All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:38
August 1, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Lots to do in this hour.
Still lots to go here in the uh stacks of stuff.
And uh programming reminder, I will be out tomorrow.
It is uh a super secret meeting at a faraway place.
Uh it is not a vacation day, it's not golf.
Well, I'll be able to tell you about it on uh on on Friday, perhaps.
Anyway, we are back.
800 282-2882 is the phone number if you want to be on the program.
August 1st is the date.
This is our 19th anniversary here at the EIB Network, starting our 20th year.
We have a special guest today to help explain the significance of the 19th anniversary.
In the background is the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial.
Each one of these monuments is 19 feet high.
Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, Thomas Jefferson the third president, and 16 and three make 19 again.
What is so deep about this number 19?
Why are we standing on the Capitol steps today?
That number 19, when you have a nine, you have a womb that is pregnant.
And when you have a one standing by the nine, it means that there's something secret that has to be unfolded.
Abraham Lincoln statue, 19 feet high, 19 feet wide.
Jefferson, 19 feet high.
Sixteen, fourth, and the third president, nineteen.
Standing on the steps of the Capitol in the light of the sun.
Offering life to a people.
Would somebody explain to me why did anybody ever listen to this guy?
That's from the Million Man March 12 years ago.
And that march was treated as one of the most serious civil rights uh uh uh movement uh uh events in history.
And you go back 12 years ago, it's just inane.
All right, is it not funny to look at the drive-by media reaction to Rupert Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal?
You got liberal members of the bank Prof Trust quit in disgust.
Um Washington Post front page headline: Murdoch seizes Wall Street Journal in five billion dollar coup.
Uh the let's see, that the the the New York Times Dow Jones deal gives Murdoch a coveted prize.
The Daily News, Roop takes the prize, Wall Street Journal owner selling out to peddler of posts.
The journalists at the journal they go, Oh, they're demanding assurances.
Assurances of what?
The union is saying, well, okay, we're gonna make sure that we get fair contracts here in the union uh marketing and uh so forth.
The Times also said that the deal gives a larger voice in national affairs to an owner whose properties often mirror his own conservative product uh politics.
As the New York Times doesn't mirror the politics of that little pinch.
Uh who uh who runs the place now, they're just beside themselves, but as I pointed out earlier, if they really think Murdoch's gonna destroy the paper in a competitive world, they would be happy about that, wouldn't they?
They'd be happy about it.
New York Times, all these other papers are dropping circulation, dropping ad revenue.
If if they think Murdoch's gonna destroy the thing, then fine.
That should be they should be happy about that.
Uh what it is, folks, it's just more evidence that their monopoly is histoire.
He's conservative, the drive-by's are liberal, and they are beside themselves.
All right, congressional Democrats pulled back yesterday from a final series of votes on Iraq policy before the August recess, hoping a month spent at home with frustrated voters by the course of the war would persuade more Republicans to join Democrats in backing a troop withdrawal.
The Democrats also said that the Mertha proposal, which is the typical Mertha proposal, no need to go into details, uh, is dead.
And Mertha stormed off the House floor yesterday when they killed his proposal.
Party leaders ultimately decided the disadvantages Of waiting until September to bring these votes back outweighed any advantage.
The strategy reflects a calculation by Democrat leaders in both the House and Senate that the best approach politically is to deny Republicans the opportunity to put themselves on record against the current policy in Iraq.
What utter and total spin.
They don't have the votes to pass these resolutions, and they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto.
And they every time they take these votes, they end up losing uh votes uh in the Senate and in the House.
But the drive bys are spinning this for them.
Oh, it's just perfect.
Yeah, we we won we do we don't we want to deny the Republicans a chance to go on record distancing themselves from the White House.
All right, let's let's accept that just for the sake of this discussion.
Fine, then the whole thing's political.
Exactly as we've told you.
If they really thought you wanted out of Iraq, if they really thought you wanted to lose, if they really thought they could pull it off, they wouldn't be waiting.
If that's what they really wanted.
They are trying to weaken the presidency, weaken morale of the troops, secure defeat.
They're trying to scare Republicans into joining them, and now they say we want to deny the Republicans a chance to go on record, distancing themselves from the president.
Republicans aren't gonna do that.
The Republicans haven't done that yet.
There's a fascinating quote here from uh uh the progressive caucus member.
This is the the arch libs in the House, Jan Shikowski, Democrat Illinois, uh they met Tuesday morning, agreed that they would not support any Iraq measure that does not include a firm timetable for withdrawal.
We don't want to see any retreat.
They don't want to see any retreat.
They're not gonna play the the the progressive caucus is not gonna give an inch.
They're not gonna surrender on their desires to get out of this w and yet they want us to surrender and lose uh in Iraq.
Now the New York Times treatment of this kind of interesting.
Uh they they they take the Democrats at their word that this is just a strategy, the media's spinning for them.
Uh Congress not expected to vote on Iraq policy before recess.
Uh you also have to factor the surge here.
The surge uh, if it wasn't working, would they be doing this?
The fact that the surge is working is a um is a problem.
Then what is this?
Uh this is the It's right.
The Hill.com, Capitol Hill newspaper lawmakers, comma aides say Murph Iraq withdrawal proposal is dead.
And that's the progressive caucus.
Uh, they they wanted a firm timetable, they wouldn't budge, they they wouldn't surrender, they're not going to retreat, yet that's what they want the the country to do.
That aspect didn't make the New York Times story.
If you go to the end of this, uh, the story in the Hill, the Democrats expressed concern that the measures, especially Ebercrumbit Tanner, that's his Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii, uh, would give Republicans cover to say they had voted for a change in course in Iraq without taking concrete steps uh to remove troops.
Abercrombie said that argument doesn't hold water.
He said Democrat leaders should have scheduled a vote on his bill if the Democrat Party wants to go home and say they did something on Iraq.
So the progressive caucus, all angry smirth storms off the uh off the floor.
Uh they're just as upset as they can be that their the their whole proposal was tabled.
Uh and believe me, folks, it's not about the fact that the Republicans were being denied a chance to distance themselves uh from Bush, that the Democrats didn't.
They don't have the votes.
They don't have the votes to override.
They couldn't pass anything if they tried now, and it would look like a bunch of bumbling, do nothing, do nothing good Congress people messing around.
Uh again, the Democrats would show themselves as ineffective.
Harry Reid, I mean, these Reed and Pelosi both are two of the most incompetent leaders in the history of Democrat guys and and wiggle guys that ran the House and ran the Senate.
These two are just bumbling incompetent boobs.
Back here in just a second.
And back to the phones we go.
Chris in uh in Northampton, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited.
Uh you're up, sir.
Rush, how the heck are you?
Oh, I'm Great, thank you very much.
I'm doing better than I deserve.
In fact, I said that to a customer on the phone the other day, and he said, Hey, you sound like Rush.
I said, Well, you're sort of close there.
He says what do you say?
Having more fun than I should have.
That's right.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
There you go.
You say you're doing better than you deserve.
It's a it is the same thing.
Happy anniversary, Megadiddos from one of the country's five percenters.
Now I wanted to comment on your uh your blue jean comment.
Yeah.
You're going about this the whole way the whole the whole wrong way, you know.
You gotta get them just a little bit baggy.
Not ground draping baggy, that's you know, like you're some kind of a gang or something.
But uh and you can't wear underwear with them.
Yeah.
Right.
Well, th that make him even more uncomfortable.
No, no, no, no.
Trust me.
You gotta try.
I mean, and I'm not I'm not some hippie from the sixties, you know, mid forties.
Come on, let's face it.
It's it's like a Volvo or a sub.
It's uh it's it's a it's it's a Prius.
It's it's a liberal status symbol.
Jeans are liberal status symbols.
I don't think so.
Yeah, at least they were.
I know everybody wears them now.
It's another battle we've lost.
Absolutely.
They used to be a status symbol or a compromised our sartorial splendor and we run around looking like a bunch of hippies.
And I'm not gonna do it.
Well, just wanted to call and wish you happy anniversary.
I appreciate that, Chris.
Thanks much.
We go to Earliesville, Virginia, and uh and this is Jackie.
Hi, Rush Ditto's and congratulations on your nineteen years.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
But I I think you have a little way to go.
My father worked for Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal for sixty years.
What did he do?
Well, he started out as a messenger for the journal.
Um he delivered uh news items and so forth down to uh the various people around Wall Street.
And when he retired in nineteen eighty seven, he was the executive editor of the Dow Jones News Services.
Wow.
He did not graduate from high school.
But he knew he could do it.
Awesome story.
Love stories.
Tremendous story, and I have something else to tell you, though.
He hated journalists and he loved reporters.
Journalists he felt were the elites, and the reporters reported the facts and they left the opinion out.
And he couldn't stand the people who came out of journalism schools.
He said, I don't want any journalists working for me.
I want reporters.
And um he was really suspicious about years ago, not too many years ago when the Bancrofts took over.
Yeah.
Um no, the Bancrofts have been there since uh I don't know, oh 1902 or three, everything.
Yeah, but I think there was some kind of a a management change within there, and um they started adding um all the frills to the paper.
They became almost like a um USA Today.
Oh, you mean like what they're gonna accuse Murdoch of doing?
Probably, but worse, I guess.
Yeah.
Anyway, um, and when they started well, he's probably rolling in his grave right now because they've added the front page ad and they've all these five sections and all this color, and he just wanted news.
He wanted to report the news to the people.
He did like the post.
He thought they were um editorially honest.
Which the New York Post?
Yes.
Well and um let's see.
I knew there was something else.
Um keep up the good work.
And I am a student at the EIB um Institute.
Um I live in Earlysville, which is in Albemarle County in Virginia, and this is where um Charlottesville is.
I am just steeped in liberalism.
You are surrounded.
Oh, it's awful.
But I always introduce myself as uh being a little to the right of Vatola Bahun.
Well, and uh that kind of ends the conversation right there.
Well, it's great to know that you're in the audience, so thanks so much.
It's a great, great, great story about your uh your dad.
You know, all businesses change.
Um they uh it just it's uh everything changes.
Uh some people resist it because of tradition, others resist it because change is new and new is hard.
Um but uh everything has to change.
The old gray lady started printing uh pictures in color.
Uh and then they've all migrated to the internet now.
So um your dad was uh was a uh a traditionalist in a holdout, but uh very you know at some point you know everything is gonna be reworked, uh redesigned uh because there's competition and the uh American public change, and that's the reason people who do business with the American public have to try to stay at least where the public is, or maybe if they're fortunate, a step ahead.
Libertyville, Illinois.
John, uh welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes.
Um you say something quite often that I think is uh pretty glaring contradiction.
I'm wondering if you can clear it up for me.
No.
Um I've heard you repeatedly say that the Democrats don't want to win the war and they want to pull our troops out because they want us to fail in Iraq, and yet you quite often turn around and say that the dirty little secret that the Democrats, the all the top-tier Democratic candidates for president don't tell anyone is that if they were elected, they wouldn't actually pull the troops out of Iraq.
So which is it?
It's both, and and I've I've I've I've not contradicted myself.
It says you have um you might have missed a a a central element of the explanation.
It's very simply this.
The Democrats would love to be able to pull out of there while Bush is president and saddle him with the loss.
They are trying to destroy the presidency.
They are trying to harass the pres.
They're trying to destroy the U.S. military.
These are liberals.
They have no love for the U.S. military.
They have no respect for it.
They would love to be able to engineer a defeat in Iraq.
They are willing to put their own personal power uh uh desires ahead of national security.
This is the point.
But if they are unable to do this, and they will not be able to, they will not they will never pass these resolutions, they're never going to have enough votes to override a presidential veto.
The only thing they can do is to defund it.
And they will not do that because that will get them in real trouble with the American people.
The American people don't want to lose.
The American people have respect for the military, and they and they're not of the of the mindset that they were during Vietnam when the money was cut off.
So they're going to be unable to secure defeat.
If they win the White House, the last thing they're going to do is pull those troops out of there and make it look like they are the ones that engineered the defeat.
They are convinced that if they succeed in getting troops pulled out or set a timetable that Bush has to abide by, that it will redound negatively to Bush.
They will take credit for it, but they will also saddle what will happen afterwards, the massacres and all of these things, the genocide that will take place over there, and whatever future terrorist growth there is, all will be blamed on Bush, and their accomplices in the drive-by media will be amplifying their message and their talking points.
But if they fail to do that, they are not going to bring all of that down on themselves.
The Democrat Party is not going to sit there in January of 2009 and order the troops home, especially if the progress continues, because they are not going to saddle themselves with defeat, and they're not going to destroy their own presidency.
They're not going to destroy their own party.
They're trying to destroy conservatism, the Republican Party, uh, and the presidency right now.
They're not going to do that to themselves.
There's no contradiction whatsoever.
Ken in Orange County uh California.
Welcome, sir.
Welcome and uh happy anniversary to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Uh I just wanted to say there is a speech you made about four months ago that mirrored something that I experienced.
I was doing some lobbying up in uh uh Sacramento at the at the end of the day, I was standing on the fate capital steps.
It was kind of courtesy visit.
I'm looking and looking at the lights coming on at twilight, and I realize I live in a country where the toilets flush, the lights come on, and many other things, and probably in March or April, you made a speech that why are all these people here in the drive-by and on the left and around the world hating us is because we have plumbing that works.
We have lights that go on.
You can go from Orange County, California to Orange County, New York, and you don't need a passport.
And I want to thank you for your optimism and your sense of humor, because we need more of both.
Well, thank you very much.
Uh I can imagine I've I've stood on the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento.
I've seen the site that uh that you saw.
Uh and it's uh it's beautiful.
It it's actually it's a beautiful setting.
It's uh it's a beautiful building.
The people in there are somewhat questionable sometimes, but the uh there's got some you get some fruitcakes and nuts in there, some really looney tunes, but you're gonna have that in every legislative body.
Well, I mean, you know, I I'm I'm glad that you um uh mentioned that.
Uh the uh I think a lot of people, and it's it's hard not to take for granted the uh prosperity, the abundance, and the affluence that uh that we have in this country, and and we have high expectations as a result of it.
Uh and we should.
You know, we're the world leader.
We're a growing economy, and we uh we uh certainly want to keep this up for future generations.
But it does require a constant reminding of oneselves of just how uh unique we are compared to most people in the world and how fortunate we are.
And uh keep in mind what it was that produced all this so that we can continue to do those things so the country remains strong and gets even stronger.
So thank you very much.
You know it, and I know it.
In another unbelievable story.
The headline's really all you need here.
Uh this is the uh the New York Times Democrats scrambling to expand eavesdropping.
Yes, you heard right, under pressure from President Bush.
Democrat leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government's electronic wiretapping powers.
Dingy Harry.
In a statement Monday night said, We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security.
What an absolute hoot.
We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us, the Democrats, to fix the problem.
There wasn't a problem until you guys came along and tried to dismantle it.
Then to accuse the Republicans of gaining partisan political advantage at the expense of our nation's Dingy Harry, if you read a whole story here, is blame uh blaming Republican in name only uh Republicans for endangering American citizens by threatening to investigate President Bush and eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.
The Chutzpah, they have spent two years trying to nail Bush on this.
And now all of a sudden they're blaming Republicans for it.
These I'm telling these clowns have done all they can to eliminate the power inherent in the presidency during Bush's term.
And now they're hastening to restore it in time, and guess why?
Herself, Hillary Clinton.
The terrorist surveillance program is now about 50 percent as powerful as it used to be.
Uh and besides the headbangers now know uh that uh what we're doing.
They the whole exposure is this to the New York Times blew the program sky high.
The program's been compromised.
Thank you, Pinch Schultzberger, who of course doesn't bring his liberal ideology to his newspaper like Rupert Murdoch does.
All right, it's global warming time, folks.
Incredible global warming stack.
Here is Al Gore.
Oh no.
Oh no.
All right, let's get right to it.
But the purpose of the global warming update, by the way, is to illustrate the folly, the fraud, the deceit, the hoax, the behind the whole scientific claim that humans are destroying the climate and causing it to change.
We have discussed Heidi Cullen.
She is the the uh the info uh climate babe at the Weather Channel.
New York Times did a profile on Ms. Cullen yesterday into the limelight and the politics of global warming.
And uh in case you're wondering, she's big she global warming, yep, it's happening, and she proposed once the decertification of uh TV meteorologists by the American Meteorological Society if they didn't believe global warming, which caused me to call her a Stalinist, which she was asked about in this piece.
But in case you're wondering, how does this this woman she'd never been in TV before?
She'd never worked in TV.
She was researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder.
She got a phone call from an executive at the Weather Channel, which she auditioned for a program on climate and global warming that producers were contemplating.
She was a climatologist.
She had a doctorate from the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, but she was dubious.
She rarely watched television.
She had never even seen the weather channel.
So they asked her, why um why did you decide to do this?
And uh what's what's uh what what do you what do you do here?
Why why why how did you come to your views?
Why have become a media junkie?
She said, I read far more widely now than when I was a researcher.
Also, I watch a lot of TV, which means all the news programs, frontline, even ESPN, which I watch to learn how to write punchy leads.
I also listen to NPR, I check out Greenwire, and I troll the scientific journals like science, nature, geophysical research letters.
She's a drive-by news junkie.
It'll do it to you every time.
No wonder she buys into this global warming stuff.
And they asked her later on in the story, um uh Rush Limbaugh called you a Stalinist.
Uh, did you suggest that meteorologists who doubt global warming should be fired?
I didn't exactly say that.
I was talking about the American Meteorological Society's seal of approval.
I was saying the AMS should test applicants on climate change as part of their certification process.
What she said was that if they didn't believe it, that they shouldn't be certified, and if you're not certified, television station is not going to hire you.
So it's uh six of one half dozen of another from Kansas.
As August arrives, Wichita has recorded zero days this year of temperatures reaching one hundred or more.
None.
Wichita hasn't made it this far into a summer without reaching one hundred degrees since 1928.
Herbert Hoover was president.
The technological innovation sweeping the country was something called radio.
Extreme heat has been about the only thing missing from the weather this year.
And this is the case in a lot of the Midwest.
I have all these cities put into my iPhone, and I check the weather to I'm amazed at how cool it's been in Kansas City and in Cape Girarda where I grew up, and in St. Louis.
How cool it's been in the Northeast.
In fact, a summer like no other is the story.
Or a headline to a story here.
Never before in recorded history have there been less sunshine in Oslo in July.
According to Statistics Norway.
Clouds blocking the sun brought exceptionally much rain.
This is the wettest July in 67 years.
The month of July was cool.
Nobody's going to the beaches.
What is this?
This Europe's supposed to be baking, not flooding with global warming, according to the models and according to the movies and all the documentaries.
The uh by the way, the genie is now officially out of the bottle.
One of the things I have told you over and over again that the primary purpose of the United Nations, the primary reason it exists, is to fleece the United States.
It is made up of a lot of third world thugs and dictators, otherwise socialists and liberals.
Uh resent the fact that there's such a great disparity in prosperity in this country versus other countries in the world, and we are to be made guilty for it, and we are to give our money up.
Climate change alarmism met the infamous oil for food scam at the UN Tuesday.
This is from her buddies at Newsbusters.
If you had any questions regarding why the UN has been the point man on driving global warming hysteria throughout America and around the world, they were all answered.
In fact, the genie was led out of the proverbial bottle by this Reuters headline, UN climate change meeting aims at rich countries.
The first UN special session on climate change focused on the world's rich countries on Tuesday, as policymakers urged long-standing polluters to shoulder much of the burden for cutting greenhouse gases.
There it is.
United Nations admits it.
They're not hiding it, just like liberals in this country are becoming more emboldened each day to share with us what they really think.
This is nothing more than a fleece, a power grab, and they hope to make it succeed by making you feel guilty of sin for destroying the planet with your extravagant lifestyles.
And if they accomplish that, then you will go along with having your taxes raised and money going to the United Nations.
From um the Times Online in the UK.
Motorists wanting to buy an environmentally friendly car should choose a diesel model and forego energy draining luxuries like air conditioning according to a government campaign that ranks vehicles according to their carbon emissions.
The Department for Transport, i.e., the government, is making an unprecedented intervention in the UK into the new car market by telling drivers which are the greenest models in every class.
The only petrol car is the Toyota Prius hybrid.
Everything else they're recommending is diesel.
The underlying message is that a diesel car is the best option to help save the planet, unless you can't afford a hybrid.
A diesel car will typically folks how idiotic this save the planet.
Diesel is the best way.
Save the don't buy a car with air conditioning.
And you realize that there are kook wackos that eat this up, and then they start, they go out and do this, and then they start demanding you do it too, because that's who liberals are.
They're not content to live and let live.
You have got to do everything they do.
You've got to eat what they eat, you've got to say what they say.
You can't say what they don't agree with, or they'll shut you up or try to.
Political correctness, hello, anyone.
And now you've got to go buy a diesel car.
Because if you don't, we can't save the planet.
It's getting more and more outrageous.
Now I actually think I'm very optimistic about this.
I was talking about this with Mr. Snerdley and some other people the other day.
I think I think in three to four years we can stop this.
I think in three to four years this can be illustrated to enough people in this country in the world.
Exactly what a hoax this whole thing is and what its real purpose is.
Uh much needed rain down here in South Florida.
Don't need the lightning, though.
Remember last week, we had a great caller named Deuce.
And Deuce was calling, and he was in Kansas City, but I'm not sure I recall that correctly, but I think he was in Kansas City.
Deuce was wanted to point out that Bill Clinton, as first husband, first whatever, if Hillary becomes president, will will have some traditional duties.
Uh that uh that he would be Hillary's roaming ambassador.
Here is here's a portion of the conversation I had with Duke.
Well, isn't that what the first lady does?
Is gonna you know she visits with the wife of the uh of the uh president or king or whatever, and I hadn't thought of that.
That's right.
Hillary's gotta take care of the of the visiting head of state so Clinton gets his wife.
That that uh there was deuce, and I think it was Jefferson City, Missouri's where he said Deuce from Jeff City.
So last night a nightline reporterette Kate Snow interviewed Clinton.
And she said uh if she wins, Bill Clinton said that he won't necessarily avoid traditional first lady duties, the high tees, the traditional ribbon-cutting ceremonies, their staples of the position.
I wouldn't mind actually doing some of that work, some of the uh, you know, some of the more social work.
Yeah, wouldn't the more social work?
I love uh hanging around with the wives of these guys that are running a country so forth while Hillary's in with that.
Deuce called it.
Deuce from Jefferson City.
By the way, ABC News also reporting that emigration, emigration with an E from the United States to Canada has increased dramatically, and that the people leaving are mostly liberals.
Hollywood stars never get around to making good on their threats to leave, but many everyday liberal folks are carrying through on their plans.
A number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high with a 20% increase over the previous year almost double the number who moved in uh in 2000, a current increase fueled largely by social and political reasons.
Those who are coming have the highest level of education.
These aren't people who can't get a job in the States.
They're coming because many of them don't like the politics, the Iraq war, and the security situation in the U.S. By comparison, Canada's attention free place.
People feel safer.
Liberals leaving America for Canada, yes.
Finally following through on their on their promises.
Jason Lincoln, Nebraska.
Hello and welcome to the program.
Good good afternoon, sir.
Can you hear me okay?
Yeah, hear you fine.
Okay, good.
Um, I know we don't have a lot of time.
I I have a couple of questions.
Yeah.
Um I have a question about FDR.
Yeah.
And I was wondering what um was what what were Democrats like before him?
And what motivated him to make this liberal push?
I mean, almost.
Um power.
Power.
Power.
There have always been liberals.
Okay now, what have what were Democrats like before him?
You know, the Democrats have always been well, in the modern era in the last century, they've always been the home to American liberalism.
Right.
But there were many more mainstream Democrats.
You go back and you listen to a speech on family values by Hubert Humphrey in 1968, who was considered a liberal in his day, you think you're listening to Ronald Reagan.
Uh FDR had one purpose in a and and a lot of, you know, a lot of people uh are trying to run around.
Amity Schlays has a great book about this, by the way, called The Forgotten Man.
I would urge all of you to read this book.
It explains exactly what happened in the in in the New Deal or what the whole purpose of it was, which is something my father, by the way, it was always his opinion.
And I grew up believing that the whole purpose of the New Deal was to entrench the Democratic Party in majority power for 50 years, to create as many dependent citizens in this country on the government, get them waking up every day and almost bowing down, saluting Washington, so much so that they needed it in order to survive.
It was purely partisan politics disguised as compassion.
And that's where this whole playbook actually started being written.
Uh by uh by FDR back in uh in in those days.
Um let's see.
Let me go to line three.
Joy, I I've got here about about 45 seconds, but I wanted to get to you before I had to go.
Hello.
Hi, Joy.
I got 45 seconds.
Okay.
The first time I heard about you, there was a little blurb in Time Magazine uh that summer.
And I was driving down the Ohio Turnpike and fiddling with the radio, and I found you, and I listened for a few minutes, and then you came on with that Batula City commercial.
Yeah.
And I thought to myself, what in the devil?
Who could be dumb enough to open a store like that?
Everybody remembers the first time they heard this show.
Everybody remembers it.
A brief time out here, folks, and we will be right back.
I I knew it.
I did the story on how printer dust is the next environmental hazard.
Fox is doing a big segment with this expert, all earnest and focused about how dangerous it is for all of us to be next to our laser printers.
It's just gonna be just like the SUV.
Mark my words.
I'll see you Friday, folks.
Super secret meeting tomorrow at a faraway place.
▲
Export Selection