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.

“We are the only country in history where the greatest health problem of the poor is obesity.“ Not sure who said it (but I have made a similar point in the past).

The Mexico civil war continues, and I bet you hear practically nothing about it in the news.

Joe Biden could have been Secretary of State; it was his call. That frightens even me.

North Korea has announced that they will not scale back their nuclear program as long as the U.S. has nuclear weapons. Obama has already spoken to reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world.

Robert Reich (a Democrat) is down with the Obama stimulus package, as long as the jobs do not go to skilled workers or to white construction workers (you cannot make this stuff up).

Although I am unhappy about the new Hannity only Hannity show, he did a good interview with Rush Limbaugh (parts I and II):

Demi Moore, when not acting as the Attorney General of Illinois, also directs videos, such as the following Presidential Pledge Video:

It is a video which is going to engender a reaction in you, one of either inspiration or a vague feeling of creepiness. Do you pledge to be Obama’s servant as well?

I looked, but I was unable to find the news report of American children giving their opinion about Barack Obama (including the 8–10 year old who rejoiced at Obama’s election, because “All my life, I have had white presidents”). I saw it with my own eyes, so I know it exists.

Click on College: Worth the price of admission (this is an outstanding segment).

(1) I have discussions with two moderate friends of mine who like the idea of guaranteed government health care. I asked one of them, “So, you think it is my responsibility to pay for your health care?” She took offense. If you think it is someone else’s responsibility to pay for your health care, like one of your neighbors who makes more money than you, then government health care is designed for you.

(2) Obama’s new press secretary says that Geithner’s tax problems were honest and common mistakes; almost the exact same language that Geithner used himself. When anyone else on the Obama team comments, they will use the terms honest and common. By the way, one person working for the same enterprise made this mistake in 2007.

(3) Carolyn Kennedy was allowed to quietly drop out of her desire to filled Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat (a big seat to fill, by the way). Although taxes and an illegal nanny would not have kept her from getting this position, obviously, something else did. The press does not seem to be doing any digging here, which is find by me, as she has gone back to private life. As others have asked, I wonder if Sarah Palin suddenly dropped out of the race, if the press would have been curious?

(4) With regards to solving our problems with a huge spending bill, Bennet on January 16, 2009posted the following comment: I know little about macro economics, but in my life, if your broke and in debt, accruing more debt doesn't seem to be a good way to get into the black.

(5) Warren Buffet has recently warning us that we are in an economic tsunami; this is the same Buffet who also decided to go all in into the stock market. If money is simply distributed to a variety of interest groups and businesses, I suspect that this will be good for Buffet.

(6) Stephanopoulos asked, “Is there anything the Bush administration could have done in order to retain his [originally] popular ratings.” Although I personally believe that, had Bush communicated more with the public in a greater variety of forums (YouTube, Face book, podcasting, etc.) that he could have explained his approach, his philosophy and his policies and probably rate out 10–15% higher (Obama will do this). However, from the very beginning, the cards were stacked

against him. Half the U.S. did not believe him to be their president. I personally was inundated with tons of hate-Bush emails (and emails which berated Red states in general), so I know that there was an organization out their producing this stuff and getting it started (as well as, I am sure, individuals). The idea was to attack every single decision that Bush made, especially those without ideal outcomes. Most hate-Bush types cannot name 3 things that they think Bush got right; and it is almost impossible for any president to make mistakes 100% of the time.

(7) O’Reilly observed that there is absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing in the case of Bush, Cheney or Rove; but the left is revved up to get them (which will tear the country apart). There is a great deal of evidence out there about President Clinton and the Marc Rich pardon which indicates that Clinton took a bribe (not directly). Let me add, when Bush decreased access to presidential records, one of the purposes was to keep those on the right from going after Clinton after his presidency.

(8) Byron York has pointed out that the new White House counsel defended Pedro Gonzales, a Panamanian who killed U.S. soldiers.

(9) Obama has, by executive order, allowed US taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions in Mexico. It may be above his pay grade to determine when a child/fetus has human rights, but it is not above his paygrade to determine who gets to pay for Mexican abortions.

(10) I heard an outcry from the liberal brothers about all the money which Bush spend (and, I agree, he spent too much). I don’t hear these same people voicing the same concern about Obama, who is going to shatter all records when it comes to the deficit spending as a percentage of the GNP.

(11) The army field manual is designed to keep grunts from making serious mistakes. It is not the end-all or be-all when it comes to interrogation and was never meant to be. For Obama to say this is our standard indicates that he does not understand the separation of labor, so to speak, when it comes to dealing with enemies who may have information we need.

(12) The market is forward looking and a measure of confidence. It keeps going down and bouncing around.

(13) Lores Live asks, “How can we elect a man who would abort his own grandchild?”

(14) Caller to Lores Live: “Why not give our unborn children the same rights as Obama wants to give terrorists?”

The Bush Bailout + the stimulus package of Obama will indebt every household in America $17,000.

If Obama creates 4 million jobs with his stimulus bill (which it will not), it will cost approximately $250,000 to create each of those jobs. If this stimulus package creates half as many jobs (again, it won’t), then that is a half million dollars for each job created.

In case I didn’t state this before, all Obama nominees will get in. That is a pretty easy one.

Obama did not open himself up for questions from the media, other than those from adoring sycophants. There were 4 exceptions: 2 short interviews (very short) with Chris Wallace and Bill O’Reilly, 1 of the debates where Russert and Stephanoupolis actionably asked some tough questions, and then once in Texas, where Obama made a run for it. He has twice rebuffed reporters for asking tough questions this week alone. Although many newsmen see it their duty to make certain that Obama does not fail, some newspaper staff will try to ask him (or his press secretary) some tough questions. These people may be quietly frozen out (not recognized to ask a question); and slowly but surely, a few members of the press are going to turn on Obama.

I give Blagojevich a 60% shot at beating the rap. He is no longer front page news, so he is less of an embarrassment to the Democratic party. He was possibly busted before he could actually do something illegal (possibly done to protect some of those interested in this Senate seat). He will claim to be given to hyperbole. Also, the people he wants to call do not want to go public. If this investigation seems to disappear, you know the fix was in.

O’Reilly said that the Obama administration will continue to be tightly controlled. They will release their speeches in a timely fashion, but Obama is not going to go out and do 1 hour interviews except with those who are friendly to him. Let me add that, if anyone ever gets under Obama’s skin, there will be no repeat interviews.

Axelrod said, “Everyone agrees that it is a common mistake for IMF workers to not pay all of their taxes.” The Obama message is and will continue to be, several people speaking with one voice. Everyone agrees or all the experts that I have talked to agree will begin any controversial topic; and then we will hear the same words. In this case, it is calling Geithner’s tax fraud a common mistake. So far, Axelrod, Obama and Geithner have all used these words. They will continue to do so.

Carolyn Kennedy dropped out of the Senate race for personal reasons. I expected her to get this.

This is a summary of Dick Morris’ extremely insightful article (which follows); and it tells you what the plans of the Democrats are:

Even though one of the criticisms that Bush got was spending too much money (from both sides of the aisle), Democrats could really care less. I know a number of democrats and not one of them has expressed to me concern over this new stimulus package. The Democratic Congress is going to pass the largest stimulus package in world history, and they are doing this in two ways: (1) Repeat, repeat, repeat, and then repeat again, “This is the worst economy since the Great Depression” even though it is not (our economy right now is decidedly better than it was under Jimmy Carter). Get the people scared. (2) Repeat, repeat, repeat, and then repeat again, “All of the experts agree, conservatives and liberal economists both, we need to do a large stimulus package and it needs to be big.”

There will be 3 results from this stimulus package: (1) Our economy will not improve, as stimulus packages have never worked in the past (although some things will kick in 2010, which will reduce unemployment slightly). (2) The US will be further in debt, as a ratio of the GNP (Gross national produce) as never before. Bush always kept it under 3%, which was not high (let alone abnormally high). The new debt will be around 10% of GNP. (3) Reduce taxes and even issue checks to those not paying taxes, increasing the dependents upon government and those who do not pay taxes to over 50% of the population.

There are clear political results. Remember, much of the intent of Congress is to increase their own power. If there are 50% or more people who do not pay taxes or who are dependent on the government, then they could care less if taxes are raised. The more things the government gives them, the better. It isn’t costing them anything.

The Republican party is cut off at the knees. If we want to be fiscally responsible, then we will call for taxes paid for by everyone and higher taxes for the upper 45%. How can any party win with that approach?

It is devious and it is vicious; and even a life-long Democrat ought to view these things with great alarm. What makes our country great is having political differences and solving these at the polls; however, a huge stimulus package is going to turn us into, essentially, a one-party system for then next few decades.

This worked for FDR; this is how he got reelected time and time again, even though he did not improve employment. He simply got more and more people dependent upon the government, and when you depend on the government, then you vote for the party of the government.

Now that Obama is the president, fasten your seat belts. During his first year in office, and particularly during his first hundred days, we are about to witness the most prodigious output of legislation since 1981-2 (under Reagan), 1964-5 (under Johnson), and 1933-36 (under Roosevelt). The combination of top heavy Democratic majorities in Congress and a mood of public fear bordering on panic over the financial crisis and the looming depression will speed his legislation through a compliant Senate and House.

We will enter his Administration as the United States, buoyed by an aggressive free market economy. We will exit his first year - and even the first hundred days - as France, burdened with massive government regulation, a vast public sector, and permanent middle class entitlements. And Obama will take care to arrange things so that massive and permanent political change accompanies his and protects his legislative achievements in the future.

He will call this radical change a stimulus package. He will dress up a generation of liberal priorities as necessary steps to fight the economic crisis. His programs and policies won't do much to end the depression. It will end only after the massive burden of debt is lifted from the shoulders of American and foreign households and companies, a process which will take years. At most, his stimulus will act as methadone while we withdraw from our debt addiction, mitigating the pain, smoothing over the trauma, and soothing our system.

But Obama's strategy is to hide inside the Trojan Horse of stimulus an army of radical measures to change America permanently.

The most pernicious of his proposals will be the massive Make Work Pay refundable tax credit. Dressed up as a tax cut, it will be a national welfare program, guaranteeing a majority of American households an annual check to "refund" taxes they never paid. And it will eliminate the need for about 20% of American households to pay income taxes, lifting the proportion that need not do so to a majority of the voting population. Unlike the Bush stimulus checks, this new program will be a permanent entitlement, a part of our budget that can only go up and never down. Politically, it will transform a majority of Americans from taxpayers, anxious to hold down government spending, into tax eaters, eager to reap new benefits.

The huge spending in his stimulus package will create a budget deficit topping one trillion dollars. Ronald Reagan cut taxes to raise the deficit to stop liberals in future years from increasing spending. Obama will raise spending to raise the deficit to stop conservatives in future years from cutting taxes. As he funds every liberal dream - from alternative energy production to infrastructure renovation to more federal revenue sharing - he will force a massive expansion in the size of government for a decade to come. If the proportion of our $14 trillion GDP absorbed by the public sector increases by $1 trillion dollars, it will mean that government's share will rise from its current 33% to about 40%, bringing us close to the United Kingdom's ratio. If Obama adds a major expansion of health care to the mix, the proportion could reach into the mid-forties, French and German territory.

And Obama will likely use the Trojan Horse of stimulus to make a down payment on health care reform, expanding public coverage of those now uninsured dramatically. Likely, he will initially use the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) as his vehicle. He will ask the same pool of doctors and nurses and the same amount of medical equipment to take on the care of almost 50 million more people, necessitating rationing of medical services. Those too old, too sick, or with bad habits like smoking, may find themselves fenced off from good medical care, even if they can pay for it themselves.

While he is making these major changes, Obama will permanently alter our politics by taking three steps designed to alter the political balance:

b) He'll pass the card check voting system for unionization, raising the unionized share of our economy

c) He will crack down on talk radio through requirements either for equal time or for local ownership and control - or both.

Most likely, Obama's inability to tame the depression will erode his popularity during his first two years in office. But, by then, his proposals will be statutes. The fiscal parameters, the middle class' expectations of no taxes and government handouts, and the demographics of our electorate will be changed forever.

Quite obviously, we are in speculation territory here. More and more, I am beginning to think that we, the American people, got rolled.

Let’s go back to the economic crisis: there was a sudden problem with lending, which would have effectively shut down more of the business world. Bush was told this by his economic advisors, and I do not doubt that this aspect of this crisis is real. However, the original plan was for government to start bids on the toxic assets (mostly mortgage loan bundles with nonperforming mortgages). The idea was, the feds would make lowball offers on these toxic assets, to take them off the hands of the lenders, with the expectation that private businesses would step in and put in higher bids. This morphed into a huge bailout bill of unprecedented proportions where the toxic assets were not taken out of the market.

Hank Paulson figures big into this. He goes back to the Watergate era, where he resigned from the Nixon administration and went back to work for Goldman-Sachs, and, although many of us baby boomers know all the players from Watergate, we do not know Paulson from Watergate. He rose to CEO status of Goldman-Sachs by 1994, and forced out his co-chairman in what amounted to be a coup.

People from Goldman-Sachs tend to travel back and forth between this firm and high governmental positions. Somehow, Paulson took control of the Bush Bailout bill (the TARP bill) to

where he became the most powerful man in the United States, deciding where $350 billion of our money was to go. And somehow, it did not go to buying up these toxic assets, which were the problem in the first place.

From the Wall Street Journal: Since taking office, Paulson has overseen the destruction of three of Goldman Sachs' rivals. In March, Paulson helped arrange the fire sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase. Then, a little more than a week ago, he allowed Lehman Brothers to collapse, while simultaneously organizing the absorption of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America. This left only Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as major investment banks, both of which were converted on Sunday into bank holding companies, a move that effectively ended the existence of the investment bank as a distinct economic form. I hope that this makes you rather suspicious.

Personally, I don’t think that Bush is in on this. I believe that he is an honorable man with limited economic tools in his workshop. He knew that cutting taxes always results in economic growth, and this worked fine for 7½ years of his presidency. However, Bush tended toward the liberal approach of throwing money at a problem, expecting it to be solved. He also depended upon those under him, who, for the most part, were good men (and women). However, the time came when Bush heard from several people that we could be facing a serious economic collapse and he put his trust in Paulson, as did Congress.

Although the bailout bill did not stabilize the market, it pulled the market out of a free fall (obviously, this can be argued).

Geithner is now up for Paulson’s job under Obama (he will be likely confirmed tomorrow), and there are two things which should give you pause: Paulson said of Geithner, "[he is a] very unusually talented young man...[who] understands government and understands markets." Secondly, Geithner helped put together the TARP bill.

If you paid any attention to Geithner’s tax problem, it is clear that his not paying his 2000 and 2001 taxes was intentional. Although I do not believe him when he says this was all a big mistake, when the IRS audited him and caught him for 2002 and 2003, he did nothing about the 2 previous years, knowing that they would fall under the statute of limitations. When the Obama camp spoke to him about becoming the Secretary of the Treasury, suddenly, he realized that these taxes needed to be paid. No one in the Democratic camp grilled him much, but Senator Kyle at least got it on the record that Geithner’s nomination to this post was the catalyst to get him to pay his taxes. My point in this is, we are dealing with a man who is not altogether honest or above board.

Give me Mitt Romney, Carly Fiorini (clever name, by the way; I just got it a few nights ago), or even Ron Paul. I don’t trust Paulson or Geithner.

I do not think that Obama is in on all of this. A presidential candidate without some strong financial backing goes nowhere (see Alan Keyes). However, Obama has even less of an understanding than Bush did. When told that lowering taxes and capital gains taxes resulted in more taxes being received by the state, Obama was taken aback, so he lacks even that tool in his economic tool box.

However, whether Obama is in on this or not, if the Democrats succeed (and I think that there are some big money people behind this), look for our treasury to be raided, our economy to be manipulated, and look for some very rich people to become far, far richer. And you will not be able to vote these people out of office.

The House Appropriations Committee released its proposed economic stimulus package yesterday, which has supposedly been endorsed by President-elect Obama. Much of it is not within my area of expertise, but the parts that are seem very unlikely to promote any economic stimulus.

If spending money is all that is needed to revitalize the economy, then all the government needs to do is dig holes and fill them up. Unfortunately, too much of this stimulus package does little more than that.

I am not convinced that increased federal spending will help at all, but I am convinced that it won't help unless that spending goes for things that are truly needed. Projects that are not needed or used will not produce any "multiplier effects," which means the stimulus will be small and short-lived. Projects that are heavily used will produce multiplier effects that not only make the stimulus more effective, they make it last longer.

The best sign of such multipliers is whether people are willing to pay for projects out of user fees. In such cases, the feds might be able to jump-start projects, but the best way would be to offer loans to be repaid out of those user fees, not grants. This will also minimize the long-term effects of deficit spending, which in the long run could dampen any benefits from the initial stimulus.

"Clean, efficient energy": The package starts off proposing $32 billion for a "smart electrical grid." According to George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok, this may actually be a good idea. But if it is so good, we could do it in the form of loans to be repaid by electric companies out of electrical rates.

"Transform our economy with science and technology" includes $6 billion for broadband internet access. I've lived in the boonies for 10 years (two different boonies, in fact), and believe me, you can get broadband anywhere you want it. We don't need government support to expand it.

"Modernize Roads, Bridges, Transit, and Waterways" includes $30 billion for highways and $10 billion for transit, meaning transit gets 25 percent. That's an increase from historic levels of federal support to transit, which (since 1991) has been 15 to 20 percent. Yet transit moves only about 1 percent as many people as highways. This $10 billion for transit is a complete waste. Transit fares cover only about a quarter of transit costs, which means we are already spending way too much money on it. Fortunately, the package includes only $1 billion for new rail construction, which limits the damage somewhat - my major concern is that we don't build a bunch of new rail lines that will impose more deficit spending down the road.

Highway user fees, on the other hand, pay for more than three-quarters of highway costs, and could pay for 100 percent without increasing the costs of transportation by more than 2 percent. So the $30 billion for highways should be in the form of loans, not grants, that would be repaid out of highway user fees. There is no reason why any tax subsidies should be given to highways (or, for that matter, any transportation).

The proposal also includes $31 billion "to modernize federal other other public infrastructure." This includes $1.1 billion to Amtrak, most of which will be sucked up by Northeast Corridor maintenance needs. While this is a waste, as with transit, as long as none goes to new rail construction (such as high-speed rail in California), the damage will be limited.

Another $3.1 billion goes to federal lands for "improvements to visitor facilities, road and trail restoration, preservation of buildings of cultural and historic importance, rehabilitation of abandoned mines and oil fields, and environmental cleanup projects." Most of this is not going to have any multiplier benefits and should be paid for out of public land user fees (except that Congress won't let the agencies charge users market rates).

Another $850 million will go to hazardous fuel reductions to stop forest fires. No multiplier effects, virtually no benefits. Most will go to reduce fuels on private lands. Why can't the private landowners pay for it? Again, this should be loans, not grants, if it should be done at all (which it probably should not).

The package also includes $13.5 billion for various kinds of housing subsidies. I don't think these will do much.

A lot of the package is oriented toward "green" technologies. For example, it proposes to replace many vehicles in the federal auto fleet with "alternative-fuel vehicles that will save on fuel costs and reduce carbon emissions" and money to renovate federal buildings with a focus "on increasing energy efficiency." Has anyone done an analysis to find out if these things are cost-effective? I strongly suspect that the energy cost of building new vehicles or reconstructing buildings will outweigh the energy savings.

As previously noted here, tax cuts are likely to do more to stimulate the economy than more deficit spending. So the proposed $275 billion in tax cuts may be more effective than the $550 billion in spending.

I am not familiar enough with the issues to comment on the education, health care, public sector, or most of the other parts of the package. Education is one thing that my user-fee rule might not apply to. But our educational system is so rotten and inefficient that I can't expect this will do anything other than boost teacher and administrator pay.

In general, it appears to me that every federal agency and interest group that submitted proposals got some of what they asked for. Instead of picking projects that really have a chance of stimulating the economy, whoever put this package together seemed more interested in giving every powerful interest group a piece of the action. As Meagan McArdle says, "Mostly, Democrats took their wish lists, called them "stimulus", and look set to inflict them on the American people in badly done drag." I am therefore pretty pessimistic that it will do anything at all.

The good news is that the economy will eventually recover. When it does, there is no doubt that the people who approve this package will take credit for it. We can only hope that some future Milton Friedman will successfully debunk their claim, or at least the parts that are untrue.

One more point: What does it mean that an airplane that "landed" in the Hudson River received at least 20 times as much attention from the major news networks as the proposed stimulus package? No one seems to be phased or even to care that Congress is about to spend more money than it has ever spent before - most of which is likely to be a waste.

“If spending money is all that is needed to revitalize the economy, then all the government needs to do is dig holes and fill them up.”

JK: Actually this is a much better idea than building light rail for the following reasons. (But lets be clear that this is a manual labor job using local labor):

1. All of the money stays local. None of it goes to out of state steel mills or out of country manufacturers. Buy local as they say.

2. The waste ends with the end of "construction". Unlike light rail, where the waste goes on for the entire life of the project in the form of ongoing subsidies to every rider.

3. The project does not increase traffic congestion like light rail since it does not create trains that interfere with traffic.

4. The project does not increase people's commute time since it leaves the road & bus systems intact.

5. The project does not emit huge amounts of CO2 (for Al's zombies that still believe that crap) from construction machines, only the breathing of labor.

7. It a green idiot's dream since it does not do anything that would benefit man. And it restores nature to its state before the project. It is truly back to nature

With the left taking power in Washington, you'd think the left-wing media would be prospering. But no, the stats are grim.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is nearly bankrupt. The Minneapolis Star Tribune, bankrupt. The Boston Globe is losing millions. The New York Times is in serious trouble. The paper just borrowed $250 million from a Mexican guy named Carlos Slim. And listen to this: Senor Slim is charging The Times 14 percent interest.

What, was Tony Soprano not available? Is the Corleone family no longer in Tahoe? Fourteen percent? That's loan shark territory. The prime lending rate is just over three percent in this country. You'd think Barney Frank would have loaned them the money.

Now on the TV front, the uber-liberal MSNBC network was ranked 22nd in primetime last week, right behind the Roller Derby Network, I believe. FOX News was second, a tremendous performance.

But why are we hammering far-left NBC News? Well, it may be because even liberals are aghast at their product.

While covering the handover of power from President Bush to President Obama, NBC was the only network to run a split screen of Bush-haters. What a classy thing to do, right NBC News?

And by the way, that network was totally wrong about Caroline Kennedy Wednesday night.

However, blatant bias doesn't begin to explain the problems the liberal media's having. So here's what "Talking Points" thinks is going on. Americans are worried and angry over the economic situation, when neither Mr. Bush nor Senator McCain brought any urgency to the debacle. The folks voted the Democrats in. That doesn't mean, ladies and gentlemen, that most Americans want radical change or a socialist economy. Most don't.

And the hate the far-left media traffics in has alienated many folks. I mean, the disrespect shown to President Bush is disgraceful, and most decent people know it.

The bottom line on the bottom line is this: Most American news consumers remain traditional folks who respect their country and don't appreciate hateful attacks on a president even if they disagree with the president's policy. The liberal media is destroying itself, allowing zealotry to obliterate fairness. That's what's in play here.

As Judge Reinhold said in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," "Read it, live it, learn it."

Even though I printed a Thomas Jefferson quotation in last week’s issue, I was moderately suspicious as to whether this was genuine or not. Here is snopes on this matter:

If you want to know more about Tmothy Geithner, Byron York has done a series of 5 ot 6 articles:

On Rush’s program, he agreed to broadcast the Obama inauguration live, and he made a few comments here and there. Well, some grammar school, seeing the inauguration as a teachable moment, played it for them live on their intercom, but they chose Rush’s show. Maybe I’m wrong to think this, but traumatized grammar school children is a little funny.

RUSH: You wouldn't believe the audio sound bites I got out of Green Bay today. It wasn't just Green Bay. I mean, it made other networks. It made Fox.

You know, it was all over the place. Here I'm just minding my own business. You know, I'm the last guy to blame for what happened up there. I don't have access to the school's PA system. I don't have access to the local radio station. They chose to carry our feed, which I am eternally grateful for. I love my affiliates. I love every one of the stations that carry this program. They have made me who I am. I am as loyal to them as I am to anybody else in this whole chain of related links. But I didn't choose to dial in that station at that school -- and, by the way, we let everybody know in advance what we were going to do. This was not a surprise to our affiliates. In fact, let me give you a dirty little secret. You know, folks, I'll tell you what. We sit here and we take a lot of grief -- and, of course, the pioneers take the arrows and I'm used to taking the hits.

I'm used to being the focus of this. Fine and dandy. I know how to deal with it, but I just want you people to know -- and H.R. will back me up on this 'cause he got the phone calls. Starting two weeks prior to the election, our affiliates began to call us asking what our plans were for Inauguration Day. They wanted us, a lot of people that called said, "Would you carry it and do the commentary during the speech that you usually do?" They pleaded to us to do this. Many of our affiliates pleaded for that because there was no other show that does this, and it was going to be the same thing was going to be available on thousands of media outlets, but only one media outlet -- every EIB station -- would have me, analyzing it, at the moment, as it happens, which we are known for here. So they asked us for this. And they asked us to stick with it for as long as necessary without commercial breaks, and we said, "Okay. We will do it."

So in responding to a request from my business partners, I now am the focus of blame, when I had no control whatsoever over what happened up there in Green Bay. I don't mean to sound like I'm whining. I'm not, 'cause I think this is a teachable moment. I think that is a great educational exercise. It's another illustration of how the Drive-By Media loves to take things out of context with me and get them all wrong, for the express purpose of trying to discredit and destroy me because they can't beat me on ideas.

RUSH: Last night, WFLD, Eyeball News in Chicago, Fox News, anchor Jan Jeffcoat reported.

JEFFCOAT: Rush Limbaugh is offering to teach a civics lesson at the Green Bay school, that's after the school randomly chose to air his coverage of President Obama's inauguration speech on Tuesday over their PA system. Some teachers and kids were upset about what Rush said afterward. One teacher wrote him an e-mail to complain after he commented during Obama's speech. Well, now he's offering to visit the school and even let the children ride in his private jet. By the way, at the end of the e-mail, the PS said, quote, "Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail." So Rush printed it 150 times.

RUSH: That's one of the most objective reports in local Drive-By journalism involving this program in many, many moons. They just said what happened. There wasn't any judgment in there.

RUSH: All right, back to audio sound bites, Green Bay media buzzing over the Limbaugh school flap, the immaculation address and all that attended to it.

HORNACEK: As President Barack Obama made history, students at Edison Middle School in Green Bay heard this.

RUSH ARCHIVE: There it is, folks! There it is: history in the making, with a botched oath.

HORNACEK: That is the voice of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. His show airs in Green Bay on WTAQ, and that's the radio station Edison hooked up to the PA system so students could listen to the inauguration.

STUDENT: We were looking at each other, like, open mouthed, like, who's doing this? Like ,nobody should be doing this. And then, the principal came on and said, "It's very inappropriate."

HORNACEK: ...a sixth-grader at Edison and had never heard of Rush Limbaugh before. Anna's mother could not believe Limbaugh made his comments during the ceremony.

MOTHER: Rush has got his show. He can make those comments, uh, another time regarding that, if he chooses to.

HORNACEK: And his teacher was also upset with what happened. This is a voicemail she left with WTAQ.

TEACHER: I'm very, very disappointed that you allowed this to happen. I'm disappointed in his choice to take a wonderful moment of history and to taint it the way he did.

BADER: Twelve people called and were upset what happened. Thousands of people listen to Rush Limbaugh.

HORNACEK: WTAQ program director Jerry Bader actually agrees that Limbaugh's comments were disrespectful, but he did not believe they were hateful. Limbaugh addressed the situation on his show.

RUSH ARCHIVE: There's a lot of "taint" that has occurred in our culture, our pop culture, a lot of "taint" that has occurred in public education.

HORNACECK: Limbaugh has offered to come to Green Bay to speak at Edison Middle School about civics. He even offered to take 15 students for a trip on his private jet. No word on whether the school will accept Limbaugh's offer.

RUSH: That was the reporter Bob Hornacek, Robert Hornacek from Fox Eyeball News 11, WLUK in Wisconsin. I don't know why they chose that bite. There is a lot of taint that has occurred in our culture, our pop culture? That's sensible if you don't know what I was talking about around it. Again: context. But that was Green Bay media all over the story. Now, folks, let me, again, explain to you what happened here. I'm minding my own business, and we gotta go back two weeks. I want all you Drive-Bys to hear this. Two weeks ago, our office began receiving calls from our affiliate radio stations, asking what our plans were for carrying the inauguration, because the inauguration ceremony -- well, on the timeline, the acceptance speech -- was exactly when this program began. So they wanted to know what our plans were, and as discussions ensued, we received requests from many of our affiliate stations to provide instant analysis and commentary as I always do, regardless.

Whenever we JIP a presidential press conference or anything else, we offer comments at the time it's happening. They asked us to do this. They asked us to blow through commercial breaks. Since they asked us to do this, we did this. The last person in line here who has any responsibility for my show ending up on a PA system at a school is me! I'm not in Green Bay. I don't have the power to tune in the radio at the school and then to patch it into the PA system. But there is an aspect of this that has gone unremarked upon -- and, as always, that is left to me to remark upon it. There is this little thing out there called copyright. This is my show. We have a contract with WTAQ in Green Bay to carry the program. We do not have a contract with this middle school. This middle school does not have the right to take my program and put it on their PA system.

Now, everybody is whining and moaning at me for upsetting these poor, helpless, sensitive little angel students who probably were ticked off because this thing happened to interrupt their sex education class, is my guess. Poor kids! Oh, they're so fragile! They can't... All they heard me say was, "And there it is, folks. An historic moment, blah, blah, and a botched oath," and who knows? And it was true. It was true. It's exactly right. It might have required counselors to come in to deal with the fragile psyche of these kids. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I, of course, would never approach this school. I would never approach this school and demand payment or file a lawsuit for violating the copyright of this program. Not just anybody can broadcast it out there. We have contracts with our radio stations.

That's why we're not on satellite, that and a host of reasons. So while I, a harmless, lovable little fuzzball, who was asked by our affiliates to provide this coverage, am being now laced and ripped to shreds for something about which I had absolutely no responsibility -- and, in addition, I was ripped off in the process. By the way, we had to redo the "oaf." We had to redo the "oaf." Obama and John Roberts had to redo the "oaf" because it was Roberts that botched it. And they had to redo it, but they didn't do it with a Bible, do you know that? There was no Bible when they redid the "oaf." They might have to do it a third time. So, anyway, here I'm used to this. I'm used to being a Big, Bad Wolf and these little children, so fragile, so helpless, who can't handle anything. "Mommy! Mommy! What happened? I can't believe this happened." I had nothing to do with it. I had nothing to do with it, nor did my affiliate, by the way.

WTAQ is minding its own business. WTAQ can't walk over to that school and say, "Here, tune us in and pipe it into your PA system," and now the school is investigating? The school? I ought to be investigating! I should be the one asking, "What the hell happened here?" But I, of course, am the Big, Bad Wolf, and they've got to investigate me. And out of magnanimity, my friends, I have offered to go to the school and give a couple lectures on civics and then let 15 or 20 kids earn a ride in EIB 1 and explain economics to them while we're up there, having pizza and whatever. Well, whatever they want.

RUSH: An amazing story here today in The Politico. This was written by John Harris and Jim VandeHei, and they are the founders of The Politico. They used to work at the Washington Post.

Get this, now -- and, by the way, I like The Politico, and I know who they are. They're unabashed about who they are and what they are and I've talked to these guys on the phone and they're nice guys. I've gotten along with them fairly well. But this still just kind of blows my mind. It shouldn't anymore, because we know what journalism has become. Here's how the dual-bylined piece begins. "We know a lot more about Obama than we did on Election Day." Oh, can I interrupt myself for a moment? Yes, I can. I want to stress something to people. You know who you are. When I say what I'm saying, you will know exactly to whom I'm speaking and you know who you are. Many people are interpreting my programs this week and last to be devoted to the, shall we say, "never-ending criticism of Obama."

You know what I make the mistake of assuming that people are as smart as I am, and I make the mistake of assuming that everybody listens to this show every day and thus is able to understand the context of things that I say. Most of you do listen every day and do understand the context. But in truth, these recent programs, which have featured what people think are attacks on Obama are actually attempts to poke fun and to cause people to stop and think about what the media has become. This program, in large measure, is a refutation of the daily media template. It just so happens that the daily media template is that Obama is The Messiah. He's infallible and incapable of error. He's the best, the brightest, the smartest. He has this aura.

This program doesn't believe any human being walking the planet possesses any of those traits -- and, as such, we largely are trying to counter the drivel and the bilge of the Drive-By Media every day. I don't care if they're praising Ted Kennedy or if they're out there praising, "you know," Caroline, "you know," Kennedy. I don't care if they're out there praising Obama. I don't care if they're out there praising Hillary, or out there trying to cover up for Timothy Geithner. So the way to listen to this program is to understand what we do every day. We read the media. We watch the media. They set the tone. They set the template for the way daily news in this country is disseminated. We refute it here, and part of refuting it is to bring Obama back down to reality because he's not the way they've been portraying him. This is then considered an attack on Obama, which it isn't.

I mean, this latest brouhaha over me wanting Obama to fail, everybody involved with this that's misreporting it knows exactly what I said, and knows exactly what I mean. I want his policies to fail because I don't believe in Big Government, and he does. I don't believe socialism works. It never has. I do not want national health care. I do not want the government absorbing business after business after business. That's not what made this country great, and if that happens, our greatness is gonna end, and it will be redefined. And I care about the people who come after me by birth. I love this country more than anybody would ever understand, and so being taken out of context, I'm used to that. Because the left has to have somebody to criticize now, and Bush is gone. You know, so I'm the proud receptacle, I'm the proud target. I don't want Obama to fail as a human being.

I want his policies to fail. I do not want them. I'm scared to death over these policies. If he means what he did today, I am scared. I'm putting myself in terrorist camps around the world looking at this. (terrorist impression) "The United States are going to close its prisons! They're going to stop pursuing us." What am I doing today if I'm wearing a turban out there and I'm a member of Al-Qaeda? Dangerous times. You know what I heard today driving in? I was listening to Fox driving in. No, it was after I got here. And I'm watching Stuart Varney. He's on with "Tigger" Montague and what's his name, Bill Hemmer. He said three to four trillion dollars to make the banks solvent. This has nothing to do with any stimulus package.

I've not seen this anywhere else. Three to four trillion to make the banks solvent, and you know how they're going to do it? The plan is to set up a United States bank. I thought we already had the Federal Reserve. Now we're going to set up the United States bank? I mean, it's not etched in stone yet, nor is it chiseled in marble. But this is one of the things. Can you imagine three to four trillion dollars? That's how much trouble the banks are in -- or is it they're really in that much trouble, or is it just a way to shovel some money at these people? Whatever it is, it isn't gonna work. Bailing out the savings and loan was one thing, but... (sigh) I noticed I didn't ask for a bailout on my Club Gitmo business. I simply adapted to changes in the market, took the bull by the horns myself and adapted the product line.

RUSH: Anyway, Politico, Jim VandeHei, John Harris: "What We Don't Know About Obama." Here are the things they write that they don't know: Does he really think Afghanistan is winnable; do deficits matter; how fast is too fast in Iraq; what's in the files; do unions wear white hats; can US power save Darfur? Now, John and Jim, I love you, but why didn't you ask him? You are journalists! You are reporters! Why didn't you ask him during the campaign if he thinks Afghanistan is winnable? Good Lord, why didn't you ask? It reminds me of this.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

RUSH: Tom, you work at NBC News. Assign a reporter. Or are there no reporters left at NBC? Is everybody at NBC now just a commentator, an agitator, everybody at NBC just trying to be like me? Are there no reporters left? So here we have Brokaw and Charlie Rose -- that's October 30th, that's even before the election -- admitting to one another they don't know who he is. Don't forget the Newsweek guys who called him creepy after the Grant Park acceptance speech. "He watches us watching him. He ascends above the stage after the speech and watches, it's creepy." And now The Politico founders, "Questions for Obama." They're reporters. Why didn't you ask him in the campaign? See, they didn't vet on purpose. They didn't want to know these things before the election. They didn't want to know the answers themselves.

RUSH: Dick Morris, a great column at TheHill.com. I'm holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. It was posted on January 20th, two days ago at 6:12 p.m.: "The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism." Excerpts: "2009-2010 will rank with 1913-1914, 1933-1936, 1964-1965 and 1981-1982 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Barack Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom or Sweden -- a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

"Obama will accomplish his agenda of 'reform' under the rubric of 'recovery.' Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won't do much to shorten the downturn -- although they will make it less painful -- but they will do a great deal to change our nation. In implementing his agenda, Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt (not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished). When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933 when he took office to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment rose to 17 percent in 1938 and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover's and Roosevelt's missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in 'The Forgotten Man' by Amity Shlaes.)" Great book, by the way, copyright 2007.

"But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the SEC, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes. Obama's record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative energy sources to school renovations to infrastructure repairs to technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. Freed of any constraint on the deficit -- indeed empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible -- Obama will do them all rather quickly.

"But it's not his spending --" this is key "-- it is not his spending that will transform our political system; it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on AFDC, will now grow to a clear majority of the U.S. population.

"Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity since the only people who would have to pay them would be rich Republicans. ... Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination -- until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans."

All of this, by the way, we warned you during the campaign, that this is the objective of all these economic plans, the entrenchment of the Democrat Party in power in perpetuity. That's what's being fixed here. What was broken was the 50-year rule of power that FDR engineered with Social Security and Medicare and all these other things. The Republicans then botched all that by winning the Congress in 1994. It's about the House of Representatives. That's where the power is. That's where all spending bills originate. White House can go back and forth. Democrats control the Congress, as we saw in the last two years, they run the show. Therefore, this is all about empowering and retrenching the Democrat Party.

"Obama will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent. Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose 'local' control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the 'fairness doctrine' on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics and retard its growth for years hence." I firmly believe this is going to be attempted, but not under the words Fairness Doctrine. I have seen the Obama White House website where they are going to attempt to effect this. And they are going to do it, Morris is right here. They will do it with something called a local content rule, diversity of ownership rules changes, and public interest regulations and requirements, which will mandate on local broadcasters that they do certain things in the public interest. It will be a stealth way and they'll put it in a stimulus bill, they will put it in an omnibus spending bill. There won't even have been any debate on it; nobody is going to know it's going to happen. It will be in one of those things that no senator or member of the House can read because it's too large and the focus will be the stimulus getting us out of this rotten economy, and that's how they're going to go about implementing the Fairness Doctrine. And make no mistake they're going to do it.

"But none of these changes," Morris writes, "will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it. So Obama's name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010, as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power. But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of health care by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio."

This is what Dick Morris sees, and Obama is moving fast on a lot of these things and we're going to keep a sharp eye to see how quickly he moves. But this is Dick Morris, "The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism."

RUSH: Moving on to the United Kingdom, an editorial: "A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality. A victory for Hollywood, the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion." That would be me, resisting the tug of the popular sentiment. Proudly, by the way.

"Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs. Congratulations America," on your choice.

So that was an editorial somewhere in the UK. It ain't me, babe. No, no, no, it ain't me, babe, who wrote that.

RUSH: Let's get started with some of the audio sound bites. Yesterday morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was talking to Tom Brokaw, and they talked about Brokaw running into former Weatherman Mark Rudd. Now the point of this is, as you listen to this, this is a glimpse into the mind of a liberal. As far as Brokaw is concerned, a terrorist from the sixties can be "rehabbed."

BROKAW: The other night at a party, a man came up to me that I knew instantly (chuckles), and it was Mark Rudd who is a poster child for the --

BROKAW: -- sixties, and he formed the Weathermen after the protests at Columbia. And he grabbed me and said talking about the book in which General, uh, Powell appears, uh, Boom, the 1960s. He's in it. He said, "You treated me very well. I liked the documentary as well. Keep talking about the importance of nonviolence." He was one who said he wanted to launch a violent revolution against this country, and he said, "Use me as an example." I don't mind you doing that, because I've learned over the years.

RUSH: So Brokaw wanted to bend over and grab the ankles over a former admitted terrorist who wants Brokaw to use him as a proponent of nonviolence today because this guy's grown up and he's learned his evil ways. Now, listen to Brokaw on the same show, talk about bigots and rednecks.

BROKAW: I just want to say one thing. Eh, having been in the South in the sixties and Los Angeles and Watts and northern urban areas, umm, uh, when we were evolving as a country. I'm thinking of all the bigots and the rednecks and all the people that I met along the way, and I'm saying to them, "Take this."

RUSH: There you have it. "Take this" means take Obama. Take this election, you redneck bigots! I have told you time and time again: This is what those of you who live in certain geographical parts of this country are thought of by the people that run major network newscasts. Brokaw is not the only one. He just voiced it. These people are so excited. They don't care what Obama stands for. It doesn't matter to them. What matters is they think they got him there, and they loooove telling you rednecks and bigots, "Take this," because they hate your guts with a purple passion, and they have always hated your guts with a purple passion, because they think you are un-reformable. They think you cannot be rehabbed. You are no different today than in the 1960s, except Mr. Brokaw conveniently forgets that the rednecks and bigots he's talking about were Democrats: Bull Connor, J. William Fulbright. All these segregationists were of the party that Tom Brokaw salivates over today. "Take this." This is the sole importance of this election to people in the Drive-By Media. It's to all of you pukes who haven't got the courage and the intelligence to understand just how you ruined this country. Take this! It's back at you, bub. You talk about hatred and you talk about bigotry? You have just heard it articulated in the mumbling voice of Tom Brokaw.

RUSH: Monday night on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS -- now, remember, Charlie Rose and Brokaw before the election had this conversation about, "Who is Obama? What does he stand for? We don't even know. We don't know who his influences are. We don't know what books he's read. We don't know anything about him." And I said, "Tom, dispatch a reporter. You work at NBC, find out about this." So Monday night, Charlie Rose back with New York Times Magazine Matt Bai, and they're talking about Obama.

BAI: We've projected onto this man every manner of change we all think is necessary. I happen to think generational change is very, very important, and there are people who think changes in equality are very, very important, there are people who think policy change, foreign policy change, domestic policy change, whatever you want it to mean, is what he's bringing.

RUSH: Whatever you want it to mean. He's a blank slate. And he's playing this up. If it were me, I would put a stop to this. I would tell people, "Grow up and get real. You're the ones that have to turn this around. You're the ones that have to make this country work." I would be scared to death of people looking at me as a religious cult figure. I wouldn't want it. Who can live up to it? That's the point, by the way, that Juan Williams makes in his column. It's really, really a good, good column that Juan Williams has in the Wall Street Journal. I'll get to it in the next hour. One more from Tom Brokaw. This is also on their special, The Inauguration of Barack Obama, on NBC. He's talking with Matt Lauer.

BROKAW: You know, when I look at these older African-Americans, especially, that are being wheeled in here, I think of the old gospel, "Nobody knows the troubles I've seen, nobody knows my sorrow." All that they have been through in their lifetime. The way they were humiliated.

RUSH: That was Matt Lauer, trying to comfort Brokaw, who had been reduced to tears thinking of the humiliation of all the older African-Americans who were being wheeled in there. This was after he had said on the Morning Joe program in response to Obama's victory, all you bigots and racists in the South, take that. He was quite moved by all of this.

What president set the record for most watched inaugural? Hint: it wasn’t Obama.

Conservative Review
Issue #59	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	January 25, 2009