All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
April 18, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, truth detector, doctor of democracy, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, maha-rushy here at the EIB network.
Great to have you with us, folks.
It's a thrill and a delight to be able to discuss all these important matters and issues with you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Now, I give the phone number out.
Our lines are constantly full.
Our lines fill up, but they're never empty.
I mean, people are calling six hours before the show to get on the show.
So you might say, why are you going to give the phone number out so much?
There's an art to getting on this program.
And you have to understand that we are on a delay here, not to protect anybody against what I might say, but rather if our callers lose control.
And so you have to anticipate when I'm going to say goodbye to somebody and make your call a certain number of seconds prior to that.
Because if you wait until you hear me having hung up on somebody, ended the call, then you will be late dialing in.
What are you shaking your head in there for?
I'm trying to help these people.
And you're laughing at me.
What is she saying?
I want to know what she's saying.
What is she?
Stressing them out?
This is stressing them out, trying to help them?
Let me give you some of the headlines in the global warming stack today that's coming up.
Greenhouse gas study says 1% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from New York City, greater than the countries of Ireland or Portugal.
Ha ha ha.
I may become a global warming supporter after hearing that.
Elephant dung helps scientists develop new biofuel.
Hey, little Johnny, what do you want to be when you grow up?
I want to be a scientist, mom.
I want to study elephant dung.
I want to study the dung and the droppings of all animals.
Why do you want to do that, Johnny?
Because I want to discover the cure for global warming.
Where do we get these people that study elephant dung?
Who would get even the idea to study elephant dung?
Takes all kinds.
Group calls for population control to stop global warming.
Study warns of health risk from ethanol.
Could end up creating a worse health hazard than gasoline, creates more smog and all of that.
There's also a story out there that global warming may actually reduce the number of hurricanes.
Now, it was just two years ago that global warming was going to cause massive hurricanes that would never end.
They're all going to be like Katrina.
But now two very reputable sources say, scientists, a big study, that global warming is creating the winds over the Atlantic associated with El Niño.
These are upper-level shear winds that just rip the tops off these hurricanes.
That's what happened last year.
They think either that or dust in the atmosphere from this Sahara desert.
No, they don't know.
They just, well, they do know that upper-level winds will shear the tops off a hurricane.
And when you shear the top off a hurricane, it can't form.
They just fall apart.
And that's what did happen last year.
Now, the source of the winds, El Niño, Sahara Desert dust.
But the point is that now that global warming may create those upper-level winds and shear the tops of hurricanes.
It is just two years ago, global warming was going to intensify because of rising sea temperatures.
You know, the surface sea level temperatures and so forth.
So anyway, they just scratched the surface there.
As I predicted, as I warned you all yesterday, gun control has become the central theme of the drive-by media after the tragedy here, the massacre at Virginia Tech.
And by the way, speaking of something that we were just talking about, this guy was sending out clear warning signs that he was not right, and nobody would do anything about it on the campus.
I mean, they sent him counseling.
We don't know how that went.
He might have been taking antidepressants.
We don't know what the effect of that was.
He went to some institution for a while.
We don't know how that went.
We also have just learned that the guy's writings, which we did know about, but what we just learned is the guy's writings were so scary that there were people that refused to go to his class.
They refused to actually go in the classroom when this guy was there.
So there clearly were all kinds of warning signs about this that were not heeded in a serious way.
And as I said, it's very easy to start running around and saying, well, ban guns.
It's a GOP's fault.
It's Bush's fault.
Get rid of the NRA, rather than actually deal with what circumstances people had known for years prior to this guy committing this random act yesterday.
And by the way, I think the Democrats heard me.
Dingy Harry's out there.
No, we can't start talking about gun control now.
Yo, let's not rush to gun control, is the headline of the story on Dingy Harry?
There's no question that Democrats heard.
Drive-by media didn't, but the Democrats did.
But I want to explore something entirely different than banning guns, and that would be a ban on political correctness.
You people, and you know who you are.
I'm getting emails from you.
Some of you have called, and you're lamenting the soft structure of the American child these days, the American young person.
Why didn't they gang tackle this guy?
Why didn't they just overpower this guy once he started firing it out?
And everybody's got their theories.
And one of the theories, one of the most common theories that I'm hearing in my email on the phones here is that, well, come on, Rush.
I mean, from kindergarten on, they're taught conflict resolution, don't offend anybody, don't make anybody mad.
Well, what is that if not political correctness?
And it may be a factor.
Don't really know.
But let me put it to you in the form of a series of questions.
What might have had a better chance of preventing the carnage on the campus of Virginia Tech?
A law banning guns, which they had.
That was a gun-free zone.
Or a law banning political correctness.
Now, I know what some of you are saying, but rush, but rush, but rush, it was two guns.
And by gosh, that's true, folks.
Thanks for reminding me.
There were two guns the guy had.
But let me remind you: the killer was a senior.
He was in that university for four years.
And his mental state was not a secret.
And this university is an institution of higher learning.
They have lecturers, they have advisors, they have teachers, professors, deans, and all these people have degrees, postgraduate degrees, doctorate degrees.
Before he was in this university for four years, he was in a half-scruel.
And before he was in the half-scruel, he was in the middle screw.
Now, even now, we are just beginning to learn some of the warning signs.
The flares, these were not signs.
This guy was sending up flares.
And didn't anybody notice?
Was everybody so concerned with the trumped-up global warming scare they didn't notice a real threat, for example?
And how about this?
The guy is Korean.
He's Asian.
How many people refuse to do anything about it or even complain about him because they would be tagged as racists?
And not just because he's Korean, but he's a minority.
How many people in our school system from K, kindergarten, on up through the senior in high school and all that have been, by virtue of political correctness, you don't comment on people who are in a minority no matter what they're doing.
You're going to be called bigoted.
You're going to be called prejudiced.
At worse, you might even be called a racist.
So I wonder how many of the students at this campus live in daily fear of global warming because of what is no doubt being taught there and every other college campus.
That's a trumped-up scare, and they don't even notice a real threat.
Well, it's hard to say that because somebody, a lot of people noticed something wrong with this guy, whether that equaled a threat to them.
Well, we know that it did with some because they refused to go to the class where he submitted all these writings.
You do not have to be a talk show host.
You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican or a moderate to ask this.
How is it that we have outlawed standards of behavior?
Where is our sense of community and civic responsibility?
Has all that has held our society together been swept away by political correctness?
Well, you might have some people, come on, Dorothy, you can't say this about us.
He was doing his own thing, and we didn't want to invade his faith.
He's Athenian.
We didn't want any fibble right-lawthut.
If we single him out for aberrant behavior, where would it stop?
So this is the paralysis caused by political correctness.
But the fault, my friends, lies in ourselves, not in a gun shop, not in a gun, not in a hall of Congress, House or Senate, not in Washington.
It's easy to say that we need more gun laws, but what's not so easy to say is that we need less political correctness, and we need a lot more return to some sensible values that exist.
You know, one of the tenets of political correctness is you can't judge anybody.
You can't judge them even when you know that there's something wrong with them.
You can't offend them.
You can't offend them.
So what do you do?
You just don't go to class when this guy shows up with his wacko writings.
You do your best to send him to an institution, get him on some drugs, but even that, you know, you can't offend.
You don't judge.
You just leave people alone.
It's none of your business, this sort of thing.
And this leads to paralysis, which is part of what's one of the many things that we had at Virginia Tech earlier in the week.
Here's that headline talking about Reed warns against rush on gun control.
I thought, oh, no, the guy's responding to me, but Rush is not capitalized.
Now, after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Dingy Harry cautioned Tuesday against a rush to judgment on stricter gun control.
A leading House supporter of restrictions on firearms conceded passage of legislation would be difficult.
I think we ought to be thinking about the families and the victims and not speculate about future legislative battles that might lie ahead, said Dingy Harry, a view expressed by other Democrat leaders the day after the shooting.
Diane Feinstein, though, said, I believe this will reignite the dormant effort to pass common sense gun regulations in this nation.
She was a leader in the failed drive to renew a ban on certain types of assault weapons that expired in 2004.
Why would she care about this?
Her husband doesn't have an interest in a gun company, does he?
Obviously not.
If her husband had interest in a gun company, she wouldn't be talking about this.
So obviously, she's free to weigh in.
But I made a big deal out of this.
I accused the Democrats that were going to politicize this, and they heard it.
This just reads too much like they heard it.
We ought to be thinking about the families and the victims and not speculate about future legislative battles that might lie ahead.
I just finished a brilliant monologue on the concept of banning political correctness for the good of our kids and the good of our society.
I want you to listen to this montage here of NBC's Meredith Vieira, Wolf Blitzer, have a psychotherapist, Karen Stark, Chris Matthews of Hardball.
I still wonder if he's going to resign and let a minority take his position at MSNBC.
Remind me to bring that up because I'm thinking of running a poll at rushlinbaugh.com.
Who at MSNBC should resign to allow a minority to have a primetime show?
In fact, we are going to do that.
I'll give you the choices here in just a second.
So we got Matthews, we got Brian Williams, we got a forensic psychologist, Dr. Helen Morrison, and Larry King.
And they're weighing in on the very thing we've been talking about, the profile of this guy, the shooter.
And the warning signs were all there.
Listen to these frustrated questions from the drive-by media types and the psychotherapists.
Is there a profile for someone who would do something like this?
It seems like the classic profile.
He's a loner, which fits the profiles.
What do you do when you have a kid who looks like the profile who might go on a rampage?
The classic profile of the loner who exhibited trouble.
Isn't that a trend that deserves now more resources?
We see the typical profile of a mass murderer.
Is there any way to spot them before?
Can we profile this type of person?
How does this happen?
They all end up asking the same question.
Can we end up profile?
Can you imagine if this guy was Islamic, would we be asking the question?
Now they want to profile Asian Americans.
Now they want to profile people that they think can be identified as people who are going to go out and shoot 32 people in one morning.
And I'm telling you, that can't be profile.
I don't care what these people say.
It doesn't happen enough.
You can't profile somebody who's going to do that just because they're a loner, just because they play video games, just because they have a gun.
All these things may add up.
The thing you profile is, he was a nutcase.
And they're all asking, is there something we can profile?
Yes, it was all over.
The guy was screaming.
What's the thing the left says?
It was a desperate cry for help.
What, Mr. Snerdley?
What's the question?
You're interrupting me here in the brilliant riff.
Better be a good question.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
We can't profile them if they kill 3,000.
If we can't profile the Islamo fascists, no, no, no, we can't.
We can't even profile them in those Transportation Safety Authority.
You go through the metal detectors.
You can't profile them in there.
No, your little grandmother might get wanded.
Your six-year-old might get wanded.
You might have to give up your shaving lotion or a shaving cream or whatever.
You can.
No, we can't.
The same people who agree that we shouldn't be profiling Islamo fascists now want to profile people like this.
And there was a profile.
Nobody paid any attention to it in a serious fashion.
Nobody paid it.
I mean, they tried to give him drugs and they sent him to the funny farm and all, but nobody did anything about getting him off campus.
See, that's why I say it's so easy to start talking about guns.
These guys don't know how they're undercutting their own argument.
What are they saying?
Are they asking, isn't there a way to profile a madman with a gun?
These people are so out of it.
They don't even realize how they set themselves up for people like me.
Where are these same questions after 9-11?
In fact, we've gone just the opposite.
We can't profile them at all.
All right, Pat in Pasadena, Texas.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, thanks, Rush.
Ditto from Texas.
Back to the Supreme Court decision.
I wanted to ask you about the religious and political implications since all five justices supporting the law banning the Park Force abortion are Catholic.
Well, I think you're asking me If the drive-by meeting the left will focus in on their religion.
Absolutely.
And the election coming up in a white Juliani's Catholic.
I look at Catholicism and Christianity.
Those of you, you can make fun of them and you can rip them and you can criticize them all day long.
You might have a point here.
Although, in this case, I think the focal point is going to be Justice Kennedy.
Justice, I said this in the first hour.
This is what I want you all to be on the lookout for.
Justice Kennedy, in his decision, let it be known he could be persuaded to change his mind, that he might be wrong here.
And you've got the four so-called conservatives, the four so-called liberals, and here was Justice Kennedy, the swing vote.
That's who they're going to work on.
They're going to mount a PR campaign.
What's happened to Justice Kennedy?
Because they think he'll respond to it.
They think Justice Kennedy is somebody who will want fawning attention from the media and Democrats in Washington and in New York.
But the idea that they might profile or criticize the religion, hell, that comes up in hearings.
It comes up in the hearings of these Supreme Court nominees.
Chuck Schumer and Durbin have been out there, you know, you can't bring your religious views to the court.
You understand that.
But that really isn't new.
And the way this all manifests itself, Pat, is if there is a vacancy and the new nominee that Bush would put forward, you can look for all-out war.
And nothing will be off the table in terms of ammo that will be used.
David in Columbia, Mississippi.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes.
Greetings from Katrina Ravage, South Mississippi.
Right, sir.
You made a point about gun control's impotence, another law not being relevant, and Columbine, what, 53 gun laws were violated.
Another one wouldn't have mattered.
You know, this guy had chains and locks.
He could have had a five-gallon gas tank of gasoline and would have done a lot of damage.
Of course, I made that point yesterday.
Fertilizer and so forth blew up the Mura building.
But this guy filed the serial numbers off the gun, too.
I mean, it clearly indicates a criminal intent.
Right.
You know, you'd made the point about folks not being prepared.
You know, before the 9-11 hijackings, people weren't ready for that.
After 9-11, they wouldn't have put up with people trying to take over the airplane.
Same thing about Virginia Tech today.
I doubt somebody would be able to do something like that.
We did have Columbine, though.
We did have precedent about schools being attacked.
Your point about political correctness is only really semi-tongue-in-cheek.
For instance, one of the guys at the one of the victims was an Eagle Scout, and he was trained to keep his head.
He was shot in the leg and it ruptured his femoral artery.
And if he hadn't kept his head, he would have bled to death, but he was able to staunch the bleeding and tie his leg up with electrical cord while being shot.
I'm going to have to take a break here.
I'm going to hold you through the break.
I want you to get to what you called about because I thought I could squeeze you in in a minute and a half.
Okay.
But you've got diarrhea of the mouth on me out there.
So we'll take a break here.
You can get to your point when we come back.
No better place to be than in a rush groove.
Find satanic messages in grooves.
A number of other good things in there as well.
800-282-2882.
Back to David in Columbia, Mississippi.
All right.
And where were you headed with this?
The Eagle Scout?
My point is that people, American citizens, can be trained to react under pressure or in emergencies.
This guy was trained just in a voluntary organization.
It doesn't require a lot of extra work if they would just have a portion of emergency preparedness in their government.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
You're not talking about emergency service training like paramedics.
You're talking about, in this case, the students who are watching this guy shoot the gun learn what to do to stop him.
Yeah, keep their heads.
I mean, obviously, you can't train them to be commandos, but you can train people to keep their heads and think logically: what if somebody had just tossed a big, heavy break?
Yeah, but you know, we got generation after generation of political correctness that we would have to somehow erase from people's minds to do this.
I look, I understand what you're saying, and this seems to be a budding theme out there that we need to do something here to get people to toughen up in these circumstances, average citizens who are involved in whatever these events happen to be, rather than just sit around, wait, or run away.
I want to take you back to Columbine.
Remember, after the Columbine massacre, the Clinton administration mounted this huge push for new gun control, and it was crushed.
And do you remember?
I doubt that many of you will remember this.
Do you remember what the given reason was, the conventional wisdom on why the two Columbine shooters did what they did?
I will tell you, we were told that they were teased.
Those two boys were teased and laughed at and made fun of by their classmates.
And from now on, we should be careful of that sort of behavior because if we start teasing people and making fun of them and making them outcasts, then they might act on some of the movies they see or the video games they play or the television shows that they watch and so forth.
So let's extrapolate that and move forward here to Virginia Tech.
How would it manifest itself?
Well, don't call this Cho guy a newt, a nut.
Don't point him out to others.
Don't say, oh, this guy's a wacko.
Don't just shh, shh, he might explode.
This guy might blow up.
Let's just not go to class when he's there.
Let's just.
Except the problem is he did explode.
We don't know whether he was teased or not.
But I mean, this is an outgrowth of political correctness.
Don't tease him.
And of course, what is the real meaning of this?
The real meaning, when you came up with this conventional wisdom, those boys were being teased.
They were made to feel like outcasts.
In the process of doing that, in a way, you justify their actions.
Well, yeah, what do you expect them to do?
They put on those long black coats, they grabbed their machine guns, they went on this shooting.
What do you expect them to do?
They spent their whole youth being laughed at, made fun of.
Girls wouldn't go out with them on dates.
They made fun of their acne and pimples and zits and so forth.
And that is how this political correctness is justified because you then come out and you justify what they did because of the actions and behaviors of others, regardless whether it's mass murder or just the commission of a bank robbery or something like that.
And that's where political correctness has taken us.
And of course, the umbrella under all this, don't offend anybody.
Don't insult them and don't, don't, don't make them mad.
They might go nuts.
Well, they're going to go nuts anyway at some point.
And it's not because they're being laughed at or made fun of.
They've got something wrong with them, which was clearly evident in this guy's case.
Authors, check the timing on this.
This hit last night, about 9 o'clock.
Authors of a new comprehensive analysis of antidepressants for children and teenagers say the benefits of treatment trump the small risk of increasing some patients' chances of having suicidal thoughts and behaviors.
The risk they found is lower than the one the Food and Drug Administration identified in 2004, the year the agency warned the public about the drugs risk in children.
So you can sit there and you can say that, well, yeah, they might get suicidal, but that's a small risk compared to what might happen.
I'm only bringing this up because we were told this guy was prescribed antidepressants.
I don't know if he took them or not, but he did.
Can we go back, Mike?
I want to go back to the Obama soundbite, which would be number three.
This is Obama Monday at a Milwaukee fundraiser, and he connects what happened at Virginia Tech with the kind of verbal violence that was on the IMUS show.
Obviously, what happened today was the act of a madman at some level.
And there are going to be a whole series of explanations or attempts to explain what happened.
There's also another kind of violence, though, that we're going to have to think about.
It's not necessarily physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways.
Last week, the big news obviously had to do with IMUS and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughter.
Now, I knew, and I said so yesterday, only a matter of time before this connection was made to what happened here at Virginia Tech with shock radio and so forth.
And Ben Smith's blog at thepolitico.com, of course, talks about this guy's pretty smart, this Obama guy.
It's worth a listen.
He said, the bite I just played for it's worth a listen.
It captures what moves a lot of people about Obama, and it bothers others, and that is his instinct for abstraction and large themes and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action.
Other politicians would and will stay with the concrete.
They'll talk about this tragedy and soon gun control.
But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.
Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it, he says toward the end.
So he moves quickly to abstract violence, the general place of violence in American life, and then talks about there's another type of violence, verbal violence.
So Ben Smith, who writes the blog at thepolitico.com, is very, excited with the way Obama is handling this.
Now, to me, Ben Smith and others who will swoon over the soundbite you just heard from Obama are they're simply impressed with people that talk BS nonstop because that was a BS bite.
And it may sound worldly and above the frame.
We need to deal with violence.
Come on, need to deal with violence.
Our whole society is built on dealing with violence.
The idea that we're not trying to deal with violence is absurd.
So according to Obama, this is America.
You have to look at what these people say, not in the abstract, but take a look at what they really say.
This is America.
And we need to ram this down his throat and everybody else who's thinking Obama's this greatest guy to come down the pike because this is his America.
We got verbal violence everywhere.
We've got violence all over the place.
Not just what happened at Virginia Tech.
But here's, see, the problem with what happened at Virginia Tech is this is not about America.
This is not about common Americans or Americans in general.
This is about a lone nutcase who slaughtered other people.
And any politician who would dare, as Obama has done, to go out and paint his fellow countrymen with such a stupid view doesn't deserve to lead us.
Now, Mr. Smith at the Politico, I'm sorry to disagree with you, but this is how I look at it.
This is not something earth-shatteringly new and foresighted and brilliant and so forth.
He just got through saying this is typical of America.
We got violence here, we got violence in Virginia Tech, we got violence in the radio, we got verbal violence, we got violence.
We don't.
That's not, that's not, this is not a typical American circumstance or event that happened at Virginia Tech yesterday.
And I, you know, I just had to make that point quickly.
San Diego, before we have to go to the break, this is Maria, and it's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
You speak out my thoughts.
I want to make a reference about I am an immigrant, and they say that these guys say you make me do it about blaming the American society for some reason.
That's what Obama was essentially just saying, yes.
Exactly, exactly.
But in a way, I want to explain the reason I stay in America is because of you.
When I was three, four years here in the United States, I really didn't like this.
Wait a minute, let me ask you a question, Maria.
Where are you from?
South America.
From South America.
And you, now, when you say the reason you stayed here was because of me, which, of course, I'm highly intrigued in, but I want to ask you a question.
The reason you stayed, why did you come if you got here and had some doubts about the place?
Oh, that's a long story.
I really didn't have any doubts or anything.
I didn't know about the United States, basically.
It was a great country, and that's it.
My family came here before, and so I didn't have any thoughts until I was here.
When I was here, and of course, like most people watch that drive-by media, opera, and all those things, I thought America was that.
All the irrational, insane, no common sense, immoral things.
Now, this is it.
Hold on a minute.
You're speaking rapidly, but I want people to get what you're saying.
You came here and you turned into all the pop culture leaders in this country, Oprah, the drive-by media, and that's what you thought America was.
Exactly.
But you thought when you watched Oprah and all these other things, that you thought it was a little irrational.
You thought that it was no common sense to it, that it was just strictly emotional, and it didn't make sense to you.
You thought, wow, this country's whacked out.
Exactly.
All right, all right.
And it happened one time that when I was sick from work and I was flipping channels because it was so irrational, everything.
And you were on TV at that time.
And I didn't know about you, of course, but I started listening to you and I say, wow, this man talks like me.
I mean, he reasons.
He has logic on him.
So that's why I started listening to you.
And because of you, I heard that there were other type of people in America, conservative people in America, that has my same moral and values.
And things change differently, completely.
Well, that's very kind of you to say that.
But beyond the fact that it's kind, you have, whether it was me or anybody else, you have obviously an innate intelligence.
You were able to spot something you thought was odd when you first got here.
When you finally heard something that disagreed with it, that you were you changed, you had the ability to change your mind, that your general opinion or reference point you had made about the country.
That shows open-mindedness without somebody having to get in and try to persuade you.
Exactly.
And my point to explain all of this is that even though now that I go back to my country, people talk about America the way they see Hollygood portray America on TV shows and everything.
And they think America is that.
And also they watch CNN, which is the only channel that most countries get talking about America and everything that happens in the United States.
So I'm in there telling them, no, there is two cultures, the American culture and the culture of the left.
Speaking of that, let me ask you, what country, if you care to say.
Peru.
Peru?
All right.
In Peru, do you get the words of Caesar, I'm sorry, Hugo Chavez?
Or do the people down there hear what people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have to say about the United States?
Yes, of course.
And, of course, that forms an opinion among them about this country that can't possibly be true.
But yet, and yet you, well, you said you had distinct reasons for coming.
It would take a long time to tell.
Well, this is a heartwarming story.
This is a great story.
And I'm glad you called to share it with us.
Made my day.
Oh, thank you.
No, I may talk with you finally.
All right.
It is, like I said, the whole world sees America like that.
And who's to blame?
We're going to play the blaming game.
I would say the ones to blame are the liberal media, because they export America in only one way.
And you know what?
One thing I'm sure you've learned this, Maria, the people you're talking about, and not just the media, but the Hollywood types, the liberals that you're talking about, don't like this country.
And so they make television shows, newscasts, and movies about what they think is wrong with it.
And it's always from their perspective.
All the racism and the sexism and the bigotry and all that homophobia and that sort of stuff.
Well, I'm glad you triumphed over that image that you brought with you to the country.
And we welcome you.
We welcome you home and we welcome you to the fall.
Thanks so much for calling.
Be right back after this, folks.
All right, folks, we're going to do a poll at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Remember, last week during the IMUS flap, I agreed with the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton that MSNBC from 3 p.m. to midnight is all white all night.
There's no diversity whatsoever on the air in prime time in terms of anchors and hosts at MSNBC.
The Reverends Jackson and Sharpton are exactly right about this.
And of course, all those hosts at MSNBC were going overboard.
Yes, there's not enough.
We're not being fair with minorities out there and so forth.
So, you know, what are we going to do about this?
I think that we need to have some, one or two of those hosts, in honor of their own hearts and their beliefs, resign and give up their programs to minority hosts.
They're telling everybody else how they ought to live and how we ought to all be diverse and so forth.
Time for them to walk the talk.
So here's the question.
And www.rushlimbaugh.com, be up here in a couple minutes.
Give us time.
Which MSNBC anchor should resign to make room for a minority host?
Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, or Keith Olbermann?
Which of those three, which MSNBC anchor should resign to make room for a minority host out of the goodness of their hearts to follow their beliefs, to show leadership, to show how this is done?
Telling everybody else, we need more minorities here and there.
We need them at MSNBC.
Sharpton Jackson are right.
Should it be Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, or Keith Olbermann to give up, quit, and turn over their program to a minority?
By the way, as you know, the Reverend Sharpton's National Action Network Convention begins today.
Every 08 Democratic presidential candidate is there.
I want to remind you, they're now sponsors on this program, the Justice Brothers.
Here's the first spot that ran.
Or Koreans, he said.
Well, there's a new spot, actually, this second spot.
We've got a new spot from the Justice Brothers.
We'll get that to you in the first segment of the next hour and get into the discussion of the Reverend Sharpton's agenda at the National Action Network Convention.
All coming up, so sit tight.
All right, we'll have that poll up on who should resign at MSNBC in favor of a minority host in prime time very soon, shortly after the next hour begins.
Be back and get with all the rest of today's program.
▲
Export Selection