All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
January 30, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
You are tuned to the award-winning Thrill Pack Rush Limbaugh Program program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
No mean feat, that telephone number, if you'd like to join us.
We'd love to talk to you.
We're going to be getting to your phone calls.
We'll be getting to your phone calls.
Numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
And we've got some stuff coming up on Sam Alito and the Democrats in their filibuster attempt here in a minute.
Senator Kerry has mentioned my name recently, last half hour on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
We have that for you.
But if we found the original Reuters story on this battlefield fatality statistic, it's an all-time low.
And by the way, to set this up, if some of you are just joining us, as you know, ABC News, World News Tonight co-anchor Bob Woodruff and his cameraman were seriously wounded in a, for all practical purposes, a car bomb while they were filming a stand-up report to show the fitness of the Iraqi security forces.
They were standing up out of a hatch in an Iraqi light armored personnel carrier.
Their wounds are apparently very serious, stable condition.
And we played soundbites from David Weston, the president of ABC News, who was on Good Morning America today, who said, for this, for them, for them, this makes all of this real.
How long have we been in Iraq?
We've been there since 2003.
Three years, three years, three plus years.
Well, it's going to be three years in March, right?
Three years in March.
But this makes it real.
This really lets them know that this is real.
Now, one of their anchors has been wounded and their cameraman wounded.
Now, of course, this is the same media that has been eagerly running these countups of American troop deaths.
They were all excited, barely keep their pants zipped up when we got to 1,000 and 1,500 and 2,000.
And all of this was designed to create anti-war sediment among the American people.
And then last December, or two Decembers ago, about 13 months ago, Reuters and the Washington Post both ran essentially the same story.
And the Reuters story is headlined this way, U.S. medical advances may mask war's human cost.
The toll on U.S. troops of war in Iraq and Afghanistan may be obscured by dramatic advances in battlefield medicine that allow more soldiers to survive combat injuries than ever before, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Now, just take that paragraph and stop and digest this.
The toll on U.S. troops of war may be obscured by dramatic advances in battlefield medicine that allow more of them to survive their injuries.
The toll, did you understand this?
When we first encountered this story, we were beside ourselves.
We could not understand this.
Battlefield fatalities at an all-time low, and Reuters and C.C. Connolly at the Washington Post write stories on how problematic this is.
And they call it a cost.
And they refer to it as a toll, the toll on U.S. troops.
This can no longer be described as a small or contained conflict, but a far larger proportion of soldiers are surviving their injuries.
Author Atul Gawande, a Harvard professor and sturgeon at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, said in the article, U.S. combat deaths in Iraq topped 1,000 last week, December 2004, remember.
Gawande suggested fundamental changes in treating wounded troops had altered the old calculus for measuring a war's intensity.
As a result, it could be misleading to focus only on combat deaths to gauge the level of fighting.
See, what was happening here, a thousand deaths.
The media was going nuts.
A thousand deaths.
Okay, this is going to get the American people really on our side and against Bush and against the whole war.
But it didn't.
So they came out with this cockeyed report.
Well, the battlefield fatality rate is at an all-time low, but that's because doctors are being moved to the front lines.
That's not the place for doctors.
And those doctors at the front lines are saving the lives of soldiers who in the past would have been killed.
And that's not good.
And we're sitting here scratching our heads.
How can this possibly be?
How can even this good news be looked at cynically?
And we figured it out.
Battlefield fatalities at an all-time low at a time when the media is trying to trumpet and hype them to gin up anti-war support gave them a problem.
So they had to say, and both articles do, C.C. Condoleezza and the Reuters story, both articles say that it may not be good that the battlefield fatality rate is so low because it means that people's lives are being saved and their lives are maybe not worth living.
Look at their devastating injuries.
No eyes, no arms, no legs.
Who would want to live that way?
Why, this is.
Folks, we're going to post both stories again at rushlimbaugh.com so you can read them for yourself.
But amidst all that comes now this tragic injury to Bob Woodruff at ABC and his camberman.
So we at Rush Limbaugh and RushLimbaugh.com have decided, ladies and gentlemen, that we are going to start our own tally.
We're going to have our own count up.
In fact, we're doing two of these.
We are doing a countdown.
We're working on putting it together now.
Last week I told you that Al Gore told Larry David at Sundance that we only have 10 years left to enjoy life on the planet.
Otherwise, global warming is going to basically scorch the earth and end life as we know it.
10 years.
So we are going to start at rushlimbaugh.com a countdown until it's all over.
10 years until it's it, that we're doomed, folks.
We've got 10 years.
Al Gore said so.
You have 10 years to put your affairs in order, 10 years to plan your estates, 10 years to decide whether or not you want to bring a new child into the world who's only going to live nine or eight years or four or five or six or seven.
A lot of things you have to consider here because we've only got 10 years.
And of course, if you go to Davos and listen, 10 years isn't nearly enough time to fix the problem.
So we're cooked in more ways than one.
We're going to have that countdown because when the world ends, I don't want anybody saying they didn't hear about it on this show or my website.
Number two, we've decided today to do a count up.
Just as the media counted the battlefield fatalities of U.S. soldiers, we are going to count journalist fatalities and wounded.
Those who have been wounded and killed in the Iraq war, we are going to count up because at some point, ladies and gentlemen, we will have a tolerance level that will be reached.
At some point, the networks will have to pull out of this quagmire.
The losses will not be justifiable.
And if it's only now hitting David Weston that this is real, then we may have a little ways to go here.
But we want to help raising consciousness.
Now, many of you people say, why do you want to help journalists this way, Rush?
I listen to you and you rip the media quite.
No, no, no, folks, I support the journalists.
I just don't support their stories.
And that's always been the case with me.
I've always supported journalists.
They have a constitutional acknowledgement of their importance.
It's just the stories I don't support.
But I support journalists.
I've never said we need to get rid of journalists.
Unlike journalists who've said it might be wise if we got rid of the military, I've never said that about them.
But I don't support their stories.
So don't anybody get confused.
I also got an email from a person wondering.
Yeah, how about a slogan for Bob Woodruff?
No blood for Disney.
You know, that might be going a bit far.
No blood for Ink.
No blood for airtime.
But I got an email, somebody wondering, and this is a good question, who is paying Bob Woodruff and the cameraman's medical expenses?
Is, for example, ABC reimbursing the military for this in order to maintain their objectivity.
You know how the journalists will not.
When they fly on Air Force One, they reimburse.
When they stay in a hotel, a White House sets up and a president travels, they reimburse.
They're not going to have their objectivity compromised here by appearing to be on the take.
I'm sure ABC has a great health plan, but is it in force?
And by the way, he even thought about calling in OSHA because obviously the battlefield is not a safe place for journalists and the military is not doing all it can do to ensure occupational safety for journalists.
And this incident, which David Weston now realizes makes all this real, is a great illustration of just how dangerous it can be on a battlefield for journalists.
And is the Army doing everything they can do?
And to send OSHA in there to investigate them, just like you sent them in to investigate Walmart?
A lot of things we can do here, folks.
We are on this.
Be confident.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Hi, we're back.
Great to have you with us as we are serving humanity.
Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from God.
Coco, a little personal message here to the webmaster at rushlimbaugh.com.
We might want to think of yet another list affecting journalists.
It's really dangerous for journalists at Time Inc. these days.
Time Inc. is dropping the axe on as many as 80 employees today in the latest much-feared round of cutbacks.
The affected staffers who were being notified of their fates today came from both the editorial and business side of Time Inc.'s operations.
More details on this round of play also come later today, but look at not only do you have the dead and the wounded in Iraq, but look at the journalists have been laid off at the New York Times, at the L.A. Times, at Chicago Sun Tribune, at Time magazine.
It is, folks, it is a precarious moment in time for America's journalists.
And not only is the battlefield in Iraq dangerous, but so is it dangerous at other journalistic institutions themselves on safe soil.
Well, Snerdley has an idea.
We might want to spearhead this too.
You know, some of the best ideas come from this kind of freewheeling brainstorming.
Maybe it's time for a tomb of the unknown journalist or a monument somewhere to a journalist for all of the strife and struggles, great contributions that they have made to the freedom and the future of not only this country, but others around the world.
Not a bad idea.
And, you know, they all think that I don't like them.
And I think they could have a different view of me if I were to be the one to spearhead this statue or monument effort.
A lot of marble to correct.
We'd have to build it two or three times with corrections and so forth.
Also, here's some good news out of New Orleans, folks.
About 250 employees.
Nobody's going to tell you about this, so this is, we can call this an EIB exclusive.
About 250 employees of Shell Exploration and Production Company returned to the firm's downtown New Orleans offices today for the first time since Hurricane Katrina struck on August 29th.
Another 750 Shell employees will be back at the One Shell Square building during the week of February 20th.
Shell employs about 1,400 people in southeastern Louisiana, most of the rest working offshore.
Frank Glaviano, Shell's vice president for production in the Americas region, said these individuals and their jobs represent important contributions to the emerging economic recovery and its community fabric, speaking of New Orleans.
On Monday, Shell donated $500,000 to address housing needs for police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical service personnel.
And then this is who's this story's AP.
And get this next line.
Shell is a major white-collar employer in the New Orleans area, which has suffered from a shift of many oil production offices in recent years to consolidated locations in Houston.
Now, this will not be trumpeted nearly as loudly as it would otherwise be because Shell's a major white-collar.
We're not talking about African Americans coming back and reestablishing normalcy in New Orleans.
So, this, of course, will have to be downplayed, if not ignored, by journalists, ladies and gentlemen.
All right, as I promised, they're going to go to the audio sound bites.
The swimmer screaming on the Senate floor that he was there when they had real filibusters.
And nothing is more important than the Supreme Court justice.
I would love.
I remember real filibusters too, and I wish the Republicans would actually make them do one.
And Kennedy would be the perfect Democrat to actually have to do a real filibuster.
I've been here in the United States Senate when we really had filibusters.
The idea that we're here on a Monday, and this came to the Senate last Wednesday, and the opposition is saying, oh, well, this is delaying the work of the Senate.
What's more important to the United States Senate than a vote for the Supreme Court of the United States?
What's more important?
I thought Jack Abramoff was.
I thought spying, the president's domestic spying was more important, Senator.
I thought rebuilding New Orleans, you ought to go talk to Senator Mary Landrew.
She doesn't want you filibustering because she wants to rebuild New Orleans.
I mean, I thought there's a lot of stuff more important in Alito.
That's the point.
I've been asking all last week and start this week.
This guy's really such a great threat.
Why are you not doing everything you can to stop, including kidnapping him and sending him down to Venezuela?
If he's really going to tear up and destroy the country, nothing, nothing would be too extreme, Senator.
Here's more from Senator Kennedy.
He says we need more debate on Alito's record.
This is the issue.
This is the time.
This is the nominee.
And we find out how we've been treated, Mr. President.
And this body deserves better, and the American people deserve better.
All right, stop it a minute, Alderman.
Stop it a minute.
He's complaining about how they've been treated.
The Democrats in the Senate.
Has he seen pictures of Mrs. Alito lately?
This afternoon, that's what it's about.
Let's really find out.
Let's have a chance to go through these cases and this nominee.
Yeah, we've got to be able to do it.
We've known, Mr. President, that the right wing is now and has its campaign in full gear.
Their mission is to cover up the truth.
So we do need a full debate.
Bring out the truth on Judge Alito's records.
What's wrong with debate?
Hold it a minute.
Can you try that?
What Americans would do if they Well, thank you.
Didn't Senator Kennedy try this?
He lied about everything.
He doesn't even know that he has all this egg on his face.
He's demanding even more of it.
He heard the full record.
That's what the issue is, Mr. President.
And that's why people are entitled to the time.
Now, in this next bite, the swimmer, Senator Kennedy, says that Judge Samuel Alito causes asthma in children.
We have doubled the number of deaths from ABS asthma this year that we had five years ago.
Doubled the deaths for children.
I wonder why that is.
I don't know what you tell the mother when they see the children having that intensity.
Stop the tape a minute here.
Somebody whisper into his ear the number of abortion deaths compared to asthma deaths.
I wonder what he would say.
He passed laws, the president signed them.
They go to the court in terms of interpretation.
And where will this nominee come out?
Will he come on out for that mother who has a child that's got asthma?
Or that parent who's seeing the pollution that's taken place in a pond and a lake and whose child has been affected by those kinds of poisons.
See why I want these guys to filibuster?
I mean, now Alito, as a justice on the court, is going to let kids die from asthma.
After Senator Kennedy regaled the body, the Senate, it was Senator Kerry.
Judge Alito, a nominee who they received with gleeful excitement.
Rush Limbaugh rushed to call the nomination fabulous.
The right-wing reaction can only mean one thing.
They either know or they have a full expectation of what kind of opinions Judge Alito is going to issue.
Opinions that are in line with their extreme ideology.
You know, it's just fascinating to watch this.
I was going to say sad, but it isn't sad because it's too much fun.
These guys, you can boil it all down.
Sometimes I get too verbally eloquent here and verbose in trying to define their problem.
Their talking points don't work anymore.
Kennedy trying to make people believe that this judge is going to result in more kids dying from asthma.
I just – and now John Kerry is just trying to gin up the base.
Well, a right-wing likes the guy.
That must mean we can't accept him.
They know full well what he's going to be.
By the way, Kerry was denying on Friday that he was a leader of the filibuster.
He was denying that after getting on the phone while making plans to hit the slopes in Davos to lead the filibuster, he hasn't tried.
He denied he had anything to do with it.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, turbulence, tumult, disaster, and even the good times, El Rushbo.
And I am being flooded with requests by popular demand to re-air the swimmer soundbite in which he blames Sam Alito for asthma deaths among children in this country.
And so here it is again.
We have doubled the number of deaths from ABS asthma this year than we had five years ago.
Doubled the deaths for children.
I wonder why that is.
I don't know what to tell the mother when they see the children having that intensity.
We pass laws, the presidents sign them.
They go to the court in terms of interpretation.
And where will this nominee come out?
Will he come on out for that mother who has a child that's got asthma?
Or that parent who's seeing the pollution that's taken place in a pond and a lake and whose child has been affected by those kinds of poisons.
It's incomprehensible.
First place, the overall, look at the worldview of this country Senator Kennedy has.
A pond, a lake is nothing but a cesspool of pollution.
It's nothing but poison.
The whole country's poison.
Damn it.
Everything out there is poison.
Asthma, except abortion.
That's freedom.
That's liberty.
That's liberation, having an abortion.
But we got double the asthma, asthma test out there.
And there's Judge Alito.
Is he going to support that or is he going to stand in the way of that?
Is he going to come on out for that?
We're talking about a Supreme Court justice and his nomination.
Now, here we are in the midst of, and this is a man who wants to filibuster.
Yeah, I know, I know.
Go up and talk to those mothers whose girls get caught in lakes and cars in the bottom of the lakes.
And it's whispered about their intensity.
Judge Alito going to be sensitive to the women in the car at the bottom of the lake.
Is he going to come on out?
Jackie, in of all places, Poolsville, Maryland.
Jackie, great to have you on the program.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
Nice to speak to you today.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I was reading the Washington Post this morning because that's the only paper we can get delivered out here.
We don't get the Times.
And I saw this, the science column that we get every Monday.
And they want to tell us there's something wrong with Republicans' brains that we're all racist.
Look, I want you to get used to this because it's an election year.
It's pull out all the stops.
I've often told you that when the left loses is when they get the wackiest and craziest.
When they win is when they're dangerous.
You got to take them more seriously because they can implement the garbage they believe in.
President Bush is mentioned three times in this article.
You know, what does Bush have to do with this study?
Well, did you say that abortion or Bush is mentioned three times?
President Bush.
Well, because Bush is the quintessential Republican.
Bush is making everybody racist and Republican.
Bush kills people.
Bush is Hitler.
Let me give the audience the details of the study.
And I, you know, I mean, the fact you're reading the Washington Post because it's the only paper you can get, that's no excuse.
I know, it's true.
You could go out and get a computer and you can bypass the Washington Post each and every day.
I like to read the paper.
You know, I want to get the Times.
I've been calling them for six years, but they won't deliver to us.
Which to the Washington Times?
Yes.
Oh.
I was afraid you might have met the New York Times for a minute.
I said, what's the difference?
No, no, the Washington Times.
So I'll pick it up when I can.
Okay, good.
Well, I applaud the effort.
Thank you.
I do.
Where is Poolsville, Maryland?
It's really less than an hour from D.C., but it's kind of rural.
It's probably a union.
Probably a union probably won't drive out that far.
Probably right.
Because they'd have to drive back.
Well, they deliver to the town, but we're a little bit out of the town.
But the researcher said that his political views could not affect the outcome because we had no direct contact with the participants.
Yeah, let me share that.
Yeah, he's not subject to any of this.
Right.
None of this affects him because he doesn't have no power.
He has no direct contact with the participants.
But we Republicans, we are responsible for all of this because we have direct influence because we put the president there.
All right.
Here's the headline.
Study ties political leanings to hidden biases or biases.
Now, this is an old theme.
You can make book on when this story is going to come out.
It's going to come out in election year, and it's going to come out during a time of stress and trauma for the liberals.
It's by Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post staff writer, and she's right, it's in the science section of the Monday Washington Post.
Here's the lead.
Put a group of people together at a party and observe how they behave.
Differently than when they are alone, differently than when they're with family.
What if they're in a stadium instead of a party?
What if they're all men?
That's the hook, folks.
That's the lure.
That's supposed to make you bite on the rest of the story.
The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social environments affect the way people behave.
But social psychologists are people too.
And as the United States has become increasingly politically polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what drives these sharp divides, red states versus blue states, pro-Iraq war versus anti-Iraq war, pro-same-sex marriage versus anti-same-sex marriage.
And they've begun to study political behavior using such specialized tools as sophisticated psychological tests and brain scans.
Brenda Major, psychologist, UC Santa Barbara, president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, says, In my own family, for example, there are stark differences, not just of opinion, but very profound differences in how we view the world.
The new interest has yielded some results that will themselves provoke partisan reactions.
Studies presented at the conference, for example, produced evidence that emotions and implicit assumptions often influence why people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their pre-existing beliefs.
Emory University psychologist Drew Weston put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates.
Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy, but only in candidates they opposed.
When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it.
Weston said when the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats.
The scans showed that reward centers in volunteers' brains were activated.
The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.
Another study presented at the conference.
Now, so hang on, because this is all aimed at conservatives.
By the time you read the whole story, so you all, you're nothing more than drug addicts yourselves, and you're rewarding yourself for bad behavior.
And you see things that contradict your worldview and you ignore them.
Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, California, explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns, and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes.
That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.
So, Republicans are genetic racists.
What automatic biases reveal is that while we have the feeling we are living up to our values, that feeling may not be right, said University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nocek, who helped conduct the race analysis.
We are not aware of everything that causes our behavior, even things in our own lives.
So a guy called Brian Jones at the Republican National Committee.
He's a spokesman there.
He said he disagreed with the study's conclusions, but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique as the research had not yet been published.
He couldn't review the methodology.
He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases, say, against Republicans, noting that NOSEC and Harvard psychologist Mazarine Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats.
A lot of factors that go into political affiliation and snap determinations may be interesting for academic study, but the real-world application seems somewhat.
This is all literal lunacy.
Trying to attach a psychological disorder to conservatism is what this story is attempting to do.
And that's what Jackie and Poolsville, Maryland.
That's what you get, Jackie, when the only paper you can read is the Washington Post.
I had this story in the stack, and I wasn't going to talk about it.
I wasn't going to waste anybody's time until if somebody brought it up, which she did.
So it's out there, and it's just laughable.
It is more sign of desperation, more sign of crackup taking place on the left.
It derives folks.
It stems from their own inability to explain their demise.
So it has to be due to us.
Bush steals votes, doesn't count hanging Chads, gets the Supreme Court to get rid of Al Gore, messes the voting machines in Ohio, gets talk radio all-right wing because it corrupts management to do so.
And for the liberals, just they can't get a break here.
They just can't get a break.
I mean, the deck is so stacked against them.
And so now Bush is stealing elections, Bush is Hitler, Bush is Nazi.
And you, Republicans, you conservatives, you're just genetic racists.
You're genetic bigots, sexists, homophobes, all of this.
And they do this.
They come up with these stories because they believe this.
That is why Senator Kennedy's staff can be informed that Judge Alito is never found in favor of a minority defendant and believe it without researching it.
Because they look at him as just one of us.
He's a genetic racist, sexist bigot, homophobe.
And they can't figure out why they're losing.
So it has to be some sort of genetic disorder that they, the sane, simply can't deal with and analyze, defeat, and overcome.
We'll be back in a moment.
Stay with us.
I have to tell you, people, Snerdley is livid with me over my reaction to this science story in the Washington Post, with which I just shared with you.
He said, these people come out, they use science to say that we conservatives are a bunch of racist, sexist pigs and it's in our genetic code.
And you laugh at it and you think it's funny.
Yes, I do because I know exactly what it represents, utter sheer desperation.
And I also know it's nothing more and nothing new and nothing different than one of their 30-year-old talking points.
It's just another way of trying to give credibility to what they spout anecdotally.
And Snerdley says, I don't care about it.
I don't care about any of that.
Charles Murray came out with a book called The Bell Curve, and that was scientific research.
And it showed, you know, blacks don't score well on tests because of environmental circumstances when they drag this man through the mud and they just said he was a racist and so forth.
But yet when they use science and denigrate people, why it's thoughtful, it's reasoned, it's elitist.
You know, James, I just have to tell you, I don't have the ability to get, I mean, in the first place, I don't want to go through the whole day mad.
I just don't.
You know, for the most part, I mean, not all, but I love life.
And I think the best time of your life is right now.
I think the best time of everybody's life is today.
And the prospects for improvement are in the future.
And I don't want to become one of these cynics that's just constantly fed up, ticked off, on edge, outraged, and angry.
I don't want to become a doom and gloomer.
I can't help but laugh at these people.
Here, we've got Isaac from Amarillo, Texas, and this is just classic.
Isaac, welcome to the program.
I'm glad you called.
Hey, Rush, classic windowballoon dittos from the Great Texas Flatlands.
Thanks, guys.
I got a great environment's wacko update for you.
I was listening to ABC News last week, and three times they mentioned during their little updates that the FDA was planning on banning primatine and other over-the-counter inhalers to talk about people, the environmentalists are the ones trying to create more asthma victims.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, I'm glad you, because I hadn't heard the story, Isaac, and we went and found it on something called the Environmental News Service.
So what I want to do, Alderman, go back to cut seven with Senator Kennedy worrying about Judge Alito consigning children to death via asthma.
Okay, let's let her rip.
We have doubled the number of deaths from asthma this year that we had five years ago.
Doubled the deaths for children.
I wonder why that is.
I don't know what to tell the mother when they see the children having that intensity.
We pass laws.
The president signed them.
They go to the court in terms of interpretation.
And where will this nominee come out?
Will he come on out for that mother who has a child that's got asthma?
Or that parent who's seen the pollution that's taken place in a pot and a lake and whose child has been affected by those kinds of poisons.
All right.
So that's going to be on the greatest hitch loop, folks.
But here from January 27th, just three days ago, the Food and Drug Administration panel, a Food and Drug Administration panel, recommended a ban on some non-prescription inhalers used to treat asthma because the devices contain propellants that harm the Earth's protective ozone layer.
The FDA advisory panel voted 11 to 7 on Tuesday to remove the essential use status that primatine mist and other similar non-prescription inhalers require to be sold.
Final revocation of that status would mean a ban on the sale of these inhalers.
If the agency opts to follow the recommendation, it would begin a rulemaking process that would include public comment.
So while Senator Kennedy is paranoid and worried that Judge Alito is going to consign children to death from asthma, a government bureaucracy, the Food and Drug Administration, has decided to ban such things as primatine mist and other non-prescription inhalers which treat asthma, which saves lives because the devices might contain propellants that harm the ozone.
So the ozone, the FDA has determined ozone layer is far more important than these inhalers saving the lives of kids and people with asthma.
Now that's something we have to go back to the ozone hole.
We haven't heard about the ozone since it closed up.
It opens and closes every year.
It's a natural phenomenon.
By the way, did you see this wacko Eamon al Zawahiri?
A new tape.
A new tape calling Bush a butcher for the attack in Pakistan that attempted to nail Zawahiri.
An al-Qaeda leader calling Bush a butcher.
I mean, that's right out of Democratic playbook, too.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
I got one minute.
Jerry from Bend, Oregon.
You're next.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Oh, the honor is all mine, sir.
Great to speak to you.
Thank you.
I'd like to talk about that scientific theme very quickly.
These studies, all of these studies that try to, you know, s say that it's just genetics, they, they really, American people, especially the people on the right, need to get a hold of this, of this philosophical notion that really negates free will because these studies assume a materialist view of the soul, which you have, you know, destroyed in the past.
But people need to, a great book people need to read is called Body and Soul by J.P. Moreland and Scott Ray.
It goes over the philosophical notion of what it is to have a body and a soul and why the left is really, you know, just basically throwing us over.
Let me tell you, you're right.
But the main upshot of what you're talking about, I don't mean to be rude and cutting you off, but I do have a time constraint problem here, and I want to make the real point.
In this story, if we are all genetic racists, then we don't have free will.
So it's impossible for there to be a hate crime.
Right?
We can't possibly hate.
I mean, it's in genetics.
Hate, when you do a crime and you have an attitude about it, well, how can we be blamed for our genetics?
▲
Export Selection