All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:14
August 5, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to your thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
It's the most listened-to radio talk show in America, the most eagerly anticipated, the program it meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
It's Friday, so let's hit it.
And you know the rules for Open Line Friday, Monday through Thursday.
We talk about the things that interest me.
On Friday, we expand that, and you can bring up things that don't interest me if they do interest you.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And if you would rather go the email route, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Before we get back to the phone calls, I'm happy to be able to welcome to the program today former Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee, well known to people who watch television and movies.
Senator, it's great to have you with us.
I know that the White House has asked you to be the liaison, so to speak, the sort of shepherds, if I can use that term, the nomination of John Roberts through the confirmation process.
What does that entail for you?
Well, I told somebody the other day they came up with the name Sherpa, said I was going to be Judge Robert Sherpa.
I told somebody I think that's French for stay out of the way.
And I've been trying to do that as much as I could.
But I've gone on the hill with him and introduced him to the senators and set in on most of the conversations that they've had and talked to him a little bit about the process and the folks that he'll be meeting with and what the various interests are and so forth.
And we'll be working on preparing for the hearings here in the next couple weeks.
How are the Democrats treating him when they meet him personally?
I've seen video.
I haven't been able to listen to it, but I've seen video of Senator Kennedy meeting him and Senator Schumer.
Are they engaging and polite?
I would think that.
Excuse me.
They're treating him very well.
And I wouldn't expect anything differently.
I really don't think that is an indicator of necessarily what lies ahead.
I hope it is.
But he's a very engaging fellow.
He's a nice guy.
He's a modest fella and totally inconsistent with his brilliant academic and professional background, some might say.
But he's just that kind of a guy.
He's a comfortable fella, and he gets along with everybody.
And they've had some good conversations.
Several Democrats have said, you know, I don't necessarily agree with you on a lot of things, but I think you're very well qualified, and the president deserves the benefit of the doubt, et cetera, et cetera.
So I think we're going to get some support.
Well, that's what it seems like now.
But a lot of us are in the We'll Believe It When We See It mode because Clarence Thomas was doing fine until somebody in the middle of all that decided it was time to bring up Anita Hill.
Yeah, they're working overtime out among the groups and so forth.
And we can't be naive about what we're picking up there.
And it will depend on what they're able to shake out of the bushes, which I don't think is going to be much of anything.
They've had a little dose of his writings back when he was 26, 27 years old and part of the Reagan administration and giving sound legal advice.
And a lot of these groups and the media don't like what they see there, but it's unassailable because he's just being a good lawyer and he's solid in his reasoning.
And so they're looking for other things now.
And, you know, they've done a little job on the wife.
And now they're apparently trying to get into the sealed adoption records of the children.
And, you know, once again, some in the media are making themselves the story instead of the story.
And, you know, it doesn't do anything but hurt them.
I don't expect you to comment on this, but you remind me of something I have to share with the audience.
I've been roaming the blogosphere.
What's floating around the blogosphere is that the reason the New York Times is interested in his adoption records is that they're curious about how he ended up with two kids from Latin America who are so light-skinned, so light-colored.
Brother.
Yeah, and we haven't seen that story yet, and I can't confirm that, but that's just what's floating around amongst them.
Well, I haven't heard that, but nothing surprises me.
But keep a sharp eye out for it because it's look at, Senator, you know the value of the court to the American left.
I mean, to them, it's the legislative body that they want to control because they can institutionalize what they believe there.
Take it out of the arena of public debate and public ideas.
It's become exalted and much, much more and more powerful than it was ever intended to be.
It's part of our problem.
Well, you talk about shaking the bushes to see what falls out.
There was, I think, an attempt by the Los Angeles Times yesterday to shake the bushes and cause a rift among Republicans over Judge Roberts regarding his pro bono work for gay activists in the Colorado case.
And we've learned today that one of the sources for that story happens to be a man who used to work with Judge Roberts.
His name is Walter Smith, goes back 10 years ago, who now heads up D.C. Appleseed, which works with people for the American way.
Now, it seems that the point of the story yesterday was that they tried to make it out that Judge Roberts purposely sought out this pro bono work and that he has an unknown, and he didn't submit the responses or didn't answer this in the questionnaire on his pro bono work, that he may be, that the L.A. Times trying to portray him as a stealth supporter of gay rights and trying to raise red flags in the Republican Party about this.
And I've gauged reaction the past couple of days.
I don't think that's working.
In fact, it seems to me that that move yesterday by the L.A. Times was perhaps indicative of the fact that they don't think they can stop him on their side, and they want to try to cause a rift on the Republican side.
Yeah, and it's kind of obvious.
And, you know, as a lawyer, I was especially interested in this little story because it shows Judge Roberts as a lawyer.
And I've been there, and I know what the deal is and how it works.
And the story basically is this, especially these large law firms, his law firm, I think, had over a thousand people in the firm.
They have these pro bono divisions, pro bono committees, and these committees decide for whatever reason what pro bono cases they take over a period of years.
You know, there'll be hundreds and hundreds of cases.
And they go around to the various specialists in their firm to ask for assistance in the appropriate areas that come up.
And you're expected to do that as a lawyer.
And Judge Roberts, the entire time he was there at the firm, never refused for ideological reasons or any other reason to assist and give advice as to the best way to proceed with regard to a particular legal situation.
If it was a plausible legal case and it was ethical, he was playing his role as a lawyer.
He handled many pro bono cases.
He handled a lot of cases in his practice for wealthy people.
He handled pro bono cases for indigent people.
He was a lawyer's lawyer, and he was on a lot of different sides of a lot of different issues.
Kind of the pinnacle that most lawyers really aspire to.
And I think the point here is that, you know, we got a system here where lawyers play their role.
Judges and juries play their role.
And this is no indication of a judicial philosophy.
This is an indication of a lawyer philosophy that has a long and illustrious history, starting with John Adams, who defended the Redcoats at the Boston Massacre.
And Abe Lincoln, you know, was not adverse to representing the railroads against the little guy on occasion.
It's a lawyer's role not to be the judge, but to be an advocate for a case that's plausible if it comes into his office.
And that's the role that he was playing.
But it has nothing to do, one way or the other, with judicial philosophy.
Well, I'm glad you say that because the one thing about it that concerned me was not his role on behalf of gay activists.
It was he appeared to be, based on the way the story was written, he was assisting in overturning a duly passed ballot initiative by the people of Colorado.
Well, you could say that Judge Roberts' secretary assisted in overturning that case.
I mean, if you wanted, I mean, you've got a lot of lawyers doing a lot of things.
Judge Roberts did a little bit, you know, unapologetically.
Again, he's not trying to beg off on that basis.
But the fact is that he was a very, very peripheral player.
And to the extent that you want to say that, you know, 1% makes up the whole and the whole caused a judicial decision.
I guess you can say that.
But it's really stretching the point.
How certain are you or how convinced are you that the Judge Roberts is in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Justice Thomas?
And I only ask this because I don't hear a lot of Washington Republicans engaging the Schumers and the Durbans, the Ted Kennedys on philosophical grounds.
The Democrats run around and they make all these wild claims that are largely untrue.
And I just wonder how certain you are that Judge Roberts is as he appears to be to all of us.
Well, in terms of the members, I mean, unfortunately, that may come later, you know, joining issue on some of these things.
You know, we try not to squeal before you're stuck, and they really haven't stuck him.
And I expect it'll get a little rough before it's over with.
But, you know, we'll deal with that when the time comes, but not before.
In answer to your question, Rush, here's what I can say about that.
It's not for me to speak about his philosophy and so forth in too much detail, I don't guess.
He'll do that for himself.
But in his entire record, through his public service, through his years on the bench as a judge, and through the conversations that I have witnessed, where he's consistently said the same thing to both Democrat and Republican senators, he has supported the limited role for the judiciary.
And a word that he uses a lot is the word modesty, that a judge ought to approach his job and his problem, his case before him, with a sense of modesty, with a respect for precedent, with a respect for the limited role that the judiciary has in the process.
A very important role, but a limited role.
These judgeships have always been important, but they've become much, much more elevated and important, I think, in my opinion, than the Founding Fathers had in mind.
So limited role for the judiciary, important, but with a modest approach.
Secondly, that a judge is not supposed to get up in the morning and put down an opinion based upon the elite opinion of the day or a narrow set of preconceived notions.
They decide the case based on the Constitution, the statutes, and the facts before him.
Judges don't decide ideological issues.
Judges decide cases.
Well, they do.
They shouldn't.
I mean, that's what they're supposed to do.
That's what we, in my opinion, we need to get back more to.
Everything that he has said publicly and privately is consistent with that.
He never, in any of his endeavors, as certainly as a judge or as an advocate inside the government, has ever been inconsistent with that in any way.
I just think the guy is going to be an exceptional judge.
Well, I appreciate your calling, and I appreciate your time, and it's good to speak with you.
It's been years since I've had a chance to talk to you.
I know, I know, and I miss that.
And I appreciate what you're doing, and I especially appreciate you giving me a little time here today.
Anytime, Senator.
Senator Fred Thompson, who is acting as the liaison between the White House and the Judiciary Committee with the Judge Roberts nomination.
We've got to take a brief time out.
We'll be back and continue here in mere moments, folks.
Sit tight.
Okay, just to expand on a couple things that I mentioned to Senator Fred Thompson in our wide-ranging interview of mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, and by the way, we've made a PDF file out of the Limbaugh Letter interview with Robert Novak.
It was February 2001.
And we're going to post that at rushlimbaugh.com because it does have the question I asked him about the abuse he takes on the Capitol Gang, a show which, by the way, he was the producer of.
It was his show.
And you'll get his answer to that because it dovetails with this incident yesterday where he turned off the mic and walked off of the CNN set.
But the LA Times story yesterday, remember, it had this, and it wasn't even hidden.
It wasn't even veiled.
It was, that story was written with a supposition.
And the supposition is, is that Republicans hate gays.
Republicans just despise gay people.
And so they write this story that Judge Roberts had assisted gay activists in overcoming a ballot initiative in Colorado.
Well, we have learned here that the chief source of the story in this story, a guy named Walter Smith, who worked at Roberts' law firm 10 years ago, he headed up the pro bono division.
He's now with an activist group, a lib activist group called DC Appeased.
And DC Appeased works together with People for the American Way and other, you know, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
It's a pretty far-left group.
And it turns out this guy is the source.
What this tells me, folks, is that the left is having trouble defeating Judge Roberts on their own.
They just don't have the goods to defeat the guy.
So they're trying, as I thought yesterday, to drive a wedge between Republicans with this intimation that he's pro-gay rights and so forth.
And it is, it's, it's just obvious to me now what the purpose of that story was.
And I think it's ultimately, when you take it all away, strip it all away, a positive, because the left is admitting that they've got some problems.
Because the L.A. Times story today is a 180.
The headline of the L.A. Times story today is with star Roberts pushed Reagan agenda.
So yesterday, Roberts pushed the gay agenda, and now he's pushing the right-wing Reagan agenda.
Which is it?
Together, Starr and Roberts pressed a strongly conservative legal agenda for three and a half years.
They argued for limiting the scope of civil rights laws, ending race-based affirmative action, restoring some prayers to public schools, and overturning Roe v. Wade the case that established a woman's right to abortion.
Christopher Wright, a lawyer who worked under them at the Solicitor General's office, said, Ken Starr and John Roberts are genuine conservatives.
They're highly professional and excellent lawyers, but I'm a Democrat and I can't say I always agreed with them.
So today, Roberts is one of these far-right extremist guys.
He's full-fledged Reaganite.
Yesterday, he was a gay rights activist.
So it seems at the Los Angeles Times, and yes, I do associate an agenda with mainstream journalism, folks.
You'd be silly not to.
They're not just out there reporting the facts and not just telling us what we didn't see.
There's an agenda behind all this.
And it is apparent they're trying to stoke the fires on both sides.
They're trying to get both sides upset with this guy.
But this is pretty weak.
The left is going to be opposed to him on this basis, whether it's true or not.
Bush appointed him.
They're going to assume he's a conservative and they don't need any proof.
He's just a conservative.
We're going to oppose him on that basis.
I still suggest to you that the reason for all of this is that they're having trouble and they've got some problems.
Some Democrat senators have come out and said they like the guy and they're going to have a tough time voting against him.
Now, also want to warn you about this, is exactly as I mentioned to Senator Thompson.
It wasn't until it looked like Justice Thomas was going to sail through that they dragged out Anita Hill.
And you know where that came from?
Paul Simon, the late Paul Simon senator from Illinois, his wife was instrumental in dredging up this story.
Anita Hill at first wasn't even game for it.
And this was a late arriving scam.
The Bork business of Ted Kennedy happened the day that Bork was nominated or the next day.
But it appears to be smooth sailing right now, but I'm just telling you the Libs, they're going to have some things.
You know, they always do, and they're holding their fire right now.
And it'll manifest itself in the hearings.
You know, they're going to take their shots.
They're just not going to sit back idly and let this happen.
As to the New York Times, the blogosphere is reporting that the New York Times interest in his adoption papers is that some people on the left are curious how Judge Roberts and his wife were able to adopt such light-skinned babies from Central America.
And the adoption records are sealed, and that makes them want them even more.
We haven't yet seen the story, but that, and I'm just telling you what's going around, and there are some sources in the blogosphere that are close to the New York Times on this that are suggesting, yeah, this doesn't look right.
You started adopting Latinos or Latin American kids, and they ought to look like that, not look like they're white.
So what's up here?
That's said to be a curiosity factor of the New York Times.
Get any lower than that, folks.
America's Anchorman, America's truth detector and doctor of democracy, sitting firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair behind the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Latest opinion audit, by the way, from the Sullivan Group shows me documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
Here's Elizabeth in Farmington, New Mexico, as we proceed with Open Line Friday.
Hi, Elizabeth.
Hi.
Hi.
We are on the air.
Okay.
Oh, I want to talk to you about gas prices.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm mad, apparently.
Like, here, gas prices have risen 12 cents in the past couple of days, and it's making me so mad because it's getting really hard to afford to sell up my tank.
I've got an 18-gallon tank.
18-gallon tank.
What kind of a vehicle are you driving?
An Oldsmobile.
An Oldsmobile.
Yeah.
You know, they're not going to make those anymore.
You need to switch to a Pontiac.
No, no.
I want to switch to a hybrid car, but they're too expensive because I'm spending all my money on gas.
Well, but the hybrid's supposed to help you save money.
Exactly, but I'm putting so much money and gasoline into my car that I can't afford to do anything else.
Well, what's gasoline cost where you are?
For me, it's $2.39 for regular unleaded.
I'll tell you, you know, I can relate, Elizabeth.
Do you know what the price of jet fuel is these days?
I wouldn't know because I don't have a jet.
Well, let me just tell you, I've had to order the pilots to throttle back to 400 miles an hour to try to save some.
Because it's just, it's outrageous.
It's like six bucks, seven bucks a gallon out there in certain places, depending on where you buy it.
So I hear you.
Yeah.
Well, I'm just it's hard to live on a budget and try to pay for gasoline, and there's no bus system, so it's even harder to get around.
Well, where are you cutting back?
I mean, you're actually not buying as much gas and you're not driving as much, and that's how you're cutting back, or are you cutting back in other areas?
I'm cutting back by not driving as much.
I don't use my air conditioner just to conserve a little bit, and I barely use my car as it is, so I can save money.
Well, you know, I think these gasoline prices are pretty much, they're where they're going to be.
They're not going to come down significantly from this point.
Well, I don't expect that, but from what I hear, they're going to increase to $5 a gallon, and I may be wrong, but that's the last thing I heard.
Well, I don't know about that.
It may happen sometime way, way, way down the road, but I don't think that's going to happen.
Now, what I find interesting about this is for the longest time, the left, they should be happy at rising gas prices because the left has been moaning and whining and complaining about how unfair it is that we only pay what we pay for gasoline got our poor European friends.
And by the way, I was just over there.
You ought to see the lawnmowers those people are driving.
There's this thing called a bubble car.
Have you seen a bubble car?
It's by Smart.
It says it's related to Mercedes.
I mean, you're really sitting.
It looks like an inverted eggshell.
I can't figure out where the engine is in the thing.
All I know is I wouldn't even want to run into a parking meter in it.
And it's called the smart car.
And it's not selling very well, but there are some of them around there.
And it's just, but they're all driving these tiny, tiny little things that are really nothing more than a lawnmowers with a couple seats on them.
And the leftovers, it's just unfair.
We'll look at what they're paying for gasoline.
We ought to be paid for.
So now the prices go up.
What do they say?
Bush is mismanaging the economy.
Well, they ought to be all ecstatic and happy because they think this is going to lead to fuel economy, ladies and gentlemen.
And obviously, you can conserve.
We have a great conservation program, and that's not going to solve our problem.
We need production.
Another thing I find amazing about this, here's the left all concerned about oil prices, but oh, no, no, no, no.
You're not going to go get any oil out there in Alaska.
Not at Ann Warden.
You're not going to drill off the coast of California.
You're not going to put any more oil rigs in the Gulf Make.
Oh, no, no, no.
We're not going to spoil our environment.
We're going to get Bush, though, for not being able to do anything about rising gas prices.
Bunch of hypocrites out there, if you ask me.
Thanks for the phone call out there, Elizabeth.
I appreciate it.
The New Jersey governor's race, as Deborah Oren writes in the New York Post today, exploded into a firestorm yesterday with the revelation that the super wealthy Senator John Corzine gave $470,000 to a former flame who runs one of the biggest New Jersey state employee unions.
The value of the donation ballooned to as much as $615,600 because Corzine paid the gift tax.
He gave this babe $470,000 in a loan, then he forgave the loan, and that makes it a gift, and so he has to pay the gift tax on that.
She doesn't.
The giver does.
The gift tax was in the neighborhood of $145,600 is the gift tax on a gift of $470,000.
So she ends up basically with $470,000.
It's equivalent to her earning $615,600 and having to pay income tax on it with some variation in rates.
Senator Corzine Stonewall questions about whether he gave any other money to Carla Katz, who represents 9,000 New Jersey state employees as head of local 1034 of the Communications Workers of America.
The rival in the race, Doug Forrester, backed by some watchdog groups, charged that the gift represents a conflict of interest because Katz and other unions have vowed to seek billions in taxpayer funds for pay hikes from the next governor.
Forrester said, I believe if somebody is responsible for representing the public interest in a negotiating process of any form, the nature of the financial relationship that existed or continues to exist should be known.
Now, Corzine refused to say if he made any other presents to Katz and her family.
He said, I'm a public official, but I also have a private life.
Oh, a little sensitivity there.
I'm a public official, but I also have a private life.
New Jersey Republican chairman Tom Wilson said this is deja vu all over again and evoked memories of the sleaze that led former governor Jim McGreevy to resign after putting a man with whom he'd had an affair into a sensitive job.
So can you imagine if Corzine were a New York Times is barely interested in this by couldn't care less about this story and to the extent that they are no big deal private matter?
Can you imagine if a Republican governor had done this?
If a Republican governor had given a $415,000 loan to some sweetheart and then ended up forgiving the loan and then ended up paying the gift tax on it, total of $615,000, and this sweetheart happened to head up a union you're going to be dealing with if you end up being governor.
And you're going to need this union and its support if you want to be governor?
No, he's very much against any of us getting tax cuts and he's fully willing to examine our private tax matters to determine we don't deserve tax cuts.
But when it comes to his own private life, doesn't want to go there as a private life.
Here's Stephen in Bloomington, Indiana.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
Hi.
Yeah, I'm calling about, I heard you mention this yesterday, and I'm glad you brought it up again today.
I'm just really upset at hearing this news that the issue of adoptive parent.
I happen to be an adoptive parent of three kids.
I've adopted from overseas.
This issue of being sealed, this is for the sake of the child.
So whatever this Los Angeles newspaper is doing is potentially...
Wait a sec.
Wait, wait, just you got to have to understand something here.
The New York Times is pro-abortion, so you can get an idea what they think of the sake of the children.
Well, yeah, you may have a point there, but be that as it may, the Liberals, and I'm a former liberal myself, so I kind of know what the mindset used to be, are supposedly all for the best interests of the oppressed.
Now, you've got to make a choice here.
And the choice is one or the other.
And what Lilith is of soap saying to me is like, my God, this is like the most wonderful thing.
For us, adoptive parents, for the adoptive children, for the sense of belonging.
Two things.
There are so many good things.
Two things here.
Somebody said yesterday, and I had to chuckle, at least the New York Times has finally discovered adoption exists.
At least that's happened.
But you have to understand something.
You're talking about the issue of adoptions.
To the New York Times, the issue is the Supreme Court.
And the issue is what's going to happen if the liberals lose control of it.
That will override everything.
The Supreme Court has become the final arbiter in our society.
And that is where, and the Supreme Court, by the way, has gone way beyond its original intentions and is now deciding social and cultural issues, issues on the liberal side of things, which cannot win at the ballot box.
So as I keep saying, it's all about institutionalizing liberalism because liberals know they can't win with it in the arena of ideas.
But you get the courts to proclaim liberalism as the law of the land.
What are we going to do about it?
And so here comes Judge Roberts and the original first glance says, uh-oh, this guy is a problem.
He is a Reaganite.
Uh-oh, we got problems with this guy.
And they know Bush probably get two more nominations before his term is up.
And if he gets three and he puts the right three on the court and they all get confirmed, Libbs can say goodbye to institutionalizing liberalism.
That's what concerns them.
And it doesn't matter what they have to do to try to destroy Judge Roberts.
Adoption records of his kids, Adita Hill and Clarence Thomas, Ted Kennedy and Robert Borg.
It doesn't matter.
They'll do whatever they will destroy somebody's life, reputation.
It doesn't matter because the courts are the only things that really matter.
Quick timeout.
Back with more on Open Line Friday in a moment.
Making more sense than anything anybody else has to say out there.
Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB Network.
Loving to hear myself say it.
As is DJ of Westerville, Ohio, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Mr. Limbaugh, it is a great honor.
Thank you.
Mega Mailmand Dittos for everybody.
Thank you, Estreville.
I was wanting to get your opinion and give you mine, I guess, on the Club Gitmo guys getting released back to Afghanistan.
Yeah, you tell me what you think of this first.
Well, I think that they probably aren't real happy right now, and they're probably wishing somebody did just flush their Koran because they're probably going to be shot when they get over there, you know, because their system's a lot of people.
What do you think of our strategy in doing it, though?
I think the liberals really don't have an argument anymore saying, well, we're getting rid of them like you asked us to.
We're sending them back to their country.
And now what can you say?
We're doing what we're, you know, we're getting rid of them.
Well, it's distressing to me.
I have to admit this, folks.
We have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the Club Gitmo logo, the Club Gitmo clothing line, all the Club Gitmo gift shop.
And now, and now they're just going to close it down.
They're just going to close it down.
They're going to transfer 70% of the people there to some hellhole in Afghanistan.
And I just know this.
I know that it won't be long before they start shouting abuse, abuse, abuse, and Dick Durbin will go back to the Senate floor talking about what the hell's happening to these poor people in this prison in Afghanistan because it's standard operating procedure.
But I just want you people to know, despite this, Club Gitmo will always be open in our hearts and minds, and it will always stand for something more than just a physical place.
And so Club Gitmo not going out of business in any way, shape, manner, or form.
In fact, this is even going to make it bigger because it's going to be even tougher to get into Club Gitmo now.
So, yeah, but I don't know if it's a capitulation, Joe, to the criticism or if there's some other reason that they want to get him out of there and take him back to Afghanistan.
I'm going to find out, though.
I want to find out if it's because the meddling of the judiciary.
I want to find out if it's the meddling of the federal judiciary trying to take over the role of commander-in-chief here in determining how these people can be tried, interrogated, whether they have to.
It's going to be very tough to grant these people access to the U.S. Constitution when they're in a hellhole prison in Afghanistan.
But when they're on U.S. quote-unquote territory down at Cuba, it might provide more fodder and more opportunity for civil interest, civil rights, leftist groups to claim that these terrorists have civil rights according to the U.S. Constitution.
So I'm going to find out about that.
But regardless, regardless, folks, Club Gitmo is a state of mind.
And wherever Club Gitmo is, it will always be Club Gitmo.
Joe, here is your next sell call from Ramsey, New Jersey.
Hello.
How are you doing, Rush?
I own five gas stations.
I wanted to make a comment on the stabilization of gas prices.
Everybody thinks that we don't have enough refineries.
All right.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
All right.
And a lot of it is to do with like Exxon.
I own Exxon stations.
And they make 40 different types of fuel across the country.
Yep.
All right.
This is where interstate commerce and everything came.
They could stabilize prices tomorrow if they made one type of fuel.
Yep.
All right.
Because a couple of years ago, I don't know if you remember when California first hit $3 a gallon because of a refinery explosion.
Yep.
They couldn't get gas from Oregon and Nevada.
They had to truck it in from Arizona because of the standards of gasoline.
Oh, that's right.
And there was a pipeline problem in Arizona.
I remember this now.
That's right.
And they had to bring it in from three states away because of the EPA regulations on the fuel.
Yeah.
All right.
Like in Pennsylvania, if Pennsylvania has a problem, they can't get gas from New Jersey.
Same thing in Illinois.
Illinois's got all kinds of restrictions.
Chicago had a gas shortage some years ago because a pipeline broke down somewhere.
Yeah, each state is completely independent of itself when it comes to EPA standards.
There's no federal standard for gasoline.
All right.
You know, I'm glad you called, Joe.
I won't, folks, I have to admit, I was a bit too flippant with Elizabeth from Farmington, New Mexico on the gas price.
Because there are some things that can be done.
And he's nailed one of them right here.
These outrageous number of formulas that have to be blended to match EPA rules based on these environmentalist wackos.
But when you also look at the amount of taxes in a gallon of gas, there's any number of ways.
If Washington really cares that you're paying too much for gas, they can lower the price of gas without importing any more oil or doing all they got to do is relax some of these restrictions or lower some taxes.
Back here in just a second.
I learned something after the program yesterday said by Eamon Al-Zawahiri, this coward thug that doesn't have the guts to face his own people but gets propagandized all over the world thanks to American media and Al Jazahira or whatever, Jazeera.
He said something yesterday.
It's right out of the Democratic talking points, folks.
▲
Export Selection