All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
December 19, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, folks, maybe this Miss USA business is so whatever it is to me, because in the 70s, in the 70s when I lived in Pittsburgh,
I dated a girl who was Catholic, and she was so intent on proving her purity to the Pope and to God that she planned on staying virgin three years after she got married.
I mean, I was out of there.
I think she works for the CIA now.
But the bottom line, when you see that versus this, I just got a note from a female friend of mine in New York who would never, ever do anything like this at any point in her life, says, I think it's sort of funny, probably agreeing with you, Snerdley.
I think it's sort of funny and sad and fitting for the zeitgeist that Miss USA is tearful, troubled, and entering alcohol rehab.
That pretty much, okay, here's our current Miss USA, troubled.
And Trump said, she's very troubled.
He said it a bunch of times.
She's very troubled.
They were all troubled this morning.
It was all kinds of trouble in the room.
So tearful, troubled, and entering rehab.
Zeitgeist, by the way, for those of you in Riolinda and most other places, I'm sure, on this word, spirit of the times is the best way to define that.
How many of you are keeping up with the story of Mrs. Bush's, the first lady, her cancer, her malignant skin cancer tumor removed from her right shin in early November?
The Drive-By media is seething because they weren't told in November.
I have a sample story here from Terence Hunt of ALAP.
The White House today defended Laura Bush's decision not to disclose that she had a skin cancer tumor removed from her right shin in early November.
Unlike her husband, the first lady is not an elected official, said Tony Snow.
Perhaps if there's something more major, this would be discussed.
The cancer was a squamous cell carcinoma, the second most common form of skin cancer, said her press secretary, Susan Witson.
She said the troublesome patch was about the size of a nickel.
Mrs. Bush decided it was a private matter, did not reveal it publicly.
On Monday night, the White House acknowledged the first lady had a tumor removed after Mrs. Bush was noticed with a bandage below her right knee.
Whitson said the first lady is still wearing a bandage more than five weeks after the incision because the skin on that part of the leg is thin, takes a little while to heal out there.
Asked if plastic surgery might be required, Witson said no further procedures are needed at this time.
Now, is this anyone's business?
They saw the bandage and asked, and the White House said, well, we're not going to lie about it, but is there a duty on the part of the first lady to go public in the country with something like this, a medical matter, which up until the time, well, three or four years ago, medical records were private.
And then that sort of got blown to the wayside.
Perhaps Terrence Hunt will share his medical records with his readers and his editors.
Perhaps the Drive-My media will open their medical records since they are so eager to see everyone else's.
I mean, these people are the self-appointed guardians of our freedom and our government and our country and the Constitution itself.
Are we not entitled to know the status of their health?
But rush, but rush, they're not elected.
That's right, and they're not accountable either.
There is no accountability for the drive-by media.
So, isn't it about time of what's good for the goose is good for the gander?
You know, I read the sports pages.
I'm like every other guy.
I read the sports pages.
And it is funny to me to read these sports media.
I don't care where they are.
It could be in L.A., it could be in Dallas, could be in New York, could be anywhere.
The arrogant, holier-than-now, better-than-everybody else attitude with which these people write, be it about Barry Bonds or the latest brawl in the NBA at Madison Square Garden the other night, or any other professional athlete that has, you know, a Miss USA kind of problem.
These people write as though they are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, and they advise commissioners and presidents and league officials what to do about these malcontents and so forth.
And it always makes me wonder, could I see your high school and college transcripts?
Can we open up your police file?
Find out just, I want to see the evidence of your clean and pure as the wind-driven snow life.
Just because you got the job at the local Gazette, does that automatically bestow upon you, a drive-by media reporter, infallibility?
I mean, if the rest of us in this society of ours are going to run around acknowledging our shortcomings and admitting our mistakes and saying we're sorry and saying, gosh, if I'd have known then what I know now, X, then when's the media going to join us in this?
When will Terrence Hunt tell us what his medical problems are?
When will any of the network news anchors do the same?
Well, you say never, but what if somebody formed an organization, a counterweight organization, to find out just this kind of stuff?
You know that the caterwauling that would go on from the drive-by media.
If somebody started doing the same kind of investigations of them that they do of everybody else, you know what the reaction is.
You can't do that.
We are journalists.
We are not the story.
It doesn't matter.
Oh, yes, you have become the story.
You have wanted to be the story.
And it's time you got treated like everybody else who is the story.
I would love to see what's in some of these people's backgrounds.
Who has Helen Thomas been married to?
Has she been married, I should ask?
Who asked her to get married?
I mean, there's any number of things.
See their tax returns.
You know, how many freebies do they take?
How many junkets do they go on in return for writing favorable things about things of people and events and so on?
We don't know any of this stuff.
We just assume that everything they write is gospel.
And that it's unquestionable.
Try this headline.
Al-Qaeda in control of Somalia.
U.S. won't intervene.
We went to Somalia.
We went to Somalia to feed people who were being starved by the warlord Mohammad Farid Sahib Skyhukadid.
And when the going got tough and we were on the verge of victory, Bill Clinton pulled us out, leading to the famous book and movie, Black Hawk Down.
Now, and by the way, Osama bin Laden has said numerous times on ABC TV in one instance that when he saw us pull out is when he realized we'd become paper tigers and weak and he knew that we were going to be more concerned over the fate of Miss USA than of the country.
He knew we'd become softies, can't take casualties, and it was only a matter of time before we get hit again and again and again and not do anything about it.
So now they're back in control of Somalia.
The United States has ruled out an attack on Somalia to oust al-Qaeda forces, which have seized effective control of the country.
Officials said the Bush administration has no plans to send U.S. troops to oust the new al-Qaeda-aligned regime in Somalia.
The regime is known as the Council of Islamic Courts.
It has defeated the U.S.-backed militia and taken over much of the country.
The Council of Islamic Courts is now controlled by al-Qaeda cell individuals, East Africa al-Qaeda cell individuals, said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Jenday Frazier.
Frazier also said they're killing nuns.
They've killed children.
They're calling for a jihad.
Frankly, public executions, killing people for watching soccer matches is not inconsistent.
It's not consistent with the Somali culture and tradition.
Really, really.
Glad to know that it's not consistent with Somali culture to kill people for watching soccer.
Meanwhile, where are we being urged to make an immediate move?
Darfur.
Yes, ladies, we have got to get out of Iraq because there's al-Qaeda in there.
We've got to get out as an abject failure.
We can't take seriously al-Qaeda in Somalia.
No, we have to go to Darfur.
Now, I wonder if any of these idiot Hollywood types, any of these social do-gooder liberals who are wringing their hands over what's happening in Darfur, will notice what's happening in Somalia at the hands of al-Qaeda and people being beheaded for watching soccer.
See, that's okay.
We can't get involved in these local customs.
But in Darfur, where there is a racial component.
Katie barred the door.
Same racial component in Somalia, by the way, but it just isn't portrayed that way.
Darfur is.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue here on the Rush Lindbaugh program.
Stay with us.
All right, we'll get to your phone calls here in due course.
Ladies and gentlemen, a couple of stories.
I mentioned this shortly after the election earlier this month.
I admittedly didn't spend a whole lot of time on it, but there is, because I wasn't sure how accurate it was, but now the story has reappeared in the Washington Times today.
The Bush administration has sent signals since last month's elections that the president is prepared to accept some tax increases on upper-income families.
This is worrying congressional Republicans and fiscal conservative watchdogs who say he will compromise with Democrats to win a legacy accomplishment.
The watchdog groups have been demanding that the president repeat his earlier pledges not to raise taxes in order to reform Social Security, but the White House has refused, with officials saying everything's on the table, including tax increase.
Let me tell you what this is about.
is about Social Security.
And the president gave a shot, the Social Security reform, the old private accounts gang.
And it didn't work because there's this word in Social Security, security.
And the recipients really believe in that word.
And when they hear private accounts, it conflicted with security.
So it was a valiant effort.
I was all for it.
It's a great plan.
That's the only way we're ever going to really solve the problem.
But the marketing of it just, it didn't succeed.
So the press has two years left.
There's got to be something done here.
And so here's, you know, I'm going to miss these numbers because I'm not going to, I'm going to get them exact because I don't remember the story in that much detail from shortly after the election.
Right now, the current ceiling on income that's taxed under Social Security is around $94,000.
It's going to go up to $191,000.
And they're talking about that and raising the rates right now.
And again, correct me if I'm wrong because as an entrepreneur and an equity player and an asset owner, I pay it all when it comes to Social Security, as everybody else does.
I love this term.
Well, yes, the employer matches your Social Security contributions.
BS, you're paying it all.
And don't anybody quote an argument with me about this.
The notion is that you're paying 7.5%.
That's what your FICA is.
And the employer, God, what a great guy.
He is matching your donation at 7.5%.
But you are paying it all because whatever it costs the evil boss to hire you, whether you see it or not, is what you are being paid.
Same thing with your health care benefits and your 24-7 family medical leave, whatever it is.
It's all costing somebody that much to hire you.
You may not see it all in your paycheck.
Anyway, I pay the whole thing.
So anyway, I think it's 12% now or somewhere around there or 15.
At this point, I'm so frustrated.
I just signed the check.
But anyway, they're thinking of raising that rate to what I don't know.
And this has long been an effort by the Democrats to say that Social Security taxes, even while we've cut income taxes for the vast majority of the middle class, the Democrats have been saying that doesn't mean anything.
It's the Social Security tax.
Why?
That's where the rich are getting off scot-free because after 91% or $94,000, they don't pay anything.
And most people don't earn $94,000.
So most people are paying a larger share of the freight on Social Security.
My attitude is it's about time the middle class paid their fair share in taxes, but that's another story for another program at another time and another day.
This is something that is being looked at as a stopgap.
And here's the problem.
Even with, if I'm right, if I'm remembering this, the new ceiling at $191,000, and not instantly, it would take years to escalate to that, but it would eventually get there.
That's not going to save the program.
That's not going to save it.
This is just the typical temporary passing the buck.
Now, I have no sympathy for Republicans in Congress, as this story describes them, as being apoplectic or what do they say, worried because this will compromise with Democrats to win a legacy accomplishment.
Look, when the president tried to do this, if he'd had a little help from the people in his own party, who knows if it might not have had more success.
I mean, I will, you know, I'm not crazy about this plan either.
Don't misunderstand, but I got no sympathy for people who sat around sucking their thumbs for two or four years while the president was taking on hard things and wasn't getting a whole lot of support, particularly over in the Senate.
You know, so if these guys want to act like crybabies, you can't do that to us, you can't do that to us.
Yeah, well, where were you when the time came to get tough?
And this story from the Chicago Tribune by Michelle Keller.
There's a plethora of these stories out now on happiness.
And we have shared every one of them we can find.
Frankly, they depress us.
But they're out there.
Happy is helpful, but fear fosters focus.
Now, the point of this is that, well, there's some good fear out there.
Fear can be a good motivator.
A bubbly mood may enhance creativity, but feeling happy can actually hinder your ability to focus on a task.
According to a new study, researchers found that happy subjects did well when asked to be innovative, but that they struggled when they had to concentrate on a simple activity and ignore distractions.
The reason may lie in how we're evolutionarily wired to process information, according to these researchers.
As the brain receives data from all the body's sensory organs, the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the skin, and ears, it must decide what's immediately pertinent.
Acting much like a spotlight, the mind focuses on the most important information.
See, you're just a robot.
You have no control over this.
Your brain's doing all this, and you have no say-so in the matter.
Acting much like a spotlight, the brain focuses on the most important information, responding to the task at hand.
Being happy can expand the size of the spotlight, giving the brain more room to roam, so to speak.
Positive emotions can help you in breaking down those systems that ignore information, said one of the psychology profs from the University of Toronto, lead researcher here on the study.
It's a good consequence.
By making you more distracted, it can make you a more creative problem solver.
But this is ultimately not good.
The first week of a campaign is a no-de-joy when you have time to think about an idea, blah, blah, blah.
Sometimes when you have a deadline, you can actually do a two-minute drill and have a great outcome.
Deadlines can invoke what the researchers say are healthy fears, which help everybody focus.
The two-minute drill at crunch time, that's a healthy fear.
When you're down to the wire, when it's pedal of the metal time and you don't have much time to get it done, that's when you do your best work.
Singularly focused.
When you're happy, you may be more creative, but you won't get anything done because you're being distracted by all the stimuli that are making you happy.
So what's the solution here?
Do you want to be in fear most of the time?
Do you want to live your life in the two-minute drill?
You want to live your life in the two-minute warning with the other team in to prevent defense?
Or do you want to live your life happy and creative?
Well, the fact of the matter is we need all kinds.
I'm happy to run around and be happy and creative and innovative.
And I do hate focusing on one thing.
That's why I do.
I despise it.
Because to focus on one thing denies me the sensory perceptions of other things I like.
Well, there's certain things to focus on that enhance them.
But deadlines of living in the two-minute drill, there are some people who live a panic-driven life.
They're wired that way.
Thank God for them.
And they take on certain jobs and get them done, while the rest of us can go out and be jocular and happy and creative and really make the world work.
Back after this.
Here is, ladies and gentlemen, another perfect drive-by media illustration.
I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained finger a story from the Boston Globe today.
There is a picture of a tiny little car crashing into a barrier and collapsing like an accordion.
The headline, big risks seen in small cars.
Twice as many fatal crashes found.
Wait a minute.
I thought it was SUVs that were killing everybody.
I thought it was SUVs destroying the planet.
I thought gas prices were such and our selfish overuse of a precious world resource was such that we had to get out of our big monstrous gas hogs and get into these tiny little cars like Prius's and these little lawnmowers with a couple seats on them and a little body around them.
at 55 miles an hour.
Now all of a sudden a drive-by.
How many of you have gone out and done this?
I'm going to be a good citizen of the planet.
I'm going to stop polluting.
I'm going to go out and buy one of these little cars.
I'm going to save gas.
I'm going to save money.
I'm going to feel good about myself.
Now you've done that.
Here comes a drive-by media telling you you got twice the chance of being killed in a crash because you're driving a little piece of junk.
This is typical.
This is typical drive-by.
How many years now have we been trying to destroy the SUV and its image and get people out of them?
And now that you're in them, ha ha, gotcha.
Gotcha.
Got you out of the SUV.
Now you can die like we want you to in the first place.
All right.
Paul in Albuquerque, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Mega snowing like crazy dittos from New Mexico.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to talk a little bit about Hillary running opponent, an opponent of hers that nobody's really talking too much about.
And that's our governor here, Bill Richardson.
And, you know, different ones have said, and you've made comment about in the past about, you know, Hillary's got some strikes against her about being, because she's a senator, for one thing, statistically speaking, she doesn't have any foreign policy experience.
Whereas on the other hand, Bill Richardson is a governor, and he is doing lots of foreign policy things when he was a protege of Federalists.
Let me tell you something.
I know where you're going with this.
Are you a Richardson fan?
No.
No, absolutely not.
But you think he would pose a significant threat to Mrs. Clinton?
Absolutely, because, you know, when he was under Bill Clinton, he was ambassador and things like that.
And now these high-profile things like meeting with the North Koreans like he did.
Yeah, in fact, grab audio soundbite number four.
He was on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox yesterday.
And he's one of the Democrats that's traveling the world meeting with our enemies.
He met with the North Koreans, and he didn't get anywhere.
I mean, go over there and talk to him.
He didn't get, didn't get anywhere.
Here is what he answered in response to Cavuto's question.
What did the North Koreans say?
The typical bombast of the North Koreans on the first day of negotiation is what happened.
You know, they're tough.
I said to them, look, you've got to take some concrete steps.
You've got to find ways to allow international inspectors in.
You've got to get rid of that or at least take down that Young Beyond nuclear reactor as a show of good faith.
And what did they say?
You know, they listened.
Well, they said they listen.
You know, they've got their own plan.
You know, they're not like we are, Neil, in terms of negotiating the way we do.
They're tough.
Yeah, we're not tough.
We cave in.
You want us to get rid of our nuclear weapons and fine, we'll do that.
North Koreans, what do you mean, take down the Byongyang nuclear reactor?
Screw you.
Who the hell are you?
You're not even an official member of the government.
What are we doing talking to you?
You know that's what the reaction is.
So Richardson, for all his foreign policy, and I like the guy.
You have to understand.
Bill Richardson wrote a letter of support to me during my legal imbroglio, pledging to do what he could to help keep medical records private and so forth.
I urge you to win this.
This is something we need to all guard, blah, But it was a handwritten note.
But he does, you know, his resume said that he was drafted by some major league baseball team.
It was on his resume for years and years and years.
And finally, somebody looked it up and found that he wasn't.
He wasn't drafted by a major league baseball team.
And he held a press conference, well, I thought I was because somewhere a long time ago in his life, somebody had mentioned it to him.
And oh, it's just one of those things that he remembered.
Then 10 days ago, he's talking to Carl Cameron of Fox, clearly indicating, you'd have to read it between the lines.
He's running for president.
After they run the story, oh, no, no, no, I lied to my statement.
Or that's not totally true.
And then a little while later, I've got to say, Carl Cameron did a good job.
He was just doing his job and so forth.
It just, I don't know.
I like the guy.
Whether or not he's going to propose or pose a problem to Mrs. Clinton all depends on what's in his FBI file.
Joyce in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Merry Christmas from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Ryan.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Rush, I called to ask you what pack you think I should take or whether I should just do my regular old conservative shut-up routine.
My son's 10.
They showed an inconvenient truth to his class last week.
Oh, no.
No.
Under the unit of learning about weather and meteorology and earth science.
Oh, my gosh.
That was my reaction.
Rush, I was apoplectic, and I wrote a three-page letter to the teacher and did not send it because having been an aunt at the picnic my whole life, living in Massachusetts, I know I'm just going to bring down some sort of unspeakable wrath upon my child.
Do I just shut up and just explain the real truth to my son?
Your kid's 10, right?
10.
Fifth grade.
Yeah, a long way to go in the public school system there.
I don't think I'm going to make it, Rush.
I think I'm going to end up in jail.
You know, this is a really tough question.
Because the outcome that you suspect, although you can't really know it, there is experience guided by intelligence, and you've seen other parents complain other places around the country about this kind of thing.
You see what happens.
Hell, but you never know.
Up in Needham the other day, one parent went in there complaining about the honor roll being published and the principal caved.
You've got a family in Massachusetts.
Yeah, Needham, Massachusetts.
Yeah, but you could be the one parent to make him cave on the Al Gore movie being showed again.
Well, I'll tell you, you know what my son said to me, and this is what frosted it for me.
He said, Mom, if Greenland goes, we'll all be underwater.
If Greenland goes?
Look, look, I know this is happening all over the place.
A young mother told me the other day that her kid came home from school and was watching Al Gore do this whole routine on Oprah.
And the daughter's, what, 15 years old?
Mom, Mom, it's going to be horrible.
New York is going to be underwater.
There isn't going to be any more Greenland.
My son told me there was going to be no more Cape Cod, and we live on Cape Cod.
Well, there are a lot of Americans who wouldn't complain about that.
What did you tell your son?
I explained to him that in the multiple billion year history of the earth, that it's been through lots of warming and cooling cycles and that you couldn't base what's going to happen on the last hundred years of records.
Right.
Okay, so.
I also showed him the crazy picture of Al on your webpage.
Oh, that's.
That's him.
Now, here's the question for you.
Do you think he was more impressionable or more he was he was he was do you think he was more affected by the movie of Al Gore in his classroom or by what you said attempting to counter it?
Hmm.
See, it's an important question because pictures, he saw Greenland melt.
Al Gore's got this slideshow that portrays all this destruction.
It's not just Al Gore standing up there lecturing.
If he's doing that, people fall asleep, even in 10th grade or 5th grade.
He's got all these pictures.
Yeah, he said, well, it's based on science, Mom.
How could it not be true?
So I had to explain to him that it was an opinion based on unsubstantiated facts and that other people had different opinions.
And I, you know, went through what they were.
And the upshot of it was he was angry.
I think he, to me anyway, felt like.
Angry at you or angry at Al Gore?
He felt betrayed by his actually by his.
Okay, all right, then you don't need to call the school.
This is where I was headed.
As long as you are able to teach creative, independent thinking, rather than just have him sit in any classroom and be a sponge, if you teach him to be curious and a little doubtful about anything he hears, you know the old saying, I believe none of what I hear and half of what I see.
If you just get his mind oriented toward questioning things, it's tough because kids respond to authority figures other than their parents.
And if you get him questioning these things, you won't need to call these professors or the teachers or the principal or what have you.
As a way of illustrating, but mom, it's science.
And you said, well, no, it's not science.
It's an opinion.
That was great.
But pose it to him this way.
What's his name?
Brooks.
Your son's name is Brooks.
Okay, say, Brooks, is the Earth round or is it flat?
He knows it's round by now, right?
You know, I gave him that argument.
Good.
Okay, but Brooks, but Brooks, what would happen if Al Gore came to your class with a movie and tried to prove to you with pictures the Earth was flat?
Would you accept it just because some scientists say it is?
Well, we used to believe that it was.
Right.
But we now know it's not.
But if a consensus of scientists came along and tried to make the case the Earth was flat, nobody would believe them, even though they said there's a consensus.
Yet, because there's a consensus that says 20 or 30 years from now, Greenland's going to vanish, people believe it.
Where is the critical thinking here?
There can't be science if there's consensus involved.
Science doesn't result from people agreeing on things.
The Earth is not round because a bunch of people finally agreed that it is.
It's round because it is round and people are able to establish it.
And the flat earthers, and they're still around there, but they just believe other oddball things.
But science is what it is, and it cannot be created.
Science cannot be established by opinion.
That was a great thing to tell him.
And I'd keep pounding that into him because this global warming thing is the primary tool that's being used to inculcate young minds like your sons into allowing government to tax them and to limit their behavior and to do all kinds of things in order to get more power over people's lives.
That's all it is.
Tell him that.
Maybe it's a little young for 10 years old.
He still thinks you're trying to do that to him.
But I was a 10-year-old, so I know the parent routine that way.
But I was.
Some people have trouble believing I was once 10, but I was.
At any rate, I have to run here.
I appreciate the call, Joyce.
Be right back with much more in Jiffy.
I got an interesting email last night from a subscriber at rushlimbaught.com.
Rush, I'm 70 years old.
And I remember that in the 1950s, the government and the AMA told us all that butter and eggs were killing us because of cholesterol.
The only way to avoid this poison, they said, was to eat margarine.
Now it's margarine that's being banned because of trans fats, hydrogenated vegetable oils, and so forth.
And now people are being encouraged to eat real butter because it's natural.
I bring this up only because this is a classic talking about doubting what the so-called experts, be it from government or anywhere else, say.
There's too much conflicting information to buy anyway.
Look at the panic that they have caused in the nutrition business.
Look at the absolute panic.
I was talking to some friends at dinner one night last week.
We're talking about this.
Guy said, you know, I'm bacon and eggs every day of my life.
I have butter.
And my, my, you know, a lot of people are this way, and they're perfectly healthy.
It's everybody just goes nuts over this panic that's created by, and half the time they change their mind like they did about coffee and like they did about oat bran.
And hell, look at the silicon implants.
They're back now.
They're back.
But Rush, but rush, they were disfiguring and killing women.
No, they weren't.
That was just a bunch of tort lawyers who arranged a big payoff with a class action suit when it turned out to be an irrelevant factor in the death of some women.
Now they're back.
And best guess what they're going to cost more than ever because Dow Chemical has got to recapture what they lost in the judgment in a class action suit.
Big boobs, more expensive than ever if God didn't give them to you.
Naturally, speaking of which, I referenced this story earlier.
Amsterdam, Dutch women getting bigger breasts.
And 32% of them now have a D-cup or bigger compared with 20% five years ago.
And these are natural.
In Europe, Dutch women are ranked third behind British and Danish women in terms of bra size.
This bra maker, whatever, finds all this out.
Some 42% of women aged 30 to 39 have D-cups and feel, in general, okay about that.
Women with large bra size are now the largest group in the Netherlands.
Some 44% surveyed girls aged 12 to 19 think eating fatty foods helps increase the size of their breasts.
And of course, the experts, no, no, no, no, this is poor nutrition habits.
And they are the cause of increased breast size.
So eating high-fat content food, the hormones and so forth that are in various foods these days.
Expand the size of your cup.
Clay in old Saybrook, Connecticut.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Good.
I'm a little confused about the story about the first lady and the cancer situation.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, it was my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if a woman, after careful consultation, perhaps with her physician and her conscience, decided that she needed to have a non-viable tissue mass removed, that this was a private matter and should not be open to public criticism or comment.
Exactly right.
Exactly right.
Was an unviable tissue mass, this tumor, and they noticed the bandage.
So the first lady had no privacy.
That's my point in this whole thing.
Let these people air their own medical records.
Let's see what their diseases are, what they're being treated for, what their prescriptions are.
Danny in Kansas City, Missouri, less than a minute, but I wanted to get to you, sir.
Thank you, Rash, for taking my phone call.
Megadittos.
Megadittos.
Thank you.
I just wanted to let you know that till death do us part through listeners, that's when the media will recognize, will agree with you or give you credit.
Wait a minute.
Till Death Do Us.
You said the media will only give me credit when I have passed away.
Yes, just like Ronald Reagan, just for a brief time.
I, you know, thank God they do.
Because you're right on a lot of things.
Well, I think since I don't think about passing away, it's going to happen to everybody.
I really don't think about dying.
Not afraid of it.
I know it's going to happen.
So I haven't conjured what's going to happen after I die because I've got too much to do until that happens.
Sadly, my friends, for you, we are out of time.
No more precious broadcast moments remain, but there is tomorrow.
We'll see you from New York tomorrow and then back here at our EIB Southern Command on Thursday.
Look, as long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
▲
Export Selection