Rush Limbaugh Program - December 26, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:29

December 26, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And thank you very much, and welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program, 1-800-282-2882.
	And don't forget at rushlimbaugh.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 you because this is what we're going to 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 gift cards.
	It's a thing to do.
	Let's get to this topic before we get too far, and that is about Congress about to be taken over by the Democratic Party.
	Democrats may have declared, says Associated Press, a one-year moratorium on pet projects on earmarking, mind you.
	I read this story with some interest because it turns out that Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat West Virginia, and Congressman David Obie, Democrat of Wisconsin, were the leaders in putting together this let's do away with the earmarks situation, 10,000 pet expenditures.
	I got a list of those, by the way, and without boring you too much, it's just astonishing what Congressmen put in to their, in effect, re-election campaigns by bringing home the pork, bringing home the bacon.
	In San Diego, for example, we got a regional bus replacement program, $450,000 for bus replacement.
	We have buses.
	I guess we need new ones.
	This is in Michigan, the Belleville Road and Ecorsy Road intersection.
	Huh?
	In New York, convert $250,000 to convert the Strand Theater Arts Center into a 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 one of those big champions in our local community of that.
	But 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.
	$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.
	Look, ladies and gentlemen, this has got to stop.
	But the idea that Sheets Byrd is going to stop it is a little weird.
	It's like Al Capone being your next tax advisor.
	It's like getting an underwear endorsement for a product by Britney Spears.
	It's just an inconsistency that I think 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.
	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.
	This is the presidential politics thing.
	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 let's see.
	Here's the latest.
	Oh, first the latest is that Democratic Senator from Delaware, Joe Biden, wants you to know that he is running for president.
	Definitely, unequivocally, absolutely, says Associated Press.
	Biden says that he was up in New York 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?
	Barack Obama?
	Anyway, whoever he's talking about, he's now the candidate of honesty and openness.
	Yikes.
	Anyway, there are a lot of people, of course, lining up.
	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 23 points behind Hillary Clinton in a similar poll taken.
	This out of Concord, New Hampshire.
	This new poll shows the Concord Monitor poll shows 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.
	So from 23 points behind to dead even, 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 Republican side, Giuliani with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani with 26 percent, Arizona Senator John McCain, 25 percent, and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 10.
	Now, going back to the Democrat side of this, not only is Barack Obama, Obama Mania, taken over in New Hampshire and elsewhere, but it is benefiting from something that's showing up in the polls not only in New Hampshire, but also in Iowa, where KCCI has done a poll up there in Iowa,
	again, an early primary state, 600 likely Iowa voters.
	They are, by the way, Edwards is ahead, well, at 22, Barack Obama at 22, and Vilsack, Tom Vilsack, the governor there, former governor, I've forgotten.
	Anyway, Vilsack is at 12.
	Clinton is fourth at 10%.
	KCCI political analyst Dennis Goldford saying that Barack Obama is the rock star of the moment.
	What's interesting is Vilsack ahead of Hillary Clinton.
	And what they're coming up with is the negatives on Hillary Clinton.
	This is 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 negatives on Hillary Clinton are huge and growing.
	Any slight offer of an alternative to Hillary, Barack Obama, whoever, I mean, do you think that Democratic voters, and I'll ask you if you are a Democratic voter in New Hampshire or Iowa or elsewhere, do you think that Barack Obama is really going to win?
	I mean, what's he going to say?
	In my 15 days in the United States Senate, I've accomplished quite a lot.
	And what's he going to say?
	I went to private school as the privileged son of a Kenyan with a lot of money and 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'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, is offering an alternative to Hillary Clinton.
	And even though he's a relative, 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 McCain, of course, are trying to position themselves as conservatives and 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 Democrat turned Republican.
	And on the issues, 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, tough on crime, then you're going to 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 going to look at fiscal issues, he is.
	If you're going to 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 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 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 that I've been listening to today that I think is a common thread in a lot of these issues, for instance, on C-SPAN today, retired head of our European Bureau of the CIA has got a new book out.
	And one of the things I think we're going to see in this next year in the run-up to 2008 is this constant sudden brilliance of our intelligence community, retired heads, that is, experts, who are suddenly able to give clear-sighted hindsight into every issue 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 going to see a lot of.
	It hasn't really been brought up.
	This silent ally of the media and the Democrats is suddenly becoming very vocal.
	And Kennett'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 as clueless in the run-up to a lot of this stuff as, well, you just have to talk to Colin Powell about the information he got from the CIA, from Mr. Tennett, who is a Clinton appointee, 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 has said over and over again that prior to 9-11, 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 doing intelligence and allowing our political leaders to know what the hell's going on.
	And if you can.
	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 25 years later that 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 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 what does George W. Bush have to say to relate to white Americans?
	Listen, I've heard.
	Why does Barack have to say something to relate to black Americans?
	Because I've heard from black Americans 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 1-800-282-2882.
	Back after this.
	Peace, Yeah, first recorded in 55 in some kind of a basement somewhere.
	And then again in 56 when a record company picked it up, one of the great hits from James Brown from the 1950s.
	Please, please, please.
	And we're back.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Morning today, the passing of James Brown, one of the great, 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 going to love this.
	Eco freaks.
	I'm going to change topics on you.
	John Burlau will be with us.
	His subtitle is Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health.
	I approach this topic as a conservationist.
	I was until recent years when I resigned and discussed a member of the Sierra Club.
	I do have solar energy on the roof of my house.
	It is generating, so the engineers say, over a course of a year, 100% of my electricity on average.
	I do have in our family a hybrid vehicle that meets our family needs.
	I do 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 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 Russ Show.
	Hi, Jerry.
	Good afternoon.
	This is Gary.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	Sure, go ahead.
	You were talking earlier about 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.
	Let me ask you this question.
	Go ahead.
	Do you think, given all the involvement we have around the world, that 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 all about economics, right?
	We have a finite number of resources that we can implement throughout the world and affect, 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, if you go back history, I can't answer that question, right?
	I'm not at that level.
	Because that's what we're doing.
	That's exactly what we're doing.
	We're putting our grandchildren and great-grandchildren into debt so that we can have peacekeepers in Kosovo.
	It may, in fact, be time to pull those peacekeepers out.
	If you have to remember back in World War I, where did World War I start?
	Right in that region.
	How about the occupation forces in Japan?
	Do you think we've had enough there?
	It's been about 60 years.
	I think we could come out of Japan.
	We're pulling back in South Korea.
	How about Germany?
	Do you think Germany at long last has rid itself of its fascist influence enough so that we could come home?
	We could probably start pulling back out of Germany, and we are pulling back out of Germany.
	But the review that you're talking about does not contemplate our leaving those places, although there is pullback and reassignment, as 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, 89 countries, what's the current number, around the world with U.S. troops.
	And 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 stable, both politically and economically.
	Do you think 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 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 discussion, and we're going to obviously continue to have it on this program.
	Russia said the same thing, of course, that it is 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, people declared war on us, and I don't know.
	Do we just say thanks for your interest and go home?
	No.
	Obviously, we're in a war, and in those issues, I'm more of a 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.
	I don't care if it's in Pakistan or Nuristan or Kajikistan or 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'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, the national interest has got to be narrowly drawn here before we get way overcommitted and, of course, way into debt.
	And that is a problem I think all conservatives need to talk about.
	Because for me, George Bush has been a little too Wilsonian, if you know that World War I history.
	I'm Roger Hitchcock.
	EcoFreaks is the title of the book after this.
	Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Roger Hitchcock filling in for Rush or read a book I want to pass along to you as a worthwhile read, EcoFreaks, subtitled Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health by John Burlaugh.
	And part of what he covered was covered, what he covers in this book was covered by Rush in one of his many spectacular updates.
	This one talking about Rachel Carson, DDT, and so forth.
	Here's 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, Matthews says that banning DDT robbed developing nations of a cheap, safe, and effective means of combating malaria, which kills 2 million people every year.
	Thus, since the early 1970s when DDT was banned, at least 50 million people have died of diseases the pesticide could have prevented.
	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% 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.
	Just to add before we introduce John to this discussion, that earlier in November of this year, the United Nations had a global warming summit in Kenya, in Nairobi, Kenya.
	And 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, where it had been basically eradicated some years ago, has now come back and come back with a vengeance, 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 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 just a moment ago from John Burlaugh's excellent article about this, the case of the DDT deniers, which is explored as well in his book, EcoFreaks.
	John Burlaugh, welcome to the program.
	Roger, thank you so much for 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 are we getting DDT back to combat this in Africa?
	Yes, but there are still a lot of burdens.
	And what you had mentioned about Kenya, 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 1940s, and they used DDT to get rid of it.
	And they were successful for a few decades.
	But it's the same situation Rush had mentioned in Sri Lanka: you know, you haven't used it and it returns.
	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 EcoFreaks that you have that there before.
	So there's nothing really new under the sun there.
	You also have, I think, the same feeling I do, that a lot of technology, which has made our lives and the lives of countless millions of people around the world, easier, a technology like, for instance, I don't have to wash my clothes by banging them on rocks down at the rivermouth.
	I can, you know, I have a washing machine.
	That 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.
	I mean, yes, and it's just so funny, Roger.
	At the very beginning of EcoFreaks, which is eco-hyphen freaks, sometimes you have to type that into if you want to reference it online.
	But 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 that idyllic time.
	And he told them about the time when you had outhouses, walking 50 feet to outhouses in the winter, flies all around to the outhouses, which was very unhealthy, and pollution from coal furnace before they had the central electric power.
	So the good old days weren't always, 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, EcoFreaks, John, that John Burlow, our guest here on the Rush program.
	John, you're talking about Katrina.
	Now, much was written and said and so forth in the aftermath of Katrina about how it was caused by George Bush.
	It was probably deliberate.
	It was probably to eradicate 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, at least some of the business about the collapse?
	Because this is what really caused the problem, the collapse of those walls of those waterways there, which allowed the flooding to take place.
	Well, yeah, Roger, what's also important to remember is the, you know, it turned out to be a category three storm, so it wasn't really it can't be attributed to global warming.
	But what it can be attributed, at least in part to, was environmentalists blocked a giant set of floodgates like they have in the Netherlands to protect European areas below sea level today.
	The congressional delegation, the Corps of Engineers, the city leadership, who were mostly Democrats, were all ready for this thing to be built.
	And yet in 1977, environmental groups sued and got an injunction about it.
	And I talked to someone from the Corps of Engineers.
	He said that to comply with their demands, they had passed one environmental impact test.
	They would have to do 10 years studying the 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 trial warning that thousands of people could die in a storm if this weren't built.
	And yet, I mean, they went through with it.
	And then in the 90s, they also had suits, lawsuits blocking just even raising levees.
	So, and many experts say the wall built in the 70s could have prevented the storm surge from going.
	It would have been built right around Lake Pontchutron, Pontrain, so that it could have been effective in preventing the surge from Katrina.
	John Burlaugh with us, Eco-Freaks is the name of this book.
	Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health.
	Now, John, as I mentioned before, I'm a conservationist.
	I've got a solar power plant on the roof of my new home, 100%.
	I do have a hybrid car that meets the vehicle needs of our family.
	I do recycle.
	Do you think that conserving, just as I, as I'm a conservative in political terms, I'm also a conservative in terms of 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 technology as an enemy of environmentalism.
	Roger, I'm a conservationist too, and so are my colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute at CEI.org.
	They talk about private efforts to conserve birds and other beautiful creatures of nature.
	I think what separates conservation from today's environmental movement is that they want to preserve the ecosystem, the landscape, as it always existed.
	And the truth is the American Indians made many changes to the landscape, so we really don't know.
	I mean, if it's the way it always existed.
	One of the other casualties of DDT, as I say, in EcoFreaks, is the elm trees.
	When they stopping spraying elms, which were being fed on by the beetles spreading Dutch elm disease, 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 1974 some of the Douglas fir trees where they had the spotted owl fight two decades later in Oregon.
	All right.
	John Burlaugh, I appreciate the book, EcoFreaks, recommended to our listeners as good reading material, and it's a great 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, and your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	After this, it's the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush today.
	RushLimbaugh.com, of course, with continuing updates.
	Your phone calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	And 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 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 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 defeat the malaria problem without the use of DDT.
	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 the thousands and thousands of workers who had come in from neighboring countries to work on that canal, who were killed, and there was nothing that was done because we didn't know how to do it.
	DDT was developed after we discovered what was going on with malaria, was developed in order to combat it.
	And I think you need to go back to the World Health Organization of the United Nations, which does document what happened in Kenya in the 1940s.
	They started spraying DDT, and they had a 98% reduction in malaria in that country until they stopped in the 1960s.
	Uh-huh.
	Well, I'm saying that the main way they've used of getting rid of the malaria problem there was draining of the swamps and covering the stagnant water with the breeding grounds for the mosquito larvae which carried the malaria virus.
	And that also helps medicines to treat the malaria itself.
	The medicines were ineffective, but it does help to drain the swamps.
	It does help.
	But then you get into the environmentalists.
	Tell an environmentalist you're going to drain a swamp, you're into protected habitat, my friend.
	This is also true.
	Yeah, I know.
	You can't come up 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'm sorry, I'm going to 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 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 Bloomberg, whatever your name is, Bloomberg?
	This is Bloomberg, thank you.
	This is not America.
	If a mayor of New York can tell me I can't have my fries, see, 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, in animal fat?
	They tasted really good.
	Then along came the crazies who said, Well, animal fat's very bad for you.
	It does this, that, and the other.
	You're gonna have heart attacks, you're gonna have this and that.
	And so, the 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 partially hydrogenated, you know, whatever that means, vegetable oil.
	Now, all of a sudden, 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 going to do to solve this problem: I'm going back to animal fat, nature's own way of cooking the French fry.
	This is insane.
	Well, and here's the ultimate outcome: Bloomberg and others trying to tell you what's good for you and then changing their mind every couple of years.
	Their last solution becomes the next problem, if you know what I'm saying.
	A parody that Rush played that deserves to be replayed on this issue.
	To protect the state of your health 40 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.
	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 law.
	Hey, buddy, want some of the good stuff.
	Sure.
	Follow me right down this alley.
	What's the password?
	Rush.
	Okay, welcome to the Third Avenue Grease Easy.
	Grease Easy?
	That's right.
	They're 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 going to 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 rushlimbaugh.com.
	Taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	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 heard of LT, I thought of Lawrence Taylor, not LaDanius Tomlinson.
	Well, you used to think about Lawrence Taylor, but I'll tell you what, LaDani and Tomlinson, 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 the highest peak you can get to.
	The best back they've ever had.
	Well, maybe.
	I still think Gail Sayers.
	But anyway, you guys got a rookie for a quarterback.
	Come on.
	What's your record?
	What's the Ravens' record again?
	Just refresh my memory.
	Well, they're one behind you, I know.
	But 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 Maximus time.
	I'll tell you what, Rich.
	We will see what we will see as we get into the playoffs because our coach, Schottenheimer, I'll give it to you.
	This is the winningest NFL coach in history, but the losingest when it comes to playoffs and all the rest of that.
	So I understand all that.
	I understand the doubts about Rivers, the quarterback.
	I understand all that.
	But let me just put my money down right now on the Chargers going all the way.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	I don't think so.
	I know you don't think so.
	You were having a hard time waking up, Rich.

▲