All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:52
July 18, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show, documented to be almost always right, 98.7% of the time.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome Rush Limbaugh here at the prestigious and distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No graduates, no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Let's go back to April the 19th of this year.
And this is Dingy Harry.
I don't know where it was.
I don't think this was on the floor of the Senate.
It might have been one of his press conferences.
This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.
This is April.
The surge didn't reach full strength until a month ago.
And the interim report says just the opposite of what Dingy Harry is trying to convince the American people of.
And that's really what's going on.
The American people do not disapprove of this war by anywhere near the poll numbers that people like Reed and the other Democrats want every other American to believe.
They are trying to convince the American people that they don't support the war in such great numbers by taking these incidental roadside bombs explosions, the obligatory burning car on the nightly news.
And I'm just telling you, if they had succeeded in doing this, they wouldn't have any trouble passing these resolutions.
So how did Dingy Harry feel after his all-nighter, after his hoax, and after his failed Senate vote?
Well, he followed in the footsteps of Barbara Boxer.
This is breathtaking.
We all know what that's about.
It said it deadline for there be a change of direction in Iraq.
Again, they wouldn't allow us to vote on that, although we picked up four Republicans.
Progress is being made on these Iraq amendments.
And finally, with the National Intelligence Estimate, which has just come out, isn't it a good idea to pass the appropriations bill that deals with homeland security?
That too was blocked.
And I want to reassert what I said out there this morning.
My friend, Senator McConnell, says, everybody knows the 60 votes on controversial issues around here.
Well, last November, Iraq wasn't very controversial because we had simple up-and-down votes.
It's obvious to the American people that the war in Iraq has gone the wrong way.
And all of a sudden, now, seven months later, after the last defense authorization bill, they're saying you need 60 votes.
That's a new math.
It was developed by the Republicans to protect the president.
That's what it's all about.
That's unbelievable.
60 votes is standard.
They are, he is, if they're not careful with this, you know, they're going to blow that one sky high.
What?
What is it?
The Republicans do not have control of the Senate.
That's the whole thing.
Sternly asked me, when did Republicans get control of the Senate back?
They don't have control of the Senate.
That's why I said last hour, this is the most incompetent majority leader that I think the Democrats have ever had in the Senate.
He keeps losing votes every time he tries one of these resolutions, blaming the Republicans for not wanting to vote when that wasn't the case, blaming Republicans for forcing him, the leader, to require 60 votes.
That's why I say this is breathtaking.
Just breathtaking.
And he couldn't even peel off enough Republicans to go along with this, even after trying to fatigue everybody into just voting to get out of there.
So the whole thing blew up in their face, and it's, I'd say it's an embarrassment.
All right, let's change gears here, ladies and gentlemen.
Other things out there.
This headline, fruits and vegetables do not stop the return of cancer.
I just love stories like this.
And I'll tell you why I love stories.
And it's not that I like cancer returning.
It's that I love all these nanny do-gooder types who are trying to tell everybody how to live be proven wrong.
All these health nuts and health freaks demanding it's not enough for them to eat the way they want to eat.
They've got to force everybody else to do it.
They've got to force feed what they think everybody else should eat.
Like that little nerd from the Center for Science and the Public Interest that got coconut oil banned from movie theater, popcorn, and so forth.
They're out constantly attacking Chinese food or pasta or what have you.
Shut up.
Don't eat it if you want to look like a cadaver, go ahead.
But leave the rest of us alone.
They've been telling us for years, vegetables, vegetables and fruits, and eat a lot of nuts.
If you do that, you'll stave off cancer.
Your odds of getting cancer will improve or decrease by X number, but it's all BS.
Here are the details.
Hopes that a diet low in fat and chock full of fruits and vegetables could prevent the return of breast cancer were dashed yesterday by a large seven-year spearmint in more than 3,000 women.
A government study found no benefit from a mega veggies and fruit diet over the U.S. recommended servings of five fruits and vegetables a day, more than most Americans get.
Researchers noted that none of the breast cancer survivors lost weight on either diet.
And that led some of the experts to suggest that weight loss and exercise should be the next frontier for cancer prevent.
Oops, sorry, forget the vegetables.
Your kids are right.
They don't like them.
You shouldn't serve them.
Just lose weight and start exercising.
Well, how old is that?
The study appears in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Why don't they look into the abortion breast cancer risk just for the fun of it?
I've heard things about that.
That won't happen.
Susan Gapster of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine said it sends us back to the drawing board.
I love all these food stories.
You know what Oat Brand had to do, had to have some of that, all the fiber and stuff.
And then it came out that wasn't true.
Coffee was going to kill you, increase the risk of heart attacks with caffeine.
That wasn't true.
Nicotine, of course, now turns out to maybe show some promise for people with Parkinson's disease.
Should we really have focused on dietary components like fruits, vegetables, and fat? Gapster asked.
Or should we be focusing on, in addition to diet, on lifestyle factors, including physical activity and weight?
As though they haven't been focusing on that.
I mean, you can't turn on the TV.
You can't go get a woman's magazine anymore without finding five or six articles on exercise and losing weight and all this.
We get pummeled with it.
What do you mean, refocus?
The research was kicked off by a $5 million grant from the late Walmart heir John Walton.
Got an additional $30 million in support from the National Cancer Institute.
Anyway, the details are: in the seven years after breast cancer was discovered, and they asked these women to start chowing down on all those vegetables and fruits and nuts and things, the cancer returned in about the same proportion of women in both groups.
About 10% of both groups died during that time, most of them from breast cancer.
And it didn't matter whether the breast cancer was the most common type fueled by hormones or not.
The special diet did not prevent the cancer from coming back.
You know, the crime is that anybody ever thought that it would.
And it's just, but I can understand, do anything to ward off the return of cancer.
Anyway, I just love it when these little ne'er-do-well nanny-do-gooders who constantly can't stay out of our lives are proven to be totally all wet.
Talent on loan from God.
Rushlimbo, prescient, national treasure, well-known Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and as proclaimed by a member of the audience yesterday, a prophet.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, it's archives time.
We're going to go way back, the early days of the program of the groove yard of forgotten favorites.
Yes, my friends, it's worthy.
This is of a condom update.
One of my all-time favorite tunes, folks.
So one of the first songs that I ever played as a struggling young disc jockey, a star of the future, back in 1967.
And I remember introducing the condom update.
You're going to fade the whole thing out.
I remember introducing the condom update in Sacramento in 1984, and it, you would not believe.
This is how times have changed.
It just, I mean, my dad even heard about us.
What are you doing?
You can't say that word on the radio.
You can't.
And I had little old ladies in Sacramento up in arms when this happened.
Here's the news.
And the only reason this is funny is because of the cigar tax that came out yesterday that they're trying to get $10 per cigar.
In order to promote safe sex among India's prostitutes, Hindustan Latex LTD has developed tobacco-flavored condoms, making a man's cigar resemble a cigar.
It has a band.
It has tobacco-flavored condoms.
This is the ultimate liberal quagmire, ladies and gentlemen.
Oh, they got to get these in the United States.
Nate in Buffalo.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rosh, pleasure to talk with you.
Thank you, sir.
We disagree on a lot of things.
And I was just, you know, I know the study came out saying that the sun was not the cause of global warming.
I know you disagreed with that, but I was just wondering if you knew what the first two planets were closest to the sun.
The first two planets closest to us?
No, to the sun.
The closest planets to the sun are Mercury and Venus.
Yeah.
Well, Venus is much warmer than Mercury, even though it's farther away from the sun.
And I guess that wouldn't make much sense, but it's because of the gases that are in the atmosphere.
Well, but there are geophysical reasons that we can learn from the first glacial age on our own planet to explain this.
What is that?
The problem is, well, one thing, you can't compare the atmospheres of the Earth to especially Venus, nor Mercury.
And by the way, I'm not willing to concede that Venus is hotter, but if it is, then it has things to do with circumstances do not exist on this planet at all.
So not only do I reject the notion that the sun has nothing to do with it, I think it's absurd.
I think it's literally absurd for anybody to think the sun is not a factor.
They don't factor precipitation in whether or not the effect on climate in this country.
I think it's absurd for anybody alive today to sit there and think that this is how vain we are, that the climate today is ideal, and that from any variance from here is going to be destructive.
No, we don't know that.
You know, we adapt, and human beings and other life forms of this planet have adapted to things that we can't control, and climate's one of them.
It is just, it's ridiculous to me.
It's intellectually depraved to me.
This is a religion.
This is a political issue.
It's liberalism on the march.
And I'm glad you called because I had this story in a global warming stack and I wasn't sure I was going to be able to get to it today, but your call has provided the perfect transition to it.
It is a story in businessandmedia.org.
It's a website.
It is written by R. Warren Anderson, a research analyst, and Dan Gaynor of the Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow.
These guys are think tank people, and they've done an analysis of the last 100 years of journalism on global warming.
It's entitled Fire and Ice.
It's 17 pages when you print it out.
But it is, this puts the blame for all of this hysteria on global warming exactly where it belongs, and that is the media for 100 years.
Now, for 100 years, we've had wacko scientists trying to advance agendas.
And if the agenda happens to fit the media, and the agenda here, by the way, is chaos.
The agenda is crisis.
That is why in 1979, Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling, the coming ice age, and there was a cover story of Time Summer of a glacier totally surrounding Manhattan with only Empire State Building protruding.
Just as today, Al Gore's movie has a flood wiping out Manhattan.
It doesn't matter global cooling, global warming.
It's crisis.
It's we're in trouble.
It's we need big government to fix it.
We need to punish people.
We need to control their lives.
People are causing this.
It's been going on for 100 years.
Here's the opening paragraph.
It was five years before the turn of the century.
Major media were warning of disastrous climate change.
Page six of the New York Times was headlined with serious concerns of geologists.
Only the president at the time wasn't Bill Clinton.
It was Grover Cleveland.
And the Times wasn't warning about global warming.
It was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.
The year was 19 there, 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis.
Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be wiped out or lower crop yields would mean billions will die.
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting, blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 20s by Arctic explorer Donald Macmillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition.
As the Times put it on February 24th, 1895, geologists think the world may be frozen up again.
Those concerns lasted well into the late 20s.
But when the Earth's surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat.
Once again, the Times was out front cautioning, the Earth is steadily growing warmer.
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade, and by 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend, ran an article titled Climate, The Heat May Be Off.
As the U.S. and the Soviet Union faced off, media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of man versus nature.
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 50s, but it too came around to the new fears.
Just three decades ago in 1975, the paper reported a major cooling widely considered to be inevitable.
They have graphic portrayals of newspaper covers and magazine covers.
Here's science news, March 1, 1975, with Manhattan being enveloped by a glacier.
1975.
The future looked cold and ominous with this science depiction from March 1, 1975.
And then Time magazine, June 24, 1974, story showed how Arctic snow and ice had grown from 1968 to 1974.
And the cover was, I don't know if it's a cover, it might just be the story, but it had a graphic here of the expanding North Pole.
1975.
New York Times Timeline, September 18th, 1924, Macmillan reports signs of new ice age.
March 27, 1933, America in longest warm spell since 1776.
Temperature line records a 25-year rise.
Now, from 1924, we're talking about a new ice age.
And nine years later, they're warning us of global warming in the New York Times.
From 33 to 1975, scientists wonder or ponder why the world's climate is changing.
A major cooling widely considered to be inevitable.
Global cooling was all the rage.
All the magazines and newspapers back in 75 through 79.
December 27, 2005, past hot times hold a few reasons to relax about new warming.
This is nothing more than typical media behavior.
Nothing more than typical media distortion.
And really what it is, is a constant focus on crisis.
And if somebody they think is credible, a scientist or an expert, comes out and says, we got global warming and this is going to happen.
You got a former vice president with a movie out there.
They love it.
It's crisis.
It sells newspapers.
It gets ratings.
It promotes liberalism.
It promotes big government.
So the temperature rise, we don't, I don't think, folks, based on where some of our thermometers are that take official temperature readings in this country and around the world, I don't think we can possibly know for sure whether it's getting warmer or colder, climate-wise, worldwide.
How can in the middle of global warming, we set record lows in the summertime and have record highs in the winter?
Some of these things just don't make sense.
But aside from all that, you don't factor precipitation.
You throw the sun out of the equation and you only factor in rich countries and wealthy human beings and then point the finger of blame.
You don't think that's liberalism?
That's liberalism to its core.
Combined with a compliant media that is focused not on facts and truth and open exchange of ideas, but just promoting crisis.
Pure and simple.
Don't fall for it.
It's a hoax.
That's right, a man, a living legend, a national treasure, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, a way of life.
Here, the one and only EIB network.
You know, I know I got pretty passionate there, folks, this global warming thing, but I just, I really, I have a tough time dealing with people that end up being robots.
And this is a very, very insidious, at the same time ingenious campaign that the people on the pro-global warming side have of trying to persuade your kids and everybody else that this is actually happening and it's of course America's fault and the fault of other Western civilizations, highly achieved, highly advanced, travel anywhere in the world where it's not advanced and tell me that they don't clean up their messes as well.
They clean up their messes as well as we do, and I certify you.
But beyond all that, this is, I don't explain this.
At the root of this is political activism everywhere from all the scientists on this who say it is this.
Then you've got the media that just loves to promote all this stuff.
I don't question it.
This great, great story called Fire and Ice, I just shared with you minute amounts of data, but it's a total study of the media and some of the scientists over the years.
Every 25 years it changes.
Warming, cooling, ice age, destruction.
And it's all our fault.
It's happening.
And they haven't been right in 100 years about it.
They have been predicting catastrophe for 100 years.
It hasn't happened.
And they're doing it again now.
And they're revising the out-year catastrophe.
Now, they don't say the next five or ten as smart about it, 20 or 30, because you can't say in 10 years it's not going to happen.
So they still have 20 more years to scare you and so forth.
But it's just an absolute total 100% hoax.
Now, the climate changes all the time.
I'm not disputing that.
I'm talking about the fact that only certain human beings and only certain countries are causing this to happen.
And it's, I mean, it's got everything.
Class envy.
It's got rich versus poor.
It's got haves and have-nots.
And of course, the haves are once again victimizing the have-nots.
And we're stealing all the resources and we're burning all the fuel.
We're putting all the CO2 up there.
And that's the thing.
We're going to create an atmosphere like Venus as we're all going to die.
It's frankly ridiculous.
It's not going to happen.
And we're adaptive and can deal with it.
Anyway, I said my piece on this.
Chris in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello?
I wanted to comment on what the last caller was saying about temperatures on Mercury and Venus.
Mercury has no atmosphere.
So when the side of Mercury that's facing the sun, it is extremely hot.
But the side of Mercury that is in nighttime or away from the sun is very cold.
If you take those two temperatures and you average them, you are going to get a temperature that is probably a little bit lower on the average than Venus, which has a hyper atmosphere and therefore has a constant temperature.
And there's just no variation in Venus's temperature, and it's always going to be a little bit higher than an average temperature of Mercury, which has a day and a night and vast temperature swings on its surface.
Well, Venus's atmosphere, correct me if I'm wrong, I know it's got a very strong greenhouse effect, but it's a dense atmosphere.
Extremely dense.
You can't see through it.
Right.
No, you can't see through it.
And Venus.
That's how dense it is.
So to compare that with, and plus, look how much closer to the sun.
Because of the density, you don't have any, the people that leave this factor out of the warming claims on our own planet.
We've got CO2 here.
There's a greenhouse effect here.
There's no question.
It's a huge one on Venus.
But the CO2 portion in our atmosphere is minute compared to that which is on Venus.
And the reason it changes very slowly is because the warming effect is short-circuited by weather that happens on the Earth, such as clouds and precipitation that they still don't model and factor.
None of that's taken place on Venus, or very little of it, because of the density of the atmosphere.
No, you're absolutely right.
And Venus, what's going on with Venus is that oceans never form.
So a lot of their atmosphere is water vapor and a lot of other greenhouse gases.
Water vapor, a huge greenhouse gas.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So, you know, I mean, you can be very misled if you only look at the data.
That's the point.
I'm glad you called.
That's exactly the point.
You can be misled, you can be propagandized, and you can be brainwashed.
But that guy that called, his point was political.
You know, I mean, he asked me about Venus a little bit.
He's trying to get me screwed around so that I end up tripping up and agreeing with his political point.
I guess the best way for people who are ambivalent about this or even mildly curious is think of it.
It's just a political issue.
It is a political issue that is shrouded in science.
It is pushed forward with the best of intentions to save the earth and to save all living things except humans because the earth really will not be safe and it will not be saved until the mass of humanity is destroyed by a virus that doesn't kill anything else.
And there are advocates of that who got serious treatment in a recent newsweek colleague.
I've written a book.
Thanks for the call, Chris.
I appreciate it.
This is Nick Daytona Beach.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, thank you.
And, you know, the first thing I want to say is thanks for everything that you do to support the troops.
I called you about 10 months ago when my daughter, the love of my life, went to Iraq.
The day that she landed in Iraq, I'd called you, and I was very angry at the Congress and the way things were going.
And I just want to let you know I'm still angry.
So thank you for keeping up the fight.
I now have.
You're probably angrier.
I am angrier, and for a lot of reasons.
Not only do I have a daughter there, I also have a son there.
I have a brother there.
My daughter's in the Army.
My son is in the Air Force.
My brother is in the Navy.
And my son, who's about to graduate high school, wants to join the Air Force.
And my eight-year-old daughter just told me she wants to join the Navy.
So I've got a lot at stake.
Well, you have an inspirational effect on these children of yours that's profound.
We love our country and we love our God.
And that's all I can tell you is that we'll pay the price when other people are afraid to.
Unlike the folks who had their slumber party last night, I've stayed up many nights, not just last night.
And I mean, to tell you, the thing that upsets me is not only have they disappointed me and other people, they're actually asking for a pay raise.
Today, there is legislation in front of Nancy Pelosi for a pay raise for the Slumber Party Congress that has passed nothing except a minimum wage increase.
So it's a wage increase for the minimum wage.
Earners who, by the way, after six months, a minimum wage earner does not even earn minimum wage.
But let's leave that aside.
Plus, for themselves, that's what they've accomplished.
A pay raise for themselves.
I'm disgusted.
And let me tell you, this will hit the fan.
I'm as angry as I was then.
And I'm telling you, more people, and the sediment that's growing out there is incredible because we are sick and tired of this Congress not listening to us and all Congress not listening to us.
I want a damn fence run across Mexico.
It can be done.
It's cheap.
And that'll keep the Iraqis, who, by the way, are sneaking across our border now.
I do not understand what is going on.
I need to deploy my, let's redeploy my kids to the South American border, you know, the border in Texas.
Is that what we really need to do now?
I really cannot understand what is going on.
Well, what he's referring to here is that the Mexican smugglers have decided to start smuggling Iraqis in because the Iraqis will pay more to get in here than the Mexicans will.
So it's, you know, it's black market under the table capitalism working here.
But we don't.
We don't have the ability to stop it.
You're right.
It's frustrating as hell.
And not only that, you've got the Democrats in the Senate, Slumber Party Senate, as you call them, trying to act like there's no threat that we face and trying to act like the biggest threat's George W. Bush and trying to proclaim the mission lost and trying to secure defeat for their personal political fortunes or gains.
That's right.
I'm surprised there aren't...
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
I'm surprised there aren't more people in this country outraged and livid over what's happening here.
We are, believe me, when I tell you this, this is going to change the way America thinks.
It's every, I don't know how many decades, but every so many decades, this country goes through a major change where they have got to pay the price and they've got to do important things.
And the Democrats do not understand that.
They won the legacy of Congress by fighting World War II and they have destroyed their legacy.
I'm telling you right now, it's really going to be ugly and it's coming and we are going to take back that Congress and we're going to keep that White House because we need to.
We have to.
Fighting over global warming, warming is irrelevant when you have no freedom to fight for it or against it.
It doesn't make sense to me.
I wish that people would wake up and start to fight the real enemy, which is al-Qaeda.
It's not me.
It's not me and my kids.
It's not my president.
It's al-Qaeda and it's the people who hate us and want to destroy our culture and our way of life.
And I'm not stupid.
And I'm going to tell you something.
I'm about to pay off my house in six months.
If I were younger, I'd be joining up right now, too, picking up my rifle.
Well, God bless you.
You've got people around this country standing up and cheering you on.
And I think you're probably right.
The latest approval numbers in Congress, 14%.
They better not ignore that on capital, and they better not misinterpret it.
Do you feel better?
We lost.
He lost a cell call.
I know he feels better after vetting like that, especially to the largest audience in broadcasting today.
Thanks for the call out there, Nick, very much.
We'll take a brief time out.
We'll be back and continue in mere moments.
And we are back, ladies and gentlemen, here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Only two in existence, one here and one at the EIB building in Manhattan, Northern Command.
All right, let's change gears for just a minute here.
Head to the lifestyle stack.
This is in the Los Angeles Times today.
It's written by Denise Jalen.
And it's chick news.
News, as you know, we've discussed it frequently here, has been chick chickified.
Well, because this is important chick news.
The news has been chickified out there, but this is this is, you love this snurdle.
This is right up your alley.
I say it chick news, but it's not.
The headline, girl talk linked to depression and anxiety.
If you keep talking about it, you'll be miserable.
Constant venting over crushes, popularity, other personal problems may lead to anxiety and depression in girls, but not in boys, according to new research.
Study of 813 students between 8 and 15 found that excessive discussions and rumination about problems strengthened friendships for both sexes, but those tighter bonds came at a cost for the girls.
Study appears in this month's issue of Developmental Psychology.
Lead author Amanda Rose, a chick, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Missouri Columbia, said the results might reflect a cultural tendency among girls to blame themselves when they aren't invited to parties or when boys don't call back.
The more they talk about it, the more depressed and anxious they feel.
Boys reported no change in feelings of anxiety or depression, but girls said they felt worse.
Amanda Rose, a study authorette, said that girls got caught up in a vicious cycle in which depression or anxiety spurred rumination, which in turn led to increased depression or anxiety.
They just kept talking about it.
They never closed the loop and just kept making a circle.
Talk, talk, Whatever it is about, it just makes you feel worse.
So next time your little girl comes and starts to just tell her, don't talk about it anymore.
She'll feel better rather than going over it again and again and again and again.
I wish they'd do this research on adults.
I really do.
I might even fund it.
Research something called relationship analysis.
Keith Ellison, the nation's first Muslim congressman, said yesterday he had erred in comparing the Bush administration's response to September 11th to an event that led to Adolf Hitler's consolidation of power in Nazi Germany.
At an appearance before a group of atheists in Minnesota, Keith Ellison, Democrat in Minnesota stand, called September 11th the juggernaut that led to war, tolerating torture and increased discrimination against religious minorities.
Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag, the German parliament building, to suspend constitutional liberties.
And that's what Ellison was saying that Bush was trying to do here.
And he called him Bush Hitler.
Well, a couple of Republican congressmen, Zach Womp, and I forget who else, were just outraged that nobody thought anything about this.
There's a member of the United States Congress saying this.
They sent a letter to Pelosi demanding she do something about it.
I don't know what led to this, but Ellison said on the ADL did.
The ADO, he, ah, yes, here it is.
The ADL released a statement Tuesday calling on Ellison to apologize for his comments.
Abraham Foxman, the national director, called the comparison outrageous and offensive to all Americans, whatever his views may be on the administration's response to 9-11, the conduct of the war on terrorism, liking it to Hitler's rise to power and Nazism is odious, demeans the victims of 9-11, the brave American men and women engaged in the war on terror.
Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated.
So Ellison, he called AP and an interview, telephone interview, said, in hindsight, I wouldn't have used that reference point.
Probably inappropriate to use that example because it's a unique historical event without really any clear parallels.
Now, this is the nation's first Muslim congressman, pondering whether to go forward here verbally.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me take a break and ponder it further.
Michael Vick indicted by a federal grand jury on dog fighting charges.
Well, charges relating to the dog fighting probe connection with the property that he owned in Virginia.
I read the indictment.
You never know.
I read these indictments.
I'm going to wait for the trial or whatever else happens here.
But if that stuff in there is true, the degree of cruelty to those dogs is breathtaking.
Just because they lose, you hang them, you electrocute them, you drown them or what have you.
I mean, it's sick.
Five years in prison he could face here.
The libs are saying, well, hell, that's five years more than Scooter Libby got for lying to a federal grand jury.
And what else?
Who else is going to get more time than Vic for doing what was your example in there the other day?
Oh, yeah, the woman that killed the preacher husband.
Yeah, that's right.
The woman that killed her preacher husband got what?
Two years.
Two years.
Yeah, because, yeah, men are predators.
And you got to deal with them whenever they come at you.
▲
Export Selection