Rush Limbaugh Program - December 10, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 10, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:29

December 10, 2009, Thursday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hi, how are you?
	Welcome back.
	It's Rush Limbaugh, this, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Remember, as long as I'm here, which I am, it doesn't matter where here is.
	Although we happen to be at the EIB Southern Command and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we meet and surpass all audience expectations every single day.
	Our telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
	All right.
	You know, we have liberals that call this show now and then.
	And by the way, every time, what would you say the percentage of liberals who call here that you put up?
	It's very high, right?
	You put them all 95% of them get on.
	We don't get that many.
	Well, we don't limit them.
	We certainly do not.
	And we move them to the front of the line.
	That's a policy that we put in place way back there in the late 80s when the first round of criticism.
	Limbaugh never takes calls on people who disagree with him.
	We do it all the time when they call.
	Generally what happens is within 30 seconds, they descend into name calling, and we just have to get rid of them.
	They can't stay on topic or anything of the sort.
	But every time they do call, it's generally the result of some sort of, well, we call them seminar callers, but it's a movement.
	Somebody on some website sends out marching orders.
	Okay, here's what we need to say about health care versus war versus taxes.
	You guys need to flood the talk shows with this.
	So we got our obligatory call today about taxes and war.
	Now, the latest talking point, this whole business that Bush did not ask people to sacrifice, Bush ran up a trillion dollars worth of debt in Iraq and Afghanistan and didn't ask anybody to sacrifice it or pay for it and so forth.
	And now everybody's saying that healthcare, which is of noble, compassionate for American idea, has to be paid for.
	The left is trying to make us think that we were immoral and unjust, spending all that money and losing all those lives for something that was irrelevant and it made no difference.
	It wasn't paid for.
	And now here comes the wondrous one, Obama the Messiah, the most merciful, who just wants every American to have health care and to never get sick.
	He does get sick, he gets well.
	And you idiots on the right, you are making it sound like he hasn't paid for it.
	He hasn't going to pay for it.
	He's going to ruin the deficit and so forth.
	And it was your wars that did.
	That's the talking point.
	And its origins are from the New York Times economic columnist Paul Krugman.
	Here's what he wrote, November 29th.
	This is a lot of money.
	I actually said it on this week with George Stephanopoulos.
	This is a lot of money.
	And the point is, we should have been paying for these wars to begin with right from the beginning.
	I mean, this was, if you want to talk firsts for Bush, this was the first time in American history that a president took us into war and cut taxes.
	Now, that was probably cribbed from the Urban Institute study, war and tax.
	The left is, they're linked together.
	All of which was just used as an argument for a new war tax.
	Who was it?
	Was it Baucus that put that out there?
	Who?
	Obie?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, David Obie, David Obie in the House.
	A war tax.
	A war tax.
	But the guy who called here neglected to mention That there were no major tax cuts during a time of war, but that's not even true because Kennedy and Johnson cut taxes in 1964 during the Vietnam War.
	Now, Johnson eventually raised them again.
	And look, we fought a Cold War.
	Now, I don't know with the Soviet Union that went on for years, folks, and it cost a lot of money, the nuke buildup, and Reagan cut taxes in the Cold War.
	So, once again, it's a false choice, a flawed premise that relies on hatred of George W. Bush in order for it to work.
	And as we can see as we go through the stack of stuff here, that's getting harder and harder and harder for Obama to continue to sell.
	Now, here's, this is to play this for you again.
	This is what he said this morning in his acceptance speech, among other things, at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony.
	Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.
	What the hell is he talking about?
	Improved relations with the Soviet Union.
	It was Reagan who refused to talk to Soviet leaders because they kept dying on him.
	Embraced perestroika.
	Does anybody really know what perestroika is?
	I got it from Gorbachev's own damn book.
	By perestroika, Gorbachev meant retrenchment of Leninism.
	He was trying to save communism while it was falling apart.
	He was trying to do things that were incompatible.
	He was trying to, first place, he didn't have the economy to keep up with us on the strategic defense initiative.
	They just couldn't keep up with us.
	They were a third world country with a first-rate military.
	They had no food in the stores.
	They had a typical communist country.
	They had to build walls to keep people in their countries.
	But, you know, blue jeans showed up over there, then DVD copies of the TV show Dallas.
	And the Russian people began to see an America unlike that which they were told about.
	They were constantly lying about what life was like here.
	And then they loved blue jeans.
	They saw Dallas, and somebody snuck pirated copies of Dynasty in there.
	And that's all she wrote.
	So the people started demanding freedom and American prosperity.
	And Gorbachev wanted to stay in power.
	So he tried to dole out a little bit of freedom.
	He called it perestroika, but that's not what he was intending to do.
	But still strengthen communism.
	The two don't go together.
	You cannot parcel out freedom and still strengthen communism.
	It just doesn't work.
	So the floodgates, and Reagan, we defeated them without even firing a shot.
	To say that Reagan embraced perestroika, his efforts on arms control.
	Efforts on arm control.
	Does anybody remember Reykjavik?
	In Iceland, there was a summit and Gorbachev and Reagan met.
	And Gorbachev proposed getting rid of everything.
	Reagan says, screw you.
	I know you're not going to get rid of it.
	He walked out.
	Embrace of arms control?
	You know, I wonder, does that really what he thinks happened during the Reagan years?
	I remember in his book, one of his books, he pretty much says that Reagan is what made him want to get into politics to change America.
	Remember that passage?
	And I've read it to you a number of times where his first job in some, was it a law firm, somebody sitting in his cubicle?
	It's a private sector enterprise.
	forget what it was, but he writes about feeling like he was behind enemy lines.
	And then he talks about having to change what Reagan and his minions were doing, which was cutting taxes, growing the economy, expanding personal liberty and freedom.
	Those are the things that inspired Obama to get into American politics to want to change.
	Now, who was it?
	It's entirely possible that throughout his educated life, he's been told.
	That Reagan embraced perestroika, that Gorbachev was the responsible for the end of the Cold War, and that arms control.
	But at the time, the left hated Reagan because he didn't believe in arms control.
	He always knew the Soviets would cheat on it.
	He wanted to bury the Soviets.
	He wanted to wipe them out.
	He didn't want to get it.
	This is just one of the most amazing passages.
	I mean, he went in to record his Saturday radio presidential address, and he told a joke before he actually started recording the five-minute radio address.
	And he said, attention, Mr. Gorbachev, the bombing starts in five minutes.
	And it got out, and the media had a cow.
	I mean, the left went absolutely nuts.
	And that was on the heels of Reagan having called him the evil empire in the midst of all the Star Wars movies.
	And here comes Little Barry.
	Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the so improved relations with the Soviet Union and empowered dissidents empowered they the dissidents that mattered were in jail it was called a gulag archipelago and it was written about by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
	Uh, I don't know, folks.
	We universalize universe of reality.
	It is, it is.
	It is clear.
	Here let me read from Gorbachev's, his own stupid book.
	I stress once again, perestroika is not some kind of illumination or revelation.
	To restructure our life means to understand the objective necessity for renovation and acceleration, and that necessity emerged in the heart of our society.
	The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction, both in theory and in practice.
	Such is the essence of Perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope.
	Now, that's from Mikhail Gorbachev's own book and I will guarantee them to you that Ronald Reagan no more embraced that than he would have embraced flat out, straight out communism.
	And this, by the way, Perestroika was Gorbachev's downfall.
	You cannot unite socialism and democracy.
	There will be a revolt, especially if you're talking about an oppressed people and you want to bring democracy to an oppressed people.
	But that means you're going to have to give them some freedom which they haven't had before, and freedom that they've been lied to about, that exists elsewhere in the world.
	That all came crumbling down in the person of Boris Yeltsin and a number of others.
	Over there.
	People forget there was an assassination attempt on Gorbachev when he was at the.
	What passes for the Soviet version of Camp David?
	Some shack down in there in the Black Sea or wherever it was.
	That's where the assassination and Gorbachev could.
	They tried to assassinate the president.
	They tried to, which is common in communist countries, do coups all the, all the time.
	But I just this this one's way over the top.
	Folks embrace of, of Perestroika and don't forget the the the, the companion.
	It was Glasmost Openness.
	That was all a sham.
	Look at these people are liberals.
	They're leftists and everything they do is a lie.
	Perestroika and Glasnost, the new opening of the previously closed Soviet system was just the opposite.
	Obama called that transparency now, telling people lies about what you're doing.
	This is just over-the-top, unbelievably incredible.
	He can't possibly believe they just, well, he can if he's been taught that.
	I get if that's what he's been taught.
	He's talking to a bunch of Norwegians, too.
	Well, look at the Europeans, the Western Europeans understand full, they may still resent it, but they understand full well that it was the Pershing missiles placed there that preceded the SDI debate that led to the end of the Soviet Union.
	And Reagan did not back down.
	The Soviets are doing everything they could to keep those missile bases, those launchers from being installed.
	And of course, these little linguini spines over in Oslo were the beneficiaries of it, along with the French, along with the Brits, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Swedish.
	So I just, this is why they want to get rid of old people, folks, people that remember the truth of things like this.
	They want to be able to rewrite history.
	Reagan embraced perestroika.
	Reagan embraced communist reforms.
	They want us to believe, and Reagan was big in arms control.
	Big, big.
	It's just stunning to me.
	And to anybody else who happens to know the truth about this.
	In fact, listen, this is kind of interesting.
	I don't want to make too much out of this.
	Tina Brown, one of the doyens of New York society and literature, she and her husband, Sir Harry Evans, quite dominant and prevalent.
	They are the Ben Bradley and the Sally Quinn of the New York media social set.
	She has edited Vanity Fair, the New Yorker.
	She now has a website called A Daily Beast.
	And this is what she wrote on December 3rd at the Daily Beast.
	It's a strange paradox for a great wordsmith, but whenever Obama makes an important policy speech these days, he leaves everyone totally confused.
	His first healthcare press conference back in July triggered a season of raucous political roar suck and left his hopeful followers utterly baffled about what they were being asked to support.
	Now, White House envoys are being dispatched all over the globe to explain what the president really meant about the date when troops will or won't be pulled out of Afghanistan.
	Does Obama create confusion on purpose?
	Is this his process based on his confession that he's a screen under which people project things?
	Is it a strategy so that whatever bill trickles out of Congress or however many soldiers linger in Afghanistan, he can claim that the outcome is what he meant all along?
	Or is it that there is so much subtext to every part of this message that the simple heads of the electorate are just not pointy enough to comprehend it?
	I, writes Tina Brown, have come to the conclusion that the real reason this gifted communicator has become so bad at communicating is that he doesn't really believe a word that he is saying.
	I think at the risk of publicly humiliating her by agreeing with her, I will agree with her.
	And this is why there's no passion from the guy about anything.
	I'm sure that the guy's got varicose veins because without that, he'd be totally colorless.
	This guy, I'm telling you, is a dryball.
	There's no passion or emotion about any of his proposals.
	Anything he supposedly cares about.
	And Tina Brown says, because he doesn't really believe a word he's saying.
	He couldn't convey that health care reform would somehow be cost-free because he knows it won't be.
	And he can't adequately convey that the imperative or the military strategy of the war in Afghanistan because he doesn't really believe in that either.
	Which she's right.
	I mean, I don't.
	The war in Afghanistan is an inconvenience.
	He really, I think, is irritated that he has to deal with it.
	Anyway, a brief time out.
	We'll be back and we'll continue right after this.
	More of your phone calls are coming up.
	That's a long cool woman in a black dress.
	Here's what I was looking for earlier, ladies and gentlemen.
	Obama goes out there at the Brookings Institution this week and says, well, we're going to suspend the capital gains tax on small business for a year.
	And of course, you have to sell something.
	They have to sell an asset for a profit before there's a gain on it.
	It doesn't apply.
	But anyway, House Democrats, it's a Wall Street Journal.
	House Democrats keep stepping on Obama's applause lines about innovation and job creation.
	Tuesday, Obama announced that we're proposing a complete elimination of capital gains taxes on small business investment for one year.
	Responding with rare dispatch, the House voted yesterday to change the capital gains rate for venture capitalists who invest in technology startups.
	But rather than eliminate the tax, the House more than doubled it, moving the rate to 35% from 15% by reclassifying such gains as ordinary income.
	Private equity fund managers and managers of real estate and oil and gas partnerships would also get socked with a 133% tax rate increase.
	Now, there's a way to encourage economic growth and new jobs.
	So nothing they say, my good friends, can be believed.
	Nothing they say can be believed.
	And how about this?
	Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, and in Obama's pocket, by the way, when it comes to green jobs and all that, because Imelt figures the government's going to give him a bunch of money to develop green turbines and green jet engines and green windmills or what have you.
	Jeff Immelt said yesterday that his generation of business leaders had succumbed to meanness and greed that had harmed the U.S. economy and increased the gap between the rich and the poor.
	Jeffrey Immelt of C of GE attacked his fellow corporate chieftains in a speech at West Point.
	He has one of the strongest criticisms by a top executive of the compensation and business practices that prevailed before the financial crisis.
	We are at the end of a difficult generation of business leadership.
	Tough-mindedness, a good trait, was replaced by meanness and greed, both terrible traits, Immelt said.
	By the way, he's the one who succeeded Jack Welch, one of the toughest leaders of his generation.
	Rewards, Immelt said in his speech, became perverted.
	The richest people made the most mistakes with the least accountability.
	I, folks, I think somebody at the White House wrote his speech.
	That's exactly what they think up there.
	And they've got an ally at GE.
	It's a midnight hour.
	Wilson Pickett, this is 1965 on the Atlantic label.
	Remember the old DJ label copy?
	They were different from what people bought in the stores.
	Same song on both sides.
	In case one side wore out, you could play it on the other side.
	Coming up in middle moments, ladies and gentlemen, another illustration of do I know them or do I know them?
	I nailed it.
	Media wanted me to talk about Tiger in a certain way.
	They were dying to talk about it themselves, but they wanted me to lead so that they could then talk about it themselves while ripping me to shreds for talking about it.
	And we have the sound bites coming up to prove it.
	But first, Sean in Western Massachusetts, great to have you, sir, with us on the EIB network.
	Hi.
	Hello, Rush.
	How are you today?
	Excellent, sir.
	Thank you.
	Calling your listeners a glimmer of hope.
	I'm a Teamster member for about 15 years.
	A good friend of mine's been a Teamster for 35 years.
	He's been a die-hard Democrat.
	He admitted it.
	He's a liberal from the word go.
	After he voted for Obama, he sees what he's doing to this country.
	Said to me two weeks ago, Sean, I am now a Republican and going to vote Republican.
	This guy is destroying the USA.
	Well, you know, this is Daniel Haneger's theory today in his column in the Wall Street Journal.
	You know, let Obama do this, and if it works out, more power to him, and we become France.
	It'll let the American people see what pure radical leftism will do to a country if it has a chance to govern it.
	So, I know it's one story.
	It's anecdotal with your friend.
	I mean, this guy was really dyed in the wool Democrat, liberal, and did the change on a dime.
	No, no, it took me about five years to convert him.
	I was called every name, you know, you're a commie.
	How can you vote Republican after he voted for Obama?
	But the tipping point was Obama.
	Oh, yeah.
	That sent him right over the edge after he saw people are losing their houses, jobs, and this guy wants health care and to socialize America.
	Yeah.
	And of course, Obama was going to keep everybody in their houses.
	Obama's going to make sure everybody had gasoline in the car and so forth.
	Well, you know, I have to think that this has happened to a lot of people over the country, across the country.
	If you look at the polling data, you see cratering on his issues and in his approval rating.
	Bill in Waco, Texas.
	Welcome, sir.
	Great to have you here with us.
	Bill, hey.
	Hello.
	Yeah.
	Bill.
	Hey, Bill.
	Yes, I'm here.
	Bill.
	Yes, Rush.
	Hi, how are you?
	I hear you fine.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Hey, I've got a beef to pick with you, man.
	And major X-Navy dittos.
	But I'm a scientist working in the defense industry, and I'm a conservative.
	And you've been painting with a broad brush lately about us all being a bunch of lefty.
	No.
	What I've been saying is that people like you had better stand up and stop what's going on over in Copenhagen because all of science is being corrupted by these political hacks masquerading as scientists.
	Very good.
	You know, I get that.
	It's just, you know, sometimes.
	I know I have said that science is one of the four corners of deceit, meaning the left has taken it over.
	The left occupies science.
	Now, science has become, I've got a great speech.
	I'm reading it this morning by Michael Crichton, who describes how all of this started, how the concept of consensus in science, the concept of settled science, when nothing was settled.
	Carl Sagan predicting nuclear winter had an equation that would spell out what nuclear winter would be like, except nobody knew what the values were.
	You had to guess.
	And that's what a lot of science has become.
	A wag.
	That's the acronym for it, a wild-ass guess.
	And that's what these climate researchers are doing, just guessing.
	They got these equations that look all brilliant and smart.
	They plug phony numbers into them because there are no real numbers to plug in.
	Everything's made up.
	I remember Carl Sagan, remember the first Gulf Wall when Saddam Hussein set the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire.
	Remember that scene, folks?
	1991.
	Carl Sagan, who was not even really a scientist, Carl Sagan went on TV and predicted a nuclear winter, that summer would not ever exist that year for many parts of the globe.
	And of course, he was dead wrong.
	Totally dead wrong.
	But he had an equation with phony numbers plugged into it.
	So it is a problem.
	If I appear to be painting with a broad brush, it's because I happen to believe in a lot of science.
	When you have people like Al Gore and these guys over at the Climate Research Unit saying it's up to us to prove it isn't happening, that's not the scientific method.
	These guys are the ones with a hypothesis.
	They're the ones that have to test it.
	They're the ones that have to prove it's happening or whatever the scientific thing is for proof.
	I mean, you know, even gravity was misunderstood.
	Everybody thinks Newton discovered gravity when the apple fell.
	So everybody thought, oh, gravity pulls.
	But Einstein came along with a theory of special relativity.
	He said, no, no, no, gravity pushes.
	Gravity is created by a mass and a void, and gravity actually pushes.
	It doesn't pull.
	And that's still up for grabs.
	I mean, you might not believe this, but gravity as a concept really has not been proven.
	There is just a pretty high predictor of accuracy about it.
	I'm not using the correct scientific terms here, but it's a shame what's happened to science.
	They've been politicized, just like academia has been politicized.
	The media has been politicized.
	They've been taken over by left-wing hacks.
	All right, to the audio soundbites.
	Let's set this up in order.
	This on Monday nailed it so perfectly.
	This is what I said about the media and Tiger Woods.
	Every talking head, every pundit, every sports writer wants to talk about it, but they don't have the guts to talk about it.
	And they're waiting on me to bring it up so they can then rip me for talking about it while they then get their opinion.
	Every sports writer and every pundit wants to talk about that, but they don't have the guts to.
	And they're waiting for me to because they think I'll wade right into it and then they can rip me for bringing it up while they offer their opinions on it.
	I am not going there.
	I am not going to talk about it.
	The AP already went there, but have you heard anybody else talking about it?
	No, you have it.
	They're all waiting on me.
	I guarantee them to you.
	They've been waiting since noon today, noon Eastern.
	If their pens and their computers and everything, they've been waiting for me to get into this.
	All right.
	And then on Monday, after setting this all up, because see Snerdley, if you were here, you remember Snerdley was trying to bait me into commenting on multiple stories in the state-controlled media about certain characteristics of the women allegedly having the trysts with Tiger Woods.
	And Snerdley was dying to have me wait into this.
	No, Snerdley, I'm not going to do it because everybody's waiting for me to do it so they can jump on me while they talk about it.
	They just want to plaster me with a racist label.
	So this is what I said.
	And this is after playing a couple sound bites from Jesse Jackson, upset at Obama at the high unemployment rate among black Americans and how Obama's not doing anything about it.
	I said this.
	I'll tell you what's going on here with this.
	The Reverend Jackson, and I got two more stories in the stack today about how black unemployment is through the roof.
	Black unemployment is terrible.
	The black frame of mind is terrible.
	They're depressed.
	They're kind of Obama not doing anything for them.
	How is that hoax and change working for you?
	They're all livid.
	I mean, they thought there were going to be an exact 180-degree economic reversal, and it's done nothing but get banned for everybody.
	But they're especially upset about it because they look at him as one of them.
	And now they feel abandoned.
	And I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females is not helping them out with their attitudes there either.
	Folks, about that, I got a great piece to share with you from Lisa Schifrin at theAmericanThinker.com on the parallels between Tiger Woods and Barack Obama.
	The theme is that both are the result of lies, falsely crafted images that are in no way representative of who they really are.
	All right, so there are two lines here that you have to know that the media fixated on.
	One of them was, the black friend of mine is frame of mind is terrible.
	The media wanted to characterize it as I was the one saying that as an original thought.
	I was reporting that from mainstream media stories and audio soundbites from the Reverend Jackson and how mad he was.
	Then the line, and I'm sure Tiger Woods' choice of females is not helping them out with their attitudes there either.
	I didn't say that either.
	There were already multiple AP stories chronicling quotes from black women who are just livid about this.
	I didn't talk about them because Snurdley was baiting me, but I knew what would happen.
	So, last night, the Joy Behar show on headline news, she talked to Georgetown University sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson.
	Behar says, who better than Rush Limbaugh to understand and express the black experience?
	Rush Limbaugh weighing in on the black experiences like David Duke speaking at a Holocaust Memorial.
	He said, first of all, the black frame of mind is pretty remarkably uninsightful.
	Obama's performance and black people's belief in his performance was still relatively very high.
	It has nothing to do with explaining what Tiger Woods is doing and what Tiger Woods is caught in right now.
	Secondly, he said that the choice of women, Eugene Robinson weighed in talking about the Barbie Dowell stereotype there.
	He stopped short of talking about Tiger's choice in terms of color.
	But let's be honest, many African-American people already conscious of the fact that Tiger has been loath to necessarily publicly embrace the black side of his experience.
	People are raising questions about what those choices might indicate about his struggles for a strong identity.
	All right, so Dyson compares me to David Duke and then goes on to validate everything I said.
	After misrepresenting what I said, I did not originate the black attitude experience.
	That was all quotes from Jesse Jackson and other people and the black frame of mind.
	And he goes on here.
	I mean, he see, they want to rip me.
	They want to rip me.
	But he went on and he offered the comments here that Tiger's got a problem with his blackness.
	And I didn't say it.
	I know Dyson's saying Tiger ain't black enough.
	You're not down for the struggle.
	It's like they said about Obama.
	You know, that's what the Magic Negro stuff is all about.
	They just, they can't wait for me to weigh in on this because the media template is, oh, we can nail limbo on racism.
	I told you folks, they're sitting out there.
	They were just waiting for this.
	Here, Behar said, well, people say Obama's post-racial.
	He's all different races, every man at this point.
	And yet the African-American community is not that thrilled with him right now, it seems to me.
	So she's even validating what I said.
	Yeah, first of all, post-racial is a myth and an idea that doesn't exist.
	What does that mean?
	We don't live in a post-racial world, and we don't want to.
	I don't want to live in a world that tries to pretend they don't know I'm black.
	My mother told me this morning I was, so you can join in the parade of acknowledgement.
	We want to be post-racist, not post-racial.
	One black man in public housing in Washington, D.C. cannot eradicate the entire history of racism in this country.
	And unfortunately, Tiger Woods has not been led necessarily to embrace that viewpoint and certainly address it in a very specific way throughout his career.
	All right.
	And exactly as I predicted in the next bite, Dyson uses me to express his own opinion, racist opinion, of Tiger and his choice of women.
	Behar says, well, Limbaugh said he's attracted to a certain kind of woman, and that would make him less popular, it seems to me.
	White men are attracted to the same kind of bimbos when they're on this kind of track of adulterous affairs.
	Of course, you make a brilliant point there.
	The fact is that a tiger is attracted to the same kind of women that many of the golfers that he golfs with are.
	Tiger's own choice may reflect his own inability to come to grips with certain aspects of his own multiracial element, or it is the fact that he's bought the lie of what's beautiful.
	So these guys bought the lie of what's beautiful.
	So, bought the lie of what's beautiful, blonde babes.
	So, folks, just to show you, I know these people.
	I said they're waiting for me to make a comment about this so that they can weigh in on it after the fact, call me the racist while they utter racist comments.
	And that's exactly what happened here.
	America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
	Hey, here's one statistic from the Stack of Stuff pile that will not surprise you, my friends.
	And I'm happy to announce a membership to the Heritage Foundation up big time.
	Just like this radio program, my listeners are choosing not to participate in this recession.
	You can do that.
	You have that power.
	And now the Heritage Foundation, nonprofit organization, unlike the EIB network, we are strictly for-profit, big time.
	Every dollar Heritage receives in membership donation goes to further their vast research and communications.
	The ground covered by the Heritage Foundation is amazing.
	I really hope that you have checked out AskHeritage.org.
	You can never have too many sources of great information.
	And Askheritage.org right at the top.
	If you haven't treated yourself to a membership, this is a good gift idea for yourself and for other people.
	Aligning yourself with those think like you and me is important.
	Don't deprive yourself.
	Just go online, askheritage.org, get a good look at all the Heritage Foundation does with your membership money and join all of us who are proud members.
	AskHeritage.org.
	Get started today.
	Baltimore, Maryland.
	Kevin, you're next.
	I'm glad you waited, sir.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Yes, sir.
	What I wanted to say was that I've been listening to the health medical insurance debates for a long time.
	And I've noted that the people that are pushing this really have no idea how government agencies work.
	Really.
	You mean Obama doesn't know how government agencies work?
	None of them do.
	They think that they can pass a law and everybody will be taken care of, but they have no idea about the complex nature of the government.
	You are assigning to them an altruism I don't think exists.
	I think there is abundant evidence that anybody on the left or anybody else could see that government doesn't know what it's doing, that government does not fulfill its promises because bureaucracies cannot.
	They're too inefficient.
	Now, they may believe that, well, the wrong people have tried it.
	We're the good people.
	We're for the right.
	We can make it all work.
	But I don't believe that's their purpose.
	I don't think their purpose is to make sure everybody has affordable health care.
	I don't think they give a rat's rear end about that.
	Not this radical bunch.
	It's time to wake up, folks.
	This radical bunch, they're not naive and they're not well-intentioned little kids.
	These people are radicals who want to take over and control everybody's life because they're smarter and better than you.
	They look at you with contempt, not with compassion.
	Learn it.
	Here's another one, folks.
	Brian Baird, a Democrat from the state of Washington, a member of the House, announced last night that he will not be running for re-election.
	He's the third Democrat in a competitive district to announce retirement plans in the last month.
	The rats are beginning to flee what they think is going to be a sinking ship.
	Been fun today.
	I'll see you tomorrow on Open Line Friday.

▲