chrysler profess to be thrilled to be developing at Congress's behest will be unsellable unless gas prices are much higher than today's." And Nancy Pelosi knows this, too. She's invested in T. Boone Pickens deal, natural gas cars. T. Boone Pickens, these guys need the gas price back up at four bucks fast, fast, fast. Why do you think everybody is talking about raising the gasoline tax to get the price up to four bucks? To force you into these podunk puddle jumper putt-putts. That's exactly right. They'll be unsellable unless gas prices are much higher than today's. Lutz says, "'Very few people will want to change what has been their 'nationality-given' right to drive big and bigger if the price of gas is $1.50 or $2.00 or even $2.50. Those prices will put the CAFE-mandated manufacturers at war with their customers -- and no one will win in that battle.' Translation: To become 'viable,' as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss," 'cause nobody wants them.

"None of this was mentioned at four days of congressional bailout hearings, because Detroit knows better than to suggest Congress has a role in the industry's problem. Yet its own recently updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy regime, or CAFE, makes a mockery of the idea that government money will render the companies profitable, even as the same bailout bill demands that the Big Three drop their legal challenge to a California mileage mandate even more unsustainable than the federal government's. Forget Chrysler, which has needed a bailout from Washington or Stuttgart in three of the last four recessions. The tragedy of GM and Ford is that, inside each, are perfectly viable businesses, albeit that have been slowly murdered over 30 years by CAFE. Both have decent global operations. At home, both have successful, profitable businesses selling pickups, SUVs and other larger vehicles to willing consumers, despite having to pay high UAW wages.

"All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don't want in high-cost UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. In the US, except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren't bought for high mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.

"Under a law of politics, such truths were unmentionable in last week's televised circus because legislators are unwilling to do anything about them. They won't repeal CAFE because they fear the greens. They won't repeal CAFE's 'two fleets' rule (which effectively requires the Big Three to make small cars in domestic factories) because they fear the UAW. They won't hike gas prices because they fear voters. And make no mistake: An even more massive auto wreck lies ahead when a soon-to-be taxpayer-financed and taxpayer-owned auto industry confronts a California rulemaking that, in a silly gesture against global warming, would render most of its auto designs, profit centers and tooling unsalvageable." And, by the way, this is by design. The environmentalist wackos, the American left, said this during the campaign and nobody cared: anti-capitalism. You gotta understand there are people all over this country happy as hell that the auto business is hurting and is going under and that Congress is going to take it over and mandate we build a bunch of these worthless pieces of crap that nobody would buy on their own.

They're liberals, they deny freedom and opportunity. They force their own perverted, corrupt view of things on everybody when they will not accept it, and that's what's happening with this bailout. Holman Jenkins again: "We hate to admit it, but the only good idea from the bailout debate is the proposal for a new 'auto czar.' Along with disposing of Chrysler and downsizing Ford and GM, his job should be to confront Congress with its own policy cowardice and failure." Well, fat chance, Mr. Jenkins. That's not going to happen. Congress is this guy's boss. Or the president will be. "If saving gasoline and Detroit are both worthy goals, let's ditch CAFE and institute a gasoline tax to make consumers value the cars government is forcing auto makers to build. If Congress doesn't have the tummy for that, at least ditch the 'two fleets' rule so Detroit can import small cars to meet the mandate.

"Alas, Barack Obama's vaunted 'change' apparently doesn't include spending the political capital to make Congress acknowledge the failure of CAFE. If he can't do better than throw taxpayer money at a dismal policy disaster like our fuel-economy regulations (and so far he seems to be joining Congress in pretending it's all Detroit's fault), we might as well give up on his presidency along with any hope of progress on the nation's other unresolved dilemmas. His campaign never really answered the question of whether he was Chance the Gardener or Abraham Lincoln. We might as well find out now."

Chance the Gardner. Those of us in the know, know this. We know damn well he is not Abraham Lincoln and it's about time people stopped insulting our intelligence by trying to draw that comparison and that analogy because frankly it is putrid and it is sick, just like this bailout is, the thinking behind this bailout. Nobody has any guts, nobody has any guts whatsoever. The right thing is staring us in the face and I want to warn you people, everywhere I turn now, the sentiment to fix this is four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline. That's what's coming, mark my words.

RUSH: New York City, Ezra, you're next on the EIB Network, sir. Hello. What's up?

CALLER: Well, Rush, I have to say, you know, we expect Pelosi, Frank to go through this whole dance, but it broke my heart to see all these stories this morning that the Bush administration is lobbying Republicans behind the scene to support this bailout. This is the Medicare prescription drug bill, this is amnesty all over again, and Republicans need to think where has this gotten us, where has this approach gotten us over the last eight years and what do we want to do going forward, and if we just sign on to this, then over the next four years, even if it doesn't work we're not going to be in a position to say, "Look, we had a different plan, we told you so." Forty-nine Senate Republicans have a chance to change our economy going forward. Bailing out the auto industry is like, you know, bailing out canals after the railroad started, you know? This is an industry that hasn't modernized in 30 years and we all know what this loan is. This loan is what Pelosi thinks can pass politically now to hold them over until the next Congress where they will become a fully subsidized industry. This is a golden opportunity for the Republican Party to put a stake through the UAW and woe to us if we blow this.

RUSH: I don't know that they can put a stake through the UAW but they can stand up for themselves and prepare themselves to come back running for reelection down the road. The American people, poll after poll, are opposed to this. But you are more right than you know. This is a bridge amount of money, $15 billion to get these people through Obama's inauguration. I mean, when I listen to what's going to happen with this money, we're going to have a car czar, and the car czar is going to make sure -- and we don't know who it is. They're talking about Paul Volcker -- and the car czar is going to tell these people how to make cars, he's going to tell 'em where they can spend money, why they can't spend money! To approve any expenditure over $25 million, he's gonna make sure that they follow through on all the federal demands that are part and parcel of the loan, so-called, $15 billion. This is scary stuff. I mean, this is corruption, this is nationalization. It's propaganda.

CALLER: It absolutely is, and this is going to be the last chance of the Republicans to really put their mark on something in a long time. You know, all you Republicans out there who just lost reelection, you know, why don't you go out with a bang?

RUSH: (laughing) And those that are going to be up in two years, this is a great way to stake their claim to reelection.

CALLER: Absolutely. And, you know, there's areas of the country that are not in a terrible recession. Yeah, you know, some people in Detroit are going to be laid off, but, you know what, they can go get jobs in Texas.

RUSH: Barry, see, you have just highlighted one of the problems. You have no heart. That's their home! That's their home, Ezra. And what do you say, pack up, go where the jobs are. That's the old America . That's not what happens, Ezra. The jobs come to where you are, and sometimes you don't even have to work to get paid.

CALLER: Well, this is what we've been seeing this past year, you know, we can't have any short-term pain.

CALLER: You know, if you look at how economies work historically and what's happened over American history, it's been one migration after another; people have moved from one part of the country to another; industries have changed. If we have the attitude that every job we have can never be replaced, that no industry can change, then we're sowing the seeds of our own decline here, and it's unnecessary.

RUSH: It's totally unnecessary. It's like this almost now permanent extended unemployment benefits.

CALLER: Absolutely, and we all know the statistic, you know, your chance of getting a job miraculously goes up a hundred percent in the week that your unemployment benefits are about to expire.

RUSH: (laughing) That's right, athletes in their contract year seem to play better than they have in the previous four years.

RUSH: Plaxico Burress, great example. He got the money and then said, "Screw you. I'm going to shoot myself, so I won't have to work." Okay, look, Ezra, I appreciate the call. Folks, nobody has more compassion for people in bad economic times that are having job pressures than I, 'cause I have been there. Remember, now, I've been fired seven times. Maybe eight. One of them was justified. The other times it was just the vagaries of the business that I'm in. Format change, we were playing oldies, I called it salted rotten mold. Can you imagine playing an oldie format and a play list of 150 songs? You get tired of it. Anyway, they sold the station, the new guys came in, changed the format to Chinese opera, didn't need me for that. Those are the kind of vagaries that happen in this business. I think one of these times I went out and I availed myself of the unemployment checks in one of those jobs. Even though I supposedly had paid, you know, money had been withheld, technically it was mine, I don't like it. It's just human nature. The longer you pay people enough to get by, not to work, the longer they're not gonna work.

And you know me, I cringe when we destroy people's ambition, when we take away their dreams, when we take away their drive, their desire, and then when we take away their need, it's not pretty, and it's not a compassionate thing to do to people. I know we balance this, "Well, Rush, we're in a recession, we're losing all these jobs, what are people going to do, it's Thanksgiving time, they gotta have their turkeys." I understand all of that, I really, really do. What did I get fired for? It was the same station. I started playing the songs I liked the most. If there's only going to be 150 of them in the list I'm not going to play the trash I don't like and I told them that. Actually, that's not why. That's not why I got fired. That's what they said. It was Under My Thumb by the Rolling Stones. I just played it over and over again, played it once a day, because I wanted to hear it. And in the rotation it would come up every other day but not on my show.

That's not why I got fired. I got fired because I was working for a psychopath boss who was the biggest pathological liar, and when people lie to me openly about things it just insults my intelligence. I got called in by this guy for a coaching session one morning -- and I hated those anyway, these coaching sessions, the program directors bring you in and tell you what you did wrong and sometimes what you did good and so forth. It's just BS. (interruption) No, no, back then you didn't refuse to leave. They told you after you left, after a show, they escorted you out the door, and then they sent you your things. But that's how it worked and probably still does in this business. They don't want you going on the air and bleeding on the audience. But anyway, this guy was lying about people he knew, he was lying about places he had worked, was lying about his expertise, lying about this or that, lying about where he went to dinner.

I couldn't put up with it anymore and I finally called him on it, "Would you just stop lying to me? I can't handle it, you're not the big shot you make yourself out to be," and I went home, and the owner of the radio station called me and said, "You know, we just can't have this kind of insubordination and you blowing up like this." I said, "What are you talking about?" "Well, I mean, you walk into my program director's office and you veritably attack him and you claim you're not going to work." "That's not what happened." I said, "The guy's a psychopath, he's a pathological liar." Well, I didn't know how the game was played. The program director had iced me before I even got home, 'cause that's the kind of guy he was. So that's when I got fired. First job upon leaving home. But I was back two weeks later at a bigger station and I did not go on unemployment then. It was 1972. We were nationalizing health care then, were trying to, OSHA, Nixon was wage and price controls. It was not pretty back then. It was not pretty making $150 bucks a week and I didn't do the unemployment thing then. I'm not being critical of people that do, don't misunderstand, I'm just saying that constantly extending this, it's the American people that run this economy, the American people that make the economy work. The American people creating jobs, inventing jobs, doing things out of necessity, love, desire, what have you.

The more you pay people to not work, not enough to make 'em comfortable, but just satisfy enough needs, they can continue to carry the credit card debt for a while, it's the same when you pay union people not to work -- we support the workers, but not union. And we learned that some of these UAW guys, I forget the term now, it's a mental block I'm having, but they're not working, they're getting paid for it and if a job comes up at some factory out of town, they don't have to take it and they can continue to get paid. It defies the laws of economics and at some point the golden goose is going to get killed and that's what happened here. Here, grab audio sound bite number 36. This is Tom Coburn, Senator from Oklahoma , today on Capitol Hill. He was talking about the automobile bailout and the numbers that he had here are stunning.

COBURN: GM sold $9.37 million cars worldwide. Toyota that same year sold $9.37 million cars worldwide. GM lost $38.7 billion. Toyota made $17.7 billion. Therein lies the problem.

RUSH: 2007, GM and Toyota sold the same amount of cars, same number of cars worldwide, $9.37 million. General Motors lost $38.7 billion. Toyota made $17.7 billion.

A list of Obama’s questionable relationships and Obama’s comments on them (an AP release):

The real facts and figures with regards to current union costs (if you want to see the actual numbers this is the link for you):

Conservative Review
Issue #53	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	December 14, 2008