All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
March 8, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I've been wondering where all the stuff I've been printing this whole show is.
I got a printer malfunction in here.
The printer shut down, so I've had to sit here and print everything to the alternate printer, which is fine.
I just wish I'd have gotten some indication of it.
Anyway, greetings, welcome back.
Here we are, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the uh Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I tell you people, I think I've been very well composed today, and I have been uh very, very patient.
But despite all of the uh wonderful uh news items and material provided by me, your host today, saying more in five seconds than most hosts will say it in a week or a career.
What am I getting?
I'm getting you're not doing enough.
Uh which is a carryover from uh from yesterday.
You need to do this, you need to do that, you need to go out and do that.
We can't beat this, and global warming is too bad, it's too late.
Uh and I'm learning something from this.
Uh that is something I've always believed, by the way, it's being confirmed, actually, I'm not just learning it.
And that is that uh so many people are just hungering for some leadership out there, and there just isn't any that people are uh reacting to or responding to in the uh in the person of any of these candidates.
It's obvious to me that they're not they may have, you know, you're gonna take polls on which Republicans leading in the uh primary race so far, but in terms of exuding leadership, I've not had one person call here in the past two days and tell me, well, we need to do what Giuliani's doing.
We need to do what Mitt Romney's doing.
We need to we need to we need to implement the kind of things McCain's doing any of the other candidates, which tells me that nobody's responding to these candidates as though they are leaders.
Uh people are turning to me uh to do these things.
Sterley said, some guy didn't put him up because he didn't want to go on the air, but he said, you know, you need to get screw this three million people marching on Washington, get yourself and some of your big buddies and buy the New York Times.
A, it's not for sale.
Uh there is a guy trying to buy the New York Times, and he's a Republican.
His name is Hank Greenberg, he used to run AIG, the big insurance conglomerate.
Uh, but uh the the way that company is structured, uh the uh Schultzberger family, even with a minority of the stock controls it.
And so you you just can't say we're gonna go buy the New York Times.
It's not for sale.
It's a family heirloom, if it were.
Besides, if it did that, I'd have trouble upgrading to a new jet.
You know, so and they're decisions that the the the I have to make in uh in in all of this as well.
I'm I'm just joking there.
But clearly uh there's there's uh there's just a hunger and a thirst for genuine leadership out there, and it's it's it's not people I guess are not seeing any of it or uh recognizing it in any of the presidential candidates.
I may be wrong about that, but I'm just basing it, and it's purely anecdotal.
We haven't taken enough calls on this to make a scientific assessment of this to be accurate, but it does seem to me that um when when this topic comes up, uh that at least gotten some phone calls.
Well, yeah, well, uh Giuliani's suggesting we do this or that, and then I'm not getting or none of the candidates don't single out uh Giuliani.
Interesting uh column by George Will today that I read in the New York Post, in which he uh basically sort of wagging a finger at conservatives, saying, you know, you you're gonna make the mistake here by demanding the perfect.
You're gonna you're gonna totally bypass the good, and he's not talking about any particular candidate.
He says that you're gonna bycap bypass the good by demanding perfection, and he uses an example.
He said, would the would conservatives today elect a governor who would raise taxes the highest they'd ever been in his state, uh and done a couple other things that that come from the uh Lib social agenda.
And he points out these were all done by Ronald Reagan when he was governor of California.
Could Reagan get the nomination today if there hadn't been a president Reagan?
Uh is uh is the is the point, and he goes on to say it was basically focusing on the on the on the uh attendees at CPAC, and he said that the vast majority of the 6,000 plus who were there were college age, and that uh he said that they for the most part, and he was there, he introduced Giuliani.
Uh I wasn't there, so I don't know if this is accurate, but he said the attitude was mostly morose.
Uh uh the that there just wasn't that excitement uh because there's no perfect conservative out there.
And of course, I guess I may be contributing to this because people keep asking me who I'm for, and I said, nobody yet.
There's nobody out there to revs me up as of now.
So George Will could be talking about me.
I'm don't know I'm holding out for perfection.
I'm not that naive.
But I am really, really, really, really frightened that conservatism's in the process of being redefined to uh fit whatever it is said to be on the basis of these candidates.
Uh far as polling data is concerned, Giuliani's running away with it.
It is creaming McCain out there.
Uh in a Newsweek poll and a number of others as uh as well.
But it's early.
And a lot of this uh you know, I I'm gonna just tell you this, folks.
Uh talking with a friend the other night via instant message.
I don't talk on the phone, because there's always somebody on the other end.
When you're in an instant message, you can ignore them for ten minutes or so, leave the room and then respond if you want.
It's just easier.
Uh and if they, you know, call you on an instant message, you can always pretend you're not at the computer and don't answer it.
So it's just easier.
But we're gonna have this back and forth going on, and uh uh uh the the um the whole notion of this imperfect uh conservative uh was being discussed, and whether somebody is falling into line and we're having conservatism uh redefined and and and this sort of thing.
I I was trying to uh uh uh make the point that whoever the nominee is going to be.
I I just I shudder to think what's going to happen to the poor guy when the Clintons get hold of him.
Uh that's why you know it's so early right now.
I uh and a lot of these candidates have what opposing war rooms will look at as major baggage that they can focus the things at.
And if you if you're if you're angry over what happened to Scooter Libby, you just you just get ready.
By the time the Republicans have a nominee, it is going to get vicious out there in in terms of that that man, uh there aren't any women on our side, are there seeking a nomination?
Not yet.
Whoever it is is there is going to be subject to destruction.
That's how the Clintons uh play the game.
Right now, Clintons have to focus on Obama and uh and and uh some of the others.
Edwards, he's getting a pass right now, but his turn's coming of the Clinton war room.
It's just it's it's it's gonna get really, really dirty.
So I'm I'm taking all of this uh into account as I as I assess the situation.
And I just am overwhelmed today by uh how many callers we've had, despite whatever we've talked about today.
Everybody wants to continue the discussion from yesterday about what I am not doing and need to be doing or could do uh in in order to uh move forward.
It just means that there is a hunger and a thirst big time for conservative leadership that isn't being met.
And that's look at I'm uh I'm not gonna some people would say, well, that's go ahead and be a leader to those who are making the complaint.
Uh that that's that's not the problem.
Uh everybody needs leadership, uh, and people are not in the political realm but want to want to support somebody who is.
You can't expect somebody not in the political business or in the political realm to go out and be a leader uh per se, at least in it could possibly in a neighborhood of the community, but not on a national basis like people are hungering for.
And it's just what it is.
So I'm taking all this in, folks.
I'm uh processing it.
Uh learning from it, and we'll see what becomes of it.
But it's still fascinating to listen to.
All right, let me take a quick break.
Let me look at the calls we're gonna have.
Yeah, we got one more up there, what uh thinks I should do.
We get a couple global global warming calls.
Bouncing one of them bouncing off uh the latest sports illustrated.
Uh this uh the swimsuit issue, or did that there's some it's I've seen a picture of the cover of sport.
They've gone Totally environmental wacko.
They've gone total green.
Sports Illustrated.
As global warming changes the planet, it's changing the sports world.
To counter the looming environmental crisis, surprising and innovative ideas are already helping sports adapt.
I mean, the stuff has hit sports illustration shouldn't surprise you.
I've told you that sports journalists are every bit as lib as any other journalists are.
And SI is part of the Time magazine.
It's under the Time Magazine umbrella, so it shouldn't shock you or surprise you.
But it's interesting because there's no curiosity among reporters.
There's just accepted religious belief, accepted theory, not based on science at all.
Must take a timeout.
Be back and continue after this.
By the way, there's been a hazardous materials spill at the port of Miami, ladies and gentlemen.
Still working on it.
I bet it would not have happened if Dubai were running the ports right now.
I just bet it wouldn't have happened.
Key House Democrats plan to insist that the Pentagon shut down Club Gitmo, where I have a thriving merchandise business, and are contemplating the relocation of as many as 385 or so remaining terrorist suspects to military brigs along the East Coast, including Quantico, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina.
Well, this is really great.
You people in Quantico, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina.
Democrats, Jim Moran, Democrat Virginia, wants Al Qaeda terrorists in your neighborhoods.
It sets us back in the war on terrorism to be maintaining Club Gitmo, said Jim Moran.
It'll enhance our reputation to close it down and to apply our system.
Oh prominently take.
We have the sound bites.
This is uh C-SPAN's Washington Journal today.
Peter Slan, the host, is talking to Jim Moran and is asked about this.
Politico leads its paper this morning with this story in your picture.
Democrats want Club Gitmo, where Rush Limbaugh has a thriving merchandise business shuttered, and prisoners sent to the U.S. Uh you you propose cutting off funding for Club Gitmo?
We're going to close down Guantanamo.
Uh we would like to win this global war on terrorism, but we're not going to win it militarily.
Uh we have to win the battle of ideas.
BS and to do that, we have to win it through the example that we set for ourselves.
BS.
Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is uh is the strongest weapon we have uh to discourage extremist elements from attacking the United States, hating the United States, working against our interests.
What absolute sophistry?
What naivete.
Osama bin Laden is going to look at the Bill of Rights.
We can't attack that country.
They they've got those ten amendments.
We can't do that.
Hey, Jim, he already did.
Before we had Club Gitmo, they already did.
You doofus.
Sit out there and talk about how it will improve our image.
This this it can't be done.
That's not what this is about, and it's not how you win wars with people like this.
It's not how you win wars, period.
Here's more from Moran.
He um he continued here.
When we hold people indefinitely, hundreds of them, without charging, it undermines that example that we are trying to set.
And our enemies can say, well, sure, they have a good constitution and bill of rights, but look at the way they abuse it.
Look, uh the the fact is that they don't, they're not good to their word.
They don't follow the law.
None of this matters.
They're not even looking at this stuff other than for propaganda purposes.
They've gonna run around and say that the U.S. doesn't follow its own bill of rights and so forth.
We're doing more.
We have granted these terrorists because the Democrats like Moran more citizen-oriented constitutional rights than any other military combatants and prisoners of war in history.
And it's still not enough.
We've put U.S. interrogators in jail.
We brought them up on charges.
Military personnel, soldiers and marines have been put in jail, still not enough for these people who own defeat.
And certainly will secure it if they are ever given the power to pull it off.
And this is it's just it's amazing to me the naivete.
And I know that it is, in addition to uh uh a desire for us to lose, but these are people who actually think they can go over and talk to these people And uh and make them go away.
If they're just in charge, if Democrats are just in charge, get the White House.
Why they can show Europe and they can show socialists and they can show terrorists and they can show these uh uh militants that want to destroy us.
That it's not it's not they don't have to do it now because we Democrats are in charge and we love you.
And the terrorists around the world is going to go chuckle, you're gonna go to Muhammad and say, look at a bunch of idiots that we're dealing with here.
These people are a bunch of saps, it's not gonna take us nearly as long as we thought.
Why do you think terrorists were pulling for Democrats openly before last November's elections?
I kept pounding that before the elections, it didn't matter Republicans are so angry they wanted to teach Republicans a lesson, but what does it say when Al Qaeda like terrorists all over the world are openly advocating and campaigning for Democrats?
What does it say?
Maybe to too many people it says, put Democrats in there, we'll leave you alone.
Uh but that that that naivete is uh dangerous.
Ridgewood, New Jersey, as we go back to the phones.
This is Silvio.
Hello, Silvio.
Uh, yes, hi, Rush.
First time corner, it's an honor to speak to you.
Thank you.
Uh, my suggestion on uh something that you could do to maybe uh help us a little bit is to spend more resources on investigative journalism.
Uh I personally think that there's too many stories out there that uh the the media never gets to the heart of.
Uh uh the Foley story, for example, uh the uh FB uh the uh the page that uh edged uh foley onto the uh the IM messages.
I mean, he testified before the FBI.
What happened to that testimony?
I'd like to I'd like to hear that testimony.
I'd really like to fully understand that story.
Um, what you have to understand about that story is that Republicans ran away from it as fast as they could.
They wanted no part of it.
Uh I'm gonna be I'm gonna be bluntly honest here.
Uh I've number one, I'm not a journalist, but I do a lot of investigating of the drive-by media, and I spend my day on this program poking holes at all of these tactics that the Democrats used.
I informed you where that first email about Foley came from, that it was part of a coordinated effort between ABC and uh uh uh gay rights groups and so forth, that they've been waiting on this.
They wanted to spring this in October, but uh Bush was rebounding, the war was going well, Bush was rebounding in the polls, they had to spring it in late September.
It was their October surprise.
You know, some some some of the suggestions I've gotten today and yesterday, I mean, if I weren't if I weren't of a stronger constitution, I would have started crying because I could have easily said, what do you think I'm doing?
What do you think I've been doing for the last 18 and a half years?
But I understand that it's not a criticism.
And that's why I didn't react that way.
And I have uh strong constitution boundaries, and even if it is criticism, if it's true, then I take it and process it, but it's false and wrong, bounces off, I don't even consider it.
I understand what it all means.
And I spent a large part of the first uh segment monologue discussing it.
That just there's just the this dissatisfaction, so much more could be done, and there aren't any leaders out there doing it.
Frankly, I think it all boils down to people are too fed up with Republicans trying to make liberals like them, trying to make the media like them and trying to make Democrats like just like Jim Moran's trying to make Al Qaeda like us.
The Republicans are out there trying to make Democrats like us and trying to prove that we're not what they say we are.
And I know what it is.
And I'm with you on this.
We are sick and tired of being on defense, are we not?
We're totally sick and tired of reacting to things.
And that's where leadership comes in.
Where's the offense?
I view myself as being on offense every day.
But when you get a liberal news story or or a bunch of liberal issues, you have to react to it.
So in that way it's reactionary defensive, but we go on the offense here in the process of attacking it.
But I think that's what this all adds up to.
If any of the presidential campaign staffs are listening to this program, and what are the odds that they are, pretty high.
There's uh there's a the field is wide open here for somebody that can break out of all of this uh With with uh uh an energy that translates to leadership.
Uh not just a pronunciation of where a candidate is on the issues, but an actual take charge leadership.
I want to run this country because X. And don't be afraid to rip into the left.
You know, every time George Bush has done it the last eight years, we have stood up, we have cheered and celebrated, we've prayed for more, and we don't get it much.
He hasn't been ideological.
We want whoever the nominee is to be an ideologue and to tell this country the truth about the Democrats and the left rather than be afraid of doing that.
Here we are back, Rush Limboy, your living legend here on the EIB network.
All right.
I mentioned this earlier.
One of the jurors, juror number 10, as it turns out, Ann Reddington was on uh hardball with Chris Matthews last night, and Matthews said that you're for a pardon?
You're for a pardon?
Uh you're for you for a pardon?
Out of sympathy, out of out of sympathy, out of sympathy.
You want to pardon?
You want a part out of sympathy for the defendant?
Yeah, I think in the in the big picture, um, it kind of bothers me that, you know, there was this whole big crime being investigated, and he got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.
Which is the leaking of a CIA agent's thing.
Exactly.
Uh except see, this I'm not criticizing the juror.
This is actually a great example of how the media were great accomplices of Patrick Fitz Fong in creating this illusion.
The she says kind of bothers me that there was this whole big crime being investigated.
There wasn't a big crime being investigated.
Anne.
There was not.
Uh there was a investigation hoping to find a crime.
And it was called a process investigation.
Because who had leaked the name of Valerie Plame was already known by uh Mr. FitzFong.
Uh it was Richard Armitage, a whole bunch of people uh knew that she was Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
This investigation was begun not for that reason, it was begun to find a crime.
This investigation was begun for the express purpose of creating a crime.
Let me put it better and say it that way.
This investigation started for the purposes of creating a crime.
You bring somebody in the grand jury for eight hours, especially somebody who knows he didn't do what this whole thing's about.
He did not leak her name.
Libby did not what is Libby got to be afraid of?
Libby, a little naivete, not understanding what's going on here, but not afraid to say what he said in there, obviously.
Eight hours, you try it.
You try bringing being grilled for eight hours, no lawyer in there, uh, and uh being asked the same question four or five times in eight hours in different ways.
I I wonder how many people could escape a broad umbrella like obstruction of justice under such circumstances.
And here is this juror who thinks this big crime is being investigated when it wasn't.
But all along that's what Fitzwang wanted people to think he was investigating.
And the drive-by's fell right in with it.
In fact, Matthews says here, uh that poor old Libby that well, she said uh Libby gets caught up in the investigation as opposed to the actual crime that was supposedly committed, Matthews, which is the leaking of a CIA.
Chris, do you understand how dersonal side to Chris Matthews?
Do you understand how wrong that is?
It wasn't a crime to leak her name.
it were, we'd be talking about Richard Armitage and what his sentence is going to be.
There wasn't a crime here, Chris.
There really was.
They don't, he doesn't get this.
They get so caught up in the inertia of all this themselves that there was a crime.
Now get this next question.
I'm just going to tell you that...
Uh I read a review of this question on a on the on the corner, one of the blogs at National Review Online.
When I read what they said, it was Catherine Jean Lopez.
I had to go watch this.
And what Catherine Jean Lopez said that the that Matthews asked this juror, Ann Reddington, a question, and she looked at him like he was literally insane.
Here's the question.
What did you Think of the prosecutor, Fitzgerald.
Almost virginal, right?
Didn't he seem like a real street arrow to you?
Like he'd never been married, never had a date, never had a hangover, never had anything.
Now you can't see it, because this is radio, but her face during that question was indescribable.
She's looking at him like he was insane.
Now, where does this come from?
I'll tell you where this comes from.
There was a profile of Fitzgerald in a my New York Times, New York Times, Sunday magazine.
And this profile talked about how he's he's a bachelor, he'd never been married.
Uh he orders in pizza in Chinese, and his little apartment is uh is a mess.
Uh he doesn't go to the dishwasher much and so forth.
Uh, doesn't date and so forth.
Obviously, Matthews read that and is stuck when he's asking this juror if she had that impression of Fitzgerald while the trial was going on.
Virginal.
Uh straight arrow, never been married, never had a date, never had a hangover, never had anything.
And she said no.
And there was a there was a he asked another question uh about uh uh Fitzgerald's closing argument.
He asked her, Well, what did you think about the uh vice president's name coming up where Fitzgerald said that there's a cloud over the vice president?
She said it's just rhetoric.
Rhetoric didn't mean anything.
She said, We decided on the evidence.
We didn't care what they said in the opening or closing statements.
The lawyer said in the opening or closing statements just rhetoric does.
We decided this, and that's when Matthew said, Oh, well, started trying to lick her.
Sheez, you're just fabulous.
And Howard Feynman came in the end of the program, and I swear these guys wanted to take her off and have dinner after the show somewhere.
And who knows where everyone's gonna go.
Let me show you Virginal.
Uh it was it was it was amazing to watch.
What else we want to be?
Oh.
Um global warming soundbite, Sam Champion, uh, who is the Good Morning America weather man.
He used to be the weatherman for WABC Channel 7 in New York.
But he's become one of these activists now on global warming.
That admittedly so.
It's too crucial to ignore.
And this morning on Good Morning America, he reported on protecting polar bears is global warming endangering them.
And there's a there's a bite in this from a guy named John Kostjak, who is the uh uh somebody from the National Wildlife Federation.
Now, this is old.
I mean, it happened today, but it's old news.
Remember the picture of the two polar bears on the ice floor, and that picture taken in 2004.
Uh the the drive-bys and the environmentalist wancos and a global warming crowd put that picture out and and and made it appear that this is a vanishing glacier, and the polar bears are stranded.
And this is also in Gore's movie, and this is why little kids all over the world are crying because they think the polar bears are being killed by global warming.
When in fact, the truth is the original caption of the picture was that this is a w an ice flow, sort of a sculpture made by waves.
It's naturally occurring.
It is not a broken-off glacier.
It's not drifting off, and the polar bears are not stranded.
Polar bears can swim 100 miles.
They aren't like us.
We might be stranded on an ice floor.
We might not, if there's no land nearby, and we had no helicopter and no jet ski, we might be in trouble, but they're polar bears and they can live in icy cold water by design, they love it.
You ever been to the polar bear exhibit at the Central Park Zoo?
I was I went to the polar bear exhibit, Central Park Zoo in June, and it was scorching hot, and one of the polar bears was nowhere to be seen.
The other polar bear was outside, and the zoo people had to come in with giant blocks of ice every hour or so for the polar bear to lay on.
You talk about cruelty.
Who's doing more to hurt polar bells?
A Central Park Zoo putting them out there in June in a hundred degree temperature and eating blocks of ice, or whether living, thriving naturally on these ice sculptures made by waves that had nothing to do with global warming or a melting glacier, anything is it just it was so utterly false and propaganda.
And here's Sam Champion now in Good Morning America doing a story on We're Killing the Polar Bear.
The polar bear for many has become a living symbol of the dangers of global warming.
The powerful kings of the Arctic are finding their habitat shrinking.
They are not.
Climate change is melting the icy terrain they need to hunt.
It's something putting their future at risk.
It's not.
Habitat of the polar bear is literally melting away underneath its feet.
Eskimos considered them wise and powerful, dubbing them the great lonely roamers.
But today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is studying whether the remaining 25,000 bears are in danger of disappearing.
Not everyone agrees the bear should be protected.
Hunters, oil interests, even the state of Alaska has questions about the effects protection would have on oil and gas exploration and commercial shipping.
But for many others, the bears are a symbol of a bigger crisis threatening the planet.
Yeah, and you are all wrong.
And whether you know it or not, you are lying to your audiences.
This polar bear picture, and we're gonna we'll put it back up at Rush Limbaugh.com when we update the website this afternoon to reflect the contents of today's program.
This picture taken in 2004, the original caption mentions what I told you.
They're sitting there playing on this on this uh ice sculpture that was made by the waves.
Another guy pretended he took the picture, put a different caption under it, uh, mentioning that uh polar bear stranded on the ice floor or what have you.
Now, the guy that took the picture uh from the website we found all this information, also was uh up there in the in the polar bear region in the North Pole and so forth with a with a f with a buddy, an associate, and they were trying to dig, drill a hole in the ice to take a measurement of the thickness of the ice to prove his global warming.
It was much thicker than they thought.
It took them a lot longer to dig the hole or to drill the hole than it was like a 12-inch hole.
And the one and the and the guy who is the associate is holding a rifle, watching guard while his buddy, the faux photographer, is is drilling the hole, and the story points out that the guy is holding a rifle in order to protect them from polar bears.
Because if the polar bears find them, they'll attack them and eat them.
These guys are prepared to shoot a polar bear rather than be eaten by it to save the planet.
Now, if the polar bears are disappearing and you're up there on their turf, and you're drilling holes in their turf that they might fall into, and they come along and they don't like this, and you're trying to protect them and the environment, let them eat you.
It's the least you can do.
Everything I'm telling you is true.
Now, I've met Sam Champion a couple times.
He's a nice guy, but somebody got to him and he's been co-opted because this is absolute.
It's just folly.
Total folly.
BS.
As it were.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Well, this takes a kick.
I'm just checking an email in there, the uh subscriber email at Rush Limbaugh.com.
And uh guy says, you know, all this talk about you could do more, you can do more.
You've been in plenty, and you could have done more if you just wouldn't have been talking so much about golf.
Speaker, we're going to play golf this afternoon.
Well, I had a lesson a couple days ago.
I have a game fell apart last November for reasons I couldn't explain, but I got it fixed on Tuesday.
I'm looking forward to getting out there, seeing I've been taking the changes to the uh course.
He heard about Barry Obama.
Uh Democrat presidential candidate Barry Obama.
That's what he called himself in the eighties.
Uh Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law in the late 80s.
He got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid, and he's out there.
Uh paying them off now.
Shelled out $375 in January, two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign.
Finally pay off uh 15 outstanding parking tickets, and their associated late fees.
The story first reported Wednesday by the Somerville News.
Uh Barry Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 88 and 91, mostly for parking in a bus stop.
Parking without a resident permit, failing to pay the meter.
Uh all this according to records from the Cambridge Traffic Parking and Transportation Office.
One hundred and forty dollars in fines, two hundred and sixty dollars in late fees in Cambridge and all.
But he paid twenty-five dollars for two of the tickets in February of 1990.
Spokeswoman Jen Pusaki said that's not relevant.
He didn't owe that much, and what he did owe, he paid.
Many people have parking tickets and late fees.
All the parking tickets and late fees paid.
He can see he's not out of touch.
He has parking tickets.
Doesn't pay them up.
Now parking in a bus stop, that's new.
That's news.
Because you know the disabled ride buses and so forth.
Speaking of which, uh I I don't I don't have any doubt the Clinton war room is is behind all this.
And of course, there were stories earlier in the week about Barack and his investments.
Uh the uh he was given political donations by some people and went out and invested in uh in their companies uh or in investments they were also investing in.
And Barack says that uh he didn't know uh that that was happening, and he explained it late yesterday in Washington at a news conference.
At no point did I know what stocks were held.
Uh and at no point did I direct how those stocks were invested.
What I wanted to make sure was that I didn't uh want to uh invest in companies that would potentially create uh conflicts uh with my work here or not uh abide by some public statements I had said in terms of uh how things work.
This went on and on and on.
What did you notice?
Do you notice anything here in in that bite?
As I do.
See how many of you people notice it.
Uh here's an articulate, clean uh black guy, according to Joe Burden, Biden.
And look at all the uh uh uh in the whole statement here, he made 26 uhs.
And he normally doesn't say uh uh uh when they go out there with prepared remarks so forth being grilled.
Some observers are suggesting this shows a side of Obama that's not the polished Obama, the uh uh's and the uh's and the uh and the pauses and so forth.
Uh I don't know how you can say that.
Ed Koch made a career out of it.
Uh and I just did it.
Uh but I noticed that Obama doesn't speak that way normally, and it uh did strike me.
Uh Stephen, Hartford, Connecticut, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
All right, Rush, how are you?
Fine.
Uh I wanted to go back to the global warming.
Wonderful and propose uh to help you simplify it.
I've been sitting here uh at home here in Hartford, Connecticut.
We are at the butt end, if you uh excuse my expression, of all of the pollution coming from west to east, including all of the pollution from the coal-fired plants in Ohio, where you know the government refuses to have them put uh scrubbers on the plants to keep the pollution down.
Let me try and, if I can, simply say the global warming discussion you've had today, I think is a giant smoke screen.
In fact, if you back it up, and I haven't seen Al Gore's movie, but my assumption is from other readings that I've done is that global warming, in theory, if it's true, is caused by increased pollution from you know from exhaust or whatever sources, and it degrades the ozone level.
No, no, no, no.
And therefore we get more and more of the sun's rays through and we'll basically be cooking ourselves.
Is that correct?
No, that that's I I'm just gonna be as honest with you as I can.
Okay.
That is entirely wrong.
Okay.
There is nothing in that that's accurate.
Okay.
Uh the ozone is not being depleted, and we're not cooking because of it.
Uh how what you're freezing your tush up there, part for don't you?
Aren't you curious about how this is happening?
It didn't.
Well, no, I'm not looking at uh I I think the scientists look at centuries, not not uh not March 8th.
It is cold today.
Records only go back 150 years on this temperature business.
That's another thing that's that's fraudulent.
But look at if you want to talk about the pollution coming from Ohio, please don't leave out the pollution coming your way from China.
Oh, absolutely.
Well, okay.
And of course, China's not guilty of anything.
They're not even subject to any ridiculo restrictions based on the Kyoto Treaty.
This is all all aimed at the United States.
But anyway, the vast majority of CO2, which is the number one greenhouse effect gas, occurs naturally.
Water vapor and other natural sources.
Automobiles, the smokestacks in Ohio.
Uh I told you people that they hate you in Ohio in the Northeast.
Uh 4% is man made.
Uh back in just a second.
MSNBC is all excited, folks.
Three dollar gasoline is back.
They just heralded it with an exclamation point.
See you tomorrow.
Open line Friday.
▲
Export Selection