Rush Limbaugh Program - October 21, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 21, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:33

October 21, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And welcome back to the most listened to radio talk show in America, the Rush Limbaugh program.
	On the famous and distinguished Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
	Here's the phone number if you'd like to join us.
	800 282-2882 and the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
	From the New York Times today.
	In Shift, Cancer Society sees risks in screenings.
	The American Cancer Society, which has long been a staunch defender of most cancer screening, mean testing, is now saying that the benefits of detecting many cancers.
	Especially breast and prostate cancers have been overstated.
	Now this, you you have got to be kidding me.
	After years of being berated and shamed into getting mammograms and getting PSA tests, cost a lot of money every year they now tell us it's overstated.
	The American Cancer Society, quietly working on a message to put on its website early next year to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.
	Can I read that to you again?
	It is quietly working on a message to put on its website early next year to emphasize that screening for breast or prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk of overtreating many small cancers while missing cancers that are deadly.
	Now I've I've got a story here.
	I didn't print it out because I didn't think it was going to be relevant, but I got a story here today about a guy in Japan.
	Let me find it.
	Something about I don't know, the guy's in Japan.
	Look at I don't care where it is, doesn't matter where it is.
	The guy was diagnosed with erectal cancer.
	They removed the rectum, put in an artificial rectum.
	He didn't have cancer.
	He's now suing for 400 and some odd thousand dollars.
	He it either happened in Japan, he's in Japan, it happened here and moved to Japan, I don't know which.
	Uh I guess the American Cancer Society has a point.
	They miss many small cancers, big cancers, uh this is just you know think about this.
	Isn't prevention an early detection the cornerstone of the Democrat health care plan?
	Haven't haven't we been berated as a society and a culture from the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, you name it.
	We have been beat over the head.
	We must get tested.
	We must get tested early.
	We must get tested early and often.
	We must, we must, we must, you must, you must, you must it will save us money.
	We will find ways to treat cancers before they become deadly, and we will save money.
	And now all of a sudden it's overrated.
	Does the timing of this make anybody suspicious?
	Here we are in the midst of a free fall in support of Obama's health care plan, not just the public option, but everything that's in it.
	And part of this is, well, you know, too many tests are going on out there.
	Obama's running around saying, we're got too many tests, and doctors are amputating too many feet and taking out too many tonsils to line their pockets, and there's too much testing going on out there.
	Unnecessary tests are taking place, and this is driving up the cost, and just now conveniently here we are in the midst of the free fall in support, we get the American Cancer Society saying that there are risks in early screenings, and that the benefits of detecting many cancer get that detecting means finding.
	The benefits of finding many cancers, especially breast and prostate, have been overstated.
	You mean we're not supposed to find it early anymore?
	We're supposed to wait till it's At some other stage and then find it and we'll all be better off.
	What the name of Sam Hill?
	What is happened to anybody's integrity here?
	This man, Barack Obama, is seeing to it that anybody who had any character, any integrity, they get along or go along with him or forced to, and they just lose it.
	They lose their character, they lose their integrity, they lose their credibility, and they themselves become corrupt.
	Quietly working on a message to emphasize that screening for breast and prostate cancer and certain other cancers can come with a real risk.
	Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the Cancer Society says, look, we don't want people to panic, but I'm admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening.
	The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.
	Maybe I'm the one that's the idiot here.
	I I thought the purpose of screening and testing was to find out if you had it.
	Right?
	Is that is that is that sensible thing to say?
	How in the world can that be exaggerated?
	How in the world can it be exaggerated to go in and get tested?
	Meaning you don't need to get a mammogram every year, maybe just every three.
	Maybe you don't need to get a PSA test every year, just every four years.
	I'm telling you, folks.
	With all the people Obama's recruited to put in his back pocket or has intimidated to end up in his back pocket supporting his plan.
	Uh I I don't know how to deal with this.
	The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.
	I'm admitting American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening.
	Listen to this.
	If breast and prostate cancer screening really fulfilled their promise, the researchers note, cancers that once were found late, when they were often incurable, would now be found early when they could be cured.
	A large increase in early cancers would be balanced by commensurate decline in late-stage cancers.
	But that's what's happened with screening for colon and cervical cancers, but not with breast and prostate cancer.
	Well, the issue here, says Dr. Otis Brawley.
	The issue here is as we look at cancer medicine over the last 30 to 5 to 40 years, we've always worked to treat cancer to find cancer early.
	And we never sat back and actually thought, are we treating the cancers that need to be treated?
	The very idea that some cancers are not dangerous and some might actually go away on their own can be hard to swallow, researchers say.
	Yeah.
	Do you think we're ever going to get to the point where doctors says, you know, we just discovered cancer and you go, Oh, good, good, good.
	Well, it's not a bad cancer.
	Um it's not dangerous, fine.
	It may actually go away on its own.
	Is that where we're headed here?
	The very idea that some cancers are not dangerous, and some might actually go away on their own can be hard to swallow, researchers say.
	But that's what we're going to have to deal with.
	We're not going to deal with the fact that some cancers are not dangerous.
	And uh, you know.
	But finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said.
	And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis, labeling innocuous tumors cancer, and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they're not dangerous.
	Overdiagnosis is pure unadulterated harm.
	So I guess what they're saying is that when they go these all these uh tests for breast and prostate cancer, they find stuff that actually isn't really malignant or is not metastasizing, they just find a tumor that uh might be benign or whatever, but I don't.
	Let me let me tell you something.
	I don't know of a single woman who wants to be told, oh, we found a lump in there.
	Don't worry about it.
	Um it's uh probably it's innocuous, it's uh gonna go away.
	I mean, the feminists have been on a marching path about how there's a bias against breast cancer, and that's why some of these screening things started.
	I just, folks, I just find the timing of this amazingly coincidental when Obama's trying to push a health care plan that tries to condition everybody to less and less testing in order to reduce costs.
	And more on that when we come back.
	You know, here's the dirty little secret on all this preventative testing, taking preventative health care, all these steps you can take.
	You know, Obama claims that he can keep the cost of his health care.
	Well, you don't have a plan, excuse me.
	Obama claims he can keep the cost of uh a health care plan down to a mere 900 billion dollars in part by requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care, which he claims saves money, but the CBO wrote in August that the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower medical spending overall.
	So all this testing does, it doesn't matter what you do here.
	It doesn't lower costs, which takes me to this.
	Ed Morrissey posted this at 9.30 today on uh on hotair.com, the blog, perhaps the leading economist of the U.S. could convene a special remedial course for Congress to explain the difference between price and costs.
	One might have expected the political class to have learned that difference from the disastrous U.S. effort to fix prices and wages in the 70s during Nixon's term in office, but apparently not.
	Democrats hailed their new revamped house version of Obamacare and its $871 billion price tag based on forcing more providers into existing Medicare reimbursement rates.
	They claim this will keep costs low, which is absolutely incorrect.
	And here's the news blurb.
	House leaders have cut the cost of their health care overhaul to around $871 billion over the next decade.
	Democrat sources said Tuesday night they were working up uh the lineup votes for the package with the aim of bringing it before the full House early next month.
	Remember Thanksgiving's a target date here.
	The $871 billion estimate, well under the $900 billion limit set by President Obama is the latest of several versions scored by the CBO.
	According to a Democrat aide speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks.
	The idea is opposed by many conservative Democrats in rural areas where Medicare rates are well below the national average.
	And you know, this is so convoluted.
	This is all I mean, you realize what they're doing here?
	They are they are going to uh reduce costs by forcing more providers into existing Medicare reimbursement rates.
	Anyway, Ed Morrissey, this is this is important here.
	Fixing prices does not lower costs.
	Let me repeat that.
	Fixing prices does not lower costs.
	Costs in the realm of health care are borne by providers who then get reimbursed, or shall we say paid.
	What is so complicated about the word paid?
	It's one syllable.
	Reimbursed, but I digress.
	Costs are borne by providers, that means doctors and hospitals and nurses and clean water technicians and all the rest, who get paid by either consumers in a rational market, or by third parties, insurance companies, the government, for their goods and her services.
	In a competitive market, providers have to set their prices at an attractive level in order to get business without missing out on profit opportunities.
	But their prices have to cover their costs or they go out of business.
	Not coincidentally, the latter is what happens when price fixing is used.
	When government fixes the price of goods and services, it usually does so to mask costs, not reduce them.
	This is what Medicare has done for years, which is why doctors avoid Medicare patients now.
	When the fixed price for a service becomes less than the actual cost to provide it, the provider's forced out of business.
	Unless he can sneak around and overcharge for another service to make up for what he's losing with his prick fixed price on his so-called reimbursement.
	And what Medicare reimbursement schedule does the House use to show the cost savings anyway.
	Will that be the schedule that will start dramatically cutting reimbursements over the next few years?
	Again, uh, will the schedule that will start dramatically cutting costs or or payments I'm sorry, payments over the next few years?
	So we're going to bring this stupid nine hundred billion dollar figure down to a mythical what, eight hundred seventy, oh, twenty-nine billion dollars.
	Gotta get it under 900 billion for Obama approves it.
	So we're going to reduce reimbursements, i.e., payments, which means that the people who provide the services who have costs that they they're they can't, you can't fix the cost of something.
	It costs what it costs, but the price that they can charge for it, or that they're going to get reimbursed for it is gonna make it not worth their time.
	Or will the uh the schedule uh be the one in the stabinel bill in the Senate that would eliminate those cuts and which the Senate also ignored when calculating the cost of the Bauchus bill.
	So we have pure smoke and mirrors, absolute inanity here.
	This is all of this rigmarole Rasmus that try to persuade people, we are reducing cost.
	You are not reducing costs at all.
	You are reducing what doctors and providers are going to earn.
	The cost is not going to be reduced.
	The price is what's going to be jimmied with here, and it's not going to be enough for these providers to make it worth their while to provide the service.
	Which is what's happening, he points out to what's happening in Medicare right now.
	That's why so many doctors are opting out of it.
	What the government, what Medicare says they're going to be paid, i.e., reimbursed, is less than what it costs to provide us to hell with this.
	So they're setting up their own practices and they're taking clients, pay them retainers like you pay a lawyer, have 15 or 20 patients, and that's your practice.
	In a hell with you in Medicare.
	They can never treat a Medicare patient once they opt out of it.
	As it exists.
	What a mess.
	What an absolute mess.
	The market will take care of this if you just get out of the way and let it, but of course we can't have that.
	Uh so I I I know it's at one point, at one point, folks, I will be honest with you.
	Early on in my star-studded career, I wanted to be the smartest guy in the country.
	I wanted to be thought of as the smartest guy in the country.
	I have succeeded, but it's depressing because I am surrounded by pure idiocy.
	We all are, we are all surrounded by morons.
	We are surrounded by the clinically ignorant.
	We are surrounded by abject total 100% dangerous, arrogant stupidity and corruption.
	So what good does it do to be the smartest guy in the country?
	All it does is make you feel like you want to explode.
	Uh, Gina out on Long Island, welcome to the EIB network.
	Great to have you here.
	Hello, Rush.
	I cannot believe I'm finally speaking to you.
	Thank you very much.
	I want to tell you, you are the smartest person in the country.
	You are right on the money about this American Cancer Society article that you uh quoted.
	Um, it's a New York it's a New York Times article.
	It's a New York Times article.
	Uh, and of course the New York Times doesn't question it at all.
	They just duly take the stenography and report it.
	That's that's right.
	And I want to tell you, I'm a two-time breast cancer survivor, and um I run a nonprofit foundation which advocates for women with breast cancer.
	Well, now wait a second, do you actually know you had cancer?
	I mean, not that was the screening even right.
	You should probably needn't have even had the screening according to cancer system.
	Well, let me tell you, if I didn't have the screening, I wouldn't be talking to you right now.
	I'd be dead.
	And what I do is I advocate for women to get early screening, particularly if they're uh under 40.
	Um, because that's when I was diagnosed.
	But one of the doctors quoted in this article, Dr. Esserman, she I was at an oncology conference this weekend, and she and I spoke about these tumors that are hard to find.
	And what she was describing was between the yearly mammograms, you can grow a tumor that's very aggressive and grows very fast.
	And those are the ones that kill women.
	So what you have to do is find more expensive screening in between, more expensive than a mammogram through an ultrasound or an MRI.
	That adds cost.
	So when I read this article this morning, I wrote on my blog, this is uh American Cancer Society throwing women under the bus to be politically correct to keep costs down for the Obamacare.
	It's I it I how can we interpret it any other way?
	There's no other way.
	And what it's gonna do is gonna give women a false sense of security.
	And uh three women, uh I know three women who died this week.
	I mean, they're they're we're we're losing a generation.
	Now had they had they been screened, had they had had any testing.
	Well, let me tell you, my best friend had the same tumor I did, but because mine was found earlier than hers, I'm alive and see this.
	I've often wondered this about testing.
	Okay, you're going to get tested in my case, uh going to PSA test for prostate cancer.
	Mm-hmm.
	And it shows up fine and dandy.
	But what about a month later?
	Shouldn't you get tested every month if you're really serious about this stuff?
	Well, based on Dr. Esserman's own example.
	Based on Dr. Esserman's own example to you.
	That sometimes the screening misses the big cancers in the year you get tested.
	And it can't take a lot of people.
	Are the ones that grow the fastest and the how are you?
	Welcome back.
	Rush Limbaugh is always having more fun.
	Any human being should be allowed to have doing what I was born to do.
	And we go back now to uh Gina somewhere in the midst of Long Island.
	Uh Gina, thanks for holding on.
	Hi, thank you.
	Now I need to say something to people watching on the ditto cam, because sometimes this had it happened to me talking to you, Gina.
	I was trying to chat with you, and our incompetently inferior stupid phone system would not allow you to hear me.
	No, I couldn't hear you.
	You can't hear me now when you're talking about my point, and I don't know why it is.
	Every other talk show in this damn country, the caller can hear the host.
	At any rate, so I'm in here and I'm just stipulating and I am shouting obscenities.
	And I am just mad as I can be.
	I'm about to explode again.
	People watching on the ditto cam think I'm mad at you.
	Or that I am insulting you because I get email about it.
	Now you probably not watching all this on the ditto cam.
	But I don't have the ditto cam.
	Right.
	Well, you should.
	You want the ditto cam?
	I would love to do it.
	You want to be a subscriber to Rush 24-7, our website?
	I'll make you one.
	You just thank you.
	You bet.
	Hang on after the show and uh and uh uh after the call and Snerdly will uh tell you how to sign up and we'll get it all all all set up.
	So anyway, for those of you watching on the demo, this is why I do not like cameras.
	The radio show is to be heard, not seen.
	Yes.
	And uh because yeah, here I am, and I'm worried about the bars on, can I take them off now?
	There's some things I don't want people to see going on in here, and then I phone system had me all bit out of shape, and if people watching think I'm yelling at you.
	And then that can end up on the Letterman show or some such thing, limbaugh get going nuts at a caller or what have you.
	And uh so I just I wanted to take a moment here to explain that I was just frustrated.
	Um I don't know how many of you ever talked on the phone where your per person talking to you can't hear you, but it happens here all the time.
	And it was happening to the uh in fact, Gina, just to prove this to people, I want you to count to ten to get count to ten and do not pause.
	Go one, two, three, four, go one to one, two, three, four, two.
	Gina, stop, please stop.
	You didn't hear me.
	Did you hear me?
	Did you hear me say stop?
	No.
	See.
	So it makes having a conversation, plus we're coming up to a commercial break, which I you know, it's a it's a hard break as we call it, uh, inside business broadcasting.
	I've listened to you long enough to know what that is.
	All right.
	So I I was that's so those of you watching on this camera.
	Um well, I'm not gonna apologize.
	I'm I'm still mad at the damn full system, but I just want you to know it was not mad at Gina.
	Now, Gina, here's in talking to you and your crusade here on breast cancer vis-a-vis this New York Times story today on the American Cancer Society.
	I is Listening to you and reading that story, it is maddening.
	That that health care has been reduced to arguments between politicians and bureaucrats about money.
	That's the problem.
	We have to talk about price fixing.
	We have to explain what this is.
	We have to explain the difference in cost and price.
	We have to talk with doctor patient relationship and how the government's getting the middle of it and screwing it all up, and they want to make it even worse, and it's sick.
	And women are going to die because of it.
	That's right.
	There are simple ways to reduce the cost of insurance, and we're not doing that.
	We're fighting over control of our lives by the government.
	That's what the fight here is about.
	Well, this is not.
	Can I just tell you I've had chemotherapy twice?
	I've had all the surgeries, and I have private insurance that I pay because I'm self-employed, and I've been covered for everything.
	And the system works.
	It does.
	I don't want them to touch my system.
	Exactly.
	That's right.
	See, this is not about health care.
	We are we're having to sit here every day and sort out lies, damn lies, and budgets.
	Absolutely, and it gets frustrating as hell to sit here and to tell the American people every day that this damn administration is one giant lie.
	Charles Grassley, Charles Grassley warns that the health and human services website may be propaganda.
	He's raising concerns at a website that urges visitors to send an email to President Obama praising his health care reform may violate rules against government funded propaganda.
	The health and human services website, please send Obama.
	Folks, look can we just save some time here?
	Everything from this administration's propaganda.
	Everything in the mainstream media is propaganda.
	This this health care, if it goes through, it'll be the worst thing to happen for people with cancer because uh all of the research funding will be cut.
	Things like this New York Times article stating that uh we don't need early staging, uh early uh screening.
	It'll be the worst thing to happen.
	Gina, we pointed out yesterday the New York Times has a reporter that believes that we can really save the climate and the planet by having fewer children.
	Uh we've got Obama thinking that it'd be better off uh we save costs if if more people didn't live as long as they live.
	Yes, I know about the beds not being given to advanced cancer patients to keep them free for uh flu victims in Florida.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And excuse me, the answer to that is well, we ought to have a health care system that can handle anybody, get sick.
	What with the United States of America?
	When do we start choosing between children and old people?
	One who has the flu, one by one who might have uh have cancer.
	Why uh this it's just I I'll tell you what, it's madness.
	All of this is madness.
	There's been such a huge effort for years.
	I mean, to the point of driving some people crazy.
	Every day you turn on television the radio is a PSA.
	American Cancer Society says get tested.
	And the next day, yeah, told you to get tested, and we didn't see you show up, so get tested.
	They browbeat you with getting it.
	Don't eat this and don't drink that and get tested.
	Especially for women in the minority communities.
	But everywhere really uh to start getting mammograms.
	There's even uh what is it, one month a year now?
	Uh, with discounted or free mammograms because of how it saves lives, early screening, and now we're just gonna toss all that out so that some organization can be said to be on the same page with President Obama.
	Gina, thanks.
	Now you hold on, and Snerdley will get all of your your uh vitals to make you a uh complimentary one-year subscriber to rushlimbaugh.com.
	Audio sound by time.
	This the surreal nature of things continued.
	Do you remember two days ago?
	A phony group representing the claiming to be the Chamber Commerce sent out an email that uh the chamber had done a 180 and was now supporting Cap and Trade.
	It was learned that the email was a hoax, the group was uh was a hoax group.
	So then we find out later the group then had a press conference in Washington where the media showed up.
	And this this fake group claiming to be the Chamber of Commerce was in the middle of the press conference, you know, denouncing uh uh uh opposition To cap and trade, claiming to be the Chamber of Commerce, and the actual communications director, the Chamber of Commerce, walked in there and said, You are not a representative of the Chamber.
	If any of you media people in this room want to know the opinion of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, ask me.
	And the members told the members of the media told the real Chamber of Commerce guy to shut up because they wanted to hear what the hoaxer had to say.
	Okay, you ready for the next installment of this?
	The hoaxer showed up on CNN and was interviewed after his phony fake press conference at the National Press Club.
	And so the CNN anchor brings in the hoaxer, the fake Chamber of Commerce guy.
	First question, what was the point you're trying to make with that fake news conference that some news organizations bought into?
	The point we were trying to make is that the real Chamber of Commerce has a completely backwards, troglodytic, in fact, position on climate change.
	They're behind the rest of the world, and they seem to be working hard to trying to make the U.S. the laughing stock of the world.
	You know, if we send President Obama to Copenhagen in December to the Copenhagen Climate Count Conference without a strong climate bill, uh the U.S. will be behind the rest of the world, will be the laughing stock of the world, and will be dooming the planet, according to the science.
	No, this guy is so full of it, but he's an actor.
	CNN is interviewing an actor who ran a hoax on the media claiming to be the Chamber of Commerce.
	So the next question was, well, you call them triglyc.
	Are you referring to those on the right who have a very narrow view of the issue?
	I'm referring to the corporate interests specifically that are actively and expensively lobbying against climate legislation for entirely economic reasons.
	It's not because they don't believe the science.
	Everybody who, I mean, if you believe in science at all, you have to believe that climate change is real and it's human caused.
	what they're lobbying against.
	Stop this.
	Stop this.
	Stop it.
	This guy's an absolute brain-dead, narrow-minded idiot.
	There is no science.
	There is none that confirms that there's even any warming, much less than it is caused by man.
	The warmest year in the last 10 was 1998.
	Or I guess the last 11 years was 1998.
	I'm 28.
	Warmest year was 1998.
	We've got early cold records and snowfall records being made all over this country.
	Narrow-minded critics of that, the narrow-minded bubbleheads are all on the left.
	They are the most closed-minded, ideologically rigid, live in a cocoon bunch of brain-dead I'm gonna stop there because I'm on the verge of.
	You realize what an idiot you'll become with even casual exposure to CNN.
	They they they interview frauds, actors, and hoaxers, and give them legitimacy.
	I am warning you, you you will severely hamper your IQ and your intellectual growth.
	In fact, you'll suffer intellectual loss.
	Contrary to if you listen to this show, you can't help but get smarter.
	Right, uh program, Stan and Vista, California.
	Great to have you here, sir.
	Hello.
	Ditto's there, Rush from Marine Forbass Camp Pendleton.
	Uh, when I heard this uh American Cancer Society uh uh report, the first thought that came to mind was exactly what you just brought up.
	The uh the uh Chamber of Commerce uh fraud.
	It just it doesn't fit.
	It doesn't fit the mold at all.
	But it was in the New York Times.
	Well, I understand that, but can we trust the New York Times?
	They can't trust any of them.
	Ever they're all corrupt.
	Um I uh do you are you actually suggesting that the New York Times has fallen for a phony American Cancer Society press release and uh couple people doing these interviews?
	Uh wouldn't put it past them, but uh then again it could be a little bit worse.
	It could just be that ACS has now been infiltrated.
	Uh It's uh amazing.
	Uh I well, you know, it it it is so far out of the realm of what has been consensus and conventional wisdom.
	And I totally understand people thinking that whatever they see in the media these days is an absolute lie or a hoax.
	You know, stop and think.
	Does the name Joe Warzelbucker ring a bell?
	Joe Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber.
	Joe the plumber minding his own business one day when Obama floats into town in Ohio.
	And uh Joe the Plumber dares to disagree with uh Obama's redistribution policies.
	And Obama sits there, say, Well, we need to spread the wealth around.
	And they start an investigation of Joe the Plumber.
	They start harassing Joe the Plumber, a legitimate, decent American citizen, and they find out all the dirt they can about Joe the Plumber, an average American.
	I'm smoking a miniature cigar.
	Uh as I was saying just last week.
	Some state official was convicted of using the state computer system to illegally investigate Joe the Plumber.
	Folks, seriously do you remember this?
	Joe the plumber was marked for destruction by the United States media.
	Here we had on CNN today, or last whenever it was, an actor, a fraud, a perpetrator of a hoax given legitimacy because he was carrying the Obama line on destroying the U.S. economy.
	Here's uh Howard in Jacksonville, Florida.
	Great to have you here, Howard.
	Hello.
	Howard went bye-bye, so we go to Grand Link, Michigan, and Justin.
	Hello, Justin.
	Hi, Rush.
	Uh Megadiddoes from uh Michigan.
	Uh fellow Steeler fan, so go Steelers.
	What?
	Who are the Steelers?
	What's that?
	Who are the Steelers?
	Pittsburgh, district Steelers.
	I'm originally from Pittsburgh, but I live in Michigan now.
	Uh I don't know anything about any Steelers.
	Oh, come on, Rush.
	I'm just kidding.
	I'm just kidding.
	All right.
	I just wanted to say that basically I think they should just bring these troops home.
	I I I mean, let's face it, we are being controlled right now by 60s radicals, hippies, basically, that have no intention of winning this war or fighting this war.
	So uh why why have why let people die?
	Just bring them home.
	Um they're not gonna fight it.
	Well, there are still no wait wait now.
	There's still people putting their reputations on the line, the generals.
	And I think even Gates, the defense secretary, uh I I had a story here in human events.
	I just scanned it, but it actually said that the Secretary of Defense is trying to get FaceTime with the president to explain his um concern about the delay in approving the new troop levels.
	Now, the Secretary of Defense is having trouble getting FaceTime with the president.
	The president is at a campaign event for Democrat Jan John Corzine right now.
	He's been raising money in New York.
	The Secretary of Defense can't get with it.
	But we don't we don't want to quit.
	That's that that's that's that's what Obama, I'm sorry, that's what Osama bin Laden sauce do in Somalia.
	There's still people putting their lives on the line for the country, and and some of them uh happen to work for Obama in the Pentagon and so forth.
	And I think this is worth uh fighting for, and it's worth trying to humiliate Obama into actually becoming a commander-in-chief.
	I just radicals have taken over.
	They they they love an American military in decline and in defeat.
	We can't let them do that.
	We can't just acquiesce.
	That would be the same thing as, oh, you know what?
	Let's just shut down the Republican Party.
	Although parts of it wouldn't be bad.
	But let's just shut down the Republican.
	Let's just shut down talk radio.
	Let's okay.
	Let's these guys are gonna win.
	These guys, let's just shut it down.
	Oh, yeah, let's just get out of Afghanistan.
	Let's just lose.
	No, that's not the way to go about this, folks.
	Not the way uh I I understand what you're saying, Justin, and I'm not don't take it personally here, but I I disagree profoundly with uh quitting anything.
	Uh my oh my, where is the time gone?
	Uh it's uh fast as three hours in media.
	Sadly, we are out of busy broadcast uh moments here today.
	By the way, Bob McConnell, or I'm sorry, McDonnell has opened up a double digit lead over Cree Deeds in his quest to be Virginia's next governor.
	He leads 52 to 40.
	He's the Republican.
	That's up from 4843 three weeks ago, and Cree Deeds is throwing down all the stops.
	He's bringing in Bill Clinton to campaign.
	Now, remember what a drag Bill Clinton was on Democrat candidates.
	Lots more to talk about, folks.
	We'll get into it all tomorrow.
	We can get back together.
	See you then.

▲