Rush Limbaugh Program - July 5, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:17

July 5, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, we're back.
	Rush Limbaugh here and the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	We still have a lot to do in this hour, folks.
	So sit tight and buckle up.
	Phone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
	The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	Again, I want to congratulate Brian M. We're not giving out last names of our iPhone winners because we don't want to cause stampedes at their homes.
	Brian M. of Riverton, Utah listens to us on KNRS, 570 a.m. in Salt Lake City, wins the second of 10 iPods, iPhones that we are giving away over the next, well, eight business days.
	We'll have one tomorrow, and then we'll have seven more to go after that.
	In addition to the iPhone, Brian gets a check for about 1,500 smackers because that's what it's going to cost for two years of service from ATT.
	We're paying that.
	He'll get a $100 gift card from BocaJava.com.
	Great, sensational coffee and cocoa and tea, this kind of thing.
	In addition to that, a one-year extension if he is a subscriber to the RushLimbaugh.com webpage, or if he's not a subscriber, he'll get a complimentary one-year subscription.
	And you can have a chance to win all of this yourselves.
	All you have to do is go to rushlimbaugh.com and sign up for Rush in a Hurry.
	It's our flash update.
	It goes out pretty soon after the program.
	It's an email flash that gives you an idea of what happened on the program.
	Some hyperlinks there so that you can listen to select things that happened before the full website's updated.
	All you have to do to register is go there, put your email address in, and voila, you will be a registered subscriber.
	And it's no charge.
	It doesn't cost anything.
	It's El Fribo to get Rush in a Hurry.
	And once you've done that and once you've registered, you are eligible for each day's drawing.
	As I say, we've got eight more, eight gig iPhones to give away, one a day for the next seven busy broadcast business days.
	And I have finally had a chance to play with mine, and it's, you know, it deserves the hype.
	The thing is, I tried to talk a couple BlackBerry users out of theirs, failed in one case because it was a woman.
	And I knew there was no hope on this, but gave it a shout out.
	Even when I demonstrated how you can resize pictures, you can pinch pictures, make them bigger, make them smaller, right on the display.
	It's just, it's amazing.
	It makes using email on the phone and syncing.
	If you use a Mac, well, if you use Windows 2, the sync on this is just the easiest thing in the world.
	It doesn't destroy anything on your computer.
	My biggest problem with all these other PDAs is that they have sync programs, but blew it all up.
	Ended up on the device, okay, but the main program on the computer from which I was syncing ended up with things in it that were never there.
	And so I never ended up syncing after a while.
	We just entered the stuff manually, which is a pain, when it was absolutely necessary.
	This is just like if you have an iPod, it's just like syncing your iPod.
	Zip, zip, done, totally complete and error-free.
	So we've got eight more of these things to go.
	Just register for the Rush in a Hurry flash email update of what happened on each day's program at rushlimbaugh.com.
	And you are registered to win.
	I want to talk about Cal Thomas here for just a second.
	Cal Thomas does an audio commentary on a Washington DC radio station.
	And recently, he compared radical Islam to a slow-spreading cancer.
	And the Council on American Islamic Relations care, with about, what did I read, 25 or 29,000 members, is waging war on Cal Thomas, who all he did was dare to speak out against radical Islam.
	So, CARE is trying to get all of its supporters to call a radio station and to complain about Cal Thomas.
	And I read a reaction to Cal Thomas.
	He's not backing down.
	He's not going to change his mind about what he's.
	This is good.
	This is a group of 25,000 people, shut people down and get them fired is a little bit over the top.
	And, you know, it's an opinion.
	Radical Islam, a slow-spreading cancer, especially in the aftermath of what went on over there in the UK.
	We find out now how many radical Islamists may be doctors in the National Health Service in greatness, socialist medicine, and they go out and they try to get doctors from countries around the world, many of them from Muslim countries, and they end up getting radical Islamists, obviously, working in the system.
	There's not very much background checking that goes on, from what I understand, because they already think they're educated and highly skilled and so forth.
	They're doctors.
	So that's got to have people sitting on the edge of their chairs in the UK.
	Story today, John Solomon, Washington Post, splitting hairs.
	Edwards stylist tells his side of the story.
	For 40 years, Joseph Torranueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker.
	So when a friend, did you see, by the way, speaking of Bob Barker, the Clintons were in some sort of 4th July parade yesterday or day before.
	They were out there in Iowa for four days.
	And apparently some old women that were just there because it's something to do to get out of the house saw Clinton and Hillary walking down the street and they started screaming, it's Bob Barker.
	It's Bob Barker.
	They thought Clinton was Bob Barker because of his white hair.
	Anyway, this guy, this stylist, Joseph Torranueva, cut Marlon Brando's hair, Bob Barker's hair.
	So when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming service, he agreed to help out.
	He's a Beverly Hills guy.
	He's a Democrat.
	And he hit it off with the Brett girl, John Edwards, at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance.
	And since then, Joseph Torranueva has cut Edwards' hair at least 16 times.
	This is the $400 haircut guy.
	At first, the haircuts were free, like a good liberal.
	Edwards was demanding a freebie and getting it.
	And a good liberal haircut guy was offering the freebie.
	But because Torrinueva often had to fly somewhere on a campaign trail to meet the Brett girl, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.
	Torrinueva said one haircut during the 04 presidential race cost $1,250 because he had to travel to Atlanta and lost two days of work in the process.
	Now, get this.
	This is Torranueva speaking of Edwards.
	He has nice hair, and I try to make the man handsome, strong, more mature.
	And these are the things that, as an expert, that's what we do.
	Joe, you might be doing a great gig on the hair there when it comes to the Brett girl, but strong, more mature.
	And I'm not trying to be mean here, but the guy sends his wife out to do the dirty work on television shows.
	It's some kind of commentary on the state of American politics, writes John Solomon in the post, that as Edwards has campaigned for president, vice president, now president again, his hair seems to have attracted as much attention as, say, his position on health care.
	Well, there's a reason for that.
	Edwards makes his hair an issue.
	I mean, you've all seen the YouTube video of Edwards there primping the mirror of his hair before going on television.
	Anyway, Edwards said when all this $400 haircut stuff started, he said, he was embarrassed by the cost, and he didn't know that would be that expensive, suggesting that haircuts were some kind of aberration given by that guy his staff had arranged.
	And this is what set off Joseph Torranueva, because he thought he had a good relationship with the Brett girl.
	But the Brett girl threw him under the bus once the $400 haircuts hit because the Brett girl called him that guy.
	And the Brett girl knows his name, but the Brett girl tried to make everybody think, I had nothing to do with this.
	My staff arranged the haircuts.
	Do you think I got time to deal with haircuts?
	That guy came out and get the so Toranueva's account of his long relationship with Edwards, the first he's given, probably guarantees that the whole issue will not go away yet.
	And if $400 seems a lot for a haircut, how about one for three times that, meaning the $1,250 haircut?
	Asked for a comment.
	The Edwards campaign said this week that Edwards had arranged for the stylist to give him numerous cuts over the past four years, but it said that a personal assistant handled paying for the haircuts and that Edwards didn't realize how much they cost.
	I'm not buying it.
	I am not buying this, ladies and gentlemen.
	What America is he in?
	He's all concerned about poverty and the lack of goods and resources serving.
	He doesn't know what a haircut costs.
	Breaking news.
	This is his spokesman, Colleen Murray.
	Breaking news, John Edwards got some expensive haircuts.
	Probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills.
	But he didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring scooter Libby.
	He just got some expensive haircuts.
	Anyway, Torranueva says he was hurt by Edwards' response to all the flap.
	He's had a four-year relationship with the guy and called him that guy.
	Anyway, brief timeout.
	We'll be back much more straight ahead after this.
	Hi, we're back.
	A couple more things in this Brett girl situation.
	Aside from the comedy of there being two Americas as his campaign theme, I mean, every time one of these snafus happens, what happens?
	A Brett girl blames the staff or the staff comes out and takes the blame.
	One of the two, I'm too busy.
	I worry about how much things cost.
	Of course not.
	And then gets all over the president for pardoning Scooter Libby.
	A, you're not president, so you couldn't have done that if you even wanted to.
	But number two, you know, presidents don't pass off blame to the staff.
	You've heard the old Harry Truman sign on the desk there.
	Buck stops here.
	Of course, with Clinton, they put a new sign, and the buck never got here.
	And with the Brett girl, there's lots of bucks, but they're going to hairstylists.
	Now, Clinton Inc., you know, I use the term Clinton Inc. quite a bit, the organization that the Clintons have set up.
	And they have infiltrated much of the drive-by media.
	They have an operative that actually hosts a Sunday show on ABC.
	His name is George Stephanopoulos.
	Rush, he's not an operative.
	What?
	You're in Clinton Inc.
	You're in Clinton Inc.
	And, you know, Carville and Begalo, they were on CNN as a team for a while.
	I mean, the Clintons, they've got all kinds of their people out there.
	Clinton Inc. is all over the drive-by media.
	And Stephanopoulos, one of their operatives, took on this Edwards story today because Edwards is doing better than Hillary is in Iowa.
	They had the fill-in host today, Kate Snow, talking to Stephanopoulos.
	And she asked him about Stephanopoulos.
	Nationally, he's in third place, but he's doing well in Iowa.
	What about this, George?
	As you know, Kate, he's been fighting these stories about the $400 haircut.
	He and Elizabeth Edwards have been joking about it, but just yesterday, the hairdresser comes out.
	A guy named Joseph Torinueva.
	This is your worst nightmare if you're a candidate.
	Apparently, this is a Beverly Hills hairdresser.
	He used to cut the hair of Marlon Brando, Bob Barker.
	He's been cutting John Edwards' hair since 2003, and he said he got very hurt when Edwards seems to dismiss him, say that, oh, I'm disappointed.
	I do feel bad.
	If I know someone, I'm not going to say I don't know them.
	When he called me that guy, it hurt.
	And so he's gone out and detailed.
	This is the hairdresser.
	This is the hairdresser.
	And he's gone out and said, listen, I cut the guy's hair 16 times since 2003.
	One haircut cost, not $400, $1,250.
	And Stephanopoulos continued.
	It does because, you know, he's tried to make his campaign around the idea of two Americas and we have to make sure that the poor in America have access to the American dream.
	And this makes him seem more of an elitist.
	But even more than that, it seems a little callous to be sort of pushing off on the hairdresser.
	And when the hairdresser comes back and says, wait a second, I was a friend of yours.
	I worked hard for you.
	It can't help.
	More haircut headlines are not good news to John Edwards.
	And of course, Clinton Inc. Operative making the point on ABC's Good Morning America today.
	Heidi, Kansas City, Missouri, you are next.
	I'm glad you held on.
	Welcome to the program.
	Hey, Rush.
	Dittos from a proud mother of three rush babies.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	So you were talking earlier about how they're nothing but passion, and you're right.
	And they are.
	No, no, no, no, They're nothing but emotional.
	Not quite what I said.
	They've got this new spokesman.
	Last year with George Lackoff, now they found a new guy.
	Drew Weston has written a book.
	And his point was, you got to be, use emotion.
	Right.
	And they use emotion.
	They're not going to be able to work for them.
	Right.
	They're just not using any emotion that is tapping into anybody new.
	Everything they're emotional about is negative for the country, but positive for some special interest group.
	And those special interest groups are supporting them.
	Yeah, but they're going to support them anyway.
	This is just trying to campaign fundraising time.
	You know, this is the primary season, and they're just trying to feed the beast that's the kook fringe base.
	But you're right.
	I mean, their passion is all negative, and it is all fear-mongering.
	And it's the thing that amazed me about the guy's book, why the Democrats think it's so important, is because the book says, don't worry about facts and truth.
	That just can confuse people.
	You've got to hit them with emotion.
	And what is liberalism if not an appeal to emotion?
	Fear, negative emotions.
	You're absolutely correct.
	But what the part that they're missing that they don't understand and that they're never going to understand.
	I mean, you've talked to liberals.
	Don't confuse them with facts.
	And the thing is, is that they think that getting more emotional is going to help them, and it's not going to help them.
	It's not going to garner anything new for them because they're not going to be gaining the interest of anybody other than who they've already gained the interest of.
	Well, you know, I was singing that song all last year leading up to the 06 elections in November.
	People didn't vote for the Democrats.
	People voted against the Republicans because of what the Republicans have done.
	That's true.
	And I couldn't agree with you more on that.
	But at the same time, I was stunned.
	I still think it's going to happen, but I still think there's going to be a backlash against them for all this, not just their rhetoric in the war and their eagerness for losing it and their already proclamation that we have lost it, but just this constant anger, rage, and hatred.
	It is not infectious.
	And that's your real point, isn't it?
	It is.
	Because passion, in order to work, people got to be talking about what they love.
	That's right.
	I mean, there was tons of passion with Ronald Reagan, and he garnered so much of the vote that had never ever voted conservative before because he was speaking about things that spoke to people of their core being.
	He wasn't frightening people.
	He was making people believe in themselves and believe in the country and believe that we had a chance to do something good.
	That's exactly right.
	That's why people said of Reagan that he made him feel good about the country again.
	And the Democrats are not doing that, and it's not in them to do that.
	Fear and crisis are the bywords, the coins of their realm, if you will, because they're about control in as many facets of life as they can secure.
	Heidi, great points.
	I'm glad you called.
	Let's go to Steve quickly in Long Island out of New York.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	You're up.
	Hi, Rush.
	How are you?
	Fine.
	I just wanted to make a comment about the connection between the medical doctors and the terrorism in England.
	Yeah.
	I'm just thinking about if Hillary gets elected, then what is she going to do when medicine is no longer a job that Americans are willing to do?
	Where is she going to get doctors from?
	And how is she going to make sure that we're safe?
	So, yeah, this is a problem with socialized medicine.
	Exactly.
	All the good doctors start private clinics, if Mrs. Clinton would allow that.
	You know, those have sprung up in the U.K., by the way.
	Yes, I know.
	And people who are able to afford their own health care are going to these private clinics, and that's got everybody roiled, and it has have for some time.
	And that's why, yeah, it's a good point.
	That's why in the U.K., they're having to import doctors from around the world.
	Well, it seems to me that she has some explaining to do of exactly how she's going to staff a national health service in the United States.
	She's not going to get anywhere near that kind of detail.
	That's the whole point of talking about this book.
	She's not going to get into detail that their advisors are telling them those details are just going to confuse people, and it's just, in truth, it's just going to scare people.
	They're going to keep talking about health care in one of these sop, sob story, emotional ways.
	All the children that don't have it, we've got to do something.
	We've tried the private sector.
	We've tried this.
	It's nothing worth working.
	We must go single for whatever.
	It's going to be a total emotional appeal.
	And it'll work on some people.
	Nobody's going to ask her those questions.
	Well, we're too stupid to understand the details anyway, aren't we?
	In their minds.
	Some of us aren't.
	See, they know some of us aren't.
	And the ones that are smart enough to understand it are listening to this program and hosting this program.
	Exactly.
	And so something has to be done about that.
	I agree.
	Thank you very much.
	Okay, Steve.
	I appreciate the call.
	Thanks so much.
	Oops, hit the wrong button.
	We've got to take a brief time out here coming up the break at the bottom of the hour.
	But try this headline.
	Scientist tests husband's DNA fidelity.
	A scientist tested the DNA in her husband's underwear and found out he had been unfaithful.
	And she's the one in trouble because it's violation of the law.
	Back after this.
	You know, you just see some of the oddest, weirdest-looking people when you watch television.
	This is amazing.
	Used to be everybody on TV was a looker.
	They have cannon Barbies, but they were looking.
	You don't want to turn on TV.
	You never know what you're going to get out there, and sometimes you need to be prepared for it.
	Lansing, Michigan is where this story is from.
	A state forensic scientist who said that she tested DNA in her husband's underwear to find out whether he was cheating on her, could be disciplined if investigators determined that she violated the use of state equipment.
	Ann Chamberlain Gordon testified in a March 7th divorce hearing that she ran the test in September on the underwear of Charles Gordon Jr.
	Asked by his attorney what she found, she answered, another female.
	It wasn't me.
	She also said during a May 25th hearing in Ingham County Family Court that She ran the test on her own time with chemicals that were set to be thrown away from her office.
	Michigan State Police, which oversees the Lansing Forensics Lab where Chamberlain Gordon works, started to investigate her after her husband's attorney wrote to authorities and media outlets questioning how many times DNA tests have been improperly run.
	Investigators expect to decide by next week what they found.
	Her duties have not been restricted during the investigation.
	We don't know exactly what was or wasn't done yet, said the police spokesman, Shannon Akins.
	They're still looking into this.
	She got a pass.
	She's going to get a pass.
	You know darn well she's going to get a pass.
	The indignity of all this.
	She's going to get a pass.
	She should get a pass.
	Why do you think she should get a pass?
	Tell me very quickly.
	Why do you think she should get a pass?
	Because the guy's cheating on her?
	Okay, I agree.
	I agree.
	If you're going to cheat, take some peroxide for the DNA or do something.
	Kurt in White Bear Lake, Minnesota.
	Welcome to the EIB Network.
	Hi, Rush.
	It's quite an honor to talk to the great one as a newtime caller.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, listener.
	Thank you, sir.
	My comment is on the H-1B visas.
	I think that's kind of shot under the radar here, and I think we kind of need to get the word out that this really is detrimental to our computer industry, not to mention our national security.
	We have talked about this.
	We talked about this a lot during the immigration.
	Well, I couldn't say we talk about it a lot because the amnesty provisions are what were front and center.
	But the number of legal immigrants that we're allowing in on the H-1B visa of skilled and highly educated workers is really insufficient.
	Now, there's another side to this, though.
	I've talked to a number of people that have businesses out in Silicon Valley, and they're making the same case you do, that they can't find the kind of talent homegrown in this country.
	That's baloney.
	Pardon?
	Well, I know it's baloney.
	That's baloney.
	We've got the finest educational institutions in the world.
	I know most of these that they want to become H-1B visa immigrants are coming here to be educated.
	We all know this.
	What the other side of it is, is that, you know, they're like anybody else that runs a business.
	They've got to get the best labor they can for the cheapest price.
	Oh, I agree with that.
	And so that's why some of these guys want the H-1B visas in the computer business.
	Well, yeah, they do, but it's destroying the rest of us that are trying to make a decent living out of it.
	I mean, we're having to compete with wages that are a third of what we're normally used to getting.
	And, you know, I believe in the marketplace as much as anybody else, but how about America's marketplace and not worry about the world marketplace?
	Well, you can't.
	It's a genie's out of the bottle on global economies and things.
	Global markets, the genie's out of the bottle.
	Okay, well, look at it from a national defense standpoint, national security.
	I'm just saying, you want people from another country writing code that's running your financial institutions and your government defense systems, especially in light of China's continued cyber attacks on us?
	Look at, look at, excuse me, but they don't care, apparently.
	I mean, you're going to look at the immigration bill as a whole, and you could ask that about the illegals.
	They don't care.
	By the way, the H-1B visas, I think I misunderstood you.
	I thought you said we need more of them.
	Oh, God, no.
	Oh, then I misunderstood you because there aren't that many.
	$50,000 a year and the number, everybody, industry is pressuring for more.
	Well, yeah, but even this bill didn't increase it very much.
	$50,000 a year is nothing.
	It's chump change.
	Yes, it is, but it adds up over time.
	And like I say, all it takes is just a few of these people to come in there and write malicious code, and we've got trouble.
	Well, but look at you could have a homegrown lunatic write malicious code.
	I mean, you're talking about odds here, but anybody can do that.
	That's true.
	We have, in fact, people do.
	We've got homegrown Americans that are hacking all over the place out there and trying to hack into Pentagon computers.
	They've got people already trying to hack into the iPhone, tear it apart.
	Yeah, well, that's true.
	Yes.
	You know, and then they're not using H-1B visas to do it.
	China is the biggest source for viruses and hacking into Pentagon systems.
	And it's happening every day.
	And all we're doing is by letting these people in on an H-1B visa, we're giving them more access to more of our systems, and it's just going to be a matter of time.
	Well, you could say that about anything.
	I mean, it's only going to be a matter of time before some idiot drafts set off a firebomb and it doesn't work.
	It's only going to be a matter of time before they fly another airplane into a building.
	It's only going to be a matter of time before every American agrees with me.
	Well, let's hope so.
	Look, I understand.
	These concerns are all valid.
	And I try to be sensitive to it.
	I know that they could not grant anybody an H-1B visa who could do my job.
	You know, so sometimes I don't take these things seriously enough.
	I'm just joking.
	I know that this is a serious concern, and every time it's come up, in fact, last we had, I forget what TJ, what was this guy's name from TJ Rogers, of a semiconductor company out in California?
	He called and he was making the case for these things.
	He couldn't get the talent.
	He said that he needed.
	Boy, did we get a barrage of phone calls like Kurt here following that?
	So I'm sensitive to the problem.
	Well, we do more background checks on the H-1B visas than you would believe.
	We do.
	It is tough.
	The H-1B visa is one of the toughest things.
	That's why everybody says if we can do it on the H-1B visa, why can't we do it at a border?
	Why can't we do it in any other area of immigration?
	I think there is a lot of scrutiny already out there, Kurt.
	You brought up the ChiComs.
	We got a funny story, interesting story here about the CHICOMs, and it's the San Francisco Chronicle today.
	United States is pressured to help China curb emissions.
	Whoa, I thought we were failures at it, too.
	I thought that we had a new life Earth.
	I thought the United States was destroying the planet.
	But now that the CHICOMs have surged past the United States to become the world's leading source of greenhouse gases, pressure is growing on U.S. policymakers to cast aside longtime anti-CHICOM sentiment and help the ChiComs clean up its emissions-spewing coal power industry.
	The argument for aiding the CHICOMs is being made in the most urgent terms.
	While scientists agree that the U.S. and other wealthy nations caused the greenhouse gas buildup that has brought the planet close to a tipping point of irreversible, absolutely wrong.
	There's also growing consensus that the growth of the CHICOM emissions could push the world over the edge.
	Who said this?
	Representative Steve Israel, Democrat New York, said, with the CHICOMS surpassing the U.S. as the number one producer of carbon dioxide emissions, we're missing an historic opportunity to create a global alliance with China on clean energy.
	New data released last month confirmed that the CHICOMs have become the number one greenhouse gas producer, emissions rising at a rate.
	And by the way, the CHICOMs are denying, Mr. Snerdley, that story in the Financial Times last week.
	The Financial Times had a story saying that the CHICOMs convinced the World Health Organization to eliminate from its latest pollution report that 750,000 Chikom citizens die from pollution every year.
	The CHICOMs are denying this.
	They said they did not demand that it be taken out, and it just somehow happened, but that they didn't demand it be taken out.
	Anyway, the new data showed the CHICOMs are just polluting like crazy out there.
	Buried in these data released by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, as well as in reports by other international agencies, is the fact that the CHICOM's coal-fired power plants are increasing their emissions by an annual amount that is twice as large as the total emissions growth of all the world's industrialized economies combined.
	So the emissions that the CHICOMs are putting out there dwarf the rest of the industrialized world's emissions.
	And by the way, to reiterate here, there's no scientific proof that these emissions cause warming.
	At any rate, when the headline says U.S. is pressured to help China curb emissions, what is meant, and it is detailed later in the story, they want us to pay the CHICOMs to build the equipment necessary to clean up their coal plants and so forth.
	Kelly Gallagher, director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy Project at Harvard, proposed a multi-billion dollar multinational fund with a major U.S. contribution that would give loans and grants for construction of low-emission power plants to the Chikoms.
	I'm not kidding you.
	China has $1.2 trillion in reserves.
	They also are beneficiaries of a huge trade imbalance with us.
	So all this is, is the same old thing.
	Every liberal proposal designed to save somebody or something is genuinely a disguised attempt to fleece the U.S. taxpayer.
	Why should we be paying the Chikom?
	The CHICOMs, they've got $1.2 trillion in reserves, plus the trade imbalance.
	And the, uh, what, won't they do anything about?
	Well, their current, well, I know that Chi-Com currency is undervalued, but the one thing is that people don't understand.
	The Chi-Coms don't care.
	They don't care whether they're polluting.
	They don't care.
	They've got a billion people.
	They've got to have 750,000 of them die in a year.
	They're probably, it's good news for them.
	750,000 people don't have to feed.
	They've got huge problems over there.
	But they're growing.
	They're trying to manage a communist state-run government with a just breaking out free market.
	But they are also, and this is what people don't understand.
	They are communists and we are the enemy.
	And they love the fact our trade deficit imbalance with them is in their favor.
	They love the fact that their currency is being undervalued because it screws everything.
	They're fighting a war.
	They haven't launched any missiles yet.
	But I mean, these guys are, the Chikoms are siding up with the Iranians, sharing nuclear in it.
	They've got deals going with Hugo Chavez.
	And we're supposed to spend taxpayer money to build these people new power plants that put out fewer emissions.
	Give me a break.
	A couple interesting things here.
	David Broder has a piece in the Washington Post today about the defeat of the immigration bill.
	And I know he doesn't write the headline, but the headline to the piece is, a mob rule moment.
	And he says this, let a reporter who's not running for anything suggest exactly the opposite may be true here.
	A particularly virulent strain of populism has made official Washington altogether too responsive to public opinion.
	And let me read to you the close of his piece.
	It is this.
	The point's pretty basic.
	Politicians are wise to heed what people want, but they also have an obligation to weigh for themselves what the country needs.
	That's true, by the way.
	In today's Washington, the wants of people count far more heavily than the nation's needs.
	That's subjective, sir.
	You can win elections by promising people what they want, but you win your place in history by doing what the country needs done.
	So, now, Mr. Broder is what he is.
	He's the dean of the Washington punditocracy, but he's an inside of Beltway guy.
	And you people are just a bunch of rubes.
	You just don't see it.
	You don't see what's good for the country out there.
	Only Inside the Beltway people are educated, qualified to know what's good for the country.
	And then you browbeat your poor senators, and they caved.
	And it did not make elitist Washington happy at all.
	Time magazine, Mark Halperin, has a study, been following the Hillary and Bill show in Iowa.
	And he pans.
	This guy used to run the political unit at ABC News.
	You know, was the lead writer for TheNote.com.
	He had two things here.
	This is funny.
	You know, the Clintons out there saying that they're running on change.
	American people want change.
	And Halperin says, well, thanks to Bill Clinton's eight years in office, Hillary Clinton is by association an established dynastic candidate rather than an emblem of change that Americans want from their next president.
	A strategerist for Barack Obama acknowledges that Clinton's a wildly popular former president, but notes that people are anxious to turn the page from the politics that we have now.
	And then there's this little diddy.
	With the crowd duly warmed up, Hillary Clinton took the stage for 25 minutes, dwelling on her biography and on her major issues, healthcare, environment, education, blah, She attacked the alleged corrupt practices and cronyism of the Bush White House, just as her husband did 16 years ago, but the crowd seemed similarly ambivalent.
	About eight minutes into her speech, some started to get distracted, holding audible conversations, even moving away from the stage rather than angling forward.
	The moment highlighted the risk of following the former president's act.
	Bill Clinton sounds intimate, conversational when he's discussing energy policy.
	Hillary sounds like a policy wonk when she talks about her mother's childhood struggles.
	So Clinton goes out there, warms up the crowd.
	Hillary takes stage, and everybody falls asleep.
	Time magazine reports it.
	They had to.
	I mean, there were witnesses.
	Roger in Knoxville, Tennessee.
	Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
	It's great to have you with us.
	It's an honor to speak to you, Mr. Lindaw.
	You're doing a great job on running the nation.
	Thank you, sir.
	I appreciate that.
	Everybody knows it.
	Yes, and I had a little story.
	I told your screener.
	I used to be a Democrat.
	I voted for Bill Clinton the first time he ran, and I got real turned off by him when he signed the NAFTA deal.
	I got turned off by him and the unions.
	And I used to didn't like you at all.
	As a matter of fact, I worked in a factory.
	We had one little TV and one channel.
	And when you would come on at five in the morning, I would go up and turn the TV off and dare anybody to touch it.
	And nobody touched it.
	And they'd say, who does he think he is?
	He can control the TV.
	And I said, well, if you turn it on, I'll show you who he is.
	But to make a long story short here, then on my way to work, I started listening to your ship program during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
	And I really started liking it when listening to the parodies.
	Oh, yeah.
	The little show, the song Done to the Tune of the Green Berets and stuff.
	I started listening, but then the more I listen, I've changed now.
	And I voted for George Bush the last two times, so I guess I atoned for that one mistake I made when I voted for him.
	Yeah, you did.
	It's interesting.
	Before you had ever heard the radio program and watched TV show, you had just, you concluded on what you had been told that I was X.
	And then after the Lewinsky scandal, you're driving around, you hear it, you find out that I'm not X. I'm Y, Z, A, B, C, D, everything but X, any what you've been told.
	Which we're happy to have you aboard, but don't forget that life experiences because the same people who told you what I'm not in large measure are those who are reporting the drive-by news to you every day.
	Okay, folks, have to skate here.
	Get ready for Open Line Friday.
	Don't forget to sign up for our flash email, Rush in a Hurry.
	When you sign up at rushlimbaugh.com, you're automatic as free and you're automatically registered to win one of the eight remaining iPhones we're giving away the next one, the next winner announced tomorrow.
	See you then.

▲