All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
February 14, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Rush Limbaugh still ravaged by the common cold virus, an especially rotten strain of the common cold virus.
But nevertheless, here in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Looking forward to talking to you today.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
This is a pretty good story here, given that this Valentine's Day.
Excuse me a sec.
Well, you know what?
The hell with it.
I'm just going to spray this stuff.
Zykem Kaufmist.
At any rate, the story has to do with vasectomies, which I think is a story that has a place here on Valentine's Day.
U.S. scientists say that they have determined that vasectomies might place some men at risk for an unusual form of dementia.
Northwestern University researchers discovered men with primary progressive aphasia, which is a neurological disease in which people have trouble recalling and understanding words.
Now, you know, the longest time, women have been waiting for scientific proof that men think with a part of the anatomy other than their brains.
And if now we've got vasectomy research showing that there's dementia in men, the inability to retain and understand certain words like take out the trash, stop following so closely, you never listen to me.
I mean, if men are forgetting those words, it makes total sense.
Of the non-impaired men, 16% had undergone a vasectomy.
In contrast, 40% of the men with a vasectomy with the disease, the lack of understanding of words, that had the surgery.
And by the way, the professor on this is a woman, psychiatry professor Sandra Weintraub, principal investigator in the study, began investigating a possible link between vasectomies and primary progressive aphasia when one of her male patients connected the onset of his language problem at age 43 to the period after his vasectomy.
Weintraub and her colleagues surveyed 47 men with PPA and 57 men with no impairment.
And this is where the stats come in.
40% of the men with PPA, the disease, had had the surgery.
That's a huge difference.
So they may be onto something there.
Is this not fun?
Now, Bodyguard claims he could be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.
What is this?
Number five in the line?
Well, six since I put myself in the line yesterday, just for the fun of it.
And the latest is that they wanted to put a hold on the, it's going to do with the body.
They asked a California judge to put a 10-day hold on the body.
Well, no, they say California.
Well, I was reading the graphic on Fox as they asked a California judge.
It might have been a typo.
I thought that was weird, too, when it said California judge.
Anyway, the judge said, nope.
Bank of America has begun offering credit cards to customers without social security numbers.
Now, who are these people?
Well, typically they are illegal immigrants.
This is a Wall Street Journal yesterday.
In recent years, banks across the fruited plain have been offering checking accounts and even mortgages to the nation's fast-growing ranks of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic.
Adding these immigrants generally have not been able to get major credit cards.
Well, I wonder why.
You know, I called my credit card company once, and I said, I need to get a card in an assumed name, in an aka, also known as.
They said, no problem, as long as you have a social security number for that name.
Well, I said, how could I?
It's going to be a fake name.
Well, then we can't do it.
Well, I should have told them I was an illegal immigrant, and then I could have gotten it.
This is, for those of you that have any hope that anything's going to be done about this, you can forget it.
This is like ending entitlements.
This is like reforming the tax code.
It isn't going to happen.
I hate to be a preacher of doom here, but when this stuff starts happening, the new Bank of America card is open to people who lack both a social security number and a credit history as long as they've held a checking account with the bank for three months without an overdraft.
Bank of America tested a program last year at five branches in L.A. and last week expanded it to 51 branches in L.A. County, home to the largest concentration of illegal immigrants in the country.
The bank hopes to roll out the program nationally later this year.
Must be a burgeoning market out there.
It has to be.
I mean, if the banks are willing to give credit cards to people without SSNs.
And New York City's Department of Education says that it will open a public scruel next fall dedicated to Arabic language and culture.
The Khalil Gibran International Academy is one of 40 new scruels that will debut in the city next September.
Education officials say that although half the classes at the scruple will be taught in Arabic, they want to enroll a diverse student body, a school set to open in Brooklyn.
Why, are we failing the Arabic-speaking community in this country in public education?
It must be.
I don't know, folks.
Some days I listen to public officials not figure out why some Muslim immigrant would cut loose in a mall, not being able to understand why it would possibly happen to be scratching their heads about it.
Some days it just doesn't make sense.
Yesterday we, and there are more and more of those days popping up.
Yesterday we had the story about adoption and how some group out there, gay and lesbian groups, had ostensibly done research showing that adoptive parents are actually better for kids than their natural parents.
It didn't say could be.
They actually are better.
And of course, people called here and wanted to start debating this, which I said, you're missing the point here.
You start debating this and you're accepting the premise and think it needs to be debated.
You have to understand this is total hokeum.
Well, of all places, ABC News Has a story here from last night by Gary Langer, who is their director of polling, which debunks this story and two others, the story on naps and spouseless women.
On stories ranging from the value of naps to the administrations of adoptive parents, it's not been a terrific week for the sober reporting of scientific data.
Then again, it rarely is.
Too bad they don't include global warming.
And speaking of it, Mr. Snerdley made a pretty bright observation to me at the top of the hour break, went in there to his office, and we're watching the tube, and all these reporters, as they're wont to do during snowstorms, are standing out there in the snow.
And Snerdley said, You know, I've been watching this for the last couple of days.
These people actually seem shocked that it's snowing in February.
They seem shocked that we are having cold temperatures and record cold and record snowfall.
I said, Why would you think they'd be shocked?
These people have bought hook line and sinker into the global warming model.
This isn't supposed to be happening.
Of course, they're shocked.
Then we saw a crawl that went across the screen: deadly snowstorm strikes northeast.
And once again, a lack of perspective.
Do you think, let me just ask you a question.
In the civilized and the advanced state of life that we in this country experience today and enjoy, do you think the number of weather-related deaths are higher today than they were, oh, say, 75 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago, 200 years ago?
Of course not.
But the drive-by media wants you to think that it's never been worse, that weather-related deaths are at an all-time high because of global warming or ice or snow or what have you.
Anybody ever heard of the Donner Party?
These are the people traversing the Sierra Mountains mountain range just out in Nevada, California.
It got so bad, so much snow, so much ice, so much cold, they resorted at cannibalism and the survivors documented it and so forth.
And the one reference that could be found to the weather in all of the writings of the Donner Party was it was an unusually cold winter.
They weren't whining, they weren't moaning, they weren't asking where's FEMA.
They were just making observations.
Think about the pilgrims.
And if it hadn't been for the Indians showing them how to start a fire, my gosh, who knows how many of them would have died.
Think about the pilgrims, the early arrivals, the colonial days, when you've got snow and ice storms like this, and the only source of heat is a fire in your cabin.
And the idea that we have it tough these days.
Deadly snowstorm, deadly ice storm, deadly heat wave, and so forth.
And yet the incidences of weather-related deaths have to be minuscule today compared to times gone by, particularly in the distant past and even the not too distant past.
And I know what some of you say, Rush, what about the 35,000 that died in Spain and France during a heat wave a couple of years ago, global warming?
Yeah, I remember that.
Didn't have air conditioning.
Number problems settled in, but that's probably the kind of thing that happens in a less advanced society where there isn't air conditioning, where there isn't places and shelters for these people to go and so forth.
That's probably a good illustration of what it used to be like every year when there were heat waves, which there were, of course.
Anyway, I got to take a break.
When I come back, I'll get to the details on this adoption story as explained by Gary Langer, the director of polling at ABC, right after this.
Hi, welcome back.
Gary, let's get to this adopted adoption story yesterday.
Just to remind you of this, and the AP was breathless in reporting this thing.
It couldn't wait to report the fact that a couple of groups, gay and lesbian groups, were just ecstatic over research involving 161 families, quote unquote, that adopted parents were better for children than their natural parents.
And there was no skepticism.
This was just a puff piece from front to back.
So last night at ABCNews.com, Gary Langer, the director of polling, addressed this.
Today's new bundle of joys is a study on adoptive parents published in the American Sociological Review.
The AP report on this study looks darn newsy.
Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents.
What might have been made clearer, of course it should have been made clearer, Gary, but they were not, they're not, this is an agenda story.
They weren't trying to be clear about anything.
They were advancing a notion here.
What might have been made clearer is that this is so because adoptive families have higher incomes and more education.
When the data were controlled for income and education, there is no significant difference between married mom and dad adoptive parents and mom and dad biological parents.
Both do equally better than other family types.
Now, the report's basic finding is that compared with being raised by a biological mother and father, being raised by an adoptive mom and dad does not unequivocally constitute a disadvantage in the allocation of resources to young children.
Now, that's not the same thing as saying it is an advantage over being raised by two biological parents, which is the tack the AP story took.
In fact, the study says that we find the two adoptive parent family structure is remarkably similar to the two biological parent family structure and that both are better than alternatives.
The AP report also notes in its lead to the story and discusses at some length the notion that this report is challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
In fact, the study specifies that because there are too few such families to analyze in the data, it's focused only on married male and female couples who adopt.
So the point of the whole story was bogus, or the vast majority of it was bogus because there weren't enough families, gay parents, adopted families to put in the study to control them.
The whole thing was as we suspected.
Yes, as I told you, was why silly to debate this.
It was an AP agenda story.
All right, to the phones.
David in South Bend, Indiana, I appreciate your patience.
Thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rich, how you doing?
I was going down the road listening to that clown that called you and trying to argue with you about troop numbers and all that.
It's just incredible.
I don't think these people seem to understand.
And I don't know if, I mean, obviously our news media can't make it clear to anybody.
We've been fighting Iran for 30-something years.
The president of Iran was the guy that took over the American embassy back in 79.
That's who we're fighting.
That's who we've been fighting.
And the whole reason he's got sabers rattling and all that type of thing is he's got us on both sides of this country.
You know, and all this, you know, with the Muslims and what have you, it's just, it's, it's spooky.
But yeah, I was just over there for a year, and I just want to say that, you know, the American troops that are over there are doing a fabulous job, and some of the finest American people that this country has to offer, they are putting their lives on the line for people like that to make a phone call.
It's just, it's sickening.
Well, this we know.
I can imagine how sickening it is.
It's frustrating to all of us to listen to that kind of dribble.
But you have to understand that that phone call was taken primarily for its comedic value.
As to fighting Iran, I have long suspected that this whole thing in Iraq was actually a proxy for dealing with Iran in any number of ways, just as the Hezbo war in Lebanon with the Israelis as a proxy for Iran.
And people, the dangerous thing here, David, is that people in this country, the anti-war types and the drive-by media, will say, well, wait, wait, how can you believe anything you people tell us about Iran?
You got it all wrong about Iraq.
You lied about the intelligence or the intelligence was wrong.
So how can we believe anything you say about Iran?
And that's why we've got our hands tied now.
I was going to say, Rush, you know, speaking of the media, the thing is, is that since I have been back, I've had more people come up to me.
I mean, just people like in stores or any place I've been, I'll wear a jacket that has, you know, a military emblem on it or something.
And the first thing they ask me is, are we winning over there?
And is the news media telling us the truth?
And I say, we're winning, and the news media is not telling you the truth.
And they go, that's what we thought.
And it's amazing how many people say that.
They do not believe the news media.
As far as they're concerned, CNN, Al Jazeera are the same thing.
And when I'm sitting back here in the States watching this stuff, it is incredible to me.
I read a book just before we deployed called Militant Tricks.
And it's incredible how when you look at the television today and they blow up a cafe in Baghdad, how people think the entire country looks like that.
I was there for a year.
It does not look like that.
I sat through briefings.
We were attached to the 1st Marine Division, and we are clearly winning.
And it's just any of this, you know, all this type stuff about whether or not Iran is supplying the IEDs and stuff.
But we have briefings every single day.
They know where this stuff is coming from.
We know who's supplying these type of IEs.
Right, well, let me give you the scope of the problem, though.
The scope of the problem is that for four years, see, back in Vietnam days, Walter Cronkite was able to end the Vietnam War with one broadcast.
It's taken the drive-by media this time about three years, three and a half years, of never-ending daily assaults on the American people with televised newscasts featuring pictures such as you just described, a burning car representing the entire country of Iraq.
There are more people than you know in this country who do not get news from anywhere but the 6.30 and 7 o'clock newscasts.
Most of them are middle-aged and up, and that's all they watch.
They don't watch cable.
They don't read newspapers.
That's all they watch, and that's what they believe.
And so the polls in this country, you can't discount them.
The polls, they ought to be what they are, given the never-ending assault on the senses that the drive-by news reports for the past three and a half years have been.
And look, I'm going to tell you something, when the president will not criticize the media for misrepresenting the facts and so forth, it's for whatever his personal reasons are, professional reasons, it makes it all the more difficult for stories like yours, told countless times they've been told on shows like this, to permeate the public mind because there are no pictures associated with your words,
and they've been bombarded for three and a half years with pictures to the other effect.
Back in just a sec.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies to Riverside, California.
This is Randy.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush, mega conservative, 37-year-old dittos.
Perfect demographic information for us here.
Great to have you on the program.
Hey, I had a comment about something you were talking about a little bit earlier as you were speaking on the Valentines.
And you almost sounded, bless your heart, a little bit disenchanted with the Valentine experience.
Really?
Yeah, I mean, when you were mentioning about sometimes us men kind of discharging our dutiful obligations to our would-be sweeties or wives or significant others.
Or all three.
And that's something actually, the whole concept, actually, of dutiful obligation really doesn't coincide, I think, with the whole relationship of love.
Take, for example, if I were to come home today at the end of the day and I got a bouquet of flowers and a beautiful card for my wife, and I come home and I walk in the door and she says, wow, look at this.
Look at you.
And I said, I've also got dinner reservation set up for us at, say, something like Ruth Chris Dakehouse.
That'd be fine and dandy, but look at it.
But if you were to ask me, Randy, why is it that you have done this?
And if I gave the answer because it was my duty, I'd be in the doghouse definitely.
But no, but the point.
Hold on.
No, no, no, no.
You're missing.
I am not disenchanted with the Valentine's experience, as you say.
Using your scenario, if I heard you right, those are your gifts to your wife or her gifts to you.
Those are my gifts to her.
Okay.
Okay, so she says, Randy, why are you doing it?
She's not going to say, Randy, why are you doing it?
Because she's expecting it because it's Valentine's Day.
And that's why.
And the reason why she's expecting it.
There is no spontaneity here.
It's all perfunctory.
It's all.
No, no, no, no, no, that's the thing, because it's not that it's a...
Well, then why didn't you do it yesterday?
Why didn't you do it yesterday?
Because that's the thing.
Because for her, today is a special, unique day.
And because that's important to her, it's like celebrating someone's birthday or something.
I got it.
I got it.
All right.
So Valentine's Day is important to her.
And it is important to me, too.
But because it's got that special, I mean, we call these things holidays, for example.
It's because it's particular recognition on that day for that idea or the concept.
And because of that level of importance, because it's important to her, nothing makes me happier than on that day.
I mean, for her, for example, for her birthday, birthday isn't a day for her.
For her, the birthday is a week long.
Yeah, I've been there, done that.
Right.
So, you know, but that's where the joy comes from relationally.
I love her like that.
I do.
And sometimes.
Look, that's fine.
You've fallen in a trap.
You don't even know it.
And ignorance is bliss.
You're having a wonderful time out there, and that's cool.
I'm not trying to destroy anybody's good time.
I'm just looking.
I know.
I'm not a conventional wisdom do-it-because everybody else does it kind of guy.
Oh, definitely not either.
I saw the spontaneity as well of when we go out.
I mean, for example, we've got like a weekly date night kind of a thing.
And that's something that's tentatively kind of scheduled, but it's not.
But I just want to tell you something, Randy.
Two days from now, this is when, on Friday night, do the same thing.
And don't, because she won't be expecting it and see what you get.
Oh, definitely.
No, don't say definitely.
Do it.
Okay.
Just do it out of the clear blue.
Out of clear blue and just see.
Just compare the reactions.
That's all I'm telling you.
Okay.
Can I send you the bill?
You see.
No.
This is part of expressing your love and adoration.
I understand.
All right.
Thanks, Randy, for the call.
I appreciate it.
Ramesh in Houston.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega Ditto's Rush.
As a former member of Blame the Right-Wing conspiracy, when my skull was still full of mush, I'm proud to say I'm recovering and been put on the right path thanks to the EIB network.
Well, great.
I appreciate that.
Welcome home.
Sir, I'm calling in regards to something I saw last night on CNN.com as even before I got into the EIB network, I found myself disenchanted with the media so much to the fact that I don't even own a television anymore and I get all my news off the internet.
And I saw a report by a gentleman.
Well, actually, let me preface this by saying the AP was constantly flooding news sites about how Muki Sadr fled.
And I was like, wow, they're actually using positive words that might reflect well on the Bush administration.
This can't last more than six hours.
And then sure enough, around midnight last night, CNN comes on with their wonderful Michael Weir, who likes to show videos of GIs getting sniped at.
Yeah, we've got the sound bites here.
And you people have to hear this.
Ramesh, thanks for the phone call.
This is Anderson Cooper45.
And the fill-in host last night was John Roberts.
And he's speaking with Michael Ware, who is the CNN quote-unquote correspondent in Iraq.
And John Roberts says, senior White House officials say that Muki al-Sadr has fled to Iran out of fear for his safety because of the coming troop buildup.
Any idea where Muqtada al-Sadr is, Mr. Ware?
This is the same White House that thought there was weapons of mass destruction here in Iraq and who, until recently, were telling us things were going well in the war in Iraq.
So what we've heard from the White House and the reality on the ground here in Iraq are often two different things.
He travels frequently and often that is to Iran.
There's plenty of reasons for him to go there.
So has he left or has he fled?
We woke up a member of parliament from his political faction, a spokesman.
That gentleman said that Muqtada is still here.
So CNN will accept the word of the enemy rather than the word of his own government.
Of course, what's new about that?
But here you have CNN relentlessly spinning for the enemy, shooting down reports that al-Sadr has fled Iraq.
By the way, this was...
I originally saw this as an ABC report.
In the second bite we have on this, John Roberts says, well, hey, look, Michael, if he did leave, would it have any impact at all?
At the end of the day, tactically, operationally, it would amount to diddly squat.
Mukhtada will be able to direct his militia and political forces from anywhere he wants to.
So the enemy can do no wrong.
The enemy is all-powerful.
Bush lies.
The American government lies.
The military lies.
We only get the truth, what's happening in Iraq from the enemy.
There you have it, CNN.
Thanks so much.
We can always count on you.
You heard about the tape from Eamon Al-Zawahiri.
I know this came out earlier in the week, and I wasn't here on Monday.
And this thing hit on Sunday, I believe it was.
But there's the most amazing passage in this thing.
He spoke directly to Democrats in the United States Congress.
And here's what he said.
As for the Democrats in America, I tell them, the people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq.
But it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss.
And it appears that you will take part with him in the defeat and certain failure with God's permission.
And the American people shall discover that you are all one side of the same coin of tyranny, criminality, and failure.
That failure which, by the grace of God, has neutralized the endeavors of the traitors who entered Kabul and Baghdad on the backs of American tanks and has dashed their hopes as they see the Mujahideen come closer and closer to victory, which has led them to urgently appeal to America for help and implore it to continue to occupy their lands and raise the banners of the cross over their heads.
Now, is it just me?
I have been commenting on this ever since prior to the election last November.
Here you have number two to Osama, who I'm not even convinced is still alive, Ayman al-Zawahiri telling the Democrats that they are failing in their mission, in their promises in the campaign prior to the 2006 November elections.
This guy is suggesting that they promised to do exactly what Al-Qaeda wanted, and now they're not doing it.
Now, probably some of these weird moon bats from the Democrat kook base probably think Zawahiri's right on the money.
They think the Democrats aren't being gutsy enough with these non-binding resolutions and so forth.
But does it strike?
And I'm talking to those of you moderates out there.
I know that the people in this audience who are rock-ribbed conservatives right along with me are appalled by this.
But those of you who are moderates, and I know you're out there, you lurk.
You don't want anybody to know you're there, but we know you're there and you know who you are.
Does it not trouble you at all that the enemy of this country so often sounds policy-wise identical to the Democrat Party and that their objectives, i.e., the defeat of the United States, are inseparable?
Does it ever stop?
Did this ever occur to you?
I really wonder.
And judging by the last, you know, last year's elections, you don't know.
It's tough to ascertain.
Be back in just a sec.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back.
El Rushball, your guiding light and living legend, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Steve in Minneapolis, you're next.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Mega Ditto, Alternate Universe Ditto there, Russ.
Thank you, sir.
Have you with us?
Yeah, I just wanted to point out that this kid, this Muslim kid who did this killing, they don't want to talk about his religion.
And when Ellison ran for office up here, they certainly didn't want to talk about his religion.
But they're just beating Mitt Rock and right with this Muslim thing.
What do you think?
Oh, I think that's a pretty good observation.
They're doing everything they can.
In fact, it's laughable.
It's comical.
In fact, I'm going to take the occasion here to break my silence on something.
Because this, well, I've been sworn to secrecy until it was going to air, and I can tell you about it.
But this notion of looking long and hard to find out what could have caused this young man to do this right in front of everybody's face, and they refuse to see it because everybody's afraid to be accused of racism or profiling or what have you.
And yet, Mitt Romney announcing himself for president of the United States, well, where he came from and what his religion's all about, why we can give him a media anal exam over all of that.
We can try to discredit him left and right for it.
It's outrageous.
Now, let me tell you what I've been curious or eager to tell you for the past number of weeks.
I have just a second.
Excuse me.
I have recently mentioned to you, I've been out to Los Angeles and taping some skits for an upcoming television show.
And the show is called Half Hour News Hour, and it is produced by Joel Cernow, who is the creator, co-creator, and executive producer of 24.
It's a comedy show, and it is a takeoff on liberal news these days.
It's a 30-minute show, and the Fox News channel has bought two of them.
Essentially, these are pilots.
These are programs designed to see if they work, after which, if they do, then the big-time budget flows and the shows get produced for real.
So they got two test runs coming up.
The first one is Saturday night.
I'm sorry, Sunday night at 10 o'clock after Sean Hannity's new one-hour show.
And in these episodes, I open each show in a skit as the President of the United States.
And Ann Coulter is the Vice President of the United States in each of these skits.
Now, we went out and did three of these.
Only two of the programs have actually been produced yet.
And as I say, the first one airs on Sunday night at 10 o'clock.
Now, the fireside chat, I did a version of a fireside chat skit that would have opened the third show had it run.
Actually, no, I take it back.
The fireside chat skit does run in episode two.
And they're going to put that on YouTube this afternoon is what I'm told for people to get a look at.
And I'm not sure, I'm not that versed in YouTube.
I don't know how to find things.
If you just look under half-hour news hour, you can either use the acronym 1-2 for half or spell it out, half-hour news hour.
Sometime this afternoon is going up, and you can get a heads up.
That's in episode 2.
But these are, this is, if you, some of you old enough to remember that was the week that was the old David Frost show from back in the 60s.
That was a satire on the news.
This is somewhat like that.
It looks like the Daily Show, and it's a takeoff on The Daily Show.
And it's basically satire.
Now, some of the reviews, I've been reading some of the reviews in TV Guide, as is typical, the left is so predictable when they review conservative comedy.
They say it's mean-spirited.
It takes swipes at people.
As though left-wing humor does not take swipes at people.
But that's not what this show does.
This show takes swipes at hysteria.
It takes swipes at the silliness of the hysteria of global warming or the silliness of people actually idolizing Che Guevara, a mass murderer.
And in the second episode, as it relates to this last caller, they do a brilliant satire on the London terrorist bombing that was thwarted with the eight or nine Muslim gentlemen, suspects involved.
And they've got this pointy-headed, worthless intellectual expert from some Washington think tank who is an expert on terrorism.
And they have this guest, and it's a female and a male anchor of news is the focus of the show.
And they interview this guy, and they mention all of their names, eight Muslim names in a row, bam, bam, bam, bam.
And nobody can get the link.
Nobody can figure out what these eight suspects have in common.
It's identical to what's happening in any instance, be it with the mall shooter out in Utah, Salt Lake City, or wherever else.
These are pretty funny shows.
And I was thrilled to be asked to do these little opening skits in them.
It's hard work doing this stuff.
I told you, we're out there for eight hours in the studio to do three of these things.
But they look good.
And the first one airs Sunday night.
I'll be talking about it more and more.
But the key is that it needs an audience.
And I'm going to be blatant here.
You know, normally I sit here and just tell these things to you.
And if you find these programs or these books or these things I recommend, find and dandy.
But in order for this show to have a chance at success, for these two pilots to be picked up and actually made into a regular series with some substantive production values and so forth, they need an audience.
They need an audience.
I think the first one, oh, I know the first one's Sunday night at 10 o'clock Eastern on the Fox News channel.
And the second one, I don't know if it's the following week or not.
I'm going to have to get clarification on that because I've seen two conflicting dates.
But I do know the first one airs Sunday night at 10.
And the fireside chat version in the second episode of me as president will be on YouTube sometime this afternoon.
Back in just a second.
Okay, two big hours, two big, busy broadcast hours are down.
One more.
And I, your highly trained broadcast specialist, am raring and ready for it.
▲
Export Selection