All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:09
January 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I know many of you people are waiting for today's program with baited breath because you are expecting me to come through with my definition of the perfect woman.
I said I would do this during yesterday's program.
And it won't take me long to detail this for you.
Um spent two hours thinking about this last night, and it finally hit me.
The whole concept is flawed.
There is no such thing.
If there's no such thing, I can't define it for you.
Greetings and welcome, ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limboy here serving humanity.
Uh your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, uh, and even the good times.
Here the EIB Network.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
No, I'm just kidding about that.
There's we'll we'll get into that later on in the program, the the perfect woman.
Take a stab at it.
But first, folks, let me how how many times have you heard the phrase the American people want?
Or the American people don't want.
I first became aware of this.
You normally hear this from liberal spinners.
You hear it from mainstream journalists, you hear it from liberals in government.
Uh, you hear it from liberals trying to get into government and take over government.
I remember during the 96 presidential uh uh, well, the whole Clinton impeachment thing, the White House spinners would be on cable news shows every night.
The American people want.
The American people don't want.
How do you know?
What do you mean the American people want?
And what what it was was an attempt to shape public opinion because uh, you know, for the number of people watching, if they hear somebody say the American people want everybody wants to be part of the majority, so it was uh it was an advanced spin technique.
Well, I'll tell you something.
I have proof today of something the American people don't want.
Holding it right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Proof of what the American people do not want, really, really do not want.
And I can tell you, the American, and I've warned you people, I told you about this, I warned you not to be full of fear, I warned you not to be afraid, I warned you not to get worried about as the ditto cam working because my screen's black in here.
There.
You know, it's typical.
We've got the latest high-tech equipment in here, and it doesn't work, you just shh jab at it, and it came back.
We are ditto camming all three hours today at Rush Limbaugh.com.
The American people do not want Hillary Clinton as president.
This is not just any other poll.
This is the highly reliable.
In fact, one of them it's it in in uh as far as the libs are concerned.
This is their Bible poll.
This is the Gallup poll, the CNN USA Today Gallup poll.
To the question, would you vote for Hillary Clinton for president in 2008?
Sixteen percent said that they definitely would.
Yes, that's right, Mr. Snerdley.
Sixteen percent said they definitely would.
51% said they definitely would not.
51% said they definitely would not.
And that that's 51% who didn't just say no, didn't they say maybe not?
They didn't say I don't know, I'm undecided.
Fifty-one percent of the American people definitely do not want Hillary Clinton to be president in 2008.
Now, this is no surprise to me.
I have told you people, and we get people calling here all the time.
Rush, Rush, what about Hillary?
Whenever I go anywhere, what about what about what about Hillary?
And that there's almost there's palpable fear in their voices as they ask, and I've it's gotten to the point where I get frustrated by what do you make why are you so afraid of Hill?
The mainstream media, I mean, the Clintons, you know, you just look.
She not the smartest woman in the world.
She's not even in the top ten uh smartest women in the world, and this this idea that besides it doesn't make any sense to go through life fearing things.
You have to confront the fear and overcome it and defeat it.
No difference in this case.
Everybody's been uh saying that she's entitled to the presidency ever since the Lewinsky story, but in fact, they've been saying she's entitled to the presidency ever since Clinton was elected because she was actually the brains behind the operation.
Why, Here's this brilliant Illinois native who went to Yale and then gave it all up for a trip to the swamps in Arkansas to back up this hayseed husband of hers.
And because of that, she's owed her own presidency.
And then, and then after the Lewinsky thing, now she was she was doubly entitled.
And so this has been the mainstream mantra for almost thirteen years now.
But I, ladies and gentlemen, keen observer of these events.
I have known for years that the legend of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Saint Hillary, Hillary's Scarlet O'Hara mint Julum Plantation comment, Clinton, is nothing more than a media creation.
So you get the result.
51% of the American people definitely don't want a Hillary presidency is not news to me.
Here's the news.
The news is that the mainstream media has been trying to create a president Hillary for years now.
And it's been a hoax.
The whole thing that she's got this rabbit bunch of support.
I mean, this has never been a mystery to me.
Do you think how many real men, you know, we can define real women all day, but how many real men are going to vote for her?
How many men would vote for their first, second, or third ex-wives rolled into one for president of the United States?
It's not gonna happen.
It's just it's been common sense all along.
They've been trying to create this this president Hillary for years, and it's been a hoax.
So you might say, well, why am I why am I taking valuable broadcast time here to tell you what we already know?
Two reasons.
Because this is to show you how far the mighty have fallen.
Here we're talking about the once influential antique media.
They have spent thirteen years of journalistic prestige trying to sell Hillary Clinton as the inevitable president of the United States.
And after all this time, after all this press coverage, after all of this fawning, after all the New York Times magazine covers, after all of the great pictures, after all of the great spin and PR.
After all of this time, fifty-one percent of the American people will definitely not vote for Hillary Clinton.
And there's another reason.
Despite the voice of the American people, you will never hear, despite this poll result, you will never hear Hillary Clinton introduced, discussed, or mentioned with the words 51% of the American people definitely don't want it to be president.
They will never refer to this poll when describing Hillary, as they would if it were about any conservative candidate.
They will continue to talk about Hillary as the de facto inevitable.
Now I'll tell you who this is going to upset, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, even Howard Dean.
I mean, these are all of her competitors out there.
And uh here's John Kerry's gonna be upset that the media will I'm not talking about the poll result, he's gonna be upset that the media will downplay the result of the poll.
But Kerry for once will like me uh for doing it, and John Edwards and Gore may even refer to me as a distinguished American once again, uh, for daring to bring forth this earth-shattering news.
Here's the bottom line.
And by has anybody wondered, anybody wondered whatever happened to uh this this business of the Democrats uh figuring they had 06 and 08 all wrapped up?
You know, just late last year, President Bush's approval numbers in the low thirties, high thirties, low forties, and the Democrats are running around, they've got 06 wrapped up, they're gonna win the Congress back and the Senate, and the White House in 08 is inevitable with Hillary.
Whatever happened to that mindset now.
It's gone because it never existed in the first place.
That was never reality.
Hillary is not going to be president.
The Republican nominee will be, and that is why, folks, we have to be careful about who's nominated on our end.
I bet that's the the real question to me, not who the Democrats throw up, because I mean, even Maureen Dowd in her in her piece today, and I didn't read it, so don't get the wrong idea.
It was this was a sent little paragraph was sent to me from her piece.
Maybe I should read this verbatim if I've got it on the back bottom of the stack.
Yes.
As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country.
Just love the way these people just agitated.
As the White House drives its truckload of lies around the country, it becomes ever clearer that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reed, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore Are just not the right people to respond to the administration's national security scarathon.
So here you've got Maureen.
They're all admitting who are these people?
Dingy Harry, what's he doing for us?
What's what's Kennedy doing for?
John Kerry, Pelosi, Al Gore.
What are they doing for us?
Zip zero nada.
The one thing Maureen doesn't mention is, okay, if these are the wrong people to be carrying the Democrats' water, who are the right people?
There are no names.
Is there anybody out there you think could get away with it and do any better than the current crop of spokesmen the Democrats throw out?
They do not.
Pat Lahey, somebody, well, he's doing a good.
No, he's not.
Leahy, you know, floor debate, Alito, floor debate on a bunch of things.
Leahy today won't let go of the notion.
This National Security Agency spying scandal, he says.
He wants to know how many terrorists have been arrested as a result of the president's domestic spying.
That's not the answer, Snerdley.
See, you're falling for it.
This is why, my friends, I am needed.
You need to look between the lines of the quest, not even the question.
How many terrorists have been arrested as a result of the president's domestic spying?
The question is how many have been killed or captured?
This is a war.
We're not we're not trying to get indictments and put these people in jail.
Or what attacks have been deterred or prevented.
Not how many of these people have been arrested.
If you want to ask how many people have been arrested, how many innocent Americans being spied on have been indicted by Bush and Gonzalez personally with a carbon copy sent to Ashcroft.
Zero.
Have you also noticed about this?
Democrats are hemming and hoing this program spying on the Americans.
I haven't heard any of them say that we need to cancel it.
Have you?
In fact, no, no, no.
They're at the Well, we're we're all for uh spying on America.
We want to do it responsibly.
We we want to do it sensitively.
We uh nobody's talking about scrubbing the program.
All they want to do is impeach Bush.
Quick time out back with more in a moment.
America's anchor man and truth detector and Doctor of Democracy all combined as one lovable little fuzzball rush limbaugh for the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Some more polling data on Hillary.
It's not just in this CNN USA Today Gallup poll that 51% of voters said they would definitely not vote for her.
Remember, there was a the a hotline did a nationwide poll that was also released this month.
They did it for a for a uh an adult beverage company, Dagayo, and a political newsletter, the hotline, and that and the polling data said that 44% of all voters and 19% of self-described Democrats said that they viewed Hillary Clinton unfavorably.
So it's not just the CNN USA Today Gallup poll.
There's a poll earlier this month that had the same, it might have been last month when it came up, but it was at the same time, 44% unfavorable.
I'm telling you that the Democrats are convinced, more and more of them, that she cannot win a national election.
She might be able to win the nomination.
Uh, but according to Democratic Party insiders, such numbers are adding to skittishness about Mrs. Clinton's potential candidacy.
Now, don't misunderstand us.
Anything can change on a dime in politics.
And I'm I'm not saying here we are two years out, uh, and it's it's over for Mrs. Clinton.
But right now, the American people don't want her, and after 13 years of one of the most soft-edged PR spin campaigns to portray this woman as something just short of angelic.
Uh, if this is what it's produced, I don't know what it's gonna do.
I don't know what they can do between now and the next two years to change these numbers uh that dramatically.
So uh I just it what it does, folks, it just buttresses my point.
There's no reason to be fearful out there, and there's no reason to think that, oh, woe is us, all is lost because it's automatically going to be Hillary.
You have been fed a bill of goods about how popular both those Clintons are.
I mean, hell.
Slick Willie never got more than 49% of the vote himself in either 43% in the first election, 49% in uh in his '96 reelection.
The idea that these people are the most popular president that we've got alive, it's just absolute, it's always been horse manure.
Uh and and it's, you know, it takes confidence to understand, you know, what you're watching is spin uh and and and what is based not in reality.
Now, one thing we know is that the left and the mainstream press has constructed for themselves an artificial reality, a parallel universe where they live in their dreams.
They live their own fantasies, and they think that their fantasies are reality, and that's one of the reasons they're in the situation that they're in, because they refuse to confront it.
Now let's go to the Alito hearings.
What?
What?
I don't say it's a done deal.
I well, I've I have said, Mr. Sturdley says, wait a minute, this is new.
You usually don't say it's a done deal this far out.
I thought I just offered the caveat.
Anything can change overnight in politics.
All I'm saying is these numbers don't surprise me.
I think these numbers are probably accurate to what they've always been since she left the White House and maybe the last two years in the White House.
And I just don't see after this kind of a puff piece era that she's lived in, where they've portrayed her as practically angelic on the cover of the New York Times Sunday magazine.
I don't see what can change to make sixteen percent say they definitely want to vote for her, fifty-one percent who say they definitely do.
I don't know what's going to change.
I have I've I she you have to ask what is she going to do?
What has she been doing to get herself where she is?
And it's obvious what she's been doing isn't working, and does she know to do anything else?
So she's not likable, Mr. Sturdley.
It's just that simple.
She just she just not likable.
You think you're watching the Wizard of Oz with the monkeys in the castle?
You think you're watching one flew over the cuckoo's nest?
There's Nurse Ratchet.
I'm sorry that these things just who wants to hear this screaming voice when she gets all revved up.
We've played the audio sound bites of this.
She starts screaming about who wants to who wants to hear this?
Who is inspired by it?
I just don't think anybody is.
Now moving on to uh Alito, just as I predicted, and others see I told you so.
This is our old buddy Jesse Holland at the Associated Press.
As the Senate begins its final debate on Alito's nomination to the court, the conservative jurist already has won enough commitments from senators to become the nation's next justice and likely tilt the high court to the right.
I just love that they have to throw that in there.
Uh never would they write that Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Steven Breyer would likely tilt the court to the uh to the left.
Uh nevertheless, as of late yesterday, the Federal Appeals Court judge had enough vote commitments for confirmation, simple majority in the 100-member Senate, 50 Senate Republicans plus uh Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska publicly saying through their representatives that they're going to vote for him.
The only way that Democrats could stop Alito is through a filibuster.
It's a maneuver that they show little interest in trying.
Thus the Democrats are trying to get a large opposition vote to score points against President Bush.
Now, how many of you people have seen these fundraising letters that get sent out by people for the liberal way and all these.
I have a friend who is acts as a spy who is on their mailing list.
And every time Ralph Nees sends one of these things out, he uh emails me a copy of it.
And they are hilarious.
Uh you hear references to George Bush and Sam Alito will steal your safety deposit box from the banks from box from the bank, and they will pull your fingernails out or waterboard you if you deny the truth about the contents of some.
It's just it's just ridiculous what they tell that their their supporters uh will happen.
So, where are they now after after 30 years of predicting doom and gloom and saying that we need to hang together and send your money to us so that we can fight this extreme right winger and protect our civil liberties and protect our lives and so forth.
Here's a sample of what they probably will be sending out today.
Dear fellow liberal and liberal will be lined out, and uh instead of it will say progressive, and then progressive will be lined out, and they'll say, Dear moderate.
Thanks to your support and our senatorial leaders.
We have succeeded in denouncing Judge Samuel Alito, and we have succeeded in actually delaying the committee vote for a full week.
We need your help to continue sending these powerful messages to the extremists on the right.
Without our vigor and your money, we would not have delayed the Alito Committee vote for a full week.
That's what they're reduced to claiming credit for.
They can't stop Roberts.
They can't stop Alito.
He's going to be confirmed, tilting the court to the right.
But these groups still have to go out and raise money, so they have to tell their lame brain donors and contributors they succeeded at something.
And so they're going to start flexing their muscles over the fact that they had the power and their senators on the committee were so courageous that they actually delayed the committee vote for a week.
And that is a strong message to the American people that we need to keep sending it.
That's what they've been reduced to, folks.
They are impotent.
Back in just a moment.
Stay with us.
And that's the truth.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
It has been pointed out to me during our obscene profit break there that you just heard that the uh tune-in factor of this program is so large that when I talk about Mrs. Clinton screaming, there may be new listeners who really don't know what I'm talking about.
So here, this is a recent example.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Okay, see what I mean, folks.
You know what I'll bet when Bill Clinton went home, when he went when he left the oval orifice, and he went back to the residence of the White House.
I'll bet you had to take some raw meat with him and throw it in the front door.
And if the raw meat were devoured, it was a signal to head back to the Oval Office or somewhere else.
If the raw meat stayed on the floor untouched, it was safe to go in.
Now, do you really think in the midst of a presidential campaign that that is going to fire up people to run around and say, oh man, I love this woman and go want to vote for her.
I just I just I don't think it's gonna have by the way, I love George Allen.
George Allen on the floor of the Senate just said to the Democrats, go ahead and make my day, talking about a filibuster, threatening them to let's listen to a little Senator Kennedy today on the uh floor.
He he says he says that Judge Alito played hide the ball uh during his hearings, which must be some grab-ass game they play up at Hyannisport.
On issue after issue.
Instead of answering candidly, Judge Alito merely recited the existing case law, but never disclosed his view of major constitutional issues.
That is a disservice to the American people, and senators on both sides of the aisle should find his evasiveness unacceptable.
The confirmation process should not be reduced to a game of hide the ball.
How long is this thing in this?
The state for our country.
One of the most important of all responsibilities of the Supreme Court is to enforce the constitutional limitations on presidential power.
A justice must have the courage and the wisdom to speak truth to power.
To tell even the president that he has gone too far.
We have a president who claims he has the authority to spy on Americans without the court order required by law.
I can't believe that.
The record demonstrates that we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds.
And you are tuned to the nation's leading radio talk show, the El Rushbow, Rush Limbaugh program here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I want to go back if we get serious here for a second, because Senator Kennedy, among other things, said that a justice must have the courage and the wisdom to speak truth to power, to tell even the president that he's gone too far.
We have a president who claims he has the authority to spy on Americans without the court order required by law.
That's again just a repetition of the contemptible lie that the Democrats and the media are trying to spread.
This is a mentioned this yesterday, Foreign Intelligence Services Act and the Pfizer Court.
This is about foreign intelligence.
This is not a domestic spying program.
Bill Clinton did that.
It was called echelon.
And Kennedy goes on to say that the record demonstrates we cannot count on Judge Alito to blow the whistle when the president is out of bounds.
It raises a larger question.
In all of this NSA spying scandal, what are we getting?
We're getting questions about hearings.
Arlen Spector wants to do hearings.
Look into what kind of powers the president has.
And all these other members of Congress and the Senate demanding the same thing along with the media.
The real question about this is this.
Where does Congress get off demanding a role in this process?
What part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to substitute its policies on the battlefield for those of the commander-in-chief?
Where does the Constitution say that any member of Congress or Congress in total is a co-participant in the role of commander-in-chief?
Why is it assumed that Congress gets to make these decisions when in fact they don't?
Now they there are things they can do.
They can cut funding, they can deauthorize the war that way, but I don't see any of them raising that idea.
I don't see any of them suggesting that we need to do that.
But they cannot micromanage a war.
They have the power to regulate the military.
That means they can determine pay scales and pensions.
They can pay for or not pay for troop levels.
They can authorize certain types of medals and uniforms and all that kind of thing.
But Congress has never had war-making authority.
They can declare war or not declare war, but with a war powers act, we can go to war without them if we want.
Furthermore, what part of the Constitution grants authority to any judge?
He keeps talking about Alito won't be a whistleblower.
Alito won't blow the whistle on George Bush as he tramples all over our fingernails and our safe deposit boxes.
And whatever else Bush is doing.
What part of the Constitution, and I'm serious about this, folks, grants authority to any judge or any court to second guess military decisions made by the commander-in-chief.
We have all this talk going on about the president needing judicial authority to order intercepts.
We don't have a word about the constitutional justification for that.
As I have been drilling, trying to drill home the past couple of days.
This has nothing to do.
This whole NSA spy scandal has nothing to do with probable cause.
It has nothing to do with search warrants.
We're talking about something that's actually quite simple conceptually, and that is intercepting enemy communications during a war.
We're not chasing down car thefts.
We're not chasing down bank robbers.
And we're not chasing down rapists, because in Vermont they only get 60 days anyway, so what's the point?
The idea that the president has the power to blow up cities during war without seeking approval from Congress or a judge or secret court before making the battlefield decision, has that power, but he doesn't have the authority to determine and learn the enemy's whereabouts or next steps through intelligence gathering.
I mean, the idea that he can we don't question his authority to order bomb strikes, we don't question his authority to order certain military maneuvers.
But now all of a sudden we question his authority to determine and learn the enemy's whereabouts or next steps through intelligence gathering?
What what the two don't connect.
It's incongruent.
The question is asked, who will check the president's power?
The answer to that is something I already mentioned.
Congress has the power to cut off funding if it wants.
And that's pretty big check if you ask me.
I mean, if they really don't like what the president's doing, kill it, kill the money for it.
They can do that.
And he could, of course, not sign it, and they could override the veto, but they can do that, but I don't hear any of them suggesting that.
Apart from that, though, the president has the final say as commander-in-chief, just as Congress has the final say on appropriations.
You know, the president doesn't get to walk up to Congress and sit down and say, you know what, I'm going to investigate you guys.
You guys aren't doing what I want you to do.
I he can't, all he can do is propose a budget.
But if you've noticed, if you've been paying attention all your adult life, you know that the final budget Is authorized by Congress, all of the spending, all of the so-called cuts that never are, they all come from Congress.
The President has no authority.
He sends his budget up, and of course, Congress routinely says, what?
It's dead on arrival.
So when the president says, you guys are dead on arrival when you're trying to interrupt me on the commander-in-chief.
Everybody's, well, who are we going to check the president?
They claim that Bush is nothing more than an imperial presidency.
You want an imperial presidency.
How about Franklin Devonna Roosevelt?
We were talking about him packing the court yesterday.
He wasn't just packing the court with as many Democrats as he could get.
He wanted to add what?
Uh six more?
What was the Supreme Court at the time?
Nine or two?
He wanted to add well he wanted a total of 15 justices on the court.
He wanted to get up add five or six.
That's packing the court.
FDR into you talk about violating civil rights.
How about the internment of the Japanese, the Japanese Americans during World War II?
Lincoln and getting rid of habeas corpus.
I mean, George W. Bush has interceded the least when it comes to all of these kinds of things, and yet they're out there trying to cast him as this imperial president.
The bottom line is Congress has no authority to oversee or to second guess or to even participate in commander-in-chief duties.
Now, unlike federal judges, the president, and neither do judges, but the judges have judges are not even trained.
Judges don't even get the intelligence.
Judges don't even get the war plan.
Judges are not even involved in any aspect of it.
Why in the world would Kennedy or anybody think that a judge should have some role in the conduct of a war?
And have a have a uh you know co-participant role in the uh in the constitutional powers vested in the commander-in-chief.
It's absurd.
All of this is absurd.
Now, the president's term is limited.
Federal judges are not, and unlike federal judges, the president must stand for election.
So the real imperial threat would be rearranging the Constitution in such a way as empowering unaccountable, unelected, lifetime appointed judges to make these decisions.
And that's what Ted Kennedy and his ilk are attempting to do here.
They don't like the Constitution the way it's written.
And they've been showing us evidence of that for as long as I've been paying attention as an adult.
You want to talk about a real imperial presidency or a real imperial authority, you let a bunch of unelected, unaccounted, unaccountable judges start playing a role in commander-in-chief duties, and we're going to be in a huge mess.
And that's what your liberal friends and your Democrat Party politicians seek to do here with all of this talk about who's going to be the check balance of the president.
You are, if you've got the guts, Senator Kennedy, just introduce a legislation defunding the war, defunding FISA.
Introduce legislation and go out and convince a bunch of people to vote for it to cut off all the money for these operations.
Short of that, shut up.
Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist.
Executing by habit zero mistakes, flawlessly here performing.
And this is uh already Wednesday, the middle of the week, fastest week in media.
I one last point, uh, folks, on all of this, this this gnattering from the Democrats that there must be some check on the president as we're in the middle of a war, and Judge Alito will not be the one to blow the whistle, Senator Kennedy fears.
If you noticed, it is the same liberals and the same media types who accuse anyone who actually believes in the written constitution of being some sort of extremist.
It's what they did to Bork.
You believe what's in the Constitution.
Oh, what a backward Neanderthal you are.
Why, that's a living breathing document.
That should bend in shape and form and flake to accommodate the modern evolution in society.
Of course, they love the living breathing constitution, but you notice the same people, the same people who chastise those of us who believe in the written constitution now waving the Constitution around as if it supports their position that the president lacks the power to secure intelligence on the enemy.
The same people, the same people who find a privacy right to support abortion on demand, somehow can't find the precise language in the Constitution that does, in fact, empower the president as commander-in-chief to make these wartime decisions.
Nothing changes.
They look at the Second Amendment, well, it's not there.
So if the founders knew what this country is going to become, well, why they would have never put the Second Amendment in there so we can throw it out.
Oh, you mean you want to go to original intent?
No, no, no, no.
We don't want to go to original intent.
We're not saying it at all.
So you got a living, breeding constitution.
So the way liberals read it, if it's in there, it isn't.
And if it's not in there, it is.
Now, this is this is not a group of people that's building a solid foundation on which to grow and inspire a political movement or political party.
You are witnessing an implosion, and I'm telling you, the number one characteristic, a human trait that is causing all this to happen to them, aside from the fact that they're just dead wrong, is arrogance.
Arrogance gets in the way of so much.
It gets in the way of you understanding who you really are, accepting the truth about things, enabling you to see reality.
Arrogance is the thing that allows you to pretend that you live in your dreams, that you somehow are God's gift to everybody, and they aren't, and they never have been.
Back in just a sec.
All right, folks, the first hour of the program, now safely in an armored courier on its way to a secret warehouse housing artifacts for the future Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting, Hour Two, straight ahead, right around the corner.
Won't be long, and we'll be right back.
▲
Export Selection