Scott Brown's Coming.....

This is hilarious, courtesy of Saturday Night Live:

Glenn Reynolds: The Tea Party Impact

This is an excellent piece done by Glenn Reynolds for the Washington Examiner.

Glenn Reynolds: More impact is what's next for the Tea Party movement
January 31, 2010

A year ago, the Tea Party movement didn't exist. Today, it is arguably the most popular political entity in America. The movement is already more popular than the Republican or Democratic parties, according to a recent NBC / WSJ poll .

Even in blue-state California, three in 10 voters identify with the Tea Party movement.

And, of course, Scott Brown's come-from-behind blowout in Massachusetts occurred in no small part because of money and volunteers from the Tea Party movement around the nation.

This is heady stuff -- and, for people in the political establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, it's worrying stuff. If political movements can bubble up from below, and self-organize via the Internet, what will happen to the political class?

It's one thing when record stores or video rental places get dis-intermediated. It's a whole different ball game when people who rely on politics not only for their livelihood, but for maintaining their considerable sense of self-importance discover that they may not be quite as necessary as it once seemed.

But that hard lesson is becoming apparent. In fact, the Tea Party movement seems to be showing better political judgment than either of the two major political parties.

Last week, Joe Scarborough wrote that the Tea Party movement might "tear itself apart." His evidence of this: Some squabbling over a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn. Well, squabbling is normal in movement politics, particularly when people think they're being shortchanged on money and credit. But what's really striking about the Tea Party movement isn't that there's squabbling -- it's how little squabbling, overall, there has been.

Scarborough's column, remember, was occasioned by the Brown victory in Massachusetts. A few Tea Party purists didn't want to support Brown, seeing him as insufficiently pure. But the vast majority made the entirely pragmatic determination that Brown, whatever his flaws, was vastly better than his Democratic opponent Martha Coakley, and just the guy to stop Obamacare in its tracks if elected.

They poured in donations and volunteers (millions of dollars and thousands of people), and helped Brown win, and were immediately proven right as Brown's victory did, in fact, derail Obamacare and produce a general Democratic flight from the whole hope and change agenda.

The Republican and Democratic hacks who were supposed to be worrying about this sort of thing, meanwhile, were asleep at the switch. Republican Party support to Brown was late in coming, appearing only after the Tea Party support raised his profile.

Democrats were even slower to recognize the threat and react, and their reaction -- a last-minute visit by President Obama -- probably hurt more than it helped, demonstrating their tone-deafness regarding public attitudes.

So far the Tea Party's record is looking pretty good. But what happens next? Many people -- er, well, many pundits, anyway -- complain that the Tea Party movement is entirely oppositional: For a brief moment, the key buzzword was "nihilistic," though the connection between Turgenev and Tea Parties seems rather tenuous.

In fact, Tea Partiers seem quite clear on what they're for: A limited government, one that keeps its nose out of their business and focuses on things like protecting the country in preference to redistributing income.

As blogger Freeman Hunt wrote recently:"You want a big tent? It's fiscal conservatism. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.You offer that, you follow through on it, and you get the Republicans, the moderates, and a sizable chunk of disaffected Democrats."

Only to the likes of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is support for limited government a species of nihilism. But Tea Partiers are, in fact, working on a platform, which they've called the Contract From America . Though the name may remind some of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, this is something very different.

It's a set of ideas developed via an interactive Web site, where voting determines which elements are most important. And it's not a top-down contract consisting of promises made by leaders to the voters -- it's more in the nature of a contract of employment from the voters, which politicians may choose to accept, or look for alternative employment.

This is basically a crowd-sourced party platform, with the smoke-filled rooms and convention logrolling taken out of the picture. More dis-intermediation. I'm guessing that the political class won't like it much, either.

But whether the political class likes it or not, this sort of thing is probably here to stay. While 2009 was the year of denigrating and ignoring the tea parties, I suspect that in 2010, they'll be listened to quite closely. Those who fail to do so, are likely to find themselves out of a job.

So Jack, How Do You Really Feel?

Hat Tip: Joanne Beers

Rush Limbaugh's Response to Obama's SOTU

This is reprinted in its entirety, as originally posted on the Rush Limbaugh website.

My Letter to President Obama
January 28, 2010

RUSH: I penned a message to Obama that I would like to deliver now. Because Mr. Obama, I think it's time we had a heart-to-heart talk. Let me be the father that you never had or never really knew, because I think you need some guidance. It's time to man up. It's time to grow up. That speech last night was an embarrassment. You couldn't focus, you lashed out in all directions, you refused to accept responsibility for your own actions, and you were angry.

And he was, folks! He was mad. Being president is a big job. It's a big responsibility. You wanted the position, Barack. You campaigned for it. You told the public to trust you with it, and they elected you -- and you're now president of the greatest country mankind has ever known, and yet you act like this was all coming to you, like you deserve it, that you're better than the people you are supposed to serve and that you have no tolerance for debate or dissent. That's not the way it works as president, Barack. We have a Constitution, we have checks and balances, we have separation of powers, we have states -- and most of all, we have the people. You don't get to impose your programs and policies on the nation and the people without our consent.

This is a representative republic, not a banana republic, and let me remind you: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky are not our Founding Fathers. This is a nation built on individuality, built on liberty, free markets, and faith. Yet you, Barack, demand fidelity to a different belief system: A system that crushes individual initiative and free will. The president does not berate Supreme Court justices who are guests of the Congress and who have no ability to respond to your attacks. You've made such a mess of things, Barack, and it's time to stop deluding yourself. It's time to stop blaming others. You are delusional. You are delirious. It's time for you to assume the responsibilities of a president rather than pretending to be one.

You've driven the nation's debt over the edge. It is your responsibility to fix it now. Otherwise, our young people will have no future. You were wrong to grant terrorists constitutional rights. Even the libs in New York don't want the trial there now! You, Mr. President, are endangering the security of this nation. Now fix it! Reverse course, and end the terrorists -- all of them -- back to Guantanamo Bay, where they belong. You are wrong to nationalize one industry after another from automobiles to banks. You are destroying competition and jobs. You need to stop what you were doing before millions of more families go broke from your misguided policies. It's not too late to stop this. I know you're not going to stop it because last night you said you don't quit, and I know what you mean.

You're gonna keep plugging for the same agenda, which is going to destroy this country even more -- which makes me think, Barack, that's your objective. You know, Barack, unlike most presidents you're dealing with a Congress that has super majorities in both houses, fellow Democrats. It amazes me that with all the talk about your ability to persuade and communicate, that you can't even hold your own party members together anymore. Is that Bush's fault, too? Is it is fault of the banks and the insurance companies and the lobbyists that you can't keep your own Democrat Party unified -- or is it a problem with your leadership, Barack, or lack of leadership? It's the latter, Mr. President. I'll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer, and a process guy, but you are not a leader. It is you who are doing something wrong.

The people in Virginia don't like it. The people in New Jersey don't like it. The people in Massachusetts don't like it. The people in Massachusetts and all over the country have the ability to inform themselves outside of your sycophant press corps, and they are doing so. Members of your own governing majority don't like what you are doing. I mean, this calls for some self-reflection and some circumspection. Has it occurred to you, Mr. President, even once that you're not as cool as you think you are? Has it occurred to you that you are screwing up? And if it has, are you happy about that? Has it occurred to you that you have a great deal to learn and that you need to take your own measure, or are you Mr. Perfect? Are you God-sent?

Are you The One that you've been waiting for? See, I have a little concern there may be a psychological issue at play here. I don't say this to demean you, Barack. I say it because I'm concerned. I mean, Tom Daschle was always "concerned" and I like the word. I'm concerned. You seem to have a whole lot of enemies, at least in your own mind. A partial list would include Fox News, insurance companies, banks, oil companies, the "special interests," the Supreme Court, Republicans, talk show hosts, executives, anyone or any business that earns over $250,000 a year, mortgage companies, credit card companies -- and the list goes on and on and on. You have the longest enemies list of anybody I've ever known.

These people are not your enemies, though, Barack. They are Americans. They are part of this country. They are part of what makes the nation work. You are not. You have nothing to do, and have had nothing to do, with this nation's greatness. You can't lay claim to greatness on any scale, not even rhetorical. But you have no direct relationship to the greatness of this country. You are damaging the possibility of further greatness. Nevertheless, like a bully, you continue to threaten all of these people. The Supreme Court, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Retail, talk show hosts, Fox News, the list goes on. You threaten anybody who does not agree with you. You try to intimidate them. You smear them. Your sycophantic media goes right along and carries your water. But this is not what presidents do.

You're supposed to lead not by threatening people but by encouraging them, by embracing them, by thanking them, by inspiring them. Most of all you don't seem to appreciate the magnificence of this nation! I know you don't. The way you've been educated about this country it's painfully obvious. You think this country is guilty, period. Guilty and unjust. You seem to think this country needs to be torn down so you can rebuild it. But you were elected to be president, not some kind of dictator. You must operate within the confines of the Constitution. You are not bigger than the law, and you are not bigger than the people. You were elected to serve the people, not dictate to them. Anyway, I'm sure this little lecture will not do you much good, particularly given the spectacle of your speech last night. You really are full of yourself. But I truly hope that this little talk does do you some good down the way, because something is going to have to change in you or we are doomed for at least the next three years.

Hitler Responds to the iPad

Crack me up!

A Pathway To Sanity

There are always politicians that claim that they have a better idea, a better cause, or a higher calling. What that usually means is that they have another entitlement program, another way to cement their party's influence, or a means to establish their "legacy".

I have another idea. What about a politician that makes a concerted effort to unwind the scope of government? I'm not talking about cutting this pork project or that pork project, I'm talking about rolling up your sleeves and figuring out how to cut this government behemoth down to size.

What would that take on a federal level? After all, you have an entrenched population of government employees that are "protected" by a union. What can be done to re-define this union population in a way that actually is beholden to the electorate?

We have scores of lawyers that are tasked with the chore of putting together a government-run health-care system. They have come up with a monumental piece of legislative largesse that no one can understand, unless of course, you're an attorney who specializes in such things.

What about a legion of attorneys that are tasked with figuring out how to pare down the size of government? What would such an effort look like? I would venture to say that it would take months and months, similar to the effort on health-care. But the end product would be so much different: a scaled-back federal government that does not skimp on areas of REAL national interest, but instead puts the bang back in the taxpayers' buck.

True reform will never take the shape of additional government programs. It will only come by manning up to the task of curtailing those programs that do not serve the public good and DISCARDING them, once and for all. This is the ONLY pathway to sanity in federal government and I look forward to the candidate that understands that.

Tango Mike Mike!

This is a wonderful tribute to an American hero.



Hat tip: Tony V

Patton Revisited!

This also speaks to the fight against Obamacare. Twenty years from now, when your grandchild is sitting on your lap, will you tell them that you fought the battle to reclaim liberty at whatever cost?

It's About Time......America IS Rising!

Hat tip: Tony V

Obama Enables Gun Seizure Via UN

This is just another example of the why the U.N. needs to be kicked out of the United States and our funding of it STOPPED!

Don't Believe It!

Scroll down for an update. Originally posted 1/21/10.

"We're not in a big rush" on health care, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "Pause, reflect."

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Hits 'Pause' on Health Care"

"Obama Retreats on Health"

If there's one thing we've learned over the past year, it's that you can't trust anything that comes out of this triumvirate's mouth. They are now busily scheming to figure out ways to get as much on healthcare as they can.

True reform can only come from unleashing the free market. That concept is not part of these three's thinking and it never will be.

You can only expect that the kind of bluster we've seen in the past ("Now Barney Frank and the Dems are for the Nuclear Option") will only become more "nuanced".

UPDATE:
Dick Morris: Pelosi and Reid Plot Secret Plan for Obamacare
Sunday, 24 Jan 2010 05:54 PM

When All Else Fails, Change the Rules

The mere fact that the Senate is considering this kind of rule change is laughable. The fact that Joe Lieberman is co-sponsoring is troubling, but predictable.

Filibuster reform headed for Senate floor; measure faces uphill battle

By J. Taylor Rushing
01/22/10 06:00 AM ET

Excerpts:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) intends in the next few weeks to introduce legislation that would take away the minority’s power to filibuster legislation.

Harkin has wanted to change the filibuster for years, but his move would come in the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in Massachusetts. Brown’s victory cost Democrats their 60th vote in the Senate, and may have dealt a death blow to their hopes to move a massive healthcare overhaul. It could also limit President Barack Obama’s ability to move other pieces of his agenda forward.

Harkin’s bill would still allow senators to delay legislation, but ultimately would give the majority the power to move past a filibuster with a simple majority vote.

“In light of the fact that it takes 67 votes to change the Senate rules, it does not look likely that a rule change would happen anytime soon,” said a senior aide.

The aide noted the rancorous debate in 2005, when Republicans controlled the Senate and considered changing filibuster rules during a fight over judicial nominees. The so-called “nuclear option” was eventually dismissed.

Under Harkin's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.

The Senate rules are designed to slow down debate and fully deliberate on an issue. The Founders intention in the Senate's design was to inhibit dramatic legislative changes based on a current political trend. It seems like that pertains to today.

I stick to my wish for 2010.

New 3am Wake Up Call

Hat tip: @sfluhr on Twitter

A Mentor for Trig

This is one of the most amazing videos I have seen in quite some time. It underscores why we value life and it immediately reminded me of why I so treasure Sarah Palin's decision to bring Trig into this world.



Hat tip: Tony V

Rasmussen Foretells Freefall

Today, Rasmussen's Presidential Approval Index shows a marked decline in Obama's approval. This represents the inclusion of the first full day since Scott Brown's election to the US Senate from Massachusetts.

These results to not bode well for Obama since the poll uses a 3-day moving average. I would expect to see some significant declines in the next two days.

Do You Believe in Miracles?

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin

Keep America Safe: 100 Hours

Hat tip: [You know who you are]

Sarah Palin, the new [Arctic] Fox

The blogosphere is awash in speculation about what Sarah Palin's new gig at Fox News will mean to her prospects in 2012. I predicted this summer that she would take time after resigning as Governor of Alaska and crank our her book. She did just that, ahead of schedule. Now, it seems, she has taken on another commitment about which we can only speculate as to its longevity. I say that this will not be a deterrent to her staying in the political fray, but one that will enhance it.

Just wait until tomorrow. There will be out-of-control speculation about what this Fox gig means for Sarah. What I think is hilarious is that the mainstream media and their buddies on network television won't want to carry the story for fear of further promoting Fox News. If you thought Fox had good ratings this year, wait until Sarah shows up.

I don't know if she'll be part of the Fox News panel on 2010 election night, but I would be shocked if Fox doesn't put her in some high-visibility position to draw viewers. This is a perfect forum for her. Moreover, her plans for an inspirational series on overcoming adversity is genius and will further cement her standing with the "regular" American.

Commonsense conservatism is about to get a makeover on Fox News in the persona of Sarah Palin. What do you think Fox's ratings will be on her first night? I wouldn't be surprised if Fox News decides to go up against the network newscasts in the 5pm to 6pm slot on Fox affiliates nationwide. Boy, would that ever be a kick in the teeth to perky Katie!

One other thought, can you see PDS go viral when Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck hook up to do some kind of collaborative piece?

Sarah Palin to Join Fox News

This is just one more reason to stick with Fox News and ignore the rest of the bunch on cable and network television.

Palin to Join Fox News as Contributor
FOXNews.com

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is taking up a spot as a regular commentator on Fox News Channel.

2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is joining Fox News as a contributor, the news channel announced Monday.

The former Alaska governor, whose book, Going Rogue: An American Life, became a bestseller weeks before it was released and remains No. 2 on the New York Times bestseller list, has signed a multi-year deal to offer her political commentary and analysis across all Fox News platforms, including Fox Business Channel, FoxNews.com and Fox News Radio.

She will also participate in special event political programming for Fox Broadcasting.

"I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News. It's wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news," Palin said in a written release.

Palin will also host periodic episodes of Fox News Channel's "Real American Stories," a series exploring inspirational real-life tales of overcoming adversity throughout the American landscape that will debut in 2010.

"Governor Palin has captivated everyone on both sides of the political spectrum and we are excited to add her dynamic voice to the FOX News lineup," said Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming.

Prior to joining Sen. John McCain on the 2008 presidential ticket, Palin was the first woman to serve as governor of Alaska, taking the oath in 2006. As governor, she worked on improving resource development, education, health and transportation and infrastructure development.

Prior to holding the office of governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council in Alaska as well as two terms as the mayor and manager of Wasilla, and worked as an oil and gas industry regulator.

Owned by News Corp, Fox News Channel is a 24-hour general news service covering breaking news as well as political, entertainment and business news, and has been the most-watched cable news channel in the country for eight years running. It features the top 13 programs in cable news and can be seen in more than 90 million homes.

SNL is Racist!

A hilarious SNL bit....



Hat tip: Hot Air

To Poll or Not to Poll

Much press is being given to a Boston Globe poll released today. The key element is in the last paragraph (emphasis mine).

Democrat Martha Coakley, buoyed by her durable statewide popularity, enjoys a solid, 15-percentage-point lead over Republican rival Scott Brown as the race for US Senate enters the homestretch, according to a new Boston Globe poll of likely voters.

Half of voters surveyed said they would pick Coakley, the attorney general, if the election were held today, compared with 35 percent who would pick Brown. Nine percent were undecided, and a third candidate in the race, independent Joseph L. Kennedy, received 5 percent.

Coakley’s lead grows to 17 points - 53 percent to 36 percent - when undecideds leaning toward a candidate are included in the tally. The results indicate that Brown has a steep hill to climb to pull off an upset in the Jan. 19 election. Indeed, the poll indicated that nearly two-thirds of Brown’s supporters believe Coakley will win.

“She’s simply better known and better liked than Brown,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, which conducted the poll for the Globe.

“If there ever was a time for a Republican to win here, now is the time,’’ Smith added. “The problem is you’ve got a special election and a relatively unknown Republican going up against a well-liked Democrat.’’

The poll, conducted Jan. 2 to 6, sampled the views of 554 randomly selected likely voters. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.

Now, consider this poll from Public Policy Polling (PPP), deemed more reliable by most poll-watchers (Again, emphasis mine.)

The race to replace Ted Kennedy in the US Senate is looking like a toss up, with Republican Scott Brown up 48-47 on Martha Coakley.

Brown is benefiting from depressed Democratic interest in the election and a huge lead among independents for his surprisingly strong standing. Those planning to vote in the special election only report having voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by a 16 point margin, in contrast to his actual 26 point victory in the state.

That decline in turnout from Obama voters plagued Democratic candidates for Governor in Virginia and New Jersey last fall. Beyond that 66% of Republicans say they’re ‘very excited’ about turning out while only 48% of Democrats express that sentiment.

Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative.

Those folks planning to vote in the special election are actually opposed to Obama’s health care plan by a 47/41 margin and only narrowly express approval of the President’s overall job performance 44/43.

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”

PPP surveyed 744 likely Massachusetts voters from January 7th to 9th. The margin of error is +/-3.6%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

The Boston Globe published their poll today and the PPP published theirs yesterday. The question is, why did the Boston Globe wait 4 days to publish its poll results? The PPP published their poll the day after its completion.

I think the Boston Globe knew that the poll numbers were tightening in the last few days and desperately were trying to undermine the reality behind PPP's poll.

Semantic Souffle

For the past several years, a large voting bloc of this country has been purposely maligned and falsely characterized as a fringe element of the population. It has been subjected to ridicule and targeted by liberals as out-of-touch, racist, homophobic, divisive and polarizing. Yes, I'm talking about conservatives.

Now, however, there is a new term being bandied about. That term is "populist".

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines "populist" as follows:

Pronunciation: \ˈpä-pyə-list\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin populus the people
Date: 1892

1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

Liberals, on the other hand, have worked hard to re-brand themselves as progressives, which implies that anyone not in their ranks are regressive.

Again, let's look at Merriam-Webster's definition of "progressive":

Pronunciation: \prə-ˈgre-siv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1612

1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress; b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities; c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
4 a : increasing in extent or severity, i.e. a progressive disease; b : increasing in rate as the base increases, i.e. a progressive tax
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives

(Not that it means anything, but my personal preference is 4 a)

Now, given that these three competing terms, conservative, populist and progressive, are readily used by both liberals and the mainstream media punditry to describe the current political landscape, what can we learn? The two new descriptions, populist and progressive, when taken by definition, are telling. When combined with the term conservative, we have a good understanding of what liberals think about the overwhelming majority of the population.

Conservatives, by any liberal's point of view, are a progressive's antithesis. They stand in the way of progress. A liberal's use of the term "populist" refers to the common, uninformed tendencies of the mass population, neither conservative or progressive. A "populist" viewpoint is generally not worthy of consideration within a progressive's political discussion since it is uninformed.

So, what are we left with? Liberals are trying to convince you that this country is composed of three main groups:

Populist - those that don't vote and who's opinions aren't worthy of consideration.

Conservative - those voting with a regressive ideology.

Progressive - those voting in agreement with a liberal ideology.

Consider Gallup's latest findings regarding the overall political ideology of Americans. You'll begin to understand why "populist" is used in a derogatory manner by liberals and partisan pundits:

(Click on image for larger view)

It's no wonder that the liberals and mainstream media have had to resort to a semantic souffle in an attempt to marginalize the general population. The "uninformed" populist has turned against them.

Sarah's Sense of Humor

I was watching a PJTV round-table discussing the prospects for 2010. Inevitably, the subject of Sarah Palin came up and along with that, comparisons to Ronald Reagan. The panel seemed to think that Sarah needed to do a better job with the media. Reagan, they thought, had cut his teeth in media and was much more adept at dealing with it because of his long experience in doing so.

I take exception to that. I don't think it was Ronald Reagan's "vast" experience with media, I think it was his sense of humor. Consider the following:



Sarah Palin needs to convert the chip on her shoulder about the "lamestream" media to one that disarms them. Her appearance at the Washington DC Gridiron dinner and subsequent appearance on the Tonight Show certainly shows that she's capable of just that.

I believe that her hard-fought independence and book tour has "lightened her up". I expect her to have many more favorable appearances in the media going forward. These appearances will do an awful lot to bolster her image and allow her to disarm the nasty questions from the MSM. Expect more comparisons to Reagan. They are her due.

Don't Rush Your Thoughts

When I heard the news about Rush being taken to a hospital in Hawaii complaining of chest pains, I took pause. Listening to Rush for the last 20+ years I feel like I know him. I couldn't fathom the fact that he could have a heart attack at age 58. Especially not after losing so much weight over the last 12 months. He has never looked better.

I was reminded of my favorite radio host in the DFW area, Hal Jay, from WBAP, AM-820. The only reason I started listening to WBAP when I moved to Texas in 1995 was due to the fact that they carried Rush. I became an avid fan and have listened to WBAP every morning on the way to work since I've lived here.

A few years ago, Hal Jay suffered a heart attack while on vacation. Although the news was very concerning, it was disclosed by his fellow morning crew and it made the news much less worrisome. His crew even phoned him at the hospital so he could say a few words and I never felt that Hal was in danger of leaving us forever. In the end, Hal had a stint inserted into a blocked artery and he was back on the air in a few weeks. To this day, I continue to listen every morning.

There will come a time when our favorite voices are silenced forever. Whether it be a family member, close friend or radio personality, it will happen. Thankfully, for me, it didn't happen today. Rush's episode gave me pause, however, and I thank God that he and others will be around longer.



Rush's statement:

To my listeners,

Thank you for your prayers and good thoughts over the past several days. Today, I am leaving Queens Hospital in Honolulu, feeling strong and rested. I offer my deepest thanks to the staff and administration there, who provided excellent care and supervision.

I'm going to take several days of rest over this weekend and the early part of next week, and will be back on the radio with you sometime next week, taking the advice of so many of you to rest and fully recover.

I wish each and every one of you a Happy New Year in 2010!

With great thanks for your support and love,

Rush Limbaugh

'10 in Review

Since I'm not a very good prognosticator, I thought I'd do something different. Here's a look back at some significant events that happened 100 years ago, in 1910:

Jan 2nd - 1st junior high schools in US opens (Berkeley Calif)

Feb 15th - The Boy Scouts of America is founded

Mar 10th - China ends slavery

Apr 14th - President Taft begins tradition of throwing out ball on opening day

May 18th - Passage of Earth through tail of Halley's Comet causes near-panic

Jun 19th - Father's Day celebrated for 1st time (Spokane, Wash)

Jul 19th - Cy Young registers his 500th career victory

Aug 25th - Yellow Cab is founded

Sep 27th - 1st test flight of a twin-engined airplane (France)

Oct 23rd - Phila A's beat Chicago Cubs 4 games to 1 in 7th World Series

Nov 27th - NY's Penn Station opens as world's largest railway terminal

Dec 3rd - Neon lights, 1st publically seen (Paris Auto Show)

Pretty amazing how these events still bear relevance today, 100 years later.