All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:04
February 17, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, now here's what we have to do.
We have to get that picture that we've all seen all week of Harry Whittington in his law office.
And we need to put that up side by side next to whoever this was that just made this statement.
And see if we can spot them.
We also need to, because this guy that they had out there today with the makeup on showing where the pellets hit in the face of the neck.
We see if that matches the official diagram for the Sheriff's Department.
It's not over, folks.
This is nowhere near over.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limboss serving humanity simply by showing up, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
All right, so where are we?
Well, we have we have an eye witness.
We have an eyewitness who explained what happened.
That would be Catherine Armstrong.
We have an official law enforcement report that said what happened.
We have a local newspaper that said what happened.
And we have Harry Whittington, who basically said what happened.
And the media still will not stop this.
I will make you a bet that this is not over, that they will find a way to keep probing this.
This man, Harry Whittington today, was just oozing class.
Compare this man and his humility and his dignity to the to the wolf pack in the uh in the White House press room any day of the week.
There just is no comparison whatsoever.
In fact, I got pretty choked up there myself when Whittington Whittington actually took time to express sympathy for what Cheney and his family are going through.
And then Whittington invited him back down to Texas to go hunting again so he could shoot him again.
He invited him back down and said, We all know that he needs a respite from the stressful serious issues he's dealing with.
He said his issue this week has been nothing compared to what the vice president has to deal with under normal circumstances, and he needs vacation time and he needs a break from it.
And uh Harry Whittington invited him, hopes he'd come back to Texas and take another shot at him.
I mean, this was just I was I was getting choked up there.
Real patriot here on display, if I may be serious for a moment.
Real just oozing class.
So despite this, well, I suspect what'll what'll happen now is Well uh, you know, he didn't answer any questions.
And um I wouldn't face us, wouldn't face us.
Just like Cheney, just like Cheney.
Hid behind that microphone, hid behind a camera.
He wouldn't face us, he wouldn't answer our questions.
We still have we have no answers, Chris.
We have no answers, Tom.
We have no answers, Dan.
We have no answers, Elizabeth.
We have no answers.
Despite all the eyewitness accounts, the official reports.
I'm just I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if that's how this eventually.
Well, he did it in answer any questions.
He didn't have the guts to face us.
Hoya went out of his way to thank us, and he tried to he tried to butter us up by telling us how hard he knows our jobs.
It was just he would just try to take us off the game, but we're smarter than that because we're in the media.
We're we can't be we can't be bought and sold with cheap compliments like that.
He didn't have the guts to face us.
Something along those lines.
All right, here are the details.
Oh, by the way, it's open line Friday, and as you know, um uh when we go to the phones, you can bring up whatever you want.
Question, comment, even if I don't care about it.
That's the rule on open line Friday, and the telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at eIBNet.com.
Here are the details now in the story that I talked to you about last hour, Mother Jones backroom battles.
It's about how the Democratic Party sabotaged via whisper campaigns and threats.
The campaign of Paul Hackett.
The uh story is uh written by David Goodman.
And I'm just gonna read you the key excerpts.
But first, the Democrats had to get Hackett out of the way.
The weapons used in the rub out included economic sabotage, whisper campaigns, and threats.
Hackett, an Iraq war combat veteran, was hailed last summer as just the kind of fighting Democrat the party needed to reinvigorate its base and end its years in the congressional wilderness.
After narrowly losing a race for Congress in a lopsidedly Republican district outside Cincinnati last August, the telegenic veteran, famous for dising President Bush as a chicken hawk and as an SOB while on the stump, was courted heavily by Democratic leaders, including Senators Schumer and Dingy Harry, to take on the incumbent Mike DeWine.
But no sooner did Hackett enter the Senate race last October than Sherrod Brown announced his candidacy for the same seat, reversing an earlier decision he had made to stay out of the race.
With Brown, a party insider on board, the Democrat establishment quickly began pulling away from the fiery Hackett.
Schumer, after having wooed him in August, called again in October.
Schumer didn't tell me anything definitive, Hackett told me at the time, but I'm not a dumbass, and I and I know what he wanted me to do.
Hackett, a maverick who relishes the fight, decided to buck the Beltway insiders and stay in the race.
Hackett's scorching rhetoric earned him notoriety and cash on the campaign trail.
He declared that people who opposed gay marriage were unamerican.
He said the Republican Party had been hijacked by religious extremists, who he said aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden.
Bloggers loved him, donors ponied up, while Democratic Party insiders grumbled that he wasn't senatorial.
Swift boats soon appeared on Hackett's horizon.
A whisper campaign started.
Hackett committed war crimes in Iraq, and there were photos.
The first rumor that I heard was probably a month and a half ago, said Dave Lane, chair of the Claremont County Democrat Party.
I heard it more than once that someone was distributing photos of Paul Hackett in Iraq with Iraqi war casualties with captions or suggestions that Paul had committed some sort of atrocities.
Who did it?
I have no idea.
It sounds like a Republican MO to me, but I have no proof of that.
But if it was someone on my side of the fence, I do have a real problem with that.
I have a hard time believing that a Democrat would do that to another Democrat.
Perhaps you're not familiar with JFK and RFK wiretapping Martin Luther King.
Anyway, in late November.
Hackett got a call from Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry said, I hear there's a photo of you mistreating bodies in Iraq.
Is it true?
demanded Dingy Harry.
No, sir, replied Hackett.
To drive home his point, Hackett went to Washington to show Dingy Harry's staff the photo in question.
Hackett declined to send the Mother Jones people the photo, but he insists that it shows another Marine, not him, unloading a sealed body bag from a truck.
It was nothing disrespectful or unprofessional, Hackett said.
That was a photo of a Marine doing his job.
If you don't like what they're doing, don't send Marines into war.
A staffer in Dingy Harry's office confirmed that Hackett had shown them several photos.
The ones I saw were part of a diary kept while serving in Iraq, and they were in no way compromising.
The one picture in question depicted Marines doing their work on what looked like a scorching day in Iraq, said an aide Dingy Harry.
But the whispering continued.
And Hackett was troubled.
It creates doubt and suspicion, Hackett told me, saying his close supporters were asking him privately about the rumors.
It tarnishes my very strength as a candidate, my military service.
It's it's it's like you take a handful of seeds, you throw them up in the wind, they blow all around and start growing.
It really bothered me.
Hackett's backers.
Suspected the smear was being floated by Sherrod Brown's campaign.
A senior Brown staffer angrily dismissed the charge as ridiculous.
Brown campaign spokesperson Joanna Cubler declined to respond to the rumors she offered this prepared statement.
This campaign has never been about Paul Hackett or about Sherrod Brown.
This campaign's about the hardworking people of Ohio and what Republican corruption has done to them.
Hackett wanted to fight to the finish.
He raised nearly a half million dollars in the last quarter of 2005, but Brown entered the Senate race with two million in the bank.
The very real prospect of a smear against him going public late in the campaign, a la the swift voting of John F. Kerry, who served in Vietnam.
Hackett knew the dollars would be especially important for him.
If I don't have the two million or three million it would take to respond in the final weeks to influence the battlefield with my message, then I would just be reacting and I'll get trounced.
Hackett was infuriated by the subterfuge.
I felt like I got bleeped at the Democratic Party because they enticed me in and then they pulled the rug out from under me.
It sounds eerily familiar to sending in the military to Iraq, which was a misuse of the military, and then not giving them what they needed to fight.
In what is now being called the Valentine's Day Massacre, Paul Hackett threw in the towel, insisted he won't be running for elected office anytime soon.
He declined requests to switch races and run again against Gene Schmidt, saying he had promised the candidates currently in that race that he wouldn't do that.
As word spread about the intra-party intrigue that helped bring down Hackett, supporters have reacted angrily.
Party officials have tried to tamp down the anger.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the spokesman there, Phil Singer, it's run by Chuck Schumer.
Neither the DSCC nor Senator Schumer reached out to donors to ask them to take sides in this race.
Paul Hackett's statesmanlike decision will help us win one of the most important Senate races in the nation.
Hackett is fuming.
His supporters, no doubt fuming, and when this, when the when the full breadth of this story reaches the left-wing Cooksville blogosphere, all hell is going to break loose.
Because what's happened here is that Paul Hackett has been the victim of a smear campaign, a whispering campaign that he is a war criminal.
After running as a war hero, one of the few the Democrats thought they had, they now tarnish one of their own as a war criminal, and it comes straight out of dingy Harry's office.
The problem with Paul Hackett is that the military has been portrayed as totally a criminal enterprise.
The military has been impugned.
Individual soldiers, sailors, corpsman marines have all been tarnished in the last five years by Democrat political attacks.
And then to turn around and have a picture or series of pictures of one of their own, supposedly acting like a military person.
That just couldn't be allowed to happen.
Why, we Democrats, we don't mind somebody out there wearing a uniform, but we're not going to actually have pictures of them in combat.
We can't win with that.
And with that, Paul Hackett has been thrown overboard.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Do I know these people or do I know these people?
I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked money, not just the back of my hand.
And I can announce to you what the action line, the media action line is on the Cheney Whittington story through the weekend and in the next week.
Are you ready?
The action line is this doesn't solve anything because this is symptomatic of a larger problem.
This whole week, the media is going to say, is an example and an illustration of a much larger problem with the White House, and that is secrecy, attempting to control the news, keeping facts from the American people, blah, blah, blah.
So that's how they're going to keep this going.
That there is just this is just a symptom.
This is just, it was, this is just a little looksy into a much larger problem.
They have no intention letting this go.
If you missed Harry Whittington's statement, we have two sound bites here.
Uh, and this is the first.
I've read and seen many of your reports, and I know your job isn't easy.
Regret that couldn't have been here earlier.
So you could see what a lucky person I am.
For many years, my family have been friends of the Armstrongs down in Kennedy County.
We visited them for over 25 years and have had some wonderful trips and visits.
Pleasant memories that we cherish forever.
However, this past weekend encompassed all of us in a cloud of misfortune and sadness.
That is not easy to explain.
Especially to those who are not familiar with the great sport Of quail hunting.
We all assume certain risks in whatever we do, whatever activities we pursue.
And regardless of how experienced, careful, and dedicated we are.
Accidents do and will happen.
All right, so you can draw from that the obvious conclusion of loves the Armstrong's been going there for years.
Quail hunting is a great sport, and you people that have been talking about it don't have the slightest idea about it.
Accidents happen and they will continue to happen regardless how experienced and careful and dedicated we are.
Here's the second bite.
My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week.
We send our love and respect to them as they deal with situations that are much more serious than what we've had this week.
And we hope that he will continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation that he deserves.
I also thank all of you are understanding the best you can that medical attention is very important to someone my age.
And you haven't failed to give my age.
And with that, they started laughing.
So my family and I, deeply sorry for the vice president and his family, what they've had to go through this past week.
We send our love and respects to them as they deal with situations much more serious than what we've had this week.
That is...
This is a wise, classy man admonishing the little children in the sandbox known as the White House Press Corps.
This is a classy way of telling them to grow up and get a sense of proportion and perspective about things.
He then, this is what choked me up, uh recognizing the workload the vice president has invited him to continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation that he deserves.
So basically, Whittington said, Hope he'll come back down here, go gun hunting again, quail hunting again, and shoot me again.
Um then he wanted to thank the media.
Don, I'm just kidding.
Dawn's rolling her eyes in there.
Uh it thanked everybody for understanding the best you can that medical attention is very important to someone of my age.
Once again, a classy and dignified way of saying, hey, you don't know what's going on in situations like this, but somebody my age, the first and foremost concern is my medical attention, not making sure that David Gregory has sent a telegram explaining what has happened.
This is how a very classy individual does things like this and speaks to these kinds of issues, and it's on display for everybody to see and learn from.
Back to the phones now on Open Line Friday.
Mike in Salem, New York.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, Russ.
I called to talk about the fighting Democrats, but first I wanted to uh debunk that article from the uh Washington Times you mentioned.
First of all, it was in the Washington Times, which loses $50 million every year and wait, wait, wait, which article?
The one about the lobbyist cash.
More to Democrats than Republicans.
Oh, yeah.
I was just gonna say, first of all, the only reason that paper stays afloat is because it's funded by the Reverend Sun Young Moon and his Mooney Church.
It loses $50 million every year on its own.
But if you break those numbers down a hundred million dollars over fifteen years, five hundred and thirty-four legislature legislators comes up to about 25 million.
Mike, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not gonna put up with this.
I'm just not gonna put over.
If I start talking to you, you're a fool, and if I start talking to you before long, the audience won't know the difference between us.
Who owns the paper is irrelevant.
You are trying to cover up and do what Democrats and liberals do.
You want to discredit anybody who presents facts that get in the way of your pretty little worldview.
The Washington Times didn't say this.
This news comes from a so-called independent analysis of campaign contributions.
It is the um Center for Responsive Politics.
It's not the Washington, who publishes the Washington Times doesn't matter.
I mean, I could give you all kinds of dirt on who publishes the New York Times, and I can tell you all the newspapers that are cutting staff And losing money and losing circulation because they don't deal with their audiences factually and honestly.
If liberals can only stay afloat by giving you the kind of poison that you want, it is no wonder the liberal media is in trouble, be it in broadcast, be it in print, be it on the air, on radio.
So whatever else you wanted to talk about, I'm going to now consider irrelevant, unreliable, factually incorrect, and comprised mostly of an attempt to discredit somebody else that threatens you.
Nice try, though.
Back in just a second.
Thank you.
Thank you.
It's L. Rushbow, America's Anchor Man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
By popular demand, people making requests for this all over the place.
Saddle Sore Canyon, John McCain and Lindsey Graham starring.
Another masterpiece from Paul Shanklin.
He's got his own website, PaulShanklin.com, Shanklin spelled S-H-A-N-K L I N. We will uh we'll get back to your uh uh phone calls in just a second here on Open Line Friday.
Folks, uh, I have always been on the cutting edge.
Uh I've always been out there in front of everybody.
I've spotted trends, societal and political, long before they actually happen.
This is what I mean by telling you if you listen to this program regularly, you too will be on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
You will know what the media is going to do before they do it.
Just like I just told you, the action line now on the Cheney Whittington story is this is just a symptom of a much larger problem in this White House.
That will be what will carry the story through the weekend and the Sunday shows and in the next week.
Back in the eighties, before I even started this program, I recognized another problem in our society on two different levels.
In my famous 24 Undeniable Truths of Life, or 35 undeniable truths of life, number 24, feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easy access to the mainstream of society.
This of course caused a fire storm in Sacramento when I first revealed it, and uh a national firestorm uh when this program started, and each time I repeat it, a new firestorm erupts.
How could you say that?
How could you sit?
I also, at about the same time, discovered while shopping in a mall that there was a problem with the economy.
It was it during one of our downtimes uh economically we weren't in a recession, but things were pretty slow.
And uh and and I I noticed that that I don't go to malls anymore, but back when I was able to go to malls uh with no problem, I happened to notice how many unattractive people were in there, and and I it it it had to have an effect on whether or not other people wanted to go in.
So I did a commentary on banning the ugly from the streets in daytime.
And of course, people said, Well, how are you gonna do it?
And I said, Well, we're Americans, we're compassionate, we'll try it the easy way first, we'll make it voluntary on the basis that the ugly know who they are.
Well, you can imagine the firestorm that erupted from that.
There have since been in the succeeding years, numerous stories dictating and detailing the accuracy of both of these sediments.
And today, in the Washington Post of all places, I bring to you another such story.
Now, I know this may be hurtful, and I know this may be painful to some people, but let's face it, folks.
I mean, back in the 70s, you would go walking through the mall or in a bowling alley or whatever, and you would see people wearing two-tone green leisure suits from Kmart.
And they obviously did that because they thought they looked good.
Remember those?
They they they thought they looked classy.
Well, the headline of this Washington Post story, The Ugly Face of Crime.
And it starts with this quote.
I'm too ugly to get a job.
That was said by Daniel Gallagher, a Miami Bank robber after the cops captured him in 2003.
The hapless Daniel Gallagher may have been ugly, but he was also wise.
Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from Hascruel through early adulthood.
We find that unattractive individuals, the ugly, commit more crime in comparison to average-looking people, and very attractive individuals commit less crime in comparison to those who are average looking.
This is the claim of Nasey Moken of the University of Colorado and Erdol Tekken, or Tekken of Georgia State University.
Moken and Teken analyzed data from a federally sponsored survey of 15,000 Haskrulers who were interviewed in 94, then again in 96, then again in 2002.
One question asked interviewers to rate the physical appearance of the student on a five-point scale, ranging from very attractive to very unattractive.
Now, this raises another interesting question.
Who are these people?
These researchers.
Where do you go to find out what is ugly?
Is it sort of like pornography?
You you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
Who are these people to be rating ugliness?
But there they are in their five different categories to rate ugliness.
And they were doing that when interviewing these students.
They found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent.
Cute guys were uniformly less likely than average uh averages would indicate to have committed seven crimes, including burglary and selling drugs, while the unhandsome were consistently more likely to have broken the law.
Very attractive high school girls were less likely to commit six of the seven crimes, while those rated unattractive are more likely to have done six of the seven, controlling for personal and family characteristics known to be associated with uh uh criminal behavior.
Why do men, and and and this, by the way, they also recalculated love in this basis.
Why do men claim to have had so many sex partners while women claim to have so few?
The conventional wisdom is that men deliberately inflate their numbers of lovers while women underreport their dalliances, the macho and maiden hypothesis.
Them mostly wrong, though, says psychologist Norman Brown, a visiting research scientist at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.
Most men and women don't intentionally fib about their past partnering.
Instead, he said, Men and women use different ways to estimate their numbers of different partners, and this dissimilarity is a major reason men report more lifetime liaisons than women, which obviously is a statistical impossibility, he says.
Women are more likely to rely on enumeration and count up their partners, the guy said, a strategy that typically leads to underestimation.
Men are twice as likely to use approximation to answer the question.
An approximation is a strategy known to produce overestimation.
So men just guess they approximate it, and women sit there next to the count it up.
Actually, I think there's something to this.
Have you ever noticed everybody loves to tell you how they screwed the automobile dealer, the car dealer, when they go back, yeah, I got a deal.
I got this thing for 20 bucks under the under the window, under the sticker under the under the dealer invoice, factory invoice.
When it comes to their house, they can't wait to tell you how much they spent for it.
Right.
So what's missing in all this is the factor of attractiveness.
And how does it figure in to people telling the truth about conquests and deals they've made and so forth?
And the conclusions are that the ugly commit more crime, the ugly uh lie more of the uh and this is in the Washington Post today, folks.
This is scientific research, and I was on to this, why I over 23 years ago.
This this that'll just show you.
Back in just a second.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
It's open line Friday to the phones of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Hello, Jeff, glad you waited, sir.
Um I was in Homer, Alaska about 15 years ago, and uh within end of September, well after the tourists have led, we were watching um dozens and dozens of uh bald eagles.
Most of or many of them were immature, they're still dark all over.
Okay, hang on there just a second.
I it's been a while since I talked about this, uh Jeff, and I want to I want to bring the audience that wasn't listening back when I uh was speaking uh those two or three uh up to speed on this is a story out of Homer, Alaska.
For the last twenty-five years, there have been safaris of photographers tour groups go up there uh because the bald eagle winters in Homer, Nebraska, and and the uh photographers are allowed to take bait fish out and and attract the eagles and feed them and get up close pictures this way.
This practice will be banned beginning next year, and it's a it's uh it's kind of confusing for me on one level because on the one hand, uh the the people up in Alaska had turned our national bird, the national symbol into a welfare recipient.
Uh on the other hand, the eagles were working for the money.
They were posing for pictures.
It was free trade, uh, which has now been impacted.
That's what Jeff here is calling to talk about.
So you were there fifteen years ago and you saw hundreds of these birds.
Right, and uh nobody was feeding them, and uh that river right there is full of fish, and uh, we would watch, and every once in a while an immature bald eagle would fly down and catch a fish.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, what how do you what do you mean immature bald eagle?
How could you possibly determine whether a bald eagle is immature?
They don't they don't get that bald white feathers around their head until they're three or four years old.
Okay, so you mean young.
You don't mean immature as in childish.
Right.
Young, young bald eagle.
Young bald eagle, okay.
Right.
When I think of immature, I think of the White House press corps.
That's two.
Okay.
Uh anyway, one every once in a while, one of these would fly down to uh and catch a fish.
And all the adult eagles at that point in time would take off and rob, steal, dive bomb the s the lone young eagle until they took the fish away from him.
Right.
This this river is full of fish.
We can see them swimming.
And uh it was easier to steal from the young than it was to catch their own fish.
Ah, there you go.
Now you're trying to impugn the national bird.
You're saying the national bird steals from its own offspring.
Uh yeah.
That's the no.
What's it the the the there's a reason the eagle is a national bird.
It is teaching its offspring a lesson.
It's teaching them a lesson.
That's what's going on with this.
Teaching them to guard it, teaching them to understand that there are other predators out there.
The bald eagle didn't go out and kill its own, it stole from its own.
Right.
They were so so you you know, this is a we're looking at an advanced species in the way it raises and deals with its offspring.
You know, I look at this has happened.
I told I I've I've I've got to find that picture that I took of a bald eagle when I was fishing up in Canada and and sent it up to Coco so he can put it on a website.
I'll do that at the top of the hour.
But never nevertheless, I was in a fishing trip, Vancouver Island up to Canada, and salmon fishing.
And this is not an eagle story, but I had I think I caught the first day like like three salmon, and I had a fourth.
I had a fourth roped in, and I was I was uh I was I was reeling it in and the guide in the boat was frankly doing a lousy job of keeping a boat oriented.
And we got the salmon within two or three feet of the boat, and he couldn't get the boat oriented so we could reach over and and net the uh net the fish, and out of nowhere.
A giant seal.
Yeah, I thought it was a great white shark from a giant seal just bam surfaced and stole my salmon.
Right off the hook, and I looked at the guide and I said, That's not fair.
How does this happen?
He said, It's nature.
Of course I knew it was.
What was happening was this this sea lion was sitting around at a seal, whatever it is, sitting watching us do all the work while it hid underwater, we didn't see it, and the moment he had a break for it, bam, just it in one in one mouthful, that salmon, it was a huge fish was gone.
This is how it works out there.
This is how it works in nature.
This is how it works.
Don't talk to me about animal rights ever again.
I have watched too many animal shows where they kill and eat each other.
I saw my my salmon get stolen from me by some filthy seal.
And now you call here with this dreaded story trying to impugn the national bird saying they steal from their young.
They're trying to make it sound like these are just Medicare recipients or senior citizens stealing off their kids.
That's not how it works in a land of bald eagles.
They were teaching them life lessons there.
Joe in Santa Rosa, California.
Nice to have you with us.
Hubbahubba Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Uh screaming eagle digged ditto from a 23-year veteran of the 100 First Airborne.
I've 23 year veteran of the 101st?
Uh actually 21 years of the 101st, but 23 years in the Army.
That's amazing.
Uh congratulations.
Oh, uh thank you.
I was born in the right country.
Basically, I wanted to say uh thanks for uh keeping me company over the years, uh wherever I've been uh working around the world.
Uh listening to you brings uh brings me a piece of home.
I've got a comment and a couple of questions.
Go ahead.
Um by the way, the uh get mode t-shirts I've wore on more than one occasion underneath my combat gear.
So it's got uh it's got extra properties you don't know about.
Right.
Uh first comment.
Whatever I was home on temporary leave during Katrina, and I just got back after working the elections.
Whatever transpired with that New Orleans uh congressman who requested a military escort to pick up a bag of cash at his house.
I'm glad you remind you are so prescient.
I am glad you reminded me of this because I kept there was a story in the stack of stuff yesterday that I didn't get a chance to get to, and I have it here ready to go.
I was going to do it in the next hour, and I will in detail.
The legal woes of congress of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
It's in the Washington Post.
It is a real scandal.
It is not a trumped-up scandal like the Democrats have tried to make out of every news story in the Bush administration, but I'll have details on the latest woes of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, in the next hour.
Yeah, because I I donated uh twenty-five of my hard-earned dollars to his defense fund, and I'm wondering where the hell it went.
But uh and my other comment was I don't know if you heard uh a couple nights ago I was watching Hannity and Combs, and there was a uh San Francisco supervisor.
They had voted down the USS Iowa.
Yeah and he and he had said, and he he was given five chances to change his mind, but he doesn't think we need a military at all, that the police can defend us as well.
I don't know if you had seen that interview.
I did not.
It was when Hannity was in San Francisco.
Yeah, I know the uh the the story.
They don't want what is it, the USS Missouri they don't want there.
Uh they don't want they don't want any sign of militarism in San Francisco.
The that's that's just who they are.
They they look at that and and and they and they will see American uh imperialism and death and uh and murder.
They're just I don't know, I they're they're they're perverted in in the way they look at things and they're obviously ignorant of history, but they're not the majority uh and and they serve the purpose as a you know just an entertaining place to observe.
Beautiful place to go to.
Quick timeout, we'll be back.
Stay with us.
Correction, correction, correction, correction.
It is not the USS Missouri that the San Francisco City Council doesn't want anywhere near them.
It's the USS Iowa.
▲
Export Selection