All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
August 12, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, yeah.
Here we are, Fastest Week in Media.
It's already Friday.
Not just TGIF, but TGIB.
Thank goodness it's Bush.
And all that's actually going on out there, Rush Limbaugh on Friday.
You know what that means?
Let's go.
Oh, yes, sir, Bob.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo, and all of that.
Open line Friday, where I, and we did take a call last hour.
I snuck one in there.
In the nick of time.
Monday through Thursday, it's all about what interests me.
On Friday, it doesn't have to interest me.
If you want to talk about something, go for it.
This is the day.
You can ask a question.
You can make a comment.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
The NARAL people have pulled their ad because people misconstrued its meaning.
You didn't quite figure out what they were talking about.
And also because of conservative pressure.
As a public service, we are airing the NAROL ad today, free of charge, in the hopes that more and more of you will understand this ad.
It's our own version of Operation Rescue, if you will, as we attempt to help NAROL here in their quest to be understood.
You could say that NARAL aborted their own ad, but actually that would not be true.
It's a partial birth abortion on their own ad.
That ad lived.
That ad was out there, saw the light of day for a couple of days, and then they killed it.
So we'll have that.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, you know me.
I mean, you've listened to this program, many of you here since its inception on August 1st of 1988.
And others of you have no doubt been listening long enough to know one thing about me, if you don't know anything else, and that is that I'm a uniter.
That is that I believe in fairness.
I believe in compassion and understanding and bringing people together.
I want people to agree with me.
I have a desire that the people of this country be unified.
I like to heal rifts out there.
And there's a huge rift that has developed here on the eve of the National Football League season, and somebody needs to do something about it.
It's occurring with the Philadelphia Eagles.
As you know, the head coach, Andy Reid, has banished the star wide receiver Terrell Owens to his home in New Jersey until at least next Wednesday.
Owens wants a new contract.
He came into camp acting a little childish, pouting, not speaking with other teammates, not signing autographs.
And finally, Coach Reed had had enough.
It's a team game.
T.O. is not interested in that.
He's pouting, trying to get more money.
The Eagles insist, you pay for what you agree to play for or you don't play.
We're not going to redo your contract.
We're not going to trade you.
You either sit out or you play, but no change in money.
T.O. is now lifting weights and shooting baskets at his home in New Jersey with helicopters flying around all over his house.
And he goes out and lifts weights and does push-ups and stuff.
Meanwhile, the latest development is that Donovan McNabb has told T.O. to stop talking about him.
The leader of the Philadelphia Eagles, the quarterback Donovan McNabb, has said, I'm not troubled by what T.O.'s doing, but I don't want to hear him mention my name.
If anybody's going to talk about me, it's going to be me.
This rift cannot be allowed to continue, ladies and gentlemen.
It just can't.
And I would like to offer this program as a means of getting these two Americans and star players back together.
They may not want to talk to each other face to face, but perhaps they would join me on this program and speak to each other telephonically via this program and settle this.
And that's silly.
It's silly.
They're adults.
They're being paid millions of dollars to play basically a game.
I know it's a high-risk game, injury-wise, but the length of time they have to make big money and play this game is limited because it's athletics.
They're squandering opportunities.
They came very close to the Super Bowl last year, and they just, and I know Owens has a problem with McNabb about that.
He got tired at the end, but it was a very unfair comment.
And these two people need to get back together.
And I would like to facilitate that if possible.
If Donovan McNabb and Owens would like to appear on the program, not in studio, but telephonically, Owens from his basketball court in New Jersey and McNabb from the Eagles training camp or wherever he wants to call from.
I would be more than happy to broker this and put these two guys back together for the sake of the Eagles, for the sake of the NFC East, and for the sake of the National Football League.
I mean, he doesn't need this kind of stuff with us being on the verge of the National Football League season.
I just wanted to put it out there, let everybody know that I've made the offer, and I'm standing.
It is beautiful.
It's a beautiful thing, and I'm standing by.
I'm ready at, you know, it's a tough thing to get on this program.
We don't have guests.
I seldom invite people on this program.
When the guests appear on this program, it's because they've called and groveled and said they got a book or a movie or they got some issue they want to talk about.
But we seldom, I mean, I think this year alone, we've asked one person to come on the program.
Two, Bernard Goldberg and Rick Santorum.
And then that's it.
So this is a rare opportunity that's being offered here.
And I'm see Mr. Snerdley laughing in there.
I'm deadly serious about this.
This is childish.
It's ridiculous to see all this going on.
And people of Philadelphia, you ought to see that.
I've been reading the papers.
People have turned against T.O.
They don't like T.O.
This is not good for the Eagles.
T.O. is, yeah, they're really down on T.O. T.O. go home or whatever they're saying.
And he already is at home.
So I just wanted to make the offer and let everybody know I'm serious about it.
And this program is available anytime Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens would like to avail themselves the opportunity for an impartial arbitrator to sit here and put these two guys back together in at least sufficiently so that they could perform at peak level during the season.
Yeah, T.O. did say that Andy Reid told him to shut up and that his name is Owens and nobody tells him to shut up.
Well, I'm not trying to broker anything here between T.O. and Andy Reid.
I mean, Andy Reid is the coach of the team.
He's in effect the boss of the team.
That's for T.O. and Andy Reid to work.
I would not intrude on that relationship.
I mean, these two guys are saying anything.
They're players.
They're both players.
I know Donovan is a quarterback, the leader of the team, but this is not good for Eagles fans.
We care about Eagles fans.
We love Philadelphia on this program.
I've been to Philadelphia for some of the most memorable moments in my life.
And so I owe the city.
And I'm serious.
If somebody wants to spread the word, I'll sit here eagerly awaiting some sign that the two warring factions here are willing to avail themselves of this really unique and not very often offered opportunity.
All right, now moving on to other items in the stack of stuff, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, it's amazing.
I amaze myself.
I must admit this.
Even I amaze myself.
You know, I will tell jokes about liberals.
I'll make jokes about what they're going to do in the future.
And lo and behold, they do it.
The jokes come true.
I have often said that I am on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
If you listen to this program, you will know what's going to happen before it happens.
You'll be on the cutting edge.
And I've documented how this is true time and time again over the course of the many years of broadcast service that I have offered the nation from behind this golden EIB microphone.
Here comes yet another sterling example.
This is from the Los Angeles Times, and it's from today.
The California Supreme Court yesterday gave broad protections to workers who oppose orders that could be discriminatory, giving employees rights that legal experts said appear to go beyond those in any other state.
The ruling came in the case of a supervisor at a cosmetics and perfume company who resisted her boss's order to fire a woman who was not good-looking enough and to replace her with somebody who was hot.
In other words, in other words, discrimination against the ugly has now ended in California.
I have long told you.
For example, Undeniable Truth of Life number 24, written back in 1987, feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.
And even to this day, people poo-poo this and say it's insensitive.
How could you possibly say something like that?
Well, because I mean it, because I believe there's something to it.
And now, lo and behold, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that the supervisor could sue the company for allegedly retaliating against her with poor evaluations and job requirements because she was ugly.
She didn't fit their mold of hot.
The ruling significantly expands protections for workers who refuse to follow orders they reasonably believe violate the state's anti-discrimination laws.
So if somebody tells you to fire a co-worker who they think is ugly, you don't have to do it anymore.
The ugly now have job protections, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the California Supreme Court.
It was on this program that we invented the term uglo Americans.
Everybody asks, well, when you're talking about the ugly, I mean, who are you talking about?
I said, oh, we don't have to.
The ugly know who they are.
This is not a mystery.
And you know when you see it.
It's just like pornography.
I mean, it may be hard to define, but you know when you see it.
And apparently, so does the California Supreme Court, and they are outlawing it in California.
The ruling, as I say, makes it much stronger for all California employees.
This is from William Quackenbush, an employment lawyer who was not involved in the case, but he said, you don't have to go and complain and risk losing your job because you're a complainer to be protected from retaliation.
They're trying to couch this as a case about an employee who refused to follow the orders of a higher-up and fire somebody.
What this is really about is the higher-up wanted to get rid of somebody who wasn't hot enough, wasn't good-looking enough.
And the intermediary said, I'm not going to do it.
I'm not telling her she's gone because she's ugly.
Well, then make up something else, but you've got to fire her and replace her with somebody who's hot.
Well, no more.
In the case before the court, Elisa Yanowitz, a regional sales manager for L'Oreal USA Inc., said her boss ordered her to fire a female sales associate with a strong performance record because the dark-skinned employee was not attractive enough, quote unquote.
Talk about cutting edge, folks.
I've been telling you that this was coming since 1987.
The boss expressed a preference for fair-skinned blondes and directed Janowitz to get me somebody hot, or words to that effect.
Upon learning that Yanowitz had ignored his order, the boss reiterated he wanted the associate terminated.
He passed a young, attractive blonde girl, very sexy on his way out, turned to Janowitz and told her, get me one that looks like that.
After she again refused his request, the company retaliated by giving her bad evaluations and changing the requirements of her job.
Citing stress, Janowitz eventually left L'Oreal on a disability leave because she wouldn't fire the unattractive co-worker.
Don't doubt me, folks.
Don't doubt me.
It's Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbaugh, as usual, enjoying myself immensely, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And Tacoma, Washington, we'll start with Larry.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, nice talking to you.
Thank you.
Hey, I think your love for football has gotten in the way of your common sense of fair play and ethics.
You know, in my opinion, T.O. is just nothing but a punk.
He's one step below an average NBA player for common sense and good class.
No, Donovan McNabb, on the other hand, is a classy guy.
He took your comments on ESPN in the context that you portrayed them in, not the way the right-wing liberal media tried to portray it.
They basically gave you the Jimmy the Greek job on that deal.
And he doesn't understand the word contract.
What is a contract?
It's a binding agreement between two people.
And he wants to renegotiate his contract.
I'd like to see him pay back half his money if he didn't have a good season.
I think Minnesota did the right thing by getting rid of him.
He's a clown.
He should be out of the sports.
He's a great athlete, but he's a clown.
He's a great punk.
Hang on here.
Two things.
I want to address the NFL contract situation, and I also want to address your reference to T.O. as a punk.
T.O. is a child of God.
He's a human being.
Obviously, I think people on the left would say he's engaging in a desperate cry for help.
I am here to offer and to assist.
I can.
I could bring these two guys together.
I've been there, folks, and I could do this.
And I'm serious in my desire to do it.
As to NFL contracts, the players have a point.
This is a real, folks, don't think this is sports discussion.
This is an employment issue here.
And this is going to be an economics lesson to you.
So please, for some of those of you that hate sports, try to still listen to this and don't tune this out.
The National Football League is one of the most well-run and well-structured business models that has franchises in the history of this country.
And they have managed to have peace up till now with the players union since 1983.
That was the last work stoppage they had, 1982 or 83 of the strikes.
Maybe it's 81, but in the early 80s.
And the way they've done it, they were wrong about one thing.
They thought free agency and players traveling from team to team would tear down the cohesion of teams and loyalty to fans.
It has done just the opposite.
But in the process, free agency has also created a disparity of pay from, you know, within a team.
It is impossible.
And to understand this, accept this.
I have heard this from four different NFL owners.
It is impossible to lose money in the National Football League, primarily because of the amount each team gets from television, radio, and other marketing.
It's impossible to lose money in the National Football League.
There is a salary cap.
Now, in Terrell Owens' case, I'm not going to get the specifics exactly right, but yeah, he signed a contract last year.
And I understand totally everybody says, live up to it, T.O. Live up to it.
But if you look at the average NFL contract, next time you hear that an NFL player signed for seven years and $49 million, don't believe a word of it.
Because that $49 million isn't guaranteed.
What you may have of the 49 million, in T.O.'s case, maybe $6 million of it's guaranteed or maybe $9 million, but he can be cut anytime.
He will get the bonuses he's due for signing.
The way they give you guaranteed money in the NFL is to give you a signing bonus or a roster bonus for showing up at a certain time.
And they prorate that bonus over the length of your contract to apply it to the salary cap.
So where Owens may get a $49 million contract, his yearly salary may be just over a million dollars.
But he's got the bonus money up front.
This does not happen in baseball.
Baseball money is guaranteed.
You get injured, you get the money.
And the NFL players are trying to say, wait a minute, all these big contracts, $49 million here, $60 million there, it's BS.
It isn't true.
We're not getting that money.
If we get cut in the second year of a seven-year deal, we don't get any other than the bonus money that we've been given.
And they want to try to change that around.
And they're trying to arrange so they get more guaranteed money in the deals that they get.
And the reason they don't is because of the way the NFL successfully structured itself.
And this is going to be one of the sticking points when the Players Association tries to put together a new deal, which they're trying to do at present with the NFL.
Now, I understand the player's side of this in terms of, okay, the team's agreeing to pay him $49 million, but they're not.
There is no way, for example, that Terrell Owens will fulfill that contract with the Eagles if he's the best player in the history of the game and the history of the human race.
Because at some point, he's going to get so old, those contracts are so backloaded that to keep him on the roster for the sixth or seventh year of his contract could cost the team a $10 or $11 million bonus when he's 35 or 36 years old.
No 35 or 36 or 38-year-old is going to get a $10 million roster bonus in the National Football League.
You're approaching Social Security at that age in the NFL.
And this is the really T.O.'s agent, Drew Rosenhaus, is one of the agents that's trying to take the lead and get the whole structuring if NFL contracts change.
I think T.O.'s going about it all the wrong way.
This is not, you know, he did sign the deal just one year ago.
This is not the time to come back and do this.
But just in the sense, in the sense that the players have a point here, the league does announce these teams announce all these huge mega deals, but those players never see half of that money.
They don't see half of it because it's all toward the end.
The salaries get up so high in the end.
Look at a third round draft choice.
Traditionally will sign for a $600,000 bonus and get the minimum salary for the first three years of his deal.
Second round, a little bit better.
First round, of course, the cream of the crop.
But it's few others.
You go to work for someplace, and if you have a contract, they agree to pay you X for X number of years.
You're going to get it.
Unless you quit.
But if you stay there and work it, you're going to get it.
In the NFL, they're structured in such a way you can't stay there long enough to earn it.
Back in just a second.
It's Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Tim in White Plains, New York.
It's nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
Hey, listen, just called to express my annoyance and wondered if you'd agree that the news media has failed to question Cindy Sheehan's real motivations.
I mean, just listen as she adopts a line right out of Michael Moore's playbook and demands that the President Bush send his two daughters to Iraq and everything like that.
I mean, I think that she and Michael Moore have always forgotten that we have a volunteer military force.
Her son volunteered to join the armed forces, and I think she dishonors his choice, his service, and ironically, his death by stalking the president and attacking his family with Michael Mooreisms.
What are you talking about?
Well, I totally understand that point of view.
I guess my view is somewhat similar, although I find it difficult to be critical of Cindy Sheehan.
I think she's a woman who lost her son.
And I know that there have been a lot of people lose their kids in war.
And I don't care who they are.
It's not easy.
And people deal with it in their own ways.
I think the real shame here is her exploitation by the Democrats, by John Conyers.
John Conyers dragged her to his impeachment meeting over the Downing Street memos.
They have made her a star in her own mind.
And this attention that she's getting, I'm sure, is helping to assuage her loss.
And it's just, to me, and the media is exploiting her like she is a genuine spontaneous eruption.
They are not telling the truth about how this woman has been shepherded by Joe Wilson.
There are pictures of her with Joseph Wilson.
Yes, a Valerie Plame fame.
She has shown up at all these anti-war rallies.
She was an anti-war mother before any of this began to happen.
It's who she is.
And she has the right to go anywhere she wants in the country.
She has the right to go sit where she wants.
She has the right to say fruitcake things all she wants.
It's the exploitation of her that I think is so typical of the left in this country in the media.
If anybody ought to be feeling sorry for her, it is them because they're the ones who are out there decrying all the loss in Iraq and all these 1,800 deaths.
And yet they are happy to exploit this woman and capitalize on her misery or her sadness or her grief or whatever it is.
And they're pumping her up and making her feel important.
And the bottom line of this is, Tim, she's killing their cause.
She's not hurting her cause at all.
She's making a mockery of the media that supports her.
She's making a mockery of the Democrats and the Michael Moores that support her.
She's no different than the Nayroll ad.
If people have the sense to figure out the Nayroll ad is BS and just obscene, the same thing here with this on a little bit different level.
I take comfort in the fact that I get emails from people, for example, Rush, Rush, I was watching cable TV last night and they hit Cindy Sheehan.
And I make note of the station that they say they were watching.
And I go look at the ratings and I see 200,000 people watch this show.
And I say, so what?
Let her have the whole network.
200,000 people.
Folks, don't get so agitated here.
I keep telling you that the days of this kind of stuff winning hearts and minds of a majority of Americans is over.
Your reaction to it, I guarantee you, is much more similar to the majority of people watching this than not.
You still have this fear that this Cindy Sheehan story in the press lying about her and making her out to be something she's not is persuading a lot of people.
It's not.
All it's doing is reinforcing these kooks who already hold this jaundiced view of Bush and the war on terrorist, just reinforcing them in their opinion.
They're not winning any hearts and minds.
They're not persuading anybody.
And at the same time, they are exploiting this woman.
It got to the point where her family had to issue a statement begging her to stop this.
I mean, if you need to know anything, know that.
If you want to know how this is affecting people, her family feels bad for her family thinks that she's being exploited.
Her family thinks that she's being made to look, you know, unfortunately like a fool here.
Your anger at this, I think, give her a break.
Even if this is her natural mindset, there are countless Cindy Sheehans in the country, but they're not doing what she's doing.
And just because she's sitting in a ditch down in Crawford, Texas, she's become a hero.
And the media doesn't tell the truth about her because they want to exploit her.
They are trying to use her.
They don't care about her.
They don't care about her.
They don't care about her son.
John Conyers doesn't care about her son.
They just care about using her to try to gin up the same negative hate and seething rage that they have, that they've been unable to transfer to the majority of the American people.
And that's what I think is noteworthy about this.
Roger in New Fallujah, Michigan.
Welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
It's an incredible honor to speak to you.
I've been a devoted follower since Gore tried to steal the elections in 2000.
Thank you, sir.
I do have a comment about Jamie Gorellik, and I think it's a little odd that the one key player in this whole fiasco is actually assigned to the commission to investigate all this.
I mean, what better place to hide somebody than in plain sight?
Exactly right.
And remember, the Democrats in Congress got to choose the Democrats on the committee.
The Republicans in Congress got to choose the Republicans.
And I take it you don't think it's a coincidence that Ms. Gorellik is on this commission.
I think it's an incredible coincidence that she magically shows up on this commission.
What better way to protect her?
What better way to shield her?
Because eventually the truth will come out like it has.
And now they can say, well, wait a minute.
You can't question her why she's on the very commission.
Right.
And it protects those who appointed her.
And I think they knew in advance that she was guilty.
And I think every death as a result, including the 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, should be attributed to them for accessory to murder.
I think they should all be charged.
I think that there's no question that they put her on this commission in order to help hide this wall business.
Because by virtue of having her on the commission, the commission, well, we're not going to attack one of our own.
Why, we're an independently construed and constructed commissioner.
Who do you think we are?
We're not going to go after one of our own.
And so you're right.
She does get a measure of protection.
Speaking of all this, you mentioned the 3,000 people dead in the World Trade Center.
I'm just looking here.
Ladies and gentlemen, soundbite roster.
Mike, Gro, go back to Grab Cuts 15 and 16.
Last night on television, we had Kristen Breitweiser, who is one of the leaders of the Jersey Girls.
She lost her husband in 9-11.
And she was one of the group applauding every time the Bush administration took a hit during the 9-11 commission hearing.
So people are bringing her back in light of this story.
And her answers to questions are quite telling in that she's still seeking an opportunity to blame all this on Bush.
And her points are roughly that, well, hey, you know, these members of Abel Danger, why they didn't turn the information over and they're still there and Bush promoted them, Bush should be fired.
I mean, that's now, and she claims she's not partisan at the same time.
So that doesn't hold a whole lot of credibility for me.
So we got two sound bites here with Hardball last night with David Gregory.
He's talking to Kristen Breitweiser and Roger Cressy.
Cressy was the director, excuse me, of Internet of Transnational Threats on the National Security Council staff.
And David Gregory says, Roger, given how thorough the 9-11 Commission was on both sides of the aisle, there's certainly agreement on that, that they were right to be cautious about this.
If they had other intelligence, other information didn't square with something as simple as where it was in the period of time, that that may have been sourced back to Abel Dayton.
That question is just absurd.
Talking about taking up the cause of the commission, Mr. Gregory, you ought to be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.
You're just helping to spread the agenda.
Oh, yeah, very credible.
They never did anything wrong.
They were right to reject all.
They were dead wrong to reject all this, especially having heard information about it twice.
Anyway, here's Cressy's answer.
9-11 Commission report is the definitive report on what happened.
So they had to be careful that whatever they put in there was sourced, was corroborated, and they weren't taking individual strands of data.
David, some of what's coming out of Capitol Hill right now is frankly a load of crap.
And we need to get down to square it to the bottom truth here and not jump to conclusions.
And more importantly, David, put this episode in the context of other examples where there was a lack of information sharing because there were far more significant ones in the course of the 9-11 Commission report that's been documented than this one right now.
I'd like to show Mr. Cressy the memos and letters from Mary Jo White 1995 to Gorellik and Reno saying, why this wall is hurting us?
We cannot share information here.
Now, folks, this guy is in pure unadulterated spin control because he's probably been nabbed a little bit in this himself, calling all this a load of crap.
What's a load of crap is that report that the 9-11 Commission put out.
They didn't do the job.
Here was a committee that was put together to connect the dots, and it couldn't even connect its own dots.
And scant attention was paid to the wall in the first place.
So then Breitweiser shoots back at Cressy with this.
If I could just jump in for a second, I particularly would like to ask Roger directly if he had known about this operation.
Clearly, he and Richard Clark were in a position at the time that this operation would have been put in place to know of such a thing.
And Roger, I'm just wondering, did you know of this?
No, not at all.
This was not shared with the National Security Council staff.
And, Kristen, let me say that if this information is correct, the central issue is why was it not shared with the counterterrorism policy community?
Well, I think, Roger, you're actually...
We know why it wasn't shared, and that was because the defense intelligence people at Able Danger were told they didn't have the legal right to share it.
We know why it wasn't shared.
The Clinton administration didn't want to know this kind of stuff.
We know why it wasn't shared because there was a wall that prevented it from being shared.
Cressy follows up with this.
If this was an internal DOD effort and it was being done by SOCOM, then it would be up to the Pentagon itself to determine what came into the policymaking realm.
And if this is accurate, then this is a case where it wasn't shared.
Yeah, well, it's still why.
You know, now Breitweiser and Cressy sound like they've arranged their appearance here, rehearsed it.
If you Roger, did you know anything about it?
No, I didn't know anything about it.
And I'll tell you this.
Nobody shared it with the National Security Council.
Of course, they didn't share it with the National Security Council staff.
There was a wall there.
But folks, this is drive you nuts here if you spend too much time on this.
This is clearly leftists spin and trying to cover their own rear ends on this.
And don't be affected by the spin.
It's clear information was available.
It's clear there was a wall that prevented the transference of this information, a transferring of this information anywhere.
The question is why.
And we've now learned, by the way, that the information was not gleaned as a result of an investigation, a criminal investigation.
There was no proscription, prohibition on sharing this information as a result.
It came from mining technical data.
A bunch of guys sitting around reading words.
They were free to pass it on to anybody.
They were told to shelve it.
This was the Clinton administration Pentagon, the Clinton administration National Security Council.
Why didn't they want to know?
Back after this.
As you know, ladies and gentlemen, we are engaged in a very lofty goal today, a public service, to spread understanding between NAROL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and you.
They've been forced to pull their ad, blaming conservatives.
They're ad against John Rogers, Roberts, blaming conservatives for killing the ad, also saying that you people misconstrued the meaning.
Translation is too stupid to figure it out.
CNN has even pulled the ad, and as such, NAROL has had to partially abort the ad.
That ad lived, it's died.
Our own Operation Rescue is underway since, as I said earlier today, and as I've said this hour, we are into unifying people, bringing them together.
But above all, we want to advance understanding.
We love informing and teaching on this program.
And NAROL thinks that you're not getting this ad.
Well, we want to give you ample opportunity to understand this ad.
And the only way to do that is to play the ad for you, free of charge, as a public service to NAROL and you from me at the EIB Network.
Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life.
I will never be the same.
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.
I am determined to stop this ballot, so I'm speaking out.
Call your senators.
Tell them to oppose John Roberts.
America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.
Don't believe Rush Limbaugh or Factcheck.org when they debunk our ads.
Our ad ran on CNN, so it must be true.
Not only did Judge John Roberts defend an abortion clinic bomber, but Judge Roberts drove the bomber to the clinic himself.
Drove him.
And used his own cell phone to trigger the explosion.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq.
Stop Judge Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court before he kills again.
And former by George Soros and they're all friends at Nazi Pelosi.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, Morgantown, West Virginia, this is Shannon, and welcome to the program.
Yeah, I was wanting to make a comment on the thing about Alan, California where the lady disputed her boss about fine people who were ugly.
I totally agree with her because, you know, just because somebody is not attractive doesn't mean that they're doing any worse of job than somebody that's pretty.
She's working for a cosmetics firm, Laurie.
It doesn't matter.
You know, looks don't matter on your job performance.
Well, look, I totally agree.
I've been one of the earliest defenders of the ugly.
That's why I wrote that first commentary way back, that undeniable truth.
I've been one of the lone defenders of the ugly in the media.
And I just, I knew that these things were going to happen in our culture.
I mean, I agree on that same subject.
Do you think, in fact, let me ask, do you think this is the first time somebody has actually been fired or tried to fire somebody because they weren't attractive enough?
I think it's happened more too often than what we do.
That's exactly right.
And look how long it's taken our culture to come to grips with it.
Exactly.
I mean, I've worked at places down here where I'm from, and I've had trouble getting on places because you look around the malls and look around at other places, you see these really skinny, pretty people, and I don't think it's fair that they get hired or fired to see their looks.
You're making my point.
You go to the mall, and you're identifying who you think is ugly.
And it's not fair that some are ugly and some aren't.
and the mall is one of the best places to see this.
I've often said that.
No, because I actually got on a place at the mall and worked for a couple years and stuff like that.
And it was one of the only stores in the mall that you can come in and you see people that aren't like a size four and anorexic looking.
Yeah.
It's sickening to walk in the other stores because they expect you to be pretty and expect you to be able to afford their clothes and wear their stuff.
You're singing my tune.
I agree with you.
I don't think the ugly should be fired simply because they're ugly.
And I just want to remind everybody, I've been the lone defender of the ugly.
I've been carrying this torch by myself almost 17 years now.
It's the fastest three hours in media.
Two of them in the can.
It's Open Line Friday.
A Sterling broadcast hour awaits you right around the corner this next brief timeout.
I can't wait for it to start.
▲
Export Selection