All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
July 6, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Just as I predicted it, ladies and gentlemen, I know these people in the drive-by media, so it's 116 in Vegas.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
It's always 116 in Vegas in July and August.
It always is.
I've been there when it is.
But of course, on the eve here of Al Gore's Live Earth, drive-bys are having a great time pumping up the crisis while they ignored all the freezing temperatures in May and all the cold temperatures in New York as recently as three weeks ago.
Anyway, greetings.
Great to have you with us.
It's Friday, and that means...
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday!
Yeah, I always look forward to Open Line Friday, because that's where I, a most noted media figure in America today, the man who runs the country.
You know it, and I know it.
takes one of the greatest professional career risks ever taken by anybody in my exalted position.
And that is this.
I turn over the content of this program to rank amateurs when we go to the phones.
I do so lovingly and with great eagerness and anticipation.
So that's bottom line here Monday through Thursday.
When we go to the phones, you have to be talking about things I've brought up or it doesn't happen because I don't want to waste time talking about things I don't care about.
But on Friday, I do that out of the goodness of my heart.
So this is a golden opportunity.
Whatever you want to ask, if you want to whine and moan, if you want to ask a question, whatever.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Well, I haven't done a caller clinic.
Snirdly sending me a little prof note here.
I haven't had to do a caller clinic in a while because the callers have not needed a clinic.
Callers have been pretty good the past number of years, actually.
If I felt the need for a caller clinic, then we'd do a caller clinic.
You never know.
You've put the idea in my head, we might do it today.
You know, this temperature business, 118 here, 116 there, yip, yep.
I remember when I lived in Sacramento in the 80s, I was there from 1984 to 1987, in July and August, it wasn't unusual for temperatures there to hit 115 with low humidity, sometimes as high as 120, you know, a day or two of it.
But at night, it got down to 55 or 60.
It was incredible.
It's a valley out there.
And while it was 115 in Sacramento, it'd be 65, 56 in San Francisco, just 90 miles away.
It's normal.
It's summertime.
But you knew this was going to happen.
And by the way, the local television news last night explaining why there haven't been any tropical storms yet.
It's that same old excuse they gave us last year.
Dust from the Sahara Desert is in the atmosphere up there, and it's confusing the systems that produce tropical storms.
Now, if it was there last year, and they know now it's there, why wasn't this factored into the forecasts earlier this year of all these massive megastorms?
I don't know.
It almost could be like a dog ate my homework kind of thing.
Well, I got to come up with some excuse to explain why the predictions so far haven't materialized.
Our iPhone winner today is Norman G of Osio, Minnesota.
That's right on Minneapolis, right outside Minneapolis.
He thus listens to the EIB network on KTLK FM 100.3.
So we've got, this is a third of 10 iPhones that we have graciously given away.
We've got seven more to go.
We'll start on Monday when we come back.
And again, it's easy for you to, well, let me tell you what he's going to get first off, just to remind you.
He's going to get the iPhone and also a check from us.
Approximately $1,500 because the iPhone requires a two-year service contract with ATT.
We here at the EIB network do not give away prizes requiring our winners to incur expense, tax or otherwise.
In addition to the check that will cover two years of ATT service with the iPhone, Norman G of OSEO, Minnesota will get a year subscription to Rush 24-7 and also a $100 gift card from Bocajava.com.
Great, just spectacular coffee and cocoa and tea and this sort of thing.
Very easy for you to register.
Just go to rushlimbaugh.com and sign up for Rush in a Hurry.
It is our flash email shortly after the program each day, which highlights things that happened here and gives you a little heads up on what is happening when we update the site fully later on in the afternoon, usually around 6 p.m.
So it's very simple.
Once you've done that, you are registered and all you have to do is give your email address and that's it.
You know, it's free.
The flash email shortly after the program costs you zip zero nada.
And regardless when you registered for Rush in a Hurry, you are eligible if you registered when we first introduced the program or if you're just doing so today.
But it is simple to do.
Simply go to rushlimbaugh.com and you too will have a chance.
Sign up for Rush in a Hurry.
You too will have a chance to win one of the seven remaining iPhones and the money to pay for two years of service and other goodies thrown in as well.
Okay, time now, folks, for another installment in the monthly Better Than Expected series from the Drive-Bu media.
This time, it's job growth.
Headline from Janine Aversa, AP economics writer.
Job growth, better than expected.
What is this?
The sixth or seventh straight month where all the experts have been stunned by economic news.
Employers boosted payrolls by a better than expected 132,000 jobs in June, enough to keep the unemployment rate at a relatively low, relatively low, record low.
You just have to love these people.
Everybody's being exposed to the way they do things and they don't get it.
They continue.
They refuse to adapt.
Better than expected, 132,000 jobs, relatively low unemployment rate at 4.5%.
It was another sign that the economy is snapping out of a nearly year-long sluggish spell.
A nearly year-long sluggish spell.
I love this part of the article, too.
It says, despite the healthy jobs market and the budding rebound, the public is giving President Bush low marks for his economic stewardship.
Oh, well, I'm so surprised.
The media spend 30 days a month reporting how bad everything is going.
Then on the 31st day of the month, they write the CYA, the economy's getting better than expected story, and then it's on to the next four straight weeks of hand-wringing.
It's all about creating a perception of disaster, imminent doom, and crisis.
And then they follow that up with copious polling to see how well they're doing at creating that perception.
You know, polls are the quality control tests that the drive-bys use to gauge how well they're managing the news.
And managing the news is exactly what they do.
That phrase, this guy in a Buffalo News, had a newspaper column the other day that we read with you to you about the immigration bill and how the old media just got trampled here.
And the new media ran away with it.
And they've got to figure out.
Now the old drive-bys have to figure out how they're going to manage the news of the presidential race.
That is, whether it was unwittingly done or not, that's one of the best eye-openers as to how people in the drive-by media view their jobs that I've ever seen, manage the news.
And so all polls are, for the most part, are the quality control tests that the drive-bys use to gauge how well they're managing the news.
Let's say they spend 30 days just beating the garbage out of the economy, just ripping it to shreds.
Then they go out and do a poll.
How's Bush doing on the economy?
And the poll says, Bush sucks on the economy.
Drive-by says, see, we've been managing the news well.
We are doing a damn good job of creating a negative perception where none exists.
That's exactly how it works.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director, a guy named David Rosen, has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fundraising gala for the senator.
The Justice Department said today.
The indictment, which is rare for a political campaign, was unsealed in Los Angeles, charging David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the FEC.
That's the Federal Election Commission for those of you in Rio Linda.
The charges focus on an August 12, 2000 dinner and concert supported by more than $1.1 million in in-kind contributions, goods and services provided for free or below cost.
The event was estimated to cost more than $1.2 million.
The FBI previously said in court papers it had evidence the former First Lady's campaign deliberately understated its fundraising costs so that it would have more money to spend on her campaign.
Well, the event allegedly cost more than 1.2 mil.
According to the indictment, Rosen reported contributions of only about $400,000, knowing the figure to be false.
The indictment charged that he provided some documents to an FEC compliance officer but withheld the true costs of the event and provided false documents to substantiate the lower figure.
Now, this is not news.
I mean, we've known something like this is going to be coming.
This guy's been public about this incident for quite a few years.
The question here is, Mrs. Clinton once again has said throughout this whole case and story, I didn't know what David Rosen was doing.
He's my campaign manager, finance director, but I had no idea he was doing it.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't know anything, folks.
She knows nothing when there is any alleged wrongdoing going on, when all these people were using her as the conduit to pass the envelopes to her husband, suggesting pardons for this criminal and that criminal and so forth.
She claims she had no idea what was in the envelopes, not even envelopes from her brothers, who one of them received a part.
No clue whatsoever.
Rosen's been out there trying to say, hey, she knew about it, and she even instructed me to do this.
So that's the latest on this.
But I mean, this headline, you know, Hillary Clinton's former campaign finance director indicted.
Isn't that what this pair would bring us again if they were re-elected to the White House for another four-year term?
It'd take us right back to the 90s, and all of those scandals would be revisited and reoccur in different shape, manner, and form.
Yeah, what did they call the decade of the 80s?
I forget what the Clintons call the decade of the 80s, but it caused me to refer to their decade of the 90s as a decade of fraud and deceit.
And if we want to have another at least four years of fraud and deceit, then the Clintons will be re-elected.
Federal Appeals Court today ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic spying program.
It wasn't a domestic spying program.
The 2-1 ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was not on the legality of the program itself.
What the ruling did was vacate an order by a lower court in Detroit last August that the post-9-11 warrantless surveillance aimed at uncovering terrorist activity was unconstitutional, violating rights to privacy and free speech.
The ACLU led the suit on behalf of other groups, including lawyers, journalists, and scholars that it says have been handicapped in doing their jobs by the government monitoring.
It was not domestic spying, and the AP knows it by virtue of how they write it up in the third paragraph.
Quick timeout, we'll come back and get started with all the rest of today's program after this.
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution, America's real anchor man, a national treasure.
Truth Detector and Doctor of Democracy, all combined has won the harmless, lovable little Fuzzbull, also Nobel Peace Prize nominee.
It's Open Line Friday, and people know that on Open Line Friday, we kind of go, well, it's less intense.
And it just seems that there's a lot of things to choose from newswise on Friday, less intense.
And, you know, we on this program love stories involving men and women.
I mean, it's what makes the world go around.
There's a new story out there.
For the longest time, there's been this stereotype that women are the one that just, you know, chat away all the time, motor mouths, and that men don't chat that way.
But it turns out, according to scientists, psychologists, rather, it turns out that men talk just as much as women.
Yeah, maybe guys talk more about cars and sports and the iPhone.
Women talk about their feelings.
But at the end of the day, each sex uses an average of 16,000 words a day, say researchers who studied the conversational habits of 396 men and women for six years.
Richard Slatcher, doctoral candidate, psychology, University of Texas, one of the authors of the study, I was a little surprised, he said, that there wasn't any gender influence because this stereotype of women talking more is such a powerful popular idea.
But we were able to directly test the notion, and it's totally unfounded.
The study, results of which were published today in Science, debunks an age-old assumption that women aren't just the fairer sex, they're the chattier one, too.
Tony Bennett sang about it in girl talk.
But the stereotype is so pervasive that even scientists have long assumed that women talk more, and they incorporated that assumption in psychological gender profiles.
Now, wait, how can you be scientists if you're making assumptions on things?
I guess they came to a consensus.
I guess they came to a consensus.
Stereotypes so pervasive that science assumed it was true.
Science assumed.
You know what the answer to this is, and it's contained in the story.
The reason the perception is that women talk more than men is that when men and women are talking together, the guy is not saying a word.
And so anecdotally, just to the vision, you see the woman chatting away and the guy looking for a way out of it, trying to sometimes fake being interested.
The lack of male, and put a slightly different spin on it from the story here, the lack of male desire to listen to women is why the myth has persisted.
It might not just be men who are frustrated, because conversations about relationships are often emotionally charged and intense.
They take on more importance as far as presumed word counts go than they deserve.
So, you know, it's just this perception.
I mean, I don't know how you can come to a scientific conclusion on the whole population with 396 men and women as your sample, and then say that you have come to a scientific and inalterable scientific conclusion.
Now, in this story, it should be pointed out, the only respondents were college-age men and women, college-age men and women.
And look, I only went to college for one year, but that's enough for me to know enough about what's going on in college.
Men probably are talking more in college than women are because that's the begging stage.
And that's you do anything you can to get to where you want to go.
And that's you think that requires a lot of talking.
It's just after you get there that the whole thing kind of turns around because you don't want to talk about where you've been, you want to go again instead of having to talk about where you were.
Did you hear about this lawsuit?
A Boston man who failed the Massachusetts bar exam has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that his refusal to answer a test question related to gay marriage caused him to flunk the test.
His name is Stephen Dunn.
He's 30.
He is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the inappropriate test question violated his religious convictions and his First Amendment rights.
Answering the question, he claims, would imply he endorsed gay marriage and parenting.
The suit also challenges the constitutionality of the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that made Massachusetts the nation's first state to legalize same-sex marriage.
You want to hear the question?
Here's the question that he's filed suit over, and he refused to answer.
So he flunked the test.
Question is this.
By the way, he scored a 268.866 on the bar exam.
A passing grade is 270.
So refusing to answer this question was clearly a factor.
Here's the question.
Yesterday, this question is hilarious.
I mean, you got to, you can't blame the guy on this.
Yesterday, I mean, I can't even follow the stupid question.
Yesterday, Jane got drunk and hit her spouse, Mary, with a baseball bat, breaking Mary's leg when she learned that Mary was having an affair with Lisa.
As a result, Mary decided to end her marriage with Jane in order to live in her house with Philip, Charles, and Lisa.
What are the rights of Mary and Jane?
Now, Dunn claims that the question was used as a screening device to identify and penalize him for refusing to subscribe to a liberal ideology based on secular humanism.
This is what he says in his lawsuit.
Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with Dunn's Christian practices, beliefs, and values, which are protected by the First Amendment, the lawsuit states.
So anyway, I know in Massachusetts, I'm sure they think this is a relevant question.
My question is, how does this happen in a happy and loving gay marriage?
Why would Jane hit Mary with a baseball bat?
I mean, that's the question.
And why if Mary is going to get hit with a baseball bat?
Because if Jane's going to hit Mary with a baseball bat, why go for the legs?
Why not choose a different target?
Anyway, and what are Lisa's rights in all this?
I mean, she's got alienation of affections that she could pursue as well.
Hurdin Ghana, we are having a good time.
I am your host for life here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, George in South Windsor, Connecticut.
We start with you today.
It's nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, Jealous Dittos to the man who offered Vice President Ant Coulter his cigar.
So it goes way back.
But anyway, I wanted to comment.
I went online and subscribed or signed up for the Rush 24-7 for the iPod and got a little bonus because even if I don't win the iPod, I'm getting the 24-7 email every day.
It's excellent.
We got a Tuesday and Thursday now, and it really kind of bullets out maybe 12 or so points from the previous show.
And if you want to click and hear the audio, you can go and do that.
I actually might even join Rush 24-7 now so that I can hear that audio.
So I got some.
Hey, be careful.
You're giving away the marketing plan here.
We don't describe the marketing plan.
We execute it.
Well, you know what?
I tell you what, it's working on me because I think I'll go ahead and it's excellent.
It's nice to see it.
It's just short, too.
It's not very quick.
It's not all that wordy.
So you can go through it quickly if you want.
No, it's very brevity is the soul of wit.
What he's talking about here is Rush in a hurry, folks, the thing you register for to win the iPhone, not the iPod.
Well, I'm glad you like it.
I'm glad that you're the first call that we've had on this in quite a while.
I'm glad you like it.
I'm glad you're getting it, too.
Absolutely.
Thank you very much.
Okay, George Jason in Las Vegas.
You're next, sir.
And welcome to the EIB Network on Open Line Friday.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush Triple Digit Dittos here from the desert.
You mentioned about the temperatures here in the desert and that you've experienced them in Las Vegas.
You know, the week prior to this one, which this is a mini heat wave that we're having right here, and we've just reached the record yesterday of 116 degrees.
They predicted 120.
The whole week prior, they were showing temperatures in red, way above average, global warming.
We didn't even come close to 120, and there is a difference between 116 and 120 because I also have a residence down in Lake Havasu City where it regularly reaches 120 degrees.
Yes, I know that's the whole point.
But we predicted this.
We predicted that this is exactly the way that would be covered.
And isn't it funny that there are probably places in this country where it's below normal, but we're not going to hear about that today because tomorrow is live Earth.
The entire month of May.
We're only going to hear about where it's hot as normal.
The entire month of May here in Las Vegas, we were below normal.
Not one single time did they mention it.
Did they bring it up?
Did they highlight it?
Did they put it in blue showing that we weren't reaching the beating red temperatures or otherwise?
Not only average.
Not only that, they don't talk about temperatures in that time of year that are below normal as maybe being reason to question this consensus on global warming.
But give, you know, get 116 degrees in a desert in July.
You know, it's an average because sometimes it's lower and sometimes it's warmer.
I've been here off and on since 1968 when I was five years old.
And I've seen it cool.
I've seen 12 inches of snow in April in the valley here in the 70s.
Of course.
So it's absolutely nuts.
But I appreciate you bringing that up.
And yes, we're doing just fine here in Las Vegas.
I appreciate it.
I know you are.
I've been there this time of year.
I've been there in August, and it's quite normal, and the air conditioning works out there.
They plan for it.
Ground doesn't crack.
Buildings don't fall through the cracks.
It works.
People that live in the desert in the summertime know what they're going to get, and they prepare for it using man-made technology that allows us to do so comfortably.
Speaking of all of this, story, Greenland ice yields hope on climate.
Of course, the Algore acolytes are telling us that Greenland's in danger of melting, along with the polar ice caps.
Well, get this.
An international team of scientists drilling deep into the ice layers of Greenland has found DNA from ancient spiders and trees.
Evidence that suggests the frozen shield covering the immense islands survived the Earth's last period of global warming.
What do you mean, last period of global warming?
When was that?
The findings.
Well, I ask that because the Al Gore acolytes of the day want you to believe it's hot.
It's hotter today than it's ever been, and it's our fault, and we got to do something fast like raise taxes, take away your freedom, take away the kind of car you want to drive, make you use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit.
You just go in and out of the bathroom as many times as it takes would be the way to counter that.
The findings published today in the journal Science.
What else would I just read that was published in the journal Science?
That stupid survey on men and women talking, I think, was published today in the journal Science.
I got to subscribe to this magazine.
I've been reading about this magazine.
I've never seen it.
I've never seen it on a newsstand.
I've never seen it in a doctor's office.
I've never seen it anywhere.
And yet it gets quoted all the time.
This magazine gets more free publicity than anything I've ever heard.
Yes, I'm spot.
It doesn't matter that I'm not a scientist.
They publish it.
It's out there.
Well, yeah, what they need is science in a hurry.
They need a feature like we have at rushlimbaugh.com.
Science in a hurry, because that's what they're doing anyway.
All this purported gobbledygook is science.
The findings published today in the journal Science indicate that Greenland's ice may be less susceptible to the massive meltdown predicted by Al Gore's computer models, the article's main author said in an interview.
If our data is correct, and I believe it is, then this means the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought, said Eski Willerslev, research leader and professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Copenhagen.
This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming.
They may withstand rising temperatures.
No!
No kidding.
Maybe if you would think of something practical like Greenland is still there.
It has to have survived a whole bunch of stuff.
The vanity of these people.
To think that what we're doing destroys and shifts entire land masses?
You know, we could try it, but we couldn't do it.
It's going to happen whether we know it is continuing to happen.
It's constantly changing.
If our data is correct, the Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought.
Temperatures, by the way, let's see.
Here we go.
The discovery of organic matter in ice dating from half a million years ago offers evidence that the Greenland ice shield remained frozen even during the Earth's last interglacial period, some 120,000 years ago, when average temperatures were 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they are now.
Well, I'll tell you, our buddies in the global warming crowd are not even predicting that high or that much of an increase.
That's slightly higher than the average temperatures foreseen by most scientists for the end of this century, although some environmentalists warn it might get even higher.
Of course.
Some environmentalists warn.
Using the same environmental experts you're using to predict the economy every month?
This is a Danish-led team.
Researchers said that the unanticipated findings appear to fly in the face of prevailing scientific views about the likely fate of Greenland's thickly layered ice.
Although Willerslev stressed that the findings do not contradict the basic premise that the Earth's temperature is rising to worrisome levels.
What's worrisome about it?
Who says that this is ideal now anyway?
Who says we couldn't do better if it were a little warmer anywhere in the world?
Anyway, the Earth can withstand all this.
The evidence is it's here, and it's been around here for far longer than any of us have, and it survives.
The vanity of these people.
Who's next?
Tom in Toledo, Ohio.
You're up on Openline Friday.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello, Rush.
You know, the Al Gore Circus, I think, is just a diversion for what Washington's really up to.
They're in this global warming thing.
They're racing ahead trying to pass a cap-and-trade program on energy use, which is really just an energy rationing bill.
And it's essentially going to raise prices so high, I would call it the alternative minimum, maximum tax that they're going to impose on people.
The McCain-Lieberman, Bingaman bill, all these people are talking about ratcheting down the amount of carbon we can use by as much as 80% by 2050.
And they're afraid to put on it, call it a carbon tax because then they would get blamed for it.
So they're going to do it in terms of actually disallowing what people can produce and sell in fuels.
And we have to buy permits to use the fuels.
I have not heard about this piece of legislation, and I've heard about everything.
It's in every of the major bills, even in the energy bill that the Senate just passed.
They have kind of a carbon policy built into it that essentially is just going to raise the transportation fuel costs.
Well, you know what else it's going to do if it's not doing it already?
It's going to irreparably hamage the damaged U.S. automobile industry because they're not going to be able to make cars that people want to buy.
It's going to damage all industry rush because when you put a cap and trade bill on, the easiest way to avoid it is to don't produce something in this country.
Just go to China and produce it.
Well, something like that, if it were to happen, would be so destructive it wouldn't last long.
But I must profess that I'm confessed that I'm hearing this for the first time.
But I don't think global warming is a diversion from it.
I think it's a lead liberal Democrat issue.
You know, liberalism advances itself in stealth ways, and it has techniques of doing so, and they're all shrouded in good intentions, saving poor people, saving poor earth, saving the environment, what have you.
And they play on people's guilt because they also, at the same time they're doing this, blame people for having caused the problem.
In fact, I didn't know what I'm going to tell you after the break until this morning.
But there's a very sneaky backdoor move underway to achieve a pretty significant amount of gun control in this country.
It's happening from OSHA.
Details when we come back.
Stay with us.
We have a runaway female driver, I-5, heading into Bakersfield, California right now on a steep incline.
The cops have been giving chase for hours.
She's not violating the speed limit.
They think she's drunk.
They're not sure.
I question that.
I just thought it's kind of funny that throw these things out on the highway that are one lane wide that have all kinds of nails in them designed to flatten the tires.
The driver just sidesteps and just stares around it.
At any rate, these things amaze me.
This is not a high-speed chase.
This is just a chase.
It's been going on for 11:30.
That's been going on for almost an hour and 20 minutes now.
At any rate, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as OSHA, this is from the NRA website, by the way, has proposed new rules that would have a dramatic effect on the storage and transportation of ammunition and the hand-loading components such as primers or black and smokeless powder.
The proposed rule indiscriminately treats ammunition, powder, and primers as explosives.
Among many other provisions, the proposed rule would do these three things: it would prohibit possession of firearms in commercial facilities containing explosives, which would obviously be a problem for your local gun store.
You couldn't possess guns in a gun store because they might be exploding.
It would require evacuation of all facilities containing explosives, even your local Walmart, because ammo is an explosive during any electrical storm.
So if you're in a Walmart, there's an electrical storm.
You've got to evacuate all facilities containing explosives, even your local Walmart, during any electrical storm, which is a hoot.
And it would prohibit smoking within 50 feet of facilities containing explosives.
Now, as the NRA website says, it's important to remember this is only a proposed rule right now.
There's still time for concerned citizens to speak out before OSHA issues its final rule.
The NRA and other organizations will be commenting on these proposed regulations based on the severe effect that they could have if finalized on the availability of ammo and reloading supplies.
So people who are aware of this, you know, this looks like a backdoor trick.
The way to go after guns is to make sure that you can't buy ammo for them.
And this is just a federal agency.
This is not legislation.
This is just safety regulations from the Occupational Safety Health Administration, which would dry up ammunition sales.
Carrie in Athens, is that Georgia?
It is.
Welcome to the EIB network, Carrie.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Limbo, I wanted to get your impression of the new British Prime Minister and if you believe he's the new Neville Chamberlain.
If he is a new what?
The new Neville Chamberlain.
Oh, yeah.
Well, too soon for that, but I think the guy's on the road.
I just say he's paralyzed by political correctness.
He is a man that's obviously governing the country every day from the standpoint of fear.
I mean, when you have all of these doctors that are Islamists, militant Islamists, and in a period of four days, two days, they try to blow up a whole bunch of people with terrorist incidents, and you come out and say, can't say war on terror, and we can't identify these people as Muslims, even though they're shouting Allah Akbar when they blow themselves up in the airport in Glasgow, you know you're dealing with somebody who's scared to death.
One of the reasons he's scared to death is because of how many of them he probably knows are in the country.
And he's trying to make sure that whatever he says does not irritate them and make them any angrier than they already are, which is the wrong way to go about it.
But he's this typical liberal, and he's paralyzed by political correctness and fear.
Very simple.
We're going to miss Tony Blair, folks.
We are going to miss Tony Blair big time.
Peter in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, you're next on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Second time call our dinnos.
Appreciate that.
Yes, I have a question for you.
You kept saying over these past few weeks that the Democrats are sowing the seeds for their eventual landslide defeat.
Yes.
Now, in layman's terms, or as you say for those of you in Riolinda, that means they are going to lose big.
Yeah.
Now, with the way the Republicans have been acting in Congress lately and with the dwindling support among their base, just who will the Democrats lose big to?
The American people.
And I didn't say it's going to be an 08.
I don't know when it's going to be.
But I'm telling you that this kind of stuff that they're doing, and the White House, by the way, finally fighting back on all these investigations, 300 investigations of the White House launched in 100 days by the new Democrat Congress.
Attitudinally, rhetorically, the things that they're saying and doing, investing in the defeat of their own country, demoralizing their own troops.
These things are going to come back to haunt them.
I made this prediction actually a long, long time ago, but not in as striking a way.
Well, I compared that what the Democrats today are doing is McGovernizing themselves.
You go back to 1972 when they lost.
They lost huge.
They lost, I mean, Nixon won 48 states, I think it was.
And yet they go back and they look at that era as something they want to redo and replicate.
They think it was one of their finest hours because they had gotten us out of Vietnam.
They had forced that to happen.
And that was when they were exercising their power, the drive-by media at the same time, the full force and the full breadth of their power.
But they ended up taking on the chin big time.
Richard Cohen, the Washington Post, wrote a column a couple weeks ago worried about this very possibility.
The one thing he left out, and it's a good point that you mentioned as far as 08 is who's the Republican is going to cause this to happen, but it's possible.
And I wouldn't by any means doubt this.
All right, we have to take a brief time out here at the top of the hour.
▲
Export Selection