All Episodes
Previous Next
July 9, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:42
July 9, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away.
This is Mark Stein, your undocumented anchor man, no supporting paperwork whatsoever.
Mark Davis is going to be in tomorrow, and then Rush returns fighting fit on Monday to take you through the whole of next week.
We were talking earlier about Obama at the G8 summit.
And it is interesting to me the differences that are beginning to emerge between what Obama is doing and what most of the rest of the developed world is doing.
And then what the developing countries themselves, the next generation, the Indias and Chinas, how they're thinking is going.
And you know what I miss about these summits?
It's like the one thing Obama seems to have made go away is all these like anti-globalization riots.
So I mentioned at the beginning of the show.
Used to have them all the time.
The minute you'd have a G8 summit, these guys would come in and trash the town.
Obama seems to have made that go away.
I was at the, what was it, the 2002 G8 summit, and there was an anti-globalization nude protest.
And it was an anti-globalization nude protest.
And so it's basically like a strip routine in the street.
You know, and like if you're like me, I was there for my newspaper, covering it for my newspaper.
Normally it's very difficult if you like go to a strip club then putting it on expenses because they ask for a receipt and if it says the electric pussycat lounge or whatever, then there's a whole big issue with it.
The accounts department are all over you.
It's terrible.
But if you've got the anti-globalization protesters just stripping in the street, they did the whole thing and then they had the big final.
They were denouncing Bush.
So it wasn't like they were dancing around to the poll to man, I feel like a woman or whatever.
But so they were just denouncing Bush.
And then they had the big final pants drop.
And across the row of bottoms, which were very highly variable.
I mean, we're not talking like the Radio City Rockettes here.
As a line of bottoms, they were highly variable.
But they spelt out B-O-Y-C-O-T-T-T-H-E-G-P.
And I couldn't figure out what that meant.
He's like, boycott the GP.
And it didn't make any sense.
And it's like, boycott family doctors.
What kind of anti-globalization thing is that?
And I asked one of the girls who was doing the nude protest.
And she said, she looked at me as if I was an idiot.
She said, it's not boycott the GP.
It's boycott the gap.
And I said, well, look at the line.
I said, where's the A gone?
And she said that the, unfortunately, the lady with the A actually was a guy with the A, the A of Gap hadn't put it on properly.
And the A had slipped inside of it, so to speak.
So they were standing around exposing their bottoms saying, boycott the GP, meaning boycott the gap, the gap being the clothing store.
I don't know what they got against the gap.
But they were, I suppose it's better if you're the gap that they just stand outside naked because then it does remind people that it's useful to buy clothing.
And so they go into the store and buy clothing.
So it's better than when they're just like torching Starbucks or torching McDonald's or whatever.
But the whole anti-globalization thing seems to have died now.
I find it interesting.
If you're one of these lefty activists, give us a call.
What's your game?
What are you doing now?
I mean, in the old days, you'd hear, well, there's a World Bank meeting in Seattle.
Right, we'll be on the plane.
We'll be there torching the city.
Now it's over in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Great, we've got to book the plane.
Are going to be, where have all the lefty activists gone?
They seem to have given up on that.
But what's interesting is that when you get inside the meetings now, the differences that are emerging between President Obama's way of doing things and the rest of the world.
What we've seen is that the other Western nations are reeling back on their commitments to do global warming, emissions reduction, and all the rest of it, because they understand that it has immediately catastrophic impacts for no discernible impact on the planet's climate, but with quite a lot of immediate impact close to home.
And this is, I think, the difficulty with environmentalism is that in many ways it's an indulgence.
You can afford to save the planet when times are good, when everybody's got tons of money.
You can afford to think globally.
But what matters when times are bad is what's happening locally.
And I think that's what the Europeans have got the measure of.
And to a certain extent, and even more dramatic extent, the developing countries too.
The poorer nations meeting in Italy have explicitly rejected any targets on emission cuts.
The president arrived and the so-called draft agreement provides for a complete abandoning of targets.
The world's 17 leading polluters, so-called.
Now, when you call them 17 leading polluters, they're also 17 nations that, to one degree or another, are critical to the global economy.
These 17 leading polluters have now abandoned targets in a draft agreement for the meetings here.
But negotiators embraced a goal of preventing temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Now, that's completely meaningless.
They're saying this is like one of Obama's pledges to create or save four million jobs or whatever he was offering to do back around the time of the stimulus one.
It's a completely meaningless statistic.
The negotiators have now embraced a goal of preventing temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
Do you know how long that's going to take?
You would have to be a real Al Gore believer to think that temperatures are going to go up 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit and that anything members of the G7 and the so-called 17 polluter nations do are going to have anything to say about that.
In the course of the 20th century, the global temperature rose about one degree over that 100-year period.
It rose about one degree, a little over one degree.
Now they're saying, well, don't worry, because we've signed an agreement to prevent temperatures rising more than 3.6 degrees.
In other words, even if things go bad, that's going to take like a quarter of a millennium.
That, as a government target, as a target agreed between nations, that's completely meaningless.
And what has happened here is that Obama is far more out of step with the rest of the world than so-called unilateralist cowboy Bush was.
The Europeans, the Australians, the New Zealanders, not to mention China and India, have essentially moved a lot closer to the Bush position now than they are to the Obama position.
And China and India explicitly refuse to commit to specific goals for slashing their emissions by 2050 because they are not living in Madison, Wisconsin or Berkeley, California, and they would like to get a shot at living that life.
They would like, as I said yesterday, to have the intermediate stage between pre-industrial poverty and post-industrial poverty.
They would like to enjoy the immediate stage of wealth and comfort and a middle-class lifestyle.
And they can't do that if they sign on essentially to this environmental fetishism that is a product of Western wealth and Western prosperity.
Now, that's an entirely rational thing.
What's more interesting is the way the Western other developed nations have looked at this thing and realized that they can't make it work either.
It's a luxury.
It's an indulgence.
The whole environmental thing is an indulgence.
I always find it interesting.
We were talking earlier about whether America is an imperialist nation.
Jeremy objected to American imperialism, and I was saying America is the least imperialist nation on the planet.
And one reason you know that is when you listen to people going around saying, oh, Bush scares me and Americans are doing this and Americans are doing that, it's precisely because America is not a conventional imperialist nation.
It's not, let's not, let's talk about whether you want to talk about the British Empire, whether you want to talk about the Russian Empire, whether you want to talk about the Third Reich.
If you lived in Poland in the 1930s and you were caught between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich, both of those had serious designs on your territory.
They wanted to take your country away from you.
And it's precisely because America is not that kind of threat that the left concocted this vision that, oh, no, no, no, you don't have to worry about America invading you.
You don't have to worry about America sending its tanks in and taking over your country.
Just Americans eating and going to the beach is destructive enough.
Just an American eating a cheeseburger will be enough to destroy the planet.
Just an American having a big car will be enough to destroy civilization and life on this planet as we know it.
And that in itself, that whole crazy theory is a reflection of what a benign hegemon the United States is.
Because if America was a conventional great power, it would be invading places and taking countries away from them and running those countries.
And instead, because it's such a non-threatening global hegemon, we've had to invent this fear, this fear that just you, yes, you, having your air conditioning turned up too high, that's going to destroy the entire planet.
I mean, everywhere.
It's not like the Third Reich.
I mean, Hitler just invaded this or that individual country.
But America, America will destroy the whole planet just from its consumption and its lifestyle.
And when you think about it, on the face of it, the idea that lifestyle is a threat to the planet is patent nonsense.
Complete nonsense.
But if you're a certain kind of guilt-ridden white liberal in an advanced society, it's an attractive theory.
It goes along with the whole self-flagellation thing and your own feelings of moral supremacy, because unlike your benighted neighbors in their SUVs and all the rest of it, you haven't fallen for it.
But if you're actually a country on the way up, if you're China or India, this thing is nuts and you're never going to sign it.
You're never going to sign it.
You look at the amount of factories they add in China every year.
You look at the amount of factories they add in India every year.
And the reality is that never mind Canada and New Zealand signing on to these Kyoto type things, but America doing cap and trade isn't going to do anything to counter the new factories that come online in India and China every year.
So this fetish, this absurd eco-fetish, this ecochondria, is a byproduct of prosperity.
And now that prosperity is on the way out, European countries have figured out already that they can't afford it any longer.
And Obama is out of step.
And that's the lesson of the G8 that this current meeting, that he's going for cap and trade just as the New Zealanders have suspended cap and trade and just as China and India have flatly refused to have anything to do with this kind of crazy scheme.
So we'll talk about that straight ahead.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein sitting in on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Let's go to Joe in Gurney, Illinois.
That sounds like the way it's going to be when socialized healthcare kicks in.
Oh, the Gurneys in Illinois.
Gurney, Illinois, Joe.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hey, Mark, thanks for having me.
Listen, I think there's a real lesson here for everyone about how the rhetoric controls the agenda.
They're calling it cap and trade when it ought to be called cap and hoard.
What it does is it puts a cap on the entire country's overall production of carbon.
So let's say that you've now got your carbon credits and you're a small business owner, whatever it is you make, you make, and you find yourself in a situation where you're ready to expand.
Well, you have to go out and find somebody who's got some carbon credits for sale.
The problem is that everybody who has carbon credits needs them.
They're going to be hoarding them.
They're not going to sell them because they need those carbon credits themselves in order to expand their own company.
Yeah, that's right.
In other words, you might be able to expand your business, but you'd only be able to do it through somebody else's carbon credits, which would mean they would have no leeway to expand theirs.
Exactly.
And when you look at it in that light, what's going to happen is you're going to start seeing those very few times when businesses are expanding, when they are selling their carbon credits, they're going to sell them to the highest bidder.
And the party that's going to be the highest bidder is going to be the biggest corporation.
That means Joe's manufacturing plant, which makes waste paper baskets, is not going to get carbon credits.
Yeah.
Because government motors outbid another company, outbid Joe's company for the carbon credits that were for sale.
More and more of those carbon credits end up in the hands of the much, much bigger companies.
And the small and medium-sized companies, the ones with the new ideas and the ones to get them on track faster, won't be able to afford the carbon credits where the big mega corporations will be able to keep the price so high that they keep the small and medium-sized competitors out of the game, effectively.
Right.
That's what all environmental regulation is about.
It's about keeping small competitors from jumping into the marketplace with whatever their innovations are.
A great example of that is the environmental impact statement.
It's nothing to a company like Walmart to put out an environmental impact statement when it wants to put up a shop.
Wants to put up a store.
That's nothing at all for them to have.
They've got an army of lawyers who do nothing but draft environmental impact statements.
But if you've got a relatively small company, a hardware store, that has to spend the money on an environmental impact statement, that cuts into their overhead so much they can't afford it.
So small company from competing with the big one.
Yeah, so what you'll wind up with, and this is what we get to when we're talking about Walmart getting into bed on some of this stuff, is that the big mega corporations will understand it's in their interest to play along with government because apart from anything else, it puts some of their smaller and medium-sized competitors at a disadvantage.
And I'm not sure that there's any way around that unless you're like Al Gore, who buys his carbon credits from himself.
If we could all, Al Gore buys his carbon credits from something called Generation Investment Management LLP, which is, quote, an independent private owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., that for a fee will invest your money in high-quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment, climate-friendly investment plans.
And who's the chairman and founding partner?
Al Gore.
So if you have Al Gore buys his carbon credits from Al Gore, that works out great for him.
Unless you're in that situation, unless you're in that situation, the point that Joe made is right.
That if you want to expand and you need to buy carbon credits from somebody else, because you've used up your limit, you've used up your government limit, government-imposed limit.
The guys selling those carbon credits will have an incentive to keep the price high, and your big competitors, Global Megacorp Inc., will have an incentive to pay more for them.
It'll be worth paying more for carbon credits as a way of keeping you, Joe Schmo mom and pop business, out there stuck, unable to advance, unable to expand your business.
This is a growth crusher.
It's a growth crusher on the businesses that everybody claims to like.
All those boutique businesses we were talking about, all your Vermont teddy bear company and all the rest of it.
You're only going to get global megacorp type stuff because global megacorp are going to be the only ones who can afford to buy these carbon credits when they want to expand.
This is a concoction that could only be designed by an administration with limited, if any, experience of starting businesses, growing businesses.
It's what happens when you put a community organizer in charge of the United States of America, and it is going to kill American capitalism if it is not stopped.
Mark Stein sitting in for Rush on the EIB network.
More on the Rush Limbaugh show coming up straight ahead.
And don't forget, Mark Davis will be in on Friday.
Yes, great to be with you.
Mark Davis in tomorrow and Rush back on Monday.
Let's go to Jerry in Milwaukee.
Jerry, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Hello, Mark.
The reason I support cap and trade, and the reason is for a number of reasons.
One, we spend billions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars in the United States treating the effects of air pollution, loss of agriculture, healthcare costs.
These are tens of billions of dollars of costs that we accurate yearly.
We help armed nations indirectly with Iran, but nations like Saudi Arabia and then Hezbollah and Hamas through oil petrodollars.
Now, I know cap and trade that focus on oil, but a cap and trade system depends on foreign oil.
No, no, okay, let's just take that one as a start.
The General Accounting Office in Washington has just released a report saying that reliance on electric cars will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in effect will just shift our dependence on foreign sources from one set of dictators to another.
That's if we just rely on, say, the present fossil fuels, if we impose new, if we get new alternative energy, solar, wind, new types of coal, cleaner coals, then yes, then we'll be less reliant on fossil fuels overall and we would have more alternative energies for the future.
So wait a minute.
Let's just see if I understand you here.
If you want to have an electric car, half the country's electricity right now comes from coal-powered plants.
So when you go to an electric car at the moment, at the moment, you're just basically trading one greenhouse gas for another.
Well, I'm not necessarily saying we should have electric cars.
I think hydrogen fuel cells are cars maybe we should look at more in the future.
I'm saying that our fossil fuel source overall should change within the next 20 years from fossil fuels.
And I'm ready to admit to something like nuclear energy.
I think we should incorporate that too.
But let's go back to the dictator's point, because you're right.
Right now, we're funding both sides in the war on terror, as well as a lot of other people, including Hugo Chavez.
You know, right now, whenever you go and gas up, you're putting tons of money into the pockets of the Saudis whose principal export is not oil, but ideology.
So they use the money you use at the gas station to fund radical madrassas and all kinds of other things all over the world.
In that case, why not support more oil production at home in the United States, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, offshore?
What's wrong with that?
I don't disagree, Mark, with certain drilling within offshore of the United States.
I don't disagree.
My approach is multifaceted.
It's more drilling, more nuclear energy, and more alternative uses.
So wait a minute, more nuclear.
So you want to go the French route?
I don't disagree with nuclear.
I think that's an approach that we could mix in with solar, with wind, and more energy-efficient appliances.
We have to look not just at that.
We have to look at the health care costs we spend every year on treatment of air pollution.
Yes, but air pollution has dramatically decreased since the early 1970s when this thing first became an issue.
But we still spend tens of billions of dollars every year.
That fact still remains.
We still spend a lot of money.
But let's look at it that way.
Where do places have lousy air pollution?
If you go to those Chinese industrial cities I was talking about earlier, they have the permanent cloud over them all day, every day.
If you were in London in the 1950s, if you watch a black and white Sherlock Holmes movie, they're always talking about those London pea super fogs that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are always wandering around in.
That wasn't a fog.
That was industrial pollution hanging over the city.
That's gone now.
They've cleaned up their air.
The places that are polluting are poor places.
People clean up their air when they become dynamic, wealthy societies and they don't want to live in smog.
And that's why we cleaned up our air since the early 1970s.
Why do we need cap and trade to artificially impose costs that will mean we won't be rich enough to do all these aesthetic improvements to the environment?
It's not aesthetic improvement.
I mean, there's health care costs from it.
Now the air is cleaner.
I agree with that, but we still have costs derived from that.
These are costs affected by everyone.
It affects the overall general economy.
It affects society.
These are costs we can reduce if we take action.
And cap and trade allows industries to make decisions on what new technologies they want to create.
It gives an incentive for them.
Isn't it truer to say that camp and trade actually takes decisions, rational decisions, away from individual companies and imposes a government standard on them?
Well, that's the reason why, one of the reasons why we have government is because there are costs from industries.
Industries pollute.
And industry should pay somewhat of the cost from their pollution.
Now, you want to reduce pollution because that cost is everybody pays that cost.
And higher health care premiums and reduce productivity, reduce lifespan.
That's why you have government to extent.
And there's just a lot of things.
But there is no difference.
According to the way things stand at the moment, the people who are going to be abasing themselves before the eco-gods are the countries that have the highest lifespan.
So clearly, whatever the United States, whatever Canada, whatever New Zealand, whatever the United Kingdom, whatever France, whatever Germany are doing wrong, they all have the longest lifespans on the planet.
So clearly, in the scheme of things, there is no, in terms of health outcomes, you're much better off living in a polluting industrial society, as you would see it, than in some bucolic primitive society where you're just working in the fields, like in Somalia, where male life expectancy is 48.
Well, I'm not urging we live in a nation like Somalia.
I want to live an industrialized nation, and our country is rich enough where it can reduce the emissions through new technology, just as it's done for the last 40 years since the EPA.
I don't want to go back to the 16th century or something.
No, but here's the thing.
Here's where you're going wrong.
You say we're rich enough to be able to do this.
And that's the thing I used to hear all the time.
In effect, we're rich enough to be able to indulge ourselves on this.
And we're not anymore.
We're not.
There are simply not enough rich people who can assume the costs of a government bureaucracy that will regulate every home you build from Maine to Hawaii and will determine how environmentally friendly it should be.
Mark, let me ask you, are we rich to indulge ourselves with the health care costs we're paying now or to arm nations like Saudi Arabia and indirectly Iran by higher oil prices?
Well, I'm not in favor.
By the way, just so we're clear on this, I'm not in favor of giving money to the Saudis.
I would be in favor of increased production at the Alberta oil sands, for example.
Whatever one feels about Canada, it's a reasonably friendly country most of the time and certainly isn't funding radical madrasas.
I mean, the last thing I know, I didn't wander through Fairfax, Virginia, and see a radical Canadian madrasa on the street corner.
I'd be interested to know what was going on if there was.
I am in favor.
I'm in favor of increased production of the Alberta oil tar sands, which most environmental groups are not in favor of.
I'm in favor of production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, where most people who live north of 60 on this continent are also in favor because they understand that if you want to progress your local society in parts of Alaska and the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, you need a real economic base up there.
In other words, prosperity, capitalist prosperity, makes your life nicer.
Saddam Hussein destroyed the Iraqi marshlands.
Ceaușescu.
I've never seen grass the color that I saw it in Ceaușescu's Romania.
He basically destroyed the environment there.
And big government, big government does that.
Big government is no friend to the environment.
What is a friend to the environment is individual liberty and economic prosperity because free peoples, when they make enough money, want to live in nice neighborhoods.
And that's what I'm in favor of.
But it's nice to get you a call.
And we will talk more on this subject straight ahead on the Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Get a lot of hostile calls.
I like it.
I like this.
Keeps you on your toes, keeps your brain from getting complacent.
Let's go to Jim in Cranston, Rhode Island.
Jim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
How are you, Mark?
I'm doing great.
How are you?
First, I have to give you a compliment.
You're the best replacement host.
You're a quick wit.
You're intelligent.
Great quality.
No, no, no.
You're supposed to be one of these hostile calls.
I beg to differ with you on the colonization.
Okay, you're getting up to the big butt.
I love you, but.
Okay, here's the.
That's it.
Okay.
Okay, it's a setup.
But anyway.
Good for you.
Okay.
See, the U.S. is an imperialist nation, but they don't make the mistake of England and colonize.
They pay off the despots and get them to do their bidding behind the scenes.
You know, it's just like the World Bank.
The World Bank is not a friendly internet of anyone.
What they do is they loan money to these poor countries, okay?
And the loans are on paper.
Even if they give the money to the despots, they don't care.
Because once these countries can't pay back the money, then they say, oh, gee, it's time for you to pay back.
If you can't, we'll take your minerals.
Now, let's walk back some of this stuff, Jim.
I will grant you, and I think this is true, that the United States has tried to do foreign policy on the cheap.
The Middle East is a very good example of this.
The State Department, the fellas in the striped pants at Foggy Bottom, decided they were going to prioritize stability.
They're the world's greatest stability fetishists, so these so-called realists in the Middle East.
And they created the situation we have today, where they give Mubarak billions of dollars, and what do they get for that?
They get Mohamed Atta flying through the window of the World Trade Center on a Tuesday morning.
And in a sense, you are correct there that in trying to...
No, no, but you've got to understand one thing.
If they give Israel so much money, which they do, then they have to give it to other Arab nations too, or else people are going to call it foul.
I don't think that's the reason to.
Long before.
I mean, for example, Saudi Arabia, as a strategic partner of the United States, predates Israel.
If you go back to the late 1920s, the British reckoned that King, what was he called?
Abdul.
No, no, no, the one before that.
The founder of the Saudi dynasty, I've had one of those mental blocks.
But he basically was too crazy.
They didn't want to do business with him.
Roosevelt sent his guy out to do business with him and said, and the king told him, you'll keep away from, you can have a say in our oil and all the rest of it and keep away from everything else.
Now, that turned out, I would say, to be the single worst American foreign policy decision of the century.
It predates the founding of the state of Israel by 15 years.
And not only was it of no, I don't believe, was of any real benefit to the United States, but it summed up the way at Washington of what happens when you are a non-imperial power, where you try to do a lot of this stuff on the cheap.
But you know, the general point I'm making, which is absolutely correct, is that America is the most benign superpower in history.
Now, you talk about institutions like the World Bank.
All these institutions, most of them were set up after the Second World War, the American moment.
At the dawn of the American moment, 1945, what did America do?
It set up all these international bodies at which it artificially diminished its own voice and artificially amplified the voices of relatively insignificant and powerless countries.
America is so non-imperial that instead of doing what conventional imperialists do, which is garrisoning ramshackled, dust-blown colonies in the middle of nowhere, it garrisons its wealthiest allies.
Where does the United States Army live?
It lives in Japan and it lives in Germany.
Two of the wealthiest countries on the planet, guarded and protected and secured and guaranteed by the United States.
That is not conventional imperial behavior, however you care to describe it, Jim.
Here's the thing: see, the front office is the people of that particular country.
But the people pulling the strings, just like Axelrod pulling the strings for Obama, okay?
Obama's not a stupid person, but Axelrod does not want him to get off message and start at living because he'll get himself in trouble.
So that's why the teleprompter's there.
And the same thing with these countries.
These various countries, the front office are these people from these countries.
And they're despots primarily.
But the United States is pulling the strings.
Well, I won't go that.
I'm not going to go that far with you, Jim.
That's an interesting point.
But again, that is not the definition of imperialism.
That is that, in fact, you can just as easily argue that is the definition of a country that retains its streak of isolationist republic and does not want to do, does not want to impact on the world in the ways that conventional imperialists do.
And I have a disagreement.
John Bolton, for example, who is a great American and a man I admire tremendously.
But John Bolton, when he discussed the situation in, he often quotes a conversation between the Mexican, the U.S. ambassador in London and the British Foreign Secretary in 1914 when the U.S. Ambassador told Sir Edward Gray they were talking about Mexico and he says, well, you know, we'll just go in there.
We'll prop up a new guy.
He catches our eye and gets into trouble.
We'll go in and whack him.
The new guy comes along and he goes into trouble.
We'll go in and whack him.
And we'll keep doing that for as long as it takes.
The problem with that situation is that, as I mentioned earlier, you now got half the population of Mexico living in California and Arizona.
That it's tougher and it's harder to impose your will and export your values on the world.
But in the end, it pays off in the long run.
And it's not a question.
This cynicism, this Middle Eastern cynicism, the State Department cynicism, you just find the dictator who's most pliable and you shower him with money.
Mubarak is not a friend of the United States.
The House of Saud is not a friend of the United States.
And in the long run, over the course of half a century, all Middle Eastern stability did was bring us 9-11.
So I'm not in favor of that.
But thanks for your call, Jim.
Great to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
More straight ahead.
Mark Stein sitting in for Rush on the EIB network.
Hey, Mark Steinen for Rush.
I have had a great time, always have a great time here.
It's a great honor to fill in for America's Angkor Man, the indispensable voice of American conservatism, especially for a foreigner like me, because this is definitely one of the jobs that Americans will do.
Mark Davis will be here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection