All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
May 1, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily and relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
By the way, still waiting on the latest opinion audit from the Sullivan Group in Sacramento, so we still go by the old opinion audit result documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
It's tough to move that up.
You got to be right a lot to move it up even of a tenth of a point, but we keep plugging away.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
One more economic story here.
This is about, this is from Saturday in the Washington Post.
Economic growth surges to 4.8%.
GDP posts fastest climb in two and a half years.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called the report cold comfort.
Cold comfort to working Americans faced with the reality of struggling to pay their bills.
I was telling some people the other night, I had a prominent Democrat, not a prominent elected Democrat, but sort of a reforming Democrat moving from left to right, now stuck interestingly in the center, and said, if you had a chance to talk to Democrat policymakers, what would you advise them?
And I said, well, I do this every day on the radio, but they won't listen.
And I said, for the life of me, when things are going well, why in the world you want to try to convince people they're not is beyond me, rather than trying to get involved so you can take credit for it.
Vast majority of people respond far more favorably to inspiration and optimism, high expectations, than they do all this pessimism and doom and gloom.
Why do you want to have everybody that votes for you, believes in you depressed?
I said, look at the war.
We're the United States of America.
We're going to win the war in Iraq.
We're going to win the war on terror.
Why wouldn't you want to be on the winning side?
Why, as a party, do you insist on investing in defeat?
I know why.
I mean, if that's what you think the route to power is and getting it back, but it literally makes no sense.
So here comes Nancy Pelosi in the midst of all of this good economic news, saying that this is little comfort for most Americans who can't pay their bills.
It just, it's, it's a, it's mind-boggling.
It's not working for them.
That's the thing.
They think it is.
They're looking at Bush's approval number at 33.
Ha ha ha ha.
They rub their hands in glee and they say, we own it now.
We've won the House.
We'll get the Senate and we'll get the White House in 08.
And they simply don't understand that Bush's numbers are down largely due to things not because of the Democrats, but gas prices are not helping and there's some other things.
A lot of people on the right that are upset with Bush on immigration.
Nobody ever talks about his approval numbers being down because he has fallen out with some Republicans over issues.
One of the points, I want to address something that was, before we go back to the audio sound bites, the previous caller in the last hour said that the oil supply in this country is finite.
And I'm not so sure that it is.
You can find enough research and data to suggest that oil is still being produced and made.
And even if it isn't, there is so much of it in places that we don't yet have the technology to get it, that it's not finite, that there are hundreds of years of oil left.
If it can be taken out of the ground, and some scientists believe that oil is renewing itself over periods of time.
But the whole notion that oil is a fossil fuel, I don't dispute that.
But remember when I was in school, I was in the 50s and 60s, I was told, we were all taught in my classes, that oil came from dinosaurs.
I kid you not.
Oil is what's left of the dinosaur community, as the left loves to say, the dinosaur community, or the dinosaur culture, or whatever.
And of course, if that's the case, there'd be a finite amount of oil because there were only so many dinosaurs.
But I didn't know that dinosaurs roamed Saudi Arabia.
But of course, Saudi Arabia might not have been a desert when the dinosaurs roamed.
Who knows?
So I don't know that anybody really knows.
Well, the oil companies can tell you where it comes from.
And you can read certain things and learn that some oil scientists and geologists think that it's still in the process of being created.
And it would stand to reason.
I mean, the amount of oil the world uses every day, gasoline, it's incomprehensible.
And we're going to need even more.
You've got China and India growing and entering the consumer market, placing demand pressures and so forth.
New York Times yesterday.
This is amazing.
Saddam Hussein misunderstood.
Leave it to the New York Times to come to the aid of Saddam Hussein.
And remember, George W. Bush is a horrid, nasty, lying killer.
Bush lied.
Bush equals Hitler.
Bush murders.
Saddam Hussein misunderstood.
In the months leading up to the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein did try to cooperate with United Nations inspectors, a decision that paradoxically helped convince the West that he was hiding weapons of mass destruction.
That's one conclusion in Saddam's Delusions, The View from the Inside by Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray in an article in Foreign Affairs.
This is the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's based on the material from the Iraqi Perspectives Project, a post-war examination by the American Armed Forces into the character of Mr. Hussein's regime.
Now, I'm not going to read the whole story, but you understand now the point here.
Oh, look at it.
Life is just so unfair.
Saddam was actually trying to be cooperative, and it got him in trouble.
He was just trying to help the inspectors, and now he's in the dock, facing trial, having lost his country.
Hey, if they can write glowing things about Fidel Castro and his island paradise nation, they can certainly come to the defense of Saddam Hussein.
Let's see.
Give me Joe.
I want Joe in Ramsey, New Jersey.
Joe, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
It's great to have you with us.
How are you doing, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
I just wanted to say about the Exxon's record profits.
Everybody is forgetting that Exxon is probably, I think they're the largest company in the world.
Not for long, sir.
Not for long, because we're going to take them out.
Dick Durbin's going to take them out.
But, I mean, they spent $100 billion to make that eight, which everybody's forgetting about.
You know, I mean, they spend so much money.
Like right now in Jersey, I got a thing for you because the ethanol.
Exxon right now has to change every drop bucket at every gas station.
Now, there's on mine alone, there's eight of them because the water affects the ethanol fuel so much.
Right, you can't have water in there because it'll reduce the octane.
Well, actually, and the ethanol also soaks up the water, it'll separate out of the gasoline.
Right.
You can't have that happen.
So, Exxon is probably spending here alone over $300,000 or $400,000 just to do that at one gas station.
And they're doing it across the entire state of New Jersey.
All because of ethanol, which, you know, you have to burn fuel to make the ethanol.
It's made out of instills.
I know.
The ethanol is a whole other ethanol.
I don't want to make them mad in Iowa, so they're popping on the $8 billion, but they make 75% of their money outside the United States anyway.
It's not like they ripped off the American people to make this money.
No, they don't.
They ripped off the American people to make part of it.
Oh, well, yeah, all right.
No, I'm playing the devil's advocate.
Yeah, I get it.
I'm not, you know, but I like Lee Raymond.
Everybody's upset about Lee Raymond making $51 million salary.
That's not going to affect my life one way or the other.
I mean, the man made $8.8 billion in a quarter.
You know what?
If I was paying him, he could have the $51 million.
Somebody's going to make me that kind of money.
I can relate to that.
You know what I mean?
And I just don't understand what the problem is.
Everybody in the world is worried about what somebody else did or what somebody else is making instead of worrying about themselves.
I'll tell you, look, Joe, you know, we're working on this.
It's going to be a long time to roll this back.
We've had 50 years of this class envy garbage ever since FDR, the New Deal, and the whole creation of the entitlement mentality because the fundamental element of that is class envy.
And the left has simply looked at numbers.
There are far more people who are not wealthy than there are people who are wealthy.
And so you lay claim to standing with the oppressed, the average, the ordinary, the middle class, the invisible, the hungry, the thirsty.
And you're taking a shotgun approach.
You're getting at larger numbers there.
I mean, if you get everybody who's not rich voting for you, if the other party gets everybody who is rich voting for them, they still can't win.
The numbers just don't add up.
So this has been a pretty strategically designed plan, and it's had 50 years, actually longer than that now, to take root.
And there is a natural, because of this, a natural instinctive reaction to big business, evil big business, or wealthy people, or what have you.
You go back to Dick Gephardt, wealthy people simply won life's lottery.
There's nothing special about them.
There's nothing unique about them.
They don't work any harder than anybody else.
They just got lucky in life.
And so they only need so much.
And Dick Gephardt and other Democrats are always around to tell us how much is enough that what they need.
I mean, that's what underlines Durbin's approach to Exxon.
It's just outrageous.
He's just, he's into pure pandering and trying to live off of this class envy that has been created.
But we're making headway against it.
But it's going to take a long time.
Like you said, you could go confiscate all the profits from Exxon or from Lee Raymond, and it wouldn't affect an individual because the money is not going to go back to individuals.
And even if it did, it's not enough to matter.
And so the whole point, it's like raising taxes on the rich.
Democrats love to say, we need to raise taxes on the rich.
It's unfair.
Those people have more than they need.
And people go, yeah, yeah.
What's the benefit to them?
Nothing.
Little Schaddenfreud.
They get to revel in what they think is the unhappiness and the misery of people who have to pay higher taxes.
But does it add a dime to their back pockets or their economic opportunity?
No, probably takes away from it because there are fewer jobs in such circumstances.
So the Democrats have loved, liberals have loved over the years, not really improving people's lives, but making them feel better when other people's lives are punished.
And it doesn't accomplish anything.
And it's a politics of fear, politics of hate.
And look at you're in New Jersey.
You're a sure sign this is coming around.
Not too long ago, you would have been after Lee Raymond's scalp, especially as an Exxon station owner.
I got to run a little long here.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic, first and second-hand premium cigar smoke, Rush Limbaugh executing assigned host duties flawlessly because I am your highly trained broadcast specialist.
All right, Mike in Jacksonville, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Rush Limbaugh, oppressor white male dittos.
16-year listener, first-time caller.
Thank you, sir.
Great to have you.
The Mexican boycott is working.
I got right through to you today.
Well, I don't think it affects us.
Well, I don't know.
Hey, Saturday was for Sheehan.
Sunday was for Sudan.
Monday was for Mexico.
Is Tuesday for Tunisia or Thailand?
I can't remember.
We'll find out which.
I don't understand what's going on here.
George Clooney and Barack Obama were marching yesterday saying it's okay for the United States to send troops to save Africans, but it wasn't okay for us to send troops to save Iraqis?
You know, it is interesting, isn't it?
It's a fascinating thing.
Clooney is, in addition to being about 5'5, is all over this Sudan issue and Darfur.
There's another genocide going on there.
You know, none of these protests occurred when the same thing was happening in Rwanda when Bill Clinton was the president.
And Clinton said, well, you know, I really am sorry for that.
I've apologized a whole bunch of people around the world for what U.S. has done to them in our history.
And I apologize for Rwanda.
I should have been there, but I had some problems, but I'm sorry.
And oh, whoa, what a guy he cares.
Now, of course, Bush, a heathen, on the same day that we have a story, Saddam Hussein, Kama, misunderstood.
Here are these leftist wackos.
There is something in the air.
There's something in the water.
I don't know what it is that's causing all these number of protests, even school kids protesting for the return of recess in Illinois.
But as the specifics of Darfur, let me get the tell you what's happening there in terms of the specific hang on here,
folks, in terms of the specific grievance that this about 180,000 people have been killed and 3 million driven from their homes by fighting in the western Sudanese region since February of 2003 when rebels from black farming villages took up against what they consider discrimination and opposition oppression by the Arab-dominated government.
So here, here we essentially, what you have are, when you look at Hollywood, Hollywood liberals basically, they trace their, you can take it farther back than this, but most of the modern era Hollywood left considers themselves to be who they are because of the U.S. civil rights movement.
That was their cause.
They glommed onto it, and they see, once again, oppression here of blacks, be it in Africa.
We were talking about South Africa last week and how we had to go stop that with economic boycott and sanctions and this sort of thing.
And that country's in worse shape than it's ever been in because you had basically a Marxist-oriented government that has taken over.
Now you have, when they say Arab-dominated, I wonder why they didn't use the word Islamic.
I wonder why they didn't use the word Islamic when talking about the government of Sudan.
Because they are.
Remember, Sudan is the country that offered us Osama bin Laden a couple of three times when Der Schlichmeister was the president.
So Robert Mugabe was doing this kind of thing in Zimbabwe, the former Rhodesia, and Hollywood left didn't show up.
Nobody cared what Zimbabwe was doing.
He was literally stealing property from the white population there.
So I think this fits right into this.
Everybody has a template.
The left has several templates.
The template is racism, racial discrimination, oppression of minorities.
And so in Iraq, to answer your question, well, they're going to stop Saddam because Saddam's skin color was the same as those he was murdering.
But here, you have, once again, oppressed minorities being murdered and wiped out in what is being said to be a genocide.
So many things recycle and repeat themselves.
It was Somalia.
Remember, New York Times put that picture on a front page of a starving little boy with insects flying all over, and that was it.
The rallying cry and they come, we've got to do something.
So George Bush 41 sends a peacekeeping force, meals on wheels, essentially, over there.
And the warlord, what was his name?
Mohamed Farah Adid, Sahib Skyhook, refused to let the food get to where it was intended.
We ended up sending some Rangers over there.
We ended up in full-fledged warfare, took some casualties, and we pulled out.
And that's the incident that Osama bin Laden cites as telling him that Americans can't take casualties.
They won't put up with it, especially if they see him on TV.
They'll chicken out and withdraw.
And he admitted this in an ABC report with the former reporter for ABC, John Miller.
So I think this whole thing is, I think it's the bottom line is here, this is just the latest opportunity to point fingers of blame at George W. Bush and to point out how he doesn't care, and especially when it's black people, black minority being oppressed and wiped out.
And Bush doesn't give a rat's rear end.
He couldn't care less.
We can't trust Bush.
That's all this is.
Well, I know that UN was supposed to be dealers for you, but UN can't do diddly squat.
They haven't.
Hell, the UN peacekeepers are getting into sex problems over there in this country with underage girls.
And so, well, I just got it.
I have just read it enough to know it's scathing, but I haven't read the whole thing.
Anyway, that's what we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
The EIB Netherlands.
Here's Kennon Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Hello, Ken.
Welcome, sir.
Mega Ditto Zare Rush.
Thank you.
Yesterday on Beat the Depressed, Russert asked the dumbest question I think that I and the secretary have ever heard.
He asked the secretary about, he said the supply is down and the demand for fuel is up.
Is that a justification, if I remember right, that's what he asked?
He said, is that a justification for prices being higher?
And the secretary.
And the secretary looked at him with just the dumbest, I mean, just couldn't believe that he was asked that question.
And he just looked at him and something like, did you just ask that question?
The secretary was great.
He hit the ball right out of the park.
It was the slowest curveball I have seen in a long time.
We have that soundbite.
As a matter of fact, I wanted to use your call as a segue.
Here is the question that Russert asked the Energy Secretary, Samuel Bodman.
Secretary Bodman, if demand is up, but supply is down, why are the profits so high?
Now, the key to his question is: if the supply is down, how can profits be so high if demand is up, but supply is down?
So, his question is rooted in the notion that there is a shortage, which there isn't.
Here's Bodman's answer, and it's actually an interchange between the two of them.
For that reason.
Now, think about that.
Play it out.
Demand is up, correct?
Right?
Right.
So you've got more demand, you're going to force price up.
You've got limited supply, and you're going to have.
But that's a decision by the oil companies.
No, it is not.
That is a decision.
Oil is traded every minute of every day.
And it's traded basically 24 by 7.
And it is determined in marketplaces in New York and London and Tokyo, all over the world.
The oil companies do not determine the price of oil.
Exactly.
I tried to tell you people this last week.
Whatever the price of oil is, is being determined by whoever can get whatever somebody will pay for it.
OPEC, the producers, all these nations that have oil.
But the futures market, the commodities market, is where the future price is bid up and down.
And I'll tell you, if you want to know who's responsible more than anybody else right now for the high price of oil, it's this lunatic running Iran, this Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Every time this guy threatens to nuke Israel or to start the end of the West by wiping out the United States and Great Britain, the futures market.
Oh my God, we might.
Shortage might interrupt the supply line.
Bam, price goes up.
Panic city sits in.
Old Mahmoud knows what he's doing.
He's got a rotten economy in Iran.
Things are not going well.
There's unrest among the citizenry there.
Not that they can do anything about it except die.
But nevertheless, there's unrest.
They've spending so much money on their nuke program and other things related to military that they're an oil producer.
Do you know that they have to import their gasoline?
Did you know Iraq, I'm sorry, Iran doesn't have a refinery.
Look at all the oil they put.
They are a net importer of gasoline.
I just find it stunning.
But regardless, this guy's got at least 10 bucks of the oil price himself on his hands simply because of the threats that he mounts against Israel.
And he's not through.
And he's been quiet for a week, and you see the price is dropping.
It's now below 75, down around $70, $71.
And he'll open his mouth at some point again, and bam, price will come back up.
So that's one of the factors here.
But this is sort of a comical exchange where Russert says, well, Bodmin says, well, you've got limited supply.
You're going to have, but that's a decision by the oil companies.
And Bodmin, that's where he can't believe what he heard.
It's not.
It's in the silicon.
Oil is true.
But this does reveal a misunderstanding a lot of people have.
The oil companies determine how much oil they're going to put in the market, how much gasoline in order to get the price up.
They're going to keep it from you.
They're artificially driving prices high by purposely keeping oil away from you and gas station away from your state, gasoline, away from your gas station.
And this is a common opinion people have of big business that they're evil and they will screw anybody to make a profit.
You know, big drug, big pharmaceutical, if they could get away with it, they'd kill every patient.
They'd kill if they could make a profit.
There are liberals that believe that.
And you say, wait a minute, if they kill every patient, who's going to buy the?
Oh, yeah.
Well, they don't care when people die.
They care more about profits, so forth.
This is part of an old class of the argument I was telling you about in the last half hour.
That there are certain things in society that are evil to the left.
You look at their enemies list, and it makes total sense.
Dimitri in Houston, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega, former communist Mega Didos here, Rush.
How are you today?
Well, always love having former communists on the program.
Former, former.
I think Khrushchev was also misunderstood when he hammered the United Nations table with his shoe.
He was misunderstood when he hammered the shoe to you in.
He said, We will bury you, we will bury you.
Yes, yeah.
Well, so the Saddam misunderstood.
Saddam was also today's article in the New York Times.
Oh, yes, yeah.
The Saddam was oh, oh, I see where you're making a joke.
Khrushchev was misunderstood in Saddam.
Yeah, he's only trying to help his people.
I get it.
I get it.
Okay.
The reason I called Rush is the symbolism, the symbolic demonstration today on May 1st that is happening all over the United States.
And I believe that, of course, today there's also the same celebration going on in Havana Cuba.
Fidel Castro is probably sitting on a big porch and the masses are marching.
And the symbolism in this country is that we have a mass of people, 14 or whatever million people, that certain people are in, they have the goal to unite these people who disagree with the ruling government or ruling party.
And by uniting these people, they will directly be in favor to the second party that is not in power.
And there's a lot of symbolic things.
Basically, the proletariat cannot live the same way.
And the ruling czar is the evil.
And the ruling party is the one that it's draining us down.
And we are in the streets of Los Angeles and New York.
We have people marching, and the only thing that they're not screaming is Vence Ramos and Libertad.
You know, this is actually, Dimitri, I love when former oppressed citizens of communist countries call this program.
And it happens frequently.
You get a perspective of the truth that people like us who've never really been oppressed can't relate to.
We can try to understand it, we can't relate to it.
But he makes an excellent point here that these protests, and the numbers are starting to get pretty big here as we watch it take place on television.
These pictures will be seen on Castro-controlled media in Cuba for whatever percentage of the population owns a television set and in Venezuela as well.
And he's exactly right.
This is nothing but great propaganda for people around the world who want to tell their citizens what a rotten place America is and how the oppressed here are living lives of misery and finally they're simply erupting and they're not taking anymore.
And they got these millions of pictures to show their citizens.
At the same time, make them, Chavez, Castro, whoever else, look good.
This is pure propaganda.
There's no mistaking that that's one of the purposes here.
I mean, when you have groups like Answer and Code Pink and others that are actually more involved with organizing today's events than immigration groups are, it's just the latest attempt to take a shot at America.
And there's an interesting piece today by Thomas Lifson, one of my favorite blogs, The American Thinker.
And Dimitri, I'm glad you mentioned this because I had to retrieve it from the stack.
Venezuela's Chavez and the Day Without Immigrants.
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela doesn't lack for ambition.
Sitting atop billions of petrodollars, closely allied with Castro, Chavez is already sticking his nose in the business of other Western hemisphere nations, supporting leftist candidates, Marxist rebels aimed at topping America, and buying far more arms than would be necessary to defend his borders.
There is every reason to suspect that Hugo Chavez may even be playing a planning and supporting role in today's day without an immigrant demonstrations.
Chavez has never shied away from interference in American domestic politics.
Working with Democrat congressmen from Massachusetts, he launched a publicity stunt that was the sale of home heating oil at a discount last winter.
He's building a base of client groups and politicians in the U.S., allies to help him smooth down objections to his other activities.
Investigators have barely begun to scratch the surface of his political involvements within our own borders.
There's even more reason than mere concordance of goals to suspect a serious connection between Chavez and the demonstration's leaders.
The website maintained by a national immigrant solidarity network coalition whose members' names are not readily visible.
The website of the May Day Without an immigrant protest in Los Angeles contains its very own Hugo Chavez Newswire of sorts, a string of news events centered around Chavez's Caracas-based World Social Forum in January.
And it's got places where you can click on it.
And if you do, we'll link to this American thinker piece so you can do all the clicking on this website that you want.
That's a very long piece.
It's very compelling to say that Chavez may have a role in this, not only paying for some of it, but organizing it as well.
Dimitri, it's an excellent point because these pictures are going to provide a great propaganda opportunity for leaders around the world who want to paint a picture of the United States that's untrue.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue before you know it.
And we are back.
Folks, before we wrap it up today, I want to return to the subject that I opened the program with today and intended always to mention this twice today because there's been a follow-up AP story to the events of Friday.
I think the first thing I want to start out with is on Friday afternoon, late, sometime between 6 and 6.30, headlines began to scream across American television networks that I had been arrested on drug fraud charges.
And we didn't know where this had come from.
I had just returned from the jail where I voluntarily processed, went in and booked because we had reached a settlement in this case.
It's now over with the state attorney's office.
One little charge of doctor shopping.
I plead not guilty.
It's called pretrial diversion or intervention.
It's an agreement that after 18 months of model citizen behavior, the charge is dropped.
It's never prosecuted.
The case is over.
The operative words are not guilty.
Now, I don't know where this arrested business came from because it's a semantic thing, but the word arrested conjures up cops peeling up with sirens and gumball machines going nuts and knocking on a door and knocking it down and coming in with leg irons and shackles and handcuffs and dragging the perp suspect out to the paddy wagon and onto the jail.
And that's what a lot of people thought had happened.
In addition to that, a lot of people assumed this was something new.
This headline screaming across television, Rush Limbaugh, arrested drug fraud probe.
And not realizing it was just a continuation of this ordeal that's been going on since November of 2003.
It's two years and seven months.
So we traced it was the AP that somehow got that headline.
They said somebody at the sheriff's department was telling them that.
And it may have been true.
And I mean, the word arrest, this case has never been about the law.
And the word arrest did conjure up what some people wanted it to conjure up.
But the bottom line is this.
Settled the case, went over at 4 o'clock on Friday after we did the leukemia curathon.
I booked voluntarily, got a great-looking mug shut, did the fingerprints on a machine, shook hands with a lot of people over there.
They were very nice.
A couple of people came up and talked to me privately about a couple of things, was out of there in an hour, came back here.
We were preparing our press release for this when this headline hit.
So we got in, we started fast action, got our press release out, started getting on the phone with people to try to turn it around.
We got a second wave of stories on the AP that said, Limbaugh surrenders and drug fraud process.
So we got the word arrested out of there.
But this was all because the media had hopes.
A bunch of people in this country had hopes that this case would result in something other than how it has ended.
And they just, because their expectations were raised very high.
There were all kinds of reports early on of drug rings and money laundering and so forth.
And you had a typical panting with bated breath and high expectations out there.
And of course, the operative words here are not guilty.
I pled not guilty to a single charge.
It was a deal that we made with the state attorney's office.
We think it's a good deal for us, and it's a good deal for him.
It ends this.
And I've spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars with lawyers fighting this all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court talking about it on the radio program.
This ending is the equivalent of going to court and beating it without another year, 18 months, and litigation and so forth.
Now, the AP story out today came out, when it was this posted at 12.42 this afternoon.
Headline, Limbaugh facing drug tests under deal.
And they also make a big deal about how I can't have a gun.
Well, I don't have a gun.
I've never owned a gun.
Have no need for a gun where I live.
We use money.
Just, just, just, but, but the, no, no, I don't have a gun.
I have no intention of buying a gun.
I'm not against them, as you know.
Yes, the NRA gave me a gift rifle, but it's not, it doesn't function.
And I've got it in a display case in New York.
But look, the bottom line here is that this agreement, the pretrial intervention agreement, which was filed today, which is the nuts and bolts of this, not what happened on Friday.
The nuts and bolts of this is I did not admit guilt to anything.
That's the story.
I'm not surprised that that's not what the media is picking up because that's not what they wanted to pick up.
Newsweek, strangely enough, is the best story on this that there has been done by anybody ever in the mainstream media.
And it's linked on our website at rushlimbaugh.com.
So they focused on random drug tests.
I've been doing that for two years and seven months.
Random drug tests are part of ongoing recovery and treatment.
I look forward to them.
They're going to continue.
I would have continued this whether it was required in this agreement or not.
As far as the guns concerned, listen to this.
The state attorney, what is the spokesman, they were alleging 2,000 painkillers prescribed by four doctors and so forth.
The single charge, this is AP near the end of the story, single charge only alleges that Limbaugh legally obtained about 40 pills, according to the state attorney's spokesman.
He wouldn't elaborate or explain why prosecutors scaled back the case.
If you're a lawyer, I don't want to say it, but if you're a lawyer, you'll understand why they scaled back the case.
So basically here, two years and seven months and the money and so forth and all that at the time, over 40 pills.
Meanwhile, today, Stephen Baldwin, noted Hollywood actor, caught possessing cocaine last April.
They decided not to prosecute him.
And that's generally what happens in all these cases.
But I wanted to straighten this.
There was no arrest.
There was no new charge, no new case.
Case closed.
Story's over.
I won.
Operative words not guilty.
Thanks to all of you for sticking by me and hanging in.
By the way, it was Daniel Baldwin, not Stephen Baldwin.
When Keith Richards fell out of a palm tree.
▲
Export Selection