All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
January 23, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Liberals are still on the war path over 24 and so is care.
We have some interesting audio soundbites coming up on that.
Lots of stuff to do in our remaining big broadcast hour here on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, if you want to join us, the telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Has some questions for you about the Libby trial since opening statements were completed today and the trial now begins.
And we have talked about the controversial things that have been stated today, such as by Fitzgerald that Cheney wrote Libby a note that Libby then destroyed, that told Libby to start leaking Valerie Plame's name and so forth, and yet Cheney's not indicted.
There was no crime committed here in terms of the original charge anyway.
And so Cheney's name has been bandied about, even though he hadn't been indicted, not even an unindicted co-conspirator.
Then Libby's lawyer got up and said that Libby is not going to take the fall for the Karl Rove wing in the Bush White House.
I'm not going to be the sacrificial lamb.
And, you know, that's, I think, at least to a certain extent, that's the legal team.
Since there's so many Bush haters on this jury, the legal team trying to position Libby as also being victimized by these evil guys inside the White House rather than part of the team.
But here's some other questions for you.
And these are questions about the judge.
I have been curious about this judge and his rulings for the past nine months, all these pretrial motions and so forth.
And here are some of the questions.
As the trial now is underway, why would this judge prevent Libby, i.e. the defense, from letting the jury hear testimony from an expert on memory?
Why would the judge, I mean, you're the accused, you're the defendant in there.
They have got to prove your guilt.
One of Libby's assertions is, and I didn't lie to anybody.
I just, I forgot what I had said and written when.
There's a lot of other things that are far more important than this that were going on.
So he wanted to bring in a memory expert.
Judge said no.
Why would the judge allow some people on the jury who have admitted their dislike for the administration when that could clearly influence their thinking?
Why would the judge prevent the defense from revealing that Valerie Plam was not an undercover agent?
In fact, more precisely, why would he not allow the defense to question her status at the CIA?
Yet, Fitzgerald is free to talk about the war in Iraq.
But the defense can't bring up Valerie Plam.
And I don't know that this is political on the part of this judge.
I don't know the judge.
I don't know him that well.
When you think of, and we all do, when you think of trials and a legal system, we think fair.
And this doesn't seem fair.
And now I sound like a whiny lib.
But the judicial system is something else entirely.
All right.
A friend of mine sent me an editorial from the Stanford University Daily, the Stanford Daily.
And this is written, it's unsigned.
It's by the editors of the editorial board.
And I just want to read you some excerpts before we get to the 24 soundbites here.
For senior Jonathan Goldstein, Monday nights from 9 to 10 are off limits for everything except for Fox's hit 24.
My friends know not to call me during that hour, he said.
It's not that I'm antisocial about it.
I'll watch with other people.
I just want to be fully focused on what happens.
As most people familiar with the show already know, Goldstein's hardly alone since its debut in 2001, 24 has become one of the most popular compelling shows on TV.
Yet, despite the show's enormous entertainment value, and we admit here at the Stanford Daily that it is addictive, whether you are a devoted longtime fan or if you're just getting into the series, it's important to pause and consider how the show may influence the way audiences think about current events.
No, it's not important to pause.
Liberals will want to pause and think about that because they are worried that 24 depicts a reality that they're trying to erase.
But at the same time, there is the possibility that 24 could replace news altogether for some viewers.
Please.
I kid you not.
This is the editorial board at the Stanford Daily.
Now, you know me.
I love institutions of higher learning.
I love the free flow of information and ideas, the inquiry.
Gosh, I'm making myself sick.
I love college students.
The future of America, blah, But this is just patently absurd.
There's the possibility 24 could replace news altogether for some viewers.
Folks, do you realize what a great thing that would be if 24 was the only news show people watched?
Not because of what they see on 24, but because of what they won't see everywhere else.
And let's see, at the same time, the possibility 24 could replace news altogether for some viewers and the over-dramatized events it presents to keep the adrenaline flowing could pervert the public's sense of reality by creating a constant sense of paranoia that is good for ratings, but not necessarily for the general interest.
A constant sense of paranoia.
I think there already is a constant sense of paranoia, and it's on the left.
From Halliburton to Cheney to whatever theories these kooks have, there is rampant paranoia already on the left.
By the way, a question for the editorial board at the Stanford Daily.
Did you worry that people were watching the West Wing and pretending that it was actually the administration?
Did you worry that people were watching the West Wing in place of news as you worry that people are doing the same thing with 24?
The pervasiveness of torture in many of the seasons distracts from the seriousness of the matter.
Bauer often has to extricate information from terrorists by painful means that would probably fit any textbook definition of illegal interrogation.
But because Bauer is a good guy, has to work fast to save the day, it often becomes too easy to ignore any moral implications of his actions.
I think the show doesn't let anybody get away without making moral.
Every time, most of the time torture takes place on this program, there is a moral question surrounding it, and it happens, but it's not presented the way these libs fear that it is.
Furthermore, and here we get to the meat of this, the constant portrayal of Muslim terrorists as the source of threat opportunistically plays off the public's fears and perpetuates existing stereotypes that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists.
Yes, that's what it says.
Furthermore, the constant portrayal of Muslim terrorists as the source of a threat opportunity plays off the public's fears and perpetuates existing stereotypes that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists.
You know, I need for somebody to prove to me this isn't a stereotype.
And I'll tell you why.
You might be more accurately talking about it if you were to state that all terrorists are Arabs and Muslims.
Not that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists, but I mean, we're not worried about little old grandmothers blowing up our jets.
I mean, what happened happened?
What's been happening for years and years and years in the realm of terrorism has been perpetrated by specific people.
But see, you can't say that.
That's offensive and that's profiling and it's bigoted and whatever it is.
It's racist and so forth.
So we have to deny reality in order to be kind and so forth.
Though most Stanford students are able to separate the entertainment value of the series from its factual content, not taking many of the over-the-top plot twists as credible depictions of the current political atmosphere, next time you watch 24, it is worth considering exactly how these elements play into the excitement.
We are confident that our peers at Stanford can make the distinction between a fictional show and real life.
And we hope the rest of the 33 million viewers will be equally disturbing.
I don't know.
If they're so confident of this, why'd they write the editorial?
Why are they so worried?
And of course, they get it.
The editorial board of Stanford gets it, but they're worried about the other 33 million people.
I would say this.
When they write, we hope the rest of the 33 million viewers will be equally discerning.
Don't count on it.
They've been educated by our public schools.
I just, of course.
So this is at the Stanford Daily.
That's the editorial board.
We've got some sound bites to go along with this when we come back from this brief timeout.
All right, we're back on the cutting edge of societal evolution, El Rushball.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all concerned.
Maha Rushi.
Last night, Paula Zahn Now, CNN, talking with the Council on American Islamic Relations, Rabia Ahmed.
Zahn says, you were quoted as saying that after watching show 24, that you were afraid to even go to the grocery store because you weren't sure the person next to you would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.
What are you afraid of?
Well, we can't underestimate the power of images in shaping public perceptions of Islam.
And I'm afraid that somebody out there can't distinguish between fact and fiction and will actually act on those attitudes and engage in a backlash against innocent Muslims.
It's a reality, it's a backlash is something that the American Muslim community has faced in the post-9-11 climate.
Let me, when was the last time?
I haven't heard of this.
In the middle of nowhere, the average shopping center where there's a grocery store, a Muslim has been attacked in a grocery store for just being there.
Now, I know there have been some profile cases on airplanes, the flying imams, and that kind of thing.
But this is an assault on artistic freedom, creative freedom, and so forth and so on.
This is akin to these people that say, gosh, you know, after Limbaugh quotes what he said about the median Donovan McNabb, I didn't think my son could ever grow up and be a quarterback in the NFL again because he's black.
These are non-sequiturs.
These things make no, this is simply a well-structured effort because this will appeal to the soft people we have in this country and to the passive people out there who don't want to offend anybody.
And of course, if somebody says, after watching this show, I'm afraid to go to the grocery store.
I think I might get beat up or worse, get blamed for terrorism or whatever.
Well, if you're not engaging in terrorism, if you're not looking around, doing things that arouse suspicion, I haven't heard of this happening.
Have either of you?
Of course not.
I haven't heard of this happening.
So what's this fear?
Is this fear genuine or is this just stated here?
There's seems to be a pretty concerted effort here to pressure the network and the producers of this program.
Last year, you know, it went even is, by the way, for those of you at the Stanford Daily, last year's 24 was not about Islamic terrorists.
It was about breakaway elements from a former Soviet republic or some such thing.
Next question from Paul Azahn, have you felt in public that people are staring at you?
They think you have a weapon hidden?
Every time I fly and travel, and that's indicative of the work that we need to do.
If attitudes towards Islam and Muslims are so negative and there's such a prevalent misunderstanding of our religion, images like Muslims as terrorists in the absence of any positive or neutral images of Muslims really doesn't do anything good for our interfaith relations.
Man, oh man, this is Twilight Zone stuff.
I can understand all this if the terrorists blew up the World Trade Center et al. and all of our embassies weren't Muslims, but they were.
And we have Muslim leaders all over the world condemning the United States and threatening more of the kind of activity that took place on 9-11.
Why in the world would anybody think that certain Muslims using their professed beliefs of Islam have it in for us?
Why would we possibly think this?
Well, I think maybe because they have been trying to kill us for the last 20 years.
Well, they have been killing us, but they've been trying.
Well, you try and you achieve it.
They've been trying that.
Some of their attacks have bombed out, no pun intended.
No, I'm being facetious here.
Why would anybody think this?
Every time she flies and travels, she feels people are staring at her.
I wonder why that is.
Yeah, I don't know.
The holy war that's been declared, the Zawahiri, Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, most popular name for young boys a couple years ago, born in Islam, was Osama.
Anyway, here's another bite.
This is Chris Matthews last night.
And you remember, they're screaming about 24.
They just screaming.
I can't stand it.
It's creating a false impression.
It's promoting war.
It's war profiteering.
It's propaganda.
He interviewed Governor Bill Richardson last night.
They had this exchange.
Were you inspired that Jimmy Smith speak Alan Alda on West Wing for president?
Well, I watched that with interest, and I like the ending.
But at the same time, Chris, I think the American people really want somebody who can get things done and bring the country together and talk about spirit and talk about values and just resolve the differences that we have, a healer, a unifier, and I've done that.
Healer, unifier?
I thought that was Obama.
Anyway, here, West Wing was real.
Yes.
Bill Richardson is to take hope for his electoral chances because an Hispanic beat Alan Alda for the presidency on the West Wing.
I tell you, these people watch the West Wing and they think they're actually watching the administration that runs the country.
Side note on Richardson.
I thought about this.
You know what?
I think Hillary Clinton may actually not be all that upset that he gets in this.
Because it's just another first.
They got the first black in Obama, even though some don't say he's black.
Or some say he's not black.
Then you get the first woman, even though she's not.
You got Hillary.
Now you got the first Hispanic.
And any other first after Obama sort of takes the luster off of whatever first he actually is.
He's certainly got the biggest ears of any presidential candidate.
But I don't think that's something Hillary can use.
Gentry in Atlanta, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, good day.
Hey.
How are you?
Good.
Getting any respect today?
Am I getting respect?
I get respect constantly.
Respect myself.
Well, bless your heart.
Thank you.
Have you read that?
Thank you, sir.
Have you read that out?
We must love ourselves before others may love us as well.
True.
And I have no problem loving myself.
No, you make that self-evident.
Well, I'm confident, too.
So it's called part of the package.
You are.
And no one can make you feel inferior without your permission.
Well, no, there's some that try.
Who said that?
And I haven't given them their permission to do it, but they try.
They don't succeed.
I mean, people that strut their superiority are actually quite insecure and in a state of panic.
I can't believe you just said that.
Yes.
Have you read the op-ed by Liz Cheney in the Washington Post today?
No, I heard about it.
Haven't read it.
You should read that because I just cannot believe she's even.
I tell you what, it could be a great day for conservatism in America because she says that the retreat is not an option, failure is not an option.
And by God, I think that she's probably down there enlisting at the Army's recruitment office right now.
What's your problem with that?
The defeat.
Definitely enlisting?
No, the defeat's not an option.
The retreat's not an option.
What's wrong with that?
Well, if you read the article, she doesn't even mention the civil war, the religious war that's going on in Iraq right now.
And she's not going to be able to do that.
I'll tell you what.
Can you hang on?
I got a break here.
We'll continue this after a minute.
And welcome back, folks.
We now rejoin our conversation with Gentry in Atlanta.
During the break, Gentry, I went and printed out the column in the Washington Post by Liz Cheney.
Now, what is it specifically in this piece that you're commenting on that you find incredulous?
Well, the fact that she says that we're in an existential war.
I don't have the article in front of me.
I read it on the screen.
Okay, she says, we are at war.
America faces an existential threat.
It is not as Pelosi has claimed a situation to be solved.
It would be nice if we could wake up tomorrow and say, as Senator Barack Obama suggested, that enough is enough.
But wishing doesn't make it so.
We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere.
And if this is such a war of such magnitude, why have has the administration not called for a draft or a greater sacrifice other than, as the president said the other night on TV, when he was interviewed by Jim Larry, when he said, you know, the fact that people see the carnage of the war on TV and that's how they sacrifice, they sacrifice peace of mind.
I mean, it's incredulous that Dick Cheney would send his daughter out to make his case for continuing this failed war.
I don't know that that's what happened.
It may have, but Ms. Cheney herself is a former principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs.
And what qualified her to get that job?
Well, I have no clue, but I'm also not going to assume she's unqualified.
What qualifies Barack Obama?
What qualifies Hillary Clinton to comment on any of this?
What is the point here?
You're talking about sacrifice.
You know the makeup of the country today.
One of the biggest problems with this is that we don't have to.
The country is so affluent.
We have a volunteer force that people don't have to sacrifice if they don't choose to.
That's what's so remarkable about the armed forces to me.
And you just downgraded the threat of terrorism to this country.
I did?
Yes, by saying that the country doesn't have a stake in fighting terrorism.
I didn't say that.
I didn't say that.
Let me try and say.
You didn't say that.
We don't have to sacrifice this war.
It can be fought with a volunteer army and go about your lives, spend your money, and get back to wonder and fulfillment.
It's all lollipops and rainbows.
Yeah, this is not like it was in World War II.
The country doesn't have to ration.
Rosie doesn't have to rivet.
We don't have to send all the women into the automobile plants to start making airplanes.
We don't have to do that.
We are the most prosperous, affluent country on the face of the earth.
And if Paris Hilton wants to get drunk every night in South Beach or Hollywood, she can.
We've got plenty of people her age that volunteer to defend the country.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
I keep hearing this, where's the sacrifice?
Where's the sacrifice?
What kind of sacrifice do you want to see besides tax increase?
Well, if this is such an existential war, I want to see the country get on a footing that eliminates terrorism where terrorism exists and from the people who perpetuated it on us on 9-11.
Well, then, you know, the best way for the people of the country to get on board is for the Democratic Party to join the rest of the country in defending the country.
You know, how about a resolution urging defeat of the bad guys?
Why can't they do that?
How about...
And the bad guys are bin Laden.
The bad guys are, well, he's one of them.
Bad guys are all over the place.
9-11, 20 years of terrorist acts against Americans prior to 9-11, the World Trade Center explosion in 1993.
What do you mean?
You don't buy that it's an existential war?
You don't buy we have worldwide enemies out there?
And we went after the people that committed the crime on 9-11, or forgive me, on the first World Trade bombings in 93.
Yes.
Sheikh Abdel Rahman is in jail.
Yes.
And, you know, here's the thing, though.
You and I will never agree on whether Iraq was behind 9-11 or not.
But the bottom line is also.
Yes, we will.
I will agree with you that it wasn't.
Nobody ever said that it was.
In every breath the president took, he said 9-11, and then the next words out of his mouth were Iraq.
Come on, now, if we're going to discuss this.
See, I am being honest with you.
The president's never said that.
That's why people are so bent out of shape.
Some of them we've gone into Iraq.
There was no operational linkage, but I think it is really odd for people to believe that terrorists are in Egypt, they're in Dubai, they're in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, but God, you know, they just never found their way into Iraq.
There was never an al-Qaeda.
Terrorists are everywhere but Iraq.
I got one more bone to pick with you on this article.
It's the fact that she blames Hillary Clinton for the impending defeat in Iraq.
She goes on to say about her remarkable trajectory, something to that effect about what it takes to win the presidency.
She wishes she would put as much effort into winning the war in Iraq.
And it seems to me that that's just an attack on Hillary, and she's leaving it up to the next president, whoever that person may be, to clean this mess up.
Well, no, we could clean the mess up if half the country and the Democrats would get on board with it, support victory.
It really isn't that complicated.
Now, you know better than this to start dumping here on Liz Cheney for criticizing Hillary.
Hillary Clinton and her husband try to blame me for the Oklahoma City bombing.
It happens.
This is what happens when you're in public life, when you take a position on things.
I think it's a rather good point.
I wish the Democrats would, if they would just expend half the energy in defending the country and defeating this enemy as they are in trying to rid this country of George W. Bush, I would embrace them with open arms.
They clearly have the stomach for a fight, not just to defend the country.
They will fight with all they've got to gain power.
But when it comes to defending the country, it's just, it's...
That's so disingenuous.
That's like saying that if China attacked the United States on 9-11, that we went and attacked Thailand as retribution for it because they're Asians.
That doesn't make sense.
We should never have gone into Iraq.
Oh, gosh.
This is why we're losing the country.
The reasons we went into Iraq are as documented as Bill Clinton laid them out in 1998, and every Democrat in the Senate supported him.
No, every Democrat did not.
Well, 98% of them did.
You got your resident socialists in it.
98% of them did.
But he didn't follow through on it.
But everything that George W. Bush said about weapons of mass destruction and the threat posed by Saddam and his desire to secure nuclear weapons, Bill Clinton said it in 98.
The press doodly reported it.
Why we went into Iraq is crystal clear.
It's not because of 9-11.
9-11 is relevant in this sense.
Then why is the country so disillusioned with the war?
Because we're not winning.
Because they don't see pictures of us kicking the enemy's ass.
All they see is IEDs and Americans being reported killed, but they don't see us winning.
The media is not presenting a picture of U.S. victory.
And there has to be some.
You know, it's a one-sided presentation for the most part of what happens.
Now, I want to explain to you the relevance of 9-11 to Iraq.
You're president of the United States.
We've just been hit on 9-11, and it's worse than Pearl Harbor.
And there are threats of more such acts.
We've got 14 failed resolutions at the U.N. Security Council for Saddam Hussein to let weapons inspectors in there to make sure that he's not building chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction.
He's flaunting his nose.
We know that bin Laden and other al-Qaedas had been given safe haven in Iraq in the 90s.
It's called preemption.
It would have been irresponsible to not take action based on what every intelligence service in the world said and what we knew of Saddam's previous use Of chemical weapons on his own people.
It's a different day after 9-11.
Sad to say, some people can't come to grips with this.
You just can't put your head in the sand and say, you know, this 9-11, it's just an episode, and we're going to have to learn with these things and live with these things because there's nothing we can do to stop it.
If that's the attitude, then we're going to have more and more and more of them.
Now, the downfall of all this is we face the same situation in Iran.
And by the way, the scenario is starting to get awfully familiar.
Iran's refusing to let UN inspectors in.
Why, where have I heard this before?
Iran won't let 30 U.S. nuclear inspectors in to see what's going on.
This little Mahmoud Ahmad Dinejad, you must think he's kidding when he threatens to end Israel's existence and then come after us.
You must think he's kidding being a blowhard.
But people in positions of responsibility who have a constitutional duty to protect the country can't pretend he's joking.
And they can't pretend that Saddam Hussein was a blowhard.
It's their job.
And so that's why we went to Iraq while we were in Afghanistan.
Didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
Oops.
Big problem.
But we knew they were there.
Still don't know what happened to them, but they were there.
But the sad thing about talking to you gentry is you sound like a smart guy, a little smug, but you sound like a smart guy.
And you know everything I just told you.
Well, maybe you don't.
Depends on what news you listen to.
But there's no hope.
There's no hope that we're going to achieve victory over this enemy when half the country is being led by a party which is trying to secure our defeat for the sole purpose of winning their own power back and defeating and humiliating George W. Bush.
Where's the resolution for victory?
Where's the resolution to defeat these guys?
You're going to dump on Liz Cheney because she writes something critical of Hillary Robinson.
What is Hillary Untouchable now?
Back in just a second.
Stay with.
Yo, folks, I've been hearing about this.
He got sacrificed.
He got to sacrifice.
Where's the sacrifice for the war?
I've been hearing about this for so long.
I got an idea for you, Libs.
You want to sacrifice?
Because that's who I keep hearing about.
You got to sacrifice.
We got to thank him.
Fine.
Support the war.
Make that your sacrifice.
You run around, tell everybody else how they ought to behave.
Run around, tell everybody what they ought to do.
Just because you're miserable doesn't mean we have to join you.
We all do not want to be equally miserable.
I would hate to grow up and get up every day to be as enraged and miserable and unhappy as you liberals are.
And the way you set yourselves up, you're never ever going to be happy because your mission in life is to look for things that make you miserable and then politicize them and blame people like me for it.
The second thing is, I hear you liberals all the time, and Democrats do this too.
Democrats, hey, I was all for going to Afghanistan.
Don't tell me I'm against the military.
I want to fight the real war on terror.
And that's why I authorize troops to go to Afghanistan.
Somebody tell me, when did Afghanistan attack us?
Because I keep hearing we can't go into Iraq and we shouldn't because Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
Well, last I looked, neither did Afghanistan.
When did Afghanistan ever attack us?
Fact, the Taliban, when did they ever attack us?
A Taliban, which was running Afghanistan, didn't attack us.
So tell me, Libs, why is it so permissible and even valorous For you to say you support the war on terror by going to Afghanistan, but not Iraq, because Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.
Neither did Afghanistan.
But wait, Mr. Limbaugh, you are trying to trick people again.
Everybody knows that's where Bin Laden planned the operation.
Yeah, but he's not an Afghani.
And his government there was just the Taliban.
It wasn't Al-Qaeda.
So we went into Afghanistan just to get bin Laden.
No, Mr. Limbaugh, we're rooting out terrorists.
Who?
Well, Al-Qaeda was there.
They're in Iraq, too.
But Iraq didn't attack us.
Well, neither did Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda did.
We go where they are.
And believe me, they're in Iraq.
And they were in Iraq before we got there.
Do you people really, you Libs, honestly think that terrorists, hell, they were in Florida?
They were in airline schools in Arizona.
They're in Canada.
They're in Sri Lanka.
They own Europe.
They weren't in Iraq.
Yeah, they were in Somalia.
They were in the Congo.
They're everywhere.
Singapore, Philippines.
But they weren't in Iraq.
Bali.
I've named enough places.
Thanks, Steph.
I think we've made the point here that the terrorists were everywhere.
Everybody wants to get in the act.
But they weren't in Iraq.
You know, you libs, I'm going to tell you what, this country faces as big a threat from you as it does Al-Qaeda.
You may not use bombs as frequently as Al-Qaeda would like to, but you are doing your best to underscore or to destroy any sense of unity that the country might have on the thing that everybody in this country ought to be unified.
But there's one thing, it's the defense and protection of the country.
How can you hate the country if it isn't here?
If you want to keep hating America, you better make sure there's an American hate.
You people just frost me.
You want to sacrifice?
Support the war.
Call me here.
Sacrifice in public.
Share your grief.
Share your upset.
Share your misery.
I'll join you.
I'll sacrifice by letting you have the show for a couple minutes now and then.
I'll do my part if you'll do yours.
Who's next?
Joe in Loveland, Colorado.
Joe, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
Pleasure talking with you.
Thank you, sir.
My question is: when do you think Iman El-Zawahiri is going to open up his Democrat Presidential Exploratory Committee?
Well, he doesn't have to.
He's got a number of candidates already announced.
Oh, but I think his platform pretty well mirrors everybody else's.
Well, that's the point.
But see, he's not a U.S. citizen yet.
And as such, he can't seek the office.
Well, you got his proxies out there.
You know, and also, if I have a comment for the gentleman questioning your military service, I'll take so-called chicken hawk over chicken droppings any day.
Well, chicken or whatever.
The guy, what really insulted me was that guy insulted my fat ass.
My ass is gorgeous, like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
I wouldn't want to see his skinny little real ass.
I agree.
Probably gets boils on his butt sitting on a soft chair.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
All right.
Heather, you're up next from Pleasant Plains, Illinois.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
Hi.
Hi, I'm a fan, and I listen as frequently as possible.
I'm very happy to get to speak with you.
Thank you.
My children dance to your theme song.
Wow, cool.
I used to, too.
I'm a conservative and I'm not afraid to be one.
Okay, we have one minute.
Okay, I'm concerned that the employer-paid health insurance tax will hurt everyone because employers, private sector employers, use benefits to negotiate with employees, and taxing benefits is not going to stop with health insurance.
And employers provide a health insurance as group insurance is cheaper per person than individuals buying their own.
Benefits like this, employers use to increase employee disposable income without raising salaries and keep their costs down.
You should write a pamphlet.
It sounds like you have.
You know, I just had time waiting on the phone to get my thoughts together.
I appreciate that.
Very cool.
But it's unsettling to me that this is another way government is inserting itself into business and taking more of our personal answers.
Well, we'll have to talk about this further tomorrow, particularly after the president goes through the whole plan tonight, even though it's done on arrival.
I appreciate the call, Heather.
Thanks much.
Be back here tomorrow, folks.
We'll look forward to it.
And I will watch the State of the Union address.
Maybe read a transcript.
▲
Export Selection