All Episodes
Previous Next
March 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:08
March 30, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm looking, I'm looking for the original Al Gore story here, folks.
And it's in one of my stacks.
Let's see.
Did I put it over there?
Anyway, I'll find it here while we're doing the show open.
Greetings.
The award-winning Thrill Pact Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
It's Friday, so let's sizzle.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open live Friday.
I'm looking for it for a specific reason because I need the name of the Nobel Committee member who went and attended Gore's speech because I had further conversations during the break here with my lawyers at the Landmark Legal Foundation.
As you know, we are considering filing an objection with the Nobel Committee over Gore's tampering, which is clearly unethical.
He's out there campaigning for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And we're thinking of suggesting that this member, the committee, needs to recuse himself from the vote because he's clearly involved himself in this.
And I'll tell you why that's important, folks, because at this rate, Al Gore is going to be selected, not elected.
And I don't think the Nobel Committee wants to be seen as the international version of Al Gore's Florida Supreme Court.
You know, Al Gore's out there saying that the Democrats say that Bush wasn't elected.
He was selected to the Supreme Court.
Election aftermath was a fraud out there.
And it is just not right, blah, And as such, here it is.
As such, with Gore over there tampering unethically and campaigning for his election as a Nobel Peace Prize winner in October, this would give rise to the possibility, the perception that Al Gore was selected, not genuinely, fairly elected, if he wins a Nobel Peace Prize.
And I don't think we're going to put this, if we actually follow through with this and file our objection with the Nobel Committee, I don't think they want to be seen as, you know, a biased version of the Florida Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court in terms of his not genuinely winning this thing, but rather being selected.
Now, the story here is from the AP.
Sorry, it's Reuters.
It's written by Alistair Doyle, the environment correspondent.
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore won praise on Thursday from the man with the power to change lives, the head of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, after a speech urging more action to fight global warming.
The man's name is Ole Danbolt MJ OES.
I'm not sure how you pronounce that.
Ole Danbolt, whatever.
And he openly told Reuters after hearing Gore's speech that it was a very important message.
Well, he hasn't said that about our application.
So it looks like the fix is in, and we just, we want to have our objection filed officially.
The Nobel Committee.
I don't know if we'll go so far as to suggest that Ole be recused or recuse himself, but we might.
Serious, serious, serious matter.
The Los Angeles Times today, by the way, here's the phone number if you want to be in the program, 800-282-2882.
And it's open on Friday, so we go to the phones.
You own the program.
Talk about whichever you want.
Interesting.
Let's see.
One, two.
Actually, three stories here.
First, the LA Times.
This is from Ron Brownstein, who's now an opinion columnist.
By the way, Brownstein's wife works on the McCain campaign.
I had a list the other day, and I don't have it in front of me, of the number of media people whose spouses work for elected officials or on presidential candidates' campaigns and so forth.
And I remember that Brownstein's wife, I think, works with McCain.
At any rate, Brownstein's piece today: warning signs for the Democrats: there's a black cloud in the majority party silver lining.
For all these indications of possibility, Democrats face two brightly blinking yellow lights.
The first is that approval ratings for Congress are declining again, less than three months after the Democrats took over.
The new Democrat majority faces a genuine conundrum.
After six years of Republican derelict, tough oversight of the Bush administration is not only justified but imperative, and Bush's refusal to negotiate with the Democrats on issues from strategy in Iraq to testimony on the U.S. attorneys' controversy leaves the Democrats with little choice but to confront him in headline-grabbing collisions like the congressional efforts to impose a time limit on the war.
But as Bill McInturf noted pollster notes, these repeated skirmishes are exposing the Democrat majority to a dangerous dynamic.
I mentioned this on the air the other day.
These people are doing nothing but making it look like they can't legislate, and they're keeping the country in total chaos and tumult.
That's the dangerous dynamic that Brownstein refers to here.
He says that conflicts are proliferating while the initiatives they promised voters last year, like a higher minimum wage, are stalled.
If they can't revive that agenda, even amid the fireworks with Bush on other fronts, congressional Democrats are asking for trouble.
Relentless argument and sparse achievement isn't an ideal formula for success.
By the way, speaking of that, you want to, I just had this sent to me.
This is a letter from Henry Waxman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to Condoleezza Rice.
Dear Madam Secretary, on March 12th, I sent you a letter renewing, as formal requests of the committee, prior letter requests that I sent you between 2003 and 2006.
These requests sought information on the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, White House treatment of classified information, the appointment of Ambassador Jones as special coordinator for Iraq and other subjects.
My March 12th letter is attached.
The March 12th letter requested a response by March 23rd to several of the inquiries, but the committee received no response from you.
I now request your appearance before the committee at a hearing on Wednesday, April 18th at 10 a.m., the Rayburn House office building.
At this hearing, you will be asked to provide testimony and respond to questions on the subjects outlined in the March 12th letter and the original request letters.
I understand to the Secretary of State there are significant demands on your time.
If April 18th is an inconvenient date, the committee staff's available to discuss an alternative date in April for your testimony.
The trip to Niger, trying to defend Valerie Playman, Joe Wilson, dragging Condoleezza Rice.
Waxman is an evil hack.
But this is the kind of stuff that Brownstein's writing about.
Look, you guys keep doing this and you don't accomplish anything legislatively, which they can't because they don't have the majority numbers, then you are in dangerous territory.
You are asking for trouble.
There's another thing that Brownstein references here in this piece, and that is the presidential weakness that I discussed yesterday.
That is, it essentially can be a problem for Democrats.
Bush is not weak when it comes to Iraq, and he's forcing them out on the plank.
They're walking the plank of defeat.
And while there was all kind of giddiness after the vote in both the House and the Senate, now reality is starting to set in with some of them.
And again, in the L.A. Times, Iraq, it may be a tough road to a Senate House compromise.
It seems that the Democrat surrender legislation isn't in the bag yet.
Keith Ellison, a freshman congressman from Minnesota, said yesterday he would oppose any bill that did not retain the House's first firm timelines.
Gerald Nadler of New York, who had urged his colleagues on the Out of Iraq caucus to back the bill, cautioned that softening the pull-out deadlines would risk defections.
He said, if we substantially weaken the timelines, I'd have a real problem with that.
But restrictive deadlines could cause support to evaporate in the Senate, like Ben Nelson from yesterday.
Mark Pryor of Arkansas, as well as Gordon Smith of Oregon and Chuck Hagel in Nebraska, they provided the margin of victory, but some of them are saying you keep in the final vote.
We go to conference and you put a dead certain date to get out of there in this bill, and we are going to not vote for it.
So it's not swimming out there for the Democrats.
Not going swimmingly.
Let's phrase it that way.
Quick timeout here.
We'll come back and go to your phone calls in jiffy.
Stay with us.
Ha, how are you?
Folks, you got to hear this.
I'm going to briefly touch here on the so-called scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys, Diane Feinstein, making a huge stink about whether U.S. Attorney Carol Lamb was fired mistakenly or unfairly because she's making a case here about how great Carol Lamb was on immigration cases.
This is yesterday during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with the former Chief of Staff to Gonzalez, Kyle Sampson.
And this is just a portion of what Dyfi said.
Done by USA Today places Carol Lamb as one of the top three attorneys in the United States for the prosecution of these cases.
It is a real surprise to me that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases.
Dianne Feinstein says a cumulation study done by USA Today places Carol Lamb as one of the top three U.S. attorneys for prosecution of immigration cases.
It's a real surprise to me, she said to Sampson, that you would say here that the reason for her dismissal was immigration cases.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am holding here in my formerly nicotine stained finger excerpts of a letter written by Dianne Feinstein to the Honorable Alberto Gonzalez, June 15th of 2006.
In this letter, she specifically asked Gonzalez whether Carol Lamb, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California, was doing her job by prosecuting enough illegal immigrants.
She just yesterday cited a USA Today survey, said that Carol Lamb was doing a great job on immigration cases.
Here are the excerpts.
It has come to my attention, Attorney General Gonzalez, that despite high apprehensions, apprehension rates by Border Patrol agents along California's border with Mexico, prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of California, appear to lag behind.
A concern voiced by Border Patrol agents is that low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation's borders.
It is my understanding that the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District California, may have some of the most restrictive prosecutorial guidelines nationwide for immigration cases, such that many Border Patrol agents end up not referring their cases.
I'm concerned that lax prosecution, she's talking about Carol Lamb here.
I'm concerned that lax prosecution can endanger the lives of Border Patrol agents.
In 2005, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Southern California, that would be Carol Lamb, convicted only 387 aliens for alien smuggling and 262 aliens for illegal reentry after deportation.
When looking at the rates of conviction from 2003 to 2005, the numbers of convictions fall by nearly half.
I'm concerned, Mr. Attorney General, about these low numbers.
I would like to know what steps can be taken to ensure that immigration violators are vigorously prosecuted.
I appreciate your timely address.
This is unbelievable.
June 15th, 2006, she writes a letter to Gonzalez complaining about Carol Lamb.
Prosecution of illegal immigrants and the smugglers decreasing dramatically.
And she is concerned and she wants to know from the Attorney General, is this not what Chuck Schumer did to Patrick Fitzgerald?
Send him a letter demanding to know what's going on here.
Isn't that what they're saying is all out of whack here?
They've been tampering with these investigations, tampering with these offices of U.S. attorneys.
Isn't that what they're mad at Dennis D. Concini about?
Pete Domenici.
Isn't that what they're mad about him for?
Because he sent letters off the rove complaining about the U.S. Attorney in Arizona not doing the same thing.
Here is Dianne Feinstein, not even a year ago, whining and moaning about Carol Lamb.
And here she is yesterday, quoting a newspaper, USA Today, citing Carol Lamb as one of the top three attorneys in the U.S. for prosecution of illegal immigration cases.
I don't know what else we need.
Anything else that's happened in these hearings can be washed out with this one instance.
You talk about pure politics.
There's no scandal here whatsoever.
Diane Feinstein, by the way, you know where this letter is posted?
Huffington Post, a left-wing blog.
That's where we found it.
It's on the Huffington Post.
You heard right.
This is, I don't know, you call it dishonesty, but it certainly is disingenuousness and indicates that even somebody of the stature of Dy-Fi is entirely capable of pure politics.
And a memory that is so scant that she doesn't even remember a year ago, not even a year ago, she was on Carole Lamb's case for lack of prosecution, which is exactly why the president and his people decided they might need to replace her out there.
She was demanding to know what's going to be done.
She was in de facto California senator demanding action on this because Carol Lamb wasn't doing diddly squat.
She's on the same page as the Justice Department was and the Attorney General's office, but no longer, because the Democrats now run the Senate.
And it's about getting Bush.
It's about embarrassing Bush.
And it's about politicizing and criminalizing every political decision the administration makes.
Thank you, Senator Feinstein, showing us who you are.
Here's Jenny in Dubuque.
Jenny, thanks for waiting.
You're on Open Line Friday.
Megha Diddles from the great state of Iowa Rush.
Thank you.
I have a problem with a comment you made last, I think it was Tuesday, about why you were, wondered why all lesbians thought that Rosie O'Donnell was the be-all and say-all.
That's not what I said.
I said was, Rosie O'Donnell is a de facto spokesman for American lesbians, and I wonder how American, I just asked a question, I wonder how American lesbians feel when Rosie O'Donnell's out there saying some of the truly stupid things she says, like Christianity and militant Islam are no different.
They're just as violent.
She's an idiot.
Well, yes, she is.
As Pat Sajak said, I sad that you said all lesbians because I'm a lesbian.
Yeah.
You know, but some of us are educated and conservative.
You know, I serve 12 and a half years.
Well, okay, then I should have said liberal lesbians.
Thank you very much.
All right.
I apologize.
Okay, and the other point is: I served 12 and a half years in the Army and was a female paratrooper.
And I'd love to join your all-female squad.
Only one problem with that rush.
You'd have to have them all bleeding at the same time.
Thank you, Jenny, for that.
Did she say what I think she said?
Yes, you did.
I'm looking at the transcript.
You're talking about the All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion, and you'd like to join it.
Oh, I would.
But you'd have to have so many.
You'd have to get them all cycling together.
Well, that happens when you group them together, doesn't it?
Well, not necessarily.
Now, I was in charge of a whole floral women rush, and I got an award for that.
And trust me, you've got to get them all in one cycle, and they never are.
You got to get them all in one cycle.
Well, then you would look at.
I am by no means an expert in this.
But I've been told by this is one of the part of the research I did in formulating the concept of the All-American First Cavalry Amazon Battalion.
And that is that in sororities and all these various places where women live together group, that they end up being on coordinated cycles.
Well, but then you'd end up with them all dead because they'd kill each other.
Well, no, you.
I don't know.
You were, again, more qualified than I to answer that.
I think, frankly, this might be one of the problems with drive-by news networks.
You know, all the women working together and coordinating.
And, you know, just there's certain times in the month when these news networks get even more wacko.
I would tend to agree.
Yeah, well, see, we end up, we end up on the same page.
Yes, we do, right?
Under the same parachute.
Yes, if you actually get it going, please let me know because they definitely would love to join.
Well, thank you.
You're the first applicant we've had.
So you'd probably be the commander.
I definitely could train your soldiers.
All right, Jenny.
I appreciate that.
And again, I apologize.
I meant liberal lesbians.
And I was not assuming that all lesbians are liberal.
I just assumed that the lib lesbians would know I was addressing them when asking them their thoughts on Rosie.
Back in a sec.
No need to think about it, child.
We redefine hip here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, as usual.
Talent on loan from God, despite half my brain tied behind my back to make it fair.
From the New York Post today, the Reverend Jackson.
By the way, I tell you what Pat Sajak, Pat Sajak accepted the award for Rosie O'Donnell last night when she got the, I forget what the word, the stupidest something or other.
When on the view, she's out there badgering Elizabeth Hasselbeck.
She's telling her, look, Elizabeth, you've got to understand, Christians are no different than these militant Muslims.
They're no different.
And Pat Sajak said, yeah, you know, I went to church the other night, Wednesday night church.
We all discussed the latest beheadings that we are planning on committing.
Just pure idiocy.
Way, the Reverend Daxon already backing Barack Obama, but the Reverend Sharpton denies persistent rumors that he's throwing his support to Hillary Clinton.
Sharpton told page six in the New York Post, I'm unequivocally not endorsing Hillary or anybody else.
The Post, page six people said, as to a tip we got that Sharpton and Clinton recently enjoyed cigars together in Clinton's Harlem office, which would be a violation of city health rules.
Sharpton said, I don't think he even smokes cigars anymore since his bypass.
Insiders confirmed that Al and Clinton met at the latter's smoke-free office about two weeks ago.
Sharpton will certainly not make any official announcement until Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, even Dennis Kucinich address his National Action Network convention.
Did I say conviction?
Convention.
Sorry, Al, at the Sheraton, New York, April 18th through the 21st.
Sharpton says, I want to hear all of them.
As one Politico told page six, all the candidates have to come and kiss Al's butt.
And Al's out there saying, no, I'm not supporting anybody.
One political observer said, Al is furious that the Reverend Jackson got on the Obama train before he could.
We feel for Reverend Sharpton.
He's losing out every way possible on this Barack Obama phenomenon.
First place, it's Barack that Al wants to be.
Al wants to be thought of as the first clean and articulate, as Joe Biden said, black guy to come along in a presidential campaign.
Al's already been on a presidential campaign and he takes showers every day and he can talk.
And yet they're not saying these praisyworthy things about him.
And then Obama's out there getting all this credit and he's this new guy, new arrival, fresh face.
My gosh, all the things Al Sharpton wants, Obama is getting.
And then the Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton's number one competitor in the civil rights business, has now joined up with Obama.
And that freezes Sharpton out from sidling up to Obama.
Now Obama's got to wait till his national action conviction and wait there for all these other candidates to show up.
Convention.
Convention.
Sorry, wait for that to happen.
So Al's left out in the cold.
He's left smoking cigars with a guy that doesn't smoke cigars anymore.
I'm sure he still does other things with them.
That's Bill Clinton that we're talking about.
So it's not happy days for the Reverend Sharpton.
Paul Shanklin portrays vocally here.
Oh, that's just too much.
The chorus keeps singing.
Al Sharpton drops the lyrics and starts protesting.
That's Paul Shanklin as Sharpton and Barack, the Magic Negro.
I have mentioned earlier today that the Democrats that drive by media, they are in a tizzy over this latest poll, two latest polls.
One of them is the Pew Poll that shows that Congress's approval rating is plummeting now after three months of Democrat control.
But there's an even more worrisome poll out there, and that is that Hillary's beaten by everybody, including Barack, McCain, Giuliani.
Giuliani beats Obama by one point.
And they don't understand this.
They can't figure it out.
They think they've got the 08 election already sewed up for one Democrat, at least one Democrat, and they don't understand this.
And of course, the bottom line here is that when you get down to voting for president, you're voting for somebody to protect the country national security.
And the Democrats have just sewn up the fact that they do not get any credit whatsoever for that.
On the CBS early show today, Harry Smith interviewed the executive editor of Politico.com, Jim Vandehey.
And Harry Smith said, hey, look at the general election.
We all know it's still a year and a half away.
Senator Hillary Clinton polls, actually Bill Clinton's wife, outpulls everybody else, but against McCain, she loses.
Against Giuliani, she loses.
How do we explain this?
It's truly a fascinating mystery because everyone's saying Republicans can't win in an environment like this.
I think what the play is is Hillary Clinton is very defined.
People who like her like her.
People who don't like her don't like her at all.
And so people have very concrete views of her.
Whereas they look at McCain and they think, oh, you know, war hero.
We hear a little bit about him.
And they think of Giuliani and they think 9-11.
They do not have not defined them thoroughly.
It's a big mystery.
Fuck this.
That's a mythery out there.
Everyone is saying Republicans can't win in an environment like that.
Who is saying this?
Who's everyone?
Everyone is the drive-by media.
They really are entirely stymied by all this.
Jason in Port Charlotte, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, make a 15-year dittos from across the peninsula.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, I'm calling today about this hostage situation over in Iran, bringing up old memories from back when I was a kid, back in 1980.
And since I'm a former soldier, I guess I'm not bright enough to understand this.
But when did taking another country's soldiers hostage not become an act of war?
It is an act of war.
It's just whether or not people respond to it.
The Iranians are calculating and nobody's going to do anything about it.
And the Iranians say that we're holding some of their hostages they want us to release.
And if we'll release the five that we absconded in Iraq, then they'll release these 15.
It's an indication here that the Iranians think that they're pretty confident we're not going to do anything about it, and the Brits aren't going to do anything about it other than walk off to the United Nations and ask for condemnations and that sort of thing.
And I think one of the limitations on the good guys and all this is that at this stage, politically, they don't want to ratchet up the conflict that's going on in Iraq and spread it to Iran.
Although, you know, my concerted opinion, and I am a smart guy since I'm not a soldier, thank you, Senator Kerry.
My concerted opinion is that all of this is just delaying an eventual day of reckoning with Iran.
That is, I don't know, next year, five years, 10 years, but that must happen.
It will happen unless we could totally destroy their economy.
And even that, I don't think, would stop them.
It's going to happen at some point.
Nobody's just ready for it right now.
I see.
Well, I sure am.
I'm really sick of this.
And, you know, do we have to wait another 400 and some odd days before these troops get released?
I mean, I know they're British and they're not American, but they're our allies.
And I just, it's making me sick.
Well, there's one bright side here.
There is an opportunity for some television network to come up with a brand new show.
Nightline was born out of the Iranian hostage crisis.
America Held Hostage Day 79.
Oh, yeah.
Remember.
So there's an opportunity here for if somebody wants to try to repeat history, which is what liberals do, there's an opportunity here for at least a new television show to chronicle this.
But I mean, this is, it's reached the theater of the absurd.
You know, it's, I don't know if you heard me mention this earlier, but the female hostage has released like her third letter.
In the letter, she says, we are being treated royally.
We're being treated so well, unlike we treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Yeah.
So the Iranians are dictating Democrat Party talking points, and this woman has to write them down.
Did you notice all the misspellings in that letter?
Well, I haven't paid much attention to that.
There's a lot of direct.
That could be code.
I mean, that could be an indication the whole thing's being dictated.
That's what I thought.
Yeah, how the Iranians are going to know.
But there's coercion involved here, and they're being paraded around in violation of the Geneva Convention.
And I haven't seen anybody in the drive-by media who wants us to close Club Gitmo close Abu Ghrab.
I haven't seen any concern about this.
So look at your anger is shared and your frustration, I'm sure, shared by countless millions.
I appreciate the call.
Back in just a second.
Okay, back to the audio sound budget.
John Edwards, we have the, we had alluded to it earlier today.
He's getting a significant bump, fundraising and poll rating bump from his press conference last, well, a week ago yesterday with his wife Elizabeth.
And I just want to review this, folks, because once again, I, your host, am the singular focus of attacks for pointing out that that might happen and that the drive-bys were looking at it that way when they still are.
So here is Howard Feynman, which got my whole mindset on this started last, I guess this is Thursday after the press conference.
This is part of what he said after the Edwards press conference.
Looked at politically, diagnosed, if you will, politically.
That was a 10-strike of a press conference.
They showed guts.
It was nothing short of remarkable and somewhat unexpected.
And it's always great when something unexpected happens around here.
What was unexpected was that the reports earlier were the campaign's going to be suspended and they decided, nope, I'm going to keep going.
This is what I said.
I predicted this after the Edwardses made their announcement.
And by the way, stop this.
Hold on, stop tape.
Stop tape.
All during this, despite warnings from my frightened staff, despite the staff saying, don't do it, Rush.
Don't go there.
Don't say it.
You're going to get in trouble.
I persevered.
I think what the Edwards campaign is going to do here is see what the reaction is within the ranks of Democrat voters as far as this announcement today is concerned, and then go on from there.
If there's not a big jump, if this doesn't cause a breakout, if this doesn't cause a big uptick, then at some point, Senator Edwards probably will have to suspend the campaign, depending on the health of his wife as she goes through treatment for this.
Now, I just wanted to put that out there because everybody, you know, I should have predicted this before the program, what I thought that they wouldn't get out of the campaign.
And if I used these exact words, folks, to three people last night and one person this morning, this campaign goes on because the love of our country that we both have.
And those exact words were uttered today by Senator Edwards.
So we'll see if there's a bump from this.
And you say, Rush, how can you be so callous?
Hey, folks, politics, politics.
I tell you right now, if you went to a website that tracks news hits, you'd find that Edwards is at the top of the AP news hits, right?
He probably got more hits on Edwards today than I had with Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday.
And I had hits all over the world with this.
I was stunned for somebody so irrelevant as I am.
I mean, there were reports on the Schwarzenegger thing with me in Russia, in India, I mean, all over the world.
160 different news sources in this country alone.
Edwards is going to get much, much more than that out of this.
And campaigns are what they are.
And, of course, all during, I could see them waving me off on the other side of the glass.
Don't do it.
They're in the IFP.
You're going to get in trouble.
You're going to get in trouble.
Say it.
But I knew what I was talking about.
And Howard Feynman proved it.
Then this morning on the Today Show, the whole subject of the Edwards bump was discussed.
And Tim Russert, like Feynman, points to the news conference as the turning point.
Meredith Vieira said, How about John Edwards?
After he announced that he's staying in the race, despite the fact that his wife's cancer has returned, his numbers actually went up according to a time poll.
Up nine points.
Are you surprised by that, Tim?
Some of his opponents have accused him of exploiting this issue.
But right now, it appears that the American people have said, We've heard you, we listened to you, and we in large part agree with your decision.
And we're taking a new and interesting look at your candidacy.
The way they conducted themselves at the news conference, I do think, created a bond with the viewing public.
You know, it's rare to see a politician out of the setting of answering political questions.
And this was real human life, real life and death situation.
Everyone has been affected by cancer.
So I'm just playing these bites because I predicted this.
Despite warnings from a frightened and cowardly staff.
Well, cowardly going too far.
Guarded, guarded staff.
So, right again, I mean, you heard me say that if there's a big jump, they're going to go on.
And we all knew there'd be a big jump.
That was not hard to say.
Some people, I can't be so callous and change.
Not callous.
I'm going to grab one more call.
It's Cheryl from Elko, Nevada.
Cheryl, I have one minute, so please squeeze it in there.
Thank you for calling.
Hi, I just wanted to remind everyone: as you said earlier, our military is 100% voluntary.
My husband is 59 years old.
He joined the Army Reserves a little over a year ago.
59 years ago?
Yes, sir.
And he is in better physical shape than most of the people he works with.
Well, you would know.
He is serving in Iraq currently, and he is an orthopedic surgeon.
We closed the sacrifice we made for him to go over there and save lives was we closed our doors.
And we have no income right now.
But he went because he wanted to.
He wanted to.
He wanted to serve his country.
God bless both of you.
She's responding to a guy who called earlier, liberal, confessed liberal, tried to hornswoggle me into agreeing that at some point defeat would be possible.
I'm smarter than these tricks played by liberals.
Thank you so much, Cheryl.
I appreciate your waiting.
Have a great weekend out there, folks.
And we'll, baseball season opens Sunday night, by the way.
See you on Monday.
I know, Snerdling.
▲
Export Selection