All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
June 15, 2007, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no, I'm just in a state of flux here.
I need people uh respond to some things.
I need some decisions made here before three o'clock, and I can't get hold of the people.
I need to get all 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, Rebub.
Your chance, ladies and gentlemen, to uh 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 and what interests me on Friday.
We throw that away and whatever you wish to talk about.
Even if I'm not interested in it, I will fake it.
Phone numbers 800-282-2882 at the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Trent Lott, Talk Radio is running the country.
And we're gonna have to deal with that, he said.
You need to really think about that.
I mean, uh it it's enough.
What's not enough, actually, a citizen.
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 was throwing him overboard when he made those joking comments at a tribute to Strom Thurmond.
Uh folks, I w 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.
Uh uh people expressing their opinions is a problem that gave us McCain Feingold.
A government signed, government past presidentially signed assault on free speech in the First Amendment during campaigns.
Uh Trent Lott is a Republican.
He has thrown his hat in with John McCain on this because McCain uh defended him too during that episode.
So he's he's uh you know, I was kind of surprised because uh Lott loves to stick it to President Bush any time he can uh because of uh the White House lack of support for Lott during the Strom Thurman thing.
Um the the uh the 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 uh that a Republican now joins this mindset, and believe me, I don't actually think he's the only one.
Uh, you know, you're 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 uh you get an 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 gonna try to bring this thing back twenty percent of the American people, only twenty percent want this.
Pure and simple, only twenty percent.
They prefer smaller steps, this eras muscle poll uh with uh with the focus on enforcement.
They're working overtime to bring this back and get it done.
Oh, you gotta listen to Dingy Harry here.
Uh 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 uh the real thing.
Oh if we're going to finish these two bills, which both Republican leader and I think is absolutely mandatory.
Essential.
That Senator 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 Fourth of July recess period, which is only one week long.
Oh, folks, they gotta have a wolf to work weekend.
Oh, they might have to work weekends in order to get oh hell 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, 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 it's interesting.
When one million illegals protest, they're called activists.
When one million African Americans protest, or supposedly 19 million or million, yeah, a million, not time, that's Calypso Louie.
They're called activists.
When presidential candidates go down to Selma to recreate a memorial, it's activism.
When millions of talk radio listeners protest, they're called.
Uh what?
They call a problem.
They're called a problem.
Now, when twenty million talk radio listeners protest.
And 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, and ain't activism.
No, it's a problem.
It's a problem that has to be dealt with.
Uh and I I'll tell you, I don't think that they know.
I don't I uh if 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 uh have yet to be uh revealed.
Uh amendments that are being kept under wraps is the term right now.
Uh if if you if these elected officials think that they got heat before, I don't think they realize what they're gonna get now.
But keep in mind what Diane Feinstein said in her fifteen 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 gonna have is hey, look, you know, it's just a bunch of angry hotheads uh full of racism and bigotry, nativism and so forth.
We don't have to listen to these people.
We don't have to listen to what this.
That's what's being set up.
Now this thing is gonna come out in the Senate.
They're gonna they're gonna they're they're hell bent on getting this done.
And uh the White House put a lot of pressure on it, by the way.
That's that's the pressure that's working on the Republicans.
Uh and this is gonna be a battle at a time, one battle at a time.
If it if it wins passage in the Senate, you ought to prepare yourself for that.
Uh I wish it wouldn't.
I mean, don't misunderstand, but it's then gonna go to the House and it's gonna get revved up all over again.
This 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.
Uh August, sometime uh before the August recess or or uh a little bit after that.
Uh so that's really the time frame 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 I'm just pointing out to you that it's got to go to the House next, and then uh if if the procedures are followed, a conference committee between the two, uh, and it it's no sure bet in the House.
Uh a lot of uh, you know, house house people uh representatives up for re-election every two years.
And there's a lot of people that are very much members of the House are far more tuned uh to the thoughts and opinions of their constituents than senators are because senators are not re-elected uh every other year, they're re-elected uh in six-year terms, as you know, you know all this.
Quick timeout will be back and uh continue right after this.
Don't go Anywhere.
Speaking of Dingy Harry, uh, as you know, some bloggers originally this week reported uh that he had said that uh General Peter Pace and uh General Petraeus are incompetent.
Uh and Tony Snow said if he said this, I wish he'd apologize.
Drive by media said, 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 outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.
By the way, Peter Pace uh was offered a chance to retire.
And he said, Nope, you're gonna 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 was happy that Peter Pace was forced to step down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said I talked to him in my conference room, just him and I. I told him how I felt that 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 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 Petraeus 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, now for one thing, General Petraeus is the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
He works and lives and breathes the air of Baghdad in Iraq.
He meets its people, he works with its leadership.
Dingy Harry, on the other hand, works at the Hart Senate office building in Washington.
He breathes the foul air of the beltway.
He meets lobbyists.
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 had to get 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 uh 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 Reed 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 I 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 owl 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 dem uh seven Senate Democrats or Republicans 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 Reed.
The guy who now wants the terrorists to win.
The guy who has invested in their defeat.
The guy who says that neither Pace nor uh Petraeus are doing a good job.
The same man who said he didn't like Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court opinions because he didn't think they were very intelligent.
Harry Reed's a disgrace.
Harry Reed 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 imprimonter of coming from the Senate majority leader.
Just like Al Gore, 1992, we played that speech for you.
Al Gore, 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 a 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'll 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 said, okay, fine, you want to get rid of 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, not that far off now, And they are giving nobody any reason to vote for him.
In fact, they're doing just the opposite.
They are angering their own base.
They're taking um actions here, splitting the party, the people they should be angry at and fighting.
They're real enemies, the Democrats caused narrier 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.
Here's uh here's Brett Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Brett, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, good afternoon, Rush.
Uh very proud father in Lancashire, Pennsylvania.
Um 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.
And I'm hoping you could give me a history and tumor on that.
Yes, uh be happy to.
Uh this now, those of you that know this, please indulge me here.
This uh this is an example of the constant new tune-in factor that occurs on this program and the ever increasing size of our audience.
Uh when I moved to Sacramento in 1984, I was driving around town because I wanted to get familiar with it and uh be familiar with the place I was now living and working.
I'm driving around and I come to this place uh called Rio Linda, uh, and it just had the you know the the the city sign, but no no indication of who lived there, no population number.
I have never seen that before.
I've always seen population numbers on the sign of the city.
So I drove through this place and uh it was like going to the Twilight Zone.
You had on the main drag, and there were there were you know cars on concrete blocks in the in the in the front yards, uh 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 uh just by moving there, I would increase property values.
And of course, I was the idea was rejected and so forth, so I decided, well, I'm just gonna tease these people.
And I just any time I say something I think is remotely just remotely complicated, I will try to translate it for Rio Lindons so that they can understand it.
They uh 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 uh it's just that it's a little town uh not far from Sacramento.
They don't like being called a suburb, and frankly, so uh Sacramento wouldn't like uh for people to think Rio Linda is a suburb of uh of Sacramento.
It's it's sort of its own little pocket there.
It's amazing.
All right.
Well, I was close.
I always figured you were talking about Detroit.
You've been waiting all this time for that line.
Yes.
Well, you said the cards with the cinder box.
Uh no, no, no.
I've I've been to Detroit.
I've not seen that in Detroit.
I'm not I've I've I've I've been to a lot of places, but uh realinda uh 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, the uh the uh uh the well Hamas creamed Fatah, which is uh getting through all these terms.
Uh the the Fatah bunch was trying to come up with a way to get along with Israel.
And that just wasn't gonna fly with uh with militant Islamo fascists in Hamas to Hamas basically is taking over Gaza, Fatah still runs the West Bank, and the the uh Hamas people say this is an Islamic society now.
This is an Islamic country, religion of peace.
And uh and all that.
And of course, they uh the um Hamas people took as many Fatah officers out in the street in front of their wives and kids and just gunned them down.
D 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 uh these 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.
Uh 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 gotta 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.
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 uh his days are numbered, it's 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, 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 gotta 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 Ditto's.
How are you doing today?
Thanks, sir.
Thank you.
Where'd you work across the hall from me?
Uh at the flagship back in 1991 through 93.
W W ABC in New York.
That would be it.
Yeah, 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.
Uh 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.
Yeah.
One is about the tarted up dumbed down CBS evening news, and the other is about Republican presidential candidates.
Okay.
Um first about the the Katie Curk 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?
I mean 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 twenty-two minutes of the CBS evening news.
True.
There's so much filler from top to bottom.
I I 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.
Um and every day there's a typical slant to the left.
I'm I'm used to that, because you've been telling us that for years.
Um 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.
Katie spent less than ten seconds on that story.
Now imagine if the deficit had grown thirty-three percent in the same time period.
It would have been a five part special series with experts all over the place.
That's right.
Well, you know, uh there's a guy named Jeffrey Lord who uh has a piece in the American Spectator today, and he rewrites about this and and uh and what other thing, and he says the obstinance of the media says leave these people are in business.
Uh 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 uh the size of my audience and and other uh conservative radio hosts and and how how that's the the the the talk radio audience today is the most informed.
And this just is it's 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 uh they haven't taken taken you up on your offer to come and uh become Oh no, no, of course that would that one but no, because the last high number they had was when I did my little commentary there.
That's funny.
Um on the Republican presidential candidates.
I'm a registered independent.
Um That's gutless.
No, no, no, it's really not.
Um 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 ninety-nine percent of their time on the current top three candidates.
And each one has something about them that come the general election, they're gonna pounce on and say, Oh, well, you can't elect this guy.
Um I've been trying to find the facts about the the 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.
Well, you know, that's an interesting thing that you uh that you're doing because one of the one of the uh effects of the constant treatment of certain candidates is in uh top tier.
Uh and I guess this is uh derived uh from from polling data, and this is this is something that the 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.
Um that's what people end up focusing on, uh those three, and they never do look at the others and except in one way.
They look at the other and say, Don't have a chance.
Even if they're perfect, don't have a chance, they're not electable.
Look at they're only getting one percent or four percent or five percent in the polls.
So even if they're perfect.
Right.
But in nineteen seventy-six, no one knew who Jimmy Carter was until the first couple of primaries.
Even in nineteen eighty, Bill Clinton was not among the leaders by nineteen ninety-two, sir.
Yeah, right.
That that's why you know 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, uh trying not to make gaffes.
You know, one gaff can blow you out of this thing.
Um there are clearly some doing better than others, but it's it's 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 or 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 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 gonna become the presidential candidate sweepstakes.
And uh frankly, I'm the expert here.
Yeah, that's true.
And we're 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.
Yeah, you're probably right.
Yeah, it's that's it's well, it's it's you know, being number one's great, but there are uh limitations that come with it.
Great Rush, it's good to talk to you again.
Thank you, Dennis.
Appreciate it.
Uh this is Diane in Northport out of Long Island.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
Hi hi uh I was just uh calling about this immigration bill because last night I got a email response from um Kennedy's uh response team, and I was so angry when I read it, I just I couldn't believe it.
It was so condescending.
Yeah I had written saying, you know, uh that I was against this bill, and then this email comes in three weeks later saying basically that I'm too stupid, you know.
It says it's too complex of an issue, and that these are hard working uh people that's waiting for you.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Now I please don't exaggerate this.
I am not exaggerating.
I wish I did that letter from Ted 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 um these are hardworking people that we need to have in our country's all for immigration and we need to, you know, kind of go with his his plan there.
Uh uh, I just couldn't believe it.
It was just Well, you know what's interesting about that is because what I 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.
Uh let me you 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 uh uh go on television and and 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 Crowdhammer uh is the and by the way, Crowdhammer's uh doing a little bit of a one eighty is coming around on this.
Crowdhammer has not been uh quote unquote a total opponent of this.
He's in fact been largely for it.
But even Crowdhammer's coming around and said, Wait a minute, the one thing that he's figured out looking at this debate is that everybody c 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 if it's 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.
Yeah, that's something to be dealt with.
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.
A net 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.
Um I've been waiting to make this call for a whole year.
And I just wanted to call uh 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.
Um Yeah, you're right, I did, because then I got I got a lot of emails, oh Rush, you're right, but uh there are a lot of uh Rush babies out there uh to whom you are a surrogate father.
To which my reply was don't think that that entitles you to child support from me.
Uh but uh you're right, I do remember so you that's very thoughtful of you.
But yeah, but I but I'm not a father.
I know.
But I just wanted to give you a little list by saying happy father's day.
Well, thank you very much.
That's very thoughtful, and you're waiting a whole year to do this.
Yes, I have.
And you got in.
You actually got through our crowded, overloaded phone system in order.
That means there was karma behind this.
This was something that was supposed to happen.
Well, exactly.
And I thought, okay, I'm just gonna be a little bit more than a big thing.
By the way, Kim is one of those names in my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Good.
Well, I I had I had uh was making the call, and I called like 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 the anti-rush thing to do.
So I just kept calling.
Exactly right.
Well, it 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 New Bern, North Carolina, and D is it it is, it's Newburn.
Yeah, I know I've I've uh yeah.
Dean, how are you?
How are you doing?
Uh Rosh diddos to you.
Listen, uh I was uh listening to the the show in uh the that Time magazine article and uh that that that you went on about and I was just gonna Oh, folks, if you miss this, Time magazine has a story in this week's issue written by two women with the every expert in 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 my uh you know I lost my dad almost two years ago, and there's not a day I don't think about him, and uh it's it's just you know it you know, I'm sorry, but it's just that I I love them so much, and uh I just can't understand how other people just don't don't have the same kind of relationship.
And uh well, we're all different.
We're all different.
Uh the did the Time magazine story offend you or bother you?
Yeah, it does because I mean uh it's probably 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 chif chickification of our culture.
It's the it's the demonization of men, which has been going on since the modern era of feminism.
Uh something which has personally impacted me in ways that are not positive.
I see stuff like that, and I I just I 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.
Uh and and they're the all kinds of things behind it here.
It's to empower women and child support custody cases.
It's it's to uh promote family and medical leave paid by the employer because the husband can't be dependent on to help.
Uh it's designed to paint women as alternately at the same time victims, but great heroes, heroines.
Because now they're doing two jobs, mother and father.
Yeah, well, uh all I gotta say is God bless your rush and uh keep up their good work.
Uh thank you very much.
I appreciate that, uh Dean.
Uh yeah, this this uh I I don't want to repeat this because we've got too much stuff to do, but if you missed it, uh uh either I you can get it in the Time Magazine website.
We will unfortunately link to it because that's the only way we can let you see it at Rush Limbaugh.com.
But it's an amazing it's just it's an amazing assault.
Uh and of course one of the anthropologists in the story, one of the biologists in the story draw their comparison.
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 rule book for it.
Fathers decide different philosophies and different things.
And of course, some fathers run away.
Uh 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 uh implication in this uh in this story is that uh uh the animals, particularly the TT monkey.
Why that that father spends ninety percent 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 uh the two 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.
I like it, I know you really do.
▲
Export Selection