All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
April 4, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Where was that coyote?
Was that in Manhattan when that coyote got into the Quisnos uh shop?
This is.
Well, it's it's funny.
I it's it's just funny.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
It was Chicago.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, that's right, Chicago.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the EIB Network at 800-282-2882.
We got an all points bulletin out for Jenny Valentine student.
At uh where?
New Hampshire.
University of New Hampshire.
She was in a town meeting yesterday with the Edwards's.
I'm dying to talk to her to try to help.
And of course, we got guys calling claiming to be Jenny.
We've got we got everybody's calling claiming to be Jenny.
I knew that was going to happen, but we have ways of identifying Jenny that you people don't know.
And so you can't fool us on this.
So don't even waste your time here trying to tell us that you are Jenny.
We know that you're not.
Uh telephone number 800-282-2882.
This is the funniest thing.
This this coyote.
Uh, just walked into a Quiznos store.
I mean, there look there it is.
It's right the juice counter right now.
It looks like it's taking a nap.
It just walked in the door.
And of course, uh it wasn't doing anything.
It just that Chicago has a uh coyotes do this frequently in Chicago.
They walk into stores.
Wasn't going to buy anything.
It was just there.
I mean, the door was open, it went in.
And it looked like it was asleep.
Cute little thing.
But of course, a coyote, a wild coyote can be a dangerous thing, and so they called animal control to come get it.
And the animal control guys, you know, they're serious about this.
So they they took it out of there, and the coyote was resisting this, and it was squirming and jumping around, and it was yelping, and it had a mouth open, it was threatening, it was growling, whatever coyotes do.
Uh, and it was being dragged out by the neck.
They had uh some collar around the neck uh connected to a stick, and uh the coyote didn't want to go, and it was being dragged out and put in a truck and taken off.
They're gonna release it back into the wild.
But the pictures before, the video before you see the animal control guy taking the coyote out, show the coyote as docile and peaceful and harmless.
It was and cute.
Just cute.
It was just, it was just in the juice counter there.
It looked like if it could get some Gatorade if it knew how to open the uh the bottle.
And of course, people are now saying, it wasn't threatening anybody, it wasn't hurting anybody.
It wasn't it was it was it?
It wasn't it wasn't a problem.
They're just upset at the way the animal control people came into.
And it's it's just typical of what we were talking about yesterday.
There is a total uh the the animal control guy was there to protect people.
Who knows what the coyote's gonna do?
It's just a it coyote's a coyote.
So they got it out of there.
They're gonna release it in the wild, but everybody thinks animal control now was being too mean with this thing.
Just give it a sandwich and give it a battle of orange juice, it'll go on its way, Myther Limbaugh.
New York Times stack, couple of um interesting stories.
The upshot of this story is that American Idol is popular because of the 2000 election.
The uh arts and TV critic for the New York Times wrote the piece.
Her name is Alessandra Stan uh Stanley.
And uh according to her story, the reason that teenage girls love tuning in is because Gore did not beat George W. Bush in 2000.
Here's what Alessandra Stanley wrote.
Idle, now in its sixth season, has its selection process backward.
In this country, people can vote for whomever they want, even Al Gore in 2000.
But the last word is left of the electoral college and even the justices of the Supreme Court.
The most interesting thing about this season's ado is not Mr. Malakur and Mr. Stern or even Simon Cole.
It's the current obsession with voting on TV shows and internet sites like YouTube.
Idle, which began as a British hit, made its debut in a U.S. in 2002, a scant two years after one of the closest presidential elections in American history.
The talent show spawned a multitude of copycat shows with voter call-in gimmicks and blah, blah, blah.
The high viewer turnout for idle, which is I guess it's on tonight, cannot solely be explained by technological advances or a regression in human nature.
It cannot be a coincidence that television voting rights arose so soon after the 2000 election left slightly more than half the voting population feeling cheated.
Those who didn't go to the polls and feared that their abstention inadvertently made possible the invasion of Iraq may feel even worse.
Idol could be a displacement ritual, a psychological release that allows people to vote and even vote often.
In a contest that has no dangers or even lasting consequences.
Even losers went out in the end.
Both Gore and Jennifer Hudson ended up on the Oscar stage.
And they also go so far as to say maybe the reason that more people didn't turn out for the 2004 presidential race is that they were still in denial and distracted by American Idol.
Now, my my memory is that turnout in 2004 was a record.
A record number of votes for the Republican candidate, a record number of votes for the Democrat candidate.
But how about the overall theory?
The reason that young girls, young people love American Idol is that they felt cheated in the 2000 election, and when you vote for idle, you don't get cheated.
And that's a vote that counts.
And that's a vote that matters, and that's a vote that's genuine.
That's a vote that is legitimate.
There isn't any electoral college.
My vote counts, unlike the 2000 presidential race.
And then I would venture to say that half the people that watch American Idol don't know who ran for president in 2000, and they may not know who ran for two president 2004.
And the more the reason people didn't turn out in 2004 is that they were still in denial and they were having more fun voting on American Idol.
And they thought that was more legit.
This is a genuine this is a serious piece in the New York Times today.
And onto the category, no wonder Democrats win elections.
The New York Times has published an article on the New Jersey pension fund fiasco without ever identifying Democrats as having been in charge.
Can anyone doubt that if the parties were reversed, the Republican would have appeared throughout and probably even in the headline?
Since 2002, New Jersey has had four Democrat governors under whose leadership the problem apparently developed and worsened while the Democrat Party of New Jersey has a long history of sordid corruption.
The only time the word Democrat is mentioned in this story is when discussing the current governor, John Corzine, who is depicted as trying to solve the pension fund crisis.
Corzine currently under criticism for too chummy a relationship with Carla Katz, president of the communication workers of America local 1034.
It's a union that represents a large percentage of New Jersey State employees, but of course, that scandal connection is of no interest to the Times.
This is the pension fund scandal up there.
Um it is a fiasco, and not once in the story is the word Democrat mentioned in regard to that fiasco.
And Ed Lasky comments on this at the American thinker, and he's exactly right.
If it were Republican governor, that's all you would have seen.
Headline and everywhere else.
More evidence of not just the bias, not just the lack of objectivity, just the agenda of the uh drive-by media.
Brief timeout will be back.
Your phone calls, a couple interesting sound bites from Rudy coming up after this.
And back we are here on the Rush Limbaugh program, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now let's go to the phones.
This is Betty in Wasika, Minnesota.
I'm glad you waited, Betty.
Thanks for the call.
Yes, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
Oh, okay.
Uh yeah, I tuned in on you just as you were mentioning Pelosi and in a burqa.
Well, a burqa, a hijab, whatever it is.
Right.
It made me furious.
Really?
It did.
I've been studying the Middle East culture.
But that Burqa stands for submission.
And just because I mean, you can't you can't know how angry I was.
That's the same.
Wait, but great, but wait, but wait.
That's their culture, and and and Pelosi was simply respecting their culture.
I understand that, but she's also respecting uh she's also a representative of our country.
That's not the right answer.
It's a good answer, not the right answer.
They don't respect our culture.
They come here and want to turn change our culture into theirs.
They're not respecting the UK culture.
The UK can't teach the Holocaust now because it might offend Muslims who don't believe it happened.
And and by the way, can I tell you what that's about, folks?
I have one of my one of my undeniable truths of life, 35 of them.
Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
You don't think force, the threat of force or violence is present in the UK decision not to teach the Holocaust.
What are they afraid of if they offend the Muslims?
They're afraid they're gonna riot.
They're afraid they're gonna do something.
The use of force governs our world.
It always has and it always will.
As to the as to Pelosi, you know, bowtowing uh counttown to their culture, notice how eager we are to do that, but that's because we're the majority, they're the minority, we can't offend them, we can't offend anybody, we can't discriminate, we allow them to come here or anybody else, and uh and and and uh ignore our culture and customs, including our language if they want to.
Your turn.
Okay.
No, I I I understand totally what you're talking about culture, and I respect other cultures.
But when she's representing our country, and our country with women that aren't free over here to dress as you can, you know, however you want.
I don't care.
She was to go and represent us as America.
This is that she can't be dressed as a good business suit, you know, and dressed like a neat woman, and and and the whole thing, because like I said, I've been studying the culture.
That burqa stands for submissive, and that's what it is.
I understand, and a lot of people were upset about this, Betty.
We were inundated.
I was inundated with emails yesterday, sturdy got a bunch of phone calls, uh, inundated about that particularly, a number of other things uh as well.
You are not alone.
Let's go to Cleveland.
This is Mark.
You're next.
Well, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Uh just uh uh uh why is Speaker Pelosi lionized for her intervention, but President Reagan was uh excoriated in 1980 for allegedly meddling in state affairs, undermining Jimmy Carter.
You know that's a brilliant question.
That is a brilliant question.
What he is talking about here, folks, is the October surprise.
And you know, you you remember what that was, Mark?
Yes, sir.
Uh they were holding the hostage allegedly until uh late so that uh Reagan would get the big boost and win the election.
Here's here are the details.
It's even more interesting than that.
During the campaign for the 1980 presidency, of course, the Iranians are holding American hostages, and they were held for a total of 444 days.
After the election and after the inauguration, Iran releases them.
They're free.
And everybody's whoa, what happened here?
The liberals, the Democrats just could not accept the fact that it's there.
Had to be some subterfuge here.
And so it wasn't long after that charges of an October surprise took place.
And the elements of the charge were that uh people from the Reagan camp had been sent to Paris under cover of darkness and the cloak of secrecy to have secret negotiations with the Iranians.
And the purpose was look at keep those hostages through our election.
Keep them there so that Carter gets hurt, and then when we win the election, then you release them, and we'll be nice to you.
We'll do all kinds of great things for you.
That was the charge.
There was never any evidence.
It got so ridiculous that there's a I think the guy is or was at Columbia University, highly respected, frequent appearance appearances on nightline.
His name is Gary Sick.
Gary Sick wrote an entire big book on the October surprise.
And the upshot of this was that George Bush, George H.W. Bush, Was flown to Paris in an SR 71, one of these spy planes that exceeds the speed of sound out there.
And that he met with these guys, and he's the one that arranged the deal.
This happened in 198 or 90.
Tom Foley was the Speaker of the House.
I forget when it happened.
But it was it was years, years after 1979.
And I'll never forget Tom Foley said, we have no evidence.
And precisely because we have no evidence, and because of the seriousness of the charge, we must conduct hearings.
And Congress actually conducted investigations into the October surprise using Gary Sick's book.
There was never any evidence of this.
Never.
And so Mark's point here is oh, wait a second.
If Syria is going to get all kinds of credit now, and if it probably it won't be long before Pelosi claims some too, because you know the what the Democrats are going to want people to believe is, if this happens, is that uh Pelosi went over and told Assad, look, uh, we we have no problem with you, and uh just give us time, get it get rid of our president here, and we will work with you.
We we want peace in the region just like you want peace.
We're just like you.
We just want peace for our children, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And uh, and then and and so doing the Osid will say, you know what?
We don't care about these 15 Brits.
I'll get hold of Ahmadinezad.
Hey, Mahmood, we don't care about these 15 Brits.
They're more valuable letting them go than keeping them.
Let them go and make yourself look like a great hero, a great savior, do it around Easter time.
Uh, and in the process, you you uh just like Jesse Jackson gets hostages released.
These people know who their friends are in the United States.
They know who the weak minded are, they know who they're gonna be able to dominate and intimidate.
It's a Democrat.
So, you know, make it look like Pelosi might have something to do with this uh with this.
I don't know if that's gonna happen, but I'm just telling you, you won't be surprised if it does.
In the meantime, everybody's hailing this intervention by Syria.
Oh, it's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
And Ma Moon is such a great guy.
But 1979.
Why, this was something to be investigated.
How did those Americans get released?
And it was thought to be a Republican plot.
You think those of you who are relatively young and have uh scant memory of uh times 20, 25 years ago.
Uh uh it's just more the same now.
It's always been this way.
Democrats are who they are.
That's why I keep saying that the pages of the playbook never change.
They just be uh recycled and the playbook ends and go back to the front and start executing the same stuff uh with different issues or circumstances.
Uh David in Montgomery, Alabama, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Well, good afternoon to you, Rush, and uh U.S. Air Force Ditto's to you.
Thank you, sir.
Wanted to uh call in and ask your opinion on this because I think the Democrats or liberals, I guess one and the same, they kind of have a demonstrated track record of things like this intervening with what a lot of people refer to as the enemy.
So back in the uh 94 election time frame, we had a president and some other people involved in getting money from people we did not want to be closely associated with politically, namely the Chinese.
I'm kind of curious if it wouldn't be worth watching what kind of money starts coming into the coffers of the DNC and from where.
Uh now that Miss Pelosi has gone over there to do what she is doing.
I wonder if this is a campaign, you know, funding trip.
Goodness gracious, I can't believe the cynicism among some of you people out there.
You actually believe that Syria and Iran might actually contribute to the Democrats like the Chinese did to Clinton.
Well, why not?
They're printing our money over in Iran all the time anyway.
I imagine they wouldn't mind giving some of it back.
Well, yeah, but the money they're printing is counterfeit.
That's true, but the whole thing isn't what they're doing.
It's a big counterfeit.
In a sense, we ought to maybe maybe Al Gore could do a movie, call it some inconvenient cash or something like that.
You know, this is I I have no idea about this, even though I always say follow the money.
But I think just the fact that you've conjured this possibility is a great indication of what some people think Democrats are capable of, and what the whole point of the trip might actually be is money.
The problem is they have to launder it through somebody.
Uh you remember the Chinese money came in the form of travelers' checks.
They were brought in in bags by Johnny Chung.
Bags of money dropped off to the DNC.
Travelers' checks.
By the guy that ran the Chinese restaurant in Little Rock.
Oh, nobody had a problem with that.
No, no, no.
People just want to be involved.
They're Americans and they uh they just uh little unsophisticated.
Don't quite know how the system works, but we'll keep the money.
It's like Al Gore and the Buddhist um the monks out there at that Buddhist temple in LA.
They got shafted too.
But that's what Democrats exist to do.
Uh, appreciate the call out there, David.
Brief timeout.
Rudy Giuliani.
Was he listening to me yesterday?
We'll be right back.
Yes, uh, I know.
Thank you.
Welcome back.
L. Rush both serving humanity simply by showing up on the EIB network.
Now look, you people, you're gonna have to start listening closer.
I just checked the email during the break.
Rush, rush, you blew it.
And you do this too many times, and it fuels your enemies to say that you make mistakes, you get things wrong.
Tom Tom Foley wasn't speaking of the house.
Tip O'Neill was speaking of the House in 1980.
I know that.
That's not when the investigation of the October surprise happened.
That was the point.
It wasn't for eight or nine years after it that six book came out, and the then speaker Tom Foley in the late eighties or nineties decided that there had to be an investigation because there wasn't any evidence.
But the seriousness of the charges dictated that Congress look into it.
This is the late 80s.
I've I've all those years run together.
Yeah, Fort Worthless Jim was the speaker of the House at some point in the mid to late 80s, and uh then Foley came on after him.
But it was Foley, and the point was it was it was so many years after the so-called October surprise had taken place, and it was no different than what the Democrats are doing now in investigating the Bush administration.
Uh the president, George Bush, George H.W. was in the White House when this was happening.
He was elected in 1988.
It was an investigation of the Republican president, who had been accused of participating in the October surprise.
All right, Rudy Giuliani.
Yesterday, I uh lamented on this program that none of the presidential candidates are lashing out at Democrats and the fact that they are securing defeat, that they own defeat, that they want us to lose.
The Democrats want to quit.
And I expressed incredulity.
If I were one of these presidential candidates, I'd be out there beating these Democrats all the hell over this.
Well, I don't know if he was listening or not, but last night on Hannity and Colb's, Rudy was the guest, and Sean said, have have a Democrats become the party of surrender in the war.
What they're doing is unprecedented in war.
Find me another time that an army or a nation announced their retreat in advance and handed their enemy a written timetable.
And it's like, you know, Xeroxing and handing it out to them.
We're going to retreat from the field in the following order and in the following way.
I don't think I've ever heard of this before in the history of war.
I think it is inherently irresponsible, and it puts the remaining troops who are left behind, as you do this kind of sequenced retreat.
It puts them in graver jeopardy.
Well, so Rudy's speaking out about it.
He was on Hannity and Combs last night.
Also, um uh Sean said to him, uh, should family be off limits in a campaign.
There were personal issues, there were mistakes I made.
Despite that, and while those things were going on, crime went down 57%, homicide went down 67%.
660,000 people removed from the welfare rolls.
A deficit of 2.3 billion, changed into a surplus of multi-billions, taxes reduced 23 times, and then we had to deal with September 11th.
So it seems to me you take a look at that and say, what's the balance here?
Is this guy the kind of guy that can lead the country?
No matter what's going on, he's gonna stay focused and get results.
Rudy Giuliani fired up out there last night on the Fox News channel on Hannity and Colbs.
Uh if he keeps that up, uh he'll stay the front runner.
He keeps that kind of talk up, particularly on the Democrats, because that's who he's gonna be running against.
I know right now it's the primaries and so forth.
Uh, but the the news that's being made by Democrats is Certainly salient in that it uh it threatens uh our way of life that we've always uh all come to expect.
And no, speaking of presidential candidates, not looking good out there for Senator McCain.
You uh may have seen this on the Drudge Report.
Uh there's a new uh new spot on his upper forehead, raising concern among campaign watchers.
It's a dark nickel-sized spot.
It was evident this week as McCain was touring Iraq.
A top McCain source said it's just a it's a minor blemish.
The Senator remains in excellent health.
Uh it was in 2000 that McCain underwent surgery for the removal of two malignant melanomas from his left temple and left upper arm, along with lymph nodes from his neck and a portion of his salivary gland.
He's remained cancer free since then.
One photo uh released by the Public Affairs Operations Center in Iraq shows McCain with an odd black spot on a forehead.
Uh plus his campaign uh, you know, it it it it uh announced twelve and a half million dollars in donations.
That's way, way low.
McCain now revamping the whole campaign team, and people are starting to ask, you know, this is this is awfully strange.
Mrs. Clinton, by the way, here's here's a good point.
Hillary Clinton is a 26 million dollars in the first quarter.
Whoa, whoa, she didn't raise 26 million dollars in the first quarter.
She's been raising money for six years.
She's been raising money for Senate campaigns, storing some of that.
She's raising money for primaries, raising money for the general.
She had she took 10 million uh and transferred from uh uh Senate campaign dollars unused there, which you can do.
She didn't raise any 26 million dollars.
And of course, uh drive-bys are still obsessed with how Mitt Romney raised so much money with him being so low in the polls.
Now we find out today that uh Barack Obama, godlike for the godless, uh has uh has raised 25 million, just one million underneath Hillary, and she's got something like 50,000 plus donors.
Obama has 83,000 donors.
And Obama did raise his money in a lot shorter period of time than Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton has raised hers.
But this BS about Hillary Clinton raised $526 million in the first quarter.
Well, that's it's a crock.
He's been collecting and people say, why wasn't McCain doing this?
You know, it's it's been well known, it's one of the worst-kept secrets out there that uh that McCain is going to run for president.
But even if he decided not to, why not start collecting money for it ever since 2000 or 2002, 2004, whatever.
And now they're reworking the campaign, and the media is just jumping all over the guy about his reports of success in Baghdad.
And these are the people he was relying on, the drive-by's.
They were going to be his insurance policy.
They were going to love him.
Now there's something else that's that's happened out there in the blogosphere.
A guy named Jonathan Singer in a blog called My D D. MY, Capital D, Capital D, published an interview with John Kerry yesterday.
Um, and Singer said there's a story in the Hill on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people, John Weaver, had approached Tom Dashel and a New York Congress, and don't remember his name about switching parties.
And McCain was switching parties.
And I was wondering, Senator Kerry, if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with McCain in 2004 and how far it went and who approached whom if there was any there.
Kerry said, Well, I don't know all the details of it.
I served in Vietnam.
But he went on to say that I know that uh that uh Tom Dashel from a conversation with him and was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then.
Doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the vice president ticket.
So his people were active, let's put it that way.
And the guy says, Oh, just to confirm, you said it, this is something they approached you rather than and Kerry said, absolutely correct.
John Weaver McCain shop called me.
So Kerry, are you hearing this snerdily?
Kerry is out there in this internet in a blog interview saying that it was McCain who approached him about being the VEP.
Well, now this isn't gonna I I think this is probably B.S. I uh because our source here is John Kerry.
And I don't, I'm not sure I believe this.
In fact, I bet it's probably the other way around.
I bet it was Kerry approaching McCain a number of times.
We know McCain said that he would consider it when it was asked early on.
He wasn't gonna, you know, shut down the idea.
Carrie's a good friend of his and so forth.
And the point of I'm making here is none of this is good for McCain.
This nickel-sized blemish on his forehead, the fundraising that was uh low compared to others and disappointing, and now Carrie out there saying that it was McCain that approached him to be VEP.
And Kerry also implies that Kerry was talking to Dashell about change or uh McCain was talking to Dashell about changing parties 2000 when they got Jim Jeffords jumping gym from uh Vermont to leave the Republican Party and go to the uh Democrat Party.
Uh you know, I this is then and and and and Kerry is out there doing interviews about his book that he wrote with Teresa on global warming.
Has he ever heard of Al Gore?
It's just it's it uh sometimes this stuff is just too difficult to keep up with because it's senseless.
But anyway, uh all this stuff out there with McCain having to revamp his uh and he's gonna delay his official announcement now.
He's already announced it on Letterman, but he's gonna delay the official announcement.
Uh New York Times has it, Adam Nagurney, uh, revamping his campaign finance effort, including adopting big dollar fundraising techniques pioneered by President Bush.
Hell, he's got all the Bush's people.
What do you mean adopting?
What have they been doing?
Why'd they get such a late start on this when everybody's known what McCain's gonna do, including himself?
Anyway, got to run.
Quick timeout.
Be right back.
Yeah, you dropped a bomb on me, baby.
Rush Limbaugh on the Daz band here at the EIB network.
The most popular tunes here in our bumper rotation, uh 800-282-2882.
This is good.
James Taranto, writing uh at the best of the web.com, talks about this Reuters story that says Bush doing so great against Al Qaeda that we're never been at greater risk.
He quotes there's a guy in the story uh whose name is Venze uh Vensky.
Uh let's see, Ben Vensky, the Intel Center chief executive, said our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the U.S. than at any point since 9-11.
Now that we we just that comes at the end of a story in which we've been so successful wiping out Al Qaeda that we face greater risk, and this guy says our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the U.S. than at any point since 9-11.
Well, there's no denying he's right, folks.
If an Al-Qaeda attack is in the future, then it is closer now than at any point since 9-11.
9-11 was we're coming up on uh six years ago.
So if an attack happens in 07, you were much closer to it today than we were in 2001 or 2002.
But see, that is logic, and that is using uh the linear and sequential nature of time.
But if somebody comes out and says that a bunch of sponges are out there reading it, wef an al-Qaeda attack is in the future, then it's closer now than at any point since 9-11.
Oh no, oh no, an attack is closer, it's Mrs. 90.
It can't be any other way.
9-11 six years ago.
There are other disturbing implications, by the way.
Look at the picture.
See the way they're they're dragging a coyote out of there.
It's death a dog, Myther Limbo, I've death a dog, a poor little dog that would find if wanted some juice.
They're all upset about this.
You gotta see the picture of the coyote almost asleep in the Quizno store.
Uh if people weren't worried about it, why call animal control?
Just put a little, you know, food and water dish out for it and adopt it.
At any rate, for those of you sponges out there, uh, I don't mean to scare you, but but there are other disturbing implications as well in this Reuters story.
For example, if you survived 9-11, and this is true no matter who you are, if you survived 9-11, you were more than five years closer to death now than you were then.
Do you realize this?
Even if you survived 9-11, you are five years almost six years closer to death today than you were then.
And this aspect Reuters never even looked into.
And I, you know, no doubt they go out and find some experts and make this Bush's fault.
Well, I mean, look at the point is when this guy says that if an al-Qaeda attack is in the future, it's closer now than at any point since 9-11.
Of course it is 9-11, six years ago.
But the point is to scare you into thinking Bush has made things so dangerous by being so successful that we're it's it's like saying.
I hate to scare you, but you're five years closer to your death today than you were 9-11.
Five and a half, six years closer.
No, no.
This is how people end up buying all this stuff and get scared.
And there's a piece by John Stossel, our old buddy from ABC.
Uh at where is this?
This is uh the the realclearpolitics.com.
He's a syndicated columnist, works for ABC does reports on 2020.
And he says, worry about the right things.
For the past two weeks, I've written about how the media, part of the fear industrial complex, profit by scaring us to death about things that rarely happen, like terrorism, child abductions, and shark attacks.
We do it because we get caught up in the excitement of the story, and for ratings.
Worse, because many reporter reporters are statistically illiterate.
Personal injury lawyers get us to hype risks that barely threaten people, like secondhand smoke or getting cancer from trace amounts of chemicals, sometimes even con us into caring or scaring you about risks that don't exist at all.
Like contracting anti-immune diseases from breast implants.
Newsrooms are full of English majors who acknowledge that they're not good at math, but still they rush to make confident pronouncements about global warming crisis and the coming of bird flu.
Global warming hasn't killed anybody, and yet everybody is upset.
We're all gonna die.
Yeah, we're five years closer to our death day than we were in 2001.
Never forget that.
Bird flu is called the number one threat to the world.
Bird flu has killed no one in America.
Regular flu, the boring kind, kills tens of thousands.
New York City internist Mark Siegel says that after the media hype, his patients didn't want to hear that.
I say, you need a flu shot.
You know, the regular flu's killing 36,000 per year, and they say, don't talk to me about the regular flu.
What's bird flu?
Here's another example.
What do you think is more dangerous?
A house with a swimming pool or a house with a gun.
Well, when for 2020 I asked some kids, they all said the house with the gun would be much more dangerous.
And their parents would probably agree.
Yet a child, excuse me, a child, 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a gun accident.
Parents don't know that partly because the media hate guns and gun accidents make bigger headlines.
Ask yourself which incident would be uh more likely to be covered on television.
Media exposure clouds our judgment about real life odds.
Of course, it doesn't help that viewers are as ignorant about probability as reporters are.
The media make all of this worse, worrying about what's worrying about driving, acting reckless, smoking cigarettes, drinking too much, eating too much, what's your blood pressure, what are you eating, are you exercising, is what patients should think about, says internist Mark Siegel.
But obesity is boring.
Heart disease is boring, so we tend not to think of those things that can really get us.
And the media make it worse.
Instead of educating people to real dangers, we scare them about things that hardly matter.
What have I told you?
Democrats, liberals trying to keep you in a state of chaos and tumult.
Global warming being at the top of the list.
As of now, Vice President Cheney scheduled to be on the program tomorrow as you know, schedules of flexible things can happen.
But he's scheduled to be with us at time uncertain.
But we're looking forward to that.
And the rest of tomorrow's program, when it happens, will be ready, folks.
Hope you are.
▲
Export Selection