All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
September 27, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, this is going to change things.
A court, I don't know which one, just getting a blurb of this.
A court out there somewhere has ruled, you get engaged and you get a ring, and then all of a sudden you don't get married, you have to give the ring back.
That's bad news for the serial engagers out there, and they exist, folks.
They're all over the place.
Greetings, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Grab the crazy world of Arthur Brown there, Mike.
We have a global warming update coming soon.
I want to go back to this Rasmussen poll.
44% of American adults say that health care services should be made available for free to all Americans.
It's a phone survey.
39% disagree with the premise, and 17% are not sure.
Now, my first reaction when I saw this was, oh, no.
I mean, we're getting close to mob rule here.
And then I said, why stop at health care for all Americans?
Why not health care for every human being around the world?
Who are we to deny health care, free health care for everybody in the world?
We're all human beings and we're no better or different than anybody else.
And then I got to asking myself a different question.
And by the way, I think Rass Musson ought to redo that.
I really do.
And as part of the question, ask, would you be willing to wait six months for surgery if every American were given free health care?
Well, this happens.
Canada, Great Britain.
How about the story from Great Britain we had yesterday?
They're actually advocated telling women over there natural childbirth, give birth to your baby in a birthing pool.
Don't come to us.
Don't come to the hospital.
Don't come for pain drugs and don't come for epidurals because we're not giving them anymore.
Why?
They don't have the money.
So if we gave health care free to all Americans, would you as a pregnant mother be willing to give birth to your child in a birthing pool with no pain drugs provided by your health care plan?
You know, put some reality into this.
Do it again, Scott.
Please do it again.
But the question I now have, because if you said, do you think we should have free beer for all Americans?
Well, the answer would be 94%.
We got some teetotalers, of course, that don't drink, so they would think, no, why should I pay for somebody's beer when I don't drink beer?
When I'm not going to get a thing out of it.
Why did only 44% say yes?
See, you can see this number and you can say two things about it.
You can look at it as though it's a disaster because it is close to 50% and that's mob rule.
Oh, no.
Or you can look at it and say, wow, you know what?
I'm a little surprised.
Many more people don't want or are not sure about free health care for all Americans than those who want it.
And as you know, ladies and gentlemen, I tend to always try to find the positive in these circumstances.
And then, Scott, when you redo the poll, I mean, I don't know him.
Don't misunderstand.
Mr. Rasmussen, when you redo the poll, when you put in this question about American people wanting free health care for all Americans, ask them who they think should pay for it.
The French?
The United Nations?
And then tell them if they have to pay, ask them in the question, if you have to pay for your free health care, do you think every American should have free health care?
Because see, it's not free.
There is no such thing as free.
I'm surprised Erasmusen came up with this question.
I'm glad he did for one couple reasons here, but clearly you cannot take the results of this poll all that seriously.
All right, we got a global warming stack.
The crazy world of Arthur Brown and the wicked witch of the East from the Wizard of Oz and our global warming update theme, one of three that we rotate here.
All right, from today's UK Daily Mail.
Headline, wrap up.
It's going to be a very cold winter, warns the Met Office.
Time to dig out your coat, prepare to don your hat and scarf, as forecasters have warned that Britain should brace itself for cold temperatures this winter.
There's already a chill in the air.
It looks like there's more cold weather on its way, although the Met Office's official forecast predicts this winter will still be warmer and drier than average.
Some extremely cold snaps will mean temperatures far lower than last year, the second warmest winter since records began in 1914.
This doesn't quite fit the pattern here, does it?
Doesn't quite warning people get ready for cold temperatures in the midst of a global warming scare.
This is the big news today, and this is, oh my God, big news.
The atmospheric chemists had even convinced a number of unbiased climate scientists that everybody, that we understood stratospheric ozone depletion.
It now turns out, and this is a story from Nature, the journal Nature.com.
It turns out that a key chemical reaction that was part of the theory that man-made chemicals are causing destruction of stratospheric ozone has been found to be almost 10 times weaker than assumed.
As a result, at least 60% of the stratospheric ozone loss in recent decades can no longer be explained.
However, the last paragraph of this story illustrates quite plainly that these scientists are nevertheless circling the wagons around the Freon ban, saying they still think that man-made chemicals are to blame in some way, even if they don't understand the mechanism.
So the faith of the disciples of Freon destroying the ozone remains unshaken, despite the fact that we can no longer explain 60% of the ozone depletion in the stratosphere.
Yes, there are biased scientists out there, and these in this story in Nature are a number of them.
I really want to try to emphasize what has been learned here and what's happened.
We have banned Freon.
We have banned a number of other things that scientists just knew that were leading to the destruction of the ozone hole.
And you remember the scare involved?
We were all going to get skin cancer.
It was going to grow and grow and grow.
We were destroying the ozone.
And I can remember the time, folks, we couldn't if we tried.
There is no way we could destroy the ozone.
How come the hole fills in periodically?
Even before we banned the Freon, the hole would fill and it would open up.
Yeah, but it's getting bigger every time it opens up.
And it fills up.
You know, I'm a layman on this stuff, but common sense interceded.
You know what creates the stratospheric ozone is the sun.
You talk about a chemical reaction.
The sun creates it.
There's no way we could deplete it.
It's made every day.
And now we find out that the main culprit, how many times has this happened in health issues or science issues where they've told us, for example, eat oat brand, it'll clean you out, keep you healthier, don't do this, and do that.
And how many times years later have they had to revise it?
Coffee was going to kill you.
Some days, nicotine's great because it may prevent you from getting Parkinson's.
On the other hand, the mechanism to get it into your body, cigarettes are going to kill you over 40 years, maybe.
We just have these health scares each and every day, these science scares.
Now, after banning Freon, and I got to make this point about this too: we never used to have foam insulation dropping off the solid rocket boosters on the shuttle launches and putting nicks in the shuttle and those heat-resistant tiles, which led to the explosion on re-entry of one of those.
We came up with a whole new way and refrigerant because of Freon because of the ozone depletion, because NASA's a government agency and NASA had to do this and that.
Looked like they cared.
And we ended up putting at risk human beings, the shuttle crew, and we subordinated their safety to environmental concerns that now turn out to be wrong, hugely wrong.
We upset the whole air conditioning business.
We threw it upside down by having to get rid of Freon and come up with some new mixtures.
And now, after all of this time, they finally admit that we can no longer explain 60%.
I'll bet you it's even more than that, I say in a non-scientific comment.
And even after they say that we can no longer explain 60% of the ozone depletion in the stratosphere, they scientists who came up with all this circle of wagons around a Freon ban.
And they say, as scientists, we still think man-made chemicals are they just concluded their own research that shows 60% has nothing to do with what they first thought, but we still think there's something still something going on still.
So even though they've discredited themselves, they will not discredit themselves.
This is who we're dealing with.
We're dealing with political ideologues and activists.
It's like this James Hansen story with George Soros that the Investors Business Daily unveiled on Monday.
And this story's got some legs now.
It's starting to show up.
Well, it's starting to show up on the Fox News channel.
They've been hyping this all day.
James Hansen accepted while working for NASA, and I didn't think this was possible.
I didn't think this was legal.
James Hansen, who is the lone voice, the man the Bush administration is trying to censor in silence because he's out there preaching the gospel on man-made global warming and destruction of the planet.
Well, it turns out he's being paid $720,000 by George Soros to say it.
And who knows what the $720,000 is paying for?
Is it paying for access to shows for Hansen to get on?
Is it paying for marketing lessons and strategy lessons for Hansen to utilize?
Now, I don't know what the law is on this, but Hansen needs to be drummed out of NASA today.
It was back in 1971 through 75, James Hansen was predicting global cooling in a coming ice age.
And I'm told with these models, you can predict whatever you want and make the case because these models are so flawed.
But make no mistake about this, even though James Hansen has been unmasked, and even though these people that read us the riot act and lied to us on phony science, Freon was destroying the ozone in the stratosphere.
Even though these guys are unmasked, and even though Hansen is unmasked, there have been real economic damages that have already really occurred because of James Hansen's academic dishonesty while using his NASA credentials and resources, I would bet, to coerce governments.
And he pursued people that unless socialism is instituted, the world will burn up and it's all being bought and paid for by George Soros, about whom we must ask what is his intent.
It appears that Soros has as his intent the destruction of this country and its traditions and institutions as we have known them.
So while we've unmasked Hansen, he's still done a lot of damage already.
Sort of like a spy, a CIA double agent or an FBI double agent has been feeding damaging information to the Soviets.
Catch him after 30 years, but how many people died in the process?
How much gobbledygook BS has found its way into official government proposals around the world to attack the United States and Western societies, the wealthy ones, and say it's up to you to come up with the money to pay for all this to fix the planet because you have destroyed it.
And if you think I'm making that up right out of the AP today, Joseph Aber dealing with global warming will be painful, said John Dingell, chairman of a committee in the House that deals with it.
To back up his claim, he's proposing a recipe that many people won't like: a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax, scaling back tax breaks for some homeowners.
So I'm trying to have everybody understand here: this is going to cost and it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like, said John Dingell, 52 years in Congress for this guy.
He will offer a discussion draft outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.
The whole thing's a hoax.
It's based on frauds.
It's based on people masking themselves as to who they really are.
Fraudulent science to boot.
And now here comes the Democrats right on queue.
Okay, yeah, we got to save your.
And I told you, tax, And the UN hadn't even gotten in on this yet.
It says all about separating us from our money based on the fact that we're causing this.
We're to blame.
We're trying to make everybody think that we are sinners and we need absolution.
Accepting these tax cuts as an admission of guilt is the objective here.
We'll be back a little long, so don't go away.
One more global warming story, folks, and this is from ABC.net, Australia.
This is an Australian story.
Gaia science, or Gaia, G-A-I-A, the wackos think that the Earth is a goddess, and that's what they call it.
A series of giant pipes in the oceans to mix surface and deeper water could be an emergency fix for the Earth's damaged climate system.
Professor James Lovelock, whose hypothesis says the Earth is a kind of superorganism composed of living and non-living elements, has fueled controversy for 30 years.
He thinks the stakes are so high that radical solutions must be tried to fix our climate, even if they ultimately fail.
In fact, in liberalism, the more you fail, the higher your awards, the more your accolades and honors, because you tried, at least you cared.
You want to rise to the top of the liberal movement of the Democrat Party, do something and fail?
And this guy says, look, it's so drastic out there.
We got to try this.
And even if it fails, we got to try it.
He proposes vertical pipes, vertical pipes now.
100, that's straight up and down for those of you in Rio Linda.
100 to 200 meters long, 10 meters wide to be placed in the sea so that wave motion pumps up water and fertilizes algae on the surface.
This algae bloom would push down carbon dioxide levels and also produce dimethyl sulfide, helping the seed sunlight reflecting cloud.
Wait a minute, I got to hear one more thing.
He says, if we can't heal the planet directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself, writes Lovelock of the University of Oxford.
Well, I don't know that nobody has listened to this guy for 30 years.
That's the point.
He's been proposing this for 30 years.
More interesting to me about this, the idea is clearly lunatic.
Where do we put these 100 to 200 meter long and 10 meter wide pipes?
How do you anchor them?
I don't even want to get it.
That's still not what it is.
What interests me most is if we can't heal the planet directly, we may be able to heal the planet itself or help the planet heal itself.
Now, the vanity and the arrogance in that, it relies on this silly assumption that the climate as it is today is perfect.
Or it was a centigrade, a degree centigrade ago.
It was perfect.
And we somehow have to hold on to this.
Folks, it's not in our purview.
It's not our job.
And we have no control over it.
The Earth doesn't need a bunch of man-made junk pipes in the ocean to protect and heal itself because the Earth is not sick.
These people are.
I know.
I know.
I'm just telling the staff here, folks, that Apple's just updated the iPhone software to version 1.1.1.
They all have them in there.
They'll update next time you connect it to iTunes.
Cool, cool software upgrades here.
In the meantime, back.
Oh, oh, guess what?
News is up.
There's news about unemployment.
And guess what?
Reuters, the headline, jobless claims make surprise fall.
Surprise fall.
The number of laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits fell to the lowest level in seven weeks, an unexpected sign of improvement in the jobs market.
The decline came as a surprise to economists who had been forecasting a rise in claims around six.
Every time, every time economic news comes out, either it's the AP or Reuters, and their experts are always surprised and wrong.
I don't, yeah, though, they love the little fall in August that signaled a recession coming up.
I'm going to tell you people, this is journalistic malpractice.
I don't even, I think it's just a template.
This is, this is, it's just, how in the world can anybody who does their job responsibly continually be surprised?
How can they always be wrong and be called experts?
What are you laughing at in there?
You think I'm getting all hot and bothered about something that's not worth it to get hot and bothered about?
Or are you two getting hot and bothered about something I don't know about?
Good.
This is Chrissy in Clamet Falls, Oregon.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
I just wanted to thank you.
You already hit on my point.
I wanted to know where do these people think the money's going to come for the free health care?
Government.
Well, you know what they can do?
These people that expect us hardworking, taxpaying citizens to keep giving them a free ride, they can just go to Canada or somewhere else and let us people in this country do what we do best.
I agree 100%.
It frustrates the hell out of me that there are this many Americans, apparently, who think things from the government are free.
It's disgusting.
And you know what?
I'm very thankful for your education, and I'm thankful for your staff and the hard work that they do in screening all of us callers.
So thank you, and God bless all of you.
Staff doesn't do that much, but I praise them because they do work hard.
They do, and I'm thankful for them.
But thank you so much.
Thank you, Chrissy.
I really appreciate it.
I do think that there are people who think that if they don't pay for it, it's free.
Even if they don't see it costing them anything, they think it's free.
People don't associate taxes with what they should associate it with.
Comes to the government, must be free.
I also think in how many of these, in the internals of this Rasmussen poll, by the way, 70% of the people said they like their current health care plans, fine.
They just think that other people are not being treated well.
And that's just drive-by media, the result of drive-by media continually pounding the unfairness of our health care fifth and how bad it is, Mr. Limbaugh.
They're 47 million uninsured and you don't care.
Things like that.
I think people answer these questions.
They want to be thought of as compassionate and caring.
But look at when you 44% is a large number, but when you offer anybody something free and less than 50% want it, that ain't bad, folks.
There's something to work with here on this.
So don't get too flustered by it.
There's opportunities presented by the results here.
This is Pam in Henderson, Nevada, near Las Vegas.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Dittos from a mom who raised four Rush baby boys.
Wow.
I'm flattered.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I'm sure they've turned out wonderfully.
They have turned out fantastic.
I'm four for four.
I knew it.
I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous.
I'm not actually a first-time caller, but it's the first time I got through to actually speak to you.
Well, you don't sound nervous at all.
Oh, well, thank you.
And we have policy here.
First-time callers greet with kindness and compassion.
A second time, no guarantees.
But the first time, no sweat whatsoever.
You're not going to be able to do that.
Nothing to fear without sounding stupid.
Nothing to fear.
You're not going to sound stupid.
I remember, do you remember years ago, when Clinton was in office, you asked a question if Clinton had a motto to live by?
What would it be?
And then you were given out some of your ties or something for the best answers.
And I actually got through that time, but you had so many callers that I never got online.
So that's as close as I got.
Well, you've made it this time.
I know, and I feel honored.
Much more salient, I'm sure.
Well, my question was, I'm wondering, after watching the Democratic debate, I mean, not every Democrat in the United States is far-left-wing.
And when you watch this woman speak, speaking of Hillary, and she comes across as soon as flip-floppy, you can't believe anything she says.
When she laughs, she cackles like a witch.
I'm just wondering, what is it in the normal, everyday American Democrat that is so attractive to her that they flock to her, and she's ahead in all the polls.
Last name.
She's about her.
Last name.
Name recognition.
Last name.
Loved Bill Clinton.
Mainstream Democrats, wacko leftists, loved Bill Clinton, and they loved the fact that he was able to smoke Newt Gingrich out of town and Bob Livingston out of town.
They loved it.
They think that Clinton is the greatest guy that's ever been.
And so it's really in large part for the mainstream Democrats about getting him back in there.
And then there's the magic of the last name.
You have to also throw in the fact that Mrs. Clinton, up until last night of the debate with Tim Russert, she has had a free ride.
She's had puff piece after puff piece in the publications and television networks that mainstream Democrats watch.
That leads me to my second question.
How the heck did Russert get those questions through?
Well, obviously he got his testicles out of the lockbox from the last time she was on Meet the Press.
And you can tell, you know, when she does that witch laugh, that she doesn't like the question and she doesn't want to answer it and it makes her nervous.
That's a dead ringer that she is livid, that somebody's had the audacity.
And it's also your testicles are going to end up in my lockbox if you persist in this line of questioning.
Well, I was wondering, did they get, like in a lot of those Democratic debates, don't they get the questions in advance?
No, no, that's only when they do the YouTube debates and they have to, you can go online and see what the questions are.
I know.
What the questions that have been submitted.
Here's the thing that happens to me.
And I want, like, probably won't happen today, but it has happened.
And even off the air, people, why do you hate Hillary so much?
And of course, I never allow myself to be put on the defensive by these people.
So rather than waste time denying, I always say, why do you like her so much?
Yes.
Could you give, what is it?
And they don't have any substantive answers.
Nobody can cite for me what she's going to do policy-wise that they admire.
Nobody can cite for me her foreign policy proposals because you don't know what they are.
They flip-flop all over the place.
Nobody can tell me that she's likable.
I mean, she's not personally likable.
She just doesn't have that.
There you have the Bill Clinton answer, just the inevitability factor.
And there's also this assumption everybody's made that it's her turn.
You may not have heard this theory of mine.
I'll go through it very, very briefly.
But you're asking about mainstream Democrats and why they support her.
Mainstream Democrats are pretty extreme left.
They're not all moveon.org, but there's feminism in there, and there's the labor unions, and these people are rank-and-file socialists.
Put the ACLU in there and the civil rights coalitions.
Now, who's Hillary Clinton?
Hillary Clinton came out of Chicago with a lot of fanfare.
She ends up going to Wellesley College.
And for some reason, she had attention attracted to her.
One of her big mentors was Saul Alinsky, who basically taught her far-left extremism and agitation.
And she attracted a lot of attention while at Wellesley.
And then she ends up at Yale with a bright future in the very dawn of the modern era of feminism, which said, don't need a man, you don't need a family.
If you go that route, you're subordinating your future and your fulfillment to customary patriarchal norms.
Feminists of her age were inspired to get out there and go on your own and be who you are.
You don't need a man.
And she was thought to be at the forefront and the leader of that whole movement.
At Yale, she runs into this hayseed Clinton, and she threw all of that away to get married to him and move to Arkansas.
It's bad enough she threw everything away.
She went to Arkansas.
Why couldn't she have gone to Boston if she was going to get it all away?
Or why couldn't she have gone to Manhattan or Washington?
She went Arkansas.
And when she got there, what she decided to do was hitch her wagon to this guy and take over whenever he got where he was going.
So she gets to Arkansas.
He becomes governor at $26,000 a year.
That's not enough money to live on, even in Arkansas at that time.
So she has to go to the Rose Law firm.
She makes $120,000.
There's a cattle futures thing.
Keeps the family afloat while Clinton's doing what?
He's out there, Jennifer Flowers, and who knows whoever else.
And she backs him up all the way, and she makes sure that his career is not ruined by that by doing a Tammy Wynnette and standing by her man.
She wasn't baking cookies, but she was standing by her man.
Then they go to Washington.
He gets elected president largely because she stood by him.
This is not what the feminists proscribed.
She had to take a back seat.
She had to be humiliated in order to make sure her career survived.
This was just the feminists were just beside themselves, but she kept alive the connections because the things and issues she tackled were theirs.
You know, big government socialism via we care about the children, the children's defense fund, things like that.
Get to Washington.
And the payback is health care.
She gets to run health care, and she blows it sky high.
She may have even, along with me, led to the loss of the control of Congress after 40 years for the Democrats.
Then here comes more of what Clinton was doing in Arkansas, Monica Lewinsky, who the hell knows who else, Kathleen Willie, I wanted to Broderick rape story and all this stuff.
And still she hangs in there, blames the right-wing conspiracy, kept that man in office, kept the Democrats in the White House, botched the Paula Jones case strategically, but nevertheless, she did all that.
And now it's her turn.
As far as mainstream Democrats are concerned, she is owed this because she is owed a huge debt of gratitude and thanks for eating the excrement sandwich that her life has been married to this guy from Arkansas to Washington to Chappaqua.
And so as far as they're concerned, it's her turn.
She deserves this.
She gave up everything back at Yale for this guy.
And now it's her turn to realize her destiny, regardless what her destiny might mean for America.
And that, I believe, as much as we need oxygen to breathe.
I often said, if I ever got you on the phone rush, I was going to give you a great big thank you because years ago when you were on TV, I bought all four of my boys and my husband one of the rush ties.
Yeah.
And I sent them to, it was a surprise gift for Christmas because they all listened to you and they all wanted the ties.
I sent them to your the wrong place, the radio or the television station for you to sign them and send them back to me by Christmas.
Well, I didn't get them.
I didn't get them.
I called and called and called, and finally I got somebody at the television station.
She said, you sent them to the wrong place.
They had to go to the radio station.
I said, oh, gosh, I'll never get them back by then.
Well, she ran the five ties over to you and you signed them all and I got them Christmas Eve Day.
Wow.
And I wanted to thank you.
So I know somebody had to do some hustling to get those ties to me.
Well, that's a great story to hear.
In fact, you know, I'll tell you a short little story.
The reason why we made that effort is not specifically the story I'm going to tell you, but everybody on our staff here at the television and radio now knows that the show is the thing and that the audience is the show.
And so that kind of thing, although rare because we didn't get them any requests because people didn't think it was possible, those who did, I mean, people were FedExing books to us from their homes.
Most people were, I'm not going to do this to hell with this.
I'm not going to give away that.
That's what I thought.
I thought I'd never see that.
But I remember, I'm going to do this very quickly because I'm long, but I remember it was Working for the Royals in Kansas City, went to the marketing meetings out in Arizona, and I met the guy from Medalist Sandnett at the time they made the uniforms of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
I'd been trying to get a genuine Steelers jersey for years.
The Steelers at that point didn't sell them, didn't give them away.
No NFL team did.
I met this guy, and he wanted to sell Royals licensed merchandise stuff.
I said, could you get me a couple of these jerseys?
Oh, yeah.
What size?
What do you want number?
I want number 12 on them, want them in my home, and road jerseys and so forth.
And now you'll have before Thanksgiving.
Never had them.
Never got them.
Came time, Christmas, Christmas break, still hadn't arrived.
And I left Kansas City to drive to Cape Girardeau for Christmas.
And I got a phone call on December 23rd.
Hey, you just got a package here from Medalist Sandnett.
It was somebody calling from the Royals.
And I said, really?
Yeah, and there's somebody here that's willing to drive them down to you because they're driving through Cape Gerard to get where they're going.
So I got them on Christmas Eve.
The guy had planned it all along to come on Christmas.
Doesn't that mean the world to you?
Oh, it was a highlight.
I put those things on the first day they came in.
I still have them in my closet.
Well, we're all originally from Pittsburgh, my boys and I, and so we're a big Steelers fans.
So go Steelers.
Yeah, I got to go.
I'm really long.
I'm not going to talk to you, Russia.
Okay, thanks so much.
We'll be right back after this, folks.
Okay, this is going to be a real short segment here, folks, because I totally blew the programming format in the conversation with the last caller explaining the Democrat mainstream love for Hillary Clinton.
Sean in Hermosa Beach, California.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush Dittos.
Love the show.
Thank you very much.
Hey, listen, I'm actually, you know, I'm a little bit disappointed.
You know, all these anti-war true believers out there, I'm sure they're all let down.
I like to refer to them as the hatriots.
You know, they pretend to love the country, but they really hate it.
The hatriots.
Yes, I like that.
And, you know, I'm sure they can't take the chance that these Democratic candidates will go back on their word.
But Rush, which one of those candidates wouldn't have a problem doing that?
I mean, what does Hillary Clinton do?
You're basically calling them whores.
Well, what is Clinton?
I know what you're saying.
You're saying that every one of these candidates, people like that, change their minds.
That's right.
And, you know, I guess my ultimate point is it's not these hatriots that really matter.
It's kind of those, I mean, I hate to say it, but it's those voters out there, those sort of Phil Specter jurors who would fall for that.
You know, they'll fall for that headfake that they're going to do whatever they can to defend the country.
And we know that it's not the case.
Well, in this instance, I have to tell you, I made the prediction back in April.
They are not going to pull the troops out of there if any one of these top-tier Democrats wins the White House.
Because that would lead to a PR nightmare, a genocidal bloodbath.
We would lose the Middle East.
It would only necessitate us going back in further.
But more than that, our enemies around the world in the militant Islamo-fascist world would throw the biggest party, and they'd come after us because they know we're going to quit.
And the Democrats know this.
They are not going to sit there and preside over our defeat when it can be saddled around their necks.
They'd be happy to do that with Bush, but they'd be happy to do it with Richard Nixon, but they're not going to do it to themselves.
Now, that doesn't change the fact that they are weak on national defense and so forth.
The way they would try to solve the situation is still up for grabs as something that would be dangerous and threatening.
But, you know, these hatriots that you're talking about, even though they've heard what the Democrats said, they're still out there.
Their point of view is, well, even if they're billing truthful about this, it's still a better shot to get out of a rock with Democrats than it is with Republicans.
Well, another barn burner in the can, another excursion into broadcast excellence.
That has been exemplary and instructive.
And it's the fastest weekend meeting.
Can you believe tomorrow is already Friday?
Open line Friday, and we'll be here tomorrow at the same regularly scheduled time.
▲
Export Selection