All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
June 16, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know, I know, just looking for something here, and I wanted to do it on, well, not on your time, ladies and gentlemen.
And I found it.
I welcome you back to the broadcast excellence of the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open live Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
On Friday, when we go to the phones, the show is yours.
Hardly any dictatorial control over the content of phone callers on Friday.
Now, it's not true Monday through Thursday.
As you know, I'm a benevolent dictator engaged in a benevolent tyranny.
There is no First Amendment on this program.
Nobody has the right to talk.
And even more than that, nobody has the right to be heard except me.
You have to earn it.
All right, let me just cut to the chase on all this death statistic stuff.
You don't have to spend time calculating the demographic age of men between 18 and 29 in America versus the number of soldiers 18 to 29 in Iraq to figure out which is more at risk.
It's obvious a male 18, 29.
If you just look at the murder numbers, a male 18 to 29 is at greater risk for losing life in this country than in Iraq if you're wearing a uniform.
Statistics bear it out.
Now, there are places you can go to this country and ensure your safety a little bit better than others.
Avoid cities, major cities in blue states or blue dots in red states.
And you're improving your odds.
But there's, despite all this, folks, there is one place in this country which, if you're there, you are at far greater risk than any American soldier anywhere in the world today, including Vietnam, and that is the womb of an American woman.
Uniformed soldiers in Iraq are much safer than a baby in an American woman's womb, particularly if that American woman happens to be in a planned parenthood office.
If you wear the uniform of the United States military in Iraq, you have a fairly good chance of walking out alive.
That's not so if you are in a planned parenthood clinic in the womb of an American woman who happens to be inside the clinic.
Facts are facts, and you don't hear the Democrats concerned about that at all.
You don't hear the American left concerned about that at all.
I have the results of a study, or the story here from Al Reuters.
It's in USA Today.
To me, this is, you know, I've been around a long time.
This attack on Walmart, big discount, is unprecedented.
I know there have been attacks on big tobacco and big drug and big pharmaceutical and so forth.
I shouldn't say it's unprecedented.
But get this.
The Economic Policy Institute, which EPI, it's a bunch of libs, went out and they did a study.
And they have concluded that Walmart could significantly increase employee wage benefits and wages without raising prices.
And they could still earn a healthy profit.
be a smaller profit, but they could still do it.
The Economic Policy Institute study comes as the world's biggest retailer faces a barrage of criticism from labor unions, politicians, and community activists who say it pays poverty-level wages and drives competitors out of business.
All right, let's examine that paragraph.
Who says this?
Comes as the world's biggest retailer faces a barrage of criticism from labor unions, politicians, and community.
Could it be that the criticism's all wet?
One of the things about the Drive-By Media template is that no matter what they're reporting on, the critics get as much, if not more, weight, particularly if the drive-by media is reporting on an enemy and Walmart's an enemy.
And so the critics, whether they're right or wrong, that's what keeps loony tune organizations like Center for the Science and Public Interest in Business.
They are critics.
They criticize the accepted norms.
They criticize these, and so they become critics and they become just as legitimate as the business they are criticizing.
They become just as legitimate in this case as Walmart.
And the paragraph that I read tends to portray these critics as outnumbering the customers and employees who love Walmart.
I saw this headline today.
Walmart could raise pay and keep prices low.
Study SIPS.
Who's the EPI?
Why don't we get a report on who they are, what their agenda is?
Oh, no, can't do that.
Why, they're liberals.
They can't possibly have an agenda.
They're just good people.
See, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, it'd be over for Walmart.
This stuff would go out there.
It'd be in the news vacuum, and it would survive as the primary and conventional mode of thought about Walmart.
But now, of course, we're here, and that is not the case.
Interesting story in the San Francisco Chronicle today by Mark Sandelau, the Washington Bureau Chief.
Divisions among Democrats test Pelosi as leader.
Division?
Well, I thought they were all singing kumbaya together with the new plan.
I thought this new, what is the name of the plan?
New America.
Well, I forget it.
I read it yesterday, too.
I don't even remember the name of it.
What's the name of it?
No, no, no.
They've got a name, Theme for America, Plan for America.
I forget what it is.
And I can't remember it.
It's so unmemorable.
But anyway, I thought they were unified.
I thought they were saying they were unified.
Let me give you some details of this story and then tell you what this is really all about.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's ability to hold her caucus together is being tested as internal party disputes over war ethics and its own leadership erupt into public view.
Pelosi has presided over a period of remarkable unity among members of a party not traditionally known for its harmony.
Well, it's a crock.
But there are more important things in this piece.
Several factors have brought attention to party differences.
Members flexing their muscles during this week's debate over Iraq.
Black members complaining about efforts to oust Congressman William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana.
And a surprise bid for the number two House leadership slot by a Pelosi ally.
That would be John Murthy.
Pelosi has personally involved herself in each of these disputes, and outside of Capitol Hill has so far kept them relatively low-profile affairs.
Whether the episodes reflect a growing confidence among Democrats that they will be the majority party next year or the news media's obsession with exposing conflict.
What?
They admit to that in this piece?
The attention has become a distraction for Democrats intent on presenting a unified front.
The front page of The Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper, quoted a Democratic aide describing Wednesday's weekly closed-door party meeting as a circus as members fought over who should control time on the House floor during the Iraq debate.
What is that, Stevenson?
Sometimes we'll send in the clowns.
Nope, they're already here.
We don't need to send in the clowns.
They are the Democratic caucus.
Pelosi, who has drawn her strength as a leader in large part from her ability to keep Democrats together, they're embarrassed of her.
This is all smoke.
Let's see.
What's this?
In a closed-door meeting leading up to Thursday's meeting, tempers reportedly flared as Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat L.A., demanded that she and other members of the Out of Iraq caucus be given a prominent role in the debate, insisting they had been leaders on the issue.
Pelosi snapped back, we're all leaders, according to one participant in the meeting who asked not to be identified, further angering some anti-war members.
When you have somebody saying that we're all leaders, ladies and gentlemen, it means that there aren't any leaders.
It means that no one is a leader.
The out-of-Iraq caucus ought to be renamed the Out of Their Minds Caucus because the Out of Iraq caucus is going to take the Democratic Party down even more embarrassing.
Here's the bottom line.
Make no mistake about this, folks.
I'm telling you here and now on June 16th, 2006, these stories, and this is not the first, it won't be the last, questioning Nancy Pelosi's leadership capabilities are simply laying the groundwork for making certain she will not be named Speaker if the Democrats do take over the House of Representatives.
Because I will wager you that inside the so-called out-of-Iraq caucus and the Democrat caucus, period, there is mounting embarrassment every time she opens her mouth, such as the soundbite we had and played for you yesterday.
Mike, do you by any chance still have that soundbite?
Or could you get it?
I don't mean to find it right this minute since I've referenced it and people may not have heard it.
I'm wondering if we could dredge that up.
Anyway, we'll take a quick break.
We'll see if we can find it.
And if we find them, do the Kennedy sound bite and John Kelly.
Yeah, just do that whole little montage we put together yesterday.
We'll get to your phones right after this.
Stay with us, folks.
All right.
Speedy work by broadcast engineer.
Mike Mamon has produced the Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry bites.
Don't know if they're in that order, but I do want to start with Pelosi.
I got to remember the question.
She was on with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room earlier this week.
And the question was about the unity of the Democratic Party in Iraq on the issue of war in Iraq, except for Mrs. Clinton.
And the question's important here.
What was the question?
The question had to do with Mrs. Clinton, or did it have to do with unity in Iraq?
Because the question is important for this thing to sound even funnier than it really is.
Do you remember what the question was, Mr. Snerdley?
Yeah.
Yeah, let's listen to the bite, and then I probably will remember what the exact question was.
It goes by here pretty fast.
Well, exactly.
Yeah, no, I don't think in the House there isn't very much support.
I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is.
All right, that's what it was.
Support for the war in Iraq.
Support for the resolution.
Support for the war in Iraq among Democrats.
But you've got you and you, but Mrs. Clinton Wolf asked, where is the party really on this?
Well, exactly.
Yeah, no, I don't think in the House there isn't very much support.
I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is.
You tell me.
Country.
Enough needs to be done for the next two and a half weeks.
And we elect Mark Roosevelt as our governor.
And you reelect Kennedy in the United States Senate.
we're going to start on the 96 campaign to elect Bill Clinton as our re-elected mother nation.
I get the many licenses here.
Yeah, okay.
Now, you listen to that, Nancy Pelosi, and you tell me that when Democrats see and hear that, they don't cringe.
So I'm just telling you all these stories about Pelosi and the falling apart Democrat caucus and so forth.
They're setting the table.
If they are, if they do win back the House, which they won't, but if they, well, I think, well, if they lose, there's a definite goner.
If they lose.
I want to be here that morning.
Folks, because they think they've owned it already.
They lose.
It's going to be one of the funniest days that just and the weeks afterwards, you're going to have all these people's second and third command positions go nuts.
Howard Dean to history.
It'll be fun to watch.
Charles in Alexandria, Virginia.
You are next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Megan Didos from Virginia.
Thank you.
I was telling you a call screen earlier last night about 11.30 at night, I flicked on C-SPAN, and I caught Christopher Shays commenting on the end of the debate over the resolution today.
Yeah.
And he referenced the Revolutionary War and how at the time of the Revolutionary War, the country was divided, one-third for the war, one-third against, one-third kind of hung in the middle there, wasn't sure what they were going to do.
And his whole point about how, in the beginning, how it was a failure, how Washington lost a lot of the battles, and it wasn't looking good, and yet how Congress supported Washington, gave him the financial support and the authority to continue the war, and we won.
And how in that time, if we had had the same mindset that the Democrats and liberals have today about Iraq, we would very likely still be under British control because we would have cut and run and never finished the battle, never finished the Revolutionary War, and would have conceded to the British.
Wait, wait, wait.
Just, are you sure that was Christopher Shays?
Christopher Shays and another gentleman named Gomet, I believe his name was G-O-H-M-E-T-T.
It was about 11.30 last night on C-SPAN.
And I just sat there listening to him because he also referenced the Civil War and how Abraham Lincoln had a lot of failures and how in the second running for president, he even had a general run against him.
But yet he persevered and we won that war too.
Lincoln had to get struggling for generals until he found Ulysses S. Grant who said, I'll just keep following him until I burn him out.
But the history, like you said earlier today about the history, how Americans are ignorant of the history and how they buy into this whole liberal mindset of, oh, we know 2,500 dead.
It's a terrible thing we should yank and run away from Iraq.
I think they buy into it after five years of repeated pummeling.
I don't think they buy into it one or two news reports at a time or even a month at a time.
But five years of relentless pounding on this stuff, certainly three when it comes to Iraq, can have an effect when there is no historical context.
I'm still sitting here in apoplexy that Christopher Shay said this.
Well, that was my point, too, watching him.
That's why I stayed awake to really make sure I was seeing what I was seeing and hearing what I was hearing.
Well, I know he's been backing the Iraq action, but he's been whining about it the whole time, too.
See, this is the point.
I'm glad you told me this.
Because at 11.30 at night, I'm not watching Cease Man, and nobody I pay is.
Oh, wait.
Snerdley is, I take it.
Take it back.
But that'll just tell you.
And he is in a tight reelection battle in his district in Connecticut.
And he is a moderate Republican.
And if he's saying these things about the Civil War and about the Revolutionary War in an effort to provide historical context and being critical of the Democrats on this, it'll tell you what even his constituents in Connecticut think about this.
And that is a blue state.
Wow, that is profound.
I have another story.
Thank you, George.
I appreciate your patience holding on today.
There's another fascinating story from Al Reuters about Christopher Shays today.
The headline of the story is, Endangered Republicans Play Down Party Label.
Christopher Shays cites his differences with President Bush, produces a chart outlining his moderate voting record, and pledges his independence and party leaders in Congress.
His Connecticut colleague, Republican Representative Bob Simmons, Rob Simmons, says working with Democrats comes naturally in a district where voters favored Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam over Bush by 10 points in 2004.
For Shays and Simmons and other Republicans running for Congress in Democrat-leaning or swing districts in November, playing down their party label and playing up their independence has become a matter of political survival in a year when Bush can be a dirty word.
Here is Shays.
This would not even be a close election if George Bush was popular.
This would not even be a close election if there wasn't a war in Iraq.
This president isn't doing well, and that's hurting me, said Shays, who distances himself from Bush but enthusiastically supports the Iraq war.
Crying about Bush not being popular from a guy who's routinely distancing himself from Bush and doesn't want to be associated with him now wishes Bush were popular because he's in a tight race?
It's a child.
Acting like a baby in the crib.
Yes, I know.
We're back.
EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I found a question here for this Nancy Pelosi bite.
And it was from the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer on, I guess it was Wednesday.
And here was Wolf's question to Nancy Pelosi.
Murtha wants a redeployment over the next several months.
John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, wants a redeployment over the next several months.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, does not.
But you, Nancy Pelosi, are saying that Democrats and you are more in line with Murtha than with Senator Clinton.
Well, exactly.
Yeah, no, I don't think in the House, there isn't very much support.
I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is.
Yeah, no, you know what happened there?
The last thing she wanted to do was diss Hillary, but that's what she did.
Are you saying Democrats and you are more in line with Merthyr than with Senator.
Well, exactly.
I don't know what Mrs. Clinton's position is.
But we're in the House.
I'm just telling you, when Democrats see this, they hear this behind the closed doors in the cloakrooms and the various cauckey that they have.
You know darn well that they are not happy and that they are embarrassed.
Well, some of them sound as stupid as she, but they're not in the leadership.
She's out there saying we're all leaders, which means there isn't a leader.
Can you imagine what those leadership meetings are?
Would you have loved to have been in there when a congressional black caucus was talking to her about Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana?
Anyway, former President Bill Clinton praised evangelical Christians yesterday for their recent efforts on global warming and debt relief for poor nations and said he sees growing understanding between people of different faiths.
Clinton made the remarks.
By the way, understand that Clinton is thinking of buying a summer home in Colorado since he learned that 12-year-old girls can get married out there.
Clinton made the remarks while accepting an award from the Tannenbaum Center for interreligious understanding.
He said that as president, he had a consuming interest in the intersection of religion and politics.
This is pathological.
This is just pathological.
He'll praise.
You evangelicals don't get excited out there.
He's praising you today, but tomorrow he'll go somewhere else and he'll damn you.
Whatever it takes, whenever.
George in Windsor, Connecticut, welcome.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Yeah, just to coattail on the Connecticut politics.
You're right.
I mean, for Shea Nancy Johnson to get even elected in a blue state, you have to be conservative.
And they're bailing off of their conservative beliefs, and this is why they're struggling.
But guess what?
Joe Lieberman is in a tough race.
There was an ad on the radio just today, and it's Ned Lamont as his person running against him.
So he basically, his ad takes a shot at Lieberman for basically just riding the coattails of Bush and Cheney.
And he says, hold on.
Whose ad takes a shot at Lieberman?
Ned Lamont, who's the Democratic, his Democratic challenge.
Oh, that's right.
I am told, and perhaps you can confirm this up there, George, I'm told Lieberman's thinking of going independent.
Well, he may have to because Lamont is basically mounting a campaign saying if you want a real Democrat, then you need to vote for Ned Lamont in August in the primary instead of Joe Lieberman.
This is quite telling, too.
The left-wing blogosphere has done its best to destroy Joe Lieberman because he supports the Iraq War and the war on terror.
And they're running him out of party.
And he's been a faithful Democrat on the vast majority of Democrat issues up there.
And they don't care.
Run him out of the party.
He's keeping an option open for the independent campaign because he may have no choice.
He may have to run as a third party candidate, essentially.
Jerry in West Milwaukee, Open Mind Friday.
It's all yours.
Welcome, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
I believe it is extremely important to go after terrorists, and we have to use our intelligence capabilities to go out after them.
But what deeply concerns me, Rush, is that Dick Cheney didn't allow telecom executives to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Now, the program, the NSA program, might be legal and it might be necessary, but it's its responsibility of the intelligence committee to oversee such programs.
If you're stripping them of that ability, then you have essentially one branch of government.
Well, I disagree with you because in my mind, Cheney can do no wrong.
Cheney can do no wrong?
Cheney can do no wrong.
Well, Cheney's got to abide by the U.S. Constitution.
Well, sometimes, yeah, he's the vice president.
What are you talking about?
Cheney told telecoms not to.
The telecom executives couldn't testify on, especially on national security matters.
There was information that supposedly that these telecom executives had that related towards the NSA wiretap program that the intelligence committee couldn't hear.
Arlen Specter was angry.
Arlen Specter was angry at Cheney for this.
I think, well, yeah, but I think Cheney was lobbying other Judiciary Committee members.
He wasn't ordering the telecom guys himself not to do it.
He was well within his right to go up to members of the Judiciary Committee to stand up for his position out of it.
He wasn't calling the telecom guys personally.
You will not go testify I'm Dick Cheney.
He can't do that.
You're right, but he wasn't doing that.
So Vice President Cheney doesn't think that the Senate Intelligence Committee should have real oversight on exactly what these telecom executives were doing in relation to the.
I don't know what's in Cheney's mind, but he certainly has the right to go lobby members of the committee to vote against the concept of bringing him up there.
Just voting.
It's denying the testimony.
It's denying the testimony.
It's not just a vote.
They gave the Senate a total briefing on this.
I think one of the problems out there, Jare, is that this administration doesn't trust these guys, even on the intelligence committee.
Well, that doesn't matter.
It's still, they've got to abide by the Constitution.
I don't think Cheney's violating the Constitution is what I'm telling you.
I mean, I don't know what the complaint here is, to say that the Vice President of the United States cannot go lobby members of Congress to oppose something.
The Judiciary Committee does not have to take up everything the chairman wants.
They vote on things.
You know, I don't think that he's playing into Spectre's hands here at all.
There's an interesting story that's a companion to this in a way.
The U.S. government, the U.S. government, has sued the New Jersey Attorney General's office on grounds of security concerns to prevent it from asking telephone companies if they gave customer call records to the National Security Agency.
New Jersey Attorney General Zulema Farber sent subpoenas to ATT, Verizon Communications, Singular Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and Quest on May 17th asking if they had cooperated with the NSA.
Now, the suit, the federal government suit, charged that New Jersey's Attorney General issued the subpoenas without proper authorization from the feds.
The lawsuit named ATT, Verizon, Sprint, Quest, and Singular as defendants, as well as Farber and other New Jersey officials.
USA Today reported last month that ATT, Verizon, and Bell South gave the NSA access to their records and turned over call data so it could secretly analyze calling patterns to detect terrorist plots, which provoked a host of lawsuits and objections from privacy advocates.
Also, don't forget this, Jare, as constitutionally, Dick Cheney's president of the Senate.
Martha in St. Louis, it's great to have you on the program.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you very much, Rush.
I'm calling about your health.
I want to congratulate you for being able to be very successful in getting yourself off prescription medications for pain.
But my question was, I worried about you for five days and five nights when you first left.
I've heard that those are the worst days of anybody's life.
Is that true?
Well, it depends.
They weren't for me.
Good.
But I tried unsuccessfully two previous times to detox on my own, and in one case, it was like 12 days ahead.
Yeah.
I assume you're talking about withdrawal.
Yes, and throwing up constantly.
Well, I am convinced that most people who are addicted to opiates, be it heroin or prescription drugs or prescription pain medication or whatever, it's all opiates.
I'm convinced that most of them, after a certain passage of time, will do anything to avoid withdrawal.
It is hell on earth.
And opiate withdrawal is the absolute worst withdrawal.
Crystal meth is a bad one from what I learned, and cocaine, but those are basically psychological.
This is a physical, it is, it is, nobody would want to do it if they knew that it was going to happen to them.
How did they help you get through this?
Well, there's a first two times I tried what was called rapid detox, which is basically they pump naltrexone into you while you're under anesthesia.
Naltrexone attaches to opiate receptors in the brain much faster and tighter and stronger than opiates do.
And it basically flushes the opiates out of the brain and that puts you into immediate withdrawal, but you are under anesthesia.
So theoretically, you don't feel it and you don't know it.
Well, that's what I was hoping you were under.
I was hoping you were under.
No, no, no, no.
I don't know about anybody else, but it was not good for me.
It's not, because there's after I went five, five days, ten days, it was murder.
Oh, I'm sorry.
It was absolute, it was horror.
But when I went to the professional place, there are ways of the detox people here that are, I don't want to say painless, but compared to a cold turkey or a step-down withdrawal, it's a piece of cake.
They've developed, they used to use methadone for it.
There's a new drug that's been developed called buprenorphine.
And buprenorphine, you take in a reduced dosage, according to the doctor's analysis of your circumstance, over the course of anywhere from two weeks to a month.
And you reduce the dosage, they reduce it for you, and you step down, you step down.
If you, some magic in the drug, I'm not a scientist to understand it to explain it scientifically, but there's also in the drug a derivative of this naltrexone.
And if you, in the process of stepping down, then take more than you are supposed to, the naltrexone kicks in, and you go into immediate cold turkey withdrawal.
And you, it, so the motivation is to stay on this.
And they had me on it for 13 days, and I was, it was painless.
Wow.
The first five days, there was no, I had zero physical discomfort when I was at the meadows.
The first five days I was in denial.
I can't believe I'm here.
And I thought I was going to be with the dregs of society.
I learned that that's not the case.
I was there with two former NFL quarterbacks.
There were executives from major corporations there.
I was stunned by what I found there.
There's a code of silence for everybody who goes there, so I can't talk about names or any of that, but it was quite eye-opening.
But after those first five days, I got into it.
I sunk my teeth into it like I got into electronic school when I was 16 years old.
I soaked that stuff.
It was probably the most valuable five weeks as an adult I've ever spent in terms of learning about myself.
It would be worthwhile for anybody who has no alcohol or any kind of addiction problem whatsoever to go through.
It was just, if you get into it, it was just profound.
Psychotherapy in a way.
You might say that.
Just in terms of conveying one word to convey it to people, it is, but it's, it really, you don't see psychiatrists.
Right, exactly.
Or psychologists.
They take you deep back into your earliest memories and they try to show you exactly why you do what you do and what motivates you as a means of overcoming those things yourself.
They don't teach willpower.
They don't teach anything because that doesn't work.
They teach a whole bunch of things to you that if you really get into it, they're the best, for me, the most important things that I have done to ever learn about myself.
You know, everybody has pain in their life.
I mean, emotional pain and so forth, and most people suppress it.
It's not manly to show it or to express it.
So you either suppress it or you medicate it, however you medicate it.
And eventually, after you've suppressed it or medicated it for so long, it's going to explode into destructive behavior.
And that's what the learning experience is all about, is how that cycle began and how to avoid it repeating.
And you take ownership now of everything you do, and you can't own anything anybody else does.
Amen.
That's why I refuse to be offended.
I refuse to give people the power to offend you.
Exactly.
And I picked that up from you immediately upon your return.
All right.
Martha, I'm a little long.
I've got to run, but great to talk to you.
You bet.
We'll be back in just a second, folks, and be back after this.
Stay with us.
And we're back, Open Line Friday, the Fastest Three Hours in Media.
Rolling on to Kansas City, Missouri.
This is Rebecca.
Rebecca, welcome back.
Nice to have you with us.
Trush, I am truly honored to be speaking with you for yet a fifth time.
I'm proud of that now.
I used to be kind of embarrassed by it because I did not see the truth and the light of your ways.
I am now a converted dittohead.
Well, congratulations.
Welcome home.
Glad to be under your wing again.
Rebecca, where are you at?
A truck stop?
No, I'm out enjoying the weather here in Kansas City.
Oh, you're outside, okay.
Yes.
I had to get some things done.
I did not want to miss a chance to tell you how appreciative I am of your words and your wisdom and being able to really truly understand what you were saying for all those years.
I remember you, I think.
We used to argue a lot.
You'd call here and we'd date.
Yes, about, I think I did a bait my senior year in high school, and it was about health care that year.
Oh, oh, that's right.
So you got out of the high school environment, and now you are one of us.
Well, see, I went off to college.
I was a political science major, and I got tired of listening to all the BS.
You know, the liberals spent on every single textbook.
People were teaching their political theories instead of the political truths.
You know, and I just, I couldn't, I couldn't take it, so I left that particular very liberalist institution, and I'm proud to be thinking the way that I am independently without their influence.
All right, one quick question.
I've got 30 seconds.
Who was it besides me that helped you see the light?
My father, who is a huge fan of yours and a very, very staunch conservative.
Well, good.
Excellent.
I'm only sorry it didn't happen sooner, but it happened.
Hey, it is never too late to convert.
Amen.
Rebecca, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
It's great to hear.
She used to call.
We would talk about the best barbecue in Kansas City when she called, because I was an expert at it and an expert on it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have sadly come to the shrieking conclusion of our program.
As you know, this is Father's Day, weekend, Sunday will be Father's Day, and I'm not a father, and as such will not have little sticky hands that just made pancakes for me scratching my face Sunday morning.
But I am a father, in a sense, to millions of rush babies out there.
And I haven't gotten one card.
Didn't expect it either.
24 starts repeats of season five tonight.
Two episodes every Friday for the next 12 weeks.
We will see you Monday, ladies and gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection