All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
January 11, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I was not making this up, folks.
It's right here in the New York Times.
First, New York City required restaurants to cut out trans fat.
Then it made restaurant chains post calorie counts on their menus.
And so today, the Bloomberg administration plans to unveil a broad new health initiative aimed at encouraging food manufacturers and restaurant chains across the country to curtail the amount of salt in their products.
Greetings.
Welcome back.
El Rushbow behind the Golden EIB microphone.
The plan for which the city of New York claims support from health agencies in other cities and states sets a goal of reducing the amount of salt in packaged and restaurant food by 25% over the next five years.
Public health experts say that that would reduce the incidence of high blood pressure and should help prevent some of the strokes and heart attacks associated with it.
The plan is voluntary for food companies.
It involves no legislation yet.
It allows companies to cut salt gradually over five years so the change is not noticeable to consumers.
Dr. Thomas Farley, the city health commissioner whose department is leading the effort, said we all consume way too much salt.
Most of the salt we consume is in the food when we buy it.
80% of the salt in Americans' diets comes from packaged or restaurant food, Dr. Farley said.
Reducing salt from those sources would save lives.
Folks, I don't know.
This infuriates me.
It's none of their business.
It is none of their business how much salt I eat.
Salt is necessary.
They're going to cause more problems getting more people frightened to eat any salt.
And you have to have it.
Once they get health care, this is the kind of stuff and even worse that's going to be coming down the pike.
This will be the new norm.
Everything we do will be in the context of health care and the expense that it will cost to protect us or to cure us or to make us well once we get sick.
So this is just a harbinger.
Now, I don't know if you know this, but there are brochures that Mayor Bloomberg is distributing in New York City.
Safety tips when using heroin.
Brochures on safety tips, the how-tos of using heroin, including jump up and down before shooting up so that your veins will be more visible.
So the New York City mayor sends out brochures to assist people in shooting up heroin, but now is going to cut down or see to it that cut down, we cut down on our salt intake.
Now, something is just wrong.
Well, Rush, but you know, it's a safety thing.
These people are addicted and it's a safety.
They're misusing.
The mayor is just trying to save people from getting overdoses and going to the hospital.
Folks, I don't care what excuse you want to offer here.
If they're going to pass out brochures telling people how to more safely inject heroin, then have them stop telling the rest of us to cut back on salt.
Something is way out of whack, as is this.
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a terrorism detainee on grounds that his confessions were coerced allegedly by U.S. forces before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.
In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.
However, The judge said that statements he made during two military administrative hearings at the U.S. Detention Center, where he was assisted by a personal representative, were reliable and sufficient to justify holding the detainee.
But most of the evidence has been tossed out.
So let me see if I understand this.
A personal representative, I take it, is a lawyer.
So is the new standard now that only statements made in the presence of a lawyer can be accepted in court?
That anything a defendant says on the battlefield, a defendant says on the battlefield is coerced and cannot be relied on and cannot be used.
See, this is the exact plan.
The exact plan.
You make the U.S. military mirandize all these people caught on the battlefield.
You treat them as defendants.
You're going to give them constitutional rights.
And if any of those constitutional rights are violated, you can't use any of the evidence against them.
And it gets tossed out and they likely get released.
Do run-of-the-mill criminals in our justice system get this kind of protection?
Is it the case that run-of-the-mill criminals get to have a lawyer present and only what they say in the presence of their lawyer counts?
Now, even being caught red-handed in a battle has to be treated like an alleged crime.
The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan.
He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.
He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.
Al-Madwani said the interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on multiple occasions threatened him when he tried to retract what he now claims was a false confession.
Of course, it's a false confession after he gets the advice of a lawyer.
The judge said he was particularly concerned that interrogators at Club Gitmo relied on or had access to the coerced confessions from Afghanistan made by the terrorist whose name is Al-Madwani.
I mean, this is, he was caught red-handed on the battlefield, red-handed in a battle.
He's a prisoner of war.
And now he's being treated like an alleged criminal and his acts in war as an alleged crime.
Healthcare overhaul poll.
This is from Nevada.
The Las Vegas Review Journal support for the health care reform package moving through Congress continues to drop among Nevadans, as does support among the state's Democrats and Independents for the work done on the bill by Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry.
The same poll shows nearly one in five Nevadans would elect to pay a fine by the government rather than buy health insurance under the new plan.
The poll found that 35% of Nevadans support the attempt to correct inadequacies in the health care system.
That's a four-point drop from December.
In August, 43% of the state's voters backed reform.
Among the state's Democrats, 66% approve of Reed's efforts to get a health care reform bill through the Senate.
That's also down four points since December.
Democrats who disapprove are at 27%, up nine points since December.
Statewide, 33% approve.
60% disapprove of health care.
And as I say, F. Chuck Todd today on MSNBC essentially said that Dingy Harry is toast in his reelection bid.
Let me find that.
It's somewhere here in the stack.
He made no, there was no two ways about it.
It was as conclusive a prediction as I've heard anybody make.
Well, I'll find it here in just a second.
We'll see how this slash.
Here we go.
Here we go.
Chuck Todd says that Reid looks like he will lose re-election, is weakened as majority leader because of this Obama comment.
Asked if Reed is finished in Nevada.
F. Chuck Todd said, I think so.
I do, absolutely.
If you look at the history of incumbent senators polling this far behind, they lose.
The only winner in a generation who was down by more than this to come back and win was Jesse Helms in 84 against Jim Hunt, North Carolina.
That was on the back of the Reagan landslide.
Harry Reed is running in a midterm.
There is no upward coattail that can drag him across the finish line.
F. Chuck Todd then said he's going to end up about Biden.
He's going to end up being the Senate Majority Leader because I do think that Harry Reid's political damage is going to make it harder for him to keep those 60 votes together.
They're going to need Joe Biden calling up his buddies.
So in Democrat circles, which includes the media, it's not good for Dingy Harry.
Here's Chris Dodd.
Let's grab the soundbites 33 and 34.
He was on CNBC today saying health care is in trouble hanging by a thread.
Becky Quick, the co-anchor on Squawkbox, said, you mentioned a health care bill making its way toward the president's desk.
Do you believe that that bill is going to make its way back to the Senate before Obama has to sign off on it?
This is a precarious road.
And look, this is far from a perfect piece of legislation.
I'll be the first to admit and tell you that this is going to require a lot more work for future Congresses and future administrations to get this right.
But in the absence of getting it forward, moving it forward.
So I'm hopeful that'll happen.
But it is hanging by a thread, obviously.
One or two votes could determine the outcome of this bill.
Now, I don't know what he's doing here if he's sounding a warning bell to try to shore up support for it or create panic.
It is hanging by a thread.
I mean, there's so much pressure being brought to bear on Ben Nelson.
Nelson's like, oh, but we shouldn't have even done this.
We should have focused on the economy and Blanche Lane.
I don't think, I don't think, I don't think Ben Nelson, Nebraska should have got what he got.
Dan Schwarzenegger, I want the same thing that Ben Nelson got in Nebraska.
The corner's got to stay.
There's a lot going on, but all of it's going on behind closed doors.
Nobody knows anything about all we know is that the public option will not survive.
The public option won't survive.
But there will be no choice but then to have a public option because what's going to be in place of the public option are going to be some of the most arduous regulations on the insurance business that they will not be able to stay in business.
They're going to be required to ensure pre-existing conditions.
They're going to be required to sell insurance the day before somebody has life or death surgery.
They're going to be required to do all these things.
They're going to raise premiums to the point that people can't afford them.
They're not going to be able to make a profit.
They'll go out of business.
And people are going to say, oh my God, what are we going to do?
The insurance, look, they're all closing down.
Oh, the government's going to have to.
And that's how it's going to happen.
And here's Chris Dodd.
I'll be the first to admit this is going to require a lot more work for future congressing and future administrations to get this right.
Everybody's admitting this thing is a turkey.
Everybody's admitting it's a rotten piece of stuff, and it ought not happen at all.
But they've got to give Obama something.
They've got to give him something to stay the union.
The translation of this is, well, we don't have the public option and we don't have single payer.
So future Congresses are going to have to get that.
That's what he means when he says, it's going to require a lot more work for future Congresses, future administrations to get this right, meaning that they've had to compromise on too much of what they want in order to get what they got in the Senate.
Everybody knows they're going to be moving forward and adding on to this year after year after year.
And pretty soon, and I don't want to be too much of a downer here, but pretty soon what's going to happen, and it won't be long.
You know, like right now, Social Security is an automatic for the Democrats every election.
The Republicans want to take away your Social Security.
And for a while, the seasoned citizens believed that.
If that's all you got and somebody you trust, the politician that you voted for, says evil Republicans want to take it away from you, kick you out of your house.
You can't chance it.
It doesn't work so well anymore, but health care is going to become the new third rail.
And Republicans want to take away your health care and your health insurance.
That's what they want to win the election for.
They don't like the fact that you now are fully covered and fully insured.
They want to take it away.
That's what's going to happen.
If this thing gets passed into law, signed into law, that's the way the Democrats are going to keep it there as they tinker with it, bloat it, and expand it even more.
The next question, Senator, you mentioned this is hanging on by a thread, maybe one or two votes.
Who among your senators who voted for this in the past do you think might step away?
You'd have to have been living on the moon not to follow what's happened over the last month or so in terms of those who are kind of hanging in the balance.
I know a lot of the people on the more progressive side are deeply disappointed that we don't have a public option now moving forward in this bill.
So everyone feels, I guess, to some degree who have been for this, that they would have liked something different.
And the president's deeply involved.
I spent about two, two and a half hours with him last Thursday at the White House, along with Max Baucus, talking about the bill and the differences between the House and the Senate version.
So a lot of work needs to be done, but I can tell you the staffs are working literally overtime all weekend to try and resolve those differences.
And we'll be right back after this.
Welcome back, my friends, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network.
Jessica in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, you're next as we go back to the phones.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hi.
How are you?
Never better.
Thank you.
Love you.
Listen, my father told me something when I was a young girl and it served me my whole life.
And that is, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Do you get it?
I get it.
I believe it too.
Isn't it fabulous?
I mean, they're telling us all the time who they are constantly.
And nobody ever believes them.
But they pump it time and time again.
Well, I think more and more people are believing.
She's talking about Harry Reid specifically, or he just told us who he is.
And Bill Clinton just told us who he is.
By the way, the Reverend Sharpton is like Grab Audio Sound by 36.
I knew this was going to be the case once somebody asked somebody about it.
This is this morning on Fox and Friends.
Al Sharpton, the guest, Steve Doocy, said, let's talk about something else in the book.
It's about Bill Clinton talking to Ted Kennedy, Clinton trying to get Ted's endorsement.
And he said about Obama, hey, Ted, come on, man.
A few years ago, this guy had been getting us coffee.
That's far more disturbing.
I have not talked to President Clinton.
I think that's far more disturbing because this is someone seeking to stop Mr. Obama's campaign and making a direct reference.
I don't know the context in which he said it, but that is far more disturbing to me than even the comments that were made by Mr. Reid.
So you are offended by Bill Clinton saying that Barack Obama was a good idea.
Someone thought that he would have been getting us coffee like that in the context.
They say he said it.
That it'd be very offensive to me.
I would definitely take Mr. Clinton off, as I did in South Carolina.
He made some statements that I felt was wrong.
All right.
So, Reverend Sharpton, now on the case.
Reverend Sharpton, he can take on President Clinton if he said it in the context it sounds like he said it in.
If he said it in what other context is this?
Hey, Ted, come on, man.
A few years ago, this guy be getting us coffee.
I see that Dingy Harry is on TV right now.
I think this is live.
He says, I've enjoyed working with President Obama.
No, it's not live, but it is new video from Apex, Nevada.
So apparently, Dingy Harry circling the wagons here.
I knew we've been getting spammed all day with people wanting to defend Dingy Harry.
Look, look, it's not, we don't agree with it.
Let's move on.
We've got too much going on in the country that's way too important.
We shouldn't be focused on this.
Here is Jan Crawford on the legal correspondent, Jan Crawford, and she's on Face the Nation yesterday.
Bob Schieffer said Michael Steele said this morning that Reed ought to step down.
Trent Lott, when he made that remark about Strom Thurman, the country would have been better off if he had been elected president.
He did have to resign his leadership post.
I guess it's a little too early to know, but you get the sense Harry Reid may have to leave the leadership.
I think the much bigger question is more broadly what this is going to mean in the midterms and for the Democrats specifically in the midterms because, you know, this could very well make the base much less enthusiastic to come out to vote.
I mean, the midterms are much more about the base versus base.
Anyway, those Republican voters are very fired up, and the Democrats need every single vote they can get at this point.
I mean, already before this happened, it looked like Democrats were going to lose, what, four to six seats in the Senate, 20 to 30 seats in the House.
So I think this, I agree.
I don't see that this is going to really lead to Reed stepping down.
But I think when we look forward into this upcoming election, it's going to have big problems for Harry Reid, big problems for Democrats in general.
Yeah, as we want him front and center.
Well, we actually want him going anywhere.
They would put Biden in there to be the 60th vote.
They'd put him in there every day if Reed had to step down as Biden would become the majority leader, so he'd be there every day.
Now, on the Today Show today, Matt Wauer spoke with, let's see, Democrat Leadership Council Chairman Harold Ford Jr. about Dingy Harry.
Matt Wauer said, I want to ask you to comment on the comment itself in quotes, light-skinned, end quotes, African-American, quote, with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one, end quote.
And that was supposed to be Harry Reid's comments about why Obama might be more electable as an African-American.
How does that comment make you feel, Harold?
It's an unusual set of comments, but I don't believe in any way that Harry Reid had any animus, racial animus, or for that matter, in a comment or even in his record or even going forward.
I think there's an important distinction between he and Trent Lott.
Trent Lott, there were other episodes, other allegations, and even proof of racial comments that he had made before.
I think the real test for Harry Reid is national security jobs and health care.
Right.
So this is how liberals and Democrats view this.
Reed is a liberal on the issue.
So what he says about race can't be racist.
And that's the dirty little secret.
What he said about race can't be racist.
He's a liberal.
And everybody knows liberals aren't racist.
No, no, no, no, no.
So it's, I don't think he meant anything by it.
I don't think he's racist.
I don't think he's racial.
Well, he sure is thinking about it in a strange way.
You, you know, yeah, the fact that that's a good point.
To oppose liberalism is to be racist.
But say it the way he meant it.
Hey, look, dark-skinned, sounds like a black.
No chance.
Nobody ever going to get elected.
But I guarantee you, the same thing that he said, and it stems from that thought, by the way, I wonder how they would be reacting if somebody said, this is what he really, really meant.
Would they say, yeah, he's telling the truth?
And what would that make them if that's what they said about him?
Back in just a sec.
A quick question.
A little pop quiz.
Let's check your memory.
Who made the comment once that the only blacks at a GOP dinner were the ones serving the food?
Do you have any idea who said that?
Who made the comment once that the only blacks at a GOP dinner were the ones serving the food?
That was Howard Dean, and they made him head of the party.
They made him head of the Democrat National Committee.
Ronald in Los Angeles, nice to have you, sir, on the EIB network.
Hello.
Great to be here, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Let me tell you, you are so on point when it comes to the comments that Harry Reid made.
It is something that has been within the Democratic Party since I was a kid in the 1950s.
And this will continue because this is a tactic that the Democratic Party uses.
Of course it is.
You're exactly right.
And that tactic will continue until you're cloned into other people and not buying into it.
And I'm cloned as a black person who doesn't buy into it.
Well, you're right about that.
The whole race card in general, what you mean, is, as the Democrats use it, a political tactic.
Absolutely, Rush.
What you see is, and it's been pointed out, that whenever a non-Democratic or liberal affiliate says something that is blatantly racist or offensive, unfortunately, blacks will circle the wagons.
A perfect example is the Congressional Black Congress.
They have no purpose except to enrich themselves.
The same with the NAACP, who is basically an organization that's on welfare from the state and the state of the country.
And that's why they support this.
Well, of course.
They're all part of the Democrat coalition.
And of course, when you're part of the Democrat coalition, what matters, first, last, and always is liberalism and advancing the cause, advancing the agenda.
And each one of these coalitions has their own responsibility.
In the case of the Civil Rights Coalition, their job is to turn out 90% of the black vote every presidential race.
And if they do that, then they're going to be funded and they will be given a seat at the Democrat Party power table.
And that's a great way to describe it, a political tactic.
And that's why the double standard exists, because it is not used as a political tactic against liberals who make racist statements, Democrats who make racist statements at all.
They're excused.
Whoa, no, we know that person doesn't never uttered a racist view or harbored a racist thought in his life.
That man's trying to pass health care for everybody.
No, no, no.
And the media is right in there with them, pushing all of that.
But, you know, the Democrats are out there right now, and more and more and more they are being exposed.
And it's going to take a lot more than this to further expose things.
But the one, I don't want to say good thing, but I mean, you've got to try to look for the good in everything that happens.
And the one good thing about this total control of the government that they have is it has left them with an arrogance and a sense of almost infallibility that they can do and say whatever they want now and not be harmed by it.
So they don't have to play the game as often of hiding who they really are.
More and more of them are letting it be known.
And you couple this with the genuine rage there is in the country over the simple fact that the Democrat Party is governing against the will of the American people.
The current Democrat Party is fighting the American people.
The American people are the biggest enemy the Democrat Party has right now.
That's an amazing thing to say, but it is true.
And that is the result of substance.
It is the result of people not wanting the Democrat agenda.
It's the result of people knowing that what Obama is trying to do to so-called create jobs is not working, that there is no magic, and that everything they thought that was going to happen with the election of Obama, no more racism, no more partisanship, sea levels decline.
None of it's happening.
Everything's getting worse.
And more and more people are coming to realize this.
And more and more people are abandoning the Democrat Party.
20 to 30 seats in the House is not at all a pipe dream.
Control of the House.
Charlie Cook, respected pollster inside Washington's beltway, actually said the other day that he can see the House Democrats losing control of the House if these kinds of things continue, particularly unemployment.
There's nothing on the horizon that's going to change the unemployment numbers because the news coming out of Washington is going to be as bad or worse as the news that's come out of Washington in the last 11 months.
Every piece of legislation is aimed right at the heart of the private sector.
Tax increases, new expenses, changes in the rules of the game.
People run businesses not wanting to borrow money because they don't know what they're going to face.
They fear that they're going to face the worst.
So this is the longer Obama keeps conducting job summits, keeps talking about his stimulus plan working, there is genuine pain out there.
And with this weather, people that are oriented nationally in the media, I think, miss the impact of this weather on people where they live.
This is devastating in how many ways, this cold and all these blizzards and so forth, you add to the misery that people are feeling.
We're going to be talking about the Misery Index before long.
There's a piece of the American thinker today that might have been yesterday that that's the number that Obama ought to really, really fear.
And as we seem to be replicating the Jimmy Carter administration here more and more with Obama, the Misery Index was a thing that did Carter in in addition to Carter himself.
The Misery Index calculates unemployment, interest rates, and one other number.
I forget what it is right off the bat.
And interest rates are artificially low right now from bank to bank or institution to institution, but your credit card interest rate's not.
And if you go borrow money for a house, that's not zero, like the banks are paying each other.
Those interest rates are really unemployment rates, 17%.
If you factor, it's actually 10.5%.
If you factor the almost 1 million people who have given up trying to find a job, 1 million people, they're not counted in the unemployment numbers.
But it's known how many there are because they don't have jobs and they're no longer filing unemployment claims.
They've either expired or they're not looking for work or what have you.
They're just totally dispirited.
And remember now, these people all thought that George Bush had done this and that it was going to be fixed immediately.
We were going to have an America like we had never had before.
We were going to be led by this charismatic figure.
The world was going to love us.
There weren't going to be terrorist attacks anymore.
The only reason there were terrorist attacks is because the world hated George W. Bush.
You know, all of these lies that perpetuated for eight months slowly and surely are being shown to be just that.
Because liberalism is what it is.
It is destructive.
It is damaging.
And it itself is lies, a series of lies, or it's one giant lie.
And I think real experience.
We can tell people for 20 years this is what liberalism is.
And some people, in fact, there's a piece.
Let me find this.
Let me find this in the stack here.
There was a, it's a blog, right-wing news or something, and some woman wrote on this blog.
Yes, here it is.
Is Rush right?
Kathleen McKinley.
I've listened to Rush Limbaugh off and on for 20 years now.
I agree with him on most things.
I wish his personal life wasn't so dramatic and unfortunate, but no one can argue the fact that he is the best broadcaster out there, bar none.
Through the years, I've always been amazed how right he was.
And I'm not talking about issues or personal beliefs.
I'm talking about predictions and the reasons behind political decisions.
He warned us during the primaries that nominating anybody but a true conservative would be the wrong candidate.
I didn't believe him.
Like a lot of Republicans, I thought we needed a more moderate Republican, one who had a compromise with the other side, one that would bring us the independence and moderate Democrats.
I thought McCain fit that to a T, and he did.
But I was wrong, and Rush was right.
When we stick to our ideals and principles, is when we win.
But for the last year, Rush has been saying something about Obama that I just can't wrap my mind around.
I just can't believe it could possibly be true.
He believes the Obama administration is destroying the economy on purpose.
On purpose.
He says that the more people depend on the government, the more control the government has over the people and its institutions.
He says this plan is a way for Democrats to stay in power always.
If the majority of people depend on the government for their security and livelihood, the Democrats are the ones promising more goodies, then people will keep voting them in.
It isn't democracy and liberty, but in the end, it's all about power.
I just could never buy that.
It's too far out.
It's too conspiratorial.
I've always believed the road to hell is paved with Democrats' good intentions.
I believe that programs like welfare and food stamps was a compassionate idea gone bad.
I thought the Democrats really did just want to help the poor.
And I had no idea that it would cause generational poverty that takes away the dignity of the person.
The problem with that is that it's been clear for years that it did cause generational poverty.
It's clear that these programs, full of fraud and waste, have had disastrous effects.
In the black community, it's caused 70 to 80% of black children born into unwed homes, children raised without fathers, increases in crime and incarceration, despair, drug addiction.
When it comes to welfare, in the white and Hispanic community, the stats aren't much better.
Yet, with all the evidence around us, the Democrats still insist on more and more dependency on the government.
They still push for more programs, more money for these programs, and more big government.
Why?
Could Rush be right again?
Could it possibly be true that all this is on purpose?
Could it be possible that this is all about power?
That the bigger dream is that those like Obama, who see themselves so much smarter than the rest of us, who know better than even our founding fathers, who see themselves as our parents, who need to guide us, show us how to live, actually seize an economic morass as a perfect opportunity to take more and more control so they can implement their vision.
It boggles my mind.
I can't accept it.
But then I was wrong about McCain, too.
Right-wing news.
Kathleen McKinley, I think, is who wrote this.
I'm not sure, but that's the name that pops up.
So, anyway, more and more people, you could tell them for 20 years, and they're just going to doubt it.
It is too much to get your arms around.
However, when the real events of life start to affect you, like global warming and you're freezing your tush, global warming, and we're in the middle of an ice age, global warming, and record lows and record snows.
Those are the things that change people's minds.
Well, so does constant unemployment.
So, does promises of utopia and nothing but added increased misery?
And people start to ask questions.
And they hear Dingy Harry and Bill Clinton utter these racial comments.
And there is a cumulative effect.
So it is what it is out there, folks.
Brief.
Time out.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
Robert Mitchell's job, provides counseling to people facing foreclosure.
And he often urges them to check their credit reports as they try to get their finances in order.
The importance of that advice took on new relevance for him in December when he learned he had been the victim of identity theft.
Mitchell said he was unable to get a loan with a reasonable interest rate because somebody had used his social security number to set up utility service for their apartment in Georgia and didn't pay the bills.
Now, Mitchell said he wants people to know what happened to him in the hope that it will prompt people to check their own credit reports.
An unpaid loan that appears in a credit report can damage your credit score, obviously, make it harder for the person to obtain credit at reasonable interest rates.
This is all about identity theft.
If something goes on and it's happening more and more in economic times like this, as people try to steal your identity as an easy route to riches, nobody's going to totally stop it.
But Life Lock comes close when it comes to protecting your identity.
Don't trust anybody but Life Lock, the trusted leader.
They help protect your information.
They never sell it like some other companies do.
And their Life Lock identity alert system is the best there is.
Just call them 1-800-440-4833 and save 10% off your Life Lock membership if you just mention a promo code Rush 440-4833-800 in front of it.
That's 800-440-4833.
This is Eric in Columbia, South Carolina.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing, Mega Rush baby dittos from the freezing cold Palmetto State?
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I just had a quick comment about the Bloomberg story.
If they're going to follow the line of thought that it's okay to pass out heroin pamphlets because it's an addictive thing, blah, blah, blah, then why not just not do the salt ban?
They could just pass out pamphlets that might say how to safely polish off a large pizza and a six-pack, because a lot of these people that are overweight are, I mean, a lot of these people that eat a lot of salt, maybe might be overweight.
They might have an addiction called binge eating.
So, I mean, it's possible.
It's entirely possible.
It might be true.
And we're talking about packaged foods.
This is where they always start.
They always start with packaged foods and restaurant food.
Go to those people first, calories.
And by the way, surveys have shown that people actually ate more when the calories were posted in restaurants, fast food places.
None of this ever works.
No liberal good intention ever ends up the way they envision it.
Or maybe it does.
I don't know.
But it's none of their business.
But it is true.
They're passing out pamphlets in New York advising heroin addicts how to shoot up.
Jump up and down so your veins will be more visible.
And there are a lot more tips.
But now they're trying to cut you back from salt.
Get this.
Under a little-known contract provision titled Extreme Temperature Procedures, unionized workers at branches of the New York Public Library.
That's library for the rest of you, library for those of you in Rio Linda.
Unionized workers at branches of the New York Public Library can take paid leave or accrue compensatory time when the temperature inside dips below 68 degrees for a couple of hours.
Unionized library workers paid leave or accrue compensation time if the temperature in the library goes below 68 for more than two hours.
We had a call that we didn't have a chance to get to today from David in Seattle.
And I'm going to steal a point here in limited time.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Didn't Joe Wilson that shouted at Obama during the state of the well at that speech for the joint session of Congress, didn't he say, you lie?
He said, you lie.
And wasn't he accused of being a racist by the Lyft when he said that?
And of course, he apologized.
And the press still wouldn't let go of it.
And yet they want us to not even talk about Ding.
He's apologized.
Can't we just move on?
Double standard, clear as a bill for one and all to see.
See you tomorrow, folks.
Thanks for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection