All Episodes
Previous Next
March 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
March 17, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Once again, your host for life, uh, Il Rushbow, America's anchor man, America's truth detector.
Firmly ensconced here behind the golden EIB microphone.
It's Friday.
Let's keep the old mole rolling.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
One hour left, folks.
Fastest three hours in media.
Fastest broadcast week in media.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
You know, I don't mean to sound cynical about this budget business, but I am.
And I like I say, I I've been paying attention to this for many, many moons.
I have been commenting on it for many moons.
And I have never, and I have never had any expectations either, by the way.
I have never seen federal spending go down.
I just I just I just I've I hear all the accusations that were cutting school lunch program, a 95 budget battle was particularly vicious.
Some uh conservative voters still haven't gotten over that one.
That's featured the school lunch cuts.
We're starving our kids.
I'll never forget John Lewis on the floor of the House.
They're coming for our children, they're coming for our grandmothers, they're coming.
Remember that?
And everybody said, Wow, this is this sounds like people afraid of Hitler.
And the budget went up, I can't tell you how much that year.
And the Republicans got cowed into the into even spending a little bit more on things, but they were in the process of trying to balance it at least.
And they succeeded.
And the Democrats had a just a panic.
That's why I don't I don't believe Democrats when they talk about deficits.
You know, worried about the deficit monster.
Because the Republicans balanced the budget, finally succeeded after they took over the House in 94, and and the Democrats are beside themselves.
They should have been happy.
We took care of the deficit for a couple years.
Even had remember that.
We had a surplus.
Remember that?
We had a surplus, peace dividend, all this sort of stuff.
And of course, Bush has now squandered that.
Well, there never was any surplus because spending is an annual thing, and you never it just it's silly.
But like this is this story, this is an AP story, a 2.8 trillion dollar election year budget blueprint that narrowly passed the Senate, forsakes President Bush's tax cuts and Medicare curbs, and smashes his cap on spending, disappointing Republican loyalists anxious to see their party stem the flow of federal red ink.
The Senate on Thursday, and it's not just the red ink, it's what the spending does to the country.
Socially.
It's it it it's just a mess.
The Senate on Thursday adopted the spending plan on a 51 to 49 vote, but with little enthusiasm since it anticipates deficits greater than 350 billion dollars for both this year and next.
The measure little resembles Bush's proposal last month for the budget year that begins October 1st, and its passage sets up a confrontation with the House, which is certain to oppose the Senate's call for additional spending.
Senator Kent Conrad, North Dakota, the Senate budget committee's top Democrat said House conservatives are going to look at this budget and say, whoa, what happened to fiscal conservatism?
Action on the budget plan came hours after Congress pushed the ceiling on the national debt to nearly nine trillion dollars.
The House then promptly approved $92 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for hurricane relief.
The Senate added billions of dollars for education.
To the dismay of budget hawks, the Senate's budget measure would break Bush's proposed caps on spending for programs such as low-income housing subsidies and health research, as well as education.
All told senators endorsed more than $16 billion in increases above Bush's $873 billion cap on spending appropriated by Congress every year.
Now I mean these are the same people that are constantly moaning and whining about the deficit and the spending and so forth.
And I'm I'm getting the point where it's it's it's all just a bunch of rhetoric.
It just it's this stuff never changes year in and year out.
Bush submits a budget, and then this one did have some spending restraint in it.
This one had some spending restraints.
Restraint, I didn't say cuts.
It had some had some caps in there.
You've got to start somewhere if you're gonna try to get your arms around this, and here comes the Senate just blowing right through it.
Same people whining and moaning about how much money we're spending.
The thing about this is the conflict is it's an election year, and politicians are of the opinion that when it's an election year and you're in trouble, you spend.
And you target the spending and people you want to vote for you.
It's been traditionally successful.
What's happening now though on the Republican side, this is not how you get them.
This is not how you the Republican base, the conservative base at least, is livid over this.
Livid about a lot of things.
Um it's not just the money.
The money's a big part of it, but it's also philosophical.
It's what spending the money does.
It creates dependence, it limits individual prosperity by denying people motivation and inspiration.
So it ends up having people not maximize their potential.
You know, what we've always wanted is a nation of people seeking the best for themselves, pursuing excellence as they define it.
And the more that happens, the greater the country is going to be.
The more individually prosperous and responsible people are for their own lives, the better.
This is the kind of spending, this is the kind of philosophy that is just going to deny that.
It's gonna it's going to imprison people in the false uh uh premise that they're doing okay because the government's taking care of things for them, uh, when in fact they are stunting their own growth and allowing it to be stunted.
And it's just it's it's like we've had calls on this, it's like the the uh the social welfare system was a large factor in the destruction of the black family and a lot of poor families because it it obviated the need for daddy to stay around.
It obviated the need for a husband.
Uh so there was no responsibility, there's these families busted up.
Uh it was all done with the best of intentions.
Don't don't analyze our results.
No, no, no, no.
Examine our intentions.
We are good people.
Our heart is in the right place.
Well, your heart's not in the right place.
If you can't tell by now that this kind of stuff does not accomplish prosperity for people, then I don't know what.
And when you look at the entitlement side of this, um, and I know people are partially responsible.
There are a lot of people that like this, folks.
I mean, there'll be a lot of people depend on this.
They've been they've been weaned on this entitlement mentality, been raised on it, and uh there are way too many people in this country who think being an American means this is what you get.
And that argument doesn't take place when this kind of spending goes on.
And that's also what's troubling to a bunch of us, in addition to the money, which is upsetting enough by itself, because you all know who's paying it.
It isn't the government.
It's the people that are working, and their tax bait, tax rate, their tax bite is going up evermore, and there are fewer and fewer people paying income taxes now, federal income taxes.
Because we got to get even with the rich, you know, they're just too lucky, they're doing too well, they're stealing from everybody else, and so we've got to get even.
So raise taxes on them.
The tax bite now spread over fewer and fewer people.
And you talk about tax reform, and we're getting to the point where it's not gonna be possible.
I don't care what it is.
If you like the fair tax, if you like the Forbes idea, if you like uh getting rid of the IRS, whatever, we're getting to the point where it'll never happen because there are gonna be more people not paying taxes than there are people who are paying taxes, and the people who are not paying are not gonna go along with any reform that puts them back on the rolls.
Uh you know, if you look at you look at some of the details of this, let me go through some of the de some of the specific votes to increase spending above Bush's budget, which the AP calls tight fisted.
That's that's another thing.
Bush's budget was 2.79 trillion.
Tight fisted.
2.781 trillion is incomprehensible.
Can't comprehend it.
2.7 trillion, and they call it tight fisted.
Three billion more for heating subsidies for the poor.
Uh excuse me, but I thought Hugo Chavez was taking care of that thanks to Congressman Della Hunt.
And some of the other Democrats who are cozying up to this lunatic.
Three billion more for heating subsidies.
What three billion more for heating subsidies for the poor.
We just had the story from New York Housing Authority.
They're asking the poor to give back because they're not running a budget deficit themselves.
The poor are now going to have to pay 70 bucks a month for their parking spaces.
They're going to pay five dollars for a washing machine.
$525 for a refrigerator, and additional ten dollars if a standalone freezer is on site.
$7 billion more for education, health, and worker safety accounts.
Passed $7326, and nobody's gonna ever you could legalize rape in this country if you called it one of two things, the Civil Rights Act of 2006 or the ninth or the 2006 education bill.
You could legalize anything you want.
If you call it education, put it in a health care umbrella or civil rights, because nobody will have a guts to vote against it.
$7 billion more for education, health, and what purpose?
If somebody could show that the increased spending already is showing some positive result, then it might be another matter.
But we know it's not.
$1.2 billion more for aviation security and stopping Bush's proposed increase in airline ticket taxes.
$1 billion more for benefits for military survivors.
Well, that ought to be the $7 billion figure if we're going to start throwing money around.
Let's throw $7 billion to the families of military survivors.
We're already spending a month and drop the three billion for heating subsidies for the poor because Hugo Chavez is taking care of it.
Okay, quick time out here, folks.
We'll be back.
We will continue.
L. Rushball on a roll, open line Friday, your calls and other things straight ahead.
Folks, there was a story.
Washington Post buried the story yesterday, and it was in the paper, but it wasn't uh prominently displayed.
The New York Times barely discussed it.
And it was uh it was linked on Drudge for a while uh yesterday.
Do you remember way, way back?
Chuck Schumer is uh running the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee.
That's the office that's charged with re-electing as many Democrats in the Senate as possible, Republicans have one too, uh, and recruiting candidates for Senate seats where uh senators are retiring.
And one of his big issues, one of Chuck Schumer's big issues, this is a Senator day in and down, is identity theft.
Well, remember the story about two of uh Schumer's aides were caught pilfering private information of Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele of Maryland, including his social security number.
And they got his credit report, and they publicized it all over the place.
Well, a former Democratic Party operative will plead guilty to a federal charge of illegally obtaining Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele's credit report.
The woman's attorney said yesterday, Lauren Weiner, who was a researcher for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, that means she worked for Chuck Schumer.
A researcher for the DSCC last year when she had accessed the credit data will plead guilty to the misdemeanor offense in coming weeks, said her attorney, Whitney Ellerman.
She'll likely be sentenced to $150 hours of community service with no jail time or fines, and her criminal record will be erased after one year of probation.
Mr. Steele said he would be disappointed if the DSCC is not held accountable for the actions of its operatives.
He said it's a stain on the entire organization and the operations of the DSCC.
It's the kind of politics turns people off and demeans the electoral process.
What is the point of the law if you're not going to feel The pinch of it, Steele said.
Senator Schumer of New York, chairman and the DSCC, champion of laws that combat identity theft, declined to comment on Miss Wiener's plea.
Didn't have anything to say about it.
They want to talk about a culture of corruption.
Well, fine and dandy.
We will not let them forget this.
The DSCC perpetrated an unlawful and disgraceful attack on Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, said Meryland Republican Party Chairman John Cain.
That's K A N E. The theft of his identity to wrongfully obtain his credit report is another example of how low some Democrats will sink in their quest for power.
Derek Walker, Maryland Democrat Party Executive Director, we regret it happened.
Her actions were unauthorized, a very stupid mistake.
Clearly she is paying for that mistake.
She is a good person.
Here's Dustin at Fort Walton Beach.
Dustin, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, libertarian ditto, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Uh wanted to get your take and discuss the uh fair tax.
Um, you know, the fair tax is a uh you're talking about John Linder and Neil Bort's uh uh book.
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
I like it.
I I I I it's it's it's serious tax reform.
It's correct me if I'm wrong, it's basically it's a consumption tax, right?
With with uh uh it's not it's not strictly a sales tax or consumption tax, but it's it's rooted on that.
Yeah, on all new and used or I'm sorry, just new uh goods and services.
Kind of like the state of Florida.
Uh kind of like the state of You mean uh yeah, with the no income tax.
Right.
Yeah.
Well, that's what I meant, of course.
Um well you know, I'm in favor of it, but like I say, here the here's the here's the thing.
There are a number of competing ideas like this.
There's a the flat tax, which is an income tax.
This is not that.
This is strictly consumption tax.
And but it it gets demagogued like everything else gets demagogued.
Well, it's gonna it's gonna hurt uh women and minorities.
It'll be hardest hit.
Women and minority and the poor, and the poor, because they of course there are exemptions for the poor based on certain things they buy in it, but it's still gonna get demagogue like everything.
Well, the poor would benefit the most.
Well, yes, but that's not going they don't they won't be told that.
Right uh by the by the people.
I'm just thinking it's gonna be demagogue.
It's gonna be the reason, you know, I don't want I'm I'm not trying to sound negative about this stuff, folks.
People get angry at me when I when I say this.
Um but there's there's two things that are that are working here against.
I'm just trying to be a realist.
It's like you're looking at the budget.
You are whistling Dixie if you think the budget is ever good.
We're gonna spend, actually spend less money one year than we spent the next.
You're you're whistling Dixie if you think we're gonna hold our spending to um only inflation levels.
You're whistling Dixie if you think that's gonna happen.
Ask any old timer who's been around 75 or 80 years and following this stuff and ask him what the budget was when he started paying attention to what it is now.
Run the numbers and you'll see what I mean.
Tax reform, the the the two problems are we're getting to the point where there won't be any because of the majority of people aren't going to be paying taxes, period.
And once once it is a demonstrable minority of wage earners paying income taxes, you can forget about them winning any kind of reform.
Number two.
Uh for all the talk that we get periodically about tax reform, nothing ever happens on it, and there's a there's a sink uh other than massive reduction, but I mean serious reform like the flat tax is.
Nothing ever happens on it because it is the single greatest power elected officials have the tax code.
It is social architecture.
You can punish or reward at will with the tax code.
I uh you know if if if we could ever elect people that are only going to serve one term and say go do the right thing, you know, give everybody four, six years, you got one term to fix it.
That way you might if if nobody had to run for re-election and the the the the uh but that's never gonna happen either.
I'm just using this as an illustration.
Now I'm uh I could be wrong, of course, and I hope I am, but I just uh especially Democrats are not going to give up the power that that having the uh uh tax code as exists now to punish, to reward.
Uh just I can't I just can't see that power ever being voted away by the people who have it.
Uh but I think it's a it's a laudable effort anyway.
I'm not saying it's not worth fighting, and I'm not trying to try to be doom and gloom about it.
I'm just saying.
And I'd love to be surprised, and there's one of these things I'd love to be uh love to be wrong about.
People are, well, why don't you lead the effort then?
Okay, all right, fine.
You talked me into it.
I'll lead the effort.
Flat tax, do it tomorrow.
Back after this.
Who says that?
Uh Catherine at the newsletter.
It's getting bad for me today, uh, folks.
If you if you missed it uh earlier, we played a bump uh come dancing uh by uh by Ray Davies at Kinks.
And uh as a talking over it, I said uh he passed away recently.
Uh great song, great guy, blah, blah.
He's he's alive, and he's got a concert tonight in uh in Atlanta.
And this I th I thought Sherrod Brown was black, and I think Ray Davies is dead.
So I was asking everybody, is this Friday?
You know, I'm I'm I'm remembering things that didn't happen.
So uh Catherine, one of the one of the uh staffers of the Limbaugh letters just uh piped up that I'm having an Uncle Junior moment or two uh from the Sopranos.
Well, if that's true, don't give me a gun.
All right, we we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, folks.
We really are.
Here's Tom in uh Miami.
Tom, welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hey Russ, I wanted to get your take on what you'd think about O'Connor and Ginsburg running around blaming the Republicans for uh trying to ignite right wing extremists to kill them.
And do you feel left out for not being named as one of the reasons?
No, this is not one of those times I feel left out for not.
We're getting giddy here.
It's been a long day.
It was a really late night.
I mean, a long week, late night.
Tom, I'll tell you what, I I I this this it's it's disgusting, and it's it's beneath both of these supposedly established jurists to start running around making these kinds of claims.
Uh uh it's it's it's intended to stifle uh legitimate criticism.
And I've been I've been I've been concerned about this is this is nothing new, by the way.
During the Shivos circumstance, during that episode, uh we had judges running around and and the media running around saying this is only gonna spawn a bunch of attacks and potential violence against judges, and O'Connor basically has come out and said we need to suspend all criticism of judges.
Well, that's all you need to know uh in terms of what these people think of themselves.
We need to just stop all criticism of judges.
I mean, they're they're an elite and way above, but with Ginsburg, there's something else.
There's something else that bothers Ginsburg, I think, should offer her resignation.
Ginsburg, and this didn't get reported.
The guys at the Power Line blog made a big deal out of this recently.
Ginsburg uh was over in South Africa, and she uh she made a speech.
Do you know that she and uh Scalia I don't know if they still are, but at one time they were best buds.
They socialize together.
They're at the opposite end of the political spectrum, obviously, uh and judicial.
Uh but I mean he'd he'd play the piano and she'd sing.
She'd belt out an aria or two.
And they so they spent New Year's Eve together.
That was uh their Scalia and his wife, and Ginsburg and uh and her husband, who was Perrose tax lawyer.
And I don't know.
What?
This yeah, yeah, yeah, but they're families, with their family.
Don't don't don't uh you can't even know the the the fact that you'd even think that gives an idea where your head is today.
That's just that's just that's just absolutely disgusting.
But anyway, she made a speech in South Africa, it was about a month ago, in which she criticized Scalia.
But she also made some pointed remarks About valuing international law over our constitution.
She believes that international law should be applied to the interpreting of our Constitution.
Here's uh here's what the people at the Power Line blog had to say about it.
Ginsburg argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to uh interpretation of the American Constitution.
Ginsburg did not try to hide the partisan nature of the issue.
At one point she referred to the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues.
So five justices believe that international law should bear weight in interpreting our constitution.
And you know why that is, folks, it's it's it's not it's not just arrogance.
These these five are the activist liberals on this court.
And as activists, what they want to be law is what's going to be law.
And if they have to go to Mozambique, or if they have to go to Helsinki and some obscure ruling in some other country or society to validate what they want to do, then they will do it.
As Scalia points out, though it's interesting.
The rest of the world is not nearly as liberalized on abortion as we are, and yet foreign law in that circumstance doesn't seem to matter to these five jurists.
American perspective that first informed the Constitution and continues to support it is what they want to step away from when necessary if they can't find constitutional justification for what they want the law to be, they're going to go find it elsewhere.
She also compares those who disagree with her to supporters, she did this in this speech.
She compared people who disagree with her to supporters of the Dred Scott decision.
We see a mindset that declares if you don't agree, you don't merely hold a differing view, you are evil.
And this is from the speech.
To a large extent, I believe the critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions.
We refer to decisions rendered abroad.
It bears repetition, not as controlling authorities, but for their indication in Judge Wald's words of common denominators of basic fairness governing relationships between the governors and the governed.
Oh, okay, that's how she views this.
It's about fairness.
We just want to be nice.
We want to consider all views, even from abroad.
No, they want to selectively consider views.
They will ignore the world or other countries if it happens to go against what their activist desires happen to be.
Now, all this would be hunky-dory, it'd be just lovely.
It'd just be really nice.
You know, this would just be really nice if we were not a sovereign nation with a thorough constitution, plenty of fine minds abounding.
But apparently we're no longer the best and brightest.
And our Constitution can't be trusted because we need to look to other countries to find well springs of common sense and fairness and understanding and compassion.
Because somehow all those things are eluding us here.
So that's my main gripe with uh with Ginsburg, as this this business of you know criticism of judges leading to these.
If that were true, half the presidents that have been alive have served would have been assassinated in office, if not more.
Especially this one.
It's just it's just so it's bogus.
It's an absolute bogus thought.
Speaking of Scalia, Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice, railed against the era of the judge moralist.
He said judges are no better qualified than Joe Six Pack to decide moral questions such as abortion and gay marriage.
He gave a speech to the New England School of Law Students and faculty at Law Day Banquet on Wednesday night in Boston, and he said anybody who thinks the country's most prominent lawyers reflect the views of the people needs a reality check.
He said the public through elected legislatures, not the courts, should decide watershed questions such as the legality of abortion.
He decried his own court's recent overturning of a state anti-Sodomy law, joking that he personally believes sexual orgies eliminate tension and ought to be encouraged.
But he said a Panel of judges.
He was joking.
He's trying to loosen up the crowd.
He said a panel of judges is not inherently qualified to determine the morality of such behavior.
The fact that moral issues end up as court cases, and that these moralist judges, oh yeah, we are the ones to decide these cases.
We'll take that kid.
That's what's gone wrong.
There's nothing constitutional about half these things that they take up.
They've just become a bunch of moralists.
And his point is they're no better than Joe Sixpack in determining minor or uh morality.
He pointed out that the granting of voting rights to women in 1920 through a constitutional amendment was the proper way for democracy to fundamentally change its law.
Judicial hegemony has replaced the public's right to decide important moral questions, he said.
Instead, he said that politics has been injected in large doses to the process of nominating and confirming federal judges.
Noting that the Senate confirmed his nomination by a 98 to nothing vote, Scalia said, you couldn't get a judge with my views confirmed to the Court of Appeals today, much less Supreme Court.
He said code words such as mainstream and moderate are now used to describe liberal judicial nominees.
What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution?
Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say.
What is a moderate interpretation of the Constitution?
Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say.
Scalia brought three speeches.
He opened his remarks by saying, I brought three speeches with me here and I decided to give the most provocative one because this seems to be too happy a crowd.
Good.
Anyway, you you compare the two.
You compare Ginsberg or Breyer and any of the rest of them are talking about we strive for fairness and egalitarianism, and we will fetch all four credits of the world to find it because we can't find it here.
Compare that to how Scalia interprets his job as a judge, and I think you can easily conclude which is the better model of the two.
Just see this story out of the New York Daily News.
Crayons, snacks, and HIV.
Starting Monday, kindergartners are going to be taught about HIV.
Along with the ABC's kindergartners will now learn about HIV.
Beginning Monday, kindergartners in public schools will be told that HIV is a germ and not easy to get.
The kids also will learn that HIV could lead to AIDS, which is hard to get well from.
According to the city's new HIV AIDS curriculum changes are required by a law.
State law, but some parents and teachers fear that kindergartners are too young to talk about the deadly disease.
I don't think it's appropriate.
It's scary for kids in kindergarten, said a Manhattan mother.
His daughter attends kindergarten at public school 166 on the upper west side.
Upper West Side, I would think this is I'd be ideal for them.
How do you talk about age without talking about sex and drugs?
She asked.
Oh, that's easy.
Blame Bush.
Blame Reagan.
Reagan didn't care about it.
Go back to the 80s and blame Reagan for it.
You know, what did you go to kindergarten, Mr. Snurley?
I w I went to kindergarten.
I got to think of what did I do there.
You know, I I I went I went kindergarten that it's a long time ago.
What are you, four or five when you're in kindergarten, five years old?
I remember taking a lot of naps.
Uh running around with the building blocks and so forth.
Basically, it was just a place for my mom to get some free time, get me out of the house.
That's it it is true.
They made you sit down for a now.
Sit down and learn to take directions.
They made you behave.
And when they sat us down, I can tell you this, they didn't teach me about gongria.
That didn't happen.
I actually had a health teacher pronounce it that way, folks.
I didn't learn about gongria till I was a sophomore in high school, health class.
Gongaria.
Uh this is, you know, these these are the same people sitting around.
Our children are growing up too fast.
We must flow down.
Now they want to just throw all this stuff at them and scare the hell out of them.
You know, this is this is just this this law is all about taking the opportunity of these kids being in kindergarten and making nice little liberals out of them.
It's just no question about it.
It can be no other reason.
Especially when you talk about New York.
We'll be back in just a second.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Joan in Tucson, Arizona.
You're next.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk with you.
Thank you.
I wanted to discuss this uh bill in the Senate committee sponsored by McCain and Kennedy, which they're calling a guest worker program, but is really uh if you read Define Print, it's an amnesty program because it puts illegals on the fast track to citizenship.
Yep, yep.
I'm very concerned about this.
Uh McCain, you know, we have John Kyle here, thank God, but then we also have McCain, and I'm just I just I think that everybody should be aware of this bill so they can contact their senators and and put the pressure on them against just horrible.
Here is a companion uh story to this.
Uh House members warned Senate leaders yesterday they'll oppose any immigration legislation that goes beyond tightening border security and enforcing current immigration laws.
Unfortunately, who we have grave concerns about several of the proposals which have been presented to your committee.
The 70 Republicans and one Democrat wrote in a letter to Arlan Specter.
We're concerned that some of these proposals are fundamentally incompatible with the desire of the American public for real immigration reform and their clear opposition to reform proposals that amount to little more than thinly disguised attempts to provide amnesty.
And and it's uh there's a battle inside the Republican Party over the Democrats are hanging back just to see what happens.
Democrats don't care, they just see potential voters.
But the Dem the Republicans are actually in you know engaged in the issue and trying to come up with a solution.
But I'm glad that you I'm glad that you've spotted where Senator McCain is on this.
Oh, we all know most of us, I think, and most of us conservatives anyway in Arizona, we know we know what he is.
He can pretend to be conservative, but he's not.
Yeah, I know.
It's it's it's uh uh it's all gonna get flushed out, too, uh as as time goes on.
But I'm you know, folks, look, I I I really get trepidatious in talking this way to you sometimes because I'm Mr. Optimism, I'm Mr. Good Cheer, and I am, and I'm I'm still am, but there are just certain things that you can start to read the tea leaves on.
Like I know, I know that my taxes are not really ever going to come down significantly.
I just know this.
I'm 55, I've had the dream since I was twenty.
I know it's not gonna happen.
I'm gonna keep fighting for it, and the way I'm going to get around it is keep earning more money.
Uh when it comes to uh this immigration business, starting to read the tea leaves here.
Now you need to ask yourself something.
And I'm serious.
I'm dead serious about this.
Why, when you raised hell about the ports deal, did they listen to you and they're not listening to you on immigration?
In fact, I was reading who was it, um Mental Block.
It was a journalist, a columnist.
It might have been Fred Barnes.
Not Fred Barnes, might have been I don't.
There's the the Washington conservative punditry doesn't think immigration's a big problem.
They think it's just jingoism.
They just think people are upset about it for no reason.
It's a cyclical issue that'll it comes and goes.
We've always argued about immigration.
But just ask yourselves, your your elected officials know full well how you all feel about it, and they're ignoring you.
Why do they ignore you on this and they couldn't wait to implement your desires when it came to the port deal?
Quick time out, back with more seriously.
You ask yourself give me your answer on Monday, a little pop quiz.
Back after this.
This poor guy that's been holding on the whole show, folks, and he wanted to talk about tort reform.
And I'm out of time, so I I told Brett, uh, official screener of calls to say, look, tell the guy he'll believe this.
Tell the guy that I thought I took his call, and I thought it was pretty good.
Um I thought Ray Davies was dead today, and I was wrong about that.
And I gotta find out that still is that still has me puzzled.
Well, we'll got the guy's number.
We'll call him on uh on Monday.
Tort reference another thing that's never gonna change.
I'm just kidding.
I'm just trying to stay in character today.
I I hope you people have a wonderful weekend.
I plan on it.
And uh, if I can find my way back to the complex on Monday, I'll I'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection