All Episodes
Previous Next
April 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:18
April 2, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right 98.6% of the time, making me the consensus authority in American media.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Last Thursday night, Rudy Giuliani and his wife Judith.
By the way, huge hit piece on Judith Giuliani today, the New York Post.
Apparently, she used to work for an outfit that did testing on dogs and then killed them for some such thing for people medicine or some sort of.
I just scanned the story, basically.
I just chalked it up to yet another hit piece on Giuliani, which I predicted.
These things are going to come now as he has assumed frontrunner status in the Republican primary field.
But last Thursday night, he was on with his wife on, maybe it was Thursday morning.
Good morning, America, in which he said that his wife, Judith, would attend and sit in on cabinet meetings, especially if the subject matter interested her.
I first saw a reference to this on TV during the middle of programming.
Tell me, I didn't see that.
I can't believe.
And they assured me on the other side of the glass that I had indeed seen that because they did too.
And I didn't quite know what to say about this.
It just, it stunned me.
Ladies and gentlemen, people do not want another Hillary Clinton.
I said, Rudy, if you're going to do that, put her on a ballot so people can vote for her to be a co-president.
Well, Giuliani says she won't be a cabinet member now.
He said Friday, his wife will not be a member of his cabinet or attend most high-level meetings.
He sought to clarify his previous statement, suggesting she would play a significant role in his administration.
In the interview released last Thursday, he said he'd be open to his, because he's getting all these questions.
And he said he would be open to his wife attending cabinet meetings on issues in which she's interested.
He said if she wanted to, yeah, if they were relevant to something she was interested in, I mean, that'd be something I'd be very, very comfortable with.
He told this to Barbara Walters.
It was on 2020.
Late on Friday, the next day, the Giuliani campaign issued a statement in which Rudy suggested that would not be the case.
He said, obviously, she's not going to be a cabinet member or attend most cabinet meetings, if any, but she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health.
Judith Giuliani used to be a nurse.
Now, in the statement, the former mayor sought to play down his own remarks, suggested any discussion of a policy role for his wife was merely prompted by the questioning.
Judith and I got a good laugh after we heard that she would be a member of the cabinet, especially after she made it clear in the interview with Barbara Walters that she's not particularly interested in politics or policy.
Like most couples, we rely on each other and support each other, but we have different interests.
My interest is politics and policy.
Judith is a nurse.
Her interest is in educating people on how to stay healthy.
In the interview with Walters, which aired Friday night, Giuliani described his wife as a close advisor who has much involvement in his campaign as she wants to have.
So anyway, the disavowal and the, no, no, no, no, that's not what we said statement was issued on Friday.
Trumpet fanfare, and that means an update is on the way as promised.
It's a global warming update.
I have to admit something, folks.
Channel surfing around over the weekend, and I ran across that propaganda movie of Gore's, An Indiscriminate Truth, and I was so tempted to keep just pushing the button and just keep surfing.
But I stopped to watch it because I hadn't seen it, and I wanted to see what all the hubbub was about because it seems like all of these mind-numbed robots, these skulls full of mushroom that watch this thing, become instant converts.
And I watched this, and I thought, this is embarrassing.
This is so, so full of sophistry and disinformation.
It's embarrassing.
It was embarrassing for me to realize that a significant number, forget the kids that can understand that, the significant number of adults watching this thing think that it is gospel.
But it is what it is.
And in the process, you know, Gore's over there now lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize over there in Oslo.
My lawyers and I are still consulting over whether to file an official complaint of tampering charges against Al Gore, because I, too, am nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I'm not out there shamelessly campaigning for it like Gore is.
Anyway, here's the first couple items in the Global Warming Stack today.
For those of us, this is from our buddies at newsbusters.org, citing Al Gore's movie on global warming, a federal judge has advanced a lawsuit against the government for its financing of overseas projects that may contribute to climate change.
A federal judge cited Gore's movie on global warming in a legal ruling.
Al Gore is not a scientist.
He admits that he's not a scientist.
Now, for those of you skeptical about the role of man in climate change, who haven't grown concerned about the media's fascination with this issue and the propaganda that's being spread by Dr. Al Gore, because that's what he'll be if he wins a Nobel Peace Prize.
This is an AP report, by the way, that came Saturday.
The alarm, I mean, there's alarmism all over the place, and it's running through society concerning this issue, being flamed by Al Gore and his candre of media sycophants and Hollywood demonstrates the risks that are involved that an obedient and complicit press ignore.
I mean, global warming is just another issue that fits the template that the left will carry the water on.
It's anti-capitalist.
It blames the United States for all the evils in the world.
We're destroying the planet.
There's giant fear involved.
There's destruction.
And of course, at the root of it is capitalism.
Here is more from the AP story.
The Bush administration had argued last year that the alleged impacts of global climate change are too remote and speculative to require the sort of environmental review for foreign projects sought by environmental groups in four U.S. cities.
But U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White on Friday allowed the lawsuit to proceed against two federal development agencies that insure billions of dollars of U.S. investors' money for foreign projects, among them power plants that emit greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
In court filings last year, the government had argued that the link between overseas energy projects and U.S. weather, U.S. weather changes predicted by the plaintiffs were so remote that there can be no meaningful NEPA analysis of potential impacts on the United States.
You understand that the point here was environmentalist groups wanted to try to say that funding these projects overseas was adversely affecting weather in the United States.
And as such, they should be stopped.
And the Bush administration has argued, prove that.
That is frankly and totally absurd.
The federal judge, oh, no, no, it's not absurd at all.
I saw Al Gore's movie, and Al Gore's movie says we're doing it, and we're causing the problem.
And so cited a propaganda piece, a documentary.
There's no legal jurisprudence involved here.
This is just pure politics.
Now, the government argued the alleged impacts of global climate change are too remote.
They're too speculative to require all of this kind of analysis.
The judge makes no direct judgment about the merits of global warming, but nevertheless, he casts doubt on the administration's assertion that disagreements remain about the connection between human activity and climate change.
He wrote, in his opinion, it would be difficult for the court to conclude that defendants have created a genuine dispute that greenhouse gases do not contribute to global warming.
In his ruling, the judge also cited increased attention on the issue in the news and entertainment media, among them Gore's documentary on climate change and inconvenient truth and recent newspaper articles.
So what has become a propaganda piece and an ongoing slavish attempt to drive by media has become a matter of law and is the source for law, including Gore's movie with the federal judge.
U.S. Supreme Court today ruled also that the EPA must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Okay, that means every time you exhale, you are polluting.
Exhale, that's what you get.
It's CO2.
U.S. Supreme Court, led by Massachusetts, a dozen states, along with several U.S. cities and environmental wacko groups, went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.
Judge John Paul Stevens, Supreme Court, said the harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized.
So the Supreme Court's gotten in on the act.
And this gives it the impromotor of truth, of course, because too many idiots in this country look at the Supreme Court as the final authority on the arbitration of political arguments and now science.
Meanwhile, a retired Arctic research director has slammed global warming.
His name is Dr. Sium Ichi Akosofu.
He's the former director of the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center.
And in the Anchorage Daily News on Sunday, he said, if you look back far enough, we got a bunch of data that show that warming has gone on from the 1600s with an almost linear increase to the present.
He showed ice core data from the Russian Arctic that shows warming started in the early 1700s.
Temperature records from England showing the same trend back to 1660.
And ice breakup dates at Tallinn, Estonia, that show a general warming since the year 1500.
The cycles of climate on this planet are so long, they span multiple lifetimes.
But most people's historical perspective begins the day they were born, and they think that we're in the last days, the worst of times, that nothing is happening today on this planet's ever happened before.
It's never gotten warm.
It's never heated up.
Ice flows have never broken up.
Ice has never melted.
All these things are happening for the first time because most people haven't the slightest idea of the complexity of the climate, primarily because they were never taught about it in basic science in high school or even college.
It's vanity.
Everybody who buys into this thinks not only is it worse than it's ever been, but they buy the silly notion that they are responsible for it.
And that's why I say this whole movement is a religion.
It dovetails with religions.
Like you can see, it's got its Garden of Eden, the planet as it used to be.
It's got its demons and evil.
That's us.
It has sinners.
We're the ones destroying all this.
We're killing the polar bears.
We're melting the ice caps.
We're making it possible so that penguins down there, the emperor penguins aren't going to live anymore.
Blah, And people eat this stuff up because they want to have relevance.
Most people go through their life thinking they don't matter, but now they're so powerful and so important to destroy the planet.
And all this is a recipe to get people to sit idly by, bend over, grab the ankles, and accept tax increases as the price for forgiveness and salvation for committing these sins against the planet.
Now, this expert, Dr. Seun Ichi Akosofu, said that scientists who support the man-made greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming.
Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have been available in the satellite era only, obviously, since the 60s and 70s.
He said, young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975.
All the papers since the advent of satellites show warming.
That's what I call instant climatology.
I'm trying to tell young scientists, you can't study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.
Now, why 1975?
It's sort of important because between 1940 and 1975, the planet was going through a period of cooling, which led many scientists to believe, it gave us cover stories in Time and Newsweek on 1979 about global cooling and the coming of the new ice age.
So that's why you ignore everything before 1975 because things started warming up.
These cycles go back and forth.
And if you use 75 as your starting point, you see that's warming up.
But if you ignore the process which actually began the 1500s and 1600s, then of course you can make your case erroneously as they are today.
Akosofu said that there is no data, no data showing that most of the present warming is doing is due to the man-made Greece greenhouse effect.
As members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN wrote in February, no evidence, no data showing that most of the present warming is due to man.
No data.
He's a scientist.
He hasn't joined the consensus of the others, and he's one of thousands that disagree with it.
He pointed out that atmosphere, the atmosphere cooled from 1940 to 75, despite a rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions during the same period.
Nature changes all the time.
The natural component is there until you remove it.
You don't know the man-made effect.
All right.
Now try the latest.
Let's see.
Not making this up, folks.
Not making this up.
Latest off the wires from the Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia.
Global warming could melt the Himalayas.
You heard me right.
Global warming could cause more hunger in Africa and melt most Himalayan glaciers by the 2030s, according to a UN report due Friday, which also warns that the poorest nations are likely to suffer the most.
Well, hell's bells.
Women and the poor are always hardest hit, no matter what's happening.
And taxes go up, taxes go down, women and minorities hardest hit.
God says world and tomorrow, women and minorities, hardest hit.
Hurricane Katrina will come again and strike this time in Florida.
Women and minorities, hardest hit.
Global warming will come and melt the Himalayas.
Have you seen the Himalayas, folks?
Have you watched this planet Earth?
They did a whole feature on the Himalayas in their The Mountains episode.
The Himalayas.
Do you know that the Himalayas are still, Mount Everest is still getting higher?
The Himalayas still getting higher?
It's the result of continents colliding and forcing all kinds of stuff from the seabed upward.
You could say that mountains, in many cases, used to be under the ocean, used to be on the ocean, used to be the ocean floor.
You can see it with the strata on the various, especially out in the mountains of Arizona.
You can see it plain as day.
Used to be underwater.
How did that happen?
And they're underwater gazillions of years ago, long before CO2 emissions by man, SUVs, all this methane from the cows.
Melt the Himalayas?
To melt the Himalayas, we would somehow need to change our orbit and end up like a couple of gazillion miles closer to the sun.
This is frankly absurd.
The scary thing is that you're going to have kids believe it, especially if they're told animals on the Himalayas will die.
Just looking at the Fox News channel, an escaped bank robber convict in Ohio has escaped.
They say he's holding hostages.
No, he's not.
There aren't any hostages there.
They're detainees.
They're guests.
What is this hostage word?
Everybody's throwing the hostage word.
British people, they're not hostages in Iran.
They're guests.
They're being captured, being fed.
Can't call them hostages, folks.
It might infuriate the Iranians.
Dianne Feinstein, we can't call them that.
What do you mean, hostages?
Why, that might really upset the balance here.
We've got to work on this diplomatically behind the scenes.
Can't start throwing Bush call them hostages.
They can't do that.
So I assume this convicted bank robber, there it is, escapes hospital, takes hostages in Ohio.
We're just going to make this guy even angrier than he already is.
If we refer to his detainees out there as hostages.
Chet Biloxi, Mississippi, thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, it's a pleasure to talk with you.
I'm a longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, as far as you being the number one to talk radio.
By consensus.
That's by fact and consensus, both.
That's my consensus, too, Rush.
I hear you talk, and it brings back to the point in the first part of World War II in the dark days when we had Edmund R. Murray keeping us informed of what was going on in the war against Germany.
Here, we have you keeping us informed on what's going on in the war against terrorism.
And you go a step further.
You warn the American people what's going to happen if they don't get their head out the sand.
And thank God we have you.
Wow, you have just called me the modern-day Edward R. Murrow.
I feel that way.
Well, glad you do.
Do you realize how many liberals in this audience have just blown a gas?
Well, I hope so, Rush.
And as far as the Nobel Peace Prize, you got my boat, Harsle.
Well, I wish you had one.
Yeah, I do too.
All right.
Hey, I appreciate it, Chet.
Thank you so much.
Lana, in Greeley, Colorado, you're next on the Russian Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Yes.
Hello, Edward.
Historically, what nations have managed to pull themselves back from the brink of internal self-destruction?
I don't think we're there yet, but we seem to be sliding in the wrong direction.
What did it take, and what can we learn from them historically?
Well, I don't know that we've learned anything.
I mean, we learn it, but whether we apply the lessons is another thing.
In this case, and I know you're, if I may be so bold, are you, let's talk about ancient Rome.
Is that something on your mind?
Well, yeah, that's what I meant.
I mean, rise and fall of the Roman Empire.
They didn't see what was coming, and they couldn't save themselves.
It happened to the Greeks.
The only thing that gives me comfort, it took Rome quite a long time to fall.
Yes, it did.
And in terms of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, there's a huge series of books about it, massive, massive volumes.
And the history on this is very extensive and complicated.
It would be impossible to simplify.
Suffice it to say that most people, with their limited historical perspective, believe that Rome, the Roman civilization, was destroyed from within with debauchery, perversion, the general lack of any kind of surviving morality, court system for justice, right and wrong, and power run amok, and so forth.
And that's what most people believe.
It'd be difficult, I think, to compare ancient Rome to the United States case by case.
One of the reasons why I simply don't know if there were people in the Roman society in a political sense who wanted to bring about the destruction of Rome as it existed for the express purpose of reordering it in such a way that would have made it less grandiose and less powerful than it was.
In this country, that's what we face.
Now, I'm not talking about the rank and further.
There are a bunch of people that are participating just for the sake of discussion here in a series of activities that are bringing about a crumbling of the moral code, a dilution of a sense of right and wrong, and all that.
That's what I'm referring to.
And these controls that will happen if global warming people get their way.
Well, see, that's a different - I was going to go a different way with that.
This group comprises at least, and maybe more subdivision, but at least two primary groups.
The one group is the leadership group, and they are actively seeking the destruction of the United States as it exists.
They don't like capitalism.
They don't like free elections.
They lose them.
They are attempting to insulate their ideology from election results by putting activists in courts and on the bench, the Supreme Court, federal judge, appellate judge, these kind of things.
They are populating the bureaucracies of government with career people who will be there regardless who wins elections.
And they are not willing to risk elections.
They're trying to insulate themselves from the voice of the people, so to speak, to continue to try to remake America in their own image.
What is it about America they don't like?
What they don't like is this sense of inequality, the fact that the so-called income gap, the wage gap, the wealth gap, the discrimination, the unfairness, the fact that some people are better than others.
You can see this in every walk of life.
You can see it in the school system.
You can see it in government.
You can see it in legislation that elected Democrats propose.
And that's the leadership group.
The other side, and that would include people that are trying to use global warming or any other environmental issue as a means of destroying capitalism.
You're very perceptive.
I mean, if you recognize that, because global warming is simply the latest acid rain.
It's simply the latest.
It's no different than the Soviet nuclear threat back in the 70s and 80s.
We all had to live in perpetual fear that we were going to be destroyed primarily because of Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was irresponsible.
He's going to put his finger on a button to wipe out the Russians.
It's going to cause massive retaliation.
And we're all vaporized.
Well, that can go back to the 50s, I guess.
Exactly.
But the point of this was to keep the American people frightened and scared and thinking that they were responsible for this chaos and for this looming destruction.
Global warming is just the latest issue.
I've always said the militant environmental movement is the new home for displaced communists once the Soviet Union fell by the wayside, as it was known then.
It may be making a comeback under Putin under a different name, but we'll talk about that in due course.
But it has all of the elements.
The elements are: we're destroying the planet.
We've got a limited amount of time.
Save it.
We are responsible for it.
We need to pay higher taxes.
We need bigger and stronger government to fix these problems that we are causing.
The Chinese are not causing the problems.
The Indians are not causing the problems.
The poor in a third world are not causing the problems.
Castro is not causing the problems.
Yugo Chavez is not causing them.
It's the United States.
The focus of the world via the UN is on us and reordering our way of life.
We're too big.
We're too big a superpower.
We mistreat.
We discriminate.
We oppress peoples of the world with our imperialism.
All of this stuff.
Now, the other group is the sad sacks who believe it.
They are not activists.
They're just average citizens.
And for whatever psychological reasons, they buy into this.
And in that group, you've also got the first group I was talking about.
You were worried about the moral decay and the vanishing line that demarc right versus wrong.
There are a lot of people who are not activists in this, but they'd love to go through life not being judged.
They'd love to be able to do whatever they want to do and not have one light of judgment rained down on them.
These are people, by the way, don't believe in God.
Otherwise, they couldn't possibly live an existence in where they think they could escape it.
Judgment, that is.
So they're just the serfs, and they're just wrong, and they serve the leadership well.
They soak up all this stuff and they end up living it.
And then some of them actually join activist movements and protests designed to bring about through government or force these various changes.
And you could list all these social upheavals that are underway right now.
What turns it around?
I think what turns it around is younger generations.
In this country, and I don't know how long this country is going to last.
I have a feeling, though, it's going to outlast Rome.
It's going to outlast all of these societies.
Because what I think happens, and I think it has happened over the course of our existence, and I think it'll happen again, at some point, the children of these generations that you and I are talking about that are participating in what you and I would describe as the decay or the destruction are going to grow up and not want to live like that.
They're not going to find anything attractive about it.
Imagine the generation, the first generation grows up and is told, by the way, the chance to earn the American dream is officially ended.
It will not be allowed anymore because we have found out that achieving the American dream was possible for only a few.
Too many were left out.
And so we're going to have outcome-based results in earnings and wages and jobs and so forth.
Now you're going to be assigned.
If the first generation grows up and it's told that or is made aware of it, as they look out on the horizon and see the evidence of what's possible in this country, they're going to revolt against it.
And, you know, I think these things are cyclical.
The key to it all, the key to my prediction manifesting itself is freedom.
And that's why I look at global warming as an assault on freedom.
And what's especially hideous about it is that it is so seductive that it convinces average ordinary Americans to give up their freedom.
Well, and you have the school system and parents not being parents to counter that.
Well, see, that's the thing that the school system is another area of the public education system and the university system is where leftists and liberals are attempting to insulate themselves from election results because they run these factories that produces these, you know, interact and indoctrinate these young skulls full of mush.
And if, you know, that's, to me, freedom is the key.
The right to own private property is as important, if not more so, than the right to free speech.
Because if an individual can't own property, by definition, who's going to own it?
The government.
Does this come back to I get to have some of my own toys?
I mean, is that how you reach them?
You mean the kids?
Yeah.
I get to have.
Now, I don't have kids.
The kids, I get to have somebody.
Well, like when they took away the Legos in the classroom because that was property.
Oh, gee, what's happening?
No, they didn't take it away because it was property.
It's because it was teaching a lesson that property ownership was bad.
Okay.
Now, see, I don't know what the parents of those kids, I don't know what the reaction to that was.
I think there was a hullabaloo about it out there.
But these things, they happen slowly and the encroachment is gradual.
But I remain optimistic predominantly because there is this new media now called an alternative or what have you that's fighting this never-ending incessant leftist propaganda.
And I don't care, even though they won the election last time around, their job is much more difficult today than it used to be.
You nailed another problem, though, and that is parents who turn the raising of their kids over to the schools because they don't want to mess with it.
Like in my day, the teachers were never wrong.
And I came home and complained about what a teacher said, and my dad said, teacher's obviously right.
You know, respect for authority.
Today, let a teacher look wrong at a kid and the parents show up and they want to get the teacher fired.
And how the hell can you do this and so forth?
Or if, get this, if the school says you have to come watch Gore's movie with your kid or your kid might suffer grade degradation.
And grade degradation.
Yeah, grade consequences.
If you don't come watch this too, your kid may not get as good a grade in my class as otherwise the kid would.
And the parents go do it.
I mean, schools win.
But I don't think we're on the brink of destruction.
It collapsed from within.
Every generation from the founding of this country has thought it's in the last days.
Every generation has had people who think, oh, it's never been worse than it.
Ah, we're going to hell of a handbasket.
I don't think the depravity of human behavior is any different today or any greater than it's ever been.
We just know more about it because of the media.
And there's more media and there's more movies and depicting this stuff.
But if somebody wants to tell me, I just refuse to believe that the kind of debauchery or perversion or whatever that we see chronicled in television and movies is something new and didn't happen in the 50s when Warden Cleaver, let me tell you, what Warden June were doing there with their neighbors.
I mean, everybody thinks that it was clean and pure as the wind-driven snow back then, and it's never been clean and pure as the wind-driven snow since Adam and Eve.
You've always had this kind of behavior, but somehow in this country, we've always risen above it.
Look, it's this simple.
I'm way long in this segment, and I got to take a break.
When it's time to panic, I'll tell you.
All right, folks, I mentioned early in the program, I got a couple soundbites you got to hear.
These are two soundbites with Orrin Hatch and Pat Leahy.
I meet the press yesterday, and this is about the fired U.S. attorneys.
Orrin Hatch, on on fire here, is talking about uh, about Carol Lamb uh, who was a Clinton hack.
Uh and everybody, including Dianne Feinstein, wrote letters complaining about Carol Lamb.
And now Dianne Feinstein's forgotten.
She wrote complaint letters and is all distressed about this.
Uh Hatch opened up with this comment, there is not one shred of evidence here that any of these appointments were made to use senator Specter's uh words to interfere with an ongoing investigation or case.
Carol Lamb, for instance, it's amazing to me she wasn't fired earlier because for three years members of congress had complained that there had been all kinds of uh border patrol capture of these people but hardly any prosecutions.
She was a former law professor, no prosecutorial experience, and the former campaign manager in southern California for Clinton, and they're trying to say that this administration appoints people politically.
Of course they do.
That's what these positions are.
But not only that.
Duke Cunningham is in jail.
Patrick Fitzgerald was not fired.
All of these allegations that these attorneys were fired because they're working on corruption cases against Republicans.
Carol Lamb, our campaign man these people normally be made ambassador, but Clinton put her as a U.s attorney.
This is the kind of people that Clinton and Democrats appoint as federal judges and what he was talking about earlier is is their attempt here to insulate Democrats and liberals from election results.
Now, Bush could have gotten rid of this woman when he took office chose not to the new tone.
Blah next up Russert, says, senator Lahey, let me ask about a comment senator Hatch made.
You have any shred of evidence that any case was interfered with by the dismissal of these eight U.s attorneys?
Well, this is one of the things we're trying trying to find out.
We know that Carol Lamb uh, who uh Orrin angrily dismisses and I i'm sorry he has to get so angry so early in the morning, but uh, the uh, she of course had prosecuted a Republican congressman and was investigating other Republicans when she was dismissed.
That we do know for a fact.
We also, when they have any evidence, that an ongoing case is not a shred, not a shred of evidence.
That was Orin Hatch once again telling, uh Lahey, you have not a shred, not one shred of uh of evidence.
Um anyway, the president wants Gonzalez up there under oath, by the way, and the and the Democrat no no no no, we're on our two-week spring break.
We're, we'll bide your time here with Gonzalez.
They think they've made the case now.
They don't really interested in going a whole lot farther, since they're not going to get Roven Myers back after this.
Okay, first day of a full week's broadcast excellence is in the can on the way over to the warehouse, housing artifacts for the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
Bit of blast today, folks.
Tomorrow will be two, and look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection