Still looking for that jihadist mass murderer in this Turkish nightclub attack, this attack in the RENA nightclub in Istanbul murdered 39 people.
There's a lot of footage on the internet of the attack itself.
And ISIS has claimed direct response or has claimed responsibility for this.
They said it was an attack on the revelers on their pagan holiday, something along those lines.
Interesting, though, a note that's come up as they're trying to find this suspect who is from Kyrgyzstan, that his, according to the Daily Mail here, his wife said, quote, I had no idea he was an ISIS sympathizer.
We came to Turkey for work.
This is the Istanbul nightclub gunman's wife talking to police.
So the guy's wife says she has no idea.
Now, there's a couple of ways that this can go.
There's a couple of ways you can interpret this.
Yet another mass casualty attack at the hands of on a civilian target at the hands of a jihadist acting in the name of the Islamic State.
But as for his wife and her claim that she didn't know what's going on here, I suppose that's possible.
She also, obviously, I think is going to, if she did know, it would be, from a self-preservation perspective of her own freedom, very unwise for her to say, yeah, I knew he was an ISIS guy.
You know, it's, you know, nobody's perfect.
We were going to work it out.
I mean, clearly, she's not going to tell us that she was involved in this or whatever.
So whether she's truthful or not, I can't tell you.
And it is possible that she doesn't know at all.
Let's assume for a second that she had absolutely no idea that her husband was an ISIS sympathizer.
Perhaps we'll even find out more about his ties to the Islamic State in the days ahead.
It was said that the attack was carried out with some degree of tactical precision.
And one of the things in the past that's been a, well, we've gotten lucky with many of these attacks in the sense that there's been mistakes made, key mistakes made, usually on the tactical side of things, by the jihadist terrorist in the very last minutes, whether it was that foiled attack on the train where the guy looked like he sort of couldn't seat the magazine and his AK-47 or whatever it was, a number of times, faulty bomb construction.
There's been a lot of this.
Oh, and by the way, I think the Germans arrested yet another migrant that they think was planning a vehicular mass casualty attack, one of these getting in a truck and mowing down as many people as possible.
I think I saw that headline too this morning.
But let's say that this lady or this woman is telling the truth and that she had no idea that her husband from Kyrgyzstan, he came with his wife and children, brother, came with this whole family.
No idea that he was an ISIS sympathizer.
What does that say about the ability?
Let's just extrapolate this for a little bit.
What does that say about the ability of government authorities to be able to discern, to, yes, vet the ideological background of people coming in from some parts of the world, right?
Specifically, or most notably Syria, but we could see any number of countries this would be the case.
It's believed that he has posed as a family man.
That's what they're saying now.
Well, I mean, if he had a family, I guess he is a family man.
He's also just a mass murdering jihadist terrorist.
But if his wife didn't know that he harbored these sympathies and perhaps even received some degree of training, I mean, we'll find out more about this guy in the days ahead, I think.
They still haven't gotten him.
There's a huge manhunt underway.
They've made some arrests in Turkey.
But this was, in a sense, similar to the, in terms of the way it was carried out, similar to the Pulse nightclub shooting here in Orlando.
So it could be a self-starter jihadist.
It could be somebody without any specific training and ties to the Islamic State.
But as we look at this individual, we look at whether or not the authorities can do anything about this.
If his wife didn't know, do you really think some asylum agent is going to be able to come up with a real sense as to whether this person is a security threat or not?
Never mind the fact that the mass murdering jihadist who ran over all these, who came via the refugee flow, ran over all these people in Berlin at the Christmas market, you look at the way that people are coming into the country.
I mean, he was on the radar of the security services.
So you've got people who are known to the security services as risks, as having ties to jihadists, and they don't have the surveillance capabilities.
They don't have the security forces set up in such a way.
And this is true.
I mean, this isn't just something that they say.
They can't do 24-7 surveillance on all of the possible jihadists, known security threats, who want to sort of wage this war in the name of Islam on the West and on other Muslims too, it should be pointed out.
But as they do this, as they look at this, they say, well, we don't have the resources.
And then you look at a case like this where you have somebody says, or someone's wife claims she didn't even know.
These are very real concerns about what it means when you bring.
And, you know, Germany is learning this lesson the hard way, and it is responsible for a rise in nationalism in Europe.
And it is responsible, I think, also for a change in the tone of the discussion and even some of the substance of the discussion on what we do in this country vis-a-vis refugees and immigrants.
And I want to sort of transition from this, okay, we have this mass murder, a mass murdering jihadist says his wife says he didn't even know.
He comes from Kyrgyzstan.
And you use the refugee flow to enter into the country or they're claiming asylum status.
Meanwhile, in this country, you have a story that's playing out in a small town in Vermont that I think starts to highlight a lot of elements of this debate.
So we're transitioning now from this terrorist attack in Istanbul, which was tied to the refugee flow, just like the Christmas market attacker in Berlin tied to the refugee flow and other mass casualty attacks.
The security services over there are overwhelmed, and they're in no real position.
How do you vet for ideology in such a way that you don't think there's going to be any threat?
I mean, they should at least be honest about this.
We're always told that there's no threat, and that's just nonsense, right?
I mean, the Democrats will sort of pretend that this is just a humanitarian gesture without any consequences whatsoever.
I mean, no, this isn't showing up and doing something kind, you know, volunteering at a soup kitchen that has no possible ill impact.
Bringing people into your country from a war-torn region that has substantial numbers of terrorists who claim that they are at war with the West, specifically want to destroy America, and they are using refugee status or asylum claims as a means of getting entry into these countries.
And they're also taking advantage of just the overwhelmed immigration services, whether we're talking about in the European context or here in America.
People are concerned.
And you get this, you get these back and forth, the back and forth that's happening up in Rutland, Vermont, which is apparently a nice little town up in Vermont that's going to resettle 100 Syrian refugees this year because the mayor decided that they wanted to take some refugees.
And the New York Times is running all these pieces as well on how this is the way to, this is how we're going to revitalize towns that have lost population.
Let's take small towns.
I mean, there's so much going on here, brother.
There's so much worth unpacking.
Let's take a small town in Vermont that's lost population and let's dump a bunch of refugees from Syria in there.
And that's going to revitalize the town because, oh, yeah, they've got the resources to do vocational and job training and feed and house and just generally take care of.
I mean, they're having a tough time as it is.
It's one of these areas where you have drug addiction issues and the population is already there.
Unemployment is a major issue.
And you've just had this sort of flight of industries that were the lifeblood, the economic lifeblood of some of these towns, right?
I'm not talking about huge plants, but whatever businesses were operating there.
They've been leaving.
You think dumping a bunch of refugees there, the New York Times writing a whole piece on this, by the way.
If you dump some Syrian refugees in this small town, that's going to revitalize it.
Now, how they come up with that, I'd like to know.
And you've got this mayor up in Rutland who's saying, well, this is not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do because it'll be good for the economy.
And this reminds me of the doing the jobs Americans won't do line.
I mean, as though sort of Americans are lazy and inherently illegal immigrants, because that's what I was talking about, illegal immigrants are more willing to work hard than both legal immigrants who are already here, by the way, and just Americans in general.
And this was a line.
People would sort of stand up and puff their chest.
I'd be like, well, you know, they're just doing illegal immigrants just do the jobs Americans won't do.
Are they being paid off the books?
And are they also getting welfare benefits?
It's much more complicated than just doing the jobs Americans won't do.
But now this is being posed as an economic boon.
This is a big benefit for small towns, bringing in a bunch of refugees.
This has already happened in Germany, by the way.
They got these little towns.
You'll notice that what you see is some of these small towns where the refugees are being resettled, they have no say in it, right?
It just is sort of all of a sudden, yeah, we're going to take in a bunch of refugees.
And some of these towns in Germany are saying, you know, we got our own problems.
And I'm not really looking forward to dealing with the obvious concerns that will come with people who, for one, I mean, overwhelmingly don't speak the language of the country they've been resettled in.
And two, this notion that they're going to be, first of all, I thought it was all women and children.
So how they're going to sort of revitalize the economy.
Of course, it's not all women and children, but depending on the day, the Democrats will sort of just constantly hide the ball and play some other game.
But then you get to the security aspect of this, too.
The guy who just shot up a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey had a wife and kids and poses a family man looking for work.
Oh, it's just, you know, a dream of free flow of labor and capitalism.
And then he kills 39 people and wounds many more because he had hit his ideology.
There's no way the German authorities really, realistically, are going to be able to sift.
I'm sorry, the Turkish authorities are going to be able to sift that out, just like the Germans wouldn't be able to sift it out, just like we wouldn't really be able to vet it.
Now, maybe people want to take that risk anyway, right?
Maybe people think that there's, and look, I've been in the refugee camps on the Jordanian-Syrian border.
I have seen the misery.
I've seen the poverty.
I have talked to people who tell me horrific stories about what happened to them and their families and their homes.
It is a terrible humanitarian crisis, but we also have an inherent right at self-preservation and enhancing our own security or supporting our own security here at home.
And to be constantly told, and this is what always turns into, that any concern over migrants, immigrants coming into this country, particularly we're talking about refugees from war-torn Muslim-majority countries, that any concern over that is racist, bigoted, and xenophobic, which is, of course, what the sort of pro-resettlement folks in Rutland, Vermont are going to say, including this mayor, that it's all based in xenophobia and racism, that there's no rational basis to be concerned.
Well, we keep having examples happening in Europe and here in America of rational reasons to be concerned.
We keep seeing the case play out, and it fits a pretty familiar script.
And you get that whole thing on Twitter of, oh, well, we don't know.
Let's not jump to conclusions about the motivations.
And we all know the motivations.
Let's not jump to conclusions about the background of the shooter or the bomber or the driver.
And we all know the background.
And then we start to have a talk about what to do with refugee policy and immigration policy and whether to limit immigration from certain countries.
And this used to be a discussion you could have openly in America.
Do we want X amount of people from this country and why amount of people from that country?
This is the way that it was.
And then Teddy Kennedy sponsored that immigration bill.
What was it, 1965 or 8?
1965, I think?
Started to change the way that they calculated those figures.
But to even have the discussion right now is to open yourself up to accusations of racism and bigotry and prejudice.
And people are just sick of it.
I mean, this is one of the underlying elements of what I think you could call Trumpism.
People are just sick of it.
They're tired of being told that having a moment of pause about having people who cannot be really vetted from an area that is actively trying to infiltrate jihadists for mass casualty attacks into Western countries.
To even have that discussion is to be a closed-minded xenophobic bank.
I mean, you just, enough is enough.
Enough is enough.
And to add to that now, that all we need to do to revitalize struggling small towns in America is stuff a bunch of asylums.
I mean, asylum seekers tend to come with a lot of tough stuff.
Psychological trauma.
I mean, there's a lot of stuff that when you've been in it, especially those who are coming from war-torn countries like Syria.
And I know there's a humanitarian impulse here, but there's also a discussion to be had about security.
And we cannot allow the sort of virtue-signaling Democrat left to browbeat everybody into, okay, fine, whatever you want to, the more refugees, the better.
And oh, by the way, they're the sort of lifeblood of the American economy now.
I mean, the stuff that the Times is writing is just, there's no basis in reality for it.
All right, Buck in for Rush.
Back in a few.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
You know, you can get Rush 24-7 and with a membership to Rush 24-7.
You don't have to miss Rush while he's out on vacation.
You can also relive Rush's greatest radio moments, scour the archives of years of broadcast excellence, or watch his programs on the colorful DittoCam video.
You'll be prepared to deflect any of the craziness that liberals throw at you, and they will throw some crazy because that's how they do it.
Join today and get four extra weeks of Rush 24-7 free.
You can also go to rushlimbaugh.com and get the Limbaugh letter where there's no fake news because the Limbaugh letter comes directly from Rush.
All kinds of exciting stuff there.
Check that out as well.
Let's take John in California.
John, you're speaking to Buck.
What's up?
Hello, Buck.
Hello, John.
So I think that this election, I've thought this for quite some time, was less about the issues and more about the fact that the tyranny of what we keep calling the left, which interestingly enough has more become oppressive and like the right of the 1960s and that they were squashing, they're squashing thought.
I think it's always been about the freedom of expression.
And the interesting thing about the Democrats is they can't come up with a candidate to go against Trump, except maybe Bernie Sanders, because Trump really isn't coming up with talking points.
He's not trying to figure out what to say to get elected.
He's just saying what he believes, what he believes is the right thing to do.
He has a plan.
This is what I think.
And it's resonating.
The Democrats are scrambling around trying to figure out, oh, what do we have to say to win this?
Well, and they're trying to keep together a very unwieldy coalition built on identity politics and social engineering.
And, you know, you've got this sort of coastal elites and then the pandering to illegal immigrants and all kinds of stuff.
I mean, the Democrats, what does it really mean to be a Democrat today other than you want the government to be bigger, to take more of your stuff and to do more stuff?
I think that's a pretty good working definition.
Deeper principle.
Because beyond that, I mean, there's no particular principle, right?
There's not a government constraint out the window, really.
So I'm sorry, what'd you say, John?
Well, I think there is a principle.
I think there is a deeper principle.
The caller that talked about the revolution is touching on it.
It's a deep social change.
We've been living under the tyranny of this meeting with the media complicit, this tyranny of PC and selectively accepted racism and other things.
And that's what the election is about.
If Trump does nothing else but free us of that political correctness jail that we've been in, I think it'll be a monumental change.
Oh, I've been saying, John, for some time that I think that one of the greatest things that can come from Trumpism is the end of sort of accusations of racism being enough to shut down debate and also end careers.
Just all you have to do is level the accusation, right?
You can just wantonly throw it around.
Oh, so-and-so is a racist.
If that is a result, a product of Trumpism, then I think it's something in and of itself that we should celebrate.
But, John, thank you for calling in from California.
Good to talk to you, my friend.
Well, got a lot more to discuss here.
Buck in for Rush.
Back right after the break.
Buck in for Rush here on theblaze.com right now.
Peace, you might want to just check out Brooklyn politician seeks anti-Trump staffer to, quote, resist the threats of the Trump regime.
And this has now become a job description.
Resisting Trump is now a thing that you can get hired for specifically.
That's up on theblaze.com right now.
You've got this, what is he?
He's a city, yeah, city councilman looking for communications director to fight against the Trump administration.
Like I said, for celebrities, for Democrats, anything anti-Trump is going to be brand enhancing, doesn't matter how deranged and hysterical it may be, because we are in the midst of the great Trump scare, and they're going to continue pushing it as much as they can.
I tell friends of mine, and I do, from New York City, I live in New York City, I tell them, you really have nothing to be worried about.
I mean, you can disagree with things and not like things, but you don't need to be worried.
And they're like, oh, I'm so worried.
It was Trump.
It's going to come for us.
It's going to be terrible.
No, it's really okay.
It's not.
No one's going to get herded up into detainee facilities or anything.
It's okay.
But they don't believe.
They think that I'm, I don't know.
They think that I've somehow been fooled into believing that Trump is not the Hitlerian monster that they seem to think that he's going to become.
It's just crazy.
You know, it's one thing to think, you know, look, yeah, did we think that Hillary Clinton was corrupt and terrible?
Sure.
But I never argued that she was Hitler.
That would be extreme.
But with Trump, there's nothing too extreme.
And anyway, on theblaze.com, like I said, this Brooklyn staffer is seeking, or Brooklyn politicians seeking a staffer to quote, resist the threats of the Trump regime.
I found that in keeping with what you see everywhere else.
Everyone's just galvanizing the anti-Trump resistance before he's done anything, before he's even signed an executive order or given a pronouncement as president.
He's the bad guy.
Going to the lines here for a second.
Michael in New Hampshire.
You're on the Russian Luna Book program?
Speaking of Buck.
Yes.
Whoa.
Hey.
Whoa.
Hey, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Nice shooting.
Tech.
What's up, Mike?
Whoa, hey.
Yeah, hello.
Yeah, we need you to stop hitting the dial.
Why is he, I'm hearing a dial.
I'm having a hard time hearing you.
Can you speak up a little?
Well, we hear you.
We hear you.
Yeah, put him on hold.
We hear you banging the dials there, which is probably not good.
Sal in Cooperstown, New York, Baseball Hall of Fame, Cooperstown, right?
Hey, Buck, nice job filling in, by the way.
Thank you very much, sir.
Hey, I was in Vermont recently, and they had on one of these great pizza place up in Burlington, refugees welcome sign on the front door.
And a friend of mine didn't want to go in after he saw the sign.
I said, oh, you can't let their political views stop you from having great pizza.
But anyway, when speaking to someone there, they almost have this mentality.
Like those that voted for Obama wanted to prove, you see, I'm not a racist.
I voted for a black man.
And they almost feel if I extend an act of love to these refugees, they're going to spare me the violence.
And they truly are delusional to think that someone that shakes their hand, smiles at them, and kisses them won't also slice their throat given the opportunity.
I mean, it all depends on each individual, right?
I mean, this is, I think it's a very basic conservative principle that you look at every person as a person, as an individual, as not part of a group or a collective.
But when you're talking about many hundreds or many thousands of people and the enhanced security risk that that group poses based upon its recent history and geographic location and what's been going on in the neighborhood, that's a realistic discussion to have.
But what you're talking about with the sort of refugees welcome sign, and look, America does have a long-standing tradition of taking refugees, as many other countries do as well, but it's sort of virtue signaling.
And especially for people like the Nancy Pelosi's of the world who go from their wealthy enclaves in D.C. to their mansions in Marin County, which is lovely, they're never going to deal with a refugee ever except maybe for a photo op on the steps of the Capitol building.
So here's a hypothetical, Buck.
Sure.
If someone said to you, we eliminate migration from Muslim countries into the United States and we guarantee you no more terrorist acts in America.
If you say, okay, I'm for it, ban all Muslims from coming in America to even spare one American life, you're labeled all the labels, but yet you're saving American lives.
So you could pose that hypothetical to someone who's so anti-banning anyone, and yet they'll still forfeit America.
They would rather forfeit American lives than be told you can't allow someone into this country.
Now, Sal, with your hypothetical, you have to be prepared for the immediate rejoinders that you would get on that hypothetical, the responses.
I mean, the first one is that even if you did stop all, remember, because refugees, I mean, that's actually a part of that.
That is a legal part of our process, right?
If the government is taking in refugees, they're illegal immigrants.
Even if you stopped all immigration, period, from Muslim-majority countries, right?
Because many of the countries we're talking about, or at least some of the countries we're talking about here, have substantial non-Muslim populations.
So, for example, if you banned all Iraqi immigration, you'd also be banning Iraqi Christian immigration.
You'd be banning a number of other much smaller groups and denominations that are non-Muslim and non-Christian in the country.
But even if you did that, you wouldn't stop all terrorism.
So start there, right?
There would be illegal infiltrations of the United States, which still be a possibility, visa overstays, that sort of thing, or even not visa overstays, people who come here and cross the border illegally.
I mean, if ISIS really wants to get somebody here, and they do, but they're always going to try to come up with new ways to get here.
So you're never going to have a complete end to this sort of terrorism, at least not in my lifetime, and even Banning immigration from all Muslim-majority countries wouldn't accomplish that.
So you've got to start there.
But then you look at, okay, well, what if we take this country by country and also the notion of a ban inherently sounds very negative, right?
You're banning people.
And I do think the Muslim ban that Trump talked about, and I said so at the time, and it says so now, I think that's too, I think that's too sweeping and it's counterproductive for a number of reasons.
One of them is that we do need assistance from Muslim-majority countries, governments, and the many Muslims of good faith in those countries to help us in the counterterrorism fight, right?
But look at a country like Syria.
We're talking about the refugees coming in from Syria specifically.
Is there an elevated threat of jihadist terrorism from people that are fleeing Syria?
The answer is yes.
You're more likely to get a jihadist in a population of 10,000 coming out of Syria than you are in a population of 10,000 coming out of Latvia.
By the way, I wouldn't necessarily say like Sweden because you've actually already had a lot of immigration from the Muslim world into some of these European countries.
So, you know, there's actually first and second generation jihadism that exists in Europe and it exists here in America too.
So, Sal, I mean, it's a, I think this is the third time.
It's a very complex issue.
It is a complex issue, though.
There's a lot going on at the same time.
But the refugee discussion is divorced entirely from the security discussion is just, that's just fantasyland talk.
And as I said, we see it play out time and again where the refugee flow or refugee status is used to infiltrate Western societies for the purposes of mass casualty terrorist attacks.
And then when people say, hey, you know, maybe we should slow this down or we should rethink this, they're shouted down and called racists or bigots or xenophobes.
And that's it's dishonest and it's counterproductive.
And I think you're as sick of it probably as I am.
And all that refugees welcome stuff in a P3.
I mean, that's just virtue signaling.
I mean, they're assuming that this isn't really going to be their problem.
But the case of Rutland in Vermont is interesting because you get sort of a microcosm of the debate.
I don't know what the population of Rutland is.
I assume it's in the maybe the low thousands or something.
Maybe it's even in the high hundreds.
I don't know.
But 100 refugees will be felt in that community.
And what does that mean?
The New York Times is making it sound like they're all going to show up and start Google.
I mean, maybe.
I think that's a pretty rosy picture to paint.
And of course, they leave out the possibility that, you know, if you can settle in a small town, you can obviously get in a car and engage in an attack anywhere in the country.
And this is a debate that we're going to continue to have, I think.
Let's take Patricia in Michigan.
Patricia, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program speaking to Buck.
Hi, Buck.
Hi.
I wanted to comment, or I am glad that Megan Kelly's moved on from Fox because I found her appearance quite annoying.
I think she's beautiful, there's no doubt.
But when watching a delivery of news, I don't want the newscaster to show so much skin.
It seemed to me her focus was always on her sexual appeal rather than on the subject that she was delivering.
And I thought a good example is Dana Farino.
She's beautiful, but her choice of attire is never distracting from the subject matter, and yet she is beautiful.
But I just think the movement for women's rights would be better served if when delivering news visually, they would dress in a way that doesn't distract from continent content.
I dare say that I think if a man would dress with so much skin and emphasize his sexuality, he wouldn't have a job as a newscaster.
And so I was always often annoyed with her appearance.
All right.
Patricia, thank you for calling in.
Mr. Snurdy, I got nothing.
I got nothing.
Where is there to go with that?
Patricia, she had her say.
I like, I don't have any comments on these things, these things that happen on the TV screens.
Robert in California, you've got a, you're calling.
Hey, buddy.
Hey, Buck.
Yes, sir.
Everything that these liberals are worrying about with Trump, the racism, the entire enchilada, they're going to get from the refugees that they're bringing in here.
And our tax dollars are subsidizing these guys.
They don't just come in here and start spending their own money.
They're feeding off the American taxpayer.
They're walking around in these $400,000 housing complexes while the people working to build those complexes can't afford one.
And so they'll get what they're afraid of, but it won't be from Trump.
It'll be from the imports.
Well, one of the great ironies of the American left right now, Robert, is that they are the defenders of Islamism and jihadism in all cases and at all times whenever they can.
And yet there is no greater threat right now to women's rights, gay rights, liberalism, leftism, you name it.
No greater threat than from radical Islam.
Well, they will.
But the left, the left will defend.
They'll defend their dying breath because for them, Islam represents a minority, non-white, oppressed religion.
And so, therefore, it overrides the fact that there is no greater repository of regressive ideology in the world right now than some segments of the Muslim world.
But Robert, I got to leave it there.
Thank you for calling in.
Appreciate it.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
I'll be back right after.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush.
We've got some calls up here.
I wanted to get another perspective on the issue of Miss Megan Kelly moving from Fox to NBC.
Michael from Miami, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck, it's absolutely great to talk with you.
Yeah, you know, I've heard a lot of people kind of upset with Megan Kelly with her whole boot roll decision here.
And I do just want to say from the other side, you know, I think personally, Megan Kelly is one of the most intelligent, smart, and educated journalists and newest news anchors we have out there.
Steadfast, conservative, always held sort of principles.
And, you know, I think she'll be sorely missed over at Fox.
To be honest with you, also from another perspective, you know, a lot of many, very few people that have gone up against Trump have actually emerged kind of unscathed.
And I know that Megan Kelly did have a slight spat with him about a year or so ago.
And the way she handled it, which was kind of different than a way a lot of other people handled it, she really came off looking as smart and classy.
And I think that goes really a lot to show for her with that.
You know, you had a caller before that was saying that she didn't do enough to progress feminism to her position.
And I did want to mention that I don't think it was her responsibility as a personal responsibility to progress the feminist cause, even though she could if she's in a position to.
I think her personal responsibility was to be a top-notch journalist and a top-notch news anchor, which I believe she was.
Well, Michael here from Miami with a full-throated defense of Megan Kelly as a journalist.
Michael, look, I really appreciate the call and also you giving your sense of this, your side of this.
For full disclosure, I mean, Megan's always been really nice to me.
So, yeah, I think she's a nice lady.
Well, what's the main topic, Mr. Snerdley?
About a tire?
I'm not, look at me.
A guy in t-shirt and jeans usually, I'm not one to comment on a tire.
I think Megan is a lovely person.
She's always been very nice to me.
Whenever I was on, she had me on her show on Fox many times.
It was always very nice to me.
And exactly.
I wish her a lot of luck, although I don't think she's going to need it.
I'm sure she's going to be very well compensated over at NBC.
That sounds nice.
I got a, you know, this is, I could, no, NBC, NBC.
Oh, do you think they'll put her on MSNBC?
That's an interesting question.
I don't know.
That would seem to me to be a bit too far.
I don't think people are saying she's not like liberal like a lot of these other anchors are liberal.
I think she's pretty centrist, actually.
Uh-oh, I'm going to get myself into trouble here.
All I'm saying is Megan's a nice lady and I like her.
All right, that's what I got.
Exactly.
And as for the comments on the female anchor appearances, I leave that to others.
I am not going to be ungallant today on the Rush Limbaugh show.
I'm going to just say that they don't talk about ladies' appearances.
None of that.
And I don't know why I'm turning into like a lady from the BBC over here myself, but it just skips me.
Yeah.
All right.
I'm going to get back to drinking my latte now, and I'll be back after this break.
Buck in for Rush, closing out the show today here on the EIB.
Although I will be back this Thursday.
So not tomorrow, but the next day.
Tomorrow?
Yes.
Mr. Mark Stein in tomorrow here at the EIB.
I'll be back on Thursday.
Looking forward to it already.
I'm going to be doing the research tonight, nerding out.
And maybe I'll get a chance then to tell you about this law in France that says that they can disconnect at night.
They no longer have to answer the emails.
That sounds great.
I want that law here.
I mean, I don't really want that law here because that's a regulation that interferes with business activity.
But having just been on vacation for a week, it's actually nice to be able to disconnect.
It'd be nice to disconnect at night, too.
But I got to leave it there because we're closing out.
I'll be back Thursday.
Buck sexton for Rush.
Thanks to Mr. Rush himself and the team here on the EIB.