All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
December 26, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And thank you very much.
And welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program, 1-800-282-2882.
And don't forget at Rush Limbaugh.com, all the latest and greatest.
Well, let's continue.
We have a lot of good callers.
Hang on there, callers, and we'll get to um to you because uh this is um what we're gonna try to do today, a little more of that on this shopping day.
I understand many of you are out there, I hope you know about that website where you can trade in your uh gift cards, you know.
You know, it's uh it's a thing to do.
Let's get to uh get to uh this topic before we get too far, and that is about uh Congress about to be taken over by the Democratic Party.
Uh Democrats may have declared, uh says uh Associated Press a one-year moratorium on pet projects on earmarking, mind you.
Uh I read this uh story with some um with some interest because it's uh it turns out that Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat West Virginia, and Congressman David Obe, uh Democrat of Wisconsin, were the leaders in putting together this uh let's do away with the earmarks situation.
10,000 uh pet b pet expenditures.
I got a list of those, by the way, and I without boring you too much, it's just astonishing what Congressman put in uh to their in effect reelection campaigns by bringing home the pork, bringing home the bacon.
Um in San Diego, for example, we got a regional bus replacement uh program, 450,000 for bus replacement.
We have buses, I guess we need new ones.
Um this is in Michigan, the Belleville Road and E. Coursey Road intersection.
Huh?
In New York, convert 250,000 to convert the Strand Theater Arts Center into performing arts center.
Where's that in the Constitution?
I mean, I'm sure this is a worthwhile thing to do.
Don't get me wrong.
I might contribute to it personally.
This is the kind of thing the communities ought to do with the arts, and I'm uh one of those big champions in our local community of that.
But is it how is it a federal taxpayer problem?
Where in the Constitution is the performing arts center in New York a constitutionally valid expenditure of taxpayer money.
It isn't in there, okay?
Let me short circuit this for you.
It isn't in there.
And yet, and I'm looking at, by the way, I'm looking at pages that have hundreds and hundreds, and it turns out there are 10,000 of these.
Uh 250,000 for the Montana World Trade Center, 250,000 for Mother's Day Shrine Building in Grafton, West Virginia, in the Montana Sheep Institute, 591,000.
Uh look, ladies and gentlemen, this has got to stop.
But the idea that Sheets Bird is going to stop it.
Uh, is uh is a little weird.
It's like uh Al Capone being your next uh tax advisor.
It's like uh getting uh an underwear endorsement for a product by Britney Spears.
It's just an inconsistency that I think is is beyond belief.
What are we talking about here?
Sheets Byrd is going to lead us out of earmarks.
He's the guy who invented it.
This pork business.
Uh if he didn't invent it when he first was elected to Congress in the 19th century, he at least was one of the first ones who did it.
Uh this is uh the presidential politics thing.
Uh we wanted to bring you up to date on the latest polls on the presidential race.
I know it's still 2006.
Don't you for a minute think that the 2008 presidential race isn't on?
It is, okay.
So um let's see, here's the late Oh, first the latest is that uh Democratic Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, wants you to know that he is running for president.
Definitely, unequivocally, absolutely, says Associated Press.
Biden says uh he was up in uh New York uh raising money.
Quote, I'm the only guy who will tell you honestly what I'm doing.
The others won't tell you, but I will.
Who is he talking about?
Hillary Clinton?
Uh Barack Obama.
Anyway, whoever he's talking about, he's now the uh candidate of uh of honesty and openness.
Yikes.
Uh anyway, uh there are a lot of people, of course, lining up.
Uh and the latest poll in New Hampshire, this is surprising.
Two weeks after Senator Barack Obama did his first trip to New Hampshire.
And by the way, before that trip, he was twenty-three points behind Hillary Clinton in a similar poll taken.
This out of Concord, uh, New Hampshire, uh, this new poll shows uh the Concord Monitor poll shows uh Barack Obama about even with Senator Hillary Clinton among likely voters in that state's 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
Now, 2008 sounds like a long way away, but we're talking about what, 15 months, less than.
Uh so from 23 points behind to dead even, uh well, almost 22 percent for Clinton, 21 percent for Obama.
John Edwards, by the way, the former North Carolina Senator in at 16 percent in the Democratic side of things in New Hampshire.
On the uh Republican side, uh Giuliani with uh former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani with uh 26 percent, uh Arizona Senator John McCain, 25 percent, and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 10.
Now, going back to the uh to the Democrat side of this, not only is Barack Obama, Obama Mamie Mania, uh taken over in New Hampshire and elsewhere, but it is uh it is benefiting from something that's showing up in the polls,
not only in uh New Hampshire, but also in Iowa, where KCCI uh has done a poll up there in Iowa, uh again an early primary state, 600 likely Iowa voters.
They are, by the way, uh Edwards is ahead 22, well, at 22, Barack Obama at 22, and uh Vilsack, uh Tom Vilsack, uh, the governor there, um.
Former governor, I've forgotten.
Uh anyway, Vilsack is uh at twelve.
Clinton is fourth at 10 percent.
KCCI political analyst doesn't uh Dennis Gold Goldford saying that uh Barack Obama is the rock star of the moment.
What's interesting is Vilsack ahead of Hillary Clinton, uh and what they're coming up with is the negatives on Hillary Clinton.
This is uh uh something that has been buried by the pro-Clinton press for a long time.
These poll results are starting to say you can't bury it anymore.
The uh negatives on Hillary Clinton are huge and growing.
Any slight offer of a um alternative to Hillary Barack Obama, whoever.
I mean, do you think do you think that Democratic voters, and I'll ask you if you are a Democratic voter in New Hampshire or or Iowa or elsewhere, do you think that Barack Obama's really gonna win?
I mean, what's he going to say?
In my fifteen days in the United States Senate, I've accomplished quite a lot.
What's he going to say?
I went to private school as the privileged son of a Kenyon with a lot of money.
And uh my American white mother.
What is he going to say to relate to African Americans in the United States, for example, when he is not of that tradition?
He doesn't have that background.
He is truly an African.
So what is he going to say?
I I I'm not I'm ready to hear it, but I don't hear it yet.
See, what I'm hearing, and what I think I'm getting out of this, is that Barack Obama, who may be the greatest guy in the world, I don't know, never met him, uh, is offering an alternative to Hillary Clinton.
And even though he's a relative uh speaking unknown, the negatives on Hillary Clinton are so enormous that even here in this very early poll, they're coming up.
And that's, I think the point of it, they're coming up where she's running fourth in Iowa.
They are coming up.
Giuliani and uh and uh McCain, of course, are trying to uh position themselves as conservatives and uh doing it in a variety of different ways.
The more authentic one to me of the two, they're both Giuliani's a liberal, he's a demo is a Democrat turned Republican.
And on the uh issues uh if you're going to litmus test issues like abortion and so forth, he's a liberal.
But if you're going to look at the 2006 world of security, the border, uh, tough on crime, then you're gonna look at Giuliani as a conservative, because that's what he is on those issues.
On McCain, if you're going to look at McCain as a conservative, you're gonna look at fiscal issues, he is.
If you're gonna look at other issues like the border, he is not.
He and Ted Kennedy are co-authors of a bill to give amnesty to 20 million illegals.
This is not the answer, ladies and gentlemen.
However, it is, as I'll get into later in the program, the answer that uh even the Bush administration is now pushing, and we are likely to see a bipartisan effort to give away the border, and I'll have more on that later uh in the program.
Let's get to David in Oswego, Illinois in the meantime.
Hi, David, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Roger, great show.
Listen, one of the things I've been listening to today that I think is a common thread uh in a lot of these issues.
Uh, for instance, on C SPAN today, retired head of our European Bureau of the CIA is on, got a new book out.
And one of the things I think we're gonna see uh in this next year in the run-up uh to 2008 is this constant uh sudden uh brilliance of our intelligence community retired heads, that is, experts, who are suddenly able to give clear-sighted hindsight into every issue uh regarding our war effort and our counterterrorism effort, including domestic issues, I think, which I think that FBI report was very important.
And I think that's something you're just gonna see a lot of.
It's it hasn't really been brought up.
They're this silent ally of the media and the Democrats is suddenly becoming very vocal, and Kenneth's even got a book out.
And they're brilliant now.
They suddenly have all the answers.
I wish they did when they were in office.
Oh, hallelujah, don't we wish?
Because they were that they were as uh uh as uh clueless uh in the run-up to a lot of this stuff as uh well, you just have to talk to uh Colin Powell about the information he got from the CIA from Mr. Tennett, who is a Clinton appointee, and then and you'll get the whole story.
Across the board.
And the one true honest one that's been out there is Ralph Peters, who said over and over again that prior to 911, the one effort that the intelligence community wanted to make sure they could all have culpable deniability when something went very wrong, because they really didn't have answers.
Now suddenly they spend more of their time covering their ample backsides than they do during and doing intelligence and allowing our political leaders to know what the hell's going on.
And if you can tra and you can trace that back, David, to the church committee in the 1970s, to the Democrats dismantling the CIA, to the Republicans buying into the idea that electronically we could do the same thing we used to do with field agents, and to all of us coming to the conclusion twenty-five years later that that was de that was just plain wrong.
Right.
David, thanks for the call on the Rush program.
I appreciate your being with us.
Let's move to Corey in Chicago.
Corey, welcome to co uh welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
How are you doing, Roger?
Good to talk to you.
You know, you said that what does Barack have to say to relate to African Americans?
Well, you know, I didn't hear anyone say uh what does George W. Bush have to say to relate to white Americans.
I don't know.
Well, I listen, I've heard what does Barack have to say something to relate to black Americans.
Because I've heard from black Americans that he that what he's saying doesn't relate to them, that his life experiences are not theirs, and that they're not very happy about him being extolled by the white media.
But in that case, President Bush's experience, he has an upper income background.
How does his relate to white Americans then?
I constantly hear that from Democrats, don't you?
This guy is a son of privilege.
What does he ever know about working families?
I hear that all the time as a criticism of George Bush.
But I've never heard you say that, though.
I've never heard you say that President Bush has to say something to relate to white Americans.
I mean, I don't understand the double standard here.
Well, I don't think there is one, but I appreciate the call.
Let me take a break.
Corey, thanks for the call.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, Infor Rush 1800-282-2882.
Back after.
Peace, please, peace, peace, on a peace.
Yeah, first recorded in 55.
In some kind of a basement uh somewhere, and then again in 56, so when a record company picked it up, one of the great hits uh from James Brown from the 1950s.
Please, please, please.
And uh we're back.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, In for Rush Limbaugh Morning Today, the uh passing of uh James Brown, one of the great uh just one of the great musical figures in American history.
After the bottom of the hour, I want to get into this book.
You're gonna love this.
Eco Freaks.
I'm gonna change uh topics on you.
John Burlauer will be with us.
Uh his subtitle is Environmentalism is hazardous to your health.
I approach this topic as a conservationist.
Uh I was until recent years when I resigned and discussed uh a member of the Sierra Club.
I do have uh solar energy on the roof of my house.
Uh It is generating uh so the engineers say over a course of a year a hundred percent of my electricity on average.
Uh I do have uh in our family a hybrid vehicle that meets our family needs.
I do uh recycle.
I am a conservationist, just like I'm a conservative.
I believe we ought to conserve.
I don't believe in waste.
I don't believe in you know, I mean, that's where I approach this stuff.
The cuckoo leftist environmentalists, on the other hand, are a breed of a completely different color, and we're going to get into it uh in this book with John Burlow after the bottom of the hour.
In the meantime, here's Gary in Asheville, North Carolina.
Gary, hi, welcome to the Rush Show.
Hi, Jerry.
Good afternoon.
This is Gary.
Thanks for taking my call.
Sure, go ahead.
Um you were talking earlier about uh why we get involved in issues around the world or why we don't get involved in those issues.
And we have in place, the president develops every several years what's called the national security strategy.
I'm not sure how many folks are familiar with that.
But that describes how each of the regions are affecting the United States policy.
The key thing we want is stability in the world and in different regions throughout the world, because that helps us economically and politically.
And through the use of the national security strategy, we articulate why we get involved in certain things in the world and why we don't.
Okay.
Let me ask you this question.
Go ahead.
Do you think, given all the involvement we have around the world, that uh and and however it's stretched to cover, quote, national security, unquote, or national interest.
Do you think that it's possible that we could get involved, in other words, bite off more than we could chew?
Well, it's it's all about uh economics, right?
You you we have a finite number of resources that we can implement throughout the world and and effect, and we have to decide what are the most important things.
How far into debt do you want to go for your great grandchildren in order to have peacekeepers in Bosnia?
Well, uh if you if you go back history, I I can't answer that question, right?
I'm not at that level of all the insight that we're because that's what we're doing.
That's what we're exactly what we're doing.
We're going and we're we're putting our grandchildren and great grandchildren into debt so that we can have peacekeepers in Kosovo.
It may it may in fact be time to pull those peacekeepers out.
If you have to re remember back back in World War I, where did World War I start?
Right in that region.
And that's why it's important.
How about the occupation forces in Japan?
Do you think we've had enough there?
I think.
It's been about sixty years.
I think we could come out of Japan.
We're pulling back in South Korea.
How about Germany?
You think Germany at long last has rid itself of its fascist uh influence enough to so that we could come home?
We could probably start pulling back out of Germany, and we are pulling back out of Germany.
See, but the but the review that you're talking about does not contemplate our leaving those places, although there is pullback and and reassignment, as uh Rumsfeld famously said from the old Europe to the new Europe.
I understand all that.
But the point is we are still in something like, I don't know, eighty-nine countries, what's the current number around the world with U.S. troops, and so every once in a while I just wanted to kick back and say, can we review all this again?
Because it's costing us billions and billions of dollars we don't have.
But part of that cost is helping those countries remain stably both politically and economically.
We include the same thing.
Do you think here's here's a question, though, on that.
I understand the rationales, Gary.
I've been hearing them all my life.
Do you think Europe has actually been better off because we've imposed an American nanny state in foreign affairs on that country on the and on that continent?
Up through the early 1990s, I think it has been better off.
If we hadn't been there militarily and politically and diplomatically, we would not have had the success that we've had.
We can start drawing out now and leverage those resources in other areas around the world.
Okay, I appreciate the call.
It's a good uh it's a good discussion, and uh we're gonna uh obviously continue to have it on this program.
Russia said the same thing, of course, that uh it is uh in our national interest to do the things we are doing, and clearly in the war on terrorism, we're responding to a war.
I mean, because people declared war on us, and I don't know, do we do we do we just say uh uh thanks for your interest and go home?
Uh no.
Uh obviously we're we're in a war, and in those issues, I'm uh uh more of a uh warrior than most of you, I would suspect, because I believe, for instance, Pakistan has no right to tell us where we can go and not go to kill Al Qaeda.
We ought to be killing Al Qaeda wherever we can find them.
Uh, I don't care if it's in Pakistan or Nuristan or Kajikistan or where whatever stand you want to get into.
If Al Qaeda are there and they're plotting to kill Americans, we're going to kill them first.
That that's my position on the war.
But in terms of getting into every little, you know, how come we're not in Sri Lanka?
How come we're not in Myanmar?
How come we're not in you know, we're wr uh the national interest has got to be narrowly drawn here before we get way overcommitted and uh and of course way into debt.
And that is a problem I think all conservatives need to talk about.
Because uh for me, George Bush has been a little too Wilsonian if you know that World War I history.
I'm Roger Hitchcock, Eco Freaks is the title of the book after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for uh Rush, read a book I want to pass along to you as uh worthwhile read Eco Freaks, subtitled Environmentalism is hazardous to your health, by uh John Burlaw, and uh part of what he covered was covered, uh what he covers in this book was covered by Rush in uh one of his uh uh many spectacular updates.
This one talking about uh Rachel Carson DDT and so forth.
Here's uh Rush Limbaugh.
Candidate for the Pantheon of Evil.
That's how Robert Matthews describes Rachel Carson, the founder of the modern environmentalist wacko movement.
Her book in 1963, Silent Spring, led to international bans on the pesticide DDT, which she painted as a horrible ecological threat.
But in an article titled Rachel Carson Deadlier than Stalin, Matthew says that banning DDT robbed developing nations of a cheap, safe, and effective means of combating malaria, which kills two million people every year.
Thus, since the early 1970s when DDT was banned, at least fifty million people have died of diseases the pesticide could have prevented.
But Rush, but Rush, DDT was killing Mother Earth.
No, my friends.
Scientists have since discovered that Carson's claims were dead wrong.
Within just five years of banning DDT, writes Matthews, the number of malaria cases in Sri Lanka had risen from 17 back up to 500,000 today.
Around 400 million people are infected every year.
About 40 percent of African nations' health care dollars are spent fighting malaria.
But third world nations have been threatened with trade sanctions by the West.
Have they even talked about using DDT?
But now finally, DDT will be reintroduced.
Now, we think we can easily identify evil.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Saddam, they all fit common perceptions of evil except to liberals.
But when evil is disguised as good intentions, well, that's another matter.
Rachel Carson, the liberals who accepted her anti-DDT hysteria as gospel, never looked at the human cost.
Instead, 50 million innocent and mostly minority people paid that price with their lives.
And no, there won't be an apology in case you're wondering, liberals have no guilt over this.
And that's Rush Limbaugh on this topic.
Uh just to add before we introduce uh John uh to this discussion that um earlier in November of this year, the United Nations had a global warming summit in uh Kenya in Nairobi, Kenya.
And uh the Associated Press in covering this covered presentations that were made there at the conference at the summit, in which the malaria that Rush just talked about and what it was doing in some of these countries uh where it had been basically eradicated uh some years ago has now come back and come back with a vengeance uh really that it was blamed not on the lack of DDT to kill the mosquitoes who were spreading the malaria,
but on global warming.
Quote, a warmer world already seems to be producing a sicker world, unquote.
Global warming was, quote, disrupting normal climate zones, unquote, in Kenya.
Malaria epidemics have occurred in highland areas where cooler weather historically has kept down the populations of disease-bearing mosquitoes, unquote.
In other words, global warming has killed people uh because you drive an SUV.
It is not the lack of DDT to kill those mosquitoes in the first place.
So we are now In a struggle over fact here, over history, over what is really going on.
And I was quoting uh just a moment ago from John Burlaw's uh excellent uh article about this, the case of the DDT deniers, which is explored as well in his book, Eco Freaks.
Uh, John Burlaw, welcome to the program.
Roger, thank you so much for having having me on.
Tell me about this DDT and what's going on now.
Rush was talking about the fact that facts are facts, and uh are we getting DDT back to combat this in Africa?
Um yes, but there are still a lot of uh burdens.
And what you had mentioned about Kenya, that's uh that's so important because what it actually is and what Gore and the Associated Press are not saying is that this is actually a resurgence of malaria in those regions.
You had malaria in the Highland and regions in Nairobi in the um in the 1940s, and they used DDT uh to get rid of it, and they were and they were successful for um uh for a f for a few decades, but it's the same situation Rush had mentioned uh in Sri Lanka is you know, you haven't used it and and it and it returned.
So it's not like it's something brand new because of global warming in those very regions.
There are World Health Organization reports that I reference in Eco Freaks um uh that uh you had you had that there before.
So there's nothing really new under the sun there.
You also uh have I think the same feeling I do that uh a lot of technology which has made our lives and the lives of uh countless millions of people around the world easier, uh technology like for instance, uh I don't have to wash my clothes by banging them on rocks down at the river mouth.
I can you know ha I have a w a washing machine.
Um that if if we follow the threads of environmentalist extremism, that these basic technologies that made life easier are basic we're heading toward bans on all this stuff.
Uh I mean, yes, and it's it's it's just so funny, Roger.
Um, at the very beginning of Eco Freaks, which is um eco-hyphen freaks.
Sometimes you have to type that into uh uh if you want to reference it online.
But um the um I talk about how Ronald Reagan had a conversation with his kids that he recalled, where it wasn't dad defending the good old days, it was the kids who were nostalgic for the idyllic time, and he told them about the time when you had outhouses walking fifty feet to outhouses in the winter, flies all around to the outhouses, which was very unhealthy, and pollution from coal furnace before they had uh the central uh electric power.
So the good old days weren't always uh in terms of technology, the good old days weren't always so good.
No, exactly right.
Now, you also have a significant discussion in this book, Eco Freaks, John, that that uh John Burlow, our guest here on the Rush program.
John, you're you're talking about Katrina.
Now much was written and said and so forth in the aftermath of Katrina about how it was uh it was caused by George Bush.
It was probably deliberate.
Uh it was probably to uh eradicate uh uh African Americans in New Orleans, et cetera, et cetera.
A lot of extremist nonsense.
What really went on behind the scenes that caused in your mind uh at least some of the the business about the collapse, because this is what really caused the problem, the collapse of those walls of of of those uh uh of those waterways there, which allowed the flooding to take place.
Well, yeah, Roger, um what's what's really what's important also important to remember is the uh you know it was a it turned out to be a category three storm, so it wasn't really you can't uh it can't be attributed to global warming, but what it can be attributed uh, at least in part to was environmentalists um blocked a uh uh a giant set of floodgates like they have in the Netherlands to protect uh European areas below sea level today.
Um the congressional delegation, the Corps of Engineers, the you know, the city leadership, you know, who were mostly Democrats were all ready for this thing to be built, and yet in 1977, um uh environmental groups uh sued and got an injunction about it.
And I talked to someone from the the Corps of Engineers, he said that they to comply with their demands, they had passed one environmental uh impact test.
They would have to do um uh uh I mean ten years studying the uh mating habits of fish, and they didn't know how much time there would be until the next big one.
I mean, there were many mistakes made, but certainly, I mean, the environmentalists I mean knew you had the U.S. attorney at the at the trial warning that I mean, thousands of people could die in this in a in a storm if this weren't built.
And yet, I mean, they went through with it, and then in uh and then in the nineties they also had suits uh lawsuits blocking just even raising levees.
So many experts say the wall built in the 70s uh could have, you know, prevented the storm surge from going.
It would have been r built right around Lake Ponchatron, uh Pontatrain.
So um uh that it could have been effective in preventing the surge from Katrina.
John Burlaw with us Eco Dash Freaks is the name of this book, Environmentalism is health hazardous to your health.
Now, John, as I mentioned before, I'm a conservationist.
Uh I've got a solar power plant on the roof of my new home, a hundred percent.
Uh I do have a hybrid uh car that meets the vehicle needs of uh our family.
Uh I do uh recycle.
I do think that uh conserving, and just as I as I'm a conservative in political terms, I've also a conservative in uh terms of of uh consuming stuff.
I do recycle.
I do think that we ought to be responsible about all that kind of thing.
But beyond all that, I also want technology to be a servant of the environment, to make the environment better.
I don't regard environ uh I don't regard uh uh technology as an enemy of environmentalism.
Um, Roger, I'm a conservationist too, and uh so are my colleagues at the competitive enterprise institute at uh and uh at CEI.org they talk about your private efforts to conserve uh um uh uh bur uh birds and and other uh other of the beautiful creatures of uh of nature.
I think what separates conservation, you know, from today's environmental movement is that they want to preserve the ecosystem, the landscape as you know it always existed.
And the truth is the uh American Indians made many changes to the landscape, so we really don't know.
I mean, if if it's the way it always existed.
One of the other casualties of DDT, as I say in eco freaks, is the um uh are are the elm trees.
When they stopped spraying uh spraying elms, um you uh they were which were being uh fed on by the beetles spreading Dutch elm disease.
Um a lot of the beetles destroyed the trees, and I mean more than half the elms in America are gone.
And DDT also saved in uh 1974 some of the Douglas fir trees where they had the spotted owl fight two decades later in Oregon.
All right, uh John Burlow, I appreciate the book, Eco Freaks, recommended to uh to our listeners as uh good reading material, and it's a great uh effort to redress the factual balance here.
John, thanks for being on too.
I appreciate it.
Thanks so much, Roger.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
Take a short break in your calls at 1800-282-2882 after this.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush today.
Rush Limbaugh.com, of course, with uh continuing updates.
Your phone calls at 1800-282-2882.
And uh Jim in Oklahoma City is next up.
Hi, Jim, welcome to the Rush Show.
Roger, can you hear me okay?
Yeah, Jim, go ahead.
It's a it's a real great privilege to talk to you, but you guys have been talking about this DDT thing all day.
And I think you're just giving it way too much credit for this malaria thing.
I want to wanted to remind everybody that the Panama Canal was built and malaria was the largest problem they had down there.
They managed to get through that and uh defeat the malaria problem without the use of DDT.
That's not uh Jim, that's not the history.
The history of the malaria problem in the connection with the construction of the Panama Canal is explored in a Pulitzer Prize winning book by David McCullough on the creation of the Panama Canal.
In that book, you will find a description of uh the thousands and thousands of workers who had come in from neighboring countries to work on that canal uh who were killed, and there was nothing that was done because we didn't know how to do it.
DDT was developed to after we discovered what was going on with malaria, uh was discuss was uh developed in order to combat it.
And I think I think you need to go back to the World Health Organization of um the United Nations, which uh does document what happened in Kenya in the nineteen forties.
They started spraying DDT, and they had a ninety-eight percent reduction in malaria in that country until they stopped uh in the nineteen sixties.
Uh-huh.
Well, uh I'm saying that uh the main way they've used of getting rid of the the malaria problem there was draining of the swamps and covering the stagnant water with with the breeding grounds for the mosquito larvae which carried the malaria virus.
And that also helps on medicines to treat the the malaria itself.
The medicines were ineffective, but it does help to drain the swamps.
It does help, but then you get into the environmentalist.
You tell an environmentalist you're going to drain a swamp, you're into uh protected habitat, my friend.
This uh this is also true.
Yeah, I know.
Okay, so You can't come up with it, you know, with a total answer here, Jim.
We're just trying to come up with one that makes sense and I appreciate the call.
Now look, here's another aspect of this crazy wacko environmentalist thing that kind of just gets under my skin a little bit.
And that's when these guys try to tell me what I can eat.
I I'm sorry.
I'm gonna eat what I want to eat.
Now I want all the information as an individual.
I want all the information on healthy eating that I can get a hold of that uh will help me to choose what I want to eat.
I want to be an informed eater.
But I don't want you telling me, uh-uh, you can't eat this.
Government should ban this.
Are you hearing me, Mayor Bloom uh Bloom uh, whatever your name is?
Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg, thank you.
This is not uh America.
If a mayor of New York can tell me I can't have my fries uh see, uh you know, we fell for this once and we never should have.
You remember when we used to do French fries, or freedom fries, if you will, uh, in animal fat.
They tasted really good.
Then along came the crazies who said, Well, animal fat's very bad for you.
Uh it does this, that, and the other.
You're gonna have heart attacks, you're gonna have this and that.
And so they the uh uh people who make French fries caved in and said, Okay, well, we'll try vegetable oil.
You don't like animal fat, we'll go to vegetable oil.
So they went to this uh partially hydrogenated, you know, whatever that means, uh vegetable oil.
Now all of a sudden, high partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which was the answer to a problem some years ago, is now the problem itself, because it turns out, well, that's a trans fat and causes even more problems.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Here's what I'm gonna do to solve this problem.
I'm going back to animal fat.
Nature's own way of cooking the French fry.
I j this is insane.
Well, and here's uh the ultimate outcome uh Bloomberg and others uh trying to tell you what's good for you and then changing their mind every couple of years.
All their their last solution becomes the next problem, if you know what I'm saying.
A parody that uh Rush played that deserves to be replayed on this issue.
To protect the state of your health, forty years from now, the New York City Department of Diet and Exercise has recently banned trans fats from restaurant foods.
But beware.
Illegal grease easies are a growing problem.
Uh hey, this fried chicken stinks.
It tastes like trees.
Cool, huh?
It's pine oil, a new natural trans fat substitute.
It's the law.
Stupid loss.
Hey, buddy, watch some of the good stuff.
Sure.
Follow me right on this alley.
What's the password?
Rush.
Okay, welcome to the Third Avenue Grease Easy.
Grease easy?
That's right, the opening everywhere.
What the people want, the people get.
So what do you want?
Fried chicken, donuts, French fries, onion rings.
I'm in heaven.
Report illegal grease easies immediately.
To the New York City Department of Diet and Exercise.
We know what's good for you.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
We're gonna take a short break.
We'll be back with your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
I'm popping into the grease easy back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, and check out the changes at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Taking your calls at 1800, 282-2882.
Here's Rich in Baltimore, Maryland.
Hi, Rich.
Welcome to the Rush Program.
Hello, Roger.
Hey, Rich.
Yes.
Yes, sir.
You're on the air.
Okay.
You talked about the San Diego year.
What about the Ravens?
Oh, come on.
Well, when I I heard of LT, I thought of uh Lawrence Taylor, not Ladanian Townsend.
Well, you used to think about Lawrence Taylor, but I'll tell you what, Ladani and Talmudson, I predict right now is going to go down in NFL history as the best back.
I mean, better than Jim Brown, and that's that's the highest peak you can get to.
The best back they've ever had.
Well, I maybe I still think Gail Sayers.
But anyway, you guys got a rookie for a quarterback.
Come on.
What's your rec What's the Ravens' record again?
Just refresh my memory.
Well, they're one behind you.
I know.
Right.
We have McN.
We have McNair.
He's steady.
You got a rookie quarterback.
We got Ray Lewis and the boys.
We crushed the Steelers.
That's not saying much this year.
Oh, come on.
That's the maximum time.
I know.
I'll tell you, I'll tell you what, Rich, we will see what we will see as we get into the playoffs because uh our coach, Schottenheimer, I'll give it to you.
This is the most uh the winningest NFL coach in history, but the losingest when it comes to playoffs and uh and then all the rest of that.
So I understand all that.
Understand the doubts about uh Rivers, the quarterback, understand all that.
But uh let me just put my money down right now on the Chargers going all the way.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
I know.
I don't I know you don't think so.
You were having a hard time waking up, Rich.
▲
Export Selection