All Episodes
Previous Next
July 19, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
July 19, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back once again at Just As Promised and just as committed.
Ill Rushbull, National Treasure, Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Prophet.
Descendant of George Washington.
Here are the EIB network, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, it's open line Friday on Thursday today because once again taking a day off tomorrow.
Taking some of these Fridays folks, just to avoid taking a week or two solid, uh decided to do it that way, be here more often that we'll go on for a week or two.
It's uh uh it's just easier this way.
And I it's fine with me.
So uh who's the guest host tomorrow?
Who's uh who Roger Hedgecock from San Diego be guest hosting tomorrow.
Uh by the way, before I go any further, I want to thank Byron York.
Uh I uh did a little interview with him a couple three weeks ago for a story he was doing for National Review, the magazine on the fairness doctrine.
It turned out that it's the uh it's the cover story, but he's written a uh uh, and they don't put their their magazine cover story piece on their website.
Uh, but he has written a shorter version of it with uh some things that I said to him that were not in the actual magazine piece, and he directed it to me uh last night in an email.
Uh it's it's at the National Review Online website, and he really really gets it.
Uh it it's I'll tell you it's so unusual uh to talk to a journalist that I don't do it anymore, because they never get it right.
Story's always written for they talk to you, and if you say things that don't fit what their template is, it's not going to show up there anyway.
So but it is just a it's a rare event when you talk to a journalist and what you say gets in there, and the point I mean, if if they want to talk to me, fine.
And when they talk to me and they hear what I say and then print it, that doesn't happen much.
Not in my case anyway, and it did here, so we will link to it at Rushlinbaugh.com eventually, but if you want to go to the NRO site, it's NRO.com, you'll you will uh find it there.
Two stories here.
Uh on the slumber party that the Democrats in the Senate staged on uh what was it, Tuesday night.
Uh first was from the Washington Post.
Democrats won't force war vote.
Senate uh Democrats hailed, or I'm sorry, halted their quest to change President Bush's war strategy yesterday after Republicans blocked the proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq after the vote, which followed a rare all-night debate.
Dingy Harry startled colleagues by announcing that the Senate would not vote on several other proposals intended to force Bush to revisit his plans.
Although war critics in both parties had supported the measures, Reed and other Democrat leaders dismissed him as too weak.
Instead, they're holding firm in their bid to persuade Republican critics of Bush's policy to embrace more aggressive Democrat measures to begin withdrawing troops.
Now, Reed's move was hailed by anti-war groups, and the anti-war groups, in this case, are the fringe lunatics that make up their internet blog base.
And those groups have urged Democrats not to compromise on this.
But uh Dingy Harry's decision may also have the effect of providing Bush with an opportunity that he has wanted sixty more days to make his case that the war is uh is making progress.
After the results were tallied in the vote, uh Dingy Harry asked Republican leaders to accept simple majority votes.
When they refused, Dingy Harry announced that the debate would be suspended, possibly till after Labor Day, or until Republicans drop their filibuster.
He called the 60 vote requirement a new math that was developed by the Republicans to protect the president, which is just I mean the cht spa that is just amazing.
But anyway, let me let me analyze this for you.
The fact that they pulled all those other elements, all those other proposals, they never intended this to pass.
This is all a stunt.
This was a fundraiser on Tuesday night.
It should have been paid for by the Democrat National Committee.
As I keep saying, they want to do this, they could defund it.
They don't have the votes to do that because they know that's not the right way to go.
They would love to make it happen so that they could saddle Bush and the Republicans with the defeat.
But uh the Republicans held firm enough on this.
I mean, even Luger, you know, Luger is opposed to the Uh Iraq policy as it is now, but he didn't vote with the Democrats.
There were four Republicans that did Hegel.
I forget who they are, the usual suspects.
Now, in the Christian Science Monitor, uh, they have a story of the strategy behind the Senate Iraq war vote.
The unused metal cuts outside the Senate chamber were folded away, the pizza cartons carted away, a rare all-night session provided high drama on capital.
It did not.
There was no drama at all in this.
Never mind that the amendment went down to certain defeat.
Whoa, certain defeat.
Which means it was all unnecessary, which means it was a trick.
It was a stunt to fool the American people.
Never mind that the legislative marathon changed only a single vote in the Senate.
Washington's political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at living rooms across America by presenting the choice over the future of the Iraq war in the starkest possible terms.
Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course and ratchet up the political pressure on Republican lawmakers supporting President Bush.
Now there's a there's a question that leaps into my fertile gray cells, the deep dark crevices of my brain produce this question.
Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course.
Well, I you know, forgive me, folks.
I've been listening to Dingy Harry and all these other people saying that that had already happened.
Why he said just yesterday that 67% of the people want out of Iraq.
Hey, he had a poll.
Well, that's a majority.
That's that's more votes than he can get for his side in the Senate.
He's losing votes every time he brings this up.
Which is my point.
They know the American people are not on the same page with them.
They are trying to get them there.
The Democrats want you to think that they are trying to do your will when in fact they're trying to persuade you to agree with them.
And their fringe lunatic kooks in the blogosphere.
The American people are not on this uh same page, and that little statement right here proves it.
Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to uh change course.
The goal of Democrats was clear, says uh Julian Zalitzer, uh, a professor of history at Princeton.
He said the goal of Democrats was clear to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration.
You know, this is what's wrong.
We have literal dunces at major American institutions of higher learning.
We have just in the previous paragraph seen where Democrats admit they don't have a majority of the American public on their side.
They hope to convince Americans of the need to change course.
Then this guy says the goal of Democrats was clear to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war to keep Iraq in the news not good for the Bush administration.
The Bush administration's not running for re-election.
It's the Democrats who went on record as wanting to lose the war.
And they did it in an all-night trick and hoax.
They don't realize how they are viewed.
They think this makes Republicans look bad because they're living with this myth that most Americans agree with them on this, which is not the case.
So it's when most Americans not blaming Republicans for this.
Who else are they gonna who else is gonna they go watch in this little charade and start scratching their heads?
Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush, what Vietnam became for President Johnson, an all-consuming issue where nothing else can be discussed.
That's again the Princeton expert.
Uh uh Lyndon Johnson did announce that he wasn't going to seek a second term, but Bush is in his second term.
So he can't pull a Lyndon Johnson.
You gotta wonder where these they're liberals.
That explains all of it.
I haven't heard this in the bump rotation.
Hang on, folks.
Want to hear how long this goes if we edit it as it get to the good part.
Okay, I've got an idea.
I I have an idea.
I want to present a hypothetical here.
I know this will uh this this would not happen, but uh I'll offer a compromise.
The limbaugh Compromise.
To the Democrats in the Senate and in the House, the Limbaugh Compromise.
I will agree to pull our troops out of Iraq, if you Democrats will agree to my conditions after the defeat.
And here are my conditions to agree with you on a pull out.
When Al Qaeda celebrates after we pull out, after we admit defeat.
Every TV image of Al Qaeda celebrating must be a split screen.
On one side, Al Qaeda celebrating.
On the other side, I want pictures of Harry Reed and Chuck Schumer and Carl Levin smiling and congratulating themselves.
When Al Qaeda slaughters Iraqis after we pull out, and we see the pictures of this on TV.
Every TV image must show a split screen.
On one side of the screen, the bloody slaughter scenes.
On the other side of the screen, pictures of smiling Harry Reed, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin, congratulating each other with big laughs.
When Al Qaeda takes over another village, ransacks another village, another town, another city after we pull out.
On one side of the screen, I want desperate villagers running for their lives.
On the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of smiling Harry Reed, smiling Chuck Schumer, smiling Carl Levin shaking hands and embracing and congratulating themselves.
When the American flag burners in the Middle East start burning their flags, and the president and vice president in effigy, I want one side to show every image on the split screen side of that happening.
I want the flag burners.
I want the characters of Bush and Cheney being burned in effigy, and on the other side of the split screen, I want pictures of a smiling Harry Reed, a smiling Chuck Schumer, a smiling Carl Levin embracing, shaking hands, laughing and congratulating themselves.
I think that's a reasonable compromise, and I have offered it here in all sincerity.
If the left will agree to this compromise, I will join them in calling for a pull out from Iraq.
Little bit more research has been done into the uh this this this health care bill for the itty biddy chillen that's going to raise cigarette taxes and cigar taxes from five cents to ten dollars a cigar.
Sit down, folks.
This program is called SHIP, SCHIP.
It stands for the State Children's Health Insurance Program was created in 1997 by Congress and President Clinton.
This year it's up for reauthorization, which is why all this is going on.
The original purpose of shifts, like every other liberal program, the original purpose has gone by the wayside now, and the unintended consequences have set in.
Plus it's a brand new entitlement, so it's we can play with it, we can grow it.
It was intended originally to cover children in families who made too much money to be eligible for Medicaid.
The law was originally supposed to limit eligibility to families making not more than 200% of the poverty line, which would be 40,300 for a family of four.
Seven states set eligibility above two hundred percent anyway.
Additionally, fourteen states have applied loose enough definitions of child to extend coverage to parents, pregnant women, or childless adults.
I am not kidding.
Wait till you hear this.
Democrats in Congress are trying to capture the spirit of those fourteen states by changing the ship law to read like it does now in those fourteen states.
Bills sponsored by Hillary Clinton and John Dingle would permit states to expand ship up to 400% of the poverty level.
So for a family of four, that means eighty-two thousand six hundred dollars a year, they would qualify for health insurance for their children.
So children and families that are in the top twenty-five percent of income earners would be eligible for government funded health insurance.
As the authors of this piece, David Hogberg and Paul Gessing Wright, will bet you didn't know that poverty reached so far up the income ladder, did you?
However, here is the P.A.S. That same legislation would expand the definition of a child even further.
By the way, this is from the American Spectator today, their website.
Under the Clinton Dingle legislation, states could offer Medicaid uh Medicaid coverage for families who have children up to age twenty five.
Did you hear me on that, ladies and gentlemen?
According to the Democrats' vision, those who are old enough to drive vote, enter the military, consume adult beverages, may as well still be in swaddling clothes when it comes to health insurance.
Now, how to interpret all this?
Well, this is quite simple.
This explains how the renewal and proposed expansion of the state children's health insurance program moves the country a huge step closer to a universal government-run health insurance.
Defining children to include individuals up to age 25 and covering those children up to 400% of the poverty level.
Hello, universal insured.
This is this is just as sneaky as that OSHA regulation that they tried to sneak in there that would ban ammo from being sold in gun shops because it's an explosive.
And then in addition to that, this is where they've tacked on the additional cigarette and cigar taxes.
So children are children at 25.
That would mean let's say you've got a man, a husband 25, his wife 24, they got married relatively young, had two kids.
All four of them would be kids.
All four would be children under this law, as proposed by Hillary Clinton and John Dingle.
Dave in Mansfield, Ohio.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Nice to have you.
By the way, the president is promising to veto this.
He's not going to stand for this.
Yes, Dave, thanks for waiting.
Thanks, Rush.
Uh uh.
Thanks for taking my call, and thanks for standing for the truth.
I just wanted to say that the Democrats and the anti-war left don't really understand the difference between a game and a war.
A game has a time limit, a specific declared endpoint.
A war ends in victory or defeat.
Quitting equals defeat.
The enemy understands this, and they are committed to victory.
We had better be committed to victory, or we will be defeated.
The war on terror is not a game.
Good point, but you're exactly right.
It is to them.
And the game does have an end, and it's the 08 election.
And the game is to get their power back.
And the game is to saddle whatever misery and damage that they can convince people are happening with this around the shoulders and the uh necks of Republicans, so that they can have a perpetual governing majority.
They they're they're they're trying to destroy the uh uh future of the Republican Party and the ability to win elections.
That you're exactly right.
That is their game.
They're going to destroy the country.
Not just not just the Republicans, the whole country's going down the drain.
They want to destroy it and rebuild it in their own image, right?
Yeah.
Right.
Uh well said, sir.
I appreciate that, uh, Dave.
Alice in Kingsport, Tennessee.
Thanks for calling.
I appreciate your uh patience as well.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
Um, just about your comment about Hillary and the pants suit.
A couple of years ago, I went to an exhibit at the Carter Library in Atlanta.
Uh first ladies' outfits, first ladies' gifts that they've been given, etc.
Yeah.
And in that um exhibit was Hillary's green pantsuit.
The other outfits for the women were coats or dresses, ball gowns, etc.
And um I just thought your comment of her pants suit Was uh right on.
Well, you're that's I'm I'm glad to have that as evidence.
This is once again proof that my instincts are worth following.
What she's talking about is Bill Clinton said on Good Morning America today after saying he he doesn't think his wife acts like a man, or is trying to be a man, doesn't think she's trying to be a man.
He said that uh nobody uh uh has done more for for women uh on health care than anything else in Hillary.
I said, what's she done for health care?
So what what she's done is teach women uh how to wear pantsuits and sit underneath portraits of Abraham Lincoln to diffuse any guilt that people might think you have.
On this uh honest health insurance, uh this little itty bitty children all the way up to age five, the president says uh you're gonna veto it.
Uh he says that expanding the program would enlarge the role of the federal government at the expense of private insurance.
Uh the the president's idea is five billion dollars in increased funding, uh threatened to veto the Senate compromise and a more costly expansion being contemplated in the uh in the House.
Uh my concern is when you expand eligibility, you're really beginning to open up an avenue for people to switch from private insurance to the government.
Yep, he's exactly right.
That's the whole point.
It's a sneak attack, it's an attempt to go a long way toward universal health coverage.
But guess what happens there, folks?
You know, we uh we can we conservatives here uh love and celebrate and promote entrepreneurship, creativity, rugged individualism, innovation, these kinds of things.
Uh one of the problems in the health care business today is there aren't any entrepreneurs in there.
There's a story or column actually in the Wall Street Journal today, opinion journal.com on the website, uh because it's already so regulated, and it is already so tied up, and it's already, I mean, Medicaid, Medicare, and all these other aspects of it, that there's just simply no room left for innovation.
And without innovation, it doesn't get better.
And we know that government does not improve things.
If government did, they'd run the be running the oil companies, they'd be and we'd be happy about it.
But government doesn't do anything right.
Imagine if when Fred Smith turned in his doctoral thesis, wherever it was, proposing his idea of Federal Express, by the way, you got a C on it.
Uh suppose the government said, you can't compete with the post office.
We own it, we got a monopoly there.
You can't do that.
Suppose they'd say the same thing to UPS.
We would be dependent on the Postal Service.
Nothing against you postal workers, but when you have a government agency or anything like that where there's no connection between price and service.
In other words, they don't care what it costs you, and they don't care what service they deliver, because there's nothing you can do about it.
You can't go anywhere else.
So you have to take their five-hour coffee breaks, you have to take the windows being open two hours a day.
You have to take going to a doctor wherever the government tells them to go.
What doctor's gonna want to go into the business with those kind of restrictions?
So the the problem with n with socialized anything or universal anything is that it means the government's running it.
And I don't know how many of you entrepreneurs out there would hire too many bureaucrats to put them in charge of responsible projects at your businesses.
Uh just based on your experience interacting with them.
It's not really the fault of the individuals, it's just what happens with bureaucracies.
They are by definition inefficient.
And when uh bureaucracies, generally the government bureaucracy is the only place you can go to deal with your problem if they have control of it, and they don't care.
What it costs you?
Because it doesn't matter.
You have nowhere else to go.
It doesn't matter what kind of service they give you, it doesn't matter because you have nowhere else to go.
You make that the circumstance in health care.
And it's gonna be the biggest regret you've ever had.
And that leads us here to this this figure of 40 million change changes all the time.
42 million, nine million children.
Who knows this?
I never hear the number challenged.
It was 40 million during the Clinton years, it's 42 million now, it's nine million uninsured.
How do we how do we know this?
And is it really relevant?
Is it really how many uninsured choose not to because they're young, they want to spend their money on other things, and they know there's always the emergency room where you have to get treated.
If the law you may die in there waiting to get treated, but but they have to eventually get to you, whether you're a corpse or whether you're still alive.
The uh I mean you you you you will destroy the whole concept of innovation, and there will be no room for it.
And what well, take that back.
What will happen if the government doesn't stop it first?
What will happen is what has happened in the U.K. The wealthy will say, hell with this.
I am not standing in line for six months for a transplant here or a simple knee replacement or whatever.
So they get their own doctors and open their own clinics.
And they'll they'll be charging market prices in there and people go flock to them, the people that can afford it.
Then the same argument's gonna happen again.
It's not fair, it's not fair the poor and these kids, 25-year-old kids, why they can't afford to go.
It's not fair, it's not fair.
Well, wait a minute.
You said that your government run health care was going to be the best we could do.
You I mean, it ought to be the case that the people going to their own private clinics are getting worse medical care than what you people in government are providing, because you said that's the best way to go.
Do you know why I saw the there's a story in the stack here?
I have been wrong about the figure that I have been using transfer payments on the war on poverty since 1964, Great Society War on Poverty, 11 trillion now.
11 trillion dollars has been transferred uh to try to, you know, the the redistribution of wealth has been transferred to try to wipe out poverty.
And of course, what is the number one presidential theme in the Democrat Party?
Poverty.
Well, it is with Barack and it is with Edwards, and free abortions, of course, that's number two.
Eleven trillion dollars.
We haven't solved it.
I guarantee you, whatever they end up with on this this new ship deal, not gonna solve it.
They're gonna be spending even more money than the cigar tax is gonna be fifty bucks.
Well, they couldn't be able to do that.
There won't be any cigars.
Uh but you destroy innovation, creativity, you're destroying solutions to problems.
And there won't be any room for it.
There's very little room for it now.
Here's uh Renel in uh Ispaming, Michigan.
You're next.
I'm glad you were patient.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
Nice to speak with you.
Thank you very much.
Um well, you know, I've been listening for a long time, and I'm afraid I have to agree with the other women I called.
I also like you very much.
Um the reason I'm calling is um I had gone back to school.
I'm gonna kind of drag back into the middle of the program.
Yeah.
I went back to school um after many years to go uh get my nursing degree.
And um, it's amazing to me how many times you see the people that are out there, the experts and the medical officials that are telling you about, oh, you know, this is bad and this causes obesity, and these people are amazingly overweight themselves.
And I'm thinking, if this is like the miracle method, wouldn't they be using it themselves?
Well, you know, now it in you understand here, uh uh Rennell, there's a couple factors here.
Number one, by the way, folks, she's talking about we had early on in the program a couple stories that experts are worried now that by 2015 75% of us will be overweight and uh most of them obese.
Uh and then there was a companion story that that uh that said that that uh kids are stigmatized when they're young and overweight and it lasts a lifetime, and I said, well, if both these stories are true, then the kids are gonna be fine in 2015 and beyond because everybody's gonna be fat and they'll be making fun of skinny people.
So that's that's that's what Renel here is is responding to.
Uh I have observed uh in in my limited numbers of trips to various hospitals, as pay well, patient visitor what what you say, but we gotta cut some of these people some slack because the patients that they have to roll around and push around, pick up and so forth, are themselves pretty large.
That's true.
And I would also say this.
I understand you you might you're looking uh at at this as uh maybe a sign of hypocrisy here, these people that are telling you what you have to do when they're not doing it themselves.
Well, I mean doesn't mean that they're wrong in what they're saying, it just means they may not be able to do it either.
Well, the other point that I'm uh trying to get at, too, is people will ask me, you know, I I'm totally uneducated, that's why I'm going back to school.
You know how I've maintained my weight after, you know, twenty years of marriage and four kids and everything.
And uh, you know, filling me, I was thought, you know, I eat everything in moderation and you know, exercise occasionally.
But um I've been wrong all this time because ever since you know Al Gore came out with this carbon credit thing.
Yeah, I'm thinking I've never been a smoker my entire life.
So I've unwittingly been using my you know, non-smoking as basically health credits.
See?
So when I go to the restaurant, I can have an adult beverage or a brownie, and I all this time I never realized it for every pack of cigarettes.
I didn't smoke.
It must be a health care credit.
And I'm thinking, geez, maybe this is the whole new idea.
And obviously has to have a genetic attachment here, too.
Otherwise because it was happening without your knowledge.
Now, uh do you really because you just talked about having adult beverage in a brownie.
Oh, yeah.
You do you really eat in moderation?
Uh yeah, I guess I do.
I mean, I eat whatever I like.
When you sit down to eat dinner, and let's say I've noticed women that do this.
I don't care.
Appetizer.
Apt to be one egg roll.
A lot of women will have one bite of it push away, it's it.
Then here comes a salad, five or six bikes, here comes the entree, half of that is that what you do?
No, I have to say, I eat until I'm full and then I'm done.
Although it was very hard to train my husband who was raised in a large family, you know, and you clean your plate.
So I it took a while to train him into the fact of when I'm done eating, I'm done eating.
But you know, that now I don't mean to confuse people here, but uh you know, the the the brain sends a signal when you're full.
Mm-hmm.
Not the stomach.
Right.
And sometimes it happens later in some people and others, and sometimes it doesn't matter.
Sometimes people will just keep eating anyway for whatever they like, the taste of it or or what have you.
Your disciplines being able to recognize when you're full and stop.
Well, and I like to eat.
I guess I'm uh foodie, but you know, when I'm full, I'm full.
But I'm definitely a carnivore too, though.
I'm not a non-meat eater or a non-carb eater or well, okay with it.
It's uh it sounds like you're just one of the lucky ones.
Well, friends of mine go and they have a salad or they'll eat rice cakes or whatever.
Some people have to do that.
I'm convinced that it's the lettuce that's putting on the weight.
You know, I that's the problem.
Well, I've appreciated talking to you, uh uh.
You bet have a have have a have a great weekend.
Uh a brief timeout here, folks.
Back with more after this.
Okay, one final news item here before we go back to the phones.
Uh Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack.
This bill was proposed by uh by Peter King uh and it was in the uh aftermath of the flying imams of those uh six of them that got on an airplane in Minneapolis and started behaving in manner similar to what was reported of what happened on the the the flights on nine eleven.
So some passengers and flight crew reported them.
And uh the imams try to sue airline and the passengers and all that.
So they introduced this legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior.
I mean, the government itself is telling us to do this.
Be vigilant out there.
Keep an eye out, keep a sharp eye out for suspicious behavior.
Now the Democrats are trying to take this out.
This this legislation moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon and will implement final recommendations from the uh the nine eleven commission.
And Peter King said Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens who in good faith report suspicious activity to the cops or law enforcement.
It's a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves into radical Islamists.
It does.
And what is in what in the world?
What in the world of de w what what's the benefit to the Democrats of this?
A trial lawyer?
All right.
How dare you try to limit lawsuits is the answer to the question, ladies and gentlemen.
The trial lawyers.
This is a potential gold mine out there, waiting to be raked in.
Glad you asked.
Fort Payne, Alabama.
This is Bill.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
I've been listening, been listening to you since uh you uh broadcast from uh New Orleans during the Mardi Gras in the late 80s.
Yeah, that was a fun, fun time.
Um I just wanted to uh say how great America is because only in America could I do what I did for ten years, which was uh play music in Florida, uh, and I was uh at the poverty line or below, according to uh the national statistics, but uh only in America could I make five hundred dollars a week doing what I want to do, only working eighteen hours a week and go out and party after I got through every night.
So you're a DJ in a club.
No, I thought I uh I uh played Saxon sang with a bowl.
Oh, okay.
You're a musician.
Yes, sir.
You're a musician working in those smoky boozy clubs late at night, eighteen hours a week, five hundred bucks a week.
You were in the poverty line, and you were you're you're calling to say you had a great time.
You enjoyed your life.
That's exactly right.
And uh my I also have two children that uh spent six weeks with me every summer that uh love to come to the beach, and I managed to pay my child support and subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter.
And uh it's just a matter of living below your means, living in a small place and uh and watching what you spend.
Man has his priorities straight, folks.
Uh uh, are you still at that level or was that some years ago?
Uh uh that was uh a few years ago.
I I play uh more for my own entertainment.
Now I have a little studio in my basement and then uh in the restaurant business now.
Wait a minute, you mean you're no longer in poverty?
Uh no, I'm married to a woman who makes more money than I do.
Uh but that doesn't matter.
You moved out of the poverty.
You've uh you moved out of the bottom fifth quintile.
Uh yes, I'm up.
I'm not too uh.
That's not supposed to happen.
No, wait, that's not supposed to happen.
If you listen to Democrats, this is John Edwards, poverty is permanent.
You're born into it.
In fact, you shouldn't be born in it.
You should be aborted if you get pri if you're if you're uh conceived to uh poverty level parents.
Nobody should have to grow up in the horrible circumstances, as the you know, the uh pro bort crowd says.
And Edwards and this gang would love for everybody to think that poverty's permanent.
Once you're born to it, you're in it.
Uh people move in and out of different income quintiles uh constantly throughout their lives.
Sterling, Illinois.
Hello, Jim.
Great to have you with us on the show.
Hiya, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
I have a little gem here.
It's from uh a PBS, White Angle program that aired pre-9-11.
A British reporter by the name of Gwyn Roberts interviewed uh people in Iraq pre-uh 9-11, and he interviewed an Iraqi terrorist camp commander who said that they had to spruce up their camp, and on graduation day, a big Mercedes limo drove into the camp.
Kusay jumped out and opened the door for a very tall man who was Osama bin Laden.
And he also interviewed an arms dealer in Syria who was involved in relocating Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
I've got to find out about this.
This I haven't said, and I I I've got to run here because I just looked at the clock and I want to pass one bit of information.
A judge has dismissed Valerie Plann's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration for leaking her identity.
Uh just just hit, don't know any details.
I have to run.
Thanks for the call, Jim.
You all have a great weekend.
Roger Hedgecock will be here tomorrow, and uh be back uh Monday, and we'll rev it up then and be ready to go.
Stay tight.
Okay, my friends, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can.
As I said, back on Monday.
▲
Export Selection