All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:58
April 4, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I mean, you would think that Mahmoud Ahmadinezad is the second coming.
The one man with compassion in the world today, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, the Supreme Leader of Iran.
Drive-by media is having orgasms today over what a guy.
And Mahmoud.
Mahmoud actually criticized the British.
I wonder how the feminazis in this country are going to react to this.
Mahmoud criticized the British for deploying a woman to combat who has a child at home.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome, Rushlin Boy, here, raring and ready to go.
Fastest week in media.
We are already at Wednesday.
Three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
The phone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
We'll get to more details on Mahmoud Ahmadinezad and the pending release of the 15 British hostages.
By the way, the president called them hostages the other day and drive-by says, oh, no, no, no.
Oh, it's going to exacerbate the problem.
Oh, no, no.
It's going to make a British say, we're not cool with using the word hostages to describe this.
And after using the word, I don't know if it had any effect.
I think there's something else at play here totally.
But regardless, does Mahmoud Ahmadinezad know how to play the U.S. media or does he know how to play the ED?
All these Al-Qaeda guys, all these militant Islamofascists are just superb at playing the U.S. media.
But I want to get to a couple other things.
First, I have been thinking about this global warming business.
You know, we here at the EIB network are pondering the sale of carbon offsets to any of you who are consumed with guilt over the amount of pollution that you are, like the amount you exhale.
The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court yesterday actually said that what we all exhale, CO2, is a pollutant.
And I'm here to tell you that it is not.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
There's no difference in the CO2 that you exhale or what comes out of your SUV or your car or what have you, but it's now a pollutant.
And, you know, Al Gore has popularized this whole concept of carbon offsets so specifically he will not have to reduce any of his consumption of power or usage of energy.
I said, no, no, no, I'm investing in carbon offsets.
I'm investing in a company, which I own, by the way, he says.
And we go out there, we plant trees, and we invest in carbon-neutral businesses and so forth.
It gave me an idea.
You know, we here, the EIB network are always on the cutting edge of societal evolution and a number of other things, including technology.
For example, I just got a Blu-ray, finally broke down.
I finally made a choice, and I got a Blu-ray DVD, one of these HD DVD players.
I had it installed yesterday, went home last night, baby.
You know, and my video guys try to talk me out of it.
Don't do it yet.
The format war is not settled.
And I was reminded, you know, between Betamax and VHS, I chose Betamax, which was Sony, and it went down to tubes.
Well, Blu-ray is Sony.
So I've duplicated my move.
There are more titles on Blu-ray.
It has more capacity on the disc.
It's way early on this.
But my video guys were saying, look, it's too soon to do this.
And besides, some of these discs, we've looked at them and there's just garbage on there.
And I said, look, I cannot believe that.
These are high-definition discs.
And video guys said, look, look, the standard DVD, you get a really well-mastered standard DVD and it'll stack up against any of these HD DVDs or Blu-rays out there.
Well, maybe on a tiny little screen you have, you won't be able to notice much difference.
But the time you blow these things up to a large screen, like mine's 16 feet diagonally, and so I did a comparison.
I got Casino Royale on Blu-ray, and I already had Casino Royale on the standard 480 DVD, the Blu-ray's 1080p.
And I compared the two side by side.
I had no comparison whatsoever.
The Blu-ray just, especially now, the smaller screen you go, the less the difference you see.
But the time you blow this stuff on a big screen.
So anyway, just to illustrate here that not only are we on the cutting edge of societal evolution, but also on the cutting edge of technological evolution, this carbon offset business got me to thinking.
It's a brand new profit center possibility for us here at the EIB network to play off on so many people's guilt and the fact they think they're committing sin out there simply by being alive and destroying the planet.
So I came up with an idea.
If Al Gore can not reduce his carbon footprint, if Al Gore will not have to reduce by an iota the amount of energy he uses by simply buying carbon offsets, then why can't we expand the whole theory, the whole concept?
We here at EIB are examining the possibility of selling carbon offsets to the entire United States, the entire United States government.
And in the process of selling carbon offsets to the entire government, the United States will not have to make one change, will not have to reduce any of its pollutants, will not have to reduce any of its greenhouse gas emissions, will not have to reduce any of its energy use because we are going to sell carbon offsets to the government for who knows how many billions they will pay.
And then people all over the world will plant trees and do other things to allow us, the United States, not to have to reduce any of our greenhouse gases.
It's a perfect way to exempt ourselves forever from Kyoto.
I mean, if Gore and other individuals, like Governor Schwarzenegger, he's registered his private jet out there with a company and he doesn't have to reduce the amount of time he flies in a jet because some company out there is planting trees every time for every hour he flies ostensibly.
Well, why can't we at EIB just do this for the whole country?
Just sell carbon offsets for virtually everybody so that nobody in the country has to reduce anything.
I mean, if it works for one individual, why wouldn't it work for everybody?
Why wouldn't it work for the country?
Why don't all of us buy carbon offsets?
I will sell them to you and to anybody else.
And you can continue to make all of the energy use you want.
Without guilt and without fear, you pay us.
Well, this could be a nominal charge because, as you know, the greater the volume, the lower price has to be.
Sort of like taxes.
The more taxpayers, the lower the rates have to be on everybody in order to get more money.
So I will not charge exorbitant fees for people when we sell the carbon offsets, and thereby the whole country will be exempt.
What do you mean, Enron?
What does the word Enron mean anything to me?
What are you talking about?
What's Enron got to do?
I think this is a brilliant idea.
It's a brilliant, you know, the whole thing is I could get out of the radio business.
In one day's worth of sales of carbon offsets the whole country.
I could be playing golf 24-7, 36 holes a day.
And I don't plant the trees.
I'm not going to do that.
I'm going to let other people.
I'll let Uganda do that.
I will let South Africa do that.
I'll let them do that in Bosnia.
And if there's some companies in America that we feel valid or are valid to invest in, well, fine, we'll let them plant the trees too.
Point is here, folks, that if you or I or Al Gore or Governor Schwarzenegger or anybody else can go out and simply invest money in the so-called carbon offset program and in the process not have to reduce your energy usage at all, if it's good for individuals, why can't we exempt the entire United States from this imbroglio by having everybody here be able to do this?
Think of the market that exists here.
Think of the guilt that we could assuage and think of the good that we could do for burgeoning third world companies.
All this investment money going, all they have to do is plant trees.
Just plant trees or start up a company that says they're going to invest in pills that will make cows not expel methane when they expel.
We're working on this.
I probably should not have made this public because now I've automatically created a bunch of competitors.
Snerdley says that this says, you ever heard of Enron?
Yeah, he said, well, it's fraud.
It's first-rate fraud.
I don't care if it's fraud.
It's already started.
It's already happening out there.
The business has been established.
The carbon offset burgeoning, we've got a spot for it.
We do.
Oh, that's right.
We do have a spot.
Absolutely.
Play the spot.
Let people hear what we're talking about here.
Go ahead, run it right now.
Hit it.
Yeah, but see, the difference is that was marketed to individuals.
I'm talking about getting hold of EPA.
I'm talking about getting hold of NASA.
I'm going to get hold of all these government agents, all these people who believe in this stuff.
And I'm going to say, give me your money and go ahead and send as many rockets into space as you want, by the way.
Friends in big business, I mean, you think people wouldn't pay big money to be able to go around and live their lives guilt-free, knowing that whatever energy use they make, whatever the size of their carbon footprint is, that it will not harm the planet because we are going to take care of that.
By the way, we're still in the process of determining our final approach with the Nobel Committee on whether to charge Al Gore or ask them to investigate Al Gore for tampering and unethical behavior in campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is one of our first efforts.
We're going to send that off to the Nobel Committee to supplement the nomination.
We got Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
We got the Democrats.
I told you yesterday, these people make me a genius.
I told you yesterday there is no war on terror.
They're doing their best to convince everybody there's no reason for a war on terror.
Now they have officially stricken the phrase from official government language.
And this is just too much.
Bush success versus al-Qaeda breeds long-term worries.
This is Reuters.
Bush has been so successful fighting al-Qaeda that we are at more risk than we have ever been.
I'll have details on all this, plus your phone calls, of course, as we get started right after this.
All right, before we go to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the other stuff, I have to share this with you.
The local newspaper here, the Palm Beach Post, ran a story this morning by Derek Cam.
And this is the headline.
Could global warming wipe out Palm Beach County?
Palm Beach County's shape puts it at risk, experts say.
If global warming continues at the rate of acceleration currently experienced, Palm Beach County could disappear within less than a century, a climate expert told the Florida cabinet on Tuesday.
The curve of Palm Beach County that causes it to bump out into the ocean farther than the rest of Florida's east coast makes it a poster child for the damages global warming can cause, according to Stephen Leatherman, director of the International Hurricane Research Center at Florida International University.
Leatherman told a global warming panel composed of Governor Christ and the Florida cabinet yesterday said Palm Beach not only gets hit by hurricanes, but more importantly, the erosion is caused by the winter nor'easters.
It's an erosion hotspot.
Leatherman is also known as Dr. Beach because he ranks the world's best beaches every year.
I still don't think we have a comprehensive knowledge of the Palm Beach situation.
Now, so, you know, of course, this is something that the liberals in this county are going to buy and believe it is just going to be something that panic them even greater and further.
We happen to, right here, do you people know we are on that curve?
Right at this minute, our EIB studios are right on that curve that juts out into the, as it's described.
I mean, how many curves are there in our coastline?
East and west, north.
How many curves are this one curve going to wipe out Palm Beach County in less than 100 years?
The guy says it's really not so much hurricanes.
We don't know what's happening to the sand here.
We keep replenishing the beaches and the sand goes somewhere.
They want to do laser and satellite surveys to find out what happens to the sand during erosion.
It's just, it is preposterous.
How long has the curve been here?
And it's still here.
And we've had hurricanes and we've had warming.
How long we've known the coast of Florida to be what it is?
For how long?
How many hundreds of years has it been the way?
And it's still here.
You know, I live on Palm Beach, which is an island.
And, you know, it hasn't changed in the 10 years I've been here.
The land that was here is still here.
And I'm sure it's been that way for a number of years.
So this is a classic example of the kind of just uninformed fear and panic.
And, you know, there are a lot of people in the global warming movement who are beginning to worry that some of these claims are now getting so outrageous and just so unbelievable that they're turning people off.
Because if it's that bad, there's nothing we can do to stop it.
I mean, what can we actually do to stop Greenland from breaking in half, for example?
If somebody said, if God said Greenland breaks in half in 2030, what could we do?
There's nothing we could do to stop it.
People think that.
I think buying light bulbs are going to fix it.
Got another thing coming.
And so they're running the risk here of, in fact, I think they've already, you know, talk about jumping the shark.
I think the global warming movement has jumped the shark.
It long ago ceased to have any relevance.
There's also a CEO, a guy named Murphy in the New York Sun today who really ridicules Al Gore, says he's more dangerous than global warming is.
And we'll have details on all that as we get to the global warming stack.
First, let's go to the audio sound bites.
We have CNN people.
We've got ABC people.
We've got Newsweek people.
We got CNN people again.
We got ABC people here, all excited, all talking about fawning over the kindness of President Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
President Bush used the word hostage.
Now, is that something the British would rather the U.S. stay away from?
Mr. Bush made that comment at a press conference.
Maybe it was off the top of his head, but certainly here the word hostage is not being used.
You heard President Bush say hostages.
That's the first time he said hostages.
Do you think Bush wanted him to use that word?
I wouldn't have thought of a hostage crisis.
Use of the word hostage conjures up memories of America's own crisis with Iran.
British officials have been hesitant to use the H-word hostage, but President Bush had no qualms.
No qualms whatsoever.
And of course, it was supposed to worsen the situation.
Now the 15 are freed.
Again, Mahmoud Ahmedinezad chastised the British for having the uncivilized notion of deploying a woman with a child at home to combat.
Here's the CNN translation where Mahmoud, the great humanitarian, urges Tony Blair not to punish the hostages.
I declare that the people of Iran and the government of Iran in full power are given their legal right to place on trial the military people to give amnesty and pardon to these 15 people.
And I announce their freedom and their return to the people of Britain.
I request the government of Mr. Blair not to question these people or to place them on trial for speaking the truth.
And I request Mr. Blair rather than to increase international controversy or the occupation of other lands to take steps towards peace, truthfulness, and justice, and to serve the people of England.
How long is it going to be before somebody advances the idea that Nancy Pelosi, in her burqa, by the way, she's a big proponent of women's rights, and here she is bending over and grabbing the ankles for the Islamofascists.
How long is it going to be before somebody tells us that she was responsible for this?
That she talked to Basher Assad, and Assad said, oh, you know, you've got a good idea.
Let's release the Brits.
And he talked to Mahmoud.
And I just won't be surprised if this happens.
And of course, here's Mahmoud telling Tony Blair, stop being an imperialist, go back home.
And don't punish these people.
Don't question them.
Don't punish them.
It's sad.
It's just very sad, folks.
Hi, welcome back, Rushland Boy, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right.
A couple more soundbites on the magnanimity and the compassion and the compromise capabilities of the great Mahmoud Ahmadinezad.
Here is CNN's Christian Amanpour speaking and reporting on the release of the hostages.
I think also it's important to note, Iran, and you noted what he was doing.
He spent a lot of time talking about God and religion.
But don't forget it's Easter coming up.
And perhaps part of this timing was also for Easter.
Big, big holiday in the Christian world, as you know.
Really, God, I'd forgotten that.
It's Easter.
If it weren't for Christian Amanpour and CNN, I would have totally forgotten the fact that Easter is a big holiday here.
So Mahmoud is sensitive to the Christian tradition, ladies.
Mahmoud recognizes it's Easter, and of course, this is all designed to do exactly what it's doing.
Every time the president or somebody sounds the warning bells about Iran, idiots and sponges who soak up what the drive-bys are saying today are going to say, what?
That guy?
The guy who patiently and kindly, compassionately released those British hostages, he threatens us?
I don't believe it.
That's the purpose of this.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stealing the limelight today, making himself look like Mother Teresa with a beard.
And it's designed to offset, there's that word again, Any allegation that Mahmoud actually heads up a terrorist state and has threatened to blow Israel off the map and other such things.
Also on CNN today, the anchorette Frederica Whitfield had this exchange with the reporter at Robin Oakley about the hostages meeting with Mahmoud.
Here it is.
This has to be, of course, welcome news to see these British sailors and Marines now all dressed up and ready to go.
But Robin, just a few days ago, we know that Great Britain didn't like the idea of these servicemen being paraded in front of cameras.
Today, maybe they like it.
Well, to have them paraded in these circumstances, I think, yes.
So the Brits are a bunch of bumbling fools and idiots.
I don't know what they're talking about.
Bush is a bumbling fool and an idiot.
And of course, this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for Bush being the big cowboy that he is.
But the bottom line is that Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, such a great man, great man of compassion.
What a heart.
And how can anything that anybody's been saying about Mahmoud and Iran be true after this generous, generous act of kindness?
I've got a lot of emails from people who are just livid at Nancy Pelosi.
And we talked about this yesterday in great detail.
One of the things that they're upset about is: here's this woman who has made the big case for women's rights, women's equality, and so forth, going over to these countries like Syria and other places, wearing the hijab, the burqa, whatever it is.
And people are righteously indignant about it, and there's probably justified.
Let's go back to earlier this year, January 4th, on the floor of the House.
Here's just a portion of Pelosi's remarks.
We have waited over 200 years.
Never losing faith.
We waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights.
But women weren't just waiting.
Women were working.
Never losing faith.
We worked to redeem the promise of America: that all men and women are created equal.
For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling.
Yeah, okay.
Well, the marble ceiling's been broken, but Pelosi goes over to the Middle East and rebuilds it.
The Queen Bee, after kissing the ring of Basher Assad, declares that he, the dictator, is ready to engage in peace negotiations with Israel.
She spoke to the press yesterday after she met with Assad.
Peace in the Middle East is a high priority for the American people and indeed the people in this region and in the world.
We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process.
He was ready to engage in negotiations with peace with Israel.
And she's over there wearing the burqa.
She's doing all this for women's rights.
But now she claims that Assad is ready to talk with the Israelis.
He's ready for peace with the Israelis.
Yes, she is that stupid.
I think, you know, Snerdley says, is she that stupid?
This is a tough thing to say.
I mean, this can be misinterpreted a lot of ways.
Well, look, there's a way of saying somebody.
For example, you can, instead of somebody telling somebody that they have holes in their head, you can tell them they have an open mind.
You know, there's a way.
You call somebody stupid, and people, you know, it's, but I don't think that she is blessed with a tremendous IQ.
I don't think this is the brightest bulb, incandescent or compact fluorescent in the socket.
I don't think, I don't think that the elevator goes all the way to the top.
She is an order of French fries short of a happy meal.
There are any number of ways that you can say this.
I really do think that she's stupid.
There.
You happy?
Now, Snurdley's question, I'm sure it's why is anybody going to believe her?
Folks, we talked about this yesterday.
I can't explain it, but people will.
People will.
Why is anybody going to believe it?
Because Pelosi's did, because Bush isn't talking to Assad Pelosi did.
You understand?
People have been taught conflict resolution.
They think if you reach out to your enemies, you can convince them you're not a bad person and everything can be hunky-dory.
There are a lot of people who think that not talking to bad guys only widens the gap.
There are a lot of people who think that having conflict and standoff with people doesn't get you anywhere.
And they think that sitting down and talking, even if it means you...
Look at all the people that love compromise.
And look at how they define it and so forth.
Frankly, to be honest, I don't know how many people are going to give a rat's rear end about this anyway.
Let's talk a month from now and we'll see how many people actually think that something serious happened here.
She doesn't have the ability to negotiate for the United States.
She doesn't have the ability to negotiate for the Israelis.
All she can do is go over there and talk and puff up her own resume, say whatever she wants in a press conference.
We haven't heard Assad say this.
Assad hasn't come out and said he's ready to negotiate with the Israelis.
She's saying so.
You know, and Assad's probably sitting there saying, boy, I love this.
We've got the biggest dupe in the world that's shown up here over to see me.
She's out there saying all these great things about me, and nothing has to change.
And he's not going to have to prove anything here.
It's just, I understand how maddening and frustrating it is.
Let's go to the phones.
Dexter, Minnesota.
Troy, you're first today.
The EIB network, hello.
Mega Ditto's Rush from southern Minnesota.
Yes, sir.
Say, I'm suggesting that you sell the carbon offsets to countries like France and Belgium.
I think you'd make a killing there.
This would be huge.
Well, I've thought about this, but you've got to have some people buy these offsets.
I mean, we can sell the offsets to France and so forth, but some of these places around the world are going to have to reduce or plant trees or do something in order for the United States not to have to reduce its carbon footprint as a whole.
And I think what we ought to do is go to the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol.
France is a signatory.
The EU, some of their nations are signatories.
Since they believe in it, we'll go out and sell these carbon offsets and then tell them, look, you guys, this is going to work.
You guys reduce your carbon footprints or you plant all these trees or what?
Another idea.
We could have illegal immigrants plant trees all along the U.S.-Mexican border.
We don't even need to build a fence.
Just plant trees.
Look at, that's a long piece of, that's a long border.
It's a big stretch.
And we would kill two birds with one stone and have all these new trees soaking up all the supposed pollution that we are putting out.
One thing I have to say.
I'm having a little fun with this, but this Supreme Court decision yesterday is not insignificant.
The Supreme Court, the quote-unquote law of the land, has just told the EPA, they haven't told them they have to so much, but they have cleared the way for the EPA to start regulating CO2 as it treats it as a pollutant.
Now, I don't want to be absurd here, but if the Democrats win the White House in 2008, the EPA becomes what they want it to become.
Hello, Clinton carbon tax.
You remember one of the first taxes that the Clinton administration tried to enact in early 1993 was the BTU tax.
It was going to add up to a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline and other usages that so-called left a so-called carbon footprint.
Imagine down the road, everybody being taxed for the number of times they exhale.
I mean, if CO2 is being emitted, whether it's coming from the human oral cavity or a smokestack or an exhaust pipe, it can be taxed because the Supreme Court has just said it's a pollutant and the EPA.
See, the EPA never before qualified CO2 as a pollutant.
Now, they might call it a greenhouse gas, but that does not mean it is a pollutant.
It's just been said now by the Supreme Court that it is.
Brilliant scientists that they are.
It is ridiculous, but this is not an insignificant thing down the road when the wrong people get in charge of the EPA.
And, you know, the EPA is a government agency, and governments exist to grow, and they exist to tax, and they exist to control.
They exist to expand power.
So you give the right administration the power to start taxing CO2 emissions, and there's no end to it, especially under the guise of saving the planet and saving Palm Beach County.
You know, last time I looked, I just looked at the map.
North Carolina juts farther out east than the little curve here in Palm Beach County.
They got hurricanes up there, too.
But I haven't seen any stories about how North Carolina is going to be wiped out by global warming.
It'll happen.
Just a matter of time.
What about all the curves in California?
What about a wallopal loser of a day?
Snerdley came in to me before the morning.
He said, I can't believe stuff in the news.
I just can't believe it.
It's insane.
Such is this story.
We're doing such a great job on dealing with al-Qaeda that we're more dangerous or at greater risk than we've ever been.
I said, Snerdley, nothing we can do about it.
It makes for good radio, though, so there's an upside.
We'll have details coming up on these and other things as well.
More of your phone calls after this.
Ha!
How are you?
Yesterday on this program doing a couple of brilliant monologues.
I pointed out that the reason why so many people in this country don't seem to be agitated by a number of things that we all are is that they're inundated all the time with drive-by media coverage of various events.
And one of the things that the drive-by media has been insistent upon, along with our allies, the Democrat Party, is trying to convince as many people as possible.
There really isn't a war on terror.
I mean, Bush created it.
The only reason Muslims are trying to kill us is because we're killing them.
We're invading their countries.
We're doing all these other horrible things.
It's Bush that's the problem.
If it hadn't been for Bush, none of this would have happened.
9-11, a mere episode.
It can't be tied to anything that's part of a big broad plan that militant Islamofascists might have.
And so there really isn't any need for being in Iraq.
There's no need to be in Afghanistan.
There's no need to have a war on terror.
We need to fund education and healthcare.
Blah, Let me show you just how prescient I am.
And to once again illustrate just how I know these people.
As I said yesterday, I know liberals like every square inch of my glorious, rapidly shrinking, nevertheless, body, not just the back of my hand.
From the Army Times.
The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.
It's not because the war has been won or lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democrat leadership doesn't like the phrase.
A memo for the committee staff circulated on March 27 says the 2008 defense bill and its accompanying explanatory report will set defense policy.
And it says it should be specific about the military operations and avoid using colloquialisms.
The global war on terror, phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the 9-11 attacks, should not be used, according to the memo.
Also banned is the phrase the long war, which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against the terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.
Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases.
The memo written by staff director Aaron Conatin provides examples of acceptable phrases such as the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, operations in the Horn of Africa, or ongoing military operations throughout the world.
There was no political intent in doing this at a Democrat aide who didn't want to be identified.
We're just trying to avoid catchphrases.
John Hawley, Josh Hawley, actually, a spokesman for Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the former chairman of this committee, now a senior Republican, said Republicans weren't consulted about the change.
Ike Skelton from my home state of Missouri as a Democrat, chairman of the committee, had a staffer draw up a little memo instructing staffers and members the references to the war on terror should be eliminated from the 2008 defense budget.
It seems the Democrats do not like the phrase.
Skelton's been among those who've been complaining a long time that the military is tied up with Iraq operations.
It's reduced its capacity to take on other expanded operations.
But this is a war that can't be named.
There is no war on terror.
And they think, they're telling us this isn't political.
They're telling us that this, no, no, no, we're doing.
We're just trying to avoid all this confusion.
So, as far as the Democrats are concerned, the lingo in the Defense Budget 2008, which goes into effect October 1, the fiscal year here in September 30th.
So we're talking about the Defense Budget authorization for next year beginning in October.
No war on terror, folks.
No, of course, this isn't political.
No, no, this is designed to get a lot of play and to convince as many Americans as possible that everything we're doing in the war on terror is just non-necessary because there isn't one.
And that is the specific intent.
A couple other things I don't have time to get to right before the break here ends, but I keep hyping this and it's unbelievable.
It's a Reuters story.
Bush has been so successful, so successful against al-Qaeda that the United States has never been at greater risk from them.
We'll explain this.
Well, we'll tell you what they say.
There's no explaining this other than to call it insane and pure partisanship disguises journalism.
And I've also learned something from the Washington Post blog today about the John Edwards campaign.
We have some audio sound bites.
And once again, what we have learned will once again confirm that I and my instincts were dead on right from the get-go on this story.
Look at here, folks.
North Carolina actually beat Palm Beach County as the first county or the state to suffer total annihilation by global warming.
The Barrier Islands out there, 2005 is the story.
Details coming up.
So Palm Beach County, we won't be the first to be destroyed because of our curve by global warming.
▲
Export Selection