Rush Limbaugh Program - June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 29, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:54

June 29, 2009, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Viewers Express been a host on this show, now documented to be almost always right, 99.1% of the time.
	Nobody has anywhere near that high and accuracy rating, ladies and gentlemen.
	Nobody.
	I am your host, L. Rushbow, behind the Golden EIB microphone, broadcast excellence, telephone number 800 282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.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 uh, and they they shoot me the results, and whenever there's a change, I I I uh let people know.
	And these are opinion audits.
	So we all sometimes I'm I'm given facts that are wrong, incorrect items by members of the staff 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 right.
	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.
	Uh 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, and it was a 300-page amendment, and that was plopped down and made available to people at 309 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 Rohmer, Chairman of the President's Council on Economic Advisors.
	Stimulus spending, Roomer 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 till 2010 when all these quads are running for re-election.
	They're just admitted at the White House that all you people thinking you're going to find a job with 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 uh from June 27th, a couple days ago, but I will post it and link to it at Rush Limbaugh.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 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 the one union alone, SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, headed up 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 sixty million dollars getting Obama elected, and what Obama is doing is trying to make union membership more attractive as a 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 uh uh membership rate was 35% and when it started plummeting to where it is now, 15 to 12 percent.
	That's when American productivity started to skyrocket when union membership plummeted.
	And by looking he's right about this.
	What I mean, the point about all this is is that every union contract, every new one, stipulates less work, more sick days, more breaks, and higher pay.
	By definition, you get 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 Shepherd 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.
	You vote for revenue and your career's 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 news they're 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 this some nut case, 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 is perverted, abnormal.
	All this 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 My Bell 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 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 Hilaryitis, 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, uh grandmother it was, and Michelle took over his campaign, that's when she was happiest.
	That's a Democrat strategist talking.
	Now here's here's my question.
	Not being married, I I have this question.
	Your president of the United States, your Barack Hussein Obama.
	Your wife is Michelle My Bell Obama.
	Michelle My Bell 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 way 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 Ram Emanuel, 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?
	It's 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 uh 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 gonna 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 great.
	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 ten 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 cider.
	He cut taxes, he increased defense spending.
	He was for I they like to claim them, 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, uh given that, I'm gonna change a soundbite order.
	We'll go to 1718 and 19 next.
	But first, Mary Madeline, uh very smart, and those aspects of JFK we all like.
	He did cut taxes, he was a supply cider, but that's not what I meant.
	You know, this 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 uh uh Argentina.
	He's a good-looking guy, uh rumored to be part of the presidential mix at 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 to.
	I don't know.
	I to me it's it's to me it was hilarious.
	It was quite funny, it was poignant, and it was uh it was good.
	And to see these people not get it is sort of astounding.
	Or maybe there's a purposely uh 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 sound bites here.
	Meet the press Sunday morning.
	Uh three liberals are discussing the future of conservatism.
	Two of them are called conservatives.
	Uh one is David Brooks, the other Mike Murphy.
	Now they're called conservatives on this show, but they they've actually they've actually sort of tilted to the left here.
	Umid Brooks, how does this Republican Party future chart a new course?
	If you look back historically from Nixon to Reagan and 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 to 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.
	Governing that way.
	Learn to talk the language of community and common endeavor.
	The next liberal Republican was Mike Murphy, and uh Gregory asked him to address what Brooks said.
	We have to modernize conservatism.
	It may take a may take a bit of a meltdown before we come back.
	And I think it needs to be more social libertarianism and and maybe not a complete unerring defense of perfect capitalism.
	Okay, so fike 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 blue.
	We got to get rid of the social issues.
	They're killing us.
	We 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 um we got to stop talking about perfect capitalism.
	We're not going to have perfect.
	So we got to, you know, adopt the language of the left.
	Do what you want to do, as long as you do it, just have fun at it.
	And uh we got to understand the role of big government and uh not so much capitalism and the success of the country.
	E.J. Dion uh 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 this 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. D. on the 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 them back into power.
	Right.
	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 uh within conservatism, which which makes, you know, a comeback uh 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, uh, the president and his wife, uh, 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 Roachman, Chickification of the News here.
	This 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 the 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 uh well-known magazine, journal of opinion, obesity magazine, a survey they did.
	And apparently, it's not just marriage.
	Well, I I apparently incorrectly reported this.
	It's simple cohabitation.
	Once you become a social libertarian and say the 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 gonna get to the phones.
	I got two things to do here.
	You've got to hear this soundbite from Henry Waxman this afternoon with the angry mental.
	On uh 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 exclusive.
	Does that indicate what kind of relationship is 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 it back 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.
	It says this is just this is nothing.
	Henry Waxman is just better be careful.
	This is this is just dangerous.
	It's the Republicans that made a damn thing pass for 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 do you talking about?
	What is he talking about?
	He's rooting, 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 Tagusa Galpa, Honduras.
	The natives there call it Tagose.
	I saw that in Law and Order.
	More than a dozen soldiers arrested President Manuel Zaleya 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 Zaleya 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 the 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, you know, then Ahmedini Zad comes out and uh says, you owe me an apology.
	We're meddling in our affairs.
	Obama says, I'm not gonna 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 with Chavez.
	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, Russia.
	It's a pleasure.
	Thank you.
	You're making me crazy all over again.
	I watched Congressman Boehner on Friday.
	Oh, you're now you're gonna disappoint me.
	I thought you meant crazy in another way.
	No, no, no, no.
	I was crazy because I was sitting there listening to him saying all these things and reading, 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 uh 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 gonna do this, it's gonna do that, and objective.
	People say that's objective.
	You're making me crazy here.
	Because I've been telling people about what he read, and people are like, that's 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 gotta be rated.
	You gotta have any window 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 you're uh 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's in the bill.
	I'm not kidding, Brian Brian.
	What?
	You can't see you can't believe it.
	You can't, it's in the bill.
	It was in this amendment that Boehner read.
	If if you what were you gonna 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 gonna do.
	This is what's gonna 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 gonna be a country as we know it in the four years it takes him to get out of here.
	I mean, he gets no support.
	He gets the congressmen and the Republicans get no support from anybody.
	It was nowhere on the news.
	It was nowhere.
	And it was it was their own words.
	Well, now look, uh I I know that they got no support in the news, but you shouldn't expect that to happen.
	I'm not I'm not trying to depress you.
	We're gonna face reality, and we we're dealing with an Obama state run media here.
	Of course they're not gonna get Bayner any support or even any coverage or any uh any publicity.
	But she 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.
	Uh you have to have modern appliances, a kitchen and that and that sort of thing, energy efficient TVs, this sort of stuff.
	And until you replace a lot of 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 and a kitchen is 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 I 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 it the consequences are dire here.
	And all this is happening under this umbrella of this kind, soft-spoken, very smart president who only, you know, wants to save our light bulbs and save the White House and save the world.
	And who can, 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 Lib.
	How do you know Obama wanted to prop up the dictator?
	How do you just say that?
	All right.
	All right, here you go.
	It's from Jay Solomon, the Wall Street Journal.
	The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya's 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 obvious.
	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 and staff and management and sponsors thereof.
	And dear rush, I think 150 years a bit extreme for Bernie Madoff.
	Wholly unprecedented, uh precedented.
	Could 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 make this quick.
	Uh happen to be listening to Fox News this morning.
	I think it was Senator Isa Hutchinson, I could be wrong about that.
	But he was speaking about something going on between the EPA and administration that the administration is trying to cover up uh some of the facts EPAs uh disclosed about the climate change and the uh upcoming cap and tax.
	You heard you heard correctly.
	We first detailed this, I think Thursday of last week.
	Well it might have been Friday, but here are the details.
	And this is from uh CBS.
	So we have I I know that this is from a like uh 11 p.m.
	Friday night post on a on a CBS news blog before a summer weekend, but we talked about this uh 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 the most uh 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 the uh they were told that don't talk about this.
	This guy was told don't talk about it, do not talk you 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 a federal agency.
	Think Gerald Walpin, or Gerard Walpin, whatever his first name is, the inspector general at the uh uh AmeriCorps, who they've impugned because he blew the whistle on the St. Paul Acad St. Pop St. Hope Academy in Sacramento.
	Uh it's uh 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.
	Uh 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's database instead.
	He said this is this 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.
	Well, 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 your shut up.
	That's how it works.
	Ken in Lavonia, Michigan.
	Hi, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
	Yeah, Rush, I uh just wanted to comment that uh once again the uh news media has uh uh given us the uh proof that we needed, as if we need it anymore, that not only do they lean to the extreme left, but uh they're you know, they're extrem you know they're just extremely liberal, uh trustworthy.
	Um, here we have uh President Obama continuing to uh reach into the wallets and the purses of the American people through Cap and Trade and through uh, you know, his uh Obamacare Health uh plan.
	Right, and what are they doing instead?
	What are they reporting instead?
	Well, instead of that, they're uh doing all these big stories on Michael Jackson, uh, who, by the way, I'm still convinced is a child molester.
	Then you got Farah Fawcett, uh Billy Mays.
	Wait a second now.
	You're no different than the media.
	He was acquitted.
	I'm gonna tell you something, Michael Jackson.
	We 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 had didn't have some strange peccadels 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 line.
	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 this guy's talent was incomparable.
	We build them up and we tear them down in this culture.
	And it's uh it's wrong.
	This, I'll tell you, 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.

▲