All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
June 15, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, for a Friday, we're going to sizzle here today, folks.
There's great stuff out there, and I am looking forward to it.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and this is the EIB network, and it is Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
You know what that means, folks.
That means that when we go to the phones, you are free to try and ruin this show.
Just kidding.
When we go to the phones, you own the show.
You can talk about what you want.
And we look forward to this, as you know.
We love this uh this day of the week.
In fact, I got a I got an email yesterday said, you know, you ought to do an open line week one day.
Or one week.
Every day open line.
Whatever.
That's not a bad idea, especially since Snerdlish uh shaking his head in there.
Here's a number, 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIB net.com.
What are we gonna do about uh Mississippi Senator Trent Lott?
What are we gonna do about Senator Lott?
You remember when he got into trouble with uh this drum Thurman comment?
We're out there defending.
They got a White House threw him overboard, all kinds of Republicans are throwing him overboard.
Talk radio came to his defense.
Trent Lott.
Now one of the engineers of the uh the Senate immigration bill, the amnesty bill, and they're trying to bring this thing back with uh the amendment to being kept under wraps, by the way.
Understand Lindsay Gramnesty, Senator from South Carolina, is going to propose an amendment to build a border fence.
Uh 4.4 billion dollars.
The government spends that much on rubber bands every year.
Well, maybe not that much, but I mean you get that you get the uh point.
Senator Lotts out there saying the problem with this is talk radio.
And it's a problem that's going to have to be dealt with.
Now, what does that mean?
When I hear a United States Senator say that what I do for a living is a problem that the government has to deal with.
I mean, you could interpret it any number of ways.
He says, Well, we're gonna have to come up with our own ways to overcome them, or we're gonna just have to wipe them out.
I mean, what is it?
What does it mean?
The real question is, how are we gonna deal with Trent Lott?
What are we gonna do about him?
Um, so uh that that'll we'll come uh into full circle in full detail when we get to the immigration stack out there.
But I mean, we we came to this guy's defense.
Time magazine.
You you people know what Sunday is.
It's Father's Day.
Now, Time magazine's famous for a number of things.
The cover on me is Rush Limbaugh, good for America.
Is there too much democracy out there?
Uh Fidel Castro, lying in winter trying to save his great little communist nation.
Um cover story in Time Magazine's startling new survey or research data indicates that boys and girls are actually born different.
That was a cover story.
Now, Time magazine has a story.
Um Father's Day weekend.
Let me just read to you the opening paragraph.
Shall I?
The folks in Hallmark are going to have a very good day on June 17th.
That's when more than 100 million of the company's ubiquitous cards will be given to the 66 million dads across the U.S. the United States in observation of Father's Day.
Such a blizzard of paper may be short of the more than 150 million cards sold from Father sold for Mother's Day, but it's still quite a tribute.
What's less clear is whether dads, at least as a group, have done a good enough job to deserve the honor.
Time magazine actually with a story on whether or not you dads deserve a Father's Day.
Because you're screwing up so bad.
Worldwide, 10 to 40% of children grow up in households with no father at all.
In the U.S., more than half of divorced fathers lose contact with their kids within a few years.
By the end of ten years, as many as two-thirds of them have drifted out of their children's lives, according to a 1994 study by the Children's Defense Fund.
Now, let me tell you the children's defense fund may as well be Hillary Clinton.
She and Marion Wright Edelman set up this thing.
And it's nothing more than a it's a sinkhole for liberalism.
According to a 19, this is like saying, according to a 1994 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, that's Planned Parenthood.
So that the children's defense fund is just another way of it's a Hillary front group.
Men are more likely to default on a child support payment, 49% than a used car payment, 3%.
Even fathers in intact families spend a lot less time focused on their kids than they think.
In the U.S., fathers average less than an hour a day.
That's up from 20 minutes a day a few decades ago, usually squeezed in after the work day.
Anthropologists are trying to figure out why.
Homo sapiens produce the most slowly maturing young of all mammals.
Among foraging humans, children need 19 years and consume 13 million calories before producing more food for their community than they take from it, according to research by anthropologist Hillard Kaplan.
For it, I I kid you not.
Before producing more food for their communities than they take from it.
Uh you'd think fathers would be hardwired to provide for such needy offspring, and yet there is more variation in fathering styles across human cultures than among all other species of primates combined.
I mean, this just gets better.
As you read this, it gets it it becomes more incredible by the sentence.
Many of our primate kin are far better fathers than we are.
Investigators, the California Primate Center discovered that baby Tetey monkeys are in the arms of their fathers for as much as 90% of daylight hours.
Many are far worse.
But what hang on, we'll discuss what the mothers are doing in just a second, Snurley.
Let's chill out in there.
Got it?
We got this handled.
I can handle it here.
I'm hosting a show, everything's under control.
Okay, so the fathers teeth monkeys are in the arms of their fathers much as 90% of daylight hours.
Many are far worse, but all are at least consistent within their species.
Why does paternal care in our species vary so much?
Well, because we are hardwired, but we also have souls.
The tea monkey doesn't have a soul, it's just a God programmed robot.
Have you ever you you people have cats?
Have you ever scratched a cat's butt right above the tail?
What does the cat do?
Starts licking its left front leg.
Every cat in the world does this.
Why do cats bathe themselves?
No one taught them to.
They just do it.
You know, this is this business that we are no different than these people.
It's kind of like, it's kind of like weather or no, not weather, it's kind of the whole concept of pollution.
Do you realize that whenever an animal poops in your yard, that is nature.
That's fertilizer, that's whatever.
Whenever an animal eats another it oh, maybe brutal, but that's, you know, the law of the jungle.
Whenever animals or any other living organism engage in what they they don't even know they're doing it.
They're pre-programmed by God.
You think the bees have to be told by mom and dad bee, go to that flower and pollinate the thing?
They just do it.
They may learn by following, but they're not they're not thinking, they don't have any souls.
We, on the other hand, build a smokestack and we're destroying.
We are not part of nature, you see.
This has long been one of my bugaboos about the whole uh the whole environmental movement is that human beings are by our own nature intruders.
How can this be?
We are as much a part of nation or of nature as anybody else.
Well, it's not fair, though, Rush, because we can uh we can invent and produce shotguns and kill them.
But let me tell you something.
A tiger could invent a shotgun and fire back.
But we're not wrong because we can invent shotguns or rifles or whatever else, or space shuttles.
But all this stuff that we do intrudes on nature, destroys it.
Everything these primates do, now we're being compared to Titi monkeys.
The other day we were being compared to cockroaches.
Yes, cockroaches can learn just like us.
No, they don't learn.
Otherwise, if they saw the raid can, they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't sit there and soak it up.
So anyway, here we are.
Well, I don't care what the mother teeth monkey is doing, when the stupid idiot father Tete monkey is sitting there holding his baby for 90% of daylight hours.
More interesting to me is what this guy doing at night.
The mothers out there probably this guy's probably got it wired.
The mothers out there probably working and finding food and bringing it home for the family.
All the guy has to sit around and hold a baby, you know, get credit for caring and uh lounge around all day.
Doesn't have to change any diapers.
Can't if the little teeny monkey throws up, yippee, lick it up.
I mean, they're animals for crying out loud.
But anyway, here's Time Magazine.
Doesn't have to go out and get little gummy bears.
Doesn't have to pop popcorn for the little monkey at midnight four nights in a row.
Doesn't have to do any of this.
I'm not complaining.
I'm just making observations here.
Uh I gotta take a brief time out here.
EIB Profit Center coming up back after this.
Ha.
Back we are, Rush Limbaugh.
Open line Friday.
We'll get to your phone calls El Quicko today.
It'll uh happen a lot sooner than it did yesterday.
Yesterday we get to your phone calls all uh well, I think it was 90 minutes in there or something.
Now, this Time magazine story, they're dead serious about this.
And two women writ uh wrote the story, Mary Blaffer Hardy and Mary Batten.
And uh that's that's it's all about how you dads out there don't deserve Father's Day because you are screwing up.
You are not as good a father as the male teeth.
By the way, T I T I. Never heard of a male teeny monkey until his story, but I have now.
One thing that draws a human male to a child of his own is that hormonally speaking, men are a lot more similar to women than many of us realize, particularly during the critical survival period, approaching a child's birth and its infancy.
As in some other mammalian species, human males are known to have high levels of prolactin.
That is a hormone usually associated with lactating mothers.
And that uh have had this high level of prolactin toward the end of a partner's pregnancy.
Canadian biologist Catherine Wynne Edwards and psychologist Ann Story, so so far, everybody quoted in this story as a female, everybody has written this story is a female.
These two biologists, well, biologists and psychologists have shown that the similarities don't stop there.
New or expectant fathers holding either their baby or a doll, wrapped in a blanket that recently held and still smells of a newborn, experienced a rise in prolactin and cortisol.
Now, cortisol is a well-known stress hormone associated with mothering.
And they experienced at the same time all this is going on, a drop in testosterone.
Uh, when the men listened to a tape of a crying newborn and were shown a video tape of a newborn struggling to nurse, the ones who reported the greatest urge to comfort the baby were the ones whose hormone levels had changed the most.
But dads have to spend time close to babies for hormones to kick in, and this hasn't always been possible.
Today we take child survival for granted, but in traditional societies, 40% of offspring might die before age five.
To keep infants safe, it made sense for them to be held at all times, with mom often caring more often than uh well for more than one offspring and dad busy rustling up food.
The job sometimes had to be outsourced to grandmothers, aunts and others.
So there you have it.
We don't deserve Father's Day.
We're just no good at it, certainly not as good as the tiki tee, whatever it is, monkey.
And I'd have to say, it seems that Time Magazine here just can't find itself to celebrate diversity in different styles of fathering.
Uh, which is rather judgmental of them, don't you think?
Especially we have so many non-traditional family units that we're supposed to embrace out there.
I mean, we're the family's been redefined by liberals to include pretty much anything you want it to be.
And we're supposed to accept this out of diversity, but we're not supposed to uh respect the diversity of different methods and styles of fatherhood.
Yeah.
I mean, the real question is, and I'll tell you where this is leading.
Who needs a father anyway?
Takes a village to raise a child.
And we're we know that even the dads that stay home, they're a bunch of predators.
Child services is but one phone call away.
Thank you, feminists.
Thank you for taking us down this path.
All right, the uh South Florida emergency management system, Broward County, will not go away.
This story will not go away.
Last night it was big on Hannity and Combs and also on uh the Scarborough Country Show on PMS NBC.
Scarborough's guests last night were media analyst Steve Adubato and a liberal talk show host named Mike Pep Antonio.
Scarborough says, You agree with Rush Limbaugh that these politicians are politicizing hurricane protection measures?
Joe, you know Florida well, but I know Rush Limbaugh, and I have to tell you something.
Rush doesn't take the high road.
I don't necessarily agree with what they're doing down there, and obviously they're gonna go along with the contract.
But here's the problem with Rush.
Rush turns around and what does he say?
He talks about the woman, the Stacy Ritter, the councilwoman down there, he calls her a liberal babe.
He said liberal babes are rare.
That's why they stand out.
Joe, this is the same guy who calls women who are liberal feminizes.
This is the same guy who did this what he did to Michael J. Food.
All right.
Now, I don't I've never met Steve Adubato.
That's that's who's speaking, so I don't know how Steve Adubata knows me, because I don't know him.
Uh but Steve, let me just tell you, I was sitting here earlier this week minding my own business.
And all of a sudden, this this uh this babe, and she is a babe.
She's a babe.
Well, the pictures I've seen, she's a babe.
Anyway, starts attacking me, starts attacking the radio station that carries my program.
Doesn't want people in her area to have to listen to that station because I'm on it.
What am I sitting here minding my own, didn't attack her?
Um she is stupid or did a stupid thing here.
And by the way, I did comment on this seriously, as well as crack few jokes.
You liberals can't laugh at anything.
You just can't, and you continue to perpetuate the myth that you were you were part of perpetuating on MSNBC about that whole Michael J. Fox scenario.
So next it's his Pep Antonio tar uh guy's turn.
Uh, and Scarborough says, Look, seems to me this isn't about Rush Limbaugh, it's about it's about public safety.
Are these politicians not politicizing public safety just because they don't like Rush Limbaugh?
I think you're narrowing the issue.
This is about the free market system taking care of itself.
It's good news.
I'm so glad because advertisers and political candidates pull their money, pull their advertisements from networks all the time because they don't agree with political agenda.
So you have Rush Limbaugh crying like a school baby out there about the fact, and you know what?
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
This is no different from the Dixie Chicks.
Look what Rush Limbaugh did to the Dixie chicks.
I didn't do a thing to the Dixie chicks.
I didn't get involved in the Dixie Chicks thing.
A couple of side comments.
I couldn't have cared less about the Dixie Chicks thing.
That was radio stations that caused the problems that play music.
Country stations that cause problems for the Dixie chicks.
As far as crying like a school baby out there, I had more fun with this than I can remember having with something liberals have done in a long time.
Now back to Adubato, who wanted to add this in later.
Rush, I gotta tell you, if you frame it on the safety issue, you win, Joe Rush wins, that's fine.
Hopefully the people win.
But Rush has a lot of nerve hiding behind the safety issue.
When he is attacked, more people tried to get more people taken off the air by calling them all sorts of names, and he doesn't engage in just political ideology.
He engages in name calling and it's dangerous, and they have a right to express their opinion down there against them.
They do.
They do, but it was absolutely stupid what their opinion was.
They have a right Michael J. Fox is entitled to go on television and lie about Republican candidates and embryonic stem cells, but he doesn't get immunity from criticism when he enters the political arena, Steve.
Uh nobody here was upset about this.
We we laughed ourselves silly.
You s the people that are embarrassed here are those that went public on the uh Broward County commission.
I I don't know who he is.
I have no clue.
The fact he's on MSNBC means he's a nobody.
I don't know who he is.
He quit.
I have never tried to take anybody off the air.
I have never tried to take anybody.
That's another thing.
Every fact presented by every guest in that segment on Scarborough Show last night was so a hundred and eighty degrees out of phase it's laughable.
Get people taken off the air by calling them names.
Name caller.
All I do is use humor.
You mean like when I call Naiphong Fitzfong, or when I call Patrick Fitzgerald Fitz Schumer, uh, or feminazes, that really bothers them.
But you know why?
No, I don't know what he's talking about to get people taken off the air.
But uh the feminazi term, the reason it upsets them is because it works.
You know, it's like calling the amnesty bill amnesty.
Those guys don't like it either, because it works.
Okay, we're gonna go to the phone calls here quick, but I I want to I want to expand for just a second.
I want to do it seriously on on this this whole fatherhood business of in Time magazine and how we uh we humans are compared to animals do everything right.
Nature, everything but us, we are not part of nature, but everything that happens in the animal world, perfect.
The only thing that screws up the animal world is us.
And you know this has been one of the central tenets of the uh environmentalist wacko movement of the uh animal rights movement as uh as well.
It's always amazed me.
Uh and I've I and frankly, I will admit whining about the fact that we humans are somehow considered intruders on nature, and that whatever we as humans do is destructive by virtue of our nature.
But every other living organism on this planet is absolutely pristine, wonderful, and harmless to nature, to the environment.
You know, a guy called here yesterday, and he uh he asked, do we have the capability to hurt our environment?
Uh the fact is we are as much a part of nature, and what we do is every bit as natural and okay as what any other element of nature does.
And many elements of nature are destructive.
Maybe we should ban the oceans.
Maybe we should start blaming oceans for what happens during hurricanes.
Somehow we want to end up blaming us.
The only way to blame us for hurricanes is for taking the risk of living near the co the shorelines where these things are most destructive.
That is something we do, we assume the risk, we pay premium for it, we assume the risk, but all of a sudden a hurricane comes along, and what do we do?
We blame us for causing the hurricane or setting circumstances up where led to more powerful hurricanes.
So this notion that we are destructive helps the libs push uh Al Gore's global warming hoax and any number of other aspects.
We're destroying victims of our our own species, victims of nature.
Uh we're just horrible people.
But humans, like every other form of life, has to alter its environment in order to thrive.
When people do it, we call it wasting natural resources, causing pollution.
When other forms of life do it, we call it nature's beauty.
Why is that?
Do you know that a forest alters the climate compared to if the forest wasn't there?
The same with grasslands, oceans, everything else.
I mean, even the climate system, through its own natural processes, creates dead zones on Earth.
Why do you think we have deserts?
It's not because not enough people care, it's because the climate has created them.
And we even consider them beautiful.
Fine, you think it's beautiful, go live there.
And hope Sally Struthers shows up with a tuna fish sandwich for you.
Oh, yes, the desert's absolutely beautiful.
That's the climate is, you know, created dead zones called deserts.
Maybe humans uh, you know, have some small impact on the climate, just like everything else does on Earth.
But so what?
Why is nature allowed to affect climate, but we aren't?
We're as much a part of nature.
I folks, I'm serious, I want you to think about this because the idea that and I think it stems from the fact that uh we are considered superior, and therefore we have dominion, and so we have responsibility.
All these things are true and all these things I agree uh with, but we are part of nature with those characteristics.
We didn't become superior because we belittled the other creatures on the earth and made them feel bad, robbed their brains, took them ourselves.
We're it.
We were created just like everything else is on this planet.
And our quest since the beginning of time has been to improve our standard of living.
And doing that, and you start getting into liberalism and socialists, doing that is considered destructive because it leads to inequality.
And it leads to hurt feelings, and it leaves to some having more than some having others, and this just isn't right.
Now these are all philosophical questions, and people need to realize that other forms of life have no greater right to use the environment and modify the climate for their purposes than we do for our own.
I mean, I'm glad I'm not a cow or a steer.
But we we uh we're all who we are.
I'm glad I'm not a salmon.
Wouldn't mind being my cat, though, I'll have to admit that.
Get your butt scratched all the time, get to lick your front paw.
Cats have staff, dogs have master.
At any rate, I I I digress.
As is the case in all of life, folks, there are winners and losers in the process of life on this planet.
There are winners and losers every day.
It just seems that some species use other species for their own benefit.
We are one.
And there are others that do do too.
And this creates all kinds of guilt.
You need to get over their guilt, uh, your guilt regarding the use of natural resources.
It's what humans do.
It's what we have to do in order to thrive.
And thrive, improve our standard of living, is our quest.
If we're hardwired for anything, it's that.
The idea that we should leave the environment in its original state is just a religious belief in whose original state.
Somebody tell me when's the last time it was in its original state.
When was the environment on this planet in its original state?
Was it last week?
Was it uh before we built Las Vegas and all those casinos, before we built all the skyscrapers in New York, before we bought, before we came to America, is that when it was?
When when was the environment original?
It's sort of like the NASA guys' question.
Well, who says that the climate today is the optimum climate, and if it changes, we're all in deep doo-doo.
Now, here's how you help the environment.
This is what the commie libs don't want to hear.
This is what socialists don't want to hear.
History shows, and I've tried to make this point for the longest time.
Every time they accuse the United States of being guilty of all this pollution in the world, go to the third world, go to underdeveloped countries, go to the Soviet Union back in its day, go to China today, you go to North Korea, go to any third world outpost, and then come home and you tell me where conditions are the more sanitary, and where you would prefer to live.
The reason for this is wealth is the key.
Wealthy nations of the world afford and can't afford and do clean up their messes.
And they also have the lowest rates of population growth.
If people really want to help the environment and reduce population growth, if that's something that you think matters and that they're interconnected, you should be supporting policies that help generate wealth.
Now, when's it when's the next time you think environmentalists will start doing that?
Name for me, an environmentalist group will start promoting wealth as the key to a clean environment.
Wealth as the key to lower population rates, wealth, and I'm not talking about super, I'm just talking about the opportunity for it, growing productive GDP, a wealthy society, a wealthy nation.
You tell me the next environmental group that's gonna suggest, you know what?
We need to go more capitalist in the world.
We need to have more wealthy countries who are pursuing their own self-interest because that will create the wealth necessary to clean up the messes they make, and they'll have fewer kids.
None of this is arguable, folks.
Everything I've said to you here is not arguable.
You can call and you can try to argue with me about it, but it is inarguable.
It just takes something other than faith, something other than guilt, to accept it.
It takes a willingness to get rid of all of this propaganda that you've been subjected to for all these years about the selfishness, the mean spiritedness, the dirtiness of mankind, the notion that we somehow really don't have any right here.
And we don't have the right to exercise all of our God given abilities, our intelligence, our creativity, fulfilling our ambitions.
No, whenever we do this, whenever we build subdivisions, whenever we expand towns and neighborhoods, oh, we're destroying this pristine environment.
Why why we're getting rid of wetlands, we're getting rid of grasslands.
The earth needs this stuff.
Every species alters its environment in order to survive.
And uh we are not destroying an environment and we are not destroying a climate.
We are frankly doing just the opposite.
What we're doing is good for the world, good for ourselves, and those who accept our help, we're doing good for them.
We'll be back in just a sec.
Case in point.
What I was just talking about from an Australian newspaper magazine is called the Age dot com.
Carbon footprint of rich, twice that of poor.
Rich, well educated Australians are contributing twice as much to climate change as average households, according to new analysis of consumption habits.
So you see, the truth is it is the creation, the pursuit of wealth, the realization wealthy nations clean up their methods.
Just folks take the test, go anywhere in the world.
It's the third world, go to any jungle, go to any uh uh eastern bloc country that's still still hasn't come out of its travails with the Soviet Union, and you tell me where you want to live.
In terms of where is the cleanest place, where's the hygiene best?
Where does this annotation work best?
Where's the grocery pick are the uh the garbage pickup work the best?
I mean, you have to leave real Linda out of this, but for the most part, countries that produce wealth are the cleanest places in the world.
This whole thing, carbon footprint is based on the false premise, the hoax that CO2 is a pollutant.
Well, if that's true, I am just polluted you three times.
Well, at least the room I'm in, with really big exhales.
So the hoax CO2 carbon footprint, the environmentalists I'm will never tell you the truth that it is wealth, because their purpose in the environmental movement is the advance of socialism.
Big government, anti-capitalism, and that's primarily what they are, and the the vehicle that just changes.
It's either feminism or militant environmentalism or animal rightsism, uh abortion, what have you, the immigration bill, the amnesty bill, they're all just code names, they're distractions that allow liberalism undercover to advance.
All right, to the phones.
Marie in Lubbock, Texas.
Hi, Marie, I'm glad you called.
You're first today.
Uh thank you, uh, Rush.
It's uh a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Um I began listening to you back in the days of Sister Soldier, and had listened to you quite frequently up until uh a few months after September eleventh, you had a fellow call in, and he was uh had raised the issue of illegal immigration with you, and I was very disappointed in your reply because you uh dismissed him rather cavalierly, I thought.
You about the only comment you made back was you said it's our dirty little secret, and uh then you uh ended the uh conversation for the most part, and so since then since that time, I just um did not uh listen to you much.
I was so disappointed in that in that treatment of that caller until recently when this illegal immigration um issue had become such a hot issue now, and I was curious, I wanted to tune in to your um show and see how you were uh treating the uh issue, and uh this flabbergasted you were claiming that you were the main forest and beating down this amnesty bill.
That's great.
I'm leading, I'm leading, I'm leading, I'm leading I'm leading the fight against the amnesty bill.
There's no question.
Everybody knows this.
Well, do you do you I I'm sh I know you receive hundreds of thousands of calls, but do you re uh would you happen to recall your that that calls?
I I don't.
I was just I was gonna ask you what what's the context of our dirty little the dirty little secret comment that I made.
Well, can I what what is the real what is what is your real complaint?
But We're dancing around this.
It's time to cut to the chase.
What is your real problem here?
Well, my problem is with the way you had a few callers just decided that man that would call in and try to raise issues with you with illegal immigration, how what a what a crisis it is in this country, and you were always dismissive of their uh of your concerns.
And uh it now, you know, I I uh uh I am suspicious of this.
Uh I get a call like yours occasionally or an email like yours uh occasionally uh now and then from people who say, Well, you were a later rival of this, and you don't care about this, and I'm not a later rival.
It's just I didn't become a one-note samba on this five or six years ago.
I have a different philosophy of doing this radio program, and I've tried to share it with people countless times.
Uh I don't lead causes.
I'm joking about being the leader of this movement.
I don't I don't view myself as a cause-oriented host, and I do not, and I'd never want to.
That's not what I do.
That is not the business I'm in.
I'm not gonna lead people on causes.
I'm gonna inform them, I'm gonna talk about what I care about.
When it was when the illegal immigration stuff was going on after 9-11 for crying out loud, what was what was going on after 9-11 that was more important than the aftermath of that.
Now, the th there's there's a there's all kinds of philosophies out there in terms of other radio hosts uh who do want to have you they they want to get credit for leading this and leading that movement because they want to get noticed or they want some sort of recognition for what they do.
This is not what I'm about.
I'm about attracting the largest audience I can and holding it for as long as I can so that I can charge advertisers confiscatory rates.
At the same time, I am honest and passionate about the things I genuinely care about that day.
I do not sit around and say, you know, I think there's immigration stuff.
It becomes hot news.
That's when I talk about it.
If I'd if I had spent every day from 9-11 forward talking about immigration, this audience would be sick and tired of hearing about it and would have tuned out.
You have to have the timing right.
And I have awesome instincts when it comes to timing and talking about these issues.
You are calling me on a day to complain about something that's irrelevant.
Even if you thought I was late, I'm still here.
And I've been talking about it a lot, and yet you call and are upset with me because what I suspect that there are other talk show hosts out there who want the credit that you also listen to, and you're calling here to try to knock me down because they may be suggesting that you do that.
Well, the bottom line is Trent Watt has got up and said talk radio is running the country.
Well, there can only be one person he's talking about, and if you're listening to anybody other than me, it ain't them.
I want to little little time here on Trent Lott's comment.
Talk radio is running the country.
What is talk radio?
Talk radio is the greatest democrat forum, democratic forum in the country today.
It is truly diverse.
There are more ideas, there's more back and forth, there's more so-called diversity.
There are all kinds of great things to say about it.
Talk radio is the American voter.
I bet most of the people who listen to talk radio are voters.
That's what bothers Trent Lott.
Well, who should be running the country?
I don't mean making the day-to-day decisions, but go look at our founding documents.
All that gibber jabber about governing with the consent of the governed.
This is a battle between Washington and the people now.
This this amnesty bill is it, it's you strip all away, uh, strip away all of the uh extraneous stuff.
This is a battle between Washington and the people, and they know it.
So you got a Republican talking about talk radio the way liberals talk about talk radio, which tells you, tells me, what the real objective of most elected officials in Washington is anyways, to perpetuate themselves and their jobs and to spend money, and maybe not, well, yes, it would be in that order.
Uh the reason talk radio's running the country is because the people who are voters in this country are listening and involved and are passionate.
Talk radio may be informing you, but it's not making you a robot, and you're taking action on your own.
And the blowhards in Washington are hearing from you, the American people, and that's what bothers them.
▲
Export Selection