All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
June 21, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm under intense pressure from the guys the other side of glass to play my new theme song.
What I'm stating and announcing is my new theme song, Baby Baby, Don't Get Hooked On Me by Mac Davis.
They wanted me to open the program this hour with it, just for the fun of it.
But it has lyrics in it.
And they start singing before we actually get clearance from the local affiliates to make sure they're out of their top of the hour break.
But I don't know.
I'll think about it.
I'm under a lot of pressure today.
People want to know, hey, Rush, how come you're not going to be on the air on Friday?
You keep saying you're not going to be on the air on Friday.
Usually tell us where you're going.
No, I don't.
I don't tell anybody where I'm going in advance anymore.
I'll tell you after I've been there where I was.
Now, I will be.
I don't even tell the staff where I'm going.
It's nobody's business.
I've got to go places so I'm not found.
But I am going to be able to tell you tomorrow.
I can't tell you today because people have asked me not to announce it before tomorrow because it would create pandemonium.
So I'll be able to tell you tomorrow, but it's going to be fun.
I've got to go to Washington tomorrow night, tomorrow afternoon after our busy broadcast, and we'll be in Washington most of the day, leaving, I guess, about, I hope you get out of there by wheels up by 4 o'clock because I'm heading to parts unknown out of the country on Friday afternoon.
And we'll be back here, the EIB network, behind this, a golden EIB microphone on next Tuesday.
We've got Roger Hedgecock here on Friday and Paul W. Smith from WJR in Detroit on Monday.
Paul's already studying for the program on Monday, already preparing, getting ready.
Takes it very seriously.
But I will tell you, I've just been asked not to tell you until tomorrow.
And some people have heard me say, but you might be able to see what I'm doing on Friday.
Anyway, they want to know what that's about.
I'll tell you all of this tomorrow.
I can't tell you this today.
And I could, but I'd be going against the wishes of those who've asked me not to.
I also have a friend, neurotic as you can be.
I must get 25 emails a day from this guy.
And I just got one from him.
And I, you know, most of them, I just read and I smile and I say, Dick, I love you, man.
And then ignore it.
But this one, you know, Rush, when I was a boy during World War II, classrooms had pictures of our presidents on the walls.
And you sniveling little journalists.
This guy hates the media.
He despises the media.
He hates the New York Times, but reads it first every day.
Probably reads it three times just to keep his hate level flowing.
Not hate.
He despises them.
Anyway, you sniveling little journalists who secretly root for the president to be dissed.
What kind of person are you?
It got me thinking about something.
He's absolutely right.
When I was a kid in school, the president's picture was on the wall in all the classrooms, in grade school and in, well, all throughout the school it was.
And you'd go into any government.
Oh, I remember when I went to get my social security number.
My dad took my brother and I to get my social security number.
Well, that was a shock too.
I think it was eight.
Maybe six.
I forget what it was.
And I said, why do I need this?
What is this for?
Well, you've got to have this for when you retire.
I'm six years old.
Why do I need this now?
I mean, I see, I became suspicious early on in life.
What do I have to have this number for?
You can't get a job without this number.
Really?
Well, I'm six years old.
I don't want the, I didn't want a job then.
Don't give me one of these, Dad.
But anyway, there's an American flag and a Missouri flag and a picture of the governor of Missouri and a picture of the president of the United States.
And it was not that people respected the president because a bigger guy than anybody else or more important or any of that.
It was that we all had elected him or the adults had.
The adults had elected the president.
This is a representative republic.
The president's picture was not on the walls because the president is a dictator.
You go to Cuba or you go to a totalitarian regime and you'll find these Che Guevara, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, whoever, that dog-eating little pot-bellied dictator in North Korea, Kim Jong-il.
Their pictures are all over the place because if they're not put up there, whoever doesn't do it gets shot.
It's a dictatorship.
This led me to think, this is no great revelation.
I don't know if pictures of the president are still up in schools.
You have young crumb crunchers in school.
Have you been to the school?
Have you ever seen a picture of the president there?
Okay, the American flag's still on display at school, but you haven't seen a picture of the president.
Well, no matter.
It got me to thinking, why is it that there is such disrespect for George W. Bush on the part of the left?
Now, some of you liberals say, well, this is no different than the disrespect you had for Clinton.
That was personal.
We just could not believe that somebody of that failing character, that compelling inability to tell the truth, had actually become president.
But we lived with it and we did our best to impeach him.
Just jabbing you people on the left.
But with Bush, it's different.
I actually think, I actually think that the reason that journalists, the drive-by media and the Democrats, have such a personal distaste for Bush is I don't think they think him legitimate.
It's not just because of the controversy in the 19 or the 2000 election with the hanging Chads and the aftermath in Florida.
I don't think they consider him legitimate because he's a Republican and a conservative.
Pure and simple.
That's it.
And all the other things are sort of ancillary.
You might say icing on the cake.
But you don't have people saying Bush is Hitler or Bush poses the greatest threat to freedom in the world, even more than Iran or more than North Korea.
You know, I don't have time to catalog all the things people have said here about Bush in the last five years.
But when you consider that the Democrats have such an entitlement to power, leadership, it's their birthright.
And now for, when's the last time a Democratic candidate for president got over 50% of the vote?
Clinton didn't.
Did Jimmy Carter in 76, maybe it was Jimmy Carter, the last time that I don't even know if it's Jimmy Carter.
I know Clinton never did.
And Carter, in the last number of years, how many Democrat presidents have there been?
There's been two, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
And prior to that, you had JFK, well, and Lyndon Johnson.
So they haven't had this power that is their birthright for all these years.
And I think it's not just how they look at the president.
I think it's how they look at all conservatives.
You know, they have this cliché of conservatism as racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe.
And they've long, throughout my whole political life, they have routinely made the comparison to the Nazis, to Hitler, on the part of conservatives.
And I actually think, and I don't know what it is that got me around to this, other than this reference to pictures of the president on the wall, and that we all respected the president because we elected him.
I think largely their disrespect to Bush has nothing to do with him personally.
It's just that they feel like he has been forced on them, that he's illegitimate, that he's almost like a dictator, and that there has been a coup.
They own this country.
Power is theirs.
It's their birthright.
They are liberals.
They are Democrats.
They ran the House for 40 years.
This is just, it's unconscionable, they think, what's happening?
It's unacceptable.
It's undoable.
I think that is the root of their discombobulation.
You say they're not unified now.
They have no principles.
They never had to have any principles.
They were such a large majority that they could get away with doing anything and saying anything, and they got away without ever being challenged.
So they never had to defend anything.
They were, for the most part, pure libs, but they don't think that's anything other than normal.
Yeah.
Carter got 50.
Okay, it's the last time.
It's 1976.
Last time a Democrat president got over 50% of the vote.
And that's 1976.
We're coming up here on 30 years.
And yet they don't see that.
They think it's been wrested from them, taken from them, stolen from them or whatever.
And I actually think they probably do look at Bush as a dictator, especially when you get specific and realize he won't listen to them.
He won't accept their withdrawal, their cut and run.
He won't do what they want him to do on Abu Ghrab or any of this sort of stuff.
They still think they run the show.
And it's quite indicative of, I think, to me, as we constantly look for answers.
I know you ask yourself, I ask myself, how can these people think this way?
Can't relate to it.
People still ask me all the time, Rush, how do people become liberals?
Got me.
There are obviously explanations for it, and we've delved into it a number of times here.
But in the case of Bush and all of conservatives, I just really do think they look at Bush as illegitimate, as a dictator, somebody who has stolen what by birthright is theirs, and it has them so discombobulated that they're not even aware of just how ludicrous and insane some of them sound.
It's all tied up in arrogance and condescension.
I've got to take a quick break.
We'll be back here at what ABC is doing.
You haven't heard about this?
ABC is looking for viewers to help in reporting on global warming.
Are you witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?
ABC News wants to hear from you.
We are currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment.
And we are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives because of global warming.
Has your life been directly affected by global warming?
We want to hear and see your stories.
Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or your hometown?
The differences can be large or small.
Altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.
Show us what you've seen.
ABC is asking for anecdotal evidence of warm weather in summertime.
They want evidence from people.
It's summertime soon.
This first day of summer.
First day of summer.
They are asking for people to send in anecdotal evidence that it is hot out there so that they can then claim that this is evidence of a global warming.
A friend of mine is going to send in a picture.
I have the picture right here.
Proof of global warming, and it's a clothesline.
From the 1800s to 1990.
The 1800s, underwear.
So it's just all underwear on the clothesline.
1800s, knickers down below the knees.
The 1900s, boxer shorts.
1950, pretty low-cut briefs.
1970, briefs, higher-cut.
1980, skimpy bikini type briefs.
1990, the thong.
This to indicate it's getting hotter out there and people are wearing less and less.
We can have fun with this, folks.
I can direct you.
In fact, Coco, we've got the web link right here where you can fill out the form and send in whatever evidence you have of global, global.
Take a picture of yourself in your thong, regardless what you weigh, and send it into ABC.
We can have some fun with it.
Let me take a break here.
We're going to be short in the next segment.
Coming right back.
Don't go away.
Phil Collins and a funny thing happened on the stairway to heaven.
Yes.
800-282-2882, El Rushbo with the finest bumper music known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
Dean Carrianis at our website just sent me a news.
No, I'm sorry.
It's a World Net Daily story that ran July 22nd, 2005.
Teacher principal forced Bush portrait to be yanked.
Instructor files federal lawsuit claiming Republican activism led to her job loss.
A portrait of President Bush has led to the filing of a federal lawsuit after a New York scruel teacher says that she was ordered to remove the image from a display of U.S. presidents and ultimately was forced to resign her position.
Jillian Caruso, 26 of Suffolk, New York, suing the Massapequa Union Free Scruel District.
That sounds like something that ought to be in North Korea.
The Massapequa Union Free Scrule.
Anytime I hear free People's Republic, at any rate, it's out on Long Island for unspecified damages, along with a reinstatement to her position at the Birch Lane Elementary Scruel.
Caruso claims she was forced to quit by Principal Joyce Becker Setio, one of those hyphenated babes, means feminist, happens to be the wife of State Assemblyman Frank Setio, Brooklyn Democrat.
Yep, knew it.
In her complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, published on the Smoking Gun website, Caruso alleges she was retaliated against by Becker Setio for her efforts on behalf of the Republican Party, including volunteering at the 204 GOP convention and her membership in the Republican National Committee.
So I guess there was a picture of Bush up in this scruple.
Maybe this teacher put it up and they made her take it down and she lost her.
I'm telling you, they think Bush a dictator.
Think Republicans are dictator thugs that have denied Democrats of their legal birthright to power.
Back to the phones, Perry, in Winter Park, Florida.
Nice to have you with us.
I'm glad you waited.
Hey, second time did as El Rushburg.
Thank you.
The Lurley Jet fan in Winter Park who is still envious of you playing with his boyhood idol around the golf with Joe Names.
Yeah, I did.
I died.
Yeah, well, I saw Joe at the golf course.
They didn't actually play around.
He was in a different forson, but I saw him there.
Okay, then I'm not so envious.
Yeah, you don't need to be so envious.
Hey, look, I just wanted to make one quick point.
You know, I didn't catch which Democratic senator it was talking about redeployment of forces, but you want to know something?
I think he's talking about the same kind of redeployment of forces that the Democrats forced on Ford in 1975 when the North Vietnamese refused to abide by the treaty they signed with the South and decided to reinvade.
That kind.
The same kind that they were talking about after we retreated from Somalia.
That's the kind of redeployment of forces that the Democrats are so well known for.
And what will end up with the money?
No, that's exactly right.
And the senator you're talking about is Carl Levin, and all these Democrats are out there because they know they've been ensnared now.
We're not cut and run.
It's not cut and run.
You know, you're going to be hearing that's not cut and run.
Jane Harmon's now saying it's cut and win.
Mitch McConnell says it's cut and jog.
If this isn't cut and run, what is it?
Somebody tell me what cut and run is if this is not.
When you're going to withdraw troops before the mission is finished and you're going to put them anywhere, bring them home, put them in Okinawa, put them wherever.
How is that not cutting and running?
Well, because you don't get it, Limboy.
We're going to be in position to go back in there if hostilities erupt.
I mean, hostilities erupt.
There are hostilities now.
We're going to be surrendering if we get out.
That's what they want, by the way.
They want surrender.
Don't believe this notion that the Democrats want to bring the troops home for their safety, that the killing is unwarranted, that the death toll is too high, and that it's to stop.
We must stop.
It's not about that.
They are interested in investing in defeat because defeat will hurt George W. Bush and hurt the Republicans.
Now, Caller here is right.
Perry is right.
The Democrats M.O., modus operandi, get out of there.
Karl Roe is exactly right.
They'll be with you at the outset.
In fact, it may even be their idea.
After all, Vietnam was their idea.
JFK.
And it was LBJ who kept throwing troops in there, kept building that war up.
When the tough going gets even tougher, that's when they'll pull out.
As I said yesterday, I don't understand how Democrats have such a great reputation for intimate prowess.
If you get my, I mean, they're the greatest lovers in the world.
The women swoon.
They pull out before the job's done.
I just, I think that their recent history is interesting to note.
Vietnam, Somalia, that was Clinton.
But take a look at Vietnam.
They're trying to recreate this now.
They're trying to recreate in Iraq the Vietnam War.
They're trying to recreate in this administration Watergate.
And they're doing this, folks, because they genuinely think that both those periods represent high watermarks for them.
Those are their glory days.
In the case of Vietnam, we lost.
And they look back on that and consider it a glory day period.
They consider it one of the highlights.
That's why they're trying to replicate it.
To sure, but they have the power to still pull that kind of massive movement of public opinion off.
And it led to George McGovern being defeated in a landslide, as I pointed out yesterday.
That's why I keep saying I'm being redundant.
They just can't be trusted with the defense of the country.
Not now, maybe not ever.
Oh, yes.
Screams of sheer panic at the very mention of my name when heard by liberals, screams of joy for most of you when my name is heard.
800-282-2882, if you would like to be on the program.
We mentioned earlier in the broadcast, ladies and gentlemen, Dan Rather, dumped yesterday by CBS News.
He kept, he was actually surprised.
I'm told that he actually thought at the 11th hour that the new news director over there, Sean McManus, would come through with some sort of a deal that would allow Rather to serve out his contract, which goes through November, and at least do something.
They gave him a desk and assistant, but no assignments.
And he said, I can't sit around and do nothing.
So now, we had this story about some Dutch doctors have said that being fired can be fatal.
Fired from your job can be fatal.
New research, new study.
Sad day to release that study so close to the day Dan Rather was, I mean, he was fired.
I mean, after 44 years, now the drive-by media is doing what they always do, circling the wagons and suggesting, well, we got to do some tributes to Dan.
They already did that, gave him the Peabody Award after the Bill Burkett story.
They've done their best, but now they're saying, you know, it would be unfair to judge 44-year career on just one story.
We have to look at the full body of work, the entire evidence, the portfolio of great service to journalism and so forth.
I can understand people wanting to do that.
Shift the Mary Mapes Bill Burkett forged document.
By the way, there was a rumor going around that his resignation letter was a forgery.
Bloggers confirmed it was a real thing.
At any rate, I got to thinking one of Dan Rather's, and this is tough for me.
Dan Rather, when I hosted my television show, the studio was on West 57th right across the street from the CBS Broadcast Center.
And somehow, my mother ended up over there.
My mother ended up over there.
Now, she didn't wander over like my brother is wandering around Cape Girardo still.
She was escorted over there by a young woman who was Dan Rather's public relations and media relations person.
And she and Dan Rather became fast buddies.
I'd go home to Missouri to visit my mother, and there's autographed pictures of Dan Rather magneted to the refrigerator.
And I can remember on the radio, if I did anything critical of Rather, she'd call me up.
He's a nice man, son.
So, you know, he treated her just like a queen.
But so I've, it's a little anytime there's personal kind of, anytime somebody's nice to your parents, I mean, it's, you just, you can't discard that.
But about this business of we shouldn't remember somebody simply on the basis of the last screw-up they did when they had such a great career 44 years.
Okay, then let's look at one of Rather's most famous adversaries, Richard Nixon.
How is Richard Nixon remembered?
Watergate.
Some people try to make Nixon remembered for opening the door to the ChiComs.
If the Libs were honest, they would love Richard Nixon.
He grew government faster than any president in modern times, from OSHA to the EPA.
Nixon went out of his way to curry favor with the left back in his day.
Yeah, affirmative action, EEOC, all these things happened with Nixon.
I've often thought in many cases, George W. Bush is more Nixonian than he is Reagan with the Medicare entitlement, the immigration bill, which, by the way, is dead, yes.
Hubba-hubba.
But we look at Nixon and the same people, the drive-by media, the historians on the left who want to acknowledge the unfortunate incident with the Bill Burkett story and the Bush National Guard story, but there's a good body of work out there that we must remember.
It's not just Nixon.
You know, people in public life are often held up in their immediate historical legacies to the one thing or two things in their life that made them truly notorious.
They're screw-ups.
So I think if we're going to look at Nixon that way, or if we're going to be forced to look at others, I mean, Wilbur Mills, I think of Wilbur Mills and Fannie Fox and Skinny Dipping in the fountain out there in front of the Capitol building.
I don't know what else Wilmer Mills did other than be a Democrat from Arkansas.
Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky in a stained blue dress.
They're still trying to recast that legacy.
They're still searching for one.
I don't know why journalists, just forget Dan rather individually, why should journalists be exempt from the same type of historical judgments?
Why should journalists be exempt from profiles?
I mean, journalists would love to go out there and find out everything about their subjects.
Where did they first go to school?
When did they first have sexual relations?
When did they do this?
When did they do that?
When did they wreck the first car?
Who did they first murder?
Blah, blah, blah.
Try doing the same thing with a journalist.
And you will have hell to pay.
Why?
We're immune to that.
We're not the story.
We're not the focus of the story.
Who we are doesn't matter.
We're just objective purveyors of the truth.
Yeah.
Yes or yes are three bags full.
Well, I know that's the thing.
H.R. says he thinks the Democrats ought to show Dan a tribute because he went to one of theirs down in Texas.
He did go to a Democrat fundraiser in Travis County, where his daughter, I think her name is Robin at the time, was involved.
The Democrats, they've thrown many tributes, rather.
Although he did get roughed up at the 68 Democrat Convention in Chicago, got roughed up there.
Even Cronkite said, it looks like there's a bunch of thugs down there on the floor.
Walter, you were right.
You just didn't have a firm conviction that stayed with you long enough.
A bunch of thugs on the floor of the Democrat Convention, probably one of the first times Walter Cronkite actually reported something accurately without a bunch of left-wing bias.
On our website, rushlimbaugh.com, we have posted the link to ABC's global warming website where they want you to provide them via email anecdotal evidence of how global warming is affecting you.
And all you got to do is go there, click on it, and you'll see a form.
They want your full name, your address, city and state, your phone number, your email, and you've got various options to click on as to where to send this.
And you can send them pictures, any kind of evidence you want.
Have fun with this out there, folks.
ABC wants anecdotal evidence of global warming.
We're thinking of ideas here to share with you.
Yeah, make it up.
I mean, that's what I always said.
You know, I got fired in Kansas City once before I got fired for using the word therefore.
Same station I was told when doing the news, you cannot put your opinion in the news.
I do a story on Jesse Jackson, tell me what I thought of it.
They called me and you can't do that.
I said, why not?
Peter Jennings does it every night.
Raised eyebrow here or some smarmy tone there or what?
Why can't I do it?
You're not Peter Jennings yet.
Peter Jennings, you can't do it.
But they make it up, the drive-by meeting, make something up.
If you've got a picture of yourself from Alaska, send it in.
Say it, this is me in Arkansas two hours ago in my backyard, whatever you want to send them.
I mean, if they deserve what they get when they do this, if they're going to try to establish some sort of consensus or proof of global warming, asking for anecdotal evidence, this is a news organization.
Just consider yourself an anonymous, well, you won't be anonymous because you put your name in there.
But make it up.
Have fun with it.
They're asking for it, folks.
Believe me, they're asking for it.
Rick in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Admiral of Optimism, it's a pleasure speaking with you.
My quick point is this.
The Democrat plan for defeat is nothing more than a way, in the end, to embolden Al-Qaeda.
If you lay out a strategy showing your enemy where you're going to go and how you're going to be backing out and how you're going to be leaving, they're going to relax.
They're going to go on vacation.
They're going to wait until you're gone because you're their number one problem.
All right.
All right.
And then we're going to.
Of course.
Hold, ho, ho, ho, ho.
Of course you're right about this.
Do you think the Democrats are so silly and stupid they don't understand this as well?
They don't give a care, I think.
They don't give a care.
That's the question I have for the real question: why would they be willing to do exactly what you just stated?
Why would they be willing to give a date certain that we're going to get out?
And by the way, they're not.
It's about six or seven of them.
John Kerry is trying to be sort of shoveled to the back of the line in the Democratic Party.
They're going to debate his resolution on a date certain.
It's going to be after the nightly newscast tonight, so none of it gets on television.
We'll take care of that.
We will be monitoring the Senate.
We'll have the audio for you tomorrow if there's something noteworthy about the debate.
But regardless, why do you think they would do this?
Why would they put a date certain on there with the full knowledge that it's just going to tell the terrorists, okay, back off, back off and let us leave and get out of there?
And then, you know, make it like Vietnam and Cambodia all over again back in the 70s.
Because when we do pull out and Iraq gets torn apart by all these terrorist factions, then they'll be able to point at Bush and say, see, you didn't accomplish a thing.
Now it's worse than when we started.
I think that's why they would do it.
Well, they couldn't not.
No, wait.
If they insist on it, Bush isn't going to go for it.
See, this is the one thing that Bush is not going to listen to this.
Since when does Congress get to determine troop movements?
I thought this was the complaint about Vietnam, that the generals were not being allowed to run the war, that a bunch of politicians like McNamara and so forth were ordering bombing.
They were micromanaging bombing runs and targets.
And here the Democrats and the Senate are now trying to dictate troop movements.
I don't know that they can do this.
They can pass the resolution.
I don't know what force it has.
Bush isn't going to pay any attention to it.
But let's just say, hypothetically, let's say that Bush did.
They still couldn't give, they couldn't blame Bush for it because they will have gotten all this started.
That's not what this is about.
But it is about them wanting us to lose.
They think that us losing, being defeated, will redound negatively to Bush.
But specifically, why would the Democrats, knowing like everybody else knows, a date certain just allows the terrorists and the insurgents to fall back, to regroup, and maybe even go dormant for a while, making us think we can get out even sooner?
See, the Democrats believe we have caused the problem.
Iraq was fine till we got there.
Bush blew this place up.
Bush is responsible for it.
Bush created terrorism.
If we get out of there, the Democrats obviously think Iraq will just go back to being a peace-loving, little irrelevant speck of sand where 300,000 people get killed every now and then.
That doesn't affect us.
And so we don't have to worry about it.
They don't consider Iraq to be relevant in any shape, way, matter, or form.
They couldn't care less what happens to the Iraqi people.
That has to be the answer.
Why else would they come up with a plan, a policy that represents suicide for the Iraqi government that has built itself, voted in, been voted in by the people, working hard while being shot at left and right every day to and from work?
Why would the Democrats purposely want to establish a date that allows an absolute suicide or genocide to take place over there?
And you people need to answer this question for you.
I'm not going to answer every question for you here, otherwise, your minds will go dormant.
You've got to answer this question for you.
Why would they do it?
It's not going to happen because there aren't enough Democrats who want to set a date certain, but Kerry does, and Kerry's running for the nomination, and Kerry's pandering to these kooks on the blogs.
But ask yourself why, he may get six votes, he may get 10, I don't know, but whatever number, ask yourselves why anybody would do this, particularly so soon after this barbaric treatment of two U.S. soldiers who we now know were not just murdered, they were beheaded and slaughtered and desecrated.
After we got Zarkowi, and I'm going to tell you, talk to any uniformed military man.
He will tell you that what happened to these two guys and the way it happened has steeled their resolve over there, and they are loaded for bear more than ever and can't wait to go kick butt for people who are doing this to our guys after having captured them.
This is not battlefield atrocities.
This is not battlefield action.
These are prisoners.
We're told that we're the bad guys, that we're horribly torturing people.
Our Democrats and liberals are trying to establish a moral equivalence between us and these guys.
And these guys just beheaded, desecrated, and slaughtered two of our soldiers in captivity when they represented no threat to them whatsoever.
I happen to think that represents something else.
I think it means that I think the insurgency on its last legs.
This is an act of desperation attempt to gain great attention.
This is not sensible maneuvering.
This is just vengeance for the sake of it.
And I think they're in bad shape over there.
I got to take a break.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment, folks.
Stay with us.
I got an email from somebody maybe onto something here, a subscriber at rushlimbaugh.com.
Rush, be careful.
ABC could just be creating a database of idiots who will then be swamped by spam and junk mail and phone calls.
This could be a scam.
It's okay for ABC to do this, not for the NSA to do it.
ABC may simply be spying on you with your unsuspecting, unwitting participation.
So it is possible.
I also do think they are going to do something with whatever information they get.
I mean, they're clearly part of the pro-global warming agenda.
Al Gore coming under big assault now, by the way, from Scientists the World Over.
Oh, and try this headline.
What we ought to do, it would take some research.
I can't do this off the top of my head, but what news has become, try this headline.
Southern San Andreas Fault waiting to explode.
Colon report.
It's an Alreuters story.
The southern end of the San Andreas Fault near Los Angeles, which has been still for more than 200 years, is under immense stress.
It could produce a massive earthquake at any moment, a scientist said today.
Yuri Fialco of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at La Jolla, California, said that given average annual movement rates in other areas of the San Andreas, there could be enough pent-up energy in the southern end to trigger a cataclysmic jolt of up to 10 meters.
That's 32 feet for those of you in Rio Linda.
The observed strain rates confirm that the southern section of the fault may be approaching the end of the inter-seismic phase of the earthquake cycle.
All this appears in the journal Nature.
A sudden lateral movement of 7 to 10 meters would be among the largest ever recorded.
Okay, what's the news been this week?
We got this.
We've got National Guard in New Orleans.
We've got Kentucky Fried Chicken will kill you.
Starbucks will kill you.
Before this, it was the nation was braced on the first day of hurricane season.
It's just one repeating crisis after another.
I don't know.
This one could be true.
Who the hell knows?
We won't know what happens, will we?
It's a great thing about a hurricane.
You can at least spot it and know that it may hit you and you can take evasive measures.
When an earthquake happens, not a whole lot of warning, unless you choose to believe this guy and think you people in Los Angeles may want to start scramming because, I mean, it could at any moment, this guy says.
Massive earthquake at any moment.
Back in just a second.
Not trying to scare you folks.
I'm just reporting what's in the drive-by media.
I promise I'll get a lot of your phone calls in the next hour because a lot of you have been patient and I appreciate it.
You got Slim Whitman ready in there, Mike, a peace update.
The peace movement is back.
It's amazing how the liberals recycle all these things.
Sometimes it gets frustrating here to put a new spin on them.
Not new spin.
They're not new.
▲
Export Selection