You know, we're always trying to help here on the EIP network.
They got an idea to save these two whales out in the San Joaquin Sacramento Delta.
Somebody said, send Senator Kennedy out there to jump in to save them.
And if that wouldn't work, I mean, that's the only time Senator Kennedy's jumped in the water that I know of.
Well, never mind.
Somebody said they're humpback whales.
Send Bill Clinton.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo with talent on loan from a god.
I am Rush Limbaugh, saying more in five seconds than your average host says in a career.
A lifetime.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And remember, when we go to the phones, you can talk about whatever you want.
On Friday only, no restrictions on that.
Bad news for the drive-by media: the United Airlines 747 with the engine out that was headed to Tokyo has landed safely, Dret.
Story, and from their standpoint, they love crisis, panic, tumult, chaos.
I've had a couple reactions to the, I mean, this truly gut-wrenching story about Elise Gaiswitz in Maryland, who had this pet monkey named Armani, and animal control people in there just came and took the animal, took it to the zoo.
This is her pet.
We played the audio sound by, she was just devastated.
They passed a new law saying you can't have wild animals in your house after October 1 of 2006 or some such thing.
And she's not grandfathered.
She got the monkey after that.
Clearly distressed.
Even her little Maltese dog was distressed when the monkey got taken away.
He's probably a playmate.
And we had some people, of course, why would a woman sleep with a monkey anyway?
I mean, Snerdley couldn't envision that.
People sleep with their pets all the time.
And I got an email from a guy who said, Rush, come on, the feminists are saying that women, millions of women, sleep with pigs every night.
So what's odd about this?
If a woman wants to sleep with a monkey, isn't that a step up?
The whale that I was trying to remember the name of the first whale that got stuck out there in the San Joaquin Delta, the Sacramento Delta, that I was convinced became retarded or was retarded, that no matter what they did, they couldn't get this way.
His name was Humphrey.
Humphrey the humpback whale.
They did everything they could.
And here's what they finally did.
I remember now to get him out of there.
They had an armada of about 100 small boats and they had people pounding on pots and pans.
They drove the whale nuts.
They just harassed the whale and he finally forced him out that way.
Still no takers to my question about why CNN is out scouring the fruited plain trying to find Republicans who disagree with me on immigration.
I will answer this question if none of you get it right prior to the ending of the program.
A related item, this is an AP story by David Border, who was the AP writer.
By a wide margin, the news media concentrated on Democrat presidential contenders more than Republicans during the first three months of this year, according to a study released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Campaign stories in newspapers, on television, online, and on the radio focused on Democrats 61% of the time and on Republicans 24% of the time.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism regularly monitors 48 different outlets to gauge coverage trends.
But don't look to the political bias.
Don't look to political bias as the most obvious explanation.
Conservative radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talked about Democrats 75% of the time and Republicans 13% of the time.
Wait a minute.
Forget these numbers.
Do you realize what's happening here?
The drive-bys are comparing me to them in order to show that they aren't biased.
Well, wait a minute.
Or Gerka, the drive-by media looked at Democrats far more Republicans.
So did Limbaugh.
Well, well, well.
Well, but there's a big difference, Mr. Border, and it is this.
We looked at the Democrat candidates critically.
And we look at some of the Republican candidates critically.
The drive-by media looks at the Democrat candidates fawningly.
Hardly any criticism.
And whatever criticism the drive-by media offers Democrats usually comes in the form of advice, helpful hints.
Very little criticism in the drive-by media coverage of the Democrat presidential candidates.
It's a huge difference.
Speaking of Democrat presidential candidates, this is, what's this from?
This is from the Missouri Valley Times.
Missouri Valley Times by Todd Dorman.
You get the distinct feeling hanging around Barack Obama's presidential campaign that his heady rock star period is ending.
For a few months after he joined the race in February, it looked like the U.S. Senator from Illinois could do no wrong.
His crowds were in the thousands.
His fundraising was in the tens of millions.
Hillary Clinton, we were told, was shaking in her pants suit at Obama's meteoric rise.
It had to come to an end, of course.
The political media that built him up is now taking shots.
He misspoke about the death toll from a Kansas.
If you think, Todd Dorman, if you think that Obama is getting shots, Union media is taking shots at Obama.
The only shots that Obama's getting are coming from the Chicago Tribune and the L.A. Times when they question whether he's black enough or, as in the case yesterday, whether he's too black.
If they think he didn't take any shots over this, he did misspeak about the death toll from the Kansas tornado.
But it was mentioned, but I mean, it wasn't on the front pages.
They didn't run stories of what an idiot he is like they would do if Bush had made such a faux pas.
Story also says that Obama's campaign was accused of driving gas-guzzling vehicles and his staff took fire for covering up some racy paintings before a fundraiser in an art gallery.
A Kansas City TV station reported that some people were snoozing during one of his speeches and that was just last week.
See, this is the difference.
Obama's not getting criticized.
He's not taking heat.
These are not hits.
These are perfunctory mentions that had a lifespan of less than two hours each time they get mentioned.
Intelligence operatives in the U.S.
Now, this is two days or two stories in a week.
We have had an ABC leak of classified information on an attempt to destable, destabilize the Iranian regime.
And now CBS revealed on Wednesday that intelligence operatives in the United States and its allied nations have sold Iran flawed technological components in an attempt to sabotage the country's nuclear enrichment program.
In January of 2007, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency said after an explosion at the Natan's nuclear facility that some of the equipment had been manipulated.
The explosion destroyed 50 of the plant's centrifuges.
Other evidence has indicated that sabotage was the reason for some of the technical problems that Iran has encountered in its enrichment enterprise.
Sources told CBS that intelligence agencies have altered technical data, making it useless.
Well, thanks for telling them, CBS.
Somebody's leaking this stuff, and the Department of Justice is making, as far as we can tell, no effort to find out who.
And if they don't make any effort to find out who, it's going to continue.
If there are no recriminations, if there's no consequence for doing this, they're going to continue to leak this stuff.
That's one side of it.
The other side of it is, what side are you on here, CBS?
What side are you on, ABC?
I'll never forget the first Gulf Wall.
The bombing started, and you had Bernard Shaw and John Holloman were in the Al-Rashid Hotel when the bombing started.
And they're reporting from there.
And they were quaking in their boots.
They finally, the U.S. military got them out of there, brought them back to the United States.
The story goes that the CIA and other military people asked to debrief them.
And Bernard Shaw said, I'm not going to tell you what happened.
I would compromise my journalistic integrity and compromise my principles, a journalist.
Well, we can't choose sides.
Can't choose sides.
When your own country is at war, you can't choose sides because that is to confound journalistic ethics.
Where do they think the library of their freedom exists?
It exists in the U.S. Constitution.
First Amendment, freedom of the press.
So anyway, here's CBS and ABC now, both in one week, with publishing stories that clearly damage ongoing efforts to limit the ability of the Iranians to actually ratchet up a nuclear program.
Now, I'm going to make a wild guess, and I want to tell you upfront and stipulate that this is a wild guess.
On this CBS story, there are people in Congress who've probably been told about this program to somehow finagle damaged and sabotaged components to the Iranian nuclear program through the Iranian regime.
If that's true, wouldn't surprise me, we'll probably never know, but it wouldn't surprise me if a bunch of Democrat staffers leaked this stuff to CBS in order to sabotage Bush administration policy.
And if that's true, and again, I'm just engaging here in an educated yet wild guess.
If that's, if that's true, well, I'm just staffer.
It could have been somebody that's elected.
I don't know.
We know senators have leaked.
Patrick Leahy has leaked.
That's why his nickname here is Depend, Senator Depend, Senator Leakey Leahy.
But the bottom line is this.
I think everybody's trying to make sense of why in the world the Democrats are going so bonkers here over Gonzalez, the Attorney General.
Witty didn't do anything wrong.
Throw aside whether or not you think he's competent or not.
He didn't break any law.
There was no aspect of the firing of those eight U.S. attorneys that was illegal.
Well, now that we see what's happening here, if I'm right about this in my wild guess, they're going after Gonzalez and going after Gonzalez because if there is a desire on the part of the Department of Justice, the DOJ, to try to find out who's leaking this stuff, then the Democrats can say, aha, this is payback.
This is nothing more than witch hunting payback, trying to discredit any investigation to find out who's leaking this stuff.
That's what my wild guess is.
Quick timeout, your phone calls next after this.
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limboy and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Open line Friday, back to the phones, Dalton, Georgia.
Scott, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the show.
Thank you.
It's a pleasure speaking with you.
Yeah, I can imagine.
Thank you.
Yeah, it is.
The point that I've got to make here, I am a dyed-in-the-wool conservative Republican, and I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of the immigration issue.
How's that possible?
How can you thoroughly disagree?
What I have said about this is as reasoned and right as it can possibly be.
What's your area of disagreement?
Well, I think there's some variance in what you said before about being pro-business, about encouraging a free market system.
And what we're talking about is intrusion of the government into businesses.
It's an intrusion into personal lives.
And I think the rule of law is extremely important.
However, this is a misdemeanor that we're talking about, just like a traffic ticket.
Fines should be there.
Whoa, whoa, what's a misdemeanor?
Being in the country illegally and working?
Being in the country without leaving the country when you're coming illegally is a misdemeanor.
You know, I've gotten calls from, you're obviously, are you in agribusiness?
Well, we're in the textile industry here.
We're in the textile industry.
Yeah, you've been hard hit.
I understand.
You've been hard hit by NAFTA and a bunch of other things.
So I know where you're coming from.
You really, and I've had calls from others like you who are in the ag business, who have even here in Florida, who almost said the exact same thing to me.
You're a great conservative Russian, all that, but you're just missing our point of view on this.
And I understand your point of view.
I understand cheap labor.
I understand the biggest cost, single greatest cost that businesses have, and so forth.
But when you start talking free market, you're really, you really, I don't mean to insult you by telling this, telling you this, but you really need to read Thomas Sowell's book that I have been plugging here for the past two days.
It's called Basic Economics, Understandable for the Average Citizen.
It's just simple.
And there's a chapter in the book, a segment of the book, where he brilliantly explains how the free market in products is not analogous at all to the free market in immigration.
There's no such thing as a free market in immigration.
Well, in your talks over the years, and I've been listening to you for many years, your talks, you talk about freedom around the world.
And I have personally known a number of people who are illegal immigrants, legal and illegal.
I'm sure I say it clearly.
And I see how our government drives people into a black market economy.
And there's a perspective here that I've not heard in any of the media so far, and that's how the immigrant population, legal and illegal, promotes freedom in other parts of the world without some of the military issues being required.
What?
Think about this for a moment.
If you have, there's 12 million, according to you institute, 12 million illegals.
It's more like 20, but we'll use your number.
Okay.
Let's say there's a large number there, and they're sending home a percentage of their wages to their countries.
Is that correct?
A large percentage, like $397 or $97 billion in five years.
Well, I think Walter Williams, who hosts your show, would agree that that goes directly to the people, not to the politicians in those countries.
Oh, man, you are really going to great lengths to justify the labor force that you want.
This, this, this.
You're really, really, really abandoning conservatism here to do this.
You are taking free market concepts that exist in goods and products, You know, tangible things, and you're trying to compare it to the movement of human beings that determine a culture, that determine a population, that determine a number of things about a nation's identity.
And the two are not, it's just not an the fact that they're sending money home is not good for us.
Well, it is, it is to the extent that and it's not stopping them from coming here.
It's not.
No, we got to stop them from coming here, Rush.
You got to secure the borders.
Well, you're telling me you want that to happen?
How are you going to get the workforce you want if we stop this?
You specifically want the illegal workforce because they're cheap.
No, no, actually, actually, that's not true.
The failure of the government to secure the border is not going to happen.
That isn't going to happen.
You don't think so?
No.
There's no incentive to stop the inflow in this legislation.
None at all.
They want the bodies because we don't have enough taxpayers down the road to handle all the transfer payments that we've got to make to the baby boomers.
That's what this is all about.
This isn't even about immigration.
You don't think it's about finding a way to pull those folks in so they legally can work as guest workers and then pay the taxes and pay the future?
Sure, pay the fine.
It's about that, but it's not about immigration.
They only have to pay the five grand fine and all this and go to the end of the line and go home if they want citizenship.
It's not about immigrants.
It's not about assimilation.
It's about getting enough bodies in here to do work to pay taxes to be able to pay your and my Social Security, Medicare, and all the other baby boomers because we're living longer and we've had so many abortions in this country.
We've short-circuited ourselves on warm bodies.
Our birth rate replacement levels are not what they should be.
I don't know, but I'm not counting on Social Security.
Well, I'm not either, but whether we want it or not, we have to get it.
We can't turn it back.
We have to accept it.
I mean, we can give it away once we get it.
My grandfather tried never to accept it.
He didn't need it either.
But the point is that we don't have enough workers.
Right now, the payment burden, it takes the Social Security taxes, the taxes period, of three employees to pay the retirement benefits, Social Security benefits of one person.
And if things don't change, that burden's going to shift down to two.
That means those two people's taxes are going to rise in order to be able to pay.
They're not going to reform these programs because there's too much danger in that electorally.
And so this is a mad dash to get any warm body they can.
My point is, there's no incentive to secure the border.
They're going to say there is, but there isn't.
The legislation itself is evidence of that.
I mean, when you're going to allow, what, 400,000, 800,000 guest workers, you're going to immediately make whatever 12 to 20 million illegals legal, not citizens, legal, and then you're going to let all of them bring in up to four family members?
We're talking 50 million people here if this actually happens without concern, really, who they are.
Background checks, employers are going to have to do that.
They're not going to like that.
That won't last either.
Here we are on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend.
Probably millions of you out there driving around at inflated gas prices, but I. See, they're doing the monkey story up there on MSNBC.
Illegal resident.
Now, you tell me, look at the cutest little monkeys playing there on a swing.
Look, that's the mother.
That's the woman.
That's the gayswitz babe.
Look at the pay.
Look at the pain that she's in.
She's talking about it now.
This is just.
Woman had her monkey taken away from her up in Maryland, and this is her pet monkey.
Cute, cute, cute little monkey.
Looking at it now.
Look at her.
She just, she's distressed.
This is a horrible way to go into the Memorial Day weekend for her.
Illegal resident.
What the hell is this?
You know, why put that up there?
Obviously, MSNBC is trying to tie this to the whole illegal immigration debate.
And that woman is harmless.
You can tell that that woman is not harboring this monkey for any illicit purpose.
At any rate, Orange Park, Florida.
Tony, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Good afternoon, Rush.
I think I have the answer to your question.
The question of why CNN's out there scouring the country for Republicans that disagree with me on immigration.
That's correct.
What's your answer?
It's because your opinion is more important than the elected Republican leadership to the base.
Wow.
The first stab at it gets it right.
Are you a subscriber to my website?
No, sir.
Well, do you have a computer?
Oh, yes, sir.
Well, you deserve a complimentary one-year subscription.
So when we finish here, don't hang up.
I will not.
We'll get you on.
And I'm going to throw in a subscription to the Limball letter one year, and I'm going to get you a Nobel Peace Prize nomination commemorative mug that we have available for new subscribers.
You are a new comp subscriber, so I'm going to throw one of those in for you.
I love it.
There's one other aspect, one other possible answer to it.
Your answer is correct, but the other answer is that these people, like at the media, at the drive-by media, are trying to portray people like me who oppose this legislation on illegal immigration as racists.
We're Yahoos, we're nativists.
And so in the process of going out and trying to find Republicans who disagree with me, they're trying to marginally make me look marginalized, make me look like I'm so extreme that not even mainstream Republicans in downtown America support me on this.
It's ultimately an effort to discredit me, but you're, they couldn't do that.
They wouldn't have to do that if your answer weren't accurate in the first place.
That's exactly correct.
And I'm one of those Yahoos with a master's degree, and I'm also Hispanic.
Are you?
Yes.
Well, it's great to have you in this audience.
And I'm, what's your, what's your master's in?
International relations.
International relations?
What are you doing in Orange Park, Florida?
Well, actually, I fly airplanes.
You manage an international house of pancakes, I bet.
That's probably it, restaurant.
Well, he said he had a master's in international relations.
Anyway, Tony, hang on.
We'll get the information necessary to make these comps work and to get the Nobel Peace Prize commemorative mug to your doorstep.
Pass a Robles, California's next.
This is Richard, and I appreciate your patience and holding on, sir.
Hey, not a problem.
Mega First Division, big red one, did us, Rush, to the point.
This Mexican subsidizing of corruption bill allows the Mexican government to remain corrupt.
It sends 27% of its population north of the border.
That's their poverty rate right now.
And if they bring in all the people that they can bring in, that's half the Mexican population that will soon be an American, legal resident of America.
Let's cut to the chase here.
What are you saying here, that Mexico's trying to get rid of their undesirables?
Absolutely.
The American people like to have their consumer goods subsidized, cheap agricultural products, cheap textiles.
Supposedly keeps our economy going, jobs Americans won't do.
The Mexicans can, you know, the top 10% keep 60% of the wealth in Mexico, so they get to maintain their power base.
The Democrats get a new block of voters.
You know, everyone's happy except for the American people that are getting screwed in the deal.
Well, you know, there's a level of criticism out there for us Yahoos, aimed at us Yahoos.
And that we are missing the boat on this economically, that we're just missing, and we're caught up in the cultural aspect, and that's when they start racism and bigots and this sort of thing.
And I don't know anybody who's afraid to admit that the cultural consequences of this are profound, but it's not a bias against anybody.
It is a love and respect for the traditions and institutions that have made this country great.
Immigration has always been about assimilation.
This isn't.
I asked the question earlier, is a hyphenated American more hyphenated or more American?
You know, is an Italian American more Italian or more American?
is just using that as an example.
Is an Hispanic American more Hispanic or more American?
The way we're going now, we've got systems set up that get in the way of assimilation.
Bilingualism, affirmative action, all these things.
There are people that love this country.
There are people that have taken steps to understand why it is that this is the greatest collection of human beings operating as a country in the history of human civilization in only 200 years.
Other civilizations have been around for thousands, other countries, nothing wrong with them.
And we're no different than them in terms of our DNA and our humanity.
But there's something, there is something that has set this country apart.
And in addition to our founding documents, it's our distinct culture.
And when people in the past wanted to come here, they wanted to be part of that.
That's not happening now.
So of course there's a cultural component here because there are people like me and millions of you who want to continue to hand down the country as we inherited it.
So children and grandchildren that follow us will have the same opportunities and more that we had because we love the country, because we believe in the way it's structured.
We want to preserve it.
And we're dismayed to see so many people who don't have the slightest concern about it.
You know what the problem with, in that regard, I did a riff earlier in the week on the elites, Republican elites, liberal, Democrat elites, elites are elites.
And the one thing that sets them apart from us on all this is that they never think they're going to be touched by any of this cultural change.
They live in places where this stuff's not going to affect them, and they're not going to see it.
And so they're not going to be touched by it.
The elites, I don't care what ideological movement they're tied to or what political party, the elites, this is especially true of the liberal ones.
The elites set up these symptoms or these systems and laws for everybody else to live under and they exempt themselves so that they are not punished or penalized with the passage of these new laws.
The same thing here.
They've actually got themselves believing that they're not going to be touched by any of the cultural changes, if they even believe that there are going to be any.
And I'll grant that some of them are optimists and think that once you come to America, you can't help but become an American.
Well, the problem with that is that we've got a lot of Americans who hate America as it's currently structured, and they're trying to tear it down as it's currently structured and rebuild it in their own image, make it a little bit more liberal, make it a little bit more socialistic.
We know full well there are people in this country who dislike it.
They tell us often.
They're on the media all the time.
They're teaching multicultural curricula in schools.
They are lying to young kids about the history of this country.
They're lying about any number of things.
There's no question that there's a battle on for the future of the country as we've known it.
Well, you bring an influx of people in where no effort's going to be made to have them assimilate and join that version of America.
And if they're going to end up actually being tools of the people that don't like this country as it's currently structured and want to change it, yeah, it's about that.
And I don't have any problem admitting it.
And I don't have a problem admitting it.
That's what the fight is about in large part, along with some of the basic elements of the legislation that are just bad.
Here's Ryan in Toronto, Ontario.
Nice to have you with us, sir, from north of the border.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good stuff.
I told Snerdly there that I am one of those Americans, sorry, Canadians that you're talking about.
I want to come to the country to live.
I'm finding it next to nearly impossible.
I would be a definite Republican.
I am 100% conservative.
I come down a couple times a year just to soak up the culture, not the illegal immigration culture, the American culture.
And I'm finding it next to impossible to get into the country.
So what I proposed, and I'd like your advice on this, is what would happen if I got in the canoe, phoned all the Canadian media and got some American media and tried to paddle across the Niagara River.
Would I get my citizenship then?
I think, well, if you're serious about this, the best thing to do is take a plane to Mexico City and head north on foot or in a car or whatever.
Well, I mean, literally, there's, I think the northern border is more wide open and so forth.
But your problem is going to be once you get here, the reason this is a great question, because you're trying to get here legally and you're running into long lines and the restrictions that we have, correct?
Oh, correct, sir.
And you're watching all this other go on.
Oh, okay.
And you're obviously educated and skilled and so forth.
You're watching this influx of people who are not educated and have low skills and so being welcomed with open arms.
In fact, almost apologized to for our efforts in the past to keep them out.
And your head's probably swimming.
That's correct.
And like I said, I'm finding it very tough to get in there.
Even there's something I'm sure you're well aware of, the U.S. Visa Lottery.
And being a Canadian citizen, despite the many years of friendship we've shared as nations, I cannot even enter that.
But any other country in the world may enter the citizenship.
It's a shock to me.
The lottery.
Well, I don't know why that is.
As host, of course, I'm familiar with everything, but I can't tell you, I can't give you the answer to why that would be.
I can only hazard a guess.
It probably wouldn't be prudent, hazard a guess about why that's the case.
Probably having to do diplomatic relations with Canada.
I mean, you know, there are probably a lot of Canadians like come down here just to flee the health care system up there for one thing.
So that's the point.
When it comes to legal immigration, you know, you agriculture people who are all for this piece of legislation, you ought to go talk to some of the people, Silicon Valley in the high-tech business.
They would love to be able to expand the, I forget the kind of visas they are.
They would love to expand the visas to get some of the brilliant brains from Asia and India in here to work at their companies.
They claim they can't find as qualified employees in this country.
Some people say, well, they're lying about that.
They just want the cheap labor, these kids from Asia and India and so forth come in here and work cheaper than American college graduates.
Everybody's going to make that claim.
It's some sort of criticism.
But we have all kinds of controls on that.
It's the point.
We have a definite limit on the amount of skilled, highly educated people that can get in this country.
It's nonsensical.
And I'm just, I'm telling you, I've got this nailed.
The explanation for this is so simple, it may be difficult to believe.
I'm not going to go through it now because of time constraints and because I've mentioned it before.
I appreciate the call.
Ryan, we've got to take a brief time out.
Be back and conclude with a couple more segments right after this.
Welcome back to Open Line Friday.
I am Rush Limbo.
Documented to be almost always right 98.6% of the time.
This is unbelievable.
HR, where did you get this?
He faxed out a letter to me from some woman.
How'd they get our fax number?
Oh, well, that fax number.
I thought it came to your personal thing.
Mr. Limbo, my husband just called me and told me that you were bashing Elise and Armani, the lady and her monkey.
It's unfortunate that people like you open your mouth and say things you know nothing about.
I myself have monkeys, and I've had them for 10 and 12 years.
They're part of our family.
Let me try to enlighten you on the care and upbringing of monkeys, and she goes on and describes what life with monkeys is like.
So for you to say what you did about Elise was wrong, you don't know the whole story.
I do.
If you'd like more information, you can contact me.
Her name is Sherry.
You better talk to your husband to clear out his ears.
It's just the exact opposite.
I have been, my gut has been wrenching for this woman, Elise, after I saw the sorry, I listened to her in agony over having her pet taken out of the house here going into Memorial Day weekend.
Unbelievable.
Wendy in Bozier City, Louisiana, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yes, I just wanted to say thank you, Rush, for defending the woman and in her crisis.
I can't have children of my own, and I have pets, actually, two Maltese, and they sleep between my husband and myself.
And I can't understand.
I mean, I can't even fathom.
It's the law.
The monkey is considered a wild animal, and they got a law that if she had the animal before the grandfather, she claims she did, by the way.
But there's an unanswered question: who fingered this woman and her monkey?
Somebody had to call the animal control people.
They're just not scouring the neighborhood.
They know the monkey lived inside.
I'm sure the monkey was tiny and just stayed inside.
Oh, it's the cutest little thing you've ever seen.
I've seen pictures of it.
Well, I appreciate your appreciating my sympathy.
Well, I thank you.
I thank you so much for defending her because nobody ever does.
Everyone thinks that I am crazy.
I am insane.
That's not because you have animals, trust me.
Well, that is because I love them.
I shaved one of my Maltese that had long hair.
I shaved her because I put dresses on her.
And people think I'm insane.
They think that I spend too much time worrying about a trivial dog.
Well, these are my family.
These are my children.
And I'm sure that that woman felt that way about her monkey.
Or she did.
I mean, that's exactly what she said.
Look, I have to run here.
Thank you.
Wendy, because I've got to close out the program.
This is interesting.
You know, Clinton and Obama have voted no on the Iraq funding bill.
And they're clearly just posturing to the Kook fringe base.
And John McCain has just, and not just McCain, a lot of Republican candidates, but McCain has come out and just slammed Obama.
McCain being McCain, can't help but this is from the Politico.
He goes the next step in the statement's kicker.
By the way, Senator Obama is a flak jacket, not a flack jacket.
He's spelling with a C is how Obama spells it, and that's wrong.
There's no C in flack.
And then a McCain aide said this about Obama after this vote: Barack Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong.
Now, I know those of you in Rio Linda know what a bong is, but you may not know what an RPG is: rocket-propelled grenade.
This is hot and heavy.
Going into the Memorial Day weekend, McCain staffer says Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong.
A bong is a Smoke illegal drugs with it.
So it's heating up out there and it's getting interesting.
This is, you know, like McCain, I think McCain said, voting no on this thing is just incomprehensible.
And he's right.
There is no question about it.
I wish I had more time, but I don't.
And I got to hit the golf course.
I couldn't do a fourth hour.
People have been clamoring for a fourth hour.
I promise we'll do a fourth hour Il Quicko, but I can't do one today.
I have to run.
We'll be back and close it out right after this.
All right.
Happy Memorial Day out to everybody.
And try for just a brief moment over the weekend to remember what it's really about.
By the way, this political story, do you think it's possible that McCain's aide said that Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bomb rather than a bong?
And this could be a typo.
I'm just speculating.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a correction later on.