All Episodes
Previous Next
June 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
June 20, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From Hayatop, the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, Rush Limbaugh in New York on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, I am America's real anchorman, documented to be almost always right, 98.5% of the time still waiting on that new opinion audit from our official opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, California, the Sullivan Group.
Lots going on today, folks.
They'll be in New York today and tomorrow and Thursday, going to Washington on Thursday night.
Be in Washington on Friday.
We will not be doing a program on Friday.
Roger Hedgecock will be here on Friday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you would like to appear that way.
And I'm checking emails, as those of you watching on the DittoCam can regularly and routinely see.
Multitask care check emails, actually sometimes even during the program, but more regularly during our commercial breaks.
And so if you want to send an email, rush at EIBNet.com.
The United States, Bill Goertz, by the way, broke this story in the Washington Times.
The United States has moved its ground-based interceptor missile defense system from test mode to operational amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch.
U.S. defense officials said on Tuesday, the official speaking on condition of anonymity confirmed Goertz's report in the Washington Times that the Pentagon has activated the system, which has been in the developmental stage for years.
It's good to be ready, the official said.
Now, this story had been brewing out there since yesterday.
Satellite reconnaissance indicates that there currently is a shroud of cloud cover over Pyongyang, which is putting any crimps in the plans of the dog-eating, pot-bellied little tinhorn dictator, Kim Jong-il of North Korea.
There's a companion story.
Also, this is AP.
The first story was Al Reuters.
North Korea alleged today that U.S. moves to build a missile shield are fueling a dangerous arms race in space as countries in the region urged the little communist nation to halt apparent plans to launch a long-range missile.
Among rising tensions in the region, the U.S. staged massive war games in the western Pacific Ocean with 22,000 troops, three aircraft carriers that filled the skies with the fighter planes.
It's what the Russians said.
It's what our old friend the Gorbachev Soviets said.
Well, if you do that Star Wars, why that's really escalating the arms?
Why, that's escalating the arms race to outer space.
Why, if you do that, why?
And then they promptly imploded, caved in, gave it up.
And as Margaret Thatcher has made clear many times, it was the commitment to build the Strategic Defense Initiative, a shield up there to protect against missiles launched at us from actually hitting us, that told the Soviet Union, we can't keep up with this.
And the Americans can do it if they set their minds to it.
And so now here is this little pot-bellied little dictator coming around saying, it's going to fuel the arms race if you guys do this.
One thing we know is this clown can't do it.
I don't know how many missiles he's got.
But here's this.
This is the real, I don't know, ironic or frustrating thing about this.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, not in this country.
Isn't it amazing how all of these Clinton officials leave the country and then launch salvos of their own attacking this country?
Madeleine Albright criticized the U.S. of invasion of Iraq Monday, saying that it had encouraged Iran and North Korea to push ahead with their nuclear programs.
Yes.
You see, if we hadn't invaded Iraq, if we'd have just kept it to Afghanistan, if we'd have just kept the war on terror there, why Iran and Afghanistan, why they wouldn't have been messing around with nuclear, Iran and North Korea wouldn't have been messing around with the nuclear weapons.
Oh, it's our fault.
Don't you see the self-loathing hate America crowd?
This is the woman who once bemoaned the fact that the United States is the only superpower in the world.
Madeleine Albright said the message out of Iraq is the wrong one.
The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded.
If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded.
She said this in Moscow at an investors conference.
Albright, as you recall, visited North Korea in October 2000, becoming the highest level American official who ever traveled to that country.
The two nations do not have formal diplomatic relations.
You know, folks, there was a time when government officials, current or former, avoided criticizing U.S. policy overseas.
Everybody understood that besides being classless, it provided aid and comfort to the enemies, thus the common saying, politics stops at the water's edge.
But boy, it just doesn't seem to exist anymore with the Democratic Party, because that was then.
Here we have Madeline Albright in Russia attacking our war effort, saying the war in Iraq sent the wrong message to Iran and North Korea.
If you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded.
If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded.
Let me ask you, does anybody really believe that North Korea is pursuing a nuclear program because we invaded Iraq?
Anybody really believe that the Iranians are doing the same thing because we invaded Iraq?
Or are they pursuing them because they're evil SOBs?
They are typical evil countries and leaders.
They are, in the case of Iran, state sponsor of terrorism.
And North Korea is just, this is a reason why President Bush named them to the axis of evil.
But my friends, it was Madame Albright herself, what she, I guess, wants us to conveniently forget, along with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, who provided North Korea with the very means to go nuclear.
They honestly believe, because if we just treat them with respect, they'll respect us back.
The new castrati.
If we treat them nice, if we show them that we intend them no harm, then they will not harm us.
So we gave them equipment, nuclear equipment, ostensibly to help build up their power program.
But it didn't take long, and they figured out some conversions to go nuclear in terms of weapons grade.
Yes, they believe that giving a nuclear plant to an America-hating, pot-bellied, dog-eating, nutsoid communist dictator thug would result in him making electricity.
Instead, he made nukes with him.
Shazam, and who sent the wrong message to Iran?
Jimmy Carter, perhaps, with his inept policy of appeasement.
Carter created the Iran problem, which has resulted in Islamic fanatics taking over that government since 1979.
Now, here's the ironic thing.
We are winning the war on terror.
Saddam Hussein is gone.
40% of the terrorists that we faced are dead over there.
Yeah, we got to deal with Iran and North Korea.
But I'm going to tell you, folks, it's time to look heavenward.
And thank God that the Clintons and the Carters and the Albrights and the Pelosis and the Murthas and the Kerrys and their linguini-spined party are on the sidelines.
And all they can do is wail and whine and moan and shout, cut and run, get out.
They can't actually make it happen.
How Madeline Albright ever got the word bright in her name, I will never know, let alone how she became Secretary of State.
But for her to blame the United States, has it always come down to that with these people?
It always comes down to blaming the United States.
We are the bad guys.
We're the reasons bad guys are getting worse.
We're the reasons bad guys exist.
Why, I wonder if we did this, Madam Albright.
If we announced, let's say that you're Secretary of State, Bush names you're Secretary of State tomorrow, Madam Albright.
I want your first policy to be, we are going to get rid of our nukes to show the world we intend them no harm.
Do you think that little dog-eating potbelly dictator in North Korea get rid of his?
Do you think that lunatic Mahmoud Ahmadinezad in Iran would get rid of his nukes?
They would start ramping up faster than they have been and know-how now.
Boy, it's dangerous.
Now, a friend of mine, Frank Gaffney, has written a piece at National Review Online today on how to really deal with this.
I'll share that with you after we come back from this brief timeout.
You know, CNN today going typically bananas with a typical CNN story.
I guess this is National Refugee Day or something like that.
This is National Refugee Day.
I didn't even know there was such a thing as National Refugee Day or World Refuge.
No, it's World Refugee Day.
And apparently there are 15 million refugees homeless.
And by country, they've broken it down.
And it got me to thinking, why are there refugees?
And especially, why are there all these homeless and poor people?
And, you know, there's one answer for it.
There's simply not enough capitalism in the world.
It's not just enough to be free, not just enough to have democracy.
I mean, you have democracy.
They got democracy in Venezuela.
They got Hugo Chavez.
Without capitalism, they don't stand a chance.
And yet all these dictatorships, socialism, because it empowers them and makes them rich, and they feed off of their starving constituents, stealing blind.
And we get people like Angelina Jolie.
I tell you, folks, as a sure sign that pop culture, I keep waiting for pop culture to wane.
I look at societal trends.
I keep waiting for absurdity to be noticed by everybody and then that to cause a shift.
And I must admit, I've been waiting for this for almost 18 years.
And it's just getting worse and worse and worse.
The celebrity-oriented pop culture, I keep thinking at some point, sensibility and maturity will rear its ugly head and will decide that the people we consider to be newsmakers on important issues are really a bunch of dolt dunces or just PR flaks arranging their hastily arranged news appearances in order to promote their careers.
Yeah, Angelina Jolie is going to adopt another baby.
So what?
Yippee-doo.
And she's going to, and it's going to be, it's going to balance her other kids via race.
It's going to be a race balance adoption.
Okay, fine.
Why is it the world's business?
Why do we get 13 hours of interviews about it and so forth?
Well, why do we care that she's married Brad Pitt?
You and I probably don't care.
But CNN thinks it's big news.
What?
What?
Well, no, we do.
Mr. H.R., the chief of staff, thinks that we have made an impact here because we don't celebrate basket cases anymore, meaning, yes, I was abused by my mother, my father, my stepfather, my brother, and that's why I'm the lunatic that I am, and that's why I have a sitcom.
Yay!
And people go, oh, she will come forward and be honest.
I don't know.
I still just, I think there's some of this vomiting, Whatever you call it, that still goes on.
Maybe it's not to that extent.
But, I mean, what are we going to do?
We get World Refugee.
Oh, World Refugee Day.
Oh, so many people homeless.
Yeah, there's a good reason for it.
It's called communism.
It's called socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, and the unequal distribution of resources, i.e. capitalism.
Anyway, I just saw this.
I had to react.
Let me go back to Frank Gaffney's piece in the National Review Online today.
Pyongyang goes ballistic, doing what works for the other evil ones.
At any moment, the North Korean regime of Kim Jong-il will demonstrate that it's acquired the means to deliver nuclear weapons and other payloads over very long distances.
It is likely that one of the intended targets for such weapons is the United States of America.
The very least, that's the message the launch of the so-called Tapodong 2.
What a name for a missile, a Tapodong 2, is intended to convey.
Pyongyang wants to get our attention and his launch is certain to achieve that purpose.
Two questions occur.
First, why would Kim Jong-il be willing to risk fresh isolation and possible sanctions that have been threatened by the United States and Japan in the wake of a missile launch that will, if past practice as any guide, probably transit Japanese airspace and fly a trajectory towards U.S. territory?
And second, what does the answer to the previous question mean for American policy toward the so-called hermit kingdom?
While to some, North Korea's behavior at the moment is a puzzlement, it is actually a perfectly logical response to recent international actions with respect to other pariah states.
Call it the squeaking wheel syndrome, in particular.
The other remaining member of the original axis of evil, Islamo-fascist Iran, has lately been systematically rewarded for its behavior.
The more belligerent the rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, the more imminent the completion of his ominous nuclear weapons program.
The more the U.S. and other Western powers have tried to appease Tehran, the more wacko he gets, the more we go, oh no, oh no, let's talk unilaterally, bilaterally, singly, doubly, triply, let's talk.
Mahmoud says, I'll talk, but I ain't stopping.
Mahmoud thinks we're quaking in our boots.
The Eastern European nations, the Western European nations, the European Union, they've been trying.
The UN's been trying, huffing and puffing, trying diplomacy.
They're going to get really hard with diplomacy.
Nothing has stopped Mahmoud.
And when he keeps attacking Israel, keeps threatening that he's going to wipe out Israel, move it back to Europe where it belongs, since that's, well, never.
I don't even get into that.
He just wants to wipe out Israel and he's going to wipe out Western civilization because a bunch of infidels.
We swoop in.
No, Mahmoud.
No, no, no.
You want a nuclear reactor?
You want a power plant?
Here, take it.
Should we be surprised then that the Iranian regime's partner in terror, nuclear weaponry, and ballistic missile development, North Korea, would be redoubling its threatening behavior, confident that the result would be not sanctions and isolation, but fresh rewards?
See, Gaffney's theory is that all this diplomacy is meaningless.
If we're going to cave at the first sign of, oh, these guys are really serious.
If we move in and don't doing this, stop it and actually act in such ways as to facilitate their objective of obtaining nuclear weapons, then why would North Korea look at this and say anything else is out of the question for us?
Let's just do the same.
In fact, if you're Kim Jong-il and you're a true lunatic and truly insane, launch a missile.
What better way to show the world that you threaten them?
What better way to get the world at the table to talk to you about such things?
How else do you explain Vladimir Putin and communist China collaborating in military exercises and arms buildups whose objects are unmistakably aimed at the United States and its armed forces?
They work together with the Iranians and so forth.
So Gaffney's conclusion here is this.
Under these circumstances, and it's such a far cry from the just the mindless blatherings of Madeline Albright to sit there and blame the United States for this.
In his own way, Gaffney is blaming the United States, but not because we have nukes and not because we invaded Iraq, but because we're not handling these people as the world's superpower.
Madeline Albright thinks because we're the world's superpower, and we just run a rough shot over the whole world, invade Iraq, that the rest of the world thinks, uh-oh, they may come for us next.
We've got to arm up.
And in doing so, Madeline Albright establishes a moral equivalence between Iran and North Korea and the United States and anybody else in the West.
Well, what do you expect?
She's saying, if we're going to attack these innocent people of color who've done nothing to us, what do you expect them to?
So it's always our fault.
Gaffney's case, this may be our fault via a mistake.
He says, under these circumstances, the United States must now make a redoubled effort to deploy effective, comprehensive defenses against ballistic missiles that might be used for EMP and other attacks, electromagnetic pulse attacks.
We must urgently augment the modest ground-based systems put into place in Alaska and California in the wake of President Bush's laudable decision to withdraw from the 72 ABM Treaty.
Second, we must recognize that negotiating with the North Koreans, either multilaterally or bilaterally, is a loser, just as it is with the Iranians.
Pyongyang's next missile test might be met not with intensified negotiations and more inducements to play ball with our diplomats.
Instead, we have to work toward the only end that is likely to make a whit of difference for the future security of this country.
And that's do as Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union.
Work not just to contain, but to bring down the odious despot in North Korea and his allies in Tehran.
Somehow that doesn't seem to be part of the mix.
Certainly it's not part of the mix.
And you got the Democratic Party and I, with the Bush administration now in Iraq and Afghanistan, because I wouldn't put it past them.
Now I stop to think about it.
I wouldn't put it past them to have as their unstated objective to get rid of both these guys.
We have both of these regimes.
Question is how?
We didn't do it by firing a shot at the Soviet Union.
It didn't take us 60 or 70 years to defeat the Soviet Union.
Once Reagan took office and developed a plan, it literally was less than 20 years, less than 15.
And we got rid of them.
The same thing is possible with Iran and North Korea.
But as long as you're going to sit there and say, hey, they're entitled.
I mean, we have nukes and they don't.
So you get nuked if you don't have nukes.
That's not necessarily the case at all, Ms. Albright.
It's becoming an embarrassment and a menace as well.
And why am I the most dangerous man in America?
Because I'm right and have gazillions of people listening each and every day.
Rush Limboy, you're highly trained broadcast specialist utilizing talent on loan from God.
Here is Larry in Detroit.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next on the program.
Hello.
Hey, Mega Motor City Dittos here, Professor Limbaugh.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, my question or comment has to do with Madam Halfright's statement in Moscow about North Korea and Iran.
Yes.
Her assessment would be right except for the fact that our good friend Muammar Gaddafi gave up his program after we invaded Iraq.
That's an excellent point.
Gaddafi said, you know, I don't want this happening to me.
That is a really good point out there, Larry.
I had temporarily let that slip my mind.
But even so, folks, just on the face of it, without any evidence like Larry has provided here, here's Madeline Albright, yet another in a long line of Clinton administration officials traversing the world, setting down on foreign soil and ripping into this country.
Now ripping into our nuclear arsenal and ripping into the fact that it's under the command of George W. Bush.
Look at it.
It's ridiculous.
It is sophistry.
It is certainly not intellectual, certainly not highbrow, certainly not representative of deep thinking to utter the absurd statement that, well, North Korea and the Iranians, why, they're nuking up because we have nukes and we invaded Iraq.
Have we used a nuke in Iraq?
All I can tell you, all I can do is remind you, this is the woman who once decried the notion, bemoaned the fact that we are the nation's lone superpower.
She said that because it creates an imbalance of power.
It was better when there was another superpower because both superpowers kept the other in check.
But now there's nothing stopping the United States from running roughshod over the innocent people of color of the world.
Thereby establishing, as I am wont to point out, a moral equivalence.
She sees no difference between the bad nations, the evil nations of the world, and us.
Lee in Bedford, Oregon.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Rash, Megadudos from Oregon.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, my point is with North Korea, we are going to have to have a military confrontation with those people.
Whether they launch their missile or not, I think at some point with the regime they have there, I just, I don't see any other alternative.
Sanctions aren't going to work.
This guy's crazy.
And I think we're going to have a military confrontation at some point.
I'd rather see it sooner than later.
Well, let's examine this.
I know that North Korea is dangerous because Kim Jong-il is unstable.
But really, I mean, the army, I guess, his military is semi-well-fed.
His population is not.
Population lives in total bondage and backward conditions.
I mean, it'd be a great country for Al-Qaeda to take over if they want to take everybody back to the 14th century, just go to North Korea and have fun.
But the fact that he's working on nukes and might have a weapon he can put on a missile he might be able to launch that would reach the United States makes it serious.
But we had this, the same notion existed with the Soviet Union.
Well, the only way we're going to ever defeat these people is militarily.
And so we can't do that.
I mean, that would be such a war nobody wants to put up with.
So that gave us the appeasement policy of the left and the so-called mutual assured destruction, a continuing arms race, which guaranteed neither side would launch because the other side would still have enough of an inventory to wipe the other out or at least retaliate should there have been a launch.
But we lived under an illusion for the longest time, in part crafted by romantics in this country who have this love affair with Marxism and Leninism and Stalinism, that the Soviet Union was far more powerful than it ever actually was.
It was never more than a third world nation with a first world military.
But people were starving, go to the department stores, there's nothing in them.
They're standing in lines.
And there were those of us who knew this.
Those of us who reported this, drive-by media wasn't interested, because as I say, they had this romantic notion that the Soviet Union was an equal to the United States, and in fact, offered a better potential for happiness and contentment and equality for all human beings than did the United States.
Those people, by the way, with that perverted point of view, still exist in this country today.
Many of them located in Hollywood, some located in Washington, others in San Francisco, others in Portland, some in Seattle, many of them in Boston.
And I kid you not.
Now, so I don't want to make the same mistake.
Oh, my goodness, because the North Koreans, North Korea, as a country without its nuclear weapons, and they're not that far along.
I mean, they will find out if they actually launch this test.
We know that they're working on it.
We know that they're allied with the Iranians.
We don't know to what extent the SHICOMs are helping them out.
That's what poses their greatest threat to me: any future alliance they would have with SHICOMs, because the SHICOMs do represent something a Soviet Union never did.
A, they're a communist country, little capitalism is being infiltrated there successfully, but they've got a billion people and they wouldn't mind losing 300 million of them in a war.
Do you feel sanctions will work?
No!
I don't know when they ever have.
Not against they're already starving.
The sanctions are aimed at the people of North Korea.
Kim Jong-il has sanctioned his own people and his father did for decades.
His own people, my gosh, when his own people have to eat dogs and cats for crying out loud, that's not a delicacy.
I don't care what anybody says.
No, the sanctions aren't going to work.
They're not going to stop Kim Jong-il from getting what he wants to keep his potbelly pot.
I agree.
You bet.
I'm not discounting a notion of military action.
But you need the South Koreans on board for that.
I don't know how they're feeling about this, but I never forget something that Ronald Reagan, the great Rinaldus Magnus, always believed about the Soviet Union.
He believed that it would implode on the weight of its own immorality, that it simply could not sustain itself intellectually or economically simply because of its immoral structure, i.e., communism.
Now, it had to be hastened along.
Had we kept up with pre-Reaganite policies on the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall would still be up today.
And we'd still be feverishly working on Star Wars.
And the left had probably tried to vote that down a long time ago.
But bottom line is that they were hastened along with a couple of really good indications from us that there was no way they could keep up.
And the Strategic Defense Initiative is one way.
You might say, well, at least Gorbachev was rational in that sense.
And Kim Jong-il, there's no evidence anywhere to suggest that he is.
Although Madame Albright did come back and say that he's not crazy.
She has met with him.
He is not crazy.
He may be a pervert.
I think he is a sex pervert.
But that means there are people in this country can relate to him.
But she came back and said, he's not crazy.
Well, he clearly is.
He clearly is not rational.
And I've often found it amazing.
Let's talk about Madame Albright for just a second.
I think, folks, this is, she's just an example.
She's a representative of much of the kind of thinking that exists on her side of the aisle.
Madeleine Albright comes back from meeting Kim Jong-il or comes back from meeting any foreign leader and puts herself in that leader's shoes in telling us what she thought.
Never once does Madeline Albright put herself in the shoes of the oppressed in these countries.
You don't hear any condemnation of the way Kim Jong-il has treated his own people or his father, Kim Il-sung.
You don't hear any condemnation.
No, because she doesn't relate to those people.
No, no, she relates to them.
She puts herself in their shoes and then starts to analyze the world from their point of view in their shoes.
There's no concern for the people that they are quote-unquote governing or leading.
This is one of the primary and major differences between Reagan, and it's one of the reasons why the elites despised Reagan, even the elites in the Republican Party.
They had to shelve it for eight years.
They didn't like him.
Because Ronald Reagan connected with the American people.
Ronald Reagan understood when he talked about the Soviet Union, he saw the people in the Soviet Union, how they were suffering, and how it was inhuman, this system that they were forced to live under, and that they were human beings, and that because of their leadership, they were denied basic human rights and opportunities that are endowed in all of us by our creator.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, pursuit of excellence, be the best you can be.
None of that was possible in the Soviet Union because of the way they were governed.
Same thing in North Korea.
Well, Madeline Albright doesn't even think that way.
Jimmy Carter doesn't, those things don't register.
Everything is done with the point of view of wearing the dictator or the thug's shoes.
So you come back and you blame the United States for the creation of these places.
I mean, that's as out of touch and out of phase and frankly as stupid.
It's not intelligent.
It's not intellectual.
And it certainly isn't deep thinking.
And the reason that there's no deep thought is because it's not permitted when you're that arrogant and that condescending.
You've run into people who think they're the smartest people in the room, and you sit around, you laugh at them as they end up speaking.
I remember going to dinner party.
Folks, I got to tell you a little story.
I can't mention any names here because I want to protect the guilty and the innocent as well.
And plus, one of the rules when you went to these parties was you never discussed what went on at them.
And I'm not going to sit around and violate this.
But the names don't matter.
I can describe the people.
Upper crust, Republican in some cases, mostly, also Democrats, big Republican contributors, elitists, people that think they're smarter than everybody else.
I remember one night at one dinner party, sitting around a circular table.
Maybe he had 18 people at this big circular table, probably brought in from some rent-a-store.
And the philosophy of the hostess at this particular dinner was that during dinner, you would talk to the people seated next to you about whatever you wanted.
But shortly before dessert was served, the hostess would ring the bell, ding-a-ling-a-ling-ling-ling-ling-ling, just knock on her head, and announce a topic that the table needed to discuss.
And, well, you know, I'm supposedly good with topics.
This is my third or fourth appearance, and I'm still getting my feet wet at these things on this particular occasion.
So I forget what the topic was, but there was a media bear in there.
This guy started talking, making absolutely no sense.
But boy, he sounded brilliant.
His enunciation, his mms and ahs, and the way intellectuals speak, his pauses.
And I looked around.
I'm trying not to.
I've got my hand over my mouth.
I'm trying not.
My companion is elbowing me to shut it up.
I'm not laughing, but I'm trying.
I look around the table, and everybody is at rapt attention.
I mean, they just can't believe the brilliance that is being exposed to be soaked up in this room.
And it was utter gibberish.
It was utter gobbledygook.
It was a guy showing off a vocabulary that I don't even think he understood the meaning of half the words he was using.
And I expected, just to show you how out of touch I am with this crowd, I expected a whole table to bust out laughing inside of five seconds.
And they didn't.
And after he finished, nobody had anything to say because nobody knew what he had said.
There was nothing to react to.
And I think this is what happens in the corridors of power, in the world of the Madeline Albrights and the State Department striped pants crowd.
And they sit around and they impress each other with all of their deep thoughts and opinions that nobody else has.
And it's nonsense.
And so for Madeline Albright, to say the things that she's blaming the U.S. for the fact that North Korea and Iran have nukes because we invaded Iraq, I mean, even our college sophomores and freshmen that call here looking for guidance or absolution could understand the idiocy of it.
Yet it is praised and thought to be so bright and intelligent as to be out of this world.
We're all supposed to feel tiny and insignificant in the face of this brilliance.
And in fact, it's quite the contrary.
These people need to be just swept out and stop being held up and lauded and smarter than everybody else.
They're dangerous, is what they are.
Back in just a second.
The title of this tune is Stupid Girl, ladies and gentlemen.
Way to go in there, Aldemont.
Aldemont, the broadcast engineer, digging deep into the bumper rotation to find this.
By the way, I should tell you, Aldemont is leaving, ladies and gentlemen.
He's our backup engineer.
He's heard the call.
And he's moving down to New Orleans to help rebuild the levees and the dikes in his spare time while attending law school.
He wants to go to law school.
They need all the help they can get.
Are you aware they've called out the National Guard down there?
They had a murder spree over the weekend.
They've called out the National Guard.
Ten months after the hurricane, a National Guard's been called back out.
I am not aware of the National Guard ever being called out for hurricanes in Florida, where I live.
So just be careful.
And nor Mississippi.
Just be careful down there, Aldemont.
But I like using your name so much.
Whoever your replacement is, is going to be called Aldemont.
So you can expect to hear your name, even though you're down there when you're fixing the levees.
Peggy in Oldney, Maryland, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I wanted to thank you.
At the top of the hour monologue, you said we should all look heavenward and thank God that the Clinton Knights aren't in office.
Well, I look heavenward and thank God for you and this program.
And I would say that you're responsible for them not being in power.
And I want to thank you very much for that.
And I also want to thank you.
Some of the calls in the first hour were very heartening to me as a Marine mom.
Every time someone calls in in support of the troops, it feels like a pat on the back, and I really appreciate that.
Let me ask you a question, Peggy.
Certainly.
Honestly, if calls like those we had in the first hour feel like a pat on the back, do most of the time you feel like half the country or more is against you?
Yeah, I get discouraged, and that's why I really appreciate your program.
I often say to my friends, if this was the attitude in World War II, we would have never won.
I don't know how we could have won World War II with the attitude that we have.
And it's very impressive, the progress we're making, despite all the negativity.
Another question.
Do you, even though you fully understand, I would think that the vast majority of the American people are so in awe of what people like your son volunteer to do.
I mean, most of us run around saying, how are we ever going to repay people like your son and you and your families?
How are we ever going to repay you?
So it must be daily media coverage that discourages you.
Yeah, and it is.
I also live outside, just outside the Beltway in Washington, you know, in the Washington area.
Oh, yeah.
It's a very liberal area.
Oh, yeah.
And, yeah, it's a little hard.
So that's why, like I said, I really, really appreciate your program.
Well, I thank you so much.
I always, I get sort of humbled when people like you call and say that because, I mean, if thanks is owed to anybody, it's families like yours.
all across the country.
But I'm glad you called.
I'm glad that the people that have called this program are able to give you a daily perspective on it that helps out.
Back in just a second.
Even though it's been great so far, folks, we have barely scratched the surface.
We have another hour of Broadcast Excellence straight ahead, and it's coming up right after this.
▲
Export Selection