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 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.
And I'll 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 benevolent dictatorship tyranny on the program because I'm the highly trained broadcast specialist.
You are rank amateurs out there.
But 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 Mr. Sterdley.
Yes, I am the most polite host in major media today.
You need have no fear.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Well, the Democrats last night, did you know there's a new caucus in the Democratic caucus in the House, the Get Us Out of Iraq Caucus or the Get Out of Iraq Caucus?
And I think it's chaired or led by Max C. and Waters, who's not looking too bad out there.
She let her hair grow.
Is that what happened?
Well, she's looking good.
Mac Maxine is looking good out there.
As is his head's up to get out of a rock 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.
So Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has been stripped of his post on the House Ways and Means Committee with Nancy Pelosi again referencing the fact that anytime you got $90,000 in cash in your freezer, that there's something definitely wrong there, at least on the ethical side.
I again affirm my position with the Congressional Black Caucus that this action is premature based on the fact that there is no charge.
There's no indictment, certainly no conviction.
We also have, ladies and gentlemen, the House completed its vote today authorizing the, well, I guess you'd say, what would you call this thing?
What was this resolution?
To stay the course, stay the course resolution 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 going to 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 Frisk.
They took it to the floor and they voted on it.
And six Democrats voted to get out of Iraq in the House today.
The vote was 256 to 153.
I guess you could say that the Democrats are voting to set a timetable to remove the troops.
So it was 256 to 153.
And get this.
There were 42 Democrats that voted for the resolution, 42 Democrats that voted with Republicans.
Three Republicans voted against the resolution, voted with Democrats.
You know, this is the biggest divide in House Democrats.
I don't know how long, but it's a huge, it may be like five or six years, and maybe 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 with Republicans.
And we know why.
It's because everybody in the House is up for re-election, those 42, more than likely from conservative districts, even though they are Democrats.
So what was funny about this was to listen to all the cataracts.
See, the Democrats originally asked for this.
This really is not done often.
This is not something that has a lot of precedent.
And the Democrats were asking for this 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, with the new election coming up, they wanted to get themselves on record as against it.
And the Republicans said, okay, but we're going to make it on the entire war on terror.
And then the events of last week and to this week occurred.
And the Democrats said, wait a minute, we don't want this now.
The Republicans, well, you asked for it.
We're going to 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.
If you listen to the Democrats, this come off like pure egomaniacs.
They sound like this vote is about them.
Yesterday, day before, you're trying to trick us.
Why, everything that was going on regarding this vote, particularly in the House, 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.
And that it's no different than 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 Murtha and George Bush.
Now, you got Bush saying this and Merthyr 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 democracy think a TV split screen rules.
On the one hand, stay the chorus.
On the other hand, cut and run.
And the people around the world watching this, of course, can get the idea that the cut and run crowd carries the day.
Because, you know, who gets more TV time, Nancy Pelosi or Denny Haster?
Who gets more TV time, Dingy Harry or Bill Frist?
Okay, so you would think that the Democrats, 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 are you going to think runs a show?
They don't seek out Haster.
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 running.
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 100.
In the House, they got 153 votes out of 435.
How in the world does 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 Iraq.
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 on the war is?
When 42 Democrats up for reelection know their districts, know their constituents, these Democrats wanted to be on the side of the U.S. military and this war effort because they want to be reelected.
The House is a great way to gauge where the American people are.
You could also say only 42 Democrats out of however many they've got have the guts to stand up for America, to stand up for the troops, any number of ways you can look at it.
But beyond that, they are divided.
And so next time you hear these people talking about unity, you can forget that.
And it'll be fun to troll 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.
Well, three Republicans voted.
But you know where those Republicans are going to be from.
I mean, they're Northeast, absolutely.
I don't know which ones they are, but, oh, we got a story here about Chris Shays.
I'm not going to get to it for a while, but he's whining.
He's going to big tough reelection battle up there, moderate Republican in Connecticut.
And his Democrat opponent is a woman, and then she's, it's a pretty tight race right now.
He's whining and blaming the president.
The president is doing harmlessly.
The president isn't helping me.
When's the last time you helped the president?
I tell you, sometimes the arrogance of these guys is just even a bit much for me to take.
Ladies and gentlemen, in all this talk about cutting and running, 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's another story.
There are two of them that are impossible.
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.
Rest easy, my friends.
The all-knowing, all-seeing, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, maha-rushi 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.
I'm not, no, I'm not going to, I'm not going to, no, like Bill Gates is, you know, leaving Microsoft and going to run the foundation.
Nope, not going to do that.
As everything else, I'll hire somebody to do that while I continue to do the heavy lifting here and the real work at the EIB network.
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 12 and boys at 14 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 him in a situation that's for life.
That's something we need to take a look at, the Democrat said.
The 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 18 or 16 with parental or judicial approval.
So, how about that one, folks?
Common law marriage, 12 for girls and 14 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 young girls were able to have babies, that was kids have rights, folks.
I mean, you know, we just, what are we going to do after we load them up with Riddlin and tell them to get, hey, go ahead and get married?
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 giddy mood today.
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 earblasting devices such as the Walkman and the iPod.
Now, the racial difference, the fact that black adults may hear better than white adults, may be related to melanin, the skin pigment.
Some scientists believe black people's larger amounts of melanin protect them from noise-induced hearing loss.
As the years go by, 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.
Genetics or the amount of noise exposure may explain the difference between women and men, said Elliot Berger, an Indianapolis-based hearing protection expert.
Boys have typically done noisier activities.
Anybody believe that's what the difference is?
I can't explain why black adults hear better than white adults, but this is about women hearing better than men.
There's no question that that's genetic.
Well, because men have been tuning women out for I don't know how many years, and they've passed it along in the genes.
What kind of day is this?
What's Don doing?
Okay.
Hey, it's curtains for live lobster.
Really?
She's tuning me out.
I think I've succeeded in actually irritating her in there today.
Normally, just laughs along with all this stuff.
All right.
Story out of Texas, but this is happening all over the country where there are Whole Foods markets.
Customers craving fresh crustaceans.
How do you explain that to Rio Linda?
Lobster?
Customers craving fresh crustaceans.
We'll have to look beyond Whole Food Markets, 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 grocery spent seven months studying the sale of live lobsters from ship to supermarket aisle, trying to determine whether the creatures suffer along the way.
As though they're not going to suffer at the end of the way.
In some stores, they experimented with lobster condos.
They filled tanks with stacks of large pipes that the 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 going to 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 Curric couldn't handle that.
Chef, so what do you think is going on back in the kitchen when you order a lobster?
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 you kill it some other way and freeze it, that's the only way you can eat it.
You know, there's something in a lobster, I don't remember all the details, something in a lobster that 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 a lobster and wanted to eat it?
That person does deserve a medal.
Okay, one more story from the wacko pile, and then we'll get on with 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 rushlimbaugh.com.
Multitasking today, hosting the program, doing show prep and research in the middle of the program all the while watching the U.S. Open in high definition on ESPN.
Now, get this story out of Virginia.
A jury has awarded $2 million.
It's a tragedy.
Don't get caught up in the wrong part of this story here, folks.
Stick with me on this.
A jury has awarded $2 million to a couple whose four-year-old son died after being run over by a rioting lawnmower at his daycare center.
Now that's, I mean, a question that's tragic.
The Roanoke, Virginia Circuit Court jury on Wednesday found the mower's 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 did the jury find the 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 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 Christy Simmons, the parents of the four-year-old boy, and $1 million 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 that her husband, Orville, had ignored safety warnings.
Justin's family is seeking an out-of-court settlement with the Reedies now.
So in all of this, it's the manufacturer of the lawnmower, which is held liable, all for something no lawnmower does.
This is one of those things that tells you, ladies and gentlemen, we still have a fairly large problem in this country of not only accepting responsibility, but assigning it properly.
Here's Seth in Louisville, Kentucky, as we start first on the 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 Judge Roberts and Judge Alito were 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.
Did we lose him?
All right.
Was he talking about, is he talking about this Hudson versus Michigan case?
Yeah, yeah, where the police knock three times.
All right, let me let me I know where he was going on this.
He says, these guys really do the right thing.
I mean, my gosh, they said the cops don't even have to knock now.
They come in and steal your stuff.
And if you're illegal, you're guilty and so forth.
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 says it all.
If you want the details, I'll give it to you.
But here they are.
The case is Hudson versus Michigan.
It revolved around a search in 1998.
Police with a warrant entered the unlocked home of Booker Hudson 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 blog.
Oh, Sandra Dale 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, Souter, 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 blunders don't give defendants a get-out-of-jail free card.
And that's essentially what the Libs want.
I think they did knock.
I just didn't wait long.
They didn't.
Door was, well, I know that there's a some story I read here.
You got to knock, wait five seconds or ten seconds, and then go in.
I thought they knocked and going.
Regardless, 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.
Hudson's lawyer, David Morgan, gloomily declared, the knock and announce 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.
Yeah, no doubt too humiliated to grab their loaded weapons.
Now, this is, you know what, I think the reason this appears to be such a stark change in people's minds is because we have gotten so accustomed to the relaxation of such common sense procedures in the court and in law enforcement for I don't know how long.
So this does seem draconian if this law professor's right.
And by the way, if you read Scalia's opinion, he wrote for the majority, I can see where this Robert Allen of Northwestern University Law School 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.
And so, you know, this is a decision that has the left angered.
I mean, common sense says that, and this is what Scalia said, his opinion, essentially.
He said defendants shouldn't walk because cops make honest mistakes.
But there's going to be a whole lot of sleepless nights in liberal land, ladies and gentlemen, as a result of this, when you see them already lamenting the loss of Sandra Day O'Connor.
Here's Carl in, excuse me, Mannheim, Pennsylvania.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, honored to talk to you.
My question for you today is, how did you come up with the idea for the Golden EIB microphone and who makes it for you?
Actually, I would love to claim credit as the creator of the Golden EIB microphone, but I didn't.
The way it happened was we had one of these little promos, little skits that our production director, Johnny Donovan, created, portraying me as talking to a classroom of Americans, and they come to strict attention when I walk in behind the golden EIB microphone.
And the manufacturer of the microphone's Electro Voice.
And Electro Voice heard that, and they actually sent one.
So it just happened.
It's one of these spontaneous occurring events, totally not by design.
Now we have two because there are, of course, two EIB studios.
So we've got one here.
We've got one up at the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
That's how it happened.
Awesome.
What was that, Carl?
Awesome.
I'm kind of into awesome.
I'm glad you called.
I like that kind of stuff on Open Line.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
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.
Longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, my comment concerns Iran's nuclear program.
What is the big deal, really, of Iran developing a nuclear device?
What are they going to do with it?
Do 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 really am stunned disbelief.
I know that Bayside's Queens, Queens is ground zero.
And we already have evidence of what these people would do with a nuke if they got one.
They are state sponsors of terrorism.
They have spent more money around the world than Iran has, sponsoring and funding terrorism, terrorism training.
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, in order for you to say, Al, and I understand you just want peace.
You want Kumbaya and everybody to get along and live happily ever after, you know, in Candyland.
But the truth of the matter is that the nuclear club is made up of essentially peaceful nations, there are exceptions, and we don't need another one, who have no intention of using them offensively or aggressively.
They are as a deterrent.
They are used to stifle the attempted attack, either conventional or nuclear, by any other country.
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 12th Imam to wipe out all the infidels, it would be silly to say, eh, it's just a madman.
He's just talking to scare us.
They don't have a nuke, and they're not going to get one anytime soon.
But you have to have almost a blinder, a pair of blinders on if you want to establish 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 Great Britain.
They clearly are a threat with nuclear weapons, an even greater one.
And even if they don't use it, so 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.
And they don't even have to use it.
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 a country that desperately wants to be thought of in the big club of nations.
They're basically a third world country trying to reestablish a 14th 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 that.
Hey, look, while watching the U.S. Open and responding to some email, I went and did some research on this case.
And you're right, I was wrong.
They didn't knock, but they announced themselves.
The cops I'm talking about 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 the gun and the 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 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 because of where we've been, where you could get a whole case thrown out if there was no knock or if they just margin on in, even with a warrant.
You've got to let the perp know that you're out there.
You've got to let the perp know you're coming in.
Let's 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 to throw everything out just because you didn't announce yourself when you got there.
So that's all I need to know is libs don't like it.
That means, to me, great ruling.
Lee in St. Louis, you're next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Lee in St. Louis, you're on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Let's move on.
There's no Lee there.
This is Paul in Salt Lake City.
It's your turn.
Welcome to our program.
Hello, Rush.
It's a 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 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 3 ballistic missile on a tramp steamer and launch that Shahab 3 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, 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 electrical and database and broadband communications infrastructure would collapse.
In other words, what everybody feared was going to happen, a Y2K, would happen.
That's right.
And the Builder Burgers would end up in control.
Yes.
And the other problem is that we have no way of attributing who the attack came from.
So the concept of mutual assured destruction is dead.
There's not nobody to retaliate against.
And I can assure you that the United States government is not going to kill 50 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, Katrina aid would come to a stop, too.
Yes, it would.
No, that would be bad.
So that is why the Bush administration and most of the nuclear community is up late at night because Iran having a nuclear device is not a good thing.
Yeah, well, 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 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.
It's a different world.
It's a different ball game.
And, of course, well, who are we to say they don't get nuked?
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