All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
June 4, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Wowie, Zowie, how about that debate last night, folks?
How about that Democrat debate?
Whoa.
We'll be talking about that.
We're going to review the Democrat debate here in just a second.
We got all kinds of stuff to choose from here today as our broadcast commences.
Great to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh back after a fun weekend.
Hope yours was cool.
We set the record for 24-hour rainfall around the country on Saturday.
And there's this website out there called WeatherStreet.com and actually listed it, EIB Southern Command, Florida, 6.64 inches.
Actually listed it, EIB Southern Command, Florida.
Every other place where it rained a lot, they got the city.
EIB Southern Command.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Nice to have you with us.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to join us today in the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I just saw posted on a Drudge report that the federal government's released the new murder statistics.
Now, you have to run estimates here to get the numbers because the story does not list the numbers.
They just list the increase in recent years.
So you have to go back.
You have to find the numbers of previous years.
The bottom line, the estimates for the murders in America today, 16,185 every year, and rapes, 92,837.
Does that sort of put in perspective, ladies and gentlemen, what's happening in Iraq and the way news is reported concerning both?
Oh, the terror plot we're going to be talking about.
Do you know the New York Times?
I actually got the paper copy of the New York Times just the hard.
I very seldom do this, folks.
Well, because it was there.
That is why I got it.
Really, I went to the website and I couldn't find anything on their website about this terror plot.
I said, come on, don't tell me that the website also goes to bed early and they don't update it.
So I went and got the hard copy of the paper and I couldn't find it.
I kept turning and turning and turning.
You know where it was?
It was on page 30.
It was on page 30.
And of course, the drive-bys always portray this as, ah, that's a far-fetched plot, a very unsophisticated scheme and so forth.
But that's not the point about this.
And we'll be talking about that as the program unfolds.
Try this.
Wait till the social services people hear about this.
This is a story, again, from the UK Telegraph.
Fathers should strip off their shirts before holding their newborn babies in order to aid the bonding process as a booklet funded by the government.
The pamphlet, which has prompted accusations about interference from the nanny state, also recommends that the fathers should gaze into their baby's eyes for short periods to develop the child's brain.
The booklet, including New Fathers, a guide for maternity professionals, been published by Fathers Direct, publicly funded charity that advises the government on fatherhood.
This is, I mean, we actually need the government telling us how to raise our kids.
Look your baby in the eye.
I bet nobody ever thought to do that on their own, did they?
But you let the social services people find out that fathers are taking off their shirts to hug little babies.
Wait till mom gets mad at dad, call social services.
Ho, ho, and you know that'll happen.
Professor Frank Faridi, the author of Paranoid Parenting, said this is treating men as complete morons who can't work out for themselves how to wash their child's ears.
It is treating men as morons.
Men are totally treated as morons.
In fact, we've got the audio from the Lowe's ad that we talked about on Friday that led to such stirring discussions on this program.
Let's go to audio sombre number two.
This is the audio from the Lowe's ad.
If you weren't with us on Friday, what happened on Friday was that a guy called about this ad and said, I'm sick and tired of these commercials making us men look like absolute idiots and brainless and so forth.
And I hadn't seen the ad, so I had to take everybody's word for what it said.
This launched a very fascinating, as all discussions are here, discussion on advertising and what it means and how to watch it.
So here's the audio of the Lowe's ad, which dovetails with this story from the UK treating men as complete morons.
Honey, look, isn't this tile perfect?
It's called Roman Stone.
Too hard to install.
Oh, nice detail.
Intricate.
Two hours to install.
And this detailed border?
Only two hours to install.
By the way, it's easy to install.
Really?
At Lowe's, we not only have a huge selection of tile, but we make it easy to find the right look for you.
Well, what do you think?
I was wrong.
Lowe's.
Let's build something together.
Too hard to install.
Too hard to install.
You were right.
I was wrong.
That's funny.
All right.
Let me review the debate, the Democrat debate last night, ladies and gentlemen.
I just want to recap this.
Go over the highlights that were uttered at the debate last night.
Are you with me on this?
Here we go.
It's time to leave Iraq.
We should have never gone to Iraq.
Terror plots in this country are happening because we went to Iraq.
Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted to go to Iraq.
If I had a vote, I wouldn't have voted to go to Iraq.
I'm sorry I voted to go to Iraq.
It was a mistake, except Mrs. Clinton probably won't admit that.
Some Democrats who voted to go to Iraq should admit they're sorry too.
I support the troops, not their mission.
The troops shouldn't be funded because I support the troops and we need a change.
If Bush didn't put the troops in Iraq, we'd have more resources for social programs here, badly needed money.
If Bush didn't put our troops in Iraq, we could address the real issues facing humanity like Darfur.
America is no longer respected in the world.
I'm going to reach out to our friends and allies and restore America's standing in the world.
We're just recapping what was said in the debate last night, the big Democrat debate.
Everybody hates us.
And with good reason, that reason is named Bush.
The war on terror is an exaggeration.
It's a bumper sticker.
It's a fear tactic that's been blown out of proportion.
We should be in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Hurricane Katrina shows how bad Bush is.
Never forget that.
I'm going to give you universal health care.
I'm going to give prosperity for all.
I'm going to give hope.
I'm going to do this by raising taxes on the wealthy.
In fact, I'm going to accomplish everything by raising taxes on the wealthy.
The middle class have been screwed, and I'm going to fix that by taxing the wealthy.
Gas prices are too high.
It's a conspiracy between big oil and the Bush administration.
I'm going to make big oil accountable to the middle class.
They've been screwing us all these years, and I'm going to tax them.
I'm going to tax the profits of big oil.
I'm going to make them invest in renewable fuel.
Bush hates science.
I love science, and no embryonic stem cell will be untouched when I'm in office.
Alberto Gonzalez must go.
The wealthy must pay for health care for all, and I'll tax them into meeting their responsibility.
There are too many uninsured, especially the children.
And I'm going to fix that by taxing the wealthy.
Big Pharma, Big Drug, gotten away with murder, and I'm going to tax them to make them pay.
Bush is friends with Big Pharma.
That's why they've gotten away with hurting and killing people.
The wealthy must pay for education for all, and they haven't been doing it thus far.
And I'm going to fix that.
The wealthy have seen their incomes rise.
A great economy for the wealthy and the rich during the Bush administration, while the rest of America suffers.
I'm going to fix that by taxing the wealthy.
The income gap is growing between the wealthy and the rest of us.
I'm going to fix that.
I'm going to tax the rich.
Sure, I'm wealthy, but not the kind of wealthy I'm talking about because I care.
Illegal immigrants need a guest worker program now.
He should be afforded a chance to have a path to hope, a path to citizenship, to come out of the shadows.
I have to laugh every time I hear that phrase.
Am I recapping this pretty well?
Democrat debate?
They're not in the shadows.
They are in the spotlight.
Well, we can't deport everybody, the Democrat said last night in the debate.
Evil Republicans want to deport everybody.
Can't do that.
Bush has ignored global warming.
It's hot right now as a result.
Global warming has to be addressed right now instead of ignored, as it has been under Bush, who sucks.
Global warming is the number one threat facing humanity.
I've seen the results of global warming and I'm going to fix it.
That's a recap of last night's Democrat debate.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I must be honest, I must admit this in order to maintain credibility with you and full disclosure: I didn't see it.
I did not watch the Democrat debate last night.
For those of you who did, am I right?
Am I pretty close to what was said by the Democrats on the debate last night?
I have got a soundbite roster here, but I didn't cheat.
I just looked to see who we've got.
I saw a couple things, but I didn't watch it.
And I didn't have to watch it to know what they were going to say.
There's nothing new.
I don't care.
I don't know how I could have missed anything.
But if I did, it would be the exception to the rule.
I'm going to tell you: if I'm right about this, and I know I am, Democrats are so weak, out of touch in a post-9-11 world, I wouldn't even allow them on this program as callers.
I wouldn't allow those Democrat presidential candidates.
That's how pathetic they are.
Anyway, brief timeout.
We'll come back and get started with all the rest of the program today, right after this.
Well, get this.
The latest opinion audit is in from the Sullivan Group in Sacramento, the firm that audits the accuracy of my opinions.
They do this on a monthly basis.
And I've edged up one-tenth of a percent.
You don't know how hard this is, and I'm documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time.
Do you know how long, when you're that close to being almost always right, you realize how often, how consistently one has to be totally accurate in order to move it even one-tenth of a point?
This is a major, major achievement.
It has never been this high.
And we're very proud of it here.
And, of course, the Sullivan Group's work is also audited by outside auditors, so it's entirely legit.
Phone number 800-282-2882.
Looking forward to talking to you.
Now, this terror plot, as I say, I found this on page 30 of the New York Times.
They didn't think it was a big deal at all.
Here's a report from CBS in New York: Fed say terrorist plot, poorly planned.
In the latest terrorist threat to New York City, the alleged terrorists are all middle-aged men, the oldest, 63-year-old Guyanese immigrant Russell DeFreitis.
This is not Russell.
He calls himself Muhammad.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
One of these guys are citizens, is citizen.
These are homegrown, and whether or not their plot made any sense and whether or not it would have worked, it probably wouldn't have worked.
You know, the problem with blowing up jet fuel is, or gasoline, jet fuel is essentially kerosene, and it burns in a very narrow range of fuel and air mixtures.
You just can't throw a match on this stuff and have it go up.
Now, underground pipelines are safe because air can't get to them, and many of the pipelines that are underground serve JFK are double-barreled, so to speak.
The portions of the pipeline that are above ground will only burn at the point the pipeline is broken and fuel is spilling out.
And if that were to happen, you know, they'd shut off the valves or the pumps or both in order to keep the whole thing from going up.
The fact that these, and these guys knew this, by the way, because if you read the complaint, which I, as host, have done, paragraph 48, page 27 to 28, these plotters discuss just the issue of the ignitability of jet fuel because they know they're dealing with double tanks or a tank within a tank, double-barreled,
and they know that two explosions will be necessary to ignite the fuel inside the intertank because fuel needs oxygen to explode.
They knew all this, and they knew how difficult it was going to be.
So everybody's downplaying this with something, well, this wouldn't have worked.
These guys are just a bunch of idiots.
But that's not the point of this.
The point of this, here we have the report.
How many people now are going to be even more nervous than they are about flying?
How much ratcheting up of security conditions and procedures going to take place at all the airports now?
How many more delays?
How much earlier is everybody going to have to get to the airport?
I mean, just the real life aspects of something like this are very real life.
Second thing is they're here.
The timing of this couldn't have been worse for the Democrat debate.
And I wonder why the New York Times put it on page 30.
Remember, George Bush can't be right about anything.
He just can't.
In fact, if you go to some of the Democrat websites out there, you'll find that they think this whole thing is a hoax, that it was made up.
They don't believe it, that Bush did this to get rid of bad news about the fracture that's occurring between him and the conservative base on illegal immigration and the bill that's winding its way through the Senate now.
And this is precisely why it's important to have somebody, an adult in charge who understands the very real threat.
Jack Mirth is out there saying, yeah, he admits we got homegrown terrorists here, but they're only here because Bush went to Iraq.
Well, the literal sophistry of that, 9-11 happened before we went to Iraq.
And they were here and they were amongst us.
And with the borders as wide open as they are, they're here now.
Now, these may have been a bunch of amateurs and not been able to pull this off, but they were going to try.
And you can rest assured that there are others in this country now trying to do the same thing.
The only intelligent way to approach this is to assume that that is the case.
I was talking to somebody.
I was flashing them on instant messages this morning.
And they said, what do you bet?
Because we've got to extradite these people.
You have to have the extradition hearing.
It has to take place in 60 days to get these suspects.
I found three of them.
There's a big manhunt going on for the fourth.
We have to have the hearing within a couple months to get them extradited.
And somebody said, what do you bet the ACLU files suit to fight the extradition of these suspects?
And I said, I'm not sure about that.
They might hope for a very liberal judge here and have these guys acquitted.
But I do think, you know what, I think when we get them, send them to Gitmo.
I think every one of these terrorists, period, ought to be sent to Gitmo.
And I have an idea.
We need to move Gitmo.
We need to move it out of Cuba.
We need to move it to Anwar.
It's so beautiful up there, and it's pristine, and we're not going to be allowed to drill for oil up there.
Six-month days, six-month nights.
I mean, those things are to die for.
I'm ready to start a new licensed merchandise business of club and war to replace Club Gitmo.
You can face Mecca for six months.
You can pray 400 times in a day.
What a great retreat for those who are tired and worn out from the daily rigors of jihad.
At any rate, it's a very serious thing, and most news agencies, particularly in New York, played it up and played it very seriously because this does represent an ongoing threat that is in this country.
And the drive-by media, the New York Times, the Democrat Party, like John Edwards.
There's no war on terrorists.
It's a bumper sticker slogan.
Bush made it up to justify going into Iraq.
Or now their spin is, well, it's only because we went to Iraq that the terrorists here are trying to blow up JFK and the fuel lines and half of Queens and all this.
But you watch the results of this.
The transportation safety, what is security authority is going to have to ratchet up security.
And people aren't going to fly.
They're going to sit there.
I'm not going to fly.
I just, I don't want to mess with this because people are going to know that this is something that is a very real possibility.
And when you have half the country, look at 35% of Democrats, 35% of Democrats, that's not an insignificant number of people think that Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened.
If they think that, then they also have to think that he allowed it to happen.
And if they think that he knew about it beforehand and allowed it to happen, then maybe they have to think that he's behind it.
And of course, you've got these kook conspiracy websites out there suggesting that this whole thing was an inside job.
It's scary stuff, which is why it is required that somebody, an adult, take all of this seriously and deal with it accordingly.
And these Democrat candidates, I'm telling you folks, do not inspire any kind of confidence whatsoever when it comes to national security or the war on terror, trying to convince everybody that this is much, much ado about nothing vastly overblown, or that it's simply the result of the election of Bush and the fact that he's in Iraq and took the country to war there.
And once we get rid of Bush, the terrorists around the world are going to love us, not consider us a threat and so forth.
The Democrats will fan out.
Did Edwards say that he would run around the world and he would make restoring our image the number one priority?
Did somebody in that debate, I'll let you 10 to 1, somebody in this debate said this last night.
We have to destroy this image or repair the image that Bush has destroyed.
And included in that is going and talking to these terrorists.
We think the Democrats think they can appease them because they bought into the notion that the country is not hated.
It's just Bush that is hated around the world.
And once we get rid of Bush and the Democrats are in office, then there will be love and devotion and flowers popping up all over the world in celebration and America will once again be loved.
And it's ignorance like that that continues to or will pose us in great, great danger.
It goes with the inability to accept reality.
Quick timeout, back in a sec.
I know.
Thank you.
National Treasure and Living Legend El Rushbo behind the Golden EIB microphone at the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies here at the EIB Southern Command.
You know, I read this story, I read this next story, and I am stunned at the role reversals that are happening in the global socioeconomic sphere.
Two days before the G8 summit, China laid out a climate change plan that stresses economic growth over tough emission standards and warned wealthy countries not to interfere with the growth of emerging economies.
So the CHICOMs have basically said, screw you.
We are not going to pay any attention to your worldwide emission standards because we've got a growing economy here and we're going to keep it up.
And furthermore, if you are worried about it, you pay for it.
You pay for whatever emissions damage we.
I love this.
A bunch of communists teaching the rest of the world about economic growth.
Meanwhile, you got people like Al Gore and the rest of the Democrat Party running around wanting to clamp down on economic growth, penalize it in a punitive way, bring it to a screeching halt, all on the basis of furthering a hoax.
Meanwhile, as G8 summit's about to begin, former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, now, I don't know how many of you people remember Helmut Schmidt, but above all things that you need to know about Helmut Schmidt, he is a bona fide socialist.
And he said, he called for an end to the hysteria over global warming in the lead up to this G8 summit.
He said the topic is hysterical.
It's overheated.
And that's especially because of the media.
He said this to Germany's daily newspaper called Build.
So you've got the CHICOMs an emerging, an emerging, what would you call them?
The free market's taking over there in ways that they really can't rein in.
They need economic growth.
They need prosperity.
They need automobiles.
They need fuel.
They're not interested in slowing their economy down.
They're not interested in damaging it.
Here you've got a bona fide socialist and former chancellor in Germany saying this whole thing is hysteria brought on by the media, a bunch of lies.
And then you have Americans led by the likes of Al Gore and others who sound more like they ought to be running countries in like China.
It's amazing.
I want you to hear Jack Murtha, ladies and gentlemen, talking about, this is yesterday on Stephanopoulos' show, talking about the homegrown terror plots.
Stephanopoulos says, hey, Congressman Murtha, you believe that these homegrown terrorist plots are being inspired by the U.S. work in Iraq right now, eh?
Absolutely.
George, they are inspired by them all over the world.
Our presence in Iraq, our occupation of Iraq, gives these people inspiration.
Now, we didn't have this kind of a problem before.
They came from Afghanistan, but now we even have it in the United States.
So I'm absolutely convinced that this is the kind of thing that inspires these people.
We did take 9-11 before we went into Iraq.
Yeah, we had 9-11, but that came from Afghanistan.
There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq.
We don't even know how many al-Qaeda in Iraq right now.
For instance, we think a couple thousand Al Qaeda.
They'll get rid of Al-Qaeda.
Our presence in Iraq is inspiring them to recruit people all over the world.
So this is the problem that we have.
This is precisely the point that I was making, brilliantly so, I might add, before the break at the bottom of the air, this is dangerous.
This is as dangerous and frankly stupid.
I mean, there's no other word for this as Edwards running around saying that the war on terror is nothing more than a Bush bumper sticker to justify going into Iraq.
9-11 happened before we went into Iraq.
They were here.
The whole point about this JFK terror plot is you've got homegrown terrorists or people that have fled through our open borders and they are plotting all kinds of terrorist activities.
And Murthy and the Democrats want you to believe that it's only because we're in Iraq, even though when presented with the question, well, hey, 9-11 happened.
Well, they came from Afghanistan.
Who cares where they came from?
They came here before we went into Iraq.
And his point is it's only because we're in Iraq that they're plotting these threats now.
Folks, these people cannot be trusted.
They simply can't.
This is Bush derangement syndrome.
That's exactly what this is.
They are so, they got Bush on the brain.
It's like syphilis in their brains.
I do not have to define that for Rio Lindens.
They know what syphilis is.
They might have trouble with gongaria.
My health teacher in high school, junior, I call it gongaria.
We couldn't stop smirking.
He didn't know why.
But it's like this Bush derangement syndrome has just gotten them so off the reservation incapable of rational thought.
Let's go to some more audio sounds in the debate.
Find out if I'm right.
Forget number six.
Let's go to well, let me read the transcript of number six.
See if it's worth hearing.
Screw it.
This is last night in the debate.
Let's go to Barack Obama.
Scott Spradling of WMUR-TV in New Hampshire, one of the co-sponsors of this big debate, said, It's been nearly six years since 9-11, Senator Obama.
Since that time, we've not suffered any terrorist attacks in U.S. soil.
But just yesterday, the FBI arrested three men for a terror plot at JFK.
Could it be the Bush administration's effort to thwart terror at home has been a success?
No.
Look, all of us are glad that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9-11.
And I think there's some things that the Bush administration has done well.
But the fact of the matter is, is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged.
What we've seen is a distraction from the battle to deal with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq.
These guys, this is, somebody ought to ask, well, I guess we should stop fighting crime in your neighborhood then, Senator, because the attempt to nail down crime in your neighborhood is going to make them mad, and they're going to start recruiting out there from people outside Chicago to bring them in.
This is, I play this for you because two reasons.
I knew this is what was said.
I knew it, and I didn't watch it.
I watched the Sopranos last night.
Well, what a bloodbath that was.
Did you watch Sopranos last night?
I still, something doesn't feel right about it.
One episode to go, and something still doesn't feel right.
I'm liking it.
I'm enjoying it.
Something still doesn't feel right about it.
But the funniest, while some of you may not have seen it yet, I don't know if I should say anything about it.
No, not AJ.
AJ, that AJ's, actually, that character development of AJ Soprano is pretty good.
I mean, this is what happens, you know, when the National Honor Society gets hold of kids.
And AJ is the biggest.
What would you say?
Linguini spider.
The guy's running up.
My feeling, my feeling.
Meanwhile, a whole family's about to be murdered.
But no, they knocked off.
Soprano sends in his crew to knock off the New York mob boss and get the wrong guy against Ukrainian that looks like him and his girlfriend.
They had not done anything.
Meanwhile, a New York mob boss is in hiding.
Nobody knows where he is.
Sopranos fleeing the scene.
I just, but it was a bloodbath last night.
Anyway, this soundbite from Obama, no.
Of course we're not safer because we're at greater risk.
We're at greater danger because of what Bush has done.
And here's Edwards hanging on to his bumper sticker slogan.
Who's the question from Lynn?
Wolf Blitzer last night said to the Brett girl, let me let you clarify what you said the other day, Brett girl.
You said that the war, well, he didn't say that, but you said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan.
With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK, which could have done supposedly horrendous damage, caused an incredible number of casualties.
Do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?
I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf, and that's exactly what it is.
It's a bumper sticker.
As President of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies.
Every tool available, military, alliances, intelligence, I will use.
But what this global war on terror bumper sticker, political slogan, that's all it is, all it's ever been, was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does.
The ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture.
None of those things are okay.
They are not the United States of America.
You idiot.
How in the world did we discover the threat?
The threat?
How in the world was it uncovered, Brett girl?
These people will tear down everything that's been set in place to thwart plots just as this one was thwarted.
I mean, I realize these people are speaking to their base and their base is a bunch of flathead numbskulls, but still, you would think running for president, you want to have something that you say sound intelligent.
I'll fight the terrorists wherever they are.
I'll fight them wherever they are.
Well, how are you going to know where they are, Brick girl?
Well, except Iraq.
We're not going to fight them in Iraq.
No, no, because there aren't any really terrorists there.
We're making all that up.
That's just a civil war.
There aren't any terrorists in Iraq.
No, no, no.
The real terrorists there in Afghanistan.
The real terrorists, he'll go wherever.
Where's the evidence?
Where's the evidence that these people are going to do what they're going to?
He'll use intelligence.
They just got through discrediting all that, spying on him.
Abu Ghraib, did we just had three soldiers that were captured, that were kidnapped, and have we found evidence that they have been murdered?
That they're dead.
One of them.
Now, remember, we were all told that if we straighten up and fly right, Abu Ghraib after that, and give these people getting all the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, that we have to do that because when our soldiers get captured, we will demand the same kind of treatment.
That's sophistry, too.
We're dealing with a bunch of savages, a bunch of barbarians who are not interested in playing by any rules.
And yet, these, I don't know, this is upsetting.
And I'll tell you what, it really is upsetting to me.
Because these people are who they are and we know who they are, and none of this is a mistake.
What's happening here is the Democrats are feeling so emboldened over their election victory in November that they're no longer hiding who they really are.
They are sitting ducks and the Republican Party's tearing itself apart over immigration.
The Republican Party has been given a gold mine here.
This is just the rarest opportunity to blow these people out of the water.
I'm talking politically, and they're so focused on self-immolation that they're passing up this tremendous opportunity.
But we're not going to pass it up.
We will do that which the conservative movement in this country is known for, and that's lead.
Back after this.
I welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Big news just posted on the Drudge Report.
Sources tell CBS News that Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has been indicted on more than a dozen counts involving public corruption.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has been the subject of an ongoing probe in which FBI agents allegedly found more than $90,000 in cash in his freezer.
The Justice Department expected to unveil the charges later today.
Indicted on more than a dozen counts involving public corruption.
Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, to the phones.
We'll go to Churchill, Tennessee to start with John.
Thank you for waiting, sir, and welcome.
Meg Godidro's rush from East Tennessee.
Thank you, sir.
Last night, we found out what the Democrats think rich is.
They asked a question and Obama said $250,000 is where he starts with the new taxes that are going to come.
Right.
Now, let's take that $250,000 annual income and let's go to New York City with it.
And let's assume you're a good liberal and you have you and your wife combined or you and your spouse or your partner, whatever, combined, make the Obama number for being rich.
In New York City, you have tuition for the preschool.
Then you've got tuition for kindergarten.
You got tuition for great.
You got private schools.
Then you've got college and all.
Then you've got your rent.
Then you've got taxes in New York.
$250,000.
At least they're moving up.
Back in 1984, during the debate between Mondal and Ronaldus Magnus, rich back then, when Mondol promised to raise taxes, rich back then was $60,000.
You remember that?
Yes.
Now, tell me we don't have a growing economy, and don't tell me it's inflation because there hasn't been much.
So at least they're moving up.
But that's absurd.
It is flat-out absurd.
That's not rich.
They rush?
Yes.
Yes.
What I couldn't understand is they never asked the follow-up question on what that would do for job creation since that amount of income is about pretty much what people who own smaller businesses generate.
What happens to job creation?
Come on here.
John, you're a regular listener to this program and a call.
You know damn well that question is not going to be asked.
Well, I was just hoping for hope.
You're hoping.
Who you got there?
You got CNN.
You got a New Hampshire TV station.
What do you think?
You think they're going to ask questions, embarrass these people on tax policy?
Do you know whenever tax increases are mentioned by liberal Democrats, presidential candidates, or whatever, there's glee.
There's applause.
They're not going to do anything to discredit that.
There's nobody on that panel that was going to ask that question.
And you know that.
I'm surprised at you.
Well, Hillary piped in and said she wants to do something about the alternative minimum tax.
And I was thinking, during her eight years as co-president, didn't they have at least four or five chances to index it or get rid of it?
Of course, of course, to fix health care and all these other things, to get rid of terrorism.
Look at the solution for every one of these problems.
I went through my recap.
I did not watch the debate.
They're going to fix the AMT by raising taxes on the rich.
And now we know the rich are $250,000 or above in Obama's world.
That's the solution.
Raise tax on the rich.
That's how we're going to get rid of the AMT.
We're going to fund health care for everybody with raising taxes on the rich.
We're going to solve whatever it is by raising taxes on the rich.
Howard in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
We own Allentown, by the way.
We're huge there.
Howard, nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Talk to you.
I wanted to make a point that how they're saying that this terror plot at JFK wasn't very well thought out or planned out.
You know, any terror plot can be just as significant if only one person loses their life.
You know, that could be somebody's spouse or daughter or brother or sister that gets killed.
You know, it doesn't ⁇ just because it was stopped in the early stages that it didn't kill 3,000 people doesn't make it any less significant.
Exactly.
Exactly.
But that's why the New York Times puts it on page 30.
If you didn't know that it had happened, and the New York Times is your only source, the odds are you're not going to know about it even now because you're not going to get to page 30.
Because before you get to page 30, you'll throw the front section away.
You go to magazine and you'll read the latest cool places, art galleries, and so forth that you ought to be.
And you may even go there.
You'll miss it.
And that's why the other drive-by media outlets call it far-fetched, didn't have much of a chance at succeeding, missing the entire point, which you just mentioned.
It's not whether just one or 3,000 die.
It's that they are here.
And it is that the Democrats have tried to dismantle virtually every program put in place to uncover these plots before they happen.
All right, now I want to stress something about this news on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
Authorities are at the moment seeking the indictment right now.
It's expected to be released this afternoon.
It has not actually been procured.
And the initial report said that there was a little confusion with the sources from CBS saying that Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, has been indicted.
Louisiana, not yet, but it looks like the authorities are seeking the indictment right now.
Only a matter of time.
Expect to have news about this with the indictment being real and in their hands by 3 p.m. Eastern Time, which curiously is when this program ends.
Have you noticed the media taking pot shots at Republican presidential candidates' wives and their beauty and their youth and their age?
▲
Export Selection