con_text.txt

  My day started with the great honor of meeting His Holiness, Pope Francis. I've been incredibly moved by his compassion, his message of inclusion. Uh, I was grateful to have, uh, the opportunity to speak with him about the responsibilities that we all share to care for "the least of these," uh, the poor, uh, the excluded. Uh, and -- The excluded? Uh, you know, I was -- Who the hell is excluded? I was, uh, extremely moved by his insights about, uh, the importance, uh, of us all having, uh, a moral perspective on world problems and not simply thinking in terms of our own narrow self-interests. Come on, is anybody buying? He doesn't believe that. It's all about him. Anyway, Obama was moved by "the excluded." By the way, you know, I think that one person applauding in that previous sound bite was probably the White House pool reporter. I think I figured it out.  In connection with allegations related to the George Washington Bridge realignment, we found that Governor Christie had no knowledge beforehand of this George Washington Bridge realignment idea and that he played no role whatsoever in that decision or the implementation of it. Wow. We further found -- Yeah? -- no evidence -- Uh-huh. -- that anyone in the governor's office besides Bridget Kelly -- Who's gone. That's right. -- or played any role in the decision or the implementation of it. Okay. So the firm that Governor Christie hired to investigate himself has cleared him of any wrongdoing. Great news for the Democrats. But they cut away from the Obama presser for it. Yes, you heard me right. You heard me right. (chuckling) Yes! I'm not quite through with When he would leave an appearance on Piers Morgan, he'd go straight to Twitter. Here's a typical tweet from Leland Yee back on December 14th: "A year after Sandy Hook, let us recommit ourselves to working towards a safer society for all of us." I wonder how long Yee might have been allegedly helping to run guns? I wonder if he was involved in Fast and Furious, for example.But here's a guy tweeting that we need to "recommit ourselves to working towards a safer society for all of us," and this guy's out running M16s, $2 million worth. Now, as I mentioned, "Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon is facing public corruption charges after prosecutors said he solicited $48,000 in cash, airline tickets, a hotel room and the use of a luxury apartment as bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as developers."Former Trenton, NJ, Mayor Tony Mack was convicted in February of taking money in exchange for getting approval in 2012 to develop a downtown parking garage that only existed in a federal sting. He is awaiting sentencing. He is one of a long list of New Jersey mayors to face corruption charges since 2000, including the leaders of Newark, Camden, Paterson, Perth Amboy, Hoboken, Passaic, Asbury Park, Orange and Hamilton."These are all Democrats.The story does not say that, by the way.They're all Democrats."Former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner," you remember him, "resigned last August after a number of sexual harassment allegations. He pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and misdemeanor battery in October..." Now, these are all Democrats, and all of these stings and scandal investigations took place during the Obama administration, and they run the FBI. Something is going on here.You would never expect this to happen unless... No, I don't even want to speculate. I'll just take it for what it is at face value. "Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is serving 28 years in prison after being convicted in October of extortion, bribery, conspiracy and other crimes." Now, keep in mind as you hear all that, it's the Tea Party that poses the biggest threat to this country.Yeah. It's the Tea Party.Again, they don't say Democrats here."Federal law enforcement officials arrested two public officials in California and North Carolina and raided the office of a New York state senator in connection with separate corruption investigations on Wednesday. Hundreds of federal agents conducted searches of offices around the San Francisco Bay Area and arrested several people on Tuesday, including state Sen. Leland Yee (D) and a former head of a Hong Kong-based crime syndicate..."Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon... William Scarborough," an assemblyman. Both Democrats. "Investigators raided the Gee King Tong Free Masons offices in Chinatown, which [Raymond "Shrimp Boy"] Chow runs." He was one of the associates of California state senator (Democrat) Leland Yee. Now, folks, if this is strictly Democrats -- which, so far, it is. We don't know if there are other investigations yet to be revealed.This mayor of Charlotte, by the way, has only been mayor for six months. It didn't take them long to size this guy up, for example. The FBI has been working on all of this for years -- and not a peep, folks! In North Carolina, they've been setting up former mayor Cannon since 2010. They spent over $480,000 to do it. It's hard to conclude otherwise. It's like the FBI has been working secretly behind the scenes since Obama was elected.If this sweep is strictly Democrats, which so far it is, what does that mean? What does that tell you? Does it tell you anything? (interruption) Well, that is a possibility. It is entirely possible that what's going on here is that the head honchos of the Democrat Party are basically behind an effort to take out all of their bad apples before the election; make 'em old news by the time the election comes around.The timing here is obviously curious, and it really is hard to believe the FBI would be working against the wishes of the Regime. Isn't it? That's really hard to calculate. So it could well be that the Democrats know they got some bad apples and they're gonna just clear the decks, just get rid of all of them early enough in the year so that when the election comes around and their opponents start talking about it, it's old news."Nothing to see here!"However, it's not all that big. I've got one sound bite on it. I'm talking it's big, big. But in the Drive-Bys, you're not seeing a whole lot of it, is my point. We did put together a montage. We can call this "the Culture of Corruption." Prominent Democrat politicians have been arrested all across the fruited plain within the last week. This is a 44-second montage of various Drive-By reporters from all over the country...DAN ASHLEY: State Senator Leland Yee is in federal court right now facing a seven-count felony indictment of gun trafficking and political corruption. His stunning arrest happened this morning as the FBI raided multiple Bay Area locations.MAUREEN O'BOYLE: Charlotte Mayor Patrick Cannon arrested, accused of bribery, theft and corruption.MIKE MONTECALVO: (b-roll noise) Federal and state law enforcement execute two search warrants targeting the home and office of Rhode Island House Speaker, Gordon Fox.ROMA TORRE: The FBI raids the home, office, and Albany hotel room of a state assemblyman from Queens. Investigators carried away boxes of William Scarborough's files. The assemblyman is accused of abusing his expense vouchers.CYNTHIA BRUNO: Former Illinois state representative Keith Farnham is being investigated for child pornography. Oh, big time there! Keith Farnham is being investigated for child pornography, and the assemblyman's accused of "abusing his expense vouchers." Would you like to see that? How do you abuse an expense voucher? I know what the infobabe means, but that's not what you say. You know, in our common culture, when you start saying that somebody abused their expense vouchers, the low-information crowd's gonna say, "Well, gee, can you show me how that's done? Is it cool?"Dingy Harry belongs in any discussion of a culture of corruption. And, in fact, years ago the LA Times did a huge expose on Dingy Harry's fraudulent, smarmy, sneaky land deals in Nevada and elsewhere. Yesterday in Washington on Capitol Hill, there was a Senate Democrat press conference, and Dingy Harry spoke. During the Q&A;, an unidentified Drive-By reporter and Dingy Harry went at it.REPORTER: Your decision yesterday to reimburse your campaign $17,000 --REID: I think it was $16,000, but whatever.REPORTER: Was that an acknowledgement that it was wrong to use your granddaughter --REID: No, no --REPORTER: -- as a vendor and --REID: No, no in fact...REPORTER: -- can you say why --REID: No, no in fact --REPORTER: -- you decided to do that in the first place?REID: No, in fact it wasn't. We complied with all the rules, that was said. I just wanted to avoid -- and I'm very fortunate that I can write that check, so Im - it's all done. But everything was complied with beforehand.REPORTER: Well --REID: I'm not going to answer --REPORTER: -- what was the reasoning in the first place?REID: Read my statement. I'm not gonna answer. Read my statement. Shut up! You know who you're talking to? I've taken care of it, I can write that check. You can't. I'm lucky I can. I have money and you don't, so shut up. I'm Harry Reid. Except he never talks that loud. You know, speaking of having a cold, when I hear Harry Reid, I want to constantly either blow my nose or clear my throat. That voice, it sounds like he needs a drain in there, just sounds like there's so much saliva floating around in his mouth that you just -- I don't know. It makes me nervous. And let's just listen to a montage of Democrats, this is 2006, when they ran to recapture the House on the supposed culture of corruption that was the Republican Party.LOUISE SLAUGHTER: We will expose the deepest roots of the culture of corruption.HARRY REID: This is a culture of corruption.NANCY PELOSI: The Republican culture of corruption.HARRY REID: I know a little bit about corruption. Political corruption.NANCY PELOSI: The culture of corruption. I think Pelosi was very tight with Democrat State Senator Leland Yee, if I'm not mistaken.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, one thing about the Dingy Harry corruption, I just want to give you the details of what happened. Dingy Harry's scandal this year -- Remember, folks, the reason why -- I'm interrupting myself here to make an observation. It was the House Bank Scandal and the House Post Office Scandal that came to light in 1990, maybe a little earlier than that, but you can talk about the Contract with America, and it did matter. But the only reason -- well, no, I can't say the only reason.The House Post Office Scandal actually featured things like this. Member of Congress would walk into the post office in the House -- remember, now, this before e-mail had been popularized -- walk in with a donation check of five grand and buy $50 worth of stamps and take the change in cash. The House bank was even worse than that. It was everybody, but the Democrats ran the House. I mean, the Republicans hardly had 150 members.There were a lot of things that happened. This program had started and for the first time nationally Democrats were being laughed at, made fun of, criticized, and honestly spoken about. Then the Republicans came along, and they did have an attractive agenda. The Contract with America and strategy. They nationalized the elections, but I'm telling, the scandal did them in. The element of the Republican victory had nothing to do with ideas. It was just we need a change, we just need to sweep the place clean.I think there is some credence to the idea that the Democrats are trying to get all of these scandals nailed and out of the way before the election so that it's old news by then. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. The Regime's not gonna sick the FBI on its friends. Now, what Dingy Harry was doing, his scandal involved him giving almost $17,000 worth of gifts that were paid for by his campaign funds, which is illegal. You can't take money in your campaign coffer and use it to buy presents for people. Added to this, he further bought the gifts that he gave away from his granddaughter. So the money stayed in the family.So he had 17 grand in campaign donations that he turned around and used to buy presents for people that he bought from his granddaughter. And it was not like he shouldn't know the law. I mean, he got caught back in 2006 using campaign money to buy Christmas gifts and give out tips at the Ritz-Carlton, which is where his condo is, or was. So that's what he was doing, and that's what he was denying (imitating Reid), "Oh, I didn't know anything about it, but I wrote the check, and it was $16,000, not 17,000, get it right. But I'm lucky; I have money; I could write the check. You don't have any money; you couldn't write the check. So leave me alone."It's tempting to say these guys cannot win aboveboard, fair fight, arena of ideas. They just can't. And they know it. So they stack the deck in their favor as many chances as they can.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here's Mike in Morgan Hill, California. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. Twenty years of dittos to you. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate that.CALLER: Yeah. Just a small comment for you, if you could do us a favor out here. Yeah.CALLER: When you're referring to state Senator Leland Yee, Democrat from California, would you please include the word "San Francisco" in the title? Happily, happily so. San Francisco Democrat Senator Leland Yee. Absolutely. I think that's probably proper. It's correct identification.CALLER: We would be greatly appreciative. And, by the way, thank you so much for the books that you wrote. My kids and I are thoroughly enjoying them. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comment. We've donated about 20,000, I think, so far, to schools. And classics, too, not just our book. We are donating all kinds of classic American authors, along with my classic works (laughing) to schools all over the country, and it's been really rewarding. I appreciate your comment. I really do.Here's Fritz in Flat Rock, North Carolina. Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Thank you so much Rush. I appreciate your taking my call and -- You bet. So, let's see, the extravagance of a person's behavior is directly proportional to their guilt?CALLER: Right. Let's take the instance of Ken Starr. Remember how he was accused and vilified? Ken Starr, right, he was a sex pervert.CALLER: Okay. And the people who were vilifying him were so guilty of the very thing they were accusing him of. Okay, yeah, it's projection. They will always identify what they're guilty of by accusing others of doing it.CALLER: And to the degree that they are being extravagant in this behavior -- True. But in this case of San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee, it's just the allegation so far. It's just the indictment so we don't really know the degree of San Francisco Democrat senator Leland Yee's guilt.CALLER: Dingy Harry, Algore, Bill Clinton, Hillary, remember the guy with the bouffant hairdo, Blagojevich? Oh, yeah.CALLER: From Illinois. The Cabbage Patch kid looking guy, yeah, Blagojevich. Yeah, yeah.CALLER: Was he behaving extravagantly, going on TV and going on The View trying to defend himself with all the women? I don't even remember. I'll take your word for it that he was.CALLER: Rush, you'll be able to remember the guy who used to get up on the floor of the House and say, "Beam me up, Scotty," I believe he was from Ohio. Oh, yeah. James Traficant. What a great guy.CALLER: Traficant. When he turned his repertoire to the Democrat Party, I believe it was to the Clintons, did he not? Bang, right to prison. Yeah, Traficant did turn his fire on somebody. I don't remember if it was the Clintons, but when he did that, miraculously indictments were handed up. Do you know, by the way, in which instance indictments are handed up and in which instance indictments are handed down? Grand jury hands 'em down. Who hands 'em up? Dawn, do you know? It's interesting, isn't it? Something you read the news, an indictment was handed up this afternoon, blah, blah, indictment was handed down this afternoon. Which instance does an indictment get handed up? I don't know. I brought this up one time, somebody calls, "It doesn't. It's never handed up. I don't know what you're talking about." I said, "Well, I saw it in the media. It was on TV. It had to happen. Somebody on TV handed -- maybe it was a TV show -- somebody handed up an indictment." Yeah, Blago went on The View. He did. Anyway, Fritz, I appreciate the call.BREAK TRANSCRIPT We just had a caller from a guy who wanted to add to my Undeniable Truths of Life. I've often warned people, don't try this at home. Leave it to the professionals, highly trained specialists like me. But, nevertheless, this guy had a unique observation. He said, these guys, they're often found guilty of doing exactly what they accuse us of doing, and in many cases they're found guilty of doing the opposite of what they publicly stand for, like Leland Yee, San Francisco Democrat senator indicted for running M16s, weapons trafficking.But here are the details. Keith Farnham, who looks like Jack Kevorkian with a little more weight. You know, Kevorkian was this cadaverous looking little guy. This guy looks just like Kevorkian, white hair, the dark, deep inset eyes, but a little heavier."He resigned last week from the State Legislature in Illinois, citing 'health reasons.' This week, the FBI raided his house, because they have probable cause to merit a search warrant based on evidence that there may be CHILD PORNOGRAPHY on one of his computers. In fact, the Chicago Tribune had this to say about this apparently non-story (because no one is reporting about it, really, except conservative news sites): 'Federal agents sought evidence of child pornography last week when they seized computers from the Elgin district office of former state Rep. Keith Farnham, who resigned Wednesday, according to a search warrant released Friday. In addition, a federal agent on Thursday took a laptop computer that Farnham used in the Illinois House chamber, and last week agents removed a computer from a legislative office building next to the Capitol, according to the documents and an interview with a state technology official. Asked about the child pornography matter, Farnham, 66, said Friday in a phone interview: "I cant comment about any of it."'"A tireless advocate for children. Of course! Every Democrat's a tireless advocate for the children. In this case old Keith Farnham apparently was using his advocacy for children to cover up the fact that he really likes child porn. And that was the point that our previous caller was making. This goes beyond hypocrisy, but they are that. But most of their political life is a cover for what they're actually doing.Now, Traficant, by the way, I looked up what happened to James Traficant. I had to refresh my memory on it. James Traficant was indicted on federal corruption charges for taking campaign funds for personal use back in 2002. Really? So what in the world is Harry Reid doing walking around a free man? This is exactly what Harry Reid did. Harry Reid took 16 grand from his campaign stash and he spent it on buying presents for people. He spent the money with the company owned by his granddaughter so the money stayed in the family. He was asked about it. (imitating Reid) "No, no, no, no. Glad I got this straightened out. I'm very fortunate I could write the check. I was able to write the check for that amount. You can't. I can. I'm better than you are. Shut up. Don't ask me any more about it. Just read my statement. Go to hell."And that was his basic press conference. Traficant did the same thing. Traficant was conflicted of 10 felony accounts including bribery, racketeering, tax evasion. He was sentenced to a federal prison where he served seven years. Now, just try to imagine that happening to a real Democrat. Traficant was not a real Democrat because he was not marching the party line each and every day. He had problems with what Democrats were doing. He lived in a conservative district in ways.Look at all of these guys. Charlie Rangel, multiple offices being paid for by the taxpayers and nothing happens, and we know why. BREAK TRANSCRIPT Dan in Bakersfield, California, where Senator Leland Yee is from. How are you, sir?CALLER: I'm doing great, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. You bet.CALLER: I've been a long-time listener since day one. I appreciate that.CALLER: Anyway, the FBI stuff is exciting, but I don't know how they do it in the rest of country, but in California, we had one of our high-ranking senators busted back in I believe it was in August or September. It was for using campaign funds for personal usage, about $250,000 worth. He got a $60,000 fine and no time. So I don't know if they're trying to bust everybody now while they can -- Was this guy a Democrat?CALLER: Of course. I take it back. He's in California. Yeah, there's no Republicans elected out there.CALLER: That's right. Yeah. Okay. So $250,000 worth of illegal campaign use and he got a $60,000 fine and is walking free like Harry Reid?CALLER: Yeah, that's correct, yeah. Well... (sigh)CALLER: Absolutely. I don't know. It depends on pleas, and what kind of evidence they actually had or didn't have, but it's just another Democrat. They are trying to clear the decks for something. There's no question about that. There's a story here by We had never, ever seen anybody with this kind of talent, with these credentials, with this unique ability to unite people and to steer us away from politics as usual. Barack Obama was gonna erase all of the negative aspects of the Bush years. He was gonna make the world love us again and he was going to restore the economy, and he was going to close down Club Gitmo and all of these magical, wonderful things because he was the smartest guy to come along. He's also the first African-American president, therefore historical. And now the bloom is off the rose. The bloom is way off the rose. The Drive-Bys are very worried about it. In fact, here's how Cillizza -- now, remember the headline, 'cause I think he starts with a flawed premise, which I will 'splain here in a minute."It goes directly to the heart of why he was elected -- as an anti-George W. Bush, a person who, above all else, was competent at handling the basic affairs of government," the competent candidate. "Here's how we," meaning Cillizza, "put it way back in December 2008." This is Cillizza quoting himself:"Barack Obama and the Cult of Competency -- Barack Obama won the White House last month in large part by running against George W. Bush and tapping into the public perception that his administration has been ineffectual in handling important policy questions. So it's not surprise that in the first month of his transition to the presidency, the president-elect is putting a premium on competence above all else."Have you heard about the Secret Service? This is the second time, that we know of, a bunch of Secret Service agents got plastered overnight at a party while they were in town on the presidential detail. It was while the president was at The Hague in the Netherlands. Last time was in Colombia. Some Secret Service agents got plastered in Colombia. Now it's happened a second time. Now, this is amazingly troubling to the left.I don't know why. Of all things to bother them about Obama's competence, that does. The Secret Service getting drunk while on the job, to them sends a signal that Obama's not competent. They're not worried that they're not protecting him. That's not it. They're worried that... I don't know. They don't respect him? They don't think it's serious enough task to protect him? I don't know what it is.But they're really bothered by it 'cause Cillizza mentions it here, that and Obamacare. Obamacare, people have no idea, because of these waivers and delays. I'm telling you, people have no idea. If you have benefited from a delay or a waiver, you don't have the slightest idea what's gonna happen to you when those waivers are lifted. You have no idea what your policy's gonna cost you.It's gonna be through the roof. You have no idea. You're gonna buy a policy, and then you're gonna find out that the hospital of your choice is not in the network. So then you're gonna ask, "Well, what kind of policy do I buy to get that hospital?" The answer will be: "Oh, sorry, it's not available. The hospitals have opted out." Wait 'til this happens. Wait 'til this starts happening.But all of these waivers and delays and extensions like the, "You can keep your illegal plan if you like it"? Well, the day's gonna come where you're gonna have to give that up, and I shudder when I think about what people are gonna realize, and it's gonna be too late. It's gonna be after all the elections, by design. But anyway, back to Cillizza's piece. Obamacare and the Secret Service thing have got 'em ticked off.But I think his premise is wrong. Obama got elected on competence? That's not why he got elected. (sigh) There were people that voted for Obama just 'cause he was different. The media was touting him as something almost superhuman, messianic. It wasn't that people thought he was competent. The Drive-Bys portrayed him as that way! The media did all this PR managing and imaging of Obama.He didn't do any of it himself. He just accepted it all. He was whatever people wanted him to be, remember? He was a blank slate, a blank canvas. You could paint him as whatever you wanted to be. But there was no evidence of any competence. He'd served 160 days in the Senate, most of it running for office. He'd be a state senator voting "present" more times than he voted yes or no.There was no track record to prove competence.It's just something the Drive-Bys assigned to him because he was a young, vibrant Democrat. He wasn't Hillary. But come on, what's the elephant in the room here? The people voted for Barack Obama because they were so desperate to end the racial strife in this country that they thought if we elected an African-American president, we would once and for all end all of these silly arguments throughout our society that we are a slave or racist country.There were people that voted for Obama because they were afraid that if people found out they hadn't voted for the first African-American president, they would be called racist. Come on! How could you not mention that as one of the reasons? That's what has the Republican Party paralyzed against any criticism of Obama. It was one of the primary attractions of the media, the historical aspect. But I don't know...Where was there any evidence of this competence?There wasn't any. I'm gonna get to all this FBI stuff. I'll tell you, this is fascinating to me, what the FBI is doing, and they've been doing this for a while. These investigations that they've been engaged in have been going on for years. If I didn't know better -- and I don't know better, I'd have no idea, but it just seems like, I mean, the number of years this has been going on, it's almost as though somebody -- and the FBI's part of the Regime. Obama runs the FBI. They're part of the executive branch. But, man, they're going after Democrats and they're nailing them. It's like they've been doing this for years under the cover of darkness and everything else in a way that is perhaps saving the country.BREAK TRANSCRIPT "In all, 26 people, including former school board president Keith Jackson, were indicted on charges related to an extensive crime ring headed by well-known Chinatown figure Raymond Chow." (interruption) Yeah, he's also known as the Shrimp Boy. Raymond Chow, the Shrimp Boy. He was also arrested and charged. Now, Raymond Chow, the Shrimp Boy, is head of the Wo Hop To gang. It's a well-known criminal gang, California, Shrimp Boy, Raymond Chow heads it up."The indictment alleges Yee and Jackson defrauded 'citizens of honest services' and were involved in a scheme to traffic firearms in exchange for thousands in campaign donations to the senator," Senator Yee. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which Jackson told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."Now, Raymond Chow, also known as the Shrimp Boy, who has been connected over the years to the criminal gang Wo Hop To, "was indicted for money laundering, conspiracy to receive and transport stolen property, and conspiracy to traffic contraband cigarettes."These guys were into all of it. Democrats. Democrats looking out for the little guy. Democrats trafficking in military grade weapons for campaign contributions. Trafficking in black market cigarettes, trafficking in the evil weed. Well, not so evil in California. And all the while Senator Leland Yee is demanding that there be a boycott against me for attempting to translate the ChiCom premier at a press conference with Obama, and he's, again, as I said it, stated he's just virulently anti the Second Amendment.I mean, if he could, he'd get everybody to have to give up their guns. And, yeah, it's hypocrisy, but it's worse than that, folks. This trafficking in military grade weapons and black market cigarettes with a well-known gang, the Wo Hop To gang with Shrimp Boy, Raymond Chow, all for campaign contributions.After facilitating meetings between other gang members he knows and with other elected officials, "The indictment was unsealed in federal court in downtown San Francisco after FBI and other law enforcement officials carried out multiple raids early Wednesday. FBI agents also searched Yee's Sacramento office Wednesday. San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr described the raids to KCBS as 'massive.'"'Hundreds of officers are involved in this,' he said. Dan Lieberman, Yee's press secretary, said Wednesday morning that his office would not comment on the FBI raids. Representatives for the U.S. attorney's office could not immediately be reached for comment." Let's go to the audio sound bites and to my adopted hometown in Sacramento where all of this that you hear today literally actually began back in October of 1984. This is KTXL-TV Fox 40 Eyeball News. We have a portion here of the correspondent Sonseeahray Tonsall reporting about the arrest of California State Senator Leland Yee on corruption charges.TONSALL: Allegations that since March of 2011, Yee has been running with the Chinese organized crime group, the Ghee Kung Tong [sic] and it's leader known as Shrimp Boy. Taking cash to pay down $70,000 worth of old campaign debt for a failed run for Mayor in San Francisco. Another alleged transaction mentions promise of contracts for a client of an undercover FBI agent. Yee, now the third Democrat indicted in the last few months for public corruption and misuse of office, making it tough on his party's agenda. It's not gonna be tough on his party. It isn't gonna matter. They're Democrats out there. He's gonna end up not having anything happen to him. His buddies are the judges. His buddies are gonna be on any jury if there is one. Besides, the Republicans don't even have a presence in California. I mean, it'll be embarrassing for Democrat state senator Leland Yee, but these guys don't get -- hell, this guy was doing great work. He's trying to legalize marijuana. He's trying to get guns out to everybody. Okay, so he's trying to earn a little money to do his good works by trafficking AKs, big whoop. Easy to look the other way. Now, the next bite, it's even worse for Democrat Senator Leland Yee. The next report from the correspondent Sonseeahray Tonsall mentions me.RUSH ARCHIVE: They sit up there all majestically in their royalty and they try to eliminate their opposition, all the while their hands are in the till and they're engaging in corruption I couldn't even dream of. And of course that makes me the bad guy, saying that. See, poor Leland, poor Senator Yee. First he gets indicted. Aw. Such a nice guy. And then it got even worse. Can you imagine, here he is indicted on weapons trafficking charges and illegal campaign contributions and running bogus cigarettes and hanging around with the gang and Shrimp Boy, and even worse than that is having me talk about him on the radio. I am living rent free in their heads. Can you believe that? Even worse than being indicted is the fact that I was on the attack.I wasn't on the attack. I never go on the attack. I get up here and I look at things being attacked that I believe in, people being attacked that I believe in, and I defend 'em. I defend the institutions, the ideas, and the people that I believe in.Anyway, this is the tip of the iceberg. Big city mayors are going down. Democrat mayors being investigated left and right by the FBI. Do you know, folks, to show you how bad, the FBI has also -- we're gonna get to details of that in a second here -- the FBI has dumped the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate crimes resource? Now, the Southern Poverty Law Center is run by this genuine loco weed by the name of Mark Potok.This guy exists for one reason, and that is to make false allegations about racism and sexism and bigotry and homophobia and hate crimes against standard, ordinary, run-of-the-mill conservatives whenever they open their mouths. And he's accredited, the Drive-Bys, whenever Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center says anything, he's gospel. And the FBI has dropped Potok and the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate crimes resource. This is a big thing, too.Hate crimes are nothing to sneeze at. If you are accused of one, a hate crime is when you have some sort of emotion attached to whatever other crime that you did. Like if you squash an ant, if you were mad when you did it, they accuse you of a hate crime and double your punishment. It's a judgmental thing, and that's the kind of thing that the Southern Poverty Law Center did, was run around and attach hate to standard, ordinary, everyday conservatism. The FBI tracked down whoever the Southern Poverty Law Center targeted, and to have these guys thrown overboard as sources on this stuff is huge. I think this FBI activity against these Democrat mayors is in and of itself huge. Of course it's not being talked about much in the Drive-By Media, but it's profoundly damaging and very embarrassing.By the way, I just found something here, placed in front of me from the actual indictment of Democrat State Senator Leland Yee. Quote: "Senator Yee said, 'Do I think we can make some money? I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the good? Yes, I think we can get the goods.'" According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer source, the weapons from Russia. So the weapons that Senator Yee was trafficking in came from Putin. Well, they came from Russia.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Let me read you just a couple of more things from the indictment of California state senator Leland Yee. (interruption) No, I'm not picking on him. How in the world am I on picking on Senator Yee? He's been indicted. See, that's the way people think. In fact, can I offer some other observations? How about this? Isn't this the kind of thing Democrats accuse the Tea Party of doing and being?This is the kind of person the Democrats say are members of the Tea Party. "Yeah, they're nuts pro-lifers running around. They can't wait to fire off their guns! They're trafficking in these big military weapons. They all think they're GI Joe," and look who it ends up being. These wackos that start pulling the trigger and mowing people down and trafficking guns, all end up being Democrats.Now, from the indictment: "Yee asked (the agent) to provide an inventory list of desired weapons and he would see what they can do," and the agent "told Yee he would deliver $2 million in cash." So Leland Yee had $2 million. He was gonna go get $2 million worth of guns. The agent asked about "shoulder-fired, automatic weapons." Senator Leland Yee (Democrat-California), responded by saying, "The automatic weapons are the equivalent of the M16, automatic service weapon."Automatic.Not semiautomatic.Democrat California Senator Leland Yee -- that's Y-e-e -- was trafficking in M16s. The agent then asked "about the availability of shoulder-fired missiles or rockets." Senator Yee responded, "I told him about the rockets and things like that." This is an undercover agent. So Senator Yee is making it sound like he's got these M16s and shoulder-fired rockets. Senator Yee said, "Do I think we can make some money?"Yep, I think we can make some money. Do I think we can get the goods? Yep, I think we can get the goods." "According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer sourced the weapons from Russia." It was M16s, and it was $2 million in cash. These quotes from the indictment, they're just from the gunrunning section. There's a whole bunch of different other sections on the bogus cigarettes, the gang activity.There were any number of other illegal activities going on. It really is a devastating indictment. Of course, to people like Senator Leland Yee, I'm the bad guy -- and all conservatives, Tea Party, we're the bad guys. Look at this: Running guns, M16s, campaign contributions. He's a senator, and he's running for secretary of state!Warminster, Pennsylvania. This is Chris, and I'm glad you called, sir. It's great to have you on the program. Hello.CALLER: Hi, Rush. Great program. Love your show. Thank you very much, sir. Well, in this case, I see what your point is. But I don't think that the anti-gun attitude or mentality of the Democrats is phony. In fact, I think they think it's the biggest mistake in the Constitution. The whole thing is a mistake, Amendment No. 2. That and the free speech clause of No. 1, those are the ones that have to go. You disarm the citizens and you don't have to fear them at all.You don't have to worry about anything. They're dead serious about it. No, in this case, I think there's just a guy trying to get rich. He's peddling his influence, pretending to be a big-time power broker. You'd be amazed, folks, at the number of people in certain elements of the American pop culture who look at gangs and gang membership enviously.You'd be amazed at the number of people that want to be in gangs 'cause it's cool, and it's powerful, and it's exciting. I think, you know, what does Senator Leland Yee (Democrat-California) earn? Probably not much. Here's a chance to make a big score. I don't think he's thinking beyond that about limiting demand and raising prices. But I'll tell you, this indictment that includes him is 137 pages.That's a lot of criminal allegations. Now, sometimes they overcharge. They throw a bunch of stuff in there in an effort to get a plea so as not to go to court. And, of course, yeah. You know, of course we need campaign finance reform. See, if we didn't have the Second Amendment today, poor Senator Yee wouldn't have even been in trouble. If we'd have gotten rid of guns long ago, he wouldn't have any to traffic or sell.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Folks, I've got even more from the indictment of San Francisco Democrat state senator Leland Yee. Get this. This is from "Twenty-five others, including San Francisco's former school board president, Keith Jackson, were also charged." So $2 million gunrunning M16s, and $2.5 million in bullets -- "munitions" -- from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines! This guy's out ripping on the Tea Party every day! (interruption) "They're not separatist groups," exactly right. Separate from what? Maybe the Philippine government. They're terrorist groups! What are you talking about? Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group.Muslim separatists?Al-Qaeda's got a big presence over there. BREAK TRANSCRIPT You might be getting tired of hearing about San Francisco Democrat state senator Leland Yee, but I just keeping learning things. I mean the information is free flowing, and our tentacles to absorb it are everywhere, and there's now a huge story in the Wall Street Journal. This story contains reaction from San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee's colleagues. (interruption)Well, I don't know that they threw him under the bus. We don't know who threw him under the bus. Remember, he got caught in a sting here by undercover FBI agents. "Had the senator," San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee, "been elected secretary of state, which was not a long shot," it says here, "he would have overseen [California]'s campaign-finance apparatus."Look at what he's doing here. "The indictment is a major embarrassment for the state's Fair Political Practices Commission..." Really? It's "a major embarrassment for California's Fair Political Practices Commission, which has been targeting dark money from undisclosed conservative donors, but somehow" the California Fair Political Practices Commission "missed" San Francisco Democrat Leland "Yee's shady operation."I wonder how that happened. The oversight committee just happened to miss $2 million of gunrunning, $2.5 million of munitions running, and trading in illegal campaign contributions. They just "missed" it. "Democratic senators expressed shock at the charges. 'He's been a leader on human services, foster care and juvenile justice issues,' said Jim Beall of San Jose, describing [San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee] next door."'For me, to see this happen to someone with that record, I just can't understand it.' But voters..." This is the Journal, now. "But voters may be starting to conclude that [San Francisco Democrat Leland] Yee's transactional brand of politics is business as usual in Sacramento." Hey, it's all Democrats! There's nothing stopping them other than the FBI. But this is the real reason I wanted to share this story with you, the next short paragraph.Remember, San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee was in the senate, the state senate, and he was running for secretary of state. "State Senate President Darrell Steinberg ... is also frustrated because he's lost another member of his caucus and a working supermajority, which is necessary to pass tax hikes and place constitutional amendments on the ballot."Aw, let's all have a good cry!So Leland Yee may be sent up the river for who knows how many years and this guy's all worried 'cause he's lost his super-majority. This guy's all worried 'cause he can't raise your taxes in California. That's what bums him about it. According to the Wall Street Journal, "State Senate President Darrell Steinberg ... is also frustrated because he's lost another member of his caucus and a working supermajority, which" he needs to raise taxes.If I am San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee, and I read that, I ask, "Is that all I'm good enough for you for, is raising taxes?"In my time of need, that's all you're concerned about, Bud?"Probably so. How many of you people are partaking of these electronic cigarettes? How many of you are using e-cigarettes? It's an increasing number of people. But, man, the New York Times is just hell-bent on wiping them out -- and not just the They haven't banned cigarettes. I mean, how many years have they been talking about cigarettes as killer and ruination for our children? But they never ban the product. They still sell it. They're using tax revenues, sale tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products to fund children's health care programs. They can't ban tobacco, but they are hell-bent on getting rid of electronic cigarettes. They're lying about things in the process of doing it.There was a story in the Times on March 24th, so three days ago. "Selling a Poison by the Barrel: Liquid Nicotine for E-Cigarettes -- A dangerous new form of a powerful stimulant is hitting markets nationwide, for sale by the vial, the gallon and even the barrel. The drug is nicotine, in its potent, liquid form -- extracted from tobacco and tinctured with a cocktail of flavorings, colorings and assorted chemicals to feed the fast-growing electronic cigarette industry.Nobody has been caught being killed drinking the stuff. What happens is, you put it in the electronic cigarette. It's got electronics in there 'cause it's an electronic cigarette. There's a battery in it. When you puff on it, or when you draw on it, it heats up the liquid. In the tip of the e-cigarette, there's a little LED that turns orange.It looks like the tip of a real cigarette lighting up when you draw it, and then it turns that liquid into water vapor. The water vapor is what the e-cigarette smoker inhales. Water vapor. There's no fire. There's no tobacco. There's no toxins. There's no carcinogens. There's zilch, zero, nada. But the left is just enraged by them. I've told you my story of these things in Hawaii.I'm not gonna bore you with it again, but they just don't want to see you do it. It's a bad image, it's a bad example -- and, of course, it looks cool. That's not good for our children. Now, we can give 'em condoms all day long and say, "Go at it!" We can give 'em condoms, we can send 'em to Planned Parenthood, and that's cool. But that e-cigarette? No way, Jose!We are gonna ram 'em down everybody's throat. We're gonna cancel 'em. We're gonna ban 'em. We're gonna do whatever we can to get rid of them. This is from a New York Times story: "Reports of accidental poisonings, notably among children, are soaring." No, they're not. Hang on. "Since 2011, there appears to have been one death in the United States [Gasp!], a suicide by an adult who injected nicotine."Well, wait a minute. Injecting it is not drinking it for the cool flavor of it. Injecting it? That means you have to take the vial apart to get to the liquid and then you'd have to suck it up in the syringe and then inject it into you. One death! (New Castrati impression) "That's right, Mr. Limbaugh. It's one death too many. We don't need to introduce it to our children and the people of our society."The Times: "[L]ess serious cases have led to a surge in calls to poison control centers. Nationwide, the number of cases linked to e-liquids jumped to 1,351 in 2013, a 300% increase from 2012... Examples come from across the country. Last month, a 2-year-old girl in Oklahoma City drank a small bottle of a parent's nicotine liquid, started vomiting and was rushed to an emergency room. ..."In terms of the immediate poison risk, e-liquids are far more dangerous than tobacco, because the liquid is absorbed more quickly, even in diluted concentrations. 'This is one of the most potent naturally occurring toxins we have,' [said some clown named] Cantrell said of nicotine." He's talking about nicotine. Nicotine is the most addictive drug out there. Without question.It's more addictive than crystal meth. It's more addictive than heroin. It's more addictive than cocaine. It's more addictive than anything. Do you know how you prove that? It's really simple. Nobody, nobody has a pleasant first experience with it. Have you ever seen somebody smoke their first cigarette? (coughing) They run to the bathroom, all the while swearing they are never gonna do that again.But within minutes, they're taking their next drag. Nobody has a pleasant first experience with it. Nicotine can raise the blood pressure, but let me cut to the chase here because all of this is the There are a lot more poisons out there that kill people and make 'em sick than this stuff."[E]ven if the number of e-liquid poisoning cases jumps to 15 times the 2013 level, toothpaste is still the more prevalent poison." Toothpaste! Let me put this in perspective for you. "According to the [National Poison Data System]'s annual report from 2012 -- the most recent publicly available report -- 193,443 poisoning cases involved household cleaning agents, 54,445 involved alcoholic beverages, 11,848 were caused by pens or other ink, and 20,306 were caused by toothpaste."Toothpaste? Yeah, toothpaste! You don't see the New York Times trying to ban that. Now, you could be saying, "Well, wait a minute, toothpaste? Toothpaste, that isn't as dangerous. Liquid nicotine could kill people, even in small doses. Toothpaste can't." That happens to be true. However, despite that, not a single person, folks, has died from accidentally liquid nicotine poisoning. Not even any children.There is no crisis!There is just a bunch of biased nanny, namby-pamby liberals that do not want you to enjoy yourself and want to do anything they can to control you. I'm not defending e-cigarettes. My point is if you want to do it, go ahead! Nobody drinks the stuff. It would never occur to anybody to drink it. Nobody has. There has not even been an accidental instance of this, even among our children.Yet the New York Times writes a massive story on this. The nicotine that's in one of these canisters that's in a cigarette, one of these vials? There's not enough of it to cause death in anybody. The Times mentions that, but you've gotta wade all the way to the bottom of the story. Again, I've got nothing in this. I've got no dog in this fight. I'm not invested in it either way. I'm just big into freedom.I just resent the hell out of a bunch of superiorist liberals coming along and treating everybody like they don't know what's good for them and lying to them and making things up; putting all these crisis-oriented scare things out there about food, coffee, whatever it is. If they don't want to smoke these things or use 'em, fine. But like every other thing that liberals get involved with, if they do it, you have to do it.If they don't do it, you can't do it.It's time somebody just told 'em to pack it and put it somewhere where the sun don't shine. Chuck in Pottstown, Pennsylvania, as we head back to the phones. Thank you for calling. Great to have you the on program. Hello.CALLER: Thank you for taking my call, Rush. My wife and I have enjoyed you for the last 20-plus years. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that, sir. Thank you.CALLER: I had a comment and then a question. Something you said yesterday about Obama maybe wanting to get rid of the NSA so he could put the Republicans into a predicament. I don't think that's gonna happen. If he suggests it, they should go along with it, because how else is he going to listen to Europe and spy on them and spy on us? You can't do it through the FBI because, my question is, didn't he step on the FBI back several years ago and kind of demean them? What are you talking about? This could be important. What are you talking about that I may have forgotten? What did he do to  Well, I'll get the highly overrated research team here on the staff looking into that. Nothing pops into my mind about Obama downgrading or ripping into the FBI or deemphasizing them. Now, you could be right. If there's something out there, we'll find it. I want to go back to your original point. I don't think Obama wants to get rid of the NSA. I think he wants to CALLER: That's why they should call his bluff. If he proposes that, they should just say, "Yeah, we're going along with that," because it isn't gonna happen. Well, they have in a way. I have a vague memory of something that I saw yesterday, a story that the Republicans had their own version of a plan to actually do this. See, the working theory is that Obama's young voters, this is the only thing that bugs them -- this and Obamacare. But this, the spying on them, that bothers them more than anything about this president.His young voters, like the Zuckerbergs and the Millennials, they thought Obama would never do things like that to them. This guy's a new kind of president! He wasn't gonna be spying, wasn't gonna be doing that kind of stuff. Now he's doing it more than any president ever has, and they're fit to be tied. So Obama senses that. He needs these people on his side.He needs them thinking he's cool and hip. He needs 'em voting for Democrats. So he comes out and announces he's gonna just totally eliminate this program, and they go, "Yay, baby! All right! That's what we're talking about." And his buddies in the Senate go along with it, and then the Republicans in the House -- the adults -- put the brakes on it and say, "Sorry. We are not gonna weaken our national security by doing this."So Obama then gets to run around, "Hey, I'm trying to protect your privacy. I am trying to stop the spying on you, but those Republicans, they want to keep spying on you, I guess." That's what he set up. I don't know that. That's just the modus operandi. That's how Obama does things. It's how the Democrat Party does things, is try to blame it all on the Republicans. It's rooted in the belief that the Republicans will stand on principle, now and then, such as an instance like this of protecting the country, national security and all that.Look at what's happened. Is Gitmo closed or is it open? Have renditions stopped or not? They haven't. Are we still spying on people? Are we still collecting all this phone -- yes, we are. At record levels. It hasn't been cut back any. He just said that. But it's like the Limbaugh Theorem, Mr. Snerdley. It's always somebody else that's preventing him from accomplishing what he promises to do. He's gonna create jobs, but, damn it, these Republicans won't raise the minimum wage, damn Koch brothers. He wants to get people back to work, but small-business people are so greedy that they won't pay anybody. (interruption) Well, next question is, "So it's not like they're campaigning and all that, then they get there and find out how different it really is and how much power they have."Given that Obama is an Alinskyite, I think he's had designs on what he was gonna do long before he got there and long before he found whatever he discovered there. And I think, to him, being president means unlimited power. I don't think it's something he discovered that he had access to. I think that's one of the reasons he ran. I don't think he discovered anything he didn't know, except the economy. He did find out that Bush didn't tell him the truth about how bad the economy was. Remember that? (impersonating Obama) "They didn't tell us how bad it was, and that's why my stimulus plan hasn't really worked yet 'cause it turns out it wasn't enough, 'cause they didn't tell me. They kept it secret how bad it really was." You've heard that three or four times, too. According to media reports, President Obama met with Pope Francis for 52 minutes in the Vatican. Obama didn't intend to show up there. He looked at the word quickly and thought it said "vacation." And when they were pulling up to St. Peter's, Obama said (impersonating Obama), "What -- what -- what -- what are we doing here?""Sir, you said you wanted to come to the Vatican.""No, I said vacation."But it's true, ladies and gentlemen, he sat in Reverend Wright's church for more than 20 years but we're supposed to believe that they had nothing in common. We're supposed to believe that Obama didn't even hear what Reverend Wright said. He just went in there to sort of establish a connection with the Chicago political Mafia and going to Reverend Wright's church is one of the many things the young Obama had to do.Pardon the sniffles. I'm gonna sniffle as little as possible. It's gonna irritate you. I know it irritates me when I hear people sniffle. There's nothing I can do about it, folks. I can't hit the cough button every time or there wouldn't be a program. So I apologize in advance for that. I know it's not polite. I know it's not professional. I know it's uncouth. But what am I gonna do? (coughing) Excuse me. (coughing) Yeah, anyway. Where was I? Oh, yes. What is so funny? They're laughing at my discomfort, a little bit of a disability here today. Not at a hundred percent. But still gaming it.Anyway, we're supposed to believe that Obama had nothing in common with Reverend Wright. In fact, Obama didn't even hear a word Reverend Wright said in those 20 years. He didn't hear all that radical stuff, not familiar with any of that. Now, The Politico says, ladies and gentlemen, that Obama met with the pope. Really, you talk about a reversal of fortunes and you talk about a 180, Putin is not Mr. Cool. In certain places, yes. So he goes over there. He's trying to soak up this income inequality thing that the pope stands for, and the pope's cool factor. The pope's at 85% approval and Obama's almost the same number disapproval. His disapproval number is almost 60% now. The disapproval has never been this high. I mean, it's Panic City inside the Regime. No matter what the Drive-Bys tell you, it is.But I'm not kidding. This is how the media talked about both the papacy and the presidency: "The cool factor." Just to show you how watered down great institutions have become in our modern pop culture, Obama had to go visit the Vicar of Christ to try to get some of the excess "cool factor" that the pope has. In fact, the original Politico headline for their article was: "Obama Wants Halo Effect."Was this scheduled, was this on the itinerary, or did Obama decide to make a detour on his way out of Belgium to Rome? I haven't read enough to know. But you do have to wonder. I mean, the pope knows. The pope is a big guy. He doesn't care. I mean, for the goodness of the world, if whatever he is can rub off on Obama, then fine. He will do it. But, you know, Obama has used Beyonce, he's used Jay-Z, and now the pope.Can you understand, folks...? Try to think of it this way. Can you understand the humiliation of Barack Obama having to meet with the leader of the Catholic Church in order to recapture some cred? Man! If you would have told anybody back in 2008 that 2014 would be so bad for Obama he'd have to trot off to the Vatican to meet with the pope in order to restore his image, can you imagine what they'd have said?I mean, to these people, the Catholic Church is enemy number one. Stop and think of that, too. Obama's big donors are wealthy leftist gay activists who do not like this pope, and they do not like the Catholic Church, and there is Obama trying to soak some of it up. They'll let it slide, but, I mean, this is just not something that anybody would have forecast.But I can't help but think back to the truly historic way that President Reagan and Pope John Paul II worked together to bring down the Soviet Union. When Reagan met with the pope, it was about world affairs and improving the lot in life for millions of citizens. When Obama meets with the pope, as always, it's about Obama. It's about reviving and restoring Obama.When Reagan met with the pope, it was about liberating millions of people from the bonds of communism. But Obama, according to the Drive-By Media, is simply seeking a boost in his "cool factor." The difference is stunning to me. You may not think that it's as bad for Obama out there as I'm making it out to be. Well, Tuesday morning at The Hague, in the Netherlands, Obama held a joint press conference with the Netherlands prime minister Mark Rutte. At the very end of the presser, Obama ends it by saying this. Now, you'll hear the emcee, but the point is one person... We did not doctor this. This is the point I have to tell you: We did not touch this.  I'm also confident that the core values that America has always believed in -- in terms of privacy, rule of law, individual rights -- that has guided, uh, the United States for many years and will continue to guide us into the future. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you again.MAN: Clap. Clap. Clap.EMCEE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. Thank you very much for coming.Renzi: That's it. One person applauded. See, I didn't tell you what to look for. I just told you we didn't doctor it. One person. Remember when Obama went to Berlin in 2008, the god effect and the big sound system? "Citizens of Berlin, I'm here to save the world!" What did they have, 500,000 people show up? It was a beer garden night, and 500,000 people showed up. Now compare.He's over there trying to BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here's Patty, Longmont, Colorado, I'm glad you called. Great to have you on the program.CALLER: Hi, Rush. Yeah, just to change the subject a little bit, I was wondering what you think about what's going on with  No, no, no. You mean when he told Dmitry Medvedev, "Hey, tell Vlad to hang in there. I have more flexibility after I win"?CALLER: Hm-hm. That was getting rid of nuclear weapons. I think he went to the Hague to see that babe that runs the Netherlands he took the selfie with.CALLER: Oh, okay. She was from Denmark. Okay. Well, it's close enough, though.CALLER: Nothing to do with annexing Crimea and building up troops in the Ukraine? It could well. Look, it's a good point. You're the first to make that connection, and you may have a point, I have to admit that. I'm glad you changed the subject. It's a good point."If you would have told anybody back in 2008 that 2014 would be so bad for Obama he'd have to trot off to the Vatican to meet with the pope in order to restore his image, can you imagine what they'd have said?""I turn into a big baby when I have a full-fledged cold. It may as well be the flu. I just turn into a big baby and unlike with most people, it doesn't get me any sympathy.""Here's Obama, he spends 52 minutes -- look at me -- 52 minutes with Il Papa. It makes news all over the world. He spends 20 years in Reverend Wright's church and you can't find a story on it. You like that one, huh? They like that one the other side of the glass. I can always tell when I have scored.""When Reagan met with the pope, it was about world affairs and improving the lot in life for millions of citizens. When Obama meets with the pope, as always, it's about Obama. It's about reviving and restoring Obama.""I never go on the attack. I get up here and I look at things being attacked that I believe in, people being attacked that I believe in, and I defend 'em. I defend the institutions, the ideas, and the people that I believe in.""Okay. So the firm that Governor Christie hired to investigate himself has cleared him of any wrongdoing. Great news for the Democrats.""Can you imagine how many years I would get if I went out to the beach and started moving turtle eggs?""You know what I just saw on Fox? I'm wondering, how did we miss this? Just saw an advertisement for a portable catheter on Fox. How did we miss that client? Portable catheters? It's right up our alley, don't you think? No, I was thinking, 'Thank God they haven't called us.'""What happened yesterday after the program is still Project X. I can't tell you what happened or what it is.""If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws and bad guys will have guns and the price would go up, and Leland Yee could charge a higher price. I just think he's in for a big score. But we'll find out. It's all just alleged.""I'm convinced that nicotine is one of the greatest weapons against the common cold. I mean, I used to smoke cigarettes, and when I quit smoking cigarettes I was sick all the time.""I just resent the hell out of a bunch of superiorist liberals coming along and treating everybody like they don't know what's good for them and lying to them and making things up; putting all these crisis-oriented scare things out there about food, coffee, whatever it is.""We moved all those baby salmon to kill them. You have to have something to put on bagels." Folks, I meant to talk about this actually two days ago. Have you seen -- you have by now, I'm sure -- the story that because of the drought in California and throughout the western coast, the salmon are not able to get where they're supposed to get, and they would otherwise die. So human beings are putting salmon in trucks and other containers of water and actually driving them to where -- babies, salmon babies -- and driving them to where they would otherwise end up.BREAK TRANSCRIPT The short answer is that we moved all those baby salmon to kill them. You have to have something to put on bagels.BREAK TRANSCRIPTCan you imagine how many years I would get if I went out to the beach and started moving turtle eggs? They have these environmentalist wackos out there on the beach just spying on people. If I went out there and I found a turtle nest and moved it, you know, so I could turn on my lights or something, can you imagine how many years I would get?We're destroying the climate. We're destroying the North Pole. We're destroying everything. And I'm not making this up. Over the course of the many years I've done this program I've chronicled what these people think. There are some that really believe this, and they're not kooks; they are mainstream, if you can say something like that, environmentalist nutcases.So here we are, all of a sudden because of the drought, the baby salmon can't get to where they're supposed to be. Now, I don't accept the idea that the drought's because we caused it, but that's what they think. So we have a duty to move the salmon, but then why are we moving the salmon? Why? We're not doing it to protect the salmon because we're gonna kill them! Because we're gonna eat them. Because they taste good. That is why we are intruding on nature. We are taking advantage of something beautiful in nature, a salmon, and moving it so that we can kill it to eat it. What a bunch of creeps we are."Well, Rush, people have to eat."I know. I'm just putting everything in context for you according to what they tell us from the environmentalist wackos and all of their 501(c)(3)s like the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, that we're the problem. We got no business moving the salmon, especially if we're doing it for us. But somehow it doesn't seem to matter when it's something that liberals like to eat. Not just liberals, but salmon is approved. It isn't beef and it's got a bunch of stuff in it that doesn't matter that they think does, like omega fish oil and all that stuff, which has been proven to be bogus.BREAK TRANSCRIPT It's Don. Welcome, sir. Great to have you. Hello.CALLER: Hello, Rush. When you were talking about the people carrying the salmon from one place to another, the thought struck me, will they know how to get back? I thought that they had to know the route back to their spawning grounds. Good point. They're gonna be eaten. They're gonna be dead before they have a chance to pass off the information to their children. That's a sad but good point. Are we screwing up the salmon breeding grounds and ecosystem for everybody doing this? There's gonna be some entrepreneurs, salmon moving companies. It might be something a lot of people would think about getting into now, 'cause once you do it once, how can you stop?BREAK TRANSCRIPT I'll tell you what's gonna happen with the salmon. They're gonna be breaking into trucks to spawn. They learn, they learn, and they're gonna see trucks, and they're gonna start to break into 'em. This is gonna be interesting to watch. I mentioned earlier in the program that I'll show you on how most people sound when they read. You know this. You've got people in your family. They say, "Here, you've gotta hear this," and they read you something from the newspaper, and here's what it sounds like. (mumbling) "'I thought best plan for me a month ago after having doctors, hospital, package... Same plan that informed me my old plan was...' You guys, you see that!"(I prefer to think of my plan as 'undocumented.')" A little slam there at amnesty. "Whom do I bill for the hours of work Obamacare forced me to perform? ... By now, Obama has issued 'waivers' from Obamacare to about 99% of the country. (Perhaps you've heard, there's a "I thought I had figured out the best plan for me a month ago after having doctors and hospital administrators look at the packets of material I was sent by my old insurance company -- the same mailing that informed me my old plan was 'illegal' under Obamacare." So she was one of these people that wanted to keep her old plan, and Obama promised her she could 23 times but then took it away.Then he reinstated it, but it's constitutional illegal, is the point. And the insurance companies don't want to take the risk. It's still illegal! What if Obama changes his mind tomorrow, and says, "You know what? I'm dropping that extension; it's back to being illegal," and he could very well do it. So everybody's in a state of limbo. Even those people who Obama toldcould keep their plans, and then lostthem, and then Obama said, "You know what?"That's sort of unfortunate because THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I WANT INSURANCE! That's the only reason any sane homo sapien wants health insurance: To cover health care costs in the event of some catastrophic illness or accident... But my only options under the blue-chip plan were hospitals that also do shoe repair. I called Blue Cross directly to ask if its most expensive insurance plan covered the only hospital I'd ever go to in an emergency."Since that's all I wanted to know, that's what I asked. ... But -- as happens whenever you try to ascertain the most basic information about insurance under Obamacare -- the Blue Cross representative began hammering me with a battery of questions about myself. First my name. (Does that make a difference to what hospitals its plans cover?) Then my phone number."By the time he got to my address, I said, 'CAN YOU PLEASE JUST TELL ME IF ANY OF YOUR PLANS COVER XYZ HOSPITAL? I DONT EVEN KNOW IF I WANT TO SIGN UP WITH YOU!' Finally, he admitted that Blue Cross most expensive individual insurance plan does not cover treatment at the hospitals I named. Their doctors are 'out of network.'She said every bit of that's true except the last line. She's really not gonna kill anybody. But it's a true conversation except the last sentence."I decided to approach it from the opposite direction and called one of the nations leading hospitals to ask which plans it accepted. The woman listed a series of plans, but she couldnt tell me if I was eligible for any of them. For that, she said, Id have to go to the Obamacare website.And we've mentioned that, too. HealthCare.gov is a massive database collection. They want to know everything about you and before you can even get to the various plans and the prices and all the details, you've got to provide them with so much personal data that it's ridiculous.She says, "How about letting me look at the merchandise first?" I can't imagine logging on to Amazon and giving them all of this data before I can go take a look at the cameras I might want to buy. "Inasmuch as the cost of health insurance under Obamacare is so high that it will generally make more sense just to pay for your own catastrophic health emergencies, I was not interested in telling Kathleen Sebelius everything about me in order to have the privilege of glancing at the governments crappy plans."But thats the only choice. As the Obamacare website directs: (1) Create an account. (Name, password.) (2) Tell us about yourself and your family. (Every single thing.) (3) Choose a health insurance plan. (Thats where you finally get to see the plans.)" after you have divulged every bit of personal information about you that they want. "I wonder if other consumer-oriented businesses will start demanding names, addresses, passwords and phone numbers before the customer is allowed to browse the merchandise."The main point of the Obamacare website is to encourage people other than me to get a government subsidy. Theres also a section helping you register to vote. You just cant see the insurance plans. (Guess which one you need a government ID for?) With zero help from the Obamacare website, I eventually figured out that there was one lone insurance plan that would cover treatment at a reputable hospital. The downside is, no doctors take it."Thats not insurance! Its a huge transfer of wealth from people who work for a living to those who dont, accomplished by forcing the workers to buy insurance thats not insurance. Obamacare has made actual health insurance 'illegal.' Its not 'insurance' when what I want to insure against isnt covered, but paying for other peoples health care needs -- defined broadly -- is mandatory. Its as if you wanted to buy a car, so you paid for a Toyota -- but then all you got was a 10-speed bike, with the rest of your purchase price going to buy cars, bikes and helmets for other people."Or, more precisely, it would be like having the option of car insurance that covers either collisions or liability, but not both. Your car insurance premium would be gargantuan, because most of it would go to buy insurance, gas and air fresheners for other people in the plan."She goes on with this, but the basic point of all this is that you want a good doctor, you want a good hospital, you want a good insurance plan. It isn't possible to find all three in an affordable -- well, I mean, leave out "affordable." It may not, depending on what hospital you want to go to, doctors may not be in network, the hospital may not be. The insurance companies don't know what they're selling. They don't know what they can tell you. It's just an absolute disaster and a mess. I guess her further point is that 99% of the American people don't know this yet because they're all subject to some kind of waiver and what she has experienced, something most people won't experience, until it's too late, 'til it's after the next two elections. Larry in Indianapolis, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call. You bet, sir! Any time.CALLER: I have a suggestion. On your website, I suggest you add a new CALLER: Yes, I know. (snickers) So I'll have to consider that. But it's a great idea, 'cause SNERDLEY: (interruption) What, I can't let that stand?CALLER: Yeah. Well, there's things in the past that I'd like to have access to -- Well, I understand, 'cause we've had three of 'em just this week. We've had three of these See, I Told You So's with audio proof and the predictions and all that. It's actually a great idea.CALLER: Now, you might also call it EIB's Freshman Orientation. It would be a good intro to somebody starting to listen to you. Yeah, EIB Freshman Orientation.CALLER: Okay. I kind of like that. I like the thought behind that.CALLER: Okay.I said underpaid?Yeah, they think they're underpaid.No, it is a good idea.I'm just teasing the highly overrated staff. The staff went out, and they've even had some of their own shirts printed, "Highly Overrated Staff: Excellence in Broadcasting Network." They're having fun with it. But I like that idea. It does have potential, especially to help the new arrivals wade through all the falsehoods. You know, "Here's proof that what you're hearing about this program is wrong and here's proof that what you will hear on this program is true and accurate and right."Larry, I appreciate the call. Just a little juxtaposition. Yesterday we had story after story after story on the latest crime wave in this country, and that crime wave is corrupt Democrat officeholders -- mayors, state senators, you name it.In fact, I want to show you something on the Dittocam. The NRA already out with an ad in California about So, in addition to that, we had all these other mayors and so forth, and what did ABC's World News Tonight open with last night? Seven minutes with Chris Christie. Worse than Obamacare and lying. They opened with seven minutes. In a 22-minute newscast, a seven-minute interview with Governor Christie over this Bridgegate business and his own internal investigation which exonerated him. And that's the name of the game. That is how the Democrats at ABC News decided to circle the wagons yesterday.And people were saying, "Man, Rush, this is like a rogue operation, and the FBI's part of the Regime and here they are turning on Democrats." I said, "Well, it's possible --" I didn't say it is, I said, "It's possible that what they're doing, they know these guys are in trouble, they know they're eventually gonna be discovered, so let's just get rid of 'em now in late March, rather than have this come out closer to the election."There's so much hope. I'm telling you, what this means to me is all these people want this to be a rogue FBI. They want this to be the FBI working undercover even behind the scenes of the Regime, trying to undermine the Regime and protect the country. There's so much hope in the fact that that's what this represents. And I hope they're right. I hope they're right. We'll find out. It isn't gonna take very long.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, look up here on the media. Right now it's been going on for the past 20 minutes. Is it with San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee? No. Is it with any of the five disgraced Democrat members of Congress, state legislators and mayors? No. You can't even find any mention of them in the news today.Grab sound bite 27, though. It's Leland Yee. I want to take you back. This guy has been indicted for gunrunning and munitions running, illegal campaign contributions. He had $2 million worth of M16s, $2.5 million worth of bullets, and other things. This guy has ridden on the magic carpet of being anti-Second Amendment every day of his life, to get elected and to hold stature. This is March 4th this year. It's a Google hangout with KTXL-TV Eyeball News in Sacramento.This is San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee speaking about guns...YEE: Whatever I can do to prevent, uh, the availability of these particular kinds of weapons, you know, I want to do that. There's just absolutely no reason why anyone would be carrying a military-style weapon, and so that's the reason why I would, uh, argue that there ought to be a ban on that particular type of weapon. While he is selling them, M16s. This guy's out there gunrunning $2 million worth of the things, and he says that. What phoniness and hypocrisy and so forth. Dingy Harry is one of many proving a point that I made on this program earlier this week. And Nate Silver is out now saying 60% chance and climbing that the Republicans win the Senate. They could win six, maybe even 11 seats in the Senate in November, which would give them control. And if they win the Senate, they'll obviously keep the House, which means that Obama is going to have to do everything he wants done with an executive order. He will not have one house in Congress with him, at least by party affiliation.So now all of these acolytes, all of these people who thought Nate Silver walked on water, now hate his guts. They're turning on him. They're throwing him to the wolves. They're claiming that he's a reprobate, rotgut, glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, no difference between him and human debris. Really, I'm not exaggerating.Dingy Harry, right here in The Politico, just posted a half hour ago. "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a direct shot at Nate Silver on Friday, calling into question the political forecasters [sic] ability to acurately [sic] predict elections. In an interview with The Washington Post's sports blog, Sen. Reid said Silver ... had consistently been wrong when predicting the fate of Senate Democrats."'He gave me a 16% chance of being reelected, he gave Heidi Heitkamp an 8% chance of being reelected, he gave Jon Tester a [34%] chance of being reelected,' Reid said of Silver's previous forecasts. 'So all polls are about like Nate Silver's predictions: good sometimes, bad most of the time,'" and he is just one example. You know, it's amazing. It really is amazing. How can...?I mean, folks, I cannot overemphasize how much they loved Nate Silver, how brilliant they thought Nate Silver was. They thought Nate Silver walked on water. He was just the most smartest, relied-on guy, and all he claims he ever does is just tell the truth! He runs the numbers. "Here's what the numbers say," and that's what he says.Now that it's going against the Democrats, he's a traitor. They just throw him overboard, throw him under the bus or whatever. Even this comment that I made earlier in the week was thrown up for discussion on The Five at Fox. This is late yesterday afternoon. To start the discussion on The Five, they played a clip of this program earlier this week.RUSH ARCHIVE: Nate Silver must now be disenfranchised and thrown to the wolves because he is not furthering the cause. And they don't care how many lies or distortions are necessary to further the cause because all of liberalism is a lie. All of liberalism is a distortion. ... Nate Silver was the guy that all these worried, paranoid Democrats relied upon for their sanity ... and it probably is going to get worse for the poor guy before it gets better.GUILFOYLE: Rush nailed it. I mean, this is what's gonna happen. He's gonna be ostracized. He's now gonna be persona non grata. No invites to DC, to all the funny parties. Eric Bolling also starring on The Five at Fox...BOLLING: Nate Silver was the... He was held up as a liberal hero when he predicted all the states and predicted an Obama win. (laughs) Now he predicts that the Republicans take the Senate and hes an idiot on the left. Rush is right. They have to throw him to... They have to discredit him right now. Bob Beckel, also starring on The Five on the Fox News Channel...BECKEL: I agree with him. I think there's probably a 60% chance that, uh, the Republicans can win the Senate, although I've had -- they've had -- a long history of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. But right now I would say 60% is the chance they're picking up the Senate. You know, it's... (sigh) It's interesting. So all these people are agreeing with me over at Fox that Nate Silver -- and this is not a hard prediction to make, but it was something that they wanted to bounce all of their points off. Even, you know, what's his name, Jon Stewart. Silver appeared Jon Stewart's show and Stewart asked, "What is this, all these Democrats throwing you overboard?"Silver basically said, "The Democrats only want to hear what they already believe -- and if you don't tell 'em what they already believe, they hate you."So he gets it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I guess Nate Silver will not be getting an  Back to the phones we go to Kathleen, Farmington, New Mexico. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Limbaugh. I appreciate you taking my call. You bet.CALLER: I actually was calling in to say I very much have enjoyed both of your books,  God bless you. Thank you so much.CALLER: I am a first grade teacher, and I am in the process right now of reading the first one to my class. Are you really?CALLER: Yes. Every day they ask if they can see what Liberty is up to today. (laughing).CALLER: It's really great. I can't get through more than a few pages a day because they are first graders, they have about the attention span of a gnat. I have had to do a lot of explanation. I have made sure to point out that the historical figures are real people and the basis for the starting of our country --CALLER: Well, I absolutely appreciate it. I was just telling the gentleman who answered the phone that I just finished reading the second book, and thought it very clever how you integrated the Obama administration into this version of the book. Shh. Because the Obama administration is not mentioned in the book, is it?CALLER: Well, not specifically. Not specifically, not even close. Shh!CALLER: Ohhh. See, yes.CALLER: Oh, but I quote: "The colonists have no idea what is best for them." Hang on now, look, Kathleen, don't hang up, don't go away.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Okay. Back to Kathleen in Farmington, New Mexico. Now, what you were sharing with the audience there.CALLER: Yes. The colonists had no idea what's good for them. You are reading from one of the most -- to me, one of the most challenging to write for 10- to 13-year-olds and one of the most fun challenges. Rush Revere gets in to see King George III and ask him why he's doing what he's doing for the colonists. That's what you're referring to, right?CALLER: Yes. I make it plain that you won't find in these books anywhere "liberal," "conservative." You won't find the terms.CALLER: No. You won't find "Republican" or "Democrat." You won't find anything that's overtly political, but, clearly, as you have spotted, there are lessons to be taught here.CALLER: Oh, yes. Real life, without labels.CALLER: Hm-hm. Yeah. When I was reading that I told my husband this just sounded exactly like what Obama's doing to us. "I want them totally dependent on me for everything." Right. They don't know what's good for them. They're just a bunch of serf sloths.CALLER: "I know better what they need than they do." And that brings me to Obamacare. It scares the heck out of me because I am permanently disabled, and yet I still work full time because I can't qualify for disability. Wait a minute, now. You're permanently disabled but you don't qualify? Alcoholics qualify for disability.CALLER: Oh, I understand that. I am the carrier of my insurance for my family, and if I don't work, I don't have insurance. Oh.CALLER: I have two pulmonary diseases, and you have to be out of work for X-number of months before you can qualify for disability. I am on two medications that together would run about roughly $8,000 a month if I didn't have insurance. And that's only two of about the 10 that I'm on.CALLER: Well, you know, being a public school employee at this point in time we have not gotten any word that it's going to be, but I have no doubt it's just a matter of time. Well, are you a member of the teachers union, the NEA?CALLER: No, I am not. Oh. You would have been gold if you were NEA.CALLER: Yeah. And you still may be, you still may be. But, look, are your students, do they know about the CALLER: No. I have not brought that up to them yet, but I do plan on doing that. Yeah, you've got until May the 12th for that, so there's no rush, quote, unquote.CALLER: The teacher in me also wants to let you know that your editors missed a typo in the book. That wasn't us. That was the publisher.CALLER: Okay, your publisher missed a typo in the book. Where, which book?CALLER: In the new one, First Patriots on page 197. Okay. Don't tell me what it is. I'll go find page 197 after the show and I'll look at it.CALLER: Yeah. And somebody's gonna pay.CALLER: It's very subtle. My husband read it a couple of times and he didn't notice it, either. Well, you might just be nitpicking.CALLER: Well, no. (laughing) I had to read it several times, too, and I realized that, no, that was a typo. Is it a typo or is it a grammatical?CALLER: It's a grammatical error between the word "it" and "if." Between what?CALLER: Between "it" i-t, pronoun, inanimate object, and "if", i-f. Larry King, ladies and gentlemen -- who was bumped from CNN a few years ago and replaced by Piers Morgan -- appeared on the Rubin Report. It's an Internet show, and it's hosted by David Rubin. I have no idea who Dave Rubin is. I don't know what his Internet website is. But Larry King will apparently go anywhere in order to be interviewed, and they were talking about Now, you gotta keep in mind here as you listen to this that King was canned. I don't care how they dressed it up as he resigned/retired after years and years of service and, "Here's the gold watch and five free stitches for the wound of your choice for all the great work you did." He was fired. Contract wasn't renewed... They said, "Lar, we're moving on." So now Lar is out there. KING: They've advanced nothing in that story but conjecture. It was breaking supposition, breaking speculation. The other day while CNN and some other cable news networks, I'm sure, were doing airplane coast to coast, wire to wire, 10 people in Washington were killed in a mudslide. The president of the United States is in the Netherlands. He's talking to China about trying to get China to at least stay neutral in the Russian situation. No coverage. That is abysmal.However, from an unfazed Washington Post: "New Analysis Shifts Search for Missing Malaysian Jetliner Nearly 700 Miles Away From Thought-To-Be Target Area." They don't know the first thing about where it is. They still don't know what's going on. The Malaysian prime minister comes out and says (summarized), "Hey, it landed out there. It crashed out there; there's a total loss of life."It's over with, and it's the end of it," and so they started looking where this guy is said it went down. All of a sudden now, "The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 shifted to another section of the southern Indian Ocean on Friday after new analysis by investigators indicated that the aircraft was traveling faster than previously thought -- and therefore ran out of fuel much sooner" than previously thought.But wait! But wait!Wasn't there scientific consensus that the plane went down in the earlier place?But that doesn't get to the point. "Uh-oh. What we told you yesterday, forget it. It's no longer operable."They just switch on a dime. Meaning, they don't know anything. They still haven't any idea, and they're all over the ballpark. So the debris search now moves 700 miles. CNN is just orgasmic. It's just keeping the story alive. It keeps being reborn. It was only a week ago that we were told Malaysian authorities and their experts knew exactly This Inmarsat, Instarmat, Insatmar, whatever, satellite firm in the UK had tracked that final ping and then they had compared it with Doppler reflections, and then they compared that with the astral plane configuration on the backside, and that told them where it went down four hours from Perth, Australia. And that's where it was. Now all of a sudden, "Forget that." You say, "Well, wait a minute. What about the debris there?""Well, forget that 'cause we found a whole bunch more debris at the other place." There was scientific consensus, folks -- just like global warming -- about where this plane went down. Now, "Forget it. It's now 700 miles away." So the anchors at CNN and the directors, the producers all have to just be ecstatic because the story is reborn. Meanwhile, all this other news continues to happen.Is it about time that we start searching for America instead of this airplane? I frankly, folks, am more interested in where our country has gone, and I wish we would have just as intense a focus on what has happened and where our country went down as there has been on this airplane. I will develop this as the program unfolds. We'll come back and explore the dilemma that we all have over who to believe about what happened when Obama, The Messiah, met Il Papa. Here is Nicky in my hometown, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. How about that? Nicky, welcome to the program. Hello.CALLER: Hello, Rush. How are you?CALLER: Oh, really good. I'm glad to get through. I'm glad you did, too. Thanks much.CALLER: I wanted to call and congratulate you on your children's book and I'm so glad that you took that endeavor. Well, thank you. So am I. Now, but you understand that that is entirely normal and your son does not have a phobia and he does not need medication?CALLER: That's right. Yes. I understand. All right, good. Good. He doesn't need any lithium, doesn't need any Xanax, doesn't need any Adderall, whatever they get. He doesn't need it; he's cool.CALLER: No. He's just a country boy and likes the outdoors. Well, I got him your book for Christmas, and I was really glad to find out that it was part of the AR program at school, which is what they get their points for. AR, I must explain to the people in Rio Linda, who themselves have not yet gotten into reading. AR is the advanced reading program.CALLER: Yes. Now, how does your son qualify for that if he doesn't like to read?CALLER: Well, it's a part of their reading at school and they get so many points per each book, and they're supposed to have so many points in a quarter. I got you. I see.CALLER: It's just to help encourage him to read at school. Got you.CALLER: So, he started reading your book for school, but then soon he started bringing it home and reading it at home on his own. We even went to a duck decoy class, and at the end of class he had some extra time, and he even brought the book with us. I was just amazed at how much interest he took in your book. And especially after I explained to him that, you know, besides the fictional characters when they went back into history, that all those facts were true and that those are all historical events that are true. And then of course I explained to him who you were and now he thinks he has a bond to you, since you're a hometown boy. Well, he does. This is cool.CALLER: Yes. So you have a son who was not interested in reading at all and only did it because he had to.CALLER: Yes. And then you gave him my book and he liked it so much he read it even during times he didn't have to read, he wasn't being told to read.CALLER: Yes. Yes, he did, and he even recommended it to a teacher and let his teacher borrow it, and she's reading it right now. I hope he gets it back.CALLER: Oh, he will because I'm gonna make sure he gets it back. I'm just kidding. I just like to take these pleasant jabs at teachers. Well, that's a wonderful story. I'm glad you got through to tell me this.CALLER: Yes. Me, too. I'm going to buy the next book so he can read it for this next quarter. Well, I appreciate that. You know what I wanna do, if you'll hang on, Nicky, I want to send you the audio versions of both that I recorded, and you can play those when you're in the car driving around, or wherever. And it's totally unabridged. It's every word but read by me, and it's an entirely different experience.I want to thank you, because you told him everything in it's true. He's found it to be entertaining, it's a good story, he likes it -- I'm sure I'm one of the characters that he likes -- but you told him that it's true, it really happened. And that is important, because there's a mission, I like to call it a mission, there's a purpose here for these books, and it's exactly that. So you've done your job as well, and I appreciate the call, I thank you very much. Hang on so Mr. Snerdley can get your address. We already know the ZIP code. I already know the ZIP code and we'll get it out to you as quickly as we can.  Public support for So they're doing everything they can at the AP to find good news here, but there isn't any good news to be found. Twenty-six percent. And not to be repetitive, but, folks, this disaster has not fully reached people yet. If you have been subjected to any kind of a waiver or a delay, whatever problems you've encountered up 'til now are gonna be dwarfed by the reality that hits you when your waivers expire. You're going to find out that the insurance policy that you can afford does not have a hospital in its network, for example. You're just gonna be amazed. You know what Obamacare really is? It isn't about health care, and it really isn't about health insurance. It is about continuing to transfer wealth from producers to non-producers. It is about subsidizing people who are not working and earning income, paying for them to have health care, paying for them to have health insurance. That's really what this is all about at the end of the day, and it's so blatant that when all of these waivers expire, people are going to see this.Now, these waivers will expire after the elections. A couple of stories to illustrate what I'm talking about. First, Now, wait. It was just yesterday and the day before that they moved that. Now they're back to March 31st? And what's gonna happen is, once March 31st rolls around, three days from now, that will be Monday, the Regime will probably say that there's still time to sign up. What's happening here is that the administration is making this stuff up as they go. They literally are making it up as they go. There is no working program here. There is no functioning piece of legislation. This rollout, this implementation is blown to smithereens, and it really is throwing everything up against the wall on a daily basis to see what sticks. They don't even know who has paid. Maybe my all-time favorite statistic in all of this, they don't know how many people have enrolled, but they tell us, "Oh, yeah, we got six million," but they don't know.They don't know how many have paid because the website does not have a mechanism at the back end to report that. There is no such back end on the website. How stupid is it? Or how intentional is it? Wait a second. Snerdley's in there, "How stupid is it to open up a business and they have no idea who's paying?" This isn't a business. They're not in competition with anybody. What do you mean? They can do whatever they want. How stupid... (interruption) How stupid... (interruption) They've had three years to put the back end in it and they still haven't done it! The question is long past the degree of incompetence here. It's long past that. (interruption) The questions need to change now. What is the real purpose?If I may take a brief time-out here for a little editorial comment. This is classic. These high-tech leftists have come up with this brilliant Obamacare plan, and one of the aspects here is the implementation of electronic medical records, EMR, and every doctor's office has to do it. They think it's so cool, "Oh, yeah, everything digitized." Well, somebody has to input the data. You know, all this high-tech stuff is fine and dandy, and it works really well, but you've gotta have the data in all this software for it to matter. And somebody has to input it. This doctor's point is, we're doing it. We're wasting all this time updating data so people can play around with computer programs. And we're not treating patients, and it's costing us a hundred thousand dollars to do this. And it isn't necessary.He started showing me how to type a person's name in that field, and then the middle name in that field. I said, "I've gotta do this for everybody I know?" "Well, yeah." I said, "Well, that's fine. I'll talk to you in five years when I have time to finish this." I mean, it's all a revolution, it's all wonderful, don't misunderstand. But this is not what doctors go into business to do, to fill out data fields and digitize these records.(New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh, why don't they get off their high horse and hire somebody?" They don't have the money. This is the thing. You libs think everybody's just got a bottomless pit of money like the Koch brothers, or when the federal government comes down the pike and says, "Oh, that costs a hundred grand? Fine, here's the check. Go complete my database."It doesn't work that way.People don't have that kind of money laying around, and they don't have that kind of time. Now, after it's all done, yeah, it is magical. But you've got a paper Rolodex. If somebody can come up with a way to show it to your computer and the data ends up in the contact data, then we're talking. If somebody can come up with a way to enter data into a database without having to type it, then we're talking."The current ICD-9 coding system uses roughly 13,000 codes. The new ICD-10 coding system uses a staggering 70,000 new and completely different codes, thus dramatically slowing doctors down due to the unnecessary complexity and sheer numbers of codes that must be learned. The cost of this new ICD-10 coding system for our small practice is roughly $80,000..."This is after they spend a hundred grand on electronic medical records.This is, again, "driving up health care costs without one iota of improvement in health care quality." The costs of health care is skyrocketing "without one iota of improvement" in the quality of health care. You guys have created a massive computer database for the geeks and the nerds to play with after we finish inputting the data. We don't have time to treat patients, and we don't have the money to do all of this."Finally," he writes in his letter, "doctors face nonpayment by patients with Obamacare. These patients may or may not be paying their premiums and we have no way of verifying this." Of course that's true, because HealthCare.gov doesn't have any back end. So people who've bought health insurance don't know that they've paid for it. Even if they have paid for it, the website does not consistently record the payment to the insurance company.He said, "No business can operate" like this, Mr. Congressman.Meaning: No way we can verify whether we're being paid or not. How in the world can we say in business, if we can't even determine who is and who isn't paying us? "On behalf of the medical profession, I ask that Washington stop the implementation of the ICD-10 coding system, repeal the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with a better law written with the input of real doctors who will actually treat patients covered by it."America has enjoyed the best health care the world has ever known. That health care is in jeopardy because physicians cannot survive Washington's 'war on doctors' without relief." Folks, now, you might not have any sympathy for doctors; I don't know. But it's the real world to the guy and his colleagues. For every doctor that has this list of specific complaints comes a patient that will have specific complaints.It's a hospital that will have specific complaints, an insurance company that'll have specific complaints. The point is, it isn't working for anybody, and none of this was told in advance this was gonna happen. Doctors weren't told any of this. Nobody read the bill. It was voted on and passed by one vote more than necessary, every vote a Democrat, and they made it a point. They specifically passed this bill without anybody knowing what was in it so that by the time people learned, it would be too late.This has been a scam from the get-go."Is it about time that we start searching for America instead of this airplane? I frankly, folks, am more interested in where our country has gone, and I wish we would have just as intense a focus on what has happened and where our country went down as there has been on this airplane.""I can be a Democrat. I've learned it. I've got it down pat. I can be a Democrat in the next instant. All you gotta do is be able to fake caring and pretty much you can pull it off.""I don't care how they dressed it up as Larry King resigned/retired after years and years of service and, 'Here's the gold watch and five free stitches for the wound of your choice, Lar.' He was fired.""The real horrors of this law have not really impacted a majority of people yet, because of all the delays and the waivers. When the meat of Obamacare actually makes itself known, when people find out what this really is, it's not gonna be a pretty sight. And it is not going to bode well for the Democrats no matter what.""Breaking news, ladies and gentlemen, from CNN. Searchers have found something, period. That's it. They have found something. They don't know what it is, but something has been found.""You know what Obamacare really is? It isn't about health care, and it really isn't about health insurance. It is about continuing to transfer wealth from producers to non-producers.""Income inequality is income redistribution from those who work for a living to those who vote for a living.""Can somebody tell me where 'radical capitalism' is practiced? Does anybody know where there is 'radical capitalism' happening? It ain't us. How many trillions of dollars have been transferred from the producers to the poor in this country just since 1964? It's a shocking number.""There was scientific consensus, folks -- just like global warming -- about where this plane went down. Now, forget it, it's now 700 miles away. So the anchors at CNN and the directors, the producers all have to just be ecstatic because the story is reborn.""Obamacare at 26% approval. This is an AP-GfK poll. I think there are some Democrats that didn't pay attention to Celinda Lake earlier this week and are now shocked over this. I think they're in deep trouble.""The NRA is already out with an ad in California about San Francisco Democrat Leland Yee. '2006: A+ Rated by the Brady Campaign, a national gun control group. 2014: Arrested by the FBI for Trafficking Firearms.' Now, that is how you do it." Jerry in Phillipsburg, Kansas. Hi, Jerry. I appreciate your call.CALLER: Hi. Thanks, Rush. Eighteen-wheeler dittos to you. Eighteen-wheeler dittos. Thank you very much.CALLER: All right. I got a question. What do you think Obama means when he talks about "income inequality"? Well, he's not talking about income equality 'cause even he knows that's not possible. So what do you think he's actually talking about? No, but he wants his voters and low-information people to think that he wants to achieve that. This is just another communications technique in the class warfare game that the Democrats play. To complain about "income inequality" is to complain that the rich have too much money. "It isn't fair. It isn't fair that so many people have so much more than other people, and it would be fairer if the rich didn't have as much."Every poor person believes that, and there are many more poor people and middle-class people than there are rich people. Rich people oftentimes will not even dare to defend themselves; they'll just stay quiet. So Obama's got smooth sailing. He can go out and attack the rich. He can accuse them, he can imply that they're thieves, that they are cheats.You've heard the old saw, that behind every great fortune is a great crime. Obama and the Democrats try to make as many people believe that theory as possible, try to make people believe that whoever has a lot of money didn't come by it honestly, really. "They screwed somebody or they inherited it or cheated or they benefited from luck or something. They didn't work hard for it, and this is not fair!"So all income inequality is, is Obama pandering to people in the middle class and making them believe that Obama relates to them, sides with them, understands, and is going to go take money from the rich and spread it around to people that don't have it. The idea that everybody's gonna end up with the same income? Not even Obama would dare try to state that as an objective. The magic word in that whole phrase is "equality."BREAK TRANSCRIPT Let me, as usual, as a student of words, cut to the chase on income inequality. If you want to know what it really is, it's nothing more than this. Income inequality is income redistribution from those who work for a living to those who vote for a living. That's all. If you work for a living, Obama's gonna take your money. He's gonna give it to people who vote for a living. Plain and simple. Class warfare exploited to the max.But it's a flat-out straight appeal to low-information people. And I'll tell you, it's infuriating to me 'cause we have a political party that's attempting to expand the number of low-information people and have that cohort be the dominate voting cohort in this country so that everything that happens in this country is a result of the preferences of the low-information crowd.We have a political party that is seeking the lowest common denominator they can find to find supposed common ground. The bottom line is the Democrats have no more in common with poor people than the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers probably have much more in common with poor people than Obama does. For a host of reasons. So "Oh, I thought it said 'vacation.' Oh. All right. Well, let's go in."There are two distinct, different versions of the meeting between the president and the pope. And as Dr. Krauthammer pointed out (paraphrasing), "Well, here we go, what do we have here? We've got a man who is the spiritual leader of a billion people who believes he is infallible versus a man who said, 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.' Who we gonna believe?" It kind of comes down to the pope, when you put it that way. (interruption) Well, no. No, the bloom is off the Messiah rose. I don't think there's anybody, well somebody, but, I mean, the number of people that think Obama's still this Messianic figure, that's all by the wayside.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Andrew Malcolm writing at Investors.com: "President Obama, whose poll approval numbers hover weakly around 40% among Americans, met Thursday with Pope Francis, whose approval numbers among the same people are 76%. Now, you know why the [Obama] sought the meeting." He wanted to bask in the glow of the Vicar of Christ. "The two elected leaders exchanged gifts. The Vicar of Christ gave the ex-state senator a copy of his book, 'Evangelii Gaudium,' or 'The Joy of the Gospel.'"The 44th president," and 1st American Messiah, "gave the head of the world's Roman Catholic Church a box of fruit and veg[table] seeds from his wife's garden." Did you know that? Did you just hear me say that? The pope gave Obama copy of his book, The Joy of the Gospel. The president gave the pope "a box of fruit and veg[table] seeds from his wife's garden."On his papal discussions, Obama was vague on healthcare details. 'We actually didnt talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,' Obama claimed. 'In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.' Obama stated that the pope 'did not touch in detail' on his Affordable Care Act. Note the fudge words 'in detail.'" Obama said the pope "did not touch in detail" on Obamacare."The Vatican's version of the Obama encounter was strikingly different. The two men had a 'cordial meeting,' a spokesman said. Importantly, their talks involved 'a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection.'"Neither side mentioned the Obama administration's legal prosecution of the Little Sisters of the Poor for the nuns' opposition to birth control mandates. And the Vatican version said nothing about the alleged Obama-Pope Francis income inequality [discussion]." What do you bet that they didn't discuss income inequality? What do you bet? Look, we have two completely different versions of what happened here. We really do.Obama came out and made it sound like the conversation was all about Obama's political agenda and how much the pope is in favor of it, indirectly.BREAK TRANSCRIPT As I observed yesterday, isn't this interesting. Here's President Obama, he shows up at the Vatican yesterday, spends, well, a few minutes with the pope, the media's all over it. They want to know everything that was said. What did Obama say? What did the pope say? What did the president say when the pope said what he said and what did Obama say when the pope said what he said? What did the pope say when Obama said what he said? All this happened in less than two hours, and yet for 20 years Barack Obama was in Reverend Wright's church and not any interest whatsoever in what Obama heard in that church. I find it fascinating.The pope's at 76% approval; Obama's sitting there at barely 40% and plunging. Twenty-six percent approval for his signature piece of government reform legislation. So in a major twist -- it used to be that world figures wanted to get near Obama and bask in his light and benefit by association. Yesterday it was the other way around. It was Obama attempting to bask in the light of the pope. But I don't think Obama has much love for Christianity, the Catholic Church. I say that based simply on his total disregard for their religious beliefs when it comes his health care plan, and particularly abortifacients and contraception. It seems like Obama is enjoying sticking them in the eye. And I think as is the case with a lot of leftists, the Catholic Church is reviled and hated because you can't move 'em.They are not a political organization that responds to external pressure and either modifies, modernizes, changes, or what have you, according to the political and cultural mores of the day. The church is what it is. The left hasn't been able to move it at all on the things that they think are crucial to eliminating all judgment. They haven't been able to move 'em on female priests, priest marriage, gay marriage, abortion, you name it, the church doesn't move. Even this latest pope, when they thought they had a reformer 'cause the guy's out there spouting economic policy that is very much collectivism, "Oh, wow, maybe we got a guy we can work with here," and he's not working with 'em.So I think there's some resentment. I don't think there's any doubt about that, but Obama's still gotta bow down and go in there because he's in deep trouble. But I also think that they really believe that they can come out after this meeting and characterize it however they want, and the Vatican's not really going to embarrass them by calling them liars or maybe even something softer. They figure that the Vatican will put out their version, but they don't think the Vatican will pick a fight with 'em. They don't think Pope Francis will pick a fight, so Obama can say, "Oh, yeah, we talked about income inequality and poverty and raising the minimum wage, and the Tea Party," whatever else he wants to say that they talked about. He knows that the Vatican is gonna put out their version, it may be totally different, but they're not gonna pick a fight.Obama knows he's got the domestic media on his side so whatever he says happened in there they'll dutifully report and he'll carry the day. And it didn't work, and it didn't work because Obama and the Democrats and his political party today have nowhere near the moral stature of Pope Francis, nowhere near the moral stature of the Catholic Church. And they know it. And it frosts them, I think. I think it really, really bugs them.Now, we've got a couple of telling sound bites from Obama. While Diane Sawyer was speaking with Chris Christie for seven minutes on a five-month-old story about Bridgegate, Scott Pelley, CBS Evening News, was interviewing Obama, and they aired it today on CBS This Morning. We got two bites. Scott Pelley said, "Can you give me a sense of what it's like to be in the presence of Pope Francis?" Now, do you think that question irritates Obama? Do you think Obama says to himself, "What are you talking about? Why aren't you asking the pope what it's like to be in my presence?" But of course you can't say that. So he takes the question, sees it as an opportunity to portray the pope as Obama wants the pope to be seen, i.e., a fellow Democrat. Here's how the first sound bite sounds. He's a wonderful man. He projects the kind of humility and kindness that is consistent with my understanding, at least, of Jesus' teachings. He seems to have a good sense of humor. I think that his simplicity and his belief in the power of the spiritual over material reflects itself in everything that he says and does. And I suspect, my sense is is that he's a little bit uncomfortable with all the trappings of being pope. Really? Well, we know that Obama's not the slightest bit uncomfortable with the trappings of being president. He'll think nothing of taking 900 people to The Hague. What did I see, 45 automobiles to get his entourage around, and nine airplanes? I got the number nine in my head. I know it's 900 people. Now, this bit about the pope, "My sense is that pope, a little bit uncomfortable with all the trappings." He doesn't have to have any sense of it; that's been reported.From the first week of Pope Francis' papacy, he made it plain he didn't like the trappings. He went out and walked amongst the people without the Popemobile. He didn't move into the papal apartments, which are lavish and very luxurious. Obama didn't sense anything. All he's gotta do is be told by people that read the news that the pope has eschewed all that stuff. But you see how Obama, given the question, wants to be able to portray the pope as just another Democrat. So Pelley, after hearing Obama say, "My sense is he's a little uncomfortable with all the trappings of being pope," Pelley said, "Embarrassed by them, do you think?" Well, you know, that's not his style, and that is part of why, I think, he has been so embraced around the world. Because people get a sense that, first and foremost, he sees himself as a priest and as a disciple of Christ and as somebody who is concerned with, you know, the least of these, and, you know, nothing's more powerful than someone who seems to live out their convictions. So Pelley was desperate to know if the pope was embarrassed by the trappings. Does he live like the Koch brothers, Mr. President? Is his house as nice as the Koch brothers'? Does he walk around, does he dress the way the Koch brothers dress? Is he embarrassed by it all? Is he like a typical rich Republican? And  Oh, no, no, no, no. One of the reasons he's been so embraced is that he's got a sense, first and foremost, he's a priest.So now we go to Fox News and Bill Hemmer, this is yesterday. He spoke with Fox News analyst Father Jonathan Morris about Obama's meeting with the pope. And Hemmer said, "Fifty-two minutes, it went longer than some people expected. What's your sense about how this conversation would have gone with each man?"MORRIS: The Vatican released a summary, and it was a surprising summary. What did they say about things in the United States? That the pope expressed concern about "religious liberty." We know what he's talking about there. About "conscientious objection," we know what he's talking about there. He also talked about "immigration reform." Those are pretty clear things, as well as "human trafficking." But those are hot-button issues, I would say, not expected by most journalists. Absolutely not expected by most journalists because most journalists expect to believe Obama's version, which is they talked about things that matter to Obama, and this is what I mean. The pope, the Vatican put out their own version of things. They didn't pick a fight with Obama. The Regime puts out what happened and the Vatican puts out their version of it. Nobody's calling anybody a liar here, but it's now a question of who do you believe, and there's no contest when it comes to that. So the pope expressed concern about "religious liberty," and Father Morris said, "Well, we know what that's about," and we do. That's Obamacare, Hobby "Conscientious objection," we know what that's about, and "immigration reform," and then Hemmer said, "Well, there was a book that was given to Obama, right? It's the pope's encyclical, and there's a statement in there, a phrase or quote on behalf of the pope, who says, 'It's not a progressive position to take a human life.' I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what it says: 'It's not a progressive to take a human life.'"That, folks... What do you call that? The pope gives Obama a book that makes that point, has that paraphrased passage. That's kind of a slap. "Well, look, I know you're a liberal. I know you're 'progressive.' But there's nothing progressive, there's nothing far-reaching, there's nothing modern, there's nothing cool and nothing hip about taking a life," and here is Father Jonathan Morris' reply...MORRIS: "It's not progressive to solve problems by taking human life," and the pope gave this to him basically as reading material, and President Obama responded by saying, "I will probably read this in the Oval Office." I don't know if that was a nervous or uncomfortable response to a rather surprising thing, the pope giving you reading material. But he also, in that document, talks about some of the things that they agree on, including making sure that we don't just go to kind of a radical capitalism that leaves aside the poor. So they do share quite a few things. But the pope did not pull any punches, that's for sure. Yeah, "radical capitalism that leaves aside the poor." Radical capitalism. Well, anyway, that's basically a summation. Now we'll go to domestic analysis of all this with just a couple of more sound bites.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Can somebody tell me where "radical capitalism" is practiced? Does anybody know where there is "radical capitalism" happening? Father John Morris described it as "a radical capitalism that leaves aside the poor." It ain't us. How many trillions of dollars have been transferred from the producers to the poor in this country just since 1964?It's a shocking number.It's like $10 trillion that we've spent folks. Nobody leaves the poor aside. Anyway, Juan Williams was not happy with the Vatican version of things. Not happy at all. He was on Special Report last night, the All-Star Panel, and Chris Wallace said, "Juan, you think that in a sense that these were two world leaders each trying to accentuate the positive to their home base?"WILLIAMS: This is a tale of polarized American politics being superimposed on a meeting between the pope and the president. What we have is a situation where the Vatican puts out a statement that was probably written before the meeting, Chris, that was influenced by the American bishops who wanted a statement that would touch on these controversial issues and help them here at home. Oh! I get it. So Juan Williams thinks that the American bishops somehow hijacked the Vatican's version. The American bishops went in there and they wrote the Vatican version of the meeting of the pope and Obama before the meeting took place, to make sure that their domestic anti-Obamacare agenda was in the Vatican's version. The American bishops somehow went there hijacked the Vatican version. They wrote it without the pope knowing and without anybody in the pope's office knowing before Obama even got there.Next up, Dr. Krauthammer. Chris Wallace said, "So Charles, any questions, any comments about this?"KRAUTHAMMER: On the one hand, you've got the bishop of Rome, the Holy See, of whom a billion coreligionists believe in his infallibility. On the other hand, you've got a man who said, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan."FOX ALL STARS: (laughter)KRAUTHAMMER: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." So who are you gonna choose? It's an excellent point. (laughing) You got the pope; he's infallible to a billion people. On the other hand, you got a guy who said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Even the normally reserved and buttoned-down Fox All Stars had to let go with some laughter. But don't you just love these conspiracy theories?"Yeah, the American bishops, they hijacked the Vatican report! They went in there and they wrote it before the meeting even took place. That's what had to happen, 'cause there's no way that our young president could possibly be embarrassed this way for real. The bishops did it!" By the way, the question of playing to their home base, the bishops playing to their base, their political base, and the pope playing to his base?It is the American media which is trying to attach American politics to the Catholic Church, not the other way around, and that's the problem. The American left has been trying to attach its politics to the church and influence the church to change, and the church has told 'em to go pound sand for decades, and the American left is hell-bent. They think the church is just another political organization.They've just gotta keep working on and working on, and, meanwhile... I'm sure the pope is mindful of politics. Don't misunderstand. But it's not that the pope's gotta "play to his base." I mean, he's "elected," yeah, but by the College of Cardinals, and there is no impeachment or having to run for reelection. I mean, to compare these two guys as "two elected leaders"? There's no comparison in these two in that sense.  Here's Stan in Two Guns, Arizona. I tell you, some of the best names of towns in this country are in Arizona. Show Low, Winslow, and now Two Guns, Arizona. How are you doing, Stan?CALLER: I'm doing really good, Rush, and 1989 dittos to you. Thank you, sir, very much.CALLER: Hey, before I get to my question, a quick comment, if I may. I definitely appreciate your observations on global warming/climate change, but you've got to stop referring to it as man-made. You're giving aid and comfort to feminazis all across the world. So what should I say it is?CALLER: Well, human-caused. It's caused by everybody, females as well as men. Well, I don't know that women are playing a role in this. That's part of the feminazi creed. The women, they're nurture; they're not destroying anything. It is man-made destruction. But I get your point, nevertheless. Are you kidding? I'd become the biggest target the Regime would have in its crosshairs.CALLER: Well, that's true, but you would have millions of followers right behind you who would love to join any company that you start. I'm sure you're all aware of that. That's a nice thought, and I appreciate the thinking behind that, but stop and think here for just a second. The whole problem with Obamacare is that nobody can do it right. It is so convoluted that even if I were to try to set up an insurance company, there are laws, guidelines, and so forth, that make it impossible. I have to -- just like patients have to -- do certain things. The insurance companies have to do certain things.They have to make certain things available and nobody has any choice in this. The choice in health care has been stripped from everybody. Now, I don't know if you've heard of about this, and I don't have it right in front of me, but professional athletes have been talked into something that is somewhat intriguing. What you really are after, Stan, is you want to invest in me. That's really your goal.Your idea was that if I started a health insurance company it couldn't lose, because I was doing it. It would be mine, and many of people would like to be part of it, and therefore you would like to be part of it and share in the bounty. Now, what you're really saying is you just like to invest in me. Right now, you can't. The EIB is not publicly traded. The EIB Network specifically is not publicly traded.So there's no way you can invest in me. Now, there's a new thing that's happening with professional athletes just getting started. I'm not sure that I fully understand it. But, for example, Vernon Davis, is receiver for the San Francisco Fort'iners. Vernon Davis is making himself an IPO. He is doing an initial public offering of himself and his earnings. He's got a contract, so what his future earnings are are stipulated.He's got additional income opportunities with, ah, outside/ancillary things that athletes tend to have a chance to get into -- endorsements, sports broadcasting and commentary. So he's trying to establish some IPO and allow people to invest in him, as though he were or is a corporation. I don't have the details, but I think I'm getting it right here. Yes. "IPO Seeks New Way to Trade Star Athletes." Vernon Davis is first up. I'll get the basics of this and come back and tell you what he and other athletes are trying to do here and see if something like this might appeal to you.BREAK TRANSCRIPT "Professional athletes frequently get traded to other teams, but San Francisco 49ers tight end Vernon Davis is about to be the first ever to be traded like a stock. Davis, an eight-year veteran of the National Football League, is serving as the litmus test for a risky concept: Whether sports stars should be treated like public companies, whose moneymaking potential can be bought and sold on an exchange by ordinary investors.""The deal requires Fantex to pay Davis $4 million in exchange for 10 percent of his future earnings, including some of his off-field income. To cover Davis' fee, Fantex seeks to sell 421,100 shares of stock at $10 apiece. The company hopes to complete the initial public offering in the next few weeks." This story is dated March 25th, so it's just recent. Now, Vernon Davis is 30 years old.He's gonna need to make -- and I must admit, this sounds kind of shaky to me. Vernon Davis "will need to make more than $40 million just to deliver a small return on Fantex's investment in him. Fantex is counting on him to earn most of that money after his current contract with the 49ers expires in 2015." Here's the risk: Vernon Davis is 30. When you hit 30 is when they begin to start looking at how few years you've got left.If the Fort'iners aren't willing to pay Vernon Davis what he thinks he can get on the open market, then he'll choose free agency. I don't know what his status would be, restricted or full or what have you. But the belief here at Fantex is he's got one big contract left, if he can get to it and stay healthy, and they're betting that he will. So they're gonna give him $4 million in exchange for 10% of what he makes now and whatever that next deal is.And he's betting he's gonna get a lot of money. So fans are gonna be able to buy stock in Vernon Davis, and as he does well, they will do well. You can buy a share of Vernon Davis at... (interruption) No, don't hit me with that. Would you please...? (interruption) There's no slavery here, for crying out loud. How in the world can anybody think that? Vernon Davis stands to make money on this.There's some people saying, "What do you mean, selling Vernon Davis?" Don't even go there. You want to talk about capitalism? What did that priest call it, "radical capitalism"? This not radical capitalism. Anybody's got a choice. If you want to invest in Vernon Davis, you can buy a share of stock in him for 10 bucks, and you're betting that his earnings are gonna skyrocket just like everybody else buying stock hopes that's gonna happen in the company they invest in. What's new here is that it is an individual and not a corporation, even though he may be incorporated as Vernon Davis Inc. or whatever. But it's an individual, and he's getting $4 million from the exchange for 10% of everything he earns, and I'm sure that's pretax. The UN's latest report from the international planetary committee on climate, whatever, IPCC, whatever the hell it stands for -- doesn't matter to me -- their latest report's out and it's the biggest scaremongering global warming report. Nobody will be spared, folks. In fact, because this is the scariest climate prediction ever, do you realize that we will experience a global surge in the number of golfers? Climate change would increase boating, golfing, and beach recreation at the expense of skiing. There would even be an increase in golf in Canada due to climate change, and that is supposed to panic us.We're supposed to hear that: "No, no, no, wait a minute, you mean there's gonna be all that much more golf? There's no way!" These people don't know what they're talking about. Golf is in trouble, if you want to know the truth about it. Major golfing organizations are trying to figure out what they can do to attract more people to the game because they're not holding people's interest in the game. They're in a little trouble. And these guys -- I mean, this is how absurd. Nobody will be spared. We're all gonna die. We're all gonna suffer. Oh, it's gonna be horrible."US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, released the following statement in response to the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group II report on the impacts of climate change. Senator Boxer said: 'The latest IPCC report adds a tremendous sense of urgency for Congress to wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. In California, we can just look out the window to see climate change's impacts.'"Wait just a second. She can see climate change from her house? She can just look out the window and she can see climate change? Yeah, "from the driest year on record in 2013 to the increased frequency and intensity of wildfires," she can see all of that just looking out the window. Sarah Palin never said, "Oh, yeah, I'm qualified on foreign policy. I can see Russia from my house." She never said it. Most Americans think she did say it because it was made up by Tina Fey in a parody on Saturday Night Live. She never said it. She was laughed at, ridiculed, made fun of, destroyed for being a total dunce and an idiot for saying, "Oh, yeah, I'm qualified in foreign policy. I can see Russia from my house." She never said it.Barbara Boxer, "Oh, yeah, we can look out the window to see climate change's impacts." No, you can't! It's just getting absurd. It's getting more and more absurd as the days go by, because these people are panicking, and they're panicking because they're losing public opinion on this.Something that's consistent with the left, as they panic, as they lose public opinion on any issue, they get funnier, more ridiculous, more outlandish. The claims, the scare tactics, the ways they attempt to frighten people, it just knows no bounds, no limits whatsoever. And that's what this latest IPCC report is: No one will be spared.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here's David in Provo, Utah. You're next. I'm glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the program.CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to speak with you. I'm 27. I've been pretty much raised on your voice, and now I'm raising my son the same way. Well, I'm flattered. Thank you much.CALLER: So, Rush, I'm calling to talk a little bit about global warming. I am a geologist, and I'll tell you one thing that's very interesting about you and your analysis of global warming. I mean absolutely no offense when I say that you don't necessarily grasp a lot of the science behind it when you're trying to explain a lot of things, but you seem to always come to the right conclusion just based on the people supporting it and the fiasco at East Anglia and all those kinds of things. Well, I appreciate that. He's basically saying my instincts are so right on, I don't even need to know what I'm talking about, I'm right anyway. That's what you're saying, right? I may not know what I'm talking about, but I'm right anyway.CALLER: Yeah, exactly. This guy's a big fan. Stop and think of that. (laughing)CALLER: Yeah. Yeah. So, I just wanted to give a little bit of insight on just a couple things that you've been saying recently. One of the things that we talked about, you know, what is normal on temperature and what is the average, and you try to, you know, say what is 60 years ago, we think that the average is something in our lifetime. And, as a geologist, one of the things we look at is the history of temperature through time. And while the farther back through time you go, the less accurate our estimates are, we do have ways of estimating the changes in temperature millions of years back. What's interesting is that today we're actually, geographically speaking, still in an ice age. There have only been about five ice ages in all of earth's history, and we're technically in one now because we have significant polar ice caps. And so that's just something interesting today is that it's been much warmer through most of earth's history than it is today. Well, I wouldn't object to that. In fact, I would add something to it. You know, we've been told the science on global warming is settled. And all they're a using is computer models! They're not using any empirical data. Folks, every prediction on global warming is based on a computer model that is simply nothing better than whatever the input data is. But I've got this story here: "BREAK TRANSCRIPT So as I mentioned earlier, we got this brand-new United Nations climate change global warming scare report out, and nobody is safe, nobody will go unscathed, nobody will escape. It's going to wipe everybody out in the next hundred years, when none of us are alive anyway to see whether or not they're correct.Now, I want to emphasize two things, again. We had a caller just a moment ago -- and by the way, folks, the reason I was laughing about it was, our caller, he was trying to give me a really supreme compliment, and I understood this. He was trying to tell me that I am so smart that I know exactly the right answer to everything even when I don't know what I'm talking about, is the way he put it.He mentioned two things that I'd said. One was the average, normal temperature. For this global warming scare stuff to be relevant, the temperatures today and 15 years ago have to be what is normal since the beginning of time. And there was simply no way we know that because we don't have accurate recordkeeping for thousands and thousands and billions and billions of years ago. It's a wild guess. You go back and look at ice cores and tree trunk rings and all this, but we don't know.The point is, they, these climate scientists, try to tell you they do know. But if you can just try to get your mind around this one concept, how do we know that what it is when we happen to be alive is what is normal for all time? Because these deviations are only relevant if what is happening now is normal. Well, let's say, for example, that the warming they claim, let's just play a little hypothetical, let's say it is warming, even though it isn't, let's say it's warming and we're headed for the devastation that these people say is waiting for us a hundred years from now. Well, what if that's what's normal is? What if where we're going is what normal is? How do we know?The vanity of these liberals to assume that when they are alive, when they are scientists, when they are studying, that this is what is normal. That when they are alive is when the evil capitalist destroyers happen to exist, and these evil capitalist destroyers using fossil fuels are going to destroy the planet. When no external outside force yet has destroyed this planet, all of a sudden when they happen to be alive, the planet is subject to destruction.Now, I just think it's absurd. We do not know that the temperatures, the climate of today is what is normal. By the way, what is normal? Is it what God intended? Is it an average of what's always been? We just don't know. This is such folly. We just do not know what's normal. That is why God made us adaptive. Because there's no normal, every living thing, regardless its intelligence, has to be able to adapt or it's up the creek. We are not, despite what anybody says, we are not built to live outside. We, human beings, require shelter, and sometimes that shelter requires heat.For the longest time, we didn't have air-conditioning. That wasn't invented until Mr. Carrier did it in the forties. That's how recent it is. We adapt. As our knowledge base increases and as our entrepreneurial freedom is allowed and as our creative and inventive juices get flowing, we adapt. If we live in a floodplain, we get flooded out, we adapt. We move or we make a bet that we can still live there and it's not gonna happen for a hundred years. We adapt, because it isn't constant.Birds migrate. Bears hibernate. It's called adaptation. And if you can't do it then you are going to be extinct as a species, and that's just the way it is. These people want to tell you we can't adapt, that this stuff's all gonna kill us unless we do what they say. What is it they say we should do? Big governments, ever-growing big governments, less and less individual freedom and liberty, higher taxes. Isn't it amazing how that's always the solution to every crisis that they come up with.It is nothing more than a prediction. And the people that put these models together, human beings who are fallible, write the computer models, and then they put the data into them that they think they know, and they input the data based on an outcome they desire. They're human beings. These are people pushing global warming. They have been shown to be plenty capable of faking it, making up data, eliminating data that's detrimental to their cause. That's what we learned from the e-mails at East Anglia University in Great Britain.There is no hard, fast science. Therefore there is no science and isn't settled, and science cannot be the result of a consensus. Science is not up for a vote. It is or it isn't. Just because 98% of scientists agree on something doesn't make it -- that's not at all how the scientific theory is vetted, any scientific theory. It's all become politicized, folks. There's not a thing in life today that is not politicized. That's why I always say, I wish people could learn ideology and understand it. If we could pull that off, we could spare of ourselves so much pain, suffering, and grief, it's not funny. If we could just get people to learn and understand what liberalism is and what conservatism is. And that's been one of the quests on this program since it started.Now, this guy that called said we're actually in a current ice age. Now, I imagine many people that listened, "Well, this guy's a kook, it's hot where I am." The reason he's saying it is that an ice age does not mean the planet's covered in ice. An ice age doesn't mean there's no place for us to go. An ice age simply means the amount of ice on the planet is above -- there we go back to "normal" again, but the polar ice caps are larger now than they've been in a while, and very cold. The arctic is growing. (interruption) It isn't melting and the polar bears aren't in the water. Even if they are, they can swim 60 miles. Polar bears are made to be in water.Anyway, I'm getting distracted. The point is, it's all computer models. The United Nations, IPCC, whatever, it's all computer models. There's no certainty. They just want you to think that the models are infallible. Do you know there are economic models, economic computer models? The Congressional Budget Office does them all the time. And that's how we were told that Obamacare would cost less than a trillion dollars. We had a computer model that assured us Obamacare is gonna cost less than a trillion dollars. The CBO swore by the thing and the reason they were able to swear by it is 'cause they only were allowed to use the data that Congress gives them.Congress is run by the Democrats at this point, they say CBO's not biased, but it is based on the data they get. So the magic number was a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq cost a trillion dollars. The war in Iraq was immoral, unjust, which is why we had to get rid of it, but it was money we were spending, and Obamacare, it's gonna be less than the Iraq war cost. Oh, that's wonderful. Well, that number was a trillion dollars. Amazing. Obamacare first projections came in under a trillion dollars, $900 billion, everybody thought, wow, we're saving a hundred billion dollars doing Obamacare. How'd they do it? They had a computer model that swore by it.How'd they do it? Well, it's a ten-year projection, and it's very clever what they did. They had 10 years of tax increases in their model but six years of benefits. So they had 10 years of revenue coming into the government by virtue of Obamacare, but because Obama was being delayed, full implementation to 2014 -- now that's been delayed to 2016 -- we were only gonna have six years of expenses associated with it. Well, naturally if you had a ten-year program, but only six of those 10 years are gonna be spending any money, but 10 years are gonna be collecting, it's gonna be easy to get whatever number you want, and they did, and it was a computer model that did it, and everybody swore by it. And now look, it's worthless.It was worthless then, it's worthless now, as worthless as a climate change model is. It ought not be this hard to educate people, but I know what we're up against. We're talking fact here, and we're up against emotion, and we're up against the polar bears who are dying. No. We're up against we're killing the polar bears with our cars. Remember that stupid car commercial during the Super Bowl two years ago? A polar bear is walking through a neighborhood and it's examining all the cars it sees in various driveways. And finally it comes across an electric car, and it finds the owner and hugs the owner. The polar bears were thanking us for saving the planet by creating this car.A, if a polar bear ever ended up in your neighborhood, you'd have to call animal control, you'd have to tranquilize it or shoot it or kill it 'cause it would kill you. It would break into your house, it would get your peanut butter and jelly or whatever else it could find in there and you wouldn't want to be anywhere near where this thing was, because they are predators. They go watch Gore's movie, they see a polar bear on three square feet of ice and they're led to believe that that's all the ice that's left and it's 'cause of us. They go home and start complaining, griping to their parents about how their parents are destroying the planet and parents want their kids to love 'em and so they go out and buy a different car to keep little Johnny quiet, make little Johnny love 'em. This is how this whole thing happens, and it's all bogus.Now, from AccuWeather: "Researchers Find Five Previously Undetected Greenhouse Gases." Well, wait a minute. I thought the science was settled. "Two new scientific research efforts have uncovered five new man-made greenhouse gases that may play a role in climate change and ozone depletion." Oh, it's even worse than we thought, folks. We always knew that CO2 was out there destroying everything and methane, but now there are five other poisonous gases that we are creating. "Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in lower --" tell people that in the upper Midwest, that any heat is being captured anywhere. But I digress."Increasing greenhouse gases trap additional heat in the lower atmosphere, which results in higher surface temperatures, AccuWeather.com Senior Meteorologist Brett Anderson said. 'Climate models certainly account for the increase in greenhouse gases.'" That's bull! Folks, these models are absolutely flat-out bullcrap! "Climate models certainly account for the increase --" of course they do because you programmed it into the models. A model, a computer model. So the computer knows. I don't know. I'm reacting because I just can't stand my intelligence being insulted this way.Anyway, "The increase in greenhouse gases may be causing more extremes in global weather over the long term, such as heat waves, drought and heavy precipitation events."So you see, everything that is not normal is now climate change, the models say so. "'However, it is very difficult to blame any particular extreme event on climate change.'The discovery of three chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and one hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) were reported online March 9, 2014, in the journal 'Nature Geoscience' by researchers from the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, France and the Netherlands.What I want to know is who paid them and how much."'We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected gases out there, and we keep finding more,' Johannes C. Laube of the University of East Anglia," which has got no credibility left. This is the place where the faked e-mails were discovered. "We were certainly surprised to find so many previously undetected --" Well, how smart are you people if you got all these destructive gases out there and you're only now learning about 'em? They're just now gonna be able to pile all these on to all the others. Folks, it'll be amazing if anybody's alive by the end of the year. I saw something on CNN this morning. Did you know that time is running out on the search for the Malaysian airliner? (inerruption) Well, I don't know. They just said time is running out. I don't know if they meant for CNN or if they meant for the airline, for the passengers, for the search team, but I thought you would like to know that time is running out."No, you can't stop looking! It's become our total programming. You've gotta keep looking. What's it cost? All we need is one boat. We get B-roll of one boat, we'll rent a C-130 to fly around and we'll get video off of that, what is it gonna cost?"Time is running out for the search? It could mean the black box, or the black boxes. What, do they have a 30-day shelf life or something like that? Once they've gone missing, they report for 30 days or 30 days to be found with any data that's intact or what have you.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Jeff in Indianapolis. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.CALLER: Hello, sir. It's a great honor to speak to you today. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.CALLER: Well, I have a reason why the time is so short for locating this aircraft that has been missing for, what, three weeks now. Yeah, because CALLER: The underwater acoustical beacon which is attached to the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorders as well have a 30-day limit, so to speak, if they are located underwater, they are water activated -- Did you say the underwater acoustical beacon? Is that what you said?CALLER: Yes, sir. Okay. It's got a 30-day life span. Well, which isn't gonna happen 20,000 feet below the sea.CALLER: Well, they've got all these warships out there and everything like that. I was in the Navy. They can turn their listening devices or sonar and everything like that on passive, and they can hear this thing if they pass over it. No, I meant nobody's gonna stumble across it --CALLER: Well, of course not. -- at 20,000 feet. Here's a question I've always had. You sound authoritative on this. Battery technology's gotten somewhat better over the course of the life span of these flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders. And knowing that many of these air accidents takes longer than a month to find these boxes, why don't they have more powerful batteries in them?CALLER: Well, they're limited in size, and being in aviation for 27 years as a mechanic, the technology has gotten better. The flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder has all gone to digital. Yeah.CALLER: There's no more tapes or anything like that. And so the batteries have to keep up with the times. But, like I said, you know, they're limited in space, and they just, you know, only last for 30 days. Yeah.CALLER: That's basically the only answer I can give you because I'm not an expert in putting these things together. You know, people ask me because I'm a noted iPhone expert, and people constantly say to me, "I could care less about this feature, that feature, why do they give me a battery that's only gonna last 24 hours? Why don't they give me a battery that lasts 48 hours before I need it, why don't do that?" The fact of the matter is when it comes to lithium ion batteries, we are pretty much at the maximum capability we can get out of that type of battery. There's not a whole lot you can do other than get a bigger battery. So the way electronics firms that use these batteries try to maximize battery life is to write operating systems and use equipment that will put as little strain or usage on the battery as possible. Power management, it's called. And it is a science into itself.The software writing for your average cell phone -- and I'm not gonna mention the company that's best at it, but to me, knowing the size of a battery in an iPhone and how much they literally get out of that, it's really amazing, if people knew. You know why there are big-screen phones? No. It has nothing to do with people being able to see them. You know why all these Android phones have five and five and five and a half-inch screen, is because they needed a battery that big to keep the phone on for eight hours. You couldn't just put that big a battery in it with a small screen, so it was the need.The Android system just churns battery power. So they had to create big phones, i.e., big displays, to put a big enough battery in the thing. It was the need for long-lasting battery power that gave you the big screened cell phones. Not the other way around. It wasn't people trying to build a screen that you could see. It was people trying to build a phone that didn't run out on you in eight hours that drove big screens and phones. Thanks for the call, Jeff. Appreciate it. BREAK TRANSCRIPT  What? (interruption) No, I was not making that up. I don't make anything up. Unless I'm joking with people, but even... (interruption) No, somebody's asking me if I made up... Even the suggestion that I would make something up is an insulting question. I did not make up the fact that large-screen cell phones existed at first because the people that make them needed big batteries to give people a decent day's worth of using. I didn't make it up.Why would I make that up? Now, you remember -- you may not remember it, ladies and gentlemen. On March 21st, ten days ago, we had a caller on this program, Siobhanwas her name. She was from Columbia, Mississippi, and she was African-American. She said that she was ashamed of Obama. Well, guess what? In Houston, on the TV station KRIV, they played a replay of what happened on the radio. They found the local leader of the Black Panthers, the New Black Panthers, to comment on this woman calling this program and me. The woman's call was a long call and what we've done here, we have basically put this together as a CALLER ARCHIVE: I have one major problem, and that's Barack Obama himself. My problem is, as a black woman, I am embarrassed to be a black-American. My grandmother is 94 years old, and I imagine that her and all of our ancestors that died and fought for what we're supposed to call freedom, this is not what they imagined as the first black president. ...You expect somebody who can actually use their brain without somebody else telling them what to say, that knows how to articulate ... [H]e's done more harm than good, and the biggest problem that I have is that when he ran for the first time, nobody voted on him based on character, and that's one problem I have with politics in general.People vote based on what they see. Everybody saw "a black man" that could be president. "Woo hoo! That's gung-ho! Let's get behind this man." But nobody bothered to vote on the character of this man. Nobody bothered honestly look into what this man represents. What is he tried to go trying to do? How he is going to be advance this country? This is supposed to be America land of the free, but, you know, "Hey, if you say anything that goes against what she saying, you're racist."So the New Black Panther Party in Houston ended up on the morning show at our Houston affiliate, and was talking to the host Matt Patrick. The Black Panther leader is Quanell X. Not to be confused with Jambo Jambone X, who has the called this program before, who has appeared here. This is Quanell X. This so lit up Houston that the TV station replayed the audio of what happened on the radio in Houston.So here it is, the first of two sound bites with the New Black Panther Party leader, Quanell X (not Jambo Jambone X) upset at this caller Siobhan from Columbia, Mississippi.X: Rush Limbaugh posted on his website a conversation he had with an African-American female who said she was ashamed for being black because of our sitting president, President Barack Obama. She says because his leadership is so bad, as a black person, she's ashamed of being black. And Mr. Limbaugh highlighted her statements, put it on his website to say to black people: See? There's one of you all saying she's ashamed of being black.I want to say to that poor sister, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. God made you black before Barack Obama ever existed. So if you hate yourself for being black, it ain't got a damn thing to do with Barack Obama. You have a black inferiority complex and you have bought into the mind-set of white supremacy. So let's pray for that sister, but say to Rush Limbaugh, "None of us are falling for that game." All I did was answer the phone. All I did was answer the phone. And we "highlight" a lot of calls on RushLimbaugh.com. But this was noteworthy. We get one of these calls once a month, anyway, but this was perhaps one of the most direct and poignant. So then the radio show morning host Mike Patrick responded to Quanell X of the Houston New Black Panther Party (not to be confused with Jambo Jambone X).PATRICK: Whether a person's black or blue or brown doesn't make any difference. He puts it on his website.X: No, he highlighted that conversation!PATRICK: As well --X: He highlighted it!PATRICK: As well he should. You know, and I feel bad for that woman, whoever she is, that she would feel bad for being black because of President Obama. She shouldn't feel bad for being black. I do understand that the black community, many of them, now look at this president as an embarrassment. Ooh! Ooh. So the local host is piling on the Houston New Black Panther leader Quanell X, who then dutifully replied...X: I don't see many of us look at him as an embarrassment. Many of us wish he would do a little bit more directly toward us as he's done for other groups such as the homosexual community, the Hispanic community with the DREAM Act, etcetera. He stepped out on a limb for them, but we want him to step out on a limb for us also as he's done for others. But I'm not ashamed of our president because he's made some things that we feel are not in the best interests of everybody, including ourselves. But his policies that he's made, we should let him stand on it. But I'm not ashamed of our president, as she shouldn't be, either. (sigh) Well, I... (interruption) What did...? (interruption) No, I don't think he thinks Obama's doing a good job. Snerdley just said, "What does that mean? What does this mean?" Well, I thought he said, "He stepped out on a limb for them, but we want him to step out on a limb for us also as he's done for others. But I'm not ashamed of our president because he's made some things that we feel are not in the best interests of everybody, including ourselves."He's basically saying Obama's no great shakes but the sister has no business saying she doesn't like being black because of him, and the sister has no business being embarrassed to be black because Obama's black and is the first black president. Sister... (interruption) It doesn't matter. It's about solidarity. So the sister is now the focus, not Obama. The sister is the problem, not Obama. No matter how bad Obama is, the sister's improper for pointing it out.Anyway, the other side to this, by the way... There's something else that happened out there along these lines. I've got sound bites of this or maybe it's a news story. I forget which. I'm doing everything I can to stay focused here, folks. I told you, when I get one of these colds (I'm suffering the ravages of the common cold virus) I turn into a baby. It's just terrible. I proudly admit it. It's the most... It's worse than the flu.Kobe Bryant went out and said that, because there was this solidarity movement. There was mad desire on the part of every black person to support Trayvon Martin, and Kobe Bryant (and I forget where he said it), said that he wasn't gonna do that just 'cause the guy's black. It doesn't make any sense. Here it is. BREAK TRANSCRIPT It's a Mediaite story. "Kobe Bryant said in a recent interview that he wasn't comfortable with several Miami Heat players protesting in support of Trayvon Martin, saying he doesn't like the idea of reacting to an issue like that just because he's African-American, and instead believes people just need to relax and listen to the facts instead of just blindly getting behind a cause."On Arsenio Hall's show last night, ESPN radio host and I don't know what prompted Kobe Bryant to say what he said. It was in an interview with somebody. I just haven't a chance to click on the link. But he was upset that the Miami Heat en masse, apparently, were supporting Trayvon just 'cause of racial things. And Kobe said: That's not enough for me. It's two sides of the same coin, with Quanell X the other side of it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT The Kobe Bryant interview, there is no audio of it. The Kobe Bryant interview was in the New Yorker, and here's the full quote."I wont react to something just because Im supposed to, because Im an African-American. That argument doesn't make no sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far weve progressed as a society? Well, weve progressed as a society, then dont jump to somebodys defense just because theyre African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I wont assert myself."He was ripping on the Heat for en masse defending Trayvon simply for the solidarity aspect, solidarity of the race. And Stephen A. Smith came on and agreed with him. Eagle River, Wisconsin. Hi, Joe. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Hi, Rush. Nice talking with you. Back to the black woman who you referred to at the outset of your program. I don't believe in hyphenated Americans. I happen to be an American of Italian ancestry, and I love lasagna, Pavarotti, and Sinatra. But I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and Bill de Blasio. It would be nice if we could stop with identity politics. See, you have just swerved into what I think is a brilliant point here to make about immigration, if I may. The people like you and your ancestors and all of our ancestors, when they came to this country they came here for two reasons, essentially. The first was to escape wherever they were. The second was to become Americans, and to become an American meant something specific.They changed to fit into what America was.They essentially were assimilating into a distinct American culture that they craved to be part of. And you, sir, are an active, living demonstration of it. You here are an Italian, but your loyalty is not to Italians; it's to the country and what you think is best for the country. That allows you to understand that even though he's Italian, Andrew Cuomo may not be the best thing going, or that Bill de Blasio may not be the best thing going, or anybody else that you happen to mention.You're able to draw a distinction and you're not blinded by any kind of nationalistic loyalty other than to America. What's happening to immigration now is there is no desire to assimilate. People want to get here and get in on the gravy train however they define it, work or welfare. But they are coming here and demanding that America accommodate their culture and change. The left in this country's perfectly happy with that, because they blame America for all the world's ills anyway, and they say, "It's only fair that we must change and accommodate all these different cultures because that equals the melting pot," and it doesn't.CALLER: Exactly, Rush. I would say my mother came to this country as a young girl with her brothers and sisters, and though they only spoke Italian when they first landed at Ellis Island, they soon found out that they had to learn English and assimilated very well. They came through the front door, Rush. They didn't sneak under a fence; they didn't come through the back door. Now I think there's a report today about how several thousand illegal aliens have been released. Have you seen that on Drudge or anywhere? Yeah, 68,000, and it's a blatant attempt by Obama to get votes.CALLER: Right. Yeah, I saw it. I've got it in the Stack. It's coming up as today's program unfolds.CALLER: One last point, if I may. I'd like to commend Mr. Snerdley, who's a wonderful person from what I can tell and from the little bit I know about him. He's a brother of mine. Even though he's a black man and I'm a white man, "You can't talk about the brotherhood of man without talking about the fatherhood of God." I think the white Bishop [Fulton J.] Sheen said that. I wish we would stop identifying people by the group they belong to -- like the black community, the Hispanic community -- as through it's a monolithic way of viewing things. We're all individuals. Let me tell you something about that. I happened to speak about three weeks or a month ago to a Republican who is going to seek the presidency. The name is not necessary at this time. It was an admitted, agreed-to, off-the-record conversation. He said to me, "Rush, the thing that you have to realize is that the Republican Party can no longer win elections simply by turning out its base. The Democrats can, but we can't."I said, "You know, this is the problem. It's why I don't understand your business. I'm not in your business. I'm not getting votes and you are. I'm getting listeners, and they're totally different approaches. I'll just tell you: If I were a candidate, I wouldn't do this group thing. I wouldn't have a message for this group or that group. I'd just have to say, 'We're Americans,'" just like what you just said.You know what he said to me?He said, "Rush, we're just gonna have to admit some things. Americans are now organizing themselves by group, and they are expecting to be treated and approached as such." So what I heard was that we are gonna have to moderate the way or modify the way we go after groups, and we're gonna need a tailored message for every different group -- geographical or racial or what have you -- as Republicans if we are to get their votes.He said, "I don't need every one of them. If I just get 10% of every one of these groups, we got a landslide." Which is true, by the way. It's just that the approach, if you have a message for women... Single women, the Democrats own single women. So we come up with a message for single women. "Well, what if that message happens to offend married women or what if it offends men or what have you?""No, no, it won't, Rush. But we'll come up with one, 'cause it's all gonna tie together into one America the way we're gonna do that."I said, "Well, good luck with that. I hope it can happen. But when you start tailoring..." This guy's very smart, by the way. "When you start tailoring messages like this, I guess that's what people in politics think you have to do to get votes, and since I've never gotten a vote for anything..." Well, I take it back.I was elected to the Senate at Missouri Boys State, when I was a teenager. I actually was. We went to Boys State and I was elected to the Senate there, and do you know why? (laughing) It's 'cause I reminded them that they had not left enough time in the administrative day for lunch, and that got me the votes. That put me over the top. Janet Yellen, Federal Reserve chairman, said that "considerable slack in the labor market is evidence that the Federal Reserve's unprecedented accommodation will still be needed for some time to put Americans back to work." The headline: "Yellen Says Extraordinary Support Needed for 'Some Time.'" There's an alternate headline that could say and should say, "Yellen says extraordinary support for Obama needed for some time," because that's what this is.What Yellen is essentially saying is that job market still is in negative territory. The career market may as well not exist. The job market is in the dumps, and so we're going to have to continue with our quantitative easing. We're going to have to continue priming the pump. We're going to have to continue the stimulus. And what she's doing by doing this is supporting Obama, not the economy. She is supporting the Regime, not the economy.If the Fed ever decides to tighten -- well, I'm not gonna use their language. If the Fed ever decides to stop printing money and giving it to the stock market, the people in the stock market are going to have a panic. It's no different than creating dependents with anybody. Well, Snerdley just asked, "Why does Wall Street deserve this handout and nobody else does?" There are a number of answers I could provide that would in many cases be guesses, but I think if you took a look at who the people in the market are, they are considered the masters of the universe. They're not permitted to fail.I'm gonna take a break, but in answering that question, why the stock market, why is the Fed priming only the stock market, not everybody else? Michael Lewis is back. He's got a new book called Flash Boys. It's either going to be released soon or just was. And his point is, in answer to your question specifically, that it's rigged, the stock market's rigged, he was on 60 Minutes last night explaining how, and I will have those bites for you when we get back.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Let me get to these sound bites from Michael Lewis. He's a noted author. He wrote the book Moneyball that they made the movie out of with Brad Pitt. That's how you might remember it, Brad Pitt was in it. He's written on the stock market before. This is his latest installment and his basic claim is the stock market's rigged for anybody that doesn't work there. If you're not an investment bank, if you're not a Wall Street bank, if you're not a stock brokerage firm, if you're not part of an analyst agency, if all you are is Joe Q. Public investing and buying stock, you are screwed. The game is rigged for the insiders. He was on with Steve Kroft last night, new book out called Flash Boys about computerized high-frequency stock trading. Kroft says, "So what's the headline here, how would you headline your book?"LEWIS: Stock market's rigged. The United States stock market, the most iconic market in global capitalism is rigged.KROFT: By whom?LEWIS: By a combination of the stock exchanges, the big Wall Street banks, and high-frequency traders.KROFT: Who are the victims?LEWIS: Everybody who has an investment in the stock market. Now, that doesn't leave much room for doubt. That's a pretty big bomb there that's been dropped. Well, who are the victims? Everybody who has an investment in the stock market. It's rigged by the stock exchanges, the big Wall Street banks and high-frequency traders. And he explains how in the next bite.Steve Kroft says, well, machines with secret programs are now trading stocks in tiny fractions of a second, way too fast to be seen or even recorded on a stock ticker or computer screen, faster than the market itself. High-frequency traders, big Wall Street firms, stock exchanges, have spent billions to gain an advantage of a millisecond for themselves and their customers just to get a peak at stock market prices and orders a flash before everybody else, along with the opportunity to act on it. Now, nobody ever sees this because it's happening too fast. All of these computer programs will go out and see futures prices and volume in split seconds, and act on it, buy or sell, before anybody knows really what's happened, even the people that wrote the program. The beauty of the program is it acts faster than the market can record what's happening. And that makes it an insider game. Here's Lewis explaining it.LEWIS: The insiders are able to move faster than you, they're able to see your order and play it against other orders in ways you don't understand. They're able to front run your order. They're able to identify your desire to buy shares in Microsoft and buy 'em in front of you and sell 'em back to you at a higher price. It all happens in infinitesimally small periods of time. The speed advantage that the faster traders have is milliseconds, sometimes fractions of milliseconds, but it's enough for them to identify what you're gonna do and do it before you do it at your expense. That drives the price up, and in turn you pay a higher prices.So they get in and they buy Microsoft before your order is placed, a split second before, and then the price goes up and they benefit from the accrual before you do. They end up buying shares, they get their order in before you. It's not that you're aced out per se, it's that they are able to take advantage of the price fluctuation they are creating that you don't even see in the price of a stock. And the same thing would work on the sell side as well. They're able to find out who's gonna sell, how much of what and when, and able to determine if there's a trend in this, I mean, if the price will fall so they can get out of it before you do, is what his point is. In that sense, there's no way that you can compete with these guys. You're always gonna lose to 'em.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Okay, a miniature firestorm here because of Michael Lewis on 60 Minutes last night claiming that the stock market is rigged by a combination of the stock exchanges, the big Wall Street banks, and high-frequency traders. High-frequency traders are what he focused on in an explanation, answering a question. Steve Kroft said, "How does high-speed trading, high-frequency traders...? What's that all about?"This is what Lewis said, and this is what I am gonna translate for you.(replaying of sound bite) Okay, now, that sounds like, "Okay, they're able to learn because of computer programs what you're gonna do milliseconds before you do it and act on it," and many people say, "Okay, so, big deal. I mean, I'm gonna buy in at X. What difference does it make if they know that or not?" I consulted a financial expert that I rely on oftentimes to help make sense some of this stuff, Lord Rosow of Cross Harbor.Essentially what this is is the high-frequency traders are buying a stock before you do because they're able to know you're going to buy it. This did not used to be the case. The SEC... It used to be that every order on Wall Street was published. Everybody was equally aware, or was able to be equally aware of what buy and sell orders were, what prices were.They buy it before you do, and they're selling it back to you. You don't know this, and they may be making pennies on these transactions. But there are billions of them every day, is the point. Maybe fractions of a penny. But they're doing it so often that they make billions of dollars. Since they see your orders, a computer program allows them to see that. They know what you want to buy and what price you're going to pay for it.So they're able to see yours and everybody else's orders, and they also have access to the futures markets this way. They have an advantage that no individual trader does, and they do this on both sides. They do it on the buy and the sell side. So they're ahead of you by milliseconds, and they're making fractions of a penny on each of these transactions, but there are so many of them that it adds up.The profit per trade is minuscule.It's so small that nobody is even willing to point it out because if you tell somebody, "Yeah, you know what? They're beating you to the punch and they're buying it first and selling it. You're actually buying it from them. You're buying it from other buyers that you're in competition with, but you don't know that; they do. You're buying it from them, the high-frequency traders."Who are the high frequency traders? The Wall Street banks, the exchanges, and so forth. They're the ones that have the in. They have access to data that you don't, essentially is what this is. They're able to know in advance whether a stock is in demand or not and to capitalize on it on the buy or sell side. This is what Lewis claims, Michael Lewis claims is a rigged market, that you do not have access to this data.And even if it were to be pointed out, as I am, the profit per trade is minuscule. It's not enough for anybody to get upset about. You're not losing out on the deal; it's just you're being used. Your desires, your intentions to buy or sell are being used for other people to profit. Think about it this way. How many of you have brokers that tell you, "Hey, I've got a sure bet here. It's the XYZ Widget company."If you come in now, six months from now, it's gonna be," blah, blah, blah. Imagine if somebody could actually do that but not on a six-month time frame but a second or two-second time frame? They're able to know the direction a stock is gonna go before it gets there, and they put themselves in the stream to take advantage of where it's going on both on the buy and the sell side.And they're using data their computer programs produce for them that you don't have, that the individual trader does not have. It's competitive. They're not gonna give the stuff away. They're not gonna share it. It's not gonna be equal. They're not gonna make sure every other trader has this. Now, that's even before you get to quantitative easing. That's before the Federal Reserve deciding to prop up the Obama Regime.This is just an explanation of what Michael Lewis means by the stock market being rigged. Some people call it "front running." It's been around for a while. And you might say, "Well, is somebody gonna crack down on this?" Well, the SEC might crack down on it, but the last I heard the SEC was too busy watching porn. Remember those stories from a couple of years ago?They were watching porn on their computer terminals at the SEC. But look, here's another way of explaining this. These traders with this inside data might not just depend on orders. They could figure out what you're gonna do from metadata. Ahem, does that sound familiar to you? The metadata that's in all of your phone calls... Do you know there's metadata whenever you take a picture? There's metadata?I'm sure many of you do. You snap a picture on vacation. If you take it on a cell phone or a late-model, point-and-shoot or SLR, everything about that picture -- where it was taken, the time of day, the various aspects of the exposure itself -- is saved. You can take a picture of just aimless, blank dessert landscape and that picture will tell somebody where it was, latitude, longitude, all of that.The metadata in all these transactions is profound, but it's basically just people know what you're gonna do before you do it, and are able to put themselves in the way, up or down. They're able to do it on so many transactions each day that by the time it's all over they're up billions of dollars, and that's what he means be by the stock market being rigged.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Chris in Memphis. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Hi, Rush. I wanted to clarify something you were talking about on the CBS 60 Minutes segment last night. For a number of years the high-frequency trading firms were completely under the radar. The big institutional firms didn't even know what they were doing, that they existed. I have a relative that works in -- still works in Chicago for one of those firms that -- Wait just a second 'cause I want to follow. You said the big institutional firms didn't even know what they -- who is "they"?CALLER: The high-frequency trading firms, when they first started. Yeah?CALLER: It was all under the radar. They didn't know what they were doing themselves or what other people --CALLER: No. The big institutional firms really didn't understand what was happening with high-frequency trading. Okay. Gotcha now.CALLER: The firm that my relative works for in Chicago, for years they didn't even have a client, they were just doing this for themselves. They hired guys out of MIT and Stanford who wrote the algorithms to do all of that millisecond stuff where they could sneak in on sales like they talked about last night. Right.CALLER: Now they figured it out, that young man, you know, from Canada from the Bank of Canada has figured it out, but for years they were doing that all under the radar. The SEC wasn't doing anything about it, and I kept saying every time I'd talk to my relative, "When are they gonna understand what you guys are doing 'cause I can't imagine they're gonna think it's okay once they get it." And now they figured out a way to put the high-frequency traders, 'cause they don't have the advantage they had for probably at least a decade or close to it. Okay, hang on just a second 'cause I have one more question for you.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now we are back with Chris in Memphis, Tennessee. You just said that the high-frequency guys were getting away with it long before anybody discovered it. Now everybody's discovered it and they don't have the advantage they used to have for at least a decade, right?CALLER: If what the young guy from the Royal Bank of Canada said last night about the program they've developed is true, then, yes. The high-frequency traders have lost the big advantage they had. Well, but not entirely, because individual investors, the only way they could access high-frequency trading as if they're in a mutual fund or something that's being run by people that do that, right?CALLER: That's true now. It wasn't initially. Initially those guys were doing it just for the benefit of everyone in their firm. But it's like I said: They had no clients. There was a firm in Chicago and I believe one in --CALLER: Yes. Yeah. And the way it would happen is, at the end of the day, if it was less than a penny in value, they just round it up and added it. Nobody would ever see it. Like 0.6? would be credited as a full cent, just got rid of the fraction. So the SEC came along and said, "Okay, you can eliminate fractions. We can deal in pennies. We can go fractionless." Everybody did, and that gave birth to this. But your point now is that everybody's doing it so nobody has an advantage in it anymore?CALLER: No, no. I'm saying now that it's understood, they've figured out... The one guy on the show figured out a way to slow the whole thing down so they can't step in in the middle of a big buy and run the price up. They don't have that ability on those kinds of purchases anymore. Okay, I didn't see the show last night. You keep talking about this guy from Canada. Did some guy in Canada figure out a way to slow it down? Is that what you're saying?CALLER: Yes. Yes. A young man from the Royal Bank of Canada. I'm sure he was working with other people, but they figured out that if you slow the whole process down for the institutional firms, then the high-frequency traders don't have their advantage anymore, at least like they did. And so after watching the show last night you are of the opinion that it's no longer an advantage for anybody?CALLER: No, not that it's not at all, but not like it was for those private firms. There were private firms who wanted to stay completely under the radar. They're not publicly traded or anything, and I think the person that was profiled in the Wall Street Journal was in about 2006 or '07 and they were already eight or nine years old then. So for a number of years, all they're doing is writing algorithms to make their trade go faster and faster. Right. Milliseconds.CALLER: Yes. Getting themselves in the buy-and-sell stream long before an order was actually placed.CALLER: Yes. But now they've been sort of found out and so there's an attempt to help the institutional firms get their advantage back. Well, then why...?CALLER: I do agree that -- Now, wait a second. Why would Michael Lewis on this show last night say the game's rigged?CALLER: Well, he was talking about what had been happening, and the Royal Bank of Canada guy seems to be wanting to help the institutional firms get their advantage back. So he's still saying the game's rigged. Now it's back more in that favor instead of the guys who are under the radar. All right. Okay.CALLER: Okay. I appreciate that, Chris. Thanks much for the call. As is the case practically every Monday, the audio sound bite roster is filled with audio sound bites in which I have been mentioned. And given that I am fighting the ravages of the common cold virus, I think I'm going to start with some audio sound bites and just ease into the program. You know, normally I don't play all these things that mention me 'cause I don't like to make the program about me. Everybody else does.So the first one. Are you aware -- people may not even know -- the "conservative" TV host Stephen Colbert -- (Interruption) What? Oh, it's Colbert? Oh. Okay. Stephen Colbert. He's a liberal but his shtick is a pompous, arrogant, know-nothing conservative. That's the shtick. Anyway, he tweeted out something last week that has ended up being highly offensive to Chinese-speaking people. He made fun of their language. He said, "Ding dong ching chang," or some such thing. It was in a tweet. He didn't actually say it on his show.This was discussed on NPR today. They circled the wagons. When was the last time I stepped in it and some conservative media show circled the wagons and brought all kinds of people to defend it? It doesn't happen. Yeah, when was the first time? Doesn't happen. But when it happens to these guys -- for example, when Dan Rather did his phony and bogus George Bush National Guard story and totally embarrassed himself. He ended up being fired because of it. You people may not remember, but the late Peter Jennings and Brokaw hastily put together an awards dinner. They invented or created a new award to give to Rather two weeks after all of that happened, because they circle the wagons.They were protecting the news. They were protecting the media. They were protecting themselves, and they were protecting their cause, liberalism. Because Rather was out there and it was a huge, huge step in it. I mean, to totally make up a story. And so rather than throw Rather overboard and use this as an opportunity or moment to move past the CBS Evening News, they had to circle the wagons and protect Rather, and that's kind of what's happening here with this thing that Colbert did.I don't have the original tweet so I don't know why he did it and I have no idea. All I know is that the way they're trying to protect him is to say, "Well, you know, he's just actually echoing Limbaugh." Whether they know it or not they've just accused Colbert of copying me. The discussion was on The Takeaway today on NPR. The fill-in host, Todd Zwillich, speaking to Jeff Yang who's a blogger at the Wall Street Journal about this tweet that went out on the show's Twitter account last week that some people found offensive. It made fun of the Chinese language I guess and this is how they attempted to circle the wagons.YANG: Exactly. And the problem, of course, here is that you lose layers of nuance, you lose context when you take something and put it into a different medium, like, for instance, Twitter. Don't you just love hearing these erudite, sophisticated liberals talking about all this in the approved NPR performance mode? Well, let's remind ourselves that Stephen Colbert doing what he often does, was actually echoing Rush Limbaugh, the well-known fascist conservative radio host, who has, as everybody knows, many times on his show and without irony referred to Asians with the ching chong or the ding dong or some kind of ethnically stupid angle like that. That's how you hear it on NPR.The point is I don't know what they're talking about, many times on my show and without irony, referred to Asians with the ching chong? I do not do that, and I would invite them to go find all of these "many times" on the program. And then they said, "Well, of course here you lose layers of nuance, you lose context when you take something and put it in a different medium like, for instance, Twitter." Right. So I don't even know what the original thing was. I just find it curious, ironic, or what have you, that in order to bail the guy out they have to basically accuse him of ripping me off. But not doing it with the proper layers of nuance.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Okay, just to be factually correct, I need to issue a correction. This Colbert comment, whatever it was he did, was actually made on his show and then the show tweeted it out on the show Twitter account, not his personal one. But whatever he did, he did say it on... Well, they're not "on the air," they're on cable. He said it on the wire. The point is that now I'm responsible for what he said. It's my fault. He just didn't do the nuance like I did, but other than that, it's my fault."New York Times story: Repercussions and Reprieves at Health Insurance Enrollment Deadline. Hmm. What's this? 'America's health insurance marketplace closes on Monday night.' BS! Sorry. It doesn't.""I saw something on CNN this morning. Did you know that time is running out on the search for the Malaysian airliner? Well, I don't know. They just said time is running out. I don't know if they meant for CNN or if they meant for the airline, for the passengers, for the search team, but I thought you would like to know that time is running out.""Climate change would increase boating, golfing, and beach recreation at the expense of skiing.""The UN's latest report from the international planetary committee on climate, whatever, IPCC, whatever the hell it stands for -- doesn't matter to me -- their latest report's out and it's the biggest scaremongering global warming report. Nobody will be spared, folks. In fact, because this is the scariest climate prediction ever.""The Federal Reserve has basically been enabling the purchase of equities and bonds in the market, by pumping money into it, and it's a dangerous thing, too, because the stock market now is not a function -- well, not solely a function of market anticipation, market analysis. The stock market is simply reacting to the Fed.""When was the last time I stepped in it and some conservative media show circled the wagons and brought all kinds of people to defend it? It doesn't happen. In fact, when was the first time?""Okay, a miniature firestorm has erupted here because of Michael Lewis on 60 Minutes last night claiming that the stock market is rigged by a combination of the stock exchanges, the big Wall Street banks, and high-frequency traders.""I'm telling you, Kathleen Sebelius is robotic. She doesn't know anything. I know she's a card-carrying leftist, but that means she's basically ignorant, when you get down to brass tacks.""As is the case practically every Monday, the audio sound bite roster is filled with audio sound bites in which I have been mentioned.""I wish people could learn ideology and understand it. If we could pull that off, we could spare of ourselves so much pain, suffering, and grief, it's not funny.""What, today is? It is, really? Today is the deadline for signing up for Obamacare? I know it's March 31st, but it's not. It's been waived or moved to the middle of April. (interruption) Oh, you have to be in line as of today but you don't have to have anything purchased? This is such a joke.""Come on, folks, there is no Obamacare deadline. In fact, if you listen to various Democrats, there is no Obamacare." We will get into some of the March 31st deadline for "No," she says. "No, no, I can hear you, but thanks for having me." So there was not a technical glitch. She just didn't know what to say when confronted with the fact that 64% of Oklahomans are not buying it and don't intend to and don't want it. Because, of course, she's been sent out programmed to speak about how popular it is and how gangbusters it's going. And when she hears data that's totally contradictory, she's lost. She doesn't know what to say. BREAK TRANSCRIPT We've now got that sound bite where Sebelius was rendered speechless. It's Stan Miller -- an anchor at Oklahoma City Eyeball News, KWTV News 9 Eyeball -- and he's interviewing Kathleen Sebelius, and this is how it went...MILLER: At last check, 64% of Oklahomans aren't buying into the health care plan. They don't like Obamacare, and they've been pretty vocal about it. Now, that's gonna be a -- still continue to be a tough sell but we'll see how that plays out over the coming months.SEBELIUS: (long silence) One, two, three, four, five...MILLER: All right, Secretary Sebelius. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. I think we've probably lost sound here or something.SEBELIUS: I can hear you, but I --MILLER: Okay.SEBELIUS: Thanks for having me. She didn't know what to say. "I can hear you." She should have shut up and let it be assumed that they'd had a technical glitch. She didn't know what to say. This is my point. I'm telling you, she's robotic. She doesn't know anything, this woman. I know she's a card-carrying leftist, but that means she's basically ignorant, when you get down to brass tacks.She's been sent out with this story to tell, and the story is, "Oh, yeah, six million people are enrolled! It's going gangbusters, and people who've never had insurance will have insurance and we've never seen anything like this! We're so gratified; we're so happy! We're finally we're bringing affordable health care to all Americans.""Uh, Miss Sebelius, 64% of Oklahomans aren't buying into it, don't like it, have no intention of buying into it. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out."Three, four, five, six... She had nothing to say, literally nothing to say. I wonder how many of these  This is Ted in Tampa. Ted, great to have you. Welcome to the program, sir. Hello.CALLER: Yes, sir. Thank you for taking my call. I just had an interesting thought. I know over the years you've said that you don't have insurance, you pay as you go like in that incident in Hawaii a few years ago. But now as a private citizen, like the rest of us, you are required to either get coverage or pay a fine, which I believe is a percentage of your income. So, based on that, I would like to know if you could comment on your thoughts or your financial peers' as to the potential political, economical, or moral conflict at having to pay so much money or just get a bare bones policy. Well.CALLER: To comply with the law.Now, 1% of my income would be far more than that, so I don't think I've gotta pay really 1% of my income. I think the most that I've gotta pay in the form of a fine is whatever the most expensive policy is. But I have my accountant looking into it. But you know what your gonna do, we're probably just gonna dump an amount of money into what we're call the Obamacare fund just so we can tell the IRS, nope, we've paid into it. This is gonna be a preventive measure. What that amount's gonna be, don't know yet. Got 'til April 15th to figure it out.But I do not want to get an insurance policy because my choices are gonna be so limited after I do that, I don't want to limit my choices. By that I mean the hospital I want to go to might not be in the network based on the policy I'm able to get, or the doctor might not be. CALLER: Oh. Okay. So, you see, it's not punitive in that sense. You were thinking, me and my financial peers, you were thinking I was looking at 400 grand, right?CALLER: At least, yeah. No. It wouldn't be. A maximum penalty cannot exceed the national average yearly premium for a bronze plan. And that is from CALLER: It's the rules de jour, yeah. Exactly. The rules of the day, however they make them and want them to be.CALLER: That clears it up. I appreciate that. Thank you so much there. Keep up the good work. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Let's see. I've got a health care Stack. I told people I was gonna get to it. It's the March 31st deadline, you know, big whoop, yip yip yip yip yahoo. It isn't. Let's see, what could I have here up first? Oh, a Folks, there is no deadline. There's all kinds of ways out of it, and it's because whatever it takes to not make you mad is what Obamacare is this year, as best they can make it, because it's an election year. So they're gonna delay anything that would really make you mad until after October or November. And this article even points this out later on. This first sentence is such BS. The article goes on to point out that anybody can claim a hardship in dealing with the website and get an extension. There's no proof required when you claim a hardship. "I don't have time, it's too hard for me. I don't know yet what I want." Just claim it, don't have to prove it, and you're granted the waiver this year 'cause they don't want you mad.The Times article says: "The confusion and uncertainty of the last six months appear likely to continue as consumers, including some who have never had insurance, begin using new policies for the first time. Here are answers to some frequently asked questions." This article has gotten a lot of attention from the rest of the Drive-Bys, even though it doesn't have anything new in it except for a detail that the Drive-Bys are not bothering to mention, and it's buried at the bottom of this piece in the Times, and this is it."With all the exceptions and adjustments, an insurance executive said, 'open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year.'" (gasping) Open enrollment meaning on-demand whenever you have time, whenever you want to sign up, there is no deadline. Open enrollment could go on for the rest of the year. In other words, there is no sign up deadline for Obamacare this year, which means you can wait until you need insurance before signing up, just as we always said would be the case.Let me go to the audio sound bites here just for a second. F. Chuck Todd on the Today show today, F. Chuck totally in the tank for Obama, he's all happy today. Matt Lauer said, "Hey, Chuck, let's start with a simple question. Are they cooking the books with these numbers, six million enrollees? When you talk to people in neutral corners of Washington, what are they telling you?" So it is an open question. They don't know how many have enrolled and they don't know how many of those who have enrolled have actually paid. They don't know that. There isn't a back end on the website. Well, I know this may be hard to believe, and you may be thinking, "Well, you can just say whatever you want," which is true, I can come here and say whatever I want, but I have no intention to mislead you, and there's nothing in it for me to do that. There is nothing ever in it for me to lie to you about anything. I don't gain a thing by doing that. I'm telling you, they may have had six million people that have gone to the website and logged in and provided them with data, but they don't have six million people that have paid.What they've got is a million who have paid, and what we really know is that four out of five are subsidized! Four out of five Obamacare policies are being paid for by neighbors and other people in the community, subsidized. It's just a transfer of wealth, is what's happening. This is not new insurance. It's just a direct wealth transfer, is what Obamacare boils down to when you strip everything out of it. Four out of five of these new policies are subsidized, and the latest number we had last week was that it was four million or five million that signed up, and only one million of them, 25% of the people who've enrolled, were uninsured. And that the vast majority are seasoned citizens who are being subsidized, and the people who need to sign up to pay for those subsidies are not signing up, the youngsters out there.But here's good old loyal F. Chuck. "Well, what it means, Matt, is it's un-repealable. So now, Matt, we now go on to the next phase, how do we fix it? Once they've got six million, it's un-repealable." Why? We can't take something away from six million people without there being a revolution? What does that mean? (interruption) Well, I know, the Florida midterm election, that special election. Alex Sink lost on the notion that we don't need to repeal it; we just need to fix it. She got skunked.You know, here's some things. This is what I think F. Chuck Todd and the Drive-Bys ought to be asking about these Obamacare numbers. And if for some reason, if somehow this were a Republican idea, questions like this would be asked. A Republican would never do this, I understand that, but just speaking hypothetically. The first question that F. Chuck ought to be asking the authorities: "How many of the six million are for insurance and not Medicaid?""How many people who bought actual insurance got subsidies from their taxpayer friends and neighbors?""How many of the people who actually bought insurance have made a payment?" It seems to me to be fundamental."How many of these people did not have insurance previously?" If any decent website of any achievement at all in this day and age would be able to tell you that within seconds. It would be in the database."How many people lost their insurance because of Obamacare?"Why didn't F. Chuck run around and ask that question or any of these? The White House is now claiming six and a half million sign-ups, which means -- I don't know. I don't know how many would have had to sign up in the last two weeks, because what did they say the number of sign-ups was? (interruption) We had something like four million would have had to sign up in the last two weeks. Well, that's the point. Why should anybody believe it? Why can't the government prove it instead of just running around and asserting it and then having some sycophant media member repeat it? The real question is: when have they not lied about Obamacare?BREAK TRANSCRIPT I actually think what we're dealing with here is a tiny number. You strip everything away... Follow me on this, now. The grand total of people who did not sign up for Medicaid -- I mean, actually signed up for Obamacare, not Medicaid. I'm talking about these six million people they think they've got. How many of 'em did not sign up for Medicaid?So they say, "It's beyond repeal now. Yay!" It is such a tiny number. I'm telling you, the number of people who've actually signed up, and who are actually signing up for Obamacare with an actual Obamacare policy and actually making the payments and not being subsidized? I'll bet you that number is less than a million.RUSH ARCHIVE: Now, the Investor's Business Daily editorial written by Betsy McCaughey details what the health care exchanges in Obamacare really are about. And she focuses on California, because they're getting $910 million to set up the exchanges in California. It turns out these exchanges are just being used for Democrat Party outreach. The NAALCP is getting $600,000 from the California exchange. The AFL-CIO is getting one million. The Service Employees International Union is getting two million. And for what? To go door-to-door, to register voters, to show up at community centers and make presentations on the Democrat Party and sell the Democrat Party agenda. Dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! Right here it is from the "Inside was a letter discussing voter registration and a registration card pre-marked with an 'x' in the box next to Democratic Party. The couple ... received the letter and voter registration card from their health insurance provider Covered California, the state-run agency that implements" Obamacare. Can you imagine how mad Obama's gonna be when he finds out about this?When Obama finds out that his navigators at Obamacare are actually using this to register Democrats, imagine how mad... (interruption) Well, isn't that what most people say? "Well, how did this happen? What's Obama gonna do when he finds out? He's not gonna be happy." It's like Obama doesn't know any of this stuff going on. But there you have it. This is just one couple.I mean, how many of 'em do you think there are who have gotten their pre-registered voter registration card sent to them after signing up for Obamacare in California? "Cleveland Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove told Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures that  Here's Joyce in Dayton as we head to the phones. I really appreciate your patience. Thanks for waiting, and welcome to the program.CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to speak with you. I appreciate that. Thank you.CALLER: I've been screaming at the radio and the TV and everything else. I don't understand why people aren't mentioning whether it's one million, seven million, 10 million, 50 million people. They're all marching like going into the gulag with a gun to their head. I've had so many people approach me, "Are you gonna sign up?" It can cause you anxiety that you need insurance to go to the doctor, because you're under fear, you're under duress. You know that you're gonna get a penalty. You know that you're going to go to jail, as you said earlier. If you're a law-abiding, try-to-do-the-right-thing person, that's what you would do, you would follow directions and do the best you can. I am infuriated, and every client I've talked to today is infuriated that the government, in America, a free country, is forcing you to do something that you don't want to do, buy something you don't want to buy, telling you what is best for you. I know. It's appalling.CALLER: I am so angry. And so is everybody that I talk to. You said clients. What do you do?CALLER: I'm a group instructor and a personal fitness trainer.CALLER: I am in shape. So you probably don't need a health insurance policy?CALLER: Well, I need it. I think everybody needs it, but I truly -- Anyway, you know, it's a good point. The people of this country, aside from the obvious few exceptions, are law-abiding and this is the law of the land. I think you've hit on something. People are scared to death of government today.CALLER: Absolutely. I think they're scared to death of what'll happen to them if they don't comply. With all this talk about the government spying on people and all these phone records and the metadata, people think that the government's watching 'em, and they know if they're complying or not, so they're trying to sign up. When you look at it that way doesn't it seem to you that there would be more than seven million signing up?CALLER: Absolutely. I heard somebody on the radio yesterday say, "Well, we're just a country of procrastinators." No, we are not. If I wanted it, I would have gotten it the first day. And so would any of my friends or my family members or anybody else. If that's what I wanted to do, I would by golly go do it. That's how we Americans run our lives. Well, but people found out there's nothing to get. There's no back end. They don't know if they're actually signed up when they finish the process.CALLER: Well, that's true. But, again, they can tout and sing the highest praises of all this that  I think that's exactly right.CALLER: They have no choice. I think your under duress point is one worth pounding. The fear, the under duress, the fear of noncompliance of what might happen to you.CALLER: Absolutely. And it's just un-American to force people into something like this. This is not --CALLER: It is. By principle alone -- -- constitutional.CALLER: -- I wouldn't want to do that. Whether I need it or not, I would not want to do that, because I will not -- Were you unhappy with your health insurance before?CALLER: No. And right now I don't have any health insurance because when I switched jobs, I don't have the hours right now -- Right.CALLER: -- to get insurance -- Exactly the kind of circumstance Ted Cruz is talking about. Well, Joyce, great points. I'm glad you called. Georgeann in Bartow, Florida, great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.CALLER: Hello. Thank you. It's an honor to speak to you. Thank you.CALLER: Yes. I wanted you to know my husband and I have been listening to you and learning from you since your TV days. Well, I appreciate that.CALLER: We've learned a lot. We stay right on the cutting edge.CALLER: I wanted to just disagree with you on one thing, though, while I have your ear, about the comment on your overrated staff, I have to disagree with that. I think they're doing an excellent job for you. Well, there's things that I know that you don't, but I'll take it under advisement.CALLER: I called to voice my disgust and displeasure with the  Yeah.CALLER: The most recent one was -- well, I call her a cutesy cook show chick, the Rachael Ray program where she invited I guess crazy Uncle Joe to come on and help her stir up something and put it in the oven. Is that what she does, she hosts a cooking show?CALLER: Yes, she does. Like on the Food Network or something?CALLER: She's on the Food Network. I think that's it. And she has a lot of different products. She's even branched out into pet foods and treats and things. Well, I'll have you know, I'm gonna throw out every frying pan that's got her name on it and my puppies will not eat one more treat from her company. Wow. Frying pans.CALLER: She has a cook show, and she puts in little bits of her personal life from time to time. The latest thing was her brother lost his job. Oh.CALLER: He suffers from an immune disorder of some sort, autoimmune disorder, and her and Uncle Joe were talking about her mother and her sister just worrying and fretting. She came to tears about how worried they were about her brother losing his insurance, and I must say that worrying about losing your insurance is something to worry about, but she's worth about $60 million. I would think instead of her just being so happy that they finally got the Obamacare for her brother, she would be embarrassed. I'm outraged. I mean, if I had $60 million, I'd buy my brother some insurance. How do you know that she's worth $60 million?CALLER: Well, there was a talk show yesterday that my husband listens to after yours, and one of their analyst researchers did some research and said that -- Well, you know, that's not uncommon. Sarah Jessica Parker is worth a lot of money and she --CALLER: Yes. -- kept talking about the need for some of her family to be on welfare.CALLER: Yes. You know -- And she supported high taxes for that.CALLER: Oh, jeepers. My husband and I are both retired. Our income and our budget have changed drastically. But we chose to and still maintain our health insurance at a healthy fee every month, $1,444 a month. And my daughter and her husband cannot afford to buy insurance even through Obamacare, I don't think, but they were duressed into applying. We have for years paid for my grandson's insurance out of our pocket so that he will be covered. And I hope when Big Brother finds out that they've applied for Obamacare, that it doesn't cancel out his insurance. You know, Georgeann, I hear you. When you hear somebody that's got $60 million making this big pitch for everybody to pitch in to buy her family's health insurance or whatever it was, what's the money for? What are you earning this money for if not to help your family, for crying out loud? At least your family. But where's the notion of charity beyond even your family? I hear you.The answers to this are all psychological. She wants to be in tight with Biden and these guys and be on the team and close to power. (interruption) No, no, no, she didn't. You're thinking of Paula Deen. Right. Yeah. I don't watch the Food Network so I wouldn't know Rachael Ray if I saw her. I thought she was an actress. That's all I know. I don't mean to offend anybody with that. I just didn't know. There are certain elements of pop culture I haven't visited. Food Network's one of them. Sorry, I'd rather eat it than watch it. Megyn Kelly last night interviewed New Jersey governor Chris Christie. She asked him three times to explain his embrace of Obama after Hurricane Sandy. Three times. She was relentless in this. The first time she said, "One thing that appeared to have hurt you with some in the Republican base is what people unaffectionate-ly refer to as your CHRISTIE: No. And the best source for that information is not me; it's Mitt Romney. And I've seen him publicly say over and over again that it had absolutely no effect or role in the race, either subjectively for the way he felt or objectively for the way their polls looked at the time. So the answer is no. Secondly, the other thing Mitt Romney said to me at the time was, "You're doing your job. Go do your job as best you can. I've had that job.""Because there are a lot of people out there who felt that you were too effusive in your praise of the man who wanted to hold onto the White House when a lot of Republicans and independents and others didn't want him to. To those voters who still are holding a grudge against you, what do you say?"CHRISTIE: First of all, there was not one person, with possible exception of Paul Ryan, in America who worked harder for Mitt Romney. I was the first governor to come out and endorse him in the fall of 2011. I traveled to 26 states for him. Some people have, who you're referring to, have a very short memory. Fortunately Mitt Romney doesn't and the fair people don't. When that crisis hit, I was asked, "Has the president been responsive? Has the president been there to help your people?" And my answer was yes. And, Megyn, if I had to do it again I would say exactly the same thing 'cause was it the honest answer. So she asks again. She says, "They didn't want you to have such a smile on your face when you did it."CHRISTIE: If anybody saw me smiling during Hurricane Sandy they weren't looking at the right pictures. These are the ABCs of me. You ask me a question, I'm gonna give you an honest answer. Some days it may serve your political purpose, and some days it might not. But in the end, the comfort you should take from it is I'm not changing as the wind blows. I say what I think and I think thats what people should take cover from. And those critics, I think many of them, at least in my interaction, are kind of over that. Okay, so it's not a big deal anymore. The arm-in-arm stroll with Obama on the boardwalk, figuratively speaking, after Hurricane Sandy, no big deal, one week before the election. People have gotten over it, they've forgotten it, and they're over it. She went at him three different times on that.Have you heard that Jeb Bush seriously now considering the Republican nomination because of Bridgegate? Bridgegate and this. Jeb Bush is thinking -- (interruption) Well, I know, some of the establishment types. I just have -- you know me -- one little question here, just one. It's just me. Why is the era of Reagan over but the era of Bush doesn't seem to ever be over? It is an all-out Regime and media swarm on Obamacare. We are being pummeled. We are being beat upside the head. We're being beat on top of the head. They're hitting above the belt and below the belt. They're creaming us out there. 'Cause guess what? They hit their seven million. Overnight they got something like five million people to sign up. They got their seven million. The media's so excited. ABC News and Washington Post, in a piece de resistance, has a poll out that shows for the first time ever a plurality now favor and want and love and like Obamacare.Folks, we're being double-teamed, triple-teamed, tag-teamed. It's just unbelievable how they have arrayed and aligned their forces, and they're just saying whatever needs to be said. It doesn't matter what the facts are; the facts don't matter. Lo and behold, the Regime has hit its target of seven million Obamacare sign-ups. Let me ask you a question, though, seriously. Was there ever any doubt that they would reach this number?See, this is where we get trapped and we never learn because I guarantee, some of you thought that there no way they're gonna be able to get seven million by the deadline, not mathematically possible. Based on the supposed factual news that we had yesterday, the day before that, last week, that it wasn't possible. I mean, what about all the news that they don't know who signed up? What about all the news there is no back end on the website? What about all the news that they can't figure out who's paid? What about all the news that the people who've signed up don't know if they have paid and don't know that their payment's been recorded?How about all of those news stories that were just as recently as last week and, in fact, as recent as the weekend and Monday? They couldn't tell how many people had signed up. They didn't know how many people had paid. They didn't know how many who had signed up or visited were uninsured. They didn't know any of that. And all of a sudden yesterday F. Chuck Todd comes out and says it's un-repealable 'cause they hit the six million number yesterday. And then today and last night, the Regime is out, and they've hit their seven million Obamacare signup target. I guarantee you it's not possible. You can't tell me that this is real, and these people have been known to doctor the numbers.Folks, the media is as happy as I've seen them in a year. They just can't contain themselves, all over, no matter where you look, they're just thrilled, they're excited. The Obamacare number has been reached no matter how much they had to cook the books. H.R. just mentioned this to me in the IFB, but I'm reminded of the way the unemployment rate went down to the number it needed to be before Obama got reelected. A president had never been elected with an unemployment rate higher than 7.5 or 7.8%. And I told you a year out that by hook or by crook the unemployment number was going to be below 8% going into the November 2012 election, and, lo and behold, it was. It's like magic, almost like magic, these things always work out for Obama, especially when his team is the one producing the numbers.Isn't it amazing how this works? They have literally come from the gutter all the way to universal love and support, and they did it in one day. The Because, remember, it was six million policies canceled, and they're talking about they're gonna have seven million sign-ups. So they had to come up with a number that would wipe out the cancellations. And, voila, they did. They just announced it today. And the media, of course, without any question whatsoever starts trumpeting it. Just like the way the cost of Obamacare had to come in under the cost of the Iraq war, had to come in at $900 billion. You remember how they did that way back then. But here's the thing. Does anybody believe these are real numbers? You don't. You don't.But what if this ABC News/Washington Post poll is real? It could be an outlier or it could be the beginning of a trend. Right now, 49 to 48, people approve of Obamacare. It's a plurality: 49-48 like it. It's the first time it's been a majority ever. Just last week, folks -- just last week -- no matter where you looked, it was 41-65 or it was 45-55. There were nowhere close to even 50-50 liking Obamacare.Now out of the blue, an ABC News/Washington Post poll: 49-48 (a plurality) love, like, can't wait for, and are all excited about Obamacare. Did they fudge it or is it the beginning of a trend? Is it real? And then, of course, we ask these questions. We have to ask them of the various groups that make up Americans.To you and me, these numbers are obviously not believable. They're obviously cooked. There's no question. But to the low-information crowd that believes that anything coming from government is gospel, the real numbers are now the subject of Obama's version of "don't ask, don't tell." We're not supposed to ask and we're not supposed to tell. The numbers are what they are and we're supposed to live with it.But for this day, April 1st, they got what they wanted by the deadline of March 31st. And all they had to do was go out and say it. I want to remind you: Two weeks ago, we were told there had been five million sign-ups. So there have been two million sign-ups in just the last two weeks. Depending on where you looked, there were four million, but apparently just in the last week, in three to four days, we've had people make mad dash to HealthCare.gov.You know, the Rand group. They're a think tank out there on the Left Coast, and they've got this study that apparently nobody other than the LA Times has seen. So you need to take this with a grain of salt, since it's clear that the LA Times is going out of its way to confuse their own low-information readers into thinking that all of these 9.5 million newly uninsured are buying insurance through the exchanges.But if you read the stories, even by the LA Times' own admission, only about two million previously uninsured people have actually signed up. If you read the story is, you testified that only two million previously uninsured people have signed up. Yet the headline says that 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started. The headline is just a lie.The headline is just totally fabricated and made up. So that is that. There's much more to say, obviously. Got the audio sound bites. My one question, the ABC/Washington Post poll tells me... By the way, the way it gets there is that support among Democrats for Obamacare has surged, and there is enough Democrat support now to give Obamacare a 49-48 plurality.In November, in the same poll, it was 40-57 who didn't like it. Now it's 49-48 who do. What's happening here is the media and the Regime are trying to rescue Obamacare. Can I tell you the truth? I'll do that. The truth is this law's a disaster. There's nothing changed about that. It's an absolutely bottomless pit. It has made most everything involving health care worse.It is going to end up limiting choice. It's nothing more than a very exaggerated transfer of wealth, of income. It is not about health care. What has happened here is, it is in such dismal state that ABC News and the Washington Post got together to do their poll, and they're trying to rescue Obama and Obamacare. This is all about the November elections.They're doing everything they can, and everybody else in the Drive-Bys is doing everything they can to bail Obama out and bail Obamacare out. Because if it is so popular, if it is so popular that people now can't wait to use Obamacare, if they can't wait to sign up -- and if after they sign up they're so happy -- then why has Obama continued to move all of the most devastation aspects of the law until after the election?That's not mentioned in the poll, by the way.I asked earlier: What if the poll's accurate? What if it's right? What if we've been sandbagged and what if all these stories the past week, two weeks, past month have all been made up? They're capable of that, too. What if we've been sandbagged? What if it's not nearly as bad as has been reported? Maybe they reported it's bad on purpose so they could have this grand-slam, home-run report today.Or, if that's not it, what if it's an outlier? What if the poll is the beginning of a trend that will show increasing support for Obamacare? Well, I have to stumble back on the reality once again that it is not accurate. I don't believe any of this for a minute. Because again, if it was so great, Obama wouldn't be delaying the big parts of it 'til after the election.But here's the downside, folks.Oops. I gotta take a break and I need to take a little bit more than 30 seconds to make this point. And it's a crucial point to be made. It's about the way the Republicans are gonna react to this.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers an "Yet even fewer -- 13% -- think it will be completely repealed. A narrow majority expects the law to be further implemented with minor changes, or as passed." So 26% of Americans supported it four days ago, according to AP. Four days ago! Then you go to the Washington Post/ABC poll, and it's 49-48 love Obamacare. Remember there was an election in Florida?A man by the name of David Jolly, a Republican, happened to win that election running against Obamacare in a district that Obama had won twice. The woman, Alex Sink, had run on the idea that Obamacare was cool; it just needed to be fixed. She lost, even with a third-party candidate. Just four days ago, the AP reported support for Obamacare was 26%, its lowest ever since it was signed into law.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here is the sad reality. Once again, you and I find ourselves as the owners of truth when it comes to the status and the condition, if you will, of Obamacare. You and I own the truth. We know it's a disaster. The problem is that on television all day today they got their seven million sign-ups. It's hunky-dory.There is a new poll all over ABC TV that we've turned the corner now; a majority of Americans love and want Obamacare. And whatever is on TV is what people believe. You can make people believe a nonexistent war was occurring, if you had B-roll on TV. It doesn't matter. The truth, once again when dealing with the left, doesn't matter.If we go up to the low-information voters and say, "No, folks. You're being hoodwinked again. There's not massive support for Obamacare. It's not improving anybody's health care. It's costing everybody more," they'll say "No, no. I saw on TV that they got their seven million sign-ups and we're turning the corner. I saw a bunch of people interviewed who like it. They got it going well. I saw it on TV."And that's the objective.Now, here's the bottom line now: How did you react when you first heard these poll numbers today? When you first heard, if you did...? Maybe I was the first to inform you. How did you feel when you learned that there's this poll out there, ABC/Washington Post that shows for the first time ever a plurality favor Obamacare?How did you feel? What was your reaction when you were first made aware today that they had hit the magic number of seven million? Were you a little deflated? The reason I ask is that more than likely that is going to be the reaction of the inside-the-Beltway GOP. They are going to be shaken by this. They're going to throw up their hands in defeat and futility.They're going to say, "There's no reason to fight this. We've got skunked again," or whatever. But when you don't stand for anything, and you're basically in a position where you're hoping or you are praying or you are desperately wishing that there be a miraculous turnaround in your fortunes, you are always going to end up being shaken when you hear news that is counter to your wishes or counter to your desires.If you don't stand for anything.If you don't stand for anything, you're gonna be easily cowed. And my guess is that when the inside-the-Beltway Republicans and the RNC and the Republican leadership heard the seven million number, they're kind of paralyzed and shaken. "Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no." And then when they saw the ABC/Washington Post poll 49-48, for the first time a plurality favor Obamacare, they said, "Oh, no!"Oh well, I guess there's nothing we can do about it now. Well, I guess we just have to batten down the hatches and go with it." Ted Cruz was right, and they still hate him because he was right. None of this news today is accurate. If it was accurate, if the news about Obamacare was so great, Obama wouldn't be delaying the big parts of this until after the next two elections. If it was so great.It isn't great. Nothing's changed, folks, other than a big PR propaganda push. It's on television. Let's go to the audio sound bites. I'll show you what I mean. Here is a montage from NBC and CNN and ABC and local ABC, Washington Post, you name it. It's all kinds of reporters. They're just excited.The Regime has released a number and the Drive-Bys are running with it. We don't know how they got the number, by the way. They haven't told us that. We don't know how they got to seven million. They haven't announced that. We don't know if people have paid any money. We don't know if the seven million have actually paid for insurance or if they're subsidized.We don't know anything about these seven million. We don't know how many were put on Medicare and how many signed up for Obamacare. We don't know anything. All we're being told is, seven million people have gone to HealthCare.gov. We don't know anything. And yet the Obamacare media is in full-rejoice mode.CHRIS CUOMO: And the Obamacare magic seven million!CONNELL MCSHANE: Seven million was this magic number.AMY ROBACH: Seven. Million. Sign-ups.POPPY HARLOW: Sign-ups could reach an early goal of seven million.MARY CALVI: It does appear the surge is on track to top seven million.NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: Now you've got these seven million.JOHN KING: They have seven million!MICHAELA PEREIRA: Enrollment of seven million, far more than they thought would have, uh, even been possible.JONATHAN KARL: The final sign-up figures will be over seven million when all the numbers are added up. More than seven million. That is an incredibly high number! It's party time. See, that's how it works. See, it's on TV now, so it's done. And no matter what you and I know to be the truth, the fact is that's not the truth. It was on TV. People say, "I saw it on TV. The seven million was reached." So suddenly no matter where they looked, everybody in the media said it was seven million."You're saying they're all lying to me Mr. Limbaugh?" Yeah, I am, but you're not gonna believe that. Now, you can be sure that this is the Drive-By Media's marching order for the day. You can be certain that this was the marching order that has occurred today. "Seven million is it! Go out and tout it." Here's Senator Dick Durbin. And if I may say, this is close to what I predicted they would do.What I said was that they would acknowledge that there are problems but say, "Little changes here and there can fix this right up. And all we've gotta do is just make a little change here and a little change there. Of course, it didn't roll out exactly as we thought. We're learning as we go, but it's better than the free market." They did! That's the dirty little secret here is that they did! Most Americans who wanted it, had it. They're just making this stuff up as they go. They had created the impression that it was unfair and it was unequal. For anybody to try to logically or honestly claim that what is happening now is an improvement over what was is absurd. But that's what Durbin is saying. "We rejected the free enterprise."Well of course!Free enterprise, capitalism?Well, that's unfair. We can't rely on that. It doesn't work for anybody except the 1% and the Koch brothers. "Not one Republican voted for it." Now they're trying to turn that into a big negative because they've got this poll that shows a majority of people now like Obamacare. Last night on Al Jazeera America's news, the anchor John Seigenthaler interviewed former Senator "Puff" Daschle. Seigenthaler said, "Are you concerned that Republicans are gonna try to dismantle Obamacare?" By 2016. So in two years we're gonna go from seven million to 20 million, and once you get there, it's not gonna be possible to repeal it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I know, silly me, I'm beating a dead horse here. But you know me, folks, I'm a stickler for the truth. So I've been digging deep here, trying to find out where this seven million number came from, who sourced it, and how did they arrive at the figure of seven million sign-ups.Well, the AP story, the joyous AP story on this says that they got it from two anonymous White House sources, and that apparently is all it takes. Two anonymous White House sources, seven million. LA Times, 9.5 million uninsured. Forbes is already out with an op-ed saying there's no way that's true. I haven't had time to read it and get into it in detail, but people are reacting to this stuff left and right.You know the Regime spent $17 million a month since January all over the country advertising Obamacare? Maybe you saw some of the ads where you live. Maybe you saw some local TV stations. They ended up doing five- and six-hour telethons for Obamacare because the owner of the station is a big supporter of Obama. The Republicans were spending ad money at the same time, but they were focusing their expenditures on candidates seeking elective office. But the Regime, something like 52, $57 million spent just this year on advertising the wonders, the greatness, the aspects that are wonderful of Obamacare. So it's on TV.Now, something else interesting. I want to take you way, way back now, 2009, 2010. Before Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office said that it would insure four-fifths of the 40 million uninsured. Now, that's 24 million people. Four-fifths of 40 million, that would be 24 million people who would be insured, maybe even more than that. And now the Regime is out there bragging about having insured seven million people, the vast majority who already had insurance.AP story: "Two government officials confirmed the milestone, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement." So where are these 24 million people that the CBO -- I mean, I know. I'm beating my head against the wall. Doesn't matter. But I want you to know what the truth is. We're sticklers for it here and we are not gonna be bulldozed. They're not gonna insult our intelligence. Low-information people obviously don't care. It's on TV, it's what it is. We'll see. We'll see if this actually takes.We don't know if this ABC/Washington Post poll's made up. We don't know if it is the beginning of a trend. We don't know if it's a real poll, but an outlier that's somewhat wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, back to the audio sound bites. Ron Fournier, formerly of the Associated Press, now the National Journal, was on the All-Star Panel on the Special Report with Bret Baier show last night. Baier said, "Ron, to hear the White House today, Jay Carney said it's not a victory lap, but then he kept saying that we're at six million, we're at six million and nobody thought we'd be here." See, that's the way it always works. The Republicans would be the bad guys that take away your benefits. Or they can work with the Democrats and fix things in a bipartisan way. Dr. Krauthammer was next.KRAUTHAMMER: It could be resolved if Republicans take control of the Senate. There are ways in which I think you can make changes, fundamental changes in the program, because Obama already has made them himself. He's abolished the individual mandate. It doesn't exist. It's a fiction. He's already changed it so much that what we're dealing with is a facsimile of Obamacare. So if Republicans, let's assume they win the Senate and they do well, they can come together with a new plan. You have tort reform, for example, where you could purchase across state lines. You could keep some elements perhaps of Obamacare. And Dr. Krauthammer now saying if the Republicans win the Senate, and obviously keep the House, that they could keep some of the things in Obamacare. And, believe me, we've heard this before, and it's one of the sticking points. There are things in Obamacare that Republicans like. You know what one of them is? There are two of them, actually, that come to mind. There are more than two.But the two biggies are: stay on your parents' plan until twenty-six. Republicans love that. And the preexisting conditions. They love that. They don't want to be seen taking either of those away. (interruption) Well, preexisting conditions is one of the biggest problems. But it doesn't matter. On TV people with preexisting conditions are covered, and that's it.See, if it's on TV, that those people are gonna be taken care of and treated, okay, cool, that's all I need to know, and I'm gonna turn the channel back now to the E! Entertainment network, which may be where they're getting the news in the first place, who knows. They don't know the preexisting condition thing is a boondoggle and isn't working and is a fraud. They don't know that. And you're not gonna be able to convince them. 'Cause they care about people being cared for. And they care about people being cared for equally and the same.So apparently from both sides of the aisle now there's so many people, be it six million, seven million, we can't repeal it because the Republicans, why, they can't take health care away from people. The best we can do is get in there and win the Senate and tinker at it around the edges.BREAK TRANSCRIPTSEBELIUS:  Right. So what put 'em over the hump is the Between the Two Ferns show on the Internet with Zach Galifianakis. That's what put 'em over the top.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here is Kathy in Bedford, Virginia. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hi.CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just astonished, and I wonder if anybody else is, by Kathleen Sebelius' admission that her two, 30-something-year-old sons get their news from the Comedy Channel. Why should they be any different than the other 30-year-olds?CALLER: Well, I would just... I think I know now where they got the model for the Pajama Boy. From the Comedy Central channel?CALLER: No. From Kathleen Sebelius. Oh, one of her kids. Yeah, could well be. No, the college kids. Maybe thirties, maybe little kids. They get their news from comedy shows. Actually, do you know what the biggest source of news is for kids? I'll say "young people." Know what it is? You know what the biggest source of news...? (interruption) No. It's not Yahoo, and it's got the Drive-Bys alarmed.It is people reporting what they see on the news and then other people reading what their friends are saying is in the news. That has become a primary news source for millions and millions and millions of people. It's their friends on Facebook, what they're saying about what they saw on the news. It's secondhand news and what they feel about it, and that has become a bigger source of news now than even The Daily Show.Well, it's not just kids.In fact, kids are leaving Facebook, we're told, because their parents are signing up to it, and so Facebook isn't cool. They're going other places. I don't know how much of that's actually true, but that's what's stated. Sebelius actually said that her two, 30-something sons are more likely to get their information on Funny or Die than network TV. Funny or Die is the Between Two Ferns show.That's where Obama went and that's what Kathleen Sebelius said put them over the top. Obama's appearance on Funny or Die, Between Two Ferns. They were able to track it. When Obama went on that Internet TV show, that's when sign-ups started going through the roof. So to back that up, she's bragging about her two, 30-something sons more like to get information from that show than network TV.Now, which is more reliable, network TV or comedy shows?It's a toss-up.It really is.Here's Steve in Westchester County, New York. Hello, sir. I'm glad you waited. Hi.CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. Yeah.CALLER: This whole thing with these numbers for the enrollment for Obamacare, I don't believe a bit of it. If you look at what the CBO had to do with correcting all the so-called accurate numbers as to what this thing was gonna cost, they had to do that time and time again. So I don't believe these numbers, and what I'd like to hear is how much people have already paid, not how many people have registered. In other words, can they actually fund this thing? Well, they've actually said they don't know how many people paid.CALLER: Right. That's what makes this number kind of suspect anyway because they've been saying all along that they don't know how many are actually signed up or paid. You have a point there. I'm just gonna tell you: If they think that they can pay for this thing with seven million people signing up, they are full of it. That's where the seven million number... Do you realize that's just grabbed out of the air? That was just Sebelius saying, "Oh, yeah, we want seven million by March 31st."For what reason? Again, if this thing were so loved now and so universally popular, everybody would be signed up. It's the greatest thing on earth, right? Obamacare. Finally, everybody has health insurance. Finally everybody's gonna get medical treatment. Finally, everybody's gonna get fair access to five-star health care. Finally, Obama made that happen. Then why isn't everybody signed up?Why aren't there lines of people waiting to get in on this great benefit? Why are they having to jimmy the numbers and monkey around here to say seven million? That's not enough to pay for, and I think he even lied about that. "Oh, yeah, seven million! We'll be well on our way to breaking even." Bull. There's no way, in a country of 200-plus million -- 300 million total, counting kids -- that seven million are gonna pay for this.It's all just a giant lie. Here's Frank in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Hey, Frank, great to have out program. Hi.CALLER: Hi, Rush. I thought this would be a quicker way to talk to the president by calling you on my cell phone.  "One sickness away from bankruptcy," Obama said.CALLER: Right. But I would say that our main problem with health care -- which is a great system, but this is my opinion -- is the insurance companies have driven the cost of health care out of sight. So, in fact, he is really protecting the insurance companies and what they're charging and is giving the bill to working Americans. Well, there is some truth to that. Why do you think that is?CALLER: Well, it's human. It certainly was easy for him.CALLER: Well, by their own definition, doesn't that make him a Republican because he's defending Big Business? No.CALLER: Well, I'm just... I obviously just made a joke. But I mean -- Let me take over here, because you've got a good point. I don't know if you know it or not, but you've got a good point. The first premise that you stated, though, I would disagree with. You said the insurance companies have driven up premiums in our health care system. I don't think that's true.I mean, they've clearly played a role, but it's the government being involved. It is the magic of the third-party payer that has made many Americans think it's free. So the patient doesn't have to be worried about what things really cost. It's not true for everybody.But a lot of Americans have not worried what things cost as they would if they were paying for it out of pocket, because the insurance is paying for it. Now, the part that they had to pay of each illness or trip to the doctor or whatever was probably ridiculously expensive, but it was only a small percentage of the total bill, so they were able to rationalize it."And thank God for insurance or I wouldn't be able to afford any of this." So the insurance companies benefited that way. But it's the government being involved that has driven prices up. In any other insurance field, like auto, or life, or what have you, you don't have anywhere near commensurate prices. But health insurance is through-the-roof obscene.It was a benefit, or the insurance company was paying for it. But whatever, at some point in our past, health treatment and paying for it ceased to have any linkage to the market. Now, in any other walk of life -- be it buying a car, or renting a hotel room, or buying anything -- there are tiers of prices based on what people can afford. There are cheap hotels; there are five-star hotels.But if you want a hotel room somewhere there's gonna be one you can afford. It's priced that way. The market works. And the vast majority of hotel rooms anywhere are going to be middle range, lower range price. That's what people could afford. That's what people have indicated they're willing to pay. Imagine if there was government hotel insurance.And let's say that some Democrat someday decided that everybody was entitled to a five-star hotel room whenever they stay in a hotel, and that if you couldn't afford it you were gonna get hotel insurance and somebody's gonna pay for it for you. Soon, it wouldn't take long before the price of a five-star hotel room would not be based on what people could pay for it.Well, at some point in our past, health care ceased to have anything to do with affordability. Too many people were making too much money. It didn't matter. The person actually getting the treatment wasn't the end payer, so there didn't have to be any market force or market relationship. And the quickest fix for health care is to return to market-force-based cost.That's based on what people can afford. Nobody gets paid if people can't afford the price. Nobody's gonna sell X if people (the market they're being aimed at) can't afford it. Well, that ceased mattering in health care 30/40 years ago, and as that ceased, the assumption was that the cost didn't matter because you had health insurance. Somebody else was paying for it. Other people's money was paying for it.Somebody you'd not even known was paying for it. But somebody was paying for it. And then you came to think you were entitled to it because you kept hearing, "Well, my God! If our Constitution provides you a lawyer when you can't afford one, then by God they ought to provide you a doctor when you get sick!" Everyone said, "Yeah, right on, Zeke!" So everybody started to think it was an entitlement.When you got sick, the United States of America owed you a doctor.When you needed an operation, the United States of America owed you the operation.Because you're an American!When you needed a tooth pulled, the United States of America owed you. And then when you needed to go get medicine for whatever, the United States of America owed you that medicine. And that became the mind-set of millions and millions of America, exactly as designed by the American left and the Democrat Party. Soon, it didn't take long, health care expenses ballooned to the point that very few people could afford it on their own. Well, that wasn't the way health care was for the vast majority of hundreds of years of this country.For the vast majority of time in this country, health care was affordable. The things that weren't, of course, were emergencies, catastrophic events, long term. And that's what you had insurance for, was the stuff you couldn't afford. But it didn't take long people had insurance for what they could afford, which makes no sense whatsoever. Health care ought to be like anything else. You want it, you pay for it. Like I'm sick right now. I'll just use myself. I've got a cold. I'm not gonna waste anybody's money, nor mine, going to the doctor. I know what's going on. But the way it is now, on the first day of something like this everybody trucks off to the doctor, demands a test, demands an examination and some medicine, and they think somebody should pay for it. And you can't blame people, it's human nature.When people think that they're entitled to something because they've been told and they have voted for people who have promised them that they're entitled and they're gonna have access to all this. But the fact that most of health care is priced beyond the average American's ability to pay is the single problem that needs to be fixed. And if were it, then you wouldn't need the government making things fair or right or any of that, just like you don't need the government selling auto insurance. The government wasn't involved in any business. They couldn't be involved. The Fourth Amendment. They were not allowed to require people to buy things or services.If you're an insurance company and here you've got Barack Obama and he's promising that every American, by law, is gonna have to have insurance, you are an insurance company, you don't have to do anything. The president is giving you 35, 43, whatever the number is, million brand-new customers, and you don't have to do one penny's worth of advertising. All you gotta do is support the president.So even if you are a conservative ideological guy, you run an insurance company, on the one hand you've got the dilemma, oh, my God, the government's getting big and intrusive and it's getting involved in my business. On the other hand, they're gonna deliver me 35 to 40 million new customers and I don't have to do jack whatever for it? What do you think that guy's gonna do? They partnered with Obama and he's paying them off, before he wipes them out. That is where this is eventually headed.In a number of years, maybe a decade, a little longer, if nothing changes here, there isn't gonna be a private sector health insurance market except for the very few who are very wealthy. They will always be able to buy what they want. But you won't. There won't even be health insurance, really. The government will act as the payee. The single payer. You will have your Medicare card and whenever you get sick, here's what's gonna change. For the first time in your life, you're not gonna be treated, depending on various factors: your age, your overall health, how you voted, who knows how they'll do it.Right now the assumption is, 'cause the Democrats care, is that everybody gets health care. Once the government totally controls it is when the death panels come into forefront existence, and that is where your mother at age 95 will be turned down for a pacemaker because it's cost prohibitive to spend that kind of money on somebody that's gonna only live a year or two, statistically. So, here, give her a pain pill and tell her to chill out. Obama's already said that's what they're gonna end up doing. He said that on prime time TV on ABC back in 2010.When the government has full control over this is when an increasing number of sick people are not going to be treated. That's where this is all headed. Right now, Obama needs the insurance companies working with these exchanges, so he's keeping prices up to make it worth their while. Each developing stage of this is gonna make insurance companies less and less necessary. I don't know whether they know it or not, the insurance companies. I have to assume they're not idiots and they know it and they're just trying to make their big score while they can 'cause they know what's coming their way. But they sold their souls back in 2010 for this. Some did, not all, but some did.BREAK TRANSCRIPT You know, the brother of Rahm Emanuel, named Ezekiel Emanuel, is a doctor. He's intimately involved in Obamacare, and he wrote a piece in the From earlier in the article: "In January 2012 Jeffrey Liebman and I predicted in The New York Times the end of health insurance companies by 2020. We might have been a bit optimistic -- or provocative. But it is certain they will end. Insurance companies will largely cease to be the middle man -- taking premiums, paying providers, saying no to consumers, and making a profit -- that we blame."We're gonna get rid of 'em. We don't need the middleman. We don't need somebody else profiting. We're just gonna eliminate 'em. It's gonna be you and your government. There won't be any insurance companies. So Obama basically needed the insurance companies to willingly go along with their own suicide. And as many of them as he could convince that they were not committing suicide, of course, he did. Some of them knew what was in store for them and said, "Okay, we're gonna score while we can." But none of them that I know of are actually fighting to hold on.Who can oppose the government? If the government wants to wipe you out, and you've got an activist government like this Regime, the odds are they're gonna succeed in wiping you out. So the insurance companies are going along with their own suicide, but it's gonna take some years, and in the process Obama's promised 'em big money. And they are availing themselves of that chance."Have you heard that Jeb Bush is seriously now considering the Republican nomination because of Bridgegate? I just have one little question here. Why is the era of Reagan over but the era of Bush doesn't seem to ever be over?""I'm a stickler for the truth.""Overnight they got something like five million people to sign up. They got their seven million. The media's so excited. It is a miracle and it has all happened against all odds.""No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Seven million people, they got it, and you know why it happened? You know, Kathleen Sebelius says it was the Between Two Ferns appearance that did it.""I think these enrollment numbers are about as real as the Regime's unemployment number, or their latest growth projections and the economy, meaning it's totally made up. It's made up. And just like those numbers, are the number of sign-ups. You wait.""Once again, you and I find ourselves as the owners of truth when it comes to the status and the condition, if you will, of Obamacare. You and I own the truth. We know it's a disaster. The problem is that on television all day today they got their seven million sign-ups. It's hunky-dory.""If you don't stand for anything, you're gonna be easily cowed.""When did this country become majority stupid? When did they become dumbed down? I know, I know, I know. I used to be the guy that refused to agree with that premise.""In a number of years, maybe a decade, a little longer, if nothing changes here, there isn't gonna be a private sector health insurance market except for the very few who are very wealthy. They will always be able to buy what they want. But you won't.""The lone tactic that socialists have is to scare you. In every public opinion poll global warming is down at the bottom. So they're trying to scare people out of their pants, because that's all they've got.""If the news about Obamacare being so great was accurate, Obama wouldn't be delaying the big parts of this until after the next two elections. If it's so wonderful, and if there's so much love for it, and if the support for Obamacare's growing left and right, why does the Regime have to keep delaying the full implementation?""CNN broke into its coverage of no news on the Malaysian airliner. They actually broke into that to report that the CEO of General Motors is going to apologize. That's big news when a CEO apologizes.""Take any of the old deans of journalism from the old days. Imagine them saying, 'If we really want to cut down on global greenhouse emissions, we're going to have to do something about cow farts.' That's the conclusion of the study published today in National Journal on climate change.""There are certain elements of pop culture I haven't visited. Food Network's one of them. Sorry, I'd rather eat it than watch it.""The Obamacare number has been reached no matter how much they had to cook the books."Yeah, I'm gonna get to the Caterpillar thing. I'll be able to explain to you exactly why Caterpillar is undergoing an inquisition today. I just have to turn back the hands of time to the archives, the Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites of Covered California. This is from Channel 13 Eyeball News Sacramento. On the deadline to sign up for health coverage through Covered California, some hearing-impaired residents were sent to a chat line offering 'hot ladies' instead of an insurance navigator. With the deadline looming, an Auburn man scrambled to sign up for Covered California."A page on the site where users can calculate the cost of coverage lists an incorrect phone number," and they've got the number here. I'm not going to give it out. "The number, which was correct on the Contact Us page, is similar, but just one digit off... So what does the incorrect number go to?" Well, when you call that number, it's answered this way:"'Welcome to America's hottest talk line. Ladies, to talk to interesting and exciting guys free, press one now. Guys, hot ladies are waiting to talk to you. Press two to connect free now,' the recording says." So Covered California was sending people to... What do you call these? (interruption) There's a... (interruption) Sex talk? What do you call these...? (interruption) What do you call it when you...? (interruption)What do you call it when you call and have sex on the phone? What is...? (interruption) Well, it's got a specific name. It's escaping me. "Jeff Brown," the Auburn, California, guy, "admits he dialed that number, thinking he was signing up for health insurance." It was deaf callers, people that are hearing-impaired that got this number. So either somebody was playing a prank on 'em or it was a typically bureaucratic error and had an incorrect phone number up on the website. "The National Football Leagues has partnered with an app developer that will allow fans to get an in-seat visit from cheerleaders. Sports Business Journal reports the NFL has teamed up with Experience --" that's the name of the company, the app "-- in an effort to help improve the in-game experience for fans. On top of having cheerleaders visit fans in their seats, the app will allow fans the opportunity to upgrade their seats and also allowing them to be on the field before the game."Three teams -- the Atlanta Falcons, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Seattle Seahawks -- used the app last year and Brian Lafemina, the NFLs senior vice president of club business development, believes that number will increase substantially. 'They believe up to half the league will be deployed for the 2014 season,' he told Sports Business Journal.The Falcons said they sold about 800 experiences per game among its 3,000 season ticket holders." Oh, come on, they've got more than 3,000 season ticket holders. That's gotta be a mistake. They've got more than 3,000 season ticket -- well, it doesn't matter."Anything from pregame on-field, to a birthday message, to cheerleader visits --" What in the world are the cheerleaders gonna do when they visit you at your seat? Is a cheerleader gonna sit on your lap? (interruption) Well, what is the cheerleader gonna do? (interruption) If you wanted a cheerleader to come to your seat during a game, what would be the reason? (interruption) Okay. So you would want a picture taken with the cheerleader? (interruption) You would want a personal in-depth conversation with the cheerleader? You would want a dance? You wouldn't want to hear the cheerleader's take on game strategy? You don't want to learn about the cheerleader's day and what her job -- (interruption) You don't want the cheerleader to talk?So if you wanted a cheerleader visit to your seat during the game, you don't want her to talk? You just want her to dance? You want a picture taken with her? (interruption) You know, when you come down to it, this is something that you really can't do watching at home. You can't have one of the real cheerleaders show up on your sofa. You can dress somebody up as one. But you wouldn't have a real cheerleader. Did you know this was going on? You're a Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan. Did you know this was going on? (interruption) I didn't, either. First I've heard of it. Do you know that in all of this, all of these sightings in the search for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 they have not spotted one piece of debris? Not one. Now, I don't know why I'm surprised at that. Well, actually I do, because in the past week I've just been watching this with glances. I have not sat down and actually watched this for any length of time.So here, doing the program, I'll look up and I'll see for five seconds a graphic of what looks like 50 pieces of debris that have been spotted in the ocean, and then they'll have arrows and grids and little squares marked off that show the new search area. I'm thinking, "Well, maybe they've found something out there." And I just saw a graphic, zilch, zero, nada. They haven't found one thing.I don't think they have slightest idea where this thing is. And the Malaysian prime minister, who knows, and then late yesterday the news was that time was running out. And now there's five days of battery time left in the orange boxes. Flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder.  Ah, this is earth-shattering. CNN broke into its coverage of no news on the Malaysian airliner. They actually broke into that to report that the CEO of General Motors is going to apologize. That's big news when a CEO apologizes, and the CEO is a woman. Her name is Barra, B-a-r-r-a. I wonder if she's a member of the UAW. I mean, they own General Motors. BREAK TRANSCRIPT So there she is, the CEO of General Motors, Mary Barra. (I don't know how she pronounces it. It's B-a-r-r-a.) She might pronounce it Barra. Anyway, she is sitting at the table. She's testifying on whatever happened with these General Motors cars and the ignition problem that, what, kill people.What I want to know is, where is the UAW? Because this own the company. Are they sitting at the table next to her? Are the owners taking any responsibility for these lapses or are they dumping it on to her? She hasn't been the CEO that long. Maybe Henry "Nostrilitis" Waxman will ask her that.I see Obama is also gonna go out and take a victory lap around 4:15 or 4:30 today, as though he's really accomplished something. "Seven million! Seven million!" Uh, why is Obama going to go out at 4:15 instead of the usual 12 o'clock? I don't know. Maybe to eliminate any commentary on the radio about what he says until the next day. I don't know.But I do know he's gonna go out there and say, "Oh, man, look what I made happen! Look what I pulled off. We got our seven million! Uh, we're right on schedule, and everything's going well, and it's just exactly what I planned." And, of course, it's gonna be on TV, so people are gonna believe it. I don't know. Maybe I need to do an historical look-back, a treatise or something, on when did this country actually become majority stupid.I'd actually like to know when that happened. It might help my mental health for the rest of the year. When did this country become majority stupid? By that I mean, when did they become dumbed down? (interruption) I know, I know, I know. I used to be the guy that refused to agree with that premise, I know. But it's gotten to the point that you put it on TV and it's true. Put it on TV and it's true. Just a couple of more sound bites. Ted Cruz, ladies and gentlemen, has just been firing both barrels on this, since he's been talking about it at all. And this morning on Fox & Friends he was asked by Steve Doocy, "Okay, Senator Cruz. The White House is claiming victory out there. They hit their seven million number. What do you think?" Every word of it! I love this guy. He is not backing down. He's exactly right with just some historical context here. Okay, they've got seven million, but how many of them...? One thing he didn't mention: How many of them are signing up out of fear? How many of 'em think, "My God, if I don't sign up I gotta pay a penalty or I might go to jail"?Remember Pelosi said that it was totally understandable to send somebody to jail for not signing up back in the day. It's the law. You have to have it. If this thing were universally popular, everybody would have it. It's the law. If we had a law-abiding society, everybody would have health insurance right now. This was the deadline! Except the individual mandate has been delayed, see?Here's the thing: What does this deadline mean anyway? It's meaningless because the mandate's gone. They've delayed the mandate. The individual mandate requiring you to have it, they've delayed that 'til after the election. But they promised -- Sebelius and the others promised -- seven million. So they have to make it look like the country loves this boondoggle.So even though the individual mandate's been delayed and you don't have to sign up... You can claim a "hardship" for any reason, including the website itself. You can claim that that is a hardship, as an excuse for not signing up. So you don't have to be signed up today when you get right down to it. Just a few people do. It's not even signed up. They've gotta start paying the penalty for not having it if they don't.Those are How many of those signing up did not have health insurance? How many signing up did have it but it was canceled? So the Regime making a big deal out of this is all smoke and mirrors. It's another giant scam, especially when you throw in that the individual mandate that makes this a hard-and-fast date, is gone.The real way to look at this, I think, is if this law is now miraculously popular, if for some reason after this four months of intense advertising and all the other things... Who was that actress that went on with Biden and started crying about this? What was her name? Rosario Dawson? Don't bother looking it up. It doesn't matter. Some actress went on TV with Biden and started crying over spilt milk."Oh, Obamacare is so important!" (interruption) Rachael Ray! If Obamacare was actually the solution to all of the health care problems that everybody has, wouldn't more than seven million people have signed up by now? Yeah. When you add in the reality, the fact that people that can't afford it are gonna get subsidies -- they're gonna get help in paying for it -- don't you think there would have been a mad dash?Well, at that, Steve Doocy said, "You're kind of in a minority out there when it comes to this, Senator Cruz. I know the Democrats are saying mend it, don't necessarily defend it. But you look at the polling, Senator, and a lot of Americans like parts of it. They'd like to see parts of it continue. So to blow the whole thing up, I don't know if people are behind that."CRUZ: The support for Obamacare is in the thirties. This is the most profoundly unpopular law we have seen in modern times, and the reason is it's personal. A lot of folks are not necessarily optimistic that it can be repealed because the president tells 'em every day, Harry Reid tells 'em every day, and a lot of news media tell 'em every day, "It can't be repealed."DOOCY: Mmm-hmm.CRUZ: But I'll tell you, you can't force this on the American people. I think it's going to be repealed 'cause I think the American people are demanding that. Now, you hear him say support for Obamacare's in the thirties.He may not have heard about the ABC News/Washington Post poll, which, again, shows support for Obamacare for the first time in a plurality, 49-48%. Now, he's probably talking about the AP poll four days ago. Just to remind you, four days ago the Associated Press and their polling partner, GfK So he found a poll with 30%. Speaking of global warming, I have it right here in the National Journal. This is the headline. National Journal! This is not some kook fringe operation. "It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change -- It may be impossible to reach the U.N.'s goals without significant changes in global diet, a new study finds." It's by Brian Resnick."If we really want to cut down on global greenhouse emissions, we're going to have to do something about cow farts." That's what it says, and I am not making this up. They are now looking into the serious reduction of methane, which is what "cow farts" are. It says it right here. (interruption) It's in the first line of the story in the This is not a humor piece.These people are not funny in the Drive-By Media."Thirty-seven percent of all human-caused methane emissions come from the worldwide agricultural industry. Compared with CO2, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere, according to the United Nations. While transportation and electricity account for more than half of emissions in the United States, the EPA reports that agriculture comprises 8% of all greenhouse-gas emissions."They're dead serious, and there's no questioning.The UN says X, so X is true.The UN says the only way to save the planet now is by eliminating cattle. I mean, how do you stop cow farts? Frankly the only way to get rid of cow farts is to get rid of cows. It's them or us, is the way this is put in the National Journal. This is not some kook, fringe publication. (interruption) No. No. (interruption) No. No, no other animal farts matter. That's the point. Cow farts.Now, the problem is cows are cattle. You know, we get milk from cows, too, not just... (interruption) Yeah. I guess. We're supposed to go to goat milk or chicken milk. No cheese. Anything that you get from a cow's gotta go. (interruption) To save the planet. (interruption) Well, if we're gonna be able to implement what the UN says we have to do to save the planet. Let's go to the audio sound bites.I mean, this is also being ginned up today, folks, in addition to this propaganda with Obamacare. This is last night, actually. This is Brian Williams. I don't think it was his lead, but it's over the top. This is what you would hear a news anchor say in a movie when the aliens land, and here he is reporting about a new report on global warming and climate change. This is the NBC Nightly News.WILLIAMS: The world has never been spoken to quite this way. We've never been warned like this before, all of us, about climate change. Nor have so many countries agreed quite this much on the clear and present danger it represents. Here is the takeaway: Unless the world changes course quickly and dramatically, the fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk! Gee. Well, it sounds like he bought it all. I just don't know if he really does. Maybe he does. I don't know what to think. This is just so much sophistry. This is beyond description. It's genuinely pathetic. "The world has never been spoken to quite this way. We've never been warned like this before, all of us, about climate change."Nor have so many countries agreed quite this much on the clear and present danger it represents." We've only been hearing this since the seventies! You know, I sit here and I do ask, "Is there any way of combating this? Is there any way of creating an atmosphere where when people hear something like this, they just automatically reject it and laugh at it?" You know, I actually shudder when I think people watch this and soak it up and believe it.It's a scary thought.Now, I remember this guy. This Oppenheimer guy, the first time I saw him was in the summer of 1984. He was on This Week with David Brinkley, and he said, "We've got 20 years!" It's 1984, and he says, "We have 20 years," and at the time he said we couldn't conclusively prove it but that we didn't have time to find out if he was wrong.Because if he was right, the results would be so bad. "We just have to get started dealing with this whether we think we're right or not. It's so bad, we don't have time to be wrong! We don't have time to wait to see if my data are incorrect." That's the nut of what he said. That was 1984. What is that, 30 years ago? (I'm so lousy at math.) He said, "We only have 20 years."So Charlie Rose, one of these sponges that soaks up all this stuff, said, "Even some people who are climate deniers because they're hung up about the man-made aspect of it, are looking at what's happening in the Arctic and are saying, 'Yes, something is going on.'" Who are they? Who in the world are these "deniers"? Because what's going on in the Arctic is that there is more ice!It isn't melting.This is one of these days I just feel surrounded by genuine idiocy. I feel surrounded and consumed by it. I feel trapped. No matter where I turn, no matter where I look (other than with you guys), I'm seeing rampant lunacy. Okay, so again the question, "Even some people who are climate deniers because they're hung up about the man-made aspect of it, are looking at what's happening in the Arctic and are saying, 'Yes, something is going on.'"What about it, Dr. Oppenheimer? And that's how they've always sold it, folks. There's nothing we can do about it right now, but for our children and grandchildren, we have to act. For as long as I've been listening to these people. Oh, it's baked in, there's nothing we can do about it, it's there. The question is, our ultimate survival, 50 years from now, hundred years from now, if we don't act, then your children and grandchildren may not know this planet the way you and I do, if we don't act.And here he's doing it again. You know, Charlie, we don't have time to wait for everybody to agree. Of course we don't have time to wait for everybody to agree because not even close to everybody's gonna agree. These are statists anyway. They don't care if anybody agrees with them. We can't do much, we're cooked, Charlie, next 10 to 20 years, I mean, it is what it is. Nothing we can do about it. The disasters that await are the disasters that await. They're gonna happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. All we can try to do, Charlie, is protect ourselves. Try to have better coping mechanisms.Oh, don't you love the scare language? Better coping mechanisms, adapting mechanisms. For me, that just means turning up the air conditioner. But it isn't getting warmer, is the point. Look, up next is Jeffrey Sachs. Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, and he then weighed in on what Oppenheimer and Charlie Rose were discussing. You know, this borders on irresponsible, when you get right down to it. Here's this guy at Columbia, "I would say, Charlie, December 15th is the last chance to keep that two degrees centigrade." What he means is that if we don't drastically curtail capitalism and freedom and economic progress, 'cause that's what these guys are talking about, that's the danger. The danger is productivity. The danger is progress. The danger is growing economies. If we don't stop that, Charlie, if we don't lock in -- 'cause what we've already done, we've guaranteed ourselves that by the end of the century, we're gonna be two degrees centigrade higher.And if we don't lock that in by rolling back our economy and rolling back some liberty and raising some taxes and taking away some freedom, if we don't do that by December of 2015, Charlie, then we're gonna blow past that two degree centigrade limit and it's gonna end up being four degrees, and then we're talking horrible damages. This is just irresponsible, folks. I shudder because this guy, he's director of the Columbia University Earth Institute, this guy's a professor. He's teaching your kids that you're paying 50 grand a year to go to this place. And here, finally,  So we've got to get rid of the Republicans in the House and get more people like the communist Chinese in our government, because they're running rings around us. Have you seen a picture of Shanghai or Beijing lately? You can't see anything. Smog, the pollution. They're not cutting back. These countries, the ChiComs, India, they're not going to cut back on their economic growth. And the Third World countries want some economic growth. They're not gonna willingly stay poor and riding around on oxen just to keep these pointy-heads happy.BREAK TRANSCRIPT What's going on here is that they can't get anybody's attention. In every public opinion poll, global warming is down at the bottom. So they're trying to scare people out of their pants, because that's all they've got. The lone tactic that socialists have is to scare you, and that is what they're trying to do 'cause you're not buying what they're saying. And as they get more radical and lunatic like this, I don't know what they expect. When you tell people that we have to get rid of cow farts to save the planet, nobody is gonna go for that. Well, not nobody. But that's how just out of control that they have gotten.  Let's go to the Obama sound bites. I think this kind of behavior (I really do, folks) should be But here's the first bite, number three. This is the pep rally and the way it began. Despite several lost weeks out of the gate because of problems with the website, FOLLOWERS: (cheers and applause) -- insurance plans through these marketplaces -- 7.1! ... No, the Affordable Care Act hasn't completely fixed our long-broken health care system. But this law has made our health care system a lot better.FOLLOWERS: (silence) A lot better!FOLLOWERS: (smattering of applause)(impersonating Obama) "Look at how many people are paying their taxes today, all because of me, all right, let's have a big party." Bogus. It's mandatory, 7.1, they can't even document the number, and even if it is true, 7.1 is nothing when the law requires everybody. But I think as I said earlier, this is beneath the dignity of the office. This is Obama joining Dingy Harry in essentially calling all the people with these Obamacare horror stories a liar. I gotta admit, I don't get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance? Many of the tall tales that have been told about this law have been debunked. There are still no death panels. (laughter) Armageddon has not arrived. But there are death panels! There already are decisions being made who gets treated and who doesn't. "I gotta admit I don't get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance?" Mr. President, you're the only guy that's canceling people's health insurance. You're the only guy making that happen. Not me. There's not one Republican who's taken anybody's health insurance away from 'em. There's not one Republican nor one conservative who wants to take anybody's health insurance away from 'em.Nobody is taking anybody's health insurance away from anybody except you, sir. There is nobody in the opposition to Barack Obama who is mad about people getting health insurance or treatment. There is nobody upset about anybody getting insurance or getting treatment. What people are upset about is you are breaking a system under the guise of reforming it. You are putting it under your control, and you don't know what you're doing.You're not qualified to run this system. You're not qualified to run health care. You're not qualified to run health insurance. You're not qualified to run a hospital or a whole series of them or anything of the sort. You're not qualified to run an HMO. You've never done anything like it. You've not even paid for your own health care ever before. You don't know anything about this. People don't like being lied to for three straight years. People don't like seeing their policies canceled. They don't like seeing their premiums doubled and their deductibles tripled. They don't like seeing their prescription costs skyrocket when they're told the opposite.It was you, Mr. President, that promised everybody that the average health care premium's gonna come down $2,500 a year. Nobody's seeing that. Nobody is working hard for people not to have health insurance. What people are trying to accomplish, what we seek to achieve is the preservation of the greatest health care system the world has ever devised. You, Mr. President, have it in your crosshairs, and you are trying to destroy it under the guise you know better how to fix it. We're not trying to work hard for people not to have health insurance. We're not mad about people having health insurance. Maybe some of us get mad at having to pay for other people's health insurance, involuntarily.Maybe a lot of people are kind of fed up, Mr. President, with your hand being in their back pockets all day, every day. Maybe people who are providing for themselves are little upset being told they're the problems, that they're not paying their fair share, and here comes your big hand in their back pocket and taking money out and giving it to somebody else, or forcing them to do that. "Many of the tall tales that have been told about this law have been debunked." No, they have not.Just the other day a couple, Covered California, received in their packet a premarked voter registration card for the Democrat Party, exactly what we predicted would happen on this program, and that couple is afraid to change that registration, Mr. President, 'cause they're afraid of you. They're afraid of their own government. They're afraid of retribution if they cancel the fact that you preregistered them in the Democrat Party, or that Covered California did. There aren't any tall tales being told. So now you're calling all these people that have been denied cancer treatment liars, joining with Dingy Harry on this? That's why this is beneath the dignity of the office, I think.BREAK TRANSCRIPT And another sound bite from the Rose Garden victory lap yesterday afternoon. And if you don't like Obamacare, if you dare to oppose Obamacare, you are on the wrong side of history. Here is the president in the Rose Garden, the victory lap continued. The debate over repealing this law is over. (applause) The Affordable Care Act is here to stay. In the end, history is not kind to those who would deny Americans their basic economic security. Nobody remembers well those who stand in the way of America's progress or our people. And that's what the Affordable Care Act represents. As messy as it's been sometimes, as contentious as it's been sometimes, it is progress. It is making sure that we are not the only advanced country on earth that doesn't make sure everybody has basic health care. Well, except that we do make sure that everybody has basic health care. There's not a person in this country that doesn't get treated. All they gotta do is go to the emergency room. It's the law of the land. (impersonating Obama) "We're the only the civilized country that doesn't have forced health care, only civilized country in the world, western industrialized, doesn't have socialized medicine." Well, maybe there's a reason why we're the only one that didn't have socialized medicine. It is not progress. That's the problem. It's destruction. It's an absolute mess, is what this program is. I mentioned this, too, at the top of the program and I want to spend just a little bit more time on it. "Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest --" Before, this is the key. Before anybody from the Regime went on TV. It could be Obama, could be Hillary, Susan Rice, doesn't matter, whoever, before anybody in the Regime went on TV and blamed what happened in Benghazi on a videotape that caused protests and riots, before anybody said that, "the CIAs station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred.When Obama and Hillary and Susan Rice blamed that video is when the world said, "What video?" and went and found it, and then the protests began. Obama and Hillary and Susan Rice essentially caused additional protests, but they were told long before they went out and said that by the CIA station chief in Libya that no such demonstrations occurred. This was the result of testimony, documents, and interviews with current and former intelligence officials. Go to the sound bites coming next and you'll hear them: They think they've turned the corner. Like on April 15th, everybody's gonna file their taxes.Is Obama gonna do a Rose Garden ceremony to talk about how persuasive he's been and how many people love the income tax? "My God, look at this, folks! Look at how many have complied this year. Look how many people love the income tax, and the income tax is making our country and a transfer of wealth possible. Look at how many millions and millions and millions of people file their taxes."Yeah. Of course they're not gonna do that 'cause it's mandatory. It's the law. It made The law of the land "is," as far as most low-information people are concerned.You either gotta have health insurance by yesterday or you have to pay your penalty. This is a montage from yesterday, last night, and this morning of the Drive-Bys orgasmically reveling in Obama's "victory lap."DIANE SAWYER: President Obama took a kind of victory lap.WOLF BLITZER: President Obama called reporters to the White House for something of a victory lap.JIM ACOSTA: ...what was basically a victory lap here in the Rose GardenERIN BURNETT: ...the president's victory lap.MICHAEL SMERCONISH: The president taking a victory lap...TRISH REGAN: ... bit of a victory lap.LISA KENNEDY MONTGOMERY: ...the president's health care victory lap.BILL SCANLAN: A chance to take a victory lap.CHRISTINE ROMANS: A victory lap?ED HENRY: It was a pep rally as much as a victory lap.BRIAN WILLIAMS: And that is what a victory lap sounds like.FRANCES RIVERA: The public victory lap...STEVE DOOCY: ...the president's victory lap yesterday in the Rose Garden.JOHN KING: It's hard not to call this a victory lap.January 2005. Here is a Drive-By Media montage of condemnation of George W. Bush, for displaying "hubris" at the beginning of his second term for daring to claim a mandate. If you recall (you may not recall, so I will tell you), after Bush's reelection in 2004, he first met the press in 2004-2005. This is from January 2005, and he said he was gonna "start spending his political capital," is how he said it.Meaning: He had a mandate.He won by a large margin; he had a mandate. He ran on a campaign of specific things, and he was gonna start doing them. And the Drive-Bys were not happy and decided to condemn Bush. Now, when you win an election, the aftermath is a victory lap. But this is not what they called that. Oh, no, no, no! This was Bush being braggadocios and filled with "hubris," and it was very, very bad.LANNY DAVIS: He has a hubris issue.DAVID GERGEN: Hubris can also reach to overreaching. Hubris. A scandal often is a product of hubris.GWEN IFILL: Hubris in the second term? Do you agree with the hubris?MACK MCLARTY: Well I think the hubris...ELEANOR CLIFT: ... or whether he's going to be captured by hubris.RICHARD SHENKMAN: The other problem is hubris.JIM PINKERTON: You just have to be careful about what the Ancient Greeks called "hubris."WILLIAM KRISTOL: The president is susceptible hubris.FRED BARNES: When somebody accuses Bush of hubris...BRIT HUME: ... used the word hubristic, meaning hubris.MORT KONDRACKE: It approached the edge of being hubristic, filled with hubris.TRENT LOTT: (b-roll noise) But you can't get caught up in hubris.BILL HEMMER: (b-roll noise) Have you seen hubris in the past four years?BILL SCHNEIDER: (b-roll noise) No, no. This wasn't about hubris.No, ladies and gentlemen. Obamacare was supposed to insure 40, 43, whatever number millions of people who didn't have insurance. That's what Obamacare was supposed to do. Obamacare wasn't supposed to sign up seven million people. Signing up seven million people's chump change, irrelevant, it's embarrassingly insignificant. And yet they're all throwing themselves a party there in the Rose Garden. They're deluding themselves. I mean, you take the most rosy figures, they've only insured about six million, and I don't even think that's an accurate number. They don't even really know. But we'll give 'em benefit of doubt. They've insured six million, 4.5 million of 'em are Medicaid, that's not Obamacare.So the mission was to insure 43 million uninsured, and they've got seven million signed up on a day dictated by law. They're actually celebrating people complying with the law as though this is some great sales job or massive job of great persuasion by Obama. Is it 47? The AP today are saying 47 million uninsured. "Status Update as Health Law Marks a Milestone." See? There you go. What milestone? We got 47 million uninsured! The number is growing after three years of Obamacare. Well, three years since passage. They're deluding themselves. They're again creating and living in a false reality. And they end up believing it, folks. Folks, a perfect example. We would prefer a country where people are able to afford it. We don't want to celebrate the fact that 7.1 million people are on welfare, for crying out loud. The more people on welfare, the better.The more people being subsidized, the better.The more people being helped, the better.It's an accomplishment. Charity equals accomplishment. This is not even charity. This is such a big difference. This is the major difference. We're not gonna sit here and celebrate the fact that 7.1 million Americans go on welfare. The left does! We want a country where that isn't necessary. We want a country with as few people dependent on government as possible, and that's how we would measure success.For the Democrats, the left, it's the entirely different equation. The more people on welfare, the more people getting benefits, the better, because they think they are righting wrongs. They think they're taking care of people who've been cheated, stolen from, and otherwise. It's a huge divide. So Obama says, "I don't know why anybody would be against people getting health insurance."That's not what people are against. What we are sick and tired of is looking at and aiding a party where the central government is essentially destroying people's lives! Listen to this from Nancy Pelosi. You know... (sigh) I go back and forth on this woman. Is she really this dumb, or is it an act tailored to low-information voters? I have to say, ladies and gentlemen, the jury's still out on this.But let me give you an example of why it is questioned. She was speaking with reporters outside the White House yesterday after this victory lap celebration. This will tell you... This one sound bite here will tell you so much. But it will tell you why I am so desperate to teach history to children. It's because of this. This is the kind of bastardization, retranslation and redefinition of what the founding of this country was all about.This is Nancy Pelosi defining the purposes for the founding of this country and getting it dead wrong. Here we go. Here's the first... This, folks, is infuriating! This is what she thinks the Founding Fathers meant by "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," portability of your health insurance benefits? Yes, "life -- healthier life -- liberty, the freedom to pursue their happiness," and you can't be happy if you have to work. You can't be pursuing happiness if you are "job locked" because you gotta have benefits.You need health care policies that are portable, and the founders knew this!It is that exact reason that I decided to write these books for kids that teaches the truth about the founding of this country and American history. Now, I want to read to you, ladies and gentlemen, a quote from one of the founders. His name is Benjamin Franklin. He once said, "I am for doing good to the poor... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. ..."I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." The founders hated "job lock"? The founders never heard of it!I never heard of it 'til she made it up two years ago. But And if it weren't for this silly, stupid requirement that you have to work -- that you have to do something you hate, that you can't do something you love -- that we need Obamacare so that you can get free health care so that you can finally pursue happiness. That's what the Founding Fathers meant. Now, is this woman just dumb or stupid, or is this manipulation of the low-information voter, or is it a combination of the two?(interruption)You think it's latter? That is exactly why, ladies and gentlemen, I wrote Nancy Pelosi doesn't have one thing in common with the Founding Fathers when it comes to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. She doesn't even understand what it means. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness means individuality, rugged individualism, self-reliance, not dependence on a political party or a government! Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness means discovering yourself, loving yourself, finding your own way in yourself.The pursuit of happiness is however you define it.But the only way in Pelosi's world you can find happiness is to not work and be totally dependent on what the government (via the Democrat Party) can provide for you and then go out and laze away your life doing what you'd rather do, while we take care of your benefits. To try to convey that that's what the founders meant, to co-opt the preamble to the Declaration of Independence?For crying out loud, the whole notion of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness is the Declaration of Independence, not the Declaration of Dependence!One more Pelosi sound bite if I can handle it. It's short. It's 15 segundos.PELOSI: Elections are always about jobs. So I think that while, as I said, we're proud of the Affordable Care Act, we now pivot to job creation -- which is, you know, the bill creates four -- will create four million jobs. So this is a jobs bill! What is she talking about now? The Affordable Care Act's gonna create four million jobs? Right. There is nothing, there is nothing in the Democrat Party agenda that creates any jobs in the private sector. Anyway, it's brief time-out time (sigh) while I attempt to regain my composure.BREAK TRANSCRIPT For the second week in a row I'm getting a lot of people saying, "Hey, Rush, I like how you're sneaking in Obama in this.""What do you mean, I'm sneaking? Obama's not in these books. I don't want anybody mischaracterizing.""Oh, Rush, you can't fool me. That conversation Rush Revere has with King George."No, no, no, no. That conversation is designed to teach kids about socialists or totalitarian government no matter who. It's designed to teach them what the colonists wanted freedom from and what they were willing to fight for. It had a stroke of, if I might say so, genius, to actually put Rush Revere in the palace with King George and actually interview him.The next thing we know the founders were gonna be against photo IDs. The next thing we know the founders were gonna be for amnesty. The next thing we know, the founders were going to be insistent on abortion rights. The next thing we know the founders are going to be in favor of the Catholic Church marrying gay people. Well, what's to stop her, if she can bastardize what the founders meant with the preamble to the Declaration, where's the end to it? This is exactly what they're doing in the curriculum with young kids. So we're stopping it, giving 'em the alternative of truthful history.Here is Ray, Traer, Iowa. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.CALLER: Hello, Rush. Great to talk to you. You and Ronald Reagan are two of my favorite people in the world. Well, I appreciate it. That's really great company. Thank you very much.CALLER: Well, I bought both of your books. I'm looking forward to going through 'em. I've only started the first one, but it's highly entertaining. Thank you. I appreciate that.CALLER: The reason I called is 'cause I was -- You know, I gotta tell you. I had a friend of mine, a guy, 70 years old, "I just finished your book." I said, "What?" "Yeah, I just read your book." He got it for his grandkids. "It was a great read." I said, "You're kidding, you're 70!" "Yeah, it was a great read." I was overwhelmed.CALLER: Well, it's a good book for any age, Rush. But the reason I called is because I'm doing lent and penance, and so I was listening to the president's address in the Rose Garden yesterday, and something occurred to me. You know, in the media we keep hearing Republicans are obsessed with overturning Obamacare. That's their only election-year issue, and it's gonna turn against them, and blah, blah, blah. Yeah.CALLER: What occurred to me is that Democrats were equally committed to overturning "don't ask, don't tell," which we know is signed by Bill Clinton. But they thought it was bad policy and they worked tirelessly to overturn that law. And they were successful. Well, no one criticized them or called them obsessed at the time. So I don't think Republicans have anything to be ashamed of. No. No, they don't. In fact, it's just the exact opposite. In fact your point, it is not us who are obsessed with Obamacare. We were minding our own business, everything going along fine, and they force it on us. They are the ones obsessed. We get up and go about our lives and we're under assault by these people. Everybody's fine, everything's hunky-dory, here come these people telling us everything's unfair and everything's unjust, and everything's immoral, and you're not recognizing the way we want. And you must do this and you gotta do that and you're destroying the planet. You're not driving the right car, and you're eating the wrong foods, and you're too fat. You're not walking enough.Shut up!You know, if you can't make yourself happy, leave us alone. Do not ask us to join you in your misery. We're not obsessed with anything. They're the ones that are obsessed. They're the ones obsessed with Obamacare. They're the ones forcing everything they believe on everybody else. They do not have the confidence to leave anything up to a vote. They don't have the confidence to put anything up for a debate. We're not obsessed with anything other than trying to hold on to the traditions, the institutions, what have you, that we love and revere and that have defined this country's greatness.We are under assault every day. We get up, we're minding our own business, and we find out that something else has made them unhappy; something else is making them miserable; something else is hurting their self-esteem. So they get up and they're in palpable fear that people enjoying themselves are destroying the planet. They get up and they're scared to death that people driving cars they enjoy and very much like are destroying the planet or the way people are eating is making them fat or whatever. They just and cannot abide people enjoying themselves. They're miserable, and they want everybody to join 'em in it.I hadn't heard that we're obsessed with Obamacare. I hadn't heard that. That's another that ticks me off. I'm sitting here, and the more I think about that the more it ticks me off. You know, I wasn't a lot of things 'til these people got in gear and started making me have to defend what I believe in. All of a sudden, I don't know about you, but we get up every day, go about your life you enjoy, then you find out that what you're eating makes them mad or what you're driving makes them mad and the kind of gasoline that you're putting in what you drive makes them mad.The kind of house you live in makes them mad. Where you live makes them mad. Where you work and what you do makes them mad. What you care about and don't care about makes them mad. Virtually everything you do in your life irritates them to the point that they have to get you to change what you're doing. Well, who the hell are they? What gives them the right to dictate to everybody else? We're not the ones obsessed. They are.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I'll tell you something else. I wish these leftists would make up their minds about the founders. Are they racist, sexist, bigoted slave owners or are they these brilliant people that understood job lock and didn't want you to have to work for your health insurance? Which is it? You know, one day Pelosi will say that these people were slave owners. "They were racists and they were sexists!"We can't rely on anything they wrote because it's outdated. They were old-fashioned, and they were racists and they were white. They were slave owners." And then the next day they're the greatest, smartest guys in the world who understood job lock and they didn't want you to have to work at something you hated, so you would have health insurance. Now, which is it?How about the Koch brothers?How many of these idiots think they're virtuous in everything by accepting subsidizes, because they're Americans and they're entitled, and it's a benefit, and they should keep getting benefits because that's what it means? Well, who's paying the benefits? 'Cause it isn't Pelosi. She's not spending a dime of her own money on you people. And it isn't Harry Reid. He isn't spending a dime of his money on you people.It sure isn't Obama.It's everybody paying taxes that are subsidizing you, and that would include the Koch brothers. It's a bunch of corporations who are paying taxes, too! Some days these people just occasion they irritate me. Really. Depending the time of the month, Nancy Pelosi can think the greatest thing in the world of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.Where the next day, they're racist-pig slave owners! "They wrote stuff that's so old and antiquated that we can't rely on it, like the Second Amendment. We gotta get rid of it!" But then when it comes to health insurance, something they never wrote about -- and when it comes to job lock, something they never even considered -- why, they're brilliant!That's why I say, "Keep a sharp eye out, 'cause isn't gonna be long before Pelosi tells you, 'The founders did not believe in photo ID to vote, and the founders did not have a problem with amnesty and open borders, and that the founders wanted the Catholic Church to legalize abortion and gay marriage.'" Whatever she thinks she can convince her low-information voters to believe."For the second week in a row Rush Revere and the First Patriots is at number one on the New York Times best-seller list in the children's book category, and Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims is at number four.""Did any of the Republican leadership respond to Obama's despicable lies about Obamacare yesterday? There wasn't? There wasn't any Republican response to that? You gotta be kidding me.""Here you've got Obamacare, which is mandatory under penalty of law, and they're all out there celebrating that 7.1 million people have signed up. Mandatory, it ought to be 200 million sign-ups. It's mandatory.""CNN never got a ratings bump out of this Malaysian jet. The story that CNN's ratings were skyrocking was absolute BS. They're still in the tank. They never moved out of the gutter.""Since Obama's golden, I wanna see all these Democrats requesting Obama to appear with them as they campaign for reelection this fall. I'm sure that's gonna happen 'cause Obamacare now needs to be hung around every Democrat's neck like a flaming... Never mind.""Those of you who get your health insurance from your employer, your turn's coming. That's why I keep saying that most Americans don't yet have the slightest idea what's gonna happen to them.""The Supreme Court has just said again, in a new ruling, that free speech trumps campaign finance limits. This is gonna ruin the liberals day.""Next time you're with a liberal anywhere, just out of the blue say, 'Corporations are people!' Blurt it out. Don't lead up to it. Don't lead into it. Just blurt it out. 'Hey, Fred!' 'Yeah?' 'Corporations are people!' Watch what happens. Cover your face, or other body parts you fear being damaged, and hang around and watch.""The thinking always has been that the more money you have in politics, the more corruption. Of course the correct view is that money is speech. It takes money to buy ads, money to express your opinion. No matter who's spending it, it takes money for that to happen, and money equals speech. That is the enlightened view, but the left hates that.""Every single Drive-By reporter called Obama's Rose Garden address on Obamacare 'a victory lap.' So it didn't matter where you watched the news yesterday, that's what you got.""You know what we do here? We tell you what was true and false in the previous day's news. So much is not true. So many things that are reported end up not being true.""The modern reality is that if you're an American, the government owes you, and the objective is to get your benefits.""It may sound controversial to say it. It was the truth. Welfare used to be a bare subsistence. It was not intended for you to be able to live on. The left realized that wouldn't work. They had to make it something you could live on so that you wouldn't want to give it up.""I couldn't be given a better opportunity to explain why I'm doing these children's books than that dangerously stupid sound bite from Nancy Pelosi."So remember that couple that Covered California signed up and they got their voter registration card pre-marked for the Democrat Party? Follow-up story: They are afraid to change it because they fear government retribution.They're afraid the Regime will find them and punish them if they change that registration. The Nanny State, the Regime, Michelle Obama wants "to send text messages to fat people" to bug them about being fat. I'm not making it up.  I just saw this on CNN. This is classic. Who's the guy that directs the Hobbit? Peter Jackson. Apparently Peter Jackson has his own plane, a G650, which is a cool airplane, and apparently he's donated it or whatever in the search for the Malaysian plane. "Movie Director's Private Jet Helps in Search." Oh, what a guy, what a guy, oh, my God, the Hobbit guy searching, oh, isn't it a beautiful thing. (interruption) Well, no, I've got nothing against it. Of course I don't have anything against it. (interruption) Never mind. I need more time to explain what media trick is being used there. (interruption) Right. It's a good use of a corporate plane that may excuse him having it. It may inoculate him.You don't have to worry about his carbon footprint. Exactly right. Peter Jackson using his big, evil corporate jet just like the ones the Koch brothers have. Of course, they've probably got bigger ones. Notice they have not donated theirs for this search. Hollywood equals good, love, caring, all that. Nancy Sinatra, who is Ronan Farrow's half-sister, I guess, has tweeted the following: All SCOTUS did was say you can donate however much you want, Nancy. What do you mean you've got no voice? We need to wait for the Kardashians on this. A couple of health care news items here before we head back to the phones. First up, the RAND Corporation did a survey on this whole health care business. And the upshot of it is, only one-third of Obamacare exchange sign-ups were from the previously uninsured. "The RAND study hasnt yet been published, but its contents were made available to Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times. RAND also estimates that 9 million individuals have purchased health plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges, but that 'the vast majority of these people were previously insured.'" So Obama's sitting there, "Oh, yeah, we're the only country that --" We're not doing anything that this law set out to do. It's a mishmash.Preexisting condition insurance is not possible. It's not insurance. It's something else. And if you call it something else, you might change the percentages of people that support it. And that's why they call it insurance. "Well, I think everybody ought to have insurance. I don't think insurance ought to be denied to anybody when it comes to health care." Of course, everybody thinks that. But then what if you're talking about offering people something that isn't insurance but is, in strict definitional terms, welfare? Well, then what kind of support does it get?See, that's the kind of stuff that matters to me. It makes me, you know, a stick in the mud. Let's say you decide for some reason you have enough money, you don't have to get a mortgage. So you don't have to have homeowners insurance. So you don't. You plop down whatever your house costs, and then one day you drive home and you see smoke coming from your neighborhood, and you get closer and closer and you see it's your house on fire. "Oh, my God, oh, no." Then you realize, you know what, I don't have any insurance.So you call the insurance company and say, "Hey, my house is on fire. About 20%'s destroyed. I want homeowners insurance." And they would tell you to go pound sand. You gotta buy the insurance before the fire. Now, if you want the insurance company to pay you or to pay for the repairs that the fire caused, you're not buying insurance at that point; you're buying repairs."Well, I want it now.""We don't sell that. That's not insurance."But we are a compassionate country, so we're calling that preexisting condition insurance, but there really is no such thing. It isn't insurance. It's something else. And if you termed it something else, would it have the universal support that it's gotten? Side point.The second thing that the Republicans said they would never tamper with, the American people want it, is your children being covered by your policy until they are 26. That's not gonna change no matter if we got our arms around Obamacare, we're able to get rid of the whole thing, we're not getting rid of that. Well, the National Center for Public Policy Research has done some research. I mean, that's what they do. And they have found that the number of young people who can now stay on their parents' insurance plan until 26 -- the slacker mandate we call this. Spoiled kids who don't want to pay their own way until they're 27 stay on their parents' insurance. Well, 3.1 million young adults have not received this coverage via their parents' insurance.And the Health and Human Services has not updated their figures in nearly two years, and the reason is the program is losing its effectiveness and the numbers are declining. There aren't that many kids staying on their parents' policies. It's something that's not being utilized. There's no way of determining it. There just isn't enough statistical analysis and data for people to figure out how widespread the benefit is, and the best that they've been able to come up with here is, despite what Obama and the LA Times and the media is saying, there are 3.1 million young adults who have not received coverage via their parents' insurance. It's another lie about Obamacare. The point of this little research project is to say that this magic of all these kids being covered, they're not, is the bottom line. It's a feel-good talking point. (impersonating Obama) "And you parents, your kids are gonna be able to stay covered on your policy 'til they're 26." But it's not happening, as best anybody can tell. Amidst all of this delusional, self-delusional happiness that the left is immersed in today -- 'cause it is delusion. They've really got themselves convinced now (because of the ABC/Washington Post poll and "My gosh, oh gosh! This is just wonderful!" And they're deluding themselves just like they did it in 2010. But there's something else that's happened today that's gonna bring 'em down to earth, and it won't be long before they're all on TV having conniption fits. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits on Political Contributions." This is just unacceptable."The Supreme Court has struck down limits in federal law on the overall campaign contributions the biggest individual donors may make to candidates, political parties and political action committees. The justices said in a 5-4 vote Wednesday that Americans have a right to give the legal maximum to candidates for Congress and president, as well as to parties and PACs, without worrying that they will violate the law when they bump up against a limit on all contributions, set at $123,200 for 2013 and 2014.Those are unchanged. The case did not call those maximum amounts into question. It's the overall limit that all of your donations add up to that the justices struck down. "Chief Justice John Roberts announced the decision, which split the court's liberal and conservative justices. Roberts said the aggregate limits do not act to prevent corruption, the rationale the court has upheld as justifying contribution limits."The thinking always has been that the more money you have, the more corruption. And of course the correct view is that money is speech. It takes money to buy ads, takes money to express your opinion. No matter who's spending it, it takes money for that to happen, and money equals speech. That is the enlightened view, but the left hates that.It's just like if you say, "Corporations are people.""Oh, no, they're not!"It's like showing Dracula the cross to say, "Corporations are people."Well, the court in Citizens United said corporations are people, and the liberals got ticked. Now the court has further underlined and exclamation pointed the notion that speech equals money. When they figure this out today, when they come off their high from celebrating Obama's phony victory lap, they're going to be fit to be tied."Until we undertake that reexamination, we remain in a 'halfway house' of our own design." He's right. He's right on the money. "Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the [minority] dissenters, took the unusual step of reading a summary of his opinion from the bench." That lets you know how ticked off the four lib justices are over this. You know as well as I do, Citizens United has sent them over the edge, 'cause that meant the Koch brothers or any other corporation could give as much as they want.And the corporations are people.They just can't stand it when you tell 'em that. They just flip. It's amazing. It's funny to watch a liberal when you say that. Next time you're with a liberal anywhere, just out of the blue, blurt: "Corporations are people!" Blurt it out. Don't lead up to it. Don't lead into it. Just blurt it out. "Hey, Fred." "Yeah?" "Corporations are people!" Watch what happens. Cover your face, or other body parts you fear being damaged, and hang around and watch.Now, we do have one little sound bite to give an indication the way this is gonna go. Carol Costello on CNN today spoke with the senior legal analyst at CNN, Jeffrey Toobin. Was he speaking from the cockpit simulator of the Malaysian airliner? (interruption) He wasn't? (interruption) Well, they put everybody else in there. She spoke to Jeffrey Toobin about this, and this is a brief summary of what they said...TOOBIN: The four dissenting justices led by Justice Stephen Breyer said, in effect, that's all a bunch of nonsense, that speech is not money, that money is not speech, that this should be regulated. But they only had four votes, not five.COSTELLO: So now we know corporations are people and money is people, too! Oh, no! See? They just can't stand it. "So now we know corporations are people and money is people, too." I don't know, folks. It's a contradiction every day. I'm entertained by these people but at the same time, they're actually doing destructive things. (interruption) They're not into freedom of speech is why it's so hard. (interruption) What do you mean?Snerdley says, "What is so hard for them to understand about freedom of speech?" They're not into freedom of speech. These are people that created political correctness, which is censorship. They're not into freedom of speech. Not for you. The only freedom of speech that exists is if you say something or anything they want to hear or agree with. If you don't, you don't have freedom of speech.They're not interested in a level playing field.They want to rig every game.They can't win on a level playing field.This is what they all know. Hey, somebody help me out here. I might have missed it, as I was in transit yesterday. Did any of the Republican leadership respond to Obama's despicable lies about Obamacare yesterday? (interruption) There wasn't? There wasn't any Republican response to that? You gotta be kidding me. I was flying to -- well, I was in transit. I had it on the television and I'm watching this.I'm heading up to a celebratory occasion, I'm watching this thing, and it's ticking me off, this Rose Garden thing. I mean, here you've got Obamacare, which is mandatory under penalty of law, and they're all out there But they're out there celebrating. Mandatory, it ought to be 200 million sign-ups. The deadline was March 31st. It's mandatory. Either that or you pay a penalty and go to jail. They're out celebrating and there's not one Republican response to this? (interruption) You mean I missed the brilliant stem-winder responses from Republican leaders? Or there weren't any brilliant stem-winders? So what, are they leaving it up to me? (interruption) As usual, leaving it up to the Tea Party. But I'm assuming that Obamacare's now golden, and that means Obama's gold. That means that Democrats are gonna be clamoring to appear with Obama and they're gonna want him with them as they campaign for reelection. (interruption) Why are you saying "no"? (interruption) MSNBC is plummeting even further. They lost 10% with the kid, Frank Sinatra's kid in there. That's not working out. And now the Malaysian people just said they might have to expand the search for two more weeks, and Wolf Blitzer said, well, why not two more years? These clowns at CNN think they got a ratings bump and they didn't. Somebody put out a lying report about them getting a ratings bump, and they didn't. (interruption) What poll are you talking about?Let me tell you something. I'll just say it, what the hell. I'm gonna get audited anyway. I went to New York, annual cigar dinner, the Dinner of the Century, Marvin Shanken, Anyway, at five 'til 11 I hit the trail. I went back to car, got back Teterboro, and I walked in my house at 2:30. I'm watching Obama on the flight up and I've got smoke coming out of my ears. I'm watching this thing, this lying victory lap thing he's doing in the Rose Garden about this and all the while I'm saying, "What is there to celebrate?" It's mandatory! Why are they acting like they've had this giant persuasive -- they've turned minds and changed minds and made people love it. It's mandatory! It's the law! People are doing this out of fear, the people that are doing it at all. And even then, the things that were being said about this yesterday.Okay, so here's what they did. Oh, I get it. AP had a poll last week that showed 26% approval for Obamacare, and then we had "In the last week, however, an Associated Press-GfK poll found support for President Barack Obamas health care overhaul at a new low while a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed it had hit a new high. The seemingly contradictory findings stem more from question wording and timing than from either poll doing something wrong or even misrepresenting public opinion."By the way, that's right. Look at the question in the ABC/Washington Post poll. I saw that after the program ended yesterday. It was a meaningless, worthless question that produced this plurality. It was something like that, "Do you think everybody should have health insurance?" Well, hell, yes! That should have gotten an 80%, not 49%.I've got the sound bite coming up, but Obama's sitting there in the Rose Garden saying, "What are people so ticked off about people getting health insurance for? I don't understand why the Republicans don't want people to get health insurance!" Lying little... I'm telling you, folks, this is just beyond the pale what is happening with this. I just want to see now...Since Obama's golden, I wanna see all these Democrats requesting Obama to appear with them as they campaign for reelection this fall. I'm sure that's gonna happen 'cause Obamacare now needs to be hung around every Democrat's neck like a flaming... Never mind. I'm not gonna say it. The ANC. I was gonna say necklacing, flaming tires. That's what Winnie Mandela did. But seriously, they need to hang this thing because they own it.There's one thing that might mitigate all this happiness today that the Democrats think that they're feeling. My dad used to ask me and my friends when we'd come in late on a Friday night, "What'd you boys do?" We'd say, "Ah, we've been out having fun." Dad would say, "You think you're having fun, but you're not." Well, the Democrats think things are going great guns, but they're not.The Supreme Court has just said again, in a new ruling, that free speech trumps campaign finance limits. This is gonna ruin their day. This is Koch brothers combined with Citizens United. This is gonna send 'em over the edge and mitigate whatever up feeling they're having over whatever they tried to make it look like happened with Obamacare yesterday in the Rose Garden.There's other stuff, too. For example, did you know, by the way, this from the RAND Corporation? "Only One-Third of Obamacare Exchange Sign-Ups Were From the Previously Uninsured." There really is just so much that's bogus, even this 7.1 million. We'll dissect it as the program unfolds.But, yeah, the CNN ratings bump was never true. It never happened, ladies and gentlemen. They thought it did. That's right. It seems like every day... You know what we do here? We tell you what was true and false in the previous day's news. So much is not true. So many things that are reported end up not being true.But of course what it was Churchill who said, a lie -- paraphrasing -- is halfway around the world before the truth even puts its pants on in the morning.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Here's what happened. Yesterday, ABC News/Washington Post proudly and with great fanfare (and with a lot of media support) released poll that showed for the first time ever a plurality of Americans like and support Obamacare. The numbers were 49 to 48%.And then I, your host, El Rushbo, remembered that there was a poll four days ago (five days ago now) that the AP did that showed an all-time low for Obamacare at 26%. I made a big hullabaloo about this. I spent a lot of time on this ABC News poll, as you know, and spent a lot of time on the AP poll reminding you of it just four days prior, and then asking, "How can this be?"That's what AP has done today."Polls often diverge by a few points, but it's rare to see well-respected polls come to opposing conclusions about the public's take on an issue. In the last week, however, an Associated Press-GfK poll found support for President Barack Obama's health care overhaul at a new low while a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed it had hit a new high."The seemingly contradictory findings stem more from question wording and timing than from either poll doing something wrong or even misrepresenting public opinion." This is circling the wagons here. This is the AP circling the wagons, there's no question. I mean, why do this? Who else made a big hullabaloo about this? It was only made a big deal of here. Nobody else cared, really.But I am into the sausage-factory aspect of this stuff. So the AP felt duty-bound to explain how both polls could be right on the money. They had to circle the wagons and protect the business. "The inclusion or absence of that neutral category is critical, as poll takers respond to the question they're asked rather than offering opinions unprompted." So their point here is ABC did not give their poll respondents an opportunity to express the "I don't care" or "I don't know option," and the AP did. The AP says that doesn't make what ABC did wrong and it doesn't make what AP did wrong; it doesn't mean that anybody doctored the results, yada yada yada.There really isn't any media; it's just extensions of the left or the Democrat Party. So the timing was to get a poll that showed for the first time ever a plurality, even if it was only by one point, a massive support for Obamacare. And they got it. So it allowed them... Now, I'm gonna tell you what's happening here, folks. People are deluding themselves.Obama and the Rose Garden little shenanigans yesterday and these doctored, crazy wacko polls are a repeat of 2010. They just can't deal with reality, so they're gathering together amongst themselves. They're telling themselves, "Not only is everything okay, we're actually beating the hoards back and we're triumphing. We're winning. Everybody loves us now and every loves Obamacare now!They're deluding themselves, and they're heading for another crash this November just like what happened in 2010.BREAK TRANSCRIPT By the way, folks, here is the ABC/Washington Post poll Obamacare question that produced this first-time-ever plurality support. Ready for the question? It was -- dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut dadelut! -- "Overall, do you support or oppose the federal law making changes to the health care system?" It doesn't have "Obamacare," doesn't have any identification.It's just pure, 100% generic. And there's no "don't care," "don't know" option in there. It was designed to get the result that they actually wanted to get just for one day. This leads to, I think, a bit of analysis of what purpose talk radio, conservative blogs, the Internet and so forth really serve. Let's take a look, for example, at the story involving So people that didn't hear it the first time don't hear about it at all. When it's stories that are damaging to conservatives or Republicans, they keep pounding those stories after they do it the first time. They keep rolling them over and over, and they keep adding elements to it. The damaging stuff on Democrats that they do report just languishes. If they report it at all, it dies after the original report and they satisfy the requirements.They did it, and then it is done with. So it's a cute little game that they're playing. But I think, folks, just to reiterate what I said (and I said it in a jam-packed time frame going into break bottom of the hour), I think they're deluding themselves.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I need to pose a question. You've heard it said by many that once we get deep into Obamacare we cannot repeal it because you cannot take away health care from people. You simply cannot take the entitlement away. It's never happened, and once it gets embedded too deeply it's gone forever. You cannot take people's health care away. But didn't Obama do just that by implementing Obamacare?How many millions of people lost their health insurance? Six million people at last count lost their health insurance. They were canceled. They don't have it replaced yet. How many people are, at this moment, panicked or in a state of panic either because they can't afford the new price, they are uncovered after being canceled, or they've been fired, or they've been downsized or whatever?When Obama did it, everybody said it was progress. Obama's taken health care away from people. That's one of the, I think, important realities that goes unmentioned here. It's always the Republicans, that's Obama, you'll hear it coming up in a sound bite in the Rose Garden yesterday. He said, "I don't understand why these Republicans want to take people's health care away from 'em." Republicans are not the ones who are taking people's health care away from 'em. It is you, Mr. President, doing that. Barack Obama. Middle name Hussein. Pronounce it sometimes, other times I don't, just depends on how I feel. He's the one who has engineered six million people losing their health insurance, maybe more.CALLER: Wow, Rush, I'm so glad. I was on my way to work, I'm listening to you talk about the poll, and I hear you tell us exactly what the poll question was, and I'm listening, and I'm going, "Well, I would support the federal government changing our health care system. It's costing more and more money every year." But I don't like Obamacare. So the question is very deceiving. I'm an anti-Obamacare voter, a hundred percent, yet as posed, I thought, well, yeah, I would like to see changes. So it's very deceiving. In my 65 years of being here I've never seen administration manage to manipulate the press so well. I feel almost like I'm approaching the Eastern bloc. He's not manipulating the press. He doesn't have to.CALLER: Well, I agree with you there, he doesn't have to do it, but it feels like it. No, no. They're already on board. They're willing accomplices. They're not being manipulated here.CALLER: Well, okay, I agree with you there, Rush. I can't help but agree with you. Well, I tell you, you don't sound anywhere near 65, I had to make that observation. But look, folks, Peter here is exactly right. The ABC question: Do you think the health care system needs -- do you support the changes? Do you support the changes in health care? Everybody does! Everybody thinks it could be improved, but that's why they left "Obamacare" out. They asked this generic question, it's a push poll question.The Washington Post has been asking this question for years. It's always had a high number. It's why they go back to it. It's always been a close split for years because the question is so vague. "Do you support or oppose changes in the health care system?" Well, if there's no reference to Obamacare, and you just answer, you don't even maybe know what this thing's about. It's totally misleading, push poll misleading on purpose.Now, I'm gonna tell you what. Remember, folks, Obama has only begun to take away insurance. He hasn't gotten to the employer-provided plans yet. That's next year, unless he waives them. The only people that have been canceled and lost their health insurance are the people who buy it themselves. Those of you who get your health insurance from your employer, your turn's coming. That's why I keep saying that most Americans don't yet have the slightest idea what's gonna happen to them. They're hearing all the horror stories.In fact, last night at the annual Dinner of the Century cigar dinner, I had a guy, and I thought it was a good question. In fact, it helps me to make this point. He said, "Rush, I keep hearing about all the disasters and the horror stories, but nothing's happened to me. I still have my plan and everything's fine."I said, "Well, do you get your insurance at work from your employer?""Yeah.""Well, you're next. You haven't been touched yet, by design, because most people are in your boat. Most people have their health insurance through work. And the people still employed that get their health insurance through work is a large number. And your turn's coming. The employer mandate, that was supposed to have been waived. But so far the only people really being impacted are the people that provide for themselves. They call up, like to buy their own car insurance, buy their own health insurance. You who get yours through your job are next. It makes sense.""I don't understand what the folderol's about, Rush, I mean, fine with mine."Well, not totally. Your employer could yet still cancel you and off-load the whole benefit, which many have started doing. Here is Tasha from central Illinois. It's great to have you. I'm glad you waited. The Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.CALLER: Hello. How are you? I'm good. Thank you.CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to call because something interesting happened yesterday here in Illinois on the state level. I'm a 39-year-old single mother of two boys who listen to you regularly when they're in the car with me, and I am putting myself back through school to become a registered nurse because I want to better myself and to provide for my kids. Yeah.CALLER: We had a political action day yesterday at the capitol, and I'm sitting here listening to groups, they're trying to get us to join professional groups, which I do support, you know, we need to be involved in the political action at the state level for the care of our patients. Right, right. You are a throwback. You are a throwback. You are actually working to get yourself off of welfare and other kinds of aid?CALLER: Yes. Do you know how rare that is?CALLER: It's frustrating. It's very frustrating because I do believe in those programs, and I know they're there to help people. My sons, they're on the lunch program at school and I'm not ashamed to say it because I do need that help in some areas. But I am choosing to put myself through school and actually last year I was sick. I got breast cancer and I am blessed enough in my life where I made choices early on, like I said, I'm 39, I joined the military at 18 and I'm still in, you know, on a part-time status here in my state, and I get my private insurance through them. So I do pay a premium even though I did not have a job, I paid my premium, and the State of Illinois and the US government did not pay for my cancer treatment. Okay. Okay.CALLER: I paid for it. So kudos to you. Here you are trying to gain control of your life. You want self-reliance. You want to be responsible for yourself. And you're sitting there and you're listening to somebody tout and celebrate the number of people we're getting to sign up for aid and welfare. And you don't understand it because you're trying to rid yourself of that encumberment, correct?CALLER: Yes, and she was smiling. And I'm like, "You gotta be kidding me." You know, just the timing of the event and the closing of course 'cause they kept moving the deadline, it just happened to be the next morning. Right.CALLER: And she's like, "And I'm sure we've got people that are in the system," and she kept going on and on like it's the best thing ever. Well, look. How many people in this crowd were women, would you say? Yeah.CALLER: Like I said, I'm an older student. There was a mix, but most of them were younger students, and I'm thinking, "If I would have heard this..." I mean, I've been to college before, and I actually heard the Reverend Jesse Jackson talk when I was younger. He is a smooth-talking guy, and he just swooped in the poor college kids like you wouldn't believe, and I'm sitting here thinking, "How many people...?" Look what you have run up against. You've run flat up against the modern reality, which is that if you're an American, the government owes you, and the objective is to get your benefits.CALLER: Yeah. Get your benefits! Sign up, get your aid, and have the government pay. It doesn't matter if what you're signing up for is bankrupt, such as Medicaid. It doesn't matter! You are owed benefits because you are an American, or because you've had a tough life, or because you've had some guy who was mean and did you dirty and you're a single woman now and the odds are against you.Somebody's gotta give you benefit. Here you are trying to establish independence. You do not want to be indebted to or owing this to anybody. You want to be self-reliant, and I'm sure it's eye opening. You thought you were like most people, that most people were like you, and you found out that's not the case -- at least in that universe of people where you're hanging around.CALLER: No. The thing is, now I'm thinking, "A year from now on when I graduate and I have a bachelor's degree in nursing, what is my income gonna be if I have to...? What's health care cost gonna be, you know? How much am I improving myself to where now, I guess, half my income's gonna go to taxes?" Here's what you need to do. You need to walk through that crowd the next time it assembles and ask them how much they want from you. They'll say, "What are you talking about?" "Well, you're out there demanding aid. Who's gonna pay for it? So how much do I owe?"CALLER: Yes. And see what happens. 'Cause they don't personalize it. They don't think the money is coming from other people like them. They think it's coming from Obama's stash, or this bottomless pit of money they think the government has, or whatever. How old are your boys?CALLER: My oldest is 14, and my youngest is eight. Eight. Well, by any chance -- you probably don't -- do you have copies of my books?CALLER: I don't, but I listen to all the people call and talk about how wonderful they are. Well, you've got them now. I'm gonna send you both books. I'm gonna send you both books and the audio for both books, especially for your eight-year-old. The age group is 10-13. But your 14-year-old will benefit from this, too, given that you're doing what you're doing for yourself. The reason I wrote these books for children, for young people, is to counter the exact kind of thinking you saw there.That's being inculcated and taught during their formative years in school, that they're owed something. I just want 'em to understand where this all began, where this country began. So if you'll hang on, Tasha, we'll get your address and get that stuff out to you. I'm happy to do it. BREAK TRANSCRIPT The event that Tasha attended was the American Nurses Association of Illinois. It was the 16th Annual Student Nurse Political Action Day, and she was all excited to go. I mean, she gonna be a nurse. "Political action? Hey, we need be active!" What she didn't realize was that the organization's definition of "political action day" is: "How do we get ourselves on the government gravy train?"It's, "How do we grow the size of government and become part of the government?" And the whole idea... What she ran up against was the idea or the fact that these nurses or whoever's leading this organization, whoever's running it, wants to make sure that people get enough benefits that they never try to get off of them. You know, it used to be that welfare was not enough. It was enough for basics, but it was not enough to coast on.Now it is. The left's whole idea of welfare is as a replacement for work based on the premise that work is "job lock," work is punishment, work ties you to mean people like the Koch brothers and you can't discover the inner poet or photographer that's in you. But now they're gonna come along and they're gonna pay you plenty on welfare, so much that you don't need or don't want to get off of it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT It may sound controversial to say it. It was the truth. Welfare used to be a bare subsistence. It was not intended for you to be able to live on. The left realized that wouldn't work. They had to make it something you could live on so that you wouldn't want to give it up. Here's Dave, Aventura, Florida. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.CALLER: Nice to talk to you again, Rush. Thank you, sir.CALLER:  That's correct.CALLER: By the way, I agree with you. Thank you, sir. I'm happy to have people on the team. It's a great feeling.CALLER: And basically what I'm trying to tell you is heart disease is not a disease of performance. It's just a separate topology like leukemia, cancer, anything else like that. And for those people that are spending time running or treadmills, ellipticals, bicycles -- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! You're saying heart disease is not a disease of performance?CALLER: Not.CALLER: The pathology does not adapt to improved performance. The person that -- So you mean getting on a treadmill is not a cure or a fix for heart disease?CALLER: It's the antithesis of a fix to heart disease. It may make it worse, huh?CALLER: It's useless. The only reason that you would get on a treadmill -- and they're doing this out in California -- is to run the power to the gym itself. Otherwise it's wasted energy. The only adaptation, Rush, occurs in your muscles not your heart. What you're describing are human hamsters.CALLER: The heart is a slave to the muscles. I mean, they're on the treadmill to power the gym? That's pretty funny.CALLER: Absolutely. That's what I was told last year. Well, I don't know. You're from Aventura, Florida. In Aventura, you may not know this. Aventura's where... (interruption) No, that's Atlantis. The heart research hospital, that's Atlantis, not Aventura. But he's got a point. Here's what he's talking about. It's CBS News out of Washington, and here it is. I mentioned it in the first hour. "Going for runs on a regular basis has been linked to a multitude of health benefits in countless research studies, but recent research suggests that too much running is tied to a shorter life span." Not "can be."Not "could be."Not "might be."It "is tied to a shorter life span. The study results revealed on Sunday by Dr. Martin Matsumura, co-director of the Cardiovascular Research Institute at the Lehigh Valley Health Network, found that people who get no exercise along with people considered high-mileage runners both have shorter life spans than those considered to be running an average amount -- although the researchers note that the reasons are still somewhat unclear."Really?They seem pretty clear to me.What would be hard to figure out about this, if it's right?People who get no exercise along with people that go all the time, shorter life spans than those considered to be running an average amount. It's the old moderation argument. You know, the fatter the butt, the bigger the heart disease. That's the thinking on -- (interruption) Yeah. Bigger the butt, the badder the heart disease. Meaning, if you sit on your butt all day long you're gonna have heart disease. Now, these guys are coming around so you counter it, get out there and you start jogging, you start running and get healthy. And these people have done research, "Nope, nope, nope, nope, it's not true.""Dr. Matsumura and his colleagues --" and that's the correct way to pronounce it, by the way, if you're an elitist. It's not colleagues. You watch, it's colleagues. Particularly European elites, your colleagues."Dr. Matsumura and his colleagues reviewed datafrom over 3,800 male and female runners who participated in the Masters Running Study, a web-based study of health and training for runners over the age of 35. Nearly 70 percent of the runners self-reported running more than 20 miles each week, and the average of the of the high-mileage runners was 42 years of age. Information regarding use of painkillers and prescription medicines were compiled with heart risk factors, diabetes, high blood pressure and family history of chronic illness."I mean, they went deep here."But the study authors said none of these factors explained the shorter lifespans associated with high-mileage runners versus moderate runners. ... He said there may simply be 'too much wear and tear,' CBS News reports. He said the 'sweet spot' for running is a slow to moderate pace for a total of about 2.5 hours each week."I love reporting this kind of news. It just confuses people. Everybody thinks that the more you run, the healthier you are, the longer you'll live. Here's Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. It's great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.CALLER: Awesome. I appreciate it, Rush. Thank you, sir.CALLER: First of all, I just want to let you know that I truly appreciate your perspective and all the ideas you share every time. I'm gonna do my best to try to articulate the point I was making to the screener. With regard to the Koch brothers article and just the message there that they're trying to communicate, I just think the Republican Party is struggling to connect with the average person. Now, wait. Before you continue, I just want to make sure that we identify them. CALLER: Sure. One of them lives in a castle in Europe and one lives here in Palm Beach. That's Bill, and he's winner of the America's Cup yacht race. Bill is his own man. They're all great guys. Bill and David are twins, but Charles and David Koch are the quote/unquote the "Koch brothers," and they're libertarians is what I wanted to tell you.CALLER: Okay. No, it's you're saying "Republicans," but they are libertarians first.CALLER: Yes. Well, just the conservative group that's out there. I mean, obviously we understand what they're saying. But I think when it comes to trying to persuade people about who they want to vote for and who they want running the country, to go out there and tell them that they need to distance themselves from the government, most people are afraid of that, in the masses at least. I mean, you've gotta understand, these people follow the advice of these progressives for the last 40, 50 years -- No, I agree with you. I think it's a scary thing for a lot of people to think of the government not being involved in their lives, particularly single women. Okay, well, let's take this down to the basic level. Do you have any kids?CALLER: Not yet. Not yet. How old are you?CALLER: Thirty-three. Thirty-three. Well, let's pretend for a moment that you have a son who is 12 or 13, maybe 15, just on the verge of getting a driver's license and a car. Let's also, as part of our hypothetical, let's stipulate that you and your wife have spoiled your son. Your son is way too dependent on you, and you are worried that he hasn't learned and isn't interested in learning how to take care of himself.CALLER: Sure. What would you do?CALLER: Well -- The reason I ask is because you just said we can't confront these people with the idea that they've got to take control of their own lives.CALLER: No, I just think when it comes to trying to win the presidency -- you know, you have somebody that's in there like we have now that's not really being honest about what their objectives are, but they've been elected now twice to the White House and they've implemented all kinds of damaging things that are gonna cause pain throughout the country. So I'm just talking about on a basis of trying to win the presidency, that the messaging has to be not one where we're always telling people, you know, you're gonna go it alone and that's gonna be the best avenue. I don't think we need to need to talk about that at all. I think we need to talk about -- Hold it, hold it, give me a chance to get in here, 'cause you're saying some provocative things. Why do you assume that self-reliance equals going it alone?CALLER: Well, that's what these people are hearing, and that's what they're being told on top of that from the other side. They're telling them, "You've got nothing, you know, they want to take it away from you. It's all you." And that scares the average person, I think, away from voting for the conservative candidate. And that's why we've just been meandering around here. There is not one conservative candidate who ever says he wants to take things away from people.CALLER: No, but they don't have to because the language that they use, the points they make are not clear enough to say otherwise. And they're still being told that from every liberal out there.CALLER: That is appealing to anybody that's there. But it's such a small percentage that's there that have achieved that. What do you mean "there"? What do you mean "there"?CALLER: That level, somebody who's achieved personal financial success. Somebody who's achieved any level of success, maybe educationally, and a job, whatever, that appeals to them because that's probably the route that they've relied on to get where they're at. They didn't rely on the government to get them there. They relied on themselves. But we're dealing with a society now where that's not the masses. And it's not gonna be applying to somebody to say, "Hey, guess what? The best way to do this is to rely on yourself and get the government out the way." We know that it works. I'm not saying that it doesn't work. I'm just saying we've gotta be careful, especially during an election. That's why I asked you -- see, I think politics, if done right, is a one-on-one, it's a one on one relationship. You keep talking about appealing to the masses. I don't think that's the way to do it. But that's why I asked you, if you had a son who you feared was gonna spend his whole life depending on you and you didn't want him to do that and you wanted him to improve his own life, what would you tell him? What would you make him do? How would you get the message across to him? You're gonna have to help me understand specifically what you mean. If you can, give me an example of a politician who says something that's making voters think they will be on their own if they vote for the guy. Can you give me an example of what you're talking about? I don't mean to put you on the spot.CALLER: No, no. I understand what you're looking for, some type of concrete example of somebody saying something specific once that cause some type of fear or panic -- How about if a presidential candidate on the Republican side say, "We've got too many people on food stamps. We can't afford it. It's not the best way to improve your life. We've got to cut back on Food Stamps," are you saying that would be the wrong approach to take 'cause that would scare people, "Oh, my God, I gotta feed myself?"CALLER: Exactly. That's what I'm saying. I can't think of an instance where that was specifically said by somebody, but that form of comment, those types of things are the things that -- All right, well, let's go from there. Hang on a minute.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Back to Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. Have you heard of the term "compassionate conservatism"?CALLER: Yes. And the word "compassionate" scares me. All right. Well, we're running out of options here to be persuasive the way it works for you.CALLER: The thing that I just want to make a point about, if we've got one in five or one in six, whatever it is, on some form of government aid -- No. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Try two and a half out of six. Well, now, wait a second. See, this is where I kind of have a differing opinion from yours. Why is it that people today are immune from lessons in life? Why are people today somehow, "We can't talk about taking care of yourself with this group. We can't talk about providing for yourself. We can't talk about making your life your own." Why? What is it about this group that that so scares them? My point is, you would not raise your children that way. No, I'm talking about education. I'm trying to bring it down to the most basic level for you to explain to me how you would do this. I'm not looking at these people as kids or children. I'm just asking, in my example, I'm trying to get from you -- If you were running for office, let's forget that you've got a kid that's gone off the rails and he's dependent. You're running for office, you want to reach these people. Okay, you've said we can't make 'em feel alone. We can't humiliate 'em. We can't tell 'em we're gonna take things away from 'em but we still want 'em to vote for us. So what would you do? What would be your pitch?CALLER: I don't think there needs to be as strong of a pitch like you're assuming to get people to vote for the person that they're confident in. I don't think Obama had a super strong pitch when he first won. He was just somewhat of a likable person. And even though these ideas that you share on a daily basis are pretty much the gospel to get yourself to a level in society that -- I disagree with you. I think Obama did have a pitch, and it was he was gonna take care of you, and he was gonna fix everything that was wrong. And he personally was gonna guarantee you that things are gonna be okay. And he personally was gonna guarantee that the country be loved again. And he personally was gonna do all these wonderful things.CALLER: I think he made feel comfortable, I think he did that, yes, absolutely. But what I'm saying is from our side of things, the things that conservatives believe in, I just don't think that we need to be out there hammering and browbeating people as bad as what's been done by telling them that, you know, the only way to make it is on your own. Totally eliminate the government from your life and then next year you're gonna be a self-made millionaire. Who's telling people that?CALLER: I just think that the overwhelming theme -- No, no. Give me a name. Give me the name of somebody who's running around for office saying, "You're on your own. The only way you're gonna amount to anything is to get off of government." Who's telling people that? You must think the party's got somebody saying that. Who is it?CALLER: It's not the conservatives that are doing that. It's the seeds that are planted from the Democrats that are making people believe that the only way to live a comfortable life is to have to some support there from the government, and all I'm saying is when you read the letter like Mr. Koch wrote and they talk about the individual and places the emphasis on the individual to achieve some level of success, that makes people feel vulnerable, Rush. It makes people feel as though they're on their own, themselves, it's all themselves. They've got to make it or break it themselves, and I think that that type of message is not gonna win. Well, A, I read the Koch piece. The word "individual" isn't even in it. You heard a buzz phrase or something that's caused you to have a knee-jerk type reaction to what he said.CALLER: No, it's just the fact that -- oh, I just get so tired of these things that you see and you hear every day and the problem is the conservatives are just not communicating. They're not communicating with the average individual in society. And it's because we think that the stuff like Mr. Koch wrote is gonna relate to the average person, that they're gonna find some type of comfort in the fact that the best way to get to his level is to do it how he did it and that the government is just nothing more than an obstacle. And the government is an obstacle. We know this. The problem that we have, based on what you're saying, if I'm hearing you right, for us to win, we're gonna have to acknowledge that people are, for whatever reasons, deeply flawed and cannot ever agree with our message. So we're gonna have to change our message and adapt it to the way people are to make them think we get them and care about them and understand them.CALLER: The problem is, from every aspect -- And if we do that, we water down our message.CALLER: No. It's not about -- well, you can look at it that way and we can go to the grave never winning another election, but what's it gonna do to the country in the meantime? Okay, if I were to bring up -- George Bush was president for eight years just six years ago. How'd he do it?CALLER: You know what? The guy was likable. I don't care what people say, he was likable. I think he was a likable person. I think he had a likability about him. He came across as goofy and -- All right. I'm starting to hear things now. So Romney wasn't likable? Do you know Governor Christie's likable?CALLER: I think Romney came across as a little bit more artificial than a Bush would have. Christie, I think Christie's just trying to say the right thing and in the right moment. Well, is there any Republican out there right now that you think has a chance of reaching people in the way you think they need to be in order to get their votes?CALLER: It's tough, Rush. I mean, I think it's really tough right now. Okay, the answer is "no." As far as you're concerned there's not a Republican you know of that wants the presidency that has a chance for it right now? Rand Paul. A-ha. Rand Paul. See, if you stick with this stuff long enough you'll finally peel the layers back from the onion. So you like Rand Paul?CALLER: Well, I mean, there's not a whole lot of inventory out there -- I understand. Don't be defensive. Don't misunderstand my tone. I'm trying to draw things out.CALLER: When I pick on this article here from the Koch brothers, I mean, that's just one area of things going on in society that is preventing -- I know what you're saying about that. I know exactly what you're saying about it. And I will admit to you, it troubles me. Here is somebody who is an excellent role model, and you're saying he doesn't qualify 'cause he doesn't know what he's doing. It's a sad reality if a guy like Charles Koch doesn't qualify as a role model. It's just sad. Okay, maybe he's got $50 billion and nobody else is gonna have to $50 billion, but that's not his message. His message isn't, "You too can have $50 billion." He's talking about a wholesome life.CALLER: Wholesome -- He's talking about a rewarding life that is filled with improvement and getting a better standard of living and all of that.CALLER: Rush? Rush, the areas of society that would have reinforced his values and beliefs such as the education system, that's no longer there. So kids, children these days are not getting that education. Well, no. Okay, there are those of us that are trying to deal with that, which is one of the reasons why I've indulged my patience and hung in here with you. I'm trying to do it in my own little way with the books that I'm writing here on the truth about American history. I do it every day on this radio program.I can tell you that this radio audience is filled with converts, people that used to be dependent liberal Democrats who now listen to this program. You think that might not be possible because of the way they're being approached because I make them afraid or feel vulnerable or whatever. But nobody that I know of anywhere is demanding that people be left alone.That is not what "self-reliance" and "individuality" mean. It doesn't mean alone. It doesn't mean with no help. It doesn't mean with no assistance. What it means is, "Be yourself, find out what you love, find out what you really want to do, and go do it. And don't depend on people who don't have your best interests at heart," i.e., Democrats and the government.But I'm telling you, the question I asked you about how you would take care of somebody in your immediate orb that you feared was ruining their life is relevant here. If you love people, if you love the country, if you believe that everybody in the country contributes to making it great -- if you love everybody and you want the best for them and if you know how they can achieve the best for them -- you can't be afraid to tell them.And if it's gonna be baby steps because we're worried about people feeling vulnerable and thinking everybody's being thrown to the wolves? Nobody's advocating that. But it sounds to me like what you're really saying is, "Republicans aren't cool, and nobody likes 'em, and they do like the Democrats, and it's no more complicated than that. If somebody came along that was likable on our side, then they would listen to whatever the person said."They wouldn't feel vulnerable 'cause they would trust the guy, 'cause they would like the guy. We just don't have anybody likable." Anyway, I gotta take a break. I'm way long here. I've gotta go. Yeah, I'm too long. I wish I could continue, but I've gotta go. Look, Ian, thanks for the call.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Folks, I don't know. After that last call, I don't know whether to blame the Republican establishment, the media, or the culture, but we just had a conservative on the air who does not think conservatism will work as a message. He does not think that liberty and self-sufficiency can win. Now, also, he's 33, so he has never been alive during a successful conservative presidential campaign.He does not know, he did not live with any awareness of the Reagan years, which is why I didn't ask him. When I found he was 33, it wouldn't have mattered. But I think Ian is a great example of what we're up against on our own side. He just can't deal with hurting people. He can't deal. He's a conservative but he thinks the message is harmful. He thinks it's intimidating.But it's a classic example of what happens when you have people coming of age who do not have any life experience relating to victory, to winning. Lord knows you would not want this guy as a football team coach, for example. Nothing against him, but he basically thinks people need to be coddled. That's why I kept asking him about how he would raise his own kid, 'cause I think that's often a very telling point.And when he heard the Koch piece, he heard things in it that Koch didn't say, which is really fascinating. Yeah, he read the Charles Koch piece and thought it said, "You are on your own, and you can forget any help," and that's not anybody's message. But, you know, you've got this... (interruption) Mmm-hmm. (interruption) Well, now... (interruption)No, that's different. I wanted to be on my own. I couldn't wait to be on my own. It did not scare me. I was dependent my parents. I wasn't dependent government, but I was dependent on my parents. I started working essentially when I was 16, but I was still dependent on my parents. I couldn't wait to be on my own. Being on my own was liberation, it was liberty, it was freedom, it was responsibility! It was the greatest thing in the world, getting old enough to be on my own. And today we have to deal with the fact that being on your own is so frightening and so scary and makes you feel so vulnerable. I wouldn't be where I am today if I had that attitude, if I had been afraid to be on my own, and that's the point.BREAK TRANSCRIPT A couple of more observations about Ian and then I'm gonna get to the phones. One is, did you realize that when I ask him about Rand Paul, all of a sudden he contradicted himself? Rand Paul's message worked. Rand Paul's a conservative for the most part, a libertarian. But he made my point. The message can be a winning message if presented by somebody attractive or real or likable to him.Rand Paul was likable to him, so the message was fine. He called here saying, "The message won't work, Rush! We can't..." But then you get the right guy with the message, and the message was cool. Folks, that's a salient point. 'Cause his original point was, "The message ain't gonna work. It scares people," but that Rand Paul doesn't scare people with same message. (interruption) Well, he's gotta point about likability.That's the television age. Of course he's got a point about likability. Of course it matters. Absolutely it matters. That's the reality of television and modern politics. There's no question about it. But if Ian is right, it also means that we have become a nation of children, not adults. We have become a nation of children -- and I think that actually could be a profundity, if you get right down to it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT It kind of begs the question, what has happened to mental toughness? What's become of it? Look at the growing number of people that want to ban football, for example. Or ban anything that might hurt somebody. Too violent or too brutal or what have you. There's a segment of our adult population that's still children, still kids. And you look at their parents, Baby Boomers, some of it's not surprising. And then you got the low-information voters. You gotta give the Democrats credit. I mean, the Democrats have made the low-information voters think they care about 'em. And the worst thing you can do is invest in the Democrat Party, the worst thing, in terms of life potential.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Zack in Colorado Springs, Colorado, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hi.CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you today? I'm good. Thank you for the call, sir.CALLER: Good. This is addressing your 33-year-old caller that called about a half an hour go saying -- Yeah.CALLER: -- that conservative principles will not work. Well, I'm 26 and I'm one of the few who got more conservative through college. I love to talk politics with anyone, especially people my age, and I think calling most of the people my age low-information is probably a compliment. And the biggest complaint I hear from people coming out of college and in college is that there are no jobs, they're throwing their money away. So I say, "Okay, well, I get that you're a liberal, these are your principles. Let's take a look at history. Let's see where we are today. Name one liberal haven, be it Detroit, Chicago, California, that liberals have had free run of for more than 30 years that is better off for it. They're all bankrupt. Now let's look at Texas and Tennessee, who are historically conservative. These two states have the highest ratings for economic freedom, and both states are running billion-dollar surpluses." Okay, so you lay the facts out on the table like that -- Let me give you one more state to put in that list when you talk to people. Mention Wisconsin to 'em.CALLER: Absolutely.CALLER: Right. And Detroit isn't. New Orleans isn't. I mean, all of these places run by liberals you can see what happens.CALLER: That's exactly right. Look at the black population of this country, if I dare say so. That's what I was thinking of a moment ago. Look at the people who have invested the Democrat Party for 50 years, look at 'em. How have their lives improved? They haven't.CALLER: I heard you say that, that was perfect timing. So I ask these people, if their liberal policy is superior, then why are three of these havens bankrupt and people are fleeing like they have the black plague and going to conservative states like Texas? When Obama puts out his job numbers, if you took out Texas from all that, our economy would be in the tank. It just would. These are where our jobs are coming from, from the conservative states that have healthy economies with minimal regulation. And I don't understand why people in the United States and especially people my age who complain about not having jobs don't understand that. Well, the people your age that you're talking about that don't have jobs, do they really want one?CALLER: They want one-handed to 'em. Let's call it that. I had a great professor. I went to school at a state school here in Colorado, and I had a professor who was asked that question: Why aren't there any jobs for us here? And he said, there are plenty of jobs if you're not an idiot. He was very blunt, but he said, "The only way you're gonna get to where you want to be is to be willing to outwork every single person around you." And I've followed that as a principle in my life. I got hired directly out of college. I'm prospering while those people are still sitting there 'cause they don't want to fill out cover letters or applications personalized to the company 'cause it's too much work. That's the fundamental problem. Everybody my age wants something handed to them on a platter. They want the egg before the chicken and it's a systematic disease. I don't know how to fix it. Well, some of that is common to every generation of young people, because most people have always done better than their parents, and their parents have done pretty well, and there's always been a sense of expectation or entitlement. It's part of being an American in a sense. Not the excessive degree to which you're describing it, but it's not uncommon for young people to expect things. It's part of growing up. But one thing I was gonna point out to Ian, the 33-year-old guy you're calling about. You're 26. Now, you're not afraid of the message, but a guy like Ian -- here's the thing. He's never seen the message win a presidential election. He's never seen it. And you haven't, either, actually at 26, although you may have seen local elections with conservatives win and so forth. But what kind of factor is that?CALLER: I look at it the complete opposite way. Growing up in Colorado, there's been such a liberal push here, and the last couple of governors that we've had and the state legislature with their attack on the Second Amendment and civil liberty, I've seen what doesn't work. I've seen them run on ideals, emotions. I've seen what doesn't work. And so I don't see how this could fail, because we feel oppressed here in Colorado. You've got northern Colorado that's trying to secede from Colorado altogether. We've seen what doesn't work. So I think if we have a strong candidate who will adamantly oppose everything that we're being spoon-fed here in Colorado, I don't see how it wouldn't work. I don't need to see the success story 'cause I've seen all the failures.CALLER: I love Ted Cruz. Do you think he's a likable guy when you see him on television?CALLER: Not if you have an opposing view, but me aligning with him on about 99% of ideals, absolutely. I think he's a credible candidate. See, I don't understand. There are establishment Republicans who think Ted Cruz is not a likable guy. I don't understand that. I've had occasion to meet him twice, but just watching him on television, he's not unlikable, he's an dislikable. Sarah Palin is a likable person, don't you think? But even people on our side, "Well, Ted Cruz, he scares people, Rush." What is it that scares people? Is he too opinionated? "Yeah, Rush, he's just too sure of himself." That's another thing. I've heard that throughout my star-studded career. "Rush, nobody's that sure of themselves like you are. That's off-putting, Rush. You've gotta be more open to other points of view. Nobody's that sure of themselves." And that translates to being unlikable in some people, in a nation of children. Anyway, Zack, you keep on. You hang in. Keep on. 'Cause if I were doing your commencement speech, I would say you are the future of the country. Here is Baghdad Jim McDermott. Now, this sound bite kind of goes with what Ian was saying about how people dependent on government, our message can't be something that's gonna make them think they're alone. Our message can't be something that's gonna make them feel vulnerable, gonna do everything for themselves.This is C-SPAN's Washington Journal today, and a caller called in, guy named Dennis in Maryland, and said, "How is it that the Republicans can get people to vote against their own interests?" How is it, Baghdad Jim, that Republicans can get people to vote against -- now, what he's talking about, their own interests is voting for government, voting for Obamacare, voting for all kinds of government programs. How can the Republicans convince people to vote against themselves? And here's what Baghdad Jim said. See? Okay. When the guy down the street has health insurance and doesn't lose his house when he gets sick, then everybody else is gonna say, "You know what? I want that! I don't want to lose my house when I get sick." Well, who is? See, this is the thing: Who is losing their house when they get sick? I would venture to say nobody is losing their house when they get sick.But this is what, I guess, we're up against. We gotta deal with a bunch of lies, essentially, propaganda that people have been inculcated with and that they believe it now. Now "getting sick" equals "bankruptcy," and therefore we need Obamacare. And if you have Obamacare and you get sick, you will not lose your house and you won't go bankrupt. But everybody that doesn't have Obamacare will lose their house.You don't want to be one of those people. (interruption)That's Ian's point. You lose 'em with facts and truth. Those do not work anymore. Facts and truth scare people. Facts and truth equal "doing it on your own." Facts and truth equal: "You mean I gotta work? To hell with that!" Facts and truth make you frightened. Facts and truth scare you. Facts and truth make you feel vulnerable. Facts and truth make you think you're on our own, that nobody's gonna care for you. Everybody's gonna hate you, and you'll be all alone, and you're gonna get stomped on.(interruption) "Put on your big boy pants and deal with it!" You scared 'em even more when you say that. "Put on your big boy pants and deal with it"? You're really scaring them now. You're really making 'em feel vulnerable. You're really making 'em feel insecure. They're really gonna vote Democrat now when you tell 'em, "Put on your big boy pants," 'cause now insulting 'em and you're calling 'em sissies -- which they are, but you can't say that. You'd be in trouble.President Clinton was on Jimmy Kimmel Live. I guess this is how you do it. You go on Jimmy Kimmel Live. One thing, by the way, let me share this. Back to Ian for just a second because I have people routinely urging me to have a presence, a much bigger presence in social media. People say, "You know, Rush, there isn't anybody, conservative, Republican, Libertarian, you name it, there's nobody on our side that has a large social media presence. But the left is everywhere on social media. I mean, take your pick, actors, actresses, producers, anchors, sportswriters, they're everywhere. They're on Facebook. They're on Twitter. We don't have anybody anywhere. You need a bigger presence."And then people who are close in my orbit always warn me against it. "Do not do it, Rush. Don't get anywhere near it. The biggest danger in social media." Every one of them tells me, "is the 'send' button because once it goes you can't pull it back." So what I get from that is that there are a lot of people scared to death of it. You know, a defensive posture is not something I'm comfortable with. I just don't like playing defense. I don't like doing things so as to not anger people or not hurt people or not to get into trouble. "Rush, you know what, don't go there. Let us handle it for you. We'll post a couple things from you, you know, twice a month, but don't go tweeting every day what you think about. Don't do it."People in my orb who are, quote, unquote, looking out for me, advise me to stay away from it 'cause it's fraught with danger. All it takes is one blown tweet and you're finished, which I don't buy, by the way. But it's just amazing how many people on our side are just walking around quaking in fear over saying what they really think. It reminds me of the old days of the Soviet Union where people would retreat to their bathrooms, families, to tell 'em what they really thought of things, 'cause they figured the bathroom wasn't bugged. That the KGB was not listening in the bathroom.CLINTON: Yeah.KIMMEL: You would?CLINTON: I would.KIMMEL: You would.CLINTON: If we were visited some day, I wouldn't be surprised. I just hope that its not like Independence Day, you know, a conflict.KIMMEL: Friendly aliens.CLINTON: It may be the only way to unite this increaseavly (sic) divided world of ours. They're out there. We better think of how all the differences among people on Earth would seem small if we felt threatened by a space invader. All right. So here is a former president of the United States seriously discussing on late-night TV the existence of space aliens and how a divided world -- see how we all need to come together -- would make us even more vulnerable if space invaders showed up. So should I be doing this, should I be showing up on Kimmel and answering questions like this? See, I wouldn't get questions about space invaders. I'd be asked if I was one. I know. I have met them. The Weekly World News already blew that story. I met with the space aliens in New Orleans back in the nineties.They were trying to engineer my election as president. It was a cover of the Weekly World News. Koko, get that out of the archives, we'll put that at RushLimbaugh.com so people can see it. I've already met with the space aliens. Left hand shakers, by the way. And then Kimmel said, "Well, do you miss being the first African-American president?" Now, remember, this is the former president of the United States, a white guy, being asked, "Do you miss being the first African-American president? I feel like you were cheated out of that, like that was taken away from you."CLINTON: Yeah, well -- (laughter) -- my grandparents were poor white Southerners who, as a class, were among the most racially prejudiced people in the south, and they weren't. My granddad ran a country store and the vast majority of his customers were African-American. So I was raised in a different way, and so I love being called the first black president. But -- (laughter) -- but Barack Obama really is, he deserves it.But see how this works? (impersonating Clinton) "Oh, yeah, I grew up, I was a white southerner, but I'm a good white southern because my grandparents, they weren't racists and they sold things to African-Americans. But boy, the people I was around when I grew up, man, are some of the most racist, prejudiced people on this earth. I wasn't. I wasn't 'cause of my great-grandparents and so forth, but, boy, everybody around me was."Well, good to know. (interruption) Hm-hm. (interruption) No, Clinton's grandparents were not racist. He said everybody else's grandparents were racists. Everybody else that lived in the town was racist. But Clinton's grandparents weren't. (impersonating Clinton) "They had an old country store and they sold things to black people." Mr. President, did they raise prices or lower prices? "I don't know about that. I'm just telling you Limbaugh they sold stuff to 'em. That means they're not racist." "So there's no price gouging going on?" "I don't know. Look at me, I'm not a racist, I turned out just fine. Everybody else that lived in the south were the biggest racist hayseed hicks in the world, but I'm not. That's all you need to know. That's it. I was first black president. I saw black churches burn. Actually I didn't, I made that up, but everybody believed it when I said it." Charles Koch, of the Koch brothers, has I flew out there, it's a five-hour flight, landed, took a tram to the top of the mountain. It was a lot of hours at high altitude. I finished the speech and I went back down the mountain, got on a plane and came home. I did all of this in like 12 hours, whatever it was. It was just like two or three years ago. So I want to share with you parts of this, the headline of the piece: "I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society -- I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles -- the principles of a free society -- that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.""Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government." That is also true. The fundamental concepts of liberty, respect, and equality before the law have always, personal freedom has always come under attack in this country. There are always gonna be leftists and Democrats who are afraid of people exercising individual choice and freedom because they will choose things that are not liberal. But this is. And the point that Mr. Koch is making -- it may be the first time in my lifetime, I can't speak for all of American history, but I'm learning it as I write these books on it for kids, and I'm telling you, first time in my life that the people of this country are up against their own government when it comes to their freedom.Now, look, Congress passes laws, there are always incursions on our freedom, don't misunderstand, I'm not being naive. But this is unprecedented. We now have an administration which is devoted to this, that is using the government, the power of the government, the sprawl, the spread, the tentacles of the government to intimidate any and all who would exercise personal freedom. And this is unique because now we're up against the government, not just a special interest group here or a politician there or a group of politicians over there. We're up against now, a government run by a man who is hell-bent on running everybody's life. And that's why, Mr. Koch says, "if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight," for the fundamental concepts of dignity, self-respect, equality before the law, personal freedom, those principles that enable people to improve their lives.He says, "I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process. A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value." A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. "In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism."More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. 'The natural progress of things,' Jefferson wrote, 'is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.' He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means."Meaning, it doesn't matter how many times our programs don't work. It doesn't matter how many times our programs fail. It doesn't matter how much misery our programs cost and cause, it is our intentions that you must examine, our good intentions. We are good people. We are better people than you. We care more. We love more. We are more tolerant and we know what's better for you than you do, and we want, and we demand, and we will make. And whenever it fails we're not allowed to examine the details of the failure. We're always supposed to focus on their good intentions. The promised end, that carrot dangling way out there in the future, all this utopia that they claim to be able to bring, it never happens.But we're supposed to let them do whatever they want or need to make it happen, and we're not to judge their failures as we go but to examine their intentions. "Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. ..."This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th Century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society -- and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers."Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're 'un-American' and trying to 'rig the system,' that we're against 'environmental protection' or eager to 'end workplace safety standards.' These [lies] falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.'"He lists "some facts about my philosophy and our company: Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits."In other words, for you low-information people, Koch Industries is responsible for paying $11.7 billion in salary, wages, and benefits. Further: "About one-third of our US-based employees are union members," and I would add on my own that they would earn a lot more than they do now if they were not members of union. But, I'm just throwing that in there."Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our 'commitment to a cleaner environment' and called us 'a model for other companies.'"This is one of the throw-ins for the left, one of the responses to their criticism."I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished," and you know, if I can make another side observation, it is crony capitalism that Obama is engaging in. And in the process, he's corrupting various industries or individual companies by luring them into relationships with his administration.It is those companies doing business with Obama who are rigging the system, who are benefiting from a rigged system, who are enjoying favors that others can't get. Crony capitalism is an absolute horror, and it is something that we've talked about its various elements in the past in this program. It might be productive to explain it in some detail, maybe as the program unfolds today."Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves.Mr. Koch concludes by saying, "I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too." I'm still intrigued by the way he opened this. "I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives," meaning he's studied it and is interested in how it happens. And, furthermore, he's interested in how he can help them make it happen for themselves.That's people that work for Koch, people that do business with Koch, people that he knows personally. Something I've found about all conservatives is that every one that I know wants everybody to do well, wants everybody to benefit from the grandest opportunity a human being can be presented. To be a United States citizen, or an American, is the greatest human opportunity on this planet.We conservatives want everybody to do well. We want everybody to improve their lives. We want everybody to raise their standard of living, on their own. Sense of entitlement? No. But achievement and completion, sense of success, knowing what your value is, knowing how much you're capable of doing. All of these things are what we want from people. We don't want people to suffer.We don't want that. But we certainly want people to do better by doing for themselves. It's the simple best way. How do people improve their lives? And one thing that we can say without any credible opposition is that government is not the way to improve your life, except (see, and now we're back) crony capitalism can improve the life of a corporation in a bad, bad way.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Crony capitalism. What is it? Well, have you ever heard of Crony capitalism is when the government gives a company access to the federal Treasury in exchange for support for the Regime, ties a company to the Regime and enables the company not to use its own money to grow. That's one short definition of it, and Obama has done that a lot, mostly with failed green energy companies involved in wind and solar.BREAK TRANSCRIPT We have one call here that's related to the opening monologue involving the Wall Street Journal op-ed by Charles Koch. This is John in Indianapolis. Hey, John. I'm glad you called. You want to weigh in on this, right?CALLER: Yeah, Rush. It's John from Indianapolis via Wisconsin. So dittos from the Midwest, anyway. Wait a second. Wait, wait, hold it. Has your call been screened? Have you talked to Mr. Snerdley?CALLER: Yes. Okay. He's got you as John from Indianapolis.CALLER: Yeah, John. Yeah. That's right. I thought you said Don. I'm sorry. Oh, I might have said Don. Okay. All right.CALLER: All right. No matter. He can't hear much better than I can on these cell phones.They are viewing that the social freedoms that they think are important -- such as gay marriage, abortion, pot smoking, that sort of thing -- are expanding. So, for them, freedom is expanding. Our (more properly, stated, "conservatives") economic freedom being lost is to their benefit because we're funding their social-freedom expansion. My point is that we have to recover our economic freedom and make that point that our freedom is as important or more important than their social freedom. All right. Well, give me an illustration, if you will -- and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but you sound like you know what you're talking about. So give me an example of how we're losing economic freedom. And then, part two (if you want to tackle it): Why, because the left wants gay marriage and abortion, are we losing economic freedom? What do the two have to do with each other?CALLER: Well, first of all, I guess the fact that we're losing our economic freedom. Every time taxes go up, every time regulations go up -- every time a business can't make a hiring decision because a government policy, law, or regulation -- we've lost that freedom. We don't have that freedom. So that's a huge economic cost for the country. It's reflected in slow economic growth, to the extent that there is any. I don't know how else I can show that or illustrate that. Okay, no. That's good. You can't build a house where you want to without going through all kinds of hoops and Shinola. You've gotta get a regulation for this to do that. When taxes go up, you have less money. You gotta pay this person off; pay that person off. No, that's a great explanation of how economic freedom has been taken over and limited by government. Now, do you want to tackle the second part? What does it have to do with the left?CALLER: Well, first of all, I think it has to do with an electorate where a substantial number of people are not pulling the wagon. They're in the wagon. By that, I mean, they're getting from government welfare and things of that nature, and they are free to do those other things most of us don't really care about. I'm specifically talking about pot smoking and I'll just lump it into a category of expanded social freedoms.By the way, with regard to abortion: Their freedom to commit abortion ends the freedom of the baby. So I think that's a mixed sword, and I wish we could have that debate. My ultimate point is to the left... Look, regardless of how you or I might feel about it, Rush, I believe they are running on the gay marriage thing. Regardless of what we think about it. My argument to them is, "Okay, you've won your battle. Now our freedom is important to us." Well, but they don't...CALLER: (interrupting) No, wait. They don't think they're killing the golden goose 'cause to them that's the government.CALLER: That's true. I agree with that. I agree. That's the problem. The basic problem of the golden goose is not the private sector. The golden goose is where the private sector criminals live, and people need to be punished. Government -- and good stewards of Big Government growing government, people who are gonna tax the rich and give everybody else the money -- that's the golden goose.CALLER: Yep. I agree. I mentioned the other day I did an interview with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for the "It's you not judging them or telling them they can't. Everything." Now, he didn't specifically explain what pot legalization would have to do with it but he was talking primarily about all the arguments we're having over abortion and contraception, abortifacients, and making the Catholic Church pay for it. These people are sex-crazed fiends. (My words, not his.)He said that everything is oriented toward the sex and not being judged by anybody for it. They are not interested in our freedoms. Like you say, John, "Okay, we've lost the gay marriage debate." If we've lost it, then they've won it. Okay, so that's the tradeoff. If we want economic freedom, lower taxes, they are still hell-bent on denying us whatever economic freedom we want.Because if it doesn't comport to what they want, we're an enemy. There is no common ground. They don't see any common ground -- and there isn't any, by the way. And there's no desire to reach any. One of the big differences between us and them is we are perfectly willing, or have been, to coexist with 'em. They do not have any desire.They are totally devoted, oriented toward eliminating and punishing severely anybody who disagrees, anybody who opposes. They're living lives where they feel constantly in peril and threatened. There's a reason for that, by the way, but I'm not gonna delve into with too much detail. It's called "conscience." Occasionally they have some, and they don't want it. They don't want to have conscience.They don't want to get pangs or attacks of it. They don't want to think that it matters or exists. This manifests itself throughout all of politics. That's why when I hear Republicans say, "We've got to across the aisle, and I'm the guy can do it. I'll cross the aisle, work with Democrats, and show the government that it can work," I cringe. They're not interested in that.That's a sucker's move, it's a sucker's bet, and they're not interested in it at any level -- politically, socially, what have you -- on the left. But it's interesting question. I mean, they want their total expansion of their social freedom, and what do we do? What are we told? We're told, "Get the social issues out of our politics! It's killing us." Okay, fine.So we're supposed to get rid of any mention of abortion, otherwise we'll lose elections. Just let 'em have it. We're supposed to get rid of any mention gay marriage; let 'em have it. Any mention of it, just let 'em have it. "We gotta get rid of the social issues!" More and more Republicans think "the social issues" are killing the party. The problem is that the moral fiber of the country is evaporating.Now we're back to talking about, "How does one improve one's life? How does one go about achieving a better life -- a more meaningful, productive, full life." We all only get one. Can you achieve a productive, meaningful, full life with no moral code in it? You can't. No matter how hard you want to try, no matter what kind of utopia you imagine, you can't. That's one of the many battles that are underway. I led off the program today, one hour ago, with a piece by Freedom of religion?"No way, pal. No way, Jose. Unh-uh."Freedom of speech?"No way!"They have political correctness, their version of censorship. They don't want freedom of speech. You've got to say what they want to hear or you have to be shut up, destroyed. You've got to be taken out. Just in the last year alone (but it's constant), they have fought hard to limit free speech. They have fought hard to limit religious freedom, and the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.They fight to expand dependency. In fact, they don't even like the Bill of Rights. They don't even like the Constitution. I'm talking about the intellectual leftists. BREAK TRANSCRIPT The whole notion that Charles Koch has this piece on improving your life and what is involved in it.We then began a discussion of the left and how they do not like the Constitution because it limits the government, and what I meant to say was, "The elite leftists -- the leftists who are intellectuals, the lawyers and so forth, the professors -- don't like the Constitution." They consider the Constitution "a charter of negative liberties" because it only limits the government.There are not many. They're not for free speech. They're not for freedom association. They don't want you hanging around with people they don't approve of. They don't approve of the Second Amendment at all. Religious freedom? They don't believe in at all. They are fighting to expand dependency and restrict freedom, restrict individual freedom.They fought hard and are continuing to fight hard to forbid a free market in insurance policies for health care. On the other hand, they are desperate for a free market in marijuana. They really want one. They would love for the government to get involved in marijuana, in fact, and license it and produce it and tax it. Until the taxes got too high, then they would join us in that.Now, the idea of the Supreme Court was to make sure the rights established by the Constitution were preserved. That is one of the many intended purposes of the Supreme Court. But now the left even tries to use the Supreme Court to do the exact opposite of that, and that is to enforce their view on the restrictions of individual freedom that they support.They're threatened by it. They are threatened by freedom. They're threatened by freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of religion. They're threatened by it. Stop. Do you care? Are you secure in your life? Do you care enough? As long as nobody is trying to tell you what you can't do, say, or think, do you care what anybody else does?When you get right down to it, you got the moral code. You hope that people obey the law, this kind of thing. But none of you run around demanding everybody agree with you about everything. You're not demanding everybody live their life the way you live yours. You're not demanding that people not do what you don't like. I mean, if somebody wants to smoke, they can. Fine.As long as they're not in your presence, you don't care, for the most part. But that's not who they are.  Oh, I'll just tell you. What the hell! I've run cross an app on my iPhone called FireChat. Now I've done it. I've done it. It's a free app. It is being downloaded like gangbusters because, A, it's free. But also because it uses a new kind of way to communicate. Android has it, too. With iOS 7, Apple introduced something called Multipeer Connectivity. You do not have to be connected to the Internet in order to use it.Now, it's a little bit more complicated than that, but the point that I want to make is, I downloaded it just for the fun of it, and it's depressing. You are communicating... Anybody in the world who downloads the app can post anything to it they want, and it is the bottom of the barrel. It is the most depressing stuff.You will find out exactly how stupid the people surrounding you are. Now, the way the Multipeer Connectivity works, if I can explain this correctly (I'm gonna give it a shot), is two iPhones can connect to each other directly via this app without having an Internet connection. It happens over Wi-Fi and over Bluetooth 4.0. Now, if one of those two people...You could have a chat with them on this app without being connected to the Internet, as long as you are within 30 feet of each other. That's the range that it has. I'm sure they... I'm not gonna give you my screen name. I came up with a screen name. I asked the first time I got on, "What do you think the average IQ on this app is?" It came back, "Nineteen."It's a fascinating thing technologically. It's also fascinating to just read it. I mean, every other post is obscenity here, obscenity there. It's the bottom of the barrel. But that's just because it's new. Here's the thing about it that makes it intriguing to people. It makes the device, your iPhone, a transceiver without an Internet connection if you're within 30 feet of somebody that also has the app.So you can be on a camping trip, for example -- you could be out in the middle of nowhere -- and still connect to people and chat with them as long as they're within 30 feet of you. If one of those 30 people or one of those people in your chain happens to be connected to the Internet, then all of you are. Multipeer Connectivity Protocol is what it's called, and it's causing people to download this app left and right.Now, the developers, there are two places you can go. You have everybody on nearby, and there will be nobody on it unless one of your friends is within 30 feet of you. So you're connected to everybody around the world. Now, the developers are behind the scenes limiting you to, oh, some sort of proximity. (interruption) No, they can't get in and get your stuff that way. The hackers can't get in and get your stuff that way.They can just connect to your app. They're not given access to the device. It's just a connectivity protocol.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, the reason I brought this app up is to draw the distinction between the intellectual left and the hoi polloi left. You knew I was gonna do that. You know, I should have followed my gut and not mentioned it. (interruption) Oh, they're thanking me for mentioning it?Okay. Well, folks, I don't want you to be confused on something here about this app. You are all connected to the Internet using it right now. That's the point. But using the app on the "nearby" tab, that only applies if you have somebody you know who has the app and is within 30 feet of you. So, Snerdley, if I turned on my phone and fired that app right now, you would show up and I would show up in your "nearby" tab.You could tap on that, and you and I could connect direct phone to phone, not through the Internet. That's what Multipeer Connectivity is. And that's why it's private, by the way. If you want, you could have a totally private conversation. Nothing is on the Internet when you connect that way. There's all kinds of potential for this, is why this app is exciting to people. The Multipeer Connectivity Protocol is what it's called.BREAK TRANSCRIPT There are loads of Dittoheads out there on FireChat. I just checked it during the break. They're all saying, "Hey!" They're all saying, "Hi, what's up." They're all identifying where they're from and what station they're listening to, and they're all across the fruited plain, dominating FireChat. Well, President Obama says he's gonna get to the bottom of the Fort Hood shooting, just like he got to the bottom of what happened in BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, let's delve into the Fort Hood shooting. We also want sound bite 22 at the end of this, Mike. I just got that one. We're gonna start here with General John McHugh. This morning in Washington on Capitol Hill during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the 2015 Army budget request, the Army General John McHugh testified and had this to say, his opening remarks, about the Fort Hood shooter, Specialist Ivan Lopez. Sounds like a Kennedy, in a way. I mean, what was it, Patrick Kennedy, Ambien, driving down the median late at night after a session of Congress. You know what I find one of the most ironic things is that on an Army base, Army, folks, they don't allow people to run around armed. Army base! I mean, there you have the life lesson. It happened again. The original Fort Hood shooter, jihad, although not stated, but it was. Allahu Akbar, you had jihad going on. Nobody was able to stop the original shooter 'til somebody showed up that was armed. One of the reasons it happened in the first place, the shooter knew that nobody else was armed. It's classic. The assumption being if you put guns in the place, they're all gonna be fired, because everybody's a rotgut when you give 'em a gun.Here's another example. The only guy with a gun was the bad guy, on an Army base. Well, I mean, it's a clear illustration of how political correctness on the left totally distort common sense and reality everywhere in our culture. Here's Carol Costello. You should have seen the coverage on CNN this morning. They're just beside themselves. How can this happen? There weren't any guns. What can we do about it? It's horrible, it's horrible, every shooting we talk about mental illness and they don't pass any laws. Well, we used to have plenty, Carol, we used to have plenty of laws on mental illness, but they were deemed discriminatory against the mentally ill, so we had to get rid of 'em.COSTELLO: We always talk about dealing with the issue of mental illness in this country and nothing happens. There have been so many instances of a mentally ill person who somehow got a hold of a gun and then participated in a mass shooting, and no law changes, nothing happens, nothing changes. What's supposed to change? The government's in charge, Carol. This is not supposed to happen at all because the government's making the laws. Or not, as the case may be. We keep looking for the wrong people to fix things like this. Whoever is in charge of this rule that nobody on an Army base can bear arms, sorry, that just defies common sense. It's just absolutely silly. It's totally reactionary and it's rooted in the belief that if take guns away from everybody that you'll get rid of gun violence. And here's the second, the third, the fifth, the 15th, the 20,000th incident where we disprove that.Take guns away from everybody and we're not supposed to have any gun incidents, are we? And yet people who intend to get guns and do harm with them always seem to find a way, whether there's a law against it or not. Mental health laws, we're supposed to have laws that would stop this insane guy from doing this, or this disturbed guy from doing this. If he's disturbed he doesn't even know what the law is and he doesn't care what the law is. The law doesn't stop anything from happening. The law doesn't prevent murder. The law doesn't prevent bank robbing. The law doesn't stop anything. It's a moral marker. It's a social marker. It's a mechanism for meting out punishment, and in some cases it's a deterrent, but not very often.KOSINSKI: I think many of us remember seeing those pictures of the president and Mrs. Obama at the memorial service for those 13 shot in 2009. He delivered the eulogy for that. Some describe that as one of his strongest speeches. So he, too, obviously was affected, calling this heartbreaking. Are you kidding me? This is about Obama? Of all the things that happened with the Fort Hood shooter in 2009 we're supposed to remember Obama's speech? Nobody remembers that. Did any of you? When you heard about another shooting at Fort Hood what was the first thing that came to your mind? I guarantee you the first thing that came to your mind: "Uh-oh, was it terrorism? Is it another terrorist? Was it more jihad?" You didn't think, "Oh, my God, Obama, what's he doing? Oh, my God, I remember Obama's wonderful speech, oh, my God, what is Obama gonna do?" That isn't what you were thinking. You were thinking, "Another terrorist incident at Fort Hood?" CNN thinks you were thinking about Obama, what a wonderful speech.Here's Jay Carney. I have time to squeeze this in. This afternoon the press secretary in a daily briefing. Question: "Do you have any updates on Fort Hood, Jay, has the president been briefed this morning? Is there any new information? What's Obama think? What's Obama doing? How does it affect Obama?"CARNEY: Last night the president convened a conference call with Department of Defense and FBI leadership while aboard Air Force One. He received another update this morning during the presidential daily briefly. Oh, good.CARNEY: The president will continue to receive updates as new -- Good.CARNEY: -- information comes available -- Right.CARNEY: -- and has directed that his team do everything it can to assist the families of the lost and wounded. The president, he's been told, is getting updates. He's getting on the airplane, going to a fundraiser, in fact, I think, with rich Democrats that nobody seems worried are involved in politics.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Walter in Iowa. Hi, sir. Glad you waited.CALLER: Good afternoon, Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you. Good afternoon, sir.CALLER: I wanted to mention, I can directly correlate my comment with Ian's statements earlier, which will bring up both subjects. I was gonna talk about the unarmed soldiers that are on the United States bases. I can tell exactly when the wimpification of the United States Army started. I believe it was in the late eighties. I was in the United States Army from '80 to '84, and my brother was in earlier. My brother is actually two years younger than me. He's a World War II veteran, and the reason why is he saw action on the Berlin Wall while it was still under World War II occupancy. Oh, wow. Okay.CALLER: But during his time in the military, there were some mishaps that happened. So he was ordered... Along with everybody else once he became an M60 machine gunner down in a Jeep down below next to the wall, he was told that he was not allowed to keep any bullets in the gun no matter what they do. If they throw bottles on 'em, if they spit on 'em, nothing. That's when you think the wussification began?CALLER: I think it sneaked in right there because exactly what happened was they told them they weren't allowed to load their weapons unless there was "a direct threat." And by then, I'm pretty sure you're dead. Well, you know the thing about this? I've heard this. There was a general on TV talking about this. "We didn't want people on the base to have weapons, and the reason is we wanted to leave that to the professionals." Well, excuse me. (chuckles) Aren't the Armed Forces the professionals? I mean, if you can't let people on an Army base be armed 'cause they're not the professionals, and so leave it to the professionals? Who are the professionals outside law enforcement? It's senseless."It's a sad reality if a guy like Charles Koch doesn't qualify as a role model. It's just sad.""President Obama says he's gonna get to the bottom of the Fort Hood shooting, just like he got to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. He's gonna get to the bottom of what happened at the Fort Hood shooting. Don't worry. Obama will protect us all.""If we've gotten to the point where we are literally destroying people's futures by creating this dependency and then we can't wean them off of it because that's gonna make them vulnerable, then it's not just that we're gonna go to the grave never winning an election; we're gonna go to the grave with the country never recovering. That, for me, isn't an option.""Obama's not worried about Ron Burkle money or David Geffen money or George Soros money. He's only gonna be worried about Koch brother money.""Take guns away from everybody and we're not supposed to have any gun incidents, are we? And yet people who intend to get guns and do harm with them always seem to find a way, whether there's a law against it or not.""You know, this General Motors thing that's happening with the CEO being dragged up to testify over the faulty ignition? Why is the government not sitting next to that CEO? The government's involved in bailing General Motors out. The government was involved in financial decisions. The government was involved in the decision to not highlight that problem so as not to impact sales. Where's Obama?""We now have an administration which is devoted to using the government, the power of the government, the sprawl, the spread, the tentacles of the government to intimidate any and all who would exercise personal freedom.""We conservatives want everybody to do well. We want everybody to improve their lives. We want everybody to raise their standard of living, on their own. We don't want people to suffer.""To be a United States citizen, or an American, is the greatest human opportunity on this planet.""Crony capitalism is when the government gives a company access to the federal Treasury in exchange for support for the Regime, ties a company to the Regime and enables the company not to use its own money to grow. That's one short definition of it, and Obama has done that a lot, mostly with failed green energy companies involved in wind and solar.""The only guy with a gun was the bad guy, on an Army base. It's a clear illustration of how political correctness on the left totally distort common sense and reality everywhere in our culture.""You know, it's interesting. Which of the first 10 of the Bill of Rights have Democrats fought to expand? Freedom of religion? 'No way, pal. No way, Jose. Unh-uh.' Freedom of speech? 'No way!' They fight to expand dependency. In fact, they don't even like the Bill of Rights. They don't even like the Constitution."" "The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the scope of government in people's lives. People like Obama don't like that. They want the Constitution to be something that spells out what the government can do to people. (They would say 'for' people, but 'to' really bothers them.)""Are you secure in your life? Do you care enough? As long as nobody is trying to tell you what you can't do, say, or think, do you care what anybody else does?""The worst thing you can do is to turn over your life to a political party that simply is going to use you." Bob in Hoover, Alabama. Bob, I'm glad you waited. Great to have you on the program. Hello, sir.CALLER: Hello, Rush. Thank you for taking my call. Any time. You bet.CALLER: I want to talk about your books. I have a 7-year-old grandson who is on the autistic spectrum, and when I got the first book I started reading it to him, and I find out that he's reading ahead of me. (chuckles) He falls in love with the book, and he can't wait 'til the second book comes out. You always say that the book is for 10 to 13; he's 7 years old and loves the book. Wow.CALLER: I asked him the other day, "Who's your favorite character?" Of course he said Liberty.CALLER: Then I said, "Well, if it's not Liberty, then who else?" He said, "Well, Elizabeth." And I said, "Elizabeth?" He said, "Yeah, she's such a pain in the neck." (chuckles) Now, spoiler alert, spoiler alert!CALLER: (laughing Don't go too far here!CALLER: (laughing) Oh, I'm sorry. Elizabeth is a character in both books, but in the second book she... It was fun writing Elizabeth. I just have to tell you, it was so much fun writing Elizabeth.CALLER: Well -- I'm glad that he's enjoying it. He's 7 years old, and he's autistic, and he was ahead of you reading these books?CALLER: Yeah. He would read ahead of me. Right now he's reading the first book to his mother. Man! That's great.CALLER: He understands every single thing. Of course, his memory is fantastic. He retains everything. Right.CALLER: So I gave him the quiz from the first book and he got 80% of that correct. (chuckes) I just want to thank you, Rush. I mean, to have him sit next to me for a half hour, 40 minutes, and read the book and one chapter after another, it just warms our hearts. That means a lot.CALLER: I just can't tell you how important it is to our family. Well, I appreciate that. It's gotta be great to have him focused for that long a period of time.CALLER: Oh, it's unbelievable. I mean, I just think that, if there's anybody out there with children the same situation, they need to get that book for 'em and read it to 'em. Like I say, we were on vacation last week, and every day it was, "Grandpa, let's read Rush Revere." "Okay." He got at least two chapters ahead of me on the second book and was talking about... I'm not gonna spoil it, but he talked about the classroom thing and how cool that was. That is just incredible. I got goose bumps here from this.CALLER: Well, me, too. I know people who have autistic kids, and it's depending on --CALLER: He's high on the spectrum, but he's still on the spectrum. But, nevertheless, if I'm hearing you right -- and correct me if I'm wrong about this -- the fact that you get whatever you get, 30 to 40 minutes at a time --CALLER: Yes. -- focused on one thing, that's not common, right?CALLER: No. Yeah, that's what you like. That's great.CALLER: Yeah. And he just loves the books. And, of course, the big question amongst all the kids, Rush, autistic or not, is, "When is the video coming out?" Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I know.CALLER: That was probably the big question I asked him. There aren't enough --CALLER: I said, "If you had a question for Rush Revere, what would be the question?" And he said, "When's the video coming out?" (chuckling) Yeah. What they mean by that is: When is the movie coming out?CALLER: Yeah. "When is the movie?" They want to see it. They want to see the situation with the portal. They want to see that. Oh, the time travel? Absolutely.CALLER: Yeah, time travel. They really want to see that, and it's just delightful to have a book that the content should be read by adults (chuckles) not just kids. (laughing) That's the added bonus, is the content happens to be the truth about American history.CALLER: Yeah, the content should be read by high school students, too. It should be reading for every high school and college student. Bob, you've made our day here and I'm gonna... Do you have the audio versions or not?CALLER: We do not, Rush. We have the two hardcover books. We do not have the audio. That's okay. I want to send them to you. That'll be the next project, because that changes it when you listen to me read the things. That's yet another way. So hang on. Don't go away. Richmond, Virginia. This Matthew. Hello, sir. It's great to have you here.CALLER: Hello. How are you? Good. Thank you.CALLER: It's a beautiful day today. I would know. I'm inside.CALLER: Oh, dear. I'm not outside, either, but I love the wonderful weather because I have a business that deals with photography. Oh, cool.CALLER: And in my photography business, I use a, quote, "drone." I say "quote, 'drone'" because drones, I think, they have a bad rap. They've been around for a long time.CALLER: Mine fits in about a suitcase kind of size. It's about 24 inches by 24 inches. It's actually what's called a quad copter. It's got four propellers on it. Okay. Is it actually... I mean, you call it a drone because of what it does, but it doesn't look like what most people think a drone looks like, a fixed wing aircraft?CALLER: It's not. No. It's basically like a helicopter. Right. You control it on the ground with sticks and so forth.CALLER: Yes, it's got a monitor on it so I can monitor it through my cell phone or iPhone or something like that. So it's got a first-person view on it so I can see where I'm going and take pictures and high-definition video with it. How high does your drone go?CALLER: It has the potential of going up to 600 feet. What kind of fuel does it use? How long can you keep it in the air?CALLER: It uses batteries, and those batteries last about 20 to 25 minutes. Really, 25 minutes?CALLER: These drones are actually being used all the time. I know. There's just a story here on the news that a drone crashed on the highway and a guy ran over it. But it was a militarylooking drone. It had a 15-foot wingspan and all that, just ran out of fuel, I guess, or did something. Some guy ran over it and didn't know what had happened for a while.CALLER: Well, the FAA has been trying to crack down on the use of these things, even, quote, "commercially." They just tried to fine someone who shot a video, I guess it was last year, at UVA, University of Virginia, right here in Virginia, where I am. Let me tell you something, Matthew. I have watched some videos taken with contraptions like yours, and they're some of the coolest things I've ever seen.CALLER: Well, if you watch any commercial on TV, you've probably seen them being used, because any time you see a car driving down the road and they have a shot of it circling around that car, they use a drone. Right. What kind of photography do you do? You do still, video, or both?CALLER: Both. Still, video. I'm using it primarily right now for real estate. It's a high-demand kind of market that has never seen this before, and you get totally new shots, to be able to say see everything differently. What do you mean? Properties you want to sell?CALLER: Not I'm selling, but real estate agents and brokers. Right, okay.CALLER: That want to sell their property, and they want people to be able to look at their properties and it is not have some standard picture that looks like somebody shot it with their cell phone looking out their car window. They want to be able to see a property in one picture and see what it looks like. See what the house looks like, see what the front door looks like and backyard. Right.CALLER: Some of it all in one picture. What the bird sees before it drops on your window.CALLER: Yeah. Not what you see on, you know, one of those websites that has maps on it -- which I won't name -- but, you know, something that's clear, something that gives them a good idea if they'll even want to spend some time to look at this property. So you've got the FAA you're afraid they're gotten clamp down and not let you essentially stay in business?CALLER: Well, what happens is this person at UVA shot a movie for UVA to endorse their school and help publicize the school. He was slapped with a $10,000 fine from the FAA, and a judge, Judge Patrick Geraghty, ruled in favor of the defendant and said that FAA couldn't do it. They didn't have the right to. There's no, quote, "law" on the books right now that stops them from shooting this video and using it. Yeah, well, all it takes is one regulation now. We don't even need laws anymore, as you well know, Matthew.CALLER: Yes, exactly. This is fascinating. Is this the primary way you now stay in business, with drone photography, or do you do other kinds of photography without using the drone? In other words, if you were ever outlawed, if the drone was outlawed, would it wipe your business out?CALLER: Well, it would definitely change the nature of it, because right now I'm using it to, like I said, see everything differently. What kind of camera or lens do you put on this drone?CALLER: Well, some of the models have cameras actually built into them. Right.CALLER: Some of the higher-end models that professionasl and cinematographers use have options. It cost $15,000 for the drone. That's not bad, in terms of corporate investment, capital.CALLER: Right. How many drones do you have?CALLER: Right now I have one that I use primarily.CALLER: Well, I have kind of a background in some stuff that helps me also, so whenever I shoot a property, my big thing is always get a release from whoever owns it -- you know, has a right to it. So I only fly over the properties that I know that I can, or public space. So I don't even go there, literally. Doesn't matter. You might not even have to go there. If some busybody finds out what you're doing, and is in the drone's line of sight, they're gonna go after you because they're busybodies.CALLER: Yes. Yep. That's always a possibility. I think that's where you ought to prepare yourself for opposition to your business come from is from people that think you're invading their privacy. I mean, as far as they know, they see your drone and it could be the NSA. Remember now --CALLER: (laughing) Don't laugh, Matthew. Everybody thinks the NSA is spying on them. Most people don't know that their lives are so boring that the NSA wouldn't care. Most people think the NSA wants to find out what you're doing. So they see your drone up there and say, "Oh, no, no!" You say, "I'm just taking pictures for a real estate broker."Yeah, that's what you say, but we know what you're really doing!" If they get sympathetic judges, that's what I would steel yourself for. I think it would be fun. In fact, I have a drone. I was given one of these helicopters he's talking about. (chuckling) Yes. Neighbors have seen it, but they don't know whose it is.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Matthew, I'll tell you something else you're gonna have to keep a sharp eye out for out there, is people that want to shoot your drone down. Just sportsmen. They're gonna see something up there and say, "Oh, wow!" I've got a brochure from the National Association of Drones Sportsmen. It's icon, logo, is drones in the crosshairs of a shotgun sight.It's all about the case these guys want to make for shooting down drones if they get too close to something you're interested in. The National Association of Drones Sportsmen. This is not gonna end well. Too many people are gonna see a drone and want to shoot it down. Others are gonna think it's an invasion of privacy. Anyway. I hope, Matthew is okay. He probably gets 400 bucks for every shoot, and probably earns his living that way.He's probably got a $5,000 device. UAV, they're called, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The next thing is these drone guys are gonna arm 'em, put BBs on 'em are something. If the NADS guys show up and try to shoot 'em down, the drone is gonna fire back -- you know, in your back door (chuckling) -- and then gonna be the FAA that calls you; it's gonna be ATF. Jeff in Monroe, Washington. Great to have you on the EIB Network.CALLER: I have a question for you. Do you ever wonder how civilizations fall like the Mayans? Wait just a second. What do you do...? I can't understand a single word you're saying. It's not your fault. If you would just slow down a little bit, please, and try again. Yeah. In the case of the Mayans, they had goats in the streets that they didn't control.CALLER: Right. (chuckles) But I think that's what's gonna happen. This whole thing is gonna crash, the Obamacare, all this. All this stuff's gonna just pretty much cease to exist and then they'll have to unravel everything later on and figure what happened. Okay, so the honest true here is you're CALLER: Oh, yeah. Because what I'm saying is that if people run scared, there's gonna be no record of what went wrong when everything does crash. If you guys just say what it is and what's going on and don't worry about what people think, then maybe there's hope, but I just don't see it. Well, tell me how things are gonna crash.CALLER: Well, look at Obamacare, what that's gonna do to the medical system. Right, isn't gonna work.CALLER: Right, everything they've put in place, all these social programs they said was gonna make things better, nothing's worked. Yeah, but they're still functioning. I mean, they're nowhere near crashing.CALLER: Well, eventually. But, I mean, talking... I mean, this whole thing that happened with Brendan Eich is the latest thing. I know what you're talking about. You're talking about the death of civilizations. What is it that brings it about?CALLER: Right. Like the Romans, the Mayans. What happened to them?CALLER: We don't know. And in the case of the Romans, there are all kinds of theories, decadence and just cultural rot.CALLER: I'm just saying in our time, though. It's just people get stuck on stupid and then that's pretty much it. They're too worried about this social stuff and not what's really important.CALLER: Right. -- what is it about that that would necessarily make it crash? Why couldn't it just continue to exist in rampant stupidity?CALLER: What they're doing now with Firefox, I mean, how much worse can it actually get? Yeah. Well, you know something? I know what you mean. See, I've been... How old are you, if you don't mind my asking?CALLER: I'm 45. Forty-five.CALLER: All I've been hearing since I was born is, "We gotta fix education! We gotta fix this an dwe gotta fix that," and we don't do anything. I know.CALLER: You gotta remember, when people are taught all this crap, it doesn't go away. I mean, something is going to have to happen where people wake up. That's my point. When they're taught this, it doesn't go away. Yet you say it's gonna crash.CALLER: Oh, I'm just saying theoretically. If they were ever to get to a point where the health system is gonna have to crash, everything's gonna have to fall apart. You know, basically they're gonna have to run everything into the ground before everyone can ever figure out what went wrong. Because now they're too worried about gay rights and this sort of thing. You know what I mean? It's getting worse and it's getting worse and it's getting worse. Something's gonna have to bottom out before actually people figure it out. That's my point.CALLER: I know. I know. But it's only gonna get worse, though. 'Cause even if they try to start fixing things now they're gonna have to take back what these people did in the last 40 or 50 years or so. A-ha! Okay. Now we're get something new. So you think at some point they're gonna have to start taking back some of the benefits, some of the welfare benefits, and that's gonna --CALLER: All selectively. All this stuff that they've put into place over the whole time. Let me tell you something. I know what you're saying, but my experience is different. I'm 63. You are 45. I've been hearing my whole life how the national debt is gonna destroy the country. Well, here we are at $17 trillion, and we're still trucking. Now, I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, but I think it's already crashed. Nothing is working the way it was designed. Everything's broken.And what is done at the leadership level?They break it further.They continue to build on the mistakes, and they bake them in.And it's still working.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I do not want to be misunderstood, this last caller. I know exactly what he was saying. We're on a dead end course. We're headed to nothing working. Everything's gonna fail. We're gonna bottom out. He was, I think, saying we're have to bottom out before anything is going to get fixed. Now, all I'm saying is, I want to know how this is going to happen.You know, I happen to hold the same view that the course that we're on is going to equal catastrophe and destruction. But at the same time I've been hearing it my whole life. My dad was telling me when the national debt was $5 trillion, how it's gonna be the end of the country, and here it is 55 years later and there's no end in sight to it. We're not getting a handle on it.Nobody's engaging in any repair work or proposing any policies that are gonna fix this, or even change direction. We're keep adding to the debt, we keep creating entitlements, we keep paying people not to work. It... (interruption) What's an unnatural circumstance? (interruption) Well, no. In this case I don't know that Obama's race is a factor. Whether Obama's black or Martian, the number of Americans who expect to be taken care of and want to be is growing.You think thousands of people aren't gonna get medical care in this country? Let's take a look the western socialist democracies in the European Union. The last I heard, Greece was finished, but planes are landing there, and people are living there, and they're getting health care there, and they're eating and they're drinking there, and they're going fishing, and I have friends are still cruising the Greek isles on boats.Then I heard that Spain had 20% unemployment, and they were about to bottom out, and everything was going to hell in a handbasket. I've heard it about France, too. Yet last I saw, planes are still landing there in Madrid and rock concerts are still taking place, and people are getting up and going to work and having the siestas and all that. I mean, when does this happen? So I don't know.The whole thing about it collapsing, to me, I ask, "How many times did that actually happen?" The Roman Empire collapsed, the Mayans ceased to exist, but it doesn't happen to everyone. I mean, the Chinese are still the Chinese. They've had their Ming Dynasties, other dynasties. They've got communism. The same thing with the Russians and the Soviets and so forth, but they're still there.Now, I wouldn't want to live in any of those places, don't misunderstand, and I'm not being purposely naive here to stoke conversation. But if you're gonna start talking about the death of a nation or the death of civilization... See, I think there's always gonna be an America. Even if the left wins everything, there's always gonna be an America. It just may not be the America that was founded.It may someday look nothing like the America that was founded. But the actual manifestation of, say, Social Security failing? What more is it going to take? Social Security has not been properly funded for decades. The government can continue to print money and borrow money to pay for it, and eventually there might be a 75% income tax rate. I don't know who's gonna pay it, because there are gonna be fewer and fewer people working.And, no, I'm not saying I'm throwing up my hands in despair and conceding anything. Don't misunderstand here. We're on the wrong track. I want to get off the track. I want to fix this. Everything I stand for I still stand for. It's just a guy calls here and says it's over, it's gonna bottom out, and talks about the Mayans and the Roman empire. Okay, well, how's that actually gonna happen here?He had no answer, really."Well, it's just gonna implode on itself."What is gonna implode? I mean, even if we get to 20% unemployment, there gonna be people that day getting up and going to work. It may not be a country that offers the same opportunity for prosperity and all that that it has been in the past, and that's what we're trying to preserve. We're trying to get some sanity. We're trying to reestablish, you know, a moral code, decency and all that.And that's what I think a lot of people really fear is taking place here. (interruption) Yeah, Detroit clearly has collapsed. But Most of the people have gone? Well, yeah, they've gone, moved out, but Detroit is still there. It's still on the map, is the point, and there are people still being born there, and they still want to live there, and they're still voting for the people who did that to Detroit. They're still voting for the same party that destroyed the place. The same party that destroyed the place continually is reelected.And, you know, every four years, people show up at City Hall and demand their Obamacare housing rent vouchers. It's just what life becomes. It's very sad, obviously, but I'm not trying to be depressing here. You know, I'm just injecting a little reality. If somebody says, "We're headed toward collapse," I want to know what that means in that caller's mind. That's what I was getting at.BREAK TRANSCRIPT One of the things that our caller two callers ago was talking about: "How did the Mayans and Romans collapse? What happened?" One of the things that he mentioned was that we're gonna have to start taking things back, meaning reduce benefits. The only thing Obama has taken back are sign-up deadlines, the employer mandate.He actually said that yesterday. But Obama's taking things back or delaying all these things not to fix it, but rather not to harm the political impact to his party. So let's take this further. Okay, what other benefits might be cut? Let's say Social Security. Who's gonna do it? There isn't a politician in the world who's gonna do it who stands for reelection. They're all gonna propose it 10 years from now, 15 years from now, whatever fix.No politician alive... Well, there might be exceptions, but you get my drift. It would be a death sentence. You have a guy running for office: "I'm gonna have to cut back on Social Security by an average hundreds a month for every recipient! I'm gonna have to cut back to food stamps." Can you imagine what would happen? So these things are going to have to happen at some point.Maybe they happen and they don't get announced, they just happen? And you've got what, maybe riots? 'Cause I'll tell you what it does look like. You know what the collapse of America as you and I know it looks like? It looks like the Great Depression. It looks like people losing their savings and their pensions and investments, because that's where the government will go to fund itself.The government will take as much private sector cash as they can get their hands on. It looks like people in lines, the collapse. It will look like people who rely on government programs seeing those programs end. It eventually will happen. I don't know if I'll still be alive. But if this doesn't change, these things are going to happen.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, I want to get back, 'cause I asked the caller who said, "Rush, it's finished; it's over. The Mayans collapsed and we're in the process. We're gonna collapse here." I wanted this guy to tell me what he meant. "What does it look like? What does collapse look like?" I want to run through this again. I want to tell you where we're headed, if there aren't changes, and what we will look like. The road that we are on takes us back to the Great Depression.That's what things will look like.People lined up for food, shelter. It's gonna be ugly. People will be losing their savings and their pensions and their investments, in any number of ways. A, they just become worthless. The value of money evaporates when the government prints too much and there's too much is in circulation. Or the government takes it, confiscates it. "Come on, Rush! They can't take the money."Folks, the Reverend Jackson himself has personally suggested that What happens if one day a new regulation is written that removes the tax exemption for municipal bonds? Your municipal bonds are then worthless if somebody all of a sudden decides to try that. There's all kinds of muni bonds, tax-free. Ross Perot. Billionaire. At one time the vast majority of his portfolio was in tax-free munies. I don't know if that's the case now. Meaning that when you sold the bond, you paid no tax on the income that the bond had generated over the life of it.What if somebody just takes that away? There are any number of little things that government can do to get its hands on money when it doesn't have any more of its own. How about government deciding to nationalize businesses? "Ah, Rush, come on! That can't happen." Well, who owns General Motors? One of the reasons I keep telling you what the latest in Venezuela is, is because of my fear that we could someday look like that. I don't care anything about Venezuela other than how it relates to the United States.Venezuela is run by people who go running our country today. It's the same people, same philosophy, same theories. What is gonna keep us from becoming Venezuela if these people keep up? Nothing, folks. That's the point. We're not immune just because we're the United States of America. We're not immune. If a bunch of leftists can destroy Detroit, can destroy Venezuela, can destroy Cuba, can destroy Germany, then left leftists can destroy this country.Some would argue they're in the process of doing it. You want to know what it looks like; I'm telling you. Athens, Rome, Egypt. As I said, they're all still there, but they're nothing compared to what they were. In fact Rome, outside of St. Peter's, one of the greatest attractions is what it was: The ruins the Roman Empire. Egypt, ditto. Great pyramids, the Sphinx (which look like my basset hound). Egypt today?It's there, yeah, but not in any sense its old glory. Athens? They're all still there, but they collapsed. Germany? Look at Germany. In 100 years it has gone from all-powerful to defeat in World War I, to depression, to the rise of the Third Reich, the Nazis and Hitler. Look at all the hell it unleashed. And then its defeat and collapse and depression all over again. And then, after that, the country's divided into East Germany and West Germany.Then it gets united again into its current state, thanks largely to the Western powers of United States, Great Britain, and Canada. My point is, the world and history are full of examples. We talk about this society collapsing. What are we really talking about? We're talking about the destruction of our society, which includes our culture -- and don't for a minute think that it isn't under assault. It is.It's under assault by people who do not like what the old definition of normalcy was, who don't like what the old definitions of virtue and right and wrong were. They don't like any of that, 'cause for some reason they thought it didn't include them. They don't want to be oddballs. So now it's all gotta be redefined so that it includes them and excludes you, when you get right down to it.We're talking about the destruction of our governing system. That's underway. I never thought that I would actually live to see the United States Congress willingly give up its power to the executive branch the way it has happened here. When I grew up, people that ran the House of Representatives -- it was all Democrats back then, but even when they were Democrat presidents -- there's no wayThey fought truth and nail. They were trying to steal executive power. They were trying to thwart presidents often, as designed. That's what the separation of powers all about, throw in the Supreme Court as well. Now the executive is just amassing power, and members of his own party are suggesting that their purpose in the House of Representatives is to write executive orders for him to sign.We're living on future earnings that haven't even been created. We are spending future tax revenue that hasn't been collected, because the money that would generate that tax has not been earned yet. You don't see it. When you're in the bubble, you don't see it. When you're in the housing bubble, the dot-com bubble, you don't see it until the bubble bursts. But we can't keep this up. We cannot keep spending money that we don't have.We can't spend tax revenue that's been not been collected, because it's gotta be collected by somebody at some point. We are spending tax revenue that your grandchild who's still crawling around on the floor is gonna someday earn. That's who's money we're spending. Maybe your grandchild's kids' earnings are being spent right now. So everything seems fine, on the surface.You can still live your life, get in your car, drive where you want to go, you want to turn on E! Entertainment TV or TMZ, you can, you want to keep up with the Kardashians, you can. If you want to worry about whether the Some British chef, Nigella Lawson, was denied entry into the country. (interruption) I don't know what she did. I don't know why she's in the news. I'm sorry, I'm not up to speed on it, but apparently she's married to some guy or divorced some guy doesn't like her and is making her life hell, and for some reason... I assume that this woman has got a TV show somewhere, which is why she's news.But, yeah. You can still get in your car. You can still pick up your phone, make a phone call. You can still watch your big screen, you can still fill out your brackets for the NCAAs, the March Madness. Is that over with yet? (interruption) It's not? Is this the final weekend coming up? (interruption) Well, why do they call it March Madness, then? Why isn't it finished in March? Ah, never mind. I don't care.I have nothing against it.(interruption) Can you get jobs in this...? No, you can't get the job that you want, but you can still eat, and you can still get your phone and you can still watch your big screen. You can still go to the NCAA. You can still do all that. You can follow the NFL Draft. But the main thing is, even if you don't have a job, you get your food stamps and you still eat. You can stay in a heated domicile. That's the point. You don't realize it. You don't have a job? Fine! You're into, what, your fourth year of unemployment benefits!Yes siree bob. Fourth year.They'll probably be extended, the next time some Democrat gets in trouble around election time.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Folks, I went way long in the opening monologue, much longer than I should have, and I've only got a minute here in this segment. That was very, very bad form. That was poor execution of the programming format. Normally I have guidance. Normally I have shouting in my ear saying, "Ahem!" But that did not occur. So I'm just lucky I caught it myself here. Here's Steven in Murray, Utah, as we move on down the line here on Open Line Friday. Hi, Steven.CALLER: Hi, Rush. I am blind, and I gotta tell you about the audio book ofCALLER: There are some, but this is a free service for the blind, and, like I say -- Oh. Free service to the blind. Okay.CALLER: Yeah. That's how I read the Pilgrim books. I just wanted to tell you I really enjoyed it because you have a great narrator, reading an unabridged book, it's fantastic. And I love the fact that you  Well, Vince Flynn. I did dedicate Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims to him, in addition to just being a close friend. For those of you who never met Vince Flynn, I want you to think about any Special Forces character you've read about, or any Army Ranger or Navy SEAL, and that's Vince.CALLER: Or Jack Bauer, yeah.CALLER: The one book, Rush. One book.CALLER: The second one. Oh, you haven't got the second one yet?CALLER: I haven't got the first one. Wait a minute. How did you hear me read the first one?CALLER: I heard the second one through a computerized voice, through the services for the blind. So I got the second book on CD. Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you heard the audio book.CALLER: I have not heard you read the first one. Okay. I may have to start over. I'm totally confused. My book was read to you by who?CALLER: By my mother. Yes. Oh, okay.CALLER: Your second book. Then I got the second audio book. You haven't heard it yet?CALLER: I haven't heard the first Pilgrim book. Okay.CALLER: I haven't heard the Brave Pilgrims read by you. Okay, you've heard the second one but you haven't heard the first one?CALLER: That's right. Okay. All right. And you liked it?CALLER: I liked it. Yeah. I really liked it. It was very well done. Well, do you have the CDs, the audio version of the first one? Do you have it handy?CALLER: I do not. Well, I'll send that to you. That's where I was headed with this.CALLER: That would be fantastic. Yeah.CALLER: I'd appreciate that. But these are children's books. You're an adult. What is it you like about these?CALLER: The fact that there's a narrator reading it and that it's unabridged. Yeah, it's not abridged. You know, that is a big deal to people who can't read.CALLER: It is a big deal, and people that aren't familiar with the audio books don't get it, they don't understand it. I think the fact of having a good narrator is sometimes overlooked by people. A good narrator can make an audio book. A bad narrator can break it. Yeah. You know, when that's the only way that you can experience the book, if it's somebody that's just in a monotone plowing through it without any inflection or feeling or emoting it can be boring and laborious, actually, for you to have to experience.CALLER: Yes. Well, you know what? You made my day here. I'm gonna tell you something, Steven. The reason you made my day is I'm really proud of these audio versions. Each one of them took about four days to do, of four hours each day. Some days my voice wasn't all there, so we had to wait an hour or two 'til it came back. I've spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort into making every page sound like it was the first, in terms of my energy level and all that. Therefore, I am really appreciative of you noticing.CALLER: No problem. Hey, my mother had a suggestion for you. You have the Ted-Tea Bear online, which she loves, and she had a suggestion for you. You gotta make a stuffed Liberty. Well, you know what?CALLER: Something like that, maybe. I know. You know how businesses work in advance. CALLER: Yeah. And then when you do release it, make sure there aren't enough to go around.CALLER: Yeah. I'm just kidding. I want you to hold on. Snerdley's gonna get your address so we can send you the audio of the book, and send him a Ted-Tea Bear. Since his mom brought it up, send him a Ted-Tea Bear. We have one of the best graphics designers and artistes in all of America. Oh, we got two of 'em, actually. We got one of the greatest graphics artists at RushLimbaugh.com -- her name is Michaele -- and we got another great graphics person over at our RushLimbaugh.com is everything related to the radio show and so forth. Anyway, the point is that we just So there are 21 of them, and they're el freebo. You do not have to be a member of Rush 24/7. 'Cause they're gonna be all over anyway even if we did put them on the subscriber side. So just go to RushLimbaugh.com. Don't be confused by our headline. The headline says, "Wallpapers for the iPhone 5." Cohesively, too -- meaning it looks the same in the New York Post as it does at National Review. Same words. "Climate Activists Uncaged." (interruption) What? (interruption) I told you it was a word. Concomitant is a word. They thought I was making up a word on the other side of the glass. "Gawker's Adam Weinstein suggests arresting those on the wrong side of the climate change debate."It's perfectly the fine to make it up, perfectly fine to exaggerate. It's entirely within the bounds of propriety to really, really hype things to get people's attention and get their money. Do you realize, folks, the left... I don't care where you find them, global warming movement, militant feminist, militant gays. Do you realize there literally is no moral foundation propping them up?The whole notion of right and wrong, truth or fact versus lies and BS is irrelevant.Whatever they believe is going to be what everybody else believes no matter what it takes to make that happen. What they believe does not have to be true. If they want it to be true, you're gonna agree with it or you're gonna be harassed and threatened and intimidated. They establish these rules for themselves no matter what it takes. This threat is so existential that even if we have to lie, we'll do it.This is the way they think -- proving, by the way, this is a religion. That's a technique that people oftentimes use to permit evil in what they're doing. If what they're fighting is indeed the essence of evil, then you are entitled to do anything to beat it back. There are no rules. So this is what the left reserves for themselves. That is that we, everybody who opposes them, are the essence of evil.So whatever they have to do to stop us is permissible, even called for. So if we've got if exaggerate global warming to get people's attention and get money for it, then that's perfectly fine. There is no moral foundation. Right and wrong, justice and truth, are irrelevant. Our desired outcome is all that matters. "A writer for..." This is So this guy, see, he's reasonable. He doesn't want to put everybody in jail. Oh, no, no! No. 'Cause he knows he can't put everybody who dissents in jail."Fact-checking scientists are spared. So is 'the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right. ... You all know that man. That man is an idiot." He only thinks what he thinks because he listens to Limbaugh. "He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth's atmosphere a little more with his ... F-150's gassy exhaust.'" So you people, you drive Ford F-150s or whatever.You're not gonna be jailed. Don't worry about it. You're just idiots. It is I, the man poisoning your minds, that they want to imprison. "But Weinstein's magnanimity ends there. Someone must pay. Weinstein suggests the government simply try the troublemakers and spokespeople. You know, the usual suspects. People like Limbaugh himself as well as ringleaders of political organizations and businesses that refuse to toe the line."'Those malcontents must be punished and stopped,'" says this guy at Gawker. Now, I don't know why a guy at Gawker is getting the attention of Jonah Goldberg. Well, actually I do, 'cause he's not just a guy at Gawker, which most people never heard of. What it is is this is going to be become mainstream thought if it isn't already. That is the whole point here. This stuff isn't new. We've been laughing at it for 25 years."He credits Rochester Institute of Technology philosophy professor Lawrence Torcello for getting the ball rolling. Last month, Torcello argued," and we told you about this, "that America should follow Italy's lead. In 2009, six seismologists were convicted of poorly communicating the risks of a major earthquake."When one struck, the scientists were sentenced to six years in jail for downplaying the risks. "Torcello and Weinstein want a similar approach for climate change." 'Cause apparently six seismologists downplayed the earthquake risk, then an earthquake happened, so they want to put these guys in jail. Well, ergo, I (and a few nameless others) are opposing global warming.When it happens, they want me put in jail -- and it's happening now. They put me on trial. Mr. Goldberg writes, "This is a great standard for free speech in America. Let's just agree that the First Amendment reads, 'Nothing in this clause shall be considered binding if it contradicts legal practices in the Abruzzo region of Italy.' The truth is this isn't as new an outlook as Weinstein suggests."For instance, in 2009, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that 'deniers' in Congress who opposed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill were committing 'treason' while explaining their opposition on the House floor. (That same year, Krugman's fellow Timesman Thomas Friedman wrote that China's authoritarian system was preferable to ours, in part, because it lets 'enlightened' leaders deal with climate change.)" And enlightened leaders get to people the people they disagree with in jail.Notice that they always make these predictions to come true in a hundred years when none of us are gonna be alive. There hasn't been any warming for 15 years. If you ask me, they -- guys like this Adam Weinstein -- are the fraudsters. If anybody needs to be put in jail, it's them for misleading people, if that's the route we're gonna go. But that's not what the jail is for.The reason they're putting people in jail is not to punish them. It's to shut them up. Shut them up and get rid of them so they can't influence anybody else. And by getting rid of them, you frighten everybody else about speaking up so that they don't. So you end up with no opposition. Jail the prominent leaders of your option and you have silenced all opposition, which is what the left is all about.We can sit here and you can say, "Come on, Rush. Nobody's gonna put you in jail over this. Come on, Rush, are you really trying to get us afraid for you that you're gonna go to jail?" No. What I'm telling you is there are people who would do it if they could. I just call your attention to what just happened this poor guy out at Mozilla. It's always been an objective of mine to make sure people really, honestly understand who liberals are and what the left is.(interruption) How is it different than Third World banana republic?Well, in terms of persuading, no. You're not gonna convince anybody that this is a banana republic, is the problem. (interruption) My point is that you're not gonna change any minds by say, "You know, these people are just like a banana republic." Most people are gonna think, "This could never be a banana republic. It's United States of America." So they're gonna discard your characterization of this as like what happens in a banana republic.They'll laugh at it and joke about it.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Frank Newport, This is why they are in a state of panic, because they have failed to gin up anywhere near majority worry or concern on this. People, so far, are rejecting the idea that they are to blame for destroying the planet and therefore must pay higher taxes and must agree to bigger, more oppressive and controlling governments. People are just not signing on to that. Therefore, the global warming people today have come out and said, "Well, this just means that we are entitled to exaggerate and make things up in order to get people's attention."Go check ClimateDepot.com. I'm not making that up. Two renowned (if there are such things) climate scientists have said that they are totally justified in exaggerating and making things up to get your attention and your money. "Americans' concerns..." This is from the actual Gallup poll. "Americans' concerns about global warming and climate change have held steady over the past year, while concerns about other environmental threats tested by Gallup have increased."The percentage expressing a great deal of worry about pollution of drinking water, as well as contamination of soil and water by toxic waste, increased by seven percentage points." Worry? How can people in this country not be worried about everything, given what the news is every day? Hell, people are worried about coffee! People are worried about virtually everything. Worry and concern is what is the news.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is a disturbing day for free speech and this country, and it's been trending. For 25 years... I don't know. I've been thinking that at some point we're going to bottom out or reach a point where a majority of Americans are just gonna put their foot down and say, "No more!" But it hasn't happened.Yes, I'm talking about Brendan Eich from Mozilla. I wanted to see where this went before I weighed in on it. There is cowardice; there is totalitarianism. Political correctness doesn't even get close to describing what this "story," for lack of a better term, is all about.Suffice it to say that Brendan Eich is an average, ordinary guy who happens to be pretty brilliant. He's a computer tech/engineer and one of the cofounders of Mozilla. Now, you may not know the name Mozilla, but if you use the Firefox Internet browser, it comes from Mozilla.BrendanEich, E-i-c-h, is one of the cofounders, and just recently Brendan Eich was named CEO.When it was discovered that Brendan Eich had donated a $100 to Proposition 8 four years ago, the literal... What is the proper name for people who engage in this kind of behavior? "Fascist" is probably the closest way. You can call 'em Nazis, but nevertheless they went into gear, and immediately Brendan Eich was described as "filled with hatred" and anti-gay bigotry all over the tech media.He had donated $1000 to Proposition 8, and he had a personal opinion on gay marriage that was identical to President Barack Obama's in 2008. In 2008 Brendan Eich, you look at the picture of the guy, looks like he wouldn't harm anybody or anything. This is not the kind of guy that would hold a magnifying glass up on an anthill in the summertime and try to fry 'em. He's not a mean guy. He donated a paltry $1,000, and now he has been drummed out of Mozilla. As such, he's been drummed out of the tech business now, more than likely, because he believes that marriage is a union of a man and a woman.He is being described now as a bigot and "filled with hatred" because he believes that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. He tried to hang on when the controversy hit. He said, "Look, my personal political views have nothing to do with the way I plan on running Mozilla." That didn't fly. They had to get the scalp. They had to take him out. They had to send a message to anybody else that your view must comply.If you are in the tech industry, and if you work anywhere in the tech business, and you're gonna become a powerful executive anywhere, you had better toe the line. You had better be in favor of everything the militant gay activists are in favor of or we're gonna claim your scalp. We're going to destroy your career. And everybody is afraid of them. So Brendan Eich is gone, for the identical position that President Barack Obama held at the exact same time, in 2008.They think that it was the LA Times, but it doesn't matter.It was gonna be discovered anyway.The law in California states that anybody who gives more than a hundred bucks will be identified. (interruption) It was? That...? (interruption) That law was enacted after these donations were made? (interruption) Okay. So I'll double-check on that, but I have just been informed that says that the law that anybody who donates $100 or more in a California ballot initiative must be made public, came after the Proposition 8.Brendan Eich, just so you know, he also invented JavaScript, which your browser cannot work without. I don't think too many people know what it is. But, at any rate, this is just... Nobody stood up and fought for the guy, not one person, and I find that amazing. All of this is supposedly done in the name of tolerance. "Yeah, yeah, we had to get rid of this guy because he was intolerant"We had to get rid of this guy because we had to get rid of hatred." And the hatred and the bigotry and the intolerance here is all on the side of the fascists on the left! They don't care. They are delighted, folks. I gotta tell you, they're as happy as hell with this outcome because they know that it tends a message to anybody else what now can be done if you hire somebody they don't approve of.This is only in the tech business, folks. It's only gonna grow and expand. Now, a bunch of people have written about this, one of them But, of course, Obama did not stand up because this is exactly the kind of thing that a descendant of Saul Alinsky inspires in people and promotes and quietly applauds, privately applauds. So from the same people who say, "We need to cooperate with one another," the same people who tell us, "We need to cross the aisle and work together to find come common ground and move ourselves forward," and all these people demanding that we all be "tolerant" of each other and understand and condemn the hatred...All of the bigotry, all of the hatred, all of the fascism is on the side of the people who are preaching and accusing others of hate, which is true of so many people on the left. In addition to that, I didn't know until I read Apparently there is a reporter at Gawker, one of the Gawker guys -- which is, by the way, for the most part gay website operation, Gawker, Gizmodo, and any number of others. Apparently there's somebody there that apparently holds some sway, some influence with others in the business demanding that people like me be put in jail because of what I'm saying about global warming and that there is a professor...We've talked about this particular professor. There's a professor at some Northeastern, Ivy League school or semi-Ivy League school who is promoting putting people in jail who do not agree with the official stance from the left on global warming. Now, you in this audience, you need not fear, because in this story it is not you who believe me who would go to jail because you are just mind-numbed robots.It is who I who would go to jail.You get the wrong judge somewhere, you never know. This guy that called yesterday (I don't mean to make an example of him), 33-year-old Ian, one of his points was, "Rush, everybody's scared out here, scared of doing things on their own. We're scared of this, scared of that." Remember we had a story last week about overprotected children. We had a nation of kids who are adults but they've been overprotected.He said, "Rush, you start talking about self-reliance and taking care of yourself and it scares people." This censorship movement that's called political correctness that's actually fascism, obviously scares a lot of people, too. I have the statement from some woman, some official at Mozilla, explaining how everybody won here with this guy Brendan Eich being dispatched. It's an amazing thing.She's scared to death, too.Everybody's scared to death over, what, 2% or 3% of the population? They're just scared to death. By the way, folks, this is why the IRS terrorizing and targeting the Tea Party is important. That's why this matters. What this is ultimately all about is the left being allowed, being able to find out who is donating to what so that they can be harassed and intimidated and then hopefully ultimately silenced. They want to find out who all of the donors are to the Tea Party.Now, "Prop 8 Donors Find Out Who Backed California's Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment" is a headline at the Huffing and Puffington Post on March 5th of 2009. "A federal judge today denied a request to keep the names of donors to California's anti-gay marriage initiative secret, saying the public has a right to know who's giving money to state ballot measures.Supporters of the initiative, which was approved by voters in November, had sought a preliminary injunction to hide the identities of those who contributed to their campaign," 'cause they knew what was going to happen, that donors would be targeted and harassed and intimidated and threatened and scared. And that's exactly what's happened here in the case of this poor guy who didn't ever do anything to anybody.He gave $1,000 to supporters of Prop 8, which simply said ,"We believe marriage is that between a man and a woman," and that has become hatred and anti-gay bigotry all of a sudden.BREAK TRANSCRIPT Now, there was another This guy hung in there. Despite these assaults on him and his business, he hung in there. He was not intimidated into silence. But, you know, these people, they claim that all this is how they are inclusive and this is how they're promoting diversity, and they're not. They are exclusionary. There's no diversity tolerated here. You've gotta be one way. There is no openness.There is no kindness, there is no compassion, there's no inclusiveness, and there certainly isn't any diversity on the left. It's just a bunch of brownshirts. And if you are not wearing one, you either soon will be, or you're gonna be ruined. There is no dissent. They have no interest in debating anybody. They have no interest in discussing anything. If you disagree with them, you die. Figuratively. You're dead. You don't exist."You're a non-person anymore, and we're gonna take you out." "[T]he website EightMaps.com shows the names and occupations of people in San Francisco who donated to the Prop 8 campaign overlaid on a Google Map of the city indicating where they live." They just didn't find out their names. They published their addresses and where these people lived who donated to Prop 8 so that they could be harassed."In his ruling, England noted that 'small, persecuted groups whose very existence depended on some manner of anonymity,' such as the Cold War-era Socialist Workers Party, should be exempted from having to disclose their donors." So small, little groups of ragtag communists and socialists were allowed to be kept private ('cause they could be harassed), but nobody else.So, you see, communists who want to destroy the country get the protection of anonymity 'cause they're so small and they're so insignificant. We can't harass these poor people. But not people like Brendan Eich! Brendan Eich, he gets no anonymity whatsoever. Brendan Eich gets no presumption of innocence. He gets no anonymity. He gets no privacy whatsoever.It's the one name that a spell check is totally confused by. I know people that spell "Michelle" Michaele with an e on the end of it. You're supposed to figure it out. So I don't know how... To me, Mitchell is male name, but she might pronounce it Mitch'ell. Anyway the name is Mitchelle Baker. She's the executive chairwoman at Mozilla, and her defense of their intolerance and forcing Brendan Eich to quit is intolerant."Mozilla prides itself on being held to a different standard and, this past week, we didn't live up to it. We know why people are hurt and angry, and they are right: it's because we haven't stayed true to ourselves." Well, let's just beat ourselves up here. Let's just bend over, grab the ankles, and flog ourselves here. All they did was name a cofounder of the company as CEO, and then four years after the fact they learn he gave $1,000 to Prop 8.That means, "We know people are hurt and angry."Maybe the people who are "hurt and angry" are overreacting. Maybe they're not entitled to feel that hurt and that angry. What about people that don't even know this guy, reacting with this kind of rage and anger? People who don't even know Brendan Eich are demanding that he be canned, demanding that he step down, demanding that we get his mind right. That equals hurt and anger, "because we [at Mozilla] haven't stayed true to ourselves. We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act."What do we expect you to act like? We expect that Mozilla would not appoint a guy like Brendan Eich, a cofounder to CEO, because he gave some money to Prop 8? Is that what you think everybody expects of Mozilla? In other words, everybody "expects Mozilla" to also be intolerant and not even consider their cofounder for CEO because he happened to give money to the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman?Wow."We didn't move fast enough to engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry. We must do better." I mean, this is a total, total cave. They're just begging to be forgiven. (paraphrased) "Oh, we should have known that Brendan was a hate-filled bigot and we should have never made him CEO! Please forgive us." So they're apologizing for being too slow to condemn somebody for having a different opinion on a politically correct issue.They've known about his heresy for almost a week. This learned that this guy actually believes that marriage is between a man and a woman! Whoa! They've known of his hatred, they've known of his bigotry for a week now. It took them too long to act. "Brendan Eich has chosen to step down from his role as CEO. Hes made this decision for Mozilla and our community."Yeah, Mr. Eich chose to step down like people chose to confess their guilt Stalin's show trials. "Mozilla believes in both equality and freedom of speech." The hell you say! You do? "Mozilla believes in both equality and freedom of speech"? How can you say that with a straight face after dispatching a CEO because he engaged in free speech? The Supreme Court just affirmed: Giving money to a political cause is free speech.So he just got canned because of free speech, and yet you say, "Mozilla believes in both equality and freedom of speech"? No, you don't. Not even close. That's why this is Orwellian. As Orwell wrote, "Some animals are more equal than others." Orwell also said, "Some people can't be trusted with free speech," and now Mozilla is gonna decide who they are. "Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality."Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard." It's not hard at all. You simply are tolerant. This is truly alternate-universe stuff. "Equality," there isn't any at Mozilla, "is necessary for meaningful speech." You're not interested in "meaningful speech." You're interested in speech that conforms. "[A]nd you need free speech to fight for equality." Uhhh, you don't have free speech.You can somebody for what they say and you claim you've got free speech? "Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness." No, it doesn't. Your organizational culture reflects exclusiveness, exclusionary behavior, and no diversity whatsoever. Mozilla has just illustrated how intolerant it is. But they put out a statement (summarized): "Oh, no!We are the most tolerant people, and we're the most inclusive, and we got the most free speech, and we've got the most equality." Every kind of "diversity," I guess, except diversity of thought. Not gonna allow diversity of thought, are we? No. "We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, language, race, sexual orientation...Well, that's a lot of damn qualifications that you seem to be attaching to people. "We welcome contributions from everyone, regardless of," and then you gotta list-of-things that you take no note of? This has always amazed me about the left. "No, no, we're not racists," and everybody's a black-American, a brown-American, an Asian-American, a green -American, an Hispanic-American.Everybody, to the left, is identified by what's on their surface first! Nobody is ever identified by who they really are on the left. They don't take the time to get beneath the surface on anybody. There's an African-American? "A black person! That equals slavery." A woman? "Ah, there's a woman. She's been mistreated. She's probably been denied abortions."They have all these crazy caricatured things that they attach to people. There are no individuals. They just plug everybody into a group, whatever group they think they fit in based on their skin color, or their gender or their race or their sexual orientation or their sexual transference or whatever other category they can come up with to dehumanize people, all the while they think they are expanding the scope of humanity while they essentially deny...Listen to this. "We welcome contributions from everyone regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views. Mozilla supports equality for all." If you do, you wouldn't have had the time to come up with all those categories to plug people into. Of course in all that, "We welcome contributions of everyone regardless of," blah, blah, unless you have a contrary opinion.And then your age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographic location, religious views matter not a whit! Because if you have a contrary opinion, it doesn't matter where it comes from, what you look like, what you've been, who you want to be. Which is why the man who founded Mozilla, Brendan Eich, had to be forced out because of having supported a position that Mozilla doesn't like -- five years ago.Even though he has since... By the way, he apologized for his heresy, did you know that? I forget to mention that he apologized for his heresy. Didn't matter! "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness..." Who are you trying to kid! Your "culture of openness"? "[E]xtends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public."Unless they happen to be at variance with gay activists, in which case they're not welcome here. They don't say that, but that's obviously the case -- because that's how we make sure they lose their job, see? "We have employees with a wide diversity of views. Our culture of openness extends to encouraging staff and community to share their beliefs and opinions in public," so we can find out who we have to get rid of!BREAK TRANSCRIPT What happened to Brendan Eich, folks, is exactly why you need to care about what the IRS is attempting and has attempted to do with the Tea Party. I'll tell you why the militant gay activists are delighted about this. I'm telling you, they're celebrating. They're not worried that this is bad. They're not feeling a guilty conscience.To them, Brendan Eich's not even a human being. They're not worried about how the guy's lost a job, or how he's gonna feed his family. They don't care about that. No, no, no. They're excited, folks, because this sends a message to any and all corporations who might be crazy enough to donate to a conservative or a conservative cause. The message is, "We will find you, and we will punish you." Boycotts, threats. What if Brendan Eich opposes gay marriage because of his religious views, hmm? Or maybe his culture or his gender identical or sexual orientation, all these things that Mozilla's claiming to celebrate?" CALLER: Hi, Rush. How you doing? Good. Good, good, good. Glad you called out there.CALLER: This morning I saw that report, and I was so mad, I could spit. And then I got on the radio and I heard you on there, and I said, "I'm gonna call Rush and keep dialing until I can get through because I've had it with this." I mean, these people, we need to turn the tables on 'em and we need to use their tactics and let's demonize them as the intolerants that they are. Well, how are you gonna do that?CALLER: Well, I mean, there's enough of us people out there that are starting to get tired of this stuff. We need to start talking about who they are and see if they have businesses and let's boycott their businesses. You know, and we need to do all we can to support Brendan Eich. There's something that some of these activists may not be considering here, and it's something we'll never know, by the way. This is the kind of thing that can make employers say, "You know what? I don't need this kind of hassle. If this is what's gonna happen to me if I end up hiring a bunch of gay activists, I don't need this. I just don't need it."There could be a hiring backlash that nobody would ever even know exists. 'Cause nobody's gonna be public about it. But if this is the kind of crap that's gonna happen, every employee be targeted by some other group of employees. You can't run a business this way.So you might want to stop and consider that possibility.BREAK TRANSCRIPT I wonder what would happen if Mozilla named a Muslim as its next CEO. Muslims are opposed to gay marriage. In fact, here it is: "Muslim Leaders Stand Against Gay Marriage." I wonder what would happen if they found a Muslim. They're inclusive and they're open. A Muslim CEO at Mozilla. What about that? Let me mention this before I forget to 'cause I promised that I would. It's this polling data that's out from Stan Greenberg and his company, Democracy Corps. What happened here: "Today we are releasing our first survey of the 2014 landscape, a cooperative endeavor conducted with Democracy Corps for NPR. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner conducted the calls March 19-23, 2014, and compiled the data."The survey polled 840 likely 2014 voters nationally. The sample contains six percentage points more Democrats than Republicans, 37% Democrat and 31% Republican, consistent with other national polling of likely voters." And then I was concomitantly ridiculed and castigated and told to shut up and stick to what I know about, and so forth. I was really made fun of, laughed at and all that. And then others, after I concomitantly broke the ice, began to pop up with their prediction of the same thing, all the while telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. And now, this poll predicts much the same."2. The demographics of midterm elections favor Republicans over Democrats," and that's a turnout factor, replicating 2010. "3. Obamacare remains unpopular, especially among independents who," it says here, "hold the balance of power in midterm elections." Independents really don't like Obamacare. Oh, speaking of that, a little side note. I had this in the sound bites yesterday but I didn't get to it. Doesn't matter.Ron Fournier for the first time I'm aware of in recorded modern history, said that if the Democrats continue their lambasting of the Tea Party it's gonna send independents running straight to the Republican Party. You never hear that! What you hear is, "If you Republicans don't shut up about Obama, the independents are gonna get really ticked and they're gonna run back back to the Democrats." They never say the opposite.But Ron Fournier did. He said that the Democrats are running the risk of sending the independents right into the arms of the Republicans. "4. President Obama's job approval remains stuck in the low to mid 40s. 5. The generic ballot ... is essentially even, which has historically been good for Republicans." No, that's not the right way to put it. The generic ballot says, "Okay, are you voting Republican or Democrat?"If the Republicans are showing up even, that means they're way ahead because normally the Democrats win that. Theoretically, it's because there are more Democrats than Republicans. "6. The Senate seats up in 2014 strongly favor Republicans." Anyway, this bunch is projecting a wave election for the Republicans. Yet the pollsters showed up on Morning Edition yesterday and didn't talk about any of this.They talked about how much better Obamacare's doing in the polls. And they talked of all kinds of other things. They spun it all up for the Democrats when they got onto NPR talking about it. None of what I just read you from their own press release did they discuss."There's no diversity tolerated on the left. You've gotta be one way. There is no openness. There is no kindness, there is no compassion, there's no inclusiveness, and there certainly isn't any diversity on the left. It's just a bunch of brownshirts.""We just released today 21 new wallpapers for your iPhone 5. If you want to you can try it on an iPad and blow it up, but some are really cool. So there are 21 of them, and they're el freebo.""The fear and intimidation of average, ordinary Americans is at an all-time high -- fear and intimidation that is silencing people.""In 2008 President Obama and his entire Regime officially were opposed to gay marriage, until they came up on some tough times campaign donation-wise. They needed some campaign money, so Obama sent Biden out to all of a sudden announce the Regime had changed its mind on gay marriage.""I think there's always gonna be an America. Even if the left wins everything, there's always gonna be an America. It just may not be the America that was founded. It may someday look nothing like the America that was founded.""Brendan Eich is gone from Mozilla for having the identical position that President Barack Obama held at the exact same time, in 2008. Brendan Eich, by the way, did not become an activist on gay marriage, or anti-gay marriage. He just gave 'em some money.""'Muslim Leaders Stand Against Gay Marriage.' I wonder what would happen if Mozilla found a Muslim CEO. They're inclusive and they're open, right? So what about that, a Muslim CEO at Mozilla?""The fear and intimidation of average, ordinary Americans is at an all-time high -- fear and intimidation that is silencing people.""Nobody is ever identified by who they really are on the left. They don't take the time to get beneath the surface on anybody. There's an African-American? 'A black person! That equals slavery.' A woman? 'Ah, there's a woman. She's been mistreated. She's probably been denied abortions.'""I wonder what would happen if Mozilla named a Muslim as its next CEO. Muslims are opposed to gay marriage. In fact, here it is: "Muslim Leaders Stand Against Gay Marriage." I wonder what would happen if they found a Muslim. They're inclusive and they're open. A Muslim CEO at Mozilla. What about that?""Notice that liberals always make these predictions to come true in a hundred years when none of us are gonna be alive. If anybody needs to be put in jail, it's them for misleading people, if that's the route we're gonna go." Mere moments ago at La Casa Blanca, Josh Earnest did the daily press briefing. I guess Carney's at the Red Sox game. I don't know where he's gone. During the Q&A;, Ed Henry of Fox News said to the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, ""The president himself in 2008, when this person donated $1,000 to that cause, also was against same-sex marriage. Does the White House think that, even thought the president has 'evolved' on this issue and now supports same-sex marriage, that there should be tolerance on the issue and that there should be other views heard?" No, of course not! Absolutely! We're not gonna weigh in on the decisions of a private company. You can bet that if Brendan Eich had been removed for supporting same-sex marriage, the White House would have something to say. Hobby Lobby is a private company, and I think the White House has said things about it. The Catholic Church is a self-contained church; they've had a lot to say about the Catholic Church.Fox News is a private company, and Obama has had a lot to say about Fox News. I am a private citizen. They've had a lot to say about me. Obama can't even pretend to be on the side of tolerance, not even once? They have to run away from this. They didn't decline comment on Sandra Fluke. They didn't decline comment on Trayvon Martin. They didn't decline comment on Jason Collins."Well, I certainly understand why an issue like this has been on the news and why a lot of you are talking about it. But I'm not gonna be in a position to weigh in on decisions made by a private company like this." The decision wasn't made by a private company; that's the whole point. That is the entire whole point!is there for. To provide security for middle-class families , too. And I’m ready for this challenge , and that 's the kind of Senator I 'll be. President Clinton used to say that there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed by what’s right with America that can’t be fixedestate agent. The four of us – I have an older brother , Owen – lived in a car accident , leaving her mother , my grandpa , owned a quilting factory out East and gave my wife’s family the boots. That’s what progressives like me believe the government gave my dadfuture generations. My political hero is Paul Wellstone. He used to say , “The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard.” I may be a voice for a two-person family. The legislature has zero credibility when it does at National Review. Same words. `` Climate Activists Uncaged. '' (