All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
January 30, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm not sure that this is it.
I'm gonna have to do one more thing, but uh to find out.
But you know, we had the we had a caller who said he was reading a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is called foreign policy.
Or foreign affairs or something.
But I I I have a story here that posted this month from foreign policy.com about insurgents and how they can't win.
How they our insurgents rarely win, and uh Iraq won't be any different.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB network, uh telephone number 800-282-2882, if you'd like to join us.
Uh Donald Stoker is the author of this piece.
I got curious about this guy's call.
Because it really if this is the CFR publication, I'm I'm I was I was intrigued with the fact that they would publish this, given who they are.
I mean, they're they're uh think tank, uh basically, they have scholars from across the political spectrum.
Still, I mean the CFR is uh basically a liberal bunch.
Vietnam taught many Americans the wrong lesson that determined guerrilla fighters are invincible, but history shows that insurgents rarely win, and Iraq should be no different.
Now that it finally has a winning strategy, the Bush administration is in a race against time to beat the insurgency before the public's patience finally wears out.
Uh that the insurgents can't be beaten is a myth.
Because history shows otherwise.
The cold hard truth about the Bush administration's strategy of surging additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work.
Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe.
Iraq's various insurgent groups have succeeded in creating a lot of chaos, but they're likely not strong enough to succeed in the long term.
Sending more troops to Iraq with the aim of pacifying Baghdad could provide a foundation for their ultimate defeat, but only if the United States does not repeat its uh previous mistakes.
Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America's collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam.
This loss is generally credited to the brilliance and military virtues of the pajama clad Viet Cong.
The Vietnamese may have been tough and persistent, but they were not brilliant, rather they were lucky.
They faced an opponent with leaders unwilling to learn from their failures, the United States.
When a Viet Cong went toe to toe with U.S. forces in the 68 Tet Offensive, they were decimated.
When South Vietnam finally fell in 75, it did so not to the Viet Cong, but to regular units of the invading North Vietnamese army.
The Viet Cong insurgency contributed greatly to the erosion of the American public's will to fight, but so did the way President Johnson and the American military waged the war.
It was North Vietnam's will and America's failure, not skillful use of an insurgency that were the keys to Hanoi's victory.
Insurgencies generally fail if uh all they are able to do is fight an irregular war.
Successful practitioners of the guerrilla art form uh from Nathaniel Green and the American Revolution to Mao Tse Tong in the Chinese Civil War have insisted upon having a regular army for which their guerrilla forces serve mainly as an adjunct.
Combating an insurgency typically requires eight to eleven years.
But the administration has done such a poor job of managing U.S. public opinion, to say nothing of the war itself, that it has exhausted many of its uh reservoirs of support.
One tragedy of the Iraq war may be that the administration's new strategy came too late to avert a rare decisive insurgent victory.
Now, Donald Stoker is uh the author of this piece, is professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College's Mattere program.
His opinions are his own, it says here, is the author of uh uh or editor of a number of works.
Uh, and again, this is foreign policy.com.
That may be what the caller was referring to.
Could quite possibly uh be the uh be the case.
Along the same lines, in uh it's it's strange to read a piece like this, is it?
I as I read it, is it not strange for you to hear it?
That we're doing well, and that we could win, and we could do even better.
Here's another piece like that uh that runs in a Canadian newspaper.
Uh And it's it's sort of sad and odd that you have to read this point of view in a Canadian newspaper.
It's by Paul Jackson.
He says, President George W. Bush is going to persevere and prevail in beating world terrorism and bringing stable democracies to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
There will be no wavering and no withdrawal.
These were the heartening words given me by U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.
So the mischief makers, the defeatists, the fellow travelers and the liberal left cabal better get out their handkerchiefs and start sobbing.
Their ignoble cause will fail.
The course of decency and democracy will win.
Now, Wilkins, who visited the uh the um the Sun, which is the newspaper here for an editorial board meeting this past week is very astute and articulate.
He spent 25 years in the South Carolina House of Representatives, eleven of them as speaker.
During those 25 years, he was on the cutting edge of most major reform initiatives, from welfare reform to property tax relief, and from educational accountability to truth and sentencing laws.
He's affable, engaging, but has a steel trap mind.
It's very much like his boss back in the White House.
As noted by Sun columnist Salem Mansoor, the best commentator by far in Canada and uh on the Middle East in Islamic terrorism, Michael Novak, the noted Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher, recently described Bush as the bravest president for staying firm in confronting the contemporary barbarians despite the venom of his peers.
The U.S. ambassador echoed those sentiments, pointing out that Bush will determinedly do what's right rather than what the polls may say is unpopular.
America's salvation matters more than what the temporary up and down swings in the polls say.
The 9-11 attacks in the World Trade Center towers in the Pentagon, when Bush had been in the White House little more than one year changed the entire direction of a president.
The piece goes on and on and on, praising Bush.
Now, admittedly, the source for this is uh our ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, but the columnist readily agrees with it and supports it.
You just don't see this kind of stuff in the media.
You don't see praise of Bush for his.
I mean, even in to the point now where in uh in Republican circles, uh conservative publishing circles and this sort of thing, you're starting to see what is this guy is out of his mind, he's not listening to anybody for tone deaf there, asking all these questions about him because the um, you know, the inertia for failure and defeat has been increasing, and it's been consistently going on for a long, long, long time.
And it's just these both these two stories in uh in foreign affairs, I'm sorry, foreign policy uh.com and this Canadian newspaper are so rare that uh they stood out.
A quick time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
More phone calls.
We got audio sound bites still to come.
Senator Kennedy once again on a roll over the minimum wage and the problems they're having in the Senate.
Uh getting the tax cuts for small business out of the minimum wage bill.
Sit tight, be right back.
Okay, I finally had time to look it up out there.
And I was wrong.
Foreign policy is not part of the CFR.
Uh foreign policy, the article from which I just read is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which is even more striking.
Because the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Uh uh you don't get more left-leaning than that crowd.
And they get some guy publishing a piece on how insurgencies rarely win.
And if we just have the fortitude to tough this out, we could uh prevail because the Iraqis do not have a regular army.
Well, they do, but it's on our side.
David Broder in the Washington Post yesterday just slammed Hillary Clinton to the floor.
Big time.
General Petraeus wasn't welcome at Clinton's listening session, is the headline.
When General Petraeus came before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week in open Session.
Its members understandably had many questions for the new commander.
They knew of his reputation.
They recognized the difficulty and importance of his new assignment.
Few of the questions were naive, self-serving or off on tangents, but virtually the entire membership of the committee was present.
And senators of both parties recognized the value of probing this experienced and candid witness, with one exception.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York used her time to make a speech about a rock policy and did not ask a single question of the man who will be leading the military campaign.
She had no questions to ask.
McCain asked Petraeus fourteen questions, for example.
Last week Clinton began her presidential campaign as she did her first race for the Senate in New York by saying she wanted to do a lot of listening.
She sure wasn't listening to General Petraeus, let alone asking a question.
Washington Post, David Broder, the dean of the DC punditocracy, slamming Mrs. Clinton to the mat to the floor.
It was huge.
By the way, we had a hacker get a couple of these conversations she's having on her website.
We'll play those again, but we've got people on the phones.
We gotta we have a controversy here, folks, and we have to resolve this.
We'll start in Jackson, New Jersey with Lee.
Lee, welcome, and it's uh great to have you with us.
Hey Rush, long time listener, first time caller.
Thank you.
Former Democrat, now Republican, had to re had to respond to the cow lady about Barbara.
Uh no can do.
Horses have to mount a mare or a phantom as it's called.
Yeah, wait, now wait, wait, wait, let me bring a callers up to speed, as you know, uh each broadcast minute here brings a new audience, and they may be wondering what is this.
What am I talking about?
Yeah.
Um we've we've had a woman called earlier saying that this uh whole Barbaro business, the horse was was kept alive much longer than he should have been because of money, because of the stud fees and so forth.
And the caller implied that uh it is possible uh to obtain a semen from the horse for artificial insemination, even though I pointed out this a violation of uh rules in thoroughbed racing, and then she claimed that there are techniques.
I I jokingly said, Well, I dunno do you know how to masturbate a horse?
I figure they only know how to do that in Washington.
And she oh, there's a technique, and I'm certified.
That is why Lee here is calling.
And that's why Lee explained to us that the So start at the beginning now that uh the stallion has to has to has to mount.
Yes, he has to stand up on his hind legs, which of course Barbara couldn't do because he had a broken hind leg.
And he has to mount a mare of or a fake mare called a phantom in order to produce as the cow lady called the essence.
Yeah.
So as you said, even if he couldn't.
What is a fake phantom?
This could come in handy sometime.
It is an oblong uh thing on legs that they train the horse to jump uh for certain registries that do allow artificial incidents.
Wait a second.
They can trick a male horse i i i'm I'm getting a picture here that they can trick a male horse into thinking a piece of wood is a mare.
Uh more or less, yes.
That's simplifying it a bit, but yes.
Well, simplifying it is oftentimes the most powerful way to make a point.
Well, that's it, in a nutshell.
Well, not quite a nudge.
So, but that's only half the story, Lee.
Yes.
They can't do they can't do it with thoroughbreds because even if they could have gotten him to do that, uh, all thoroughbreds are DNA tested, and he would not have been able to register any of his offspring because he did not live cover a mayor.
Right.
So his his essence is would be virtually useless.
Is there is there there's no artificial way to uh extract the essence.
Well, there probably is by a veterinarian, uh, other than uh jumping on a mayor, but that is the way that is always done for artificial uh dissemination.
Okay, I'm not gonna ask any more questions.
I Yeah, you don't want to get into No, I really don't.
I I I've uh the picture here is enough.
Uh that there's got to be a the the thing is there has to be a third party involved in this mounting business.
Right.
Yeah, I mean what that person's doing is what I'm curious about.
Well, yes, he's he's uh he's he's using what they call an artificial vagina, if you want to go into the details and it's put on the horse.
Well, it's just it's so unfair to trick these stallions like this.
I think.
That's why the thoroughbred and the jockey club people don't allow it.
But anyway, the the uh Jacksons are lovely people.
I um i i they I'm sure had the horse insured for mortality.
If all they cared about was money, they would have put him down right away.
Right.
They c they cared about the horse an awful lot.
Um sure they did.
That's uh major med major medical is almost impossible to get, and even then only for very, very minor problems.
So do you really want to go there?
The horse had more health care than some Americans get?
No, you can't get it for for racehorses.
They don't they don't pivot.
They will give mortality.
The racehorses you can't get it.
Well, it sounds like a health care crisis for thoroughbreds to me.
It's a huge health care crisis for thoroughbreds.
Not just afflicting 46 Americans.
There are a bunch of thoroughbreds that can't get health care coverage.
We need Hillary care for thoroughbred.
Uh we certainly do.
Well, we're we're learning so much here with the life and death of this great champion, Barbero.
Thanks, Lee, for the phone call.
I appreciate it.
Uh Jim in Shasta Lake, California.
You're next.
Hello, sir.
Yes, hi, Rush.
Hi.
What I have to say is gonna kind of dovetail a little bit uh towards what your last caller.
That's why we took your call now, yeah.
But um I for many years uh used to assist, and then I got to where I was able to to uh uh uh do it somewhat myself.
You're talking about what I think you're talking about.
Yes, yes.
masturbatory techniques, okay.
We didn't use an artificial mare.
We used a mare that was in season.
A mayor that was ready to to receive a stallion.
Yeah.
And we'd bring the stallion out, and he would become uh excited and ready to mount the mayor, and he would mount the mayor, and just upon as soon as he mounted the mare, uh uh a very well lubricated uh neoprene or p nylon or uh type condom was slipped over the the the sheath of the horse.
Who the hell did that?
The veterinarian would do it.
And the stallion with this uh sheath that was slipped over him, he thought that he had entered the mayor because it was a completely different feeling.
He would start his one or two or three uh pumps or thrusts, and he would ejaculate down into uh uh the end of this sleeve into a uh uh sterilized uh container.
And that was the semen that you could get from a from a stallion.
And whereas Barbaro, he wouldn't be able to do that for quite some time until his leg strengthened because a horse has to stand on his two hind legs.
Yeah.
Right now his leg wasn't wasn't strong enough.
But he could have he could have done that, maybe, had his leg uh gotten better, he could have done that in i in the future.
Yeah, but and they would have been semen.
No, wait a minute, let me finish.
They would have been able to take this human and they could they could uh inseminate grade mayors.
They could not uh uh inseminate uh uh a registered thoroughbred.
A grade mayor the like that would produce something that would run at county fairs and places like this, not in the not in the big three, the the Kentucky Derby Pimlico and and so forth.
But they could they could have great mayors.
We got one minute here.
After this sock condom with the lubricant, which will interest uh Senator Reed, uh because he represents lubricants, uh big lubricant industries in in Nevada.
Right.
Uh what's the mayor do?
Does the mayor figure out here that uh I mean the mayor gets tricked along with the stallion.
The stallion thinks everything's normal.
What's the mayor doing here?
She's she's standing there uh uh sort of in a squatting type uh position, ready to receive the stallion, which she never does because uh the the the the shaft of the of the Stallion's penis doesn't enter the mayor at any point.
Well, I that's the point.
How long is the mayor going to put up with this?
Well before trying to walk away.
I got to figure something's not happening here.
The stallions having a ball, and the mayor, nothing uh not a painting, an intelligent picture of these beasts.
Rusty's tied up in a breeding stall.
Oh, that is she's a prisoner.
It's like she's like she's like a reverse dominatrix.
Okay.
Now it makes sense.
I'm thinking this happens out in the open, you know, in the middle of the corral.
Um you never know what you're going to learn here, folks.
Let's say we're close to that today.
Since we have been talking about essence and uh and sperm, that's got to be a brave veterinarian to get.
Man, there are heroes out there, courageous people.
Um just wouldn't you wouldn't know the things people do.
But speaking of all this sperm business, you remember when Lurch, uh Senator Kerry visited the Kennedy Space Center during the 2004 presidential campaign, and he he looked like a sperm.
He did done some costume they call a bunny the bunny costume, and he was in his white tubing and stuff climbing through it.
Uh, it looked like a sperm.
And his this goofy smile on his face.
Well, his apparently it turns out that uh uh the whole visit broke the law.
His visit to the Kennedy Space Center violated the law according to a federal watchdog agency.
NASA allowed Kerry to conduct a political stump speech and rally at the Space Center and broadcast it to Kennedy Space Center employees, and that part violates the law, according to the orifice of the special counsel.
Uh beaming the presidential campaign rally to government employees all over the spaceport violates laws prohibiting electioneering using federal resources.
Uh that they just you know, no big deal now, because lurch is in Davos avoiding extradition on this.
Uh but it was the visit, as they say here, uh, that was uh more famous for a picture of Carrie that showed him in a standard issue bunny suit climbing inside a space shuttle orbiter.
That's not what I saw.
He was in white tubing, dressed up in that bunny suit, and he looked like a sperm in there.
And that's what we called.
I'm sure that we've got an archive at Rush Limbaugh.com and we could put that picture back up.
Now, there's a story here from the Washington uh Times.
Uh sorry, Washington Post from Sunday.
And I just got around, it's a long story, and I'm I'm not gonna go through the whole thing with you.
It's written by Linda Hirschman, and it's it's just amazing.
Let me give you just a couple of quotes here.
In every election, there's a chance that women will be the decisive force that will elect someone who embraces their views, yet they never seem to have done so.
My own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors.
They don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in the direction they want it to go.
Instead, they vote on impulse and on elusive factors such as personality.
That Linda Hirschman, the author of this, is a woman.
She's and a feminist.
She's a she's describing these women, you you all the women in America as little empty-headed pretty little deers pulling the lever for the nicest or the cutest candidate.
So you get a feminist insulting women.
Let me let me just give you some some some spare quotes here.
As much as it pains a feminist like me to say it, a lot of Hillary Clinton's campaign will have to involve putting her on the couch and analyzing her character and motivation.
Again, my own theory is that women don't decide elections because they're not rational political actors.
They don't make firm policy commitments and back the candidates who will move society in their direction the way they want it to go.
Instead, they vote on impulse and on elusive Factors such as personality.
With Clinton's candidacy on the horizon, I decided to test my theory by asking a few white married women, the key demographic, what they are up to this time.
If any women were going to be politically aware, I figured it would be those in the Washington area.
So I contacted half a dozen members of the Wednesday morning group, a D.C. area organization that provides speakers and programs mostly for stay-at-home moms.
A 49-year-old former public relations executive in suburban Maryland told me she votes the political agenda she learned from her lefty father.
She reads the post, but there are no books on her bedside table.
She counts on her husband to tell her what's in the nation magazine and on the web.
Thirty-six-year-old former financial sales executive considers herself an independent, reads only the style and weekend sections of the Post and the Marketplace and Personal Journal sections of the Wall Street Journal.
She counts on her husband, a Republican, to tell her what's interesting in the rest of the paper.
A former human rights activist told me that she still reads the New York Times, skims The Economist, and gathers political information from the news hour on PBS, uh a local broadcast from the BBC and her church.
Her church.
A liberal getting political information from her church.
Most of the women read people and real simple magazines.
They all listen to news in the car radio, mostly NPR.
Mostly uh all of their full-time working husbands consume immeasurably more political information than they do.
Now hang on.
This gets even better.
Because I, if after every week we've had these year of the woman elections, and we've had the soccer moms, and we've had the drive-by media and propagandists telling us every year that the candidate that wins has to get women.
And every year I break down election results and I find out that whoever got the majority of men is who wins.
Presidential races I'm talking about here.
Now here's Linda Hirschman in the Washington Post on Sunday.
Any campaign she says that needs women to win would have to break the eighty-eight-year record of women failing to produce election results that men oppose.
Can I read that to you again?
Because it makes my point.
Any campaign that needs women to win would have to break the eighty-eight-year record of women failing to produce election results that men oppose.
To this day, even as my DC area correspondents seem to confirm women just aren't as interested in politics as men are.
Worse, women consistently score ten to twenty percentage points lower than men on studies of political knowledge, regardless of their education or their income level.
Two million more men than women read either Time or Newsweek, more men listen at radio news and talk radio, read the paper, and get news online.
Only broadcast television news plays to more women than men, and a lot of that is TV news magazines and morning shows.
So-called liberal women are the majority of swing voters, those tantalizing independent late deciders in every election.
While men remained committed to Republicans Ronaldus Magnus, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush throughout the campaigns, women polled heavily for Democrats Mondole, Dukakis, and John Kerry as late as September before settling in to vote Republican or anemically Democratic in November.
The second lesson, I'm just reading excerpts here.
The second lesson is that ill elections turn on the female electorate bear an unfortunate resemblance to a popularity contest.
The Republicans have succeeded with women at the polls when they've made Democrats look not just mistaken but clownish or geeky.
Reagan in blue jeans beat Jimmy Carter in a cardigan.
George H. W. Bush looked like John Wayne next to De Caucus in the tank.
And who knows what would have happened if Carrie hadn't donned a wetsuit to go windsurfing.
It wasn't that.
It was just that.
It was the sperm picture.
It was, you know, reclaiming mounting his swift boat and taking Boston Harbor again on his way to the convention.
He was a clown all the way through.
Now, if Hillary Clinton's going to stand a chance in 2008, her campaign may have to discredit the Republican nominee.
As political scientist Diane Bistrum has found it doesn't hurt female candidates when they go negative.
And if women are going to make their political decisions based on impulse, then anyone needing their votes, women's votes, is going to have to make sure no one wants to sit with the other guy in the cafeteria.
It was illuminating how often the Wednesday women spoke of Clinton's toughness.
This sounds like women never get out of high school.
And this is a feminist writing this.
There's a feminist in the Washington Post.
Say, y this is almost a case for taking away women's right to vote because they're irresponsible.
It's a popularity contest, has nothing to do with policy.
They depend on their husbands to tell them what's important in a newspaper.
You can say that Miss Hirschman is making the case, partially, that one of the biggest mistakes in American history was women's suffrage.
Now you people in real Linda, that doesn't mean suffering and all that suffrage is is vote rights.
Voting the right to go vote.
Look it up.
There's no E in it.
Jim in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Glad to be speaking to you, Rosh.
Thank you, sir.
It turns out that uh this thing about Harry Reed acquiring the property for a in northern Nevada for a song versus its uh actual valuation is a lot bigger than it appears to be.
In fact, it apparently crosses over into being a potentially serious crime because Harry acquired the property from a pension fund.
All IRS qualified pension funds are regulated by the Department of Labor and the IRS.
When an employer establishes one, the money must be paid into a separate trust, exempt from the claims of the employer's creditors, that's legally required to be administered by the employer in the sole interest of the covered employees.
Yeah, but this is even this is even worse than that because this pension fund was owned by a fringe a friend of Harry Reed's who had dealings with him before Congress.
This guy was in a lubricants business.
That's right.
And and the we're talking about here, folks, at Los Angeles Time Story yesterday, and they've done a number of these on Harry Reid, and none of them stick.
None of them go any further than the Los Angeles Times.
But you're right.
He got he got he got land that was valued uh oh ten times what he paid for it.
He paid $10,000 for 166 acres or some such thing that was undeveloped at the time.
And the point is that the owner of the the owner of the land, the the uh administrator of the pension plan, did not have the legal right to make the sweetheart deal selling the land for such a minuscule amount.
It in it was in effect an embezzlement from the pension plan.
Interesting.
Why can't they sell it for whatever price they want to sell it for?
I wonder what if they wanted to sell it to me?
I have no relationship with them.
I can't do anything for them in Congress.
They why couldn't they sell it to me for whatever price they wanted?
Um, if it was if it was much less than the market price, they couldn't because they're legally required to administer the plan in the best interest of the beneficiary.
Ah.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, if a a pension plan trustee is a fiduciary, and he is a fiduciary who is legally required to act in the interest of the plan's beneficiaries.
I know this.
I'm a retired lawyer, and I spent many years working administering pension plans.
All right.
Well, quick question, I got no more than twenty seconds here.
Do you think anything will come of it?
Unfortunately, no.
I think I think that'll happen as soon as pigs fly without airplanes.
Exactly right.
We could talk about that every day on this program, and it wouldn't get picked up, and it would go nowhere.
Would not happen.
LA Times may run follow-ups, but it won't get beyond the LA Times.
The pensioners aren't going to raise a stink because this company is owned but a lubricant's guy, and he basically is the pension plan.
I mean, that's that's not I have to reread this, but I I I the whole thing looks fishy to me, and it is.
There's there's no question.
Anyway, I have to run here, folks, because of the constraints of the busy program format here back in just a second.
All right, just in case, uh have sound bites 20 and 21 standing by.
Couple of news items here, folks.
Um Tada Al-Sadr, Muki, the radical Shiite cleric, uh has uh changed his mind and has ordered his militia not to confront U.S. forces.
In fact, has endorsed negotiations aimed at easing the deployment of American troops in his strongholds.
The soderist movement has given its blessing to an initiative led by one of two mayors of Soder City to negotiate terms under which U.S. forces will be able to deploy freely there.
If the negotiations succeed, forces, U.S. forces will be welcome in Sauter City.
Second such story in two weeks.
There was one last week.
Now, you know, you gotta be careful you don't walk into a Trojan horse trap here, but still interesting.
Uh a lot of myths about the uh Super Bowl, uh, and they're not true.
And here are some of them.
Two-thirds of all avocados sold in the United States purchased for consumption during the Super Bowl.
Water department officials across the country fearfully await the halftime flush.
Lingerie sales jump in the days before the Super Bowl as women look for ways to woo their men away from the big game.
None of those are true.
False, false, and false.
And yet they come.
And there's all another one at some uh media watchdog group fair, something put out, claiming that uh more spousal abuse uh is rampant on Super Bowl Sunday.
And it uh isn't the case either.
Uh so anyway, and a great story in the Washington Post today by Gio Bottagori, the bogus science of second hand smoke.
Former National Cancer Institute, head honcho.
Um says that secondhand smoke studies are not slam dunk science.
It is a guess that secondhand smoke is deadly, and that guess moves to consensus to advance a cause.
It's political.
There is no consensus in science.
Now, on page three of this story, the this guy says, hey, look, you know, redo reducing smoking is laudable, but don't lie about it.
Don't lie to do it.
There is no provable death rate associated with second hand smoke.
Here's Cliff in Susanville, California.
Hey, Cliff, uh, welcome to the uh program.
Hi, Rush.
Uh that traitor traitorous old Mag has raised her ugly head again, and I'm referring to what was her name?
Uh Barbarella.
Oh, we're talking about other horse.
Well, same, same, same, I think.
Yeah, I mean, it isn't isn't it interesting, folks, that Jane Fonda comes out of what?
Pickling uh for the last 34 years and has to lead the anti-war movement again.
I mean, there's no can we get a new face?
We're all tired of Sean Penn.
We're tired of Susan Serena.
We're tired, we're tired of uh who the hell else?
What's his name?
Tim Robbins.
It's the same old carrier.
Who?
Sean Sean Penn.
Yeah, what did I say?
Sam Penn?
What if we all know who I'm talking about?
Um Jane Fonda to lead the thing.
I mean, half that crowd was on prep H. The other half are wearing diapers.
Well, I mean, the point is that the anti-war movement has not grown.
It has not recruited new young people or uh anything of the sort.
Let's see.
Well, there's just not enough time to be fair with another caller.
The Senator Kennedy sound bites.
We have to save these for tomorrow because a couple of others, too.
Uh and cookie, make just give me these Hillary sound bites in a separate page.
Have them so Mike can keep them standing by every day because this is not uh going to vanish or go away.
Oh, I forgot to get to the soundbite uh where my name is mentioned by someone as possibly one of the evil men that Hillary Clinton was discussing.
We'll be back and close it out here in a sec.
Uh just sitting here looking at the latest issue of the limbo letter, hot off the presses.
I get mine first because I own it.
Uh this issue, have we lost our toughness?
Look at that logo, the the official mascot uh of feminists today.
It's a lizard fire-breathing lizard dragon.
Um this is the uh the February issue.
You you guys will get yours in March, but I have mine now.
Only kidding.
See you now, folks.
Have a great, great Tuesday.
Can't wait to be back with you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection