All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
June 29, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks.
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
You can count on it.
You can bet on it.
You can bank on it.
That's because the views expressed by the host of this program are the result of a relentless and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
They have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here every day.
Welcome to those of you watching on the DittoCam as well.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Lots of anger and raw emotion out there.
Understandably so over this outrageous Supreme Court decision today.
It was a 5-3 decision.
Justice Kennedy joining the activist liberal side here.
You can see the happening here.
He could be hailed as the next Justice O'Connor going this way.
I've done some research.
I have some legal beagles that I consulted during the break.
And this aspect of the ruling that claims these clowns have protection under the Geneva Convention is just wrong.
They just don't.
Now, it's not surprising that a bunch of Nambi-Pamby, hand-wringing, victim-oriented liberals, whether they wear black robes or not, would look at these poor slobs as a bunch of victims and say, Didn't even convict you, didn't even convict.
Because you have to understand now what the underlying concept is.
America is evil.
America is bad.
America wages war inflammation.
America is the world's superpower.
We are running around roughshod all over these poor people.
They have no choice.
And then we capture and put them in prison.
It's horrible.
Bunch of guilt-laden, self-loathing, American-hating activists, and some of them are on the Supreme Court.
There is no applicability here to the Geneva Convention, pure and simple.
But, you know, who's, where do you go to challenge the constitutionality of a Supreme Court ruling?
Well, you go back to Congress.
And that is what apparently is on the drawing board.
Now, what does all of this mean for Club Gitmo itself and most importantly, my thriving Club Guitmo merchandise business?
I had to find out about this libs on TV and the lawyers on TV, panting over the fact that Club Gitmo may be shut down because of this.
No.
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo Navy Base, Club Gitmo, will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, according to the camp commander.
I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operations, said Rear Admiral Harry Harris, the prison commander, in an interview this week before the ruling.
Harris said he'd build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed, but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Gitmo itself.
From Al Reuters here, a prison camp that human rights groups in the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.
You know, at some point, don't you just want to shout, screw you, human rights activists?
And you in.
And all the rest of it.
At any rate, the director of interrogations at Club Gitmo said many of the others there could be held a very long time because U.S. officials will not release those whom they are convinced have the connections, training, and means to carry out terrorist attacks.
Nobody wants to be the first person to allow the next 9-11 to happen, said the chief of interrogations, Paul Rester.
Emptying this place is not my goal.
Thank goodness we've got some reasonable people running the joint down there at Club Gitmo.
I have to say, ladies, and I'm a little surprised that some of you, checking my email during the top of the hour break, there is a fascination that borders on the macabre over Fateh Mohammed, the Pakistan inmate, prison inmate, who says he woke up last weekend with a glass light bulb in his anus.
Many, many, I mean, almost incalculable number of emails without people wanting to know various aspects.
Like, well, if you want, he doesn't know how the light bulb got there, where were the fingerprints, folks?
I don't know any more than what the story says.
I mean, I'm not going to sit here and speculate.
Some people obviously rush trying to find the hamster.
All I know is that Mohammed, who is serving a four-year sentence for making liquor, which is prohibited for Muslims, said he was shocked when he was first told the cause of his discovery.
He just thought he had an intestinal problem.
And I said, no, you got a light bulb in your ass.
A light bulb?
He plainly had no clue how it got there.
So when he woke up, felt pain in my lower abdomen.
Later in the hospital, they told me this.
I don't know who did this to me, police or other prisoners.
That's all I know, folks.
Can't help you beyond this.
Let's see.
Am I wrong?
Am I memory failing me?
Were there not a couple of resolutions in the Senate on an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
One was Kerry and Feingold.
And there was another one, Carl Levin and somebody had one.
There were different resolutions.
Kerry wanted them out immediately.
The others had a different, but they had a date certain timetable.
And didn't they both go down to stinging defeat?
I mean, didn't Kerry's resolution get like 13 votes?
Help me out, Mrs. Snurley.
Is that true?
That seems to be my memory.
Okay, it's true.
Well, then I don't get it.
What is Dingy Harry doing all over the television for what appears to be the gazillionth time demanding a withdrawal timetable?
I mean, do these guys not understand democracy?
We had a debate in the Senate.
In fact, we had two.
Kerry's resolution was first presented by Mitch McConnell, but it got six votes.
We've had two debates in the Senate.
We've had two votes in the Senate.
Actually, three.
Now that I stop to think about it, we have had three debates in the Senate and three votes.
We had the pre-Kerry plan.
We had the Kerry-Kerry plan and the post-Kerry-Kerry plan.
And it wasn't even close.
In all three instances, the notion of a date-certain timetable to get out of Iraq failed miserably.
When does a high-ranking senator, the leader of the minority in the Senate, say we've debated it and we've voted and it's over?
On what basis is he running around saying we need a president is not with the not giving us a specific timetable for getting out?
Of course, because you lost it.
I don't understand.
Well, I mean, I understand it, but I'm trying to make a point here.
They've lost three debates in his own Senate, and he's running around demanding a withdrawal timetable as though they had won the thing.
Now, another question.
It might seem a little bit irrelevant, but I mean, I guess that's my point.
Other than the drive-by media, who really cares what the hell Nancy Pelosi thinks about the war or what Harry Reid thinks about the war?
Rush, how could you?
They are official members of Congress.
They have been duly elected.
I know, but who cares?
Their signs losing.
What does it matter what they think?
What did Charles Halleck think about Vietnam?
Was Charles Halleck on television every day talking?
Oh, you don't know who Charles Halleck is?
All right, okay.
What did Bob Michael think about Desert Storm?
Did anybody remember Bob Michael on television 14 times a day telling us what he thought about Desert Storm?
No, he wasn't.
He was the minority leader in the House in 1991.
And Charles Halleck was a minority leader.
How come these two minority leaders are the only ones that are on television demanding a timetable that they have offered up for resolution and it's been defeated?
Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House, and she should get as much FaceTime as Charles Halleck or Bob Michael.
They didn't get any FaceTime.
Nobody gave a whit what they thought.
I don't think Michael even cared what he thought.
The bottom line is, it's just it.
The drive-by media looks at the Democrats.
They still run the show.
They offer up the resolution to get out.
Date certain timetable goes down to stinging defeat.
And there's Dingy Harry out there still demanding a date certain timetable.
Now, you know, it's kind of comical, and I'm actually not that opposed to it.
I just think it's a phenomenon to watch the drive-by media build these guys up as though they're running the show, which they're not, but they're being portrayed as the people running the show.
They're making absolute fools of themselves day in and day out, which ultimately is helpful.
All right, quick timeout.
Back with a lot more.
Stay with us.
All right, we found, ladies, continuing show prep here in the midst of performing the program.
We found a photo of the doctor that removed the light bulb from the anus of Fateh Mohammed.
We got a picture here of the X-ray of the light bulb intact before the surgical procedure to remove it.
And I have instructed Coco at the website to publish this picture.
I just sent it up to him, and he hasn't acknowledged receiving it yet, but it'll be at rushlimblog.com.
I'll give you the all-clear sign when Coco gets that posted.
Here's Rick in Grey Court, South Carolina.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Megadittos, Rush.
Thank you.
How are you doing?
It's an honor to talk to you.
I have two points.
The first one is, if these guys are to be treated by the Geneva Conventions, then why don't we just shoot them as spies?
They're out of uniform.
Can't Bush come on the network news tonight and say, listen, we're going to make this uniform available to you.
Go pick it up at Walmart.
If you don't like it, tell us what you're going to wear as a uniform.
You can't shoot them when they're in captivity, whether the Geneva Convention applies or not.
You might be able to shoot them out there on the so-called battlefield, but that'd be tough to find one of those where, I mean, nothing's conventional in this, but I think I understand the raw emotion that you feel.
This decision has just infuriated most reasonable people.
The difference is these people are worth something with the information they possess.
This is precisely why they've been captured, is to break them down eventually using friendly and sensitive techniques, of course, to get them to tell us what they know about future attacks, cells, and all kinds of data.
So we don't really want to shoot them.
That's the whole point.
I wouldn't have a problem shooting them.
Well, maybe after we get what we want from them.
Well, listen, I got a way to get what we want from them.
I'll bet you do.
And let's hear it.
Let's go for broke here today.
What's your method?
Well, I think that, you know, the problem with terrorists is there's no deterrent.
There's just no deterrent nobody wants to do it.
Why not, when we catch these guys, find out they're a terrorist, why don't we give them a sex change?
They think they're going to heaven for 72 virgins.
Let's send them as one of the virgins.
Right?
They hate women with a passion.
You sound like a New Yorker.
I love you.
Right.
They hate women with a passion.
You start giving them the hormones.
The beard, the mustache is gone.
And as far as torturing them, you don't have to do it.
As soon as they put the training bra on, I guarantee they're going to start talking.
Especially, you know, speaking of that, I don't know why you brought this up, but I remembered that it's totally unrelated.
Well, as you mentioned it, it won't be unrelated.
I actually was sent a story yesterday by a friend who was a serious story written by a woman for some woman's publication about how 99% of the women out there today are wearing bras that are not properly fit.
They're wearing the wrong size, but they're out there miserable.
They're not comfortable.
They never get themselves fitted properly.
I can't believe that somebody would send me this expecting me to actually talk about this.
And here you come reminding me of this and mentioning it out there.
So I'm just thinking if we do your technique, sex change, and then the training bra, screw that.
Give them a bra that's too tight or the wrong size.
Well, you know, the other thing, too, is, you know, these guys, you put people in jail so they could think about what they did wrong while you're punishing them.
Well, let's cut something off, and then they could think about it real hard.
Well, now let's, let's, let's, there are, there are children listening to this program, Rick.
It's summertime, as you know.
They're out of the school's lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer.
So does popcorn and beer.
Not, of course, for the kids.
They're using marijuana.
The beer is for the parents.
But nevertheless, the sex change operation would be what?
Can you imagine this?
Let's just play this out just for the fun of it.
Let's say this becomes an active policy sex change operation for all these guys.
Can you imagine somebody coming up and calling that torture?
Because it happens in America.
It's becoming a fad out there, sex change operations.
The addedictomy procedure is the number one procedure in this way, going from female to male, popularized in San Francisco.
What is the other?
Chopped addictomy is the other way.
But the transgender crowd thinks this is all great stuff.
So if we do this, somebody comes up and calls it torture, the transgender group's going to have to object to it.
No, it's not torture.
Oh, we could screw all kinds of people up in so many fun ways.
Benjamin in Las Vegas, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Oh, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime.
I just wanted to say that there's so much talk, especially with this case, about the Geneva Convention.
Yeah, well, it doesn't apply to them.
Yeah, well, that's exactly what I want to say.
If they don't follow the convention, why should it apply to them?
Well, because we have four liberals and an activist judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, which said so.
I mean, exactly.
These people want to treat them like American citizens.
I think we should treat them like terrorists because that's what they are.
Well, terrorists, I mean, Americans wouldn't be subjected to the Geneva Convention by Americans.
I know what you're talking about.
Apparently, the idea of treating them as enemy combatants is not even permitted here.
I mean, that's the auspices under which a military tribunal would take place.
Somebody sent me a note, and I'm not sure if this is true, saying that the Nuremberg trials were essentially military tribunals.
And I don't know if that's true.
I know it was international, but I don't know that it was actually military tribunal.
But there's a lot of emotion flying around out there.
Emotion that I, by the way, totally understand.
El Paso, Texas, and David, a former Black Ops specialist here.
Great to have you on the program.
David?
Am I on Rush?
You're on.
It's your big showbiz break.
Give me a break.
20-year submarines, black ops rush.
I guess when we got Chicago, I guess we committed murder because we didn't knock on his door and issue him a warrant.
Depending on if the right people in this country have gotten hold of the case, you may not be joking.
These gentlemen now that are risking their lives in black ops, we're not lawyers, and I'm not going to carry a subpoena, and I'm not going to issue a warrant.
And there's no reason for me to take these gentlemen back with me, gentlemen, these terrorists back with me.
Yeah, that's it.
These guys are all captured.
They didn't just show up at Club Guitmo and give the credit card.
They were captured and brought here.
I am not going to put my men at risk to drag somebody back if I don't have room back in my boat to bring him back to my submarine.
I'm not bringing him back now.
He's staying on the battlefield.
Why?
There's no reason for me to bring back a terrorist so he can stand trial.
Interesting.
You expect this to be an attitude that permeates many of your fellow colleagues?
Exactly.
So they're going to say, what's the point if I'm going to risk my life capturing these snobs and I bring them back and I get them in a sanctioned prison and all of a sudden, wait a minute, we can't treat them as prisoners.
We can't treat them as this.
We've got to treat them as American citizens and give them civil trials.
What's the point?
I just saw two of my soldier Marines mutilated, beheaded, and booby-trapped.
And they are telling me that I have to issue a warrant and knock on the door and say, please put your hands above your head?
I don't think so.
And this is coming from a 20-year submariner rush.
Well, what are your options then?
I mean, let's say you're out there and this case is what it is.
What are your options?
You're not even going to pursue them, or are you going to pursue them and find them and take other measures?
My option was to bring back my men alive, get the information, and if I have somebody in my captivity to bring them back only, only.
And it's always left up to me.
He has some leeway on this.
Well, do you try to interrogate them before you eliminate them in the circumstance?
Learn something from them?
I'll give them five minutes now.
And they'll know it.
Yes, sir.
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, David, I appreciate the phone call.
Once again, a great illustration of the military effort being literally handcuffed here by a bunch of liberals wearing robes, no different than you and me, on the Supreme Court.
Be back after this.
Right in there, Mama.
Moving closer.
We have some...
We have some.
What's that?
Oh, I know.
I know.
I know.
The snowy telling me, screening calls today that all of you calling in are fuming and hot in one event.
Let me pause something.
LCM can make you even hotter.
How long do you think it will be before a Democrat somewhere starts talking about impeachment of Bush for overstepping his authority with these prisoners?
You wait, folks.
They're going to do it.
And the Democrats, they're painting a bullseye on themselves.
They really are.
Try this.
I heard this yesterday.
I was driving home in my new car.
11 Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks, including those on American troops, if the United States agrees to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq in two years.
Withdrawal is the centerpiece of a set of demands from the groups which operate north of Baghdad in the heavily Sunni provinces.
Although much of the fighting has been to the west, these provinces are increasingly violent.
Attacks there have crippled oil and commerce routes.
The groups who have made contact have largely shunned attacks on Iraqi civilians, focusing instead on U.S.-led coalition forces.
Their offer coincides with the prime minister's decision to reach out to the Sunni insurgency with a reconciliation plan that includes an amnesty for fighters.
All right.
We've got to get to this, by the way.
We've got to get this Barack Obama religion busy.
We're going to get to that today, folks.
I'm just promising a lot to say about that.
If this is not a Democrat talking point, I don't know what the hell is.
11 Sunni insurgent groups have offered an immediate halt to all attacks if we'll announce to get out in two years.
I hope it hasn't happened yet.
But I'm hoping that somebody like Jean-François Carry, who served in Vietnam, will stand up, the donkey face that he is, will stand up.
I told you that it would work.
I knew the enemy.
I've been there and I've been fired at and I've fired at them and I can trust them.
I talked to the North Vietnamese in Paris during the war.
I've been there.
And I can tell you that this is our ticket out.
I'm going to pray for this.
I literally am going to pray for it.
Richard in Washington, D.C., welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Megha Dittos, Rush, longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you.
I have another swing on this.
This court decision may be a good thing.
We should be able to probably expect our Marines to be released from captivity here pretty quick since the Supreme Court has determined that combatants don't have to be wearing uniforms.
Who's to say the people they shot weren't combatants?
Hmm.
You're talking about Haditha.
I am, sir.
Yeah.
So let's see if I understand this.
The Supreme Court said that Geneva Convention rules apply to these clowns at Club Gitmo, and therefore they don't have uniforms.
So the Marines at Haditha can't be held liable for going after people not in uniform.
Is that what you're saying?
Because as far as they're concerned and backed up by the Supreme Court decision, they could be combatants, couldn't they?
They could be.
So I guess we'll expect our Marines to be released from Pendleton, what, by noon tomorrow?
Great point.
I love you people today.
You are revved up.
You are fired up.
Normally, many of you are passive out there.
I got to light the fire, but you are all on fire today.
Adams, Wisconsin, and Doug, thanks for calling and waiting.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Light bulb dittos to you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
My concern is about all of the military and their morale.
They catch these clowns.
They risk their lives, these Turkey terrorists, and then they come back here and they're ever more untouchable.
Let me ask you a question.
Let me ask you a question out there, Doug.
Do you think that liberals in this country, even the four that wear robes in the Supreme Court, give a whit about the U.S. military?
Vietnam proved that.
You know, I was in Vietnam two times.
The morale didn't break from within.
The morale was hurt from exterior forces, things happening back home.
Yeah.
I know.
That was objective.
Yep.
And same game plan, like you say and like you've taught us, Russia.
It is going to hurt the military.
It's just going to make it tougher for everybody with their lives on the line to do their jobs.
As, well, the black ops guy, the submariner, submariner, for those of you in Rio de Submariner, I know they think as a watch.
It's just going to make it harder on everybody to do what they do.
We're going to be looking over their shoulder.
What will the Supreme Court say of this?
Mark in Lancaster, Ohio.
Thank you, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you.
This is a great decision by the Supreme Court if what they wanted to do was galvanize a conservative base that is still fuming over the decisions they've made regarding private property.
And you want to wake people up.
This is a great way to do it.
People who may never pay attention will wake up and see this.
And you have to choose a side.
You just can't sit in the middle and say, well, it's okay.
I don't care.
It doesn't affect me because it does.
I was thinking the same thing when I got the sense, when I picked up on the outrage that all of you out there feel about this.
This is galvanizing people.
This is lighting a fire on them.
This is a vote turnout decision.
And it also helps educate and throw light on the circumstance involved with trying to reform the judiciary, too.
So as I say, there's good in everything that happens if you want to take the time to find it.
Thanks very much, Mark.
Where are we going next, Snerdley?
Tell me where.
Yeah, okay, Oklahoma City.
Brian, you're next.
Great to have you on the program.
Rush.
Megan Derez, longtime listener.
Caught you at Amarillo on your Russian Excellence tour.
Thank you, sir.
And I also want to thank you very much for being your work with lymphoma and leukemia.
I'm a survivor of both, by the grace of God.
I did want to put the fact that how are the American Supreme Court putting trying to apply constitutionality for non-American detainees and combatants?
First of all, it can't apply because they're not a citizen.
Would this try to be true?
Yeah, but of course they're not a citizen.
And they don't apply.
They don't qualify under the Geneva Convention anyway, either.
But none of that matters.
They've just been given constitutional rights by virtue of the Supreme Court decision.
Now, let's remember.
Let's cut the court a little slack.
The court did leave open a pathway where they could be satisfied with military tribunals.
And that's if the Congress signs on as well, giving the president the authority.
All of this is outrageous.
He doesn't need any additional authority.
He's the commander-in-chief.
And the Supreme Court's trying to usurp some of it.
And the Congress obviously will usurp as much of it as they can all the time.
That's the nature of the system.
But you're right.
Essentially granting them not just protections under the Geneva Convention, but essentially suggesting that they now be tried in U.S. civil court, they may as well be given the rights of citizens.
And they are neither.
They are terrorists.
You can see it in the news covers today.
George Bush's war on terrorism is a common phrase in much of the news coverage today on the wire services.
All Reuters and all AP.
George Bush's war on terrorism suffered a major setback today when George Bush, fighting his war on terrorism, overstepped his authority, blah, blah, blah.
So they, I mean, the people reporting on this don't even really consider this to be legitimate.
Bush is just a cowboy out there waging his own war, and he's violating civil rights and human rights and every other kind of right there is in the process of doing so.
And they honestly believe it.
I don't think they think this is a country at great danger, great risk in a dangerous world.
I don't think they think that at all.
I think that they're so focused narrowly and so short-sighted, I actually think that they think 9-11, eh, it's just, yeah, one of those indiscriminate things.
It happened.
There's no war out there.
In fact, a number of elected Democrats have said we're not at war.
It is silly to call this a war.
We shouldn't have made it a war.
Bush started the war, blah, And so the Supreme Court justices on the majority side today obviously conclude maybe not specifically that, but the decision makes you wonder how would they have decided differently if they did think that this whole thing is illegitimate, nothing more than some little localized domestic dispute.
Brief timeout here, folks, as the EIB network goes to an obscene profit timeout.
And we'll continue.
Won't be long.
Time flies on this program.
We will be right back.
Hi, we are back.
El Rushball, America's real anchorman executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Excellent role model for the youths of America.
800-282-2882.
Well, we've had the light bulb in the bodily orifice story.
Now, this is this is this one.
I got to break it up here a little bit, folks.
Get back to your phone calls here in just a second.
This story from Petaluma, California.
Rat lovers were furious yesterday at a Petaluma animal shelter when they found out that the shelter had euthanized more than 1,000 rats taken last week from a man who had been hoarding them inside his home.
Roger Dyer, 67, was cited for misdemeanor animal cruelty last week after animal control officers found hordes of squealing rats inside his dingy one-bedroom house in Petaluma.
It is not close to Rio Linda.
Nancy Tavares, the city's animal services manager, had promised to find homes for as many rats as possible, but admitted Wednesday that some 1,020 rats had to be put down.
Yeah, we euthanized all the adult rats except the ones we have to keep on quarantined because they're a bit stiff.
They weren't social.
I call them feral.
We found many with eyeballs missing, teeth growing into the opposite jaw, huge abscesses, open wounds.
Some of them were starving.
It was not a pretty sight.
Rat fanciers.
I don't believe it.
I am reading this.
Rat fanciers, rat lovers are the first two words of this story.
Rat fanciers who had formed an email chain called Petaluma Rats in an attempt to find homes for the rodents were horrified.
The shelter was bombarded Wednesday with angry phone calls and emails.
Most members of the rat lobby felt they had been misled.
The rat lobby.
This is an unspeakable injustice to those rats who deserve better, said Phyllis Mason, a self-described rat lover, in an email.
Why didn't the Petaluma animal shelter give us a chance to help?
I can't imagine that all of those rats were sick.
Seems to me that they felt overwhelmed.
They just didn't want to bother with them.
Tina Bird of Campbell, California, said the rat community was in the rat community was in the process of mobilizing when the rodents were killed.
Uh, now Tavares of the animal control place said, we're not going to give these rats to another home is just as bad as this guy's dingy bedroom was.
Our philosophy is not that any life is preferable to death.
Quality of life counts, even for rats.
The rat fanciers, she said, are not being rational.
Everybody's saying you can't euthanize them, and they all say they want to help, but very few can take any.
We're not enjoying this, but frankly, there aren't enough homes for these rats.
Yeah, I can imagine that.
Can you imagine your local animal shelter with pictures of Puffy the cat and spot the dogs?
By the way, we've got a thousand rats down here looking for homes.
How many takers do you think there would be?
She said that Dyer, the guy who kept the rats in his dingy bedroom, the convicted armed robber who first gained notoriety when his home in Southern California was used as a hideout for two men later connected in the...
You're not going to believe this.
You are not going to believe.
This can't be true.
Just listen to this sentence.
The head babe at the animal control place at Petaluma said that Dyer, who was holding these 1,020 rats in his dingy bedroom, is a convicted armed robber.
First gained notoriety when his home in Southern California was used as a hideout for two men.
Later convicted in a 1963 plot to kidnap the son and namesake of Rat Pack Leader, Frank Sinatra.
And said he didn't seem like a bad guy, just a bit troubled.
He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine.
Who knows what that smells like?
He told me he told me that when he had only 100 of them, that he'd let them sleep in bed with him.
They'd all get in his shorts and stuff, and you can't potty train rats.
You know, they were urinating and defecating.
And this is a San Francisco Chronicle story, folks.
Yeah, urinating and defecating in there, meaning in the shorts where they sleep with this guy.
But no, no, no, but he offered a hideout for these two guys that were convicted in the 63 plot to kidnap the son and namesake of rat pack leader Frankson.
You know, folks, the world.
We've got to light bulbs up some guy's anus in Pakistan.
We've got this.
The world really is spinning off its axis when we have a story about the political correctness of killing rats.
I mean, these things, they're the spreaders of the plague and other disease.
They've got their own lobby in Petaluma, California.
Boy, how timely is this?
Just got my advanced copy of the June issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
And our theme in the June issue of the Limbaugh Letter is the shadow government.
The pull quote from the commentary.
Writhing and squirming under Democrat rocks, you'll find a rat's nest of Clinton holdovers and malignant leftist fellow travelers bent on rumming the show.
And here is the, let me zoom in for you, subscribers.
See that right there?
Shadow government, we depict it with a picture of a rat, ladies and gentlemen.
Petaluma rat, probably.
But just to show you talk about cutting edge of societal evolution, we're it here at the EIB Network.
All right.
I know a lot of you want to still vent on the Supreme Court decision.
I just read a piece by Andy McCarthy, who is in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and conducted, participated in several trials in the early 90s that put terrorists in jail.
As close as an expert on this as you can get it, he has a fabulous, I mean, a fabulous quote on this Supreme Court decision.
And I'll tell you about that, and we'll let you vent in the next hour.
Plus, a lot of other stuff in the stack here, too.
▲
Export Selection