All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
August 14, 2008, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I had this story in the stack yesterday and I forgot to get to it.
And the headline says it all.
And it's in the UK Times.
The pill, meaning the birth control pill, may put off the way women smell men and thus cause them to choose the wrong ones and have lousy relationships.
Do you see this?
Greetings, welcome.
This explains, if true, so much.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, and the Limbaugh Institute, 800-282-2882, if you'd like to be on the program.
To millions of women has been a great liberator over the past 40 years, allowing them the freedom to control their fertility and their relationships.
But the pill could also be responsible for skewing their hormones and attracting them to the wrong partner.
A study by British scientists suggests that taking the pill can change a woman's taste in men to those who are genetically less compatible.
And then it goes on to provide details of the research and so forth.
I don't know if it's true.
It would explain a lot of things.
I want to go back, ladies and gentlemen, to one audio soundbite from a member of the Gang of 10, Lindsey Gramnesty, that we played in the last area.
There's something he said that I failed to comment on that I need to comment on now.
He was talking on the Fox News channel last night about the Gang of Ten deal.
If your goal is to come back in and embarrass Democrats and not solve the energy crisis, you're missing the point.
America will not be able to do that.
Stop it.
Stop it.
Stop.
Stop.
Senator Graham's taking a swipe at those of us who oppose his Gang of Ten deal with that comment.
And when he says, if your goal is to come back in here and embarrass Democrats and not solve the energy prices, damn, you're missing the point.
Senator Graham is taking a swipe at all of us here, thinking all we want to do is embarrass Democrats.
We don't care about getting prices.
Now, Senator Graham, you couldn't be further from the truth.
This is a sniveling little trick here from Senator Graham.
Cast anybody who disagrees with him as not wanting to solve the problem.
The fact is, we do want to solve the problem of energy prices.
The people he just soul-kissed legislatively are the ones who, as I have said many times, the American people, well, these are the people that want the American people suffering.
It's Democrats that want us suffering.
They want you mad.
They want you upset.
They want you blaming Republicans.
They want your prices to stay high.
That way they can blame the Republicans, give more and more power to the government, cause people to do this.
And never forget this, folks.
Legislation cannot create one new technology.
The market does that.
If there isn't a new technology to either lower the gas price, create more energy, or come up with an alternative, it's because the market hasn't come up with it.
Not because Congress hasn't acted.
All Congress can do is get in the way of the market functioning in as free a fashion as possible.
For this snibbling little senator to sit there and say that people who are disagreeing with this Gang of 10 deal only want a political victory over Democrats, but not solve the price crisis is absurd.
But that's this, see, this is the same attitude he had during the amnesty immigration bill.
We got to work with Democrats to get something done.
That's what the American people not.
It's not about embarrassing Democrats here.
Somebody ought to be thinking about embarrassing Democrats because they're destroying the country as we know it, Senator Graham.
Sam, now let's move on to politics, folks.
I teased this at the conclusion of the previous hour.
The Atlantic Monthly blog by Mark Ambinder is reporting that Hillary Clinton's name will likely be placed in nomination at the convention.
This is already the Clinton convention.
They got two nights of it.
Hillary's got Tuesday night.
Bill's got Wednesday night.
Edwards is nowhere to be found.
Oh, and is there some juicy stuff on that coming up today?
Oh, this story's not going away.
Now, what we're getting, a series, at least two drive-by journalists are now writing how embarrassed they are to have told misjudged John Edwards.
Oh, I'm not kidding you, but let's stick with Clinton here first.
The Matthiah, the most merciful, Lord Barack Obama, has consented to the Clintons having her name placed in nomination.
Now, let's move forward, shall we?
Let's go to Wednesday night at the convention after Bill Clinton has spoken and they start the roll call.
And we have all the drive-by commentators watching this.
And as you know, ladies and gentlemen, this delegate count, throw out the supers, the delegate count is damn close.
And I can just see if they put her name and nomination and her delegates stick with her, you know what's going to become quite apparent?
And not even the drive-by commentator is going to be able to ignore it.
I can just see it now.
The drive-by comment.
Whoa, looky here, Brian.
Why, this is looking to be a lot closer than we thought it was going to be here during our roll call.
This could be causing some heartburn in various parts of the convention hall tonight, Tom.
Why, look at how close this is turning.
I mean, at halfway through the roll call, Mrs. Clinton's actually leading based on the alphabetical order of the states in which you're being called here.
This, I'm sure, is not how the convention planners intended this to come out here.
And then we're going to get word of some going on back here in the smoke-filled room.
Well, no smoke at the Democrat convention.
We'll be back there in the all-green food rooms where the supers, you'll be, oh, this is looking bad.
I mean, this is closer than we thought we were going to go.
And then we're going to realize that as of Wednesday, nobody's seen or heard from Obama.
It's all been the Clintons up until that time.
Well, Michelle Obama will show up at Pelosi on Monday.
That's going to be a real draw.
They're going to open the convention, I understand.
Pelosi and Michelle Obama.
So this is going to be just hilarious if they do this, if this happens, because everybody's going to be reminded how he couldn't close this out, how it was the super delegates that had to wipe her out.
And until they actually vote, I mean, folks said this all during the primaries.
They can change their intentions right up until they vote at the convention.
Now, you put this together with the fact that there's all kinds of media analysis and consternation over the fact that Obama does not have a significant lead in the polls and people wondering what the hell's happened and why not.
Oh, and by the way, Peter Beinhart, writing, I think, New Republic, I've got it here, I'll double check, has come up with a reason why Obama does not have a big lead.
I called this one, folks.
I told you the answer is race.
America is just racist and will not vote for black man.
So Beinard has an idea.
Beinard wants Obama to offer a significant change in affirmative action.
Beinard's idea for Obama is for him to change affirmative action so it's no longer based on race, but rather on class and income.
To take race out of the equation because he thinks, doesn't say this specifically, there's still a bunch of angry Jesse Helms types that won't vote for Obama because they hate affirmative action.
So, ladies and gentlemen, this is shaping up here to be quite an interesting Democrat convention if this all happens.
And by the way, I was thinking about this too.
Vladimir Putin has just invaded Georgia.
Nicholas Sarkozy flew over to Moscow straight away, but Putin didn't need him.
Putin flew out of China and went right to the front in Georgia and was leading the troops from there, you know, pointing his way and flashing orders and this sort of thing.
Sarkozy met with the puppet Medvedev, who is the president.
And guess what?
They signed a peace in our time agreement.
They signed a ceasefire.
And Sarkozy waving the thing around, going back to Paris, and everybody's praising Sarkozy.
It's great.
Sarkozy is the modern-day Neville Chamberlain.
Look what I got.
I just went and talked to Medvedev and they promised a ceasefire.
And now they're blowing up runways at airports.
They're trying to capture that pipeline, all the while a ceasefire.
And guess what?
Nobody's in the streets of Moscow protesting Putin.
There aren't any Hollywood actors making documentaries about what an evil SOB Putin is.
There's not a protest park across the street from the Kremlin where a bunch of people can hang him in effigy.
And there are no Muscovites running around with signs, storming television stations, shouting no blood for oil.
Now, I'm not suggesting, ladies and gentlemen, that we button up our society the way the Russians always have.
I'm just pointing out to you that whatever Putin wants to do, he's going to do it, and nobody's going to stop him.
And if there are any of these kinds of protests, we will be hearing stories about the new Gulag archipelago.
At any rate, brief time out.
Lots to go.
Your phone calls are coming up too here on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
Before we get back to the phones, if people want to talk about the situation with Russia and Georgia, I want to spend a little time here, just a brief moment on the Brett girl.
This is a story, ladies and gentlemen, not going away.
If people ask me, Russia, I mean, it's over.
I mean, what's the big deal?
Why stick with Edward?
This is a multi-layered story.
And to illustrate this, I am holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a printed copy of an article by the illustrious Walter Shapiro, writing at Slate.
I'm sorry, salon.com.
Walter Shapiro used to be as a drive-buyer, and he used to write for USA Today.
After covering John Edwards and liking him for years, what I thought I knew about him was wrong.
But reporters often misjudge candidates.
This whole piece, we got a link to it, it is hysterical.
He's not trying to be funny.
He doesn't realize how hysterical this is.
Five days after Edwards flatlined on Nightline, writes Mr. Shapiro, I am still embarrassed by how badly I misjudged him both in print and in my personal feelings.
At least Mr. Shapiro has the honesty to admit that he was embarrassed and that he misjudged the Brett girl, both in print and in his personal feelings.
Without overstating these bonds, I naively believe that I knew Edwards as well as I understood anyone in the political center ring.
Yet I never saw this sex scandal coming, partly because I accepted the mythology that surrounded the Edwards' marriage, and partly because I assumed that any hint of a wandering eye would have come out during the 04 campaign.
But then Riley Hunter and the National Enquirer brought us all into the real world.
Do you realize what a tantamount admission to incompetence this is by Mr. Shapiro?
I don't want to dwell long on the specifics of this modern-day no-love story, but even though some facts remain in dispute, at every moment when judgment was called for, Edwards made the wrong choice.
My mistake about John Edwards was believing all of his public boasts about his nearly perfect marriage.
I allowed myself to judge him through the prism of his union with Elizabeth, when I would have reached a far different conclusion if I had gazed through his lens of his dallions with Riley Hunter.
If there is a moral here, other than the obvious truism and the danger of women who inspired Jay McInerney novels, it is about the need for humanity and humility when writing about a candidate's marriage, his religious beliefs, or other deeply personal matters.
There are things that reporters and readers simply cannot know for certain without empowering journalistic gumshoes to do bed checks, but you didn't do it.
My mistake was believing all of his public boasts.
21st century Americans are not, for the most part, sexual prudes, as should be apparent from primetime TV shows, polls, and a persuasive array of anecdotal evidence, but we have created a political culture in which marriages are on the ballot in November.
Michelle Obama's center stage role on opening night of the Democrat Convention is emblematic of this buy-one, get-one-free trend that began with Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
FDR was a great president.
Eleanor Roosevelt was a pioneering figure without either of them prattling endlessly about the idyllic state of their marriage.
At any rate, they couldn't talk about the idyllic state of their marriage because it wasn't idyllic.
It's very simple.
But see, here's the point, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Shapiro does not realize how hysterical this is.
I know how hard it must have been for him to write this.
He's basically saying, I was no good.
I was incompetent.
I bought the story I wanted to believe, and that's the key.
This story about Edwards and Riley Hunter is actually a larger story about the drive-by media.
Because political candidates have had affairs come and go.
This, ladies and gentlemen, the drive-by factor, and this is going to survive a lot longer to the news that Edwards had an affair.
Because as Mr. Shapiro here has owned up to, as Mr. Shapiro here has honestly admitted, the drive-bys fell in love with the Edwards story.
So did a lot of you.
So did a lot of people.
Fell in love with the Edwards story.
Didn't fall in love with Edwards.
Didn't fall in love with Elizabeth.
You fell in love with the story they concocted.
And it was a story they concocted.
And now, when they find out that it was all just a story that they bought, this is the template, the narrative, they believe what they want to believe.
Now they're so surprised to find him to be totally lacking, which brings us to their latest crush, the Messiah.
They're going to be brokenhearted over Obama, too, one way or the other.
So, they fell in love with the Edwards story.
What else do they not want to see about Obama?
They didn't want to see anything but what they wanted to see with Edwards.
It's ditto for Obama because they don't know anything about him.
So, they're believing the story that they themselves are helping craft in Obama's case because his candidacy is historic, and they want to be part of this historic campaign.
And they want to be able to say they made history.
And in the process, what do they not want to know about Obama?
And I'll guarantee you, they don't want to know because then they would have to report it.
That's why they try to softpeddle Jeremiah Wright, soft pedal all this, because they don't want to know it, because they don't want to write it.
They want to write a myth, they want to promulgate a legend and a myth about Obama.
And you would think, now, if there are a number of them like Walter Shapiro, gee, why did I really blow this?
You think they'll have the intelligence to ask themselves, they might be making the same mistake with Obama.
Not that he's having an affair.
I don't mean, but I guarantee you, this guy's not who they think and hope he is in terms of qualifications.
Mike in Jacksonville, Florida.
Thank you for waving.
We go back to you on the phones.
Hello, sir.
Mike, are you there?
Hey, Rush.
Greetings from Jacksonville.
Thank you very much, sir.
Hey, while we're talking about flawed human character, I thought I would give you a call about Mr. Putin.
And I just think that Americans, once again, have to be careful about believing these mainstream media reports that are being fed right out of the Kremlin.
And we have big organizations in the U.S. now, advertising firms that the Russians are spending millions of dollars feeding, who are putting out these wrong and false reports about Georgia.
I'm president of a small 501c3 here in the U.S., and our whole goal is to teach people, to tell people about these freedom and liberty-minded people of Georgia who want nothing more than once they've seen our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, to have the same things for themselves and to have their territorial boundaries recognized by Russia and their other neighbors.
But Putin is, in my opinion, one of the more, if not the most dangerous men in the world.
I think President Bush was smart years ago.
People thought he was naive.
He understood that you keep your friends close, but you keep your enemies closer.
And so he befriended or pretended at least to befriend Putin.
And I thought it was a smart tactic.
However.
You're right about one thing.
I've got a time constraint coming over.
You are right about one thing, and that is, and this is not new either.
Whatever's coming out of Putin's, and Putin's lying to the media face up, but they are reporting it slavishly, whatever he says.
Wait, I've got some soundbites that will illustrate this coming up.
By the way, I would like to correct Mr. Walter Shapiro on one thing.
He asserts in his apology column for totally misjudging Edwards that the buy one, get one free, the first lady as a presidential partner in an idyllic marriage started with Ronald and Nancy Reagan.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's not fool ourselves, shall we?
We know where this began.
This began with JFK and Jackie, and the drive-bys called it Camelot.
And you know what else the drive-bys knew back then?
They knew that John Edwards couldn't hold a candle to JFK when it came to philandering.
And yet, they knew it.
They knew it, and they looked past it.
They're right about it, because back then, those kinds of invasions of privacy about Democrats were not permitted.
So, how in the world, Mr. Shapiro?
I don't know if you were around.
You have to have been around during the days of Camelot.
I don't know if you were an adult reporting back then.
But how can you dump on poor old Edwards for misleading you?
Would it have changed your mind if you knew he was having the affair?
You see, it would, because they bought the story.
They bought the story that Edwards and Elizabeth were this dream couple, this dream family living in their 28,000 square foot little neighborhood house.
But they knew that JFK was running around with Marilyn Monroe and who the hell knows who else.
Judith Exner, they knew all of this.
And they still hold JFK in the highest regard.
I know there were naked swimming pool parties in the White House and outside the White House and at the Carlisle Hotel in New York.
I mean, there were things going on there that you don't, you wouldn't believe.
And back then, they were celebrating.
It doesn't affect anybody.
But how they can now dump on poor old Edwards while supporting and in full knowledge of JFK.
And then to say that all this began with Ronald and Nancy Reagan is just irresponsible.
Drive-by media, Russia and Georgia.
Perhaps the most idiotic, stupid question yet was asked by CNN Infobabe Suzanne Malvo last night on the situation room.
She was talking with the Georgian president, Mikhail Sakashvili.
Have you reached out to them?
Do you feel that there is any room for negotiation or at least to begin a dialogue?
Well, we did our best.
So far, we've done our best.
But so far, the only thing we've been getting from them is bombs, is killings, is attacks on civilians, is looting, and is very, very offensive, angry rhetoric, basically about killing our independence.
And this is absolutely not acceptable.
So, Suzanne Malvo, CNN, talking to the beleaguered Georgian president whose country is being overrun, have you reached out?
Have you tried to talk to them yet?
A dialogue.
Have you begun a dialogue?
He's too busy dodging bullets.
This is late yesterday.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a press conference, unidentified Russian reporter asks this question.
Madam Secretary, many people in Russia would say what you did after 9-11 was really disproportionate to the threat and the actual loss that you incurred.
So the Russians are trying to ensure the security of their forces and their citizens and their peacekeepers.
And they are moving and they are creating a buffer zone.
What's wrong with that?
Why can you do this in Iraq?
I am not going to sit here and judge each Russian military operation.
I am going to say that when you start bombing ports and threatening the bomb airfields and bombing a city like Gori and bringing troops in a flanking maneuver on the western flank of Georgia and tying up the main roads between Tbilisi and Gori, that's well beyond anything that is needed to protect Russian peacekeepers.
And that is why Russia is starting to face international condemnation for what it is doing.
This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government, and get away with it.
Things have changed.
Really?
Have they?
I don't see much evidence that things have changed.
But did you notice a Russian journalist, a Russian journalist actually acting like he's a patriot for his country, asking the Secretary of State, what do you mean?
We're just trying to protect ourselves over there.
Why, we're just trying to create a buffer zone for our peacekeepers.
That's so laughable.
Russian troops are peacekeepers?
Fine, let the raping of the women and children begin then.
That's what you and peacekeepers do in Africa.
But this Russian journalist says, how dare you criticize Russia after what you did in Iraq?
So the Russian journalist, picking up our drive-by journalist refrain.
But the important thing here is the answer.
It's not 1968 and an invasion of Czechoslovakia.
You can't, in the 21st century, go invade another country.
Things have changed.
Have they?
What is anybody doing to stop this?
We got a negotiated peace deal.
Russians are still bombing the airports.
And they, after they threatened to, they followed through on the threat to bomb the airports.
Now they're doing it.
Drive-bys are now openly making the point for the Russians that we have no reason to oppose this because of our outrageous invasion of Iraq.
Here is an exchange last night between Campbell Brown and Ed Henry of CNN.
John McCain said he doesn't want to reignite the Cold War, but then he added that in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.
Yeah, he said that, though he did not mention how the U.S. invasion of Iraq quite fits into this thinking.
What's the difference here between what Russia's doing and what the United States did after 9-11, moving into a sovereign country like Iraq?
Questions like that do illustrate some of the difficulty that the U.S. is now facing trying to execute foreign policy, right?
It does.
It shows the administration has a credibility problem on the world stage right now.
No, it doesn't show that at all.
It shows that you people have lost your souls in the drive-by media to try to establish a moral equivalence between us ousting a murderous, thug dictator who was paying terrorists and families of terrorists to blow themselves up in Israel and was fomenting terrorist activity as best he could all over the world.
To say that us going in and stopping that after 9-11 is akin to a democratic country being invaded by Russia.
This is just this is these people have lost.
There's anything they can do to rip this country is what excites them, what makes them want to go on the air, what makes them want to talk to each other, anything they can do to rip this country and rip President Bush.
John McCain said he didn't want to reignite the Cold War.
He was in Birmingham, Michigan yesterday, and he had a little press conference and a drive-by reporter said, you said that heightened security for the Baltic states and Poland might be in order.
Could you talk a little bit more about what shape that might take?
It's important that everyone recognize throughout the world that in the NATO alliance, an attack on one is viewed as an attack on all.
But I don't think we're going to reignite the Cold War here with Russia.
I think this is a very serious situation, but I don't see this as a return to nuclear standoffs, et cetera, et cetera.
In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.
Well, but they do.
They do.
It just happened.
What is this denial everybody's in?
This isn't Czechoslovakia in 1968.
You know, rolling it.
Well, they did.
Things have changed.
What's changed?
By the way, a quick question.
That Russian reporter who asked Condi Rice about the moral equivalence here, Iraq and it being compared to what they're doing in Georgia, was that Russian reporter wearing a Russian flag pen?
Cookie, if you have video of that, see if you can see that reporter from the front and see if he is wearing a Russian flag lapel pin while he asks that question of Condoleezza Rice.
Another reporter said to McCain, an advisor to Senator Obama last night said that your comments about the situation in South Ossetia and Georgia, at least initially, were aggressive, belligerent, and may have complicated matters.
I would like to get your response to that.
Also, the notion that your tough possession on Russia, position on Russia, may tend to make them less cooperative in the future instead of more cooperative.
The drive-by is now echoing Obama.
McCain caused this.
McCain exacerbated this.
And McCain's going to make it even worse because McCain doesn't make it look like he wants to cooperate with the Russians.
Here's McCain's answer.
This isn't a time for partisanship and sniping between campaigns.
This is about hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people whose lives are even being taken or they're rendered homeless, wounded.
This is no time for that to start with.
Second of all, if I may be so bold, there was another president at one time.
There was a president named Ronald Reagan who spoke very strongly about America's advocacy for democracy and freedom.
He was criticized at that time.
Yeah, well, the thing about Reagan was there was action following it up: deployment of missiles, the real threat to up our defenses in a way that the Russians at that time could not keep up with.
But Senator McCain, it may not be time for partisanship and sniping between the campaigns.
It's time to get real and understand that that's all the Democrats have.
Every issue is going to be partisan.
And the fact that you're having to sit there and answer the second stupidest question of the day, that you created the controversy, that you're exacerbating tensions by talking tough.
This is a sorry, sorry day for our media.
It's just, and it gets worse with each passing day.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Before we go back to the phones, ladies and gentlemen, permit me a brief moment for a personal message to Campbell Brown, Suzanne Malveaux, and Ed Henry of CNN.
Of course, Suzanne Malveaux asks the president of Georgia, have you reached out to the Russians?
Have you tried dialogue?
And then Ed Henry and Campbell Brown made the ludicrous assertion that we can't do anything because we did something arguably worse by going into Iraq than what Russia is doing in Georgia.
So specifically to you, Campbell Brown and Ed Henry, you are journalists.
You are people who chronicle the passing of events.
And you witnessed these events and you covered them.
As such, your memory ought to be reliable.
Iraq was not a sovereign nation.
Iraq lost its sovereignty because Iraq invaded a sovereign country called Kuwait.
In the ensuing war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, Iraq lost.
They then begged us to stop slaughtering their supposedly invincible million-man army as it was retreating to Baghdad, which we did.
As terms of the ceasefire, Campbell Brown and Ed Henry, we reserved the right to resume kicking their asses at any point if they did not live up to the terms of the surrender agreement.
Shockingly, Saddam Hussein did not live up to those terms and continued in wanton violation of 15 Security Council resolutions.
You covered all of this, Campbell Brown and Ed Henry.
You covered it all.
For you to compare Saddam Hussein to the president of Georgia, a Democratic and elected president amongst a free people, if you want to start making comparisons, Putin is closer to Saddam Hussein than Saakashvili.
These are our best and brightest trained journalists, ladies and gentlemen.
Covering the stories and forgetting that they were even there.
I doubt that they forgot.
They're just pushing the agenda anyway.
They willingly sacrifice their credibility all in the pursuit of an agenda.
Sam in Kalamazoo, Michigan, welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Good morning.
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
I heard your discussion at the top of the show regarding the Modern Marvel show.
And my impression was your analysis of that show is exactly dead wrong.
Did you see the show?
No, but I've seen it.
I think I may have seen it before, but I've seen a lot of Modern Marvel shows.
But the essence of the show is that oil is a precious resource, that it's critical for many products in our lives.
And I mean, we all love oil.
It does all kinds of wonderful things.
No, we don't all love oil.
That's the point.
Well, I think we do.
It's just that people like me recognize that if we want to keep oil, keep its benefits, what we need to do is aggressively search for alternate forms of energy that will let us make the oil we have last much longer for ourselves and for future generations.
Which we are doing.
This is the great myth that we are sitting around doing nothing in the field of alternatives or renewables.
It's just the market hasn't found anything that is anywhere close to replacing or even supplementing oil.
Oh, that's absolutely not true, Rush.
I mean, wind energy right now is producing tremendous amounts of electricity.
1%, 1% of the nation's energy is produced by wind.
We're talking right now.
We've been working on wind energy for how many decades.
I'm not criticizing.
I am not criticizing it.
I'm not criticizing it.
I'm saying we need a dose of reality.
We're never going to be able to drive cars with wind.
We're never going to be able to fly airplanes with wind.
We're not going to be able to launch missiles with wind.
We're not going to be able to steer ships.
We're not going to be able to power ships.
We're not going to have a military with wind or with alternatives.
Look at, I'm going to cease this right now, ladies, because I fear that my IQ is subject to being damaged.
If I spend any more time talking with people who fail to understand, who want to portray oil as an enemy, I really worry I'm going to lose part of my IQ.
And if that happens, you never know if you're going to get it back.
Speaking of getting it back, you think you're protected from identity theft?
I think, you know, something's going on.
We've read that if the women taking the birth control pill is skewing their hormones to the point they're choosing the wrong men, maybe journalists are taking the pill and identifying and falling in love with the wrong candidates.
And people are losing their identities left and right out there.
Journalists all over the place.
You think yours is protected?
Bank accounts, credit cards, think all that's covered?
What happens if thieves steal your wallet?
Open new accounts, add new lines of credit.
What if somebody commits a crime in your name, receives medical care using your identity?
Who's going to protect you then?
There's a place that can.
It's called LifeLock, the leader in identity theft, because they're there for you no matter what.
Just call 1-800-440-4833.
Go to lifelock.com and use the promo code Rush when you do their special goodies await you.
1-800-440-4833 promo code RUSH or at lifelock.com.
It really is simple, and identity theft happens.
If it ever happens to you, you're going to regret that you were not protected.
LifeLock can do it.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
The American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that they believe will translate into more public action to protect the planet.
The APA wants to brainwash people into thinking green.
▲
Export Selection