All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
October 6, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, mystery solved.
Finally figured out why my cheap cell phone came with my expensive car.
Will not download contact or calendar data via Bluetooth.
It's because it's not set up to.
It only uses Bluetooth to transfer internet connectivity.
Yep, Well, I've found a workaround, though, folks.
Can't wait for the show to end so I can try it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Only kidding, ladies and gentlemen.
These three hours, and I want to tell you the truth.
In fact, I was talking about this with someone the other day.
These three hours are the most fun, rewarding three hours on a consistent basis of my life.
Now, there are countless times that I have loads of fun outside this.
But being with you is the answer, is the answer here.
So I just want you to know, I'm never eager for the program today.
Well, some days I am, but I mean, I was just teasing.
It's Open Line Friday, and that means when we go to the phones, the program is all yours.
You can talk or ask about anything on your mind.
Does not have to be about things that interest me.
That's the rule Monday through Thursday.
I am a, in addition to being a highly trained broadcast specialist, I'm also a benevolent dictator.
There's no First Amendment here except for me.
Nobody but me has the right to speak, and nobody but me has the right to be heard.
I grant those rights to others on this program, but on Friday, we expand those rights even further.
You don't have to interest me.
You don't have to be talking about something I care about in order to get on the program.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, well-known communist sympathizer, by the way, one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers said that any death sentence against Hussein would increase violence in the strife-torn country.
Seems clear that a guilty verdict will set off catastrophic violence, and that a death sentence would be even worse.
Clark told a Washington press conference, it's hard to know how many Iraqis, dozens, hundreds, thousands will die because of the sentence.
That's his typical Randy Clark, or Ramsey Clark.
No, we can't even sentence the guy guilty.
I mean, it's going to cause strife out there.
You know, why don't we just let him out and put him back in power?
Hell, Ted Kennedy's running around.
A lot of people saying that Iraq was in a much better circumstance when Hussein was running it.
If that's true, let's put delay back in the House.
The House of Representatives sure ran a lot smoother when delay was the power behind the scenes.
A lot less hassle, a lot less scandal, a lot less this and that.
This is absolutely absurd.
But it's typical liberalism.
It argues the theory that it's just going to make these people mad if we try to catch him.
If you punish the bad guys, it's just going to come back and haunt us.
Good news for aging hippies.
Smoking pot may stave off Alzheimer's disease.
Now, I saw this first on television today, and I have a thing to share with you about this.
Let me report the news as it is written here by Reuters.
Researchers at the Scripps Research Institute in California, and that's crucial here, Found that marijuana's active ingredient, Delta-9, or THC, can prevent the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, acetylcholine, from breaking down more effectively than commercially marketed drugs.
In other words, new research shows that the active ingredient in marijuana may prevent the progression of Alzheimer's by preserving levels of an important neurotransmitter that allows the brain to function.
THC is also more effective at blocking clumps of protein that can inhibit memory and cognition in Alzheimer's patients, according to the researchers who reported all this in the journal Molecular Pharmaceutics, Pharmaceutics.
I am a subscriber.
It's one of my favorite magazines.
Get it regularly.
The researchers said that their discovery could lead that along with Prairie Farmer.
You ever heard Prairie Farmer, one of my favorite magazines?
The researchers said their discovery could lead to more effective drug treatment for Alzheimer's, the leading cause of dementia among the elderly.
Okay, now this is one of the experts say stories.
We are trained in, and this is, I'm not arguing bias or political bias.
This is human nature.
Just as when we hear a news story reported with, what are you laughing at?
You're distracting me.
Tell me what it is.
Stern thinks I'm lying about molecular.
You think I'm lying about molecular pharmaceutics being one of my favorite magazines, along with Prairie Farmer?
There aren't any centerfolds.
The center folds in molecular pharmaceutics are diagrams of molecule.
It looks like balloons at a halftime show, college football.
That's about the extent of the center folds, close-up electronic microscopic pictures of whatever it is they're talking about.
At any rate, now see, you think you've distracted me.
You did for a while, but I've not lost my place.
When we read a news story that says law enforcement forces say, we automatically assume that they would never lie.
Law enforcement would never lie.
Like, law enforcement would never falsely accuse anybody or falsely charge.
They've got too many bad guys out there to worry about catching.
Law enforcement, they wear uniforms like the military.
They are our guardians and saviors and so forth.
And so the accused in America are automatically, just by virtue of human nature, assumed to be guilty.
Why else would law enforcement go to the trouble?
Same thing with science.
Scientists say, researchers say, the Scripps Research Institute in California, and we assume, just as we assume about house pages, that they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
This is science.
These people have no political interests.
These people have no biases.
These people are just working to improve health and the human condition.
Yet that isn't true.
We all know that people get research grants based on political points of view.
We know they get research grants based on results.
And we know that they strive for these research grants because they're all a bunch of bottom feeders.
Every doubt, they're living off research grants in order to do their research so they can then publish in molecular pharmaceutics and Prairie Farmer if the circumstances warrant.
But who's to say that there aren't a bunch of dopers Among the research team who want the stuff legalized and are using the cover of their protected status as scientists to make these claims.
Now, I know that the studies have to be peer-reviewed and all that, but who's to say that the people doing the peer review aren't also a bunch of dopers who are sick and tired of being told that what they're doing is illegal?
I think that's behind the medical marijuana business and so forth, the legalization of that.
I'm not commenting on whether it shouldn't be legal or not.
I'm just suggesting that there's obviously a push on to get this stuff mainstreamed.
And we know that there are a lot of people who use the stuff who want it mainstreamed because they want to be able to access it freely and regularly.
They don't want to have a stigma attached to themselves as a result of using it.
So what better cover than to have some scientists say this can delay the onset of Alzheimer's.
And by the way, this can delay the onset of Parkinson's.
And by the way, this can result in sexual virility through age 110 or whatever they want to say that is designed to get a majority support from the American population.
I'm not saying it isn't true.
I'm just commenting on the way we react to this news.
Researchers say global warming is what researchers say these researchers.
Nobody doubts any of this simply because it's human nature.
Science, medicine, law enforcement are protected by almost an untouchable infallibility because they are not affected by political bias, cultural bias, social bias.
They are devoted to improving the human condition and so forth.
And it may well not be the case.
Just, this is my natural inquisitive, sometimes I just don't accept things by rote.
I'm naturally suspicious of a lot of things simply because of my knowledge of the media and how it is used and knowledge, what I have learned about people in these so-called infallible industries that I know are totally not infallible.
They're political and they care about things just as every other normal average human being does.
Finally, where was this from?
Nigeria.
Sokoto, Nigeria.
Sheltering from the scorching tropical heat in the cool shade of a mango tree, 68-year-old honeymooner Shehu Malami sat and pondered life with his four wives after tying the knot after being married 201 times.
No more marriages for me, he says.
This is the end.
I will retain my four wives to the end as long as another misfortune doesn't befall me, said Malami, who recently solemnized his 201st marriage outside his old bungalow in the ancient city of Sokoto in northern Nigeria.
In June of 2004, Malami married for the 200th time, vowing it would be his last wedding, but he found he just couldn't keep his pledge.
Last week, he married again to replace a 40-year-old spouse he divorced recently.
Short, bald, and eloquent, Malami, who is popularly called the Whiskered One for his gray whiskers, could be the world's most married person and the stupidest.
Now living in retirement in the predominantly Muslim city, Malami's life has been a series of marital adventures.
He chuckled.
Snirdly, you'll never catch this guy.
No matter how hard you try.
Back after this, stay with us.
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, and back to the phones, Holly, in New Vienna, Ohio.
Welcome, and it's great to have you with us.
Welcome.
Well, thank you, Rush.
I'm so excited.
I've waited 14 years.
Never thought I was smart enough to talk to you, but I'm ready to embarrass my husband at any moment.
What do you mean, not smart enough to talk to me?
Because you can say so eloquently what I want to say, but I can't.
And believe me, I've tried.
Well, we've reached a milestone then today, because now you think you can.
Well, I don't, I just was belling the phone, and I didn't think I could get through, and I did.
So I've been nervous ever since.
But I just wanted you to know that I was one of those right-wing, evangelical, missionary-style homeschooling mothers who was not going to vote this election because my senator is Mike DeWine from Ohio, and I work at a vet's office, and some of our dogs go out and neutered, have more than he does.
And I've been so angry that I wasn't going to vote, and it's caused a big fight in the family.
But after this Foley thing, I'm so ticked off that I'm going to go vote and hold my nose.
Well, it's interesting you say that.
I'm hearing from quite a few people who say this has angered them and that they were thinking about not voting, and now they're guaranteed to vote.
The Democrats are pushing polls out there that say it's over.
The vote suppression has worked.
There's one poll going around out there that, in fact, this, I don't know who it was, but it was a Republican pollster went and talked to some members of the House and said, you guys are going to lose 50 seats if Hastert doesn't resign.
Now, I just, I refuse to believe it because I don't think, even after this week of attention, there are that many Americans who know who Hastert is to make him, whether he's in office or not, an electoral issue for their whole House and for their candidate in their districts.
But here's another one.
A bipartisan battleground poll released yesterday concluded that Democratic candidates enjoy an advantage in almost every campaign and now stand a better than even chance of winning a House majority.
The conclusions closely resemble dismal predictions of a nearly certain net loss of at least 15 and as many as 30 House seats for the GOP that other top-rated Republican campaign pollsters and strategists confided earlier this week to the Washington Times.
Then this poll, by the way, the battleground poll was conducted pre-Foley.
And the big loss is among security moms, Holly.
It says here that the so-called security moms who worry about terrorism at home and gave Bush's party the advantage in 02 and 04 are not voting terrorism this time.
They give the administration a nine-point advantage on terrorism to give Democrats a 15-point advantage on the problems that matter most to them, education, health care, and the economy.
Now, I frankly, you know, you can believe these polls.
You cannot.
I don't want it to affect what you're going to do.
But if you tend to believe these polls, what it says to me is that there are people that just feel things aren't going well.
They're not right.
And it's always the people in power who are going to be blamed for that.
But when I see people are upset with the economy, I think that's an example of the drive-by media still able to create an impression of events that is not true.
The economy is clearly not in bad shape.
Nope.
Well, that's good, Holly.
Well, look, I'm glad you called.
How many other of your friends are the same way that we're not going to vote?
They were disgusted about something, one thing or another, another fired up.
I think there's several of us.
You know, the main thing that we're upset about is the illegal.
I'm tired of wanting to get along with the Democrats.
And there's so many of us who feel that way.
I'm not a Democrat.
I don't want to believe like a Democrat.
I don't like Democrats.
I mean, not personally, but what they stand for.
And I don't know why our representatives go to Washington and then decide that they have to be friends with them.
They don't stand for anything that I believe in.
I homeschool my kids because I don't like the education.
So my big thing is I want to win the war.
I have a brother and a sister-in-law who are Marines.
My brother went to Iraq.
My husband was a Marine.
I don't care who sleeps with who or whatever happens to Foley or who's gay or who's not.
I care about, I don't want illegals here in the United States.
I'm tired of it.
Well, don't lose your passion out there.
This happens frequently, folks.
People will call and give us stories like this, and it all just adds up to anecdotal evidence, which is not scientific.
There could well be people out there fed up with all this and say, hell with it.
I'm not going to vote.
Screw it.
I don't care about any of this anymore.
It's one of the risks that you run if you're going to pay attention to politics and really be enmeshed in it.
After a while, it's really exciting when you first get involved, when you first start caring about it, when you first start learning about it, and you learn the various aspects to each ideology.
And then as you learn how those various ideologies are applied to real-life situations, i.e., conservative and liberalism, after a while, you think your involvement is going to make a difference and it's going to really change things.
And if you don't see it happening as fast as you want, say, oh, the hell with this, I don't have time.
It's not working anyway.
No matter how much I care, no matter how much I go get out the vote, these people still behave as they always have, and I'm tired of it.
I think people forget, you know, go back and look the way things were up until 1994.
It is, there have been some really significant changes in a whole lot of areas, but the libs are never going to quit.
They're never going to say, uncle, they're going to go away.
They're just getting more vitriolic.
You know, this is, as I say, power they think is their birthright, and it has been denied them.
And they will stop at nothing to get it back, including investing in the defeat of the country at war just to harm the president in a political way.
And I know individually you might feel helpless in doing anything about this, but you're not alone.
Hang in there and be tough, and we be right back.
Back we are, 800-282-2882, Mark in Sylvan Lake, Michigan.
Welcome.
It nice to have you with us on the program.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to say, first of all, that I'm a proud father of three Rush babies.
And when I say that, when I refer to them as Rush Babies, I mean that they have the ability to discern and not accept as fact the first thing that they hear coming out of the radio and TV newsrooms.
They do listen and they think about things that are said and they dig a little deeper.
And I thank you for that, for one thing.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
What I called for, I think it's about time that this country declares war on the mainstream media because I believe that the mainstream media is the primary enemy in this country.
You know, they've become so complacent.
I don't know if they're complacent.
I think it's probably deliberate that they don't pursue the whole truth of this whole Mark Foley story and just lay it to rest or just set it aside.
You know, there was an exchange that Tim Russert and Matt Lauer had yesterday on the Today Show, and those guys could hardly contain their glee with the fact that this thing is not going away.
I know.
And it seems as though the media just is loving this.
Well, they are.
The media wants Democrats to win.
The media wants Republicans harmed.
The media doesn't like Republicans, the people you're talking about.
Plus, they also like excitement.
They were getting bored with all the Bush bashing.
They like excitement, and they like being factors.
They're not just bystanders reporting things and telling people who didn't see them what happened.
They are active ingredients in affecting the outcomes of policy in this country.
And they love it, and they relish the power.
And they're constantly trying to demonstrate to themselves that power.
A story like this comes along, a storyline or action line develops.
The action line on this story is Republicans have a lot of gay people in them, and the Republicans hide that, and we're going to get that information out.
The Republican gays are perverts, and they're creeps, and they don't even care if they sound like they're gay bashing, and then they're going to say the Republican leadership knew all about it, engaged in a cover-up.
This is all about corruption in the Republican Party.
And that's the action line.
So, what if the pages are lying?
It's not possible.
They're not even going to look into it.
They're not going to invest it.
They're not going to look into one incidence of maybe the pages being dishonest or practical jokers or what have you, because that doesn't advance the action line.
Every story has an action line.
And this one, in fact, there's an umbrella action line, get Bush.
Get Republicans.
That's the only thing that's going to move a story forward.
If there were conclusive evidence that a number of these instant messages were written as practical jokes to tease and make fun of Foley, they would ignore it.
They would pretend the news is not happening.
If they don't find it, if they don't uncover it, it doesn't exist.
They would do their best to cover it up and continue with their action line.
They are who they are.
They are part of the loyal opposition or the opposition when it comes time to siding up here with the conservatives and Republicans.
The media is the enemy as well as the Democrats in a political sense.
No question.
Guess he's gone.
Mark, thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
This is Ian in Brunswick, Georgia.
You're next.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, it's great to talk to you.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
Good, good.
Hey, listen, I have a question about football, and it's kind of a sort of a political question.
But as I'm watching a football game within the lines, forget about what happens on the outside of the lines of football and all the mess that goes on with the media, but inside the lines of football, I consider the attributes it takes to be a football player, to play the game, a coach, all of the attributes that it takes, achievement, hard work, all of that.
I consider that to be conservative.
Now, okay, and even today, okay.
Now, if you were to, over the next 25 years, incrementally insert liberalism just little by little over 25 years, similar to what we see now.
You know, 50 years ago, we were a more conservative country.
Now, it's just going all over the place.
But anyway, so if you were to incrementally inject liberalism over the next, let's say, 25, 30 years into a National Football League game, in 25 years, what would the, let's say, Pittsburgh Steelers look like in 25, 30 years?
Half of the team would be women.
You would not be allowed to win more than by 10 points because you wouldn't humiliate anybody.
And if you got a lead bigger than 10 points, they'd stop the game.
And there'd be no winners and losers.
Pardon?
There'd be no winners or losers.
Well, no, in the NFL, there would be winners, but the losers wouldn't feel as bad.
You couldn't have the Mark Foley types as quarterback because you'd run into delay a game situations a lot.
You know, quarterbacks.
No, you would.
No, If you're asking for the incremental addition to liberalism, you'd have abortion as part of the halftime show.
You're asking me the question.
Well, no, no, no.
I'm saying you couldn't have a Mark Foley type as quarterback because you would constantly be getting delay a game.
No, I know what you're trying to say, but you're wrong.
It would be promoted.
The delay a game would be part of the game.
No, okay.
I mean, if you really, you're asking me the question, if we put liberalism incrementally, you would have, geez, I mean, it would be, every team would have to be put together equally.
Nobody could be any better than anybody else in whatever ways they decide.
And there would be all kinds of affirmative action and quotas.
I think off the field, the NFL is pretty liberal anyway.
But the attributes that it takes to become a football player, a football coach, even a referee.
And even within the game, there's order.
There's complete order.
I mean, you know, this incident with this guy stepping on this other guy's face, I mean, they immediately took care of it, and it was swift, and the situation was over.
I mean, it was over.
You know, he came out and apologized.
And so, you know, you're talking about Albert Hainsworth, and he got a five-game suspension, and he may even get more than that.
Right, and it would deter others from doing the same thing.
We'd have that all over the place in 25 years.
We'd have people carrying carrion to the games.
You know, if they got ticked off at one of the players, they'd just shoot them.
No, no, no, no.
We're not, because it'd be gun control.
Nobody's going to get shot.
You're all on a different tangent here.
If you want liberalism as it would affect the National Football League, you're not going to have guns anywhere.
In fact, it would end up more like soccer.
Nobody'd really be allowed to score until overtime because that would be totally equal.
And I take it back, there would be guns at NFL games in the hands of lawbreakers.
Look, we could take this into a number of different directions, but I get your point.
It's a way to illustrate how liberalism has encroached our society.
I've often, I've said this, I don't understand how real man can be a liberal.
I just don't.
I've never understood.
And he's saying the same thing here in terms of succeeding in football.
It's a team sport, but the individuals involved, they're on their own and they've got to give their best and they work together and so forth.
And it's pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.
They don't baby you out there if you can't make it.
That'd be another thing.
If you didn't make the team, you could sue.
You get cut in summer camp.
You can sue and you can claim that you were discriminated against or what have you, and they would have to change the requirements for people to play football.
For example, if you had a rule that you couldn't get out of the scouting combine with a chance of being drafted unless you, at a certain position, can run a 4440.
Well, not everybody can run a 4440, especially women can't run a 4440.
And so we'd have to change that to a 5840 or whatever.
And then, of course, we haven't even gotten to the subject of open borders in football.
And there'd be no out of bounds.
There'd be no out of bounds.
There'd be no borders.
There'd be no lines.
The end zone would go on forever.
And however you got there is fine.
And any attempt to stop you from getting there illegally would be opposed.
We may be going to it might be a fun newsletter feature to work this up in great detail.
One more call before the break.
John in Pennsylvania.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
It's great to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
I'm a senior in an elementary education program, and I just wanted to comment on the educating educators in the peer review research process.
I have a lot of assignments that have to do with my philosophy of education.
Hold it.
I want to explain to people what you're calling about because I mentioned peer review in regard to the Scripps Research Center discovering that the primary ingredient Delta-9 in marijuana can delay the onset of Alzheimer's disease.
And I mentioned that people would disagree with my assessment that they could fake the research for their own personal preferences because of peer review.
So you're commenting, you're calling to comment on what peer review really is, I assume.
And in education, when I'm trying to write my philosophy of education, I need to back that up with research and peer-reviewed articles.
And it's very difficult as a student in education to come up with good peer-reviewed articles that aren't liberal sland.
And I do get to go to Hoover and Hoover Institution and Cato sometimes to get this stuff, but it is difficult to find good research from conservative.
Yeah, see, that's the point.
See, you're making my point.
Everybody assumes that in science or higher education institutions that the creme de la creme exists there, and they're immune to all these daily little hobgoblins of bias and personal interest in outcomes.
They are pure.
They are pure, clean, and pure as the winter of snow, only interested in empirical data and results that are infallible because of the research.
And it's all BS.
You've got partisans at every level, including the people doing the peer review.
They've got their own agendas as well.
And if somebody comes along and needs qualified peer review with an article to disagree with, not for scientific or research reasons, but personal, they'll do it.
My only point, there is no institution in our society that is free from the natural existence of humanity.
We all have opinions.
The more educated or informed you are, the more involved you are in things, the more interest you have in outcomes.
It stands to reason.
That's not bad.
And certain people want certain outcomes and others don't agree.
And if you amass enough power in science or, I mean, how do you think there's so many different stories on global warming?
For 20 years, we've been told, if we don't get it fixed by now, we're cooked.
Now they tell us we got another 10 years.
Every day, every week, there's a different global warming story.
They contradict each other.
They're all scientists.
Every time one of them is scientists, I mean, how in the world, well, they say they're scientists, a lot of pseudoscience out there, but how in the world is there so much disagreement?
There's so much, how could the hurricane guys so blow it this season on their predictions?
They're scientists.
I mean, here we're predicting all these catastrophes 10 and 50 years out.
We can't even predict hurricanes five days out where they're exactly going to go.
We can't predict how many are going to happen every year and of the severity and all that.
It's all gobbledygook folks.
It's all based on the fallibility of man.
No question.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
It's a newspaper out there saying North Koreans may fire their nuke test this weekend.
Prediction, nobody will care unless it's aimed at the rehab center, remark Foley is.
One more thing about science.
Look at DDT.
Do you realize the abomination that Rachel Carson brought to the world by getting DDT banned?
I mean, how many kids in Africa have died over the last 30 years because of DDT being banned?
All because of some junk science that DDT harmed eggs of birds and it got thinner and thinner and they didn't survive and they were having population problem of various birds, pelicans among them, bald eagles and this sort of thing.
Millions of children's lives 30 years before the fraud of the science behind DDT was exposed, which is just recently.
And here's an email from a subscriber at RushLinbaugh.com named Pat.
Rush, it doesn't matter if the pages were playing a prank.
Foley was serious.
He resigned in disgrace.
He did what he did.
I think the timing of the story is very suspicious, but the truth is the truth about Foley's behavior.
True, and nobody's denying that.
I'm trying to make a point here about the politics of the timing.
Yeah, Foley did what he did, but he's gone.
So why isn't the story over?
Why do they keep squirting out these stories from ABC about all these pages and all these emails with all this prurient, guttural, worthless information?
It's gay bashing.
It's designed to take out the Republican Party by virtue of separating a lot of Republican voters from the party.
The fact that the pages are being presumed as innocent little birds who have been irreparably damaged.
It is relevant if the pages had word going around amongst them, you know, there's this really weird guy in the house.
You can get him going really easy just by saying a couple things in an instant message, and they sit back and laugh at it.
You know, that to me is relevant in the way the story is covered and for the purpose of this.
Nobody's defending Foley.
What those of us who are continually talking about this story are trying to do is to educate as many people as possible as to the reason for the story in the first place.
And if you think it's about protecting innocent pages, and if you think it's about protecting future pages, if you think it's protecting people from predators on Capitol Hill, you have missed the whole point of what this story is about.
The people doing the criticizing of Foley on the left don't find what happened repugnant at all.
They have defended it.
They have defended it.
They have embraced it.
They have called it alternative lifestyles that we all should learn to be more tolerant of.
They have not forced members of their own party who engaged in this kind of stuff and even worse out of office.
So there's a political strategic component to this.
And it's the primary thing that I am talking about.
Look, you know what this program is about?
It's always been about winning in the arena of ideas, creating as many informed Americans as possible, participating and voting.
And nothing's changed in that objective.
This is not about defending Foley.
It's not about saying, hey, it wouldn't have happened if the pages weren't joking around.
It's what happened as a result of the liberals and the media discovering what was going on as a new weapon to destroy the Republican Party that I'm trying to warn people about.
Well, that's it, folks.
I got to hit the skies for New York big golf tournament this weekend.
27 holes, member-member tournament.
Be back in time for the Steelers and Chargers on Sunday night.
See you Monday.
▲
Export Selection