All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
February 14, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh Cutting Edge, Societal Evolution, EIB Network, and all that.
Limbaugh Institute.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I just went to YouTube and checked to see if the 24 guys have posted my fireside chat open to episode two of the Half Hour News Hour.
It's not up there yet, but tell you what we're going to do.
When it is posted, we'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com as well.
That'll be another way for you to find it.
And I'll be talking more about this in the next couple of days as the show premieres Sunday night at 10 on the Fox News channel.
Did you see this story up on Drudge?
An SUV plowed into a movie theater?
Yeah, they got a picture of it and everything.
It was in Connecticut, Torrington, Connecticut.
Some moviegoers got to see some real-life action unfold as they were watching the movie Dream Girls Monday night.
During the 7 p.m. showing, a white SUV smashed through a wall of the theater.
Nobody was hurt, even though the SUV came inches from moviegoers' heads.
What do we take from this?
I mean, the headline, SUV plows into theater is movies, moviegoers watch Dream Girls.
Well, there's only one conclusion, that SUVs hate musicals.
You have to get to the last line here to find out that there was a driver.
Police charge the driver, 46-year-old Dilettis Squires, with driving under the influence.
It doesn't say driver plows into theater.
It says SUVs plows into theater.
SUV is probably fed up with the hype about Dream Girls, doesn't like musicals anyway.
Probably the driver was playing the soundtrack to Dream Girls on the CD player inside the SUV, and the SUV had had it and found a theater where the movie was playing and said, okay, take this.
Stunning the way this stuff gets reported.
Try this story.
This is a great story.
This is out of Nashville.
Legislation introduced in Tennessee.
Excuse me a second.
I have to cough.
Legislation introduced in Tennessee would require death certificates for aborted fetuses, which likely would create public records identifying women who have abortions.
Representative Stacey Campfield, a Republican, said that his bill would provide a way to track how many abortions are performed.
He predicted that it would pass in the Republican-controlled Senate, but would have a hard time making it through the Democrat House, really.
All these people who say they're pro-life, at least we'd see how many lives are being ended out there by abortion, said Stacey Campfield.
The number of abortions reported to the Office of Vital Records is already publicly available.
The office collects records, but not death certificates on abortions and the deaths of fetuses after 22 weeks gestation or weighing about one pound.
The identities of the women who have abortions are not included in those records, but death certificates include identifying information such as social security numbers.
The House Judiciary Chairman, Rob Briilly, a Democrat, called this proposal the most preposterous bill I have seen in an eight-year legislative career.
Fascinating stuff, is it not?
Interesting thought process.
This might inspire other legislators in other states to introduce similar legislation.
We'll keep track of it.
My buddy Andy McCarthy at National Review Online, a great, great piece today.
We told you earlier today, and we played you the sound bites.
In fact, let's go back.
Before we get to number nine and Tenant Obama, Mike, let's go back to, let's see, number one and number three to set this up from the president's press conference today.
There's a story in the Boston Globe today quoting a guy from the Institute for Peace and predictably a member of the Iraq surrender group.
His name is Serwar.
And he's going out of his way.
They're going out of the way.
Yeah, well, these IEDs that are in Iraq from Iran, manufactured in Iran, we don't know that they are from the highest levels of the Iran government.
We can't possibly say that.
And Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, also said, yeah, we've got to be very careful about this.
I mean, they're in there.
They're clearly from the Quds force.
But whether they come from the highest levels, why, we can't be sure.
So the president was asked about this today, first by David Gregory of NBC, who said about the IEDs coming from Iran, critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about weapons of mass destruction.
It turned out to be wrong, and that you're doing that to make a case for war against Iran.
Is that true?
I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops.
I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government, but my point is, what's worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it's happening.
And so we will continue to protect our troops.
Point is, they're coming from Iran, so who cares?
They're still being used by the enemy in Iran, which means Iran is aligning itself with the enemy in Iraq.
This was followed up later in the press conference by Ed Henry of CNN, whose question was this.
Are you saying that today that you don't know if senior members of the Iranian government are in fact behind these explosives?
That contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday.
They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this.
Also, it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts what you're saying.
I strongly disagree.
Strongly disagree with his assessment.
Cut three.
I'm sorry.
Go to cut three.
Please answer to cut three.
I just read you the question.
Let me read the question again.
Are you saying that today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are in fact behind these explosives?
That contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday, and it contradicts what you're saying.
Whether Amani Najad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know.
But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it.
We know they're there.
We know they provided by the Quds Force.
We know the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government.
I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said the Quds Force go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.
What matters is that we're responding.
The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed.
My job is to protect our troops.
Well, Andy McCarthy just posted a piece recently at National Review online.
He says, well, sure, Quds forces, by the way, you spell that Q-U-D-S, in case you're wondering.
Quds force operatives are killing Americans in Iraq, but how do we really know the Iranians put them up to it?
This is the latest illustration of the ostrich approach to Iranian warmaking in Iraq, given voice today in the Boston Globe by this priceless observation from Daniel Sewer of the U.S. Institute for Peace, and, of course, the Iraq Surrender Group, who,
quote, said he was not convinced that the Iranian government had decided at the highest levels to provide weapons to target U.S. troops, just because the Defense Department has confirmed that we've caught them doing just that.
The question is not so much about whether there are Iranian weapons inside Iraq, said Sewer or Serwer, who served as executive director of the Iraq study group.
Sure, there are.
The question is whether there is a conscious policy by the Iranian government or some part of the Iranian government to support lethal attacks against Americans.
I haven't seen any proof of that yet.
Now, you've got to understand that the reason for this is that the Iraq surrender group wants to involve Iran and Syria in a series of peace talks to end the Iraq war.
And so Mr. Serwer has to say, well, we can't say that the Iranian government, because if they concede that the Iranian government's involved in this, then of course it negates the whole possibility of talking to Iran and Syria about this.
Now, Mr. McCarthy says, when it comes to Iraq, the left is dizzying.
Are these not the same people who said that if Lindy England was walking a naked Iraqi prisoner around like a dog on a leash, she simply must have been acting on orders from Rumsfeld, if not Bush himself?
Now the Mullah's own militia, formed for the purpose of exporting the Islamic resolution, the Quds force, is caught red-handed exporting the Islamic Revolution to Iraq, and the left's response is to ask whether we can really be sure the Mullahs put them up to it.
And the White House Press Corps, which last year wanted to know how come no high-ranking administration officials had been made to walk the plank over Abu Ghraib, is today found pressing Bush about whether Quds terror is really Iranian terror.
You see how far they are willing to go to deny Iranian involvement, both at the Iraq surrender group level, the press level, and so forth, because anything that indicates that Iran is involved would necessarily require sensible people to admit that there might be a reason for escalation here.
We can't have that.
No, no, no, because we've got to do the slow bleed.
We have to do the slow bleed.
The Democrats of Pelosi and Murthy have to do the slow bleed and end this war by making sure that the president doesn't have enough troops to deploy where and when he wants.
That's their latest strategy, by the way.
Be right back with more after this.
And we're back El Rushmo serving humanity with half my brain.
Time behind my back.
Just to make it fair, this is Christine in Lost Creek, West Virginia.
Hi, Christine.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi, I'm calling because it's Valentine's Day, and I happen to have been married for nine years to a man who is very much like you.
How so?
I must need details.
Well, he's very intelligent.
He's very entertaining.
But when it comes to having a conversation with him, I'm a very shy person, and I find it hard to engage him in a conversation which is interactive.
I feel like I do not get myself, I do not get a chance to express myself because he is too busy expressing himself.
And I wanted your advice on how to engage him in a conversation in which I get a chance to speak too.
You are unique.
Most of the complaints I hear are of the just the exact opposite.
It's the husband not being able to get a word in.
You say you can't.
What are these conversations about?
Politics, business.
He owns two businesses.
And that is about the extent of it.
Are these conversations is he really engaging you in conversation or is he just speaking and bouncing things off and describing his day to you and using you as a sounding board?
I would say the latter.
Yeah.
Well, in that case, these may not be the things that you should engage him in conversation about once he gets these things off his chest.
Does this happen routinely, day in and day out?
Yes.
The best thing is to try talking to him about the things you're interested in after he finishes this.
Well, that is a great idea.
I've been married to him for four or nine years, and in that course of time, I had three boys.
So I feel like I kind of lost touch with what it is I'm even interested in.
So I guess I need to develop some outside interest.
Well, you know, I am the last person to be seeking such advice from.
I must be honest here.
And everybody on the other side of the glass is agreeing with me when I say this.
But I'll entertain the idea, nevertheless, when he talks about politics and business to you, do you try to enter the conversation?
I do, although he is much more educated in these things than I am.
But I do find it very interesting.
And see, he listens to you very religiously.
In fact, I started listening to you because he...
Do you think he's listening right now?
Could be.
It's very likely.
And you think he would recognize your voice?
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Making this all the more difficult then, because he knows now how to be geared up for whatever strategy you and I come up with to get you more involved in the conversation.
What time does he get home?
Well, actually, he is home right now because his office is on our property.
Well, his home office.
Mm-hmm.
All right.
You have to know some of his interests aside from these things he talks to you about.
I mean, you've got to be aware of some of these things that titillate, excite.
You've got to know those things, right?
Yes.
You don't have to admit them.
I mean, everybody's titillations are private because everybody thinks theirs are weird.
But explore them.
You might want to come up with activities that keep his mouth shut.
Thank you, Rush.
That's a very good suggestion.
Well, I'm just talking off the top of my head here.
Okay, well, thank you very much for your advice.
I will try and take your suggestions to heart.
Be the aggressor.
Don't wait for things to happen.
Make them happen.
You know, too many women think that men are mind readers and that he's supposed to come and you, I don't know if you're like this, but a lot of women think that, like in your cousin's case, he's supposed to know exactly how you're feeling without you saying so.
Or he's supposed to know what you want without you saying so or where you want to go without you saying so.
And then when he doesn't know this because he's not Kreskin, you think he doesn't love you or he's ignoring you or he's not sensitive to you or what have you.
But you've got to ask for what you want if you have any chance of getting it.
It's not being selfish, especially in a relationship.
You've got to be, you're not going to have any chance at intimacy here unless you bear yourself.
And you're married, so you should have already done this.
I don't mean physically.
I'm talking about, I'm just, if you want to really have a, I've never succeeded here, so take this.
It's worth the advice that it's costing you here.
But if you really, don't leave it up to him to figure out, you know, as a knight on shining horse or whatever, shining armor, you got to tell what you want.
Oh, well, that's true.
You run the risk of him saying, I'm not interested or what, but it's worth the risk.
I mean, you've got to get it out there what you want.
Okay, well, that is very good advice.
I'd go to his office right now and say, you just got off the phone with me.
And that you wish I was your husband and see what that does to him.
No, I'm just kidding.
Don't do that.
Don't do that.
Oh, of course not.
No.
Okay, well.
But don't wait for you know, these guys are idiots.
They're not mind readers.
We're not capable of imagining the fantasies rolling around in your head.
It won't take much in it, but you've got to have some indication because the guy's focused on obviously a lot of things here.
His business, his politics, and so forth.
You've got to permeate that.
That is true.
I guess I'm not sure.
You either find a way to get yourself involved in that or get through it and make him not care about it.
Now, you're a woman.
I mean, you ought to have countless imaginary ways of doing this.
Yeah, that is true.
Well, I'll have to think about that and give it my best shot.
Let us know how it works out, will you?
Will do.
Okay, thank you very much.
It's Valentine's Day now.
Has he done anything special for you yet today?
Yes, he did.
What did he do?
He bought me something that I had been wanting, and he bought me a very nice watch.
How long has he known you wanted it?
I would say a couple months.
Good memory.
Mm-hmm.
He does.
How many times in the last two months have you reminded him that you want it?
I think that I mentioned it about three times.
Is there people laughing in the background, or is it just you?
Oh, my kids.
It's my kids.
Your kids.
Oh, well.
How old are these kids?
Three, five, and six.
Three, five, and six.
Well, heck, Christine, there's your problem.
I mean, that I need to find a new hobby, I know.
No, You have to find something for them to do while you're employing this other strategy.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, you say yeah, but it's a, look it.
What are we talking about here?
Five minutes, Max?
I'm sorry, what was that?
I'm just kidding.
I'm just kidding.
I'm getting into stereotypes now.
Look, I have to run because of time.
Let us know how this works out.
Will you congratulations on the watch?
Oh, thank you very much.
You bet.
Happy Valentine's Day.
You same to you.
Back here in just a second.
Highly trained broadcast specialist fighting the ravages of the common cold virus while at the same time executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Barbara in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to speak to you.
I'm a little bit nervous because you're the smartest man I've ever talked to in my entire life.
And I'm 70 years old, and I'm taking issue with your Social Security remark about us being a welfare state.
I've worked two jobs my whole life.
Social Security and Medicare has beaten my checks up something fierce.
And believe me, I'll die before I get all my money back.
And not only that, government would have never touched Social Security.
Let it sit there and draw all the interest and place it in a place where it was safe and let us draw interest, we wouldn't have a problem with Social Security or Medicare today.
Now, if you can show me where I'm on, I'm welcome to listen.
Well, look, I agree with the latter part of what you said.
But the Democrats are not going to allow you or any other recipient of any welfare payment to control it because then you don't need them.
And if the private sector allows your quote-unquote payment or a series of payments to add up to more money than it would if it were just handed out by the government, then they're really going to look bad.
They'll never allow that to happen.
The president tried the whole notion of redoing and reforming Social Security.
They sold it wrong because there's a word in there called security, and people don't want to mess with the word.
When they hear privatization, it was easy for the issue to be demagogued and for the Democrats to say, your money's going to Wall Street fat cats.
And look at what happened.
Like the stock market crashed in 1913, the stock market crashed in 1986.
You could lose everything you've got.
Of course, when that's all you've got, you're not going to take the risk.
So we'll have to come back to it another day.
As to your notion that Social Security is not welfare, Barbara, I don't have to take issue with you.
I think if you're 70, you have long ago collected your contributions to Social Security.
And in fact, you are now, your Social Security checks are being paid for with Social Security taxes by people who are working today who think their checks, their deductions are going into an account with their name on it.
Of course, I don't think too many people believe that anymore.
But right now, it takes the taxes of two workers to pay the Social Security benefits of the average recipient.
And that number is going to soon go to three.
The burden for existing Social Security recipients is being spread over fewer and fewer, or more and more people, actually, which is less take-home pay for them.
That's why Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post is calling this, the program has become a welfare program now, because people who are working today are paying your benefits.
You long ago collected everything you put in.
I have it.
I just started collecting last year.
And I guarantee you, I won't be the one to collect it all.
What if I had taken all that money that they took from me and put it in a private sector?
Wait a sec.
What do you mean you just started collecting last year?
I keep getting things from the Social Security Administration telling me what I start.
If I start collecting at 59, if I start collecting at 65, what do you mean you just started?
You're 70 and you just started collecting when you're 69?
Quit working.
And I was making too much and I didn't want to interrupt that.
I wanted to get as much Social Security.
Well, you know what I get?
$904.
My mortgage loss is $830.
You are the exception.
I'm here to tell you you're the exception.
And I can give you other examples.
My grandfather, who lived to be 104 and worked until he was 102, tried to send his Social Security checks back for 30 years, and the government would not take them.
Well, you know what?
You can't do it.
You cannot do it.
They won't take the money back.
Let me say this.
If I had put all that money into a savings account and just drawn 3% interest, I would have enough money to live on for the rest of my life.
Right.
On the beach somewhere.
They wouldn't be able to go into my private account and say, here, let me borrow this and put it over here where I don't need it, but I'll put it over there because I don't want people to think that I'm spending too much of your tax dollar.
So I'm going to go ahead and get it.
Well, look, look, let me hold a second.
What you have to do here, a lot of people I know that get Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid don't like it when they hear that they're on welfare because you work and you worked until you're 69 and you paid money into the accounts, you had your taxes deducted and so forth.
That's the point that Mr. Samuelson is trying to make.
Until you get over being concerned what people are going to think about you and start realizing the reality of what is happening when fully six sevenths, well, let's say five and a half sevenths of the federal budget is being spent on people.
What do we have?
We have a welfare state and we have a welfare state that is growing and the liberals have spun it very well.
No, it's not welfare.
I work.
Why, I paid into that.
Why I'm owed that.
Why I served my country all these years.
I've paid my tax.
I'm owed my Medicaid.
I'm owed my Medicare.
We have got this, and it's been around for a long time that people think America owes them something because they've been good Americans.
I don't care how you slice it.
I don't care how you feel about yourself.
You've got to throw that out.
And the reality, if we're going to fix the problem, you have to throw it out.
Now, if people don't mind being in a welfare state, then we're never going to fix it.
And as long as people vote selfish interests, which they do, it's going to be a very, very difficult thing to fix this.
And what's going to happen eventually, and I don't know when, but the people who are being taxed to support all of this money being spent on other people are going to see their tax rates raised so high that they're going to say, screw it.
It isn't going to be worth working anymore.
When 70% of their salary is taxed to pay benefits for other people, they're going to say, what's the point of this?
No matter how hard they work, they'll never be able to get ahead.
And that's the collision that we're headed to here at some points.
They had different predictions on when, the 2030, 2050, what have you.
But it's clear that there's a, not only is there a welfare state, there's a welfare state mentality throughout much of the country.
Why do you think the Democrats are so eager for illegal immigrants?
I mean, the Democrats need victims.
And as the economy does better, fewer and fewer people actually need to be on some sort of federal dole.
Like they have to advertise food stamps every year.
The Democrats need new victims.
So what better than a low-paid, undereducated workforce from a foreign country or two that has no hope of making out very well, get them into the country, pay them substandard wages, and then get them on the dole.
It's called growing government.
It's called socialism.
It's called making sure that as many people need the government as possible.
And it's been remarkably successful since good old FDR started this whole ball rolling.
When five and a half sevenths of the U.S. budget is spent on people, and all of those people think they are owed it and that they deserve it and that it isn't welfare and that it's been a pretty good trick.
There's a breaking point someplace.
Everybody agrees.
It's just they think that it's going to happen when nobody today who is alive will be alive when it happens.
None of the policymakers anyway.
So they'll be able to continue to have these little temporary fixes.
But when their time is up and they have been called to the great below or the great above, some are going someplace, others are going others.
They won't be around to see the train wreck.
And since they won't be around, they don't care about it.
Living the here and now.
Got to run.
Thanks for the call back in just a second.
Okay, back to the phone.
So we got time dwindling quickly here.
On our Wednesday excursion into broadcast excellence.
Susan, in Alamo, California, I have been wondering how long it was going to be before I heard from you.
Well, Rush, it's been very hard for me to bring myself to this point.
And I can best summarize this in a poem.
Roses are red, sometimes they're white.
I was wrong about Governor Benedict Arnold, Schwartz and Kennedy, and you, Rush, like Jack Bauer, were right.
He's a big phony.
He's a liberal.
I am 100,000 times more angry at Arnold than I ever was when I called up at you yelling and screaming.
I owe you a big apology.
I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, and I'm rarely wrong, but you can take it back in San Jose two years ago when you apologized to me before 3,000 adoring fans, including myself, that you were wrong and I was right about Arnold.
You can take it back.
Go ahead, Rush.
You can gloat.
Go ahead.
I don't need to take it back.
I apologized only to quiet you down.
Is that it?
You knew all along.
I knew all.
Well, look.
Yes, of course.
But the point is, we had 3,000 people out there.
We're in the middle of a good time, and they're going to get caught up on one subject of whether I was right or wrong.
So it's easier.
Look, I've been a husband.
It's just much easier to say I was wrong and move on.
But Rush, don't you admit that Arnold started out as the terminator?
He was a terminator of high-tax and deficit spending.
Yeah, something's happened.
Something's happened.
He turned into the kindergarten creep.
You know why he's a creep?
Because he promised me in a meeting, really, a couple of months after he was elected governor, I was in a meeting with 200 people.
I asked him directly to never raise taxes.
He said he would not.
And guess what?
I feel like a cheap date.
He's used me, misled me, cast me aside, and he's imposing this 4% to 6% tax, which I call a tax.
They call it a fee on doctors and hospitals.
I called up his office and I said, what are you guys doing?
What is Arnold thinking of?
And they said, well, it's cheaper to pay for the health care for illegal aliens, you know, than it is to not pay for them.
And it'll be passed on in a fee.
And I said, this fee is a tax.
And his snotty little assistant said, no, it's a fee.
And I said, it's a tax, 4% to 6%.
Oh, and we're calling it a loan.
Oh, now they're calling it a loan.
They're calling it a loan, not a fee.
They're calling it a loan.
Oh, excuse me.
And thank you for being so articulate about that.
Uh-oh, I hope I didn't insult you.
Calling you articulate and everything.
I'm clean, too.
Don't leave that out.
Oh, that's right.
Yeah, clean and nice-looking and, you know, everything.
I'm sorry if I insulted you on Valentine's Day, Rush.
But anyway, you know, you have been so nice to me and everything.
And I just feel awful for calling and screaming and yelling at you because you're like Jack Bauer of politics.
There's one thing I know, Susan, and that's conservatives and liberals.
I know liberals like every square inch of my glorious naked body.
And I only have to hear one thing from a so-called conservative to realize that he's not fully conservative.
He's got liberal tendencies.
And I heard those things from Arnold.
But I tell you, at the time you and I were having our little argument about this, he was on the balance sheet.
He was far more conservative than not.
I was just trying to issue you a warning.
Well, you know, I learned a valuable lesson, Rush.
I am never, ever going to doubt you.
Just like Jack Bauer, people doubt him on 24, and in the end, he's always right, and you're always right.
Isn't that, I feel like Jack Bauer.
I've been 18 and a half years.
I say something people still disagree with me.
It's like CTU always thinks, or the president, Bower's off his rocker.
Bauer never knows what he's talking about.
We can't trust Bauer, and yet he's never wrong.
Right.
But you know what?
It's made me feel so good for about three years to gloat that I'm smarter than you.
And that was a great feeling.
And now I'm like humbly throwing myself at your mercy.
I don't even deserve the great Selectover sleep number bed you gave my husband and I, which we're having more fun than married couples are allowed to have.
And my idea is that you should give Arnold and Maria a sleep number bed so that they will think more clearly.
They'll get a great night's sleep.
They'll wake up thinking clearly and they'll turn conservative again.
That's my solution.
The problem with the sleep number bed as a gift to Arnold is it exceeds the gift limit.
Oh, it does.
Yeah.
Well, just give them the air, you know, the air part, you know, and not the whole thing.
They've got the air.
I mean, they've both got the air.
I mean, she got a lot of hot.
She got hot air.
She did the.
Did you know that she did the governor's radio address last Saturday or something?
I'm so mad.
I'm not listening to him anymore.
And some are thinking that she's laying the groundwork for her own run for governor down the road.
Oh, my God.
Just like Hillary.
She's denying it.
Everybody's denying it.
Look at what I was going to say to you.
What I was going to say to you, Susan, is that when you were having the argument, Arnold was far more conservative than not, but something has happened.
I can't begin to speculate.
I wouldn't speculate.
It's Valentine's Day.
But something has happened.
There's been a huge transformation.
I don't know if it's just the inertia of state politics out there in California, what have you.
Could be a number of things.
But clearly, he was unable to resist the onslaught of liberal influence and pressure, regardless from where it came.
Susan, I got to run because of the constraints of time here.
Let me take a quick break.
We'll come back and get our last couple of phone calls in after this.
No need to send the bed back.
Keep it.
Still love you.
You recognize your place now, and that's all good with me.
Back in just a sec.
All right.
Still no posting at YouTube of my fireside chat as President of the United States, which will open the second episode of the half-hour news hour running on the Fox News channel in a couple weeks.
But we're going to link to that at rushlimbaugh.com when they do post that.
It's just the opening skit to the episode.
A minute, minute and a half, I think, something like that.
It's not the whole episode.
They're going to post it on YouTube, I'm told.
Not up yet, but we'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com when they do.
Here's Tom in Riverside, Connecticut.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Hey, Rush, third time caller.
I got the hat-trick.
Imagine that.
Congratulations.
That's right.
Well, to speak to the greatest, and I say you are the greatest.
It's a pleasure.
Well, I appreciate that.
I wanted to get to our.
I spoke to you in September when our little communist friend from Venezuela came up and called Bush the devil.
And I called you up and I said there's going to be a backlash.
And you said, how so?
Are people going to protest the Sitco gas station?
I said, no, conservatives are smart.
They'll vote with their pocketbook.
Well, it is now true that the numbers are down and that he's about to change his gas stations from Sitco to Petro Express.
And he is also now on a public relations campaign.
He hooked up with the other communist up in Boston, Joe Kennedy, and has given millions of dollars, I mean, millions of barrels of oil to that little organization that he has up there.
Yeah, to help people heat their homes in the middle of the global warming.
Of course.
So it definitely has worked.
And I think American people are smart, or at least a lot of them are.
But, I mean, they know, and people realize, hey, listen, they're not worried about when they go full up their car if it costs them $25 or $26.
When someone comes and assaults an American and is doing what he's doing now to all the American companies, basically paying them 10 cents on the dollar, what they invested in there, it's an amazing thing.
Well, I haven't seen any stats on this to back up what you say.
I think the name changed from Sitgo to whatever his new name is was in Petrol Express, whatever.
I think that was in the works even before he came up and said he smelled the sulfur of the presence of Bush, the devil in the United Nations.
I've talked to gasoline experts about this, and it'd be really tough for a boycott of Sitco because there's some brand loyalty in gasoline, obviously, with credit cards, and it's not all that much.
But depends on how active Hugo is in trashing the United States.
People forget.
But I applaud your effort out there, Tom.
Your heart's definitely in the right place.
Got to go.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection