All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 17, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:04
August 17, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anybody anywhere is saying.
Views expressed by the host on this program, now documented to be almost always right, 98.7% of the time, as recorded in the latest opinion audit by my opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, California, the Sullivan Group.
It's Friday, so let's roll.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday!
All right, here's the telephone number.
You can line up.
The board's always full, but I mean, if you know when to call, you can squeeze in there.
The number is 800-282-2882.
And Open Line Friday is a golden opportunity, ladies and gentlemen, for you to take over the program.
We go to the phones.
This show is yours.
You can talk about whatever you want.
You can whine, moan, complain, laugh, chuckle.
Obviously, you got to do more than that.
You can be optimistic.
You got to make a comment about whatever.
Feel free.
Use this as the opportunity that it is.
Because Monday through Thursday, I am a benevolent dictator, and nobody has the right to be heard on this program but me.
But on Friday, I relax the rules.
So Monday through Thursday, it's all about what I care about.
Friday, I'll fake it if you call about something that doesn't interest me.
You can go the email route too, which is rush at EIBnet.com.
Marcus Aurelius, quote, the object of life.
And by the way, if Eric from Tampa, if you're still out there and you're heading over to Middlesex University, this is a great quote to take with you.
Or for any kid going off to college, it's actually applicable to all of us.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.
Now, to me, this is brilliant.
Independents and moderates, precisely, they sit around and they wait for a majority to form and they join it because they can feel like they're part of the majority.
And wait to see what makes them feel best and then they join it.
And they often end up joining the ranks of the insane.
You could say this about global warming opposition.
The easy thing to do is to believe, oh yeah, there's all kind of global warming under man-made.
Yeah, get in because everybody will applaud you.
But you're joining the ranks of the insane if you do that because you're seeking to be part of the majority.
And so I think I just love this quote.
Speaking of global warming, how many of you people have seen Al Gore's movie?
And we talked about this, by the way, before the movie came out.
This mysterious current, Gulf Stream and other related currents in the Atlantic.
And they cycle warm water up north and they keep Britain moderately temperature-wise, moderately climate gets kept moderate.
It doesn't get too cold, doesn't get too hot.
And if this current ever stopped, why it could wreak havoc on Britain.
And of course, in the Gore movie, this current is stopping and it's slowing down and it may be disappearing.
And this is because global warming, but we have new information, ladies and gentlemen, that says it's just normal.
Scientists, by the way, say this.
That's Paul Shanklin.
It's Al Gore.
What a horrible world.
That's a takeoff, of course, on Louis Armstrong's great, great song, What a Wonderful World.
Now, don't confuse this story with the story we had yesterday.
The story we had yesterday on ocean currents was scientists just discovered a new one in Australia.
They never knew it was there.
And Marcus, you're making all kinds of impact on global warming, but we didn't know it was there.
Well, if they're just learning about it now, is it in their computer models?
Obviously not.
This story has to deals with an entirely different current, a massive ocean circulation pattern that plays a crucial role in shaping the world's climate may not have been slowing down over the last few decades as scientists previously believed.
This, according to a study released yesterday, the perceived slowdown had been considered alarming support for computer predictions that global warming would disrupt the planet's heat regulation.
In a single year of measurements published in today's issue of the journal Science, the scientists found enough normal variation in the pattern to suggest that previous studies were premature in asserting a long-term trend.
That should be panic, long-term panic.
They're trying to create a long-term panic here.
We talked about this current.
It's like a conveyor belt in the ocean, and it takes warm weather across the Atlantic north towards the British Islands and then circulates it back down from Florida in that area.
And it takes warm water north, brings cold water south.
And they thought this current was slowing down and even stopping.
And it would have had a dramatic effect if it was right, if it would have a dramatic effect, particularly on the weather in the British Islands.
But it's not slowing down.
It's normal circulation.
So a panic was created over nothing.
And I think I'm right.
I usually am right when I think I'm right, because I'm usually right even when I think I'm wrong.
But I think I'm right on this.
I think this current gets a lot of play in Al Gore's movie.
It does.
Thank you.
Snirdly, did you see it?
Oh, okay.
Snirdly, Snerdly.
Yeah, this is an LA Times story, and they don't mention the Al Gore movie in this story, but there is a version of the Associated Press that does talk about it.
Now, here's a question.
When will scientists ever learn?
This stems from the arrogance and conceit that human beings are capable of.
The scientists see some change in nature and then fret over it being a long-term trend.
If you have a template out there, a narrative, if you will, that man is destroying the planet by warming the climate.
And we've only got a few short years to stop this.
Then you see something that you think is a change in nature that's never ever happened before, which of course is not possible.
And nothing that can happen in nature that has never happened before.
But our arrogance and conceit makes us think that things maybe they have happened before, but they're worse now than ever because of us.
So they see this change in the current.
And then they fret over it being part of a long-term trend that they turn into a panic.
First, we were told that a 30% reduction in water flow in the North Atlantic current in the last 50 years could mean a mini-ice age for Europe.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
No, an ice age.
Oh no.
Now the scientists tell us, never mind, we found that the strength of the current can actually fluctuate by a factor of eight over a single year.
So it's, you know, it's Emily LaTelletime here.
Never mind.
Folks, you need to have an age-old attitude about this stuff, this global warming science.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, you must be a scientist.
Now we're just playing this called for you.
Let me explain it.
Hillary's got this new ad.
She's out there saying that to the Bush administration, way too many people in this country are invisible.
And Karl Rove launched a full frontal attack on that ad when he was my guest on this program a couple of days ago.
So we put this ad together.
That's how we do this stuff.
We do it with humor.
We make fun of them and illustrate who they are.
One of the founding guidelines of humor on this program is that to make it really funny, it's got to have an element of truth in it.
And of course, that you just heard is a great example of that.
Open Line Friday back to the phones.
Ryan in the Netherlands, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I hear you fine.
All right.
It's Ryan calling from the Netherlands from Minneapolis originally.
Thanks for taking the call.
It's my pleasure.
I want to talk to you.
I want to call you.
Yeah, I wanted to call you from something you were talking about two days ago.
I only hear your show with a day leg off the iPod.
So I wanted to call you.
You were talking about how President Bush and Karl Rove, that they're being so restrained in responding to criticism from the New York Times and from the drive-by media, that was somehow to project more dignity on the presidency.
And I've been living in Europe since 1990, and I really think that in doing so, they've been opening themselves up to much more criticism from people in Europe, and they're not even getting their talking points across to the media in Europe.
And so I just wanted to say, it seems to me that that's not really working.
I wanted to get your reaction to that.
Well, I don't think it's a strategy to make anything work.
I think it is a simple philosophical belief that they have in how to respect the office and to not take it down to guttural partisan political levels and respond to all of this stuff.
Let me give you an example.
They finally did it on this ad that Mrs. Clinton ran that talked about how Bush sees only half the country, that most of the people in the country, in fact, are invisible to President Bush.
Well, Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, came out and she launched an attack, and then Rove came on my program and launched an attack.
And the Hillary people are out there publicly laughing and saying, we must have struck a nerve.
Why?
This is cool.
They love the fact that they think they got under Bush and Rove's skin.
And Dana Perino said, okay, we're not doing this anymore.
From now on, the RNC is going to respond to this stuff.
And it's not because of the Hillary reaction.
I think secretly the Hillary camp is worried that the White House did this because it may shore up her support with the base.
find it fascinating uh ryan that the um uh the stories came out after this that hillary was happy because this will convince liberals that she's truly liberal being criticized by the white house if you if you need the white house to convince that's just ridiculous they're just I don't think they're doing it to get their talking points across, and Bush is not president to make the Europeans like him.
And that's what he would tell us.
You're making my life more difficult over here as a Republican, though, I got to say.
Well, now, okay, so it's about you.
You want Bush to give you some cover.
Yeah, I understand.
Well, I understand that.
Let me tell you something, Ryan.
I understand that because I told, I don't know if you've heard yet the interview with Karl Rove, but in talking about this very thing with him, I said, you know, the American people, your supporters want leadership on this.
You're being savaged.
Bush is being savaged, lied about, and you don't respond to it.
And of course, that makes your supporters think that they're being savaged and lied about, and they're not being defended either.
And so I understand exactly how you feel about this, but whether you agree with their philosophy or not, what it is is what I told you.
Well, I understand.
It's not going to be in the office by the way.
But over here, it's much more lonely because we don't have a voice like you, Rush.
Yeah, I understand.
It's a problem.
By nature, wherever this program is not, life will suck.
Wherever this program is not, liberals will dominate and prevail.
This hasn't been documented.
But you're in the Netherlands.
What did I just read about the Netherlands?
Oh, I'm sure you read tons of stuff about it.
Is it something about a metal block?
I can't remember if I've got it in today's stack or had it in yesterday's.
If it's yesterday's stack, it's that of Florida.
Something about, oh, is it the Netherlands where everybody, when they hit 90, is guaranteed a spot in a nursing home?
Oh, you know what?
That could be, but we've got waiting lists here for all kinds of medicine.
But that's the point.
That's highly socialized medicine.
People have paid taxes all their lives, high taxes, and expect the spot in a nursing home in their 90s, and they can't get in.
Oh, yeah.
There are waiting lists for nursing homes.
They're waiting lists for all kinds of operations over here.
Yeah.
Well, I've got a story in Australia today from Austin Sydney.
There's a clinic that does nothing but work on hearts.
They got 12 beds.
They can only fill four of them because they don't have enough funding, i.e., taxes.
So it can take you three months, if you've had a heart attack, to be treated.
So they're reaching out to the private sector.
They're going to give up on the government.
They're going to reach out to the private sector.
I'll give you details of this as the program unfolds.
But I think it's the Netherlands where I was reading this story.
I'm going to find it stacked somewhere here.
If not today, I'll do it Monday.
Could be.
Thank you, Ryan.
I appreciate the call.
I'm flattered that you go to trouble to find the program over there in the Netherlands.
Yeah.
Hey, thanks.
Keep it up.
You'll do.
Tyler in Stores, Connecticut.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
I don't know if you've mentioned this before on your show, but 24 is going green.
They have claimed that their season finale for season seven will be carbon neutral.
And there's a clip with Kiefer Sutherland on the internet on their official website that says that global warming and global climate change is an important issue.
Yada, yada, yada.
Well, what's going on?
Well, what's going on here is two things, but chief among them is that the shoddy journalism, typical of Drive-By Media, has misreported the story.
And that's why you think the episodes are going green, the content of the episodes.
They are not.
Kiefer Sutherland, Jack Bauer is not going to be driving around in hybrids.
He's not going to be shooting SUVs or any of that.
What's happened is that Rupert Murdoch and the executives at Fox have issued a studio-wide directive on all Fox shows that the production must be carbon neutral.
So they're going to change some light bulbs and they're going to buy some carbon credits.
It won't affect the content of any Fox show.
It's just, it's a PR move that's designed to say to the audience, we care.
We're worried we're doing our part about global warming and so forth.
We don't care if it's a hoax.
We know that a lot of you suckers believe it.
And so we might be able to get a half of a rating point out of loyalty to you watching our shows if you think that we're not contributing to global warming.
The content will have nothing to do with what the reporting of this story led you to believe.
And I'm sure in fear, you thought, my God, they're going to ruin my show.
Well, yeah, I mean, so it seems like it won't reflect at all on their politics.
It's a no, I have, no, no, no.
That will not reflect on their politics.
If it does, it's not that ordered.
No, that's not part of this.
Take it to the limit.
We are beyond the limit on this program.
There are no limits other than the bounds of good taste, propriety, and morality.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your guiding light, period.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
So the Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, over the Petraeus report have to be in a bit of a dilemma.
They are being steered by allies in the drive-by media to try to get on board what looks to be a very successful surge operation.
We've had numerous stories in the New York Times. suggesting that we can't leave.
It would be irresponsible to leave.
We can't lose.
We've had stories in the New York Times about how successful the surge is from previous critics, liberals at the Brookings Institution.
We have had other comments from certain Democrats suggesting that they are a little concerned that they are so wedded to the notion of defeat.
So the Petraeus report is coming, and it's already been leaked that he's going to suggest that things are going so well that we can start a drawdown of troops, particularly from some of these areas, and by next summer we might have fewer people there than we do now.
Well, this is a dilemma for the Democrats.
And the reason I think that there's some trouble in paradise here is that not all of the drive-bys are on board with this new switch in Democrat policy.
If they were smart, they would try to find a way to get back off the cliff.
And by the end of the year, going into the presidential primaries, have it understood that they're on board for U.S. victory.
And there are some people that want the Democrats to do it, but apparently some Democrats have no desire for it to be done.
This story from the, I guess it's the AP, anti-war Democrats, and I actually should read, anti-American Democrats, on Thursday accused President Bush of plotting to lace a potentially pivotal report from General Petraeus with White House spin.
The attack came as senior congressional aides who reported as saying the White House wanted to block public testimony in Congress next month from, excuse me, General Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker.
Democrats are also angry.
The assessment on the surge required under U.S. law will be written at the White House, not personally by Crocker and Petraeus.
But the White House accused Democrats of playing political games with war strategy and made clear the two men would appear in public.
Now, the law requiring the Iraq war report by September 15th states, wait, putting you to sleep in there?
This giant yawn from the chief of staff.
The law requiring the Iraq war report by September 15th states, quote, the president shall submit the assessment to Congress after consulting top military brass, the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad and his national security team.
It does not specify that the report be written by Crocker or Petraeus.
But the Democrats are out there.
He's going to fake it.
He's going to dummy it up.
He's going to spin it.
He's writing it.
He's not going to probably write it either.
But regardless, what this tells me that they're all not together on this.
They're going to try to go out and say that the Petraeus report is worthless and irrelevant because Bush writes it.
So this tells me that the New York Times may be failing.
This tells me that Democrat drive-by allies may be failing in their attempt to talk sense into the Democrat leadership.
That takes us to the audio soundbites.
Let's go start with number six.
I predicted to you, by the way, back on August 7th, they're going to try to discredit Petraeus.
They tried to discredit Petraeus when they found those weapons caches over there.
Well, how good could he be if you're finding all these insurgent weapons casuals?
They didn't know when they were there.
So they're doing it.
And here is a drive-by ally, CNN, our old buddy Bill Schneider, with one of the most ridiculous polls.
This is exactly what I have told you a poll is.
This is a poll not to be reflective of public opinion.
This is a poll attempting to mold public opinion.
Here's our old buddy, a montage of Bill Schneider on the CNN yesterday.
Suppose General Petraeus reports that the U.S. is making progress in Iraq.
Would that have much impact on public opinion?
Apparently not.
72% of Americans say it would not affect their view of the war at all.
Only 28% say it would make them more likely to support the war, and most of those already favor the war.
But does the public trust the top commander to report what's really going on?
Only 43% say yes.
A majority of Americans say they do not expect a completely objective report.
And that public skepticism is certain to be reinforced by the fact that the report will actually be compiled by the White House.
Any document that is submitted by the White House is bound to be seen as a political document.
All right.
All right.
So, you know, I take it back.
I take back everything I said earlier about the Democrats realizing here they got a problem and trying to get back on board the victory parade.
This that you just heard from Bill Schneider is some of the most irresponsible, embarrassing, and shameful reporting on a so-called objective news network that I can recall.
And that's saying something.
This is just patently outrageous.
Suppose General Petraeus reports that the U.S. is making progress.
Would that have much impact on public opinion?
Apparently not.
72% of Americans say it would not affect their view of the war at all.
Bill, your poll's worthless.
Other polls already suggest the American people's opinion of the war is going up.
The president's approval numbers are going up.
And your precious buddies in Congress are the ones sinking down into a sinkhole.
And then he says, only 28% say it would make them more likely to support the war.
And most of those already favor the war.
But does the public trust the top commander to report what's really going on?
Only 43% say, wonder why this is.
What I don't know how you can, they're not trying to predict future attitudes.
They're trying to shape future attitudes.
They're trying to make it.
This is just shoddy.
This would get a normal person fighting.
You would flunk journalism.
Well, take that back.
This gets you a prime job someplace.
I mean, only 43% of the public trust the top commander.
Why is that, Bill?
You've been working for how many years here to destroy the reputation of everybody in the military and everybody in the White House.
And then public skepticism is certain to be reinforced by the fact the report will be compiled by the White House.
How do you know that, Bill?
You're going to try to make that happen at CNN and elsewhere in the drive-by media.
Bill, you need to get informed.
You work for a news network.
You know the law.
The law says that the White House will write this report.
Let me remind you again: the law requiring the Iraq war report by September 15th.
And this is a law, by the way.
Where do laws come from, Bill?
No, no, no, not the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Congress bill, run by who?
Your buddies.
The law requiring the Iraq war report by September 15th states the president shall submit.
That's in quotes, Bill.
So you have your worthless, shameful, irresponsible, infantile report.
Public skepticism certain to be reinforced.
Well, Bill, if you think that, why don't you try to console them by telling them the truth?
That the law requires it to come from the White House.
Actually, from the president.
He's doing exactly what the law says.
You're doing this stupid little story, hoping to fuel skepticism, hyping up his lack of credibility that you have helped create.
And if you're really worried about skepticism, which you're not, you want more of it, you could simply eliminate the skepticism by assuring the beloved yet microscopically tiny audience at CNN of what the truth of the law is.
Any document submitted by the White House bound to be seen as a political document?
No, you want people to see it as a political document.
Okay, so I have to think, folks, I have been wrong.
Earlier this week and last, when I suggested that the Democrats are trying to figure out a way to get themselves back on the right side of this, apparently, this is probably not going over well in the New York Times, and apparently it ain't working.
If all these stories about how they're trying to destroy Petraeus' reputation, sully the credibility of the report, which, frankly, to be honest, I'm happy to see I want them to go over to Cliff and stay off the cliff on this.
I want the people of this country to know that their modern-day Democrat Party is invested in defeat, is going to do everything it can to bring defeat about, that these Democrats are insistent on the U.S. losing while George Bush is in the White House.
I want the American people to know this because I don't care what polls show about support for the war.
The one thing that we know is the American people do not like losing.
They don't like their military losing, particularly a fight, a military fight or any other kind of fight, and they don't like quitting and giving up.
And if the Democrats can engineer this and they try to saddle it around Bush and his neck, which they're not going to be able to do because we have the sound bites.
We are going to pummel this country with everything these Democrats have said all year about this.
And people are going to find out about it if there's still any doubt left, which there won't be.
We will take care of this.
So I'm actually kind of happy that they're apparently content to stay on this road that they're on to full McGovernization.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Your highly trained broadcast specialist, Rush Limbaugh, showing everyone else how it's done.
From our buddies at the Powerline blog, little report here on the Jose Padilla.
By the way, I haven't listened to this, and I've heard that this name is pronounced Padilla, but it seems to me it would be Padilla.
So I don't know which way it's, and I don't watch, you know, I don't have the volume up on TV, folks.
I should ask somebody.
Have you heard this name pronounced out?
Yeah, I've heard it both ways, too.
So, okay, so Jose Padilla Padilla has a fan club out there, and that is the far left.
Jules Crittenden toured the fever swamp of liberal websites to record their reactions to yesterday's conviction of Jose Padilla-Padilla.
And again, this is for our buddies at Powerline.
And as you would expect, those that haven't fallen silent are regretful at Padilla Padilla's conviction.
Also, this paragraph from an AP report.
U.S. officials said that Padilla Padilla, while incarcerated in a military brig in South Carolina, admitted, folks, this is crucial because you know he was acquitted of the charge of being a dirty bomber.
But when he was in a military brig in South Carolina, he admitted exploring the dirty bomb plot.
But that evidence couldn't be used at trial because he was not read his rights and he didn't immediately have access to an attorney.
Now, when you capture somebody like Padilla Padilla and you hold him as an enemy combatant, you're not going to hire him a lawyer and read him his rights.
Imagine the idea of regiments of lawyers on a battlefield rushing in to read soldiers, in this case terrorists, their rights when they're taken prisoner.
When the government decided to turn Padilla Padilla over to the criminal justice system for prosecution, they had to identify offenses for which such prosecution was viable.
And this illustrates the difference, folks, between warfighting, which is the administration's primary approach to terrorism, and criminal prosecution, which is the Democrats' predominant, if not exclusive, method.
They want every one of these.
In fact, John Kerry and others have been out there saying, maybe it's Edwards.
I don't know.
They're all saying it.
They just treat these people as criminals.
Go out there and seek indictments and so forth.
And this is what happens.
It is a fabulous illustration of the totally flawed way that the Democrats would deal with this problem that this nation faces as a national security matter.
We'll be making more of this in the coming months as we near the election.
You can count on it.
You know it, and I know it.
Charles in Shreveport, Louisiana, home of Terry Bradshaw, Hal Sutton, and David Toms.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, optimistic dittos from Louisiana.
Thank you.
This confused, humble student has a question for the honored professor.
I'll be happy to answer it.
Thank you, sir.
It's a proven fact that tax cuts always increase revenues to the state or federal government.
This being a fact, why do liberals always oppose them when economically they will have more to spend on their precious social program giveaways?
My friend, is a very insightful question.
A very brilliant question.
It bothered me for years.
Well, you've called the right place.
I myself used to wonder about this.
And I answer this question periodically because this needs a lot of repetition.
Because we're all sucked in, seduced into believing that Democrats love spending money, and the more they can get, the better.
So why do they look at the revenue just pouring into Washington in an unexpected amount, reducing the size of the annual deficit?
Why do they look at these tax cuts and say, we've got to stop this?
Because here's the answer.
They care about something more than spending money.
And it's a close, you know, first and second here.
They want control over as many people's lives as possible, Charles.
If they have to borrow the money to spend it, they'll do that.
They'll run the deficit up or what have you.
They want control.
Look, if these are liberals, they're not full-fledged supporters of the capitalist system.
They believe that what's made the country great is government programs run by them.
They don't know that what made the country great is the people, people who make the country work with freedom, less regulation, free to pursue their ambitions and their desires with all the energy they want.
Those things threaten liberals, people that cannot be controlled, threaten liberals.
The idea of being able to control as many people as possible is rooted in controlling them economically.
So you take a lot of money from them and you reduce their ability to have disposable income and be free and so forth, and you make them more dependent on government programs so that they will then become accustomed to it and then end up voting Democrat.
That's the plan, and it's been this way since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and a New Deal.
So it's not economic driven.
It's power driven.
It's power driven.
It is not economic.
I got you.
Thank you so much, sir.
My pleasure.
Love you to death.
Happy to help.
I understand.
We'll be right back, folks.
Don't go away.
All right, folks, a little programming note.
I just got a note from my buddy Joel Cernow, who is, of course, the creator, exec producer of 24 and also of the half-hour news hour.
It was going to air tonight at 8 at 11 o'clock, and they've moved it back to its regular Sunday airtime at Fox because of the mine disaster.
They're going to do a show at 8 o'clock in 11, I guess 8 tonight on the mine disaster in Utah, which will preempt.
So it's a normal airing time for the half-hour news hour starring me in the opening skit.
It's about two minutes long.
It's funny.
It really is.
But it's Sunday night at 10 o'clock Eastern Time.
And I wanted to make sure, because this is the third time that they've moved it this.
Well, the second time.
It's going to air Thursday night at 9, and they moved it to Friday night at 8.
Now they've moved it back to its regular Sunday airtime.
All right, Open Line Friday must take a brief break to refuel, to regenerate, and to give you a breather from all this excellence.
▲
Export Selection