All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:54
May 2, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I kid you not from the Newark Star Ledger McGreevy Mulling Episcopal Priesthood.
Former Governor Jim McGreevy has started the process to become a priest in his newly adopted Episcopal faith and hopes to begin a three-year seminary program in the fall.
Okay.
To each his own out there.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
It's El Rushbo.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We're here at 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Yeah, things are so rotten in this country.
The heart attack deaths plummet in six years.
Study shows improved treatments, anti-cholesterol drugs are working.
Yeah, what a country.
Left-handed women face higher risk of death.
Yep, so what it says here, this is again from the UK, left-handed women are at a higher risk of dying, particularly from cancer and circulatory diseases.
Dr. Maid K. Ramadani and colleagues from the University Medical Center at Utrecht said left-handers are reported to be underrepresented in the older age groups, although such findings are still much debated.
The researchers followed 12,000 middle-aged Dutch women for nearly 13 years, 252 of whom died.
Only 252 out of 12,000 died over 13 years.
That's not much.
When left-handed women were statistically compared with other women, the left-handers had 40% more chance of dying from any cause, a 70% chance, higher risk of dying from cancer, 30% higher risk of dying from diseases of the circulatory system.
They can't pinpoint the mechanism for this, but suggested genetics and environmental factors may be involved.
Wow, genetics and environmental factors.
Left-handed women.
Well, we haven't done a global warming update in quite a while.
The news has been accumulating, ladies and gentlemen.
So without any further ado, we get to our global warming update.
Al Gore, sing it.
Let it rip.
Ball of fire, sung by Paul Shanklin, is Al Gore here.
Global Warming Update Theme EIB Network.
One more time, Al Gore.
I am holding something here in my hands that I am not sure that I believe, even though I've read it.
It's a column by Alexander Coburn in The Nation.
Now, Coburn, big lib, the nation, huge, huge, huge, off-the-charts, nutcase lib.
It's a magazine that Katrina Vanderhoovel, a Hurricane Katrina van der Hoovel, edits.
Is global warming a sin is the headline.
In a couple hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the 10th century as the Christian millennium approached.
Then is now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.
And then is now, a buoyant market throve on fear.
The Roman Catholic Church sold indulgences like checks.
The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior.
They could go on sinning.
Today, a world market in carbon credits is in formation.
And those who carbon footprint is small compared can sell their surplus carbon credits to others less virtuous than themselves.
He's reporting on the carbon footprint scam.
This is a liberal doing this.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one.
There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend.
The greenhouse fearmongers rely on unverified, crudely oversimplified models to finger mankind's sinful contribution.
And carbon trafficking, just like the old indulgences, is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism, and greed.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper.
The first rises to a crest and slopes sharply down, levels off, and rises slowly once more.
The other has no undulations at all.
It rises in a smooth, slow arc.
The first wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil, and natural gas.
Starts in 1928 at 1.1 gigatons and peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons.
The world, led by its mightiest power, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932, human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year.
It's a 30% drop.
And then in 1933, the line climbs slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
The other line, the one ascending so evenly, well, that's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, and 307 in 1932 and on up.
Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily.
These days, it's at 380.
The two lines in that graph proclaim that a whopping 30% cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a one-part per million drop in the atmosphere CO2.
It is thus impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from people burning fossil fuels.
I met Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D., the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a nation cruise.
Well, wouldn't that have been a fun boat to be on?
Back in 2001.
And he remarked that while he shared many of the nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the question of human contributions to global warming as outlined in columns I wrote around that time.
Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the Navy, an occupation that gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling.
Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he is retired now in Colorado still consults from time to time.
But not long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a thesis now accepted by many liberals as infallible as papal dogma on matters of faith.
Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.
Boy, I'm loving this.
Here's a liberal in the nation talking about how global warming is nothing more than a religion.
Now, here's the mutt, the nut of this.
As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased about 21% the past hundred years.
The world's also been getting just a little warmer.
The not very reliable data on the world's average temperature show about a 0.5 degrees Celsius increase between 1880 and 1980.
It's still rising.
But is CO2 at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere playing a significant role?
It may be against water vapor, a powerful heat absorber whose content in a humid tropical atmosphere can be as high as 20,000 parts per million.
As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans and snow and ice cover, clouds and vapor is overwhelming in the radiative energy balance between the Earth and the sun.
Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases, I'm going to read the quote from what he's saying here.
Compared to all the water in whatever form it is, and compared to the vapor, carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases are by comparison the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane.
And water is exactly that component of the Earth's heat balance that global warming computer models fail to account for.
And who told us this?
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, Birmingham, who is a denier.
He is a dissenter of the global warming religion.
They don't even model precipitation or water in any form because they can't.
As Roy Spencer told us, we don't even know how much precipitation falls in whatever form daily on the Earth.
We don't know.
It's impossible to know because we're not everywhere where it happens.
And we don't have instruments.
So the amount of carbon dioxide that we are creating is nothing compared to what the complexity of this creation, i.e. nature, is putting into the atmosphere each and every day.
We are warmer now because today's world is in the thaw following the recent ice age.
Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun and the Earth's tilt.
As Hertzberg explains, the clinical heat effect of all these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by Milutin Milankovich, a giant of 20th century astrophysics.
And it goes on and on and on and says, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, not to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet, the Earth's increasingly hot, molten core.
And he says, next, who are the hoaxers and what are they after?
So that's the next piece that Alexander Coburn is going to write.
This was in the nation.
426 issue.
Totally, totally debunking it.
Proving that it is a religion.
Visitors to the Gaia, Napa Valley Hotel and Spa will not find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer.
Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of an inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.
The Gaia, Napa Valley Hotel, and SPA putting Gore's book.
It's a religion, I'm telling you.
They're taking the Bible out of there.
And they say, look, it's hip and a trendy thing to do.
It's one that's actually good for the planet.
Oh, by the way, Glenn Beck has another one of his big specials tonight on global warming on the CNN headline news.
I think, what is it there?
8 and 10 o'clock.
But the last one he did one, the obsession, Islamofascism and this sort of thing.
He's got another big one coming up tonight on CNN headline news, exposing the hoax that all of this is.
And, you know, one of the biggest, I don't know what's the word.
Dupes in all this is that SADSAC Prince Charles.
Climate change battle is like World War II, he said.
He compared the challenge of beating climate change to the Allies' struggle in World War II.
He said this in a business leader's speech yesterday, talking to representatives from firms including Barclays Bank, British Airways, and Rolls-Royce.
Times Online.
Now, this is not new.
We've all heard this.
Climate change hits Mars.
Mars being hit by rapid climate change.
It's happening so fast, the red planet could lose its southern ice cap.
The only problem is there aren't any people there.
How can this happen?
New York Times, April 29th, carbon neutral is hip, but is it green?
The New York Times wrote a piece exposing the fraud of this whole carbon offset program.
The Financial Times was first to do this.
I thought it would never hit the drive-by media, but it has.
And the article is devastating to the whole thing.
And finally, hurricane forecaster William Gray said Friday that global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming.
The earth may begin to cool on its own in five to ten years.
He's best known for his annual hurricane forecast.
He said increasing levels of carbon dioxide won't produce more or stronger hurricanes.
He said there are cycles.
He's getting more and more agitated with the hoaxers and with the people who have made this a religion.
And once again, here's somebody else.
This is it's water.
If you want to talk about what warms and cools the planet, what about water?
And then this, what was it?
The Financial Times didn't have a great chance to talk about this in great detail, but their story on carbon credits talked about how the thing is such a phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and roll thing that the prices for them are falling because nobody wants to buy them.
It's all falling apart right around them, and it's being reported in the margins here of the drive-by media, but it is nevertheless happening.
Meanwhile, Al Gore is still out there.
He's just trashing Canada for their policy on carbon emissions.
It's not going to accomplish anything.
Still campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize.
At any rate, folks, you can be confident.
The whole global warming thing is man-made global warming is a pure unadulterated hoax.
It is religion-based, liberal-based, and its design is to make you feel guilty and sinful so that you will pay higher taxes and change your lifestyle, transferring more and more power to the quote-unquote state to tell you what you can and cannot do.
It's happening all around us.
So you can't smoke here, can't smoke there, can't use trans fats.
It's getting absurd.
All in the name of making sure we never die.
Back in just a second.
I'll tell you what, Pelosi scheduled this override vote pretty.
They're voting now in the House, trying to override the veto.
And it doesn't have a prayer.
You want to know what that means?
It means she wants this off the table and out of people's heads as fast as she can get it out of their heads.
By the way, who could possibly have anything against left-handed women?
Why in the world would somebody write a story to left-handed women face death much earlier simply because they're left-handed?
Who would do this?
What in the world would anybody possibly have against left-handed women?
And I'm watching Fox, and they got this little story.
Can the FDA keep our food supplies safe?
No, it can't.
We're going to die.
Folks, do you understand?
We are going to die.
Can the FDA keep the food supply safe?
Gee, look at the life expectancy.
By the way, we've got a new name for Al Gore.
We've got to cement the fact that this global warming hoax is a religion.
So from now on, and this is appropriate, folks, highly appropriate from now on.
And I may slip for a while because it's been a habit to call him Al Gore for all these years.
But from now on, Nobel Peace Prize nominee Al Gore shall be referred to as L. Ron Gore on this program.
Apologies to Tom Cruise.
Brent in Hornell, New York.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Yes, sir.
Yes.
Ecodos from the Mapo City in Western New York.
Thank you.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
It's my pleasure to be there and talk to the old wise one.
Well, I appreciate that.
That's very, very kind of you to say.
Accurate and kind.
And I mean old and facetiously.
Yeah, I knew that.
Yes.
Okay, sir.
My question is about my favorite program, 24, which you got me hooked on.
Thank you very much.
You're welcome.
Fox keeps advertising only three more episodes.
However, there are four hours remaining in the time slot.
This is the last one.
No, you know what they've decided to do here?
They've been having so much trouble writing this series.
I've been talking to these guys about this a couple weekends ago.
This has been the most challenging season to write.
They kicked it off.
Pardon?
To say the least.
It has been.
Well, you know, they lit the nuke off at episode four.
Sorry for those.
Many of you haven't yet seen it because you're waiting for the DVDs in December, but I'm not waiting that long to talk about content.
No, I've seen every one this year.
Oh, good.
Well, I think they're just not going to run the last episode.
They've just run out of ideas.
No, of course there's going to be a final episode.
This is, what do you mean?
Is it going to be a two-hour one?
Yeah, it's a two-hour.
They always open with a two-hour episode.
They always close with a two-hour episode.
Oh.
Wow, I forget.
And they wrap it up in time so that it can be included in the May sweeps, the big TV ratings.
November, February, May, those are the big sweeps months.
Wow, you for television.
You put my mind at ease.
But the only three remaining, did you see?
Three episodes.
Is that because we left at 2 a.m. Monday night?
But you might be confusing that with a promo that ABC is running for lost.
Do you watch Lost?
No.
Okay, never mind.
Because they're saying only three episodes before the finale or until the finale.
No, no, Fox says three episodes.
Period.
Well, believe me, they're going to finish it.
Have no fears.
Now, normally, this next story, you would think that I'm doing a parody.
I assure you, my good friends, I am not.
An academic study of NBA officiating found that white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players.
The New York Times reported this today.
The study by a University of Pennsylvania assistant professor and Cornell graduate student also found that black officials called fouls more frequently on white players than black players, but they noted that the tendency was not as pronounced among the black refs as it was among the white refs.
Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business in public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell grad student in economics, said the difference in calls is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew.
It's time for the Justice Brothers.
It is time for, I mean, if there was ever something made to order for the Justice Brothers, the Reverend Zach and Reverend Sharpton, it is this controversy.
The study was conducted over a 13-season span through 2004, found that the racial makeup of a three-man ref crew affected calls by up to 4.5%.
What is it they always say about sports?
Hey, you know, they have the refs.
It's a human factor.
You can't do anything about it.
Oh, not so fast.
The NBA strongly criticized the study, which was based on information from publicly available box scores, which show only the referees' names and contain no information about which officials made a call.
Now, that's absurd.
Names from box scores?
These graduate guys are looking at names and they're assuming they know which ones are black or white.
That's a no-no.
And then they don't even know which refs made what calls.
How can this be?
Joel Litvin, president of the NBA, said the study that's cited here in the New York Times is wrong.
The fact is there's no evidence of racial bias in foul calls made by NBA officials.
And that's based on a study conducted by our experts who, well, sure, they're going to do a study that says there is this.
But anyway, made by their experts who looked at data that was far more robust and current than the data relied upon by the professors, the graduate students and so forth.
The NBA has an observer, just like we have at this program.
We have an official observer of the program.
The NBA has an observer at every game, closely monitors its refs who are required to file reports after each game they work and are expected to be able to explain such potentially controversial calls that they've made.
There's a solution to this.
There's a solution.
Look at folks, this is not going to go away.
Once this hits, wait till those libs at ESPN Sports Illustrator get hold of this.
Oh, not enough black referees.
Just get some Asians.
Just get, you know, you couldn't have the Asians ref a game in which Yao Ming is playing for the Houston Rockets.
But just go get some Asians.
We look for the liberal solutions to these problems.
We just want to help.
Lou Dobbs had a great little piece on CNN.com today.
You know, these illegal immigrant protesters that were out there yesterday choosing May Day to do it.
Now, May Day, there's no such thing as May Day in the United States.
Do you know what May 1st is officially in this country?
Do you know what it is?
Law Day.
It's Law Day.
It has the history.
He writes about it.
We'll link to it at rushlinbaugh.com.
But he gives all the history of the establishment of Law Day.
And he says, I don't know of a single news organization, electronic or print, that pointed out that May 1 is America's Law Day.
Law Day was first established by President Eisenhower in 58, codified into law in 1961 at the beginning of JFK's administration.
The purpose of Law Day is to give all Americans an opportunity to reflect on our legal heritage and by statute, encourages the cultivation of the respect for law that's so vital a democratic way of life.
So what?
On Law Day in this country, the illegals chose their massive protests.
So here you have the illegals on our Law Day.
And his point is, how ironic, or what a slap in the face, except they don't even know it was Law Day.
Hardly anybody does.
It's May Day.
Even the people of this country bought into this notion that made it.
That's a Soviet holiday for crying out loud.
It's a communist holiday.
Also, some dust-ups out there yesterday in Los Angeles.
Last night, KNBC-TV's 11 p.m. news anchor, Paul Moyer, Colleen Williams, they talked with Telemundo's Anna Garcia.
Anna Garcia was in MacArthur Park for an immigrant rights rally, and Paul Moyer said, Let me be clear: before they moved in, you heard no warning.
Once they were on top of the people of the crowd, I heard the helicopters with the big speakers saying, get out of the park.
They were already shooting.
It was horrible because we thought we were safe because we were working.
And I've been in other kinds of riots like Lakers, for example, in the Staples.
And somehow they always say, oh, there's a journalist.
Here there was no journalist.
We tried to do our job.
Not only Telemundo crew, but all the other stations thought, okay, I'm safe.
I have a camera on my shoulder.
No way.
Once they got to you, they hit you, they got your camera, throw it away, put you on the floor, and hit you more.
It was horrible.
They thought that they would be insulated from any riot charges or whatever because they're journalists.
And the L.A. Riot Cops, I saw the video of this.
The LA Riot Cops.
They're not going to waste time with this.
The next question was: well, at Staples and other disturbs that you've been to where they say there's a journalist, how do I treat you then?
They ignore you.
They ignore you.
Yes, they just walk by you and keep moving the crowd.
And you thought they would do that this time?
We all thought we were going to keep working and documenting what was happening, but then we became part of the story with a wanting.
We were wanting, but we became a big part of the story.
The whole set got like struck by the mob, by the people, by the officers.
The tent fell off, the monitors, the cables.
The ladies and the mothers were like tripping on the cables.
It was horrible.
It was very horrible out there.
So there you have it.
Police are supposed to ignore journalists and not damage their sets or their equipment at all in a riot.
Here is Mike in Baltimore.
Mike, nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Thank you very much, Rush.
It's a big honor.
Mega mega dittos.
Thank you, sir.
First heard you in a car when I was homeless in Pittsburgh working in a restaurant doing double shifts, and I turned the radio on and it said America held hostage.
I thought, what the hell is going on?
And it's well during the Clinton administration.
Been hooked since.
I appreciate that.
And I think there's huge progress in the Liberal Party.
Here's what it is: they are so dead set on no blank checks, you must take responsibility for your actions, the leaders and the people in the most vicious war zone in the world, Iraq.
And they can't use the same logic for the people in the most opportune place in the world.
You know, we have chronicled this.
I do marvel at this.
The Democrats, with anger, are saying it's time for the Iraqis to stand up for themselves.
It's time to take care of themselves.
Let you say that about one of their, shall we say, displaced constituents, and they'll come back at you with how cold-hearted and cruel and mean-spirited you are and how you have no compassion.
Look, if you're looking for consistency from these people, you aren't going to get it every day to them.
And they've guarded the, they want flexibility in their positions in order to be able to react to whatever news events of the day there are.
You alternately laugh at these people and you cringe and then you say, good Lord, if they ever actually do end up in power again, which they will.
At any rate, I appreciate the call, Mike.
Thank you so much.
You know, you've heard of hate crimes legislation.
Hate crimes legislation is actually thought crimes legislation.
When they talk about hate crimes, it's just thought crimes.
And there's a bill out, a Washington legislature that I think is going to be voted on tomorrow.
And a lot of people are up in arms about this because they have created the proponents of this have created a whole bunch of categories of different kinds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The bill is H.R. 1592, and it creates special classes of victims based solely upon behavioral identification with a group of people.
And so they're call this victim ranking.
And if the legislation passes, it will allow greater punishment for a crime committed against a grown man than for the same violent crime committed against a child.
It would make a new protected class based on sexual behavior equal with race, color, religion, and national origin, which, of course, is this.
This has been tried in so many states, and in some places it has succeeded.
I'm surprised they're just now getting around to this in the state of Washington, but they are.
They're going to be voting on it tomorrow.
And it really, you can sum this up.
Two guys that are running around and they decide to rob and beat up some people, a guy, let's just say.
And it's later learned the guy's gay, there's going to be a greater penalty for the crime, even though there's already stiff penalties, if one, if the victim is a member of these newly created victim classes that are all based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
There are more 25 different sexual orientations and behaviors that are recognized in this legislation.
25 different, man, am I missing out?
25 different sexual behaviors and sexual orientations.
And of course, the gay activists out there say, well, you know, gender is fluid.
Don't think liquid, Riolinda.
We're not going there.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are impossible to verify or precisely define, according to these people, which is why gender identity is inadequately defined in this piece of legislation, and sexual orientation is left undefined altogether.
So it's this, this, this is a great example.
The left just never goes away.
They just are constantly out there, and it's about creating new breeds of victims, new classes of victims, and establishing the whole concept that there are thought crimes.
When you hear the word hate crimes legislation, think thought crimes.
And who is it that's behind this?
It's the left.
And who is it that wants to suppress dissent and penalize certain speech and certain thoughts?
And now thoughts can be an indicator in the severity of a crime and so forth.
And these are the people who claim to be the guarantors of the First Amendment.
These are the people who claim to have civil rights as their number one concern, when in fact it's just the opposite.
I got to run a little long here.
We'll be back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back, El Rush Ball, the EIB Network.
You know, I've got an idea for President Bush.
The Democrats out there saying that they're doing the will of the people, the will of the people in their Iraq pull-out legislation.
Yet it required $24 billion of pork in order to buy enough votes for the Democrats to pass it.
What if Bush turned around and said, hey, I'll tell you what, Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi, I will offer you this.
I will sign $50 billion in pork if you'll vote for victory.
Up the ante.
And I can't get over this left-handed woman.
I still can't get it.
Can you imagine the devastating effects if you're a woman and you're left-handed, you're listening to this show and you're driving around and you're doing whatever, and you hear you've got a 40% overall chance of dying earlier because you're left-handed.
Can you imagine the devastating effects?
And I can't, for the life of me, understand why anybody would even conduct such research and why they think if they did, that there's some correlation to it.
You know, the real danger, if there's danger in left anything, it's left-thinking.
I mean, look at left-thinking women.
Look at the abortions they have.
I mean, you're talking about dying early, trying not even making it out of the womb.
This left-handed business is just speaking of all this.
I got these two stories about why women hate Hillary.
And I really don't have time to develop them as I would.
Let me save these till Friday for when I get back.
Because I mentioned I was going to get to these.
Let me put them over here, right next to the story on this.
Some idiot is building Noah's Ark because of global warming.
I left that out of the L. Ron Gore global warming update.
I'll put it in the stack.
Over there.
Here's David in central Ohio.
I appreciate your patience.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Yes, Rush, I have a simple question.
If President Bush had signed this spending bill, how long would it have taken for the goods such as armor or whatever taken to get to the troops before they had to leave six months from now?
Oh, I see what you're saying.
There was a shell game anyway, because the legislation says they've got to start coming out sooner than they would get the aid, if you will, offered by the increased funds.
Yeah, that's basically my question.
Answer it yourself.
Do a little research here.
I mean, we're talking Democrats.
It should give you some clue.
This is a purely political bill.
They knew it was going to be vetoed.
They wanted it to be vetoed.
They want to be able to say now that it's Bush's war.
Pure and simple.
I think putting the pork in it in order to get the votes also was added insurance that the president would strike at Gross Point, Michigan.
This is Janet, and you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Left-handed arts and croissants crowd ditto.
Well, thank you.
What a sweet voice you have.
Thank you.
I wanted to tell you how brilliant you are.
And the reason you're brilliant is because you're talking about how the Democrats have claimed defeat and how they always go back to their playbook.
And what they've done by claiming defeat and voting for a pullout and supporting a pull-out and saying it's the will of the people is we're revisiting the 92 presidential election when Clinton said the people wanted a tax cut and he would deliver it.
Middle class.
Right, middle class.
And George Bush kept saying...
It wasn't for you people in Grosse Pointe, I guarantee you.
George Bush...
Sorry.
George Bush Sr. said, I've looked at the numbers and it can't happen.
And other reasonable people, thoughtful people, truthful people, said this can't happen.
And Clinton kept saying it will happen, and he was elected on largely because of that, I believe.
And then, as you, I love it when you say it, as you do your imitation, I've worked as hard as I could for two weeks and I can't give the thing.
Well, they cannot pull out.
And everyone knows anyone who's reasonable knows we cannot pull out.
And this was just for them to claim.
Wait, wait, wait, pull out of what?
Pull out of Iraq.
Well, I was going to say, they pull out a lot of places, but they won't pull out of Iraq.
Yes, no, you're right.
The Democrats cannot pull out.
If they think they can, they are far more demented than you've ever even alleged.
And so this is just a leverage that Hillary and the other presidential candidates are using to get the base to support them.
I'm telling you, they're boxing themselves into this corner that is going to be really difficult for them to escape without causing riots in their own party.
By the way, Clinton said he had worked harder than he ever had.
He didn't say, I worked hard.
He said, I worked harder than I ever had, and I just can't find a way to get it.
He never intended to give anybody a tax coverage.
It's L. Ron Gore as an L. Ron Hubbard.
See you in Detroit tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection