Rush Limbaugh Program - January 17, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:20

January 17, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You know the old saying I could be rich if, and then you've got to fill in the blank all the things that you could fill in the blank after the word if that you could have done in your life that you would now be rich, you know, like buying Microsoft stock in 1984, stuff like that.
	I would be rich if I had five bucks every time I heard an American liberal say, you know, I do support the troops.
	I just don't support the war.
	They say this all the time.
	They don't like it when they're put on the defensive, well, you really ought to support the troops, support the well, I do support the troops.
	That's why I want to bring them home.
	You know, most liberals do not support the troops.
	They like to say that, but when it really gets down to the nitty-gritty, they don't.
	The Martin Luther King Day commemoration in San Antonio, Texas yesterday, a number of protesters showed up objecting to the fact that there was a military flyover.
	The 99th Training Squadron flew its jets over the event as part of the commemoration.
	The reason they trove they chose that unit is that it is a direct descendant by military lineage of the Tuskegee Airmen, which was the first American uh black uh corps of fighter pilots.
	Yet you had liberals there saying Dr. King was a nonviolent person, he would have objected to this.
	This is another show of force and show of war.
	There's a condescension and an arrogance and really a disdain toward all things military on the on the American left.
	They object to ROTC units on campus.
	They're objecting all over America to military recruiters going into high schools.
	They don't really support the troops.
	They'll use it as a slogan, but when it comes to matters of substance, they do not.
	Let us turn to the other part of the world.
	Russia and China now say they want to engage Iran in talks about the Iranian nuclear program.
	However, they do not believe that it is time to impose sanctions on Iran, and they do not believe it is time for the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution.
	Okay, fine.
	I think this is time for the UN to step in and see if the UN is actually worth anything.
	So far as I can tell, the United Nations is worth nothing.
	They would still be yakking about Saddam Hussein and he would still be in power abusing people.
	The United Nations has never solved anything.
	But if they have any power or ability whatsoever to police a rogue state, which is what we're why we're told that they are there, they'd be perfect for the Iranian situation.
	But Russia and China say, nope, don't pass a resolution.
	We need to engage them in talks.
	Well, let's call this bluff.
	The United States obviously has no influence with Iran.
	The Iranians are not going to listen to us, they hate us.
	The Russians and the Chinese buy a lot of oil from Iran.
	They do have cloud and influence there.
	If Russia and particularly China want to be part of the civilized world community, let's see what they can do with Iran.
	You know, it always comes to the United States because somebody has to do this stuff.
	Somebody does have to be the nuclear cop to make sure that every goofed up nation in the world doesn't have nuclear weapons that they could use to start the end of the world.
	Somebody's got to do it, and it's always been us.
	Well, Russia and China are right on top of Iran.
	They're both over there, and they both have a relationship with that nation.
	Why can't they do this for once?
	It's in their interest to do it.
	The Russians, Putin knows that the Iranians are run by a bunch of extremists.
	The Chinese know that too.
	Do they really want Iran to go nuclear?
	I don't think so.
	So why don't they do something about this?
	And I think we ought to call their bluff and say, okay, fine, we won't do sanctions yet.
	You guys get this finished.
	You guys take care of it.
	You get them to dump their nuclear program and see whether or not they can contribute to can contribute to a more peaceful world.
	Speaking of Iran, CNN is now going to be allowed to stay in the country.
	Yesterday Iran announced that CNN was going to be kicked out of the country because of an error in translation of a speak given by Amada Dejed, who is the Prime Minister of Iran Iran and also the hardest world leader whose name to pronounce.
	The speech he gave, the press conference he gave on Saturday, he referred to nuclear energy.
	And the CNN translation used the word nuclear weapons.
	Now, Iran makes a major distinction there.
	They keep claiming that their nuclear program is not for the purpose of nuclear weapons, that it's actually just a nuclear energy program.
	CNN translated it incorrectly.
	So Iran announced that they were throwing them out of the country.
	CNN has now apologized and will be allowed to stay.
	CNN's apologized to Iran.
	When does CNN apologize to the United States of America?
	When do we get our apology for all the slurs that they've offered up?
	Back to China.
	This is a tragic but telling story.
	In the southern part of China, there have been protests by individuals opposed to land seizures by the Chinese government.
	Now this is telling for a number of reasons.
	First of all, as the Chinese have gotten a little bit of a whiff of freedom, they're kind of liking it.
	They also apparently feel as though it may now be safe to object to government action.
	And there have been protests for about a week.
	But the Chinese have proven that for all the talk of modernization that they offer up, and all the desire to be part of the civilized world and be the new superpower joined with the United States, they can't really change their ways.
	They proved that in 1989 with Tiananmen Square, and they proved it again this week.
	So you've had these protests, and this is a part of China that is off the radar.
	This isn't Beijing.
	It's in the southern part of the country, which is a big industrial area.
	They rolled in and cracked down and started busting some heads.
	According to the report in today's New York Times, 60 people were wounded.
	At least one person, a 13-year-old girl, killed by security forces.
	The Chinese have offered up an explanation for the girl's death.
	The government in China denies responsibility for the death of the girl, saying she had a heart attack.
	She's 13 years old.
	They don't even.
	China is still sufficiently brutal and still stuck in the dark ages that it doesn't even bother to offer up a credible lie.
	13 years old, and they said she died of a heart attack.
	This is rather telling, though, that you just you're beginning to see a lot of this percolation of resentment in China toward the policies and the repression of their government.
	Very, very tricky situation for China.
	They realize that the old communist socialist model is not one by which they can advance their economy.
	So they have moved to open up production.
	They have allowed some ownership of industrial facilities.
	They've certainly become a major manufacturer in the world.
	We all have houses filled with stuff that's made in China.
	They've managed to do all of those things, but they still cling to the old ways of being a dictatorship and repressing all rights of citizens.
	And I'm not sure that they can keep juggling this.
	Eventually, you're going to see more and more discontent on the part of the people of China.
	And you'll see little stories like this that come up from time to time.
	And I don't know that they can keep using the same old tactic of running in and kicking heads and killing people, which they've done in the past.
	Now, this particular protest was over land grabs by the government.
	And I'm quoting from today's New York Times, which reports that residents of the area have been angered by a government program that they had been led to believe in 2003 was part of a construction project to build a big highway which would connect Zhuhai, China, with Beijing.
	However, as it turns Out, they aren't just grabbing the land for a highway.
	They're doing it because they want to set up special chemical and garment plants.
	So it isn't for a road project, it's for another industrial use.
	Of all the things that royal people, grabbing land is at the top of the list.
	The reason why there was such incredible resentment, and to this day, hatred of Cuba by all of the Cuban exiles was during the revolution, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro came in after they threw overthrew the Batista government.
	They came in and they grabbed their homes, they grabbed their land, they grab the property, they grab their businesses, and they just said this is ours.
	It is as great a betrayal of a people as you can have to come in and simply take away everything they've ever had.
	Take away their land.
	And it doesn't seem to matter what part of the world it is or what culture it is, there is a deep resentment of it.
	But you know, as you look at this story, government said we're gonna build a highway.
	The people were okay with that.
	Just as here in the United States, when government says we need to condemn land because we're gonna put in a highway, generally the American people are fine with it.
	They're okay with it.
	When they start using it for other purposes, there is an objection.
	How much difference is there between what the Chinese did and the United States Supreme Court ruling in the New London, Connecticut case, in which Justice Souter and the other justices of the Supreme Court said that communities can now exercise their eminent domain authority,
	not just for a necessary public improvement project, not just to put in a sewer line, not just to put in a highway, not just to put in a school, but essentially for any good public purpose that the community believes in.
	In their case, it was an economic development proposal.
	All across the country, people remain furious about that.
	They don't like the notion that whether it's China or Cuba or right here in the United States, that government can simply willingly decide we want your land, we've got a better idea of what ought to be done with that land.
	And I think it is a universal human yearning that we have some concept of private property, that if something is ours, if something is mine, government can't just come in and take it.
	It's wrong in China, and it's causing resentment in China, leading to a government crackdown.
	It was morally wrong in Cuba.
	And if that Supreme Court ruling in our own country is allowed to stand, and communities all over the country start grabbing up land all over the place, it will be wrong here too.
	And the last thing we want to do is emulate the policies still in place in China.
	My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
	Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
	You know how many American kids are wearing those stupid Che Givera t-shirts?
	I mean, they are not just kids.
	They're all over the place.
	Do people know what Che Givera and Fidel Castro did?
	They went into Cuba and they stole everything.
	They stole all the money, they stole the land, they stole the factories, they stole the schools, they took absolutely everything for people.
	Yet you've got an entire generation of American kids who think that Che Guevara is some sort of hero, that he was a liberator, that he was somebody who was in there for the little guy.
	That was his initial re what was that dumb movie they made last year?
	Motorcycle something or another.
	Motorcycle diaries, wasn't that it?
	Yeah, that was it.
	Oh, Che, Che Guevara, he all he all he was was a thief.
	And all the communist government in Cuba is, is a crooked operation that came in and ripped everything off, then promised that there'd be a better life because of it, and the country is still dirt poor.
	Sadly, we're starting to embrace some of those policies on our own here in the United States.
	Pleasantville, Pennsylvania, Keith, Keith, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
	Hi, Mark.
	Uh, I'm president of the Pennsylvania Landowners Association, and what amazes me about the eminent domain debate is the fact that regulatory takings have been going on in this this country for 20 years, whether it's wetlands, scenic rivers, I I've seen farmers plowing fields that the dust is flying, it's been called a wetland, and they're telling the farmer, you're done farming, you're not going to do anything with this land, and there's no compensation.
	Um eminent domain has also been abused in a different way for the taking of land for parks and lakes and dams.
	I know of a farm where the farmhouse was turned into a rage ranger station after it was taken.
	Only five percent of the farm was actually flooded, and the rest of it, the federal government leased it out for thirty or forty dollars an acre to adjoining farmers, and this farm family set back and couldn't believe what they were seeing.
	Their farm was still being farmed by other people, and the government was making money and they couldn't get their farm back.
	Well, and you know, this is all part of this whole central planning notion that started with socialism but has been embraced by a lot of American liberals, the idea that we know better than anyone else what to do with land and what to do with property.
	They despise the whole notion of private property.
	The thing that's scary about the New London Connecticut case ruled upon by the Supreme Court late last year, is that it's expanding the definition, the excuses that government can use to take property away.
	And I I don't want to portray myself as some sort of a nut on this issue.
	I do understand that there has to be a school somewhere, and I certainly understand that we need to have roads, and that you can't ever have government simply say we can't ever take any land.
	But we run the risk of going way too far.
	You mentioned wetlands, economic development is the thing that the Supreme Court has said is okay.
	You can take that as far as you want if the definition is going to be whatever government deems to be in the best public interest.
	That's right.
	And then that individual has been.
	And it really is what the community what the socialists and the communists have done.
	Every time a conservative commentator uses that word socialism, they're accused of being extreme on the issue, but that is a central tenet of socialism that the government is the one that's going to control everything and determine what the best use of something is.
	Right.
	One of the cases here in Pennsylvania was a hung Hungarian immigrant who fled Hungary to get away from communism.
	He bought 17 acres, he cleaned up a dump that had backed up a small stream near Philadelphia.
	They videotaped and cleaning up the dump.
	They said he destroyed a wetland.
	He ended up in jail.
	He said communism was better because they took control and ownership of the land.
	Here they take control of it, but you you still have to pay the taxes and assume all liabilities, and you can do nothing with it.
	Thank you for the call, Keith.
	I appreciate it.
	Let's go now to uh San Diego, California.
	Alan.
	Alan, it's your turn on EIB.
	Hi.
	I I have trouble with uh everybody blaming the Supreme Court for the ruling in the new London case.
	To me, they interpreted what the law was.
	I think they need to change the laws to where it'll stop it, but they're blaming the Supreme Court for it instead of the lawmakers that make the laws.
	Well, there's been an argument about whether or not the Constitution, and this is why it's great having a justice like Alito ascending to the Supreme Court because you actually do get debates about what the Constitution says and what it means.
	There are questions about whether or not the Constitution does recognize private property rights or not.
	You may be right that putting all of this on the Supreme Court is the wrong thing to do.
	What's more important to me is what the public policy question is, whether or not the notion of private property means anything anymore.
	And I don't and I don't want to portray myself as somebody who's so extreme as to say the government should never take any property.
	It's a matter of whether or not they're going to arrogantly do it for no real reason.
	You get into very, very dangerous territory there, and it prompts the deepest kind of resentment that you're ever going to get from the citizenry to Atlanta, Georgia, and Joe.
	Joe, it's your turn on Russia's program.
	Hey, how are you?
	I'm great, thanks.
	Good.
	You know, here's a novel approach.
	I mean, we all have property and and everybody is anticipating that the fact that their property does appreciate in value.
	And so if the government wants to come and take my property, make it uh make it the law that they have to pay two or three times the value.
	Uh they can take my house if they give me three times what it's worth.
	It's I mean, that's what ends up happening, I think, as that.
	Well, often governments.
	Well, I mean, often government does overpay when it takes land for a public taking like this.
	The point that I'm trying to raise is you've got to be very, very careful about when it is that you do it.
	And when you see The reaction that China, I mean, where there's no notion of individual rights or liberties in China, there's no heritage of it, there's no history of it at all, they have nothing to be able to relate to as opposed to our own country, who we have cherished this.
	I mean, the first settlers got to go in and lay down their stake, lay down their claim and take their property.
	If in China where they don't have any history of that at all, you can get an uprising that leads to this kind of violent government crackdown.
	It tells you that there is something universal about that desire to have something that you call your own and say, This is mine.
	It's very, very sacred to people.
	It's very, very important to them.
	I appreciate the call.
	Do you want to remind folks that Mary Madeline, the grand dom of the Republican Party, guru and favored guest of mine, when I get to sit in for Rush, is going to be with us in the third hour of today's program, Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
	See, when you get a guy who's not from the coast, you do run the risk when he sits in on a show like this that he's going to talk about some sort of heartland kind of thing like NASCAR.
	There is that risk here.
	You guys on the staff part of the Eastern Elite Media, you probably don't want me to talk about this, but I got a NASCAR story.
	Mark Martin is the guy whose car has been sponsored the last several years by Viagra.
	I've it never ever seemed right, but he was sponsored by Viagra and the number six car, and Viagra was his sponsor, and it didn't seem to bother the NASCAR crowd at all.
	Well, Mark Martin said he was going to retire.
	He's not retiring, he's coming back, and he's going to have a new sponsor on his I'm not making this up.
	He's going to have a new sponsor for the 2006 season.
	His car is going to be sponsored by Triple A. Doesn't that seem weird?
	When you think of triple A, aren't they like safe driving and all that stuff and buy good fuel efficient gas?
	Drive safely, respect the rules of the road, call for directions.
	I mean, if his car breaks down, does the pick crew come out or does he get on the phone and call triple A and have them come in?
	I don't know.
	So Triple A is going to be the sponsor of the Mark Martin car.
	When I initially saw the story, I saw the letters and I thought it said that AARP was sponsoring Mark Martin's car, which would have raised all sorts of potential.
	I mean, Mark Martin driving down in his car and the left hand turn signal is on the whole time.
	He goes, uh, all right, there's enough on that.
	Uh I want to talk about this James Fry book.
	This is the book that Oprah turned into a big, big, big deal.
	James Fry has written a memoir about his life of overcoming drug abuse, alcoholism, and a long life of crime, and coming to respect the life that he had, and it has been a huge best seller.
	It's been number one forever and ever and ever.
	It really rose in prominence when Oprah made it her book of the week or book of the month or book of the year.
	How often does Oprah do that book thing?
	I don't know here knows that either.
	So you're not into NASCAR and you're not into Oprah either.
	That's probably laudatory, but are you guys into anything that you can help me out with?
	Uh Oprah makes it her book of the month.
	If Oprah says go out and read this book, her audience goes out and buys that book.
	They're very, very obedient.
	Oprah's recommendation of something apparently brings with a lot of credibility.
	Well, in any event, this book by Fry, in which he talks about his troubled younger life, including the time that he spent in jail, apparently isn't true.
	A website called Smoking Gun.com went and ran all the records on James Fry and they found no indication that any of these things had ever happened.
	He wrote in the book that he was in jail for three months.
	The only record they have is that he was once taken into custody for three hours.
	So Fry was confronted with this, well, yeah, I guess that some of the things that I wrote about are not technically true, but they are substantively true.
	These are the kinds of experiences I've had, even if I didn't have the actual experience.
	Oprah, who ought to feel as though she was conned, instead says she stands by the book, she considers it a wonderful book, and apparently many of the readers of the book don't feel as though they've been violated at all.
	So we now live in a time in which you can write a memoir, an autobiography, a story of your own life.
	Except it doesn't have to be a story of your life.
	And a lot of people are still fine with that.
	It's almost like they're saying, Well, I was entertained by the book.
	I was in I enjoyed the book.
	I was moved by the book.
	If I therefore had this positive reaction to the book, that's all that really matters to me.
	What do I care if it's true or not?
	And I think we're seeing this more and more in our society.
	Entertain me.
	Tell me something.
	Never mind if it's true or not.
	Just let me know what it is that I want to hear.
	And I know where this started.
	This is classic right-wing talk show host stuff now.
	The guy who's to blame for all of this is Clinton.
	There we go again.
	Blame Bill Clinton for everything.
	This is Clinton's fault.
	One of the ramifications of Bill Clinton telling all of those lies all of those years, deceiving about virtually everything, including lying under oath to a grand jury, lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, lying about Paula Jones, lying about God knows what else, is that all of his defenders, including many in the media, responded by saying, But everybody lies about these things.
	Everybody lies about sex.
	People lie all the time.
	They embrace the notion of it somehow being okay to lie if the lie isn't all that important.
	What it was really all about for them is they didn't want Bill Clinton to go down.
	They did not want Bill Clinton to fall.
	They didn't want Ken Starr and the evil Republicans to win.
	They had this need to prop up Clinton because they approved of Clinton's policies.
	They probably like Clinton personally, so therefore they had to rationalize their acceptance of all of his lying.
	Bill Clinton cares about me.
	Bill Clinton's a good guy.
	Bill Clinton is keeping the economy strong.
	So therefore, because they have all of these positive feelings about Clinton, they started to convince themselves that this lying that Clinton was doing, even when under oath, was okay, that there are times in which a lie is not all that important.
	He makes me happy, so what do I care about his lying?
	James Fry in this book, it's the same thing.
	People go out and buy this book, they find the story to be inspiring.
	What do they care if it's not true?
	If I bought this book and I bought into it and I was inspired by the guy, if I brought him on my own talk show in Milwaukee, because I really thought the book was moving and inspirational, I'd feel like a complete idiot.
	I was conned.
	I don't appreciate being lied to.
	But one of the things that has happened in our country is that people have gotten to be okay with lying.
	Now I know the Democrats say that Bush lied about the war, he lied about the weapons, he did not, he operated on the best intelligence that we had.
	I'm talking here about out and out, deception, exposed as deception, and then when it's exposed, simply saying, well, it doesn't really matter.
	Because the story doesn't have to be technically correct as long as it's in the spirit of what my experiences are.
	Sad development that we're seeing.
	1-800-282-2882 is the number on Rush's show.
	Let's go to a cell phone in Livermore, California.
	Ray, you're on uh the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Thank you for filling in for the great one.
	You're doing a great job.
	We love having you.
	Thank you.
	Um, and thanks for pointing out uh that the look who the left looks to for leadership.
	Look who their heroes are.
	They're all losers and failures, and that's what they prop up.
	This fry guy, it wasn't enough that he was a loser in his life.
	He even lied about it, so that makes him even more of a loser.
	Yeah, he was he was a boring loser.
	He was so he had to spruce Up his life to make him an interesting loser.
	Let's turn myself into something worse than I actually am, because that makes the story of my life more interesting.
	Now I haven't written the read the book.
	It may well be a very inspiring book.
	But if it's not true, the people who were told the lie lie ought to be more bothered by it.
	The person whose reaction to this is really disappointing is Oprah.
	She ought to stand up and say, I was conned.
	I'm sorry for recommending this fraud job.
	It isn't real.
	Instead, she's standing by the book, even though she now knows it not to be true.
	And as you mentioned, that's what they should do with Clinton.
	They should say this guy was a fraud.
	We were sorry to be taken by him just like you.
	And Tukey, here in the Bay Area, we were treated to weeks and weeks of how wonderful Tukey is.
	They held him up.
	They're idle.
	We can't let our idol be put to death.
	The man was a dirt bag.
	Well, that was that's the truth.
	And for a lot of people, and I don't think it's just liberals, because I'm willing to bet that a lot of conservatives read this book by James Fry, and they aren't bothered by it by it either.
	I think that it's something that's happened in our society.
	But you're right.
	If the fiction makes us happy, we'd rather live in denial of reality than demand the truth.
	Thank you for the call, Ray.
	I appreciate it.
	Let's go now to uh Chicago and Mark.
	Mark, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
	Yeah, Clinton also had a guy who lied to his own diary.
	And don't forget the big lie that Clinton was our first heck president.
	So it's hard to personal with that.
	I think it was Josh Steiner was the guy who uh who's dishonest through his o to his own diary.
	I really think, though, when the American left had to defend Clinton when it became apparent that he was telling untruths with regard to Monica Lewinsky.
	The damage wasn't done to the president.
	All these people that were worried that Clinton was somehow ruining the presidency, that he was damaging the presidency of the United States.
	The presidency wasn't damaged by Bill Clinton.
	All we needed was a decent president to come in and replace him, as happened, and the presidency itself was fine.
	The thing that happened was we got way, way too comfortable with this notion of being lied to and saying that it's okay.
	If you write an autobiography, shouldn't a simple requirement of it be that it be true.
	I mean, I don't think that's asking too much.
	But there's Oprah with all of her influence and doing sh is the number one seller of books in this country.
	If she endorses a book, it will take that book from 500 on the charts to number one instantly because people go out and buy her book.
	She apparently doesn't have enough concern about her own credibility to say that yes, when I recommend a book to you, it's at least true.
	This book, after all, was purported to be nonfiction, and it's apparently nothing but a pack of lies.
	I could tell a great life story too, if liberated to be able to make things up.
	By the way, did you know that for seven years I was a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox?
	Hey.
	It makes my story interesting.
	Why not go with it?
	Let's just have everybody lie about their lives in their backgrounds.
	If, after all, it sells.
	My name is Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush.
	Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
	The name of the book is a Million Little Pieces.
	It's still the number one best seller in this country.
	The guy who wrote it is James Fry, it's his life story about how he's overcome this, that, and the other thing, including serving time in jail.
	A little bit of research was done by a website, essentially a blogger, smoking gun.com.
	None of it is true, which just proves that you can't get away with anything anymore.
	With everybody having a form and all these bloggers out there, no one could say anything that isn't true and get away with it.
	Except apparently you can get away with it, which is the point that I'm raising here, even though the book is not true.
	Most of the people who bought the book seem not to be upset about it.
	Oprah Winfrey, who recommended it on her TV show, is standing by the book.
	By the way, her new book of the month is another memoir, Ellie Wazell, who is the uh famous Jewish writer who has spoken about his life in a prison camp and the time that his family family spent in a prison camp, I believe it was Auschwitz.
	He has written a book entitled Night.
	What if we found out that Ellie Wazell was making all of that up and that he was never actually in prison by the Nazis?
	We'd feel betrayed, right?
	Well, rightly so.
	So why is Oprah not more upset over the fact that this book that she was hyping is nothing but a story rather than the truth.
	Cleveland, Ohio, and Tracy, Tracy are on Rush's program with Mark Belling.
	Hey, Mark, I'd like to thank you for taking my call and thanks for sitting in for Rush.
	Thank you.
	I'd like to say I really I have a problem with your uh attack against James Fry.
	He did, as a matter of fact, spend time in a treatment facility 13 years ago.
	And the smoking gun does what we tend to do in this society when something gets rampantly successful, and that is pick it apart.
	Smoking gun goes and says, Oh no, James Fry, you didn't spend three and a half days in jail.
	You spent four hours and fifteen minutes in jail.
	Well, he actually actually said he spent three months in jail, didn't he?
	Okay.
	All right.
	Well, and then they might say no, you only spent two months and fourteen days.
	Well, no, it was it was it was three hours.
	Tracy, you're talking about picking it apart.
	That's not picking it apart.
	That's not picking it apart.
	That's telling people that the book is a lie.
	Why didn't you lie?
	Why didn't Fry write that he spent three hours in jail instead of three months?
	Why didn't he go with the truth?
	Why is it that you're telling me that the book is listed as nonfiction when you walk into any bookstore and pick it up?
	It's listed as memoir slash fiction.
	It never claimed to be a total autobiography.
	Well, then what's the point of writing a memoir if the if the memoir is not true?
	You compress time.
	Memoirs aren't nothing's written in real time.
	Otherwise, it would take us 96 years to read everything.
	You said he compressed real time.
	He actually stretched the time out.
	He made all of these experiences more than they actually were.
	Now, the question that Tracy, the question you ducked from me was why did he do this?
	Why did he change these facts?
	Does he give his experiences in a treatment center?
	I didn't ask.
	Why don't you want to answer my question?
	Why did why did he change these facts?
	Because in order to write about the experience in the treatment center, the time that he spent in jail was not necessary to be absolutely correct.
	But why didn't he go?
	Why did he not give the correct information?
	Why would he if if you're not going to be able to do that?
	Why don't you want to answer that?
	The reason you don't want to answer that question is the reason he didn't give the correct information is that that wasn't as interesting.
	And what you are what you are telling me is you'd rather read something interesting than something that's the truth.
	That's a rationalization for living in a world in which there is no reality.
	Some things are either true or not.
	This guy knew his own life wasn't interesting enough to let to have Oprah make it the book of the month.
	What he needed to do in order to sell all these books and make himself a millionaire was tell a bunch of lies.
	You're okay with that, but as somebody who resents being lied to, I wouldn't be okay to it.
	He lied to you, and you're okay because those lies made you happy.
	You ought to be demanding more of your authors and you ought to be demanding more of yourself.
	Would you tolerate this kind of behavior from people in your own personal life?
	You are incorrect in your statement.
	First of all, as a conservative, I have a staunch belief in reality.
	Secondly, if I'm going to write a book about my experiences as a secondary educator or as a college educator, is it relevant to you whether I spent two years in Africa or 20 years in New Jersey?
	What do you think?
	Yes, I it actually writing it.
	It actually is because if you tell me one of those things, I would presume that you're telling me the truth.
	What you are suggesting is we all ought to change our life stories in order to make things more interesting, which is just silly.
	Thank you, Tracy.
	My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
	For our last caller, uh Tracy in Cleveland, I actually am Rush Limbaugh.
	I'm not the guy that I said I was before.
	Does it really matter who I'm in a way?
	Tracy is probably for all of us guys out there.
	Tracy is the perfect woman.
	She is.
	Well, what did you do last night, honey?
	I just sat around thinking about you all night.
	You're the one and only person for me.
	Whereas in fact, you're out there drinking, smoking, and carrosing and getting into all sorts of trouble by Tracy's own definition.
	And I don't mean to pick on her because as I said, she's the perfect woman.
	What does it really matter what the truth actually is?
	After all, what matters is where what the real me and the real me does love.
	None of us ever meet people like Tracy, though.
	Tracy, I'm available and I'm worth millions and millions and millions of dollars, and I have all these diverse experiences, and I've got great cars, and I'll take you anywhere.
	Mary Madeline, who is probably the most interesting Republican we've got going, is going to be with me at the beginning of the next hour of the program.

▲