All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:04
January 10, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network on a roll.
I am America's anchorman, America's Truth Detector, Dr. Democracy.
We do play-by-play of the news here.
We do news commentary, and this is really the only place you need for any of that.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, here we go, Senator Kennedy.
Couple of bites here.
A montage of Senator Kennedy obsessed with strip searching.
It's like waterboarding.
You'd think he'd stay away from this topic.
I know that you have gone over the factual situation about the strip searching of a 10-year-old girl.
The police took the wife and daughter upstairs, told them to remove their clothing, physically search them, not as a protective frisk or search for weapons, but in the hopes of finding a contraband.
The result of which we have the strip searching of a 10-year-old.
10-year-old that'll bear the scars of that kind of activity probably for the rest of the tape.
Am I the only one?
I cannot be.
I cannot be the only one when I hear Senator Kennedy say this.
The result of which we have a strip searching of a 10-year-old, 10-year-old that will bear the scars of that kind of activity probably for the rest of her life.
The name Mary Joe Copechni just leaps off of the page at me here when I look at the transcript of this.
The idea, though, of course, that Alito, oh yeah, for the fun of it, you want to strip search 10-year-olds?
Fine, go ahead.
People aren't going to buy this.
This is all they've got.
You have to understand they're starting out with their big guns.
They're starting out with what they think is they're hot and heavy.
Anytime the liberals are forced into circumstances like these kinds of hearings and they're on their own and the mainstream press can't re-characterize it or touch it until later in the day, can't dress it up until later in the day.
It is on display for everybody how pathetically pitiful they have become.
This is about determining someone's fitness to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
They take an instance of one case and they try to mischaracterize this and basically say, this guy's pervert.
Yep, strip search.
10-year-old girl, fine.
Let me come.
That's the impression that they want to leave here.
Here's the rest of what he said in his statement slash question to Judge Alito.
And as a result of your judgment in this case, we have the kind of conduct against this 10-year-old, which he will never forget.
Why?
As if there can be no answer.
Well, of course, there's Judge Alito, and there was an answer.
Senator, I wasn't happy that a 10-year-old was searched.
Now, there wasn't any claim in this case that the search was carried out in any sort of an abusive fashion.
It was carried out by a female officer, and that wasn't the issue in the case.
And I don't think that there should be a Fourth Amendment rule, but of course it's not up to me to decide that minors can never be searched, because if we had a rule like that, then where would drug dealers hide their drugs?
That would lead to greater abuse of minors.
I mean, home run knocked Senator Kennedy out of the park.
I want to return to Senator Leahy.
As I've told you, the liberals see the court as their only way to advocate for their out-of-the-mainstream views.
In this case, terrorist rights.
This is Senator Leahy who opened up with a defense of al-Qaeda, terrorist rights.
And that's what I said.
Other than his attempt here to bring along some Republicans to vote against Alito, which is what this is all about, by bringing up torture and constantly focusing on how the rights of terrorists have been violated by the Bush administration.
He's trying to bring some Republicans along with him to vote against Alito.
Because other than that, this is political suicide.
Once people find out that the first chance a Democrat got to ask this guy any questions, started out asking this judge if you're going to defend the constitutional rights of our enemies.
Here is Leahy.
I worry about this culture we're getting, and I just want to make sure the courts, the Congress is not going to stand up and say no.
And the administration certainly is authorizing this.
I want to make sure that the courts, that the courts are going to say, we'll respect your privacy.
We'll respect your Fourth Amendment rights.
You know, if you have somebody who's been spied on, warrantless by, would you agree, and I think you did, but I want to make sure I'm writing this, do you agree that they should have a day in court?
Certainly.
If someone has been the subject of illegal law enforcement activities, they should have a day in court.
And that's what the courts are there for, to protect the rights of individuals against the government or anyone else who violates their rights.
And they have to be absolutely independent and treat everybody equally.
And those Fourth Amendment rights are pretty significant, are they not?
They are very significant.
What kind of question is that?
And these Fourth Amendment rights are pretty significant.
You know what that is?
I don't know what to say here.
I better say something.
He answered my question, and I wasn't expecting this good of an answer.
So this is, you know, it's a mind burp what it was.
Next up, Leahy asks Alito why he seems to give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement.
A question.
The only reason that I bring up these two cases, Judge, it seems in both of them, you went beyond the four corners of the search warrant.
You settled all issues in a light most favorable, the majority of the opinion didn't, but you did, in a light most favorable to law enforcement.
In fact, in Baker, the majority said that.
And I worry about this, Judge, because I always worry the courts must be there to protect individuals against an overreaching government.
When your name is Rush Lindbaugh or Tom DeLay in this case, Judge, your position in the minority was that you protected what the majority felt was an overreaching argument.
Am I putting too strong an analysis on that?
I think you need to take into account what was going on here.
The police officers prepared an affidavit and they said, we have probable cause to believe that this drug dealer hides drugs on people who are on the premises.
And therefore, when we search, we want authorization not just to search him, but to search everybody who's found on the premises because we think he hides, we have reason to believe he hides drugs there.
We're supposed to read warrants in a common sense fashion because they're prepared by police officers for the most part, not by lawyers, and they're often prepared under a lot of time pressure.
And it seemed to me that reading this in a common sense fashion, what the magistrate intended to do was to say, yes, you have authorization to do what you ask us to do.
But even beyond that, the issue there was whether these police officers could be sued for damages, and they couldn't be sued for damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that that's what the magistrate intended to authorize.
And I thought that surely a reasonable officer could view it that way.
Now, Judge Chertoff looked at it differently, and there are cases where reasonable people disagree.
And that's all that was going on.
Now, Chertoff here is another Republican judge, and this is a typical liberal trick.
They go out and cherry pick a Republican judge who they also hate.
But apparently, a Republican judge will do something right now and then, especially when they can nail another Republican judge.
They throw up this Chertoff guy, another Republican judge, and they want to show Alito to be out of the mainstream and so forth.
I haven't yet seen, has Ted Kennedy or has Patrick Leahy authored a bill in the Senate prohibiting strip searches of 10-year-old girls?
Have they?
They haven't.
They find it so outrageous.
This is an old case.
Didn't happen yesterday.
Where is their concern?
Where is their compassion for these 10-year-old poor victims, these drug mules?
Where is their compassion?
They should have authored a law saying, can't do this.
That's how this works.
If you don't like what's happening in the legal system, then you change the law.
These are the people who have the right to do that.
Folks, I'm telling you, when I listen to these guys, I'm more concerned or convinced than ever that they simply don't have the intellectual firepower to take on the best that we have to offer.
So they have to make up these scenarios, lie about what the president's doing, lie about what Alito wanted to do.
Strip searching 10-year-old girls is fine.
In fact, it's fun.
Let's do it just for the fun of it.
You know, Leahy also got upset that an argument was made that attorneys general can't be personally sued for violations of the law.
He was astounded at that.
You know, it's very interesting.
Members of Congress are constitutionally immune from private lawsuits while acting under the color of their official duties.
They can't be sued either.
If they can't be sued, why should the Attorney General be allowed to be sued?
They always talk about, and this is funny.
I mean, here's Leahy and Kennedy did it too.
They're always talking about the courts protecting the individual from an overreaching government.
But excuse me, aren't these the original big government guys?
And aren't these big government guys complaining about big government power?
Want to talk about a little hypocrisy?
These guys, I guess to understand this, you have to understand that they always side with the bad guys, whether it be al-Qaeda or whether it be a local murderer or whether it be a founder of a gang.
They end up siding with the bad guys.
We folks, we conservatives, we are the limited government guys.
We are the constitutionalists.
Leahy and Kennedy and all the rest of these Democrats, they are the big government guys.
They're the ones that ignore the written words in the Constitution, guys, not us.
And then, of course, Kennedy, he had to bring up the Princeton group that Alito was a member of.
And I told you this was coming yesterday.
And Kennedy says, why?
Why?
Why?
Why would you join such a discriminatory group?
And Alito said, I don't even know that's what they stood for.
I joined it because the ROTC, they were trying to ban the ROTC from campus during the Vietnam War, and I believed in the ROTC.
We knew what the answer was going to be yesterday.
They had to know what the answer was going to be.
They still asked the question.
These are just, I've used this analogy a lot.
They're just trying to sink battleships here with BBs.
Back in a moment.
As you people know, nothing gets by me.
I'm too sharp for these people.
I know what they're going to do and say before they do it.
Strip searching of little girls.
Can't do that.
Loyal to the very big government that the liberals love.
They promote.
They fund this big government with your taxes.
This government's apparently very dangerous because this government violates the rights of citizens.
This government can't be trusted.
It strip searches 10-year-old girls.
The libs are of two minds, aren't they?
Big government, but don't trust big government.
It's their big government doing all these things.
You listen to these horrors being committed in this country.
It's all because of big government.
You can't trust big government.
Why?
They're going to strip search your 10-year-old.
They're going to violate the rights of your citizens.
They can't be trusted, period.
And yet, this is what they advocate.
Yes, I sound incredulous because I'm incredulous.
They advocate big government.
You know it.
They want to raise taxes.
The bigger the government is, the better.
But now all of a sudden, when people get in charge of this big government that they don't like, why look at how outrageous it becomes.
It's talking about strip searching little 10-year-olds.
Tell me something, folks.
Which political party and ideology is it that stands for and promotes and defends the rights of minor girls to have abortions without their parents' consent?
Whom?
Is it not the party of Senator Kennedy and the party of Senator Leahy?
How in the world could they be so concerned about strip searches of 10-year-olds in drug cases and yet find no problem with whatever has to take place in order to have an abortion on a minor girl without her parents knowing about it?
Hmm?
These people, they sink themselves.
All we have to do is let them talk.
They sink themselves.
And they're in the process of doing so again.
Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crossed the barrier 11,000.
The media has a way of describing this.
We have put together a montage.
Fox News Channel, ABC News, CBS News, CBS This Morning, CBS, NBC.
Here is, and note here, there's a single word, single word that all of these anchors and infobabes and reporters used to describe the Dow breaking 11,000.
We certainly understand it to be an important psychological mark.
It's a psychological milestone.
There's nothing magical about 11,000.
It's more psychological.
Wall Street reached a psychological milestone today.
Big psychological barrier.
It's certainly more of a psychological milestone.
The Dow is opening today above a very important psychological milestone, the 11,000 mark.
Is it time now for you to put more money in stocks?
It's a psychological mark?
It's a psychological milestone?
When we get, what, 1,000 and then 2,000 soldier deaths in Iraq, those are real.
Those are grim.
Those aren't milestones.
Those are real.
And there's nothing psychological about them.
But here's the Dow at 11,000 for the first time since 9-11.
And it's psychological.
All this is, is an attempt to downplay the success of the economy.
It's laughable.
The same word.
Somebody sends the facts out from somewhere to the media and they all report.
This is why I asked, you didn't have to watch one network to hear that report.
You could have watched any one of them.
It didn't matter which one you chose.
They were all reporting it the same way.
A psychological barrier has been broken.
A psychological barrier has been reached.
It's nothing but a psychological barrier.
Should we put more money in stocks?
Katie, why don't you tell people what you do with your multiple millions?
Sit there and act like you're getting to work here in a Toyota.
Prius wants to tell people what you do with your millions.
Well, I'm a journalist.
What I do is irrelevant, I know.
Our favorite political analyst, political scientist, Bill Schneider, CNN, yesterday afternoon on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.
The guest was Senator Kennedy, but we're not going to put Senator Kennedy on the bite, I don't believe.
What's funny about this is that Bill Schneider reports that the majority of the American people support Judge Alito's nomination.
Then, after reporting that, Schneider explains to Democrats what questions they have to raise to change that.
He even then went and checked other networks' polls.
So here's the bite.
They said they were inclined to support the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito.
49% just shy of a majority.
Why are they inclined to support him?
Because a majority of Americans, 52%, believe that Judge Alito's views are in the mainstream.
What would it take to convince Americans that he's too extreme?
People were asked, suppose you're convinced that after his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
And in that case, a majority said that they would not support his confirmation.
56% say no.
And I just checked in a poll just released by Washington Post and the ABC News poll, Americans said, if Judge Alito is confirmed, do you think he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Only 18% of Americans right now say they think he would vote to overturn.
That's a very low number.
That number might change.
That's what we're looking for during these confirmation hearings.
Well, so there you have it.
Bill Schneider reports the bad news for Democrats and tells them what they got to go do to change it.
You got to change this.
The public don't think he's going to overturn Roe versus Wade.
You got to convince him he's going to overturn Roe versus Wade.
That's what you got the polling data shows.
So the focus of the story was, uh-oh, well, we got to report the good news here, but we're going to try to give some help.
And Kennedy was a guest on the show.
Kennedy's sitting there as this was being reported.
Let's go to San Francisco.
Hello, Kurt.
Glad you waited.
You're on the EIB network.
Thank you so much, Rush, and Happy New Year from a 21-year veteran of college and high school football coaching.
I'd like to make a football analogy about how the Democrats are running an outdated game plan.
Okay, good.
Okay, here we go on the economy.
Even at a 10% growth rate for the year 2006, the Dow is going to break 12,000 sometime in September and October.
And I deal with people every day that are self-employed.
Our phones are ringing off the hook because the economy is good and they can afford health insurance, which is the number one problem in America, according to the Democrats.
I'm going to listen to what he has said now.
I'd like to ask you a couple questions.
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay.
Number one, can you hear me?
Yeah.
Sorry, Rush, got a bad connection.
Number one, on the economy, if people are having such a hard time making ends meet, and if the Democrats are going to keep beating the old playbook about how everything's bad in the economy, it's psychological when the Dow crosses 11,000, then why are people investing their money in the stock market at a record rate?
Well, there's an answer to this.
And it's, in fact, I'm looking, while you're asking me the question, I'm looking for the answer in my stack here because there's a, maybe it was yesterday I had it, but there's an answer on this.
It has to do with the psychological nature of the way people look at the economy.
And basically, it can be found in the same thing that we've always said.
A lot of people are doing well themselves, but because of the reporting, they don't think their neighbors are.
They don't think other people in the country are doing well economically, even though they are, because they see constant media reports how bad it is.
But the numbers tell the story.
I mean, if you got the Dow going at 11,000, you know what's propelling this number, by the way, 401k money.
People's 401k investments are what's propelling the Dow over 11,000.
I'll tell you about that when we come back.
Sit tight.
You need it up to at least 700 decibels.
Ladies and gentlemen, make sure you don't miss a syllable of the award-winning thrill-packed Rush Limbbaugh program.
All right, another audio soundbite from the hearings.
This was this afternoon.
The Alito confirmation, Senator Joe Biden.
Biden says, sheer personal antipathy is okay, even when the employer's reason for not hiring the person toward whom they showed sheer personal antipathy weren't true.
How do you distinguish that from discrimination, subtle discrimination, sheer antipathy, subtle discrimination?
That's a tough one for me, Judge.
How do you draw the difference?
This gets into a fairly technical question involving a Supreme Court case called the McDonnell Douglas case.
But to put it in simple terms, the Courts of Appeals had divided into three camps on this.
There was the pretext plus camp, which was the one that was the least hospitable to claims by employees.
There was the pretext-only camp, which was the camp that was most favorable to employees, and there was the middle camp.
And my position was in the middle camp.
And when the issue went to the Supreme Court, and it did a couple of years later, in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, Justice O'Connor wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court, and she agreed with my analysis of this legal issue, that in most instances, pretext is sufficient.
Your time is up, Senator Biden.
Because, of course, it's a shame we had to lose Justice O'Connor.
They asked her to hold on.
They asked her not to retire, even Senator Specter.
So here's Biden, who thinks he's the smartest guy in the Senate.
He thinks he's got Alito trapped.
He's got a question on discrimination.
He wants to prove this guy discriminated because he's a conservative.
He's a Republican.
Of course he discriminates.
That's how they live.
So he's got this little case that he thinks he's going to trip this guy up on because he's smarter than Alito.
He's smarter than everybody.
So he gets through this question and says, I don't understand.
Sheer personal antipathy is okay, but how do you distinguish that from discrimination, subtle discrimination?
That's a tough one for me.
Alito says, well, let me simplify this for you.
There were three camps.
I was in the middle camp.
When the case went to Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor agreed with me.
Not I agreed with her.
Justice O'Connor agreed with me.
Biden may as well have thrown up.
He may as well have just ducked under the desk and surrendered the rest of his time.
But you know, going into this, his staff or himself, we're going to get this guy on this one.
My other component, they're going to go out there.
Patriots are going to tread a nail in one abortion.
They're going to tread a nail-one cap, but I'm going to get him on a racist charge.
He discriminates.
He's for big business.
Slam dunk.
No contest.
Virgil in Griffin, Georgia.
Hello, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you on the program.
Dittos, Rush.
Just in response to the montage you played a little while ago with the Dow topping 11,000.
Just a question.
Back when it topped 10,000 during the Clinton year, was that also a psychological level?
Of course not.
No, no, There are no psychological anything in the Clinton administration when it comes to economics.
That was all real.
It was substantive, and it was brought about by high taxes and big government involvement and regulation and business and so forth.
It's $11,000.
It's just a psychological barrier.
Now, you, by nature of your question, you understand the answer.
Now, here are the details on this.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 11,000 yesterday for the first time since before the September 11th attacks.
They were boosted by a five-day rally that has sent stocks soaring so far in 2006.
The analyst, chief investment strategist at Jeffries and Company, Art Hogan, said it sends a signal that the U.S. economy has weathered some pretty harsh storms over the past few years and in recent months.
Now, Hogan said that heightened clarity about the Fed's rate tightening, and what that means is last week there was, or maybe the week ago, there was a leak.
Somebody had read the notes or the minutes of a Fed meeting and they weren't going to tighten anymore.
They were going to leave interest rates alone for a while.
That report, that caused an initial bump.
The race to $11,000 was on.
The other factor is new investment money from 401k and pension funds have contributed to the market's gains in the new year.
And Art Hogan said, we probably can hold on to this $11,000.
This is meaning the 2006 rally.
If companies can continue to weather this energy surge, operate in a higher interest rate environment, create jobs, the market should be able to continue this rise.
They also claim that stabilizing energy prices and a number of other things contributed to the confidence that is allowing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to grow.
The next thing to happen after the notation, this is a psychological milestone.
What you'll hear next, maybe starting today, since these Alito hearings are bombing for the Democrats so badly, what you'll hear, the media will go get economic experts to point out how the Dow Jones Industrial Average has no correlation to the economy in general.
There's no relationship how the Dow is doing, how the stock market is doing, how the overall economy is doing.
That may have been true years ago.
Today it's not.
What's the number?
Something like sticks in my head.
56%, maybe more of the American people are invested in the stock market one way or the other.
Either their pension plans, their 401ks, or their outright purchases of stock.
It'll be what they'll try to do, but they will bomb out doing this as well.
And it'll look like they're succeeding at first because you'll think everybody is seeing it, and only you are smart enough not to be affected by it.
But have faith in your fellow citizens.
They see through all this stuff now.
Remember the story yesterday about the mouse?
The guy found a mouse out in his home in New Mexico, and he threw it out in a pile of burning leaves.
The mouse caught fire, ran back in the house, and burned his house down.
Remember that story?
Turns out it was not true.
It was a rumor.
A small-town rumor that sparked worldwide interest of a mouse burning down a house has been found to be untrue.
After 81-year-old Chano Mares' house burned down Saturday in Fort Sumner, news services picked up the story.
Flaming mouse burns down house, read the headline over an AP story that appeared on WSBTV.com for Atlanta.
That's in Atlanta.
According to initial reports, Mares threw the critter in a pile of burning leaves near his house, but it ran back to the house on fire.
Local firefighters said the mouse ran to just beneath the window.
The flames spread up the window and throughout the house.
All the contents of the home were destroyed, but nobody was injured.
Interest in fires has been high lately.
Unseasonably dry, windy conditions have charred more than 53,000 acres and destroyed 10 homes in southeastern New Mexico in recent weeks.
The mouse story, however, has been doused now by 81-year-old Chano Mauris.
It's really humorous more than anything.
And a mouse burned down the house.
He told a local Albuquerque TV station, the mouse was dead when it hit the burning leaves.
Mares said he trapped and killed the critter and tossed it in the fire.
The flames, he said, probably reached his house because they were driven by high winds.
Mares lost everything.
He's got no insurance, but the mouse story still makes him smile.
He said, I started laughing and I'll be laughing from now on.
It's silly.
It's probably what I suggested yesterday when the insurance company didn't buy this story of his is when the story started to go south.
But then again, many of you may be wondering, well, if my mouse story is true or not.
Was my mouse story a rumor?
No, my mouse, in fact, I didn't embellish my mouse story with as many details as I could have.
But the mouse story yesterday I told about how I killed one with a can of Pam, spray vegetable oil in a trash can in Sacramento is a true story.
There eventually was a witness to this, so I wouldn't know how to contact the witness anymore, but there was a witness, and that story stands and it is true.
Newsmax has this story running today.
Six female employees have filed a $1.4 billion class action sex bias lawsuit against an investment bank.
They claim that they were hired as eye candy.
According to the suit filed in Manhattan, one attractive female employee at the German bank Dredsner Kleinwert Wasserstein Securities LLC was openly called the Pamela Anderson of trading by her boss.
The six women, five of whom work in New York and one in London, also allege that executives bought prostitutes to the office for lunch.
Plaintiff Giotti Ruta claims that she was once pressured by a boss and a colleague to leave a dinner celebrating a deal so that male employees could go to a strip club.
It's in the New York Post.
Now, I have a real world question for those of you women in the audience.
Just something I'd like to know.
How many of you, in the secrecy and privacy of your own dreams and hopes, would love to be hired as ICAND?
Hi, back we are, El Rush Bo, serving humanity, your host for life on the one and only EIB network.
Okay, I'm looking ahead today to the media's action line, that which will move the story forward after the Alito hearings conclude, and they will go through the night tonight.
They are scheduled to take a dinner break from 6 to 7.
It'll go somewhat into the evening tonight for your viewing pleasure at home.
Now, sometime during that 6 to 7 p.m. dinner break, the media will come up with the storyline, the action line.
What is it that moves the story forward?
Well, the only thing that will move the story forward from their standpoint is Alito ran into trouble.
A nomination is not secure.
What are the possibilities this will crash and burn for the president?
That's the action line.
Anything that doesn't advance that storyline is not news.
So you got two possibilities here.
Liberals tried every smear innuendo they could muster, but Judge Alito parried them quite effectively.
Or Judge Alito avoids satisfactory responses to penetrating liberal questions.
Liberals demand more specificity in coming days.
Which of those two do you expect will be the action line of the media tonight?
Well, you know it's not going to be.
Liberals tried every way possible to trip Alito up, but he handled them massively.
It's going to be something along the lines of Judge Alito avoids satisfactory responses.
You'll have Biden out there.
And you'll have Leahy out there if they're not have been out there already.
Kennedy out there.
Well, I was not really pleased with some of the answers.
We need more clarification, Judge Alito.
Sidestep some of these important questions.
That's the reason we have hearings.
We'll get to the bottom of this.
That's what is time.
We'll have our witnesses coming in.
We'll get to the bottom of all this.
And I thought it was very interesting that Judge Alito found it necessary to skirt around some of these very important questions he was asked today.
We didn't hear what we wanted to hear.
And so we're enthused about our possibility.
It'll be something like that's what the senators will say.
So to just cut to the chase, let me give you the storyline.
Strip search Sam beats the rap.
Kennedy tries but can't bring out the truth.
Strip search Sam beats the rap.
Kennedy did his best but can't bring out the truth.
Here's Tom in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Indeed a pleasure, Rush.
Thank you.
As far as the economy, it's all smoke and mirrors.
You gave the answer.
It was money from 401ks, not new money.
They just taking it and reallocating it and pumping up the market.
I'll make a bold prediction.
By May, it'll be back down to 10,000.
When will we have the recession?
By May, your Dow will be back down to 10,000.
Well, I know.
No, but if we're going to lose.
No, wait, no, serious.
If we're going to lose 1,000 points in the Dow, if that's what you think, when will we have a recession?
Because George Soros is predicting a recession.
Last week, some other economists somewhere, the media found one to predict a recession this year.
When do you think it'll happen?
When the Asian world turns in all our debt and crushes our economy, you'll have a genuine recession.
Rush, we're $8 trillion in debt.
If that was a corporation based on GDP, it would be considered junk bonds.
What?
I didn't hear all of what you said.
If what was a corporation's GDP?
If the United States was a corporation based on our GDP and having $8 trillion in debt, it would be considered junk status.
Oh, okay.
You're talking about the national debt, not the annual deficit.
No, that's correct.
The national debt.
If all the Asian countries that own our debt and keep lending us money wanted to crush our economy, all they'd have to do is sell all that debt off, and it would crush our economy.
Our interest rate would go up to 20%, just like in the Carter Days.
Rush, don't you think?
I'm with you 98% of the time.
You are going to be a little bit more.
Wait, do you think they will do that?
Do you think they will do that?
Do you think the Chinese will call in the loans?
I don't know.
You know who they are.
I'm predicting.
They won't.
This is, look, I don't know how old you are, Tom, and I love you and I respect you.
And I heard you say that I'm 98% right.
And you agree with me, but on this one, you've got to part ways.
I just want to share a little life experience with you.
And I'm not even talking economics here.
But since I can remember, I'm 54, and since I can remember, so I'm going back to when I was 15.
That's when I really, well, yeah, this kind of stuff.
I remember the Kennedy-Nixon campaign of 1960 when I was nine, but 15, 16, that's when I really, really started paying attention.
I can tell you that every year I have heard from somebody that the national debt is going to crush us.
It's going to be the end of us.
Back when the Japanese owned the most of it, they were going to wipe us out.
They started buying up various real estate parcels in the country.
We're all going to be working for Japanese corporations.
It was over.
Then we learned the Brits owned a lot of our forest.
Oh, if the Brits foreclosed, we were in deep trouble.
Now it's the Chinese and the Asians.
And I've heard this my whole life.
I've heard how the deficit is a monster that's going to destroy us.
It hasn't.
It hasn't in 40 years, and we've been running comparable debt.
It wasn't this bad early on.
And I know the economic theory is that at some point, like if this were a family or if it was, you say, a corporation, it would all come tumbling down.
But the difference is that the rest of the world can't let this economy go.
The rest of the world cannot pull out of this economy.
They wouldn't have the economies they have were it not for ours.
So, yeah, while it might sound dangerous if these people wanted to really end our life, and it's said that the Chinese do, the Chinese and the Iranians would love to team up and wipe us off the earth.
And they may have some madmen somewhere in their countries that do, but that's really not the case.
They'd like to take us down a few pegs, but they don't want to destroy us.
And I've been hearing about this threat all my life, and I've been hearing about a lot of conspiracy theories all my life, and they just don't ever happen.
I appreciate the call.
We will be back in just a second.
Mr. Snerdley has a friend at the Alito hearings today in one of the pro-Alito groups that's there.
And Snerdley just talked to her on the phone and said the media is grumbling during the breaks because there's no story proving my point.
There is a story.
Alito is running rings around the Democrats, but that's not the action line.
That's not what moves the story forward.
What moves the story forward is Alito screwing up, admitting that he is going to overturn Roe vs. Way, that he believes in strip searching little 10-year-olds and he's a racist, sexist, bigot, and homophobe.
And the Democrats have proven it.
That's the storyline.
But they don't have it because it hasn't happened.
▲
Export Selection