All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
December 14, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, all across the bountiful, fruited plain.
Rush Limbaugh back in action on the EIB network as we come to you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
As always, a thrill and a delight to be with you.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
From the Politico today, for critics of the Democrats' supposedly so-called $849 billion health care bill.
Let me tell you people, Politico, it's $2.5 trillion.
There's no such thing as an $849 billion health care bill.
Anyway, for critics of the Democrats' $849 billion health care bill, this may be the ultimate irony.
Millions of dollars are set aside so the government can help teach citizens how to handle their own money better.
Did you know that?
The funding is part of a $375 million program aimed at promoting responsible lifestyles, a five-year plan to fund state efforts to educate adolescents on abstinence, contraception, and other adult preparation subjects, such as healthy relationships, increased child-parent communication, and financial literacy.
The federal government is never going to encourage personal responsibility and never has, said Republican South Carolina Senator Jim DeMant.
Personal responsibility is a good principle, but not the government doing it.
Abstinence, adult preparation, and financial literacy to be taught by the government as part of the health care plan.
Now, where the hell are you going to have to go for that to happen?
Your kid's going to have it be done to them in school?
And if you look at Obama's Safe School Czar, who believes in teaching homosexuality techniques, you can see what they have on the agenda here when they talk about adult preparation subjects, healthy relationships, child-parent communication, financial literacy.
I mean, it's just, it's dangerous, folks.
It's right out in front of us.
We can all see what's happening.
Has anybody ever wondered why Barack Obama never called Steve Jobs a fat cat?
Why does he never call Bill Gates or Warren Buffett fat cats?
Why does he not call Larry Ellison a fat cat?
Why does he not call Tiger Woods a fat cat?
Why does he speaking of Tiger?
That couple stories in Tiger Woods just blow my mind.
Apparently, he was in the sack with one of his babes when his dad died when he got the phone call.
His dad died at a hospice.
So the girl says that Tiger didn't say anything, got up and left for a few hours, and then came back to the hotel room.
He gets to his house.
He has a house out there.
And there's a story, a couple stories here.
One's from the Associated Press, how Tiger flubbed Crisis Management 101.
And the next one is, how did Tiger keep his secrets?
One of the world's most scrutinized professional athletes with a pristine image has been keeping infidelity under wraps.
Many wonder how he pulled it off.
Many wonder how he pulled it off.
Have you ever heard of sports groupies?
The media knew all of it.
Folks, trust me, I knew about two of these.
If I knew about it, this was common knowledge in the sports groupie sportswriter community.
They knew this.
The word was out all over the people were snickering about it, laughing about it all over the place.
Wherever you find a hoax, you're going to find the media.
I had some people say, but Rush, they're hushing it up just like they hush things up about Obama because Tiger's black.
No, no, race has nothing to do with it in Tiger's case.
Simply starstruck.
They wanted access.
They wanted to be in with Tiger.
They wanted to be part of the group.
They wanted access.
They wanted his interviews.
They wanted to be able to chew the fat with him and all sorts of stuff.
Nothing more complicated than that.
And now here's the AP writing how Tiger flubbed Crisis Management 101, things he should have done when the scandal broke.
Yeah, I want to, who are these people telling Tiger or anybody else how to run his life and create his image?
I mean, they're the ones that sat idly by while all this was going on, leaving it up to the National Inquirer.
Same thing with John Edwards.
The only people that don't sit idly by when stuff like this is going on happen to be Republicans like Larry Craiger, John Enson, and they're all over the case.
How did Tiger keep his secrets?
Wherever there's a hoax, you will find the media.
Claire McCaskill, by the way, one Democrat senator fighting for health care reform said yesterday she absolutely would vote against the health care bill being debated in the Senate if it increases out-of-pocket costs and drives up the debt.
Well, if she really said that, then there's no way she can ever vote for it.
No way.
But Senator McCaskill added, she doesn't think that's going to happen because Obama would also reject such a bill.
Oh my God, you got to be kidding me.
Obama would reject such a bill.
McCaskill said everything's on hold until the CBO's numbers come back, which is going to be either today or tomorrow.
CBO's results are used by lawmakers to determine whether a bill is financially doable.
Democrats need 60 votes.
Lieberman's already counted himself out.
And don't forget the Medicare actuary has already come on record that these plans do just the opposite of what everybody's telling us they do.
It's an utter disaster.
I think it is falling apart, but it's not over yet, folks.
It's not over yet because remember what Pelosi said.
Nancy Pelosi said she would sign anything to get this done before Christmas.
She would sign anything, whatever they put into these bills and conference them.
She'll sign anything to say they got it done, and then they'll go back in and supposedly fix or make it worse.
Now, on this single-payer universal health care, it's not only Obama who since 2003 has been openly telling us his desires.
So have various members of Congress.
July 27th, National Press Building on Washington, D.C.
This is 2007.
Barney Frank reporters said, well, real quick, why is single payer off the table?
Congressman, real quick, why is single payer off the table?
You guys put on the votes.
I wish you weren't.
I'm all for it.
I'm a big sponsor.
You've been a co-sponsor of single payer for a very long time.
Don't you think we should scratch everything and start anew with single payer?
No.
Why shouldn't we start with single payer new?
Because we don't have the votes for it.
I wish we did.
I think if we get a good public option, it could reach a single payer, and that's the best way to reach single-payer.
I think the best way we're going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate its strength and its power.
Well, the public option is now supposedly off the table because that wasn't going to fly in the Senate.
That wasn't going to get 60 votes in the Senate.
But you see, regardless whether you listen to Obama or Barney Frank or any of them, whatever is in this bill is just the vehicle to get the single payer.
That's the objective.
Jan Schakowski, who is a senator from a congressman from Illinois, April 18th of this year.
And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn't let private insurance compete.
That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business.
And I said, He was right.
The man was right.
Here's what I told him.
I said, excuse me, sir.
The goal of health care reform is not to protect the private health insurance.
And I am so confident in the superiority of a public health care option that I think he has every reason to be frightened.
Illinois Congresswoman Jen Schakowski from April of this year, do you understand what you are hearing?
Whether it's Barney Frank, or whether it's Barack Obama, or whether it's Jan Schakowsky, or any of them, there is a pure hatred for capitalism, a pure hatred of the private sector, and this audience is cheering the destruction of the private health insurance industry.
She wants a public option.
She wants single payer.
Everything they say to the contrary is a lie.
Now, from Byron York at the D.C. Examiner, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin admitted Friday he's in the dark about the national health care bill currently under construction by Harry Leed.
Reed, in exchange on the Senate floor, McCain asked Durbin, should we not at least be informed as to what the proposal is that the Senate Majority Leader is going to propose to the entire Senate?
Durbin said, I would say to the senator from Arizona that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is, and I'm in the leadership.
Durbin explained that during a Democrat caucus, Reed and the small group of senators involved in crafting the bill turned to their fellow Democrats and basically stood and said, we're sorry, we can't tell you in detail what was involved.
So there you have it.
It doesn't really matter what's in it, folks.
They just are hell-bent on getting it passed so they can send it up to Obama for his signature just to give Obama a monument and something to talk about in his State of the Union speech in January.
Although it's not quite that innocent, the things that are in this that are known are destructive.
They would destroy the essence of what has made the United States the United States of America.
And I believe that's the intention, as I've expressed and explained countless times before.
And if you listen to Obama talk with real anger in his voice about fat cat bankers and so forth, and then you go back and read Dreams of My Father, where he rips into fat cat bankers and so forth, you'll readily understand what Obama was taught, the way he was raised, and what he believes now.
And I'll summarize it for you yet again.
He looks at the United States of America much as one of our enemies would look at it, Western European socialist or worse, unjust, unfair, immoral.
No equality of outcomes.
Too great a disparity between achievers and underachievers, although he looks at that as the gap between the rich and the poor.
And he's hell-bent on taking away as much as he can from the achievers and redistributing it in order to make this country more fair and to get even with it for all of its evil deeds in its history.
That's who we've elected as president of the United States.
And it's patently obvious to anybody who wants to open-mindedly look at what he says.
Merry Christmas to everybody in the audience here, the EIB Limbaugh Institute.
Great to have you with us.
Mannheim Steamroller in the Christmas music bump.
Rotation as we approach the intense holiday period with eagerness, excitement, and anticipation.
Now, let's go to the phones.
Well, start in St. Louis with Elizabeth.
Thank you for waiting, Elizabeth.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Thank you so much.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you.
I am calling about Obamacare.
One of the things that's going to happen if it passes, God forbid it does, is it's going to mean the death of the private practice of medicine.
It will kill off private practice.
Now, people like to sort of wax nostalgic.
You know, people can talk about a time when, oh, they remember when doctors made house calls.
Well, of course, now they don't do that anymore.
But people are going to talk in the future about a time.
Oh, I remember when I had my own doctor and he kind of knew me and I knew where his office was and I would drive there and park and I would make my own appointment.
Medicare is going to, if everybody gets to be on Medicare, it's not going to look like Medicare anymore.
People aren't going to be in a private practice setting.
They're going to be in a clinic setting.
In other words, they're going to want to see a doctor that's good, that they know, and they're going to call to make an appointment.
And the secretary that answers the phone, the government worker that answers the phone, is going to say, sure, you can see Dr. Smith in 34 weeks or 38 weeks.
And if you want to see another doctor who, frankly, may not have been trained in the United States, may not have gone to medical school in the United States, you can see him in 26 weeks.
So it is dangerous.
This is very, very dangerous, and I don't think people get it.
Well, a lot of people listening to this program today are wondering where you pulled that out of your hat.
36 weeks to see.
Well, I'm just using that as an example.
That is not a scientific number.
But I can tell you.
Well, then that makes it accurate.
Yeah, exactly.
That's how they do it in Washington.
What I can tell you is this.
The reason I believe private practice will be killed off is my husband is a physician.
He's a cancer doctor.
And right now, I was shocked when I found out about this.
His practice, the business expenses for his practice are 92%.
Now, that's outrageous, right?
I mean, and the reason that they're so high is that right now, Medicare does not fully reimburse for what it costs to deliver cancer care to people.
So if we flood the system with more and more people who are not, you know, where the government's not going to be able to pay, people who are in private practice, you just can't run a business like that.
I joke with my husband, you know, well, you got eight percentage points to go.
At some point when you get to 100%, I don't think you're working anymore.
I think you're volunteering.
But that is why it's going to get so expensive to practice medicine that doctors won't be in private practice.
They'll have to work for the government.
Well, I think in many instances that's already happening.
You just said it.
Your husband and other doctors are already prisoners to whatever the Medicare reimbursement schedule is, and that's just going to be expanded, and a bureaucrat or a series of bureaucrats or a bureaucrat board is going to be making arbitrary decisions, not individual patient decisions, on what a doctor is going to get reimbursed and so forth.
I know it's a disaster in the making.
It's an insult to all of our intelligence to listen to these people tell us what a magical fix this is going to be, how it's going to insure all the uninsured, how it's going to make sure everybody gets the same equal great treatment.
None of what they're saying is true about it.
It can't possibly be that government has yet to run any enterprise in an efficient, profitable way.
They just have it.
You know, there's a story here.
Thanks, Elizabeth, for the phone call.
At a time, this is from WTOP Radio Washington, at a time when the White House is projecting the largest deficit in the nation's history.
The country's trying to recover billions of dollars in unpaid taxes from its own employees.
Federal workers owe more than $3 billion in income taxes they failed to pay in 2008.
According to IRS documents, 276,300 federal employees and retirees owe over $3 billion.
The IRS tracks the voluntary compliance rate of federal employees and retirees each year.
And every year the feds come up short.
The one bright spot in this year's report is that after several years of steady increases, the amount owed by feds is down from the previous year.
Now, wait a minute.
I thought everybody had their taxes withheld.
And here's the old trick again, the old media trick.
Well, yeah, they're still doing really bad in collecting taxes from federal workers, but it's not as bad this year as it was last.
Federal workers, $3 billion in unpaid taxes.
The point is that the federal government cannot even keep up with its own people, much less run the health care system.
Stephanie in Charlotte, North Carolina, glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
I had a quick comment for you about the reverb that you've added to your show.
Yes, ma'am.
I've been a fan of yours for a long time, but I have to say it annoys me a little bit.
And I was thinking about that today, and I decided to set my annoyance aside because if I, a fan of this show, am a little bit annoyed by the reverb, I can only imagine how absolutely infuriating it has to be to the liberals that I'm sure are listening to your show.
That is a brilliantly mature way to look at this.
What is it about the reverb that irritates you?
It makes it a little difficult to understand you, but it's just, it's one of those things that's like white noise.
It's like, this is annoying.
And so it only annoys me a little bit.
When you slowed Obama down, that didn't annoy me at all.
It made me laugh every time.
This is a little annoying.
I have some liberal friends that tune into your show fairly regularly.
And they've called me about that and said how obnoxious that was.
So I can only look forward to hearing about what I'm going to hear from them on this.
We have options with the reverb unit.
I can have various settings.
I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
After the break here coming up in mere seconds, we'll do an on-air tweaking of the amount of reverb.
And then we'll settle on a compromise point where it's not distracting, but it is still there.
I have an additional question for you.
Quickly, would it be awful to add additional reverb when there isn't reverb to Obama?
Since you have it, can you add it to Obama all the time?
I'll think about it.
And we're back.
El Rushbo here at the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, as always, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
All right.
It has been mentioned to me twice now, once that I saw in an email and just now on a phone call that the reverb that we have added here is a little bit too much.
We have the ability to tweak our reverb unit, so I thought we would do it together.
I do want to point out that the email reaction to this is unilaterally, almost unanimously, in favor and over the top.
There are always some naysayers.
You always have people that complain.
You always have people that whine, even in this audience.
Even the whiners in this audience, like our previous caller, understand that there could be some good in it if it really irritates the libs.
And remember also, folks, that there is a performance aspect to this.
Anytime you imitate or mock someone, you always exaggerate their characteristics.
It's just part and parcel of it.
So we added more reverb than is necessary to put an exclamation point on it.
So what is the name of the first setting, right?
Okay, cathedral, this is the setting we have been using.
This is the voice of God in the cathedral.
This is the setting we chose ultimately.
What's the next setting?
What is it?
The next setting is plate.
I have no idea what it means, but here's what it sounds like.
This is the plate reverb.
Now, this is much less reverb to me, but it is still obviously reverb, and it should be less distracting reverb, correct?
Go ahead and move to the next.
Put a check mark by that one.
That one's in the finals.
The next reverb setting is called hall.
And this is the hall setting.
And there's hardly any reverb in it.
So scrub that.
That's worthless.
That sounds like in a basement or someplace where a pancake breakfast is going on in Flint, Michigan.
This one is room.
Okay, room reverb.
Room reverb.
Testing one, two, three, four.
You like room?
Okay, so we like the hall and we like the room.
Is there one more setting we can try?
We have multiple settings on our Obama machine here.
This is called concert, and this is the concert reverb.
Now, this sounds pretty close to the cathedral, although it does not reverb as much.
It doesn't have as lengthy an echo.
We'll do one more.
What's the next setting in title?
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Studio reverb.
This is studio reverb.
And that's hardly any reverb.
Okay, so we've got cathedral, which was my first choice.
And then what was the other way to put a check mark by?
Plate.
Okay, let's go with plate for now.
Put it on plate, and we'll go back to the phones.
In fact, but we'll test it before we go to the phones.
I just want to make a point about global warming.
By the way, I had somebody send me a note when the last caller asked me to think about adding even more reverb to Obama's sound bites.
I said, I'll think about it.
The email said, that's what I think God sounds like when I pray.
Okay, just a little side observation about all of this climate change stuff.
I think it's the most damning thing about the Climate Research Unit emails and admissions.
These scientists thought they had data that conclusively proved man-made global warming.
Evidence that proved that if we didn't drastically change the way we lived in a few short years, that the world would be destroyed.
And yet they destroyed that data.
They destroyed the original data, the baseline data.
They destroyed it.
They said, oh, we lost it when we moved to a bigger building.
That's like saying, I'm going to throw out my family pictures when we move because I'm not going to have room for them in the new house.
They threw it out.
Who would do such a thing?
Who would throw out the original data, the baseline data that allows all their current projections to be truthful or believed in a scientific way?
Shouldn't these scientists be brought up on charges for being so irresponsible when the fate of the world is hanging in the balance?
Where's the outrage here?
Look at they have destroyed the automobile business with all of this.
It is amazing the changes that governments, federal, state, and local, have implemented because of phony, false, made-up scientific data, which by definition is not scientific data.
I mean, there ought to be criminal charges for what has been done here.
And yet they're doubling down over in Copenhagen.
Tony Blair, he's saying even if the science isn't right, we still need to move ahead on climate change, even if the science isn't right, which tells you first and foremost that this is nothing about science.
All right, may I have a review on this setting of the reverb?
What do you think, Mr. Snerdley?
All right, Snerdley likes this, but he likes Cathedral better.
What are you, Dawn?
She says that you can't understand cathedral as well.
Can't understand what I'm saying.
Well, Dawn, you may have a point.
If you can't easily understand, good grief, I don't believe what I just saw.
Well, I can't, there it is.
Look, I can't believe what I am looking at.
MSNBC, I cannot believe what I am seeing.
Anyway, Dawn said, I'm sorry to tease you, folks.
I'm looking at Oprah.
I just could not believe it.
Anyway, Dawn says that with the Cathedral Reverb setting, that it's much more difficult to understand what I'm saying, which might come in handy on occasion.
We'll go back and forth.
I kind of like the cathedral better because just from a performance standpoint, when you are imitating or mocking, you have to exaggerate it a bit in order to make the point.
Okay, back to the phones to Glendale, California.
This is Walt.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Rush, Megadittos.
Thank you, sir.
I like the concert setting.
I think it's almost the cathedral, but you can still make out everything you say.
And it would really mess up the lips.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate the feedback.
I wonder whether Obama was talking about George Soros when he was talking about fat cat bankers, because back in the first quarter this year, the FDIC, in an unprecedented move, sold IndyMac Bank, you know, the one that George, that Schumer killed.
And they sold it to a group of private investors, including George Soros.
And in August, the L.A. Times reported that in their first quarter of operation, made $182 million, despite the fact that a third of their assets were delinquent, and there didn't seem to be any revenue coming in.
And since it's a private organization, there's no way to see where the money came or where it went.
But it seems like a pretty good idea for the Democrats.
I mean, you have a pipeline from the FDIC to the DNC with no way to check it out.
And I don't know why we didn't do that when we were Republicans.
Why couldn't we have gotten a pipeline from the FDIC to the RNC?
Pipeline from the FDIC to the well, I don't know.
The IndyMac thing, I know that Chuck Schumer was involved in it too, Chuck Schumer.
Their failure, the failure is what caused Schumer to go out and predict it.
Say he had heard that it was going to fail, and that caused a run.
This was done on purpose.
I really believe that a lot of this financial crisis last fall was manufactured for the pure purpose of electing Obama.
It was an election year campaign issue.
And nobody's going to be able to talk me out of this.
I listened to all of these so-called financial media experts all over the place, and they were all spelling the two.
And they were saying, oh, it's a crisis.
No, we have to do this now.
Our wheel will have a total collapse.
I remember him talking to Cavuto, and Cavuto wasn't buying it.
No, it is so crucial.
We must do it.
And they were just repeating what they've been told with the people they respect.
I mean, you know, financial media people are financial groupies.
They want to hang around with all the bank presidents and the big muckety mucks and the fat cats on Wall Street.
They want to party with them out at the Hamptons and so forth.
They'll fly around on their airplanes.
The media is just a bunch of groupies.
And they'll repeat whatever the people they want to suck up to want them to say, pure and simple.
Be it in news, politics, sports, or finance.
So we had this TARP bailout.
It was crucial.
Neil, we must do this, or we're going to lose the world for it.
We've got $200 billion of it left over.
We have $200 billion left.
It was a slush fund.
So was the stimulus money, a slush fund for Obama and the Democrats to use to pay off people.
This business, he's out there.
We've got some soundbites from here.
Grab number 36, number 37.
This is from Obama's bank speech today after he met with the financial executives.
Listen to this first comment.
In today's meeting, it was very simple: that America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry.
And now that they're back on their feet, we expect extraordinary commitment from them.
Stop, stop, stop.
Stop, stop, stop.
Is this we got a we got a computer problem?
No, we'll keep playing it.
I like him sounding this way, frankly.
We also discussed the need to pass meaningful financial reform that will protect American consumers from exploitation and the American economy from another financial crisis of the kind, which we just came out of.
I noted the resistance of many of the financial sectors to these reforms.
I made very clear that I have no intention of letting their lobbyists thwart reforms necessary to protect the American people.
If they wish to fight common sense consumer protections, that's a fight I'm more than willing to have.
I actually like listening to the president sound choked up and about to cry, which is what that sounds like to me.
Here's what he said: he was explaining basically how he read the Riot Act to the bankers and threatened them.
He said his main message was very simple: America's banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry, and now that they're back on their feet, we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild the economy.
Let me tell you what this is: this is now another slush fund.
What Obama is going to do is pressure these banks to continue to make loans to people who cannot pay them back.
It's essentially a continuation of what got us into the subprime mortgage mess.
Here is the next sound bite where he reveals what his real motivation is by denying that it's his real motivation.
In the end, my interest isn't in vilifying any one person or institution or industry.
It's not to dictate to them or micromanage their compensation practices.
So it is.
My job is to ensure that consumers and the larger economy are protected from risky speculation and predatory practices, that credit is flowing, that businesses can grow, and jobs are once again being created at the pace we need.
He doesn't mean any of that.
When he says, in the end, my interest isn't in vilifying any one person or institution or industry.
It is to vilify one person or institution or industry.
That's what he's doing today.
It is not to dictate to them or micromanage their compensation practices.
Yet, that's exactly what is being done.
How can he say he's not micromanaging them and dictating compensation after he has a meeting with them to discuss that very thing and threaten them with who knows what?
All right, folks, get this.
This is from the UK Times Online.
Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years.
Al Gore said today the Arctic ice cap will melt in five.
The decision on preventing catastrophic climate change will be delayed for up to six years if the Copenhagen summit delivers a promise or compromise deal, which ignores advice from the UN science buddy.
World leaders will not agree on the emissions cuts recommended by the IPCC and are likely instead to commit to reviewing them in 2015 or 2016.
The delay will anger developing countries who scientists say will face the worst effects of climate change, despite having contributed relatively little of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
A draft text published by the UN says there should be a review in 2016, which could result in an update of the long-term global goal for emissions reductions, as well as the adequacy of commitments and actions.
Now, while this may sound like these people are losing, like they're out of control, they're disorganized, because they have stalled the decision on implementing emissions restrictions on climate change for six years.
That doesn't mean they're going to stop in this country trying to pass cap and trade.
So they will do exactly what's going on in healthcare.
They'll get the redistribution first.
They'll start raising taxes, but they will not implement the actual restrictions on people for six years.
Something that will actually supposedly address the supposed problem.
So while it says here, Copenhagen stalls decision on catastrophic climate change for six years, the real message to take out of this: wait a minute, how can you delay it six years?
You're telling us we don't have six years.
You're telling us we're going to hell in a handbasket.
You're telling us disaster is imminent.
And you're going to delay this six years.
They are in disarray.
They've had China has walked out, India has walked out, a couple of other countries, other developing nations have boycotted the climate talks.
And the poor countries walked out.
Now, the poor countries have come back in since having been promised that it wouldn't be as bad for them as it was originally going to be.
But the point is, they're unraveling.
Once they put what they are out in the open and people can see it, people reject it.
That is what is happening.
That is why we got to keep the heat on.
Be it healthcare, be it tax and crap, tax and pay, whatever it is, climate change, whatever it is the liberals are advancing.
It is a disaster and it's got to be stopped.
We don't need to have an alternative proposal for everything.
That's accepting their premise.
We don't have to have our own plan to save the planet.
Why can't our plan be, hey, the planet is not in danger?
We're doing a great job of cleaning up our messes.
Capitalism and freedom lead to the cleanest places on earth.
Leave it alone.
To the phones, Tom in Sandusky, Ohio.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's great to talk to you again.
I really enjoy your show.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I read an article that one of the first things I do in the morning is I get up and turn on the computer and read The American Thinker and usually read most of the articles in it, depending on how much time I have.
It's a great site.
Yes, it is.
I read that in a lot of other sites.
But anyhow, there was an article in there called Poison Wells by Bruce Walker, and he took your name in vain, okay, along with O'Reilly and you're talking about the Law and Order SVU show.
Yes.
At first, you know, at first, I thought to myself, I was furious.
You know, I mean, I get, my wife says I got to do it.
Yeah, but wait a second.
The American Thinker didn't do it.
Law and Order SVU.
The American Thinker didn't do it.
Right, right.
Right, right.
I didn't mean to say the American thinker.
The article in there by Bruce Walker accused or mentioned that Law and Order SUV did this.
Okay?
But anyhow, one of the last comments was that Law and Order SVU is not only instructing us which individuals are killers, but which political class of people in America are killers.
And that just blew my cork.
Well, you know.
I've known about this this last week.
I generally choose not to respond to this stuff because if I did, it's all I would do.
But I'm a little long in the segment.
I'll talk about this in the next hour, Tom.
Thanks for the call, folks.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Maybe it ought to bother me, folks, the stuff that the caller was talking about when it was said about me on Law and Order SVU, that Lindbaugh Garrison, O'Reilly Beck, all of them, they're like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate.
I just, it's said so often that it's just, it's commonplace.
The left can do nothing but name call.
They can't disagree with anything I say issue-wise.
They do this.
It's just so common that I just ignore it.
It doesn't have any impact on me anymore.
▲
Export Selection