All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
February 6, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hiya folks and welcome back.
It's nice to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, this, the most listened to radio talk show in America, a program which has redefined American media.
A program which meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
The telephone number is 800 282-2882.
Email address rush at EIBNet.com.
You remember one of our previous sound bites we played Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy said that he wishes we'd have captured bin Laden and he didn't.
He doesn't like this insinuation by Republicans that he is for terrorists and wants a terrorist bill of rights.
Hey, I wanted to catch bin Laden.
Well, you know.
From Cooksville, Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York has come up with a theory to explain why the administration doesn't want to catch bin Laden.
Hinchy, Maurice Henshey said that the administration had a motive for not capturing bin Laden.
Why do why do we do that?
The only logical answer that comes to my mind is that they didn't want to capture bin Laden because if they captured bin Laden and wiped out the Taliban, which they could have done at that moment, there would have been no justification for going to war in Iraq, and they wanted to use that as a justification for attacking Iraq.
Hinchy is a critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, who says he says is lied the administration has about the reasons for going into Iraq.
So we never did want to catch bin Laden, because if we'd have caught bin Laden, then a war on terror would have been over.
And the administration didn't want the war on terror to be over.
By the way, I got to say one of the happiest moments.
I told you, I went Saturday to Houston for a little golf lesson with a new golf guru Jim Hardy.
And Jim picked us up at uh George Bush Intercontinental Airport.
Well, we're driving in his big SUV to the Redstone Golf Club, which is where the shell Houston Open is.
And the route took us right by Halliburton.
Big sign.
Halliburton.
One of Halliburton's offices.
And I roll down the window and I pump my fist at Halliburton and I gave a thumbs up.
Just the how must this just tick off the libs in Houston when had to drive by every day and see that sign, Halliburton.
Okay.
We've got audio sound bites coming up here, but I th this is just too good.
Gore Pak begins attack on President Bush.
Political analysts and pundits have long suspected that former Vice President Al Gore is considering another run for the big time.
He lost to Bush in 2000 after the race was stolen from him, and he stubbornly continues to encourage the Democratic Party base to believe that.
With frontrunner Senator Hillary Rodham Rotham's recent poll numbers revealing she'd be a weak polarizing candidate, conventional wisdom is that Al Gore believes he has a good shot at capturing the Democrat Party nomination, which is usually clinched by a candidate moving to the left, and once nominated, then appear to be moving to the center of the political mainstream.
Clinton's prospects for nomination appear to be spiraling downward.
A visit to the Hillary 2008 website indicates that thus far 77 people have visited her site.
That's obviously not much in the way of a groundswell of support for her, so enter John Kerry, enter John Edwards, and enter Al Gore.
A new political action committee, Patriots for Al Gore, has called for a special counsel to investigate the current NSA surveillance program being employed by the Bush administration in response to its admission that this program has existed and is wiretapped millions of Americans without obtaining proper warrants as outlined in current FISA laws.
So Patriots for Al Gore.
A new pack.
Somebody somebody said to me, you know, Rush, you don't understand these Democrats.
The constitutional clause, the reason why they think they have a case on the NSA surveillance scandal, is because they've got lawyers in the Democratic Party who tell you that the constitutional clause that prohibits the NSA surveillance program is right next to the clause that guarantees a woman's right to abortion.
So it's right there.
The way Liberals read the Constitution.
So get ready.
I mean, so far Al Gors has been out there making speeches to move on.org, but now there's Patriots for Al Gore, and he's and you know, it's becoming uh I think becoming known that the Gores and the Clintons did not get along toward the end of the uh Clinton presidency.
Tipper and Hillary really never much hit it off.
Um they thought Bill was the nicer of the two, but Hillary was just phony, shrill, uh, all that.
And here's Gore getting back into this during Hillary's year of entitlement.
Folks, this is going to be sweet.
Audio sound bites, because this set we get two more from from Senator Leahy, but I need to set them up.
Uh this is Alberto Gonzalez, the Attorney General going through the process of how other presidents have used the same authority as President Bush has throughout history.
Uh and and this is nothing compared to what previous president presidents have done, even points out that Woodrow Wilson intercepted every cable in and out of the country.
General Washington, for example, instructed his army to intercept letters between British operatives, copy them, and then allow those communications to go on their way.
President Lincoln used the warrantless wiretapping of telegraph messages during the Civil War to discern the movements and intentions of opposing troops.
President Wilson in World War I authorized the military to intercept each and every cable, telephone and telegraph communication going into or out of the United States.
During World War II, President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States.
He also gave the military the authority to review without warrant all telecommunications, quote, passing between the United States and any foreign country.
All right, now let's go to the finish.
So this is a great finish from Gonzalez.
He says here what every American is thinking watching these blowhard senators.
To end the program now would be to afford our enemy dangerous and potentially deadly new room for operation within our own borders.
Our enemy is listening.
And I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program by leaking its existence in the first place, and smiling at the prospect that we might now disclose even more, or perhaps even unilaterally, disarm ourselves of a key tool in the war on terror.
What a finish.
That is exactly what people are thinking.
The other guys, our enemies have to be laughing themselves silly, and the American people look at Democrats smiling at the prospect of hampering our ability to conduct war against this enemy, and make no mistake that's what they're trying to do.
For some reason they want to hamper our ability to conduct war against this enemy, dingy hairy running around smiling and laughing.
We just killed the Patriot Act, we just killed the Patriot Act.
And then people wonder why they uh they're they're viewed as as uh uh not being on the right side in this in this whole cause.
So it it it comes time for Senator DePenz, Patrick Leakey Leahy, and he says to Alberto Gonzalez, Mr. Attorney General uh were you aware of anybody in the administration that came to this conclusion about using wiretaps and so forth before September 18th, 2001.
That's when the Congress authorized the joint resolution to go do what you have to do.
And here's Gonzalez's answer, and Leahy actually tries to get in on this.
No, Senator, the only thing that I can recall is that we had just been attacked, and that we had been attacked by an enemy from within our own borders.
And that's Attorney General, I I understand I was here when that attack happened.
Right.
And I joined with Republicans and Democrats and virtually every member of this Congress to try to give you the tools that you said you needed for us to to uh go after Al Qaeda and especially to go after Osama bin Laden.
The man that we all understood mastermind the attack and the man who's still at large.
Now, back to my question.
Did you come to the conclusion that you had to have this warrantless wiretapping of Americans inside the United States to protect us before the president signed the resolution on September 18, 2001?
You were the White House counsel at the time.
What I can say is that we came uh to a conclusion that the President had the authority to authorize this kind of activity before he actually authorized the activity.
Okay, slam dunk again.
Leahy, this is so obvious.
Did you do this before we in Congress gave you the right to do it?
Which is all meaningless because Congress cannot trump the Constitution.
The inherent power for the President to do what he does is in the Constitution.
It's not in the FISA law, and it's not in anything these guys signed on September 18th of 2001, although that resolution pretty much affirmed the Constitution in a specific sense as it relates to the current war on terror.
Now, in this next this is great.
This is from this morning, and then s Senator Leahy is trying to get the Attorney General here to tell terrorists who are watching if the government is opening their mail.
I mean, it's it it it it's almost like the the Democrats in this committee have become the defense lawyers for all former, current, and future terrorists who are either working or captured.
The question did he authorize the opening of first class mail of U.S. citizens?
You can answer that one, yes or no.
There is all kinds of wild speculation out there about what the president has authorized and what we're actually doing.
And I'm I'm not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about uh about the.
I'm not asking what the president authorized.
Does this law you're the chief uh law enforcement officer of the country?
Does this law authorize the opening of first class mail of U.S. citizens?
Yes or no, under your interpretation.
Senator, I think I think that uh again, that is not what is going on here.
We're only focused on communications and international communications, where one part of the communication is Al Qaeda.
Which is all that anybody has ever said.
This is incompetence and ineptitude on parade.
The Democrats are simply trying old courtroom tactics.
He's acting as a prosecutor talking to the accused defendant, thinking he's got him nailed, going to try to trick him up.
But the problem is none of what the Democrats are doing is rooted in truth.
They and their buddies in the media have established a lie about this program that it is domestic spying, and they've already assumed the President and Gonzalez are guilty.
And so now it's time to do these hearings and show and demonstrate this.
Problem is what they're talking about, it's not true.
They are they're it's a contemptible lie what they have said about this program, and Gonzalez has just swatted this question away like it was no more bothersome than a fruit flock.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Try this story.
I don't know if you heard about this happened over the weekend uh on the Saturday.
Guy named Iman Ferris, that's I Y M A N. I'm in You know you know this story.
The only terrorist who has been named publicly in connection with the NSA terrorist surveillance program has moved to set aside his conviction for conspiring to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge on the grounds that he was illegally spied on by the NSA.
His cause is being taken up by the ACLU.
It's a joke to these people.
Well, no, that's not the these people are a joke to me.
This is this is this is in truth frightening.
These people are actually helping the enemy get away in our court system and our judicial system with terrorist plots.
The only terrorist who's been named publicly in connection with the NSA terrorist surveillance program has moved to set aside his conviction for conspiring to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge on the ground he was illegally spied on by the National Security Agency.
This would be akin to the ACLU saying any Nazi soldier that was captured in the midst of or right before committing an act of war, which is what an act of terrorism is, could not be held accountable or even held because he was spied on.
Try telling Abraham Lincoln this.
Abraham Lincoln would put the ACLU in jail, is what he would do.
If this were the Civil War era and there were an ACLU-like organization, they would be called agitators and they would be in jail or sent out of the country.
They would be.
What have the New York Times would be shut down?
The New York Times is actually acting as an as a as a foreign agent here.
And now you've got you've got Leahy asking the attorney general, why don't you tell the terrorists who are the subject of this program whether you're opening their mail or not?
Why don't you tell us on this committee what you've learned in these intercepts so we can determine whether what you're doing is legal.
Bunch of buffoons, dangerous buffoon, Neville Chamberlain's times 20, Dave and Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, um, you know, not no ordinary citizen has come forward, the liberal media or the uh senators, the liberal centers, to say that they were wrongly accused of a crime with illegal wiretapping.
And you know, there they're look there's no Cindy She'An poster child out there that they can come forward with.
And it's it's just the Al-Qaeda people they're getting, you know.
Well, hang on, it's pissing me off.
Hang on now.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Understand it is there is um uh as I understand it, and I I I stand to be corrected about this.
Now, usually when I think I'm wrong, I'm right then too, which is why my action rating is so high.
But I hold out the possibility here, because I think I read this, that if you are an average ordinary American citizen, and you get you get nailed in this program, and you get a letter saying, we have monitored you talking to uh so and so, you are not allowed to tell anybody.
Uh you can get a lawyer, but you are not allowed to tell anybody.
And the libs are using this aspect of the law.
You can't you can't tell anybody even after you've been released uh by by whoever has been surveilling you.
So you can never legally talk.
If you talk about it, you go to jail.
Because talking about it would be compromising the program.
So we don't know if anybody has been apprehended.
They can't leave.
The thing is, they're not being charged with some criminal activity that they found that isn't associated with terrorism.
Well, well, not yet, because Bush wants to detain these people for 20 years without charges before sending them into court.
I mean, I'm just answering as a liberal would.
Of course there haven't been any cases brought yet.
The odds are uh they're not they're not interested in innocent Americans.
These are this is that the Libs have tried to make everybody think that this is akin to law enforcement agencies getting a tip that somebody's engaging in some illegal act, and we go to the search warrant to find out, maybe run a sting operation and set them up.
That's not what this is.
This is simply targeting certain phone numbers in certain locales around the world uh phone calls coming into and out of the country.
It it this is these are not these are acts of war.
This is this is intelligence gathering.
This is not part of the indictment process in the in the legal judicial system, criminal justice system of this country.
And and when the libs and the media start talking about warrantless searches, all they want you to think is that some jack booted thugs can break into your house without a warrant, go through your underwear drawer and everything else to find something, maybe plant something, and then haul you off to Camp Club Gitmo.
That's not what this is.
This is uh that the whole It's a contemptible lie, as I keep saying, this whole attempt to pass this off as domestic spying is not what this is.
This is foreign intelligence.
And so the you know you imagine going to some judge I uh need to get a warrant for uh Mohammed El Sahib Skyhook, uh, who is uh currently uh in Kuwait and we're doing this and we're it's that's a patently absurd.
I but yet and and they're not getting away with it.
Your conclusion, your opinion, your reaction is evidence of that.
It's a good call.
Thanks much.
Okay.
We are back, Houston, Texas.
Paul, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Ditto's rush.
Thank you, sir.
Um, you know what I'm hearing here from Senator Leahy, I I don't know, I'm thinking a different way.
I think he's trying to offer us some help, a solution.
And and that's because you know, I don't think it was the Brigham Young Martyrs Brigade that crashed planes into the buildings and killed 3,000 lives.
Um I don't think that it's right to you know infiltrate and bug the Southern Baptist Convention in order to find people doing harm to us.
So I think what he's trying to say is hey, let's do a little racial profiling.
Let's infiltrate some mosques and now do you really believe that's what Senator Leahy means?
Well, I I I hope that that that's the way you know President Bush should acknowledge him and say that.
What would Leah say if he came back?
I will bet you that you will never hear Senator Leahy say he is for profiling, or that he wants to infiltrate a mosque.
What you're more likely to hear is he wants to find out who infiltrated a mosque and charge them with violating the mosque's civil liberties.
So I know where you're going with this.
He's upset because we're targeting uh uh the nuns, Quakers, uh whatever it was he said.
And that's really that's targeting those.
He's comparing the pro he's comparing two different programs.
That's you know, we're we're we're we're you know, we we don't surveil nuns.
We we send them through metal detectors and everybody else at airports.
And and you know, the profiling here's got it really yeah, I mean, if you're gonna call we know who the enemy is, they're they're militant Islamists, and if you're gonna say, well, yeah, that's profiling, you're identifying an ethnic group that well then we're sunk.
That's not what we're doing anyway.
This this program has nothing to do with what we try to do to make airports and airplanes secure.
And and and Leahy knows it.
He's purposely trying to confuse the issues here because these people, Leahy and the like, want you and as many Americans as possible to think that George Bush is spying on you, that George Bush wants you in jail, that George Bush wants to learn what you're doing in your private life.
And that nothing could be further from the truth in this case.
And that's why it's it's not working.
It is so obvious to even I mean, there are very few casual observers in this, not after 9-11.
There are people paying close attention to this.
You can hear it in the phone calls we get.
People are outraged at these here.
This is why uh the administration was eager for them to occur.
Because it's it's it's helping the Democrats explain who they are, and it's demonstrating or allowing them to demonstrate uh how it is that they fight political battles.
There's a worlds of world of education going on here.
It's very, very informative, and at the same time, they uh they're doing themselves no favors.
I got a story here from the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Now, not all the news in this in this story, it's actually an analysis piece by a guy named Dick Polman.
You've heard much of the stuff in the piece already on this program, but it's it's right along the lines of what I have been suggesting to you now for four or five years, GOP Bright Spot Democrats, because they're clueless.
At a time when President Bush's popularity is in a tank and his fellow Republicans are getting hammered into polls at the start of a big election year.
There's one shiny silver lining for the governing party.
The Democrats are a mess.
You know, I'm gonna have to excuse myself from this conventional wisdom that the president's popularity is in the tank.
I just don't see that.
I think they're they're they're accepting the results from their fake polls.
But anyway, right now the Democrats seem ill poised to score major gains at Bush's expense for several fundamental Reasons.
They can't agree on what to stand for and what issues to fight for.
They seem most adept at fighting each other with grassroots liberals savaging the Washington moderates.
Washington moderates.
Who are the Washington Moderates in the Democratic Party?
Okay, uh Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman now and then.
Who are they?
Who are these Democrat moderates?
That's that's okay, that's two.
Fine.
That's another big myth.
One myth is that Bush's popularity isn't a tank, and two, most Democrats are moderates.
Most Democrats are liberal to one degree or another.
And the third problem that this guy says they have, they don't have a clue about who should lead them.
Maybe Democrats should change the name of their traditional theme song to Hapless Days or Here Again.
The downbeat assessment is endemic among Democrats themselves.
As Washington strategirist Jenny Bacchus said the other day, right now, we're only playing defense.
We win too much when the Republicans punch us.
We don't seem to have a strategy for going on offense.
We can't agree on what fights to pick.
There's nothing wrong with having a good fight within the party, but at some point you just can't keep eating your own.
Dan Gerstein, a political consultant, former Democrat Senate aide, said our internal divisions are making us look weak, ineffectual, and unable to lead.
At some point, this behavior becomes destructive.
We gotta stop it if we want to have a chance to win.
Gerstein was with uh Lieberman, uh, by the way.
But it it just more of the same of what you've uh what you've heard, all these statistics.
Um all these issues.
One of the interesting things in this piece is that there's a poll.
Who did the poll?
Oh.
Yeah, uh Stan Greenberg and Carville went out there and did one of their polls.
Uh cross section of 1,005 Americans between January 22nd and 25th.
And here's the result.
When people are asked to ID the party that is most adept at knowing what it stands for, 51% pick the Republican Party, only 30% pick the Democrats.
See, that's why I have been urging them for their own good to come out and be honest.
Tell people who they are.
Their own voters don't know who they are.
Can't figure it out because they don't have the guts to uh to point it out.
Bob in Warrington, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome.
Thanks, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Um I'm an average conservative American who has come to the conclusion that I couldn't care less about wiretapping.
Me.
The government knows more about me than I know about myself.
Well, actually that's I mean, I have a driver's license, I have a job, I pay insurance, I have health insurance, I pay taxes.
This is the same thing.
Well, that right there.
Your government knows more about you're just near tax return than you probably know about yourself.
Exactly.
So, you know, I I really believe that the average conservative American couldn't care less about this wiretap nonsense.
It's part of the 21st century.
Well, let me tell you you're right, but but in a in a I think in a specific sense.
The reason I think that that most Americans don't have a concern about this the way the liberals wish they did, is twofold.
One, it is a post-9-11 world, 9-11 still very real to everybody but the Democrats in this country.
Second thing is that try as hard as they might, they cannot portray George Bush as a guy who is big brother and is gonna spy on Americans and put them in jail for no reason.
Now, if if we had, you know, I'm not gonna name any names, I don't, but if it's possible that it that a certain president, this could alarm everybody.
I know, and that's why they're trying to turn the guy into Nixon.
Everybody, they want that they want uh Bush to be Nixon, they want the whole country to be Daniel Ellsberg, and the Democratic National Committee offices.
And that's why they're hearkening back in these comparisons to Nixon.
And they're missing the boat on this.
You it it it doesn't apply to George W. Bush.
The last person that you would associate him with is a president like that, somebody who's going to engage in big brother Orwellian type type tactics.
Uh you know, i i I'm telling you folks that the the real truth of this.
I mean uh what did I just read?
Um some another congressman somewhere has made a deal with Hugo Chavez for Venezuelan oil.
Where is that?
That's Vermont is it Bernie Sanders at the Bernie Bernie Sanders, well known and very popular in Vermont, socialist, has made a deal with Hugo Chavez.
You take a look at who the Democrats find comfortable, who they like being with, who they like being photographed with, who they like making deals with.
Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, any tin horn dictator around the world, they will just sidle up to because they think that there's something to gain by citing the people that they get they can portray as victims of the evil and too powerful United States.
Then you look at who they think the enemies are.
Walmart, ExxonMobil, any pharmaceutical company, any automobile company, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, me, John Ashcroft, take a look at who their enemies are, take a look at who they will not criticize.
You've got you've got Hugo Chavez over the weekend coming out sounding just like the left-wing blogosphere.
Bush is Hitler.
Bush is Gestapo.
Same thing that Julian Bond said in North Carolina last week, the head of the NAALCP.
Speaking of which, you know, Bush doesn't go to their annual dinner and uh and and whatever else they do.
Does anybody really not understand why?
Why would George W. Bush go someplace where the leader has just compared your presidency to that of the third right?
And yourself to George or to to uh Adolf Hitler.
Why would you go there?
Where is there and to whom would you outreach?
What possible reason would you go?
Now, Bush is going to go to the funeral of uh Coretta Scott King, but he I'll lay a dollar to a donut he doesn't show up at the NAALCP event.
I mean, it'd be asinine.
I'm just saying you look at who the liberals think the enemy is and who they think the good guys are, and it's a hundred and eighty degrees out of phase.
I gotta go.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue here in just a moment.
Now, this is kind of funny.
The nation's most prominent pro-choice spokeswoman.
Who would that be?
Uh gosh, that's a toughie.
Who how would you determine who is the most prominent pro-abortion spokeswoman in America?
Who who would you say it is, uh, Mr. Snerdley?
Well, it is.
You are you're exactly right.
Uh Kate Michelman, uh former uh longtime head of NARAL Pro Choice America.
Blasted Senator Hillary Clinton for giving $10,000 to right to life Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey.
She accused the former first lady of putting politics over principle.
When push comes to shove at certain times, Clinton will support the party even if that choice doesn't reflect all their standards and principles, said Kate Michaelman.
Clinton, a darling of the pro-abortion community, is taking heat from the activist for giving the maximum donation allowable under law to pro-life Senate hopeful Bob Casey through her political action committee Hill Pack.
Uh is Michaelman what?
Well, I guess she's not in on the joke.
I mean, this is Hillary trying to move to the this is nothing more.
This is this is nothing more.
This is no different than Bush supporting Spectre.
Uh I know maybe what's she supposed to do?
Give the money to Santorum.
Or just not give the money to anybody, give it to Lynn Swan.
Uh John in Columbus, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
My goodness rush, uh, Mega Marine Corps veteran daddos.
Thank you so much for supporting the troops.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Uh, straight to my point.
Uh telling the screener about all this wiretapping.
My concern Comment question is this uh earlier this week, if I'm not uh misunderstanding it, I heard that Google, the minute you type in a question, knows more than anything about any given individual the moment you hit that question uh direction within Google, and no one on the left or no one on the right, no one anywhere is raising an eyebrow at Google gathering up all this information about us citizens.
And I just have to believe it is a continuous attack from the left on our president and my commander in chief uh about this wiretapping issue.
That's pretty much right.
It's just it's just personal political hatred that's uh that's that's driving them.
Although, although don't don't let that uh cause you to uh uh misunderstand who these people really are.
I mean, there's a reason why they are called the party of McGovern.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, that they they are they cannot be trusted with the national security of this country.
Not as currently constant.
I won't mention his name, but by Lord above, I am so glad I am where I am, and who's leading us?
Well, uh Amen, and I agree with you.
Thank you much for the call.
I appreciate that, John.
This is Seth uh in Del High, Louisiana.
Welcome to the program.
Diddos Rush.
Thank you.
Uh I think Alito gave us a hint on how he's gonna rule on this uh domestic wiretapping thing.
When they asked him when a warrantless search could be conducted, he said under exigent circumstances.
And I think these are exigent circumstances that we're facing.
It's never gonna get this isn't gonna get to Alito.
The only thing that might get to Alito is whether FISA is unconstitutional.
This is not gonna get to a lead.
You think this is actually gonna get to Alito?
You think it's gonna get the Supreme Court?
I think so.
I I I I can't I I I I think this is if it does, uh I'm not worried about Alito.
I mean, hell, he's all for search warrants of ten-year-old little girls.
Yeah.
We that's all we needed.
Does that not sound patently absurd when you say it?
And yet the Democrats tried to make the biggest case in the world to disqualify the guy over there.
Bob in New Orleans.
Welcome.
And by the way, congratulations.
I see the Saints are going to open their home season in the Superdome in September.
Nice news, and thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
You bet.
Just wanted to tell you I have an answer for Senator Lahey and about the first class mail.
Uh I sure hope they're opening first class mail.
They did it in World War II.
I know because my mom worked for something called the censorship office.
And she opened mail, she lifted stamps off of letters and did all kinds of other things, and she has a presidential citation signed by Harry Truman for the seven German spies she helped catch doing it.
So I sure hope they are opening first class mail today.
Maybe they'll catch a few more al-Qaeda.
Are you kidding?
You're your your mother got a presidential medal or a citation because she actually uh helped capture those seven people.
Yes, she did.
She and she initiated investigations.
Were they the were the were those the ones that were hanged?
There were six of the seven were executed.
Yeah.
Six of the seven that she initiated investigations.
My guy, your your your mom is huge.
Yes, she is.
She's only 4'11 and 98 pounds on a good day, but she and she's still around.
She's 90 years old, but she did it.
She killed a lot of Germans in World War II.
And she did it by opening first class mail.
That is flat out of well, I that I mean that's fabulous.
She's the original Chloe to Jack Brower.
There you go.
All right.
Well, look, thanks for the call out there, Bob.
I uh I appreciate it.
You know, there's one thing I keep hearing.
First class mail.
What about second, third, and book rate mail?
Most liberals are so cheap they send everything book rate.
I get you wouldn't believe in the mail.
The stuff I get from liberals, they write par avion on it.
Send it air mail par avion and again book rate, this or that thing.
I mean, they scroll the address and it's always wrong.
I hope we're opening the cheap uh cheap mail uh too.
Back in just seconds.
Stay with us.
So I heard a I heard a good line about that uh the Hollywood Oscar nominated movie, Humpback Mountain.
It's when you don't go to see it a second time, everybody knows you're a homophobe.
All right, folks, that's it.
We're out of busy broadcast time today.
It has zipped by, but there's always tomorrow.
We'll look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection