All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:22
February 23, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
Hey, greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
It was only 21 hours ago that we left you.
And it seems like just five minutes ago.
That's how fast time flies here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
L. Rushboy, your host for life.
Getting things started on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
Well, I can't wait to see what Snerdley comes up with today on the phones.
Given that it's uh open line Friday.
Here are the rules for open line Friday.
When we go to the phones, the show is yours.
You own it.
You can talk about anything.
I don't have to care about it, which is a standard rule for Monday through Thursday.
If I don't care about it, Monday through Thursday, we don't talk about it.
But on Friday, I take one of the greatest career risks known to exist in big media.
By turning over content of the program, we go to phone calls to uh people that are not highly trained, broadcast specialists.
A fun thrill ride.
Here's the phone number if you'd like to join us today.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
I knew this.
I knew that I I marvel at at uh I mean I continue to marvel, even though I'm 56 years old and I have a lot of life experiences documenting that my instincts are right on the money.
I continue to marvel when my instincts continue to be validated.
I have long said that the worst thing in life is meetings.
Meetings get nothing done.
Well, I mean, they may get something done, but I mean they stifle creativity.
They stifle spontaneity.
I don't mean this to be critical of anything.
Remember, when I did my uh award-winning tele well, should have won an award, it didn't, my ratings champion TV program uh back from 1910-2 to 96.
It television is a whole different animal or radio.
And uh we had a production staff working on the on the program during the day while I was here working on the big radio program, and the uh, you know, they have to talk to them in the morning and tell them what I was interested in, what uh what in the news excited me, and then they went about trying to find various uh video clips that would uh would fit and produce various things.
And when I get over there, the studio after the show had to have another meeting, it's a total of probably two hours of meetings to do a 22-minute television show, which is fine if it's the way it is, but I'd not go grown up that way in this business.
I've never had one meeting with anybody to do this radio program.
Not one.
I just uh just sit down and do it.
And it it allows for spontaneity.
And the problem with these meetings is all you don't want to hurt anybody's feelings in the meeting, and you end up, I've always thought you end up with groupthink, j just just to end the meeting.
Everybody agrees just to get out of there.
Well, lo and behold, here's a story from life science.com.
Meetings make us dumber.
Study shows.
People have a harder time coming up with alternative solutions to a problem when they're part of a group.
According to new research, scientists exposed study participants to one brand of soft drink, then asked them to think of uh alternative brands, alone they came up with a lot more products than when they were grouped with two or more other people.
The finding could be good news for advertisers who buy commercials during big events like the Super Bowl, since consumers often view those commercials with others.
Here's the bottom line.
When a group gets together, they can miss out on good options, said the uh study team member H. Shanker Krishnan.
Uh, this could mean ordering from a pizza place advertised on TV, uh, even if there's a better option, or making a poor decision in the boardroom, whether it's with family or a group of co-workers, we could very quickly fixate on things and all come up with the same options just to get out of there.
Never been a fan of meetings, which is why when I gave it a stab in the corporate world, I bombed big time.
Just uh I mean, who individuality gets suppressed uh in a meeting and uh in in more ways than once.
I'm happy once again to have another instinct validated.
Have you seen this story about rats, runaway rats at a Kentucky fried chicken taco bell restaurant in New York in the West Village?
WCBS TV has the video on their website.
You can You can actually uh access it via the drudge page.
It's hilarious.
It is hilarious.
The rats are running all over the place like they own the restaurant.
The reporters standing there, just like reporters go out in the middle of snowstorms or rainstorms, tell us it's raining or snowing.
Reporters standing there in front of the rats, scurrying all over the place, eating crumbs off the floor.
And they're big rats, like a pound or a pound and a half.
And they're just oblivious.
They couldn't care less to the cameras in there watching them.
They run around on the place.
Other animal news.
Get this headline.
Beaver spotted in New York City for the first time in two centuries.
That's hard to believe.
This is the rodent beaver.
Beavers grace New York City's official seal, but the uh rodents haven't been seen in the flesh for as many as two hundred years.
But biologists videotaped a beaver swimming up the Bronx River on Wednesday.
They found its twig and mud lodge.
It'd been spotted earlier on the riverbank, but the tape confirmed the presence of the uh animal itself.
The problem here is that we're encroaching on natural habitats.
Beavers have nowhere to go, but where we live now.
Fitzpatrick must be sweating it out.
The Libby jury's still out.
It's hard to say what this means, other than there isn't unanimity on the part of the jury one way or the other.
One of the uh one of the uh uh conventional wisdom bits was that the best that could be hoped for here was uh a uh uh a hung jury.
You know, this this this Libby, when this is all over, and when when people are free to speak about this, I I hope the country is made aware, and I'll do my part, in what a total travesty this whole thing is.
This has never been about Valerie Plame.
If it were about Valerie Plame and her covert or not covert, in fact, the judge told the jury twice, I don't know what her status was, and we're not gonna learn it in this trial because it doesn't matter.
And he told the jury they're not gonna learn what her status was, covert or not, and it doesn't matter.
Well, if that doesn't matter, what was this case about?
You know, the uh the original leaker was never brought under oath, never pursued Richard Armitage.
I'll tell you what this was.
This was an attempt by the CIA and the Justice Department to nail the Bush administration.
I am convinced now, and I've read a piece of the American Thinker.com yesterday posted by Clarice Feldman, who's brilliant and who's been uh lawyer herself.
She's been following the trials, been blogging from the uh from the courthouse.
And it is it is obvious that uh there was this was a team up between elements of the CIA and the Department of Justice to bring down the Bush administration.
Uh it it it it it it we'll post the link to Clarissa's piece at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's at the American thinker.com.
And you can you can read this.
It is just it is just stunning, and it confirms it confirms the suspicions of many people all along that it had nothing to do with Valerie Plame, it had nothing to do with Joseph Wilson, that the target here was Dick Cheney and and Fitzpatrick uh as much as said this in his closing arguments uh before the jury.
Uh it's just it is it is really a travesty.
In fact, Clarice makes the point that what was really the focal point here was a national intelligence estimate, the national intelligence estimate, uh N N E N I E that made it plain the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger, not the office of the vice president.
And and Libby wanted that declassified to get it out there.
Because if that had happened, that would have spelled the end of this whole thing, because this whole thing relied on the media getting all hot to trot and spreading the story that it was the White House that was that was outing Joe Wilson.
They were trying to criminalize politics.
Joe Wilson's out there lying through his teeth about what his mission to Niger discovered, claiming that the White House sent him.
Uh and and the White House said, Well, who is this guy?
We don't know who he sent.
We don't know we didn't send this guy.
Who is he?
What did he find?
His report was not even submitted in writing.
He was suggested for this trip by his wife, the now infamous Valerie Plame.
Uh and one thing just leads to another, and so Libby wanted to get this NIE declassified.
He went to a lawyer in the White House, said what's the can the pri can the president do this?
Can the president declassify a national intelligence estimate?
Can he do this on his own?
Anyway, this whole case was about that national intelligence estimate remaining classified so that throughout this whole trial, throughout the whole escapade leading up to the trial, um it would never be made public by either the CIA or the Department of Justice that in fact the CIA had sent Wilson and not the office of the vice president.
And so there are now suspicious eyes aimed at George Tennett, because he clearly knew this.
Left the White House, hung out to drive.
Maybe he was upset over being hung out to dry himself on Iraqi intelligence or what have you.
But uh but Libby was as high as Fitzpatrick could get.
He was shooting for Cheney, hoping to get Bush, maybe and Rove.
Uh misled them into thinking they were not targets when they were.
I mean, this is a this is a it's a gigantic travesty.
And it I read this thing, that piece that Clarice wrote makes me wonder how in the name of hell this can happen in the United States of America.
So Fitzpatrick is uh is sweating it out, Fitz Russert sweating it out, Fitz Matthews is sweating it out.
Uh nobody knows what it means that the jury has yet to uh come back.
Fitz Sultzberger at the New York Times is uh probably sweating this out just a little bit before we go to the break.
New website, thepolitico.com.
This is made up of a number of reporters in Washington.
He used to work for newspapers.
And they did an interview, Roger Simon, one of these reporters did an interview with Schwarzenegger on his political future, on McCain on Rudy, on Hillary on Iraq and more.
And here is the pull quote from the interview.
Schwarzenegger thinks Democrats should stop criticizing Hillary Clinton for refusing to say that she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq War.
I read this what what?
What in the name of Sam Hill is this?
Schwarzenegger advising Democrats to shut up and stop criticizing Hillary for refusing to say she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war.
Also in this story, his wife Maria Schriver will absolutely not run for governor, says Arnold, or any other public office.
Probably doesn't have to.
What in the what in the world?
What could possibly be behind?
What could be the motivation?
Why w what's in what's in Schwarzenegger's head to tell this guy Roger Simon at the Politico.com that Democrats ought to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton.
Alternative Universe Day possibly here.
Quick timeout will be back and continue.
Open line Friday right after this.
By the way, Judge Schindler Sidlin uh didn't make it to the Anna Nicole trial today.
Don't know what happened to him.
I don't know if this is scheduled or not.
We have an audio sound by the guy breaking down in tears yesterday.
We're gonna get to that later.
Uh it's to the phones now because it's open line fry.
By the way, how many of you people shop at IKEA?
Don, do you shop in IKEA?
You been to an IKEA?
What about you, Mrs. Snerdley?
You been I I've uh driven by them.
I always get them confused with the car.
You know, the the Kia car I haven't been in one.
But I you you you people at Shop at IKEA, I mean, uh they are gunning for you here in America.
They are gunning for you.
I got details coming up in the meantime.
Here's Joy.
I'm sorry, Jay in uh in Stillwater uh uh Maine.
Welcome to the program.
Megadetto's old magnificent Maha Rashi from the great state of Maine.
Thank you, sir.
I was listening to yesterday's show and a thought occurred to me.
I'm wondering if your profit center has any plans to patent some of these terrific taglines you're coming up with.
I mean, you know, the ownership of defeat.
I'm just waiting for that to be part of the mainstream vernacular here in conservative blogs and conservative talk radio, just as uh the term invested in defeat in drive-by media, I hear almost every day or read about it.
Um, you know, we don't we don't we don't trademark these things because we here are like Ronald Reagan.
We are not interested in the credit.
We're not interested in profiting uh off of these uh phrases in every instance.
I mean, we we have a thriving merchandise business at Club Gitno and some other things, but um it is it is satisfaction Enough for us here to invent and create these popularizations and have them end up throughout the media, throughout the drive-by media.
We know that we are constantly stolen from on this program, and there's simply no way to stop it.
And in fact, we look at it as flattery uh when we are purloined, ripped off and uh and stolen from.
But I uh I appreciate the comment.
Speaking of speaking of owning defeat uh and the ownership of defeat, uh, he's referencing the the brilliant and stirring monologue that opened the program yesterday.
And just just to illustrate how on the mark that was, here's the latest headline, Senate Democrats move to limit Iraq mission.
Now we knew this was going to happen because Senator Schumer gleefully promised that it would.
Senator Schumer's out there saying we're gonna resolution this place today, we're gonna paper, we're we're just gonna issue paper after paper, resolution after resolution, we're gonna isolate the president, we're gonna create another Vietnam.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Where we lost.
And millions died, and uh Democrats ended up losing elections in landslides for years.
Here's the evidence determined to challenge President Bush, Senate Democrats are drafting legislation to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority that Congress granted in 2002.
What they want to do, say that the that Mertha has screwed up.
Mertha has screwed up big time because he can't keep his trap shut.
Mirtha went out there and divulged for everybody the strategy involved in his slow bleed plan.
Not allow reinforcements, uh, slow down the process of troop rotations, not provide armor and equipment, basically making sure they can't do their jobs, so the president has no choice but then to bring them home.
Carl Levin other Senate Democrats kind of, no, no, no, no, don't do that.
But Mertha couldn't shut up.
They managed to get him shut up before the election.
They can't keep him quiet now.
And uh once you give up the marketing plan, people are not going to be as susceptible to fall for it or seduced by it.
So the Democrats in the Senate think they have to take over.
Their plan now, as they own defeat, is to go back and say that the 2002 resolution of force that they all signed, authorizing the resolution or authorizing the use of force uh that they granted in 2002 should be revoked.
That they want to go do this.
And this is gonna lead to another constitutional challenge, perhaps crisis, in the word crisis is overdone, uh although this may lead to one, because do they have the right to do this?
Do they have the right to undeclare?
Do they have the right?
Do they in other words, they do in one way they could defund.
They could strip the money out of the operation, but note that they don't have the guts to do that, and why?
Because they know, despite what polling data they're following, the American people do not want soldiers undercut on the battlefield by having money pulled out.
They do not want that.
They haven't got the guts to really follow through on what they want to happen.
So they're gonna try not to revoke the use of force authorization that they demanded.
Everybody keeps forgetting this.
The Democrats demanded this in October of 2002.
I'll never forget it, because it it uh, you know, it led into the Wellstone Memorial.
It led into uh a number of political blunders that took their big election issues of uh, you know, domestic issues, uh kitchen table pocketbook issues off the table.
They knew the American people were rah-rah.
The American people still firmly uh remembering uh 9-11.
Democrats did not want to be seen as doves.
They didn't want to be seen uh as uh as anti-military, and so they demanded a new resolution, even though they had given the president one after 9-11.
They demanded the one they now seek to revoke.
The precise wording uh remains unsettled.
Uh one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating Al-Qaeda.
So the Senate Democrats want the Senate to be able to tell our troops who they can shoot at, who they can fire back at, how they can respond.
The Constitution will not permit this.
They are not the commander-in-chief.
They're gonna try it.
It's gonna be interesting, but what does it all add up to?
They want defeat because they own it.
Right.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have El Rushbo talent on loan from God.
You know, a quick thought here.
I I don't know that anybody else has uh has caught this apparent contradiction.
Could well be that somebody has.
But you know, the uh the the Cheney is out there, and basically he's he said that hey, the Pelosi Murder strategy would reward the terrorists.
I mean, it would validate Al Qaeda's strategery.
It would convince the American people that we can't win to cut and run to get out of there.
That's exactly what they want.
And they take umbrage with this.
Pelosi said, I hate challenging my patriotism.
And she got out of the phone like a little spoiled brat and tried to call Bush.
You may stop.
You make it nothing.
Of course, Bush didn't take the call.
Josh Bolton, the chief of staff.
You know, got to play romper room teacher that day when Pelosi called.
Um, you know, the Democrats uh it's time to turn this all over to the Iraqis entirely.
Make them step up.
Time that with our withdrawal, so that uh fight against the terrorists is maintained, it'd be a good thing.
Now Tony Blair comes along and says, and I think it's time for us to leave.
Go for get out of the phase withdrawal of part of the shadow now leaving.
And the drive-bys are ecstatic.
And then all of a sudden they get panicked.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
He's gonna leave Basra?
All of a sudden now Basra is a hotbed of activity that we now learn, but for some reason escape the front page of the New York Times and the rest of the drive-bys for all this time.
And all of a sudden the the the the same drive-bys and the Democrats are saying, hey, Tony, if you split now, you're gonna leave the whole thing to the Iraqis?
That's gonna result in bloodshed and terrorist activity.
So if the Brits leave, it's bad.
If the Brits leave, if Tony Blair leaves, the only thing good about it is it signals the bust-up of the Bush coalition.
But if the Brits leave Basra, oh my God, Basra's gonna go to hell in a handbasket.
Basra's gonna burn.
Basra will be the site of hell and the flames of damnation.
Yet if we leave, according to Merth and the Democrats, that's not gonna happen.
Al Qaeda's gonna pack up their tents and their mosques or whatever, and to go back to wherever.
Has any of them even noticed this contradiction?
The Brits leave all hell's gonna break loose.
If we leave, peace and tranquility will survive the region.
My hero Dick Cheney is back.
The highest levels of the administration not backing down.
He was on Good Morning America today from Sydney, Australia, correspondent Jonathan Carl again talking to him.
Question.
Speaker of the House was so upset about your comment that she called the White House to complain.
But Cheney did not back down.
I'm not sure what part of it that is that Nancy disagreed with.
Uh she accused me of uh questioning her patriotism.
I didn't question her patriotism, I questioned her judgment.
Al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will.
That's their fundamental underlying strategy.
My statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy that we will validate the strategy of Al Qaeda.
I said it and I'm in it.
I'm not backing down.
My hero, not backing down.
Nancy Pelosi, not referring to her as the speaker Pelosi, just referring to her as Nancy.
You know, girls gone, you know, hormonal.
Uh next question from Jonathan Carl, and get this.
But hasn't our strategy been failing?
Isn't that why the president has had to come out with a new strategy?
Well, a failed strategy.
Let's see.
We didn't fail when we got rid of Saddam.
We didn't fail when we held elections.
We didn't fail when we got a constitution written.
Those are all success stories.
But didn't we fail when 3,000 American soldiers are killed?
That's Ben.
You wish there was never a single war.
You wish there was never a casualty, Jonathan.
Always regret when you have casualties.
Uh but we are at war.
Now, Jonathan, I know Jonathan Carl.
I've met him a couple times when he was at CNN, and he's not at CNN anymore because he wasn't liberal enough.
And I'll just be honest about that.
And I don't know if he's had to moderate his conservatism in order to be at ABC.
Jonathan, and I know you're over there with the vice president in Australia.
You're not going to hear about this for a couple minutes.
But Jonathan, this is embarrassing.
Didn't we fail when 3,000 American soldiers are killed?
Jonathan, have you ever, ever heard of a war where we didn't lose a single life?
Jonathan, in peacetime, do you know how many American GIs stateside are killed in accident?
What is the this question right there, because we all know the drive bys are involved in groupthink?
Remember how I opened the program, all these meetings that people have, it results in groupthink.
Nobody is individual anymore.
Somebody says something everybody else agrees with, the meeting's over.
Get out of here.
Becomes the adopted strategy plan theory or what have you.
Three thousand soldiers, doesn't that mean we failed?
Cheney was remarkably reserved.
In this answer, had it been me, I would have been dumbstruck for about three seconds.
I would have had the most perplexed look on my face and I would have said I can't believe you just asked me how neophyte are you so but but doesn't that tell us the way the drive by's and the left is looking at this 3,000 dead in uh what is it four years?
Almost four years equals failure.
But Jonathan Carl was undeterred.
He then said Tony Blair recently said the only sensible solution to this crisis is diplomacy.
Do you agree with that?
We hope that uh we can solve the problem diplomatically president's indicated he wants to do everything he can to resolve it diplomatically that's why we've been working with the EU and and uh going through the United Nations with sanctions but the president's also made it clear that uh we haven't taken any options off the table.
That was about Iran I should have said that at the uh at the outset and of course the world's quaking in its boots now because the administration I'm convinced it was the administration leaked to the BBC our war plans for Iran and everybody Oh no Bush has lost it Bush's nuts.
Democrats are out there Tony Blair's out there we're not gonna go to war with Iran we're not gonna it is um it is uh typical uh United States has to go it alone in matters of uh of great import anyway we'll see uh we'll see what happens let me ask you Mrs. Clinton said it is a question for you people Mrs. Clinton said not long ago that um uh she she she would be offended if Bush didn't get this Iraq situation cleaned up and
finished before she's inaugurated coronated in January of 2009 did she not all right what about Iran what if Bush doesn't solve that before she takes office?
What if Mrs. Clinton is elected coronated January 24, 2009, and uh Iran the next day says Mrs. Clinton, welcome to the world we have just successfully tested our first nuclear missile.
Will the impeachment hearings of Bush begin will the investigation I mean is he supposed to get Iran off the table before Mrs. Clinton takes over or any other Democrat or any other president for that matter and if so how?
He's supposed to get Iraq off the table well that's easy we just bring the troops home they own defeat remember so we did bring the troops home victory is no more troops that's how they define everybody wants to know what victory is I know how you Democrats are defining it.
No more troop deaths well you better I want to see you pull this off but that's how they're defining it.
So interesting question here what to do about Iran and will Mrs Clinton be offended if that is not solved before her coronation.
Here's Laura in Erie, Pennsylvania hi Laura welcome to the program.
Oh hi Rush thank you for everything you do especially keeping the morale of our troops and our heroes across the uh world uh very high thank you for that thank you very much for calling I appreciate your comments well and is it true that you have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
Yes I have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and in fact because of my excellent peacemaking skills I have offered to mediate the uh the fight that's broken out between David Geffen of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
I offered to do it have a meeting uh you know have negotiations uh diplomacy diplomacy to solve this Democrats want diplomacy to solve every conflict well I'm offering my diplomatic skills to solve this here in my hometown of Palm Beach Florida we call it Palm Beach Accords yes I have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Well I'm wondering because I think a lot of people consider that a uh very liberal uh honor like Jimmy Carter was the prior recipient.
And I'm just wondering if you ever thought of coming up with a conservative uh equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe in your name, or other people like Ronald Reagan or John Paul the Great, uh, that would, you know, counter that other um liberal side of the announcements.
Well, I'm making uh I'm making many plans to continue my legacy long I after I have uh slipped the surly bonds of planet Earth, which is, you know, Nobel Prize didn't didn't happen until Alfred Nobel assumed room temperature, and he left the uh the bulk of his fortune to the Nobel Peace Prize uh uh whole concept.
It involves a lot of money, uh, education, indoctrination.
They don't just give a warts.
Um, there's the peace prize, there's a medicine prize, there's a prize in economics, there's a prize in uh there'd probably be a Nobel Peace Prize for Global.
Well, they can't do global warming because they got Gore nominated for the Peace Prize because of that.
But I I don't want to divulge anything, but uh uh, you know, as as all important people uh have done.
I I have I'm making plans for my legacy to continue long beyond my earthly life.
Well, you have done so much uh for the conservative cause in so many ways, and I thank you for continuing to educate us and converting many people.
Um thank you for all you do.
You're pro-life, you're pro-marriage, you're pro troops, especially.
I'm pro-marriage as an institution.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Traditional marriage has to be the standard for society because it's the healthiest.
And that's what I, you know, um believe, and I thank you for the.
Speaking of which, speaking of which, you know, one of the uh there's a there's a state of Washington or state of Oregon, I can't recall where this was.
It's in the last month.
A legislator out there, I don't know if he's gay or not, but he's being supported by gay groups, uh, wants to pass uh a uh either a ballot initiative and have it voted under the people or a piece of legislation, I don't know which, uh, that would require married couples to have children within three years, or their marriages would be annulled.
And he's doing this, or they're doing this because uh the pro-marage institution people are saying that marriage exists primarily as the standard best way to raise children.
And uh and and the and the uh of course the gay marriage people are saying, well, we can't we can't do that without other forms of insemination, uh, artificial wombs, adoption, and this sort of thing.
So this is a way to highlight how uh how phony in their minds the uh the whole conservative uh uh support for the institution of marriages had you heard about that, and if not, what do you think of it?
Well, you know, uh it is the most ideal procreation and unity are the keys to marriage, and I think we've degraded the the sacred institution of marriage so much through Hollywood and cohabitation and all those other forms, those other unions that they think should be equivalent.
But marriage is the ideal for those kids to be having a mother and a father.
Well, you think of the idea though that if two uh if if two uh straight people get married and don't have kids in three years, the marriage is annulled.
Well, and I work as a nurse practitioner.
I know there are some physical reasons why people can't have children.
So I don't think that shouldn't be the You mean you would support this?
I'm saying that I want people who are thinking about bringing children into the world to have a concern and committed mother and father in their life, and that is the best and healthiest for them.
Well, I don't I don't I don't disagree with that.
All right, look, I appreciate the call, Laura you being you for everything you do.
You're more than welcome.
A little uh Washington State where this uh ballot initiative was.
All right, quick timeout.
We'll be back before you know it.
Welcome back, open line Friday, Rush Limboy, your guiding light and living legend all combined here is one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
I also known as America's real anchor man.
All right, those of you who shop at IKEA.
This is unbelievable.
IKEA, uh where where are they?
They're the Dutch, Holland Swedish, they're Swedish.
Swedish retailer IKEA have targeted you consumers in America.
Because you are stupid.
You need to be re-educated.
IKEA provides 70 million plastic bags every year to its U.S. shoppers free.
In other words, you go into an IKEA store and you buy what you buy and they put them in these little plastic bags.
You don't take the bags in there...
They're in there when you go, and they put the stuff you buy in the bags that they provide.
But now IKEA is scolding you for taking the bags.
There's a spokesperson for IKEA named Mona Astralis.
Three words there.
And she criticizes the average American family of four for throwing away 1,500 single-use polyethylene bags, which do not degrade for 1,000 years.
Less than 1% of them are recycled.
So IKEA's bag giveaway is now going to stop.
Says Mona Astralis.
Our objective is to get Americans to really think about the impact of the bags which are strangling the planet.
What the hell is this?
IKEA is providing them.
IKEA is giving them away.
IKEA is using the bags so that customers can take whatever it is they buy in there out of there into their cars and go home.
So now it's your fault that the Earth is being strangled by plastic bags provided by IKEA, but it's because you people are too stupid to not use them.
So here's the way they're going to combat this.
IKEA is going to force you to pay five cents a bag for the honor of shopping at IKEA outlets.
And that is just step one.
After you dolts get your minds right, IKEA will then ban the bags altogether.
So that what they're trying to do here is raise the price of the bag five cents, adding uh five cents to whatever your purchase is.
And you're gonna say, well, what do you get?
You provide to me.
Yeah, that's right, but we don't want you using the bags.
Well then stop providing them.
After you get your minds right, they're gonna start uh banning the bags altogether, and then you're gonna have to bring your own cloth bag with you when you shop at IKEA.
Uh and when that blessed day arrives, our fragile planet, Mother Earth, is now choking on 100 billion American plastic bags every year in her landfills will supposedly flourish.
Also, yesterday we talked about this light bulb BS, the compact fluorescent.
I finally saw a picture of one.
I didn't even know what one looked like.
Somebody sent me a picture of a compact fluorescent.
Do you know there's a well, you probably do.
People follow this uh sort of stuff.
I have more important things to do.
It's called the 18 second movement.
The 18 second movement.
That's a campaign to make you idiots replace your incandescent bulbs, which are destroying the planet with these new Earth-friendly CFC bulbs.
The 18-second movement is so-called because 18 seconds is the average time it takes to change a light bulb.
Uh, the energy department, the EPA Yahoo, Walmart, are joining forces with uh all these wacko light bulb activists, and there are light bulb activists, so make no mistake about it, to trying to shame you into changing your bulbs.
Now, one of these days, you people are gonna have enough of these bitty busybodies butting into your lives.
It's finally going to become oppressive, and you're gonna tell them to butt out.
I learned something.
18 seconds to change a light bulb.
I had no clue that it took 18 seconds to change a light bulb.
I always thought that's what staff were for.
I got an email here from Terry Parker in Berea, California.
It doesn't take 18 seconds.
▲
Export Selection