All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:39
June 28, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time, I am Rush Limbaugh, the man running America, generating simplicity, and an untamed piece of the GOP message machine.
Here at 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I've talked about this fairness doctrine stuff for the Pew Center for People in the Press did a survey, and they found that the most informed audience in broadcast media today is you, my audience.
And in addition to that, and this is what frightens the left out there, part of the data also includes the fact that this audience, you all, listen to opposing points of view.
I would call it the garbage on the other side.
You watch a lot of news programs.
You expose yourselves to all kinds of different points of view.
You are not, according to the template, people that only turn on your radio three hours a day.
You never turn on your television.
You don't know anything unless I tell it to you.
That's why they think it's unfair here.
And that's their view of you.
But you are the most informed, and you watch things that you don't agree with.
In addition, the audience, this program, you people, are the most rabid consumers of hard news in all its forms as it appears in any and all media.
That's what makes you so dangerous.
You do expose yourself to everything out there, and you choose this program as the one to make your regular appointment.
It's easy to keep an audience that only hears one side.
It's much tougher, and I'm talking about this from a performance and just a professional standpoint, much tougher to keep an audience that gets news from all sides.
And so that's why they fear this program, and that's why the fairness doctrine is something that they're now pushing.
And that will intensify with the stinging defeat today of the amnesty bill in the United States Senate.
All right, got a global warming stack here, folks.
Let's move right on to it.
One of our three rotating global warming update themes, Paul Shanklin as Al Gore Ball of Fire.
It's the EIB network.
El Rushbo here serving humanity.
One more time, Al Gore.
We have some fabulous global warming news here today, starting with this from the French news agency, the headline, climate change behind Darfur killing.
Do you realize this?
That the genocide and the big murdering killing going on in Darfur is because of global warming.
And this is according to the UN Secretary General Ben Kaimoon.
He said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon.
This is in an article that was published on June the 16th.
The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis arising at least in part from climate change.
Ben wrote in a Washington Post opinion column.
UN statistics show that rainfall declined some 40% over the past two decades as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.
This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan African derives to some degree from man-made global warming.
It's no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought.
Just when you thought it couldn't get stranger, just when you thought, but it actually gets stranger after this story, but when you thought it couldn't get stranger, we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief.
We can't, well, because for a while there, you know, I thought it was barbaric Islamofascists killing off the blacks and Christians in a religious-based genocidal frenzy.
Thank God it's just climate change causing this.
Yeah, I really did.
Right.
Washington Post.
Yeah, Washington Post published it.
That's right.
It's one thing for the UN Secretary General to write it.
Yep, they published it.
Of course, why wouldn't they publish it?
It's part of their agenda.
Part of their agenda.
And of course, who's causing a global warming?
United States.
And what's the United States?
A racist superpower.
And guess who's suffering?
People in Darfur.
But seriously, folks, you can rest easy now because the idea that Islamofascists were killing off the blacks and Christians in Darfur in a religion-based genocidal frenzy has been just thrown out now by the UN.
It's global warming.
It's climate change.
It makes me feel better.
Well, no, we can extrapolate.
That's true.
All the genocides before, like Rwanda, that probably had to do with global warming too.
We just weren't smart enough to know it.
I assume even the death of the gorillas.
You know, the Jane Woodhall babes out there, we have this big story about Mr. Gorilla that died during the Rwandan genocide.
Global warming.
Up next, you can't get any stranger.
How farm odors contribute to global warming.
New research happening in New York State.
This is priceless.
You can definitely smell it, but you can't see it.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.
That will be the focus of new research happening right here in the southern tier, near Corning.
Agriculture Undersecretary of Natural Resources and Environment Mark Ray was in Corning yesterday morning at the Big Flats Plant Materials Center to announce the award of nearly $20 million in conservation innovation grants to fund 51 research projects across the country designed to refine new technologies, helping dairy and other agriculture producers cut back on their greenhouse emissions and cash in on governmental incentives for the research.
Well, you know how this works.
You give these guys money for the research, they better come up with the right answer.
But may I spray a little ozone on this and dilute the odor?
Here's the quote.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has released reports stating that when you smell cow manure, you're also smelling greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, what would they be talking about?
Come on, folks, put your thinking caps on.
What would they be told?
When you smell manure, greenhouse gas emissions are happening.
What are you smelling?
Well, yes, Mr. Snardley, we're smelling poop, but what is the ingredient there that they claim is a greenhouse gas?
Methane.
Correct.
Thank you.
Broadcast engineer gets it.
We are smelling methane.
There's only one problem.
Methane doesn't smell.
Methane is odorless.
Carbon dioxide has no odor.
It is odorless as well.
So when reporters report on science, you can almost always count on it being wrong.
The pollutant in the poop is not identified here.
So if it's not methane, what they are telling us is that barnyard animal poop is causing global warming.
Now, folks, they can do all the research they want, and short of corks, there's nothing they can do to stop this.
And of course, that wouldn't work because we get rid of the livestock eventually if they couldn't get the cork out themselves.
It can't get any stranger in the global warming.
Check it out, folks.
Methane has no odor.
I have checked with scientists on this.
I'll tell you why they're picking on the cows because cows, steers produce beef, and the militant vegetarians are part of the global warming crowd.
They're part of the militant environmentalist wacko crowd.
And of course, we have to clear-cut forestation to provide grazing areas for cows.
So this is an assault on cows.
It all fits.
It all makes perfect sense.
Once you understand this, well, the question that we all have, if it's just cow manure, what about horse manure, chicken manure, dog manure, cat manure?
You want something really stinks?
It's cat manure.
I mean, gee, yes.
And the pigs.
What are you going to do with the pigs?
Well, the pigs take a walk here.
I mean, the pigs are supposedly smart.
When they see what's happening to all the cows, they'll burst out of the pens.
Now, I want to address something else that is happening out there.
These massive floods that are taking place in Texas while there are droughts in all parts, well, a lot of parts of the country.
We're having a drought in Southeast Florida.
We got pretty drenched today, but we are supposedly 40 inches light, 40 inches down, and we'll get it back at some point, but we are down.
I got a note from the official climate scientist of the EIB network, Roy Spencer, who is at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
And remember now, Mr. Dr. Spencer's specialty, he's a climate scientist.
His specialty is precipitation.
And his belief is that all of these global warming models that are predicting doom and gloom are irrelevant because they do not factor precipitation because we have no way of measuring it on a daily basis, where it falls and how much.
So here's a little lesson on floods and drought.
When we hear of a flood or a drought, it is not.
It is not due to the atmosphere suddenly producing more rain or less rain.
In reality, the total amount of rainfall occurring over the earth is very nearly constant year to year, simply because the total amount of surface evaporation, the source of the rain, is nearly constant year to year.
The amount of water in all forms on this planet is what it is.
It's just how it gets distributed that differs.
So when floods or droughts occur in some region, it's simply because the movement of weather systems from west to east has temporarily stalled.
And so the wet and dry portions of those weather systems stall.
Now, rather than spreading out the rain state by state as they move along, they sit and they dump it in one spot if a weather system causes a block of a passage of a weather system.
Or if some, you know, a high stops a low, low stops a high, whatever.
And these things happen, and they've been happening since the beginning of time.
Right now, Texas is in effect stealing much of our rainfall here in the southeast.
Texas is getting more rain than it needs.
The southeast is getting less rain than it needs, but the total amount of rainfall stays about the same.
I'm mentioning this because so many people have not been educated in basic science that they actually believe that floods, why we got more rain than ever.
We do not have more rain than ever.
We just don't have it distributed the same as it's been in previous years.
Floods and droughts are completely normal.
They have always occurred and they will always occur.
They're bad news.
I mean, there's no question floods and droughts are bad news, but you need to quit blaming them on the latest scientific fad, whether it's global warming or global cooling or even global staying the same.
I wouldn't be surprised if the global warming thing bombs out.
What will happen next is not global cooling.
They will say, you know what?
The climate isn't changing.
We got global staying the same.
And that's bad because the climate right now is producing all these droughts and floods and so forth, these extreme storms, tornadoes, and hurricanes.
They'll do whatever they need to do.
Got to take a quick time out here, folks, a little long in this segment.
Be patient.
We come back.
It'll be a little shorter than normal.
But a good illustration.
Regardless when we take our commercial breaks on this program, the amount of programming content per hour never changes.
Hi, welcome back.
One more little global warming story.
We'll get back to your phone calls.
And this is an editorial from Investors Business Daily on June 22nd.
Climate change, the problem with warming predictions may lie in how we measure the present.
Can we say that 2006 was the warmest year ever when the temperature is being measured mere feet from air conditioning exhaust?
We're all familiar with the scenario.
A little kid wants to stay home from scrool, so he holds a match under the thermometer, runs to mom to say he has a fever.
We don't think it's deliberate, but something similar may be happening with our weather monitoring meteorology.
In January, the folks at NOAA trumpeted the fact that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental U.S.
And it was based on daily temperature data gathered by their National Climactic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.
Now, where their stations are and what is in the vicinity can make a difference.
NOAA admits that stations have been moved and modernized as technology and the locales change.
They provide input to the computer climate models that warming alarmists use to predict the day after tomorrow.
But Bill Stigerwald, or Steigerwald, not sure how he pronounces it, of FrontmageMagazine.com reports on an enterprising former TV meteorologist in Chico, California named Anthony Watts.
He wondered about the accuracy and reliability of these reporting stations and a system that has been in use since the early 1900s.
So Anthony Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out.
So far, they've checked out about 40.
They found one temperature monitoring station in Forest Grove, Oregon that stands just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent.
You know how hot the air is coming out of one of those.
Another station in Roseburg, Oregon is on a rooftop near an AC unit.
In Tahoe, California, one is near a drum where trash is burned.
Warnings of eminent climate doom are based on computer models that are often based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather and climate.
One of those variables has to be temperature, and it needs to be measured accurately, otherwise garbage in, garbage out.
So this is, I just continue to be amazed each time I learn something new about all this global warming stuff, how we measure meteorological data and how that forms the baseline for whatever predictions of doom exist out there.
Gail in Windsor, Connecticut, thanks for waiting.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hey.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I'm talking about the go.
When it came up before I really knew much about it, I happened to hear them say, well, actually, I saw Kennedy on TV and he was so happy, jumping up and down, I thought, this is not good because he's too happy.
It can't be a good bell because if it was, you know, why is he so happy?
Very wise of you.
Very, very wise.
Yeah, well, I grew up, I was born in Massachusetts, and I kind of, I just, this man, I do not understand why people idolize him.
And then I had on Brett Hume.
Oh, now.
Oh, come on.
That's elementary.
That's basic.
Last name.
Well, Brett Hume was on a couple of weeks ago, and I almost fainted because I like Brett Hume.
He's very, very, you know, I just like him a lot.
And I almost fainted when they had a love fest for Kennedy.
Barnes, and they were talking about how great he is and all the things he's done.
Well, look at, he's got, it's the last name.
Yeah, if his brother didn't die, he would never have been senator.
There's no doubt about that.
Don't know about that.
This family is American royalty.
It's Cabalot.
No, no, it's the last name.
I think inside Washington types admire somebody that's been around 40 years, been pushing legislation for it, keeps getting elected wrong all the time.
That's a big deal in Washington.
When you can survive as long as Ted Kennedy has your star rises and rises and be as wrong as he's been, that's an achievement.
A man, a living legend, a national treasure.
A man who runs a country, you know it, and I know it here on the EIB network.
Interesting story here from the Associated Press.
Phoenix has overtaken Philadelphia.
By the way, I've been predicting this, and this little news story, I want you to listen up because it's going to have electoral ramifications for the Democrats.
Phoenix has overtaken Philadelphia as the nation's fifth largest city, underscoring decades of population losses in America's big industrial centers.
The nation's population has nearly doubled since 1950, adding about 150 million people.
But of the 20 largest cities in 1950, all but four have shrunk, some by a lot.
Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Buffalo have all lost more than half their population in the past 50 years.
Philadelphia lost nearly a third of its residents, slipping to about 1.4 million people in 2006, according to the Census Bureau.
And like many big cities in the Northeast and the Midwest, Philadelphia has suffered through a decline in the nation's manufacturing economy.
City officials, however, have vowed to rebound.
Gary Jastrab, the deputy executive director of the City Planning Commission, said, we're not going to disappear.
We have a good quality of life here.
We have major universities, major health facilities, very active pharmaceutical industry.
Yeah, and every damn one of them is being targeted by the Democrats for destruction except the universities.
Now, America's big cities are getting smaller.
Oh, how horrible.
This is another one of these drive-by media stories that doesn't dare, doesn't dare, ladies and gentlemen, get anywhere near the truth of why it is happening.
I mean, they may want to blame it on a manufacturing base, shrinking or what have you, but you and I, ladies and gentlemen, know the truth.
These cities that we are talking about, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Buffalo, they have been governed for the last 50 years by a bunch of Democrats.
And they have created within these cities their own sub-welfare states.
In addition to the federal and state welfare state, these cities tax their residents to create yet another one.
And so people have left these places in droves.
This is big.
I mean, you lose half your population in a major American city in 50 years.
And those who had the ability to leave got out.
Those who can't leave or make it hard to leave are the ones who are left.
And so what you're left behind was an expanding welfare class that has trouble producing and contributing to anything.
And then we wonder why inner city and city schools are in such bad shape.
So while the drive-by media would never ever tell the truth about this, this is what happens to places when liberals run the show.
It's pure and simple.
There are exceptions.
New York is not losing population, but well, you think New York's losing population?
You think New York City is losing population?
I haven't seen any evidence of that, Snurdley.
We don't deal with anecdotal evidence on this program.
There are exceptions to it, but, I mean, it's still got its share of problems.
It's a liberal city.
Look at what's happening in L.A. People leaving Cal some people leaving whole states and seeking life in other states.
All right, Paul, in Lake in the Hills in Southern Illinois, nice to have you with on the EIB.
I'm sorry, Lake in the Hills, Illinois.
That's correct.
How are you?
I'm good.
Thank you very much.
Okay, great.
I really appreciate it.
It's an honor to speak with you.
I had an observation on the fairness doctrine and the way talk radio works, especially your show and most others.
Do you not provide a large number of sound bites and direct quotes?
And as a result, are you not giving airtime to the opinions and the opposition side already?
Absolutely.
That's an absolutely good point, an excellent point.
I, in order to make my arguments, always present the arguments of the left, and then I refute them.
I mean, we play dingy Harry Ted Kennedy all over the place here today.
And in addition to that, on many talk shows that take guests, a lot of the opposition refuses to even go on to those shows, so they are given the opportunity to have a fair and balanced show, but they don't even take that opportunity.
Exactly right.
It's like the Brett girl will not show up on Fox News channel, but he'll send his wife out there to complain to Ann Calder when she's on MSNBC.
That's an excellent point.
The left's point of view is not denied here.
It's just not advocated.
The left's point of view isn't advocated here, but their point of view is it's my gosh, I tell you more about them than they will tell you about themselves.
I tell you more about what they really believe than they will tell you.
I tell you more about what their intentions are than they ever will.
You know, they're the ones running around with masks and camouflage and so forth.
And I don't lie about the context in which the statements of theirs that I air occurred.
I don't lie about the context.
I don't try to fool people what we're saying here.
You know me.
We want and have fully informed as many informed, educated, engaged people as possible in the arena of ideas and going out there and voting.
We want legitimate substantive real change.
We don't want it to come about through propaganda, lies, or any of these other things that the left requires on, requires to achieve its power.
Here's Larry in Springfield, Missouri.
You're next, sir.
I'm glad you called.
Kittos, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you.
My first time speaking to the great one.
I'm quite excited.
When I heard your sound bites in the first hour during the first monologue from Senator Graham Nesty about what the Democrats will and won't allow to Democrats, as you've said on many occasions, Democrats in charge is a normal course of things.
I guess to Senator Graham Nesty, it is also the normal course of things.
He didn't know what the heck to do with the power the electorate gave him, and neither did the other Republican leadership, and they spent like super duper Democrats, and that's why they no longer have power.
To them, I guess Democrats in charge is normal.
You know, with Senator Gramnesty, I think I understand what happened.
I think that I can explain Senator Gramnesty.
He was really solid conservative member of the House of Representatives.
He was part of the freshman class of 1994, of which I was made an honorary member.
During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Senator Gramnesty, then Congressman Graham, served as one of the House managers prosecuting the case against Clinton in the Senate trial.
And I think this ended up affecting him in a way that he didn't understand and didn't appreciate.
He was tagged as a kook, and so you know what the drive-by media did to those guys.
So he runs for the Senate in South Carolina on the basis of his solid performance as a member of Congress.
He wins.
And it was appreciated, by the way, the people of South Carolina.
He served as a House manager.
When he gets to the Senate, he feels compelled to change his image with the drive-by media and with Democrats.
He wants to erase this House manager experience.
So he throws in with McCain, sees how McCain does it.
That's why we refer to him here as Vice President Lindsey Graham before he became Senator Gramnesty.
So McCain's out there, you know, doing everything he can to get noticed in Washington.
And the way you do that, you turn against your own party, you turn against your own president, you make the drive-by media your best buddy, you make deals with Democrats in the Senate, and you make the Democrats in the Senate think that you're growing and that you're expanding your universe and the area of knowledge.
And Senator Gramnesty, I think, threw in with Senator McCain, and they became a team and a partnership and so forth.
I think that's just what happened to him.
Because when I hear him say, look, let's play these two bites.
We played these almost three hours ago, and you may not know what Larry in Springfield is referring to, but let's play a couple bites.
Senator Gramnesty, before the cloture vote this morning, this is from the Senate floor.
You're never going to deal with this issue until you embrace the $12 million.
No Democrat is going to let you build a fence and do all the things that we want to do without addressing the $12 million.
That's never going to happen.
I want to address the $12 million.
The reason I want to address the $12 million, it bothers me that there's 12 million people here that we don't know who they are and what they're up to.
I wish they would go away, but they're not.
It is a problem that America has to deal with, and we want someone else to do it because we're afraid that if we do a plea bargain, it's amnesty.
A plea bargain is amnesty.
But anyway, you see him saying no Democrat's ever going to let you build a fence.
And he has also said in the past that his job is to go there and during this debate, not today, but previous to today, he has said that his purpose is to go there and work with Democrats to get things done because I guess they're the majority.
So we've got to work with them.
And those who elected him don't think that's his job.
Those that elected Senator Gramnesty believe that his job is to defend his own principles and ideals and try to emerge victorious after political battles with Democrats, not get along with them.
But he's seen how Senator McCain has prospered over the years as a senator and become a favorite of the drive-by media.
What he all ought to be noticing here is Senator McCain's precipitous plummet into single digits in the Republican presidential primary.
The two are linked.
The 12 million will be dealt with.
They're not going to be ignored.
They will be dealt with firmly and fairly eventually.
They're not going to be deported.
They're not going to jail.
They can't be wished away.
So we need to come together in a bipartisan manner, have principal compromise where we deal with the $12 million, we deal with broken borders, we get a temporary worker program to my Republican friends.
Remember this day, if you vote no, you will never ever have this bill again.
To which we all say thank God.
All right.
Snerdley was somewhat right on his anecdotal theory that New York City is losing population.
From the let's see, this is a New York Sun, and it's a story from April 20th of 2006.
New York State losing more residents than any other state in the country.
Based on surveys taken between 2000, and these are census numbers, 2000 and 2004, the figures show that New York replaced California as the net migration outflow leader, an average of 182,886 people leaving every year.
That's nearly double California's average for the same period.
Now, the New York City metro region, not just the five boroughs, but the New York City metro region, which includes Long Island and parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and you have to throw Connecticut in there too, wouldn't you?
The tri-state, whatever, also leads the country in migration outflow, an average of 211,014 people leaving every year.
Now, the number is higher than the state figure because many of those leaving the metro region resettle in other areas of New York.
But despite the tremendous outflow, the overall city population at 8.2 million is growing due to increases in international immigration and a birth rate that is greater than the death rate.
And so New York City is growing, but it ain't the same city.
Anyway, these places are run by liberal.
Well, wait a minute.
Bloomberg was a Liberal Democrat.
Then he became a Republican.
Now he's become an Independent.
When will he become a Midwesterner?
When will he say he's a Midwesterner?
Dave in Green Village, New Jersey.
Nice to have you on the program.
Ditto Power.
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to propose some amendments to the immigration bill.
Yeah, well, it's dead.
The immigration bill's dead.
Well, it is, but this might bring it back to life.
Well, they might.
Oh, they will at some point.
It's going to be back in some form.
Well, these might help it.
Number one, amnesty for all drunk drivers involved in committing vehicular homicide in July 1969.
July of 1969.
It just might help.
Ambassador.
By the way, you know, that reminds me.
We've got a bite here from Senator Kennedy.
Don't lose your train of thought, but you've reminded.
I've got to find it.
Where are the soundbites?
Okay.
Soundbite 5.
Senator Kennedy unwittingly solved the problem here, well, could have, of illegal immigration.
You got Soundbite 5 ready to go?
All right, hit it.
We know what they're against.
We don't know what they're for.
Time and time again, they tell us, we don't like this provision.
We don't like that provision.
We don't want that part.
Well, they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.
What are they going to do with the 12.5 million who are undocumented here?
Send them back, send them back to countries around the world.
More than $250 billion buses that we go from Los Angeles to New York and back again.
Try and find them.
Develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows.
That's the alternative.
If Senator Kennedy would drive some of the buses, problem solved.
Okay, so you want amnesty for all drunk drivers involved in committing vehicular homicide, July 1969.
What's number two?
Number two, amnesty for all former KKK Grand Masters, or whatever they're called.
He was Gold Kliegel.
I don't think he ever reached Grand Wizards as a Cleveland.
No, no, Senator Byrd.
Yeah, Senator Bird.
It was a Cyclops, Cyclops Kliegel.
But he voted no on closure today.
Oh, okay.
And then the third group and last would be amnesty for any senator in suspicious land deals in Arkansas, Nevada, New Jersey, or Illinois.
And you know, speaking of which, have you heard, let me ask you about this, Dave.
Have you heard this couple in Plainfield, New Hampshire, Ed Brown and his wife Elaine, they've locked themselves off from the world to avoid serving prison sentences for tax evasion.
I mean, have you seen the story of these people?
They're the ones that are in their bomb shelter?
They're in the bomb shelter.
Sometimes they're on the roof.
They got guns, and they're waiting.
They're trying to intimidate the marshals from showing up and carting them off in jail.
And it led me to think, do you think if 10 to 12 million Americans decided to follow the actions of Ed Brown and his wife Elaine, just stop paying taxes?
Do you think if 10 to 12 or 20 million Americans said, screw it, I'm not paying taxes, do you think we'd hear things like, well, we can't put them in jail.
We can't track down these people.
Let's just give them amnesty.
Yeah.
Sure.
Do you think that you think what we were complaining about?
I mean, if we weren't funding Iraq, then the liberals would have a field day and say it was a great thing.
We're not funding school.
If there were 10, 12, 20 million Americans that stopped paying federal taxes, they wouldn't be stopped by anything in tracking us down, finding who those people are, putting them in jail, taking their homes away from them, getting their money or what have you.
The idea that Ted Kaye, what are we going to do?
Round them up buses, $250 billion.
They can find 10 to 12 million Americans who weren't paying taxes.
They could do it.
I moved from New York to Florida in 1997.
I didn't pay any New York state, city, or other kind of taxes.
And all I said, in fact, I said them no to, I'm sorry, I've moved.
I don't live in New York anymore.
That's why you're not getting any returns.
They found me in five years.
They got a whole department that tracks down people that leave New York and go to tax, no income tax states.
And they said, well, you owe X numbers of dollars plus fines and penalties for the last five years.
No, I don't.
Yes, you do.
Well, I don't live in New York.
Well, we think you just live in Florida to escape our taxes.
And they wanted to come into both houses and see which ones the most lived in.
All right, they'll find you, folks.
They will find you.
A great broadcast day in the can, ladies and gentlemen, but there's tomorrow, and that's Open Line Friday.
And tomorrow ought to be a doozy.
Look forward to speaking with you then.
Have a great one.
▲
Export Selection