All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:50
December 2, 2005, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, if I'm a Democrat in the United States of America, if I'm a liberal in the United States of America, if I am a leftist, this is my list.
Walmart, bad.
ExxonMobil, bad.
Merck, bad.
Halliburton, bad.
General Motors, bad.
Do you get the drift, folks?
The American left opposes free enterprise.
They oppose capitalism.
They oppose private property.
And yet not one of these companies takes as much income from the public as does the federal government and provides such poor services in return.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Heading on into another weekend wrapping up another exciting stellar week of broadcast excellence here on the aptly named Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Rush Limbaugh behind this, the Golden EIB microphone.
And there are only two of them, and I have both.
They're both in the Institutes for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Open Line Friday, whatever you want to bring up, folks.
When we go to the phones, it's your day.
800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
No, I mean, you cannot listen to what they say.
We got a Zogby poll.
Walmart, bad for America.
56% of the American people think so.
ExxonMobil sucks.
Merck, horrible, criminal.
Halliburton, rotten, corrupt to the core.
Enron, horrible, rotten.
Got to get rid of all of them.
They're all Enron.
General Motors, rotten to the core.
I remember, young Time magazine had a big cover story.
Is Rush Limbaugh good for America?
The left opposes free speech.
They oppose free enterprise.
They oppose private property.
But stop and think of this, folks.
All the money you spend at Walmart, all the money you spend at ExxonMobil, Merck, Halliburton, Kellogg, Brandon Root, General Motors, all of the money that you spend doesn't even come close to the amount of income taken from the public by the federal government.
Now, ask yourself, you get better service out of Walmart, Exxon, Merck, Halliburton, than you do from the government.
I only ask it this way because the government is the left's god.
Government is where all money should be.
Government's where all services should come from.
Government's where all planning should come from.
Government should determine who can say what when.
Oh, yeah.
And of course, we're not allowed to plant stories in the press.
No, though, the media can't do it.
Pentagon, they can't plant stories in the president, Pentagon.
Left can plant stories at NPR.
The left can plant stories in the Democratic National Committee Times.
The left can plant stories in CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC all day long.
The left is those organizations.
The dirty little problem is that we have to do this to get the truth out in Iraq.
At any rate, folks, we're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And this is another reason why this is just amazing.
The top Senate Democrat investigating Jack Abramoff's Indian lobbying met several times himself with the lobbyists' team and clients.
He held a fundraiser in Abramoff's arena skybox.
He arranged congressional help for one of the Indian tribes.
This, according to records, about whom do I speak?
None other than good old Senator Helmut Head himself, Byron Dorgan, Democrat, North Dakota.
Dorgan acknowledges that he got Congress in fall of 2003 to press government regulators to decide after decades of delay whether the Mashby Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts deserve federal recognition.
Dorgan met with the tribe's representatives, collected at least $11,500 in political donations from Abramoff partner Michael Smith, who was representing the Mashby.
This around the time he helped craft the legislation according to interviews and documents obtained by the Associated Press.
The senator, Byron Dorgan, Democrat North Dakota, did not reimburse the Mississippi Choctaw for the use of Abraham Abramoff's skybox in 2001 when the tribe threw him a fundraiser there, instead treating it as a tribal contribution.
He only recently reimbursed the tribe for the box four years later after determining it was connected to Abramoff.
Dorgan says he sees no reason to step down from the Abramoff investigation, which he and his buddy Senator McCain are leading.
He said he had no idea at the time that any of the transactions were connected to Abramoff or the alleged fleecing of tribes.
I never met Jack Abramoff, but I am appalled by what we've learned about his actions, Dorgan said yesterday.
So I have never felt there was any conflict in my helping to lead the investigation.
I think Senator McCain would agree our investigation has been relentless, that neither of us will be diverted.
Of course not.
Of course, there's no appearance of impropriety here.
None whatsoever.
A Democrat can do this all day long, and nobody's going to raise any questions about it.
Least of all the Republicans.
But I think it's highly suspicious.
I think it's incredibly amazing that the senator investigating Abramoff was in fact benefiting from Abramoff's large S.
Oh, one more thing about Democrats in the United States.
Fox News has their latest opinion dynamics survey.
Democrats have given Saddam Hussein a shocking vote of confidence in that survey.
A solid plurality of Democrats in the United States saying the world would be better off if the butcher of Baghdad was still in power.
41% of Democrats gave Saddam a thumbs up, while just 34% said that Iraq is better served with the murderous dictator gone.
This is in the New York Post.
And don't forget, amidst all this, Walmart is bad for America.
Walmart's bad for America, Saddam good for the world, according to 41% of the Democrats.
In stark contrast, 78% of Republicans said getting rid of Hussein left everybody better off.
Just 10% said they'd wish Saddam still ruled Iraq.
On the question of whether President Bush lied to the American people about Saddam's weapons, 72% of Democrats said that he did.
79% of Republicans disagreed, however, saying that Bush gave the American people the best intelligence he had at the time.
Look, if 90% of the intelligence is flawed, like the Gulf of Tonkin story, and 10% is real, but you only see the 10%, what's real?
If nobody's in the forest and your wife starts yelling at you, can anybody hear her?
It's one of those kinds of questions.
41% of American Democrats think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power, yet Walmart is bad for America.
After this, I don't want to hear anybody talk to me about moving to the center.
There isn't a center.
There isn't, and Mrs. Clinton's finding out there's not a center, particularly on the Iraq war.
Well, I know, not just moveon.org.
Moveon.org is going after Lieberman.
Whole left-wing website cabal is going after Lieberman, and half of them are going after Hillary.
Hollywood people are going after Hillary.
Hillary Clinton can kiss their butt, one of them says.
Some guy, some producer of a movie, where did I put this story?
I have to find it during a break.
It's in a little blurb in the Washington Times today.
Some guy produced a movie that we've all heard of.
I don't know what I did with it.
At any rate, I'll do my best to find it.
But he said, maybe I put it on the bottom here.
He said that basically Hillary Clinton's only doing things in her own self-interest.
She doesn't care about the country.
She doesn't care about the party.
And he'll give anybody a beer.
The first person that can point out anything she's done not in her own self-interest a beer.
And it's some big-time Hollywood producer.
I'll try to find his name.
Before we go to the break here, the two animal handlers who say that they were fired for refusing to expose their breasts to the 300-pound gorilla Coco have settled their lawsuit against the Gorilla Foundation on undisclosed terms.
Nancy Alperin and Kendrick Keller, both in their mid-40s, claimed that Guerrilla Foundation president Francine Penny Patterson pressured them to indulge Coco the Gorilla's nipple fetish as a way of bonding with the 33-year-old female gorilla.
The foundation, founded in 1976 to promote the preservation and study of gorillas, is best known for Coco, who speaks sign language, has mastered more than 1,000 signs and picks NFL games sometimes.
Settlement was reached on November 9th.
A similar lawsuit by another employee is pending.
So these two female animal handlers were fired for not playing along.
Coco wants to see your nipples?
Come on.
You got to bond with the gorilla.
We're not going to do that.
Well, you're fired.
I mean, is Coco a lesbian?
Is that what the story doesn't point out?
We're not being told everything about this.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
I'm trying to imagine this Coco the Gorilla story happening, say, in an office.
Can you imagine a senior employee who is a woman who has a nipple fetish, and somebody else in the office goes up to two other women and says, show this woman your nipples.
We want you to bond with her.
She's a good employee.
We want her to stay here.
She's got a nipple fetish, and they refuse to do it and get fired.
Can you imagine?
Now, I know that, I know that, I know Coco is not the first person to have a nipple fetish in an office.
Clinton White House is the place I'm thinking of.
But stop and think of this.
I mean, just because it's an animal, because it's a gorilla, we can do it.
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
Coco wants to get a nipple fetish.
Take off, take off, show your.
I have this chocolate vagina here, folks.
I wonder if Coco the Gorilla likes chocolate vaginas.
Want to get a chocolate vagina fetish?
I know where I can get more of these, too.
I could get an extra one of these and I could send it out there to the, what is this?
The Gorilla Foundation.
Yeah, the Gorilla Foundation.
See, if this works, tell them if this works for Coco, we can get a lot more of these.
You don't need to ask your female employees to bare their breasts for Coco, the gorilla.
How do you know she got a nipple fetish anyway?
Who found that out?
Who's the one that discovered that?
Well, she can sign over.
Okay, she can sign a thousand words.
That's right.
So she's learned to sign, I have a nipple fetish.
They've taught her that.
Who taught her?
Who taught her the word nipples is the point?
I mean, the train.
Okay, that's what I'm saying.
Who discovered that this girl has got a nipple fetish in the first place?
And how did they discover it?
There's a whole lot of unanswered questions.
Oh, they taught her about her anatomy.
They're teaching Coco the gorilla about.
Oh, oh, oh, you mean in teaching her sign language?
This is your eyes.
This is your nose.
This is your brain, put up the size of a P.
This, this, these are your nipples.
And then probably, this is what you do with your nipples.
And who showed her that?
I mean, you got at some point, somebody has to.
We don't think a gorilla is running around in the jungle with nipple fetish.
I've never seen that in National Geographic anywhere.
Yeah, probably.
That's right.
Next season, they'll keep making this gorilla more and more real.
I mean, anywhere else that'll result in a sexual harassment charge.
In this case, it was called bonding.
Oh, there is.
Do you remember that cover story in Time magazine?
Men and women are born different?
That was an actual cover.
Folks, I forget how many years ago, maybe eight or nine years ago, actually did a couple men and when the truth is out now, science, latest research reveals men and women are actually born different.
And I always said when that cover came out, imagine the mindset of the editors at Time magazine if that was news to them.
Well, try this headline from the Washington Times today.
Now there's proof men, women, different.
Attention, Dr. Frankenstein and maybe Gloria Steinem.
There are girl brains and then there are boy brains.
But there's not one generic human brain, no matter what hand-wringing feminists may insist in their quest for sexual equality.
Some stark new clinical evidence shows that men and women are just not the same upstairs.
The comedians are right.
The science proves it.
A man's brain and a woman's brain really do work differently, said a research team from the University of Alberta in Canada.
After analyzing MRIs of 23 men and 10 women, the team found that the sexes use different areas of the brain even when working on exactly the same task.
The larger implications of this work is that we may increasingly find out that there are differences in the hardwiring of male and female brains, said the study author Dr. Peter Silverstone, a psychiatrist.
This guy's a psychiatrist and he's just now figuring it out.
There isn't a man over five years old that can't tell you that the woman brain is different from his own.
You learn it at five.
You really learn it at about 10 or 12 or whenever you hit puberty.
And after that, there's no doubt.
And they're still doing research on this.
This is just to show you the influence of the feminazis out there to try to equate, we're all the same.
We're all just the same, right?
Remember these stories of these enlightened liberal parents painting their little boy's bedroom pink and putting Barbie dolls in there trying to prove something and then painting their little girl's bedroom blue and putting G.I. Joe in there and all those liberal parents stunned when they realized that it didn't matter?
Here is Ryan in Cincinnati.
Ryan, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Big Bengal fan here.
And I was just wondering what you think about the team this year.
As you know, we have a winning record this year for the first time in well over 10 years.
Just want to get your thoughts on that.
And we're playing Pittsburgh this week.
So what do you think about using some fake crowd noise to win the game?
Well, I don't think you're going to need any fake crowd noise to win the game.
The Steelers and the Bengals are an interesting contrast in this way.
You have a solid set of wide receivers, and they stay the same.
You've got two running backs, you alternate them, but basically those two running backs know they're going to play.
You've got a quarterback and he plays.
They've gotten into a rhythm.
Look, that offense that they've got is a threat anywhere on the field.
They're just like any young team that's just emerging.
Their defense is still a big question mark.
You know, they came close to winning a shootout with the Colts.
Yeah.
And they're only going to get better.
This is going to be a tough game because it's at Pittsburgh and it's enemy hostile territory.
The fans in Pittsburgh are fed up with the way the Steelers have been playing, and they're going to be loud.
But the Steelers don't have, you know, they had a great offensive line last year.
They lost two members to free agency because they wanted to let them go because the two starters they replaced were on injured reserve.
Those two guys are back this year, and they're not factors.
The running game, the Steelers are playing four different guys at running back.
They can't figure out who they want.
None of them get into a rhythm.
It doesn't matter anyway because the offensive line cannot open.
It's not the same offensive line that they've had.
The Steelers secondary is playing better than ever, but in the last two or three years than they have played, but the offense just can't stay on the field.
I think Cincinnati's got an excellent chance to win this game.
I see two teams going in different directions.
The Steelers are really, really banged up.
I don't know what the Bengals' injury situation is.
I looked it up that it didn't seem to be too many prominent starters on the injury report.
But the Steelers, Roethlisberger's got a thumb problem.
He's wearing some contraption underneath a glove.
He's got a twisted ankle.
He's got a bum knee.
Two teams going in different directions.
Steelers still thought to be the class of that division.
But if you guys win on Sunday, it's not going to be said that.
It's going to be, I think people are slow to realize what's actually happening because they still have the visions of that 15-1 season in their heads last year.
I think it's just a matter of putting it all together.
Well, the same people aren't there.
And the momentum and the intangibles that are always part of a season just aren't there with the Steelers this year.
And the Bengals, you could lose it.
If you do, I wouldn't stress over it because this team is only showing great potential.
Boy, if we lose it, then we'll be tied for first place again in our division with them.
Yeah.
So that's okay.
You still have it in your destiny.
The problem, you'll have lost to the Steelers twice.
They did come in there and they creamed you guys, which frankly surprised the hell out of me when it happened.
But Cincinnati has always provided, I mean, when the Cincinnati Bengals were the bungles, they were beating the Steelers.
I'll never forget that game where John Kittner lit the Steelers up for 400 yards two or three years ago, and that was the end of it.
Every team the next season figured out you could throw on the Steelers and beat them in overtime, I think, in that game when you had that sand and beach as a field.
But no, I feel good about the Bengals.
Back in a sec.
Redefining hip on the radio.
It is the Hollywood writer Michael Oates Palmer who said that about Hillary.
He writes for the West Wing and Blind Justice.
He said he pledged a beer to a lucky reader if a supporter of Hillary Clinton could point him to one decision or vote that she made in the last four years where she took a stand that went against her best political interests.
He says, if somebody can point this out to me, I'll buy the first beer.
There's also an interesting headline in the French news agency today, Democrats struggle to find common Iraq policy.
It's just a rehash of what we all know is going on here, but the headline's fabulous.
Democrats struggle to find common Iraq policy.
That's the story.
You listen to their sycophant slaves in the mainstream press.
You think they're all on the same page, and they're just having variations of the same demand.
We need to get out and save the American troops because they're in a lost cause.
It's just, it's, I'm telling you, folks, trust me on this.
It is the Democrats that are imploding.
They thought three weeks ago they were going to own Washington by now.
They thought that they had come up the perfect time to implement this plan demanding a pullout on the basis that the war was lost.
It was a failure.
And we got to get out now to save the lives that are there because they're just being lost for worthless causes and so forth.
And it hasn't worked.
I don't care what any of you think based on what you see in the media.
It has not worked.
And primarily because they have not dispirited and destroyed the morale of the men and women on the ground over there and elsewhere around the world.
This is Dan in Des Moines.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Des Moines, Washington, near Seattle, where the Seahawks are going to be playing Monday night.
But I digress a bit.
Rush, we need to cheer those Democrats up.
And seven short weeks from today, there is a momentous occasion that's sure to cheer them.
Bill Clinton gets his law license back.
Now, I think most of them have forgotten Bill Clinton lost his law license.
I think it's up to us to remind them.
I think we need to make as big of a deal of it as Dan's bake sale.
What do you think?
Well, we've taught you it's a good point.
I think everybody's in under denial.
It doesn't matter.
The way the Democrats rationalize this, this is a partisan political prosecutor that had this happen, and Clinton had to do that in order to stave off worse things.
We know he shouldn't have lost his law license.
It was purely political.
And so they're not, I don't think they're going to be bothered by it one way or the other or the fact that he gets it back.
In fact, I would expect that if any news about Clinton getting his law license back is made, it will be made under the auspices of a wronged, great leader finally now made whole.
Bill Clinton, who unfairly lost his license to practice law because of an impeachment effort by partisan political Republicans.
I have to find something.
I hope I kept this.
Somebody did a parody, and it's football, but it's great.
Don't misunderstand.
Year it is.
This is the best way.
Whoever wrote, John Ham wrote this.
This is in the Carolina Journal.
And it's about Monday night's football.
Let me tell you the truth about Monday night football this past Monday night.
And we got a Clinton soundbite coming up, too.
But Dan, I'm telling you, this is the best way to explain to you what's going to happen if news is made about Clinton getting his law license back.
The Monday night football game this past Monday was a slaughter.
I don't care what the score was.
The Indianapolis Colts had their way with the Pittsburgh Steelers as they wished.
It wasn't.
It appeared close in the first quarter, first half, but it wasn't.
Mr. Ham has written a parody piece.
Imagine Monday Night Football Being Covered Like Iraq.
He says, watching Monday Night Football the other night, it occurred to me that if one imagined the mainstream media covering that game, the way they cover the war in Iraq or the economy, the absurdity of their reporting would be plain for all to see.
Dateline, Indianapolis.
The Indianapolis Colts, seeking to silence critics who say they are overrated, fell short of that mark on Monday night by outscoring the Pittsburgh Steelers by a mere three-point margin in the first quarter.
Despite the unspectacular first quarter margin, Colts head coach Tony Dungy insisted that his team was winning.
Hey, we're up three, said Dungy.
In my book, that's a lead.
But critics pointed out that the Colts gained their lead only as a result of a desperation 80-yard pass by quarterback Peyton Manning to Marvin Harrison on their first play of the game.
That score was based on subterfuge.
It was patently unfair, said one critic who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation by league officials.
It amounted to abuse of opposing players to fool them like that.
Despite scoring on the first snap of the game and later scoring a field goal to go up 10 to nothing, the Colts allowed the Steelers to score with only 118 left in the first quarter.
Colt critics demanded that Dungy acknowledge that he had made coaching mistakes in the quarter, but he refused to do so.
The Colts have become a target of critics since going undefeated so far this year, that so many Colt players have openly expressed a desire to go undefeated the whole season is seen as arrogance and a sense of exceptionalism by many, causing many former friends of the Colts players to turn against them.
The staunch Pittsburgh defense, though outmanned and outgunned, managed to battle the Colts to a standstill in the second quarter, allowing them only six more points.
Those familiar with the Colts say that this second quarter swoon reveals a lack of depth on offense due to unmet recruitment goals during the offseason.
The insurgent Steelers, striking sporadically with lesser equipment against the hegemonic Colts, inflicted serious damage with several tackles, a sack, and some pass breakups, holding Indianapolis to only two field goals in the 15-minute span.
Observers said it looked as if the tide were turning in favor of the insurgent Steelers.
In the third period, the Steelers again held the Colts to a single touchdown, damaging the Colts' aura of invincibility and giving hope to the insurgents from Pittsburgh that their time would come.
Some critics pointed to the stands as some Colt fans began filing out, saying that this showed the Colts were losing support at home.
The Steelers were even stronger in the final period, holding the Colt juggernaut to a mere three points.
I think Indianapolis was just in the wrong game at the wrong place at the wrong time, one Colt critic was heard to say.
Final score, by the way, Colts 26, Steelers 7.
Is that not fabulous?
That's how we cover things in the U.S. media.
That's how the war in Iraq's being covered.
That's how the economy is being covered.
And it's how Bill Clinton getting his law license back will be covered if it indeed is covered.
Speaking of Derschlik Meister, last night he was on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN.
And Cooper said, your wife, and Clinton said, who?
You know, Senator Hillary Clinton.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Cooper said, your wife wrote an email response to the president's address saying, given years of assurances that the war was nearly over and that the insurgents were in their last throes, this administration was either not being honest with the American people or didn't know what was going on in Iraq.
Do you think either of those two options are true that your wife said?
In her email, Hillary also said that she didn't think we could set a direct timetable, and certainly not before these elections.
So I think whether people agreed with what we did in Iraq in the beginning or disagreed with it, the question is, what's now best for the American people, for the war on terror, and for the people of Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.
Whether you were for it or against it, it seems to me you should all be praying that it succeeds.
I am.
And I didn't agree with what was done when it was done.
But we are where we are.
This guy is as bad as Kerry.
He goes over to Dubai and says it was a mistake.
We shouldn't have gone.
I think we get to get out of there.
He comes back, goes to New York, makes a speech there, says just the opposite thing.
Now he goes on CNN last night and says, well, you know, you can debate whether or not we went there for the right reason or not.
But I think I have no choice but to win.
When this, we can't pull out now, certainly not for these elections.
That's what Hillary was saying.
Notice it took Bill to explain to him what Hillary said because she doesn't say it well enough herself.
But the bottom line is, you know, the real question that's not asked in all of this.
The real question is not asked is what the hell did Clinton's administration do while it was in power for eight years to get any of this problem worked with and dealt with?
They did diddly squat.
The Bush administration shows up.
9-11 happens.
Bamo.
We've got a problem.
We've got an issue we can no longer deny.
We can no longer ignore.
And the people who were in power for eight years and had plenty of opportunities to get this started and do something about it are now the ones who are saying we've lost and we can't win it and we need to pull out.
And I cannot tell you how mad they make me, so I'm going to stop talking about back after.
It's Open Line Friday, El Rushball, and Merry Christmas.
One of our favorite times of year here at the EIB Network.
Mannheim steamroller Christmas bumps all over the place.
Dave in Bedminster, New Jersey, you're next, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Thanks for taking my call.
But I wanted to say I'm a Democrat, and although I didn't agree with going to Iraq, I have to say that now that we're in there, we have to finish the job and get out.
But when I listen to you and Hannity talk, you keep on relating it to World War II and Hitler and Mussolini and everything.
But from June 6, 1944, until the end of World War II, when we took over Berlin, how long was that?
That was maybe 10, 11 months.
Now we've been in Iraq for four years, and you've got 10 more Marines killed today or yesterday.
Wait, wait, But we haven't been in Baghdad for four years or Iraq.
And by the way, you talked about Berlin.
Are you serious about this?
That's what the people that I talk to anyway are worried about.
I mean, how long is it going to take?
You know, it's going to take another 10 years to get out of Baghdad and get out of Iraq, in my estimate.
Some people will tell you it takes as long as it takes.
Victory is victory, and it's not determined by a timetable.
World War II did not go by as quickly as you think.
I'm just saying from the time it took to march across France and march into Germany, it was 10 or 11 months.
And now we're going to be working on four years or three years.
I'm sorry.
You know, when we talk about, I don't know about anybody, but when I talk about the comparisons to World War II, mostly what I'm talking about is casualties and the way the press dealt with it.
Markedly different in both instances.
If we had been dealing with World War II the way we're dealing with Iraq, we wouldn't have gotten to France.
We wouldn't have gotten to D-Day.
There wouldn't have been a battle to bulge and Hitler would have won the day because we would have cut and run after 2,000 deaths because we couldn't take it because we couldn't handle it.
Because we had an American left and American media that was determined to doom our effort.
That did not happen in World War II.
We didn't have a bunch of reporters running around boosting Hitler, telling everybody what a great guy he was, how the world would be better off if Hitler were still in power.
We didn't hear that about Mussolini.
We didn't hear that about any of our allies.
We heard it, that we were the good guys.
There was no question we were the good guys, and the media was on our side.
We got far greater obstacles in this battle, not the least of which is the American left in this country, sir.
We do run run.
It's Paul Shanklin as Senator Kennedy and the Amen Chorus, founder of the American Left and the Democratic Party.
This is Patty Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
Welcome.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi again, Rush.
Merry Christmas, Dreamy Select Comfort Sleeping, and hoping to one day hear a female voice behind the golden EIB Mike Dittos.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate all of that.
Okay, Rush.
As a donor myself to your Adopt a Soldier program, and in honor of our service folks like Refrigerator Taz over in Baghdad, I would like to challenge and seriously encourage those folks who do not support the war but say that they do support our troops, you know,
especially the George Searles, Nancy Pelosis, and pacifist types of the world, that they can now proudly do so in a very peaceful, powerful, priceless, and patriotic way by donating to our honorable and our courageous servicemen and women of our country a membership in your 24-7 Adopt a Soldier program.
And what better time of year to do so than Christmas, the season of giving?
It just sounds so sweet.
It sounds so wonderful.
It sounds like such a great idea.
It'll never happen because it happens with anonymity.
If they can't get credit for doing it, and we don't broadcast the names of the donors, the donors' names are known if, well, the donor's email address is known by the adopted soldier, but we don't broadcast the names, and so there's nothing in it for them.
Plus, no matter what, they're going to think it's just a trick so that I can earn evil profits off of their donations.
That's a great illustration.
We thought about making a special deal on this for liberals to participate in the Adopt a Soldier program.
We're going to make the price $5 more expensive for them since they, you know, against tax cuts, they hate Walmart, they hate discount prices, and they're willing to pay $10,000 more for a car than they have to to show they're environmentally, these people are profligate spenders, but that's of other people's money.
So we thought about coming up with a welfare program where adopt a soldier donors could actually be purchased for liberals by others, but I didn't want to make it that complicated.
We just stuck with the idea of maybe having a higher price for liberals, thinking that might attract them, because they can show they really care.
But then we figure if they don't get any recognition for it, they're not going to do it just to make themselves feel good.
They already do feel like they're better people.
Only if they got some recognition for this would they do.
But I frankly don't think that Nancy Pelosi I don't think she'd I don't think she'd have her kneecaps if her constituents learned that she participated in this program out in San Francisco.
And I don't want to cause anything like that to happen.
Great idea, but not real.
I hope you have a marvelous weekend, folks.
I got a couple cities I got to hit this weekend before getting back Sunday morning for a little golf games.
They're going to be flying all over the place.
But have a great weekend.
We'll be back on Monday.
▲
Export Selection