All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
December 4, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at this, folks.
Direct non-stop service between Houston and Dubai has been announced by Emirates Airlines.
Owned by Sheikh Maktoum.
The airline's chairman, he runs Dubai.
He's Tiger Woods partner in the golf course development over there.
Now, why would Emirates Air have direct nonstop service from Houston of all places to Dubai?
We've already got direct non-stop service from New York.
Well, guess whose headquarters are in Houston?
Halliburton.
Well, in fact, the Halliburton CEO has relocated to Dubai, and the press release says, connecting these two international energy hubs, service aboard the new Boeing 777-200LR initially will operate three times a week before increasing the daily service in February, which means that Halliburton's got to shuttle a bunch of employees back and forth.
All right.
13 grand for a first-class ticket.
Nothing to a firm like Halliburton.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Great to have you with us here at 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Sweetness in Light, the blogger doing great work today uncovering Mrs. Clinton, newspaper stories, AP, Washington Post, on this national intelligence estimate story.
You know, she's out there saying, this proves my policy of diplomacy is working in Iran, when in fact her history, as these news stories document, has been to criticize the Bush administration for not doing enough and not being tough enough on Iran and being too lazy in leaving it up to the Brits and the Germans and the French to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program.
And now another one has been uncovered.
Mrs. Clinton writing in Foreign Affairs, which I think is the official House organ of the Council on Foreign Relations, in November, December 2007, that would be this current issue.
Hillary demands U.S. get tough with Iran.
The Bush administration has opposed talks with our adversaries, seeming to believe that we are not strong enough to defend our interests through negotiations.
This is a misleading and counterproductive strategy.
True statesmanship requires, Mrs. Clinton writing here, that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking, but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.
The case in point is Iran.
Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the U.S., our NATO allies in Israel.
It's the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism.
It uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops at Iraq.
The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it.
Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraq Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas even.
Second page here.
Second page in the front.
Hang on, there's a phone.
Second page.
Even government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and blah, blah, blah.
As a result, says Mrs. Clinton, we have lost precious time to the current issue of foreign affairs.
As a result, we have lost precious time.
Iran must conform to its non-proliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.
She writes this probably a couple weeks ago, because again, this is the November, December 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and now all of a sudden we find out from the NIE that Iran shut down its nuclear development program in 2003.
Does Mrs. Clinton not look like an abject idiot?
Will the drive-bys recall any of this?
Will they point it out to their own audiences?
No, ladies and gentlemen, it will not happen.
You can make book on that.
Presidential politics here, dirty tricks are starting.
This is so classic.
This is from HillaryClinton.com.
Campaign manager Patty Solis Doyle just sent the following message out to Hillary supporters in key early states.
Dear friend, I wanted to let you know immediately about reports that our campaign has received about possible dirty campaign tactics in Iowa and New Hampshire and to ask for your help.
In Iowa, we've heard reports that Hillary supporters are getting calls that tell them incorrect caucus locations.
Supporters have also told us about push polls.
When they tell the pollster they support Hillary, they are given negative talking points about her and asked which attacks are the most effective.
In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her.
So the Clinton campaign is back to playing victim status.
And guess what, folks?
Every woman in a Hillary camp, every man in a Hillary camp is a liberal.
And all of these liberal women around perfectly play the victim card.
Nobody plays the victim card better than liberal women.
I don't know whether it's going to work or not, but this is about as ridiculous as a Clinton campaign accusing Obama's pack of being a slush fund.
The Clintons accusing somebody having a slush fund.
I guarantee you the Clintons are doing push-polling.
I guarantee you if any of this is going on, it's a Clinton campaign doing it.
They always, this is a Clinton technique, accuse your opponents of what you are at present doing.
So the victim card is back now.
Also, she is nosediving in Iowa, and this is an attempt, I think, to delegitimize the entire outcome there.
Well, there were dirty tricks going on, Tom, and, you know, we couldn't really compete against the dirty tricks out there.
Obama's team was push-polling my supporters and putting negative thoughts in their heads.
We really don't think the Iowa vote counts much because of this.
This is what they're setting up.
Captain Ed at the captain's quarters, Ed Morrissey, writes today, recall the pushback, the Zogby poll that showed Hillary's support eroding at the end of last month.
The numbers showed Hillary losing ground against all Republican contenders and had some correlation with Rasmussen's numbers as well.
Nonsense, came the response.
Gallup's polling in November, two weeks earlier, showed that Hillary is maintaining her momentum.
Oh, both candidates maintain their leads, says the Gallup poll.
Rudy Giuliani continues to lose support.
Hillary Clinton drops nine points in Gallup's latest poll.
They knew this last week, that her ship has begun to take on water.
Now, Gallup hasn't posted a text report other than what's on the USA Today website, but the trend for Hillary looks bad seems to be accelerating here.
She had polled at 50% this summer when she appeared invincible and her competition couldn't quit making mistakes.
But now, after a gaffe-filled month, capped by her attack on Barack's kindergarten ambitions, Gallup has her at 39%, dropping eight points in a month.
By the way, Hillary's out there saying her staff said, well, we were just kidding about the kindergarten thing.
Can't you take a joke?
We were just kidding about the kindergarten thing.
At any rate, Captain Ed writes this.
USA Today has the polling results, and they look even worse for Hillary.
In 16 days, she dropped nine points overall.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden split Hillary's castoffs almost equally.
She dropped 11 points in a month.
Her negatives have gone from 44 to 50 since October.
44% to 50% negatives.
And she now has a favorability deficit of minus three, the worst since the beginning of summer.
Ed Morris, he says this would be a freefall if the Democrats had a candidate who could take advantage of Hillary.
And it's just, you know, it's been handed to Obama on a silver platter.
From the slush fund thing to the kindergarten thing, it's just been handed to him.
What are we hearing from him about this, essentially?
Nothing.
Come on, Obama.
Some onions out there.
This is your golden, golden, golden opportunity.
It may not get any better than this.
Try this headline in the New York Times: Vulnerable Democrats, see fates tied to Clinton.
The second article I have seen like this.
Nancy Boyda, Democrat who ran for Congress in this district in Manhattan, Kansas last year, owed her upset victory partly to the popularity of the Democrat women at the top of the ticket.
Kathleen Sebelius, who won the governor's seat.
Now with a tough re-election race at hand in 08, Ms. Boyda faces the prospect that her electoral fate could be tied to another woman, Senator Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton's a long way from winning a Democrat nomination, and over the last few weeks has struggled to hang on to the air of inevitability that she'd been cultivating all year.
But the possibility that she will be the nominee is already generating concern among some Democrats in Republican-leaning states and congressional districts who fear that sharing the ticket with Mrs. Clinton could subject them to attack as too liberal and out of step with the values of their constituents.
Democrats say they have not polled on the issue, though a private survey surfaced this year found that the nomination of either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama could cut into support for House Democrats in tough districts.
Well, It's the second time I've seen this story.
I'm telling you, inside Clinton, Inc., you know, it's not smooth sailing in there.
There's a bunch of panic going on.
This is not supposed to be happening.
This was not going to happen.
By the way, Norman Shu was indicted today.
$20 million, he's swindled, alleged to have swindled $20 million from investors in a Ponzi scheme.
And among the things listed in the indictment is this.
The indictment is in Manhattan.
Federal prosecutors want Norman Shu, who was named today in a 15-count fraud indictment, to forfeit a, quote, saxophone autographed by a former president of the United States.
The indictment does not name the former president, but Bill Clinton would seem a good bet considering Shu's prior role as the chief fundraiser for Hillary Clinton and the fact that I don't know too many former presidents that are still alive play the saxophone.
So they want him to give up the Clinton autograph saxophone.
Too rich, St. Joseph, Michigan.
This is Bill.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
All right.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
I want to suggest that the price of gasoline is going to be a big factor along with immigration in the next election.
And the way to start is to start by talking about the price of gasoline.
And when you get traction in that, then you start talking about the oil that we should be digging here.
And then about the fact that we're sending a lot of money to our enemies.
And I think that it's really tearing into the American economy.
The price of oil is affecting the price of everything.
And I believe the price of gasoline, the first person that picks this up and doesn't overdo it, just talk about the gasoline price.
And then when he gets traction in that, start talking about the need for oil.
Well, the two may not be linked.
I mean, the problem is nobody knows what's going to happen to the price of oil throughout the next year.
Nobody knows what, therefore, the price of gasoline is going to be.
If you stake your campaign to a high price and say this is too high and oil is too high because of the problems you mentioned and the price starts coming down, I mean, it wouldn't be that big a problem.
It would only work, but it would really help if the price went up.
I understand what you're saying.
You're basically saying energy independence and whoever can end up owning the oil issue is going to have a big leg up.
One observation about this, the Democrats, every time there's a spike in the gasoline price, have gone on the warpath against big oil.
And they want to conduct investigations to find out if there's been collusion and price fixing.
No investigation has ever found any price fixing or collusion with big oil involved.
It doesn't stop Democrats from accusing them and wanting to tax them, but I don't see it helping them.
So you've got to be careful how you do it.
But you're right.
I mean, there are any number of issues here just waiting to be grabbed and owned by Republican candidates.
BJ in Millersville, Pennsylvania, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, hello.
I'm Mega Didos.
Thank you.
I'd like to make an observation about the media and the national intelligence estimate of Iran, you know, halting its nuclear weapons program in 2003, but they're still continuing to enrich uranium.
So far, the media has failed to link 2003 being the same year the AQ Con was busted, selling nuclear components and secrets all over the world, including Iran.
Right.
That's a good point.
I mean, Iran may already have the blueprints, parts, and technology to build a bomb.
And that's why.
They enriched uranium.
That's what this idiot report says.
Everybody is harping on the fact that they supposedly ceased their development in 2003, but they still are seeking uranium.
They still have all the centrifuges.
And that's not to produce gasoline or electric power for the people of Iran.
It would be silly to take this report.
Oh, sweetness and light.
They're not a threat anymore.
Just as it's silly for Mrs. Clinton to say her diplomacy, which there hasn't been any diplomacy she was involved in, that her idea of diplomacy is what's brought about the success here.
We're foolish to accept that this whole thing, this whole thing is being looked at in the wrong way.
It's being looked at through the prism of Democrat Party politics, which is exactly how the media wants these things looked at.
And the prism of Democrat Party politics is about presidential election in 08 and how we can destroy Bush.
Pure and simple.
That's all this report's worth to them.
That's all that matters to them about it.
And they cannot be trusted with the defense of this country at their feet.
They cannot be trusted.
It's not just a lack of maturity on this.
These people are just dangerously wrong in their entire worldview.
And I would suggest also their view of this country is offensive to me.
Here's Bob in Tampa.
Welcome, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush Mega Dittos.
Thank you.
I'm an original listener from Sacramento, and I need an answer from you on why, in God's name, do we have 16 different intelligence agencies?
And does anybody know the names of them?
Well, the names are known.
I just can't recite all of them off the top of my head.
There, of course, is the CIA.
There is the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon unit.
And there are a bunch of ancillaries to both, but there are 16 different intelligence agencies, and the NIE comprises the best guesses from those 16.
Well, do all 16 have information on Iran?
All 16 have information on Iran.
Yes.
They all gather it.
I mean, and then they cross-check it and they compare notes.
But then they put it all together, and it amounts to the best guess.
It's not a wild guess, but it's the best guess that they can come up with.
The best way to think of the NIE is this way.
It's a snapshot of a battlefield shrouded in fog.
Just because the snapshot doesn't show the enemy down there doesn't mean they're not hiding in the fog.
And that is why intent must be considered.
Virtually every nuclear power developed their weapons program in secrecy right under the noses of the international community, just as Iran is doing or has been doing now.
And so you have to look at the intent of the Iranians, not our hopes and dreams for the Iran.
When I read this business, the NIE report suggests that we must find alternative ways for establishing and maintaining the Iranians' prestige, i.e., their self-esteem, in that part of the world and so forth.
I wanted a puke.
What about our prestige?
What about our national security?
We can't ignore what this nutjob is saying.
He's clearly articulating his intentions and his desires regarding the United States, Israel, and the rest of the world.
Hugo Chavez, by the way, reacting to the vote in Venezuela in which his candidacy for dictatorship was defeated during a telephone conversation with a state-run TV channel down there, Chavez pondered on Monday that perhaps it was not the timing for a proposal on socialism.
The people are not mature enough to accept such a project.
Let me ask you a question.
How mature do you have to be to give up and let somebody else take care of you?
So when you grow up, you can go out, you can get a job, maybe let somebody else do all the worrying and the decision-making for you, and we'll all be so proud.
How much maturity does it take?
It's not maturity.
Once again, the people are too stupid, don't know what they're doing.
Liberal point of view.
All right, here are the 16 members of the United States intelligence community that comprise the National Intelligence Estimate.
You've got two overseers.
You've got the Director of National Intelligence, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, but the organizations, the agencies are Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, the CIA, Coast Guard Intelligence, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the DIA, the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, Marine Corps Intelligence,
National GEO Spatial Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, and Navy intelligence.
Those are the 16 bunches that comprise the national intelligence estimates.
So when you hear Department of State, Department of So, what's the other one that sticks out at me here?
CIA.
Of course, we knew they were in there, but you put the Department of State in there.
I guarantee there's more sabotage coming out of that place regarding the Bush administration and in certain elements, certain rings of the Pentagon.
You just, you have to examine not just the motives of Iran and the intent of Iran.
You've got to examine the motives and the intent of the people at the NIE who put together this best guess of all of their estimates.
I want to go to the audio soundbites here.
We've been talking about Mrs. Clinton a lot today.
She does appear to be in trouble.
This was Sunday in Bettendorf, Iowa, at a campaign event.
It's only nine seconds long, but you have to wonder what in the world she's thinking saying this about her relationship with Iowa voters.
So, you see, I want a long-term relationship.
I don't want to just have a one-night stand with all of you.
You know, I don't know if her husband's in the corner hanging around backstage, but when a Clinton starts talking about one-night stands with all of you, with voters, I don't care if it's Hillary or Bill.
When a Clinton starts talking one-night stands, you've got to raise your eyebrow a little bit over this.
Here's the next one.
Sunday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, at a news conference, Mrs. Clinton.
But I have been four months on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks.
Well, now the fun part starts.
We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrast because I want every island to have accurate information when they make their decisions.
B.S., you don't want them knowing Jack squat.
You do not want them knowing a thing.
Now the fun starts.
That means she can't wait to start zeroing in on poor Barry.
Means I can kneecap Obama now.
We're into the last month, and he deserves it because he's lying about how long he wanted to be president.
He said he wanted to be president all the way back in kindergarten.
He's also got ethics problems, Mrs. Clinton said.
Unknown reporter in Cedar Rapids on Sunday.
Does Senator Obama have a character problem, Mrs. Clinton?
It's beginning to look a lot like that, where somebody who runs on ethics and has found out to have at least skirted the FEC rules and to use lobbyists and PAC money to do so.
That's the old slush fund.
You think that was, does this question sound like a setup?
Does Senator Obama have a character problem?
Well, it's beginning to look a lot like that.
We know the pattern of Clinton plants in the audience.
It's beginning to look a lot like he's got ethics problems.
He got a slush fund.
Obama, where are you?
Now she goes after Obama for skipping the Iran vote.
This is a portion of her remarks.
Again, this is yesterday, Clear Lake, Iowa.
Well, if he really thought it was a rush to war, why did he rush to campaign and miss the vote?
A president can't vote present.
A president can't pick and choose which challenges he or she will face.
This was the Iran vote where Mrs. Clinton agreed that the revolutionary guards in there are mass murderers and procurers of weapons of mass destruction, all this other stuff.
And I guess Obama chose to avoid the vote simply to avoid any problem with the Kook Fringe anti-war base.
She wasn't through yesterday in Cedar Rapids again talking about Obama.
You decide which makes more sense, to entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one to make the decisions and the changes we need or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience who started running for president as soon as he arrived in the United States Senate.
How did running for president become a qualification to be president?
Mrs. Clinton, you started running for president and control of this country in Yale, maybe all the way back at Wellesley.
What is it about you, Mrs. Clinton, as first lady and as senator that qualifies you to be president?
You know, I think what we ought to, how about this?
Just to make a point here, I think that Laura Bush ought to get into the presidential race on the Republican side.
Why, she's been right by George Bush's side for almost eight years now, seven years, and she's seen it all up close, and she's done everything Mrs. Clinton did.
We don't know what all she's done.
She's worked behind the scenes.
She may have been more involved in things than anybody knows.
She had more experience than Mrs. Clinton might have.
Well, I know what you're saying.
Laura Bush, nice woman.
She's not qualified.
Well, so why is Hillary then?
Why is this automatic conclusion made that Mrs. Clinton is qualified because she was there for eight years?
You know, big deal.
She's a wartime first lady.
Laura Bush was.
She was a screw teacher.
She's been involved for the children and so forth.
The idea that Laura Bush is a joke is a kid.
Why is Hillary not a similar joke?
Realize the drive-bys and the Democrats.
Look away.
Well, Laura Bush wasn't co-president and Hillary Clinton was.
Oh, wait a minute.
I thought Bill Clinton just the other day said health care and that boondoggle was his doing, not hers.
So she really wasn't that much involved.
That's right, Limbaugh.
You know what?
You got it straight.
I'm glad you finally bad Billy.
Tell the truth about us because Hillary didn't blow that.
That was my problem.
And believe me, boy, I pay for it.
I don't know.
Do you realize we're all this is a practical joke?
The Hillary Clinton candidacy is a practical joke.
We have so many sycophants in this country to sit there and soak up the notion that she's a viable candidate, that she's qualified, that she's for what reason?
Somebody tell me what she's ever done that's worked.
It is.
It's a giant practical joke.
Clinton's got to be laughing themselves to sleep every night over what they've pulled off here.
Now, Obama, Obama did respond to some of this stuff.
I want you to hear it.
At Grandview College in Des Moines yesterday, an unidentified male asked Obama, Senator, would you like to respond to what Mrs. Clinton said about you lying about how long you wanted to be president?
You said you didn't decide you wanted to be president until shortly after you got in the Senate.
She says that you wrote an essay in kindergarten or the fifth grade or third grade or whatever that said you wanted to be president.
What's the truth, Obama?
It's silly season.
I understand she's been quoting my kindergarten teacher in Indonesia.
Thank you so much, guys.
Barry, this is not how you do this.
She said some surprising things.
It's silly season.
I understand she's been quoting my kindergarten teacher in Indonesia.
You've just been accused of lying about how long you've wanted to be president, and they uncovered something from the kindergarten days that said you wanted to be president, and you just call it silly season.
Does his camp know what a golden opportunity he's got here to make a real dent?
It's making me think he doesn't want to.
We'll see.
Here's Obama's response yesterday in Des Moines to the slush fund attack.
Folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations.
Everything that we've done is in exact accordance with the law.
And unless they can show that it hasn't been, I'd suggest they focus on trying to get their supporters to caucus in Iowa.
Wake up!
You've just been accused of having no ethics and of running a slush fund by the people who are the architects of slush puns and no ethics.
And you've got to learn to fire back.
You've got to learn to say they are saying what about me?
The people who had all those money orders for the Clinton Legal Defense Fund run through a Chinese restaurant in Little Rock are saying what about me?
The people who had all this money raised by a representative of the People's Liberation Army in China and who half the people who are involved in the fundraising fled the country before the trial and nobody knows where they are are saying what about me?
Did I ran a slush fund?
The people who had to give back something like $800,000 in illegal campaign contributions in one year are saying what about me?
But what do we get?
Play that again.
Play this somebody at number 13.
Play this again.
You just heard my passion.
Listen to this answer.
Folks from some of the other campaigns are reading the polls and starting to get stressed and issuing a whole range of outlandish accusations.
Everything that we've done is in exact accordance with the law.
And unless they can show that it hasn't been, I'd suggest they focus on trying to get their supporters to caucus in Iowa.
Well, everybody's got their own strategic reason theories on how to deal with this.
You be the judge.
Last night on PMS NBC, live with Dan Abrams, he's talking with Democrat strategist Chris Lehanes, used to be big time involved with Al Gore, I believe.
Abrams said, about Gacha politics, so knowing that, what are they doing citing kindergarten and third-grade essays of Obama?
There's a serious point and a fun point here.
Serious point is that Barack Obama did attack Hillary Clinton.
Stop the tape a minute.
Stop it.
Stop the tape.
I think it is unconscionable of you, Ed, to speed up this tape and made Chris Lahanis sound like a chipmunk.
Now take this back to the beginning and play it at the real speed.
Let me know when you got it re-queued back to the beginning.
I want you to play this with a real.
I'm not going to sit here and have people's voices made.
Okay.
Here's a question again from Dan Abrams.
So knowing that, what are they doing citing kindergarten and third-grade essays of Obama?
There's a serious point and a fun point here.
Serious point is that Barack Obama did attack Hillary Clinton several weeks ago, claiming that she and the former president had a 20-year plan.
They opened up the hypocrisy door.
Clinton campaign's got a litany of facts today documenting the fact that he had talked about running for president in the past.
It goes to the hypocrisy issue, which is an important core character issue that people look for in presidential campaigns.
Now, I actually think that you're taking the third grade and the kindergarten thing a little too seriously.
I mean, my sense is they put that out with a wink, wink, and a little bit of a chuckle themselves.
I have to apologize to the engineer.
I could have sworn that it was sped up to make the guy sound like a chipmunk.
So they were just joking about kindergarten and third-grade business.
They got busted.
They send the Lahainas out there.
One more quick bite.
Do we cite this kindergarten and third grade essay?
Yes or no, Chris?
I think you cite a litany of factors and have a little bit of fun with it.
You cite people who quoted what he said in college.
You cite former staffers.
You cite law school friends.
All of those things were in the collection of information that was put out today, in addition to having a little bit of fun with a third-grade essay.
And time friends are thinking, Quick timeout here at the EIB Network.
We'll be right back after this.
And I don't want to hear any more of my.
You know what Obama ought to say out there?
He ought to go out there and say, look, if my wife is first lady for eight years, I promise to fix health care.
And Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton's out there, he's wagging his finger at the drive-bys.
AP story just out 15 minutes ago.
Clinton said that if reporters covered the candidate's public records better, his wife's presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals.
Clinton said, I'd pick her, and I'd be here even if we weren't married.
No, he wouldn't pick her, and he wouldn't be anywhere near there if he weren't married.
And this, we all know.
Jack in Glenford, Ohio.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, Rush.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you.
I surely enjoy this Limbaugh letter, December, about Economics 101, and especially this article about Governor Bobby Lindahl.
Yeah, the interview with Bobby Jendahl, was he not great in this thing?
And those questions that I asked were among some of the finest anybody's ever been asked, and they drew him out.
That's for sure.
And it just got me to thinking the U.S. public is longing for someone who will not waffle or stand up for what's right.
And just like the Lincoln liberals have no absolutes, so they don't know what's right or wrong.
And I'm also tired of the minorities being offended.
I say, suck it up or leave this wonderful society.
Well, not just minorities.
You know, I have a big, big bugaboo about people that run around and being offended all the time.
I think it's destructive, and I hate the fact that they've got power.
The offended can shut down anything that offends them.
Being offended has become a liberal industry.
Well, I'll tell you something.
I'm glad that you liked the Bobby Jendahl interview because he was fabulous.
It's in the current issue of the Limbaugh Letter, most widely read newsletter, political newsletter in the country.
And he was unstoppable.
He was on fire during the whole interview.
Questions, of course, are well worth reading, too.
But what he said.
Dawn's rolling her eyes for about the zillionth time today about this offended business, folks.
I've been through this riff once before, a couple times maybe, but I want to go through this again because the offended in our society are shutting a lot of things down.
People offended by the color of ice cream, people offended by the temperature of coffee, people offended by what they claim to be able to smell cigar smoke from miles away or, you know, hundreds of feet away.
To be offended is to grant all kinds of other people power over the way you feel about things.
It's not worth that.
I wouldn't anymore give anybody the right to offend that, especially with words.
Words?
People running around.
I get all blown out of proportion over words.
That offends me.
Good, be offended.
If you want to ruin your life, you want to give people that kind of power to offend you and make you feel a certain way, go ahead.
But it's not what I would take pride if I were you and not being offended by people and by things that they say.
It's just.
It's just a waste of energy.
It grants them way too much power, more than they deserve.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Talk about being offended.
Some AAA baseball team, I think Lehigh or somewhere in Pennsylvania, they had to change the name and the team mascot.
They changed the name to pork chop, and they had to change that because some members of the community were offended by the term pork chop.
That's exactly what I mean.
It's ridiculous and absurd.
See you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection