All Episodes
Previous Next
March 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
March 29, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Where's this Democrat judge?
It's in San North Dakota?
South Dakota.
Greetings, music lovers and thrill seekers.
Welcome back.
Rushlin Baugh, highly trained, broadcast specialist, countless years experience.
You know what?
I figure I started in radio 1967.
This is 2007.
I've been at this, well, 40 years, minus five that I was with the Kansas City Royals, but still involved in broadcasting to some extent there.
But 40 years.
Broadcast experience I bring to the golden EIB microphone each and every day.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program today.
The Democrats are out there saying that the U.S. Attorney Imbrolio is, it's just about politics.
They're trying to criminalize it.
There's a story today.
AP has it.
A judge in South Dakota, an aging judge, cannot perform his workload anymore.
He's a Democrat.
He's a federal judge.
And other judges in the courthouse are picking up slack for this guy so he won't have to retire and let Bush appoint his replacement.
So you've got a Democrat judge who's unable to work a full load anymore hanging on, trying to make it for 2008 when hopefully for him the Democrats win the White House and he can quit and have a Democrat appoint his successor.
Now, you tell me that that's not political.
Probably a couple of U.S. Supreme Court justices are doing the same thing.
They're just trying to gut it out and hold on as long as they can, don't want to retire, while Bush would have the opportunity to replace them.
These guys, they're purely political.
They're out there charging the Republicans' politics as criminal.
It's breathtaking to behold.
These guys, the Democrat Party, I'm going to tell you something, folks.
This whole, the way they conduct themselves, going after Republicans, is a way of life for them.
It's even pathological to the point they believe all the lies they tell.
They actually got themselves believing the election results were in November were to set a date to get out of Iraq.
They believe it.
They've told themselves this so much, they believe it.
They spend every waking hour plotting against the Republicans now to advance their agenda.
Republicans don't do this.
They don't look at government this way.
The libs do.
Government is their house.
Government's their home.
Government is their religion.
It's their everything.
And the days that they're not working on the floor of the House of the Senate or whatever, they're coordinating with their associates all over the country to make this as unified as they can, this constant, never-ending approach.
It's just, it's who they are and what they do.
And, you know, the Republicans know it.
I mean, they can see it coming, but they don't do anything about it because it's not in them to act this way.
They just don't sit around and scheme about holding on to their power.
Hell, there's not enough party discipline in the Republican Party to pull it off, even if they wanted to.
By the way, this judge, this dilapidated old guy of South Dakota that's hanging on, I'm sorry, one of the judges that's helping this dilapidated judge hang on is a close friend of Tom Puff Dashle.
So Tom's talking to the guy, would really be helpful.
We're all concerned that he might quit.
And if you could just pick up the slack from a dilapidated judge in our party, can't work as much.
It will really help, be real helpful, so we won't be as concerned, Tim, because we don't want to lose this judge seat.
So the friend of Puff's taken over some of the dilapidated judge's caseload.
But there's no politics in that.
Let me finish here about Pat Dollard.
Pat Dollard, big-time former lib, big-time former Hollywood lib, done a 180, become a conservative.
Vanity Fair magazine has done a 23,000-word hit piece on the guy, trying to destroy him.
He quit his job, took a camera over to Iraq, talked to a bunch of Marines, put together a documentary called Young Americans.
And on his website, he says, I wish the projection I'm writing about was astral.
I wish the people I'm writing about were permanently floating out of their bodies, or at least until they came to their senses.
Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emmanuel, Harry Reid, and well, the rest of the Democrat Party have decided to project their policy and political ambitions with regard to the war on Iraq onto you and me, people who were not offered the opportunity to vote on any proposed national law or referendum regarding Iraq, but who instead were only offered the opportunity to vote in local elections for representatives to the federal government.
During the campaign, very few of those who were elected looked the American people in the eye and told them they intended to vote for an arbitrary cutoff date for the war or a call to bring the troops home within weeks.
Yet the Democrats now claim that they were elected to do exactly that.
Perhaps they need to be reminded they were elected in the United States of America and not Fantasy Island.
Pelosi et al. are overplaying their hand, over-interpreting the fact that local elections allowed the Democrats a slim congressional and Senate majority.
Somehow they've interpreted this to mean clearly and unequivocally that the American people want a complete pullout from Iraq, regardless of the consequences.
They have interpreted it to mean that the American people do not support the surge.
A surge the reckless and ridiculous Democrats themselves supported when they unanimously approved General Petraeus to lead it.
They keep stating the American people somehow voted the Democrat Party in as part of a national referendum to immediately begin a withdrawal from Iraq.
There's no evidence to support such self-serving wishful thinking.
The only thing that supports that contention is their desire for it to be true.
Hence, that's why I call them pathological.
Would anyone who voted on such a referendum please scan and email me their ballot?
Because if it was out there, I didn't get to vote on it due to some voter fraud conspiracy, and I'm going to be mad.
And if anyone's dying and would like to leave their brain to Chuck Hagel, please go to his website for contact info.
This is Pat Dollard.
Some people at HBO are thinking about turning his life into a movie.
I just wanted to mention this to you because it's a former Hollywood liberal, and he's got the election results right on the money.
Now, we don't have national referendums, but you've got to remember the Democrats did not run on an agenda.
They were ripping Iraq.
They were ripping Bush.
They were ripping everything, but they didn't say we're going to get us out of there.
Their left-wing blog kooks interpreted it.
But the Democrats never said this is what we're going to do, and yet they're interpreting their own victory as a mandate in that regard.
Here's an AP story out of Saratoga Springs, New York.
The name involved in this story might ring a bell.
An administrator at an upstate college has resigned after her complaints about a patriotic display at a Florida tourist attraction hit the talk radio airwaves.
Hilal Eisler, or Isler, whatever, who is a Turkish-American Muslim, says the series of events that led to her resignation began when she and her husband visited SeaWorld in Orlando earlier this month.
Eiler Isler, whatever, I don't, I'm not purposely mispronouncing her name, I just don't know what it is, says the driver of a tourist attraction bus made insulting comments about Muslims, then ridiculed the couple when they complained.
She sent an email detailing the encounter to the Orlando Sentinel, which published a story on the incident on March the 16th.
The newspaper article contained quotes from her complaining about a patriotic display staged during their visit to SeaWorld.
The patriotic display involved the flag, the American flag, and people at SeaWorld were standing up and applauding it.
The story caught the attention of syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh.
Since then, officials at Skidmore College say that she has received upsetting emails and other messages from around the country.
She resigned last week after just three months in her position as director of Skidmore's student diversity programs.
The bus driver has since been fired.
Oh, we knew that.
That was in the original story.
These Turkish Muslims had gone to SeaWorld and see Shamu and so forth, and they also saw the American flag and they flipped out.
And we did read the story.
And apparently she's been pressured now to split the scene and has resigned from Skidmore College as the head of diversity among the students.
They laugh.
Time magazine, time.com, Jay Carney writing in Washington, poll, a surprising GOP edge for 08.
Could things be any worse for George W. Bush and his party?
In the new Time poll, the president's job approval continues to wallow near the all-time low of 33%.
His approval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third concern, disapproval rating breaks the 60% barrier for the third consecutive survey.
He goes on, talks about all these polling data that he's got and how bad it is for Bush out there, and then said it's hard to know exactly why respondents who are generally unhappy towards and in many cases fed up with the GOP might still prefer a Republican president over a Democrat.
Much of it has to do with the individual candidates involved.
In Clinton's case, as Times pollster points out, with Hillary, the Democrat frontrunner, most voters have made up their minds about her, both pro and con.
She may have a limited upward potential against Republicans.
The emerging anti-Hillaries, Obama and Edwards, suffer from low awareness at this point.
Oh, no, no, no, not true for Edwards.
Story-based.
Fundraising skyrocketed out there since the press conference last week.
Another GOP advantage in these matchups is the way the party's top two candidates are viewed by the public.
Giuliani and McCain are not traditional Republicans, says the pollster.
Rather, they both have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democrat bastions like the Northeast and California, the left and right coasts.
Democrats also may have a residual disadvantage going into 2008, a long-standing disposition among voters to view Republicans as stronger on issues involving national security.
And Jay Carney's surprised about this.
Subtext of this is that despite all this polling data they've got about how Bush is supposedly hated and despised, same poll projects Republicans as the preference over Democrats generically in the 08 presidential race because Republicans are perceived to be stronger on national security.
And of course, the drive-bys are just, they can't believe this.
Why?
They've done their job.
They got that approval rate down to 33%.
They think they got half or more of the American people hating the war in Iraq and wanting out of there.
And now this and it's right in front of their face.
And here the Democrats have voted to defund the war and to pull the troops out starting in March of 2008.
And they're scratching their heads over why it might be that Democrats are not trusted in the area of national security.
Chrissy Matthews is going to be fit to be tied because there is no Alexander Butterworth bombshell at the U.S. Attorney hearing today, chaired by Leahy.
The Republicans just objected to the whole thing and the hearings were called off.
The hearings have been brought to a screeching halt.
And here's how the Republicans did it.
They did it on a procedural vote.
When the House or the Senate, the House and Senate in session, which is the case today, the committees that meet can only go for a certain amount of time.
And after that time has been reached, anybody can raise an objection and cancel the whole thing.
It goes back to the notion that what's happening on the floor of the Senate is important and you can't go to a committee meeting to avoid showing up there.
So the Republicans have shut down the hearing.
They were objecting to the line of questioning and a number of other things, too.
So the hearing today has just been called.
So Chris Matthews is going to be slobbering down, you see saliva down the chin there tonight if you watch this, because he was expecting an Alexander Butterworth moment.
He predicted it today on MSNBC or whatever today's show.
He said, yeah, we're going to get some bombshell this afternoon.
Around two or three o'clock, we're going to get a bombshell just like Butterworth.
Some guy tentative, no big thing expected, is going to blow the whole thing like the taping system that Nixon had.
Well, we got a bombshell, all right, but it's not what Chris imagined, and that is Republicans shut down the hearing today, the committee meeting on the eight fired U.S. attorneys.
They used a rare, rare rule, and they invoked it.
A couple of quick items here before we go back to the phones.
It's a story out of Chicago.
And this is just sad.
Almost 300,000 reading and math tests taken by Illinois students in 2006 weren't counted because Illinois relaxed a rule under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, allowing some schools to dodge a warning that they were failing.
They left the children behind.
The kids weren't doing well, so they didn't count the tests.
The tests most likely to be discounted were low-income and minority students.
The Chicago Tribune reports today: almost one in four black students and one in five low-income students didn't have their scores counted.
According to federal guidelines, the school's progress under the law is evaluated on tests taken by students enrolled for a full academic year, which each state defines, like 180 days, 185, whatever it is.
Illinois changed its rule so that students must be enrolled by May 1 of the previous school year to have their tests counted.
Before last year, the state counted the tests of students enrolled by October 1 of the school year.
This change meant that 283,000 tests were not counted, which let 53 schools dodge a warning list of underperforming schools.
Schools that make the list can face sanctions, such as offering students the chance to transfer to other schools.
So they're admitting their school sucks.
They're not teaching minority kids.
They're not teaching poor kids.
They're not doing well on the tests.
Found a loophole to discount the tests.
This, folks, is what these educators do to keep minority and poor kids uneducated.
And it is criminal.
It is racism, and you can demonstrate it by virtue of the numbers.
Look at whose tests are thrown out.
And why do they score badly on the tests in the first place?
And yet these are the people that won't let us close these schools.
Oh, no, no, no, we're going to keep these schools open.
Diversity, teachers' union requirements, or what have you.
It is no wonder that parents of black kids and minority and poor kids are fed up with the public school system.
But I also think there's a little conspiracy.
I actually, you know, I think one of the objectives of liberals running the public education system is to keep kids dumbed down so they grow up as adults dumbed down and therefore more easily made dependent.
This serious matter.
This is Roger Chicago.
You're next, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Dittos and greetings from the state that sent Dick Turbin and the Magic Negro to the Senate.
It's great to have you with us, sir.
Rush, I'd like you to go backwards in your stack of stuff there to the survey that said, what was it, 72% of the people thought this was horrible that these attorneys were fired?
Yeah.
I contend that the majority of the people in this country do not think that anyone ever should be fired.
It could be.
And you could substitute almost any job in that survey, and you would get almost the same result.
I think you're probably right.
That's a good way to look at it.
Because there has been this evolution, and it's been over many, many decades, that big business is evil.
Management's evil.
And they're unkind and they're cruel.
And they fire people that never fire themselves.
They get big bonuses and they pay diddly squat to the people that really make the country work, company work and what it is.
And so you're just saying there's a natural disposition to defend anybody who gets fired on the basis that it's unjustified.
Right.
And Rush, I've been fired three times.
And I think you've been fired in your life, too.
And every time, all three times, it was the best thing that ever happened to me.
Well, I've been fired.
I lost track at six.
I think it's seven.
And people ask me, like I'm sure they've asked you, would you go back and do things different, would you?
No, I wouldn't because it all was part and parcel of leading me to where I ended up, where I am.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the best thing that happened, but I mean, you had to deal with it, and the ways I dealt with it tended to work.
But, I mean, I didn't get fired.
I'm out of time.
I'll explain what I mean by this and what I think you mean when we come back.
Okay, let's see if I get in trouble for this.
I have something here from People Magazine.
I'm just going to read this, www.people.com.
And by the way, before I do that, before I read this, let me ask you if you remember last Thursday when John and Elizabeth Edwards had their press conference, you remember what the report was regarding her prognosis,
that the cancer had moved to her rib and then it later said to a hip, and that it was incurable and it was treatable but incurable and the survivability rate was 20% over the next five years.
I remember reporting that.
I remember reading that.
So now I'm just going to read this from peoplemag.com and let's see what happens.
Attention, left-wing watchdog media sites, quote unquote, that report to the Drive-By Media what I say.
Attention to left-wing blogs.
I'm reading now from www.people.com.
It's an interview with Elizabeth Edwards.
What did your doctor tell you about your prognosis?
Mrs. Edwards, she said that before we got the CT scan back, that if it had spread and my liver had lit up on the CT scan, that we'd be talking about a very short period of time, maybe under a year.
But since after the CT scan, I wasn't in that condition, the range she gave us went 10 years or beyond, which is a huge difference.
10 or 15 years.
When I think about time periods like that, I think that if we would just fund breast cancer research or cancer research in general, as though we're not funding it now, we don't realize we're not funding breast cancer research.
Funding breast cancer research, like I don't know what the multiples are, far more than prostate cancer, for example.
Anyway, I digress.
She said, I think if we would just fund breast cancer research or cancer research in general, I mean, I just need the medicine to catch up to me.
The medicine's going to catch up to this condition.
It's just a question of when.
So now the prognosis is 10 years.
That's great news.
That is fabulous news.
That would allow her husband to serve two terms.
That is fabulous news.
That's much better than the original report of a 20% survivability rate over the next five years, all the way up to 10 years.
That is, I'm happy about it.
I hope Tony Snow gets the same kind of prognosis after the surgery that he had on Monday.
I mean, cancer is a despicable thing, and it is the great equalizer, folks.
It knows no skin color.
It knows no gender.
It knows no sexual orientation.
It knows whether or not you care about animals.
It does not discriminate whatsoever.
So 10 years, that is.
They've got to be ecstatic.
She had to be ecstatic when she heard this.
Ken in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Well, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
I am calling because my third-grade daughter, I'm getting ready to go to a parent-teacher conference here in a few hours after work.
And her reading assignments she's been bringing home have all dealt with global warming.
I'm wondering how I'm asking you, the Maha Rushi, some advice on how I can deal with this teacher to let her know that global warming is not a science.
I mean, I've dealt with this with my 14-year-old daughter.
It was real easy to get across to her and her teachers, but this teacher seems to be a problem.
I'm sure many in this audience are saying, hey, welcome to the club out there, Ken.
First, a question for you.
My inference from what you say is that you go to these parent-teacher conferences a lot.
Yes.
Why?
I want to know how my daughter is doing.
Okay, but so the teacher's not saying, hey, your daughter's got a problem, get in here.
No.
Your teacher, is your daughter doing well in?
My oldest is a presidential education award winner, Gold SEAL.
My youngest, she's not quite so good at.
No, no, no.
The one you're going in to have the conference.
She maintains a B average.
Okay, so the student, the daughter, is not failing at anything.
She's performing above average.
Yes, sir.
All right.
I've never done this.
You know, you asked me what I would do.
You've got to take this under advisement because I have never gone to a parent, you know, whatever your meeting is.
What's called a parent-teacher conference?
Part-teacher.
I've never regularly scheduled at the end of the year.
I've never gone to one of those.
And as far as I know, my parents never did either.
There was no need for one because if the teacher said something, the teacher was right.
Teachers weren't teaching politics back then, disguised as science.
They are now.
That's right.
So what you need to do, what I would do if I were you, which I guess covers me legally, I would simply go in and ask, why are all of my daughter's reading assignments political?
And then let the teacher.
What do you mean, political?
Global warming.
Well, that is a political issue, Ms. Teacher.
And she's going to argue with you about it because I guarantee you she is clueless.
She's just one of the many people following the Al Gore ball on this.
And you're going to tell her, no, it's a purely political issue.
There is no science on this that has been proved.
And she'll come back and argue whatever it is she believes.
She'll probably use the word consensus.
At which time, if she does, you've got to promise me to say this, if nothing else.
I know what you want to say.
Consensus is not a science because science is 100% agreement on this subject.
And yes, but science is not up to a vote.
Right.
If the word consensus appears anywhere in science, there's no science by definition.
It can't be science.
And you can say, look, I appreciate the job you're doing with my daughter, and I appreciate the time and the efforts that you've undertaken to be a teacher.
And I know that you care about my daughter's future and performance.
For that, I'm eternally grateful.
But do you realize the time you're costing me every night to teach her opposite what you're teaching her in the daytime with all these reading assignments?
Because when she comes home and she tells me all this global warming stuff, do you realize how much time I have to spend telling her, well, what you're being asked to read isn't true?
Deprogramming her, yes.
And the resources, there are good resources out there on global warming, as I found out with my oldest daughter.
But if you get into a technical discussion of global warming, you're going to be, I mean, you can do it if you're really confident that you know what to say in it.
But if you get into a technical discussion of that, you're sort of joining her turf because you're not discussing what your problem is.
You're discussing the issue.
And your problem is that her reading assignments are not varied enough.
Right.
And if also ask, well, you probably know, you don't need to ask, is any reading assignment contain authors or articles that do not agree with the premise of global warming?
No, I got to read them with her, so I have to disagree with them.
They've all been pro-global warming.
Well, then, okay, just tell this.
Okay, then that's the way you do this.
Look, you know, you can tell her that go through the whole best.
Look, it's not science.
This is politics.
And it's not your job to indoctrinate my kid with a political point of view.
That's not why my daughter is here.
And then just say, look, is any of the global, I said, I've looked at these, teacher.
I've looked at these reading assignments, and there isn't one that you've assigned that disagrees with the political premise.
And so my daughter's coming home and telling me I'm killing polar bears and all this sort of stuff.
And I haven't killed one in my life.
And there's any number of ways.
But if you get into a technical discussion on global warming, then you're avoiding what your real problem with her is, which is her teaching is one-sided, it's unbalanced, and it's politically oriented.
Okay.
You're going to have to discuss the intricacy of it to some extent, but I'm just saying don't make that the total argument that you have with her.
Don't make that the premise of my argument.
Sure, I'm debating on with her that is a political thing.
It's political, and if it's going to be political, at least it needs to be well balanced because there are countless thousands of scientists, teacher, who don't think that this is accurate.
See, for the longest time, I've always been taught that if you really want to know what's going on, you need both sides of a conversation, both sides of the argument.
Well, to make an informed.
And let me just say that your information that you give out is very well balanced.
I cannot find.
Well, one of the things I've, since liberals will not call here, I have to sometimes articulate the liberal argument in order to nuke it because libs will not call here and do it.
The ones that do are pretty weak.
You know, they're not really all that well versed, and so they're not good adversaries.
I have to agree.
He was a nut.
Well, which one?
I mean, they all are for the most part.
There are a couple exceptions to it, but yeah, you can just talk about the balance.
You know, look, my daughter's a skull full of mush, and you're an authority figure to her, you tell a teacher, and she's going to believe all this stuff, and it's counter to what I believe, and at least present some reading material from people that don't agree with this.
What are we here to do, teacher?
Educate or indoctrinate?
Ask her that.
Okay.
All right.
I really appreciate your time.
You bet, Ken.
You bet.
You're doing a good job.
Thank you.
I don't need to have kids.
I don't need to have kids.
I'm a surrogate father out there for gazillions as it is.
Tell me I did not see that.
I did see that.
I couldn't possibly.
I have to be hallucinating here.
Well, I saw it because I didn't believe it, but others have seen it.
MSNBC just ran a graphic saying that Rudy Giuliani says he wants his wife to sit in on cabinet meetings.
Let's wait for the quote.
This is MSNBC.
All right.
Let's, you know, these things can just get blown and destroyed.
MSNBC is in the throes of depression right now because the Gonzales hearings fell apart.
And they're looking at anything to make themselves feel better here.
Let's wait for the quote.
Let's wait.
How do you take that out of context?
You're talking to me about how things can be taken out of context?
Anything can be taken out of context.
Let's wait till we see the quotes.
Springfield, Missouri.
Roger, you're next.
I'm glad you waited.
And welcome to the program.
Hey, Mega, show me Ditto's Derek.
You were talking earlier about the disparity in the distribution of wealth in the worst since 1928.
And you had asked the question: do the Libs have any concept of earned income?
And they do.
It's called the Earned Income Credit.
That's a welfare system that's distributed through the IRS.
That's their concept of earned income.
That's exactly right.
This is a story.
The New York Times talked about the income gap here.
And they actually say that the distribution of income is concentrated in fewer hands today than ever before since 1928, right before the Great Depression, as though income's distributed, as though somebody sits around at Washington and such, great, you're going to get $450,000 a year.
You're going to get $338,000 a year.
Thanks for the call.
Appreciate it.
The NOW gang, not only have they endorsed Hillary, the NAGS, it's our favorite anachronym for them here, the National Association of Gals, they're upset over something called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative.
The Bush administration doles out up to $50 million every year to fund its programs to build job skills and help fathers connect better with their children.
But the NAGs say the effort's illegal because it's only about men.
NAGS and Legal Momentum, another advocacy group, filed complaints yesterday with the Department of HHS alleging sex discrimination in the initiative that is funding about 100 programs this year.
Now, of course, the Nags love WIC.
What is WIC?
Women, women, women, yeah, the Women, Infants, and Children program.
You know, men are involved in a WIC program, but here's something called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative.
And the NAGs, they're just, they're fit to be tied over this.
Nags are flexing their muscles, feeling their oats out there.
I warned you people about this next story.
I warned you about it earlier this year.
Read a story written by a couple babes, San Francisco Chronicle, chronicling all the pollution and the waste and the fraud that is in bottled water.
And they calculated all of the waste with all the bottles and how the water is not any better than anywhere else.
And it's more expensive and it's a fraud being perpetrated on the poor and all the usual things.
So from Berkeley, California, bye-bye bottled water.
Hello, tap water.
A new trend is in the pipeline with some upscale restaurants ditching packaged water in the name of conservation.
The bottled water backlash, which recently spread to the venerable Chez Panisse restaurant in Berkeley.
It is a good place, by the way.
Spurred by environmentalist wacko concerns over the energy used in transportation as well as the disposal of all those containers because you got to put those bottles on trucks.
You got to roll them around over there.
As far as waste is concerned, the water is water.
Either going to drink it out of the tap or you're going to drink it out of a bottle.
If they stop selling a bottle, you'll drink it out of the tap.
The supply of water on a planet's finite.
Do you understand this?
I've had atmospheric scientists confirm this to me.
Water's in the form of snow.
It's in the form of water vapor.
It's a form of rain, clouds.
The amount of water is finite.
It just gets recycled over different places in different parts of the world at different times.
Has anybody created any new water?
When's the last time you saw new water created?
May happen at the space shuttle when they're up there because they, and of course, the desalinization plants convert seawater, which evaporation also does, but we just can't call it evaporation and harness it immediately.
That's how rain, you know, rain from the sea is clean.
Anyway, they're on the warpath now.
Get rid of bottled water because all the fuel it takes to transport all those bottles.
And of course, there's no fluoride in it, and it's not as healthy.
It's not as good, far more expensive.
Just turn on the tap.
It was just yesterday San Francisco said we're going to get rid of plastic bags.
And I told you yesterday that the compact fluorescent bulb is going to be the next plastic bag.
Looks like bottled water is going to beat it.
Bottled water is the next plastic bag.
And all of you people thinking you're drinking healthy stuff out there.
I drink bottled water.
I got a bottle right here.
But I don't drink bottled water for any stupid health reason.
I drink bottled water because this stuff's called Fruit 2-0 and it's various fruit flavors in there.
I don't like water.
I mean, it's not that I don't like it.
I mean, when I'm direly thirsty, I'll have it, obviously.
But I don't drink enough of it.
But this stuff makes it enjoyable.
I drink eight of four, minimum four of these a day, 16 ounces in here.
This one happens to be grape-flavored Fruit 2-0.
And it's just water with no calories, no nutrients, and all that stuff, just the flavoring.
And it is delicious.
I have a reason.
I can't turn on my tap and get grape water.
I can't turn on the tap and get tropical fruit water.
And now, just as I have come along and discovered a flavored water that I actually, with no calories in it, guess what?
Economy babes on the left are going to try to take it away from me on the process under the assumption that I'm contributing to the destruction of the planet and no doubt, global warming at all.
Yeah, I hope my airplane's still in the hangar.
I haven't, since I started this diet, I've been hibernating.
I haven't been anywhere since February 12th.
So I don't even know if it's there.
I got a fly to Washington receiving the William F. Buckley Greatest Conservative Ever Award tonight, or something, Greatest Conservative in a World Award, at the Media Research Center's 20th annual Dishonor Awards dinner.
Be back here tomorrow.
You'll never know anything.
Oh, by the way, the video that's going to be streamed on our website via theirs.
So I hope their server can handle it alone.
8 o'clock tonight's when they're going to start the video at.
▲
Export Selection