Here we are already to Wednesday, the fastest week in media.
Takes place here on the fastest three hours in media, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, a true living legend.
Learn it, love it, live it.
From the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where our old buddy John Murthy, Jack Murthy, just released another report on military preparedness and says he's introducing a resolution in the House calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.
The descent into utter madness on the part of Democrats continues, ladies and gentlemen, and they continue to throw out these people that do not resonate and do not influence across the great fruited plain.
Also, there's a bank holdup going on in a suburb outside Chicago.
Some guys holding hostages in a bank.
I don't know if it has anything to do with Walmart or not, but we will find out as the afternoon progresses.
Now, here's that story out of the UK.
Kellogg's has come under fire from animal lovers who are furious about a television commercial showing a man riding a dog like a horse.
Nearly 100 complaints have been made against the new Crunchy Nut Cornflakes commercial, which shows a very small man finishing work and riding home on the back of an Irish wolfhound.
Dog lovers say the behavior in the scene is cruel and could be copied by Churin.
However, no action is to be taken by the Advertising Standards Authority, which has dismissed the complaints.
It says viewers would be able to spot that the scenes were computer generated.
In the commercial, the man seen riding a dog home from work, the text at the bottom of the screen reads, Don't try this with your dog at home.
I don't know what this has to do with selling cereal, ladies and gentlemen, but the bottom line is this.
Here you have people in an uproar over a TV commercial computer generated showing a little guy riding the back of an Irish wolfhound.
By the same token, we have a movie that has finally gotten a U.S. distributor showing the assassination of George W. Bush.
And I don't see all that many complaints about it.
Certainly not a whole lot of outrage from people that there ought to be universal outrage about it.
There ought to be, you know, at some point you realize the line has been crossed.
But no, there is no line anymore as far as the Democrats are concerned and their reacquisition of power.
There's a review of the movie in the Hollywood Reporter by a guy named Kirk Honeycutt.
And he says that Death of a President is a slick but ethically dubious movie.
Death of a President uses the morally dubious tactic of mixing real news footage with staged events to create an imagined assassination of President Bush.
As convincing as the manipulated footage of the president's death in Chicago in October 2007 is, the movie cannot be more unconvincing in its approach.
Does it not occur to the filmmaker Gabriel Range, as he takes his bows for his clever stunt, that the very forces he warns against will use his film as propaganda?
Their line will be this.
If the enemies of President Bush can be so crass as to imagine his cinematic murder, then what value can one give to their arguments against our great leader's domestic and foreign policies?
Gabriel Range just made Karl Rove's day.
And that's a pretty good assessment.
It's a huge stark contrast the way people react to an animal commercial that's computer generated in this movie, which, from what I understand, the distributors are going to try to get it aired before the election, sometime this fall.
Now, you can't say that the filmmaker is just engaging in his art.
There is, and by the way, if you're worried that a commercial showing a human being riding a dog will cause copycat behavior, how come the same people are saying, oh, no, nobody's going to look at this as a signal, as a Manchurian candidate kind of signal to go out there and assassinate Bush?
The moral equivalence of the left is stunning.
ABC News is out with a new poll this morning that will likely bring smiles to the faces of Republican donors the president plans to address today.
The new poll number show should also provide some good fodder for the president when he heads to the Hildemar to pump up the Republican conference.
This is from ABC News The Note.
Terrorism has inched up in importance in the 2006 midterm elections.
Republicans have regained an edge in trust to handle it, helping Bush's party move closer to the Democrats in congressional vote preference, writes the ABC News polling director Gary Langer.
The Republicans lead the Democrats in trust to handle terrorism by 48 to 41.
That's inching up.
A seven-point lead is called inching up.
48, 41 lead handling terrorism trust among registered voters in this poll.
That's a flip from a seven-point Democrat advantage last month.
So I don't call that inching up.
I call that a 14-point swing, ladies and gentlemen.
16% now call terrorism a top issue in their vote.
That's a slight five-point gain.
So the polling data continues to turn around.
And the people that are watching this, just terribly, terribly upset about it.
Democrats' gasoline prices falling.
Earlier today in Iowa, the price of self-serve regular was down to $199 in a certain part of Iowa.
I'm not sure where.
I think it's back over $2 today.
But I mean, it's gasoline prices are coming down.
And there's this, I have a story in the stack where people, in fact, snurdly stack, people are worried about this.
This is here, yet, the headline, it's a Reuters story.
Oil's deepest route in 16 years.
Oil prices have fallen as much as $16 from their peaks.
Their steepest reversal in 16 years in a correction that traders say may be harder to shake off than past setbacks in the market's four-year rally.
In real terms, Brent crude has fallen $16.02 a barrel since it hit a high of $78.65 on August 8th.
This marks its biggest decline from peak to trough since prices fell from $40 in October 1990 after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to $16 in February of 1991 when ground forces expelled Iraqi forces.
U.S. crude has dropped nearly $15 to hit a near six-month low, $6,350 a barrel on Wednesday, a fall only a hair shy of those in August, November 2005.
This whole story, full of hand-wringing.
Oh, no, the oil price is fall.
What is going to happen?
And there's no wind inside.
Oh, no.
No wind inside.
This is the worst that it's ever been.
Now, I'm reading this and I'm dumbfounded.
When the price was going up, of course, why it was a conspiracy.
It was Bush's fault and big oil.
And they were gouging the Americans after Hurricane Katrina.
And there was all kinds of concern.
How can this happen?
Why is there no compassion For the average American who can't afford this, what's going to happen to the thumb-driving thing?
Oh, no, oh, no.
Now the price is going down.
Where's the happiness?
No, there's no happiness.
There's only concern for big oil in this story.
There's concern for big oil.
The same outfit.
This is Reuters, the same outfit that accuses big oil of gouging everybody when prices go up.
And I'm concerned about it.
Oh, no, how can this be?
Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen, the primary concern here is the economic impact politically and how it takes a so-called slow and trudging-along economy off of the front page in terms of political issue.
And then there's this.
From Maryland, Representative Ben Cardin, a veteran congressman who voted against the war in Iraq, won the Democrat nomination to replace retiring Democrat Paul Sarbanes.
Cardin had edged out his closest competitor, the former NAA LCP head, Kwaizi Mfume, and 16 other candidates will face Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele in November.
The race between Cardin, who is white, and Mfume was amicable, neither man criticizing the other and both voicing support for troop withdrawals from Iraq and universal health insurance.
Democrats interviewed on Tuesday said they chose Cardin over Imfume because of Cardin's vote against the war in Iraq.
Sarbanes also voted against the war.
Mfume wasn't in Congress at the time.
You know what the untold story here is, is that the Democrats have once again said to a black.
Imfume ran the NAA LCP.
M Fume was in Congress once as a Republican.
Kwaizi Mfume.
And wanted to be in the Senate.
And the Democrats are saying, we've got to stand up for more minorities in public institutions.
There's a discrimination out there and there's radical racism on the part of the Republicans.
And here was a chance for the very liberal state of Maryland, as liberal as they are in Massachusetts, to show how they are not racists and how they are into diversity and rewarding people who've been discriminated against their whole lives, like Kwaizi Mfume, a chance to vault into the top.
Instead, Maryland liberals, as usual, chose the white guy.
We have that John Murphy soundbite, ladies and gentlemen, this afternoon on Capitol Hill.
A portion of his remarks about his brave, courageous resolution.
I'm introducing a resolution today asking for resignation of Secretary Don Rumsfield.
Good.
Not only for his past mistakes.
He said there are weapons of mass destruction.
We know where they are.
He said this war won't last six weeks, maybe six months.
He said it costs $50 billion.
So not only for his past mistakes, but for the future of the military.
And that's the thing that I've worried about the most.
Yeah, well, you know what?
I think this is not a bad idea, Congressman Murthy.
So I would like to join you in another resolution, and that is that everybody had anything to do with the great society and the war on poverty resign or be fired because they destroyed lives.
They kept people destitute and in poverty.
And you want to talk about, said it would only cost $50 billion or $50 million or whatever.
How much treasure have we wasted on the Great Society programs?
There has been, since they started in the mid-60s, a transfer of wealth in this country totaling $5 trillion to the social safety net.
And what has it gotten us?
Complaints that the minimum wage is too low.
We haven't reduced poverty according to percentages.
And so if you want Rumsfeld out, I'm going to make a resolution that the entire Democrat Party resign.
This next story, I'm sure you've seen this, heard about it.
This is the kind of thing infuriates me.
And I have to tell you, when I watched The Path to 9-11, by the way, we're going back to audio soundbites three and four next, Ed.
I just, when I saw all of the hesitation and all the rules and all the regulations that prevented us from taking out bin Laden or other terrorists, my blood boiled.
And now there's this story in the New York Post today.
Taliban, and there's a picture of it.
Taliban terror leaders who had gathered for a funeral and were secretly being watched by an eye-in-the-sky American drone dodged assassination because U.S. rules of engagement bar attacks in cemeteries.
According to a shocking report, U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan are still fuming about the recent lost opportunity for an easy kill of Taliban honchos packed in tight formation for the burial.
NBC News had the pictures.
It looks like there might be 190 of them there.
The unmanned drones circling undetected high overhead fed a continuous satellite feed of the target to officers in the ground.
We were so excited they came rushing in with the picture, one U.S. Army officer told NBC.
But that excitement quickly got to turn to gut-wrenching frustration because the rules of engagement on the ground in Afghanistan blocked the U.S. from mounting a missile or bomb strike in a cemetery.
According to the report, Pentagon officials declined comment, referred the New York Post to Central Command officers in Afghanistan who didn't respond to requests for comment or explanation by press time.
Now, the Taliban bombs other Muslim funerals.
The Taliban hides behind women and children, as does al-Qaeda and all of these other terrorists.
This is a new kind of war, and we're going to have to rethink these rules.
I know why we do it, folks.
I know why we do it.
We do it to maintain the United States' dignity and so forth.
I understand that blowing up cemeteries and this sort of thing.
But, man, when these people are, we just, we spell out hiding places for them in the process.
Let me go back to a couple more soundbites here on the path to 9-11.
We have an unreal analysis here from a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
His name is Michael Dellicarpini, and being interviewed by PBS correspondent Jeffrey Brown, who says there have been reports in recent days about ties between the filmmakers, the path to 9-11, and conservative causes or organizations.
I would quickly add, it's not quite clear what that means exactly or what those ties would mean, but because it's been so much discussed, in what ways would that matter to you?
Perhaps in what ways wouldn't it matter to you?
I think it matters a lot.
And the ties are both with the director and with the screenwriter, and they have to do with involvements with organizations that have, as part of their mission, bringing more conservative views into mainstream media.
What the audience needs to know and what needs to be upfront with people as they view it, if they're going to watch it critically and understand what's being said to them, is that that's the case.
I would put on the network a very strong obligation to let its audience know that they are getting a film that comes from a point of view.
Even if there is an effort to make that point of view more subtle.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
Mr. Dele Carpini, would you also agree that we need such disclaimers in front of practically 90% of the movies that come out of Hollywood for the big screen and for television?
What is this?
To say that there is an agenda behind movies is new and only conservatives are doing it?
And the public needs to be warned about this?
And by the way, what is so threatening and what is so dangerous about conservatives in Hollywood attempting to produce and write and distribute product?
Well, I'll tell you what's so threatening about it, folks.
The same way this program threatens them.
They used to have a monopoly and they're worried sick they're going to lose it.
This movie, The Path to 9-11, was an earth-shattering thing.
Well, there's no crime in being considered.
Sorry, yes, there is.
Conservatism is criminal.
They're attempting to criminalize conservative ideology.
Here's the rest of the bite.
We got one more from this guy.
Just as we would expect a news show to tell us where their information is coming from, is there a bias?
Is this an opinion?
Hold it, hold it, hold it.
When do we get that?
When do we ever get a news show telling us of their bias and where a certain story came from?
What is it?
This guy's a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Here's the rest.
Ejected presentation of things.
And then the next bite is this.
Actually, different, different.
It's not the same guy.
That again was University of Pennsylvania professor Michael DeLa Carpini.
On MSNBC yesterday, the anchor babe, Melissa Rayberger, talking to Democrat strategerist Flavia Colgan.
Maybe it's Flavia.
I don't know.
I've never heard it pronounced.
Rayberger says, after you saw The Path to 9-11, are you upset ABC didn't pull it all together?
Or did the edited version make a difference?
Oh, absolutely not.
One, I think it undercuts the credibility of the film when you have it being released to Rush Limbaugh beforehand.
$40 million funding it.
We don't know where it's coming from.
Sandy Berger and Clinton were well within their rights, certainly, to appeal to Tom Kaine, the Republican Committee.
$40 million and we don't know where it came from.
How about ABC?
It's an ABC movie, Flavia Flavia.
Touchstone put it out.
I do have the DVDs.
It irritates them so much.
They can't get over this.
They're beside themselves with the fact that I got the DVDs.
But I wasn't the first Flavia Flavia.
How many times have I got to say this?
This movie was screened at the National Press Club and half the audience was Democrats, including Richard Benvenist and some people from the 9-11 Commission.
I was not first on the list.
I had nothing to do with writing this thing.
I didn't even talk to Cyrus Norasta in the process.
All I knew was some years ago he was working on it.
But frankly, when he told me about it, it went in one ear and out the other because I figured this thing doesn't have a prayer.
But go for it, Cyrus.
I didn't even get all the details.
I had no clue what this thing was going to be before I said, they think I wrote it.
They think I guided Cyrus.
Cyrus and his people.
This is an ABC project, folks.
This is an ABC project.
And I'll bet you before all this hubbub came up, this thing was so good.
I will bet you ABC Iger thought it was one of the greatest things they'd ever produced internally.
Back to Sabola.
Well, preliminary reports out of Montreal, Canada, ladies and gentlemen, that two people have been shot at Dawson College in Montreal.
A man has barricaded himself inside the college in Montreal.
Student says that two people were shot, one of them in the neck.
I wonder if this guy thought President Bush was there.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh on the hot seat, the hot button today, pushing that button hard.
800-282-2882.
I want to go back to this University of Pennsylvania professor for just a second.
Michael Dele Carpini, PBS NewsHour with Jim Olara, being asked about the movie, The Path to 9-11.
And I'm not going to listen to the whole thing.
Stand by, Ed, for when I tell you to kill it.
I think it matters a lot.
And the ties are both with the director and with the screenwriter.
And they have to do with involvements with organizations that have, as part of their mission, bringing more conservative views into mainstream media.
What the audience needs to know, and what needs to be upfront with people as they view it, if they're going to watch it critically and understand what's being said to them, is that that's the case.
I would put on the network a very strong obligation to let its audience know that they are getting a film that comes from a point of view.
Stop the tape.
All right, sir, Mr. Dele Carpini, let's say I were to take your suggestion as something useful and valuable.
I would then say this to PBS and the news hour with Jim Lara.
And next time you have University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Dele Carpini on, inform your viewers he has a point of view.
Inform your viewers where he comes from.
Inform your viewers whether he's a liberal criticizing what he thinks is a conspiratorial conservative movie.
I mean, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
If conservatives in Hollywood have to identify their work, we're conservatives and this has a conservative slant, then I think every liberal ought to be forced to do the same thing.
People, you know, all these professors and all these elites are the smartest people in the world, cut above, and they're not.
They're so easily refutable that it's refutable for those of you in Riolinda that it's hardly worth the time.
I want to go back and correct something, folks.
I said a moment ago that these libs think that I co-wrote The Path to 9-11 because I'm a friend of the writer Cyrus Norasta.
And they think, and they're out there trying to say that guy released a limbaugh first.
They're trying to imply Limbaugh was in on it.
Here's the bottom line.
They know I had nothing to do with this.
They know full well I had nothing to do with any aspect of this movie.
This is just the way they do things.
Typical smear tactics.
I'm bad.
Cyrus Norasta is bad.
That equals the movie is bad.
They do it to people.
They do it to people like me and Cheney and Bush and Rove and Rumsfeld.
They do it to companies, Exxon, Walmart, Halliburton.
They do it to objects, guns, cigarettes, and CVs.
SUVs, all they do is smear things and smear people.
They produce nothing.
Liberals produce nothing.
They accomplish nothing.
They're responsible for nothing.
So they seek and destroy.
Because that's the only way they can deal with their opponents is to discredit them.
JD in Binghamton, New York, welcome to the program.
Hello.
Hi.
First of all, quick kudos to your screener.
Even though I've been on, just so other people know that when people call in, sometimes we get put on hold for an hour.
So what we say will reflect what you said earlier in the show.
And first of all, the last caller, I have to take issue with that man who had the nerve to put JFK and George Bush in the same sentence and equate their statesmanship.
I mean, he must have been a comedian, as you are, Rush.
Thank you.
Yes, well, you're using it.
Thank you, J.D.
I appreciate that.
You're real funny.
Anyway, and for anyone to say that liberals, Democrats, or anyone else is on the side of terrorists has to be dealt with.
That is disgusting and low.
And when people cannot deal with the facts as they present themselves, then they resort to calling names and saying things that are totally untrue.
JD, be very careful.
You're being very self-descriptive here, at least in terms of liberals.
Well, that's fine.
I'm proud of it, Rush.
No, but you've just described everything liberals are doing, calling people names, making things.
No, not me.
Calling Bush names, making things.
I'm not calling Bush a name.
I'm not talking about you.
You are obviously a liberal.
I'm talking about liberals.
I'm not principled.
Can't even admit it.
Can't even just say I am a liberal.
I said I'm a liberal, and I'm proud of it.
Do you want me to say it again?
Kentucky.
I know I have a hearing problem.
I'm sorry.
I should have realized that.
So, sorry.
How long did it take for the personal attack?
We got this inside a minute, didn't we?
Well, you get you people, well, the people that you represent and the neocons.
I'm not saying all Republicans.
I'm saying the neocons.
You mean the Jews?
The Jews?
Excuse me.
That's what the neocons are.
You're going to a Jew.
Hello.
Well, then you better change the term neocon because that's what neocon is code for.
The Jews.
The neocon is not code for the Jews.
Yes, it is.
Neocon is code for people who are bent upon destroying this country that I grew up in with pride.
Right.
And you're not.
Are you not proud any longer?
I'm partly proud.
I'm not proud of the administration now.
No, I'm proud of the people that will defeat it.
And people within the party.
Lincoln Chasey got re-elected yesterday.
And that shows you.
Yes.
What?
It's a terrible shame.
It was a shame.
That he was re-elected.
Oh, yes, from your point of view, it probably is.
Rush, what are you going to gain from this?
What do you get out of this?
What do I get out of what?
Backing these people that you know are destroying this country.
I'm not backing people destroying the country.
I oppose people destroying the country.
They're destroying it.
As to what I get out of it, I have core beliefs and principles, J.D., and I don't compromise them for any party or person.
What?
Neither do I.
I will call a statement.
As President Bush would say, we just disagree.
We don't just disagree.
You're putting through falsehoods on your radio show.
Every time I listen to one of your commercials, it's putting down gay people.
It's putting you yourself.
We do not put down gay people on this program.
You do.
We do not put down gay people.
Here you go engaging in the typical smear tactics of the left, J.D.
It's time to face the facts, J.D. Your side is on the side of terrorists.
Your side is trying to hamper the effort to catch them.
There are people, Islamofascists, who want to kill us, and you're more interested in punishing your own country and punishing George W. Bush.
You think Bush is the greater enemy of the two, the Islamofascists, al-Qaeda terrorists, or what have you.
You can't hide that fact from me.
Your snarky, arrogant, snooty behavior has rubbed me wrong from the moment of your call, and I am happy to say goodbye.
Who's next on this pro?
Linda in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, I'm happy you said goodbye to her, too.
We've had quite enough of JD.
Listen, she's commented about your hearing problem.
I want to just say I'm a teacher of the deaf.
I work with many children with cochlear implants, and you are a successful role model for them.
I appreciate that, but you know, that's no big deal.
That's just typical of these people to start out with these personal assaults and personal attacks because they got nothing else.
Yeah.
Well, let me add, you're also a desirable role model.
Yes.
Thank you.
Speaking of fantasy, I'm calling about this movie about the assassination of President Bush.
Yes.
Now, you're using the word imagine.
They're imagining this.
And I heard this from a college professor last night on Fox News saying that this is all okay.
People don't act on what they see in movies.
Well, I was.
I think I was watching it.
I didn't listen to it.
Was this guy's name Ron Walter from like UCLA?
I think he was from UCLA, yeah.
UCLA or USC.
He was wearing a t-shirt and a jacket and very long hair, but bald on the top.
Yeah, not desirable.
Not desirable.
Well, that's up to you.
I don't look at men that way, one way or the other.
Well, let me say that what I think is the word to use is fantasy.
This is fantasy.
People are fantasizing about the assassination of President Bush.
No question about it.
And I believe that it's clear that people act out fantasies that they see either in movies or in print, on billboards, anywhere else you might be out in public.
So they're fantasizing about this.
And that's what I think is the difference.
Not just imagining it.
This is not just for information.
I know.
And they're also saying that this is a study in current geopolitical attitudes in the United States.
That's all bunk.
You know, we need to cut through the chase on this, Linda.
This is just tasteless.
It's just rank tastelessness.
It is coarse.
It is vulgar.
And it is disgusting.
And these people wouldn't tolerate for one second a movie similarly made about one of their great so-called leaders.
I must take a brief time out.
We will be back, the desirable Rush Limbaugh in Mere Moments back here on the EIB network.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, living legend and comedian and desirable guy, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity on the EIB network.
Well, look at this.
Story from Reuters: Britain's children are being poisoned by a junk culture of processed food, computer games, and over-competitive education.
According to an influential group of children's authors and experts who issued the warning yesterday in an open letter to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, 110 teachers, psychologists, and children's authors, including the internationally acclaimed author Philip Pullman and Penelope Leach, a leading child care expert, called on the government to act now to prevent childhood being killed off altogether.
Junk culture is killing childhood, forced to act and dress like many adults, children, like M-I-N-I, many adults, little adults.
Children are becoming increasingly depressed and experiencing escalating levels of behavioral and developmental problems.
No mention here of all drugs they are given just because they're kids.
Since children's brains are still developing, they cannot adjust as full-grown adults can to the effects of ever more rapid technological and cultural change, said the letter.
They need what developing human beings have always needed, including real food as opposed to junk, real play as opposed to sedentary screen-based entertainment, first-hand experience of the world they live in, and regular interaction with the real-life significant adults in their lives.
At the Daycare Center, right?
You know, it's amazing.
Just yesterday, I thought it was televisions that were killing kids, falling TVs.
Remember that story?
I'm still sort of amazed at that.
There's a budding crisis.
Biggest 10 children so far this year have been killed by falling TVs.
Five last year.
So it's doubled.
Ten kids killed by falling TVs.
I got all kinds of email on this.
Rush.
Do you know how big TVs have gotten?
Somebody dares ask me that.
You know how big TVs have gotten?
Yeah, I know how big TVs have gotten, but I know that TVs don't just fall on their own.
Maybe people aren't putting on strong enough stands, but something's happening.
You know, something just doesn't move on its own without propulsion or what have you.
But has anybody else thought about this?
Maybe you're sitting too close to it.
Maybe you're sitting too close.
Maybe there ought to be a federal rule that limits how close a child can be to a television in case it does fall.
Only the floor would be damaged and not the kid.
So falling TVs and now junk food, computers, and laziness killing off childhood.
Amy in Pittsburgh, it's great you called.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Couldn't be better.
Thank you.
Good.
Hey, I was just calling to, I wanted to see what you thought about this.
The wives of the Secret Service guarding the president.
How they might feel about this movie out there kind of fostering the death of the man that they're supposed to be guarding.
You know, it's an interesting question.
There have been countless television shows and movies where presidents have been targeted or assassinated, but they've always been fictional.
This one actually assassinates a living, current serving in office president.
Now, I don't know what the secret service is.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what they can do about something along these lines in a foreign country.
When the movie comes to the United States, that's a great question because it's a crime to run around and do this.
It's a crime to threaten it.
And if you do, I mean, when Clinton was president, if he walked by you and you and your husband booed you in Chicago, the Secret Service got sent after you.
Yeah.
Well, I just know as a wife, and, you know, these guys have kids.
They have families.
I mean, it's just offensive to the women.
It ought to be offensive to everybody.
It's not offensive.
It's not.
It's a family issue, Baya.
It's not offensive to the women on the view.
It's not offensive to Rosie.
I don't know if it's offensive to Barbara.
I don't know if it's offensive to the others.
But it has received slightly, I mean, no outrage at all from people who are preoccupied with death.
They don't like any of it.
We shouldn't kill terrorists.
We shouldn't torture them.
It's okay to.
These people are literally sick.
The idea of producing this movie.
What is the point?
It's not a study in American culture.
Somebody is actually play acting their desires and dreams.
There's no question, but nobody will convince me otherwise.
Ken in Long Beach, California.
Great that you call.
Welcome.
Rush, after I pose my question to you, I'd like to present you with two gifts.
Thank you.
The question is, Feingold.
I'm perplexed as to where all the outrage is to the Islamo-fascist comments when I don't see any outrage to the hijacking of a religion.
Can you shed some light on where he's seeing that?
Maybe he's getting that is an excellent question.
And it's typical of liberals.
Here we have, if Feingold is to be believed that saying Islamo-fascism maligns an entire religion when it doesn't, why is he not upset at those who are stealing the religion, who are corrupting it and making it look bad for everybody who practices it?
Where is that concern?
He's only concerned about Americans calling people names.
He doesn't care about really bad things.
But this name-calling stuff, we've got to stop that.
Absolutely.
That's an excellent question out there, Ken.
Excellent question.
If we can move on to my gifts to you.
Quickly, 30 seconds.
Sure.
You're Monica, a man, a legend, and a way of life.
Yes.
I was introduced to you by my, or my interest in you was generated by my aunt in Sunnyside, Queens, Aunt Helen.
So I think you, and I've heard many people of my age saying that you were turned, you know, that they started listening to you based on their parents or whatever.
So I think you ought to add legacy to that.
I think that's very important.
A man, a legend, a legacy, a way of life.
That is a great gift, and your timing is impeccable.