All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
July 6, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hang on here, folks.
I gotta I gotta print something out here.
Just a second.
Come on.
Just got a note about something I did not know about.
You may not either, so I'll pass it on to you.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist and the manning America.
It's Friday.
You know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And here's the drill.
Whatever.
Hardly any limits at all.
On Friday, we go to the phones.
And we try to go to the phones more frequently on Friday than we do Monday through Thursday.
But when we do, you may speak about whatever it is you care to speak about.
Whatever you want to talk about, question, comment, criticism, you want to wine, you want them all and feel free.
800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I just saw the funniest thing.
I went back to Snerdley's office during the break, and uh he has two TVs in there, one of them head fox on, and they were doing a wrap-up on this car chase near Bakersfield, and the other channel, and a teletubbies on.
I said, What in the world are you doing watching a teletub?
He said, That's C Span.
I said, that's that the teletubbies, C SPAN does a lot of wacky things, but the teletubbies are not on C SPAN.
So he goes up there, starts changing channels, and sure enough, somebody had been tinkering with his tube back there because it wasn't C-SPAN.
It was some network show to teletubbies.
So we found C-SPAN too.
And when we found it, uh the former president of Planned Parenthood, some woman named Gloria Felt, F-E-L-D-T, was wrapping up her comments, and the camera was focused tight on her.
And that ended the event.
And then the camera panned back.
And we found out through the graphic at the bottom of the screen that the uh the program was the history of the women's movement.
Folks, we counted no more than 20 women.
It looked like this conclave was taking place in somebody's porch.
And they had a little table set up with cheese and crackers and so forth, and then this woman shows up and smiles big as she can with a big t-shirt.
And the t-shirt says, well-behaved women rarely make history.
I said, Where are those women?
I want to meet them.
Not the kind that uh on this thing.
Fourteen to twenty was what we counted.
There were six speakers.
And an audience of fourteen to twenty.
And I looked at Snerdley, I said, How the hell does this get covered?
What I didn't see where it was.
Uh look like it was in a typical place, a typical house in Boston.
Uh but it was probably Washington or suburban Virginia, Maryland, somewhere.
I don't have no idea where it was.
It was all the way, but it took place in March.
You know, nothing's going on in Washington right now, so everything on C-SPAN is reruns highlights.
But how does something like that get covered?
Fourteen people, maybe twenty.
And that we did see when they all stood up to go to the refreshment stand.
Um guy in there, and he was wearing the you know, the the uh obligatory tweed jacket with the leather patches on the arms.
And uh unkempt hair, typical college professor type.
Uh rarely.
Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Here's our iPod, I'm sorry, iPhone winner today.
Norman G of Osseo, Minnesota, right outside Minneapolis, listens to the EIB network on KTLK FM 100.3.
Uh he was uh registered at Rush Limbaugh.com to receive our Flash email called Rush in a Hurry.
Goes out within an hour after the program, highlights the contents uh in bullet form of each day's program and gives you a heads up as to what's coming on the full website update later on in the evening each day.
That happens about six o'clock.
In addition to the iPhone, Norman G of Osio, Minnesota will receive a check from us of close to $1,500 to pay for the two years of required service With ATT that you uh must sign up for when you purchase an iPhone.
We don't give things away here that cost our winners money.
He will also get a year's subscription to Rush 247, a newsletter, the uh website.
He uh uh and a 100 gift card from BocaJava.com.
Spectacular, delicious coffee and tea and cocoa.
It's uh great, great, and with blends that you've not tasted before.
It's really uh it's excellent stuff.
So you can be registered too to win an iPhone.
We've uh we've given three away, so we have seven more to go.
And the next iPhone giveaway will be happening on Monday.
We will uh we will just so far I've noticed here, and these are random drawings, my friends.
Uh no women have uh have won yet.
Well, that that the law of averages says that that'll change.
But uh three uh three guys so far have won them.
All you have to do is register for the uh Rush in a hurry, the uh the flash email update that goes out after the program each day, and that's free.
It doesn't cost you anything.
You're not obligating yourself to anything when you sign up.
Uh and you could win an iPhone, money to pay for it, and all that.
And it is and many of you are saying, well, you a lot of people are probably signing up, but they only have ten iPhones.
What's in it for me?
Hey, this is a quality feature that you are getting, and it doesn't cost you anything.
And let's say that you uh for for some inexplicable reason have been unable to listen to the program that day, but you do have a portable email device with you, your work at your computer, you get this thing about Eastern time, four o'clock in the afternoon.
It'll tell you what you missed, and it'll it'll it'll rev you up to make sure that you go to the website later and check out the entire content.
So congratulations again to uh Norman G of Osio, Minnesota.
If you're registered, by the way, if you're already signed up and receiving Russia in a hurry, you don't need to do it again.
You're in there.
Uh if you haven't, just go to RushLimbaugh.com.
It's easy to spot there on our homepage.
Sign up.
All it requires is your email address.
All right, here's uh an AP story.
Few confident of border security.
The public has little faith that the government is adequately screening visitors to the country or could cope with an outbreak of an infectious disease, according to an AP Ipsos poll.
Only one in five surveys said the government's doing enough to scrutinize people crossing the border into the U.S., according to the poll.
Uh just two in five expressed confidence that the government is uh ready for an epidemic.
Now, why do you think that question ends up with it?
Because the TV scare that we had?
This this uh guy, this airline passion, the the guy that recently got married came back with TB.
Guess what we found out?
Wait, for why you know his his strain of TB was not nearly, nearly nearly as severe or rare as all the panic had everybody believing it was when he first got back to the fruit and plane.
And that's so typical.
Panic, crisis.
We're all gonna die as this guy quarantined.
Who did he come in contact with?
Oh no, it's over, and I never had a chance to say goodbye, boo hoo.
It was exaggerated greatly.
So that's how handling an epidemic gets in the bottom line is this.
And and uh uh this is why the immigration bill went down the tubes.
Nobody trusts the government.
Few people trust the government to do what they say they're gonna do.
Who's a little late on this?
The polls.
Well, the oh, well, you mean why didn't AP do the poll before the vote in the Senate?
Oh, well, we all know why.
The AP wanted to vote to pass.
So now they're out there trying to figure out okay, how come we didn't manage this well?
We talked about this in the last hour.
The drive-by media's purpose is to manage the news.
Like every month now, told you about this in the last hour.
We get this story, shock and surprise.
Experts stunned.
Job growth, much higher than predicted.
And for six months this has been the case, be it the employment numbers, or the economy in general.
Oh, the uh lot of being stunned.
How do they have any stunned left in them?
And who are these experts they keep going to if they're constantly stunned and surprised?
What kind of experts are there?
Anyway.
So what happens is the drive buys come out and do a poll, and they do a poll on the American people.
Well, first off, they've spent 30 days of each month just ripping the economy to shreds and ripping Bush to shreds and ripping everything that's going on good, try to downplay it.
Iraq, you name it.
Then they go out and take a poll.
And the poll reflects what they've been reporting, and they feel, aha, we're still able to manage the news.
And that's how it works.
So Snerdley actually asked a good question.
Why didn't they do this poll before those Senate votes on the immigration bill?
They're doing it now after the fact, but what they've learned is they didn't manage the news well during the uh Senate fight over uh immigration because they were all for it.
They were not telling anybody what was in the bill.
They were trying to, they were trying to cast right along with all the Democrats uh in the Senate, some Republicans, they were trying to cast people like you and me who oppose the bill as a bunch of restrictionists, nativists, racists and bigots who hadn't read the bill, just a bunch of ignoramuses, and it didn't work.
Um so now they're they're out there trying to figure out of you know, what do we do wrong?
How do we not manage this group?
They'll uh they will they will try to learn from it.
But even they say in their story here, a low level of confidence in the government's ability to handle an epidemic was uh spread more evenly through the population.
But that the bottom line is that low level of confidence in the government's ability.
I'm still, I still tell you, and this is gonna have some life to it.
Uh I I still say that this whole immigration debacle was a brilliant example of the inefficiencies and the unworkability of big bloated government and also the unresponsiveness of it, or the near unresponsiveness of a uh of a big government, a s a central conservative tenet.
Quick time out here, folks.
We'll be back and continue your phone calls, other exciting items in the news after this.
Hi, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh with talent on loan from God.
Here behind the golden EIB microphone, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right, here's uh reminder, but the uh the National Rifle Association website that I uh swerved into today informed me of something that I didn't know was going on.
OSHA proposed new rules, still under public comment, uh, I think through what, July 12th.
Yeah, public comment period ends July 12th.
And these uh the the proposed safety regulations would dry up ammunition sales.
It'll make it almost impossible to sell ammo for guns, and it's uh it's a it's a backdoor move into gun control rather than go after the guns.
What good's a gun without ammo?
Uh and so there are three regulations here, and I went through this, and uh we'll link to it at Rushlinbaugh.com.
There's also something else going on.
A friend of mine sent me a note about a story going on in Sandusky, Ohio.
Big issue there, a newspaper published all 2700 people in the community with a concealed carry permit.
Uh this, of course, made the fur fly, and the gun people there, the the uh pro-gun people there got information on the newspaper editor where he lives, everything about him, and they published that in their publications in uh in Sandusky, Ohio.
And that's the way to fight this stuff.
You know, you you you journalists give up people's privacy and so forth, and these are not public people.
These are just 2,700 people with concealed carry permits.
These are not public people.
Some of them might be out of mood, but most of them are just average citizens.
So here comes every bit of information on their names and so forth and so on, and you go tell the journalist, how would you feel if everything about Well, I'm just a journalist, I just convey the news, I'm uh an instant bystander.
No, you're not.
And they can't handle it when you do that kind of thing.
When they when they come out of the same scrutiny that they scrutinize everybody else with you, that does cause the uh the fur to fly.
I want to talk for a minute about about the latest tape from Al Qaeda.
Because if we lived in a sane political environment, that tape, that message, from Amon Al-Zawahiri would put the final nail in the coffin of the Democrat Party.
Now, I have an AP story about this.
He's number two, Ayman Al Zawahiri.
And here's how this story starts.
A new video by Al Qaeda's deputy leader left no doubt about what the terror network claims is at stake in Iraq, describing it as a centerpiece of its anti-American fight, and insisting the Iraqi insurgency is under its direct leadership.
So this is not Al-Qaeda to Iraq.
This is a big guy.
This is bin Laden's guy, apparently, saying, hey, there is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Well, there is, but we're we're running these guys.
That's our operation.
And AP then reports what Al-Qaeda's long-term goals for Iraq are.
To make it an Islamic state and to use it, and this is a quote, to establish a caliphate of Islamic rule across the region.
So what do we have here?
We have the same terrorists.
Now look at that idiot.
There's some Doomkoff reporter on MSNBC standing in Las Vegas holding up one of those giant clock thermometers, pointing out how hot it is.
Always hot this time of year.
Sorry for being distracted.
Typical drive-by ploy.
Anyway, the same terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 are in Iraq by their own admission.
Remember, there is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to the Democrat Party.
No Al-Qaeda's there, and if they are there, they're there because Bush made them go there, because Bush created them.
Bush made them so mad he recruited all these other terrorists out there.
They view Iraq as the centerpiece of the war on terror.
Same terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 want us to retreat from Iraq so that they can establish Islamo-fascist rule across the entire region, which, by the way, is the world's primary source of oil.
The same terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 say the Iraqi insurgency is not a separate entity, but under their control.
And we also learn in this same AP story that the terrorists are losing.
When you read what Zawahiri says, it's almost as though he goofed up and didn't intend to say it.
He's having trouble controlling the Sunnis.
And he blames us and our military.
He says the reason we haven't won there is because the United States is still there despite intense efforts of Al-Qaeda's allies in the United States, the Democrat Party and the American left.
So here we have Al-Qaeda via AP confirming that American Democrats have spent the last four years essentially lying, not only to us, but to the world.
And they've put our national security and future at risk by demanding surrender and proclaiming defeat.
Here you have number one Al-Qaeda guy say this is the central front in the war on terror in our fight against America.
The Democrats have been saying there was never any reason to go there.
And this is and the only reason that the Al-Qaeda's there is because we went there and so forth.
Well, what does that tell you?
Even if you grant them that last point, what does it tell you that they show up when we go?
If Iraq is meaningless, if Iraq was always meaningless, then why does Zawahiri care about it in the first place?
Why is let us go there and fix Iraq and be done with it?
Why did he send all of his Al-Qaeda buddies in there to try to stop us?
I mean, I don't care what point you grant the Democrats, they are embarrassingly shamelessly wrong, and they have been making it up and lying about it, and we've had the number one PR tool of Al-Qaeda in this country, the drive-by media, working in concert with the Democrats, strictly for partisan, selfish political purposes, to destroy the Bush administration, get themselves back in power.
That's why I say, in a in a sane political movement, this single tape, this this tape from Zawahiri and this story would obliterate the Democrat Party and their presidential field in a sane.
It would just destroy every ounce of credibility they've got in a sane political environment.
But they've had four years of passing on these lies and misrepresentations, and they've beat down public support for the war.
And so the release of another tape by Amon Al-Zawahiri is a sort of a whole hummer.
Nobody really is going to pay much attention other than people like you and me who follow this on a regular basis and are concerned about it.
But people aren't going to follow it very closely because there's nothing new in it.
Uh a tape from Zawahiri is not an attack, but Rush, but Rush.
What about the two attempted incidents in the UK?
Well, good question.
That was UK.
And they were both foiled, thwarted.
And that was the UK.
And it didn't work anyway.
And it was the UK.
So since 9-11, there hasn't really been anything here to uh disrupt our attempt to return to normalcy in uh in our daily lives.
But this is a dramatic story from uh from Amon Al-Zawahiri and his uh his is his admission that the central front of their fight against America is in Iraq.
And again, I want to stress, even if you're going to buy the Democrat point that they're only there because we went there.
If they didn't care about it, why did they send troops in there of their own?
A terrorist of their own.
Why'd they why'd they follow us in there?
Why are they taking us on?
If they weren't in Iraq and didn't care about Iraq and the rock was worthless and irrelevant, why are they there trying to get it for themselves?
In a moment.
I don't even know how to promote this next story.
I don't even know how to characterize this next story.
About the best I could say is it just it it fits in the everything is gonna kill us, a crisis, uh life is unfair, America sucks, Republicans are dangerous.
You know, the whole bag of templates and action lines that the drive-by's used to manage the news.
Get this.
This is some Reuters.
Black women who feel like they have been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer, according to a large study.
Now, let's let's dissect this for a second.
Black women who feel they don't necessarily have to have actually been victims of it.
They just need to think they have uh are more likely than their peers, i.e., black women who don't think they've been discriminated against racially to develop breast cancer.
Well there's no hope.
There's if all a black woman has to do is think she'd been discriminated against, she can get that done by watching the news any day of the week.
Pick a news night, pick a network, watch a story.
I guarantee you to be a story about discrimination against some black Oh, yes, I think that happened to me.
I am more likely now to get breast cancer.
The study featured 59,000 African American women for six years.
It found that those who reported more incidents of racial discrimination had a higher risk of breast cancer.
The relationship was stronger among women younger than 50, researchers found.
This finding is particularly interesting, they note, in light of the fact that unlike the case with older women, breast cancer is more common among young black women than young white women.
Well, they're discriminated against right there.
Their genetic racial discrimination going on.
All they have to do is hear that.
All they got to do, and then they feel that they've been victims of it, and bam okay they're on they're on the pathway to breast cancer.
It's possible that racial discrimination plays some role, according to the researchers led by Dr. Talisha Taylor of Howard University in Washington.
Women who said that they'd face discrimination on the job in housing and from the police were 48% more likely to develop breast cancer than those who reported no incidents of major discrimination.
Well, I mean, these are scientists.
These are researchers.
They followed 59,000 African American women for six years.
How can we doubt this?
How can you doubt this?
But at the same time, how can you believe it?
Well, depending on who you are, it's easy to believe it.
I mean, this is made to order.
This is made to order.
You got built-in excuse for victimhood.
Just have to think the wrong way.
You just have to just have to.
Remember now this is feel like you've been discriminated.
Not actually been.
You just think so.
Well, Mr. Snardley, help me out.
Folks forgive me.
I need to ask this question.
What are the odds that most black people in this country?
Not all, obviously.
Most black people think that they're discriminated against every day anyway, because they're a minority and because black.
You you you you think you you don't okay, Snerdley doesn't think that most blacks in America think they're discriminated against every day.
You don't think that they think they still got an unfair playing unlevel playing field that this deck is still stacked again for housing loans.
Uh this I'm not well not the younger ones.
Okay.
Well well, we're not talking the real young ones here.
But uh, it this makes no sense.
I don't see the correlation.
I I don't if if if if if you can just think anything and it's gonna give you a disease.
Uh could you not take could you not take the same because this is all they're saying, this is attitudinal.
It's not environmental, it's attitudinal.
Feelings are internally whether they're true or not, so you have no immunity here.
So therefore, if you think you haven't been discriminated against, and if you go through life thinking you won't be, does that conversely mean that your odds of getting breast cancer are less.
Okay.
All right.
So you're so you're telling me, you're telling me that what this survey actually means is that people who are pessimistic and full of doom and gloom are more susceptible to disease than people who are optimistic, upbeat, and happy.
Well, that's that's anecdotal, too.
I I know uh uh this is this this is this it this is absurd.
Can we just get look at the hell with the political correctness here?
This is absolutely ridiculous.
This is just i it's irresponsibly ridiculous.
Uh Ann Marie in Largo, Florida.
Hi, Ann Marie, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
I've been listening to you since the cradle.
I'm 23 years old.
And my question to you is why can't we buy Mexico?
I'm sure there's some sort of reason, maybe financial or something, but it would be easier to patrol the Panama canal than the entire Mexican border.
Uh well I'm half joking, of course.
But no, you're you're not th you're half joking, but in every joke there's an element of truth.
Of course.
And so I think you're you're calling here wanting a serious excuse me, answer as to why don't we just buy Mexico.
Right.
I mean, I could ask my congressman, but he has to answer me as if I wasn't half joking, and I kind of am.
You know that's not gonna happen.
I mean, I've that's not gonna happen.
Of course.
Of course I know that.
There's a bigger problem is that is that Mexico's gonna end up buying California for nothing.
Right.
And we're gonna pay them.
Exactly.
Uh and in Arizona.
Mm-hmm.
Uh we used to do this.
We used to, you know, Louisiana Purchase.
Uh we used we used we bought parts of Mexico once.
Uh well, well, we bought yeah, we bought California from everybody thinks we invaded Mexico and took and conquered.
We actually bought some things.
And that wasn't too bad either.
Uh well.
No.
You know, real estate.
You know what do they say about it?
Location, location, location.
Right.
And uh there might be reasons for doing it, but we're this we're we're not a country that has any any uh uh visions of such expansion uh as we used to have.
Uh because now we have uh global uh interdependence and trade and so forth, uh take advantage of relationships.
Um what I think we ought to do is is maybe one one thing just give them back California.
We've already lost it anyway.
Just give them back California, maybe call a truce.
No, I can't.
The California Libs wouldn't mind.
They'd be happy to stay.
Absolutely, sure.
I mean, they would love to become Mexican citizens.
Yeah, don't wait for the San Franciscans to uh secede.
Right.
And then you know they can get rid of their bottled water.
They won't even be able to drink water.
And that would be the end of it there.
Now now now let's not go there.
Yeah, that's that's that's I just thought, you know, they want to be American citizens anyway, the Mexicans.
I mean, I thought that if they would be happy.
Uh see, you have once again fallen for the ruse.
Oh, darn.
Citizenship's not what the the ones that we're talking about here.
The illegal they're not, by definition.
They're going around the law to become legally uh admitted to the country on a path to citizenship.
They don't want citizenship.
And And the immigration bill was not going to grant them.
That was going to grant them immediate legal status.
And the only reason they would incur fines or anything if they sought citizenship, which they're not going to do that.
So this was this was not about citizenship.
This is not about assimilation.
That's the uh That's the whole point.
See, this is why I wanted to talk to you because I get into an entirely new mental perspective on any everything.
So thank you so much for your time.
Well, I that's very nice for you to say.
I I I appreciate that.
Thanks so much for the call, okay?
You have a good weekend.
We'll be uh back right after this, folks.
Stay with us.
Let's talk about the mayor of Los Angeles for just a second.
Antonio Villa Ragosa.
You know, by the way, his his name is the combination of his ma his name and his wife's maiden name.
Uh his name is Villar, VR, and her last name is Ragosa, so or I go.
So they combine it with Via Ragosa.
And he's having this affair with the infobe at uh at what is it?
Uh well Yeah, that's right, uh Telemundo.
Did you know that this babe, the reporter, she did the story on the breakup of his marriage for Telemundo.
So of course now the drive-bys are wringing their hands, and they're asking themselves, is this a violation of journalistic ethics?
By the way, should also point out that Mayor Via Ragoso is uh national co-chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.
So this fits.
Folks, look, you know, it it it might be cool taking up TV time here with the question of whether or not uh this uh the woman, what is her name?
I'm gonna for Selena's uh uh well, whatever.
Uh is having uh violation of uh of journalistic ethics by having an affair with uh the mayor, Antonio Villaragosa.
Uh and I'm telling you, this is pure surface, that this is just media introspection and nothing serious about it.
If if they actually made something serious about this in terms of violating journalistic ethics, then half of New York and D.C. news people would have to quit their jobs.
It's incestuous up there.
Number of people that believe me.
I mean, this is this is just uh by the way, the Washington Post did a story on this, I should point out, and never once in the story mentioned at Via Raigosa is a Democrat.
Never once.
Okay, Snerdley, we may have some backup for your point here.
H.R. went and did some flash research.
Found a story from the Mayo Clinic in uh February of 2000.
An optimistic outlook on life could result in a longer and healthier life, said the Mayo Clinic in a 30-year patient study.
The researchers found that the pessimistic group of patients had a 19% increase in the risk of death when comparing their expected lifespan with their actual life.
Now the researchers said they couldn't explain how a pessimistic style acts as a risk factor for early death.
It could be through the mind.
Optimists are less likely to develop depression and learned helplessness.
It could be through the attitude toward medical care.
Optimists might be more positive in seeking and receiving medical help with fewer tendencies to self-blame and catastrophic thinking.
Okay.
I'll I'll I'll accept that.
I'll accept that.
But I actually have my own theory on this.
I think I I think we all hear about uh situations where somebody is gravely injured and they're in the hospital.
Uh uh uh that not so much with a disease, a terminal disease, but they're g they they're gravely injured, maybe be in a coma.
And the doctor said we've done everything we can.
It's up to the will to live.
Right?
And I think that's what the optimistic people obviously don't want to die.
They're they're loving their Frank Sinatra didn't want to.
I remember Frank, I remember Frank Sinatra saying I attended a concert, Super Bowl, 1987 of San Diego.
It was the Redskins and the Denver Broncos.
And a big Liza Manelli Frank Sinatra concert the night before.
And and Sinatra was well, he's getting up there.
He went on and on and on.
He I want to live forever.
Why wouldn't he?
The guy was chairman of the board.
Guy ran everything.
I think there's something to enjoy in your life that and you realize you only get one of them and you want to do what you can to make it live, make it make it last as long as possible.
Pessimists, I depending on the degree of pessimism.
I mean, I know a lot of pessimism, pessimists who've uh lived uh real long time, curmudgeons and so forth.
So this is all anecdotal and spread, but this still.
This still doesn't square with this story that we had that that if if a black females let me get the number here.
I gotta, I'm not gonna make this up.
Black women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer.
And it's a huge percentage.
And the the explanation for this really guess who's filing this story away and preparing lawsuits right now.
Oh well, John Edwards after he loses this presidential race, but all of our trial lawyer buddies, because if you get if you get so-called research, you know what you could do with this in a jury.
You get so-called research, women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination.
Okay, so women comes along, gets breast cancer, goes to a lawyer.
I was racially discriminated against in the workplace, at the grocery store.
Oh, really now?
Well, give us the details.
When did you think you were discriminated?
Take it to court.
Guess who gets?
This.
This is this.
Take black women out of the story and put who in.
Women?
Of dis well, okay, you might have a point because that's where this might be headed.
Snurdley's idea is take race out of this.
Women who feel they have been victims are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer.
Bam okay.
First step.
Liberalism is a very slow incremental encroachment.
Good thinking in there, Snerdley.
Orange County, California.
This is Jim.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes, good morning, Rush.
Uh, from Laguna Beach, California.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I have a uh interesting uh comment or or a question.
I'll pose the question this way.
In your article on the global warming issue on in uh Greenland, uh, those boars that they made through the ice uh to reach the mud where all of the uh the spiders and the Right, the DNA was the DNA.
Uh did they say how deep those holes were?
Uh might have.
I didn't read far enough.
But I I got um I I've got the answer for it.
Okay, well then what's the answer?
How deep did it?
1.2 miles in one of the boars and 1.8 miles in one of the other boars.
Oh, yeah, it is 1.2 miles.
Yep, you're right.
Caller is right, ladies and gentlemen, a rarity, but it's in your case it's true.
Think about how much ice that is.
I know.
Think about how much ice 1.2 miles of ice.
Yeah.
And nine straight down, and nine degrees didn't melt any of it.
Nine degrees warmer some hundred thousand years ago didn't melt any of it.
And and gosh, when all that ice wasn't there, the uh the water level wasn't up above all that low.
Well, but remember this ice is over land, they say.
That's why they pick Greenland.
If they said icebergs were gonna melt, big deal.
You know, ice cubes in a glass that melt do not overflow the glass.
That's why they pick Greenland, because it has an ice sheet covering a lot of it.
That melts, that's brand new water in the ocean, it's not there, and goodbye.
Hamptons and Manhattan.
I did I just thought it was interesting on the uh the depth of the board.
Well, it was.
It's fabulous.
I'm glad you re I I didn't I didn't read the story far enough.
I know how to read media.
You just need to read the first two paragraphs, and you know if if you have a base, if you have a baseline understanding of the story and the and the in the news agency, that's the French news agency.
You'd read the two paragraphs.
I never when I I see a story uh that I'm you're reading on the internet and it uh hit the print and it's got four pages.
I print the first page.
I don't need to read the last because the last three pages are gonna have nothing but a summary of all the gobbledygook that uh that for example Conrad Brack trial, best example.
Conrad Black trials now at the jury in Chicago.
Story the New York Post today had uh one paragraph of new information about the feds trying to already figure out what of his assets they can seize.
The last paragraphs of the story were all about the rest of the case and what had happened, what he's been accused of, just a rehash.
So read the first two paragraphs, folks.
You'll be saner, you'll know more, and you'll be less angry.
How about this headline?
One day after Hillary Clinton lectures Bush on ethics, the headline, Clinton's Brother, near legal settlement.
This is about uh Tony Rodham and uh the loans from the Carnival Clowns that he didn't pay back and got his pardon, nevertheless.
Quick timeout here, we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection