All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
June 16, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Brian, you got the uh Ditto Cam on.
And a way to go.
And away.
All right.
Well, greetings, my friends.
We have reached the momentous day of the week.
A lot has happened today.
Tell you all about it as we get going on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Very simple to explain open line Friday for those of you who are not quite sure.
Basically, when we go to the phones, it's your program.
You can talk about whatever you want.
We don't allow that Monday through Thursday.
I exercise uh benevolent dictatorship tyranny on the program.
Uh because I'm the highly trained broadcast specialist.
You are rank amateurs out there.
The one day a week, I turn the program over to you when we go to the phone.
So line up.
Questions, comments.
Things that you think need to be discussed that you haven't heard discussed on the program, 800-282-2882.
And you need have no fear.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am the politest host in all of Talk Radio.
That's not a word.
All right, I am the most polite host.
I know it's gotten bad if I'm getting entomological advice from uh from Mr. Snerdley.
All right, yes, I am the most polite host uh in in major media today.
You need have no fear.
Uh uh 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, the uh Democrats last night, the uh the uh did you know there's a new caucus in uh in the uh Democratic uh caucus in the House, the get us out of Iraq caucus or the get out of a rat caucus, and it's I think it's chaired or led by Maxine Waters, who's not looking too bad out there.
She let her hair grow, you know.
Is that what happened?
Well, what if she's looking good?
Mac Maxine is uh is is she's looking good out there.
As is his heads up to get out of Iraq caucus.
Anyway, the Democrats voted last night to get rid of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana from the Ways and Means Committee, and just now, mere moments ago, the whole House did the same thing.
Uh so Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has been stripped of his post on the House Ways and Means Committee with uh Nancy Pelosi again referencing the fact that uh any time you got ninety thousand dollars in cash in your freezer that there there's something definitely wrong there, at least on the ethical side.
I again affirm my position with the uh congressional black caucus that uh this action is premature based on the fact that there is no charge, there's no indictment, certainly no conviction.
We also have uh, ladies and gentlemen, the House completed its vote today, uh authorizing uh the well, the the I guess you'd say uh uh what what would you call this thing?
Well what was this resolution?
Uh to stay the course, stay the course resolution uh in in Iraq.
And the Senate did this yesterday, you know how it happened in the Senate.
John Kerry has been running around teching about he's gonna get one of these resolutions up for vote in the Senate, but he didn't actually put the resolution to the floor, take it to the floor, put it up for a vote, because he was out there coalescing support for it.
So Mitch McConnell simply went to John Kerry's resolution, scratched Kerry's name off and put his name on it, took it to Friss, they took it to the floor and they voted on it, and six Democrats voted to get out of Iraq in the in the House today.
The vote was two fifty-six to one fifty-three.
I guess you could you could say that the Democrats are voting to set a timetable to remove the troops.
So it was two fifty-six to one fifty-three, and get this.
There were 42 Democrats that voted for the resolution.
Forty-two Democrats that that voted with Republicans, three Republicans voted against uh the resolution, voted with Democrats.
Do you know this is the biggest uh divide in House Democrats?
I I don't know how long, but it's it's a huge.
It may be it may be like five or six years, or maybe in this uh in this presidency.
I'll have to double check this.
But this is the biggest defection, the biggest number of defections the Democrats have had on a single issue, losing 42 Democrats to vote uh with Republicans, and we know why.
It's because everybody in the House is up for the election, those 42, uh, more than likely from conservative districts, even though they are Democrats.
So what was funny about this was to listen to all the caterwalling.
See, the Democrats originally asked for this.
This really is not done often.
This is not an uh of uh something that has a lot of precedent.
Uh and the Democrats were asking this uh for this a ye a week or two ago when they were really pumped up and feeling their oats, and Bush's approval numbers are way down, and it was looking bad, and they wanted to go to the floor, and they wanted to get themselves on record just like they wanted to get themselves on record in 2002 for the Iraq resolution.
This time uh with a new election coming up, they wanted to get themselves on record as against it.
And the Republicans said, okay, but we're gonna make it on the entire war on terror.
And then the events of uh last week and to this week occurred, and the Democrats said, wait a minute, we don't want this now.
The Republic, well, you asked for it, we're gonna do it.
No, you're just trying to trick us, the Democrats said.
But let me give you the correct analysis and rundown on this.
Um this come off like pure egomaniacs.
Uh they sound like this vote is about them.
Yesterday, day before, you're trying to trick us.
Why, this everything that was going on in guard in regarding this vote, particularly in the House, uh, was about them.
And it's not.
The drive-by media thinks the vote is all about politics.
I got newspaper stories here in the stack.
And the political analysis of all this is all we're getting.
It's like the war is just a particular policy.
Uh, and it and that it's it's it's no different than uh Social Security reform or health care reform or what have you.
I always knew the left was ego-driven, folks, but I didn't really know they were ego consumed.
The vote in the Senate yesterday, the vote in the House today, really not designed to embarrass Democrats, because you don't have to design that.
That's going to happen anyway when you schedule a vote on the military or on the war.
Democrats are going to embarrass themselves regardless.
So you don't have to set that up.
That doesn't have to be your design.
You know what the purpose was of these two votes?
The purpose was to send a signal to the Middle East, to send a signal to our allies and to our enemies, to the terrorists, to the insurgents, to the criminals, to the Islamist fanatics, that Congress backs the president, that we are not going to cut and run, that we can stop this stupid split screen presentation of Jack Mertha and George Bush.
They got Bush saying this and Mertha saying that.
There's been a vote now, and the purpose of this vote was to tell the world, don't listen to the Democrats.
We're not going to cut and run.
We're not setting timetables.
We're not getting out of there.
They don't make policy.
Newcomers to uh Democracy think a TV split screen rules on the one hand stay the course, on the other hand, cut and run.
And the people around the world watching this, of course, um can get the idea that the cut and run crowd carries the day.
Because, you know, if who gets more TV time?
Nancy Pelosi or Denny Haster?
Who gets more TV time?
Uh uh Dingy Harry or Bill Frist.
Okay, so you would think that the Democrats, if you're if you just landed from Mars, or if you are practically, let's say you're in Iran, you may as well be on Mars.
Let's say you're watching the news, and after every event that happens around the world, all you see is Dingy Harry and Pelosi.
Who you gonna think runs a show?
They don't seek out Hastert, they don't seek out frist.
They're constantly seeking out the minority with a capital M. So the purpose of this vote was to tell the world, screw the minority.
They're not making policy.
They don't set policy.
We have had a vote in both chambers of our Congress, and we are not cutting and run and and running.
Uh these votes show that the split screen is not the reality.
This vote's intended to show the Middle East and the rest of the world.
In the Senate, the cut-and-run mob gets six votes, six out of one hundred.
In the House, they got a hundred and fifty-three votes out of four hundred and thirty-five.
How in the world is anyone of any political persuasion, anyone, get through to these liberals and Democrats that this war is not about them.
It's not about their need to get back into power.
It's just not, and yet they don't get it.
That's the purpose of the vote.
The purpose was not to embarrass the Democrats again, as I say, because, ladies and gentlemen, you don't have to design that.
That'll happen on its own.
Be right back and continue here on the EIB network.
As I mentioned, ladies and gentlemen, 42 Democrats joined Republicans to vote for this stay the course resolution in uh in in Iraq.
That is that's the biggest divide in the Democratic Party, I think during Bush's term in a House vote.
And what does it say about Democrat unity?
It says there isn't any.
Now, what does it say about what the American people's view in the war is?
When 42 Democrats up for re-election at know their districts, know their know their constituents.
These Democrats wanted to be on the side of the U.S. military and this uh and this war effort uh uh because they want to be re-elected.
Uh the House is a is a great way to gauge where the uh American people are.
You can also say only 42 Democrats out of however many they've got uh have the guts to stand up for America to stand up for the troops.
Uh in a number of ways you can look at it, but uh beyond that they are divided.
Uh and so next time you hear these people talking about unity, uh you can you can you can forget that.
And it'll be fun to troll the uh the left wing blogs to get the reaction once the roll call vote's made public of these 42 Democrats and to see what's in store for them.
Um, there's three Republicans voted.
Wait, but you know where those Republicans are gonna be from.
I mean, that that that that they're Northeast, uh, absolutely.
I don't know which ones they are, but uh oh, we got a story here about Chris Shays.
I'm not I'm not gonna get to it for a while, but he's whining he's getting a big we've getting a big tough reelection battle up there, moderate Republican in uh in Connecticut, and his Democrat opponent is a woman, and then she's done it's a pretty tight race right now.
He's whining and blaming the president.
The president doing harmling, the president isn't helping me.
When's the last time you helped the president?
I tell you, sometimes the the um uh the arrogance of these guys is just even a bit much for me to take.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm uh in all this talk about cutting and running.
Uh I want to assure you of one thing.
I am not going to cede the reins of EIB.
I have committed to you that I'm not leaving until every American agrees with me.
That means I'm not going to leave until every liberal sees the light.
Every liberal except for two, and that that's another story.
They're two of them that are impossible.
Um through the years, ladies and gentlemen, I have founded, I have encouraged, I have trained and developed the best support staff in the new media.
They will remain support staff.
Uh rest easy, my friends.
The all-knowing, all seeing, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned, maharoshi will not semi-retire, will not cut and run.
Don't include me in any of this cut and run talk.
I'm the one guy that's not going anywhere, and I do not waver.
Uh I'm not no, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna no, like Bill Gates is, you know, leaving uh Microsoft and going to run the foundation.
Nope.
Not gonna do that.
Uh as everything else, I'll hire somebody to do that while I continue to do the heavy lifting here in the real work uh at the EIB network.
Out of uh out of out of Colorado, ladies and gentlemen, a 15-year-old girl can enter into a common law marriage in Colorado.
Younger girls and boys possibly can too, according to a state appeals court.
While the three judge panels stopped short of setting a specific minimum age for such marriages, the court said that they could be legal for girls at twelve and boys at fourteen under English common law, which Colorado recognizes.
Senate President Joan Fitzgerald said she was appalled by the ruling, said lawmakers need to look at the issue next year when the legislature reconvenes.
That's a child.
You're taking advantage of an undeveloped person, putting them in a situation that's for life.
That's something we need to take a look at.
The uh ruling overturned a lower court judge's decision that a girl now older than 18 was too young to get married at age 15.
Now, the panel said that there was no clear legislative or statutory guidance on common law marriage, and that Colorado courts have not determined the age of consent.
For traditional ceremonial marriage.
Colorado law sets the minimum age at uh eighteen or sixteen with parental or judicial approval.
So how about that one, folks?
Common law marriage uh twelve for girls and fourteen for boys.
That's the way it used to be.
Back in the old days when the life expectancy was 32 or 33, as soon as uh as soon as young girls uh were able to uh have babies.
That was uh kids kids kid kids have rights, folks.
I mean, you know, we uh uh just what are we gonna do after we load them up with Ritalin and tell them they get hey go I get married?
Um Frankly, the sooner boys and girls learn about that institution, the better off they'll be.
Black adults hear I'm sorry, folks.
I'm just in a I'm in a giddy mood today.
Uh uh black adults hear better than white adults.
A government study found the study also found that women hear better than men, and that overall hearing in the U.S. is about the same as it was 35 years ago, despite the advent of ear blasting devices such as the walkman and the iPod.
Now, the the racial difference, the fact that black adults may hear better than white adults, may be related to melanin, the skin pigments.
Some scientists believe black people's larger amounts of melaton melanin protect them from noise-induced hearing loss.
As the uh years go by.
Uh, scientists suspect that melanin plays a role in how the body removes harmful chemical compounds caused by damage to the sensitive hair cells in the inner ear.
Uh, genetics or the amount of noise exposure may explain the difference between women and men, said uh Elliot Berger, an Indianapolis-based hearing protection expert.
Boys have typically uh done noisier activities.
Anybody believe that's what the difference is?
I don't I can't explain why black adults are here better than white adults, but the this is about women hearing better than men.
There's no question that that's genetic.
Well, because women have been tuning women out for I don't know how many years, and they've passed it along in the genes.
Um what kind of day is this?
What's Dawn doing?
Okay.
It's it's curtains for live lobster.
Really?
She tuning me out.
I think I've succeeded in actually irritating her in there today.
Normally it's laughs along with all this stuff.
All right.
Um story out of Texas, but this is happening all over the country where there are whole foods markets.
Customers craving fresh crustaceans.
Uh how do you explain that to Rio Linda?
Uh lobster.
Customers craving fresh crustaceans will have to look beyond whole food markets, uh, whole foods market, Inc., after the natural foods grocery chain decided yesterday to stop selling live lobsters and crabs on the grounds that it's inhumane.
The Austin, Texas based grocer spent seven months studying the sale of live lobsters from ship to supermarket aisle, trying to determine whether the creatures suffer along the way.
Why?
So they're not going to suffer at the end of the way.
In some stores, they experimented uh with lobster condos.
They filled tanks with stacks of large pipes that the crustrations crustaceans can crawl inside.
And they move the tanks behind seafood counters and away from children's tapping fingers.
Ultimately, Whole Foods Management decided to immediately stop selling live lobsters and soft-shell crabs, saying they couldn't ensure the creatures are treated with respect and compassion.
For crying out loud, we're gonna eat them.
And if you take one of these things on the Today Show, they'll chop it up live on the burner.
Remember that?
Remember that episode?
Katie Current couldn't handle that.
Chef said, what do you think's going on back in the kitchen when you order a lobster?
Um animal rights activists were thrilled with this decision, not just because of the way lobsters are harvested, shipped, and stored, but because of the fate that awaits many of them being dropped live into a pot of boiling water.
Well, I'm sorry, unless unless you kill it some other way and freeze it, that's the only way you can eat it.
You know, there's that if there's something in a lobster, I don't remember all the details, something in a lobster that if you don't you don't you you you if you don't cook it immediately after the well, you've got to it'll poison you.
Somebody had to learn this way back when lobsters were can you imagine the first person saw lobster and wanted to eat it?
That person does deserve a medal.
Okay, one more story from the wacko uh uh pile, and then we'll get on with uh your phone calls and the rest of Open Line Friday, by the way, a hearty welcome to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam today via your membership at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Uh multitasking today, hosting the program, doing show prep and research in the middle of the program all the while uh watching the U.S. Open in uh high definition on ESPN.
Now get this story out of uh out of Virginia.
A jury has awarded two million it's a tragedy.
Don't don't get don't get caught up in the wrong part of this story here, folks.
Stick with me on this.
A jury has awarded two million dollars to a couple whose four-year-old son died after being run over by a riding lawnmower at his daycare center.
Uh now that's I mean question it's tragic.
The Roanoke, Virginia circuit court jury on Wednesday found the mowers manufacturer liable for this death took place in April of 2004.
The companies in Cleveland, MTD Products Corporation, said that it would appeal.
The company attorney John Fitzpatrick said, I find it incredulous that a jury no longer cares about common sense and personal responsibility.
Now, you might be okay, well, what's what's what what the jury find the uh company liable for?
Get this.
The jury held this company, the manufactured of riding lawnmower, responsible because they did not design a mower that automatically stops its blades whenever it rolls backwards.
Well, yeah, that's a good idea.
Why didn't they do that?
Rush, why didn't that company make it so that when the roar uh uh uh mower went backwards the blades stopped?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, no such lawnmower exists, nor has such a lawnmower ever been tested.
The jurors awarded 500,000 each to Ron and Christie Simmons, the parents of the four-year-old boy, and a million dollars to his three-year-old brother Josh.
The daycare provider, Roberta Reedy, who had been watching Justin, his brother and two other children, was inside changing a diaper when the accident happened.
The company argued her husband Orville had ignored safety warnings.
Justin's family seeking an out-of-court settlement with the Reed's now.
So, in all of this, it's the manufacturer of the lawnmower, which is hell liable, all for something no lawnmower does.
Just this is this is one of those things that uh tells you, ladies and gentlemen, we have a still have a fairly large problem in this country of not only accepting responsibility, uh, but assigning it properly.
Here's Seth in Louisville, Kentucky, as we start first on the uh program with you today, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush for taking my call.
Yes, sir, yes, sir.
I just want to know when uh Judge Roberts and Judge Alito were were uh nominated and appointed to the Supreme Court, everyone thought it was a great thing, it was a big victory, but I wonder how many people still feel that way since they've already.
All right, was he talking about is he talking about this Hudson versus Michigan case?
Yeah, yeah, the way the police uh you know knock three times, it let me let me I know where he was going on this.
He thinks these guys really do the right thing.
I mean, my gosh, they said uh said the cops don't even have to knock now.
They come in and steal your stuff, and if it's uh if you get illegal, you're you're guilty and so forth.
Um I don't know if Seth was a Republican or not or conservative or not.
I know this.
We have a Supreme Court ruling, and we have unhappy liberals.
Now, need I say more.
As far as I'm concerned, that's that says it all.
Uh, if you want the details, I'll give it to you.
But here they are.
The case is Hudson versus Michigan.
It uh it revolved around a search in 1998.
Police with a warrant entered the unlocked home of Booker Hudson uh without knocking.
They found Mr. Hudson and a loaded gun nearby and some cocaine rocks.
Now, because the cops didn't knock as required, Hudson's lawyers wanted the evidence suppressed.
But there was a 5-4 ruling.
Supreme Court said no dice, and the Libs are lamenting.
It's all over the blogosphere.
Oh, Sandra Day O'Connor, where are you?
If she had just been on the case during this vote, it would have probably been different.
Here's Justice Breyer speaking for the liberal wing of Ginsburg suitor and Stevens.
He said the decision weakens, perhaps destroys much of the practical value of the Constitution's knock and announce protection.
But five Supreme Court justices, Robert Scalia, Thomas Kennedy, and Alito, ruled that police bunders uh blunders don't give defendants a get out of jail free card.
And that's essentially what the uh what the libs want.
Uh I I think they did knock, did they not?
Just didn't wait long.
They didn't.
I I door was uh well I know that that uh there's a uh it uh some story I read here.
You got to knock, uh, wait five seconds or ten seconds and then go in.
I I thought they knocked and go in, regardless.
Uh the court's ruling is the court's ruling.
According to Robert Allen of Northwestern University Law School, the ruling suggests that the court would be happy to consider overturning a 1961 court opinion declaring evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment can't be used in trials.
Um Hudson's lawyer, David Morgan, gloomily declared the knock and announced rule is dead in the U.S. There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down.
There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated.
Uh yeah, no doubt too humiliated to grab their loaded weapons.
Now this is uh you know what I think the the reason this appears uh to be such a stark change in people's minds is because we have gotten so accustomed uh to the relaxation of such common sense procedures in the court uh and in law enforcement for I don't know how long, so this this does seem draconian if this law professor's right.
And by the way, if you read if you read Scalia's opinion, he wrote for the majority, I can see where this uh uh Robert Allen of Northwestern University Law School uh might conclude that the court would be happy to consider overturning that 61 decision, declaring evidence collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment can't be used in trials.
That's pretty draconian.
Uh and so you know, I uh th this is a uh decision that has the left angered.
I mean, common sense says that that uh and this is what Scalia said his opinion, essentially.
He said defendants shouldn't walk because cops make honest mistakes.
Uh well, there's gonna be a whole lot of sleepless nights in liberal land, uh, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of this, when you see them already lamenting uh the uh the loss of uh Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's Carl in excuse me, Manheim, Pennsylvania.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey Ross, honored to talk to you.
Uh my question for you today is um how did you come up with the idea for the golden EIB microphone and who makes it for you?
Uh actually I would love to claim credit as uh the the uh creator of the golden EIB microphone, but I didn't.
The way it happened was we had one of these um uh little promos, little skits that our production director Johnny Donovan created uh uh to portraying me as uh talking to a classroom of Americans, and they come to strict attention when I walk in behind the golden EIB microphone.
Uh and the manufacturer of the microphone's electro voice.
And Electro Voice heard that, and they actually sent one.
So it just it just happened.
It's one of these spontaneous occurring events, uh, totally not by design.
Now we have two uh because there are of course two EIB studios.
Uh so we've got one here, we've got up uh one up at uh the EIB building in uh Midtown Manhattan.
That's that's how it happened.
Awesome.
What was that, Carl?
Awesome.
I'm kind of into it.
I'm glad you called.
That's that's I like that kind of stuff on open line.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
We great open line Friday question.
I'm sure a lot of people have been wondering where we got the golden EIB, Mike.
Why doesn't everybody have one?
Where did we get it?
How did it come about?
Great, great question.
Al in Bayside, New York, you're next.
Great to have you with us.
Yes, thank you, Rush.
Uh long time listener, first time caller.
Thank you, sir.
Uh Rush, my comment concerns Iran's nuclear program.
Uh, what is the big deal really of Iran developing a nuclear device?
What are they going to do with it?
They sneak it into our country and detonate it?
It's not going to happen.
Of course not.
Do you realize what we could do to them?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
So mutually assured destruction prevented a U.S. Soviet exchange.
Why wouldn't it work now?
Oh, I know.
What do you think about that?
Well, I think you uh uh I I really am stunned disbelief.
I know that basides Queens, Queens is ground zero.
Uh and uh we already have evidence of what these people would do with a nuke if they got one.
They're spate they they're they are state sponsors of terrorism.
They have spent more money around the world than Iran has, uh sponsoring and funding terrorism, terrorism training.
Um and even if they don't get a nuke into our country, they certainly would love to use it against Israel.
Well, doesn't Israel also have nuclear weapons?
Yes, they do, and they probably won't sit around and wait for Iran to get them if that's really what's on the tap.
See, you you uh in order for you to say, Al, and I understand you just want peace.
You want Kumbaya and everybody get along and live happily ever after.
Well, you know, in Candyland.
Uh but the truth of the matter is that the nuclear club uh is is made up of essentially uh peaceful nations.
There are exceptions, and we don't need another one, uh, who have no intention of using them offensively or aggressively.
They are as a deterrent.
They are used to stifle uh the the uh uh in the the attempted attack, either conventional or nuclear by any other country.
Uh when you get a country like Iran with a leader like Ahmadinejad who is saying the things he's saying now, who literally believes that he is in charge of creating the last days to bring along the twelfth imam to wipe out all the infidels, it would be silly to say, eh, it's just a madman.
Eh, it's just talking to scare us.
He just put they don't have a nuke and they're not gonna get one anytime soon.
But you have to have a almost a uh uh a blinder, pair blinders on if you're going to establish a a a moral equivalence between a country like Iran having nukes, or a country like Israel having them, or a country like us, or a country like uh like Great Britain.
They they clearly are a threat with nuclear weapons, an even greater one.
And even if they don't use it, so we we do not say to other countries around the world, if you don't do what we want, we will nuke you.
The Iranians are already saying it, and even if they don't follow through on it, they can blackmail people with it.
Um and that they don't even have to use it.
Uh and that's not using it as a deterrent, and that's not using it defensively.
This is a country that has a really bad economy.
This is this is a this is a country that desperately wants to be thought of uh in the big club of nations.
You're basically a third world country trying to re-establish a fourteenth century religion, wiping out everybody else who doesn't agree with them.
Now, I don't think that's a recipe that says, Hey, give them nukes.
We don't need to worry about them.
Hey, look, I uh while watching the uh U.S. Open and responding to some email, I went and did some research on this case, and I you're right, was I was wrong.
They they didn't knock, but they announced themselves.
The cops, I'm talking about in the uh in the in this Hudson case.
Now the opinion was written by Scalia.
That's enough for me.
But for you, I'll go further.
The police announced themselves and three seconds later forced their way into the house.
They did not knock.
The majority in the court said, Look, the cops would have found a gun and a drugs had they knocked anyway.
But in any event, you punish the police, not the public.
And you don't exclude all the evidence because of the improper entry into the house.
That's the um that's what that's what they're saying.
You don't exclude all the evidence simply because of the improper entry into the house.
That's the way it used to be.
It really is not that draconian at all.
It just seems like it from w because of where we've been, where you could get a whole case thrown out if there was no knock or if uh they just barged on in, uh, even with a warrant.
You've got to let the perp know that you're out there.
You gotta let the perp know you're coming in.
Turn it around and look at it the other way.
If the court had ruled that the evidence would be excluded, it would have been saying it's not good enough to announce yourself.
You have to knock.
And if you don't knock, any evidence of a crime, no matter how serious, will be excluded even if you have a search warrant.
That's what seems extreme to me, and that's what this court was saying.
It would be really extreme when you've got a warrant uh to throw everything out just because you didn't announce yourself uh when you uh when you got there.
Uh so that's you know all I need to know is the libs don't like it.
That means to me, great ruling.
Lee in St. Louis, you're next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Uh Lee in St. Louis, you're on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Let's move on.
There's no lee there.
Uh this is Paul in Salt Lake City.
It's your turn.
Welcome to our program.
Hello, Rush, with the pleasure speaking to you, sir.
You bet, sir.
I have some friends that work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Los Alamos, and we've been discussing this Iran thing for some time.
I'll bet.
And the thrust of um our concern about Iran's acquiring a nuclear device is that they already have a mature ballistic missile program capable of launching a nuclear warhead about a thousand miles.
And if they were to put their Shahab III ballistic missile on a tramp steamer and launch that Shahab III with a nuke on board over the central part of the United States, they can do what is called an EMP laydown and turn us into a third world country.
Remember, we have audience in Rio Linda.
EMP, the electromagnetic pulse, tell people what happens when that happens.
Well, when that happens, it would basically fry every integrated chip in the United States, and our uh electrical and database and broadband communications infrastructure would collapse.
In other words, what everybody feared was going to happen at Y2K would happen.
That's right.
And the Bilderbergers would end up in control.
Yes.
And the other problem is that we we have no way of attributing who the attack came from.
So the concept of mutual assured destruction is dead.
You know what to retaliate against, and I can assure you that the United States government is not going to kill fifty million people because of an EMP laydown.
So it will destroy our ability to pump water, refine fuel, do banking transactions, Wall Street will be toast.
Well, that Katrina aid would come to a stop, too.
Uh, yes, it would.
Well, that would be bad.
So that is why the Bush administration and and most of the uh nuclear community is up late at night because uh Iran having a nuclear device is not a good thing.
Yeah, well, I I'm glad you called, and that is exactly right, and let me expand on this because the guy that called from Queens on this, equating uh mutually assured destruction during the Cold War with terrorists, crystallizes the problem with the left today, why we cannot trust them to lead or defend this country.
This guy in Queens, the left, they all saw what happened on 9-11.
They see how these people will kill themselves for a cause.
They see that they killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens.
They see that they're killing their own people indiscriminately in Iraq and elsewhere.
They see that they're blowing up their own children in Israel, and then the left and this caller from Queens talks about the threat of mutual assured destruction.
They they they are the there's it's a different world, it's a different, it's a different ball game.
And of course, well, who are we to say they don't get nuke?
That's guilt.
That is the guilt Shelby Steele talks about, and it's the preferred point of view of the new castrati.
These people in Iran celebrate death more than they celebrate life.
They have proven it, they have said it, and the Libs refuse to accept it.
Back in a moment.
Fox News Opinion Dynamics Paul has Bush's approval numbers up, but they're all stymied because they can't figure out why when they look at the internals.
I have a theory.
Very simple.
▲
Export Selection