All Episodes
Previous Next
June 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 11, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
It was only a mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen, that I shared with you what I had recently learned.
Paris Hilton had called in the Barbara Walter's show, saying that uh the dumb act was was gonna end now.
It's time to grow up, you're not gonna start acting smart.
You're not not gonna act dumb anymore.
Then a mere 30 minutes later, I see a graphic on the TV claiming that Paris Hilton says she feels like she's in a cage.
Well, she is in a cage.
Uh it's it's called jail.
Now I what when I heard that she said she was gonna end a dumb act, I said, Well, that's cool, but how are we ever going to tell the difference?
And I submit to you that I was right about that.
I don't think it feels like she's in a cage.
She is in a cage.
She also said God's given her a new chance to make a difference.
Uh okay.
Dumb act has not she maybe she's gonna end a dumb act, but she obviously hasn't decided to end it yet.
Uh and then she said she was shocked by the attention her cases received and suggested the public and the media focus, quote, on more important things like the men and women serving our country in Iraq.
Uh your initial reaction to that is, well, at least she knows that we're in Iraq, and then you say, No, maybe not, because she probably didn't write this.
Image consultant wrote this, and his name, well, I don't know if he wrote it, but an image consultant named Michael Sands actually said this.
Paris Hilton will become a real Hollywood star from this experience.
If she handles it like a famous person and goes to a military base, visits Walter Reed, then Hollywood will embrace her.
Hollywood's very forgiving.
It's not like she insulted the Jews.
It's not like she insulted the Jews.
It's vacuous, folks.
I mean, it's just everybody that surrounds this story is vacuous.
Anyway, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Linbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Listen to this way this story starts out here from the Associated Press.
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half dozen states, and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations, pointing out flaws in the justice system, has weighed against capital punishment.
The moral opposition is loud too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
But what gets little notice is a series of academic studies over the past six years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument.
The argument is whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.
The analyses say yes.
They count between three and eighteen lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
Well, what stud what what'd that study say?
Yes, I know you're asking me that, folks, and it's exactly you heard right.
The scientists count between three and eighteen lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
The reports of horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists who vigorously questioned data and its implications.
So far the studies have had little impact on public policy because nobody knows about them.
A 2003 study, uh, let's see, this is the science uh does really draw a conclusion.
It did.
Uh there is no question about it, said uh Nasi Moken, economics professor, University of Colorado, Denver.
The conclusion is there's a deterrent effect.
In 2003, he co-authored a study and a 2006 study that re-examined the data found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence Means five more homicides.
The results are robust.
They don't really go away.
He said, I oppose the death penalty, but my results showed that the death penalty deters.
What am I going to do?
Hide them?
You don't have to hide them, Macy.
The drive-by media will do that for you.
I've always thought it's a bogus argument anyway.
Whether it deters or not is not the point.
Capital punishment's a form of punishment.
The word is punishment.
Whether it deters or not, it does, it's icing on the case.
You know it does deter because that killer can't kill again.
I haven't read the whole story.
I don't know how they arrive at these numbers.
But this guy's a death penalty opponent.
He's out there making the case here that uh it does actually deter other bad guys from running out there killing people.
Uh economic news.
Drought, high fuel and feed prices, a surge in international sales, and the cost of dairy operations are factors boosting milk prices to record levels and hitting consumers in the pocketbook.
In Alabama, the price for a gallon of milk has already broken a 2004 record, $3.57 a gallon.
Agriculture economists say it could hit $4.50 a gallon this summer.
That means, ladies and gentlemen, that milk now costs more than gasoline does when priced by the gallon.
Now I wonder if there's too much profit here for Mrs. Clinton in big milk.
I wonder if big milk needs to keep its hands on its back pockets here because liberal politicians are going to come along and want to take their obscene profits.
Meanwhile, gasoline prices are going down.
Average price of gas has dropped more than seven cents in recent weeks.
This is the first time actually it's gone down since January, according to a national survey released on Sunday.
I predicted this.
Gas prices always go down in the summertime.
They always do.
You can make book on it.
One of the reasons, by the way, uh our refineries only running right now at 86 or 89%, I'm not sure which one of those two numbers is right.
Capacity.
We are importing gasoline because we don't have the refined, even at 100%, we don't have the refining capacity to handle uh big demand to summertime driving in this sort.
And people are not cutting back on driving and their purchases of gasoline.
Uh so the the um fact that we're importing gasoline, that's that's you know, our makes me nervous.
Not immediately, but down the road.
We're already importing a lot of oil.
Now we start importing gasoline to meet our needs.
And it it's all related to the fact everybody's out there talking about we need energy dependence, and the very ways to go about getting it are opposed by the same people making the claim that we uh that we need it.
From uh the UK Times, the government's policy of promoting biofuels for transport will come under harsh attack this week from one of its senior science advisors, Roland Clift.
We'll tell a seminar of the Royal Academy of Engineering that the plan to promote bioethanol and biodiesel produced from plants is a scam.
Well, by the way, when you heard biofuel, think plants.
That's what it means.
He's going to tell the seminar that promoting the use of biofuels is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
His comments will amount to a direct challenge to others who have published strategies promoting biofuels.
It coincides with a surge of anger among environmentalist wackos over the weak pledges on climate change that emerged from last week's G8 summit.
And boy, I know you can talk about Bush all you want, but uh he he stuck it to Putin and stuck it to the G8 on the Kyoto Protocol.
It's it's effectively dead.
He effectively just wiped it out.
Made them wipe it out.
Now, here's why biofuels will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions.
It takes too much land to plant the proper plants for biofuels.
In order to get the land, you have to burn down forests.
And when you burn forest, the carbon dioxide that these forests normally scrub from the air will remain.
This is, you know, according to environmental lore, will contribute to uh to global warming.
That's all hocus pocus uh as well.
Quick timeout.
I mean, CO2, we exhale it.
It's not a pollutant.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Get this story from the Charlotte Observer.
Bob Texera decided it was time to take a stand against U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
So last fall, he's a musician, Bob Texera.
He's a guitar instructor.
He spent twelve hundred dollars to convert his 1981 diesel Mercedes to run on vegetable oil.
He bought soybean oil in five-gallon jugs at Costco, spending about 30% more than diesel would cost.
It saves your planet.
His reward from a state that heavily promotes alternative fuels is a $1,000 fine last month for not paying motor fuel taxes.
He's been told to expect another $1,000 fine from the feds.
To legally use vegetable oil, state officials told him he would have to first post a $2,500 bond.
The State Department of Revenue, which fined Texera has asked legislators to waive the $2,500 bond for small fuel users.
They also told Texera after the Charlotte Observer asked about his case this week that it will compromise on his fine.
Now here's here's the full quote of the story.
Texera's story began near Lowe's Motors Speedway on May 14th.
I know you're wondering, how did they know he's using vegetable oil in the car?
Well, he went to Lowe's Motor Speedway on May 14th in a NASCAR race.
As recreational vehicles steamed in for race week, revenue investigators were investing and investigating and checking fuel tanks of diesel RVs for illegal fuel.
The investigators spotted Texera's bumper sticker.
Said powered by 100% vegetable oil.
Texira says that the revenue officials are just doing their jobs, and you think it's unfair that he was lumped with people who purposely try to avoid fuel taxes.
Follow all this liberal orthodoxy, go out there and put in this soybean oil in your car, and then they nab you for not paying taxes.
I mean, it's not funny, but it is.
Betty uh in Big Bear City, California.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good morning, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
My pleasure.
Hey, I've got two comments.
One on uh what David from Sri Lanka had to say about.
All right, let's go back because hang on.
Because he called about two hours ago, and and so people may not have heard his call.
A few people might not have.
Uh he was a peace activist.
He's uh proudly and self-identified himself as a peace activist, and said that uh we shouldn't be complaining about the illegal immigration from Mexico because California is actually theirs, and we took it from them, and we didn't pay them, and it was like slavery.
And and then this is what uh Betty here is calling to respond to.
We had fun with uh with David, and he asked me before he hung up if I would donate to the Sri Lanka Peace Foundation or something, so I've not done.
Well, you know what I'd like to know, since absolutely well, almost a hundred percent of us, unless unless you've got a dab of Indian in you.
We're not indigenous to the United States.
So what are what are we supposed to do?
Well, I mean, even if go back where we came, where our ancestors came from.
Even if our even if the Indians may not be indigenous.
Well, this is true, too.
Some but some of them may not be either.
Uh but we don't know who they took it who took it they took the country from.
Well, according to history, there was there was nothing here till Columbus discovered it.
It didn't exist.
It didn't exist.
I mean, I this is you know what I'm trying to say in the form of a joke.
But uh that that's that's that's the the point uh is that is that it nobody can make the claim to being indigenous anywhere.
Well, this is true.
So uh you know what what do they want us to do?
Everybody go back to where we supposedly came from.
Spain would have to give back South America.
You know, it's it's ridiculous.
But the second point I wanted to make, Rush, was I really and truly think we need to close our borders and only let people come in if they want to immigrate legally.
Well, yeah, that's that the uh exactly.
Uh I don't know if we meant close the borders, just enforce the law.
Legal immigration is it.
Illegal immigration is gonna be stamped down.
It's it's gonna be fought and and uh and uh and uh and opposed and the law is gonna be enforced.
That's what everybody wants.
Well, it's what the country wants, uh elected officials do not.
Jim in Boston, I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Uh, yeah, Rush.
Listen, I'm not saying that uh President Bush is uh against immigration, but I think a lot of what he's doing is strategy.
And what I mean by that is look, he he wants to be able to show he's trying to do the best he can for the Hispanics who he's always had a you know a history with, but at the same time, he knows that it's gonna be uh overturned, and also it it confounds the Democrats, so they can't go against him because they can say, hey, well, the the President, the lead Republicans going in favor of it, and it's just like in Dubai ports.
He knew it was gonna go down, but he this way he said he he tried to do what he could for his uh Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, what I'm following here.
What's the strategy?
The strategic is by the d the Democrats now cannot uh oppose call the Republicans nativist uh for opposing uh the immigration because the president himself is opposing it.
And it basically compounds their strategy.
They are calling us nativists, they're calling it.
They're calling us Yahoos.
They're calling us racists.
But Rush, they can't do it effectively because basically it's confounded the Democrats because you've got President Bush himself pushing.
No, but they can't they still can because the President has split the party on this.
They can they can they can uh they can call us racists and yahoos.
Uh Rush, can I ask you a question?
Yeah.
Listen.
Uh look, President Bush may not be the most articulate, but he is intelligent and he doesn't have a tin ear.
He knows.
And he and basically, for him now, even in the f in the teeth of all this opposition to say he's gonna go back to Congress and try to push it.
Basically, he's keeping the issue going and ultimately it's going to help the Republicans by keeping the issue alive.
Think about this after the fact when this is all over with, uh what he's accomplished.
It's the same thing like with Harriet Myers.
He never would have gotten a Judge Alito in after Judge Roberts.
Yeah, but see, that's almost a brilliant point.
That is a brilliant point.
That that comes up a little short.
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, because for this to be analogous to Harriet Myers, the next time they come back with an immigration bill, it's gotta be an illito immigration bill, meaning it they gotta fix it.
And that's not gonna happen.
The effort is going to be made to r resurrect this bill in all of its fundamental parts that they want.
No, what it does is keeps the issue alive pending the election.
In other words, the uh by the time this keeps the issue going, keeps it active, keeps people fired up, keeps the uh the base moving.
That's why it's analogous totally.
You think that uh President Bush never would have gotten uh Judge Alito in after Judge Roberts, the conservative male, had he not gone with Harriet Myers.
Oh, wait a second.
You're telling me that he's doing this on purpose.
Well, no.
And you're telling me that he nominated Harriet Myers on purpose, knowing full well we wouldn't accept it, and that was the only way he could get lost.
What I'm saying is, you're thinking you're being too smart by half here.
That's that's not what's happening in the in this case.
And it didn't is not what happened with Harriet Myers.
Well, let me just say uh I'm saying it's kind of like all of the above.
Because here's what I mean.
Rush has Hispanic uh, you know, sympathies.
He can show he's trying to do the best he can, the same way with the Arab allies, you know, Saudi Arabia and the two by the.
That's not how presidents are judged.
I'm sorry to tell you this.
Legacies are born of achievements.
He's w if if this thing doesn't happen, uh his his legacy is gonna be he couldn't get his own party rallied around him to get this done.
He had Democrats willing to do it up until Harry Reed.
And you know, that's an interesting thing to me, old Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry has been all over the ballpark on the subject of illegal immigration.
You can find quotes, depending on how far back in time you want to go.
Where Dingy Harry was, you know, all against illegal immigration.
And you find him moderating his tone a little bit.
Uh Dingy Harry called for a vote when Bush was out of the country, and he pulled the bill when Bush was out of the country.
Dingy Harry wants this thing to stay failed.
He wants it to go down the tubes.
Uh he wanted it to because to him, in his political universe, presidential failure equals Democrat success.
I mean, he was saying last week, well, this is a Republican bill.
This is the President's bill.
Uh Sure, we had some Democrats working on it and trying to help, but it's the uh it's a president's bill.
The New York Times has one of the most incredible editorials.
I'll give you a couple excerpts from when we come back from the break.
But I blaming Bush.
They're blaming Kyle, they're blaming conservatives, talk radio and so forth.
Dingy Harry pulled the bill.
Hey, could have that bill could still be up there.
It could be offering uh amendments to it and giving it a chance.
He pulled it.
He wants Bush to fail that because legacies are born of achievements, not effort.
Making the complex understandable, ladies and gentlemen.
One of the many services provided here by me.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now look, folks, I don't want you to get too smart by half out there.
This is there's no strategy here on the part of the president to help the Republican Party by sandbagging his own bill and seeing to it that it goes down to defeat.
Don't you you just they're way off the beaten path.
The only way that this helps the Republican Party is if the failure of this bill creates a vacuum that will then be filled by a conservative.
Because I'm gonna, you know, there were stories that were written over the weekend.
No.
No, they couldn't have.
It had to be written on Thursday.
Yeah, it was written on Thursday.
I forget it was a blog.
Guess what?
It was a blog from down there in Fort Lauderdale at the uh this I think it was at Sun Sentinel.
Might have been Orlando Sun Central, could have been South Florida Central, whatever.
This guy wrote in his blog, if the immigration bill passes, this will effectively be the end of talk radio and its influence.
Oh, yes, they'll still have the hosts, and you'll still have the programs, but it'll mean they're ineffective and not worth listening to.
I'm paraphrasing this.
Ineffective, no power, not worth listening to.
Well, by the same toy, that this guy was of the opinion, obviously, that uh bill was going to pass in the Senate, and it talk radio is going to go down a tubes.
Well, just the opposite has happened.
And obviously, you know, Washington notes things.
Now they've still got a you know a bug up their rear end about this bill, wanting to get this bill passed, but they know that there is a a fortified opposition, and they know that this opposition is largely indigenous, too.
It's not just because talk radio hosts are uh are poisoning, quote unquote, your mind.
This is something, this is simple.
This is easy to as easy for people to understand as that as that scam at the House bank was when we learned that members of Congress go in and write checks for cash for money that was not in their account.
I mean, that's something nobody can do.
They were doing it for a long time and it was being covered up.
In this case, the rule of law is a fundamental American principle as it is a fundamental conservative principle, and nobody here is making an effort to enforce it in a bill that was written in 1986.
This is easily understandable.
And we see the results of it because this is affecting people's lives, where they live.
People are being forced to move.
Because they don't like the circumstances that result when you have an under-educated, low-skilled, doesn't speak English population that's uh largely infiltrating American cities and states.
It's so it doesn't it doesn't take a massive education effort.
This is something people instinctively understand.
But the thing of this newspaper blog, uh the other side of that story is true too.
If, in fact, well, now that the bill is technically dead now, the president's gonna try to revive it, I guess still say it's on life support, but uh those who want to diminish and pretend uh that talk radio has lost its touch, lost its power, has lost its connection with people, know full-fledged how wrong they are now, and that cannot sit well either.
And mostly the success in talk radio is conservative, is it not?
So The only way this bill going down the tubes can can help the Republican Party is if it wakes up some Republicans and says, you know what?
Our heart is conservatism.
And get a candidate that can come here to fill the void and uh come up with an actual piece of legislation here that accomplishes what everybody knows needs to happen in order to solve a problem, not perpetuate it.
So there's there's there's lots lots of opportunities here.
Uh, and and not the least of which is that that uh, you know, I told you last Thursday, McCain's been marginalized, not McKay.
Oh, speaking of McCain, he's on the war path out there.
He'd blaming conservatives for the immigration bill's failure.
I think the Senate works in a way where relatively small numbers can block legislation, but I also think the more conservative anti-immigrant anti-legislation group were very well backed up by a vocal group of people who were supporting them.
Well, we know how to translate these words now.
So he's out there, the opponents are anti-immigrant.
Nobody is anti-immigrant.
We're pro-immigration, legal.
Uh I don't we know all that.
We don't have to run through all of this.
But that's the only way uh that the this bill going down the tube helps Republicans is if they get the message.
And there's no guarantee of that, by the way.
This is the kind of thing, you know, psychology is what it is.
This is the kind of thing you think, well, we're not gonna be in a party run by a bunch of rebel revs and loudmouths out there, a bunch of yay who nativist racists.
I'm not gonna be a one.
And so they'll just get their backs up and they'll get more defensive about it rather than learn the lesson.
But it's if they think, if anybody out there thinks that the the power of the conservative movement in this country is gone in effect.
They in their dreams, folks.
They are living with the reality today that that is not the case, and it's not gonna be the case anytime soon.
If anything, it is uh it's going to increase.
This is a kind of thing that will coalesce all kinds of people, maybe even across party lines.
If they continue to try to stuff this down everybody's throat, by the way, Dingy Harry, in um trying to understand what he did last Thursday and pulling the bill, Rasmussen reports uh has uh done a poll on his favorable and unfavorable.
His favorable rating has fallen to 19%.
This is from last Saturday.
Dingy Harry, now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters, unfavorably by 45%.
Just 3% have a very favorable opinion.
Twenty-two percent hold a very unfavorable opinion of Dingy Harry.
Uh he's been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform.
The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of Dingy Harry.
His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of him.
His highest ratings were 30% favorable in February, now down to 19%.
Uh I don't think Dingy Harry's unfavorables have anything to do with pulling the immigration bill.
I think his unfavorables may be why, maybe a factor in why he pulled it, because he knows what people think about it out there.
And that's why he's out there saying it's Bush's bill, it's a Republican bill.
He's trying to distance himself from it because he knows that 76% of the American people are opposed to it.
And I keep referencing this New York Times editorial.
It is from um Saturday.
A failure of leadership.
The immigration compromise collapsed to the floor of the Senate Thursday night.
Many of its hard-line foes are celebrating, but their glee is vindictive and hollow.
They have blocked one avenue to an immigration overhaul while offering nothing better, thwarting bipartisanship to satisfy their reflexive loathing for amnesty, which they defined as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
Where do you start with that paragraph?
That is that is just petulant and childish.
This is this is not even up to the standards of the New York Times when it was good.
Not even up to their recent standards when they've been pathetic.
This is just petulant, childish behavior.
Thwarting bipartisan.
What's the magic in bipartisanship?
Reflexive loathing for amnesty.
Which is they define as anything that helps illegal immigrants get right with the law.
Get right with the law means paying a debt to society, being punished for breaking a law or what have you.
Not clemency.
Hell, look at 12 to 20 million illegals going to be pardoned.
We can't pardon Scooter Libby.
We can pardon 12 to 20 illegals.
Let's start calling it the pardon bill.
If they don't like amnesty, let's start calling it the pardon bill.
Because that's exactly what this is.
That's how you get right with the law is to be pardoned.
But anyway, it gets better.
But obstruction happened.
Republican amendments designed to shred the compromise happened.
Jeff Sessions wanted to deprive legalized immigrants, yes, legal residents, of the earned income tax credit, a path out of poverty for millions.
John Cornen wanted to strip confidentiality protections for immigrants who apply for legal status, making them too frightened to leave the shadows.
And of course, they're also upset that there was uh the Dorgan amendment.
They don't like Dorgan, they don't mention him much in here, but they don't like the fact that Dorgan uh brought well, Dingy Harry brought Dorgan's amendment back after it had been defeated once.
The Dorgan Amendment uh cut the uh the five-year sunset on uh on the guest guest worker program, and and but there's one other aspect to it too.
The th they're upset, the Times is upset over um uh the the the effort to deport criminal illegals.
Uh they didn't even want to deport them.
Leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars, the one that would have put twelve million people on a path to legal status.
It didn't show up.
Republicans who should have been holding their party in a deal together, President Bush, Mitch McConnell, Senator John Kyle failed utterly.
Which I read that as that's funny because I thought Dingy Harry was a leader in the Senate now, responsible for getting it through the Senate.
Now all of a sudden Dingy Harry pulls it with Bush is out of town.
Bush is dealing with Kyoto and Putin.
Uh Kyle and McConnell are the now to be blamed for this leadership was desperately needed to stop Republicans from dragging the bill off one of its pillars.
Um restoring order will be wrenchingly difficult, but it must be done, says the Times.
The country cannot leave an unlawful, chaotic system to fester with legal immigration channels clogged, families split apart, boo-hoo, crop.
See, it's like we're doing this.
We are separating families.
We are causing crops to rot.
We are the ones who owe these people an apology.
We are the ones who making victims out of them.
Crops rotting, state and local governments dreaming up ways to punish 12 million people whose identities are unknown to the authorities and who aren't leaving no matter what Congress does.
We cannot simply fortify a wall while continuing to extract cheap labor from cowering workers who risk death to get here.
Inaction on immigration carries a brutally high price, but those on the phobic right are willing to mortgage their country's future to pay for it.
Really, we're trying to preserve the country's heritage and future.
Something that the New York Times doesn't like as it currently exists and would love to tear it down or participate in the process to tear it down and rebuild it in their own childish petulant socialist vision.
Back after this.
They would talent on loan from God.
I am Rush Limboy.
You know all these stories, and you can you can predict them.
All these stories, talk radio goes down.
Talk radio losing its info.
Why don't they ever tell the truth?
Ted Kennedy goes down.
Oh, let me rephrase that.
Ted K Ted Kennedy.
Um they ever write stories that Ted Kennedy can't get it done in the Senate.
Or that Dingy Harry can't get it done.
It's always in the context of, well, talk radio can't get it done.
And when we do get it done, uh it's because we're nativist jahoos, racists, and and all the rest of it.
Nancy in Wichita, thank you for calling.
Nice to have you on the program today.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Pardon?
You sweet thing.
Oh, thank you so much.
I got my t-shirt in the mail from the leukemia lymphoma.
Uh fundraiser on Friday.
And I love it.
Well, I'm glad you got it.
I appreciate your donation to it, too.
That's uh if you're just tuning in, she obviously had to make a sizable donation in order to get the freebie t shirt.
Did it fit?
Uh I haven't tried it on yet.
I'm moving into a new a new house on the first of July, and I'm gonna wear it the first night.
And I'm gonna have a glass of wine and think of you.
I know.
You know, you know, Nancy, I I probably shouldn't say this, but I do sometimes at night.
I wonder how many people's thoughts include me.
I wonder.
Really, you shouldn't be surprised because there are many, many people to think of you.
Poor Dawn is shaking her head and I just can't believe it.
Are you listening to me?
Okay.
I'm listening to you.
I've been a husband.
You are well loved.
You're loved by many, and many pray for you.
Well, thank you so much.
And think of you every day, and I'm one of 'em.
Well, I appreciate it more than you know.
Okay.
I thank you again for that donation to the uh leukemia lymphoma society.
Well, stay well and stick around a long time.
We love you.
I have no intentions of vanishing or going anywhere.
Nancy, by the Nancy's in my top ten favorite female names list.
Really?
Yes.
Well, then I'll keep it.
You own it, so you should.
All right.
Thank you, sweetheart.
Thank you, Nancy.
Uh always always a pleasure.
Uh let's see, what do we check the cluck here?
Norma in uh in Victorville, California.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime.
Anytime, any time at all.
Um I I just want to say that I think uh uh Feinstein owes the American people apology for calling us racists and uh having hatred in our hearts because we're opposed to the uh the immigration bill.
I uh I called her office after listening to you for a while this morning and told the lady uh that answered the phone that I felt out uh it was totally wrong for her to to make such a comment.
And it you know, when she disagrees with somebody, is that considered hate speech?
You know, you've seen Teddy Kennedy say something.
Well, what did they say when they ought when you call the office?
Well, she said the the girl that answered the phone said that uh most of the calls were all uh uh hate speech.
She said, You can't believe what I've listened to.
And I said, Well, you know, maybe that's the only way that they have if uh voicing their opinion is to scream and holler because otherwise we'd we're not really heard.
Yeah, and especially on this one, there were more and more people thinking that they weren't being listened to or heard despite the overwhelming opposition to this.
So But remember, she's not gonna apologize because the purpose of this is to down the road be able to set other senators up to ignore future complaints.
Uh that whole thing, that whole racism and r uh uh hatred, uh rage and uh people that called her office worse than she's ever heard in fifteen years.
But I still want to see these emails.
I want to see prove it.
You know, I'm these people run out and make these kind of claims and my reactions prove it.
I want to see this stuff.
But the purpose of this, Norma is to inoculate uh the uh other senators down the road when they revive this thing if they do, because the criticism will start rolling in the next well, yeah, because a lot of criticism, but just a lot of hate-filled racism.
Uh we of course pay no attention to that here.
We're gonna do what's right for America, what's right for the United States.
We're gonna do what's right for the U.S. Congress, we're gonna do what's right for these poor twelve million illegals.
We're gonna do what's right.
We can't listen to this hateful language.
In fact, we're not gonna answer our phone.
That's how they're gonna ignore all of your criticism is to discredit and by the way, welcome to the club because that's what they've been trying to do to conservatives in the media for I don't know how long.
Throw that racism charge around or some other uh uh characterization that's disparaging and it's designed to discredit people like me in your minds uh and hearts.
And so now they are so frustrated, they're trying to do the same thing to you.
So welcome to the club.
Um it's fun to be here.
Back in just a second.
And back to the phones, my adopted hometown Sacramento.
This is Steve.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Regarding this argument over indigenous people and their locales and who owns what, we need to take it to the limit right back to before the dispersion of all people at Babel, which is located 60 miles south of Baghdad.
Saddam Hussein was trying to rebuild the tower.
What a way to wrap it up!
Thanks a lot, Steve.
You guys have a great Monday.
▲
Export Selection