All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
January 6, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Time is zipping by here today, Fog.
We're already at Friday, and we're already in the last hour.
Friday.
Fastest three hours in media is zipping by every day, and it's no mystery.
Why?
Greetings, great to have you.
It is Friday, so let's just keep it rolling.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And here's the telephone number.
It's 800-282-2882, the email address.
Rush at EIB Net.com.
Great to have you on the program today, folks.
Remember the rules now.
When it comes to taking phone calls, we will talk about things I don't care about.
Whatever you want to talk about today is fine.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about things that interest me from front to back.
I'm not going to sit here and talk about things I don't care about.
But I take a great career risk on Friday engaging in this, letting rank amateurs choose that portion of the program.
And I love it.
Don't miss it.
I don't mean anything insulting by rank amateurs.
I'm just I am the highly trained broadcast specialist.
You are the rank amateurs when it comes to hosting.
You people probably better callers than I would be because I don't ever call anybody.
If you want to send an email, rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, very quickly.
If you want the straight-up winners in the NFL's wild card weekend this weekend, they are the Buccaneers, the Patriots, Steelers, and the New York Giants.
Straight up winners, the Tampa Bay Bucks, the New England Patriots, the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the New York Giants.
Which means the straight up losers are the Washington Redskins, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bungles, and the uh and the Carolina Panthers.
And am I confident about those?
Yeah.
Especially pick three because the Hutch told me that the Bingles are going to win, but he only picked the Bengals because he knows I like the Steelers because I gave him a Steelers jersey with my name on it when I autographed it.
I said P.S. the Hutch stole this from me.
And he's never gotten over that.
Yeah, I I I um well now, what are you not sure about the Giants?
What do you what's oh no?
Well, whether you hate the Giants or not, it shouldn't affect whether you think they're gonna win the game.
Uh, I just I think home teams are pretty much gonna win.
That's that's the way this weekend goes.
Other with the upset.
I think the bungals are going the wrong way this time of year, and the Steelers are peeking, but I will admit I'm a little I'm a little torn uh with now you talking point spreads gonna be a different situation.
We'll do that a little bit later.
Mentioned this earlier in the program.
Hidden cameras have pierced the hard to investigate world of nursing home neglect, leading to the arrests of 19 employees in a civil action against an owner after patients were left in their own waste while some staffers watched movies.
This according to the Office of New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer yesterday.
The investigations prompted a consumer report released on Thursday that serves as a starting point for patients and their families to evaluate staffing levels at nursing homes statewide.
The arrests involved employees of the Jennifer Matthew nursing home in Rochester and the Northwoods nursing home in Cortland.
Now Spitzer said he's trying to recover state Medicaid funds for care that he argues wasn't provided.
He said the home has received $10 million in Medicaid funds over the last several years.
And he said that hidden cameras found a patient in the Rochester home, and other residents hadn't been repositioned to avoid bed sores, were often left for hours to lie on their own urine and waste.
He also said medications and treatments were not provided as prescribed.
Uh excuse me, folks.
Um I just have a question.
Did he use a warrant for these hidden cameras?
I well, it doesn't say.
If he didn't use a warrant, it sounds like unauthorized surveillance to me.
Of course, I don't play a lawyer on TV, so I don't know how this would shake out, but I would like to know if he used warrants.
You don't think we've got a problem with the courts in this country.
The Florida Supreme Court struck down a statewide voucher system yesterday that allowed children to attend private schools at taxpayer expense.
This is a program that Governor Bush considered one of his proudest achievements.
It was the nation's first statewide voucher program.
In a five-to-two ruling, the Florida Supreme Court said the program undermines the public scrubs and violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.
Voucher opponents had also argued that the program violated the separation of church and state in giving tax dollars to parochial schools, an argument a lower court agreed with, but the state Supreme Court didn't address that issue.
About 700 children in Florida are attending a private or parochial scrule through the program, but the ruling will not become effective till the end of the scrule year.
The governor said, I think it's a sad day for accountability in our state.
He said the voucher program had a positive effect because it put pressure on school districts to focus on the underperforming schools.
So if you read this, the Florida Supreme Court said that this voucher program violates the Florida Constitution's requirement of a uniform system of free public education.
So if that uniform system of free public education stinks, that's still going to be what we're going to have.
Because it's uniform.
It makes the point.
Liberalism believes in equality, and the only way you can get there is to spread misery equally.
And by the way, what this notion that uh uh private schools at taxpayer repents.
People go to public schools at taxpayer expense.
For who do you think is paying for the public schools?
What is this taxpayer expense or press?
Who cares?
It's you can see that the focus here is not on improving education.
It is on protecting a public school system that can't compete.
Pure and simple.
Power of the unions.
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Puff Dashel is hoping to save incumbent Democrats from his own fate.
And so the puffster is giving away $230,000 in campaign cash to vulnerable members of his party.
He may also be thinking about his own future.
Now you might say $230,000.
Campaign cash, what campaign?
His, folks.
In case you have forgotten, members of Congress can keep whatever they don't spend that has been donated to them.
In fact, I don't know if this ever got changed.
At one point, when a member of Congress left office, unspent campaign cash could be converted to personal use.
Now, wasn't there some attempt at some point, snurdly to change that so that what and I don't know if that succeeded or not.
I don't know if it didn't.
I'm not sure that ever happened.
So I don't know, but but Dashell has 236.
He's got a lot more.
So he took 236 from campaign funds he didn't use to give it to uh vulnerable members of his party.
A spokesman said Thursday that Dashel has not ruled out a run for president in 2008.
He uh raised the money last year for Democrats in Congress.
Former Dasho campaign manager Steve Hildenbrand also said that Dashell was going to give a speech in the politically pivotal state of Iowa next month.
It'll be his second trip to the state since he left Congress.
Dashel also scheduled a speak in California and New York.
Well, hubba hub.
Man, I tell you, one thing you know I've always said about the Liberals, you lose and you rise in prominence in their party.
They're losers.
I mean, you lose, and it's a resume enhancement.
I say the more losers the Democrats can trot out there and run for office again or to urge votes for others.
We need more Jimmy Carter.
We need more Michael Dukakis.
Just get these guys out there.
It's amazing to me to watch.
The Democratic Party vaults its losers to uh senior status in the party.
And you know why?
I'll tell you why.
There's a reason for it.
I'm not just making this up.
It actually happens.
There's a reason for it.
Victimhood.
Democrats who lose don't lose.
They have it stolen from them.
It's cheated away from them.
It's something's good.
It's just not fair.
It just isn't right.
No Democrat ought to ever lose an election ever.
These guys are the are the at the top of the victim pool.
And they think They can go arouse sympathy.
Here's our great former Senate leader, Tom Dashell, who by all rights should still be there.
But he had an election taken away from him by this guy, Thune in South Dakota, and everybody knows that Dashell should not have lost.
He is our hero.
And so they put their losers at the top of their heap.
Because their losers to them are victims.
They love victims.
I think everybody will sympathize with their victims.
What they don't understand is that nobody wants to be led by a loser.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, back to the phones on open line Friday.
I got I got horrible news for the now gang coming up, folks.
The Nags, this is a dark day for them and the left, as is uh every day to one extent or another.
This is Mitch in Yuma, Arizona, your next sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh, I wanted to say thank you very much, actually.
I'm one of your adopted soldiers.
I'm a Marine Station here in Yuma.
I agree with you all the time on politics.
But your sports this time is incorrect.
You went ahead and picked New England to win this weekend.
But I wanted to remind you that you said they're on a roll, but they haven't played anybody since December 4th, when they first played the Jets and they played Buffalo, Tampa Bay, then the Jets again, and then Miami.
They haven't shown anything other than they could win against losers.
So I'm picking Jacksonville, who had Fred Taylor out for much of the season.
Now he's back.
What are your thoughts, Rush?
Um, what does it matter since you disagree with them?
Because I just want to get a different perspective if I do it.
All right, here's my perspective on the game.
They are still a champions.
They are a team that still has the ability to dominate.
They have had injury after look it.
They have had no worse injuries than the uh New York Jets, other than the Jets lost a quarterback, but we still don't know just how big a loss that really was.
It was Chad Pennington.
Right.
They lost, they've lost Rodney Harris.
They've they've had they've had one cornerback.
The New England Patriots have had one cornerback play the whole season, and he got bumped out two games ago as Asante Samuel.
Uh they have had rotating cornerbacks.
They lost Rodney Harrison against the Steelers earlier in the year, and he was the heart and the soul of the defense, and everybody thought that was it.
They lost Matt Light and another offensive lineman on the offensive line, both on the same side.
Brady's blind side, and it didn't matter.
There's something about this coach and this team that especially when you get it this time of year at home in New England, they're gonna be there's gonna be snow and cold weather all weekend.
Uh tomorrow night, it's I don't think it's supposed to snow that's supposed to happen during the day.
You got Jacksonville going up there from a warm weather climb.
This stuff matters.
Byron left which hasn't played a meaningful game in a couple of weeks.
He's coming off of an injury.
Uh I just don't think this is this is a wild card round against a Super Bowl champion.
And I uh I I just don't think that the uh Jack Wars have an 11, what is it, a 12-4 record?
They they but you they haven't played a whole lot of people either.
Right.
But they are but they are gonna get a little bit of help from the Colts.
I'm sure they're giving them some insights because we don't want to fail.
I'm a Colts fan, and we do not want to face New England again.
Uh you probably won't.
I mean, I don't expect the Patriots to go all the way, but I I I until they're until they're beaten, I don't know how you pick against them.
Uh especially at home and uh in a wild card round.
I there's just too much uh too much experience these guys have.
This playoff experience, I don't think it's overrated at all.
Well, and they've got Teddy Bruski coming back for this game and and Corey Dillon is uh pretty much healthy.
So now if you want to talk about points, now Jacksonville's getting eight and a half points this game.
Now that game, if you want to take Jacksonville in the points, you might you might have a case.
Yeah, well, I think uh well, I will call you next week, though, if I'm right.
If not, you won't hear from me again.
I'll be glad to I'll be glad to hear from you.
Hey, look, uh you know, if I'm if I'm wrong, I never have any problem admitting it.
So I I uh uh you feel free to call back any time.
I'll be listening Monday to see if see if I was right and you were wrong.
See if you will voice it again.
Well, you could you can watch the game tomorrow night and know that.
Right.
I just wanted you to say you were wrong on the air.
Yeah, I know it doesn't happen much.
I know it's it's a rare experience, and it's I'll tell you what, uh it most of the time, even when I think I'm wrong, I end up being right.
That's how right I usually am.
Even when I'm wrong, I think I'm or when I think I'm wrong, I end up being right.
So in this case, I can understand it.
People do love to hear me say it's wrong because they never do.
It's such a unique experience.
George, sell call from St. Louis, your next, sir on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, getting back to uh Spitzer's indictment of these uh surveillance in the nursing homes.
I think there's a marketplace uh capitalistic response to all of this.
I think good nursing home operators, if they're smart, they're gonna put little webcams in every room in every hallway and invite people and say, bring your relatives here, bring your parents here, bring your grandparents here, because we're not afraid.
In fact, you can sit at your desk at work and you can get on a webcam and you can watch exactly what's going on with in our home with your parents, with your grandparents.
I think good daycare operators, it should pick up on this idea.
And I think there's going to be people flocking to these providers.
What you're gonna find is the the liberals, the Democrats are gonna go, wait, wait, wait, privacy, way, wait, wait, HIPAA, everything else.
And I think what you're gonna find is the market's gonna demand that kind of surveillance.
We've got inner city schools.
Well, no, wait a second.
You're exactly right about something.
The Democrats, the only time they will support the surveillance cameras is when the cameras are used to nail some corporation or some company, because that's you know, liberals target company.
That's that's if you look at their list of enemies today, it's Walmart, Enron, or not Enron, uh big oil, ExxonMobil, uh take your pick, any big business, GM, big huge enemies of liberals.
So if you use these uh devices to capture these people, oh, that's fine and dandy, but you put these cameras in so people, anybody can tune in and watch what's going on with a patient, a nursing home, and not all of that stuff that you want to see, George.
Well, I mean, you gotta admit that now, George.
There's some things you like, for example, I I was in one nursing home, and I swear, I I I'm not gonna tell you who I was in visiting doesn't matter, but uh I when these people I went into the the lounge or public area, I didn't go in anybody's room.
These people when I felt like it was Halloween when they all open their mouths and smiled.
You know, you just you just uh some things you're not gonna want to watch on these cameras.
I think you're gonna you're gonna see a trend here.
It's gonna be in daycares, it's gonna be in school buses, it's gonna be in assisted living systems.
Well, I I don't doubt it's gonna it's already at traffic stops.
Well, and you're surveillance cameras are gonna be all over the place.
You better watch out if you your enthusiasm for this is such that someday somebody's let's put them in some people's homes.
We know there are crimes going on in these people's homes.
Somebody might be smoking a cigarette in their home.
How I how I came upon this, I have a son with Down syndrome, and we're looking at residential facilities for him as he becomes an adult, and he's gonna move in.
And there have been a couple enterprising parents in this town who have built their own houses with some very high-tech motion detector, uh light sensitive, um, uh all these kinds of fact, pull off the shelf kind of technology today, and they're having problems as they're interviewing service provider agencies who are saying, Well, wait a minute, my employees don't want to be subjected to this.
And my take is wait a minute, if you're if you're confident that you're given the best quality care that can be provided, what are you afraid of?
Why wouldn't you want that?
In fact, it helps maintain it helps secure.
Well, I'm gonna tell you why.
No, no, let me let me give you a reason.
Let me give you a real world reason.
Back this was in the late 80s, early 90s.
I remember being on an American Airlines flight going either from New York to Los Angeles or vice versa.
And they had at that time a camera in the cockpit.
The camera was located behind the pilots so that you could see out the cockpit window on your on your screen at your seat or wherever they had the screen back then.
And uh this camera was located such that you could see what the pilots were doing.
And there happened to be on not on this flight, but on one such flight, there happened to be a plaintiff's lawyer.
And a plaintiff's lawyer thought he watched the pilots not paying attention to what they were doing at 39,000 feet.
And or or taxiing or whatever it was, and he threatened to sue because the pilots were negligent.
And so Americans said, screw this.
We are offering this as a service to pastors, see what goes on up there.
They pulled the cameras out.
The pilots weren't negligent.
The planes flying up there on autopilot.
You can't tell just by watching on a camera behind these guys what they're doing up there.
Um so I I guarantee you start these cameras in places, and you're going to have you're gonna have staged events by people to try to get other people in trouble, and they're gonna call a neighborhood plaintiff lawyer.
And you're gonna have a whole slew of things.
Now, I think there's gonna be a big push to get these cameras in because invading people's privacy is a big deal these days under the guise of quality service and and so forth and so on.
So, but you gotta be careful with this because these free market solutions, while on the surface that may seem good, you can't forget that there are lawyers out there.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
Don't even bother to think, folks.
We do that for you here.
And as an added bonus, we'll tell you what to think after we describe the situation.
Remember when I used to say that early on this show liberal media would hear that.
He's dangerous.
He tells his audience not to think.
They're just a bunch of mind-numbed robots.
Anyway, greetings, great to have you back.
Uh 800-282-2882.
Dark day for the left.
This is from LifeNews.com, a new national poll.
Finds that Hascruel seniors take a pro-life position on abortion, saying it is morally wrong and supporting legislative proposals that would limit abortions and help women find alternatives.
The poll found seventy-two percent of females in the high school class of 2006 would not consider an abortion if they became pregnant.
The Hamilton College poll found a majority of half-screwed seniors don't believe abortions should be allowed for sociological reasons, such as when women are too poor to afford another child or unable to have a baby at the time.
Sociology students at Hamilton College in conjunction with Zogby International surveyed 1,000 half screwed seniors by phone.
The survey has a 3% plus or minus margin of error.
The poll is the seventh in a series of polls over the years of students' views on public policy issues.
Yeah, I don't know that now gangs out there are gonna be in a twit here, folks.
What are we doing to our children?
Who's poisoning our children's minds?
Who was it that said that?
Was Meryl St was Merrill Strape during the Al R Apple.
Boy, you talk about a hoax.
Merrill Streep going up there, testifying before Congress, Al R, the thing that they put on apples and make them appear red, redder than they are by nature.
What are we doing to our children?
Ah so we were poisoning them.
Uh how many of you people out there are discovering that your family is less a family or behaves less a family because you all have cell phones.
Study here from uh what is this?
Well, I'll get to it here in just a second, but it's a Reuters story.
The round the clock availability that cell phones and pagers have brought to people's lives may be taking a toll on family life, according to a new study.
The study, which followed more than 13 adults over two years, found that those who consistently used a mobile phone or pager throughout the study period were more likely to report negative spillover between work and home life, and in turn less satisfaction with their family life.
Spillover essentially means that the line between work and home begins to blur.
Work life may invade home life when a parent's taking job-related calls at home, for instance, or household issues may start to take up work time.
In the latter scenario, a child may call mom at work, not to say that he aced his English test, but that he microwave exploded.
Explained Noelle Chesley.
What all this is because cell phones, you mean kids never used to call their parents before cell phones were around.
What a bunch of bunk.
What a bunch.
See, everybody's a victim.
Everybody's a victim.
All you do is turn the phone off.
Can't turn it off, Rush.
I'm waiting for that important call.
Uh well, you know, I Dawn has offered an interesting perspective on this, and I want one I wouldn't have thought of because this problem doesn't doesn't affect me.
But she says cell phones are actually keeping families together because wives have an easier time tracking down husbands.
That I totally believe.
I've wondered about this.
You know, I don't use the phone.
I use it some, but I I don't like the phone.
I I've been through this.
It's it's it's it's not just my hearing, it's just uh it it I just I don't know.
I will call somebody if I want to talk to them, and I never call anybody.
So they call me.
But people that know I don't want to talk to them don't call me, and that's fine.
You know, they email me.
I I'm I'm I'm a total creature of email.
Ninety-nine of my interpersonal communications when I'm not in somebody's presence or with email.
When somebody wants my cell phone number, that's a huge decision.
And when somebody asks me to give them a call, I just not and plus when the phone rings, you know, I actually tense up when the phone rings, because there's somebody on the other end and they're gonna want something.
Nobody ever just calls, say, hi, what's up, what's happened, what's going on.
They always want something.
Always.
And I'm not selfish or a skin flint.
No, it's just it every phone call requires a decision.
Rush, we're having dinner on August 4th, and we want to Can you uh gee, I don't book myself that far in advance.
Thanks for calling click.
Uh so I don't, you know, I I don't give the cell phone number out to anybody that hasn't had it for two years or four years or whatever, and I change it periodically.
And then when they somebody used to have the uh old number calls, uh, I haven't changed the number, keep trying.
Ha ha ha.
I don't know, I don't like the phone, I despise the phone.
I actually I I I hate it.
To be quite blunt with you, I hate the phone.
When the phone rings, and I don't care what it is.
And I got in my house when it went when I got two gates, and somebody's at the gate, the phone rings.
Well, you know what?
I have a camera, so I turn on the camera to see who's out there before I answer it.
I got I got protective measures here.
But I uh I don't hate the phones here.
I mean, that that's the point.
I think I'm on the phone so much here that when it's over with, the phone is more like my work.
I don't I hate the phone.
I I drive around, I see people holding phones up to their ears all the time for crying out, loud, do you have a life or are you always on that phone?
But I mean, if you want if you like the phone, that's fine.
I'm not I'm not I would never impose my hatred of phones on people.
I just I just don't like them.
Stephen Ithaca, New York, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
I uh you a few months ago you had a uh an interview with Nathan Sharansky um uh his book on why dictatorships need enemies and why we have to you can't trust dictatorships essentially and why we can trust democracies.
Yes.
And um a few days ago you had a discussion with someone.
They wanted to know why the Republican leadership didn't crack down on the rank and file and keep them in line like the Democratic leadership did.
Yeah, party discipline.
Exactly.
So it kind of made me think a little bit there that the Democratic leadership really is much more like a dictatorship.
So they need enemies.
They've got to have people and uh Well, but there's one one one distinction here.
It's not that they need them, they have them.
They genuinely they I mean they create enemies.
They I mean uh now I you may be saying they're doing this on purpose.
Uh I think they create enemies just on the basis of what they believe, what they want to do.
Some people look at them as enemies, not just the opposition because of the tactics they use, the tricks they play, and this sort of thing.
I understand what you're saying.
And uh let me but but you know, this is not something that's really exclusive to uh to Democrats and liberals.
I remember Phil Donahue.
If he wasn't apologizing for the accident of his birth, quote unquote, or or some other inane thing.
Phil would always start crying about being born in America.
He said, What if I was born 90 miles south of where I was born?
I would have grown up in Mexico and I would have been poor and I would have been this and I would have been that.
So he he felt guilty over the fact that that he had Opportunity simply because he was born in America, the accident of his birth.
And I said, Phil, you can look at it that way.
I did tell him this, but you look at it that way, but why don't you have genuine sympathy for these people you think are born in rotten places and help to spread our way of life to more places in the world so that when they're born there, they're gonna have the same kind of opportunity we have.
Lost him, he was unable to because he didn't bel he didn't really believe when you got down to it in the opportunity of America.
America stunk too.
But he always said that if the Soviet Union didn't exist, the Republican Party would have had to create them.
The Soviet Union had to had to exist, and and there are people now that say, since we beat the Soviet Union, Bush had to create another enemy, and it's Al Qaeda.
Because Republicans can't govern unless they put people in a state of fear, fear that the country's gonna be wiped out and so forth.
So this argument goes goes both ways.
Uh and it's used by both sides to attack the other.
The fact of the matter is that we all have enemies.
We do.
As Americans, we have enemies, and Al Qaeda is a genuine enemy.
Iran is an enemy, the Soviet Union was an enemy, China in in certain regards is an enemy.
And then domestically, uh when you get into domestic policies, some people think that they genuinely have enemies.
But I don't think that they have to be artificially created.
Uh the Phil Donahue's of the world never thought the Soviet Union was an enemy.
And the liberals today do not think Al Qaeda is an enemy.
Bush is the enemy.
And their enemy is whoever it is that's denying them power.
Whoever's denying them election results, whoever's stopping them from their birthright of wielding power.
So that's that's who their enemies are.
Uh I'm an enemy to the left because I say things on the radio that if I didn't exist wouldn't be said.
Uh well, now there's a whole new industry that does it.
Uh but you go back nineteen eighty eight when this program started, this program was it.
And you had the rest of the mainstream media, and they had their monopoly.
And that's I think that's one of the reasons they're just uh uh totally unhinged today.
They had so many years of a monopoly, they never had to work at it, never had to explain what they really believed.
They just had a mainstream media amplify it, and nobody ever heard anything different.
So the majority of people bought into everything the mainstream press says, not happening now, and they don't know how to compete in the arena of ideas.
Quick timeout, we'll be back.
Stay with us.
Ha, how are you welcome back?
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Dear Rush, may I see the model of the plane behind you, please?
What kind is it?
You said you could ask I could ask this on open line Friday.
Thanks, Linda, in Yorktown, Virginia.
So I I obscure this model when I sit in front of it, so I I I grabbed it here to um to demo, and and this is a Gulf Stream G4 SP.
Uh and I I would love to have one.
Here is uh Mike in Cleveland.
Mike, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, thanks a lot.
I'm calling about the San Francisco gun gun ban law.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold it a minute.
Hold on a minute.
The San Francisco gun ban law?
Yes, sir.
I didn't know there were any guns left to ban.
How can we attack this?
How can we how can we get rid of this?
This is horrible for you know our constitutional rights right here.
Uh what am I missing?
When is uh is is this uh did this news happen when I was gone or something?
Uh uh it's it's a it's a liberal city.
I mean, I I'm not I'm only half joking when I say I'm surprised there are any guns left to ban uh out there.
This is the same outfit that's not allowing military recruiters anywhere near high school or college campuses.
Uh I think then it's San Francisco.
That I mean that that's that's the best I can tell you.
I'm not trying to to to have your call bounce off here, but but uh uh Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, the only people can have them are law enforcement security guards and and uh and uh related rif people in the military, and they're trying to get rid of those people out there too.
Now the the the interesting thing is the murder rate out there is going up, and they don't know what to do about that.
I do remember that story.
The murder rate's climbing, and don't know what to do about having meetings and what to do with the there aren't any arrests.
So you're thinking of starting a community policing program.
That's gonna make a lot of sense.
Community police with no guns to go out and try to impact the murder rate.
It's just San Francisco.
Michael in Palm Springs, California.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you.
Good morning, Rush.
Always a pleasure and honor to talk to you.
Thank.
By the way, you know what?
You reminded me.
I have not I've not played in the Bob Hope Chrysler classic in like three years.
Oh, I go to it every year.
Oh, I'm going this year.
They invited me.
They they they asked me uh quite uh uh persuasively.
Well, perhaps I'll see you then, because uh I'm a disabled vet in a wheelchair and uh would get out there and uh I usually get front row seating at those things.
Well, I will look you up.
Okay, listen, I have two things I wanted to say today.
One is just a comment about um five or six weeks ago on today's show.
Um I was a bit surprised at your reaction to what Dingy Harry's response was to Bush coming out and saying that Tom Delay will be proven innocent.
You had kind of a negative reaction, and and the first thing I thought of the wrong thing.
Oh, wait, wait, I did this way.
Let me finish first.
Was my God, these democratic leaders are so afraid of Bush because he stay he means what he says, and he's a powerful leader, and that scares the pants off of him.
And um Now wait a second.
You say I was critical of Bush for saying this?
No, no, you're a c you were you were a bit downtrodden about Dingy Harry's response to Bush saying that.
You took a negative aspect of it instead of always being the positive man you are and saying they're how afraid of him they are.
Because if Bush has that much influence that he could influence a jury, they are scared of him.
And uh Oh, I see.
We're just saying well.
But but I I just I remember the comment about Dingy Harry, and it and it was it was basically rooted in who is this little Chihuahua here.
Yeah, yeah.
This is just he's just yapping at the heels of somebody much bigger than he is.
It was a joke.
I know, I know.
But um yeah, it was just one of those days you could, you know, there was so much going on in the news that day, and we could tell it was weighing heavily on your mind, and we're the you're the one we look to for inspiration.
Um can you hear my neighbors in the background?
I'm in the middle of a liberal enclave here, and they I got them listening to you over the last couple months.
No, I I I can't hear them, but it wouldn't I can say a couple things that would freak them out, I'm sure.
The second thing I wanted to get your comment on was um I'll be 44 on Sunday, and I retired at 38.
Um my investment portfolio has not quite doubled since Bush has been in office.
And this morning, prior to our president's speech on uh the state of the economy, uh this David Gergen from U.S. News and World Report was on Fox.
It was about 920 West Coast time this morning.
And I wrote it down because I couldn't believe he said this.
And it quote, Americans don't see the results of tax cuts and are apprehensive about further tax cuts.
Oh, that's crocodics.
Let me tell you something.
That that's David Rodham Gurgen, by the way, and he brings he he this is he's simply articulating the left's stock answer on tax cuts.
That they don't people don't want tax cuts, they want balanced budgets.
They want the deficit reduced.
They don't and and and there's no relationship to uh tax cuts in the economy.
It's just the exact opposite, and more and more people know it.
Um people if if Gergen believes that, tell him to tell the next Democratic candidate to run on raising taxes to reduce the debt.
Tell that candidate, run for president, raising taxes, promise to raise taxes for whatever reason.
Don't care.
Promise to raise taxes, and we'll see how well that candidate does.
You might go back to 1984, look at the campaign of Walter F. Mondel for an indication.
Quick timeout, folks, we'll be right back.
Try this, folks.
There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many, many times over a four-year span since she was seven.
The judge, Edward Cashman, said he no longer believes in punishment.
He's more concerned about rehabilitation.
He also revealed that uh he once handed down stiff sentences when he first got on the bench twenty-five years ago, but he no longer believes in punishment.
Sixty days for four years worth of raping.
A little girl starting when she was seven years old.
Judge doesn't believe in punishment.
It's a Burlington, Vermont story.
Have a great weekend, folks.
We'll be back and uh review it uh on Monday.
Whatever happens between now and then, we'll be on the cutting edge with it.
And as a bonus, we'll tell you what to think about what happened over the weekend.
▲
Export Selection