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 24-7 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.
El Rushboy, your host for life, getting things started on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Hell, I can't wait to see what Snerdly comes up with today on the phones.
Given that it's 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 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 EIBnet.com.
I knew this.
I knew that.
I marvel at, 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 award-winning television, well, should have won an award, it didn't.
My ratings champion TV program back from 1910, 92 to 96.
It television is a whole different animal, a radio.
And we had a production staff working on the program during the day while I was here working on the big radio program.
And I had to talk to them in the morning and tell them what I was interested in, what in the news excited me.
And then they went about trying to find various video clips that would fit and produce various things.
And when I got 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.
I mean, it's the way it is, but I'd not grown up that way in this business.
I've never had one meeting with anybody to do this radio program.
Not one.
I just sit down and do it.
And it allows for spontaneity.
And the problem with these meetings is, oh, 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, just to end the meeting.
Everybody agrees just to get out of there.
Well, lo and behold, here's a story from LifeScience.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 expose study participants to one brand of soft drink and asked them to think of 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 study team member, H. Shanker Krishnan.
This could mean ordering from a pizza place advertised on TV, 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.
I've never been a fan of meetings, which is why when I gave it a stab in the corporate world, I bombed big time.
Just, I mean, individuality gets suppressed in a meeting, and in more ways than one.
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 actually 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 that a camera's in there watching them.
They run around all in 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 rodents haven't been seen in the flesh for as many as 200 years.
But biologists videotaped a beaver swimming up the Bronx River on Wednesday.
They found its twig and mud lodge.
It had been spotted earlier on the riverbank, but the tape confirmed the presence of the 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 conventional wisdom bits was that the best that could be hoped for here was a hung jury.
You know, this Libby trial, when this is all over, and when people are free to speak about this, 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 going to learn it in this trial because it doesn't matter.
And he told the jury they're not going to 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 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.
I've read a piece of the AmericanThinker.com yesterday posted by Clarice Feldman, who's brilliant and who's been, she's a lawyer herself.
She's been following the trial.
She's been blogging from the courthouse.
And it is obvious that this was a team-up between elements of the CIA and the Department of Justice to bring down the Bush administration.
We'll post the link to Clarice's piece at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's at theamericanthinker.com.
And you can read this.
It is just stunning.
And 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 Fitzpatrick as much as said this in his closing arguments before the jury.
It's just, 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, NIE, that made it plain the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger, not the office of the vice president.
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 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.
And the White House said, well, who is this guy?
We don't know who he sent.
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.
One thing just leads to another.
And so Libby wanted to get this NIE declassified.
He went to a lawyer in the White House and said, 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, 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 Libby was as high as Fitzpatrick could get.
He was shooting for Cheney, hoping to get Bush maybe and Rove, misled them into thinking they were not targets when they were.
I mean, this is a gigantic travesty.
And I read this 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 sweating it out.
Fitz Russert's sweating it out.
Fitz Matthews is sweating it out.
Nobody knows what it means that the jury has yet to come back.
Fitz Siltzberger at the New York Times is 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.
It 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 Shriver will absolutely not run for governor, says Arnold, or any other public office.
Probably doesn't have to.
What in the world, what could possibly be behind?
What could be the motivation?
What's in Schwarzenegger's head to tell this guy, Roger Simon, at thepolitico.com that Democrats ought to stop criticizing Hillary Clinton?
Alternative Universe Day, possibly here.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue.
Open line Friday right after this.
By the way, Judge Scheindlin or Seidlin didn't make it to the Anna Nicole trial today.
I don't know what happened to him.
I don't know if this is scheduled or not.
We have an audio soundbite of the guy breaking down in tears yesterday.
We're going to get to that later.
It's to the phones now because it's Open Line Friday.
By the way, how many of you people shop at IKEA?
Dawn, do you shop at IKEA?
You've been to an IKEA?
What about you, Mr. Snerdley?
I've driven by them.
I always get them confused with the car, you know, the Kia car.
I haven't been in one.
But you people that shop at IKEA, I mean, they are gunning for you here in America.
They are gunning for you.
I got details coming up.
In the meantime, here's Joy.
Actually, Jay, in Stillwater, Maine.
Welcome to the program.
Megadittos, oh, magnificent Maha Rushi 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 the term invested in defeat and drive-by media.
I hear almost every day or read about it.
You know, 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 off of these phrases in every instance.
I mean, we have a thriving merchandise business at Club Gitmo and some other things, but 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 when we are purloined, ripped off, and stolen from.
And I appreciate the comment.
Speaking of owning defeat and the ownership of defeat, he's referencing the brilliant and stirring monologue that opened the program yesterday.
And 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 going to resolution this place today.
We're going to paper, we're just going to issue paper after paper, resolution after resolution.
We're going to isolate the president.
We're going to create another Vietnam.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Where we lost.
And millions died.
And 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 Mirtha has screwed up.
Murtha has screwed up big time because he can't keep his trap shut.
Murtha went out there and divulged for everybody the strategy involved in his slow bleed plan.
Not allow reinforcements, 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, don't do that.
But Mirtha couldn't shut up.
They managed to, she got him shut up before the election.
They can't keep him quiet now.
And 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 that they granted in 2002 should be revoked.
That they want to go do this.
And this is going to lead to another constitutional challenge, perhaps crisis.
I think the word crisis is overdone, 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?
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 going to try now 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 led into the Wellstone Memorial.
It led into a number of political blunders that took their big election issues of domestic issues, kitchen table pocketbook issues off the table.
They knew the American people were rah-rah.
The American people still firmly remembering 9-11.
Democrats did not want to be seen as doves.
They didn't want to be seen 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 remains unsettled.
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 going to try it.
It's going to 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 don't know that anybody else has caught this apparent contradiction.
Could well be that somebody has.
But, you know, the Cheney is out there, and basically, he said that, hey, the Pelosi-Murthy strategy would reward the terrorists.
I mean, it would validate al-Qaeda's strategy and 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 says, well, he's challenging my patriotism.
And she got on the phone like a little spoiled brat and tried to call Bush.
You may stop.
You make him 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.
And, you know, the Democrats, it's time to turn this all over to the Iraqis entirely.
Make them step up.
Time that with our withdrawal so that the 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.
We've got to get out of the phased withdrawal part of the central now is leaving.
And the drive-bys are ecstatic.
And then all of a sudden they get panicked.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
He's going to leave Basra?
All of a sudden, now Basra is a hotbed of activity that we now learn, but for some reason escaped 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 same drive-bys and the Democrats are saying, hey, Tony, if you split, now you're going to leave the whole thing to the Iraqis?
That's going to 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 going to go to hell in a handbasket.
Basra's going to burn.
Basra will be the site of hell and the flames of damn nation.
Yet if we leave, according to Mirth and the Democrats, that's not going to happen.
Al-Qaeda's going to pack up their tents and their mosques or whatever and go back to wherever.
Has anybody even noticed this contradiction?
The Brits leave, all hell is going to 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, 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 is that Nancy disagreed with.
She accused me of 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, girl's gone, you know, hormonal.
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?
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 been, you wish there was never a single, you wish there was never a casualty, Jonathan.
Always regret when you have casualties.
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 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.
It becomes the adopted strategy plan theory or what have you.
3,000 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 to how neophyte are you?
But doesn't that tell us the way the drive-bys and the left is looking at this?
3,000 dead in, 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 we can solve the problem diplomatically.
The 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 going through the United Nations with sanctions.
But the president's also made it clear that we haven't taken any options off the table.
That was about Iran.
I should have said that 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 is nuts.
Democrats are out there.
Tony Blair is out there.
We're not going to go to war with Iran.
We're not going to.
It is typical.
The United States has to go it alone in matters of great import.
Anyway, we'll see what happens.
Let me ask you, Mrs. Clinton said, this is a question for you people.
Mrs. Clinton said not long ago that 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 21st, 2009, and 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 investigate, 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 didn't 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 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 world 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 fight that's broken out between David Geffen, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.
I offered to do it.
Have a meeting, have negotiations, 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 very liberal honor, like Jimmy Carter was the prior recipient.
And I'm just wondering if you ever thought of coming up with a conservative equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize, maybe in your name, or other people, like Ronald Reagan or John Paul the Great, that would counter that other liberal side of the announcements.
Well, I'm making many plans to continue my legacy long after I have slipped the surly bonds at Planet Earth, which is, you know, Nobel Prize didn't happen until Alfred Nobel assumed room temperature, and he left the bulk of his fortune to the Nobel Peace Prize whole concept.
It involves a lot of money, education, indoctrination.
They don't just give awards.
You know, there's the Peace Prize, there's a Medicine Prize, there's a prize in economics, there's a prize in, there'll 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 don't want to divulge anything, but as all important people have done, I'm making plans for my legacy to continue long beyond my earthly life.
Well, you have done so much for the conservative cause in so many ways, and I thank you for continuing to educate us and converting many people.
Thank you for all you do.
You're pro-life, you're pro-marriage, you're pro-troops, especially.
Well, 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, believe, and I thank you for the money.
Speaking of which, speaking of which, you know, one of the 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, wants to pass either a ballot initiative and have it voted under the people or a piece of legislation, I'm not sure which, 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 the pro-marriage institution people are saying that marriage exists primarily as the standard best way to raise children.
And of course, the gay marriage people are saying, well, we can't do that without other forms of insemination, artificial wombs, adoption, this sort of thing.
So this is a way to highlight how phony in their minds the whole conservative support for the institution of marriage is.
Had you heard about that?
And if not, what do you think of it?
Well, you know, it is the most ideal.
Procreation and unity are the keys to marriage.
And I think we've degraded 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.
What do you think of the idea, though, that if two straight people get married and don't have kids in three years, the marriage is annulled?
Well, I work as a nurse practitioner.
know there are some physical reasons why people can't have children so i don't shouldn't be there you mean you would support this no I'm saying that I want people who are thinking about bringing children into the world to have a concerned and committed mother and father in their life.
And that is the best and healthiest for them.
Well, I don't disagree with that.
All right, look, I appreciate the call, Laura, you've been.
Thank you for everything you do.
You're more than welcome.
Washington State where this 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 Anchorman.
All right, those of you who shop at IKEA, this is unbelievable.
IKEA, where are they?
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 what they're trying to do here is raise the price of the bag five cents, adding five cents to whatever your purchase is.
And you're going to say, well, what a nickel for the bag 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 going to start banning the bags altogether.
And then you're going to have to bring your own cloth bag with you when you shop at IKEA.
And when that blessed day arrives, our fragile planet, Mother Earth, is now choking on 100 billion American plastic bags every year and 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 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.
The energy department, the EPA, Yahoo, Walmart are joining forces with all these wacko light bulb activists, and there are light bulb activists, to make no mistake about it, to try to shame you into changing your bulbs.
Now, one of these days, you people are going to have enough of these busy bodies butting into your lives.
It's finally going to become oppressive, and you're going to tell them to butt out.
I learned something.
18 seconds to change a light bulb.
I had no clue that 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