Rush Limbaugh Program - June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:55

June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
	Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
	It's Rush Limboy and the EIB Network.
	Broadcast excellence.
	The most listened to radio talk show in America.
	Great to have you here.
	Hope you had a fine weekend.
	Our telephone number 800 282-2882, the email address.
	Lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
	Mr. Snertley just asked me if I've ever seen this much news at the beginning of summer.
	I don't know.
	It's hard to remember.
	Bernie Madoff, 150 years.
	150 years to Bernie Madoff means he'll be out by next spring, probably.
	Well, Bernie Madoff gets 150 years.
	Waxman and Markey weren't even cited in their scheme or rip off this climate bill is even.
	Do you realize there was not even a bill?
	There was not even a copy of the bill in the well of the House, which is standard.
	It wasn't even written.
	It was that these people voted on this bill, not they have not read it.
	It wasn't written.
	They couldn't have read it if anybody wanted to.
	Now I'm going to tell you folks what this was all about, and I must apologize for missing this.
	This was a huge miss on my part.
	I don't often miss much, but when I do, I fess up to it.
	Well, everybody's wondering why these four republic these eight Republicans voted for it.
	And the light went off for me on Friday.
	I was watching the Fox News All Stars, and uh Nina Easton, Fortune Magazine made a point about this, and it just turned on the lights.
	Three or four of these Republicans are from New Jersey.
	From the three of them are from the Northeast.
	And everybody's wondering why in the hell did these eight Republicans vote for this thing, the cap and trade bill, when all they were doing was giving Democrats cover.
	They allowed certain Democrats to vote no for the sake of their own reelection.
	Pelosi would have gotten those Democrats to vote yes had the eight Republicans not voted for it.
	So what what is this bill called?
	Cap and trade.
	Where do trades take place?
	We're going to start trading what?
	We're going to start trading carbon emissions.
	We're going to start trading pollution credits.
	Well, where do trades get managed?
	Where do they take place?
	Who do you think is going to do the trading on this?
	Would anybody be surprised if it ends up that Goldman Sachs or Wall Street in general ends up be this is what I missed.
	This is what I miss.
	And you've got these Northeastern Republicans who are tied, you know, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, it's all the same, tied to Wall Street.
	It made all the sense of the world once I understood it.
	Once I heard Nina Easton's uh opinion on the cap and trade is all about and the irony here, wait till Obama's voters find out about this.
	Wait till they find out that the primary reason for this bill, and it's a horrible bill, as John Boehner calls it, it's a pile of excrement.
	And it it really is.
	It's horrible.
	And even some guy in the Financial Times over the weekend is a big Obama supporter, a columnist.
	You know, what's crazy about this is that Congress is passing horrible bills, horrible legislation, and Obama doesn't seem to care.
	Now Obama doesn't seem to Obama's getting everything he wants here.
	The idea that Obama's some sort of innocent bystander here who's just at the helm leading things, and he's got all these stevedores and captain steering the ship, and he as long as it ends up getting where he's gone, it wants to go, it doesn't care how he gets there.
	That's BS.
	This is Obama getting exactly what he wants.
	So the cap and trade bill is a big big SOP to Wall Street.
	Now, I find myself in an odd position because I'm a huge capitalist.
	And I always have been, as you well know.
	I'm a huge supporter and believer in the free market, but something seems rigged here.
	The whole piece of legislation is rotten.
	It is horrible.
	It is a disaster.
	In fact, there's a story in Bloomberg today.
	It is going to increase our oil imports, where the objective is to decrease them.
	You know how it's going to increase Our oil exports.
	People who produce domestically and oil refined are going to have to shut down and transfer the jobs overseas to avoids all avoid all the taxes, meaning we're going to have to import even more oil.
	The usual unintended consequences of these brainiac wizards of smart in the U.S. House.
	This is uh now it's supposedly gonna go nowhere in the Senate, but I wouldn't I wouldn't bet on this, folks.
	This is conventional wisdom, and who are we hearing the conventional wisdom from?
	From the media.
	And the media is an absolute total disgrace.
	We haven't talked about this Michael Jackson episode, but there's one thing I want to say about it.
	The media in this Michael Jackson episode is a horrible disgrace.
	It is so bad that the only guy making sense on any of this is Al Sharpton.
	That's how bad the media coverage is.
	All of these lies about the autopsy report, all of this misinformation about the doctor shooting him up with demerol, a guy's lawyer said he didn't do it, and so forth.
	I mean, for once, I understand, I don't believe I'm saying this, but for once I understand the Justice Brothers getting in gear here to try to prevent some of the smirching of Michael Jackson's character that's gone on here.
	We don't know anything yet, and yet all of these reports are conclusive, and the evidence they say is that we don't know Diddley Squat yet.
	So let it let it let it be on record.
	El Rushbo supports the Justice Brothers.
	Just uh just mind boggling.
	Get this.
	Yeah, we'll get to Sotomayor in a minute.
	The court found that she was indeed a racist, but there's there are things about this that they did.
	I mean, it it it you you uh let me tell you something.
	This is a 5-4 decision.
	The drive-by's in the state-run media saying it's a it's a 5-4 decision along ideological lines.
	If you read Ruth Vader Ginsburg, you'll find out it's a nine zip decision because even those in the minority found that the that the Second Circuit botched this totally by not even having a trial.
	They just found for New Haven in summary judgment.
	I mean, that it it's uh it was a it's a disastrous case.
	However, Scalia's Scalia joined in the uh Alito majority opinion, but Scolito said this didn't really solve anything in terms of uh uh an intersection here between Title VII and the U.S. Constitution.
	I'll explain all this as the program unfolds, but I mean it's a good, it's it's good news for what it was, but it it does it did not determine whether or not this this whole notion of of reverse racism is unconstitutional or constitutional.
	In principle, it just decided on this one case because of the way the Second Circuit and Sonia Sotomayor engaged in racist behavior.
	My interpretation, but that's that's what this is.
	Um all these details are coming up.
	But the White House has appointed another czar, another czar, a longtime advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, was named to a new post Friday as a White House advisor on violence against women.
	Well, what the hell's the advice?
	Why do you need an advisor on violence against women?
	What kind of advice is this clown gonna be giving?
	Who is this clown anyway?
	Uh Lynn Rosenthal.
	In announcing the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal, Vice President Joe Biden said that uh creating the job allows the White House to revive a focus on domestic violence issues, which Biden said uh were not at the forefront during the Bush administration.
	The White House said that Rosenthal will advise Obama and Biden on domestic violence and sexual assault issues, push for new initiatives and combating violence and work with government agencies on related issues.
	This this what this actually is is uh snerdly this is you know, this is not it sounds comical.
	A White House advisor on violence against women.
	What advice?
	Why do you need an advisor on this?
	Is an advisor gonna say, well, in this case it was justified.
	There's some cases where it's justified.
	Domestic violence, violence because with some case why do you need an advisor on this?
	You need an advisor, you need a czar on this to just establish more executive power and run an agency that should be dealt with by local and state officials and convert it now to a national issue.
	Just never stops.
	Time magazine.
	I can't wait to give you details of this, but it's gonna come later in the program.
	I'm just giving you a little heads up of what's coming.
	First comes love, and then obesity.
	Bonnie Roachman, Time Magazine.
	I'll tell you the news today is filled with examples of what's going wrong with the media given the chickification of news.
	So the basic point of Time Magazine story is that women become obese after they get married.
	It's their husband's fault.
	It's the husband's fault that women get fat after marriage.
	There are numerous stories.
	Well, I'm going to explain this later in the program.
	This obviously not a priority.
	I'm just, I'm just setting the table here.
	Wetting your whistle for what's to come later.
	We got to get to the serious stuff here, but I'm not letting you know what's coming.
	Number of stories from state-run media written by women about Governor Mark Stanford in South Carolina.
	And uh Time magazine's had one of these.
	Who is it?
	Reuters or no, it's it's the Associated Press, I believe.
	Uh yeah, it's Jocelyn Novek at OP.
	AP.
	Obama press is what was in my mind.
	It's not an associated press.
	The uh the the latest from the chicks in the state-run media is hey, wait a minute, you know.
	This guy loved her.
	This is not like Clinton.
	It's not like the Breck Girl.
	Oh, speaking of which, there's apparently a sex video of the Breck girl and the uh on YouTube.
	I haven't looked at it, because I'm not a voyeur, and the last thing I want to do is watch the Breck Girl have sex, because I don't know how you comb your hair and have sex at the same time.
	But apparently uh there's a sex video out there, and uh, so you get you you you've got the you get the Bret girl, you got Clinton, uh, you got Elliot Spitzer, you know, and and they're all saying, yeah, I didn't love them.
	No way did I Well, the Bret girl might have loved his, is talking about marrying her if Elizabeth passed away, but all of a sudden now, as far as the chicks are concerned, Sanford, you know, it's a it's a good thing.
	Just you know what?
	Go ahead and get divorced and marry the woman.
	Go ahead and who was it?
	Bonnie Fuller.
	Bonnie Fuller wrote this.
	Go ahead.
	I mean, love is love.
	Wherever you find it, take advantage of it.
	You only live once.
	And by the way, when you do, remember this is being denied gay couples.
	And I mean that was that was the story.
	But this chick, this chick, Jocelyn Novak.
	If you're a governor who's in the doghouse for marital infidelity, is it better to have loved and lost or never to have loved at all?
	Granted, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford may be too busy to wonder.
	But to some, one of the most fascinating aspects of our no, it's fascinating to the chicks.
	In the drive-bys.
	One of the most fascinating aspects of our nation's latest ritual public apology from a straying politician is that Sanford, unlike many straying politicians before him, spit spit, seems to really be in love with the object of his straying.
	Stephanie Kuntz, a professor of family studies at Evergreen State College in Washington State.
	How'd they find her?
	Evergreen what?
	Evergreen, evergreen state college.
	She said, yup, he's got it bad.
	There's enough out there to make you realize he just has a hit over heels crush on the woman.
	Could the love factor ultimately play a role in helping get this governor the forgiveness he seeks?
	To family therapist Alana Katz.
	The fact that Sanford displays passion, be it true love or more infatuation, doesn't make his behavior more excusable or forgivable, but it might make it more explainable.
	All those things they say about love being blind while it's true, love changes us chemically, says Katz, who counsels couples and families at New York's Ackerman Institute.
	People get into complicated situations.
	Sad part, the whole thing the whole thing is about, you know what?
	It's a good thing.
	He loved the woman.
	He loved her.
	The chicken of the news.
	It's on display all.
	Here's another one.
	Does love factor make South Carolina governor more sympathetic?
	What about Rachel?
	Does it?
	You're a woman, so make it more sympathetic.
	He loved her.
	He loved her.
	But if he marries her, she's going to become a tub.
	She may look great now, but according to Time Magazine, she's going to become a tub.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back.
	Stay with us.
	All right, folks, I'm just kidding.
	I was just kidding, it was an obvious joke.
	There's no sex video yet, anyway, of the Breck girl and the uh and the harlot.
	I was just talking about a YouTube video where the guy's combing his hair and uh song playing Aren't I Pretty or some such thing.
	Also, a minor slip up the opinion, majority opinion in Sotomayer's case, the Ricci case was written by Anthony Kennedy, but I have, I said it was a Leto, but I have a couple of things written here by Alito who wrote a concurrence with Kennedy's majority opinion.
	By the way, the uh uh majority opinion joined by uh uh Scalia and and Clarence Thomas as well.
	Now here's here's what here's what uh uh Justice Alito wrote, essentially on uh Judge Sotomayor's failure of impartiality.
	Petitioners, new firefighters, were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the city's exam.
	The district court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the city's asserted justification was pretextual.
	The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.
	This dissent grants the petitioners or grants that petitioner situation is unfortunate, and they understandably attract this court's sympathy.
	That's the opinion that was written at the second circuit when they granted summary judgment against the firefighters, the white firefighters, and for the city of New Haven.
	But see, this is this this gets to the whole point of Sotomayor.
	You know, Obama has said, well, we need people with empathy.
	No, we don't.
	That we got Judge Sotomayor and her other colleagues in this court.
	Don't forget that she was reprimanded by one of them, Jose Cabreras, for not even looking into the constitutional issues of this.
	You know, the libs today, the straight-run media is trying to say it wasn't Sotomayor.
	She never wrote anything.
	I was a it was a it was a whole panel of the second circuit.
	That's the whole point.
	Nobody wrote one.
	And and the uh Jose Cabrera said this case is a constitutional case, and you didn't even deal with that.
	It was uh it was horribly done.
	So the as Alito notes here, the dissent grants that petitioner situation is unfortunate and that they understandably attract this court's sympathy.
	This is the Ginsburg opinion and so forth.
	But you see, sympathy is not what people who go before courts want.
	They want access to the law.
	They want access to justice.
	They do not want sympathy.
	You know, and so what we what we have here is that Sotomayor and her gang, and then Justice Ginsberg said that the petitioner's situation, meaning the white firefighters is unfortunate, they understandably attract this court's sympathy.
	No, that's not why anybody goes before a court.
	What do you win when the court feels sorry for you, but they still rule against you in violation of the Constitution.
	They have a right to demand access to the law.
	And they didn't get it.
	They didn't get it at the second circuit, and they really didn't get it from the uh the dissent here at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Although I've I've talked to a legal beagle about this this morning.
	And uh as you know, Scalia, in his concurrence, well, you may not know Scalia in his concurrence, says that there's a day of reckoning coming, and that is the equal protection clause cannot coexist with federal laws that find discrimination based on disparate impact rather than unequal opportunity.
	And the court didn't have to decide that question to resolve this case.
	It's going to have to decide it at some point.
	So what happened here in this case is that the majority decided the case strictly on statutory grounds under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
	Majority held that under the statute an employer cannot refuse for race-based reasons to enforce the results of a test just because it might be sued.
	It can only refuse it if it can show that it would probably be held liable if sued.
	The court also said that under the legal principles of the Civil Rights Act, New Haven would not have been held liable, and therefore the firefighters win the case.
	So because this case could be re uh uh resolved strictly and narrowly under the statute, they court said it didn't need to consider what is the constitutional question.
	Do federal laws that call for disparate impact analysis violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
	And of course, there are wide and varying opinions on this and the I'm not trying to throw cold water on this.
	It was the it was the right decision, but Scalia's di is pointing out here that the day of reckoning on the big question is still ahead.
	We punted.
	Very interesting out there, Obama's approval index at the uh Rasmussen poll is now at zero.
	The uh approval index is the difference between the strongly approved and strongly disapprove in the poll, and that's zero normally uh is a plus ten plus nine after his Cairo speech plus ten after the Sotomayor nomination.
	But after this infomercial on ABC, after all these television appearances is down to zero, the stimulus is in trouble.
	They're talking about a second stimulus, new jobs aren't happening.
	Wait till you hear, however, what is happening.
	How about dental work for the homeless as part of the stimulus package?
	And believe me, the the stimulus package was not helped to pass uh passed to help dentists.
	Oh, yeah, there's it's uh so much so much news out there today.
	Now the Sotomayor case, I want you to hear the the uh state-run media describe the bad news.
	There's no question Sotomayor was overturned.
	Her court decided in favor of the city of New Haven and the black firefighters who didn't score as well on tests.
	Summary judgment without a trial.
	And they have been upbraided for this by not only the majority in the Supreme Court today, in Anthony Kennedy's opinion, but also by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent.
	And this is why uh uh brilliant legal analysts are saying this decision, when you get right down to it, is actually nine zip, not five to four.
	Uh when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote about the mistakes here and not even hearing the case, uh, not even not even taking the constitutional questions.
	And the reason for this is I go back to what I said at the beginning, and I stand by this.
	Sonia Sotomayor was following her basic instincts.
	She is racist.
	In her own words.
	Remember, she's out there and said a number of number of times that uh a Latina uh Latino woman would uh bring a much richer and diverse experience to the court than a white male would.
	That's that's racist.
	Pure and simple.
	And uh, she had she had uh sympathy, and so did the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court, sympathy for the white firefighters, but that sympathy wasn't enough.
	She ruled on the basis of just uh, you know, a racist belief that minorities should always be found in favor of simply because they're minorities, pure and simple, regardless of the merits of any particular case.
	That's who Obama's nominated.
	Now, the the state-run media here is is desperate to spin this any other way.
	Here's Jeffrey Tubin on CNN this morning.
	Question obviously it was a lot of question about this case.
	We first uh heard her name, saw the nomination come.
	Uh one of the first things that came up, hey, what's gonna happen with this New Haven thing?
	The five conservatives on the court have overruled the decision that Judge Sonomayor endorsed.
	That was her decision.
	So certainly there will be critics who say that she was overruled by the Supreme Court, but four justices were on her side, including, of course, David Souter, whose last day is today.
	It's not like her position was so far out of the mainstream on this case.
	She got four justices to agree with her.
	Well, i it in the end she didn't.
	And I I I don't want to be too technical here, because five four is five four, ideological grounds or ideological grounds, and at the end of the day, the Supreme Court overturned Sonia Sotomayor and her colleagues in the second circuit.
	But if you get into the dissent by Justice Ginsburg, you will find, and you have you have to have a lawyer explain this to you because she writes this in legal ease.
	Well, I, of course, have a cadre of legal advisors who assure me that the way to translate what Ginsburg said was that uh it was a mistake just to grant summary judgment here.
	And by the way, also the the black firefighters cannot sue the city of New Haven now.
	They cannot sue them uh as a countermeasure to what happened here today.
	So you might say 5-4, but this this was really a slam dunk, and it's not good news for Sonia Sotomayor, not that it's gonna matter, uh, Hill of Beans.
	Uh also on uh PMS NBC this morning during the breaking news, Pete Williams reported this.
	The Supreme Court did reverse a decision which Sonia Sotomayor joined from the Court of Appeals in New York.
	She voted to vote with the city, but I think so people will say, well, this is a reversal of what she did.
	Yeah, it is a reversal of what she did.
	And what she did was outrageous.
	She ignored the constitutional questions involved.
	She and she ignored the factual evidence of the case, and she voted to decide this in summary judgment without giving the firefighters a trial or even a hearing.
	And everybody on the Supreme Court found that a little odd today.
	Bottom line.
	Also on MSNBC Live, tell you how bad this network's getting, what bad shape they're in.
	They had a special guest today, Dan Rather.
	Uh I I guess when your credibility's in the toilet like MSNBC's is, having somebody like Rather on can give you a lift, you gotta be pretty low.
	So the question of Dan Rather, Soda Myor, well, obviously, being careful through this process, my sense is given her record in the past, we'll hear more from her than we do for most Supreme Court justices, Scalia being the exception.
	He sometimes speaks publicly.
	Justice Scalia has been very outspoken.
	He's been very aggressive, and those who like him and liked his appointment to the court say right on.
	As time goes along, I wouldn't be surprised to see her become an active, aggressive, articulate uh and vocal uh opposition to Judge Scalia.
	That'll be something to watch as the years go by.
	Now that's just hilarious.
	I mean, if you're Dan Rather, you might want to sit there and you know try to curry favor with women by talking about this uh Sotomayor as some sort of intellectual giant.
	But let me let me just tell you folks uh in a contest of intellects between Sotomayor and Scalia, they would cancel the game before it began.
	Or they'd have to spotter fifty or seventy-five IQ points.
	I mean, if they played the game the way we do high school or or pop warner football, you know, youth league football where the good teams get penalized for uh for being good.
	To the Fawns Barbara in Indian Head, Maryland, your first today on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Great to have you here with us.
	Thank you.
	How are you doing, Rush?
	Very well, thank you.
	Um, in regards to the Governor Sanford case and uh some of those Dumbo Lib women writing that it's okay.
	You know, his cheating is okay because he apparently loves the other woman.
	I say it's not okay.
	He took an oath to his wife, an oath of fidelity.
	How old fashioned are you?
	How old-fashioned are you?
	Oh, I'm very old-fashioned, and there are a lot of us out here.
	Uh he needs to be a father to those little boys and a husband to his wife.
	You know what's not chase skirts.
	Do you know what some of these female reporters are saying?
	What?
	Well, see, that that's what they say.
	He wasn't chasing skirt, he was chasing heart.
	He loved her.
	Well, wait a minute, let me just tell you what they're saying.
	This thing it it it it he loved her, is not like Spitzer or Clinton or John Edwards, the Breck girl when he loved her, and gosh, that's gotta count for something they're saying.
	No, it doesn't.
	It you know, if it if that were accepted in anywhere in the world, that would make it okay for for anyone to tell you something.
	You know, all right, I'll tell you something else they're saying.
	I'll tell you something else they're saying.
	They're saying, hey, she kicked him out of the house.
	What's he Supposed to do.
	When he gets kicked out of the house, I guess the signal in the coast is clear.
	That's what some of these female reporters are saying.
	Oh, that's baloney.
	No, he's still married to her.
	Yeah, says he wants to reconcile.
	I don't know.
	Well, I guess I guess you don't have a future in the media.
	Because you're you're being awfully cold and hard about this compared to some of the uh babes, the chicks in high positions in the media.
	Diane and Santa Barbara, great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Hi, Brass.
	Hey.
	Um, hey, in regards to the um women gaining weight after marriage.
	Can you hang on here just a second, Diane?
	I have to make an observation.
	Sure.
	All right.
	I knew this was going to happen.
	We've got soda mayor.
	We've got a horrible cap and trade bill that is an absolute disaster, a bill that was not even fully written that was voted on.
	We've we've got Honduras, which is coming up.
	We we've we've got health care, we've got all this stuff.
	And I knew all I had to do was mention a check education of the news and the fact that these women reporters think, hey, it's not that bad.
	He actually loves her.
	And I knew what would dominate our first series of calls today, and you are call number two who wants to talk about love, Sanford, and a babe down in Argentina.
	So I'll get out of your way now.
	Go ahead and make your point.
	Okay.
	Well, no, it just surprised me, even though I see it everywhere, you know, um, women gaining weight after they get married.
	But, you know, it's just surprising me.
	I mean, all the more reason once you I'm not married and I'm slender, and um I just don't it's amazing to me because I would just want to be, you know, more of more of a sweet finding.
	Well, you mean you once I'm married.
	Hold on a second.
	You you would avoid getting you would avoid getting married because you want to stay slender?
	No, no, I'm saying I want no, no, just the opposite.
	I I would have all the more motivation to be slender because, you know, once I'm married, then you know I want to have a nice body for my husband.
	I mean, I don't I don't get to women gaining so much weight.
	I'm sure it happens all the time.
	Look at look at you're missing the point.
	I guess I didn't go into enough detail.
	That's how all women go into marriage, but the damn husbands cause this.
	Oh, yeah.
	The damn the whole point of the Time magazine story is that damn husbands make them obese.
	There's a counter theory.
	You know, I I I have I have a friend.
	And you all now I I have a friend.
	Got married, the guy ballooned up.
	Wife didn't care.
	Wife didn't care because she knew that the more he ballooned up, the less attractive he'd be to other women.
	She didn't care.
	And by the same token, I've heard what?
	What?
	Uh not a whole lot.
	Not a whole lot of no, no, no.
	Uh no, believe me, I'm right on I know these people.
	Don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
	For crying out, the 20th year I'm the host, and my staff still telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.
	This is I am reminded of a key element in this whole Sonya Sotomayor fiasco, and that is that she said, you remember this?
	She said that her college and SAT and LSAT scores were nowhere near as good as her classmates.
	At Princeton and in law school, she said, because the tests were culturally biased.
	And she said that everybody knows that.
	Well, I guess they must be biased against people who grow up in the Bronx with a hardworking educated nurse mother.
	I mean, we got this sob story about how hard her mother worked to put her through school and uh gave up everything, all these conservative values she cited that got her where she went, and then she says, hey, you know, my own test I didn't do well because they were culturally biased.
	And so I'm sure she she's racist at heart.
	I mean, there's no other way to put this.
	It is what it is.
	And political correctness, be damned, I'm not going to shy away from it.
	Dear Rush, don't be stupid.
	I didn't hear the beginning of what you're saying about Sanford.
	So here's somebody telling me not to be stupid who admits they didn't hear what I said.
	All I said was this is an email from a subscriber at uh their website.
	All I said was that the chicks in the news are saying, hey, we may have to cut the guy some slack because he loved the girl, meaning Sanford.
	He loved the girl down in Argentina.
	In fact, Elliot Spitzer, this guy's a nut.
	This guy's out there trying to rehab himself.
	You'd think Elliott Spitcher would go away during this.
	Elliot Spitcher's going out there rehabbing himself.
	Hey, at least I didn't fall in love with any of them.
	That's his defense.
	Spit.
	He's gone public.
	At least I didn't follow as so Sanford made some kind of a big flub here by falling in love with the babe.
	Uh, this woman that wrote me his name, Jackie.
	Look, I I don't care if he was chasing skirt or chasing heart.
	If a man will lie to his wife and be unfaithful, I expect he'll lie to me too, and I don't trust him to be faithful to any oath he takes.
	Jackie, I don't disagree with you here.
	I'm just, I'm telling you what what has happened to the news media.
	Do you understand what's happened to the news of the chicken of the news?
	This guy's a Republican.
	Normally he would be roasted at the spit by now.
	He'd be politically finished.
	He got women in the news propping him up because he loved the babe.
	I find that incredible.
	And quite telling, and frankly, I I find it a little uh a little interesting at the same time.
	People want to know who the eight Republicans were who uh were who voted traitorously on cap and trade.
	Here you go.
	Mary Bono in California.
	Uh Mike Castle in Delaware.
	Now, all of these Northeastern names, again, I've got a theory about why it's cap and trade.
	Trade what?
	We trade stocks, we trade uh bonds, we where do these trades happen?
	Wall Street, where is it?
	It's in New York, it's in the Northeast.
	Uh these people at Wall Street make heavy contributions to a lot of people in the Northeast.
	This is I'm just guessing here, but it makes no sense.
	There was no bill to vote on.
	This is an outrage.
	This this is something everybody voted for this thing needs to be sent packing because it wasn't even written.
	There is a there is a requirement that the bill being voted on be in the well of the office.
	It was of the House.
	It was not there because it hadn't been written.
	Much less read.
	There's no reason for these Republicans to give cover to Democrats unless there was some overriding concern.
	And that is campaign contributions for reelection efforts from Wall Street people who are going to be, if this thing ever does happen, it will be a disaster.
	It's got folks.
	It'll be a disaster.
	If it ever happens, Wall Street, and the irony here is that Obama's tried to make you think he hates him.
	And he's throwing them one thing after another.
	He's throwing them bones left and right here.
	All this talk about capping pay and the pays are we haven't really seen that yet, have we?
	We've just heard it talked about.
	Meanwhile, all this new business is you realize what a big business trading carbon credits is going to be when virtually every one of us has carbon, which part of our we're carbon-based life form.
	We exhale what is now going to be traded, carbon dioxide.
	So here are the eight Republicans, Mary Bono in California, Mike Castle in Delaware, uh, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Leonard Lance, Frank Lobiando, and Christopher Smith in New Jersey.
	John McHugh in New York and David Reichert in Washington.
	Those are the eight Republicans.
	There were 30 some odd Democrats that voted no.
	And these eight Republicans made this happen.
	I think anybody who voted for this thing has showed you you want to talk about Sanford?
	Violating an oath and a trust.
	This is such a travesty.
	This whole bill, this nonexistent bill is so unamerican.
	Everybody voted for it from Pelosi on down, needs to be jacked out of there in the next election.
	That's how bad this is.
	And don't trust, don't sit there and get all comfy over the fact that, well, Russia's not going to go anywhere in the Senate.
	That's what we're being told.
	And we don't know that for sure.
	Dingy Harry wants to take it up in September.
	Now, Dingy Harry is one of these who said it doesn't have a chance in the House, but I don't, that's Dingy Harry saying it.
	And Dingy Harry might be saying it just to get some of the Republicans uh in the Senate to sort of uh sort of go easy.
	Here's uh Andream Mitchell, NBC News in Washington this morning on MSNBC answering a question.
	A question, how does the uh administration plan to fight this, especially since it seems like it might be a squeaker in the Senate as well?
	Well, more than a squeaker, they just don't have the votes.
	In fact, Harry Reid uh has said that he's not gonna even think about bringing it up to the Senate.
	This vote in the House, which is a huge tribute to Nancy Pelosi and to the president's leadership to, you know, the telescope and Rahm Emanuel and the others in clearly David Axelot and the others in the White House.
	That's what it's all about.
	It's that's a tribute to Pelosi.
	A tribute to a bunch of leftist, extreme leftist radicals, from Obama to Pelosi to Rahm Emanuel to whoever the hell else.
	And that makes it a wonderful thing.
	Whoa, look what they did.
	Harry Reed here again.
	So somebody wanted to go on record as being all for this in the House, but it's uh it's a it's a it's just an abomination.
	This is one of the most outrageous things an elective body in a representative republic, a free country, has ever come up with.
	We'll be back.
	Big oil says they may have to import more fuel with cap and trade.
	And here's a pretty good observation.
	Reed says he's not gonna take it up.
	Wait till they have a heat wave in Washington.
	Might be the perfect opportunity for them to take it up.

▲