All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
November 15, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, Brian, I still haven't received, I made this request over an hour ago now, and I still haven't received a whiter shade of pale through the flamethrower MP3.
It's not there.
I'll have to give you a different email address.
Probably got a size limit block on it.
Well, I don't.
Somebody put it there.
I would never put a size limit block on an internal private email address, but nevertheless.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We're here at the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And the telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, is 800282-2882.
If you want to go the email route, you can do that.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, look, looky here.
Democrat strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democrat Party because of incompetence.
Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said that Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.
And the reason they didn't, he said, is that the Democrat National Committee didn't spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called third-tier races against vulnerable Republicans.
Carville said that the other Democrat campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt, but that the DNC got cheap.
Asked by a reporter if Dean should be dumped, Carville said, in a word, yes, hell yes.
He added, I think he should be held accountable.
I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence.
Oh, man.
I just love it when these guys win.
Well, no, I don't.
But part of me does.
I hate losing to these guys, but this is just Rumsfeldian incompetence.
Now, you know what?
You know who's looking good today?
Can I tell you who's looking?
Rumsfeld is looking good today.
Abizade is all over television today.
He's the Armed Services Committee hearing, his general, and he's being interviewed by all these Democrats up there, and he's basically articulating the Rumsfeldian policy.
Stay the course, the Bush policy.
He's being given all kinds of opportunities here to say, yeah, we ought to get out of there.
We ought to get out of there soon.
No, we need more troops.
He's no, no, no, no.
What we're doing is right on plan.
Stay the course.
It's, I think you've got the New York Times on the front page today, above the fold.
All these military experts basically telling the Democrats they're foolish to start talking about leaving now, not so fast, can't get out of there now.
This is the wrong way and the wrong time to do it.
I'm wondering, too, this Carville story, if they're really saying that the Democrats and Dean are broke financially, both on the national level and the individual level, that they need to raise money just to pay off Dean's borrowing or the borrowing that the campaign committees did in the House and the Senate and to prepare for the massive 2008 elections.
You know how much money was spent in the 2004 presidential race?
I think it was over a billion, all told.
So they're going to have to raise a lot of money for that and the Senate races.
And Carville's upset here that they're starting out in a hole.
I guess.
It's kind of hard to figure this out, but they're and I think also you can't take out of the mix here that when Carville speaks, it's from the Clinton war room.
And I think this is the same thing as Hillary Clinton saying she wants Dean gone And replaced with someone else.
Speaking of Mrs. Clinton, this is fascinating.
This is from James Taranto's bestoftheweb.com.
He's a blogger, a Wall Street Journal's free online website.
It may be a bad dream for Mrs. Clinton, at least if she does decide to make a bid for the West Wing.
In a 2003 blog entry, liberal economist Brad DeLong explained why.
Now, before I get into the details of this, there's a story in the stack here that Mrs. Clinton is going to send private information in early December to select people to announce her exploratory committee, as though this is still up in the air.
And it's being reported as a trial balloon to see what the reaction is.
Here's Brad DeLong, liberal economist, in a 2003 blog entry.
My two cents' worth, and I think it's the two cents worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton administration health care reform effort of 93 and 94, is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
Heading up health care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do, and she was a complete flop at it.
She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given, or that she took and demanded.
And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the healthcare czar role quickly.
So when senior members of the economic team said that key senators like Moyna Hann would have this and that objection, she told them they were being disloyal.
When junior members of the economic team told her that the Congressional Budget Office would say such and such, she told them wrongly that her conversations with CBO head Robert Reischauer had already fixed that.
When longtime senior Hill staffers told her that she was making a dreadful mistake by fighting with, rather than reaching out to Senator John Brow and Representative Jim Cooper, she told him they didn't understand the wave of popular political support the bill would generate.
In other words, she was smarter than everybody else.
Nobody else knew anything.
She had never done this before, but they didn't know beans she knew it all.
And when substantive objections were raised to the plan by analysts, calculating the moral hazard and adverse selection pressures it would put on the nation's health care system, he goes on and on and on to describe this as an absolute disaster, reiterates his opinion she should be kept as far from the White House as possible.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has already flopped as a senior administrative official in the executive branch, the equivalent of an undersecretary.
Perhaps she'll make a good senator, but there is no reason to think she would be anything but an abysmal president.
This, a liberal economist who worked with her in the White House, he posted this on a blog in 2003.
From UPI, the incoming U.S. Congress will receive the law mandating 700 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and they may scrap the plan altogether.
Representative Benny Thompson, Democrat Mississippi, told reporters this week he expected to revisit the issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in the 110th Congress.
He said that the High Technology Secure Border Initiative, or SBINET, essentially a set of monitors, cameras, and other integrated surveillance systems to monitor the border was a viable alternative.
We might do away with it.
We might look at integrating it into the SBI net, a virtual fence rather than a real one.
This is a no-brainer, too.
I knew there was never going to be a fence once the Democrats won the majority.
Now, this, this story, just found it, show prep working last night.
Headline, Congress questions NFL network plan to air live games.
My first reaction when I saw this, what the hell business is it of theirs?
The NFL is about to start airing live regular season games on its own network, and that has Congress a bit curious.
Senator Arlen Specter said yesterday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we're intrigued, to put it mildly, what the NFL has in mind.
Specter grilled NFL Executive Vice President and General Counsel Jeffrey Pash during the 90-minute hearing on sports programming.
The hearing focused on how live games on the NFL network could affect cable and satellite rates and whether the games raise any antitrust issues in connection with the Sports Broadcasting Act.
Now, for those of you that don't know, the NFL network was started by the league a couple, three years ago.
They have broadcast agreements with, now it's ESPN, NBC, CBS, and Fox.
And there's a new thing called flexible scheduling this year, where NBC, the Sunday night broadcaster, gets to pick certain games late in the season that are on other networks' schedules.
They have to do it in advance, and those networks are given a chance to protect certain games.
So NBC's not going to get the best games every week late in the season, but they do have a chance to improve on what the original schedule had for them.
Then this year, along came the NFL, which is owned by the league, owned by the owners.
And they said, we're going to do our own games.
And we're going to do them on Thursday night starting on Thanksgiving.
Have some Saturday games, too, late in the season in December.
Well, those games are going to have to come from somewhere.
They're going to have to come from games that would have otherwise gone to CBS or Fox, more than likely something, maybe ESPN.
And I guess Congress said, whoa, whoa, how can you do this?
Because the NFL network does not have the cable penetration that broadcast networks have.
And so the NFL wants its games on cable, and they're charging a high price to cable operators to take the games.
And this is why Congress is interested in all of this.
And so they bring this poor NFL guy up there to explain why they're going to be ripping people off.
And the NFL guy says, wait a minute, we are the only league in sports which televises every one of our games on over-the-air free TV.
And they do.
On Sunday night, ESPN's games are in the local markets of the two teams over the air.
And so will the NFL network's games.
On Thursday night, like Kansas City and Denver, they'll be on the air, broadcast TV on Thursday night, Thanksgiving night, in Denver and in Kansas City.
And so they're making the, look, we got the most popular league going out there and so forth.
They're in the process of trying to build their network, and here's Congress coming in.
And I don't, you know, I understand Interstate Commerce and the Broadcast Act and the Sports Broadcast Act and all that.
But I have to say, with everything else going on out there in the world today, for these people to bring in the NFL and start grandstanding about all of this just seems a bit out of whack in terms of priorities to me.
Back in just a second, stay with us.
America's Real Anchor Man, the Doctor of Democracy, and America's Truth Detectors.
Here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, demonstrators stormed a Walmart on the outskirts of Mexico City on Tuesday, accusing the U.S.-based retailer of selling low-cost goods at the expense of workers, farmers, and public markets.
About 250 idiot protesters chanted out, out in front of Walmart's corporate headquarters before entering the adjacent store where they blocked aisles for about 30 minutes before leaving.
There were no immediate reports of arrests, injuries, or damage.
Ruben Garcia, Mexican citizen who works with the San Francisco-based activist group Global Exchange, said that Walmart's low prices take business away from the country's traditional public markets and depress wages for workers and farmers.
Nobody cares about the little guy.
Nobody cares.
We always hear about how prices are too high.
The little guy's being gouged here and there.
Here comes Walmart.
The little guy doesn't get gouged.
And people get mad.
And importing, of course, a rent-a-mob from San Francisco.
Senator Barack Obama and another potential Democrat 2008 presidential contender, the Brett Girl, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, will speak to activists from one of Walmart's most vociferous union-backed critics today as debate over Walmart becomes increasingly political.
Becomes increasingly political?
It can't become more increasingly political.
It already has reached its peak.
Washington-based wakeupwalmart.com, created by the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, said that Obama and Edwards will address the group's supporters on two national conference calls that will launch a six-week campaign targeting Walmart stores right smack dab in the middle of Christmas.
Democrats are going to attack a store that is cutting prices on toys for kids and flat panel TVs.
The battle between Walmart and its critics has taken on an increasingly political tone lately.
Both sides use political campaign-style tactics, including polling, ads, blogs, direct mail, grassroots organizing, and strategic war rooms.
Wake Up Walmart enlisted several potential Democratic presidential candidates other than Obama and Edwards for a series of rallies in Iowa this summer.
And I guess Obama and Edwards saw what they were missing and decided they had to get on board, so they've now joined the movement.
The company also funded a survey in June that claimed that most voters would reject a Democrat candidate who attacked Walmart.
Separately, a Pew Poll in August found a split among Democrat supporters, 53% of liberal Democrats disliking Walmart, while 70% of conservative and moderate Democrats viewed the company favorably.
70% of conservative and moderate what is that?
About 12 people?
Wake Up Walmart said Obama and Edwards will be speaking out and calling on Walmart to put families first.
Geez put families first and become an employer that reflects the best of American values.
That's what Obama and Edwards are going to do.
Well, I thought Obama himself has positioned himself as being above these petty partisan attacks.
But I don't know.
I'm blue in the face.
I've tried to warn people, just look at who the Democrats and the liberals' enemies are.
And it ought to be enough to wake you up.
So anyway, Walmart continues to be targeted, particularly here during the Christmas season.
And it's the strangest thing.
You know, I can understand it if Walmart was marking up prices at 20% above retail, and if they were gouging seasoned citizens for drugs and the dog food they have to choose between and all that.
But they are doing just the opposite.
There are no unhappy consumers at Walmart.
By definition, there aren't.
They keep expanding.
And they are the Democrat Party constituency, the quote-unquote little guy.
At any rate, Jay in Simsbury, Connecticut.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Kudos, Rush.
Thank you.
The recent election, in my mind, set up who the next president of the United States is going to be.
And I can.
Let me guess.
Pat Buchanan.
No, I don't necessarily say that, but I do say an isolationist.
Think about all the forces that can come together for an isolationist right now.
You're just talking about anti-free trade nuts.
Think about the anti-war movement.
Rush, I'm a big-time Republican.
I supported W twice.
I supported the war.
I have fatigue now in terms of my support even.
You bring on an isolationist, somebody who's going to build that fence, build it bigger, build it better.
Somebody who's going to keep us out of wars or at least promise to, because, hey, two years from now, we're not going to be all the way out of the war yet.
That cauldron still didn't.
Well, you know, this business of promising to keep us out of a war, that's dicey.
You know, we don't go around attacking people.
We were attacked on 9-11, and that kind of, if we weren't already in a war, and I think we were, that kind of put us over the top there in terms of being in a war.
So the question doesn't become who's going to promise to keep us out of war.
The question becomes, who is going to best lead the country during a time of crisis?
Well, absolutely.
But again, think about what just happened.
Enough of the American people at least decided, well, you know, maybe we shouldn't be having these forays out there.
At the same time, the other end of the spectrum saying, hey, where's our fence on the border?
No, no, the American people, the border is a different issue.
That's something that there will be people paying a price for down the road.
But Wabe, on the war, you've got to remember that when the war on terror and the Iraq war started, American people were overwhelmingly in support.
They were there in massive, so many massive numbers, the Democrats had to get on board and let everybody know they were for it too.
They've had the luxury of pretending they didn't vote for it and criticizing Bush for lying to them.
I think the American people are not upset that we went to war.
They're upset because we haven't won it already in their minds.
And they're upset because of the pictures they've been treated to nightly that show utter chaos and loss in their mind.
And that's why they're fed up, not war in general.
A programming note, ladies and gentlemen.
I will not be on the air tomorrow here on the EIB network.
Roger Hedgecock will be covering these three hours from San Diego.
I have to fly to Washington tonight, have a dinner to attend tonight, some stuff to do during the day tomorrow, and then the Rush to Excellence performance tomorrow night at the Warner Theater.
What time is it, HR?
I don't even know.
Is it 8 or 7 o'clock?
It's probably 8 o'clock.
So I'm going to be back here on Friday, ladies and gentlemen, to close out the week.
So just that little programming note, audio soundbite time.
I'm going to go back to the Mirtha story just to illustrate this.
Here is Lisa Myers last night, a montage of her report on the Mirtha situation.
Critics claim Murtha has amassed power in part by handing out taxpayer money to special interests, including to clients of defense lobbyists who give him big campaign contributions.
Then there is this video from an FBI sting in 1980 known as ABSCAM.
An undercover FBI agent offers a $50,000 bribe to Congressman Murtha, who is sitting on the right.
Murtha refuses the cash and talks about his need to be cautious because of his ambition.
As his supporters point out, that was 26 years ago.
The House Ethics Committee also did not take action against Mertha.
Murtha has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and says these charges amount to swift voting, the same kind of unfair charges that helped defeat John Kerry.
Murtha also now supports ethics reform.
Well, this is not swift voting because Swiftboating was telling, well, you could say it's Swiftboating is telling the truth.
I think this is more like he's being waterboarded, ladies and gentlemen, slowly tortured, roasted on the spit out there, so to speak.
Now, his candidate, his opponent in his reelection race, Diana Eray, she was trying to get traction on the fact that this guy is corrupt and has been corrupt.
The media totally ignored her.
But now that other Democrats are coming out and accusing him of being corrupt, why, it's all over the drive-by media.
And the AB scam tape suddenly newsworthy now after the election.
It wasn't enough to stop his reelection, but we can't have Mirtha in the leadership here.
Ethics is a problem because Pelosi's got this new ethics bill.
I think Mirtha's out there saying her ethics bill is full of crap.
But he's going to support it anyway because she's supporting him.
He has.
He's saying her ethics bill is full of crap.
I wanted you to listen to all this.
This guy has got a salty tongue out there, folks.
Big time salty tongue.
Here is the FBI agent attempted bribe of Mirtha AB scam January 7th, 1980.
I went out.
I got the 50,000.
Okay.
From what you're telling me, okay?
You're telling me that that's not what you, you know, that's not what I'm not interested in.
Okay.
And it does a point.
Okay.
You know, we do business for a while.
Maybe I'll be interested.
Maybe I won't.
You know, we do business for a while.
Maybe I'll be interested.
Maybe I won't.
January 7th, 1980, ABSCAM, Mirtha and an FBI agent.
Merthyr says he's got to be cautious here because he's going to someday be a leader in the House.
I expect to be in leadership of the House.
And you have anything said against you, then you've got a problem.
Well, he was 26 years premature in that prediction, but here he is.
It's coming true, Farm, finally.
And from the same tape, this is Mirtha talking about the pitfalls of doing such a deal.
Some dumb bastard would go start talking eight years from now about this whole thing and say, Jesus Christ, this happened.
In order to get immunity so he doesn't go to jail, he starts talking and fingering people and stuff all falls apart.
Why is it that we can play tape of people talking that way, but I can't talk that way?
So he said, look, I can't take the chance here.
You know, you get some weasel here and go out and give me up just to save his own skin.
When this is all said and done, I can't have that happen.
Anyway, in case you missed it, we earlier today endorsed Mirtha for the post as Nancy Pelosi's number two in the House of Representatives on the Democrat side because we believe that Democrats ought to be who they are and they ought not hide from it and they ought not be allowed to hide from it and they ought not be afraid of demonstrating who they are.
Murtha would fit right in.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, any number of them.
Now, on MSNBC Live, I'm sorry, MSDNC Live, Infobabe Nora O'Donnell yesterday talked to Representative Mati Meehan, Democrats of Democratic Massachusetts.
She said, Murtha says he's being swift voted today.
How do you answer the charge that you're putting someone in that position who has ethics problems?
To take something that happened 26 years ago in which there were no charges brought against Congressman Murtha.
And frankly, there are a lot of good people who serve in both the House and the Senate.
John McCain, for one, a great member of the Senate, who also were involved in those things.
And so I don't think that that means they're disqualified.
He was never charged with anything.
And the fact of the matter is, I think Jack Maratha showed his principles and shows his courage and his leadership by standing up on the Iraq war and calling for America to go in a new direction.
So that's the type of leadership that I'm looking for.
That's exactly right.
It doesn't matter.
It was 26 years ago.
There is no problem.
He's perfect.
I like the way they're defending their people here.
He wasn't ever charged with anything.
Forget that tape.
Forget everything you heard on that tape.
He wasn't charged with anything.
As I say, ladies and gentlemen, a golden opportunity here for the Democrats.
I think Murtha could serve a whole bunch of different purposes.
As we know, Mrs. Clinton made a big push on behalf of the party earlier this year to go out and get the ex-con vote.
Well, he'll put Mirtha in there, get the pre-con vote, and get the upcoming con vote, and get the ex-con vote all in one.
You got an outreach program built into the House leadership on the Democrat side.
You got William Jefferson.
You could put him on, it could have come up with a new caucus called the pre-indicted caucus.
Members of the Democratic Party haven't yet been indicted, but they're under investigation.
Put Mirtha in there, put Congress and William Jefferson in there.
I'm sure there's a number of others that might qualify.
Dingy Harry, of course, we're talking about the House.
But, I mean, there's outreach possibilities all over the place.
You get, in fact, as I mentioned earlier, you people may not believe this, but you do not have to be a member of the House in order to be part of its leadership.
You can be an officer of the House without having been elected.
You can't go vote or any of that, but you can lead serve one of these positions.
I suggested earlier that maybe the number three or four spot in the House should go to Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, because they're making a move out there on the illegal immigrant vote.
And I think we need to change the title, by the way, because it's illegal immigrant is just too harsh.
And we start talking about illegals, this and illegals.
It's sort of like back in the old days in the 80s.
You start calling a communist a communist.
It was a little too harsh.
People just didn't want to hear that.
So you call them liberals or socialists or whatever.
In this case, we need to change the lingo from illegal immigrants, not even to illegal alien, just call them non-voting Democrats.
And the Democrats have an outreach program there.
So there's a golden opportunity here for them to really build on a mandate that they were given by voters last Tuesday.
Chuck in Richmond, Virginia.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Megadittos rush from the capital of the Confederacy.
Thank you, Chuck, very much.
Excuse me?
Thanks very much, I said.
You're welcome.
I work in the advertising industry, and as I was telling your screener, in our business, if it weren't for deadlines, nothing would happen.
And I think, although I've seen some indications in the press in the last couple days, and certainly I don't know what Bush was doing behind the scenes, but I think it's time we give the Iraqis some deadlines by which they need to gear up to support themselves and effectively say, if you're ready by this state, fine, but if not, or not if or not.
The point is that we're starting to leave here on such and such a date.
I don't think that's necessarily giving up.
I think it's business.
Okay.
Well, I agree with you.
Have you been listening to the whole program today?
I have been waiting on this line through the entire program.
Have you really?
Gosh, most of it.
It's enjoyable.
Okay, well, Matt, you've probably had to put the phone down.
Wife called a couple times on the other line.
But one of the things I said, one of the things I said earlier in the program, and I heard Senator Levin today had a set of remarks at the Armed Services Committee hearing that he will soon chair, the committee that he will soon chair.
And he basically said, tell Bush, President Bush should tell the Iraqis that we're going to start pulling out of there four to six months.
And I said, why wait?
Yes, I heard you.
You heard that.
Okay.
If we're going to quit, we're going to quit and cut.
Why don't they quit?
It's Christmas.
If a deadline of four to six months is good, why isn't a deadline of next month better?
If the purpose is to get out and to get the Iraqis up to speed, why give them another four to six months just lollygag around over there?
Well, I don't know about the timeline, but I think it is time.
Wait, you just said that the deadline is necessary because nothing gets done.
And you know, you're right.
You know, when you're in college, you had the test coming up.
You probably waited to the last moment to cram, but it was the date of the test that made you do it.
If the test was three months off, you waited for three months to study.
Well, and that's exactly what happens in the ad industry.
Well, that's right.
So we give four to six months before we pull out.
We're not going to do anything constructive over there.
I mean, it's just.
Well, no, it's what they need to do before we begin our pullout or our reversal.
Well, but what if they don't pull it off?
Excuse me?
What if they don't accomplish it?
What if we give them a four to six month deadline?
Say, okay, Iraqis, we're tired of propping you guys up, you incompetence.
We're going to get out of here in four to six months, regardless.
What if they're not ready?
Well, I think that's what so many people were reacting to when they voted when we got the something we just got.
And the point is that if they can't get their act together ever, are we apparently going to stay forever?
Well, I don't know.
See, usually in a job like this, in a situation, the old days when America was the country I have fond memories of it being, we didn't focus on deadlines.
We focused on getting the job done.
And we didn't leave anything until the job was done and done right, and in this case, victorious.
But now that seems to not be possible.
Victory is not possible.
Democrats are saying it's not even a war.
It's not something that you can really win.
It's just a situation that we need to solve.
Of course, some Democrats are out there now saying, wait, we already have won it.
It's over.
We did win.
They want to pull out under the guise that we've already had victory, despite what they said the last two years.
So they're all over the ballpark on this, but they won.
The American people voted for these people.
And if you're talking about getting the Iraqis up to speed with some sort of a timetable, and if they're unable to do it, you still got to stick by the timetable, as far as I'm concerned.
You give them four to six months.
Okay, Maliki, four to six months.
Your forces better be able to handle the insurgency or else.
And your theory is that Maliki will rise to the occasion, as will his security forces.
And we can get out.
I need an opportunity to sit with Bush and talk this out because I really haven't thought it much further.
Do you think George would entertain that?
Why don't you call the White House and try?
I will.
I mean, if you feel that way, if you feel that he hadn't considered all this until he talks to you, you're an American citizen.
You're a voter.
Well, as I was telling your screener earlier, I think it's unfortunate, again, it's a marketing world, and reality is.
What did my screener say when you told him these things?
He chuckled with me.
No, the one topic that I started with, which you're leading me back to a bit, is that this is, you know, marketing, reality is perception.
And had Bush said what the Democrats are willing to do and have done already, if he would have said before the election, we will start pulling out in March, but was moving two or three people, troops out, you know, per month, he's good to his word, except we all know we're still there.
Well, you may be on to something.
I'm running out of time here for this, so you may be onto something.
If we could just turn the Iraq war into a product that we've got to market, or the Iraqi insurgency, well, the Iraqi government and the security forces into a product that we're going to introduce to the market, and we give them a deadline to be ready for their product introduction and all that, and look at it that way.
And that way, nobody even has to think of this as a war.
It's just something that's going to be on the shelf at Walmart this Christmas.
No, no, no, no.
Actually, this is good.
A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, health experts reported Tuesday.
I told you that news yesterday, that environmental news yesterday that was good news, it was bad.
You couldn't trust it.
This is more like it.
A warmer world.
This story's from Nairobi, Kenya, by the way, for the next time you happen to go.
A warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world.
Health experts reported yesterday, citing surges in Kenya, China, and Europe of such diseases as malaria, heart ailments, and even the dreaded dengue fever.
Climate affects some of the most important diseases afflicting the world, said this weird-named guy from the World Health Organization.
The impacts may already be significant.
That's what I like.
I like the world is falling apart and going to hell in a handbasket.
Environmental news.
That tells me things are normal.
Terry in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Welcome to the program.
Did it as Russ from Lincoln, Nebraska?
Loving listening to you all the time on KLIN.
I have a question and I have a request.
My question, sir, is this Glenn Beck program that's going to be shown on CNN.
How are the liberals going to react to this?
It's on CNN headline news tonight, the Glenn Beck program.
You mean the program put together by this paranoid right-wing freak Republican who is a fundamentalist Christian and has general fear of every other religion in the world?
That Glenn Beck?
Yes, you're great.
You're great, Rush.
That's what they'll say.
They won't even watch it.
Look, these people are in denial about things.
Isn't it going to air three times?
Is it going to air three different times?
It's going to air three times.
It'll air three times, three times.
It's either 7, 9, and 11, I think.
Or 8, 10, and 12.
I've forgotten them.
I'm sorry.
But it's one of those two times, Eastern Time.
Three times tonight, you won't have a chance to miss it.
I never watched CNN.
It's CNN headline news.
Make sure you understand the difference.
CNN headline news.
Headline news.
At 7, 9, and midnight is when it's on tonight, Eastern Time.
So do you think NBC or CBS or ABC is going to take any of the clips and show it on?
No, that's not how this happens.
This is why, no.
What they will do is, if there's any reaction to it at all, sadly, it will be a reaction that attempts to discredit Glenn and refer to him in unflattering terms as a paranoiac.
They will question the way it was edited.
They will question the way it was translated.
If they do anything, I suspect they won't want to call any attention to it at all.
But, you know, it's just the way it is.
Doing things so that liberals notice them is giving them a sense of power over all this that's unnecessary.
Just watch it.
Get as many people as you can to watch it.
And the word will spread among that group.
Then it'll end up on YouTube, elements of it will.
And it'll be seen by a considerable number of people.
Quick time out, folks.
Be right back.
Okay, folks.
Off to Washington this afternoon.
You know how much I love it there.
Glenn Beck here on...
I'm sorry.
Roger Hedgecock here tomorrow.
We'll be back on Friday to gin it up all over again and get us into the weekend.
Have a great one.
▲
Export Selection