All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:54
June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this show, now documented to be almost always right 99.1% of the time.
Nobody has anywhere near that high an accuracy rating, ladies and gentlemen.
Nobody.
I am your host, El Rushbow, behind the Golden EIB microphone, broadcast excellence, telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Who documents my accuracy?
I explain this all the time.
There's an opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, Rachel, called the Sullivan Group.
And they do monthly audits of my opinions, and they render the results.
Their fees are reasonable, too.
It's amazing.
And they shoot me the results.
So whenever there's a change, I let people know.
And these are opinion audits.
Sometimes I'm given facts that are wrong, incorrect items by members of the staff.
I always cover for it.
But they don't audit that.
They just audit opinions.
And that's why I say 99.1% of the time, almost always wrong.
I mean, that's nobody.
Nobody's anywhere near that.
Now, here's a story.
This is kind of comical.
It's from the Cybercast News Service.
Congressional Budget Office did not calculate the economic costs of the House Democrats' cap and trade legislation.
They only accounted for how the government plans to collect and redistribute revenues from selling carbon emissions permits.
Now, the question of scoring or calculating the economic costs is impossible.
There isn't a bill.
They have to see the legislation.
And the legislation was voted on Friday without anybody having seen it because it wasn't written.
All they had seen was a 300-page amendment, and that was plopped down and made available to people at 3.09 in the morning, late Thursday night.
So the CBO didn't score anything.
Big whoop.
Also, this is from ABC News, The Note.
With public confidence in the stimulus package showing signs of ebbing, the Obama administration continuing to sell its impact with nationwide events and press appearances.
Today brings this explanation from Christina Romer, chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisors.
Stimulus spending, Romer told the Financial Times, is going to ramp up strongly through the summer and fall.
We always knew that we were not going to get all that much fiscal impact during the first five to six months.
The big impact starts to hit from about now onwards.
How stupid do they think we are?
Most of the spending doesn't happen until 2010 when all these quads are running for re-election.
They just admitted at the White House that all you people thinking you're going to find a job in the stimulus bill have been wrong.
It wasn't supposed to happen in the first five or six months.
No, it's only ramping up now.
Well, okay.
If it's ramping up now, then how come Obama himself is forecasting an unemployment rate next year of 10%?
By the way, he's not disappointed by that.
Erwin Stelzer, a piece in the Financial Times.
I'm not going to read the whole piece.
It's from June 27th, a couple days ago, but I will post it and link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's a great piece.
Outlines.
And you'll never see this piece, by the way, in the state-run media.
But here's the pull quote from Erwin Stelzer.
It is no coincidence that America's superior productivity performance has coincided with the decline of trade unions, with the important exception of the motor industry.
And we have seen how union compensation scales and work rules contributed to the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, a fate the non-union car manufacturers have avoided.
Yet Congress and the president are preparing to spur union growth by eliminating the secret ballot in union recognition elections, and rumor has it by writing advantages for union members into tax laws, such as the health care bill, where union members will not be taxed on the value of their employer-provided health benefits.
Everybody else will, but the unions won't.
So what's happening, and this is Stelzer's point, the Obama administration and one union alone, SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, headed by a guy named Andy Stern, who admits that he has a weekly meeting with Obama.
A union thug has a weekly audience with the Pope.
They spent $60 million getting Obama elected.
And what Obama is doing is trying to make union membership more attractive as a payback.
Obama comes from the school of thought that the unions have built America and they've taken it on the chin and they've not gotten their fair share of the spoils.
Time to return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners, i.e. in part the unions.
Erwin Stelzer's piece here is about how if that happens, you can kiss productivity goodbye.
You can trace America's productivity from when the union membership rate was 35% and when it started plummeting to where it is now, 15% to 12%.
That's when American productivity started to skyrocket, when union membership plummeted.
And look, and he's right about this.
I mean, the point about all this is that every union contract, every new one, stipulates less work, more sick days, more breaks, and higher pay.
By definition, you get less productivity.
And the businesses that are hurt the most and have been harmed the most are those that are unionized.
The speaker of the California Assembly, according to Noel Shepard at newsbusters.org, the Speaker of the California Assembly, her name is Karen Bass.
She's a Democrat Los Angeles.
And she has said that conservative talk radio hosts are terrorists.
This was her response to the question, how do you think conservative talk radios affected the legislature's work in California?
She said, well, the Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue, meaning tax increases.
Now some are facing recalls.
They operate under a terrorist threat.
You vote for revenue and your career is over.
I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist.
I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.
So conservative talk radio, which opposes new tax increases, all this newspaper, they are terrorists, according to the Democrat Speaker of the California Assembly.
So she has essentially decided that voters going about their constitutional freedoms to support or oppose candidates depending upon their actions is terrorism.
And don't think this is a misguided statement.
Don't think that some nutcase, well, she's a nutcase, but don't think that explains the statement.
This meme has popped up out there, folks, repeatedly in recent weeks.
Remember the Homeland Security Alert that labeled veterans as possible right-wing extremists?
The left liberals are doing everything they can to make what's normal seem outrageous.
And then they will move to outlaw it.
That's the way totalitarians roll.
Everything normal is outrageous, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, immoral, and everything that's perverted, abnormal.
That's what's normal.
That's what's got to be rewarded.
That's what's happening.
There's a story in the UK Times.
Again, you'd never see this story in the U.S. media.
Michelle Obama raises fears over Hillary Clinton's style debacle.
Democrats are fretting as the First Lady seeks a wider role in the White House.
Over the past five months, Michelle Mybel Obama has basked in some of the most flattering reviews ever earned by an American First Lady.
Yet the first stirrings of discontent are beginning to surface as President Obama's wife emerges from her newly installed White House vegetable garden in search of a meteor political role.
Reports last week that she's seeking to expand her influence in the West Wing set alarm bells ringing among Democrat veterans.
I have a question.
I have a simple, because this is true.
We had the story last week.
You know, First Ladies get the East Wing.
They don't like it.
Hillary demanded a West Wing office and she got it.
Now Michelle wants one.
Reports last week that she is seeking to expand her influence in her husband's administration set alarm bells ringing among Democrat veterans.
Despite denials from White House officials that Michelle is suffering from Hillaryitis, a burning desire to help her husband run the country, her long-running interest in health care has raised painful memories of 94 when Hillary presided over this debacle.
Democrat insiders have long suspected Michelle Obama was ill-equipped for a background role as a dutiful spouse.
You know, when she was happiest during the election, asked one party strategist when Barack had to go back to Hawaii for his dying mother, grandmother it was, and Michelle took over his campaign.
That's when she was happiest.
That's a Democrat strategist talking.
Now, here's my question.
Not being married, I have this question.
You're President of the United States.
You're Barack Hussein Obama.
Your wife is Michelle Mybel Obama.
Michelle Mybel is unhappy in the dutiful wife role.
So now she's trying to exert herself in the West Wing.
Is Obama just standing by watching this?
Is he letting it happen?
Or is he ordering these people to the West Wing?
Because the first story I read about this made it look like her people are talking to Axelrod and saying, you, you return my calls.
In fact, I did read that last week.
That she's sending messages to the West Wing to Axelrod and Emmanuel, return my calls and return them first.
It's not Barack Obama telling his people that.
She's or her people are telling them that.
Now, if you're Axelrod or Rah Emmanuel and the boss's wife is calling, upset you're not returning phone calls, what do you do?
That's what I would think.
You go to the boss.
You say, Barack, what do we do here?
These stories are written as though Barack's out of the loop.
He's got nothing to do with this.
And then I've remembered, yep, they are married.
Makes sense.
It has happened again, ladies and gentlemen.
It's happened again.
In U.S. state-run media, a prominent state-run journalist fails to get my line about Mark Sanford.
He could have been our JFK.
It happened on CNN's State of the Union yesterday.
The host John King is talking with Mary Madeline and some other people, and they have this exchange about my take on Governor Sanford.
Rush Limbaugh lamented after all this played out of what might have been.
I wonder if Sanford thought that he was going to get away with this.
They all do, I guess.
He could have been our JFK.
Could have had it all.
Rush is so skinny, isn't he?
He looks grave.
Is that sarcasm?
Could have been our JFK, could have had it all?
Or was he somebody you looked at if we were having this conversation 10 days ago?
Is he someone you looked at as player going forward?
Our JFK has to do some things that JFK, the real one, did, which was he was a supply sider.
He cut taxes.
He increased defense spending.
He was for, they'd like to claim him, but they wouldn't claim any of his policies today.
No, our resurgence is going to be based on those very ideas that he represented.
Okay, given that, I'm going to change the soundbite order.
We'll go to 17, 18, and 19 next.
But first, Mary Madeline, very smart.
And those aspects of JFK we all like.
He did cut taxes.
He was a supply sider, but that's not what I meant.
You know, this little episode illustrates something very important.
JFK makes a piker out of Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, and Elliot Spitzer combined when it comes to adultery while in office.
JFK, I mean, he set the record.
There is nobody who could even come close to JFK in terms of running around cheating on his wife every trip he made.
So here's Sanford with one, you know, the babe that he loves down in Argentina.
He's a good-looking guy, rumored to be part of the presidential mix of 2012.
Oh, he could have been our JFK.
Nobody gets it because that's not what they think of when they think of JFK.
So successfully has all that been scrubbed from the frontal lobe consciousness of inside the beltway types that they don't get the joke.
And maybe it's just they're not smart enough.
I don't know.
To me, to me, it was hilarious.
It was quite funny.
It was poignant.
And it was good.
And to see these people not get it is sort of astounding.
Or maybe there's a purposely not getting it.
Now, she was talking about our resurgence is going to be based on the very ideas that Kennedy represented.
Let's go to three soundbites here.
Meet the press Sunday morning.
Three liberals are discussing the future of conservatism.
Two of them are called conservatives.
One is David Brooks, the other Mike Murphy.
Now, they're called conservatives on this show, but they've actually sort of tilted to the left here.
Let's say, David Gregory says, David Brooks, how does this Republican Party Future chart a new course?
If you look back historically from Nixon to Reagan to George W. Bush in each case, it was not only a kind of indictment of the past, but also a charting of a new course for the future, the Republican Party.
They have to learn to talk to people in densely populated parts of the country and to young people.
And so the answer to those problems are the same.
They have to learn to talk the language of community and common endeavor.
It's been too much individual profit tax cuts.
It has to be community, what we can do together, including in some cases, government.
So we have to adopt the language of the left.
Too much individual, too much talk about profit, too much talk about tax cuts.
We have to start talking about community and what we can all do together and governing that way.
Learn to talk the language of community and common endeavor.
The next liberal Republican was Mike Murphy, and Gregory asked him to address what Brooks said.
We have to modernize conservatism.
It may take a bit of a meltdown before we come back.
And I think it needs to have more social libertarianism and maybe not a complete unerring defense of perfect capitalism at all times.
Okay, so Mike Murphy, who I think has run a McCain campaign once, was it Murphy that ran a McCain campaign or I forget.
Mike Murphy says, look, we got to get rid of the social issues.
And this is a mantra, by the way, among liberal Republicans, the country club.
We got to get rid of the social issues.
They're killing us.
We've got to get rid of them.
We need more social libertarianism.
I mean, do what you want.
We're not going to comment on it.
We couldn't care less.
And we got to stop talking about perfect capitalism.
We're not going to have perfect.
So we got to adopt the language of the left.
Do what you want to do.
As long as you do it, just have fun at it.
And we've got to understand the role of big government and not so much capitalism in the success of the country.
E.J. Deion Jr. was next.
And he, of course, who has Republicans' best interests at heart, was asked, E.J., how do you size up the Republicans?
What you're talking about is a need for a wholly new conservatism.
And to go back to Sanford for a second, what really disturbs me most is what he did in his public life, the notion that you could turn down the stimulus money that was basically designed to help the poorest people in South Carolina.
No one paid as much attention to that as they should have.
And now we're doing all this stuff on his personal life.
Yeah, there's E.J. Deion.
Now, E.J., really, really looking for conservatives to triumph again.
He really wants conservatives to come back.
So he says that Sanford's affair was a distraction from his real crime, which was turning down the stimulus money.
And that's really going to enable Republicans.
The Republicans start talking big time on stimulus.
Oh, yeah, that'll launch him back into power.
White.
By the way, the stimulus money was not designed to help the poorest in South Carolina.
It was to expand the federal government.
And Sanford knew that this stimulus money would cost him money in the end because all these things that he was going to be mandated to do with the federal money would run out someday, like increased unemployment, compensation benefits, and so forth, that the state would eventually have to come up with.
Stanford was right refusing the stimulus money.
This is what I was talking about earlier, the fracture that has occurred within conservatism, which makes a comeback an even more arduous task.
It can be done, and it will be done.
Now, before we take a break here, we're going to get calls.
We come back.
But ladies and gentlemen, since we've been talking about marriage, the president and his wife, and so forth in this segment, I want to go back to this Time magazine story I let off the hour with.
First comes love, then comes obesity.
It's by Bonnie Rochman, chickification of the news here.
This story from Time magazine essentially says that women become fat and obese after they get married.
It's full-on wedding season, but anyone about to pledge to have and to hold should pay closer attention to the bit about in sickness and in health.
New research shows that within a few short years of getting hitched, married individuals are twice as likely to become fat slobs as are people who are merely dating.
The study published in the July issue of Obesity Magazine.
You ever heard of Obesity Magazine?
Can you imagine who subscribes to this?
The study set out to determine how romantic relationships affect the tell-no-lies number on the scale.
In a twist, sure to tick off all the ladies in the house, the study notes that unmarried women who have been living with their sweeties for five years or less run a 63% increased risk of obesity.
What about unmarried men?
On average, they have no increased risk during cohabitation.
The longer the woman lived with a romantic partner, the more likely she was to keep putting on weight.
Meanwhile, the risk of obesity among guys married and unmarried spikes only between the first and second years of living together.
So the details actually come from the well-known magazine, Journal of Opinion, Obesity Magazine, a survey they did.
And apparently, it's not just marriage.
I apparently incorrectly reported this.
It's simple cohabitation.
Once you become a social libertarian and say to hell with it and just live with somebody, that's when you pork up, whether you get married or not.
The men don't after the first two years, but the women, it never stops.
Damn men is always their fault.
I said I was going to get to the phones.
I got two things to do here.
You've got to hear this soundbite from Henry Waxman this afternoon with Angry I mentioned on MSNBC.
She said Republican leader John Boehner, in explaining why he was reading the bill on the floor, meaning the cap and trade fiasco, told the Hill newspaper, people deserve to know what's in this pile of expletives.
Does that indicate what kind of relationship has now developed between the Democrat majority and the Republican opposition right now?
Since Obama has become president, the Republicans have said no to an economic stimulus bill.
They're saying no to the global warming bill.
They're saying no to health care reform.
They're rooting against the country.
And I think in this case, they're even rooting against the world because the world needs to get attacked together to stop global warming.
I wish they were playing a more constructive role.
Some Republicans doubt the whole science of global warming, even though the consensus is overwhelming.
They don't want to believe it.
They don't want to do anything about it.
And meanwhile, the evidence is mounting faster and faster that we're suffering already from carbon emissions.
I am apoplectic.
He could not be more wrong.
The consensus has fallen apart.
Nations that adopted it at one time and started implementing some of these economic changes have pulled the plug.
Australia, Japan, it doesn't work.
It only depletes their private sector.
It doesn't fix anything.
It doesn't reduce emissions.
Even this bill wouldn't reduce emissions more than, what, two-tenths of a percent that I see, something like that.
This is just, this is nothing.
Henry Waxman is just.
I better be careful.
This is just dangerous.
It's the Republicans that made the damn thing pass for cried out loud.
Waxman.
Eight Republicans.
Only four were needed.
Eight voted for it.
Cap and trade.
Republicans rooting against Obama, the country and the world.
What he's talking about.
What is he talking about?
They're rooting against socialism.
Congressman Waxman, the Republicans are rooting for the country.
Republicans are rooting for the world.
It is your party, Congressman, that's setting out to destroy what made America exceptional.
And in the process, you're going to wreak more damage on the rest of the world than you could possibly imagine.
You're an idiot.
You are a dangerous idiot.
From Tegusa, Galpa, Honduras.
The natives there call it Tagus.
I saw that in Law and Order.
More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zalea and disarmed his security guards after surrounding his residence before dawn Sunday.
Protesters called it a coup and flocked to the presidential palace as local news media reported that Zalaya was sent into exile.
I mean, what happened here was that the people of Honduras did not like a totalitarian dictator setting himself up.
This guy was going to defy the Constitution and give himself another term in office without an election and violate their Constitution.
So there was a coup to get him out of there.
He's in exile.
Chavez is all upset.
Obama's all upset.
Liberalism and totalitarianism is getting kicked out everywhere but here where it's taking root and Obama, what's it?
He didn't want to meddle.
But you know, there's a common denominator when he meddles.
Obama does whatever it takes to keep an anti-American dictator in power.
He'll spare no effort.
In Iran, oh, we can't meddle with what's going on over there.
We can't meddle until we see what the outcome is.
And we didn't meddle.
And of course, Ahmedini Zad comes out and says, You owe me an apology for meddling in our affairs.
Obama's not going to apologize.
Why should I apologize to you, you little twerp?
In Honduras, though, we meddled.
In Venezuela, we had a soul shake, or what that black handshake is that he had was shot at.
We had a soul shake.
Saudi Arabia, he bowed down.
All these anti-American places, Obama will do everything he can to keep those people in power.
I'm sorry, folks, but that's just fact.
In Israel, throw them overboard.
Throw them under the bus.
Hamas, empower them.
Iran, don't really do anything about it.
North Korea, don't really do anything about it.
To the phones we go.
Here is Pat in Chicago.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Oh, thank you, Rush.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you.
You're making me crazy all over again.
I watched Congressman Boehner on Friday.
Oh, you're not going to disappoint me.
I thought you went crazy in another way.
No, no, no, no.
That was crazy because I was sitting there listening to him saying all these things and reading their words.
I'm going, oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
And after an hour of this, I'm like, how can anybody vote for this?
And this was just the amendment.
This created a whole new bureaucracy.
Boehner did do a great job on Friday.
You are absolutely right.
I don't know how many people had a chance to hear it, but you ask, how can these people vote for it?
There's an answer to that question.
It just depends on whether people want to face it squarely.
Well, I understand it, but you know, he did what the Republican Party has to do: not modernize, not socialize, educate, read their own words.
Amen.
Don't sit there and say it's going to do this, it's going to do that.
That's an objective.
People say that's objective.
You're making me crazy.
Because I've been telling people about what he read, and people are like, that can't happen.
I didn't hear about that.
Talk about just talk about going to sell your house.
You can't put your house on the market unless it's rated by who?
It's got to be rated.
You've got to have all the windows on the doors.
Have you heard about this, folks?
When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you've got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can't sell that.
It's in the bill.
I'm not kidding, Brian.
What?
See, you can't believe it.
You can't.
It's in the bill.
It was in this amendment that Boehner read.
What were you going to say out there, Pat?
I said that's not even half of it.
I mean, he went page by page by page, and you're like, oh, my God.
This is what's written.
This isn't him saying, well, this is what they're going to do.
This is what's going to happen.
This is what they are doing.
And they're doing it over and over and over and over again.
It makes me nuts.
And this is not going to be a country as we know it in the four years it takes him to get out of here.
And people are going, I mean, he gets no support.
The congressmen and the Republicans get no support from anybody.
It was nowhere on the news.
It was nowhere.
It was their own words.
Well, now, look, I know that they got no support in the news, but you shouldn't expect that to happen.
I'm not trying to depress you.
We're going to face reality, and we're dealing with an Obama state-run media here.
Of course, they're not going to give Boehner any support or even any coverage or any publicity.
But she's right.
Sell your house before you can do that.
You have to pass an environmental test that some government person is going to come in and make sure you have proper storm windows.
And if you live in a hurricane area, the inspection is even more draconian.
You have to have moderate appliances, a kitchen and that sort of thing, energy-efficient TVs, this sort of stuff.
And until you replace all that stuff, you can't sell it.
Now, normally, that would be up to seller and buyer.
If the buyer wants to accept some old TVs in a kitchen that's not stainless steel, fine.
You negotiate that on price.
But now it's not going to be a matter of negotiation before you can be approved in selling your house, some government regulators to come in and give you an examination.
Now, just to illustrate how this is going to work, once again, I have a piece of property that would pass inspection right now if this were the law.
But do you think some government regulator coming into my house is going to pass me if it's the Obama administration or if it's some Democrat-run bureaucracy?
No way.
Everything is going to be political, and this is how they are going to get people to switch party to become Republican so that they're not harassed.
This is, folks, it is, the consequences are dire here.
And all this is happening under this umbrella of this kind, soft-spoken, very smart president who only wants to save our light bulbs and save the White House and save the world.
And who could, of course, be against that?
Who's for dirty air?
Who's for dirty water?
Nobody is for that.
When that's not at all what any of this is about.
Look, Pat, I appreciate the phone call.
I got a brief time out here.
We'll be back.
Wrap it up after this.
By the way, I'm getting some really snarky emails from the lymph.
How do you know Obama wanted to prop up the dictator?
How did you just say that?
All right.
All right, here we go.
It's from Jay Solomon, a Wall Street Journal.
The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelayez' ouster, said a senior U.S. official.
Don't doubt me.
The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Obama wouldn't support any non-democratic transfer of power in the Central American country.
We made it clear it was something we didn't support.
So they wanted a guy to go ahead and violate the Constitution.
So obviously, look, if you people are not willing to see this out there, I can't help you.
I can only bring you the information.
If you are not willing to soak it up and accept it, it's your problem.
It is not mine, nor that of the EIB network, nor any of our stations and affiliates, the staff and management, and sponsors thereof.
And dear Rush, I think 150 years is a bit extreme for Bernie Madoff.
Wholly unprecedented, precedented.
Could this perhaps be an example of class warfare and sticking it to the man?
150 years U.S. justice system, he'll be out by spring, maybe next Christmas at the latest.
Don't worry about it.
Tony in Melbourne, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, great to talk to you, Rush.
I'll make this quick.
I happened to be listening to Fox News this morning.
I think it was Senator Issa Hutchinson.
I could be wrong about that.
But he was speaking about something going on between the EPA and the administration that the administration is trying to cover up some of the facts EPA's disclosed about the climate change and the upcoming cap and tax.
You heard correctly.
We first detailed this, I think, Thursday of last week, or it might have been Friday, but here are the details.
And this is from CBS.
I know this is from 11 p.m. Friday night post on a CBS News blog before a summer weekend.
But we talked about this Thursday or Friday of last week.
Here are the details.
The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal, they did suppress an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government.
This according to a series of newly disclosed email messages.
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty decisions based on scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.
The EPA official Al McGartland said in an email message to a staff member on March 17th, the administrator and the administration have decided to move forward.
Your comments do not help.
And they were told, don't talk about this.
This guy was told, don't talk about it.
Do not talk.
You have been squashed here.
They threatened his job.
The email correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside the federal agency.
I think Gerald Walpin, or Gerard Walpin, whatever his first name is, the inspector general at the AmeriCorps, who they've impugned because he blew the whistle on the St. Hope Academy in Sacramento.
It's Alan Carlin, who was the primary author of the 98-page EPA report that was suppressed, went ahead and talked to CBS News in a phone interview Friday, said that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself.
It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else, Carlin said.
That was obviously coming from higher levels.
I was told for probably the first time in I don't know how many years exactly what I was to work on.
Carlin's a 38-year veteran of the EPA.
I was told not to work on climate change.
One email orders him to update a grant database instead.
He said, this science is a hypothesis.
It's not anywhere near proven.
We're making a big mistake here.
He was suppressed.
It was suppressed.
Didn't fit the template.
And you have to figure that there were many more.
Where there's one, there's probably two or three others who think the same thing.
But then again, you work for the government, you get threatened like this, you start thinking of your retirement, your pension, and you shut up.
That's how it works.
Ken in Livonia, Michigan.
Hi, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Yeah, Rush, I just wanted to comment that once again, the news media has given us the proof that we needed, as if we needed anymore, that not only do they lean to the extreme left, but they're just extremely liberal, untrustworthy.
Now, here we have President Obama continuing to reach into the wallets and the purses of the American people through cap and trade and through his Obamacare health plan.
Right.
And what are they doing instead?
What are they reporting instead?
Well, instead of that, they're doing all these big stories on Michael Jackson, who, by the way, I'm still convinced is a child molester.
And then you got Farah Fawcett, Billy Mays.
Wait a second now.
You're no different than the media.
He was acquitted.
I'm going to tell you something about Michael Jackson.
We haven't talked about this.
But he was acquitted of that charge.
That kid and the kid's mother were the worst witnesses.
That was an abomination of a case brought against him.
That was a vendetta case.
I'm not saying he didn't have some strange peccadeals with kids, but that case didn't prove it.
So if you're out there saying, I'm still committed, you're no different than the media lying about what was in the autopsy report, lying about all the drugs he was supposedly taking, lying about this lying.
We don't know diddly squat yet.
The autopsy details have not been released.
All we got, a bunch of media speculation.
This guy's talent was incomparable.
We build them up and we tear them down in this culture.
And it's wrong.
It's the first time in my life.
The media in this situation has been so bad.
They're making Al Sharpton look credible.
They're making the Justice Brothers look like they have a reasonable reason to intervene here.
That's how bad it's been.
Well, that's it.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence is in the can.
On its way over to the Museum of Broadcasting Warehouse.
But we'll be back in 21 hours, revved up and ready to go all over again.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection