All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:00
February 17, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I gotta tell you something before this show has a lot of potential today.
I mean, if I get to half of what I have in these stacks of stuff, it's gonna be an all-timer.
It's Friday.
Let's go.
Live from a Southern Command in Sunny, South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Oh, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
Open line Friday, finally upon us.
And uh here are the rules.
And by the way, welcome again to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam.
Ditto Cam will be up and running for all three hours.
It's available to subscribers, i.e., members, at rushlimbaug.com.
Uh, as you know, Monday through Thursday, we only talk about what interests me.
So I don't want to waste my time talking about things I don't care about, and you don't want to waste your time listening to me be boring, and that's what you are when you talk about things that don't interest you.
But on Friday, I take the perhaps largest career risk known to be taken in modern media by turning over those things we talk about when we take phone calls to people.
And I may not care.
If it did this is to whatever interests you on the phones is what we'll talk about today.
You can uh question, comment, uh, something that you think should be mentioned and hasn't been.
Vice versa.
Here are the phone numbers.
Well, the phone number is 800 282-2882.
The email address is rush at eIB net.com.
All right, there's big news today, folks.
Huge news.
Whoever the White House found to portray Harry Whittington, who um uh is brain dead and is being kept in some secure location nobody never thinks it's Kansas at the Maninger Clinic, but nobody's sure.
Same place they've got JFK, the same place that they've got Elvis.
Um that's where Harry Whittington is.
Uh but whoever is whoever the White House found to portray Harry Whittington will make a statement today.
At one o'clock.
This is fast action.
They had to go out and find a double, and then I'm sure they had to do a little plastic surgery, and then they had to educate this guy on who he's playing.
Had to educate him on who is Harry Whittington.
Get family members' names, brief history, just enough to pull off uh little appearance here at uh at one o'clock.
Also, I got a note from a friend of mine also in Kansas.
Rush, something isn't right here today.
I I just paid under two dollars for gasoline.
This has to have been orchestrated by Dick Cheney to take the heat off his drunken womanizing shooting spree in Texas.
I hope the White House press corps can get to the bottom of this.
What's next?
More good economic news.
This is corruption, and it must stop.
Cheney automatically lowering gas prices.
Uh, just to take heat off his drunken womanizing shooting spree in Texas from Dallas, a Dallas Democrat.
A Dallas Democrat seeking election to the Texas House of Representatives has acknowledged that he once worked as a prostitute.
Uh Tom Mallon or Malin, I'm not sure I pronounce this, a salesman and an actor, said he no longer works as a prostitute, but he conceded that his previous life could cost him the nomination in the March 7th Democrat primary.
What do you mean?
This guy's gonna fit right in.
A Democrat prostitute.
I've made mistakes in my life, and I've stood before my creator and I've accepted responsibility for my hate behavior, he told the Dallas Morning News today.
I've also accepted uh my leader, uh my my my savior's grace, and I've uh creator's grace and his redemption and his love and his forgiveness, and that's what's important.
Archived versions of websites that are now defunct advertised the services of a male escort identified as Todd Sharp.
The phone number listed with Sharp belongs to this guy, this this Democrat.
Uh Malin Malin, who once was a member of the Dallas Citizens Police Review Board, also worked as a Mary Kay salesman and performed in Dallas area theater productions, big in show tunes, no doubt.
His candidate uh web pages described him as a managing director for the marketing arm of a Dallas electricity provider.
I'll bet.
So um, if he thinks it's gonna cost him his party's nomination, I think this is gonna former male prostitute is gonna fit fit right in.
And if it's a Mary Kay cosmetic salesman, why maybe he can help out Barbara McCulski.
This guy's got a lot of value to the Democrats, and they'll see it.
Get this from Monette, Missouri.
Now, I th I I grew up in Missouri, as uh many of you people know.
Rural firefighters stood by and watched a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner had not paid membership dues.
Biboldo Rueda, who was injured battling the flames on Monday, offered to pay the dues as the fire blazed away, but the Monette Rural Fire Department doesn't have a policy for on the spot billing, said Sheriff's Detective Robert Evanson.
Now picture this.
Guy lives out in the country, watches a fire destroy a garage and a vehicle because the property owner had not paid membership dues.
So the firemen are there.
They're watching the fire, and the guy, okay, okay, I'll pay the dues now.
Sorry, we don't have a system.
We don't have a system for on the spot billing.
Here it's called take the money and put it in your pocket.
Take these people to the Department of Homeland Security, take them to FEMA.
Fire Chief Ronnie Myers defended the no pay, no aid policy, saying the membership-based organization could not survive if people thought the department would respond for free.
The department said it'll fight a fire without question if a life is believed to be in danger.
Rueda used a garden hose and buckets to fight the flames while firefighters stood by on the road watching in case the blaze spread to neighboring properties owned by members who had paid their dues.
The uh the fire eventually burned itself out.
You know, this this would be fabulous if all government agencies act acted this way.
Just let it burn, just don't provide the service.
Have you seen that the spying inquiry, the NSA spiring inquiry, that the LA Times headline is just delicious spiring inquiry blocked by GOP.
The NSA story is over.
It is another fizzle.
You know, folks, in life, there are three kinds of people.
There are people who make things happen, there are people who watch things happen, and there are people who wonder what happened.
And the Democrats of today, and certainly the last five years, fall into one of those categories.
They are people who watch things happen.
And as they've watched things happen, they can't figure out what has happened to them.
They no longer make things happen, and they don't start well, they are watching what happened, but they can't figure it out.
Um they're watching and wondering what happened.
They've been crying wolf on scandals for five years.
And as always happens, once you start crying wolf every day, pretty soon nobody's gonna hear you anymore.
Nobody's gonna listen.
They've been trying to make every news story a scandal, no matter how small.
They have even resorted to forged memos, forged documents in the famous Rathergate story at CBS to this day that he and Mary Mate still defend.
And they wonder why, as they stand around and watch and wonder what's happening.
They they, of course, have no uh no ability to question their own role in their own problems and their own demise.
So here they were all trumped up and they were all ready to go, and they were gonna get Bush finest NSA warrantless domestic spying.
And it's uh over.
The White House has agreed that they'll talk to some more congressional leaders about it, and that they'll uh modernize and upgrade the uh uh Faisal Law and so forth, and bam oh.
Nothing.
Left-wing blogosphere in Cooksville let down once again.
Their elected officials get them all charged up, get them all ready to go, get them all excited.
This is the one we're gonna get Bush.
We're gonna impeach Bush.
Yes, we're gonna get Bush impeached.
And then poof, they're elected leaders because they're impotent.
They can't get anything done because they're in the minority, and They can't get anything done because they don't have any idea what to do.
They are not people who make things happen.
They stand around and watch what happens and then they wonder what happened.
Mother Sheehan trekked to Chicago, got protested by a bunch of blue-collar Democrat types.
Get out of here.
We don't want you.
Richard Dreyfus, Richard Dreyfus, who?
Richard Dreyfus is now saying, we need, we need to impeach Bush.
Sometimes it's more important to have battles and fights you know you're going to lose than to not have them at all.
That's right.
Keep fighting these losing battles.
Keep fighting these uphill losing battles.
Here you've got less than two years for this president to serve, and they want to get on this impeachment bandwagon, and they can't even get him in trouble over the spying scandal they bail out of that.
Because there was nothing to it in the first place.
It was all built on lies.
So you have people who make things happen, who watch things happen, and then who wonder what happened.
And in this case, the Democrats wondering what the hell is happening, all the while basing their entire existence on a foundation of one lie after another.
And somebody sent me a note today.
How can you continue to look at these people with such humor?
Because it's easy.
It's easy.
The only people still afraid of Democrats are inside the Beltway Republicans.
They're the only ones still afraid of them because that culture inside the Beltway is still dominated and run by the left socially, politically, media.
So other than that, I mean, nobody's taking these people seriously.
I mean, they are a threat, obviously, because of what they believe, and you still get angry.
We all get angry every day, but it's like I always say it is unwise to argue with a fool because others may not know the difference.
You start talking to fools and you start trying to deal with them as they are, it's a losing battle.
You just have to sit back and laugh at them and find the humor in what they're doing.
Or is there something you wish to say to me?
You've been looking at me like uh Okay.
Oh.
Mr. Snerdley, the official program observer, is up in New York.
And he wears it.
He wears a coat and tie up there.
He wears a coat and tie up there, comes in looking like like the dregs of society down here.
So the official program observer today is also the broadcast engineer down here, Brian, and and and Brian observes with a little bit.
Dawn's helping observe.
Okay, so I got two observers today, and Brian's Brian's method of it does take two people to do what Snurley does alone, but but Brian's method of observing uh uh is a focused stare as though something's wrong.
So that's why I asked, is there something you wish to say to me?
Quick timeout, folks.
So Open Line Friday resumes, continues right after this.
Stay with us.
Open Line Friday and L. Rushbow having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
All right.
If you want to have some fun this afternoon when the program's over, go visit any liberal blog website.
Because Mother Jones has a has an article, a very long article on how Paul Hackett got sabotaged by Harry Reed.
Paul Hackett was gonna run for the Senate against Mike DeWine in Ohio.
The Democratic Party came in and they sabotaged him.
They threw him under the bus, they threw him overboard.
And now we know why.
Mother Jones has done some investigative journalism here, and it turns out that the Democrats believe that Paul Hackett committed war crimes while in Iraq.
They had pictures.
And Dingy Harry and other Democrats started spreading rumors that Hackett committed war crimes in the way he dealt with Iraqis, and that they had pictures.
And they got on a phone and they started telling Hackett's donors about this and told him not to donate anymore, had to get rid of the guy, and Hackett is fit to be tied.
And when the blogosphere finds out about this, because Hackett was their hero.
You know, it's not often a Democrat can find a person wearing a uniform that they admire.
And they had found one in Paul Hackett.
And now the very party that they're at odds with already, I mean, the blogosphere, the kooks out there in Cooksville despise these elected Democrats anyway.
They think they're a bunch of cowards and linguini-spine sh uh wimps.
And when they find out that the Democratic Party skewered this guy and tried to make him out to be Just like George Bush, just like a war criminal.
Oh, folks, the eruptions at Democrat Underground Daily Cause Moveon.org are going to be priceless today.
There are more details to this story.
And I will have it as the program unfolds.
Another defeat for the Democrats.
Senate yesterday steamrolled opposition to the renewal of the Patriot Act.
It was a 96-3 vote.
It wasn't that long ago.
That Dingy Harry was out there gleefully laughing and applauding to a small audience of Democrat partisans.
We killed the Patriot Act.
We killed the Patriot Act.
Well, the filibuster of the Patriot Act is now history as a 96-3 vote, broke the filibuster of procedural floor action after last week's compromise that won over several key opponents of the bill.
Voting to maintain the filibuster were Senator Feingold and Byrd.
Uh James Jeffords, Vermont Independent, Senator David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, didn't vote.
Fine Feingold said, I, Russ Feingold, I will continue to oppose this flawed deal, insist that the Senate jump through every procedural hoop and demand the right to offer amendments to improve it.
What Feingold's really saying is here, I will continue to do everything I can to empower our enemies.
I believe in a terrorist bill of rights.
I believe in the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
And this Patriot Act is going to make it much too simple for us to wage war against this Senate.
It's a fact what he's saying.
I'm putting words in his mouth.
Feingold noted that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlan Spector had called the changes cosmetic.
No amount of cosmetics can disguise the fact that it fails to protect the rights and freedoms of Al Qaeda and other terrorists who want to attack this country.
He didn't really say that.
He said the rights and freedoms of law abiding Americans.
But in this case, as always, the Democrats seek to protect the guilty.
Um and it's but it's another slam dunk defeat.
So you have nothing in the NSA spy scandal.
It's gone pfft out the window.
There is nothing there.
It's nothing's gonna happen.
And keep in mind, not one Democrat ever said the program needed to be ended.
They just said we need to do it smarter.
We need to do it smarter, like when Al Gore goes over to Saudi Arabia and takes big bucks.
You know he might have gotten 250,000 for that speech.
Could well have, because Clinton did.
Uh Clinton spoke this same outfit in 2002.
He got some big books.
I mean, Clinton got 267.
Uh, but nevertheless, uh, so the NSA spy scandal's gone, the filibuster of the Patriot Act is over.
The Democrats learned today that Dingy Harry blackmailed Paul Hackett out of the Senate race in Ohio with threats and pictures that he was a war criminal, as a member of the Marines.
And speaking of all the have you have you heard, ladies and gentlemen, that why Janet Jones Gretzky uh uh is not even a target of an investigation.
Have you heard that that she's not gonna be charged?
Their husband Wayne Gretzky is not gonna be charged?
You heard this?
In fact, New Jersey law is such that uh Janet Jones Gretzky didn't break the law.
Uh it turns out she's just a witness.
That's all they want to talk to her about.
See, like and I said the other day that facts destroy liberalism.
Facts destroy the media, too.
I guess facts aren't all that valued when it comes to promoting versus reporting a story.
It's the imagined worst case scenario that counts.
Cheney is gonna go to jail, he's gonna get charged because Whittington's gonna die.
That was the focus, that was the action line of the hunting accident story on the on the on the Gretzky story.
It was, oh my God, he gotta be lying.
He's the husband, he had to know, believe me.
Well, never mind.
He's the husband.
He had to know.
She's a criminal.
This is horrible.
Why don't you answer the questions, Wayne?
Why did you even go to the Olympics?
You're a distraction, Wayne.
You're no longer the big golden boy, Wayne.
Why?
Because we, the vaulted media, say you're not.
And it was an imagined worst case scenario rather than actual reporting.
Given the news of the past week, you must be asking yourself, how can it be that the Gretzkies will not be charged with anything?
I thought they were already tried and convicted.
But investigating the facts might put on hold the promotion of the imagined story.
So if you have an action line, this is, ooh, Gretzky, no longer golden boy, wife, big gambler, sick, needs rehab, needs treatment.
He's no longer our golden boy.
Well, that's the action line.
You can't go investigate anything that might take you off that action line.
I'll say it's a shame that reporters don't have to carry malpractice insurance, folks.
They call themselves professionals.
There are really no consequences when they get it wrong.
They can ruin lives, it doesn't matter.
They can ruin careers, but no responsibility whatsoever when they get it wrong.
And the laugher is the press says the White House needs to have better procedures to get the news out.
I thought you were reporters.
I thought you went around and found the news.
Rather than accepting handouts.
Which reminds me of the story of the bald eagle up on Homer.
Where do you hear this?
And welcome back.
L. Rushball on the cutting edge of societal evolution, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, I don't know if you've heard about this.
City Council of Homer, Alaska has banned humans from feeding bald eagles.
Now, for those of you that were educated in the public school system of this country, the bald eagle is our national bird.
It is the national symbol.
And starting next year, it will be illegal to feed.
And then there are hundreds of these eagles that gather every winter in Homer, Alaska.
And starting next year it's going to be illegal to feed them.
There is an exception.
There's some some eighty-two-year-old woman, a famous woman named Jean Keene, whose nickname is the Eagle Lady, and she's been feeding eagles in Homer for 25 years.
So she's going to be the only exception when the law kicks in.
Now, who's this going to hurt besides eagles?
Uh well guided tour groups of photographers make this journey from all over the world with their cameras in hand and their bait fish in the other, coaxing eagles to come pose for pictures.
Now the councilman addressing the uh the uh photographer safari said, Hey, we're still gonna have eagles in Homer, but you don't have to have hundreds of eagles to take a photograph.
Now, here's why this happened.
The ban, the ban resulted from complaints that bald eagles being fed was not only unnatural, but it's demeaning.
It's demeaning to feed the eagles.
Now, stop and think, these are the same kind of people who believe totally in unquestioned welfare.
These are also the people who believe unquestionably in animal rights and so forth, but now all of a sudden, because this is the national bird, this has ties to America, it somehow is demeaning to see the eagles fed.
Now, it's tempting, however, on one level not to dismiss the argument.
I mean, here is our national symbol.
The national bird.
Proud, strong, soon to be taken off the endangered species list, by the way, is the bald eagle.
And the people of Alaska have made him a blue state welfare recipient.
Essentially, eagle just sits around waiting to be fed.
It's embarrassing to me on one level.
So to end that picture of a welfare recipient, bald eagle, national symbol of our country, eh, can go for it.
But at the same time, there's a deal taking place here that is also uh uh not good.
You almost could perceive the war the the law here as welfare reform, but there's a difference.
These eagles were willing to work for their food.
They were willing to come take the food and then be photographed.
They provided a service essentially, posing for photographs, fair exchange of goods and services.
So in the end, the Eagle ban, the feeding the Eagle Ban is a stunning defeat for North American free trade in one regard.
I have fed eagles.
Well, I didn't actually do it, but I took a fishing trip up to it was salmon fishing trip up uh uh Vancouver Island.
And the uh we two of us went out on uh little putt putt boats with the with the guide taking us out where we're to fish and helping us do it all.
And one day on the way back in, he spotted a bunch of bald eagles or some kind of eagles way up in the pine Trees or whatever trees they were in.
So he stopped a boat and he he uh uh turned off the engine and told us to get our cameras out.
And lo and behold, if he wasn't able to coax those eagles to within ten feet of our boat, they'd come swooming.
I've got pictures of it.
I'll try to get I'll try I'll try to post one on the website today.
I might you know, luck out when these things are racing by.
I happen to get a good shot of one of these eagles in motion.
And they're just ten feet away, and he's calling them with his voice and waving bait fish just like is happening up in Homer, Alaska.
I didn't realize that I had I was participating in making the national symbol a welfare recipient in the uh in the process here.
I was doing it just to get an up close look at the at the eagle, but apparently it happened regularly because the birds were not afraid to fly down to the boat where we were, so I guess it was part of the package that didn't happen every day because we didn't see eagles every day, but but this guy happened to spot a couple of them up there in the tree.
It was cool.
I've never been that close to an eagle.
Other than when I used to have 50 cent pieces.
But I I haven't seen a 50 cent piece.
How many years has it been since I've seen a any change?
Uh Brian in Otisville, New York, let's uh let's go to you.
We'll start open line Friday with you, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Thanks, Rush.
I just wanted to propose to you an idea.
Now, what if we go to Iran and there's no weapons program?
I I I just see a re a rerun of Iraq here.
You want to propose an idea.
What if we go to Iran and there are no weapons program and I see just uh re well um uh you know let me let me address that this way.
There may be people who uh it'd be interesting to watch elected officials in our government who may have that very view.
Well, we were lied to about Iraq.
I'm being lied to about Iran.
The problem is Bush isn't doing the lying here.
The French will have to be lying, and the Democrats love the French.
You know John Kerry and the boys love the French, and the French are the ones ratcheting this up.
And then you have good old Mohammed Alberadai of the UN's atomic agency, atomic energy agency.
And he's out there saying, it's over, they're gonna get up and run it in six months, it's too late, we've been bamboozled.
Blah blah blah.
Well, he won a peace prize for ripping Bush for lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So when you've got the French, and when you have the um uh and El Baradai and the United Nations, I mean, those are the cherished institutions and individuals that the Democrat Party embraces and loves.
All of liberalism loves those organizations when they're out there saying, how can you accuse them of lying?
Bush really hasn't entered into this.
I mean, it's he has, but uh Condoleezza Rice is doing more uh uh articulation on this than than Bush is, but I I think there's a general consensus that uh that they've got nukes and that they've been having uh working on them for a long, long time, and they've got Russia as an ally in this.
Uh in this case, it's I would say, treating this seriously, the same thing I would say about Iraq.
We're in a different world after 9-11.
Preemptive action is required.
We know what can happen if we sit around and put our heads in the sand and pretend that there's not a threat out there.
If we pretend that we really don't have an enemy, we're gonna get hit again and again and again.
The only responsible way to deal with potential threats is to deal with them as potential threats and act accordingly and take preemptive action.
Now, if we're if we're if if the diplomatic route doesn't work, and does anybody think it's going to with Iran?
Does anybody really believe the diplomatic route is going to solve any problem anybody has with Iran if they're an enemy?
And believe me, they do consider us an enemy.
So this is this is a question.
Look, the American people are going to be involved in this too.
And uh, you know, we are so prosperous and we are we are have so much freedom, we have so much free time, we have so many opportunities in this country that even while we're in the midst of a war like this, in the midst of a threat, as many of our population as want to can pretend we're not and go about their lives and act totally uninterested while some assess the threat,
deal with it, and face it, we don't have to be uh like we were in World War II, almost totally unified and making major sacrifices to fight these things.
It's a whole different culture and world, economy, and everything else in this country since then.
But the American people do have a role to play in it.
Um and that is being informed and understanding what the threat is.
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online Today has a great, great piece, six reasons why Iran cannot get nuclear weapons.
And he goes, I'm not going to steal his piece, but he goes through um all six uh reasons fairly briefly and succinctly.
And it's uh it's just it's right on the money.
So it this is a this is a building issue, and as I say, we've got two ways of dealing with this.
We've got you can look at Iraq and Iran side by side.
We saw a threat in Iraq.
We had previously dealt with this man Hussein.
He uh violated uh peace treaties and surrender treaties and so forth, surrender documents, refused to respond to the United Nations in 17 resolutions for over ten years or twelve.
9-11 happens in the aftermath, and it changes the view and everything, and we have made sure that Iraq no longer poses an N an international threat or even a threat to the region.
Iraq cannot do damage to anybody right now.
And that's because of us.
On the other side, you've got Iran, right next door.
And we have we have done it the liberal way, the United Nations way.
We've gone at it with diplomacy.
We've done it with talks, we've tried to appease, we've we've tried to cajole, we've tried to use tough words, hard measures, sanctions, all those things, and they just keep building up their arsenal.
And enough experts are saying it's happening.
So you can look at how to deal with these threats, the Iraq way or the Iran way, and you tell me, when you look at those two countries, which poses the greatest greatest threat to that region and to the world today.
It's obviously Iran.
Does it recommend itself the way we've been treating with Iran?
Does that way recommend itself as a means of dealing with these threats?
The answer is obviously no.
Quick timeout.
Open line Friday continues in a moment.
Aha.
Folks, I told you.
I told you, New York News Day has the details today.
Here's a headline diagram in Cheney's accident report wrong.
There's something wrong with this picture in the only publicly available official report on last weekend's accidental shooting by Vice President Cheney.
A diagram of a body shows where Harry Whittington was hit by pellets fired from Cheney's Italian-made shotgun.
The diagram has been picked up and faithfully replicated by TV and newspapers across the fruited plain, including the New York Times this week and by Newsday yesterday.
The only problem is that the diagram is wrong by all accounts.
It shows Whittington hit on the left side of his face and neck and chest, where Cheney, the Kennedy County Sheriff's Office, and the report itself say the wounds were on the right side.
Texas game warden James Duke filled out the report on Monday based on information from the sheriff's office, and he made a mistake, said Lydia Saldana, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.
That's a human error.
He should have colored the other side.
It was the right side of the face and the neck.
The diagram is a mirror image of a frontal representation of a body.
Duke forgot to adjust and put marks for the shots on the body's right hand side.
Instead, he put them on his own right hand side, Saldana acknowledged.
Duke was not alone in his mistake.
In another diagram showing the body from the side, however, Duke got it right.
You want to try to record it accurately.
That's always helps if you if you pull it up again in the future, said Mark Burkhauser, president-elect of the International Hunting Education Association.
Well, no, no, no, no, no.
They may try to cover this up now.
But these kinds of mistakes don't get made.
You can't tell me that these artists don't know the left from the right, particularly in this country today.
There has to have been a second shooter.
There has to have been a second shooter in the woods or somewhere.
Somebody at the White House has screwed up, folks.
This was not supposed to have happened.
For some reason, Whittington had to go.
Now, as I told you at the top of the program, the man that the White House found to portray Harry Whittington is going to make a statement today.
He's going to appear live on television at uh at one o'clock.
But we all know, if you've read the left wing uh uh blogs and websites, we all know that that Whittington is brain dead and he's being kept at the Meninger Clinic where where JFK is and where Ilvis supposedly is, and that this is a double.
And that the and so I'm I'm amazed that they got this guy up to speed on who Harry Whittington is this quickly for this uh statement.
But we'll we'll soon see.
But now the whole specter of a second shooter.
Uh I don't, I know I don't want to say grassy knoll or anything here, but uh no, I wouldn't even think it's a knoll.
I mean, this is I've seen this place.
They're just that's this this these shots had to come from the woods.
It's clear Whittington was shot up pretty good all over his body, folks.
That's what the diagram means.
Left side on one picture, right side another.
They're just trying to limit the amount of damage that uh the sight of this picture could do.
I'm telling you, it's bad.
It's really bad out there, and it looks like this cover-up is is starting to unravel.
We we will keep a sharp eye.
One more thing on Iran here.
Uh because you had a guy call just a minute ago, what what if there aren't any weapons in Iran and we go in there, and the Democrats can say the same thing.
Let me just ask you this.
How can there not be a weapons program in Iran?
The Russians are involved in processing the fuel, and they're bragging about it.
We have the United Nations with cameras in these facilities at one point.
Thankfully they had film in the cameras.
We've got photos of the uh various facilities in Iran, which have appeared on television, and the Iranians themselves have said they're doing it.
The French have said they're doing it.
French never get anything wrong, French never lie, all baradai.
I mean, we can't, I mean, the Democrats' whole cases Bush lied on Iraq, but they can't start doing that on Iran, folks.
The evidence is is too overwhelming.
Besides the sources for the uh Iranian story happened to be people the Democrats implicitly trust.
Can you can you ever imagine John Kerry or any Democrat running around?
The French lied to us.
Mohammed Alberadai lied to it.
Can you ever imagine doing?
No, no, no, because those people, and the only real threat to a national security, as far as the Democrats are concerned, is George W. Bush from the Washington Times today, Democrats.
Rubbing my hands together in glee here, Democrats have taken more money from lobbyists than have Republicans during the past 15 years.
This is according to an independent analysis of campaign contributions.
Since the 1990 election cycle, Democrats have accepted more than 53 million dollars from lobbyists, while Republicans have taken more than 48 million for their election campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
When the Democrats were in charge, they were getting an incredibly higher amount of lobbyist money compared to Republicans, said Brian Nick, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
Now that the tables are turned, there is parity between the two parties.
Since Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they have not only taken more money from lobbyists, they have given everything they can give to lobbyists, said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
So here the basically the amount of money that lobbyists have given to both parties is pretty close.
Democrats have gotten a little bit more, but you know where the real difference is.
General public donations.
The Democrats don't have anything.
They're down to five million dollars.
They cannot hold a candle.
More Americans, forget lobbyists for more Americans contribute money to the Republican Party every year, every election cycle, the Democrats.
It's astounding how much more.
When you want to talk about a party of special interests, that's exactly what the Democratic Party is constructed as.
Back after this.
Don't go anywhere.
First hour open line Friday in the can and soon to be on its way over to the secret warehouse housing all the archives of the upcoming Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
▲
Export Selection