It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and this is the EIB Network, and I am your highly trained broadcast specialist.
So good, I make everybody think they can do this too.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Esther, did you hear what I just said?
She didn't.
She's still in there.
Why would you want to come watch the show and then spend your time talking through the whole thing?
Sometimes to nobody.
800-282-2882, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, folks, if you want to continue to talk about the Iraq wall and the Democrats in the present speech tonight, you feel free.
When we get to the phones, if you're on hold and you want to talk about that, it's fine.
I've had it.
We're going to be talking about this all day tomorrow, too.
And how many times can we discuss the disingenuousness, the duplicitousness, and the overall irresponsibility of liberals and most Democrats?
So there are other things here that I want to delve into.
I don't want to become captive to one story.
Deborah Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle today has an excellent point.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan out there to give everybody in California everything, apparently.
I mean, in fact, grab audio soundbite number 10.
Listen to this.
This is Arnold Schwarzenegger exhibiting and illustrating his new centrism.
And you tell me what this sounds like.
You hear so much about climate change.
One area where we definitely need the climate to change is the national government's attitude about global warming.
It would not act.
So California did.
California has taken the leadership in moving the entire country beyond debate and denial to action.
As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation.
So I ask you to appropriate the funds to implement this global warming legislation so that we can become part of the world market that is already trading credits for the reduction of greenhouse gases.
Okay, so that's the new centrism out there.
This is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I can't...
The length and breadth of his proposals, both in his campaign and his State of the Union speech, in which this latest soundbite was called, just everything...
We're going to borrow more.
I remember when Arnold ran, it was on the, we got to put this state's fiscal circumstance back in order.
We are spending money we don't have.
We are borrowing money.
Everything's changed now.
We're going to start borrowing more money in California.
We're going to raise taxes in California.
Everybody's going to get health care.
We're going to start trading pollution credits and greenhouse gas credits.
We are going to do whatever it takes to lead this country in the right direction of global warming.
This is the new centrism.
As I told you, you know, his philosophy is we take the best of conservatism, the best of liberalism, and form a new centrist movement or new centrism.
And by definition, if something isn't conservative, it's going to be liberal.
And this doesn't sound like centrism to me.
This sounds like it's right out of the liberal playbook.
I mean, this is no different to what Greenpeace could say if they had somebody that was the governor of California.
Another thing, the health care for illegal immigrants and their children.
Deborah Saunders says it's wrong for illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses.
Why should the state provide them with health care?
I mean, that's the conundrum that Governor Schwarzenegger will have to address, as after vetoing bills to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, he pushes his plan to provide health care to all Californians, including illegal immigrants.
Now, first, let me stipulate, writes Deborah Saunders, that Schwarzenegger deserves praise for attempting to tackle the thorny and thankless task of trying to provide health care for the 4.8 million Californians who lack it at any given time.
You've seen the number 6.5 million, but that's for people who, according to the state, have lacked coverage at some point.
Also, Schwarzenegger is right to mandate that all Californians obtain health coverage.
But if it's wrong for illegal immigrants to have driver's licenses, why is it perfectly fine to provide them with health care?
Seems a bit contradiction.
It's an excellent question.
Well, I know.
One of my biggest problems, folks, is that I sometimes end up mired in logic in a country where logic is deemed offensive.
You can really offend somebody by being logical because they have no retort for it, so they consider it a personal attack when you're logical.
We had the story yesterday in Bangor, Maine, where you can't smoke in your car if there are children in there.
It's tantamount to killing them.
I missed this story from January 5th.
It's from East Hartford, Connecticut, nearly four, there's a typo here, F-O-U-R-S, nearly fours, nearly hours after state lawmakers voted to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.
An East Hartford legislator wants to go further and ban people from smoking in their cars if they're carrying children.
Actually, Connecticut was the leader in this, not Bangor, Maine.
The legislator got the idea from a nine-year-old boy's email.
Justin Cavitis of East Hartford says he was riding home from Taekwondo practice one day when the idea just came to him out of the blue.
Yeah, he did came to me.
If you can't talk on a phone or eat while you were driving, how come you can still smoke?
And he wrote that to the legislator, and the legislator says, oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
So even with the remarkable success of a single simple notion of a nine-year-old, this nine-year-old says he doesn't think he wants to be a politician, though he's enjoying it all for now.
I think it's cool that this is happening.
Law hasn't passed in Connecticut yet, but ramp up, folks.
These kind of things, as I keep saying, never ever go away.
They just get more and more oppressive and become more and more widespread.
As you people know, I have shared with you over the course of many years the writings of Robert Samuelson, who is an economist and columnist for the Washington Post.
And on most occasions, I am a supreme advocate.
This piece that ran today in the Washington Post is a little problematic for me in some areas.
The title of his column is Entitled Selfishness.
And his theme here is that the baby boomer generation is in a state of denial.
Let me give you some excerpts here.
As someone born in late 1945, I say this to the 76 million or so subsequent baby boomers, and particularly to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, our generation's leading politicians.
Shame on us.
We are trying to rob our children and grandchildren, putting the country's future at risk in the process.
On one of the great issues of our time, the social and economic costs of our retirement, we have adopted a policy of selfish silence.
Now, excuse me, but Mr. Samuelson, George W. Bush, for six years, has tried to do something about this, and he has been rebuked at every turn.
He's been turned back.
Now, maybe he didn't sell this privatization of accounts as well as it could have been, but you can't lump him in there as somebody who is apathetic about this.
As Congress reconvenes, pledges of fiscal responsibility abound.
Let me boldly predict, writes Mr. Samuelson, on retirement spending, this Congress will do nothing, just as previous Congresses have done nothing.
Nancy Pelosi promises to build a better future for all of America's children.
If she were serious, she would back cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
President Bush calls entitlement spending the central budget problem.
If he were serious, he too would propose cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
But they are not serious because few Americans, particularly prospective baby boomer retirees, want them to be not serious.
There is a consensus against candor because there is no constituency for candor.
It's no secret that the 65 and Oprah population will double by 2030 to almost 72 million.
That'd be 20% of the population.
But hardly anyone wants to face the implications.
By comparison, other budget issues, including the notorious earmarks, are trivial.
In 2005, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, main programs for the seasoned citizens, cost over $1 trillion, twice the amount of defense spending and more than two-fifths of the total federal budget.
These programs are projected to equal about three-quarters of the budget by 2030 if it remains constant as a share of national income.
Preserving present retirement benefits automatically imposes huge costs on the young, costs that are economically unsound and socially unjust.
The tax increases required by 2030 could hit 50% if other spending is maintained as a share of national income.
Well, I happen to agree with that.
I told you yesterday I think we are in a period in our lives where taxes will never be lower.
Taxes are lower today than they will ever, ever be, and you'd better get used to it.
Much of the rest of the government, from defense to national parks, would have to be shut down or crippled if there are no changes in what we spend in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Social Security and Medicare benefits must be cut to keep down overall costs.
Yes, some taxes will be raised and some other spending cut, but much of the adjustment should come from increasing eligibility ages ultimately to 70 and curbing payments to wealthier retirees.
Americans live longer and are healthier.
Because I've written all this before, I can anticipate some of the furious responses from prospective retirees.
First will be the social compact argument.
We paid to support today's retirees.
Tomorrow's workers must pay to support us.
Well, of course they'll pay.
The question is, how much?
The alleged compact is entirely artificial, acknowledged only by those who benefit from it.
My three children, ages 16 to 21, didn't endorse it.
And judging from the email I received, neither did many 20 or 30 somethings.
The failure to communicate also implicates many pundits and think tanks, liberal and conservative.
Pundits usually speak in bland generalities.
They support fiscal responsibility and entitlement reform.
They oppose big budget deficits.
Less often do they say plainly that people need to work longer and the retirees need to lose some benefits.
Think tanks endlessly publish technical reports on Social Security and Medicare, but most avoid the big issues.
Are present benefits justified?
How big can government become before the resulting taxes or deficits harm the economy?
Our children will not be so blind to this hypocrisy.
We've managed to take successful programs, Social Security and Medicare, and turn them into huge problems by our self-centered inattention.
Baby boomers seem eager to reinvent retirement in all ways except those that might threaten their pocketbooks.
Now, what's the central theme of this?
Central theme is that baby boomers, and I, on many days, am embarrassed to admit that I am one, the theory is that baby boomers are set to retire and to hell with anything else.
When it's time for them to get their Social Security and their Medicare and their Medicaid, by golly, by gosh, they're going to get it regardless of the cost.
They don't care because they had to pay it for their seasoned citizen generations.
And the only way to deal with this is they're going to have to be cuts in the benefits.
Now, here's my problem with this.
I do not believe that the problem with Social Security is baby boomers.
For once in my life, they are not responsible or targets here.
I think who's responsible for all this is AARP.
We've had calls from these people on this program before.
Folks, it is the present day retirees who will not put up with any changes whatsoever, and they vote.
And that is the stumbling block to getting anything changed.
The politicians are afraid of denying or cutting back benefits because they will lose the elderly vote.
Most baby boomers I know have never even counted on Social Security.
They don't think it's ever going to be there for them.
And the younger you go into generations that follow the baby boom generation, that sediment is even more profound.
Social Security, give me a break.
It's not even going to be there when I retire.
And a lot of baby boomers plan on working beyond 65 for that reason.
I don't know too many people who are sitting around waiting to collect Social Security, but the current crop of people who are will stop at nothing to make sure their benefits are untouched.
Even if it means massive tax raised increases on their own kids, they'll put up with that.
They will incur and they will vote for that in order to keep their Social Security coming.
So the problem with this is, I mean, I'm sure there's some baby boomers that are going to present a problem here just in numbers, and you can't deny that.
But immediate reform, don't lay that solely at the baby boomers.
You've got a current crop of seasoned citizens who will not put up with it, and they are one of the largest voting blocks out there, and they are not going to be patient or tolerant with this at all.
And that's why there's laziness, reluctance, and fear among politicians to deal with this.
AARP, quite a big lobbying group.
Be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, we're back.
And time to go to the phones.
I've got that story coming up from USA today, Chim yesterday.
Young people's views, far different from today's baby boomers.
And I mean, if we're to believe the results, it's somewhat fascinating.
It's a mixed bag of good and bad news in there.
But people have been patiently waiting.
I'm looking at the board here.
A lot of people have been up for over an hour and a half.
Let's start with Joan in Miami.
Joan, thanks for the call.
Great to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
I think Samuelson is actually correct when he talks about denial, but it's not just the denial of it's I think it's human nature, the colossal denial that so many people in this country, the dangerous denial that so many people in this country are in about the war on terror, about terrorists in the war generally coming after us.
And I think it's that kind of denial that causes politicians in various cities and towns to pass ridiculous laws about smoking in your own car or eating foie gras.
Chicago just had a piece of ordinance passed like that.
Yeah, but have you heard what's going on there?
Have you heard what's going on in Chicago?
Oh, it's insane.
But it's easier to focus on stuff like that, these social, nitpicking stuff, than it is to focus on the real stuff like Social Security and the war on terror.
I understand.
It's easy for them to do that.
It's the politicians who are creating the circumstances for the denial to exist.
Who do you think is leading the denial?
Precisely.
The Democrat Party's leading the denial.
How do we deal with that colossal denial that is really so dangerous?
We get hit two or three more times.
How do we deal with this fog of anger the Democrats have against the President of the United States that they are so fogged by this rage that they will do anything they can to discredit this fine, fine president no matter what, even at the cost of national security at what's best for this country.
They are incapable of taking a look at what might be in the best interest of this country.
Let me ask you a question.
Have you ever encountered somebody in your personal life who is enraged with hatred about something or somebody?
Yes, and I arrested them.
I'm a retired police officer.
Oh, well, we can't arrest the Democrats for hate yet.
No.
But how do you deal with it?
I mean, there's nothing we can do about their hate, their fog of hate.
By the way, there's no fog in their hate.
You know, it's clear as a bell.
And it's all directed at the president and his administration.
Right.
The best you can do is try to understand why, but even that doesn't get you anywhere because it doesn't get rid of the hate.
They seem to believe that everybody thinks like them.
They are convinced that the president is focusing on his legacy, whereas the president is truly focusing on what he believes is best for themselves.
No, that's true.
I think the real thing here is that, look at the motivation in this case, trying to explain why they hate is not going to change anything other than maybe helping people understand.
It really is not complicated.
And it goes back to 2000 here in Florida.
They think the election was stolen from them, and everything is just built on that.
You couple that with the fact that they had lost the House in 94 and did not get it back until last year.
They were already steamed and enraged about that because power is their birthright.
Power is their entitlement.
And it had been taken away from them.
They didn't lose it.
It had been taken away.
They were enraged.
And Bush.
And then when Bush started cutting taxes and doing policy things that they totally disagree with, it was more than they can deal with.
That's the best I can do, but it's not going to change who they are.
We'll be back in just a second, my good friend.
Well, look who's back.
Jennifer or Jen, I should say, from Roanoke, Virginia.
She was with us yesterday, but Snerdley, the official program observer and call screener today, said there wasn't enough time by the time we got to her for her to properly articulate what she wanted.
So we got her back on the phone.
And hello, Jen.
I'm glad you let us get back to you.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I wanted to thank you for taking the issue of time out head-on yesterday because most parents know it's a fraud.
And the word discipline means to study or learn.
And honestly, most parents are just not committed enough to their kids to be the teacher in their lab.
Now, what she's talking about here, folks, if you missed this yesterday, it's too bad.
But there was a story that survey, most parents in America think that the discipline that they're using on their kids is not working.
It's not effective.
And so, well, what are you doing?
Well, using timeouts.
Right.
I, not being a parent, didn't know what that actually was.
I mean, I can imagine a timeout, timeout to me.
Just stop it.
Stop.
But it's more than that.
You get sent away.
You have your gadgets and your toys taken away from you for every minute that you've been alive for every year.
So if you're 13, you get timeout for 13 minutes.
Now, is this being done in school?
Is this being done at home when you're talking about?
Well, I'm talking about even at home, it is a fraud.
And I just cannot believe that intelligent people are saying the best I have to offer you as a parent is a corner and a chair.
And it just riled me.
I was in the car driving home.
Come on, Jen.
Don't you understand with the economy the way it is?
We've got two parent families out there.
Most of them can't afford two nannies.
Well, exactly.
One is all they come up with, and they both work and they need their private time to stay sane.
Well, feminism has taught us that disciplining our children is not a worthy task.
No, it's predatory.
And also, it has taken away the hierarchy of our family.
And to think that I, as a parent, have something to say to my kid that could change him and give him vision and hope for the future is just ridiculous in the liberal way of thinking.
Yeah, it is, because what right do you have to impose your vision of the future on the child?
Well, we are definitely not a timeout family, and I want to thank you for exposing it as the fraud that it is.
It's just simply an easy way of dealing with children that get in your way.
Exactly.
Most of the problems with parenting today, probably, look, I shouldn't, I'm not, I don't do this.
I've witnessed a bunch of bad parents, though.
And I've seen good ones.
I've talked about some of the greatest parents that I've ever seen in the course of this program when I started.
And I'll tell you something, not one of them did timeouts.
You know, whenever being involved with the kid is an interruption in your life, you're going to make wrong decisions.
I mean, if kid's an interruption in your life, don't have any.
It's just that simple.
There you need some discipline.
How many people do you think have kids just because it's the next thing to do in the stage of relationships?
You get together, you have the first meeting, you fall into whatever infatuation, can't take your hands off each other, going nuts and crazy, a year of that, if that, and then you get engaged or what have you.
Then you get married.
By the time you get married, you say, why am I doing this?
Oh, we need a kid.
It's just the next thing.
It's just the next thing that happens.
No, no, really.
Well, I may be going over the top here in synthesizing the various stages of a relationship.
But I think most of you people listening will agree that I know what I'm talking about here.
I'm right about this.
That's how they happen.
There are exceptions to this, the good ones.
But that's basically how it happens.
And at some point, the next thing to do is have a kid.
And what determines it?
Well, work, biological time bomb in the wife, any number of factors.
Gee, I think we should syndrome.
Or gee, you know, mom really wants to be a grandmom.
Grandpa doesn't care about being a grandpa, but grandma really wants to be, or I have got to maintain this family bloodline or what have you.
Don't misunderstand.
There are people out there who genuinely love kids and want to have them, and that's the reason they got married.
That's fine.
But I'm saying there are some people that they just do it because it's hell, how many of them are accidents?
And there's no school you can go to to learn how to be a parent.
That's why you learn it from your own parents, which is why there's so much of a mess now.
Because baby boomers are not the best.
At any rate, this takes me, ladies and gentlemen, to this story about young people's views are far different from baby boomers.
It's in USA Today from yesterday.
The opinions of young people today on politics, social attitudes, and even life goals are far different from those of their baby boomer parents, according to a new national survey of 18 to 25-year-olds.
More than two-thirds, 67%, believe that immigrants strengthen American society.
25% favor increasing legal immigration.
This is the 18 to 25-year-olds today.
47% of those between 41 and 60 say immigrants strengthen society.
Among those 26 and older, only 16% say that immigration should increase.
Young people are split over gay marriage.
47% are in favor, 46% are opposed.
But those over 25 are not.
64% of people over 25 are opposed to same-sex marriage.
Only 30% favor it.
So apparently something happens out there when you become 25 to 26.
I can explain all this, by the way.
This 47% in favor, 46% opposed people 18 to 25 gay marriage.
They don't have the guts to say they oppose it.
What's going to happen to them?
The pollster or what have you?
Nobody wants to be considered a bigot.
At any rate, even, I mean, nobody wants to be called a bigot.
The poll also finds that this generation, the 18 to 25-year-olds today, their top life goals are to be rich, that's 81%, and famous, 51%.
It's their perception.
It's what they're getting from the culture about themselves, says Scott Keeter, director of the survey research for Pew, who did this.
By contrast, a study of college freshmen in 1967 found that 85.8% thought that it was essential to develop a meaningful philosophy of life, while just 42% thought it essential to be very well off financially.
So in just roughly 40 years, the number of college kids who think the important thing in life is to be rich has doubled from busy 42% to 81%.
Now, this was a telephone survey of young people.
They asked more than 75 questions on issues from world events to national politics to tattoos to binge drinking.
The study which called 130 young people on cell phones because they don't have a landline is among the most extensive of this age group.
Now, I don't, how many did they certain?
It can't be, this cannot be just a total of 130.
What is it?
Come on, this cannot be.
It's got to be of the total, 130 of the total were reached on cell phones because they didn't have landlines.
It can't be they based all this on 30 people.
Keeter says he doesn't expect their attitudes on such social issues to become more conservative with time either.
One can imagine the complexion of these issues changing pretty significantly when this generation is in positions of power and authority.
32% attend church at least once a week.
20% have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic.
This is again 18 to 25 year olds.
48% identify more with Democrats.
35% with Republicans.
90% satisfied with their relationships with their parents.
64% say parents have helped them with errands, housework, and home repairs.
73% say their parents helped them financially in the past year.
39% say they keep up with news a lot.
64% check in from time to time.
Only 34% do watch or listen to news regularly.
18 to 25 year olds.
None of this is surprising to me.
81% exercise at least weekly.
Overall, these young adults are content with their lives and extremely optimistic about the future.
84% say their life is excellent or good.
14% say fair or poor.
Of those who are employed, 70% don't think they make enough money to lead the kind of life they want, but 65% expect to earn enough to do that in the future.
5% expect not to make enough money to ever be happy.
They're not bad numbers.
Nothing really earth-shattering here.
Typical of 18 to 25-year-olds.
And by the way, the 81% want to be rich.
You know, folks, I bet it's 81% of every generation at some point wants to be rich.
What's new about this?
What's really crazy, they go back to the 60s to 1967, and the greatest majority of college kids said, Mr. Limbaugh, it's important to develop a philosophy of life.
Come on, I'm not buying this.
If that's true, that's a direct outgrowth of what was being taught on college Campaign back then, where there was a lot of idealism and so forth.
But those people are now in many, many high levels of government and very wealthy, very rich, very rich.
Whatever their philosophy of life was, it included money.
Hey, Senator Kennedy.
University of California, Santa Cruz, has canceled its annual job fair this month.
They're going to reschedule it at a later time.
You know why they're canceling it?
The job fair includes military recruiters, and the university cannot guarantee their safety at a job fair.
And until they can find a way to guarantee the safety of military recruiters at a job fair, you see Santa Cruz canceling the job fair.
Just, you know, can you imagine a place where the military needs to be protected by a university?
Turn the military loose at the place.
This is embarrassing as all get out to me.
You got military recruiters who can't be allowed on college campus because they're not safe because the school can't figure out how to protect them.
It's the U.S. military.
Go in there armed up.
My gosh, what's happening here?
The school, well, we can't protect them, Mr. Limbaugh.
We really want there to be fear that they're fair.
Well, why can't you protect them?
It's a U.S. institution.
Are you saying that your idiotic campus is going to overrun military recruiters?
Oh, gosh.
Unbelievable.
And the kids, a couple of kids were kicked off a bus in St. Paul, Minnesota, because they spoke English.
Now, it's not what you think.
The headline creates false impression.
What happened out there was that the schools are segregating students and bus lines, bus routes, because they're going to different schools.
It's kids learning different languages.
And the bus that these kids tried to get on was exclusively reserved for Hmong people who were going to a school to learn to speak English.
And the driver said, You speak English, you can't get on this bus.
So he let them on the bus, but he told him he wasn't taking them home.
The parents got called.
The parents didn't know anything about this.
It's all smoothed out now.
But the bottom line is the school district is segregating students now based on what language they speak.
This is not an immigration thing, but the headline would lead you to believe that.
Let's go to Soundbite 13.
You know, we always loved special orders and the one-minute speeches by James Trafficant from Ohio, who is now in jail.
We think we may have found a Democrat replacement, Representative David Wu, Democrat Oregon, this morning on the House floor during one-minute speeches.
President has listened to some people, the so-called Vulcans in the White House, the ideologues.
But you know, unlike the Vulcans of Star Trek, who made their decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology.
These aren't Vulcans.
There are Klingons in the White House.
But unlike the real Klingons of Star Trek, these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own.
Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war.
It's wrong.
This is stirring oratory, ladies and gentlemen.
It's no wonder the Democrats got elected.
With people that can speak and reason like this, we have no hope.
Kim in Manitowoc, Wisconsin.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello, Rush.
It's a thrill and an honor to speak to you.
Thank you very much.
I have an observation about the caller who accused the president of flip-flopping.
Yeah, well.
He must be oblivious to the fact that this band that was accusing the president is the classic flip-flopper.
I was for the war before I was against the war flip-flopper.
I mean, I was just amazed.
I was screaming at the radio.
Do you realize what you are?
I mean, he is the classic flip-flopper.
You know, I understand the desire to deal with these people logically, but remember, logic offends them.
Yes, I know.
We live in a country where logic is deemed offensive because there's no answer to it.
There's no second side.
There's no alternative side.
You can't be fair and balanced if you have logic.
Of course.
They have to have two competing stupid sides in order to have liberals prosper.
Look, she's talking about a guy who called and accused Bush of flip-flopping because he's doing a troop surge.
And the guy had said, I started, I was a big supporter.
I was a big supporter, but I'm not now.
And she was pointing at he's the flip-flopper.
And the guy's a lunatic.
I mean, it's.
We had three lunatics to start the program today, folks.
Shame you missed it if you did.
Eric in Tallahassee, Florida.
Welcome to the show.
Sir, back to that first lunatic that you were just talking about.
Yes.
He said, he says, there comes a time when we have to come home.
And if we followed that logic, well, then honestly, after VE Day, victory in Europe during World War II, we should have just pulled out of the Pacific theater because it was dragging on too long.
Wait a second.
After VE Day, we stayed.
Exactly, we stayed.
We're still there.
We're still in Germany.
They've got bases all over Europe.
Now, think about how great actually, you know, they still give us some hardships, but how great of an ally is Germany?
How great and prosperous of a nation is it?
The same thing with Japan.
And this lunatic then asks you, what is victory?
Well, please, victory is what happened at Athematics between Lee and Grant.
You know, victory is what happened when Hitler felt so much pressure, he killed himself.
And two weeks later, the Nazis completely resigned.
Victory is when the enemy submits to us.
They turn in their leaders or their leaders are dead because they don't have hope of a chance.
Victory continue on.
Victory is when the bad guy's dead or quit.
Sir, I wish I could talk to you so much a little bit more, but I know we're running out of time.
But let me just say, mega-dittos, and I can't ever speak to Ronald Reagan, so I'm glad I just got this chance to speak to you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
What else do you want to say?
I've got about a minute here.
Well, you were talking earlier about just how I'm 20 and how people 18 to 25, their main goal, 82%, is to want to get rich.
And I think that's wonderful.
And I think that should be the goal of people this age.
Damn right.
Go out there and grab as much as you can.
And whoever you have to take it from, even better.
Honestly, I was going to play out some books I have.
I'm just kidding, folks.
I'm just kidding.
I know it's not a zero-sum game.
I mean, the books I have in my house, I've got like 15 of them.
How to build wealth through real estate, through stocks, how to acquire assets.
And then another thing you said is a lot of us do believe that we need some type of life morality or something.
Guidelines, yes.
Well, I think that is sort of important, too.
I mean, we should be talking about capitalism.
I have to stop you.
I have to.
This is discipline.
It's the programming format.
I don't have any more time.
Thanks so much.
We'll be back.
Hey, timeout.
Timeout.
I'm getting inundated with emails from people who say timeouts work.