All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:58
December 6, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show, documented to be almost always right, 98.8% of the time.
That's an incredible feat not known to have occurred with any other media figure.
I am Rush Limbaugh and this, the EIB network, the fastest three hours in media.
It's already the third hour today, and it's already Thursday.
Unbelievable.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be at the program today, folks.
A Senate has dropped its insistence that Congress pass legislation expanding hate crime laws to include a tax on gays after it became clear the measure wouldn't pass the House.
House and Senate negotiators agreed today to drop the provision from a major defense policy bill.
It is another slap in the face to the Democrats and a moveon.org puppets.
They can't do anything right.
They can't get anything done.
Just like Mrs. Clinton, who cannot do anything right.
Wait till you hear later in the hour.
She was on CNBC yesterday with the money honey, Maria Bartieromo.
And Maria Bartieromo really laid into Mrs. Clinton on some things.
It's pretty good.
You will hear this coming up.
But folks, Trumpet fanfare, time for an update.
An incredible global warming stack today.
Here's Paul Shanklin, well-known white comedian as Al Gore.
I started a joke.
That makes me chuckle.
Al Gore, I showed them my slots.
So he had this new prime minister elected in Australia, Kevin Rudd.
And one of the first things he did says, we're going to sign on to Kyoto.
This global warming is a problem.
We're going to sign up.
Last night, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, did an about face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali.
A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25 to 40 percent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.
But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr. Rudd said the government would not support the target.
In other words, this socialist, which is what he is, said, I am not going to sign on to something.
It's going to destroy my economy.
It's just that simple.
So they're out.
In one of the most absurd stories on global warming I've ever seen, and that's saying something because most of them are.
Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming by virtue of the expelling of gas.
Kangaroo gas expilations do not contain methane.
And as such, they are considered eco-friendly.
You can say eco-friendly kangaroo farts, ladies and gentlemen, could help global warming, according to scientists.
Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane, and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas.
When I see stories like this, I know it'll never happen.
I just have this fantasy that one of these days, God's going to show up in a totally believable way and tell these people, stop messing around with what I did here.
Who the hell do you think you are messing around with my kangaroos And my cattle and my sheep, keep your hands off of them.
This keeps up.
God's going to end this planet, folks.
There's got to be an embarrassment up there for him to look down and see what's going on here.
Despite the efforts of some to talk sanity into this, Ethel Cleve, a senior research scientist with the Queensland state government, said 14% of emissions from all sources in Australia is from the methane from cattle and sheep flatulation.
I, you know, this, I don't even know what to say.
It's just insane.
These people are literally insane.
Now, I mentioned earlier in the program one of the best op-eds I have ever read about what's going on in Bali and what the environmental movement's all about in the first place appears today in the Financial Post in Canada.
It's by Peter Foster.
Let me read you just some excerpts.
The fate of the earth hangs in the balance in Bali, but the issue is not whether humanity will succumb to a climate crisis or how the international community might craft a successor to the tattered Kyoto Accord.
The real theme of this United Nations Gab Fest is whether globalization and trade liberalization will be allowed to continue with a corresponding increase in wealth, health, and welfare, or whether the authoritarian enemies of freedom will succeed in using environmental hysteria to undermine capitalism and increase their magisterium.
Any successor to Kyoto will be rooted in hobbling rich economies, increasing the poor world's resentment, unleashing environmental trade warfare, and blanketing the planet with rules and regulations that benefit only the rulers and regulators.
Bali is not about climate.
It symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek or pander to political power under the guise of concern for humanity.
Bali is not about climate.
It symbolizes the continued assault on freedom by those who seek political power under the guise of concern for humanity.
Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment.
I just loved reading that because I told you I warned people many moons ago that the environmental movement was thus the new home of communism once the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
Just at the point where Marxism was being consigned to the dustbin of history, the more or less concealed power lust that had fed it found a new cause in the environment.
The fact that the UN's 1992 Rio conference followed hard on the collapse of the Soviet Union represented almost the passing of a poisoned baton.
Capitalism, get this next one, folks, because this is a brilliant writing.
Capitalism had once been the enemy because it was alleged to make people poor.
Now it was the enemy because of the alleged side effects of making them rich.
The emissions of carbon-based industrial society would lead to a climate in turmoil.
We would be beset by biblical plagues of floods, droughts, monster hurricanes.
This simplistic narrative depended on carbon dioxide being the main driver of climate.
Scientists who pointed that there were likely other more important factors, that climate science was in its infancy, the Earth's climate had varied dramatically long before the invention of the steam internal combustion or jet engine, were not scientifically refuted.
They were howled down as deniers or industry shills.
The environmental left centered in the United Nations has achieved stunning success in building and pushing the climate change sustainability bandwagon.
They have done this first by funding and then hijacking scientific research via the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
They have also promoted and allowed access to an ever-proliferating group of activist NGOs, non-governing organizations.
Bali significantly is overrun by the non-elected representatives of scores of radical organizations who have, in turn, forced similar numbers of industry representatives to follow them.
NGOs have also had a great success in pushing their alarmist message through a sympathetic media and thus, along with more direct lobbying, in achieving grossly disproportionate influence with Democrat politicians.
And the last excerpt I want to read here is this.
The criticism misses the real significance of Kyoto and Kyoto 2.
They are not about Kyoto, Kyoto 2 are not about effectively addressing specific problems.
They are about exploiting ignorance about climate science and continuing to demonize capitalism in order to make ecocrats feel good, make others feel bad, pad incomes, and expand travel schedules.
This is so on the money.
I couldn't have written this better, and that makes me jealous.
They are not about effectively addressing specific problems.
They are about exploiting ignorance.
What did I say yesterday?
The most expensive commodity in this country is ignorance.
We pay more for ignorance than anybody could dare calculate.
And they are exploiting that ignorance about climate science.
They demonize capitalism.
Democrat governments, democratic governments, have no choice but to cater to the ignorance, alarm, hypocrisy engendered in their populations.
This catering, in turn, reflects greater or lesser degrees of cynicism, skepticism, or moralistic blobiation.
Now, what is meant by that is: here we are democracy.
People run for office and they get elected.
This onslaught of hoax, that is global warming, which thrives on the ignorance the average American has about the climate and climate science, forces Democratic governments to count out to it.
The people want it.
The people think we're destroying the planet and they've got to put kangaroo guts inside sheep and whatever.
Then their hands are tied, theoretically.
Leadership, of course, could reverse this, but that's basically what the passage means when he says Democrat governments have no choice but to cater to the ignorance if it becomes a majority.
And that is why ignorance is the most expensive commodity in this country.
We will link to this piece at rushlimbaugh.com later this afternoon.
One other thing: a group of reporters representing the conservative newspaper Environment and Climate News refused press credentials to attend the climate meeting in Bali.
The paper's publisher, the Heartland Institute, issued a statement saying that you guys are skeptics.
We're not letting you in here.
Skeptics not permitted at a UN conference on climate in Bali.
Brief time out.
Stay with us.
I'll be right back.
One more little item here before we go back to the go back to the phones.
It turns out that there will likely be some war funding coming from the Democrat Congress this year after all.
And we've touched on this story.
We've already mentioned today the Democrats are caving, that they're trying to figure out a way to fund the troops without their little lunatic fringe finding out about it.
They've done it.
Nancy Pelosi said there might be money for the war in Afghanistan.
Democrats have largely been supportive of the war effort there.
What is this is MSNBC?
I guess it's a blog as opposed to Iraq.
Critics will see money authorized for Afghanistan as a shell game since earmarking money for Afghanistan will free up money for the administration and the Pentagon to send to Iraq.
Pelosi had promised anti-war Democrat members that she would stick by her guns and not put forward any more legislation this year that would fund the war in Iraq.
But funding Afghanistan, which the administration didn't use to send to Iraq, would allow her to stick to the letter of her pledge.
Look at the days of Brokaw, Jennings, and Cronkite and rather are over, Ms. Pelosi.
If you do this, the world is going to find out about it, and so are your anti-war kook fringe-based lunatics.
Guaranteed.
John in Canton, Ohio.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yes.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
I was calling about President Bush's call for a freeze on subprime loans.
I'm just wondering if there is a magic number of people being hurt that triggers government intervention.
That is an excellent question.
You know what?
That is an excellent question.
I'm going to ask you one in return.
Okay.
You are obviously watching all of the stuff on a subprime.
You're reading it in the drive-bys.
For how long it's been going on now, a month?
A little bit longer, right?
What is your impression?
How many people in America do you think are defaulting on their mortgages and not paying them?
All mortgages, including subprime, every mortgage.
What percentage do you think are on default going to be foreclosed?
The percentage?
Yeah.
Oh, I don't know, 3 or 4% maybe.
94% of all mortgage holders are paying their mortgage.
6% are being affected by this.
That's a little more than I thought.
Well, but it's still not much.
No, it's not.
94% of Americans are still paying their mortgage.
We got this doom and gloom out there.
A lot of people think half the people with houses are being kicked out of them.
I just worried about how it could affect the markets.
I mean, this is messing with the markets where the government has no business, I feel.
I have a struggling business myself.
I don't ask the government for help.
So I just was wondering your take on it.
I don't like it.
I understand what they're trying to do here.
Everybody's responding to a crisis going in the holidays, the American dream, people are losing their homes.
Mithrid Limbaugh, you can't sit by without compassion.
And if you have to do something about Mithrid Limbaugh, certainly your heart of steel could certainly find some compassionate.
This is what people out there, and politicians react to it.
Exactly the point made in the global warming story.
We're living in the middle of a hoax.
The hoax perpetuates based on the ignorance of the American people.
It's a democratic country, and so the people are clamoring.
Now, the thing here, 50% of the people aren't clamoring.
I don't know how many are, but you can figure that a lot of people who are not being foreclosed on, watching this doom and gloom, think they're going to be.
Yes, yeah.
I don't know what this would affect the bond markets or what adverse effects this would have.
Look at, here's the thing.
This is essentially, this is price control, right?
When you're going to freeze interest rates, last time the wage and price controls happened, 1972 with Nixon.
And we did it when inflation was like 3%.
And the oil prices were going through the roof and so forth.
And one thing I noticed, wage controls worked.
The employers said, well, we love this.
The government's riding our backside pretty seriously, Russia.
We can't really give you a raise other than inflation.
That's all.
But I go to the grocery store and I'd see brand new cuts of beef that I never saw before.
The price controls into effect, and they were expensive as hell.
And I said, I asked, well, what the hell is this?
Well, after the price control went into effect, the price controls were effect on items at that moment, but anything new, no price control on it.
And so people will find ways around this.
The market will do that.
But you're right.
This is, let the market work this out.
It will in time, but we don't have the patience and we're too ignorant.
Have you seen the latest Rasmussen poll, the daily tracking poll out at 11 o'clock today?
In South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton has lost her lead.
She's now 36%, Obama at 34%.
Last month, Hillary had a 10-point lead.
In September, she was up by 13% in South Carolina.
Mrs. Clinton just can't do anything right.
And now Bill's talking about sitting in on Hillary's cabinet meeting.
You know what this is really about?
This is really about getting him on the ballot with him not there.
They realize that people are going to have to also vote for him wanting back in there.
She's just not enough to pull it off.
She needs to be lowering her negatives right now, not solidifying and inflating them by attacking Obama's kindergarten days and this sort of thing.
By the way, there's been a parking garage collapse in Charlotte at a mall.
I think the Hillary campaign probably right now is considering whether or not to dispatch her there, even though it's not an early primary state, because her depth of experience with parking garage collapses and her ability to act presidential can bring a sense of calm to the situation, just like what happened up in New Hampshire last Friday.
Let's go to the audio tapes.
Mrs. Clinton on CNBC yesterday afternoon with the money honey.
That would be Maria Bartaromo, who said, where was Congress during all this?
This is about the mortgage crisis.
Where was Congress during all this?
We had a lot of non-banks on the scheme with crazy proposals, no documentation, no interest for several months.
Did Congress understand what was going on here?
No.
And under the Republican Congress, they didn't want to understand.
You know, the ostrich head was in the sand.
You didn't have an administration who paid attention to the early warning signals.
You didn't have a Congress that cared about it.
And the net result is, as I say, everybody shares the responsibility.
If something is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.
You were in the Congress.
What were you a bystander?
She can't do anything right.
The dirty little secret is Congress authorized, I don't care which one, Congress authorized and made these loans, demanded these loans be made to people who couldn't afford them if the rates went up.
You know, one question.
There are four different kinds of mortgages out.
The subprime is just one.
How come only one group is being assisted here with this freeze in mortgage interest rates?
How come people who could afford to pay the rates when they went up are not being helped?
How come only the people who couldn't afford to pay the rates are being helped?
Well, we understand this.
But Mrs. Clinton, I forgot.
You're right, Mr. Sternley.
She didn't know about the subprime thing.
Nobody told her.
She was probably lied to about it, never saw any intelligence on the subprimes.
Well, she saw the intelligence, but thought it was cooked and lied about and so forth.
Next question really heats up here when the money honey goes after her on taxes and the cackle returns question.
Well, the question's on the tape, so listen to exchange.
You're talking about letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
How do you justify this situation when you've got people under pressure and just the thought that they're going to be paying more taxes, they may pull in their stocks?
Well, since my husband and I are in that bracket, I don't feel pressured.
We're going to do stimulus for the vast majority of Americans, and part of the way we're going to pay for it is by letting those tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans expire.
Now, we have to look at every set of conditions.
I don't know what is going to be happening in the economy in January 2009.
Up until then, we have a very different philosophy and attitude in this administration.
And lots of people who come on your show who, you know, are gung-ho, protect the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
That will not work if the economy slows down.
You need to get money in the pockets of tens of hundreds of millions of Americans, and that's what I intend to do.
You just don't know.
She's going to get this wrong, too.
Tens of hundreds, does she say tens of hundreds of millions of Americans need to get the money in the tens of hundreds of millions of Americans?
She's really thinking China because that's where she gets money from.
She's really thinking China here because we don't have tens of hundreds of millions of people in this country.
But how about this?
How do you justify this situation where you got people under pressure?
Well, since my husband and I are in that bracket, I don't feel pressure.
I mean, first the cackle.
And then since my husband and I are in that bracket, that just can't stop telling everybody how rich they are.
She can't do anything right.
Bartaromo finally says, you know what, Senator, it's not just the rich who own stock.
We have 100 million people.
I'm not saying anything about stocks.
Capital gains tax goes away.
Well, you know, how does that impact the economy?
Well, the capital gains tax, I'm talking about the upper income tax brackets.
You know, capital gains, I think we may have to nudge a little bit, but depending again on the conditions.
Stop the tape a second.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Did I just hear what I heard?
Capital gains for the upper brackets.
There's one capital gains rate, and it applies to everybody.
That's right, not with her.
Maybe she'll keep the capital gains rate at 15% for people who have no capital gains and raise it to whatever on her dreaded rich, the income bracket that she and her husband take that, take that back to the top.
I couldn't let that go without interrupting.
I know you people don't like it when I stop the tape, but this I couldn't help it.
Let me know when it's ready to go there, Ed.
The question from Maria Bartiromo, the money, honey.
You know what, Senator?
It's not just the rich who own stock.
I'm not saying anything about stocks.
I'm saying capital gains tax goes away.
How does that impact the economy?
Well, the capital gains tax, I'm talking about the upper income tax brackets.
You know, capital gains, I think we may have to nudge a little bit, but depending again on the conditions, I am going to look at the economy as it is.
But I think it is, as I probably evidenced to your viewers, amusing that we would have had these tax cuts, which I have benefited from and people in my income tax bracket have benefited from, and the rest of the economy is stalled.
So we have to take a look at the economy as it really is.
And I think that calls for considering stimulus on a broad base level.
And the effort to lie and convince people that we're in a slowdown and near a recession continues to justify raising taxes.
Though the whole, she is saying, that's right, Mr. Stertley, she's saying the entire economy is stalled.
Not for the rich.
The economy is stalled for people like her and her husband in their income bracket.
What was it she said?
Well, the capital gains tax, Which I have benefited from, and people in my income tax bracket have benefited from, and the rest of the economy is falling.
So she didn't say rich.
She says the people in her income tax bracket.
It's what she means.
So I know capital gains cuts saved the economy in the 90s, and they're responsible for the deficits shrinking more than anybody ever imagined now.
But apparently the economy is not doing well for anybody but the rich.
If that's the case, would somebody explain Walmart to me?
Would somebody explain Kmart?
Is there still a Kmart?
Would somebody explain Target?
Would somebody explain these, how these places, how these stores doing so well?
Don't tell me the rich go in there.
Here's Brian in Norfolk, Nebraska.
Brian, glad you're waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hi there, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
I have a question that's kind of completely different than what you've been talking about, but I hope you'll hope you'll listen to me.
By all means, sir.
I wanted to talk about that big catastrophe in Omaha the other day in the mall where the shooter went and shot all those people.
And sorry, I'm a little nervous here.
I'm shaking.
It's all right.
Shaking now?
Hello.
And I just wondered what your thoughts were as far as should gun control or anything like that have been checked out or anything like that?
What do you mean, should gun control have been checked out?
Well, this kid had a lot of trouble.
Didn't he borrow the AK-47 from a stepfather or something?
Something like that.
Yeah.
Yeah, and just wondering if this kid should have even been allowed near a gun.
Well, I don't know.
Who was not going to allow him to be near a gun?
That's true.
I guess more what my question is, should some of these guns even be allowed out there?
Those assault rifles and stuff.
Well, I know the Second Amendment and all of that stuff.
Yeah, this comes up from time to time.
Reading the I misunderstood what your question was going to be.
I thought you were going to be afraid that there'd be more calls for gun control here rather than what you're actually calling for is more strict gun control laws.
That's not the answer to this.
We live in a nation of how many millions and every now and then some wacko kid goes out with an AK-47 after watching a Matrix movie and starts blowing up some people in a high school.
And it doesn't happen very much.
Well, that's what that's what Columbine was.
What are you freaking out for in there?
I'm not blaming it on the Matrix.
I'm saying that's what the kid, I'm blaming it on the kids.
They go watch the movies.
But it doesn't happen that much, and we react here.
Here's the real thing about this.
If you look at this kid, everything that we're being told about him, why he was quiet and he didn't say anything.
And everybody thought that he was just, you know, one of these guys that faded and lived in the background all the time.
And that's exactly what John Hinckley's parents said about him.
I'll never, you know, it's that these young kids that never get into trouble.
That's who you got to keep your eye on.
A kid never ever gets very quiet.
You don't know what's going on inside their head because they never.
Well, I know he'd been in trouble with the law on prior circumstances, but he was still One of these very, it's always the quiet ones and the ones that are least suspected.
And then didn't the kid say in his note, now I'll be famous?
So there's that aspect of this too.
We live in a 24-7 media culture.
Your face, whatever it is, Spacebook, YouTube.
There's a, you know, people want fame until they get it, and then they have no idea.
But they think it's fabulous.
When they're on the outside looking at fame, it could be, cool, get chicks.
Everybody knows who you are.
Some big aphrodisiac about that.
But guns, this is not the way to go about this.
Because look, it's a very simple argument.
You can take guns out of the hands of every law-abiding citizen in the country, and you're still not going to get them out of the hands of criminals.
It's just that simple.
I know, I know, just listening to it.
Shake it all over.
Guess who?
Rush Limbaugh.
And we're back.
Teachable moment.
Teachable moment here.
We have two audio soundbites from oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court.
Lawyers trying to get the inmates out of Club Gitmo, lawyers and constitutional rights and all this sort of stuff.
Here first is Justice Antonin Scalia, who just buries the lawyer for the terrorists, pointing out that there's no precedent in 220 years for giving foreign citizens and enemy combatants the right to trials in U.S. courts.
Do you have a single case in the 220 years of our country, or for that matter, in the five centuries of the English Empire, in which habeas was granted to an alien in a territory that was not under the sovereign control of either the United States or England?
In 220 years of our history or five centuries of the Britain, do you have a single case in which it was not a citizen of England or a citizen of the United States in which a common law writ of habeas corpus issued to a piece of land that was not within the sovereign jurisdiction?
You are appealing to a common law right that somehow found its way into our Constitution without, as far as I can discern, a single case in the writ ever issued to a non-citizen.
Justice Antonin Scalia and a teachable moment to a bunch of lawyers, Supreme Court yesterday on the Constitution.
Now, here's Justice Breyer, Stephen Breyer, a portion of exchange that he had with United States Solicitor General Paul Clement.
And of course, you'll hear here that Justice Breyer does not talk about the Constitution or precedent.
He makes up a hypothetical that fits his personal policy preference.
Suppose that you are from Bosnia and you are held for six years in Guantanamo, and the charge is that you helped Al-Qaeda.
The Constitution of the United States does not give anyone the right to hold me six years in Guantanamo without either charging me or releasing me in the absence of some special procedure in Congress for preventive detention.
That's the argument I want to make.
I don't see anything in this CSRT provision that permits me to make that argument.
So I'm asking you, where can you make that argument?
I'm not sure that he can make that argument.
He can make that argument.
How does this become an equivalent to habeas, since that happens to be the argument that a large number of these 305 people would like to make.
And so when the battle lines are drawn and the libs on the Supreme Court want to make sure that prisoners of war, enemy combatants at Club Guitmo, where I have a thriving merchandise business, want to be given constitutional rights as though they are citizens of the United States of America.
Patrick in Wabash, Indiana.
Great that you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Ditto, Thrash.
I wanted to take issue with you on your treatment of the man that called in, claimed himself to be a liberal, and that liberals are religious too, and you tried to make that into that there is a religion of liberalism.
Look at that guy had a great time in that call.
He was laughing and yucking it up, but that's what he said, Patrick.
That's not what he said.
What he tried to say, I believe, was that Democrats, like Republicans and conservatives, have different religious beliefs.
And, you know, that was what Romney was saying.
Just because I'm a Mormon, I'm not that.
That's not what everybody hears.
You are selectively.
You're selectively hearing.
What he said was that he feared Republicans and conservatives would impose their religious views if they won elective power.
I asked him, why does that not scare you about Democrats who are religious?
Why do you not worry about them imposing their religion?
And then he went off on a different tangent.
But the reason why I didn't want to answer it is perfectly clear.
It's not a big deal in their lives.
Religion is not a big deal in Democrats and liberals' lives.
They're not worried about that.
They are their own religion.
Liberalism is their own religion and its own religion.
He said this.
An example of what I mean is in 2000, the election, the hanging Chad thing, there was no hanging Chad when the Democrats controlled Broward County, and the Republicans forgot to put some numbers on the ballots, and it would just let the ballots go through and be counted.
It wouldn't affect votes.
What are we doing here?
And the Democrats were Democratic enough to say that, well, you can go ahead.
But then the Communists at the head of the Democrat Party, which have co-opted the Democrat Party, Bill Daly and Al Gore came down there and said, you can't do that.
You can't let them put the numbers on there.
So they weren't Democratic at all, but they use that name and try to fool people into believing this a Democratic.
My turn to lose my place here.
Somebody's got to.
You sound just like Truman Capote, and I mean that as a compliment.
Well, I've got to get out of here, folks.
Got to head on down the tracks and move on to the next phase of the day, which actually is getting ready for the next day, which is tomorrow, which will be Open Line Friday, which we can't wait for, especially Snerdly.
▲
Export Selection