All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
June 6, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, but I know I said that, but I want to go, I want to play, I want to play cuts 22 and 23 first.
I changed my mind.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Firmly ensconced here at the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies in the senior fellow chair of the prestigious at Till of the Hun chair.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Coming up in this hour, a little bit of discussion of why Dingy Harry might be trying to force a vote today on the Senate immigration bill and essentially shut off debate.
Many people think this is going to kill it.
Why would Dingy Harry want to kill it?
I have a couple of possibilities.
Morning update today was on this sorry excuse for a journalist named, what was his name?
Some guy named Adam Cohen.
The New York Times wrote a he's an observer, editorial observer, and he observed some things about Clarence Thomas that are outrageous.
And we will talk about those.
Barack Obama, I think, inciting race riots yesterday with some comments that he made.
We'll have some audio soundbites on that.
But I want to go back here to the story.
My favorite story in a long, long time.
Bob Hayden aboard a Minneapolis to Boston airplane.
Unruly passenger on board.
Bob Hayden, 65 years old, retired police captain, big law enforcement dude.
He and his wife on the plane.
She's reading a book.
This pastor is getting a little out of hand, and Bob Hayden gives a signal to the flight attendants.
Look, I'm going to do something about this.
He got up, scanned the plane, didn't find anybody that appeared to be interested in getting involved.
The young guys wouldn't even make eye contact.
They were looking away.
And he did find one guy sitting close to him.
He said, here's the deal.
Are you interested?
And the guy said, retired captain, United States Marine Corps.
Bob Hayden said, you'll do.
And so the stewardess gave the flight attendant, whatever, gave the signal, and they jumped up and subdued the guy.
And while this is going on, the guy's wife, Bob Hayden's wife, didn't do a thing.
She kept reading the book.
Never looked up.
And somebody sitting next to her, how could you do that?
How could you sit there while your husband's up there trying to subdue the?
He said, look, I've seen this.
He'd been married to the guy 42 years.
I've seen this all my life.
I knew he was going to go up there and step on somebody's neck.
I knew how this was going to end.
I didn't know how my book was going to end.
So Bob Hayden was on Fox today.
We got a couple soundbites.
First question from E.D. Hill, they asked him to describe what he saw on this flight was Northwest Flight 720 last Saturday.
It looked to me like it would have almost looked like a heart attack, but there was something staged about it.
So I immediately changed seats with the kid next to me and took the aisle seat.
And then I walked all the way from that seat to the back of the plane because I thought it might be a diversion.
It might be something coming from the back of the plane while we were all watching this.
And I looked at every person's face.
Didn't really see anything too worrisome.
So you went to the flight attendant and you said, look, if anything happens, you give me a signal.
At that point, you'd already talked to the guy next to you, who it turns out was an ex-Marine, and he says, I'll help you.
What was the trigger?
That's right.
The trigger was they waved plastic handcuffs at me.
And being an ex-cop, that was like sort of Pavlov's dog.
I knew what they wanted, and I got up, and the Marine came behind me, and we subdued these guys and cuffed one of them and put them in the seat and belted them in.
There were two guys that were being unruly.
Now, the way it went with the Marine, this guy, Bob Hayden, scouting a plane for assistance, because there's two guys.
Is one of him.
And he didn't find any looks of interest from the younger guys on the plane because we're raising a bunch of sissies in this country, not including military people.
Give me a break on this.
You know, we can't play tag.
We can't play dodgeball.
We can't play kickball.
We can't do any of these things in school anymore.
Somebody might get hurt.
Can't raise our hands in class anymore because it humiliates those who don't know the answer.
You know, let's face it.
You can't applaud it.
Oh, wait till you hear this.
You can't applaud at your own graduation.
Take your diploma away from you.
You cannot applaud at your own graduation.
Wait till you hear that.
Yeah, it's a new castrate taking over.
Anyway, these two guys, the 65-year-old, Bob Hayden, then saw this guy, another gray-haired guy sitting next to him and said, here's a plan.
Are you interested?
Marine said, former captain, or ex-captain, retired captain of the United States Marine Corps, Bob Hayden said, you'll do.
So then Edie Hill got to the question about his wife, quotes what she said.
Bob's been shot at, he's been stabbed, he's taken knives away, knows how to handle those situations.
I figured he'd go up there, step on somebody's neck, and it'd be the end of it.
I knew how that situation would end, she said.
I didn't know how the book would end, so I kept reading.
She mentions that question to him, and here's Bob Hayden's response.
Katie's the coolest customer I ever met.
I met her when I was 14.
When we were 14 is when we started going out.
And all the way home on the ride home, she never mentioned this happened.
We went shopping.
She didn't mention it.
We watched an old soprano.
She never mentioned it.
And then going up to bed, she got up to go to bed before me.
She said, stand up.
And I stood up and she gave me a little kiss.
And she said, by the way, nice job on the plane.
I love this, folks.
I love this whole story.
Everything about it.
I just absolutely love it.
Now, let me quickly move on to this Clarence Thomas business because the subject of the morning update today, it's a book out.
I don't even know the name of the book, but it's a giant hit piece on Clarence Thomas.
And this book has led to ancillary op-ed pieces being written.
And it's obvious that the drive-bys have put out a contract again on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and they're getting a lot of takers on this contract.
One of them, a guy named Adam Cohen, editorial observer at the New York Times.
And he uses this new book as a pretext for his shameful hit piece on Justice Thomas.
Now, the book is called Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas.
They talk about in the book how he's so conflicted, and he's destroying all.
I know Clarence Thomas, and I'm telling you, he is not conflicted.
He is not conflicted about.
He's one of the happiest, robust individuals you would ever meet.
He's not conflicted about anything, particularly his work.
He's extremely proud of it.
Now, this book, Cohen complains that the book doesn't explain why Justice Thomas regularly rules for the powerful over the weak and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering.
Well, that is because his job doesn't require him to take into account suffering.
His job as a judge, as a Supreme Court justice, does not call him to take into account the powerful over the weak.
You have this idiot, Adam Cohen, who blatantly tells us what the liberal view of the judiciary is.
It's to right the injustices, the social and economic injustices of society.
It has nothing to do with the law.
It's merely an arm of liberalism.
It's an arm of big government, and it's designed to do what liberals think is just and right and proper.
Clarence Thomas knows I'm here to judge the constitutionality of law.
I am here to adjudicate cases.
It doesn't matter to me if the powerful win or the weak win.
Whoever is supposed to win according to the law is going to win, in my judgment, which is what his job is.
And this guy, Adam Cohen, in this piece, does not even bother to explain Clarence Thomas's legal arguments.
He just paints him as openly supporting torture, which is another template of the left.
Abu Ghrab, Club Gitball, we're just a nation of torturers.
And he openly supports torture.
He does not.
What an outrageous thing to say.
Says he can be counted on to reflexively oppose discrimination claims of minorities and women.
There we go.
Women and minorities, hardest hit, a liberal template, counted on to reflexively oppose discrimination claims of, no.
He opposes discrimination claims that are invalid, whoever brings them.
He supports discrimination claims which are valid regardless who brings them.
He says even this.
More vexing to Adam Cohen is that Justice Thomas is beloved.
He beloved on the far right with friends like Rush Limbaugh.
Also, Justice Thomas is now to be disqualified because of his friends who happen to be on the quote-unquote far right.
Tell you, Mr. Cohen, we are far more in the mainstream than you pointy-headed intellectual, pseudo-intellectual elites who occupy the great Northeast in this country will ever hope to be.
Thomas, according to this observer, Adam Cohen, appears poised in the next few weeks to achieve his long-standing goal, dismantling the integrationist vision of his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall.
There could be nothing further from the truth.
There is no such agenda in the mind of any of the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court.
Dismantle the integrationist.
I'll tell you something, folks.
Mr. Cohen, you and your ilk, if anybody in this country is destroying integration, it's the civil rights coalitions in this country who are doing everything they can to separate us after having achieved integration.
It is people in the Senate pushing an immigration bill.
It's going to balkanize this country.
Talk about dismantling integrationist vision of Thurgood Marshall.
And then he whines that America will be much less just if Justice Thomas's life experience and moral truth start to shape the court's agenda and the nations.
Well, they don't.
His view of the law and the Constitution shape his agenda.
He doesn't have an agenda.
And this is what the libs can't get through their heads.
It's you people on the left that have the agenda.
The conservatives on the court, that's why we call them originalists.
They believe in interpreting it as it was written.
They don't believe it bends and shapes and breeds to accommodate the latest liberal perversions of our culture and society.
And that's why they're attacked.
But to say that Justice Thomas's life experiences and moral truth, I'll guarantee his life experience has been far tougher than yours, Mr. Cohen.
He knows far more about tough, hard breaks than you will ever know, Mr. Cohen.
Let me give you an observation on this, because this frosted me.
It is at times amusing, but sometimes very frustrating that these drive-by pseudo-intellectual thugs accepting these contract hit pieces point out, let out by the media.
Who are these people, by the way?
These are the people that leak classified secrets to America's enemies.
These are the people trying to destroy the United States' victory in the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
These are people who are doing everything they can to tear down the institutions and traditions that have made this country great.
These are the people who have never met an abortion they didn't love.
These are the people who demonize as many political opponents as they can for the express purpose of destroying them.
Robert Bork, any number of people that they've tried to take out.
For them to sit here in judgment over somebody's soul like Clarence Thomas's and to smear Clarence Thomas's moral truths, this country's in a battle for survival against liberalism.
And these people dare to question the morality and the soul of somebody who is, as a person, as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
I mean, the fact of the matter is that these little thugs, these pseudo-intellectuals that accept these contract hit pieces put out by the drive-by media, wouldn't recognize the truth if it smacked them in the face.
And as I said today in a stellar morning update, you, Mr. Cohen, nor any of your buddies are worthy.
You are not worthy of either tying Justice Thomas's shoes or shining them.
You're not even qualified to be his shoe shine boy.
Nor are you qualified to tie the shoes or shine the shoes of his friends either.
And we're back in a cutting edge, El Rushbo and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Eric, 20 years old from Minneapolis, nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Yeah, I was just wanting to say it's an honor to talk to you.
It's the first time I've been listening to you since I was like five years old.
First time you've been listening since you were five years old?
No, I've been listening.
Oh, you have been listening since you were five.
Get it right in there, Rachel.
That was a transcription error.
All right, so you've been listening.
So you're a rush baby.
Yeah, my dad taught me well, so I'd like to think that I'd be able to do that.
Hang on, hang on, hang on just a second.
Just a second.
Rachel, stop crying.
I was just kidding.
Eyes are getting red.
I was just.
You've been here enough.
I was just kidding.
Okay, I'm sorry about that, Eric.
You're a rush baby.
Yeah, my dad raised me right.
And, you know, so I'd like to think that I'd go up there and help that guy on the plane.
So, you know, not all of us, and I'm not military.
Look, I'm glad to hear this.
I mean, I'm glad to hear from all of you guys whose honor was you feel offended by this.
And I did paint with too broad a brush.
It was too sweeping a generalization.
I'm just saying, on this airplane, on this airplane, when the two heroes looked around for some help, there wasn't any.
And the younger guys even averted their eyes, didn't want to get involved.
We don't know how young, and these guys are 65.
They could have been looking at a 40-year-old and thinking he's young.
Who knows?
So, but it doesn't obscure my point, folks, that it like, Eric, I would say that if you're a real man today, you have survived the public education system, and I applaud you because I'm sure the efforts, especially where you live, have been quite pointed to turn you into a sissy To emasculate you as the chickification of our culture has continued.
We've talked about this, folks.
You know all about this.
Eric, thanks to the call.
Faith in Helendale, yeah, Hillendale, California.
Great to have you with us.
Right, it's a pleasure to speak with the catalyst to the American public.
You know, I am puzzled by the passivity of the American people as to why we don't have any protest across the United States against this amnesty bill.
You know, the May Day proponents put the spark underneath the Congress, and now we're going to have to live with this bill.
Not so fast.
Not so fast.
This bill may not survive the day.
I hope not.
It may not.
But look, you ask where the protests, people like us have never taken to the street and acted like a bunch of spoiled brat ragamuffin, nothing better to do than blow up a bank building types.
We've never done that.
We're busy working.
We are the engine that powers the country.
You know, 5% of the people are pulling the wagon.
The other 95% are in it.
Public protesters are not doing anything productive.
They are not pulling the wagon.
They're in the wagon, sponging off everybody else.
They're professional malcontents.
They are miserable and unhappy.
They've got several sociological problems.
Our side doesn't.
We're well adjusted.
We're productive.
We work.
We're upbeat and positive.
If you think we're not protesting, you call your congressman to see if you can get through.
I know.
It's the emails and the calls to them.
We do things that are meaningful.
We do things that work.
We're trying to influence in a positive way as many minds as we can, as many hearts and minds.
Okay, just as an aside, I just wanted to talk about Obama and being head, like of the veterans administration thing or hospital.
He visited Walter Reed and he didn't see the horrible conditions in there.
What is that all about?
Well, he didn't see them until somebody pointed out they were there.
Then he remembered them and got on board.
We got an Obama story coming up that's far better than that one.
All right, Faith, glad you called.
A pleasure and a thrill and a delight to talk to you.
We have to take an EIB Profit Center timeout here, ladies and gentlemen.
We earned the big bucks here, and it's time to do some of that.
We'll take a break and be back.
I've got these two Obama soundbites, and we'll get into the illegal immigration stuff in due course.
So sit tight.
I'm stunned here, folks.
I was looking at the call screener board.
A couple things up there just had me speechless.
Hey, we're back at 800-282-2882.
All right, here's the latest in the AP on immigration.
The headline, Immigration Deal Survives, GOP threat.
Now, listen to this.
A bipartisan immigration bill narrowly survived a potentially fatal challenge on Wednesday when the Senate turned back a Republican bid to limit the illegal immigrants who could gain lawful status.
The close vote on John Cornyn's proposal to bar felons, including those court-ordered to be deported from legalization, reflected the delicate position of the contentious immigration bill, which remains under threat from the right and the left.
So Cornyn proposed an amendment barring felons, and it loses.
The vote was 56, I'm sorry, 51 to 46 against the Cornyn Amendment.
Democrats succeeded in sucking support from Cornyn's proposal by winning adoption of a rival version that would bar a more limited set of criminals, including certain gang members and sex offenders, from gaining legalization, which is hoo-eye because it's not going to do that either.
There's no incentive to do any of this in the bill.
They can pass this.
We've got plenty of immigration laws on the books now, and because they're not working, we have to do this.
What's the magic in this new set of laws?
So Cornyn proposes an amendment that would bar felons, including those court-ordered to be deported from legalization, and it loses.
It loses.
And did you hear me?
An amendment to bar felons and those who are court-ordered to get out of the country failed.
We welcome you felons into America.
And if you're a felon and illegal already here, we want you to stay.
United States Senate, June 6th.
You know, if anybody's still alive out there from D-Day, which is the anniversary day after this is D-Day 63 years ago, what are you thinking here?
More on that as the program unfolds.
Now, we still have the story that this ran yesterday at the TheHill.com, Capitol Hill newspaper.
Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry set the stage for a vote to limit debate on the immigration bill, a move that risks destroying the fragile reform deal.
Dingy Harry told reporters he plans to file for cloture on the immigration bill by today at the latest, frustrating Republicans who blasted what they consider sluggish progress on their priority amendments.
While the bipartisan team of immigration negotiators have won reprieves from Dingy Harry before, the Democrat leader was unruffled by the threat of GOP grand bargainers joining a filibuster.
Now, Reed said he planned to set a Senate vote for Thursday.
Well, actually, that's tomorrow, not today.
I've been saying today this was going to, I'm sorry.
That's because I read this last night.
And it says, okay, this is still my mistake, but it's an honest mistake.
It's an understandable mistake.
It's a mistake anybody would have made, so it's not going to take away from my new accuracy rating.
But the vote is tomorrow.
And Dingy Harry said he planned to set a Senate vote for Thursday on his motion to limit debate.
It was unclear with Republican objections it would garner the 60 votes needed in order to shut off debate and vote on the thing.
Now, why?
The conventional wisdom, and that's worth what it's costing you, by the way, the conventional wisdom is that it's not going to survive this.
If it doesn't get 60 votes, things dead.
Why would Dingy Harry do this?
Well, it's anybody's guess.
I think one of the things that's happening is that more and more people are finding out how abominal this thing is.
You know, they didn't want any of this to be known.
Their plan was to negotiate this behind closed doors in secret and then ram it through with no debate, as McCain called it, no extracurricular politics.
They try to keep people from finding out what was in it.
Last night, McCain admitted at the debate it was not the bill that he would have written, but until somebody's got a better idea, let's, well, I got a better idea, enforce the current law that we've got now.
Common sense, though, has no place in this, obviously.
The second thing is, possibly, that you've seen the latest round of congressional ratings, they are in the toilet, folks.
And I don't think these guys aren't aware of that.
There's also a third thing about, this is a slight possibility, not very likely, but it's possible.
If this bill gets beaten back, if we stop this bill, this is going to be the biggest victory conservatives have had against this administration since a Harriet Myers nomination.
And, you know, that got us the Justice Alito nomination.
Could we get a Justice Alito equivalent in a new immigration bill?
And don't think for a moment that the libs and the drive-bys would not love to see a huge conservative beatback of President Bush and his administration on anything.
You know, they would make hay about that.
I actually, I don't think this is one of the reasons because I think that they're more concerned about their plummeting poll numbers in Congress and the fact that people are starting to learn the details of this because that will have an impact on the next election.
But they're torn because there's a whole bunch of new voters out there.
This is a built-in expansion of the Democrat Party.
And as I called it earlier, it's the Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007.
And in Raleigh, North Carolina, it's nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
It is a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
It must be difficult to be under the scrutiny of millions of people.
No, I enjoy it.
I feed off about each and every day.
Well, good.
I hope not to affect your accuracy rankings.
Galileo did not prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
All he had was observable data that attributed to the theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun because he could not, and the Earth revolving around the Sun was widely held by the scientists at that time, or the Sun revolving around the Earth was widely held by the scientists at that time.
Right, just like global warming is supposedly widely held by the Nimrod scientists of today.
And he could not answer the question of why there was no shift in the stars' position as the Earth revolves around the Sun, why was there no observable shift in the stars' positions?
And it wasn't until 1838 that they proved without a doubt based on the scientific technology at that time.
So it wasn't until then that they could definitively say that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
So Galileo's problem was that it was a theory, and he professed it as truth, and he wanted Scripture to be interpreted based on what he was professing to be truth.
And that is what got him in trouble with the Catholic Church.
So you're saying the Church was right.
Yes.
In fact, part of his theory was that the Earth is stationary, or that the Sun is stationary, and the Earth revolved around it.
And so, yes, the Earth revolves around the Sun.
This is a fascinating point on both philosophy and logic in both areas.
Because what we say is irrelevant to what is.
Whether we're able to discover it and learn it is one thing.
But the Earth has always revolved around the Sun, no matter who says what.
Whether we didn't know about it until 1838 doesn't mean it didn't happen.
It was happening.
We just didn't have the smarts to figure it out or the ability to figure it out.
It turns out, therefore, that Galileo was right.
He still was branded a heretic and thrown out of there.
Catholic Church had to change her mind on all this.
The Catholic Church, well, actually, Pope Urban, Pope Urban some number, actually allotted him to write a book professing his theory.
And the problem was he wanted it stated as truth, and he had no evidence determining that it is truth.
Well, let's take all this and move it forward to today in the global warming debate.
Because we've got scientists on both sides of it.
We've got a so-called consensus, which we don't have, by the way, but they say that we do.
You can't have consensus in science anyway.
You've got people on both sides.
The scientists who disbelieve it because it can't be proven are saying that they're being called deniers.
They're heretics.
They're being thrown out of the church of global warming.
The church of global warming can't prove what they believe.
They have to rely totally on faith, just like every other religion does.
And they've got their heretics and their deniers, and they're throwing them out.
Now, in this case, we do have a little bit more empirical data than Galileo had.
We've got the ability to go back and study ice cores and all kinds of things.
We know the Earth has warmed and cooled long before we started manufacturing these so-called massive amounts of CO2, which we are not manufacturing, by the way.
38 out of 100,000 molecules in the air CO2.
And it would take five years at current levels to move that to 39.
And yet Al Gore's out there in a movie saying, 30 billion tons of CO2 thrown into the atmosphere every year.
And people go, oh, my God, CO2, 30 billion tons, we're going to die.
38 out of every 100,000 air molecules of CO2.
Zilch.
And most of it's not produced by us.
We know a bunch about, we know enough to disprove the church of global warming today based on our knowledge of the past.
I completely agree with you, Rush.
Well, see how this ended up.
So, but you think that the church had no choice but then to throw Galileo and his theories under the bus?
Well, there weren't buses then.
Throw him overboard because he simply couldn't prove it, even though he was right.
That's right.
Because he wanted it told as truth, and he could not prove that it was truth based on the scientific standards of that time to the Aristolian standards of scientific proof.
He could not prove it.
Well, look at him today, though.
Great figure, as was Copernicus, or as is Copernicus.
Absolutely.
And you throw Da Vinci in there.
Absolutely.
Well, look, I appreciate the call.
I'm still, what strikes me about this is, and it's always fascinated me about humanity and man.
What is, is, whether we know it or not.
But we don't say it is till we know it, and we can prove it.
And on this global warming, nobody can prove it.
Not a soul can prove it.
And yet, how many people are out there accepting it for a whole bunch of psychological or religion-related reasons?
Which it's amazing how little we learn, despite how much more knowledge we acquire.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis, El Rushbo.
Gosh, I love it when I'm right, which is a lot.
That's why I'm so happy.
Now, get this.
The headline of this story, Thick Arctic ice blamed for Piedras Blancas' low gray whale count.
This is some San Luis Obispo.
Thick Arctic ice may be the reason for a precipitous drop in this spring's two-month gray whale count at Point Piedras Blancas.
Only 115 gray whale calves were counted this year by scientists at Point Piedras Blancas.
That's down dramatically from the 285 counted last year.
It's the lowest, actually the fourth lowest count in the 14-year history of the census of these whales.
Now, how can this be?
Thick, thick Arctic ice.
There's thick Arctic.
And does this mean that global warming would be better for the whale?
If the thick ice would become thin, there would be more whales.
So global warming would be good for the whale.
That is a moral dilemma.
Here is Mary in Fresno, California.
Hi, Mary.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
It's such an honor to speak with you.
I'm on a cell phone, so hopefully everything will be okay.
You know, you talk about how global warming has such religious fervor behind it.
And I wondered if you brought up in the first half of the last century that eugenics had the same religious fervor.
People were worried about the human race being watered down and made inferior by inbreeding.
And Margaret Sanger was like the Al Gore of eugenics back then.
That's exactly right.
And now she's Planned Parenthood, babe.
Yes, yes.
There are a lot of other people involved.
There are people that would stun you that were involved in the eugenics movement back then.
I can't think of any right off the bat.
But the eugenics movement was selective breeding.
And women and minorities are going to be hardest hit.
And everybody believed that it was correct.
And Americans were upset that the Germans were actually doing better than we were in promoting their Aryan race in accomplishing eugenics in Germany.
And the Americans were upset we were falling behind.
Yeah, but it wasn't so much, it was somewhat related to race, but it was mostly trying to match IQs.
They wanted to create a race of brains, brainy acts, and so forth.
Yes.
So that everybody would be a Northeastern liberal.
But everybody believed it was correct.
I think my phone's dying.
I'm sorry.
Anyway, it's a good point.
Oh, we just lost the cell phone connection.
Darn it, I hate it when that happens.
But that's a good point.
The eugenics movement.
I don't want to throw names out that might be right, or it might be wrong, but some names would surprise you who were involved.
Well, don't, don't, don't.
No, no, no.
Americans.
I'm talking to Americans, not, of course, Hitler.
Jeez.
Alexander Graham Bell, father of what?
What did he invent?
Telephone, absolutely right.
I know there's a dispute about who invented a phone.
Some scientists at Bell Lab thinks he did it.
Let's see.
I'm looking at the clock.
Let's grab one more here.
Let's go to Charlotte, North Carolina.
Paul, welcome to the program, sir.
Rush, Mega Marine Corps Devil Dog Dittos.
Thank you, sir.
I just wanted to bring to mind that the young men on flight 93 were young men who stepped up to the plate and became heroes through their actions.
No question about it.
No question about it.
We just want to remember that.
That's an excellent.
Look at, let me give you an illustration.
Are you watching the Sopranos, Paul?
No, I don't.
Oh, too bad.
Because the perfect illustration of the wusses that we are creating in America, not every man's going to go.
Some reject it.
They're not succeeding in totally.
A.J. Soprano, Tony's son, is the classic example, for those of you watching the show, of what I am talking about is happening to young boys in scrools all over the country today.
Well, I'd like to also mention that a good example for young men to follow would be to remember those who died today, June 6th, 1944.
We're going to get to that.
Going to read to you a prayer that FDR offered Franklin Delano Roosevelt and it is going to shock you in the, in the sense and I was there for the, for the a week before the I think 50th.
I remember that and I it it's.
It's haunting to this day it's still haunting.
It's a source of great pride with Puando Ho that that is unbelievable.
What happened at Puandaho with the Rangers.
But This prayer offered by FDR will stun you in that you will realize a president could not deliver it today.
Back in a sec.
Okay, a brief time out here at the top of the hour, ladies and gentlemen, for your local biased network news.
And then we will be back and continue straightening it all out after that.
▲
Export Selection