I need some decisions made here before 3 o'clock, and I can't get a hold of the people.
I need to get away.
Now they're asking me here why I seem so frazzled.
I'm not frazzled, I'm just, well, yes, I'm frazzled.
It's Friday.
Whatever.
We'll make it work.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, sir.
Your chance, ladies and gentlemen, to call a program and talk about whatever it is you wish to discuss.
Monday through Thursday, you have to call about what we're talking about.
What interests me on Friday, we throw that away.
Whatever you wish to talk about.
Even if I'm not interested in it, I will fake it.
Phone number is 800-282-2882 at the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Trent Lott, talk radio is running the country.
And we're going to have to deal with that, he said.
You need to really think about that.
I mean, it's enough.
What's not enough, actually, is that what is he talking about?
The people that he's actually complaining and whining about now are the ones that tried to defend him when everybody else is throwing him overboard when he made those joking comments at a tribute to Strom Thurmond.
Folks, I want you to think of something.
The notion that people freely expressing their opinions on radio is a problem should scare every one of us that loves liberty.
The notion that people freely expressing their opinions in emails and phone calls to their elected representatives is a problem should scare every single person who loves liberty.
This is the exact sort of thing people expressing their opinions is a problem that gave us McCain Feingold, a government-signed, government-passed presidentially signed assault on free speech in the First Amendment during campaigns.
Trent Lott is a Republican.
He has thrown his hat in with John McCain on this because McCain defended him too during that episode.
So he's, you know, I was kind of surprised because Lott loves to stick it to President Bush anytime he can because of the White House lack of support for Lott during the Strom Thurmond thing.
So the bottom line here is that this is frightening stuff.
I mean, it's one thing to hear it from liberals and Democrats.
We hear this from them all the time.
But the idea that a Republican now joins this mindset, and believe me, I don't actually think he's the only one.
You know, you're good little voters when you sit out there and just shut up, show up on Election Day, send your money in, send in your donations.
But you're getting uppity out there, folks, when you start telling them how to do their jobs.
And by the way, latest Rasmussen poll in light, they're still going to try to bring this thing back.
20% of the American people, only 20% want this.
Pure and simple.
Only 20%.
They prefer smaller steps.
This is a Rasmussen poll with the focus on enforcement.
They're working overtime to bring this back and get it done.
Oh, you got to listen to Dingy Harry here.
This was this morning on the Senate floor.
Listen to this.
I would also indicate to all senators and staffs, it's Friday, and now I understand, Mr. President.
We have indicated we might have to work weekends.
And I know this causes a lot of distress to folks, but everyone should know that to complete this bill and to complete the immigration bill will require next weekend.
Without any question, next weekend, Saturday and Sunday.
Senators should understand that this is the real thing.
If we're going to finish these two bills, which both the Republican leader and I think is absolutely mandatory, essential, that senators should be advised that next Saturday and Sunday, which means the preceding Friday, which is a week from today, and a week from Monday, we'll have to be in session.
We only have two weeks left in this work period, and I hope we don't have to run into the 4th of July recess period, which is only one week long.
Oh, fuck, they got to have a what's the work weekend?
Oh, they might have to work weekends in order to get.
Oh, how horrible.
Maybe you could go out and hire some illegal Americans, Dingy Harry, to do some of the staff work on weekends so that you, I mean, you obviously don't want to work weekends.
As a senator, working on weekends is a job you won't want to do.
There are plenty of illegal Americans who will do jobs that Americans don't want to do.
Hire them, make them temps, make them interns or whatever.
Show them the inner workings of government, Dingy Harry, and bring them in and let them give your weekend off.
They can certainly help.
You know, it's interesting.
When one million illegals protest, they're called activists.
When one million African Americans protest, or supposedly 19 million, or yeah, a million, 910, that's Calypso Louis.
They're called activists.
When presidential candidates go down a selma to recreate a memorial, it's activism.
When millions of talk radio listeners protest, they're called what?
A problem.
They're called a problem.
Now, when 20 million talk radio listeners protest, then that's, that's, that's not, that's a, that's it.
That's a problem.
That is a problem that has to be dealt with.
So you see, ladies and gentlemen, you will never be called activists.
Activists.
People get called activists.
Why?
There's virtue to activism.
Why, there's virtue to getting behind your cause and putting action behind the cause and getting personally involved in it.
And when you do it, it ain't activism.
No, it's a problem.
It's a problem that has to be dealt with.
And I don't think that they know.
If they think they got deluge last time, they have no clue what's going to happen after Trent Lott's comments and they start doing this stuff and bringing this stuff forward with amendments that have yet to be revealed, amendments that are being kept under wraps is the term right now.
If these elected officials think that they got heat before, I don't think they realize what they're going to get now.
But keep in mind what Dianne Feinstein said in her 15 years in the Senate, she's never heard more racist, hate-filled commentary than in this issue, the phone calls and emails she got on this issue.
So the effort to demonize you is on.
And I think Lott was trying to do the same thing, demonize you.
When you demonize talk radio, you're demonizing the audience to talk radio.
You're being demonized.
And the reaction these people are going to have is, hey, look, it's just a bunch of angry hotheads full of racism and bigotry, nativism, and so forth.
We'd have to listen to these people.
We'd have to listen to what this.
That's what's being set up.
Now, this thing has got to come out in the Senate.
They're hell-bent on getting this done.
And the White House put a lot of pressure on it, by the way.
That's the pressure that's working on the Republicans.
And this is going to be a battle at a time, one battle at a time.
If it wins passage in the Senate, you ought to prepare yourself for that.
I wish it wouldn't.
I mean, don't misunderstand, but it's then going to go to the House and it's going to get revved up all over again.
The Senate may finish this before their precious July 4th recess, but the House isn't.
The target date on the part of the proponents to get this done is the fall, August, sometime before the August recess or a little bit after that.
So that's really the timeframe on this for the whole thing to get done.
So even if it's not stopped in the Senate, and I'm not giving up on that, don't misunderstand.
I'm just pointing out to you that it's got to go to the House next.
And then if the procedures have followed a conference committee between the two, and it's no sure bet in the House.
A lot of House people, representatives up for re-election every two years.
And there's a lot of people that are very much, you know, members of the House are far more tuned to the thoughts and opinions of their constituents than senators are because senators are not re-elected every other year.
They're re-elected in six-year terms, as you know.
You know all this.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
Speaking of Dingy Harry, as you know, some bloggers originally this week reported that he had said that General Peter Pace and General Petraeus are incompetent.
And Tony Snow said, if he said this, I wish he'd apologize.
Drive-by media says, you know, if he said it, well, he hadn't denied it.
Now he's confirmed it.
Dingy Harry yesterday questioned the competence of senior American commander in Iraq.
He had to be General Petraeus.
And the ongoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Peter Pace.
By the way, Peter Pace was offered a chance to retire.
And he said, nope, you have to force me out of here.
I'm not quitting on the troops.
So they forced him out.
White House spokesman quickly condemned Dingy Harry's comments, which came nearly two months after he provocatively said he believed that the war is lost.
When asked if he thought Petraeus was competent, Reed replied, not as far as I'm concerned.
Reed also said Thursday he was happy that Peter Pace was forced to step down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
He said, I talked to him in my conference room, just him and I.
I told him how I felt.
He had not done a very good job in speaking out for some obvious things that weren't going right in Iraq.
Reed later issued a carefully crafted statement, which he called Pace a distinguished military veteran and public service.
Now, let's put this all together.
There's an article in the Washington Post today.
It's by Thomas Ricks, in which Dingy Harry claims that General Proteus isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad.
General Petraeus is not in touch with what's going on in Baghdad.
Well, now, for one thing, General Petraeus is the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
He works and lives and breathes the air of Baghdad and Iraq.
He meets its people.
He works with its leadership.
Dingy Harry, on the other hand, works at the heart Senate office building in Washington.
He breathes the foul air of the Beltway.
He meets lobbyists.
He works closely with left-wing bloggers, the NAGs, other abortion rights groups, environmental wackos, and others.
And as such, he's not in touch with what's going on in his own country.
It is astounding to me that the majority leader in the United States Senate would go after our top U.S. commander in Iraq when by every objective account, General Petraeus is doing fantastic and very difficult work, and everybody in the Senate voted for him for this job.
They confirmed him.
He has been completely honest in what he said.
He's been heroic in the work that he's doing.
You know what the grave sin that General Petraeus has committed is, is he wants to win the war in Iraq.
Same thing with Peter Pace.
These guys have to be gotten rid of because they're not following the Democrat plan on this, which is defeat.
And by the way, he compounds this, Petraeus does, from time to time by pointing out some of the progress that we're seeing in Iraq.
Now, if you're a politician who has a deep political investment in losing this war, then somebody like Peter Pace, somebody like General Petraeus, need to be attacked.
My question is, where the hell are elected Republicans on this?
Where is the Republican National Committee on this?
Harry Reid is saying some of the most destructive, inaccurate, harmful things about true heroes in this country, and the Republicans remain silent.
The only thing we get out of Republicans is from Trent Lott, who's worried that talk radio is running the country and it has to be dealt with.
Where are the Republicans on this?
One more thing related to Dingy Harry and his blast at General Petraeus for not being in touch with what's going on in Iraq.
Senator Reed's last trip to Iraq was in March 2005.
I double-checked this.
Dingy Harry's last trip to Iraq was two years ago, March 2007, more than two years ago, actually.
Now, who do you think has a better sense of what's happening in Iraq?
Somebody that's been there for the last year and a half, running the show, or Dingy Harry, who hasn't been there since March of 2005.
And by the way, in an Al Gore moment, would you like to know what Dingy Harry said at the time of his last visit to Iraq, March of 2005?
Dingy Harry said, quote, I came away with the feeling that we cannot leave Iraq.
He was one of seven Senate Democrats or Republicans who took a week-long trip to the Middle East and several countries near the region.
He said, I came away with the feeling we cannot leave Iraq.
If we do, the terrorists will have won.
That's Harry Reid, the guy who now wants the terrorists to win.
The guy who is invested in their defeat.
The guy who says that neither Pace nor Petraeus are doing a good job.
The same man who said he didn't like Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court opinions because he didn't think they were very intelligent.
Harry Reid's a disgrace.
Harry Reid has fallen in with the kook fringe base of his party, and he has assigned himself the task of uttering their deranged ideas and their deranged words and giving their deranged ideas and words the power and imprimatur of coming from the Senate majority leader.
Just like Al Gore in 1992, we played that speech for you.
Al Gore in 1992, campaigning for vice president, made it clear that George H.W. Bush wasn't taking Saddam's nuclear weapons desires, his use of weapons of mass destruction, his consortium with terrorists seriously enough.
Al Gore today, as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, is telling an entirely different story.
Dingy Harry, just two years ago, I came away with the feeling we cannot leave Iraq.
If we do, the terrorists will have won.
And he's right about that.
So which raises the obvious question, why is he promoting policies that will lead to a victory for terrorists?
Waiting on an answer, Dingy Harry, but we're not going to get an answer to that question.
No, instead, we have to get rid of Peter Pace and David Petraeus.
And of course, for some reason, Robert Gates over at the Pentagon says, okay, fine, you want to get rid of Pace.
I'll get rid of Pace for you.
Carl Levin, Armed Services Committee Chairman, Democrat Senator Michigan, appears to me he's running the Pentagon now.
And this is the policy that Bush cares more about than anything.
That amnesty.
And the Republicans are silent.
And you know, 2008, the 2008 presidential election and congressional elections are not that far off now.
And they are giving nobody any reason to vote for them.
In fact, they're doing just the opposite.
They are angering their own base.
They're taking actions here, splitting the party.
The people they should be angry at and fighting, their real enemies, the Democrats, caused narrow reaction.
Their friends, the people who elected them, the people who donated money to them, the people who have supported them when they are attacked, are now considered their big problem, has to be dealt with.
And that's you, the American voter.
Here's Brett in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Brett, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, good afternoon, Rush.
Very proud father in Lancashire, Pennsylvania.
Point of my call is for the last four and a half years, including today, you've had me incredibly confused on your Rio Linda comments.
I was hoping you could give me a history and summary on that.
Yes, I'd be happy to.
Now, those of you that know this, please indulge me here.
This is an example of the constant new tune-in factor that occurs on this program and the ever-increasing size of our audience.
When I moved to Sacramento in 1984, I was driving around town because I wanted to get familiar with it and be familiar with the place I was now living and working.
I'm driving around and I come to this place called Rio Linda.
And it just had the city sign, but no indication of who lived there, no population number.
I've never seen that before.
I've always seen population numbers on the sign of the city.
So I drove through this place, and it was like going to the Twilight Zone.
You went in the main drag, and there were cars on concrete blocks in the front yards, washing machines and dryers and washboards on the front porch.
And I said, whoa, this is a depressed area, and it needs my help.
So one of the bits that I did when I went on the air was offer to move there if they would change the name to Limbaugh, California.
And just by moving there, I would increase property values.
And of course, the idea was rejected and so forth.
So I decided, oh, I'm just going to tease these people.
And I just, anytime I say something I think is remotely, just remotely complicated, I will try to translate it for Rio Lindens so that they can understand it.
Rio Linda population and I have a great, great, great relationship now.
It has put them on the map.
They're very good-spirited about it.
But it's just a little town not far from Sacramento.
They don't like being called a suburb.
And frankly, Sacramento wouldn't like for people to think Rio Linda is a suburb of Sacramento.
It's just sort of its own little pocket there.
It's amazing.
All right.
Well, it was close.
I always figured you were talking about Detroit.
You've been waiting all this time for that line.
Yes.
You said the car is at the Cinderbox.
No, I've been to Detroit.
I've not seen that in Detroit.
I've been to a lot of places, but Rio Linda stands out.
That's why there's never been a substitute, an addition, or a replacement.
I want to give you something to think about here, ladies and gentlemen.
We've had all of this trouble, this recent trouble, which is just more of the same in Gaza.
And basically, Hamas has just wiped out the government, well, Hamas creamed Fatab, which is getting through all these terms.
The Fatah bunch was trying to come up with a way to get along with Israel.
And that just wasn't going to fly with militant Islamofascists in Hamas.
The Hamas basically has taken over Gaza.
Fatah still runs the West Bank.
And the Hamas people say, this is an Islamic society now.
This is an Islamic country, religion of peace, and all that.
And of course, the Hamas people took as many Fatah officers out in the street in front of their wives and kids and just gunned them down.
At least they didn't torture them.
But they gunned them down.
Bam, bam, you're dead.
And what's the reaction of the State Department and all the elites and all of the pointy heads?
We need to convene talks.
We need, once again, to initiate negotiation.
We must sit down and we must have cool heads prevail here.
We must talk.
Right.
Beyond that, the Palestinian people, Gaza, elected terrorists, Hamas, to run their government.
And everybody's saying, we need to stay engaged here.
We've got to stay engaged.
We must bring peace to the region.
We must stay engaged.
We've got to do what we can.
We have to get these two sides together so they can talk.
Listen to what the new Hamas leaders are saying.
Look at how these guys are dressed.
Do you see these pictures of these dudes on the phone out there wearing all this body armor and ammunition and so forth?
And they're out there claiming, this is it.
Israel is, these days are numbered, echoing everything that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's saying.
So while our elites, and of course, Republicans and Democrats alike are saying, well, we need to stay engaged.
We need to come up with a peace plan here.
We must stop the violence.
The Iraqi people did not elect terrorists to run their government.
The Iraqi people did not elect Al-Qaeda to run their government.
The Iraqi people are fighting terrorists, and of course, we should leave.
We should stay in the Middle East, and we should stay engaged.
So we can get these two sides together.
And we got to find a way through negotiation and through words and doctors and nurses and clean water.
Find a peaceful solution.
And Iraq, we need to get the hell out.
And the people running our campaign there are a couple of idiots, according to Dingy Harry.
Here's Dennis in Orlando, Florida.
Dennis, I'm glad you called, sir.
Hey, Rush, used to work across the hall from you, Dittos.
How you doing today?
Hi, sir.
Thank you.
Where did you work across the hall from me?
At the flagship back 1991 through 93.
That means WABC in New York.
That would be it.
Yeah, I worked right across the hall from you.
You mean the PLJ?
Huh?
PLJ?
No, right across the hall from your office on the AM side.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, it's a long time ago.
Well, and now we're both here in Florida where it's much better.
Yeah, but it's better where I am than where you are because you're in the middle of the state and it's a swamp there.
I know, I know.
It's okay, though.
Hey, I have two different topics for you today.
One is about the tarted up, dumbed down CBS evening news, and the other is about Republican presidential candidates.
Okay.
First about the Katie Couric show.
My wife watches this show for the news, and I watch it purely for entertainment.
Wait a sec.
Did your wife actually get news?
She really doesn't because there's more actual news in a five-minute radio newscast at the top of the hour than you find in 22 minutes of the CBS Evening News.
True.
There's so much filler from top to bottom.
I don't know how anyone can think they're getting a full dose of the day's events from watching any network news show, particularly that one.
And every day, there's a typical slant to the left.
I'm used to that because you've been telling us that for years.
But the other day, the report on the federal deficit being reduced by one-third in less than a year.
Yeah, yeah.
I did that story here, and I did it with the right context.
And Katie spent less than 10 seconds on that story.
Now, imagine if the deficit had grown 33% in the same time period.
It would have been a five-part special series with experts.
That's right.
Well, you know, there's a guy named Jeffrey Lord who has a piece, The American Spectator today.
He writes about this and one other thing.
And he says the obstinance of the media says, these people are in business.
News people don't want to admit it, but they're in business.
And they're continuing to go against the flow.
He talks about the size of my audience and other conservative radio hosts and how that's the talk radio audience today is the most informed.
And this just is a lesson that will not be learned: that the liberal template cannot be abandoned.
Even if they go down the tubes with it, it can't be abandoned.
In fact, it's gotten to the point now where Les Moonvis is blaming sexism in America for the fact that Katie doesn't have an audience.
I'm still amazed that they haven't taken you up on your offer to come and be on the street.
Oh, no, no, of course, that would be.
No, because the last high number they had was when I did my little commentary there.
That's funny.
On the Republican presidential candidates, I'm a registered independent.
That's gutless.
No, no, no, it's really not.
I believe, though, that most of the Republicans running right now would be far better for our country than any Democrat.
The problem, I think, is that the drive-by media is spending 99% of their time on the current top three candidates.
And each one has something about them that come the general election, they're going to pounce on and say, oh, well, you can't elect this guy.
I've been trying to find the facts about what they call the second-tier candidates and ask myself, where do I disagree with his or her position?
And is that disagreement a deal-breaker for me?
And so far, Duncan Hunter is a guy that I like what I know about, but I really don't know enough about any of these other guys.
You know, that's an interesting thing that you're doing because one of the effects of the constant treatment of certain candidates is in top tier, and I guess this is derived from polling data, and this is something that the drive-by media does.
I don't even think it's on purpose.
It just happens as part of the way they do business.
That's what people end up focusing on, those three, and they never do look at the others, and except in one way.
They look at the others and say, don't have a chance.
Even if they're perfect, don't have a chance.
They're not electable.
Look at it.
They're only getting 1% or 4% or 5% in the polls.
So even if they're perfect.
Right.
But in 1976, no one knew who Jimmy Carter was until the first couple of primaries.
Even in 1980, Bill Clinton was not among the leaders in 1992, sorry.
They're right.
That's why people keep begging me and urging me to get behind somebody.
It's too soon.
Any number of things here can shake out.
I don't think these people are being real yet.
I still think they're in a bit of a defensive posture, trying not to make gaffes.
One gaffe can blow you out of this thing.
There are clearly some doing better than others, but it's too soon, especially if there isn't one that really lights your fire.
Well, now, I wouldn't expect you to get behind any candidate, at least at this time, but I would love to have you have some of the second-tier candidates on for a segment and just talk to them, ask them some hard questions.
Well, see, I understand that.
The problem with that is that everybody that is going to make a claim to want to be on, and this is going to become the presidential candidate sweepstakes.
And frankly, I'm the expert here.
Yep, that's true.
And turning it over to the candidates to answer questions subordinates me in a role that my audience is not accustomed to, me being in.
And they wouldn't listen.
You're probably right.
Yeah, you know, being number one is great, but there are limitations that come with it.
Great.
Rush, it's good to talk to you again.
Thank you, Dennis.
Appreciate it.
This is Diane in Northport out of Long Island.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
Hi.
I was just calling about this immigration bill because last night I got an email response from Kennedy's response team, and I was so angry when I read it.
I just couldn't believe it.
It was so condescending.
Yeah.
I had written saying, you know, that I was against this bill.
And then this email comes in three weeks later saying basically that I'm too stupid to know.
It says it's too complex of an issue and that these are hardworking people that are.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Now, please don't exaggerate, Dish.
I am not exaggerating.
Did that letter from Ted Kennedy actually say that the issue is too complex for you to understand?
It says it's too complex of an issue.
There's too many.
I'm not in front of my computer.
I wish I knew how to send you a copy of it.
It's too complex of an issue.
There's too many things in it that, you know, just hard to understand.
And these are hardworking people that we need to have.
And our country is all for immigration.
And we need to, you know, kind of go with his plan there.
I just couldn't believe it.
It was just a matter of time.
Well, you know what's interesting about that is because what I hear these people complaining about is, well, they haven't read the bill.
I mean, if they'd read the bill, I'd understand what a great bill it is.
Our people have read the bill.
Have you noticed?
Now, Ted Kennedy's sending emails out that it's too complex an issue to be understood.
Let me give you the bottom line here.
Have you noticed that none of the proponents want to go anywhere to debate the details of this with the opponents of the bill?
They'll be glad to talk to you about overarching principles, and they'll be glad to talk to you about it's not amnesty.
And they'll be glad to go on television and insult the opponents as nativists or racists or bigots or anti-Hispanic, anti-Latino or what have you.
But they will not go debate the details of this.
One other thing, Charles Krauthammer is, by the way, Krauthammer is doing a little bit of a 180s coming around on this.
Krauthammer has not been, quote unquote, a total opponent of this.
He's, in fact, been largely for it.
But even Krauthammer's coming around and said, wait a minute, the one thing that he's figured out looking at this debate is that everybody says, and this is the key, everybody says they support border security.
Well, if everybody who's saying that's being honest about it, then let's really do that first and nothing else and then come back and get with all the other stuff.
The opponents don't even want to do that.
One of the reasons is some of those who are saying that they are for border security are simply saying it and don't mean it.
And it's quite telling on a complex bill, too complex to be understood, why we're too stupid.
But yet if we read the bill, we would like it.
We would see what's in it.
See, we on talk radio, we are lying to you about it.
And that's something to be dealt with because we are running the country.
But even with all that, the people who are very much in favor of this will go nowhere and debate it on the details.
They know what would happen to them if they did.
Okay, no longer frazzled.
I got everything taken care of.
And that break that I needed to get taken care of.
Back to the phones, Kim and Fresno, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
Happy Friday.
Same to you.
Thank you.
I've been waiting to make this call for a whole year.
And I just wanted to call because you had made a comment at the end of your show a year ago, and you said you were disappointed that nobody had called in to say Happy Father's Day.
So I'm calling to say Happy Father's Day.
I vaguely remember that.
Yeah, you're right, I did, because then I got a lot of emails to be, oh, Rush, you're right, but there are a lot of Rush babies out there to whom you are a surrogate father.
To which my reply was, don't think that that entitles you to child support from me.
But you're right, I do remember.
So that's very thoughtful of you, but I'm not a father.
I know, but I just wanted to give you a little lift by saying happy Father's Day.
Well, thank you very much.
That's very thoughtful, and you have been waiting a whole year to do this.
Yes, I have.
And you got in.
You actually got through our crowded, overloaded phone system.
And that means there was karma behind this.
This was something that was supposed to happen.
Well, exactly, and I thought, okay, I'm just not...
By the way, Kim is one of those names in my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Good.
Well, I had was making the call, and I called right after the show started, and I called and called and called, and I thought, maybe I just wasn't meant to be make this call today.
And I thought, no, I can't give up.
That's just the anti-rush thing to do.
So I just kept calling.
Exactly right.
Well, it was meant to be because it happened.
Great.
Well, Happy Father's Day.
Thank you, Kim.
Same to you.
Okay, bye-bye.
Bye-bye.
We move on to Newburn, North Carolina.
And it's Newburn.
Yeah, I know.
Yeah.
Dean, how are you?
How are you doing, Rush Dittos to you?
Listen, I was listening to the show in that Time Magazine article that you went on about, and I was just kidding.
Oh, folks, if you missed this, Time Magazine has a story in this week's issue written by two women with every expert, and it is either a female biologist or a female psychologist.
And it's all about how this is Father's Day Sunday, but most American fathers may not actually deserve the honor because they're so bad.
Yeah, but I lost my dad almost two years ago, and there's not a day I don't think about him.
And it's just, you know, I'm sorry, but it's just that I loved him so much, and I just can't understand how other people just don't have the same kind of relationship.
Well, we're all different.
We're all different.
Did the Time Magazine story offend you or bother you?
Yeah, it does because, I mean, it's not speaking for the majority of people who love their father dearly.
Right, it's liberals.
It's a bunch of liberals trying to trash.
It's the chickification of our culture.
It's the demonization of men, which has been going on since the modern era of feminism, something which has personally impacted me in ways that are not positive.
I see stuff like that, and I just light up because I know these people, and I know the exact reason why this story is in the paper or why it's in the magazine.
It's liberals trying to push an agenda, and there are all kinds of things behind it here.
It's to empower women in child support custody cases.
It's to promote family and medical leave paid by the employer because the husband can't be depended on to help.
It's designed to paint women as alternately, at the same time, victims, but great heroes, heroines.
Because they're doing two jobs, mother and father.
Yep, well, all I've got to say is God bless your rush and keep up your good work.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that, Dean.
Yeah, I don't want to repeat this because we've got too much stuff to do.
But if you missed it, you can get on the Time Magazine website.
We will unfortunately link to it because that's the only way we can let you see it at rushlimbaugh.com.
But it's an amazing, it's just, it's an amazing assault.
And of course, one of the anthropologists in the story, one of the biologists in the story, draw their comparisons.
See, normally, Time magazine would celebrate the diversity of the different techniques of being a father.
Fatherhood has, you know, there's not one simple rulebook for it.
Fathers decide different philosophies and different things.
And of course, some fathers run away.
But the implication here is that mothers, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, never, ever do women abuse the kids, abandon them, not take care of them, not provide.
No, no, that never happens.
Always the father.
But the implication in this story is that animals, particularly the teeth monkey, why that father spends 90% of daytime hours with his kid.
Now, that's irresponsible.
So we get compared to monkeys and cockroaches in the same week.
Well, fastest three hours in media, and two of them are already gone.
I don't know where they went.
All I know is I've really enjoyed it, which means you really have.