All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
January 13, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Mike, you got to have number six.
You have number seven standing by, number eight, but really number six.
And greetings once again to you, thrill seekers and music lovers all across the fruited plane.
It's time for more broadcast excellence on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
And when we get to your calls, it does not have to interest me.
It could be whatever interests you.
Odds are I'll have an opinion on it because I'm professional and I'm prepared.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
We did our morning update today on the hearings that are upcoming on the National Security Agency spying on innocent Americans authorized by George W. Bush because he actually doesn't care about protecting you.
Bush just wants to spy on you.
And you know what else?
Bush is doing it personally in the White House.
That's the image that's being left.
And our update today was bring it on.
Bring it on.
You liberals want to show yourself on the side of al-Qaeda?
You want to show yourself on the side of people who have targeted this country?
Bring it on.
Bring it on.
I happen to think the president is of the same mind.
I mean, I think the president's actually eager for these hearings.
In an election year?
In an election year, the Democrats actually want televised hearings into what will end up illustrating to the American people on whose side they are.
They have a little Reuters story about that today.
President Bush's extension of domestic spying on Americans has inflamed Democrat critics.
But public opinion is split on the issue, and analysts say that it could reinforce traditional Republican advantages with voters on national security.
It's a big mistake for Democrats to think that they can gain some sort of political traction by running against the security of the United States, said Jim Dyke, Republican strategerist.
Democratic critics say the effort's another example of the Bush administration's broad misjudgments and abuse of power.
After September 11th, Bush's decision to skip court authorization for the wiretaps and surveillance has drawn fire even from some Republicans.
Meanwhile, Howard Dean said, we haven't seen this kind of abuse of power since Richard Nixon.
Doug Schoen, Democrat pollster, said, could play to the image of a president who is overreaching and not succeeding, going to war without a clear purpose or credible proof in retrospect, isolating America, wiretap.
This is just comical.
This is just comical.
And I know a lot of you people, Rush, shut up.
Don't just let them keep thinking this way.
Folks, if we've learned one thing over 18 years, it's this.
They're not going to listen to me.
And if they're not, now they're not going to start now.
If they have it up to now.
The bottom line is we had the story yesterday about polling data.
There's all kinds of polling data on that.
The American people are on the president's side on this.
But if they want to do these hearings and if they want to go on television and illustrate on whose side they are, then by God, bring it on.
Who's this next question?
Who's this?
I guess this is still Doug Schoen, the Democrat pollster.
He says, we're a long way from having this as a front burner hot button issue with it have an impact on the elections.
If it's just about al-Qaeda and terrorism, I'm not sure it's a positive for the Democrats.
If there's a degree of overreaching by Bush and goes beyond that, then we have an issue.
Let me just ask you to review recent history.
And I probably can't remember all of the similar stories.
But how many are there where the Democrats thought, this is it?
We got him now.
Impeachment is ours.
We start with the National Guard story.
They wouldn't let it die, went through four iterations of it.
Got so frustrated they ran a false story with forged documents on CBS, ended Dan Rather's career.
He had Cindy Sheehan.
We had the 9-11 hearings.
We had the Jersey girls.
We had Richard Clark.
We had Abu Grab.
We had Club Gitmo.
All of these things.
And the Democrats salivated on every one of them just like they're salivating now on the NSA wiretaps.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
Just like this Valerie Plame thing, when that trial gets underway, assuming it does and there isn't some kind of plea deal, when that trial gets underway, you're going to see a lot of journalists on that witness stand.
And when these hearings get going on the National Security Agency, we're going to find out who the leakers are.
James Risen, and this happened last Monday, two Mondays, almost two weeks ago, James Rison, the author of this New York Times story that was held for a year, coincidentally ended up running just about three weeks before the release of his big book, which I announced to the world sold a mere 8,700 copies in its first week after first-page treatment on the New York Times for weeks after appearing on the Today Show,
this book exposing the fact that Bush has overreached, that Bush is violating the law, that Bush is spying on Americans without warrants, that Bush is violating civil liberties.
8,700 copies.
I sold that many copies an hour when my first books came out, ladies and gentlemen.
This is embarrassing.
8,700 copies.
And this guy, Risen, two Mondays ago was on with Katie Couric, and it was clear that he had set himself up as an arbiter and a member of the elitist class that considers itself necessary to maintain a centrist position in American foreign policy.
Because he said things like, well, I think what happened here, Katie, is a power grab by elected officials to basically wrest control of national security matters away from those of us who are supposed to keep it centered.
Well, really?
Who did that sound like?
Sounded like Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell at the State Department.
And he's all in a tizzy, and he's been running around talking about a power grab, a Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld power grab.
Which is technically absurd.
These are the people the country elected.
One of them is a commander-in-chief.
One's the Secretary of Defense.
One's the Vice President.
Power grab?
State Department has the constitutional role of running U.S. foreign policy.
Yes, according to James Risen, and according probably to Jay Rockefeller, and according to a couple of FISA court judges, we're going to find out who's leaking.
Bring these hearings on.
We'll find out who's leaking to James Risen.
We'll find out who is destroying this nation's ability to prevail against this enemy.
That's why there is an eagerness for these hearings.
Let's go to the phones quickly to Carthage, Missouri.
This is Brian.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hi.
Yeah, mega Ditto's Rush, and also Dittos to Mr. Snerdley as well.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate you being a voice of reason, conservatism, and freedom.
It is a lighthouse in the midst of a sea of liberalism.
Somebody has to do it, sir, and I have chosen my lot in life and my path.
There you go.
Well, my question is relating to the House majority job that Tom DeLay has recently stepped down from.
I believe that him and Haster did a good job of advancing a conservative policy, except the one time when DeLay said that he couldn't find pork in the budget.
I kind of, you know, that was a little off.
But other than that, you have a three-way race.
And down here, our guy is Blunt, and his son is the governor.
So of those three guys, which one is going to advance a conservative agenda?
The other thing is the media is portraying it more as who is going to be the reformer.
So my first question, which one?
Throw that out.
That question is, that's typical.
Who's going to reform the corrupt Republican caucus?
Is that what that means?
Well, to that.
Now, as to who's going to be the new Republican leader, your guess is as good as mine.
Look at, I watch things.
I'm a keen observer of these kinds of maneuverings.
And it seems to me that powers outside the House have requested that John Shattig from Arizona get in the race for House majority leader, and he has agreed to do so.
I also put Shattig up against Blunt up against Boehner.
I don't have any clue who's going to.
And I, you know, as to who is going to advance the conservative agenda, I think all three of them would be fine at that.
I think there's something else they've got to do.
I think, and we've been talking all week here, folks, about the implosion of the Democrats, and it is happening.
I mean, there is no question.
They know now they don't have the power.
The minority is not the majority.
They don't control events.
They can't control outcomes.
They can use their smears, and they will continue to do so, but they fail.
They haven't gotten the president.
They haven't impeached him.
Nothing has worked.
They may have damaged his approval numbers and this sort of thing, but they haven't been able to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
And losing Alito and getting Robertson, both those guys in Supreme Court, that, you know, we just cut off two of their hands.
These are horrible moves for these people.
So, yeah, they're imploding.
However, and I also said that you can't rely just on that in order to win elections, just like they're trying to rely on, oh, Republicans are corrupt.
Why, we can't stick with them enough.
Republicans are spy.
Republicans are.
You're not going to get anywhere by trying to do nothing but demonize your opponents.
On the other side of that is this.
The Republicans cannot sit there and just think, ooh, the Democrats are imploding.
Nobody's going to vote for them.
The Democrats are supposedly, as we speak behind closed doors, coming up with a contract type agenda.
Because all they can do is emulate Newt Gingrich.
They think everything they're doing now is emulating Republicans the way they constantly went after Clinton.
They still don't understand it was about ideas.
And ideas are the key.
Conservatives win when they run on conservative ideas.
They get in trouble when they don't govern with conservative ideas.
So what has to happen, forget what the Democrats are doing because we know who they are.
We know they're imploding, but don't rely on that.
Whoever ends up leading this caucus is going to have to put together an agenda.
And don't use the word reform.
Well, I don't know, test it if reform works.
I don't care.
I don't care what terminology.
But put up an agenda that tells people once again who we are, what we stand for, and what is going to happen when we win.
Whoever ends up leading or winning this majority leader race is going to have to do that because this caucus has got a lot of factions.
There are a lot of moderates.
A lot of moderates that would love to sabotage the conservative leadership here in our Republican caucus.
But so these guys are going to have to get together and come up with an articulated plan that says, here's who we are, and this is what we're for.
And give people a reason to vote for them.
Don't rely on the fact that nobody likes the Democrats or fewer and fewer do and nobody wants to vote for them.
Because there's this thing called incumbent itis, and people get fed up with incumbents just as they get fed up with anything else in politics.
And the incumbents seem power-hungry and overly confident they're going to have big trouble.
You know, throw this Abramoff thing in there.
Nobody knows how that's going to shake down.
Nobody knows.
Best guess is now it could cost the Republicans eight seats if the election were today.
That's still holding the House because there's a 15-seat majority.
But regardless, the president has an agenda.
I know the president is going to go full bore on his agenda.
You can see that now for the next two years.
He's got another, no question in my mind, he's going to have a Supreme Court nominee, another one to nominate, and he's going to have other international and domestic agenda items.
And it would help to have control of both houses to do this.
But in the House, it's going to take a very plain, simple, conservative agenda that is trumpeted and shouted from the rooftops because that's what will bring voters back to the Republican side.
Probably in even greater numbers if you couple that with this continued implosion of the Democrats and the fact that no matter what they do, they cannot portray themselves as likable.
But you can't rely on that.
You can't rely on people to vote for you because they don't like the other guys.
Quick timeout.
That's what they're doing, by the way.
Well, look at this, folks.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter today announced that he will vote to confirm Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Specter said, I intend to vote to support Judge Alito's nomination as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
This was at the conclusion of his committee's confirmation hearing today.
Well, this, my friends, just underscores that it's over.
It's Justice Scalito.
Sorry.
Justice Alito now.
Rather than nominee, it's all but official with Specter coming out.
If Specter had gone the other way because of some concerns he found about abortion, might be a little different story.
But turns out Democrats lose again, which we knew was going to happen.
Here is James in Bangerman.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
How are you doing today?
Have you been here?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Very good.
Wonderful.
I'm calling because I'm concerned that before O'Connor resigned, there was this talk of Kennedy kind of swaying left a little bit sometimes, giving in to the Washington media, kind of pushing him.
That's been going on a long time, though.
Yeah, it has been going on a long time, but it's kind of getting more and more fevered, I guess.
And now with her gone, and obviously four conservative justices, I'm afraid the Washington media is going to push it in even more and maybe tip him over saying we could prop you up as the new swing vote.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised.
I can't they're probably already preparing profiles for the style section of Washington Post.
Anthony Kennedy, the new center of the United States Supreme Court.
I wouldn't, yeah, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I'm just afraid that he might actually give into it and say, oh, wow, you know, I could, you know, just kind of think with his head, get an ego going and think I could be that guy now.
You know, something, I'm going to tell you something about fear.
Don't be afraid of something you can't change.
Don't be afraid of fear.
I mean, that's not productive and it's not going to change it.
Just be patient.
It's going to take a while to get where we want to go here.
There will be another Supreme Court nomination that the president will be allowed to make.
And Justice Kennedy is not a lost cause.
I refuse to believe that we can tell how these people are going to vote on cases before they get there, even looking at things in the past.
But it is what it is, regardless.
Now, the one thing that I don't want to, I don't want to appear to be yelling at you here.
That's okay.
But we're making great progress.
This is not the time to start getting, oh, no, is Kennedy going to screw us?
We are in the process of reforming and changing the Supreme Court.
We've got two conservative nominees that are going to go on the court, and there will be another one.
We've got Roberts now as the chief.
We've got Alito who will join Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
This is progress.
So take that for what it is and build on it.
Now, don't be concerned about these other things.
They are what they are.
And you're going to be disappointed with some of the Supreme Court rulings.
We're going to be disappointed with a lot of them, no matter who these guys are.
It's never a slam dunk.
And it's always a roll of the dice.
What's good about this is that we know we're getting people who have a fealty and loyalty and an understanding of the Constitution.
We got two nominees here who, in their hearing, swore off this whole concept of foreign law.
And for all this talk that these two justices didn't say anything, remember, I have that bite from Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, where in a matter of what, 44 seconds, he destroyed the whole liberal theory of the Supreme Court, just destroyed it, just nuked it.
It was a substantive answer that either the Democrats and the media didn't notice or they were so frightened by it, they ignored it.
The idea that these people didn't give an indication who they are and where they're going and how they look at the law is absurd.
That's nothing more than spin.
They're trying to say, they weren't forthcoming.
He was inconsistent.
Well, he didn't tell us anything about how he's going to rule.
But it's all BS.
These guys gave us a lot of information to know how they look at the Constitution and how they look at the law.
And so, despite the best efforts that the Democrat Party can mount to destroy both of these men, they are going.
One of them is the Chief Justice.
Judge Alito will soon join him on the United States Supreme Court.
And there will be, knowing how liberals are when they're in the minority, it's no fun to them.
They don't like being there when they constantly lose.
They've got, well, I don't know.
I don't know that anybody's, you look, John Paul Stevens is what, 102.
Souter, you've got Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.
She's had, and I think she's overcome them, but I'm not sure, some health problems.
So the odds are that there will be another slot open.
But progress is taking place here, folks.
Don't start getting, oh, low as us on me here.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, look, folks, a heads up.
I have to remind you, I will be out next week.
Now, the committee vote on Sam Alito is on the 17th.
I will not be here.
You will have to get through this alone.
Well, you won't be alone.
We will have Mark Belling here Monday and Tuesday, Paul W. Smith from Detroit on Thursday and Friday, and our old buddy Walter Williams, who will have no doubt some comment on Zironovsky's characterization of Condoleezza Rice on Friday.
Now, the tentative, tentative vote for Alito in the full Senate is the 20th, but the Democrats are trying to stall this that showed up on websites last night in all the newspapers today.
Dingy Harry went to Bill Fris.
So we want to delay the vote.
They can try to delay it a week in the committee, by the way.
There is a rule for that.
But Specter said he expects to have the vote on the 17th before the hearing started.
That implied he had a deal with Leahy, but Leahy and Kennedy have been leaning on Dingy Harry to screw up the works.
whole point, their whole desire now.
They want to take the temperature on a possible filibuster, but that's not going to happen.
The next thing they want to do is delay the confirmation vote so that Bush will not be able to get an applause line by mentioning Lido as the new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.
So that's what they're planning.
But if they don't succeed in delaying the vote, the committee vote will be on the 17th and the full Senate vote will be on the 20th.
I won't be here.
I'm going out to Palm Springs.
I've played this tournament.
You know, I've sacrificed folks to be here.
I have not played in this tournament for what is this, three years.
I'm going to go out and play in the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, which starts Wednesday.
But you've got to go out there and the practice rounds.
You got ready if you're going to have a chance in a tournament.
So those are Monday and Tuesday tournaments Wednesday through Saturday for those of us rank amateurs.
The pros then play by themselves on Sunday.
Be back a week from Monday to kick it all up.
And I'm looking forward to going out there because I love this tournament.
The galleries out there, Fabio, are my people.
So I've missed it the past three years, but I'm equipped and prepared to be able to do my best out there in the coming week.
Here's Doug in Baltimore.
Doug, you're nice to call.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, what an honor and privilege to speak with you.
Thank you, sir.
When your journeys next week in Palm Springs, how do you manage without the sleep number bed?
You know, that's an excellent question.
I use the sleep number bed by Select Comfort, as regular listeners know.
And it's, I'll tell you, and I've told the Select Comfort people this.
It's a tough adjustment once you get because the sleep comfort bed, the sleep number bed fits you like a glove once you get your right number.
And that's the firmness and the softness.
And it's a tough adjustment.
What I try to do is just get as tired as I can before I go to bed so that it doesn't matter who's in the bed or what the mattress is so I can get to sleep.
I just wonder if you had a travel one you took with you or you just no, I don't take a travel.
It's not a bad idea when they're going to be gone for a week, but that would mean taking the bed that's in there out, putting this one in and so forth.
And I don't want to ask the hotel to go to that kind of trouble.
Some hotels around the country are starting to put sleep number beds in their guest rooms.
But, you know, Doug, I've got to be judicious how I say this.
I've touched on this subject a number of times.
I have numerous mistresses all over the country.
I talk about them on this program, and they help in this.
But I appreciate your concern about this.
Well, I haven't been, this hotel that I'm staying, haven't been there in four years.
They may well have a sleep number bed in there by now.
Oh, in the presidential suite?
You know, Sturdley, it just shows you, you think the presidential suite is the biggest suite in every hotel?
That's just for people.
No, no, no.
I wouldn't touch a presidential suite.
They're too small.
Hotels, the real hotels in this country are around the world.
The presidential suite is just, I mean, any room, any suite that's listed on their website or in their brochure, no.
They always have rooms that are not listed there.
You just got to know how to do it.
Of course.
Yeah, Radisson Hotel.
I know the Radisson does have sleep number beds in them to give you one hotel that does.
I'm surprised that you didn't know this.
I mean, the presidential suite is a marketing come on.
They want you to think that this is where all the top-drawer, filthy, rich celebrities and so forth stay.
Yeah.
Well, that stirdle is in the observer's suite, official program observer suite.
Here's Josh in Algona, Iowa.
Josh, I'm glad you waited, and welcome to the EIB network.
Well, thank you, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I don't want to talk about Judge Alito and the abortion issue.
I'm afraid he'll take that away if he's elected because he said in a job application that he was particularly proud to have worked on opposing constitutional right to an abortion.
Now, first, you're conservatives, I think that you'd be happy for that because most of you guys are pro-life, but I'm pro-choice, and I'm just worried it'll take away a woman's right to have that done because if she'd get raped by her father, I mean, then you'd have to live with that for the rest of your life.
Oh, God.
I think that'd be terrible.
My God.
Josh, how old are you?
I am 16.
16?
16 years old.
16 or 15, did you say?
16.
Sixteen.
Where did you this this this this example that you just gave of a father raping a dog?
Where did you hear that first?
I read that on the internet.
You read it on the internet.
Let me, well.
Hey, Rush, I respect you in all manners of all your opinions.
Oh, I understand.
No, I know you're not confrontational.
The reason I asked you how old you are, because that argument that you just mentioned, I've been talking about this since 1988, 1984, before you were born.
That argument's 20 years old.
That's an argument that has been used to emotionally arouse people.
It's centered on the notion that all men, particularly fathers, are predators and that their daughters are not safe with them.
This is ancient feminism in its really, really radical period, which would do anything to advance the cause of abortion.
To feminists and hardcore liberals, abortion is the sacrament to their religion.
You just said that you're pro-choice and I'm pro-life.
I have tried talking to a number of pro-choice feminists and liberals, and I've said, you know, I'm pro-choice too.
I just choose life.
Well, then you're not pro-choice.
You can't be pro-choice.
Yes, I am.
I'm pro-choice.
I choose life.
There is a choice, and I choose life.
When they will not allow me to adopt their term, pro-choice, and then at the same time, they turn around and say pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion, I'm sorry, it must.
Pro-choice must mean pro-abortion.
So if you want to be honest with people you're talking about from now on, tell them you're pro-abortion because that's what you're concerned about.
Now, this notion of incest and rape has been around for so long, and it was – the incidents of this are not – nobody is advocating these things, and nobody is defending the people that do that.
The whole argument about this has gone so far beyond that now, and it's shifting.
It's never been the 80%, 20% pro-choice winning the argument issue that people would like you to believe that it has been.
But fundamentally, understand this.
If the day ever comes where the United States Supreme Court overturns Roe versus Wade, it does not mean abortion is legal.
What will happen if they overturn Roe versus Wade is that the people of this country will decide in the representative republic democratic fashion we do, state by state, where abortion will happen and where it won't.
Some people will legalize it via their legislatures and some won't.
But the idea that the Constitution provides for it is simply absurd.
It is horrible constitutional law.
It's rotten.
It is indefensible as constitutional law.
The Constitution does not address the subject.
And in order to find it in the Constitution, you have to read it and see things that aren't there.
So strictly as a matter of constitutionality, Roe versus Wade has been a horrible mistake.
It is so controversial in this country, Josh, precisely because nine people in black robes with a ruling in 1973 just said by Fiat, abortion is constitutional.
The people of this country haven't gotten a chance to vote on it like we do on other issues.
In Great Britain, they have.
They have voted on it.
Abortion has not been something that's been forced on the people of that country by the judiciary there.
The people voted.
They still have controversy about it, but it hasn't roiled their society and turned it upside down like it's done ours.
And so if it ever is overturned, it is not going to end it.
That's the dirty little secret.
And the debate over this, he's going to take away, he's going to restrict abortion.
He can't restrict it.
He can't do anything.
All he can do is say this law is unconstitutional and bam, it goes back now to the states where the people will decide it.
Just as they can't make it constitutional in my interpretation, they can't go out and say it's not.
What they're going to be saying is the law, Roe versus Wade, does not meet constitutional tests.
That's all they're going to say.
They're not going to be saying you can't have an abortion anymore.
But that's just the fundamental.
On the other side of this, as you're reading the internet and you're going through some of these things that sound impressive to you and make an impression on you, ask yourself and educate yourself on the founding documents of this country.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states, our own Declaration of Independence, clearly states that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit, happiness.
Now, without life, there's no liberty and there's no pursuit of happiness.
There's nothing.
And if the government is not going to be the agent that protects and stands up for life, who will?
And so the government is in charge to do this by virtue of our founding documents.
There are other things in the Constitution that would tend to indicate the same thing.
You're reading things that are positioning this issue to you in such a way that you end up thinking that there are some people who want to deny other people freedom, who want to deny other people to be who they are, to do what they want or what have you.
That's not the issue.
The issue is that for many of us, there's nothing more important than the sanctity of life.
Because if we don't regard life as having a value that is paramount to everything else, then everything else in our society will pale in comparison.
And that's been the argument over the years.
So I would urge you to keep reading, and I would urge you to open your mind on this a little bit and get off this notion that all men are predators.
I mean, I've heard them all, Josh.
I've heard these arguments.
We have to abort poor people.
Well, who would want to give birth to somebody in a poor family in a ghetto and force them to live that way?
Take a look.
Take a look all over this country and around the world at the number of great people, really achieved, excellent people who came from dire circumstances.
And then tell me they should have been aborted because they were born to poverty.
I mean, it's just simply absurd some of the arguments that have been made.
And the thing you have to understand that really what this is about is people who want to be able to kill other people on the basis of their own convenience or not being inconvenienced.
And that's wrong.
That is morally wrong.
Nobody's defending rape or incest or things of that.
That's one of these things, as I say, that was just designed to get people all emotionally ripped up and misfocused and distracted from what the real central issue is all about.
But after a number of years of this debate, it is straightening out.
And this is why there's such panic by people on the left about this, because abortion to them is far more.
It's an element of their success.
It's an element of their power.
It's the sacrament to their religion.
It tells them how well they're doing politically in the country.
It's just, it's obscene to me and many others, the way life is treated by these people.
And it's I run into so many liberals who are pro-choice, but they would never abort their own child.
I said, well, what good's your view then?
Well, we must allow people the freedom.
Why?
What are you going to stand for?
You're going to stand up and stand for something that's going to stand for life?
What's hard about standing up for life?
Well, it's not my responsibility.
No, of course.
That's why we can't let you people lead the country.
Anyway, I'm long in this segment.
Josh, I'm glad you called.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, I need to make a little correction here.
Some time ago, I think it was back in December, we discussed a supermarket chain based in Southern California, Ralphs, and their one-time owner, Ron Burkel, and they labor issues that were during a strike in 2004.
And it was a mistake to associate Ron Burkle with Ralphs at present and their current labor problem, whatever is going on with them.
It even slips my mind now what it was.
But Ron Burkle sold his interest in Ralphs in 1998 and had no involvement with whatever's going on with Ralphs.
Now, the big labor problems they're having there.
Ron Buerkle, a huge Democrat fundraiser and sponsor, but he was not part of Ralphs when this happened.
He sold, I think it to Kroger back in 1998.
And get this.
This is unbelievable.
Well, part of it is unbelievable.
Al Gore is going to deliver a speech on Monday, Martin Luther King Day, attacking George W. Bush's police state.
The speech sponsored by moveon.org and the Liberty Coalition.
He will be joined by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia.
Okay.
Quickly, some environmental wacko picks.
The Washington Redskins, nine and a half point favorites.
Well, yeah, they're getting nine and a half points on the road at Seattle against Seahawks.
This is not hard, folks.
This is really easy.
Redskins, it's all you need to know.
Pick the Seahawks.
Even though the Seahawks, there is no such thing as a Seahawk.
Seahawk is an imaginary bird.
There's no such thing as a Seahawk.
But even something that doesn't exist deserves to beat.
The Redskins.
Now, you might say, well, Russia, the Redskins, they're in the Indians.
They have a right.
No, no, no.
These are oppressed Redskins.
They're being forced to use that name.
That's not who they are.
New England and Denver, the Patriots versus the Broncos.
You might say this is easy, too, the Patriots.
These are not Patriots.
Not today.
People that saved the country, people of founding fathers and so forth.
Nope, nope, they're not patriots.
They're the original polluters.
They brought homophobia, racism, and sexism.
They may still live in Boston trying to stay attached to their great traditions and history, but they're a bunch of frauds, the Patriots.
They're not Patriots.
These people are oppressors.
They're part of the white majority.
They probably were members of CAP at Princeton.
Broncos, wild horses, out in the middle of the great American West, roaming free, playing at home against these intruders who are going to try to conquer In Visco Field the way they succeeded in conquering America from the Indians.
But they are frauds too.
The Broncos will buck them back to Boston.
Take the Broncos, give the three points back after this.
Stay with us.
Rush, what do you got against the Redskins?
Nothing, folks.
I'm bound by the environmental wacko method.
The Redskins are not Redskins.
They are Caucasians and black guys being forced to call themselves Indians.
Hey, have no prayer.
We can't win as a bunch of frauds.
See you in a week.
Have a great next week.
▲
Export Selection