All Episodes
Previous Next
April 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
April 10, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Once again, safely back at the friendly confines of the secure, extremely private location of the EIB Southern Command, I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's truth teller, truth detector, doctor of democracy, and general all-round good guy.
Our telephone number here, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, we got a couple of these questions from the students, the pupils at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
Advanced International Studies.
President Without There made a speech at a little town meeting at question and answer period with the students.
Both of these questions are from female students.
We don't have the answers.
Just wanted you to hear the questions.
Hello, Mr. President.
I have a follow-up question on your comments about polls.
Your presidency has been a rather polarizing period in America, and occasionally your attitude towards protesters and dissenters has been perceived as being dismissive, occasionally even cavalier.
And I'm wondering how you feel that's contributed to the polarization in politics today, and if that approach will change, given that you have fallen somewhat in the polls.
Okay, so that's if what are they teaching him there at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies?
Apparently Bush's poll numbers are down because he's not reacting to protesters.
He's not listening to the protesters.
He's not incorporating what the protests.
What protesters, other than this illegal immigration, what protesters?
Cindy Sheehan?
What are we talking about here?
But this is the one I meant.
This is the one.
Mr. President, good morning.
I'm in conflict resolution, and would you...
Here's the question.
Morning, Mr. President.
My name is Kent Davis-Packard, and I'm studying conflict management at SAIS.
I have a more general question about the United States' work to democratize the rest of the world.
Many have viewed the United States' effort to democratize the world, especially nations in the Middle East, as an imposition or invasion on their sovereign rights.
Considering that it was, in fact, the Prophet Muhammad who established the first known constitution in the world, I'm referring to the constitution he wrote for the city of Medina, and that his life and the principles outlined in his constitution, such as the championing of the welfare of women, children, and the poor, living as an equal among his people, dissolving disputes between the warring clans in Arabia, giving any man or woman in parliament the right to vote, and guaranteeing respect for all religions,
ironically parallel those principles that we hold most precious in our own constitution.
I'm wondering, how might your recently formed Iraq study group under the U.S. Institute for Peace explore these striking similarities to forge a new relationship with Iraqis and educate Americans about the democratic principles inherent in Islam?
Well, okay.
Hubba, hubba, hubba.
Oh, that's why I tell you this, why this question stood out to me when I'm watching the president today.
That is just what I'm teaching at this school.
The inherent democratic principles inherent is now Islam wrote the first constitution.
We're nothing but your copycats.
All we've...
It's just...
What was that?
I didn't...
No, they didn't have cameras on the questioners.
The management trainee engineer wants to know if she was at least hot.
You know, I have made a life studying voices and When you can't see the face, and then coming up with the face, it goes with the voice.
And I found that most people bomb out royally.
The very fact that you think she's hot means she's a candidate for the next ugly survey.
That's been my experience.
I mean, let's face it, guys get sucked in by voices, countless of you, when you can't, all you can do is hear the voice.
That's happened to you, Snerdly.
You know that.
You've screened phone calls.
I'm sure back in your early days, the screener, you had groupies.
They would call you not to get on the show just to call you, and you'd go meet them at the five and dime.
I did that.
I'll tell you my little experience with it.
I was a DJ back in back in Pittsburgh.
I'm 20, 21 years old, and spinning records, you know, from 6 to 10 at night or 6, 10 in the morning, whenever I was doing it.
And getting groupies.
And they would call you just to say on the phone.
And of course, as a young DJ thinking you're hot stuff, you think it's cool to put the phone down while you have to go announce the next record so that the groupie on the phone can hear you and be excited.
You think she's really getting.
So eventually you get tempted to go meet these groupies now and then, despite what you learn every time you do it.
So after I thought I had wized up, I had one little trick, and it's very mean, and it embarrasses me to pass it on to you folks.
But since I was asked if this is a hot babe at the Conflict Resolution Center for SAIS, John's Hop is the School of Advanced International Studies.
So this groupie called Great Voice 2.
And eventually this subject of, well, hey, let's meet somewhere would come up.
And after enough experiences of knowing that it was a lost cause, I would say, okay, I'm driving X, and I would make up the kind of car.
I would lie about it.
And I will meet you at 8:30 at such and such.
And of course, I'd lied about the time.
But knowing full well that she'd be there at 8:30, and I said, stand out there.
I mean, I will tell me what she looks like and so forth.
And I always lie about what they look like, too.
Every groupie in the world does.
So you just drive by in your own car.
You're in radio, nobody sees you.
So you can drive by, you scap it out, and you never go back.
You don't stop.
You just keep going.
Yeah, that's the only time I'll be considered a drive-by media person.
Yeah, but that's part of growing up as a young disc jockey.
And like I say, you're susceptible to it no matter how many times you try it.
It never works.
It's always now.
This is a long way, Lark, of answering your question: was she hot?
I didn't see her, but that actually is missing the whole point of the whole thing.
Here's the President of the United States having this wasn't a question.
It was more of a statement, a little lecture.
And then, might you find with your study group a chance to advance peace and help the American people to understand the democratic principles inherent in it?
No, don't get me started.
Let me talk about this guy, Mollahan.
I'm going to do this with the assistance of Rich Galen's blog called Mullings.
House and Senate taking a couple of weeks off, during which one hopes Republican and Democrat members of the House and Senate will look at themselves and decide the time's come for some leadership to emerge.
The decision to delay to resign the House continues to echo through the Capitol, but the Democrats are having a difficult time playing congressional gotcha.
An example of how wide the corruption investigations are ranging comes a front pager by reporter John Willkie in the Wall Street Journal last week about a Democrat congressman from West Virginia named Alan Mollahan.
It seems that Mr. Mollahan's personal net worth, as reported in his own required disclosure forms, has grown from $100,000 in the year 2000 to as much as $11.4 million in his most recent filings.
Now, congressmen make about $165,000 a year, so he can't have gone from $100,000 net worth in 2006 years ago to $11.4 million, saving a portion of his salary.
It can be partially explained by the fact that a former staffer is the head of a nonprofit foundation of West Virginia, which is financed almost exclusively by earmarks backed by Mr. Mollahan.
In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Mollahan has steered at least $178 million to nonprofit groups in his district over the past five years using earmarks.
Well, let's see.
$178 million in earmarks.
If $11 million has stuck to Mollahan's fingers, that's only about a 6% commission.
Galen writes, who can argue with that?
Now, the Justice Department's looking seriously into this business of trading official favors for personal wealth.
In addition to West Virginia's Mollahan, Ohio Republican Bob Ney has been referred to in a number of criminal actions, and a criminal bribery investigation is underway into Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
According to Willkie's reporting in the journal, the cases are part of a widening attack on public corruption with some 200 FBI agents working on such cases nationwide.
Alice Fisher, the Justice Department criminal division chief, said, well, we're seeing a surge in these cases, and we're adopting aggressive tactics, including undercover operations.
Mollahan gave all kinds of earmarks to people that would become business partners of his in investments, apartments, and houses.
And they run the companies which contract with the foundations to make even more money, some of which is funneled back into Mollahan's financial orbit, allowing him to have recently bought a $1.45 million oceanfront home in Baldhead, North Carolina, which A, is in addition to five other properties there in which Mollahan has an interest, and B, is not in West Virginia.
An editorial in yesterday's Charleston Daily Mail pointed out that while Mollahan and his buddies were inventing jobs and investment opportunities for themselves, Ames True Temper closed its plant in Parkersburg last fall.
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel posted net losses of $33.8 million in 2005.
Employment has fallen from 14,000 workers in the 70s to just 2,100 at Wheerton Steel.
So now you may understand why the Democrats are having a hard time getting any traction on a Republican corruption message.
Think about this.
Alan Mollahan is the senior Democrat on the House Ethics Committee.
So they have dropped culture of corruption anyway.
They're on to smarter and tougher, and now they're onto illegal immigration.
They just go from one thing to the drive-by party.
You know, they just go from one thing to the next.
If it doesn't work, they drop it and go on to something else.
But if you wonder how this happens, I mean, these guys go there and they're not wealthy when they get there in the House, and they've got incomes of $150,000, $65,000 a year, and five years later, they're multiple millionaires.
How does it happen?
And he's not, I'm sure, the only one.
I mean, he may be the most glaring example today, but I forget who was somebody who was in Congress.
I have some Democrat from Texas in 50 years or something.
It was just obscene.
And this is how it's done.
It's with earmarks.
Now, the problem with this story is people go, we've got to get earmarks.
No, no, no.
We're going to get earmarks.
No, there's a good question.
We've got to get earmarks.
I agree.
You've got to get earmarks out of it.
But the Republicans blew that sky high last week.
Have you heard about this?
You hear about it.
Jerry Lewis from California, Congressman sits on the Appropriations Committee, refused to deal with the.
They wanted the earmarks to be all taking place in the sunshine.
They want the earmarks to be part of the budget.
They want to know whose they are, where they're going, and they want the earmarks to be debated rather than just added because they get added in the appropriations committee.
And the Republicans just decided, well, we can't do it.
And that's why we didn't get a budget last week.
It's why we didn't get any extension on tax cuts.
It was a bad scene for the Republicans in the House last week when it comes to these matters.
But even with all that, I don't want this earmark thing to sandbag people because earmarks are not the reason we have a deficit.
There's a reason we have corruption, and they got to go for that reason, but they're not the reason we have the death.
Don't think that you're going to get rid of the deficit or reduce spending considerably by getting rid of the earmarks.
The only way we're going to get a handle on spending is the entitlement sector of the budget, which by definition you can't touch.
It automatically goes up.
It never gets cut.
And until such time as we get a handle on that, everything else will just chump change.
A little long here in this segment, which means the next one will be appropriately reduced in size and length.
We have not added commercials.
That iconic.
Guarantee you.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
And I appreciate your being with us here today.
And we've got Danny in Slidell, Louisiana.
Thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the show.
Mega FEMA Trailer Dittos, Rush.
What is this?
Hold on just a second.
I'm just looking at something here.
California Governor Schwarzenegger supports guest worker program.
So he supports the amnesty program.
I'm not surprised.
Anyway, I'm sorry.
What were you saying, Danny?
I say guest FEMA trailer, mega FEMA trailer, get dittos from just outside of New Orleans.
You're staying in a FEMA trailer?
Yes, sir.
I thought the FEMA trailers were all stuck in the mud someplace.
Not all of them.
And, you know, that's a common misconception.
The FEMA trailers and the people down here in New Orleans and outside of New Orleans, they're like ants.
Nest has been messed up, but we're just constantly in motion, fixing everything back.
Within a month, I'll be back in my home.
And I'm probably in the last third of my neighborhood.
Probably two-thirds of the people in my neighborhood have already gotten back into their home.
And is Slidell your neighborhood?
Oh, well, it's a town, but my neighborhood, I'm just thinking of my particular street.
But in Slidell.
That is correct.
Okay.
So is the trailer in Slidell, too?
Yes, they put it outside of your home so you have a place to live while you're rebuilding your house.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Well, that's good.
I'm glad you're on the way to getting back in.
And what I was calling about Russian is that I think the Republicans have an issue here with immigration, that they can win if they'll stand strong and be firm.
And I'd love to get the president on board with it, but it looks like he's not going to come on board with it.
But I think this is an issue that middle America, they want immigration to stop.
Not immigration, but illegal immigration.
Yeah, I think that's true.
The Republicans are, we've talked about this earlier today.
The Republicans, let's set the table again.
The Democrats are, this is, this is nothing more than a big rally for Democrats' return to power, folks.
That's all there.
The Democrats are out in the middle of all these rallies recruiting voters.
They're trying to extend the vote.
They're already doing this in New York to undocumented people.
They want to be able to vote.
They live there, Rush.
Come on.
They have a stake.
They still live there.
Unfair representation.
And the Democrats are no doubt going to try to extend the vote to as many illegals.
They're already doing it with felons.
The Republicans, to counter this, want to show the Hispanics that they're not mean.
They want to show the illegals that they're not mean-spirited.
So they're pandering to them on the issue.
But the Democrats are out there selling the real deal.
You vote for us, and we can make you the victim you are.
We can enshrine your victimhood forever.
For as long as you live, you'll be a victim.
And what does that mean to you?
It means you get cast in a wide net in our social security services system.
We will take care of it.
The promise that liberals have been making people, the promise that communists and socialists have been making people for generations, the Democrats are making it to this group of people.
Now, if you're this group of people and the Democrats are out there recruiting you on these days where you protest, but the Republicans, the best they can do is send McCain out there and a couple of others and the president to talk about, hey, these are good people out there that do jobs that Americans won't do in the backbone of America.
If you're in this group protesting, which side are you going to sidle up to?
You're going to sidle up to the side that's going to promise to make you a victim in perpetuity.
And then if you can get yourself out of the status on your own, you'll do it.
And that's what's happened.
The Republicans unifying on this.
Here's what I hope happens.
And I'll be not so sure the timing here to predict this.
But we're now in the two-week Easter reset.
Yes, members of Congress need a break.
They have to go home.
Get away from the stress and the pressures of dealing with daily life in the belt wave.
Now, you hope, I hope, that when they do get back home and they start going out in these meet the people forums, that they really hear about this.
And I know they're hearing about it on the phones when they're in Washington and emails, but seeing it and hearing it in person might wake them up.
But I doubt it because this is not about what you want, what the public wants.
Because you're not smart enough to understand what's at stake here, which is their election, re-election, and the Democrats' reacquisition of power.
You don't count on that.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Great to have you with us.
And let's go to New York City.
This is Linda.
She wants to weigh in on the latest survey on the ugly in Canada.
Hello, Linda.
Hi.
Actually, it really may happen if the war against obesity follows the pattern of the war against tobacco.
The ugly, at least as defined as being fat, may be banned.
The lawyer, John Banzoff, the guy who sort of made his bones suing big tobacco and trying to get smokers banned from parks and beaches on the idea that children shouldn't see them, is also the guy who sued McDonald's on behalf of the fat kids.
Remember that one?
Yes.
And in the context of this, he also referred to the obese as, quote, visual blight.
So following that pattern, then the obese also should be barred from parks and beaches.
Well, you know, people laugh about this, but who would have ever thought that they would have actually made the SUV a target or that they would have actually gone after a McDonald's and the makers of fat foods?
These people are out there, and it wouldn't surprise me at all.
And that's like this guy doesn't define ugly in his work, at least not in the story that I read about it.
So if it's up to somebody else to define it, a guy like John Banzoff wants to come along and say that, yeah, it's a blight on the public, these overweight people, and do it as a matter of compassion.
He'll say that, well, we've got to do something to get these people to help themselves.
And if we ban them from the streets or whatever, it would materialize.
Nothing would surprise me when it comes to the American activist left whatsoever.
Well, it's also, no, I don't even know that Banzoff specifically, you ought to really research him.
He's quite a character.
Oh, I know who Banzoff is.
He used to be on Crossfire all the time.
I remember he was trying to get on the airlines about something.
That's right.
It was about smoking.
It was about he was, I think he was probably one of the original guys who all they wanted was just a little non-smoking section on the plains.
And, you know, Walter Williams' boiling the frog theory.
I think he's just an opportunist, and he sees money in this.
Yeah, but the thing is, he wants the government to do all this.
He's a big government guy.
He wants the government to be oppressive and judgmental on the people he finds objectionable doing the things that he finds objective.
Absolutely, and he applauds this Calabasas law, which is even worse than you may know about, because according to the ordinance, if you see somebody smoking outside in Calabasas, if you don't report them, you are guilty of the crime of abetting the crime of smoking.
I mean, they have really gone nuts with this.
Let me ask you a question here, Linda.
How many people do you know who have died from any disease whatsoever, having been anywhere, restaurant, public park, public sports arena, from being around secondhand smoke?
How many people have been documented to have been killed by it?
Oh, absolutely none.
Zero is exactly right.
And yet look at New York and all these idiotic regulations.
It's all because of a myth that secondhand smoke kills, and there's not one documented case.
Oh, it's gone even further than that.
In Ohio and a couple of other states, where they're agitating for bans, they are truly claiming, and I can tell you where to look this up, that 20 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke will sell a healthy person of a heart attack.
You only think I'm exaggerating.
No, it's the same kind of lies that are out there about global warming and all these other things that kill us.
And these things become, this is kind of a vicious propaganda machine, and these things, like global warming, become common knowledge.
And like all arguments with liberals, how to argue with a liberal if you can, you can't, because they know, and they know because the New York Times said so, and that's the end of the argument.
Well, but also, in addition, they don't even argue.
They engage in emotion, and when you hurt their feelings or whatever, then they start ripping you personally.
They can't win an argument on these things and the merits.
In fact, speaking of this smoking business, we've done this story countless times, and it's something that's in my essential stack of stuff on the website.
I've got Coco to post it today.
The World Health Organization actually did a study on secondhand smoke, which showed that it doesn't even make people sick, much less kill them.
Now, it makes people uncomfortable.
I don't like it.
I don't like secondhand cigarette smoke myself.
It reeks, but it doesn't kill.
It doesn't make anybody ill.
And they suppressed that.
And it's about 10 years old now, I guess, maybe a little less than that.
But they suppressed that.
We got a copy of it on the website and have kept it for posting every time this subject comes up.
So look, I appreciate the call.
I didn't know that about the Calabasas law, Calabasas, California.
If you see somebody smoking in public in the park and you don't turn them in, you are also guilty of abetting.
And I'll bet you they'll enforce that out there.
I'll bet you if an illegal immigrant turns you in, if you're in Calabasas and you're smoking, and an illegal immigrant sees you and turns you in, they'll give the illegal immigrant a citation, an honorary badge, an honorary member of the Citizens Task Force against public smoking in Calabasas.
And you violating the law by smoking in an open-air park will be sent to the Huskow.
Little animal story here.
This story was sent to me by the owner of the animal in question.
And it's from the Sun Herald, which encompasses, it's in Punta Gorda, Florida, I believe.
It encompasses the whole area of Englewood, Northport, DeSoto, Venice, Florida, Charlotte, over there on the Gulf side.
And the headline is, Jake won't hang out anymore.
Jake got around.
Got to be pretty well known in Arcadia, in fact.
He liked to hang out near the downtown courthouse.
Folks grew to expect to see him there during daily walks, got along with everybody.
Some thought of him as Arcadia's dog.
I just think about everybody who came to courthouse has seen Jake, Gary Phillips said.
Gary and Jake were buddies.
They lived under the same roof.
One day while hanging out on a courthouse lawn, Jake met U.S. Representative Catherine Harris, who fawned over him and petted him.
Cameron snapped pictures, and Jake loved it.
She made a fuss over him, Phillips said.
But now there will be no more pictures because Jake died last Monday.
It was pretty old by the standards of a 142-pound great Dane.
Really old, in fact, although his owner Phillips said that Jake's exact age can only be estimated since the big black dog was adopted from a rescue service seven years ago by the Phillips.
In the end, it was a stroke a week ago, Thursday, that felled Jake.
He grew weaker Friday, was weaker still on Monday when a vet told Phillips it was time to let Jake go.
In sadness, the Phillips family did just that.
Now, animals die every day, and we don't remark on it on this program, so you're probably asking why, Rush, are you remarking on the death of Jake, the Great Dane?
Well, I will tell you why.
His owner, Gary Phillips, is quoted in this article as saying, Jake was a conservative Republican.
He would hear the theme music of the Rush Limbaugh show on the radio.
He'd come from wherever he was to lie on the couch near the radio.
He'd stay there until the show ended, and then he'd get up and go back to his place.
Jake had his own couch and his own recliner.
He led the good life.
And he was a regular listener to this program, Jake the Great Dane.
Every day hears the theme song, bops into where the radio is, lays down for three hours when the show's over.
He probably patronized a lot of the sponsors, too.
So, Mr. Phillips, thanks for sending me this story.
It's heartwarming, and an animal lover, pet lover like me, touched my heart.
We're going to take a break.
We'll come back.
And since Linda from New York City gave us the lowdown on what might become of this move to ban the ugly in the country, you've got to hear this recent spate of global warming news.
And we'll get to that right after this, folks.
Sit tight.
Well, we got more bumper music from home, do we?
There's no denial, so it must be true.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back.
All right, from the BBC, a series of stories here.
Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.
For those of you that don't know, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, and there's nothing we can do about it.
So, am I given to understand this correctly that environmentalists wackos and air pollution is going to bat out there together, clean it up, and it's making is there nothing that we do that doesn't cause global warming?
Even good things now cause global warming.
Man-made global warming, by the way, they stipulate.
Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.
Other studies show that increased water vapor in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
It's a crock.
Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than ever believed.
They say there is an urgent need for further research, particularly at sea.
Means we want money between the 50s and the 80s, the amount of solar energy penetrating through the atmosphere to the Earth's surface appeared to be declining by about 2% per decade.
This trend received some publicity under the term global dimming, which we talked about on this program.
But in the 80s, it appears to have reversed the decline in Soviet industry and clean air laws in Western countries.
Apparently, reduced concentrations of aerosols, tiny particles in the atmosphere.
So, basically, folks, what we have here is that we've cleaned it up, and the Soviet industry, they've gone belly up.
They're not even doing much over there anymore.
But notice it's always Western society that's responsible for this.
It's our automobiles, our CFCs, whatever the hell it is out.
Now, it's our clean air measures.
We are so bad.
We're just inherently bad people.
But, February 13th, 1998, also a story from the BBC.
Climate changes, such as global warming, may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
Climatologists and astronomers, speaking at the American Association of Advancement of Science, meeting in Philadelphia, say the present warming may be unusual, but a mini-ice age could soon follow.
The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.
Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.
Well, I've been asking this question ever since then.
What about the sun?
No, they never talk about the sun in the global warming crowd as to the effect it might be having, and yet it's the sole source of energy on the planet.
Oh, for the climate, it's the sole source.
Anyway, stories from February 13th, 1998, and I don't remember seeing too much about this story back then to you, six years ago.
The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned, but they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
And then there's this from the UK Telegraph: there's a problem with global warming.
This from September 4th, not September, can't be.
It says filed 942006, but that hasn't happened yet.
It's like that FedEx.
Have you seen that FedEx commercial with these two Cro-Magnons in it?
I don't laugh too, but that's a funny commercial.
The head honcho of the cave sends his dumb schlepp helper out to have some message sent over to some other tribe.
So he attaches the message to a giant dinosaur bone and then gives it to some pterodactyl to fly off and deliver it.
And the pterodactyl gets swamped by a Tyrannosaurus rex and eaten with the package falling to the ground right next to the idiot assistant.
So the idiot assistant goes into the head honcho in a cave and says, package failed, it's not going to get there.
And the guy says in the case, do you use FedEx?
And the dumb assistant looks, says, no, I use FedEx.
FedEx doesn't exist yet.
And the boss in the boss crow magazine says, not my problem.
So this dumb assistant walks out and kicks a tiny little look.
It's probably a cat or a dog-sized dinosaur walking around minding its own business.
And the minute he just kicks it in frustration, it gets stomped on.
It's a funny commercial.
And so, I don't know, 90406, this story hasn't happened yet.
I don't know what.
I guess it's has.
Oh, they've got the day first.
Oh, that's what it is.
That's right.
That's the Brits.
Okay, April 9th.
So this was yesterday.
There's a problem with global warming.
It stopped in 1998.
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem.
In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.
Consider the simple fact drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that for the years 1998 through 2005, global average temperature did not increase.
There was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero.
Now, in response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say, how silly to judge climate change over such a short period.
Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming, which occurred between 1970 and 98, constitutes a dangerous and man-made warming.
Anyway, this guy wrote this is Bob Carter, and it's a fairly lengthy story.
We will link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
Global temperatures are not rising, despite all the scare tactics.
Every time there's some sort of weather disturbance that everybody thinks is abnormal when there's no such thing as an abnormal weather.
If you think things happen to weather today that have never happened before, you're an idiot.
Lev in Delhi, Louisiana, about a minute here, but I wanted to get to you since you've been patiently waiting.
Goodos, Rush.
Thank you.
We bring 300 legal Mexicans across the border twice a year, and there's no incentive for them to stay in the country.
We pay them the alternate minimum wage under the H-2A program, a federally sponsored program.
We put them up in federally inspected housing.
We provide for the laundry facilities and sell them three hot meals a day for $6 each, which we obviously subsidize.
And we bus them all the way home when the time's up.
We pay them, we have to hire all locals that want a job.
So you in favor of closing the border?
Absolutely.
And this program, which is only 60,000 people in it, should be expanded.
We pay $200 apiece for them to be interviewed by the State Department before they're allowed into the States.
There's no incentive for them to stay here.
Their families can't come with them.
Right.
Excellent, excellent.
You know, I saw something else, somebody making a joke.
Instead of building a wall, and I don't mean to be rude here, Lev, I'm really short on time.
Instead of building a wall on the border, build a 1,500-mile-long Walmart.
And the back doors are on the Mexican border.
Well, I forget who said it.
It might have been Bill Maher.
I'm not sure.
I hope it wasn't Bill Maher, but I don't know who it was.
At any rate, Lev, that's an excellent point, and we're going to expand on that tomorrow and in coming days.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back to close it out in mere moments.
As usual, folks, it was a blast, and I'm going to start prepping for tomorrow's program rather immediately.
A couple other things I got to do first.
Get ready for tomorrow.
We'll look forward to it when we get together then.
▲
Export Selection