All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:46
June 28, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Poor old Al Gore.
He just can't buy a break out there, ladies and gentlemen.
There are days I actually do feel sorry for that twit.
It just is trying so hard out there, and it all backfires on him.
First, the AP runs a story saying his movie is statistically, scientifically accurate, and then the Senate says no, a movie isn't statistically or scientifically accurate.
And that this shows the bias of the Associated Press in their preparation and the reporting of a story.
Of course, it doesn't surprise any of us.
But then, you know, after the AP run, you probably saw it.
By the way, welcome back to the Russian Inbaugh program.
And this is the EIB network.
Broadcast excellence, fastest three hours in media.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
So AP puts out this phony baloney story that his movie is unassailable.
It's infallible.
And then the Senate says, no, it's not.
They ignored all the experts that say Gore is full of it.
And they put out a report saying so.
But the PS, there has distance.
Washington Post lead editorial.
Not so much specifically about Al Gore, but it affects Al Gore.
Just at the time that Al Gore is trying to frighten and scare people about global warming and create crisis and panic, his stupid movie Hell Freezes Over with this editorial.
An outdated ban.
It's entitled, Time to Allow More Offshore Drilling, says the Washington Post.
For the past 25 years, the federal government has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters.
Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental grounds, but it's time to revisit this policy.
Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have allowed offshore drilling for years, and they don't regret it.
Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills.
The industry's safety record is impressive.
It's even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters because less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier than rigs.
Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
The House of Representatives is about to vote on this question probably tomorrow.
The bipartisan bill would maintain a ban on drilling within 50 miles of the shoreline and allow states to extend that to 100 miles, but it would lift the congressional restriction on drilling beyond that perimeter.
This compromise would give states that are unwilling to countenance the perceived environmental risks a reasonable measure of control over their coasts.
But it would also open the way to more drilling.
The economic benefit of that drilling would be especially pronounced if it were aimed at natural gas extraction.
Despite all the rhetoric about energy independence, it doesn't make much difference whether the U.S. gets its oil from its own coastal waters or whether it buys it on world markets.
There's one global price for oil.
Producing more from U.S. waters will bring down that global price.
I can't believe I'm reading all this in the Washington Post.
Was I in Dreamland last night?
Did I write this and I submit this as an op-ed and they stole it and publishes as an editorial?
Now, the Post has had some pretty good editorial stance on the war in Iraq throughout.
And we have singled them out for credit on this program.
This, I mean, this is a cut of many wounds.
I say a wound of many cuts for Al Gore because his movie, what is it called? An Inconvenient Truth?
Movie is all about decrying the whole concept of oil drilling offshore and so forth.
Now, they do say this.
Unfortunately, the House legislation is flawed.
It diverts billions of dollars worth of oil and gas royalties from the federal government to the states, even though the waters from which the resources will come are federal.
The states nearest to the oil rigs may feel they carry most of the perceived environmental risks.
Some sharing revenues may be justified to bring them along, but the House bill leans too far in that direction.
We hope the bill passes tomorrow.
We also hope this flaw is fixed before it becomes all sound like Miss America pageant contestants, National Honor Society.
We hope it's it.
It's too bad.
Can't take money away from the federal government.
Oh, just can't starve the beast.
Can't do that.
No matter what happens, the money's got to go to the feds.
But all that aside, this is a huge, huge change for a drive-by media outlet to come out so positively and loudly, as it were, for the whole concept.
An outdated ban, time to allow more offshore drilling.
Now, you've got to ask yourself, what's happened here?
What has actually happened here to cause this to happen?
Well, I know they drive too, but I could be egocentric and I could say, is EIB finally getting through to inside the beltway?
People don't want to go that far.
Is it the first sign of liberals, at least the Washington Post, looking forward and not backwards?
Yeah, that's a tough one to sort of square too.
Is it the Washington Post wanting to break away from the New York Times for competitive reasons and the crap that's been coming out of the New York Times?
Now, that could be a reason for this.
And at some point, you know, laws are laws, and the law of supply and demand is such that even liberals will eventually accept it in certain things because they drive.
They drive by.
So imagine, if you will, if we treated our energy issues like the left treats our national defense issues.
You know, energy issues are not separate and distinct from national defense issues.
That's another key.
I wonder if they're figuring this.
Iran?
Energy?
National defense?
They're not separate.
They are linked, if you will.
They're far more interconnected than the liberals realize.
Energy and national defense.
Of course, the problem with this is do the libs care about national defense.
See, that's no matter what I come up with to explain this, I can find a huge flaw to explain it.
Okay.
Snurdley's idea is, all right, maybe they're just sticking their finger, moistening the finger, sticking it up in the wind, figuring out what their readers want and are giving them that.
Or is this just a one-time thing to deflect criticism and say, no, we're not a bunch of libs that have to post all the time.
They're famous for doing that.
They'll throw a curveball in there once.
I can see the stitches on a fastball and I can see the spin on a curveball.
This could be a curveball.
It could be a slider.
Could even be a knuckleball.
But regardless, since the whole concept of national defense and energy are linked, What if we treated energy issues like the left treats our national defense issues?
Here are some examples of how we might argue.
If we argued like the liberals argue, okay, so we're going to have this drilling.
We're going to have offshore drilling, but what's our exit strategy?
How are we going to get out of this?
What's the exit strategy from the war on drilling?
Liberals, another thing we could say, liberals lied to us about the risks of nuclear energy.
They lied about offshore drilling risks, and they lied about ANWAR.
I mean, this is us opposing them.
We approached them with the Washington Post.
You know, we come up with a national security plan.
They come up with all.
Well, what's the exit strategy?
How are we going to get out of there?
We want to drill in ANWAR, and they come up with all these cockamime excuses about the caribou or whatever.
So we would say, okay, liberals want to drill for oil now in the Gulf?
They do.
The Washington Post wants to do that?
Well, can we trust them?
They lied to us about the risks of nuclear energy.
They said they were horrible that we would all die.
They lied about offshore drilling risks.
They said it'd be oil spills all over the place.
And they lied about ANWAR.
They said that there wasn't enough oil up there, and it would destroy the natural environment, destroy the caribou, and so forth.
We could suggest, no, John Murth has taught us how to act here.
We don't drill in the Gulf.
We can't drill off the shore of the continental U.S. anymore.
We need to send our rigs to Okinawa.
Deploy the rigs to Okinawa.
And then we would say, look, I support the environmental wackos.
I just don't support their policies.
You people at the Post, I love you a lot, but I don't support this policy of you.
I'm trying to demonstrate here the linkage between energy and national defense.
The Libs look at this as two separate issues, and they oppose national defense on some of the weirdest grounds.
I'm just trying to oppose their energy plan here in the Washington Post with the same kind of thinking.
They tell us we can't win in Iraq.
Can't win this war?
We've got to get out of there.
Okay?
I'd say to the Post, screw this oil drilling plan of yours.
We can't win this war.
Let's stop using cars.
I mean, you come up with the most ridiculous thing you can say in opposition to their plan, and you replicate them opposing anything in the war on terror or national security.
But never forget one thing, folks, as the Post has this editorial, which we welcome.
Happy to have it.
Ten years ago, Bill Clinton vetoed the first bill on drilling for oil and war, and you are paying for it every time you fill your tank.
It's probably a pretty good day for the New York Times and Bill Keller and the boys over there on West 43rd Street, where the Times is.
Here's an AP story out of London.
The Civil Liberties Group said yesterday it had asked, this is Thursday, right?
No, this is Wednesday.
They said today.
Really, I keep thinking this is Thursday.
Just because I wasn't here Monday.
So it actually ought to feel like, well, okay, never mind.
Wednesday.
Civil Liberties Group said today that it had asked governments around the world to block the release of confidential financial records to U.S. anti-terrorism authorities.
London-based watchdog Privacy International said that it had filed complaints with data protection and privacy regulators in 13 European countries, Canada and Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong, arguing that the disclosures of financial transactions were made without any legal basis or authority whatsoever.
The complaint asks authorities to intervene to seek the immediate suspension of the disclosure program pending legal review.
Privacy International's director Simon Davies said that the secret CIA Treasury program shows, as a quote, shows yet again how the U.S. willfully disregards the privacy rights not only of its own citizens, but also the rights of foreign nationals.
New York Times gets what it wanted.
Lefties here and abroad, outraged.
They are being spied on.
Why, they're acting like they've got something to hide.
At any rate, Bob in Lima, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, Mega Ditto.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
My comment is very quick.
What the Justice Department should do is take the reporters, the editors, the publisher of the New York Times, throw them in a room, put them under a spotlight, and say, who are your sources, or you're going to be tried for treason.
And then when they say, no, we're not giving up our sources, try them for treason and seek the death penalty.
Nothing else, it'll send a message to all the other squealers and every reporter in the country.
We're all sitting here applauding this.
I would love nothing better.
Do you actually think it's going to happen, though?
Oh, no.
That's a dream for me.
No, but you are expressing the sentiments of many Americans when you say that.
Thank you.
Oh, well said.
Take them to Club Gitmo.
Put them in a Club Gitmo.
We'll create our own merchandising line for media members imprisoned at Club Gitmo.
Let them publish a newspaper for the jihadists down there.
That's it.
Let Bill Keller and boys go down and report on daily activities at Club Gitmo, the Club Gitmo Times.
All the news that's fit, whatever the slogan they want to come up with.
Jack in Columbia, South Carolina.
Glad you waited, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, great to talk to you.
Yes, sir.
I've heard all the analogies that what the New York Times did was tantamount to having released on June 5th, 1944, the Normandy plans.
I think this is more sinister than that.
I think this is as if earlier in the war that they had released that we had captured the Germans' Enigma machine or that we had discovered radar technology.
I can't disagree with that either.
When you say that, though, what's interesting to me is back in World War II, this wasn't even thought of.
I mean, we had communist sympathizers and all that country back then.
They're not nearly the number they are today, but they certainly weren't dominant in the media.
It would have never, I mean, Edward R. Merrill, those guys would never have, if they'd gotten hold of the battle plans, they wouldn't have released them.
They wouldn't have done diddly squat with them.
New York Times, I don't know, they had a guy named Walter Duranti who ran the one of Pulitzer Prize for totally ignoring the genocide perpetrated by Stalin against his own people in Ukraine.
But that just illustrates the striking difference that exists today.
There's literally no way that those battle plans would have leaked.
In fact, daily death reports, body counts, because the media didn't have the ability of the immediacy back then to report those kinds of things on a daily basis.
It's just profoundly different.
This is why I said yesterday, and I've said it repeatedly over the course of the many years of this broadcast, that there's a real war out there in this country for control of the country and what kind of country we're going to be.
The hatred for Bush is disguised as personal.
He's a dunce and all this sort of stuff.
But they hate Bush because Bush wins and Bush beats them.
They hate Bush because Bush is implementing ideas and things that are anathema to them.
This is real war.
And the liberals, this is what they live for, folks.
This is their existence.
Control of government, wielding and exercising that power.
Conservatives, of course, as little to do with government as possible.
Go on entrepreneurial efforts, just basically enjoy life.
Liberals are not happy, period.
They're not content ever.
I hardly ever run into a happy liberal.
They have to act happy.
They have to make an effort to be happy.
There's too much wrong, and they're constantly wringing their hands.
There's some suffering going on somewhere, some misery somewhere.
It's always our fault.
And this is, they are, they just committed.
Every waking hour at the upper echelons of liberalism is devoted to how they're going to wrest power back, or if they have it, how they're going to implement it and expand it and so forth.
And that's just not the way conservatives are by definition.
They get control of the government and do not figure out, okay, what can we do to trench ourselves?
Theoretically, ideally, what conservatives do when they're in power is start whittling away the size of government.
It hasn't been going on much lately, but it's the objective, putting the power and trust in the future in the individual, which liberals just systematically can't do.
They don't believe in the power of the individual.
The individual is basically incompetent, unsophisticated.
It's a very arrogant, condescending worldview that liberals have.
And so theirs is a constant life devoted to the reacquisition of power and then wielding it when they get it at the highest levels they can.
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Tony, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you for being the guardian of our freedom.
We know that Congress isn't.
Thank you.
Rush, the question I had is: if certain people are allowed to desecrate our flag, then why can't I or some other people of the same you know in the same vein take the flag from these dirtbags, beat the hell out of them?
And I want to know if we're protected under the same right of expressing our rights as they are.
Because you're actually then getting into what the law would say battery.
When you say beat the crap out of them or beat the hell out of them, either one, and there is crap and there is hell in both of them.
You have to beat them twice, get the crap out, and beat the hell out after the crap out.
You'd be physically assaulting them.
And when you burn the flag, the flag's an inanimate object, doesn't have a nervous system, has no feelings.
The flag can't be offended or hurt.
It can't be wounded or any of that.
So that you understand that.
I mean, I understand the emotion you want to, unless you beat them up with the flag.
Now, you can start, you can grab a flag and you beat them up with the flag.
You're not going to beat them up too bad unless you wrap some brass knuckles in it so nobody can see.
Well, you know, the flag does bleed.
All these guys coming home from Iraq and all the other wars.
That red is for the red blood of our American society.
No, I understand.
I was just, I was speaking in a purely technical normal sense here.
I've got to run because of the constraints of time.
Metaphysical.
That's the word I was looking for.
Metaphysical sense.
Be back after this, folks.
Stay right where you are.
I have a shocking story in USA today, folks.
A story that I saw this and it stopped me dead in my tracks.
Let me share with you the headline of this unusual story.
We don't see stories like this much.
Poll favors Democrats in fall elections.
Really?
This is news.
Since when has a poll in the last five years not favored Democrats to win any election?
Be it the presidential race, be it the Senate, be it the House.
Why all the polls always routinely show the public prefers Democrats?
Let's see.
It's a story by Susan Page.
Americans are paying unusually close attention to the congressional elections in November, according to USA Today Gallup poll.
And they're more inclined to liver big gains to Democrats than in any year since Republicans swept to control of the House and the Senate in 1994.
They're so excited at the drive-by media.
They're so excited.
I guess, folks, that's it.
If the polls say the Democrats are going to win, then we might as well just concede.
We might as well just, well, I mean, this is, it's June.
It's what, June 28th?
It's over.
Poll says Democrats are going to win.
Give you some more details on this anyway.
Survey was taken Friday through Sunday.
It's a weekend poll.
It indicates that voters are more concerned about national issues than local ones, a situation that favors Democrats hoping to tap discontent over the Iraq war and gasoline prices, and that they prefer Democrats over Republicans on handling every major issue except terrorism.
President Bush looms is a significant drag.
39% of those surveys say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Bush.
Just 21% say they would be more likely.
Who said that?
James Campbell, political scientist, University of Buffalo, said, at this point, certainly looks like a significant tilt to the Democrats, but it's still quite early.
Democrats, including Pelosi of California, express optimism about winning the 15 seats needed to take control.
They're hampered, though, by the limited number of competitive districts across the country.
Really?
Well, if they're limited by the number of competitive districts across the country, what the hell does the what I read before all this matter anyway for?
If there aren't that many competitive districts, and what the hell do the results of the poll have to do with anything?
The telephone poll, 1,000 adults, has it.
Oh, it's adults.
It's not even registered voters.
It's not even likely voters.
It's just adults.
Just adults.
Call them on a weekend.
You know the kind of people at home on the weekend picking up the landline.
I don't have to tell you who they are.
Well, snirdly, if you're at home on the weekend, then you know what I'm talking about.
Voters are interested in.
Anyway, this is stupid.
It's absolutely silly.
It's stupid.
It's another one of these.
This is not so much a generic poll.
Yeah, it's a generic, basically generic ballot poll.
Well, that's it.
Poll says the Democrats win.
Election is over.
Meanwhile, people who buy manufactured consumer products and other goods and services are slightly more optimistic about the U.S. economic outlook for the next six months than they were a month ago.
What does the headline here say?
This is from Industry Week.
U.S. consumer confidence stronger than expected.
Once again, the experts were wrong.
Experts stunned.
U.S. consumer confidence roaring at a rate unexpected and is definitely surprising.
I want to read to you this pelican story.
I told you earlier about these poor pelicans being drunk, but you've got to listen to the way the story is written.
It's as though these birds are human beings and that they have committed crimes.
Pelicans held on suspicion of being drunk.
That's the headline.
Is that not great?
Four pelicans suspected of being drunk on sea algae were being tested at a Southern California Wildlife Center Saturday after one of them crashed headlong into a car.
Three of the California brown pelicans were found wandering dazed in the streets, sort of like my brother in Cape Girardeau, wandering dazed in the streets of Laguna Beach after another pelican struck a vehicle's windshield on a nearby coast road.
It suffered internal injuries and a long gash in its pouch and was undergoing toxicology tests.
They give you toxicology tests.
It's when you're suspected of a crime.
Officials at the Wildlife Care Center said that the pelicans may have been under the influence of algae in the ocean that can produce demoic acid poisoning when eaten.
The other pelicans were rounded up after Assistant Wildlife Director Lisa Burkle warned the public to be on the lookout for birds acting drunk, disoriented, or being in an unusual place.
Shellfish, tainted with demoic acid, was thought to be the culprit behind a 1961 attack of seabirds on people and automobiles in the oceanside California town of Capitola that inspired Alfred Hitchcock's horror movie, The Birds.
So apparently there may be some of that acid back out there, and the pelicans are the first sign that things are arrive.
The way this thing is written is just as though these birds purposely went out there, got drunk, then started terrorizing people, rounded up, held on suspicion, pelicans held on suspicion.
Dave, Charleston, South Carolina, welcome to the program.
Hey, Happy Carolina Day, Rush, from down in Charleston.
How are you doing today, buddy?
Brian, thank you, sir, very much.
All right.
Well, the reason why I'm calling is I was listening earlier to your program, and you had that great piece on the checklist in Congress.
That was great.
I loved that.
The women, Barbara McCulski, only women can do this because women understand checklists.
That's how they keep the family in line and everything else.
The men screw it up.
Yeah, I really like that.
One interesting point that I'd like to bring up is that, you know, how women can accomplish everything they put their minds to, and they're going to work together for this.
Now, my curiosity is that when Laura Bush, whenever she wants to go out there and help people, all the Democrats like Teresa Hines-Carey just go back and just bash her.
I mean, remember back in the 2004 election when Teresa Hines-Carey said that Laura Bush didn't have a real job?
Yeah, I mean, is that really helping their cause at all?
Is that really helping the women's cause?
It's a good question.
Don't ask me to explain some of their self-destructive behavior.
I don't understand what in the world any Democrat thinks they've got to gain by bashing Laura Bush.
I haven't the slightest idea.
I don't care who it is, Teresa Hines-Carey or some blogger or some other Democrat or drive-by media member for the life of me, how they think that's going to help them is beyond me.
She doesn't have a real job and so forth.
It's beyond me.
I'm going to tell you something.
These people, when you get right down to it, are some of the meanest people walking.
It's no more complicated than that.
They're just downright mean.
They're just meanies, folks.
I mean, they're just bullies and mean, and they're authoritarian, and they're arrogant, and they're condescending, and they're full of themselves with absolutely no reason to be.
They're empty suits.
They're just mean.
They're just downright mean.
It's all you can say about them.
Rick, Hartford, Connecticut, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Yeah, sure, you bet.
Hey, listen, I just don't know.
You know, I was listening to you earlier respond to your caller who was talking about rounding up and locking up and interrogating those reporters from the New York Times and then fantasizing about trying them for treason and executing them.
And you were joking about how everybody in the studio was cheering for him or clapping for him or flawing or whatever.
And it struck me that that was a- Well, wait a second.
No, nobody was cheering.
Did the guy say shoot him?
He said execute.
Execute him.
Well, we're not cheering that.
We're just.
But, yeah, the guy painted a picture.
It's a way for people to viscerally express their outrage over the arrogance of this newspaper compromising national security.
Well, I love that he can express that, and I love that you can express your views.
And I just wonder if it doesn't strike you as ironic and fascistic, actually.
I think it smacks of a certain fascism.
Fascism, is it now?
Was Lincoln a fascist?
Lincoln did it.
Civil War, Lincoln, anybody agitating against his policy, if they were members of Congress, if they were journalists, he'd slap them in jail.
He'd get them out of the way.
He had to preserve it.
And he's considered to be one of the greatest presidents ever.
FDR interned.
How many Japanese Americans at FDR intern out in California?
I'm not sure.
Am I still on?
Can I respond to that?
No, but feel free.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I'd say too many.
Anyone is too many, and I'm not really waxing nostalgic for either of those days.
I'm not really nostalgic.
I'm not nostalgic for it either.
I'm just, my whole point when I make that statement to you is, and everybody out there thinks that George W. Bush is this wanton, massive violator of civil liberties and human rights and so forth.
He can't even hold a candle to the Democrats' favorite president of all time, FDR, and nor can he hold a candle to Abraham Lincoln.
But what we also, when you're suggesting that it is fascist for people to suggest that people committing treason be rounded up, put in jail, interrogated to find out who their accomplices are is fascistic.
I'm just reminding you it has been done in the past by a man considered to be a great president.
Hey, hung up.
I thought I heard a couple clicks there.
Thought that sounded like somebody picked up an extension in the House.
Or maybe it was just a disc.
I think, well, I don't want to say this, but what was his name, Rick?
He was in Hartford, Connecticut.
You know, I know people in high places, and I know what things on a phone line sound like when certain things have been done to it.
And given what that guy was talking about, who knows if there's not an NSA tap on his line?
So, come on.
Maybe he got too close to some of you.
Back to the phones here at 800-282-2882.
This is John in Springfield, Illinois.
Thank you for calling, sir, and welcome.
Hey, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Hey.
Hey, I just wanted to make a comparison between what the media likes to say Bush is doing and what they're really doing, because it seems like, you know, they cry all the time about their own personal liberties and right to privacy, but it seems like they're the ones that are looking in Bush's window in the evening, watching his every move and then telling everybody about it.
Not just Bush.
That's a good point.
The drive-by media is out there spying on all kinds of people they don't like.
They're out there following all kinds of people around, trying to poke microphones and other recording instruments into people's privacy and so forth, doing research to write pieces, profile pieces that are generally hit pieces, going out and finding all these people that tell them illicit stories about the subject they happen to be writing about.
And the New York, well, the CBS, how many, five years investigating George Bush's service in the National Guard?
Excellent point out there, John.
Thanks to the call.
Jenny in Houston, is it?
That's Jerry.
I'm sorry.
Welcome, sir.
You're next.
Yep.
Yep.
Hey.
Yep.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Now that Congress has declared that the creating the flag is okay, does this mean that the rules have changed for the soldiers not regarding their treatment of the Quran?
I didn't understand what you said.
It's a little slower.
That Congress has determined that desecrating the U.S. flag is okay.
Well, the rules change for our soldiers, not at Gitmo, regarding their treatment of the Koran.
Oh, you mean like when they flushed it down the toilet down there?
Right.
Hmm.
Interesting question, although I don't know that it was ever established our troops actually did that.
That was just some wild claim by inmates down there that, of course, the drive-by media instantly believed, would never believe that terrorists would make anything up about this, particularly the U.S. military being such rock gut people, according to the left.
But no, this just illustrates the point.
I mean, the Supreme Court's been all over the place on what's legal and what isn't.
As we mentioned earlier, you can march in Skokie if you're a Nazi.
You can't protest at an abortion clinic.
You can burn flags.
You can't burn the cross.
You can't say certain things within certain timeframes on certain media about a political campaign or candidate.
And of course, you can burn the flag because that's protest of the country.
If you want to protest militant Islamists, could you set the Quran on fire?
Well, I don't think that that would pass muster with anybody, but it still makes an interesting point as you ask the question.
Corbin, Seattle, Washington, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I'm a little offended right now because this 4th of July, as the liberals are celebrating their flag burning, it's going to be illegal for me to light off fireworks.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Who said you can't light fireworks?
Where?
In the city of Seattle.
Can't?
No, no, no.
But they can burn their flags.
Yeah.
So, you know, burn down houses and, you know, and whatever.
Well, the interesting question here would be: if you got some fireworks in the city of Seattle and you use the flag as your torch to light fireworks, well, what would people say?
That might work.
It might work.
That actually might work.
I don't know.
You've got to try that.
You can't set off fireworks in New York either.
Hell, a fireworks are already going off on the beach where I live.
Yeah, Crumb Crutchers down there.
Have fun setting them off.
Interesting.
Well, again, there's just a fire.
You can't compare fireworks to flag.
Now, a flag's not going to blow up.
A flag is not going to, well, I guess it could injure somebody if you throw it on them and catch them on fire, but not the same category.
You have to understand the flag.
Yeah, but it's not political speech on the 3rd of July or the 6th or the 5th.
Snerdley is saying, hey, setting off fireworks is political speech on the 4th of July.
I am celebrating my country's independence.
I want to see what Francis Scott Key saw when he wrote the lyrics to the Star-Spangled Banner and so forth.
Yeah, try that, Corbin.
Go get.
Don't try it.
If you do try it, blame it on me.
What else can they throw at me?
Back after this, folks.
Stay with us.
Okay, Steven Pensacola.
I've got 20 seconds for you to ask the question.
20 seconds go.
Mega Dito, Rush, if this wasn't worthy of jail time, like the New York Times did, what would be?
If what the New York Times in here is not worth jail time, what is worth jail time?
Correct.
Well, My only problem is desecrating the jail by putting people from the New York Times in it.
I mean, jails have reputations and images, too.
I wouldn't get caught up on this.
I don't think anybody at the New York Times is going to go to jail.
And if you hold out for that, you're just going to be disappointed.
They're in the process of imploding and destroying the credibility anyway.
It'll happen.
We've got to go.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection