All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
February 20, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, here we are.
We're back here, folks.
It's President's Day, February 20th.
Actually, as everybody knows, uh George Washington's birthday or uh yeah, George Washington's birthday is February 23rd.
Uh Abraham Lincoln's birthday, February 13th.
But we combine all this just to have one holiday, and we do it, so we have a three-day week.
Just shh, Mr. Snergly, I'm doing a test.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh programming Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Here's the phone number if you'd like to join us.
800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, lo and behold, uh try this headline in the Boston Globe.
I just so much of the show anymore is everything I predict coming true, or everything I say about the libs and the Democrats being illustrated as accurate.
Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops.
Democrats may unite on planned, they are not united on anything other than Bush's Hitler and Bush is the biggest security threat that the country faces and all that.
Oh, and that Cheney has to go.
The subhead is uh Democrats see a rock withdrawal uh deployment in a region.
Um trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the warner.
No, no, no, no.
That's not how this first sentence should have been written.
It's written by Rick Klein.
Rick, let me tell you how the first sentence should have been written.
After months of trying to obfuscate and lie on the war in Iraq, Democrat Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops and install them elsewhere in the region where they can respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.
And get them out of Iraq.
This is this is the old John Mertha redeployment scheme.
The concept of strategic redeployment is outlined in a slim nine-page joke report co-authored by former uh Reagan administration assistant uh uh Defense Secretary Lawrence Korb uh in the fall.
It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop drawdowns should be tied to a timeline.
Howard Dean, Democrat National Committee Chairman, uh, has endorsed Korb's paper and thus surrendered the Democrat agenda and begun um uh mentioning it in meetings with Democrat groups, meaning the kooks in the blogosphere.
But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans' off-repeated charge that Democrats aren't offering a way forward in Iraq.
Um, you know, Congress can't redeploy diddly squat, I don't think.
Uh maybe they change the Constitution over the weekend, but I'm not sure they can do that.
But that's all that beside the point.
Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops, see a rock withdrawal deployment in a region.
This is this is surrender, especially if they attach this timeline to it of 2007 or any timeline.
It's just abject surrender.
But they feel the need to come together on something.
They need the they need to unify on something.
Because after months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message, no, to obfuscate and lie.
So once again, how prescient are we here at the EIB network?
I'm holding up for those of you on the Ditto Cameron.
Let me let me zoom into this thing so you can see it.
This is the cover of the most recent issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
And as you can see, the headline, Democrats Demand Defeat.
You know what that picture is of, Brian.
That is a that is our artists' rendition of the Democrats replicating Iwo Jima, except they are they're planting the white flag of surrender on top of a mountain of rocks.
Democrats demand defeat.
And lo and behold, this this is the January issue, and lo and behold, here we have this story.
Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops.
That's what the cover story of this issue of the Limbaugh letter.
Let me zoom back out, is all about.
Folks, it Used to scare me how right I was.
I used to get goosebumps.
But now it's just so common.
But I still wanted to point it out to you.
But it's it's just like I say, it's getting a little easy.
These people have become a parody.
The biggest challenge we now have making fun of them because they make fun of themselves so regularly without knowing it.
We have to have whole new courses and classes for our parody writers and so forth.
Okay, Alan Simpson.
Alan Simpson on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Uh Wallace said to him, Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speechwriter, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal to which she said that Dick Cheney's become the hate magnet.
Hate magnet for this administration.
Then she went on to say this.
Take a look, she said.
So Mr. Bush may feel in time that he has reason to want to put in a new VP in order to pick a successor who'll presumably have an edge in the primary.
Senator Simpson, what do you make of that?
Well, we have a word for it, but uh we won't use it here out here in the wild west.
Uh let me tell you that is uh she is a wonderful gal.
I mean I know her and there when I when I read her words, they're lyrical and they're marvelous.
Uh Dick Cheney has become the hate symbol from the beginning.
He was the hate symbol when he was with Halliburton.
He was the hate symbol when he came in, and he the votes of South Africa and this and that.
And then he was the hate symbol of hiding an energy conference.
He was the hate symbol of terrorism, hate symbol of torture.
Let me tell you.
Those who don't like him have put a big red tail in his bum and a cloven hooves and horns on his head.
And let me tell you, if anybody thinks if this had happened to anybody else in America, it would have been like a sparrow belch in a typhoon.
Meaning the hunting accident.
Like the sparrow belch in a in a typhoon.
Why do they hate Cheney?
You might be why do they hate him?
Because he's conservative.
They hate him because he's conservative, and he doesn't care about them and their opinions.
He just is above it.
They are like gnats to him.
They are like sparrow belches in a typhoon.
And they know it.
And with as long as Cheney's in power anywhere, they're not going to be on the inside.
And that is it.
It's it's strictly human nature.
They want to be the big kids on the block, and with Cheney, they're on the wrong side of the tracks.
One more bite, Wallace says, so I take it, Senator.
Do you really miss this place, Washington?
No, I do.
I loved it.
I did.
I loved it.
And I loved it because it was fun.
And I I have a lot of pals on both sides of the aisle.
Good people doing good things, but let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media.
You'll never know the good.
All you get is controversy, crap, and confusion.
And that'll be a bumper sticker soon if it isn't already.
U.S. media.
Controversy, crap, and confusion.
Alan Simpson on Fox News Sunday yesterday.
Okay, the latest news uh from uh uh Osama bin Laden, he vows never to be captured alive.
Osama bin Laden promised never to be captured alive and declared the U.S. had resorted to the same barbaric tactics used by Saddam Hussein.
This according to an audio tape purportedly by the Al Qaeda leader posted Monday on a militant website.
The tape appeared to be a complete version of the one that was first broadcast January nineteenth on Al Jazeera, uh, in which bin Laden offered the U.S. a long-term truce, but also said his Al-Qaeda terror network would soon launch a fresh attack on American soil.
I have sworn to only live free, even if I find the bitter taste of death, I don't want to die humiliated or deceived.
This does not sound like the talk of victory to me.
Does this sound like a guy sitting on top of the world enjoying his victories?
And by the way, what is the bitter taste of death?
Isn't bin Laden suggesting that death is martyrdom to all of these young kids that he's infusing with hate?
Isn't he encouraging suicide homicide bombers?
Isn't he out there recruiting people to go kill themselves, blow themselves up in jets as they crash into buildings?
The old seventy-three Virgins business.
Now he talks about the bitter taste of death.
As uh President Bush once said, all these suicide missions take place, but the one guy that's never along for the ride is bin Laden.
We'll be back.
Stay with us, folks.
Ha.
How are you, folks?
Glad to have you back.
It's a delight to be with you today on President's Day.
One of the many Monday holidays we all work here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Let's go to Madisonville, Kentucky next.
And uh Garrett, you're up.
It's your turn.
Diddles, Rush.
Thank you.
I uh wanted to correct you on uh the birth date you gave out earlier.
George Washington's birthday is the twenty second of February, and Lincoln's birthday is the twelfth of February.
And previously I think you said they were the twenty-third and twelfth or twenty-third and the thirteenth.
Yep, that's exactly right.
I did say that.
I did it on purpose.
So did I pass it?
I wanted to find I really wanted to see what the two things at work here.
I am not allowed to make a mistake.
When I make a mistake, it makes people's day.
It is such a rare thing that people stop everything to tell me I made a mistake, or the Associated Press runs a story on the fact I made a mistake.
And I wanted to see also how many people were educated in the public school system of this country, and I assume you went to private school since you know the actual dates.
Well, well, no, I I went to public school.
Well, it must have been a long time ago then.
I guess long enough.
Yeah.
I also had parents that were, you know, pretty.
I haven't I just I just checked I just checked my email.
Uh I haven't gotten I've got two only two or three emails.
You got the birth dates wrong, Rush.
Sort of prove my point.
Uh not a lot of people knew I was wrong.
But I just uh i I have learned over the past four or five days that when I make a mistake, it can become national news that the Associated Press will actually run a story and a hundreds of newspapers will pick it up about how I made an error, which tells me and f by the way, folks, I was not offended by this.
I know what people's expectations are.
When the Associated Press did that story about how I made this error and I'm misidentifying the race of Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
You know what it said to me was that even the mainstream media knows I get it right all the time, and it is such an odd thing when I am wrong that it is news.
You must learn to look at these things positively in life.
Yours and mine as well.
Lansing, Michigan, this is Tina Tina.
Welcome to the program.
It's great to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, Megad Dittoes.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure to talk to you again.
Um I am calling with regard to the female president situation.
I don't think I would ever vote for a woman for president.
And I'll tell you why.
The gender gap does exist.
It's not uh a sociological gender gap that I refer to.
It's the psychological one.
Men's and women's brains work differently.
Women are more emotional and men are more logical.
And when it comes to things like Oh, God, I've tried that one.
I have tried that.
I have been spanked and slapped on that one so many times.
When it comes to things like um war, war time, certainly we want a male as president because he would think through things.
I mean, certainly.
Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
Now, I understand you th you're speaking in some generalizations here, but I'm telling you, uh you pick for me a male Democrat these days, other than Joe Lieberman that you would trust based on what they uh what they're saying.
You tell me there's a male Democrat to be president you would trust?
No, I don't trust Democrats at all.
Okay.
I'm just saying I wouldn't I wouldn't vote for a woman because of the emotional issue as well.
But when it comes to things like war, you certainly don't want a woman in in charge.
I mean, she's gonna she's gonna be a a wreck when it comes to something like that.
Whereas a man, oh, President Bush is an exception.
He's in touch with his sensitive side, he comes to tears sometimes during his State of the Union speech.
He did this just recently, and and but he's willing to go out there and kick butt when necessary and rather than try to appease and cajole and employ the tactics and techniques of conflict resolution.
Absolutely.
Um I I want to cite one example for you, and it's recent.
Um the governor of Louisiana.
Um I'm not certain of her name, but when That would be Kathleen Blanco.
When she when Katrina hit, you know, here she is on national television giving an interview.
The woman almost broke down in tears because of the situation.
I mean, I c I can't imagine, and that's a hurricane of a state.
I mean, when you're talking about the entire country in a war, what what would she have done personally?
And then in general, what would uh what would you expect from a woman?
Well in that interesting question in uh Kathleen Blanco's case, because her recourse was to blame Washington.
If she were Washington, meaning the president, who would she blame if something like that happened?
Okay.
Well at any rate, I just don't think it's it's an appropriate gender to have in in position of such power.
Even though I am a woman and I may be you know sort of selling out my own gender or being accused of selling out my my own gender, but it doesn't matter.
I wouldn't I wouldn't vote for a woman.
The the the problem is th you know I uh I I I understand all this but there's evidence to the contrary.
Golden Mayor and Margaret Thatcher I mean Golden Mayor uh pedal to the middle uh and and uh don't she took action to get reprisals uh for the for the uh uh Olympic uh disaster that befell thirteen or what of seventeen Israeli Olympic team members so much so that Spielberg had to do a movie about it.
Uh Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands uh she totally earned and deserved her nickname the Iron Lady uh and the the so there there are there are uh countless examples I don't know but countless but there are there are a lot of examples of really strong willed tough women who will uh take the action that you think is necessary.
Um okay all right Snardley says of that was two um you don't count in Diragandi uh no okay you don't count in dear gandhi count uh well you know this is an interesting we keep talking about Hillary and and all but there are really a lot of solid liberal women in the Democratic party whose names never come up for president.
Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Pelosi wonder why that is I w I wonder wonder why their own party if it's not champion uh them if if uh uh this is to be year of the woman too um Pat Schro Pat Schroeder oh uh thank you for reminding me of that this happened this happened uh I think I was still in Sacramento or did and okay it was the late eighties are you but I just moved to New York and
Patsy Schroeder who was a congresswoman from uh from Colorado Denver was toying with the idea of running for president and of course the uh liberal establishment was all a buzz with the possibilities of the zero they were just they were just they were having their versions of orgasms they were just excited as they could be and Patsy decided she couldn't do it.
She couldn't do it she's called a press conference and uh somewhere on the rocks out there in Colorado, somewhere outside in the tundra and broke down broke down I mean just it was a gully washer of tears and while amidst her tears I don't think I can win I can't win I don't think I can win and
then she com the worst thing that she could have done I'm folks I'm telling you feminists even commented on this her husband was at her side and she buried her head in his shoulder while she was crying and in that moment totally undercut every advancement the feminist movement had made and even militant feminists watching why did she have to do that?
Why did she have to turn to her husband's shoulder and cry on his shoulder and so uh I'm still trying to think of other examples.
Uh Margaret Thatcher Gold of Mayor we'll we'll keep we'll keep thinking Portland Maine this is Heather welcome to the EIB network hi.
Hey Rush how are you?
Fine, thank you very much.
You know it's really an honor to be able to talk to you and um I just wanted to respond to what Tina said I think um in a sense gender has nothing to do with it and it really takes ingenuity creativity compassion for a fellow man and I think that um a lot of our political leaders have totally lost sight of what necessity is all about and um and uh you know well what are you saying?
I'm sorry?
Are you saying a woman is or is not qualified?
I think a woman is qualified.
I mean, personally, I mean, I've I've talked to so many people about ideas that I've had and and they joke around saying that I should be president, but I think that in a sense, um, whoever our next president is, um, it would be great to see somebody, and I know this is kind of unrealistic in the present day, but to have somebody in there that doesn't have any connections, doesn't have any private deals, doesn't have any secret agendas, and um it it really upsets me to see all these issues.
I mean, especially with the port situation and how um there well one of the things I wanted to ask you is why would we even d you uh did you say that you had you've had friends tell you you should run for president?
Yeah.
You've got the State of the Union address down, Pat.
What's that?
You've got you I mean, you could do a great State of the Union address.
I mean, you you've you've done one right here.
I think you you're showing a qualification now.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Talent on loan from God.
All right, this is fabulous.
This is uh from the New York Times uh yesterday.
One of the perks of being president is the ability to have the author of a book that you enjoyed pop into the White House for chat.
Over the years, a number of writers have visited President Bush, Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis, John Lewis Gaddis.
And while the meetings are usually private, they rarely ruffle feathers, but now one has.
In his new book about uh Mr. Bush, Rebel in Chief inside the bold and controversial presidency of George W. Bush, Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best selling novel State of Fear suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.
Mr. Barnes, who describes Mr. Bush as a dissenter on the theory of global warming, writes that the president avidly read the novel and met the author after Carl Rove arranged it.
He says Mr. Bush and his guests talked for an hour and were in near total agreement.
The visit was not made public for fear of outraging environmentalist wackos all the more.
And so it has, fueling a common perception among environmentalist wacko groups that Mr. Crichton's dismissal of global warming, coupled with his popularity as a novelist and a screen writer, has undermined efforts to pass legislation intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide of gas that some leading scientists say it causes climate change.
So does the sun.
Mr. Crichton, whose views in state of fear helped him win the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Journalism Award this month, has been a leading doubter of global warming, and last September appeared before a Senate committee to argue that the supporting evidence was mixed at best.
This shows the president's more interest in science fiction and science and Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
Why is it that somebody who is as accredited and accomplished as Michael Crichton is automatically dissed and some wacko looney tune lib who runs a fundraising group under the guise of having it be concerned about the environment is all automatically a signed god-like status.
It's because in middle militant environmentalism is just one of the tentacles of liberalism seeking to envelop our planet in its evil grip.
This administration has put no limit on global warming pollution, has consistently rebuffed any suggestion to do so.
Not so, according to the White House, which said Mr. Barnes' book left a false impression of Mr. View's uh Bush's views on global warming.
Tay what I want you to do.
In fact, I I will um I'll try to get Coco to link to this.
Because I uh uh I've once found a fabulous speech that Michael Crichton gave on global warming on his website, Michael Crichton.com.
And I was and I periodically go there to see their updates, and and there uh went there last week, and he made the most amazing presentation on the complexity of things on this planet with the futile attempts of we mere mortals to try to explain this complexity.
He goes through the entire scenario of how our well-intentioned efforts to manage wildlife and the ecosystem at Yellowstone practically destroyed it in the 20s and 30s, all the way up through the 70s.
Because we thought we knew better than nature.
We thought we had to get rid of the elk, then we had to get rid of the bear, and then we had to get rid of the coyote.
Well, that got rid of the beavers because the beavers got all screwed up.
It's got charts, it's got graphs, but the thing that I liked about it is that the whole concept that the the of his speech or this lecture is complexity.
And how we think of ecosystems here as manageable by us because we have no concept of the complexity and the interaction, all of the complexity that is creation engages in.
We just, it's our vanity, it's our stupidity, it's our lack of respect, right?
For how all that is came to be, including ourselves.
And in his own way, what what what you know Crichton doesn't delve into the religious, but I you know, I I've mentioned this a number of times.
I just don't see how it's possible for a human being to walk anywhere on this planet and not just literally be in awe of it.
It cannot just have happened.
It is not a series of coincidences.
It is too brilliant, brilliant beyond our meager abilities to even hope to comprehend a part of it.
That's his whole theory.
The complexity of just one molecule, the complexity of one molecule interacting in the human body or any other organism is such we we couldn't, we don't understand it.
We couldn't design it, we couldn't build it.
And yet here we are believing that our little inventions and creations are destroying all of this.
It's patently absurd.
If you couple this, if you haven't read State of Fear, you ought to get it and you ought to read it, uh, because he he puts it in novel form, but but but documents uh how many of these groups actually try to create accidents and disasters on the eve of big conventions where they're going to be trying to raise money.
Uh how it is all a fundraising operation.
It all has its own political agenda.
But when and he started when he started to write state affair, his objective was to was to confirm that we had major, major, major environmental problems we were causing.
He found out just the opposite.
He found out so much of the data is rigged, so much of it's made up, so much ignored, so much of it is actually misrepresented as the opposite of what it is.
So uh, you know, I we I think the most we could do is link to his website and and this particular speech on complexity, and it's not hard to understand.
And there are plenty of plenty of uh what he even takes an excerpt from a uh UK newspaper from last December that what or maybe it was September it was September October is after Hurricane Katrina, and this was one of these scare headlines, we are destroying our world, how much time do we have left?
And Christ was a hurricane.
It was simply a hurricane.
Uh the the the he points out how fear is an elementary part or elemental part, fundamental part of the whole environmentalist wacko movement, and that the journalism committee relies on fear, that most everybody relies on fear to captivate people's attention.
And the line has to be continually moving toward the extreme and the more extreme because we become accustomed to certain fears.
So we it takes more to scare us.
But it really is a is a uh it was a brilliant little presentation on complexity, uh, and coupled with other speeches that he's given and and lectures that you can read.
he's got the transcripts to all of them on his website.
I think it'd be well worth your time to do it.
The fact he's up there talking to Bush that Bush wanted to talk to him about this book, fine and dandy with me.
Tom Clancy's been up there too.
Tom Clancy, Reagan had Tom Clancy in after he wrote The Hunt for Red October.
You know, and the Libs are all worried about that.
Oh my god, Clancy's gonna have Bush nuking nuke in Moscow before they have dinner.
Or have Reagan nuking Moscow and so the left is just a bunch of talk about fear, that's their perpetual state.
And um in their own right.
Anyway, a quick time out here, folks.
We uh have lots more straight ahead.
Stick with us, it won't be long, and we will be right back.
That's unbelievable.
Fox is doing a story here on uh fact some elementary schools have banned the game of tag because it contains bully characteristics, and it shows favoritism since not everybody gets to be it.
Ugh.
Okay.
We're talking about women, female president, um all that uh all that sort of thing.
Uh New York Post has a story that was what was this yesterday?
Lust for lost.
The Broadway producer, female, accused of being sexually obsessive, was particularly smitten with a hunky young actor on Lost, Ian Somerhalder, whom she consistently and constantly discussed inappropriately, a former co-producer said.
Theater heavyweight Didi Harris made several lewd comments about Somerholder during his tenure in the off-Broadway flop Dog Sees God, which she produced.
She'd say, I'd just like to take him.
Things like that, said Carl White, co-producer of the show.
She said that to me several times during working hours, white said, and I'm not a prude, but you gotta draw the line.
Somerholder, who's twenty-three young uh years younger than the actor, could not be reached for comment, abruptly left the cast of Dog Sees God in January.
All right.
No, I didn't think this was possible.
We have female sexual harassment.
And everything I've been told says this is not possible.
Women don't do this.
Michael Douglas was in a movie about in fact it was a Michael Crichton book.
Yes!
It was a Michael Crichton book.
Demi Moore was the uh was a head honcho in an office, and she was a sexual harasser of Michael uh Michael uh Michael Douglas.
I didn't think these things happened.
And I also don't I just like to take him.
I I mean that's this is the New York theater.
If that's lewd in the New York theater for crying out loud, I have got to reshape my opinion of what goes on there.
Uh John in Springfield, Massachusetts, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's a pleasure speaking to you.
Thank you.
I'm a twenty-four-year-old male law student, ultra-conservative, and I have to say I'm just appalled by what your female callers are saying today.
And and I should know because I have a liberal girlfriend, and let me tell you, they don't believe that.
Uh wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
They don't believe what?
What I'm saying is there are many qualified female presidents, politicians, CEOs, and in my opinion, it shouldn't be part of the political equation.
Uh and I guess what bothers me is that the media treats these happenings as if they were viewing an eclipse.
Yeah, spectacle.
It's a spectacle.
I know.
It's it's all about what will excite them.
But I do think with Hillary, the the the the what we call the antique media now does have a a really invested interest in her ascension to the White House.
I don't think there's any question, it's not just because it'd be a spectacle.
I think they they really do think she's entitled, she deserves it.
I think they do buy their own larkey that she's the smartest woman in the world, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
There's something magical with the press of the Democrats with the name Clinton.
Oh, that's true.
And it doesn't mean she's not qualified.
She's very qualified for the Democrat Party.
She's just not qualified for our party.
Well, now that's you know, these are that's a subjective thing.
I don't think she's when you say qualify for the Democrats, uh if you're Not trying to be funny.
If you mean she's got the good liberal credentials, okay.
But in terms of overall qualifications, I am sorry.
I haven't seen them.
I have to agree with you.
I guess that was a sarcastic comment.
And and just if I could finish up, over the weekend, the speed skater Shawnee Davis won gold.
And the media focused more on his color rather than it his his skill and his ability.
And then that brings you just to the what you were speaking of with the Mag uh McNabb problem.
And that's the that's the problem you've always had.
Well, have you noticed how the mainstream press totally ignored Bryant Gumble when he said even though nobody watches HBO?
He's allowed to get away.
Gumbles out there saying he doesn't he said he said two things that were just literally stupid.
He said he didn't even think there ought to be winter games.
And you know why?
Because the ancient Greeks didn't do it.
We only have the Olympics to the ancient Greeks.
And the ancient Greeks didn't ice skate, he said, and the ancient Greeks didn't do uh lap dance or i ice dancing.
The ancient Greeks didn't do all this.
And and well, you know, if you go to the summer games, I don't think that the uh ancient game uh ancient Greeks did high diving either.
I don't think they did uh what what's what's this thing that Saturday Night Live Parody?
Synchronized swimming?
Do you think the ancient Greeks did that?
They did that in bed.
They didn't do that in the Olympics in a swimming pool.
And then he went on to say that he doesn't like watching because there aren't any black athletes there anyway, contradicting exactly what you just pointed out, and so the whole thing reminds him of a GOP convention.
Now and it's been totally ignored, one hundred percent ignored, uh, other than by the people who uh who saw it.
But I agree with you about this uh uh uh Shawnee Davis won the gold, media more focused on color.
Uh but that's who the media is or are, and that was my only point all along.
I'm glad you noticed it.
Thanks very much, uh John.
This is uh uh Sophia in uh Perry Hall and Mary.
Sophia or Sophia.
However, you choose to call me is just fine.
Thank you.
Um I was just going to say some of the callers uh regarding some of the uh female uh emotions.
I just don't understand.
I mean, you can wring your hands and be emotional as long as you can make a decision and stick by it.
I mean, you it doesn't have to be one or the other when you make a decision.
You can have all kinds of emotion poured into it, but as long as you make a decision and back it up, what's the difference?
Whether I see you being uh racked with emotion or not.
I don't think that's what they mean.
I I think in in the in the sense liberalism, for example, isn't an emotional exercise, it's not intellectual.
A liberal will look at a homeless or poor person and go, oh and then and it's I feel bad about that, and by doing so will tell themselves they're a good person.
And in the in the process, they'll think they've accomplished the problem or solved the problem because they care.
Um when you actually talk about the hard work necessary to solve the homeless problem or or a poverty problem, liberals don't want to hear about it because it hurts them too much.
Oh, you what if you if you go out and suggest, well, maybe they might want to get educated and get a job, they react violently.
Oh, really easy for you to say.
So the fear about reacting emotionally is believing that you can deal with bad guys uh by simply appealing to their inner nature or what have you, and not recognizing threats when they exist.
I think that's what the people mean when they say dealing with things uh emotionally.
I you know, I I think there is there's a lot of of of generalization going on here because it lends itself to humor.
Uh but they're there, believe me.
I know plenty of women.
Uh take a break.
Be back here and do that.
I mean, it wouldn't my friends, this program gets results.
You remember the story we had last week about the uh sheriff in Spotsylvania, Virginia suggesting that uh his uh single, unmarried, undercover operatives had to have sex with prostitutes in order to gain the evidence for conviction.
Well, the uh Washington Post did a follow-up story on that, quoting me, uh making fun of it, saying, gee, this is probably no unemployment in Spotsylvania.
Wonder how long the line is outside the sheriff's office to get a job there.
Turns out now the sheriff said on Friday he no longer will allow detectives to uh receive sexual services while investigating suspected prostitution after they spent twelve hundred dollars at massage parlors last month and uh sparked a uh public outcry.
So uh law enforcement officials say that undercover officers only need to get an offer of sex for money to move the case forward.
Now they don't actually have to um do the deed.
So I want to apologize uh to all the deputies at the Spotsylvania Sheriff's Department.
I never really thought they'd change policy, but they did, apparently because of me, and I'm sorry.
▲
Export Selection