All Episodes
Previous Next
March 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
March 6, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, folks.
It's a thrill.
It's a delight to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh, a radio program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Happy to be with you.
800-282-2882 is a number.
If you would like to be on the program, if you want to go the email route, rush at EIBnet.com.
New York Times has a story on abortion today.
And as usual, they missed the whole point.
The headline.
Scant drop seen in abortion rate if parents are told.
For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion does not appear, or do not appear, to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by the New York Times shows.
The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from the years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.
For instance, in Tennessee, the abortion rate went down when a federal court suspended a parental consent requirement, then rose when the law went back into effect.
In Texas, the rate fell after a notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law.
In Virginia, the rate barely moved at all when the state introduced a notification law in 1998, but fell after the requirement was changed to parental consent in 2003.
All right, what's the message here?
What the New York Times is trying to say, we don't need these stinking laws because they're not reducing the number of abortions anyway.
The way to look at this is, so why are you afraid of them?
Who says we're trying to stop abortions?
We're trying to see to it that parents have an idea what their kids are being persuaded to go do without their knowledge.
The people who support parental consent laws, of course, as I would think everybody would, would hope that there are as few abortions as possible.
Now, I know that that's not true.
I know that there is a political movement attached to abortion, and the more of them, the better.
But that's just, that's a select group of really angry women and the men that they've cowed.
But most people, I mean, they get conflicted on it, but there's not a majority of people, even clear majority, that support having abortions happen all over the place.
So the parental consent, the reaction to this story is, so why do you oppose it?
Why are you afraid of it then?
I actually, speaking of this subject, the South Dakota governor just signed their abortion bill into law.
The only exemption is when the woman's life is in danger.
Rape and incest are not exempted in this, or that's in that law, right?
In the South Dakota law, no rape or incest.
Now, the purists will say, well, it's not the baby's fault.
You know, why?
So we're not going to exempt.
Now, what is the purpose of this?
Well, obviously, they're making this statement.
They believe it.
But this is designed to get going through the court system now.
They know there are going to be legal challenges to this left and right.
So this bill has been structured to go through the various court battles that it's going to go through.
And that's why it's, in some people's words, draconian.
Not even the rape or incest exemption as part of the bill.
But what the Times undertaking this study just in the first place gives you a glimmer of their agenda here.
And the Times obviously is going to do everything they can to see to it that abortion is kept legal and perhaps even expanded in terms of its availability.
And I'm sure they're worried that these parental consent laws ultimately will reduce the number of abortions, and they are upset about that.
But the way to really look at this, if you ask me, is, okay, so why do you oppose the law?
If you're going to run this big story saying, hey, this parental consent laws, they're not having any effect.
Okay, then shut up.
No story.
No big deal.
Mary Spaulding Balch, Director of State Legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, said it's one of the few areas the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed states to legislate, so it's become a key for lowering the abortion rate.
Now, they will consider that a very alarming statement.
Yet the Times analysis of the states that enacted laws from 95 to 2004 found no evidence that the laws had a significant impact on the number of minors who got pregnant or once pregnant, the number who had abortions.
A separate analysis is considered whether the existence or absence of a law could be used to predict whether abortions went up or down, and it could not.
So, much ado about nothing.
The Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Susan Collins, said yesterday that she is going to introduce a bill to give the Homeland Security Department the lead in approving foreign takeovers of companies that touch on national security.
The concerned over this Dubai port deal got everybody all worked up.
She says the process right now is deeply flawed.
Okay, I don't think that it is, but she obviously does.
The Democrats, obviously, for those of you who think that the polling on this is dismal for the Republicans, it's really harmful.
I have to tell you that I don't think that's the case because the Democrats have changed their tack.
The Democrats are taking a little bit different approach to this because I asked questions last week, and I think these are really timely questions.
If these guys in the Democratic Party, who for four years have been absent on the idea that we even have an enemy, they don't want any prisons.
They don't want any interrogations.
They don't want any National Security Agency monitoring of terrorist phone calls into this country or out of this country.
They think that's not necessary, right?
The Patriot Act.
Yeah, these guys are so strong.
They go out six months ago or three months ago and Dingy Harry said, we killed the Patriot Act, smiling and laughing.
They killed the Patriot Act, huh?
It just got extended last week.
Just got reauthorized.
They didn't kill anything.
They're impotent and they don't have the ability to stop anything.
But if they're going to be all worked up now about this port deal, especially about the United Arab Emirates, then are they, because the ports are, we're so vulnerable, these ports, all right, well, it still only infects 5% of containers.
Bush is irresponsible.
All right, fine.
If we're so vulnerable in the ports, need to ask the liberals, are you going to allow provisions of the Patriot Act to be used to secure the ports?
Are you going to allow the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls so that we might find out who it is that's going to infiltrate through the ports that the United Arab Emirates may own?
Are you going to allow interrogations of suspects that we have learned might be planning to infiltrate through the ports after the United Arab Emirates?
They're making such a big deal about the security threat that's been posed here, and yet they stand in the way of every tool we have to be able to learn in advance when another attack might occur or is being planned.
But now they're changing tack on that.
Once I posed those questions last week, make no mistake about it, they heard about it, and they know they're in a, because they can't come out and say, yeah, we love the Patriot Act and we love the NSA foreign intelligence.
Oh, we love that.
Of course, we'll use all these tools to protect our ports because we Democrats care about national security, especially when those untrusty guys from the UAE own the ports.
Then they'll never say that.
They can't come out.
They're running for office and building their future on the fact that the NSA thing is domestic spying, that the Patriot Act is the same thing, all this denial of civil rights, and we're running torture chambers all over the world.
So what is their new tackle?
We put together a little montage for you involving Jack Murtha, Juan Williams, and Eleanor Clift.
And this is from Face the Nation and Fox News and the McLaughlin Group.
Those are the three shows over the weekend.
And as you listen to this, you will hear the new talking point that the Democrats hope to get out there to explain the fear, the xenophobia, the racism, the what have you, that surfaced in reaction to the port deal.
These guys have used fear as a club.
And so then they wonder why the American people would react so viscerally when they talk about letting the Arabs take over the ports.
I think a lot of the fear-mongering that the Republicans have been engaged in in the past to exploit the terror issue is now coming back to bite them.
To the extent this is Arab phobia, the Bush administration has spent four years stirring up hate.
Did you catch all that?
It's real simple.
These Democrats are not racists and they're not profilers and they're not bad people and the American people.
No, Bush did it.
Bush is the racist.
Bush is the Islamophobe.
Bush is the xenophobe.
Bush hates Arabs.
Bush is the guy that's been telling us to hate Arabs.
He's been beating us over the head with the club of fear.
We've got to fear Arabs.
Now, obviously, it's just the opposite.
Bush is out selling the deal with the Emirates.
Bush was out shortly after 9-11.
He made several speeches to the Muslim community in this country, assuring them that we didn't consider that he's all kinds of outreach.
But the point is, not whether this is accurate or not, but the point is the direction change that they've taken now.
Because it is obvious.
Folks, there's no other explanation.
For the Democrats are profilers.
And I'm sorry, a lot of people have been.
The minute this port deal was announced, the initial reaction in Congress in every state in this country was uninformed.
It was purely reactionary.
And it could have only been reaction to one thing.
They're Arabs.
He says, United Arab Emirates.
It can only be one thing.
But nobody wants to be thought of that way.
So, well, no, we're just concerned about security, Rush.
We're just concerned about security.
Well, why are you concerned about it?
Because you think Arabs are going to blow us up if they buy the port.
Or you think Arabs are going to give over our security secrets to buddies that'll infiltrate or what have you.
The Democrats know they can't have that said about them.
They can't have it said that they're profilers because they won't let us profile in the airports.
We can profile a UAE port company, but we can't profile Abdullah, who's walking through JFK to get on board an American Airlines plane.
We can profile Myrtle, a 98-year-old grandmother who's walking in there in a wheelchair with a walker, rather, and we can profile a two-month-old kid, but we can't profile, but we certainly can profile on the portal.
Well, the Democrats, they can't handle that.
No, no, no, no, we can't.
No, no.
So now, to the extent that we did profile and to the extent that we did act a little prematurely.
It's Bush's fault because he made us the racists, because he's hating Arabs.
He's been beating us over to him with a clip for four years.
You must hate Arabs.
You must hate Arabs.
So I knew this is going to happen.
I didn't know where they were going to go, but I knew they had to come off the position that they had all last week and the week before on this.
A quick timeout.
We got some audio.
I want to play one.
Well, let's do Susan Collins, since she's part of the story.
Let's do her now.
She was on Stephanopoulos' show.
And Stephanopoulos said, the president's office did put out a statement where in that statement, the president said he actually supports the legislation proposed by you and Senator Clinton, which would ban foreign entities from managing our ports.
Let me turn to you, Senator Collins.
Do you agree with Chairman Hunter's idea, that'd be Duncan Hunter, that we should actually have divestiture of all foreign investment in our critical national security facilities?
No, I think that goes too far.
Not all foreign investment is a problem.
When you have an ally like Canada, for example, controlling aspects, I really don't have a problem with that.
But in this case, we have a country that has a very mixed track record on terrorism, a country that the 9-11 Commission said had been both a valuable ally and a persistent problem.
And that's why we need an in-depth review.
And only if the national security concerns are satisfied should the deal go forward.
But I don't think we need a blanket prohibition.
Obviously, I'd love to have all of our ports operated by American companies, but I don't think that's practical.
Now, the latest, the White House is trying to attempt the Dubai people into partnering up with an American company.
Now, you know who it is?
It's Halliburton.
That's one of the few that could do it.
And the White House, of course, now I made a joke.
Okay, the only way this is going to fly, if you don't like the UAE, let Halliburton run it.
And Schumer actually got that question from somebody.
And he ended up saying, Halliburton's fine with me in this case, blah, blah, blah, blah, because I don't trust these guys.
Well, if that happens, if Halliburton ends up, can you imagine what they're going to say?
That this was a scheme all along by Dick Cheney, who knew that they would never allow an Arab company to run these ports, these terminals in these ports.
And it was a slick maneuver, and we've been had again.
And they'll be demanding an investigation, see where this thing really started.
They'll leave Bill Clinton's involvement totally out of it.
I hope it does.
I hope they partner up with Halliburton.
And for what I read, the White House saying, there's got to be a prominent role.
I mean, Halliburton has to be on site.
They have to have people there, not just put some money in the deal, but they actually got to be there.
They'll be back here in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
Okay, we finally got it up there, folks.
We've got the video of the speech last Thursday I gave in Washington to the radio executives and the Q ⁇ A period.
That's on the member side, the video of the speech on the member side.
The free side has some still shots, some pictures, as well as transcripts, selected transcripts of the speech.
It's all posted now, ready to go.
Steve in Amityville, New York, welcome to the program.
How you doing, Rush?
I'm great.
Thank you.
I'd like to say that, you know, these liberals aren't going to get me on board with their accusations of xenophobia.
You know, I'd like to see the United States be fair to companies around the world, but I also like us to be cautious.
And in 1972, 79, 83, 85, and I can go on with dates.
Those are all dates in history that terrorist attacks took place against American interest that we need to be cautious.
And it doesn't help to call our people racist.
You know, that is an interesting point.
Well, but the Democrats are defensive about this, and I find this fascinating, because everybody is under the impression that this is a killer for Bush.
It's a killer for the Republic.
Oh, Republicans are scared to death.
Oh, all is lost.
Why did Bush do this to us?
The Democrats, for the last two weeks, been running around like they own this issue.
They finally got on the right side of national security.
Well, as people started looking at it and took the time to do so, they found that the security concern posed by this particular group of people owning these terminals is really not that big a factor.
So nevertheless, all these elected people, both parties, had this immediate visceral tsunami reaction that could have only been based in that.
And it may be understandable.
I mean, profiling is a statistical probability business.
It's not racism, but it is thought to be racism.
And that's because the Democrats have made it racist.
The Democrats, ever since it was learned that various police departments and law enforcement agencies were using profiling based on statistics, based on facts, based on trends, they saw an opportunity to once again cast Republicans as racist.
Okay, it's come back to bite them because this is exactly what they were doing.
And in fairness to those of you who had the same reaction, you may not even be racist.
You might just think, wait, this doesn't, it's too risky.
I mean, it's, you know, it's very, it's easy.
It was easy to have that reaction.
But the Democrats can't let it stand because they had it too.
And they can't be racists, it's not possible.
That just doesn't fit.
Democrats, racists?
No, We're good people.
Blah, blah, blah.
So they've got to come out now and change the whole approach.
Yeah, there was some racism going on.
There was some xenophobia going in.
Bush did it.
Bush made it.
Bush has been ginning up hatred against Arabs.
It's totally understandable why people had this reaction.
That's what Jack Murthy said.
It'd be stupid if they hadn't had this reaction.
Bush has been beating them with the club of fear of Arabs for four years now.
And so this is going to continue to present problems for them as this falls out.
I got a couple more stories on this to illustrate what I'm talking about right after this.
And we are back serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly with zero mistakes.
Okay, Saturday the president did his radio speech.
Democrats do their own radio speech.
Do you know who they had do the radio speech?
They had the, it's a woman who they hope to win the open seat now that Randy Duke Cunningham has been sentenced to prison for his bribery case.
Francine Busby, who is a school board member in a San Diego area school district, did the Democrats' radio response.
I think the election is April 11th, if I'm not mistaken, a special election to fill that seat.
And this is a Republican district, but the Democrats hope that this school board babe can win the seat.
So they give her the radio address, which is really good because nobody hears it.
It's the most amazing thing, or the president's radio address.
It's just, but nevertheless, they did.
They used the weekly radio address to scold the Bush administration over the ports management deal.
The address also gave a national stage to the party's candidate to replace Randy Cunningham.
Duke Cunningham sentenced Friday to eight years and four months in prison.
One of the things that Francine Bosby said was, given the record of this administration, trust us is not a safe enough answer for the American people.
Accusing the administration and the Republican-led Congress of underfunding the ports.
Golly, that's underfunding the ports.
Folks, they're grasping at straws on this, and they haven't the slightest clue where they're going.
Their opposition to this is very problematic for them.
And now they've, as I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but this xenophobia, this Islamophobia, the racist angle profiling has really making them nervous.
And so now they have to admit that it existed.
And it was part of the reaction that they had and other people had.
So now they've got to find blame for it.
But that, see, they're going to come back and get bitten by this because now we're going to be able to say to them, oh, you mean there are excuses for racism?
They're legitimate excuses to permit it and justify it because that's what they're doing here by this new tack of blaming Bush.
The other story is this: Democrats on Saturday kept up the drumbeat of criticism of the Bush administration for approving a state-owned Arab company's plan to manage U.S. ports, saying Congress must decide whether the deal should go through.
And this is another rewrite of the radio address, and they're trying to really hype this candidate for Duke Cunningham's seat.
All right, we have a montage of the Wolf Blitzer questions that an emailer advised me of, and it was from his late edition show yesterday.
We don't have the interviews, the answers to the questions, but we don't need them because it's not the point.
And I want to stress here at the outset, I am not ripping Wolf Blitzer.
I like Wolf.
Wolf has been fair to me.
And every time I've run into him, he's a very nice man.
This is just an illustration.
Wolf is over there.
Wolf is in Baghdad or he's in Iraq and he's interviewing people over there.
And as a member of the American media, he takes with him his worldview.
The worldview is that there is a civil war.
It's been declared.
The New York Times declared a civil war in Iraq last week.
When that mosque went up, they were excited.
They've been predicting and hoping for a civil war.
They want that country to go down in flames.
They want it to go down to shreds because they want Bush's policy to fail.
And this is the worldview that the drive-by media has gotten hooked up to now and been this way ever since Bush was in office.
So here's it's just about 20 seconds long, but here are the questions that Wolf asked.
And by the way, you'll be able to tell what the answers were with his follow-up questions.
Is there a civil war already underway in Iraq?
Why not?
Because the tensions between the Sunnis and the Shia, they seem at least the images that we're getting on a nearly daily basis, they seem so intense.
They seem so ugly.
Why don't you think the country could have a civil war?
So here's Wolf over there.
He thinks there is a civil war because the New York Times declared it.
He's talking to a Sunni leader in Baghdad and the former Iraqi foreign minister.
And is there a civil war already?
No.
Well, why not?
You ought to be having a civil war.
I mean, the intentions between the Sunnis and the Shia, they see in the images that we're getting on a nearly daily basis seem so intense.
The people he was talking to saying, we can't have a civil war.
There won't be one here.
We're not oriented that way.
We're not going to have a civil war.
And Wolf thinks there already is one.
Again, I'm not, it doesn't matter if it could be Wolf or anybody that went over there from the drive-by media and to ask these questions.
That would have been the reaction because they're convinced sitting back here in their newsrooms that it's all hell's breaking loose over there.
I bring this up because earlier in the program, we had a story about, well, we had a caller who said he didn't believe Peter Pace, the chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he was on television yesterday saying things are going well in Iraq.
He's not, you can't put a smiley face on it yet, but it's a lot better now than it was a year ago.
And I cited a couple other articles and people who have written stories who are there or just back from Iraq who are also telling us things.
And we've been doing this for the past couple of years.
You can find all kinds of people go over there and report a different story to what we get in the Drive-By Media.
Drive-by Media never sees those stories, or if they do, they ignore them because the template, the action line in Iraq is, every story has an action line.
And meaning there's only one thing that will advance the story.
The action line with Iraq is it's falling apart.
The policy is a failure.
We didn't plan adequately for the aftermath.
We have no business being over there.
These people are engaged in a civil war.
We're losing too many.
And so the only thing that will advance that is other evidence, so-called of that.
If there is something that gets reported that says, no, no, no, no, things are going quite well.
That will not be reported because it doesn't advance the action line.
Media is a business.
It's a packaged product.
It's not about learning what happened and telling other people who weren't there what you saw.
It's about reporting the news as you hope it turns out.
Reporting the news as you wish it were.
And that's exactly what's going on.
And when you go over and ask these people these questions, you go in there and think, are you in a civil war here?
No, no, no.
Why not?
You ought to be.
I mean, what a picture's worsting and make it look like you're already.
No, we can't have a civil war here.
We won't.
What do you mean you can't?
Why not?
Like, oh, come on, give us the civil war.
We have been promoting it.
We have been hoping for it for who knows how long.
And I do this.
I wanted to show you this, play this little montage of questions just to illustrate that disconnect that is, and if it's happening in the Iraq story, imagine where else it's happening with what other kinds of news stories and how they are only reported in, you know, with half-truths or half-versions, because it's whatever advances the desired action line is what's going to be reported.
That's why all the tallying up of the deaths of our soldiers, that advanced the action line, and it had an ancillary purpose of trying to gin up anti-war support among the American people.
Here's Chris in San Mateo, California.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Anti-idiotarian Rottweiler Ditto's Rush.
Hey, hey, thanks very much.
Nice to have you on the show, sir.
The Sunni leader reminds me of what you say when we're talking about the media complaining about a recession or the economy is bad.
You just refuse to participate in the recession.
And I believe the Sunni leader is saying the same thing about the Civil War.
Well, not only that, he also said that they can't have one.
I don't know that he meant they're not capable or it's just it's unacceptable.
I'm not sure what his interpretation is, but he was very clear that it's not possible.
We can't have a civil war.
And you have an interesting take.
Anybody who quotes me has an interesting take.
And he is just quoting.
He's exactly right.
You're going to have a recession?
Fine.
Don't participate in it.
I'm just constantly amazed at how many people do not recognize how much power they have over their own destiny, their own future, their life.
And it's great when you learn how much power you have.
And if people are out there all day long talking about a bad economy, it's rotten, heading into recession, fine.
Let those who want to have the recession have it.
But you don't have to.
Well, it's easy for you to go.
Well, I've tried to practice my philosophies all my life, regardless of my means, but it's an attitudinal thing, and there's no doubt about it.
Now, there are obviously some things that can't be avoided, and then you have to endure and live through them.
But in this case, I think Chris has a great point, obviously, because he's quoting me.
You know, you guys can go ahead and tell us we should have a civil war, but we're just not going to do it.
In fact, when that mosque, when the dome of that mosque was taken out, what actually happened was that Muki, Muki Al-Sadr, he sent his boys in there to partner up with the Shiites.
There was not going to be an outbreak because, and the original story was the Americans did this.
It's turned out it was Al-Qaeda.
There are a lot of people trying to stoke the Civil War.
And these people are, whatever they are, they're not dumb.
I mean, they're not going to be this easily manipulated into self-destructing.
A civil war would be self-destructing, and it would enable the al-Qaeda types to come in and establish a base of operations in the whole country.
These people don't want that.
Quick timeout, folks.
Much more straight ahead after this.
And we are back.
We go to Bay City, Michigan on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Kurt.
Nice to have you with us today.
Thank you very much, Art.
Rush, we've had some domestic terrorism, I think, already in the ports, and it was related to the longshoreman strike in Long Beach in the fall of 2004.
Thousands of containers were kept offshore because of the strike, which had a negative impact on the Christmas season last year, I know, for people in many, many, many different retail industries.
But the strike was partially because they wanted to put barcoding automation onto the containers, which would have replaced some longshoremen's jobs, and the longshoremen went on strike because of that and other elements of the contracts that were pertinent to that.
But they've already had a negative impact.
The union in this case had a negative impact.
We've got to be real careful here because the last time the longshoreman, the last time I discussed this, a longshoreman from out there called and personally threatened me on my own program.
We had to beef up security here at the EIB Southern Command.
And we talked about this at great length.
You're exactly right.
And they did it to coordinate with the Christmas season.
It was all about modernizing using barcodes so that we could more quickly offload cargo and load cargo and then find it once it had been offloaded and inventory it and all that.
So Caller's theory is that that was an act of domestic terrorism.
And I know what you didn't say was economic terrorism.
And what you're saying is that there weren't any United Arab Emirates companies involved in that, that that was the longshoreman.
Yeah, Interesting term, economic terrorism at Christmas time.
It was pretty bad out there, and they had all these cargo ships out there in the Pacific Ocean.
They couldn't come in because nobody was overloading anything, so the cargo ships in port couldn't leave.
There was nothing to leave with.
Here's Bernie in Chicago.
Welcome, Bernie.
Great to have you with us.
Somebody told George Clooney that there were about five times as many black faces at the Republican National Convention of all socioeconomic conditions than there were at the Oscars last night.
I don't know George Clooney, but I have a feeling he'll hear about it.
That's an excellent point.
Now, what's happened here these last two calls, this guy was talking about something we discussed two weeks ago.
This caller is discussing something we discussed in the first hour.
And so you may not have heard what we talked about.
We played Clooney's opening remarks after he won his Oscar last night, talking about all the good works that Hollywood does, and they're happy to be out of touch.
And that's what he's reacting to.
Here's Tony in Aurora, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush.
Hello, Tony.
Hey, how are you doing?
I tell you what, it's a hell of an honor to speak with you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
I'll tell you what, our founding fathers will be very proud of you.
In fact, in about 100 years from now, they're going to think of you as a founding father also.
Well, that's awfully kind of you.
Well, the question I have is: why did a confused, brainwashed American who turned Taliban is doing 20 years in prison when we have an Arab Taliban serving time at Yale?
You know, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has been on this case, and he's got a really good piece on this today at opinionjournal.com about the, since this has all come to light, the administrators, the faculty, some of the grand poobahs at Yale, they're finally a little bit embarrassed about it, but not enough to do anything about it.
But I know that's, and I will bet you that there are people at Yale who are suggesting this port deal represents a huge security threat, but letting this Taliban guy in.
No, we're open to all ideas here at the Academy.
We can't shut out anybody other than conservative professors and students.
But of course, everybody agrees that they're a bunch of Neanderthals.
But the Taliban was totally welcome here at Yale.
And don't bother us anymore about this.
It is incredible.
You mean Johnny Ben Walker?
Is that who you're talking to?
Exactly.
I'm wondering how many Americans were attending college in Germany during World War II when we were fighting Hitler.
Well, you never know.
This is true.
But look, your comments here at the beginning of your call are very nice.
I want to thank you again for that.
I appreciate that.
Oh, you're very welcome.
And I'll tell you what, I'll tell you, it's a very big honor for me to talk to you.
Believe me.
Well, I appreciate that.
It's an honor that you are in the audience and that everybody else is.
And I appreciate it again very much.
Quick timeout, folks.
Final segment right around the corner.
To Los Angeles, this is Dale.
You're next, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Yeah, Rush.
I can't believe the garbage you buy into.
I'm a Long Sherman.
I work in the LA Harbor.
And that last strike that we had, that supposedly we had, it was not a strike.
We were locked out, meaning they shut the gates on us.
And as far as the monitoring systems they wanted to put on the containers, we weren't against that.
We were trying to get it as our job to install that equipment.
Okay.
So, but you didn't, it seems to me that you guys did slow down your work before you were locked out.
You're right.
It was a lockout.
Management kept you out of there.
So I guess technically you weren't responsible for the economic terrorism.
But yet, but yet, you sit there and say a strike like it was a strike.
Well, because I forgot.
I forgot it was a work stoppage.
But look, you've called and corrected me.
Please, I'm agreeing with you.
Don't hurt me.
Don't hurt you.
That's ridiculous, Rush.
I've been listening to you for years.
I'm just kidding.
I know.
Look, I've got to run because I'm out of time.
I'm glad you called and straightened it out.
Seriously.
Quick timeout, folks.
No, this is over.
Sorry, show's over.
▲
Export Selection