All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 12, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
September 12, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You are tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program, meeting and surpassing all and surprising all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Here I am amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and second hand premium cigar smoke.
It's a La Flor Dominicana double aguero chisel today, for people who want to know.
Telephone number 800 282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Well the uh the president of the United States is going to address the nation for 15 minutes tomorrow night on the uh on the Iraq war and the war on terror.
And I wonder what the left is going to say about this.
Will they say that Bush is just a mouthpiece for the evil general Petraeus?
Or will they say that Petraeus put the words in Bush's mouth?
Are they going to do a 180 now?
Folks, here's a headline.
And this is all you have to know about how the Petraeus hearings went on Monday and Tuesday.
Democrats scramble for Iraq strategy.
And these headlines are all over the drive-by media.
When you see that, you know they got cooked.
And they know they got cooked.
Petraeus ran rings around him.
This was another these past two days of hearings, another well stone memorial moment for the Democrat Party.
This is a kind of thing, you know, everybody in politics claims to want to go after the independence.
This is a kind of thing that infuriates the independence.
They don't like to see a decorated four-star trashed.
His reputation attacked and impugned by people, especially.
I have finally figured out.
I have been, I've I've been I've been all wrong about this.
I figured Mrs. Clinton was ahead so far in the primary polling, the Democrat presidential race, because of name recognition and uh and other things.
I I I've had to revise this.
After watching Barack Obama at these hearings yesterday of General Petraeus, I have to conclude he's a blithering idiot.
And I also think I've also thought that about John Edwards for the longest time, and that I've told you.
But I, you know, we've we've been sort of uh uh respectful and hopeful for Barack Obama here because the left has tried to take him out.
Uh the fact he's not black enough, he's not down for the struggle, all those columns about is he black enough?
And then the guy in the LA Times writes a piece about Barack the Magic Negro and so forth, which inspired a great parody song, by the way, heard exclusively here on the EIB network.
So here's Barack, presidential candidate.
We've got audio sound bites of this.
Uh we'll get to in a in this in the in a while, but you've you got Dodd, you had Biden, you had Obama, and all of these people took the time for their questioning to simply pontificate and lecture and make campaign speeches, and then Obama started whining and moaning he didn't have enough time for questions.
He never intended to ask any questions, is the point, because he was at least smart enough to figure out that Petraeus had run rings around whatever questions he asked.
So he just kept pontificating and saying things, and General Petraeus sits there and is uh professional about this.
So you you you you you have the Democrats who will not denounce move on dot org, which is good for us.
We don't want them denouncing moveon.org.
They are afraid to denounce move on dot org, and they probably agree with what moveon.org did.
In fact, I won't forget the quote that we found last Friday.
Some unnamed senator who made it plain, no, we're not gonna call the guy a liar.
We have our support groups, our surrogate groups are gonna do that.
They couldn't restrain themselves from Tom Lantos to uh to Biden to all the they they did the called him just a flat out liar in so many words.
Then when you see this headline, Democrats scramble for Iraq strategy.
Here, listen to how this story reads.
This is from the politico.
In public, Democrats maintained a brave front, dismissing recommendations from Army General David Petraeus is too little too late, suggesting he was the puppet of an unpopular president.
Behind the scenes, though, Democrats are scrambling to deal with a new dynamic on Capitol Hill.
They are the ones trying to come up with a new political strategy on the war.
Does that not say it all about who they are?
The one thing that will never enter their calculations is victory.
And I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but it is true.
Here we have the nation At war, and the Democrat Party is scrambling for another political strategy because they just had their goose cooked.
It is over.
Bush is going to get what he wants.
This surge is going to go as long as Petraeus recommends it.
The Democrats have bombed miserably, and I knew they would.
This I've been confident of been trying to allay many of the fears that you people have out there.
Born of history, I understand the fears.
But these guys are sabotaging themselves.
They're governnizing themselves all over again.
They're doing it plain view, and they're doing it arrogantly and proudly as far as they're concerned.
They must be proud of what they're doing.
But it's coming back to hurt them, coming back to harm them.
But I think, ladies and gentlemen, the P. The Resistance.
Also found at the Politico.com and other places.
Senator Hillary Clinton, a front runner for the Democrat presidential nomination, opened her questioning of Petraeus and Crocker with the standard I honor your service, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Then she let the two of them have it.
You have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy in Iraq.
Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.
Of all people, of all people to suggest to accept what somebody says requires a suspension of disbelief.
Mrs. Clinton, for 20 years, we have been in a state of disbelief about you and your husband, and you won't go away.
Coming from the person who invented and spun all the lies which kept the Clinton administration running.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, there's beyond the pale information.
In addressing Ambassador Crocker, she said it's not only the Iraqi government that's failed to pursue a coherent strategy.
I think our own has as well.
When she was done, by the way, many of the reporters and about two-thirds of the audience left the hearings.
Willing suspend this is the woman, ladies and gentlemen, may I remind you.
This is the woman who told us she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
Well, Sir Edmund Hillary was not known when she was born.
He hadn't yet climbed the mountain.
It was a lie.
It was a flat-out lie, and she told it to a bunch of Australians.
Now she has to give back $850,000 of dirty money, saying that she didn't know.
She couldn't vet.
By the way, you go buy a car and they can find out if you've got a criminal record.
And they can do it like that.
Don't tell me, Mrs. Clinton and Howard Wolfson and arrested Clinton Inc.
that you couldn't find out who Norman Shue is, and it's even worse than we thought.
Wall Street Journal, a front page story today.
Do you know who funded Norman Shue?
You know where everybody's where did this guy get the money?
He got the money in part from a New York financier who was one of the sponsors, founders, creators, whatever, the guy that put on Woodstock.
Forty million dollars, this financier gave Norman Shu.
Uh and this is, and by the way, Norman Shue, is it his real name?
You know, there have been a couple things I've seen, and I can't confirm this, but he's apparently got a lot of names.
One of them is Shu Chowling, which is why I've been using it throwing in there in the uh in the first hour.
So she says she's named after Sir Edmund Hillary.
I don't have time to chronicle all the fundraising scandals of the Clintons in the 90s because we did that already.
She has to give back this 850 grand.
Uh that's a shell game because the money's gonna come back to her.
She said, but at least people can re donate it if they want, just doesn't have to go through Mr. Shu.
Then she has the audacity to question General Petraeus.
And to say to believe him requires a suspension of disbelief.
Now, some of you might support Hillary, some of you might hold your nose and vote for her.
But I don't know anybody.
I really don't know anybody.
With a modicum of honesty, who thinks that Hillary's strong suit is integrity.
I don't hear that said about Hillary Clinton.
I don't hear it said about her husband.
And yet this wife of a former president, this junior senator from New York, this no star senator challenges a decorated four-star general.
What was the phrase that was attached to Bill Clinton by some lib columnist called him a congenital liar.
Bob Carey, the Senator from Nebraska called him an unusually good liar.
That's what William Sapphire called her a congenital liar, but nobody talks about her integrity.
Uh what she did to General Petraus is as absurd folks as Alger Hiss grilling General Eisenhower.
If you don't know who Alger Hiss is, we'll put a little short history at rushlimbaugh.com.
Every respected journalist.
You know what a respected journalist is.
And that's a journalist respected by the journalists, not respected by the customers, not respected by the American people.
Every respected journalist, every one of them, know the Clintons are notorious for campaign contributions from unseemly characters, and every one of them knows Mrs. Clinton has been on every side of this war, from getting Saddam to sucking up to move on.
She has been wherever she's had to be on this war.
And yet, what do we hear?
What do we read?
She says to General Petraeus his progress report requires a willing suspension of disbelief.
What really requires a willing suspension of disbelief is Mrs. Clinton's standing on the war.
The media keeps saying Mrs. Clinton hadn't made any mistakes in a campaign trail.
Translation, the media keeps saying she hadn't made any mistakes that we're going to tell you about.
But she has made plenty of mistakes on the campaign trail.
Anyway, they're cooked, folks.
They've shot all they've got.
It came back and backfired on them just as the Wellstone Memorial backfired on them.
And now they're out there trying to cook up a new strategy for the war.
They don't have any other strategy other than lose.
So their new strategy obviously is going to be a new strategy to secure defeat for the United States of America.
Be right back.
And moving on, Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity simply by showing up.
Our telephone number is 800 282-2882, email address rush at EIBNet.com.
the Clinton campaign.
The Washington Post, by the way, is giving Mrs. Clinton a pass on the fundraising, but the New York Times is not, ladies and gentlemen.
In fact, the AP, it's even worse, is calling her a hero.
In returning $850,000 to donors associated with a disgraced fundraiser who is not named.
Senator Hillary Rutham Clinton sets a significant news standard for how a campaign should respond in the face of potential a new standard for crying out who wrote this.
Jim, you're an idiot.
How many millions did Clintons have to give back already in the mid-90s?
We set a new standard.
The new standard being set here is having foreign countries in Asia finance Democrat presidential campaigns.
Despite the scandals of the night.
What an absolute absurdity.
Setting a news standard.
Oh, yes, she's a victim and she's a hero.
Well, the New York Times isn't playing it that way, and that's what counts.
And that's the that's the House organ to keep an eye on here to see how they treat this.
The Washington Post gives her a pass today, Clinton campaign, cites flawed background check.
No evidence of fundraiser's lawsuits or bankruptcy turned up in record search.
Said a campaign spokesman.
We have a little bit here of what that spokesman said, Howard Wolfson, a montage of his explanation for how this could have possibly happened.
There's been additional reporting on uh some of Mr. Shu's business practices, and we think uh an abundance of caution would uh dictate uh returning the money.
The accumulated weight of uh all of what we've seen and read uh compelled us to act out of an abundance of caution and uh return the money.
An examination of publicly available uh databases and information was undertaken, and unfortunately, this uh decade plus old warrant did not show up.
Decade plus old war.
You think that's all there was out there?
The guy has a phony business.
He scammed a bunch of this guy, this guy sold latex gloves made in China that he never delivered.
This is uh Mr. Wolsen, I'm sorry, you're just not credible on this.
Which requires a willing suspension of disbelief to accept the Clinton's story on this.
Though a commonly used public record search shows that Shu had multiple business lawsuits filed against him dating to 1985, filed for bankruptcy in 1990, and was a defendant in two 1991 California court matters.
The campaign said its computer checks used insufficient search terms, did not include the two middle names that Shu used in the California case.
In all of these searches, the campaign used the name Norman Shue, which, like the search results for other committees and campaigns, did not turn up disqualifying information.
You didn't want to find the information.
I don't understand.
We keep hearing people care about money and politics and ethics and don't like earmarks, and don't like all this pork barrel spinning.
I swear, folks, I don't understand uh how uh when this starts happening again to this degree.
Uh I just don't understand why there's just not a uh a massive running away.
Well, I mean, I do, but this this understand it, but parts of it I don't.
Shu's troubled past eluded the Clinton campaign's detection, even though he was a well-known figure who frequently appeared at campaign of this is I can't read this.
They're they're victims, they're poor victims of a bad system.
My gosh.
Take a look at some of the pictures from the 90s.
You got Charlie Tree in there, you've got John Wong, you have Pauline Kanchanelek, you got the Riadis, you got the Lippo group.
You have money that was being brought in from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the Chinese Red Army, the Chicom's army that found its way to Clinton administration.
Let's not forget something.
At the time, the Chinese were having trouble orbiting rockets.
And they launched some rocket over there, the Ding Dong 2 or whatever, and it fell down out of the sky.
And so we sent what was this guy's name?
Laura Laurel Space, Bernard Schwartz, that's it.
Bernie Bernie Schwartz Space went over there and basically taught them how to orbit the Ding Dong rocket.
Searched the debris, found out what they were doing wrong.
We advanced their rocket technology 25 or 30 years.
Now, the way this was made to happen, normally the State Department is in charge of allowing U.S. corporations to interact with the nations that are considered on the quasi enemy list.
But the Clinton administration took that out of the State Department's purview and gave it to who?
The Commerce Department, where who was in charge?
Ron Brown, former Democratic National Committee Chairman and so forth.
So that's how this all happened.
So the Chicom sent all this money.
We're led to believe here that another Asian, a Hong Kong Chinese, has eluded the Clintons on the possibility.
I don't believe a word of it.
I think they knew and were trying to get away with it.
The guy is running around in this country on the land for 15 years and nobody can find him.
There's so much strange about this, folks, they didn't take his passport either time he was arrested.
He fled the country once and didn't take it this last time.
And I'm I'm st I'm still suspicious about what the hell happened on this Amtrak train heading to New York from California in uh in uh in Colorado.
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McCulloff, famous for his careful methodical courting of big donors and fundraisers.
This is I'm on a choke.
This is the Washington Post giving them all a pass here.
He said in an interview yesterday he doesn't know where Shu came from.
I don't know how he became involved in the Clinton campaign.
I've never asked the man for a check.
My mind is yellowed, yellow, yellow.
I don't recall, I don't remember, it's not my fault.
Can't possibly be expected to remember all these donors.
Yellow, yellow, yellow.
McCauliff, later in the story, the man who built his reputation by raising huge sums for Bill Clinton said it was not until 15 months after Shue wrote his first check to Clinton's Senate bid that they met.
I had very little interaction with him thereafter.
Major Clinton donors said this represents a departure for a campaign that prides itself on preparation and will not hesitate to lavish attention on those who raise.
I swear for the this this Washington Post story was written by the Clintons.
It's just it's it's laughable.
What did uh McCaula fin it up with $15 million from Gary Watson?
Gary Winnick, uh, that phone company went bankrupt and um Global Crossing.
Yeah.
It's just amazing all this stuff that happened through the Clintons and All right.
Those of you who are on the phones, please be patient.
I'll get to you here as quickly as I can.
I just want to share with you some of the uh details here in today's Wall Street Journal page one story.
Who is Norman Shue?
Where did he get his money?
I mean, you need to know this.
The Clinton administration is acting like they have no clue who the guy is, a Clinton campaign.
And they never found out, and their campaign, their computers couldn't find out.
It's that's it's such BS.
It is the Wall Street Journals found out all kinds of stuff about this guy.
New documents received from the Wall Street Journal may help point to an answer.
Where Norman Shue got his money.
A company controlled by Norman Shue recently received 40 million dollars from a Madison Avenue investment fund run by Joel Roseman.
Uh Rosenman, who was one of the creators of the Woodstock Festival in 1969.
And that money, Mr. Rosenman told investors this week, is missing.
Mr. Shue told Mr. Rosenman the money would be used to manufacture apparel in China for Gucci, Preda, and other private labels, yielding a 40% profit on each deal, according to a business plan obtained by the journal.
Now the investment fund, which is called Source Financing Investors, says that Mr. Shue's company owes it the $40 million, which represents 37 separate deals with Shue's company.
When Source Financing recently attempted to cash checks from the company, which is called Components LTD, the investors say they were told the account held insufficient funds.
Source financing's arrangement with Mr. Shue's company, according to court documents and investor accounts that the Clintons couldn't find.
Echoes an older matter that came to light in recent weeks.
In 1991, California officials charged Mr. Shue with grand theft for failing to pay or repay investors for money he raised to import latex gloves from China.
Now this is the same scam, only this time it's with these knockoffs.
A brand named uh clothing, fashion.
Norman Shu has an extraordinary ability to deceive, said Seth Rosenberg of Clayman and Rosenberg, a lawyer representing Rosenman.
Mr. Rosenman and a partner, Yao Cheng, wrote a letter on Monday to alert their funds investors.
The letter said, last week our attorneys met with representatives of the Manhattan DA's office to inform them of the situation.
The district attorney's investigating letter says spokesman for the DA didn't respond to request for comment.
Now, where Mr. Shue got his money has been a burning question in recent weeks.
He financed a web of political donations, a lavish lifestyle, despite two bankruptcies and a felony record.
Telling acquaintances he was an apparel executive.
He set up multiple companies, sometimes giving early investors profits, they say, so that they would bring in friends.
Some cases, investors in his business say they were so eager to please Mr. Shue that they donated to political candidates alongside him.
LA Times told us this the other day.
People who had no intention to vote for Hillary gave him money for Hillary because they wanted to stay in his good side.
Mr. Shue himself has donated $750,000 to Democrats and Democrat parties out of his own pocket since 2004, this according to campaign finance records.
In checks no larger than $2,300 apiece, which is the legal limit.
Mr. Shue also raised more than $850,000 for Hillary Clinton.
He co-hosted fundraisers.
That brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars more, including a recent event for Mrs. Clinton at the Modern, a restaurant at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan.
They were standing there side by side.
He's co-hosting fundraisers for her.
My mind is jello, jello, jello.
She has no idea the campaign has no clue who this guy is.
These contributions are now haunting the Democrat Party.
The Clinton campaign said on Monday it would refund all the money.
More Democrats announced yesterday they would dispose of funds that Mr. Shue gave her raised, including Representative Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, 25 grand.
Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, 35 grand.
Mary Landrew, Louisiana, 11,700.
Montana Senator John Tester, 4,750.
Claire McCaskill, Missouri, $20,700.
Pennsylvania Representative Joseph Seastack, $2,500.
Others have given their money to charity, including Robert Morgenthal, the Manhattan DA, whose campaign got two grand from Shue in March.
And they're now investigating.
Now, I look it.
Some of these people are fine.
Morgenthal's a fine guy.
They say they're going to give the money to charity.
I want proof.
The drive-by's just accepted.
Let's see the checks.
Let's see the wire transfers.
More Democrats are expected to follow a Wall Street Journal analysis of campaign finance reform records has linked Mr. Shue with at least $1.8 million in donations to Democrats since 2004.
Campaign Finance Reform, anyone, by the way.
Now, Mr. Rosenberg, the interney for the uh Mr. Rosenman, Woodstock guy, who gave Shue 40 million dollars, has asked these politicians not to give the money to charity to hold on to it so that source financing and other investors can be made whole.
It appears that Source Financing Investors joins Hillary Clinton and many others as Shu's victims.
Oh, bring out the Strativarius here, folks.
And then, of course, they tell us the story of the family of William Paul.
And let me repeat this story to you in case you have missed it.
In late August, the journal had a story that called attention to a donation by a Mr. Shue in a California family who shared one of his many addresses.
The family lives in a modest home in Daly City, California.
One member of the Paul family, William Paul, is a mailman.
This is the family has a lot of pets, but no money.
Campaign finance records show that the $55,000 in donations the family members have made to Mrs. Clinton since 2004 place them among her leading financial supporters.
William Paul makes 45 grand a year as a male man, and he's one of her leading contributors.
The Paw family has donated about $225,000 to Democrats since 2005.
The U.S. Justice Department investigating possible campaign finance violations.
This is the man that the Wall Street Journal can find out everything about.
The feds can find out Clinton's?
Mind is jello, jello, jello.
I don't recall.
I don't remember.
Standing right next to him as he co-host fundraisers, a restaurant at the Museum of Modern Art in New York.
The parallels here are just striking.
Let's go to the New York Times because I uh well wait, wait, let me give you a couple things here from the uh uh investors business daily editorial from yesterday on this.
Uh people forced to give to political causes and candidates they abhor.
Is there anything more in American?
This is their writing in reaction to the LA Times story.
A couple of women were told by Norman Shue, or they made to feel by Norman Shue, they had to give to Clinton to stay on his good graces, but they had no intention of vote for.
But that marks only the beginning of the concerns.
Why would a suspected swindler be a top donor to a White House favorite?
Is Norman Shue fronting for a group?
A foreign government.
Who is this guy?
Why did Clinton ignore warnings about Shue?
California businessman Jack Cassidy reportedly alerted the Clinton campaign in June of his suspicions that Shue was a fraudster.
The Clinton campaign's accepting future contributions from the same People to whom, because of their associations with Shue, it's returning $850,000, as we mentioned yesterday.
This amounts to a shell game.
And can does anybody remember the name Jack Abramov and how the drive-by media was just for two years over what might happen to Republicans because of their association with him?
And of course, the drive-by is for the most part ignoring this, except the New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.
Roger Aronoving at the uh at AIM, uh accuracy in media, says, keep a sharp eye on the New York Times.
And if the New York Times uh decides that this latest scandal is an indication that Senator Clinton carries too much baggage to be a viable presidential candidate, will they pull a plug on her and carry the banner for somebody else, such as Obama?
Well, let's look at the New York Times today.
Clinton sees fear realized in trouble with donors.
Uh actually with donor.
Uh and the shoe cases revived ugly memories for voters about the Democrat fundraising scandals when Bill Clinton was president.
Even some of her own major donors are aghast that given the past problems with fundraising, Mrs. Clinton's vetting process didn't undercover Mr. Shu's criminal history.
People have often said about the Clintons they don't care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them.
Well, a large this is one of Mrs. Clinton's major fundraisers.
The larger point in all this is the Clintons are the ultimate pragmatists in who they hang out with.
If you can be useful to them, they'll find a way to make it work.
Advisors say Mrs. Clinton's not so much furious about the scandal as she is worried about containing the political damage.
Well, of course.
Then the New York Times editorial today discusses this with the headline, Take the Money and Rue.
And they say that she's in a scandal.
So we'll keep a sharp eye of the New York Times.
New York Times will provide the drive-by media with its guidance on how to treat this story.
And only time uh will I know it's unlikely.
I think the Times right now just doing its obligatory duty to cover the story, and he'll drop it in due course, but we'll see.
Depends on what continues to surface and how many other people decide to get interested in all of this.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to be fair about things.
Right to the phones after three small little observations here.
And this to me is the most obvious question about Norman Shu Shu Chowling.
Here is the most obvious question.
How is it conceivable that the Clinton people don't know who he is and don't know his background?
For somebody to have contributed that much money, he would have demanded something in return.
People do not make donations of this size for ideas.
You people sending 2550, you believe you're sending your ideas in.
Somebody like this is out there raising money, bundling money from people who don't have it, is expecting something in return for this.
And for that to happen, they have to know who he is and who he represents.
You cannot return favors unless you know who you're supposed to deliver to.
This to me is the most obvious question about this, and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am host.
Also, um, you remember back in one of the first reporting periods of campaign fundraising when when Obama had overtaken Hillary?
And remember the Oh my God!
Why look at that?
Why?
How can this be?
There was this it was a story around that time that came and went, folks.
Hillary's campaign, remember this had accidentally doubled some contributions?
Because she had to, she had to she had to roll back the her total number.
See it accidentally doubled some contributions, and noticed that some contributions were checks that bounced.
Uh and this happened when the action line was the fundraising contest between Obama versus Hillary.
And she originally put out some false numbers that she was way ahead.
And that that was what's first reported.
Then a week or so later, some days later, by the way, we need to revise our numbers after everybody had already gotten the first number in their head and already thought Oh, wow, look at Hillary.
She really raising a lot of mob is too, but she really does.
We had to revise our numbers down uh a little bit.
Uh and of course, can we forget we cannot, can we?
The cattle's future scandal where Mrs. Clinton was uh getting ten thousand dollars, she invested a cattle futures market, what, six months later, the ten grand became a hundred grand?
And they asked her, how did this happen?
Well, you know, I read the Wall Street Journal.
I remember that.
Well, when did she stop reading the Wall Street Journal for cattle tips?
Uh you talk about suspending belief?
How about Hillary making a hundred grand off ten grand in a matter of uh a few months?
Here's another thing, folks.
If, let's take her to word.
He didn't know who the guy was, couldn't find him, could not undercover one bit of information about Norman Shu Shu Chao Ling.
Despite this incredible vetting process, Wolfson couldn't do it, the punk couldn't do it, Terry McCall, she couldn't do it.
She wants to be president of the United States.
Do you realize how many things over the years she's admitted to not knowing?
This makes her totally inept.
If we take her at her word that she didn't know, she is totally inept, ladies and gentlemen.
Especially her own past with money.
Her self-assumed victimhood with the media.
This is an accident waiting to happen if this woman takes it far.
Lansing, Michigan.
Phil, I'm glad you waited as we go to the phones.
I appreciate your patience.
Hey, Russ, great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, um, I have no doubt that they're correct in assuming that men consume more foodstuffs and more gas and oil products.
But uh are they overlooking the fact we probably outproduce on all the foodstuffs and all the oil and gas products also?
He is talking.
Somebody came up with a first hour.
Is that a cell phone or is that a car yourself?
Uh in the first hour, we had a story that uh uh from Sweden, the Swedish government has decided that men are uh are are more dangerous to contributing to global warming than women because they eat more beef and they use more petrol driving around.
And you're saying, so what?
Makes them more productive, too, right, than women.
Well, I think so.
Plus, we probably net produce far more than we consume.
Men or the United States?
I'm saying men in general.
Uh net produce more than we can.
Well, there's no question.
We couldn't have economic growth the way we do if it weren't.
You're absolutely right.
Thank you.
Absolutely.
We produce far more than we consume.
What are the Swedes or the Swedes?
You know, I mean, this they're who they are.
Excellent point.
I'm glad you called up there.
Steve in uh in 44, Pennsylvania.
Yes, Rush, how are you doing?
Right, sir.
Thank you.
Good megaduttos from the proud parent of four University of Pittsburgh graduates.
Well, I appreciate that, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
Let's uh comment uh really based on uh one of the issues you were talking about yesterday.
There's a question that I would love to hear asked of all those Democrats who continue to say that when we went into Iraq, we took our eyes off of Osama bin Laden and the war on terror.
And that question is if we captured or killed Osama bin Laden, would the war on terror be over?
I wonder what they would say.
You don't have to wonder.
You are speaking to the man who will tell you what they would say.
That's why I called.
They would say, thank God Bush finally was made to realize what's important here, and that is capturing Osama.
Had we not kept up with this, and we not demanded him, he would not have continued, he would not have made and redoubled the efforts.
Now let's get out of a rock.
Because the war on terror has effectively been well, we got the man who blew up the towers.
Uh they'd demand proof and all this sort of stuff, but they would they would uh they would take credit for it, because that's how they've been defining victory.
So they'd take credit for it and uh say this means we can step up our efforts to uh get out of a rock.
No question in my mind.
All right, all right, all right, all right, I'd stand and corrected here.
I I I called the uh the uh fashion what do you call what it's it's Prada?
I know I said Prada, but it's Prada.
I I'd never heard it pronounced.
Said I look at, you know, one A. It's a long A. Prada.
But, of course, not anymore.
The way we've corrupted the language, at least the way it was taught to me is Prada.
Didn't mean to offend anybody by this.
I'm actually happy I don't know how I pronounced pronounced.
Never been there.
▲
Export Selection