All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 14, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:39
September 14, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Wrapping up the fastest week in media on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday!
Yay!
Thank you.
And as always, making the most of every precious broadcast moment here on the EIB network, Rush Lindbull, safely ensconced in the prestigious at Till of the Hun chair at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No graduates, no degrees.
The learning never stops.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I want to go back.
I need to make a correction, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, in discussing the fact that Michelle Obama and uh Elizabeth Edwards are the surrogates that uh are criticizing Hillary during the Democrat primary as I asked a question.
You think this is going to happen in a general when we get to the generals are going to be Fred Thompson's wife or Huckabee's wife or Rudy's wife goes out and attacks Hillary.
And Snerdly in there shouting, better not be.
Well, I I have to correct myself.
Rudy already is, and in a big way, and he's been doing it all week.
And he's been doing it himself.
He's been all over the place just ripping Hillary one up and one down for her um comments of General Prayus about suspending uh disbelief or suspending belief, whatever it was that she meant to say he finally got his ad in the uh in the New York Times, and he got it for sixty five grand.
The New York Times, by the way, is explaining this.
They've changed their story on the pricing of the ads.
One of the things that they say is that when you call the advertising department want to run an ad, the advertising department doesn't care about the content.
They just quote you the price.
And remember what I was telling you uh yesterday?
There apparently this is what the Times is saying.
There are different rates depending on what you want and when.
If you call up and say, I want full page tomorrow and I want it here, then they charge you top of the rate card.
If you call up and say, I want a full page wherever it can go, and I want it to run within the next three days, then the rate comes down.
Uh so the more you demand, the more you pay.
That's that's what they're saying.
I think Rudy got the rate.
I think Rudy got the $65,000 rate.
I'm not sure I'm gonna have to double check that, but uh I f uh not sure anybody's actually confirming that.
Uh but I nevertheless wanted to mention it.
Now, in the last uh broadcast hour here, I was asking, and I did so in the first hour too.
I was asking questions of all of you.
What is it that recommends anybody in elected office to be an expert in anything other than that?
Uh I've I've asked often, would would you, if you run an important business, is there anybody in government in the bureaucracy that you would hire to run it for you?
And the answer's no.
So then why is it that people just assume that when Democrats come out and say they can fix health care, that the healthcare professionals are screwing up?
Why'd anybody believe them?
When they come out and say they know better about what to do in Iraq and a war on terror than four-star generals.
Why does anybody believe them?
Uh now it's one thing to ask the question, but I, in addition to asking it, provide answers that uh also provide the reason for the question being asked.
Uh front page magazine on Wednesday of this week published an interview with Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who has been doing all of the expert work analyzing the census data, latest census data on poverty.
And this the couple key questions and answers here that I think will illustrate just how government does not work, and therefore why anybody should turn over the important workings of the private sector in this country to anybody, particularly Democrats, is just ridiculous.
First question So is it true that the official poverty rates stuck at about 12 or 13%?
Rector, it hasn't varied terribly much since the beginning of the war on poverty.
Question, despite how many trillions being spent, rectors, since the beginning of the war on poverty, we have now spent over eleven trillion dollars to eradicate it.
Can I put that another way?
That's 11 trillion dollars of the redistribution of wealth.
That's 11 trillion dollars of transfer payments.
11 trillion of your dollars have been spent on the war on poverty and it hasn't changed in well, forty-two years.
Where'd that money go and who got it is the question.
Rector.
Well, basically we have spent a lot of money, but we spent money in such a way that we displaced the work effort of the poor so that we didn't get very much net increase in income.
Rather than bringing people's incomes up, what we've done is supplanted work with welfare.
What you need to do in order to truly get improvements is to create a welfare system that requires work and encourages marriage, so that the recipient is moving towards self-sufficiency while receiving aid rather than receiving aid in lieu of his work efforts.
Now some of you might think this is cynicism, but it's not.
That's precisely the purpose of the war on poverty.
It was precisely the purpose of the raw deal.
That is to create the situation where recipients receive aid and don't have to work.
Now we've had welfare reform in the latter part of the 90s, and there have been some significant changes there.
But for the longest time, that was the point of it.
That's what liberals want to do with virtually every human being they can in this country.
Next question.
We've known for a long time about these problems with the welfare system.
Is there any progress being made to fix it?
Well, in 1996, we reformed one small welfare program, aid to families with dependent children by requiring the recipients or part of the recipients to perform work in exchange for the benefits.
As a result of that, we got a huge decline in welfare roles, a huge surge in employment, and record drops in black child poverty.
Unfortunately, the rest of the welfare system, the remaining 69 programs, remain unreformed.
Until we reform those programs in a similar way, we will make no further progress against poverty.
Um let me search for one more question.
Oh, here we go.
The second major reason that uh second major reason that uh uh children are poor is a single parenthood is single parenthood in the absence of marriage.
Close to two-thirds of all poor children live in single parent families.
What we find is that if a never married mother married the father of her children, again, about 70% of them would immediately be raised out of poverty.
The father worked.
Most of these men who are fathers without being married, in fact, have jobs and have a fairly good capacity to support the family.
Well, how many of those 37 million are children and why do they count them as poor people?
They are counted as part of the household.
What they judge is the whole household's income.
Part of the reason the Census Bureau is telling us that we have 37 million poor people is that it judges families to be poor if they have incomes roughly less than $20,000 a year.
But it doesn't count virtually any welfare income as income.
So food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, get this figure.
All of the 600 billion that we spend assisting the poor every year is not counted as income when they go to determine whether a family is poor.
The reason I wanted to read that answer to you.
That's more than the defense budget, my friends in the left.
And we've got nothing to show for it.
So my point is this is clear an illustration of the ineffectiveness of these kinds of liberal-oriented programs to solve problems.
So why then give them any more?
Why give them the military?
Why give them health care?
Why give them the retail industry?
There is no reasonable answer to that question.
And if you want to know what Hillary care would look like, let me give you this story from the UK, from the UK Daily Mail.
A man with a broken ankle is facing a lifetime of pain because a health service hospital in the UK has refused to treat him unless he gives up smoking.
His name is John Nuttle.
He's 57.
He needs surgery to set the ankle, which he broke in three places two years ago because it didn't mend naturally with a plaster cast.
They've told him, and he's a builder, by the way.
They've they've told him that they will treat him only if he gives up smoking.
But the builder, former builder, has been able to break the habit, is now resigned to coping with the injury as he cannot afford private treatment.
He's in constant pain from the grating of the broken bones against each other and has been prescribed daily doses of morphine.
He's from Newland of Cornwall, broke the ankle in a fall in 2005.
Initially he refused surgery because he had caught a staph infection at a different hospital four years earlier.
He was terrified of history repeating itself.
He said, I'm in agony.
I've begged them to operate, but they won't.
I've tried my hardest to give up smoking, but I can't.
I got down to ten a week at one point, but they said that wasn't good enough.
I've paid my dues as a taxpayer, and now the National Health Service will not treat me.
Control, folks.
That's what liberalism is all about.
This is a little microcosm of the kind of health care you would get under Hillary care or Edwards Care or Obamacare or anything of the sort.
The government takes it over.
And people say, well, how can it rest?
How come it won't work?
Why do you say that?
Well, aside from the fact that none of these people are qualified.
Somebody show me Mrs. Clinton's resume.
Show me her experience in uh in the health care field.
But Rush, she cares.
I don't care.
She can care all she wants.
The thing she cares about scare me, but she can care also care doesn't accomplish anything.
But Rush, she really wants to fix show me the resume.
Show me where John Edwards has expertise in health care, in the health care system.
Show me it.
Same thing with Barack Obama.
Show me this.
You can't.
But Russ, they care so much.
Let me tell you what's going to happen.
If this all happens, the express purpose, these people, will be to get you as dependent on government as possible.
And by the way, for those of you who uh hate the rich and hate the wealthy and uh you want to get even with them, it ain't gonna fly in health care either.
What's gonna happen is this when the government runs the show and there aren't any competitors, and you get sick and you break your ankle and they won't fix it because you smoke.
Where are you gonna go?
You are SOL, folks.
There is nowhere for you to go.
What about the rich?
The rich will have their own private doctors.
The rich are not going to mess around with this gunk of a healer care system, and believe me, the market will be there for it for people who can afford it.
They'll be the doctors will be glad not to participate.
But Rush, what if Mrs. Clinton tells the doctors they have to participate in order to get Medicare?
The doctors will say, screw it, I'll gladly get out of Medicare if I can get a good clientele of people will pay what I have to charge in order to treat them.
And that's exactly what's going to happen.
And the very people that the poor and left want to get even with, the rich are not going to be subjected to all this.
But but but the average common ordinary everyday American will have nowhere else to go because you can go to your government bureaucrats and say, I I I need a heart transplant or whatever, and they well, go stand in line like at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or go stand in line at a post office, and we'll get to you when we can.
They look not going to care because they have no incentive to care.
Where else are you gonna go?
Go to Canada.
It's how it works there.
Go to the UK, it's exactly how it works there.
You note in this story about the builder.
He says he can't afford private care.
Well, that there are people who do and who can and who are getting it, even in the UK.
Same thing would happen here, folks.
Ha, how are you?
Your host for life, Rush Limbaugh serving humanity simply by showing up.
Here's Rudy last night, uh, Fox News channel uh with Sean Hannity explaining the uh the ad and the rate that they got.
Well, we got the rate, and they said they're going to uh consider running it tomorrow.
If they're not gonna run it tomorrow, they're gonna return on money to us.
Because uh apparently they give that rate if you if you take a group of days and not one particular day.
So we made the point to them that it seemed very suspicious to us that move on.org happened to have it On exactly the day that General Petraeus was uh was testifying, and it seemed to us that we wanted on the day after the president gave his speech.
Yeah.
Um so this is Rudy's.
We got the rate, exactly what I said to you.
If you give him a range of dates, you get the lower rate, but they can plug it in whenever they want.
If you demand a specific time, specific place in the paper, then you get the top of the rate card.
Uh one more question and answer Robert Rector.
This is this is also fascinating in trying to illustrate here how government does not work.
Uh question.
I've read that the national poverty rate declined steadily until it hit about 13% in 1965.
It's been stuck there since.
Is this true and why?
Rector, yes, poverty was declining rapidly before the war on poverty was created in the mid-1960s, but since that time the poverty rates basically stagnated.
And there are two reasons for it.
One is that none of the poverty spending is counted as income, so that it can't have an anti-poverty effect.
Which that's profound, folks.
I have known this, but that that is really profound.
If you have a family making less less than 20 grand and you give them 20 grand worth of uh benefits every year for whatever reasons.
Uh, but you don't count what you give them as income, then you you're able to count them as uh in poverty, and really the rate ought to be much lowered it is.
The second more important reason, though, is that all these programs discourage work and marriage, so that they, in fact, are pushing people deeper into poverty at the same time that they are giving them aid.
Now, along the same lines here, you know, I love it.
I we uh we have we're surrounded by these uh health Nazis.
And they're all leftists.
I mean, it's one thing.
If they want to go out and eat uh, you know, uh watercress vinaigrette, and they go prowl around the forests and eat berries that have fallen from the trees, fine and dandy, but don't tell the rest of us we have to do this.
And they run around and say, it's healthier, it's healthier, and it's good for the health care system of the country, and so forth and so on.
Well, this amazingly is from Reuters.
People who opt for a meal at a healthy restaurant often consume more calories than they would dining at fast food joints that make no health claims.
This, according to a news study.
The researchers found that individuals underestimate the calorie content of food served at restaurants they see as healthier.
For example, people think that the same 1,000 calorie meal uh has 159 fewer calories if it comes from Subway than if it comes from McDonald's.
If they choose to consume this fictitious calorie credit on other food, and if they eat it subway twice a week, they could gain an extra 4.9 pounds a year.
You know, it doesn't surprise me.
We can't trust big business.
The health industry, big health, is out there misleading everybody.
I can play liberal too on this.
To the audio sound bites, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh uh well, we don't have time to squeeze in Lanny Davis.
We've been we've been asking ourselves, what in the world, you know, Lanny Davis went off on the on Fox and the Friends at me in two different sound bites this morning.
We've been trying to figure out all afternoon, what in the world did I do or say that that got him so riled up, challenging their patriotism.
So we've been reviewing what I said.
Well, I called him indecent.
I did say that some of these people are acting traitorous, which they don't like.
I mean, that's that's something that sticks.
Uh I called him indecent, but I said, yeah, but I mean, why would this?
I think we've come up with the answer, but we don't have time to play it now.
Instead, we'll play it right after the break with the Lanny Davis bites.
Bob Torricelli, meanwhile, on a blog called Politics New Jersey is defending Larry Craig.
Uh let me be clear.
I don't like Larry Craig stands for everything that I abhor, but the more you read about the r the arrest of Craig, the more troubling the situation becomes.
Why would the torch want to come out and defend Larry Craig?
Perhaps, ladies and gentlemen, this little montage of Senator Torricelli's April 18th, 2001 denial of charges uh with cut-ins of the guy accusing him's attorney, Brad Simon, uh, might explain it.
To challenge my integrity is beneath contempt.
I do not deserve this treatment.
Two watches, a Rolex watch, diamond earrings for his girlfriend.
I have never.
A television set.
Ever.
Oriental rug, uh, grandfather clock, other antique items.
Done anything.
Suits.
At any time.
Approximately 14 deliveries of uh envelopes of cash to Torcelli's house.
To betray the trust of the people of the state of New Jersey.
Never.
And he was pounding.
That was uh that was on the uh, I think of the floor of the Senate.
Um and of course, the Larry Craig's place.
Oh, this is just the guy I need in my corner, the torch.
One of our all-time favorite montages, ladies and gentlemen.
Brief time out.
We'll come back with uh the Lanny Davis mystery answer after this.
What do you mean gonna have a good time?
We are having a good time.
Well, General Motors just brought the next vehicle for us to drive arrests, and early went out to get it's the which would they bring us.
Oh, it's it's a Saturn SUV.
It's a snerdley's all it's an Acadia.
It's a Saturn Acadia.
He's raving about the thing out there already.
What color is it?
I can't tell a good.
What is that?
Your car they're driving away?
What did you already trade yours in out there in the parking lot?
All right, so we'll be telling you about that.
We'll have this one for a week or they got two or three more coming to us in the next uh I guess five or six weeks.
All right.
Uh Lanny Davis.
Uh on the Fox News channel this morning, Fox and Friends, Steve Deucey says I know you're familiar with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She wants to be president.
She's not come out and denounced this move on dot orgad.
Do you think that she should?
Every single Democrat uh should say that move on.org using the expression general betray us is engaging in uh outrageous and in my opinion, offensive rhetoric, but no less so than some of the hate mongering that I hear from Rush Limbaugh and some of the people on the right questioning the patriotism of people like move on.org, who have a right under the First Amendment to say anything they want.
Why we give them such credence when nobody can take seriously that kind of outrageous exercise of their First Amendment rights is to me uh amazing that you would start out with that subject rather than George Bush's speech last night.
The reason why, Lanny is because Mrs. Clinton and Moveon.org are the same thing.
Move on.org was formed, move on from the Clinton scandals.
Can't we just move on?
Involved in all of these things.
Here's the second bite.
Deucey said, well, should Hillary denounce it?
I know you said all Democrats.
Why hasn't she denounced it?
Senator Clinton should denounce it.
I don't know why.
Uh, but again, you're still focused on move on.org rather than President Bush.
Why are you not questioning Rush Limbaugh attacking patriotism?
Why hasn't Fox done one program about Rush Limbaugh?
Would you answer that question?
Let me interview you and Fox and Friends for a second.
Why move on.org, which I denounce.
Why are you not denouncing Rush Limbaugh questioning my patriotism for disagreeing on the uh Iraq war?
Lenny, I I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
I haven't heard Rush Limbaugh do that.
I'll look at it.
Well, then why don't you why don't you do a study and invite me back and we'll have a program about Rush Limbaugh rather than just focusing on what you call any left.
Lanny, you're filibustering.
Oh, we've been we've been struggling here trying to figure out why Lanny thinks I questioned his patriotism.
I didn't question his patriotism.
I I didn't haven't talked about Lanny Davis in a while, and and uh certainly not because he disagrees with the Iraq war.
Now, I did in a couple of gloves off moment, uh gloves off moments on this uh program here.
Uh uh I mean call a spade a spade.
I brought up what the Democrats were doing, and I did say that it's traitorous.
And during uh one show some time back, I said something along the lines of I don't, you know, I know we're not supposed to be questioning the patriotism of these people, but I'm gonna question their patriotism.
I did say that.
Remember saying it.
I'm gonna qu I'm talking about Senate Democrats who were at the time going on and on and on about the war being lost.
And we have no chance to win, and are doing everything they could to undermine the troops.
Folks, you remember these last four months have been brutal in this regard.
So maybe that's what it is that has Lanny upset.
It could also be this.
You know, something as simple and effective.
As our as are many parodies on this program.
You're not supposed to make fun of liberals.
You're not supposed to, but we do it better than anyone.
Always looking for another reason to play that.
Thank you, Lanny Davis.
On Fox and Friends this morning.
I haven't talked about this, folks.
O. J. Simpson might be arrested at Las Vegas for being involved in an armed holdup of uh sports memorabilia that he says is his.
Now it has just been reported that Simpson told A.P. he was conducting a sting operation to get his get his own belongings.
Yeah, you really have to question the wisdom of people at times.
O.J. Simpson has to know.
He just has to know.
Maybe as a star athlete all these years and what he's gotten away with, maybe he doesn't know it.
But you just have to know that you got one shot at it, and if you ever get dragged before a court, a judge, or a jury again, there will be reciprocity.
You're not going to get two of these.
And to risk this, uh, even if it is your own memorabilia that you say was stolen from you to go back go about getting it back this way.
Uh because the I guess they've got a tape.
Somebody has a tape of of the attempted holdup here, and somebody says, put the gun down, which everybody's assuming, okay, was an armed holdup here, and that O.J. was involved.
We've been waiting for three hours for the press conference of the Las Vegas cops.
The drive-by's have been running that that the little crawl that you went breaking news, waiting for news conference in Las Vegas police.
And it's been the entire time we have uh been on the air here.
All right, back to the phones because it's open line Friday.
It says Adam in Riverdale, New York.
Welcome, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
You know, I've been listening to you to you since the late 80s, and I, you know, you're a great guy, and you're bordering on genius.
Well, I appreciate sir.
Thank you for rock uh noticing.
Yeah.
Listen, I'm surprised you're not even uh you should be more confident that Hill that the Democrats are setting themselves up for the worst defeat in November 2008.
You know, I think the average American around the United States, since the surge is starting to work, I don't see how she can make it.
I just don't see how she can make it, Rush.
You should be even more confident.
Um, I I I don't want to be overconfident.
I and I don't want to exude overconfidence because it can lead people to apathy.
Yeah.
Overconfidence can lead people to I'll let other people handle it.
Meaning, I may not have to go vote.
I may not have to care.
I may not have to get involved if it's a slam dunk.
I think I think you're right, though.
And I tell something else uh to observe about this, you know, they they sit there and they rip Petraeus all week.
Yes.
When we've got polling data at the same time that shows the American people want the military to handle this, not Congress, and not even the president.
Absolutely.
You know, and I'm wondering I'm wondering why when Petraeus is on there in front of this Senate committee.
You know, if they're calling him a liar and this and that, can he speak up and say something to them like, you know, are you accusing me of being this?
No, not gonna do it.
Uh he's not he's not gonna get drawn into politics in this at all.
He did deal with it.
He did add lib.
He's at every you know, it opened up on Monday with Tom Lantos, who said, You're coming up here and you're got words in your mouth that have been put there by others, you're gonna tell us there's great success going over there, and I don't buy it.
So Lantos was essentially saying to General Petraeus, um you're either well, you're a liar, or you are a puppet.
And the way Petraeus dealt with it was to say every word of this report is mine, and I did not submit it to the White House under the Pentagon before my appearance today.
That was it was he was he was full of class.
He's he's not he's not gonna receive he's not gonna take these people's bait.
Uh that's why I I mentioned yesterday to a caller.
Um, if I had the opportunity to interview General Petraeus, as a human being, he's a human being above all, and I would uh I would want to know how as a human being and as a military four-star general, uh all of these assaults and these attempts to impugn his character made him feel he would not respond to that.
I guarantee you he wouldn't.
Uh not his job to care about that.
Uh his job is to do his job in uh in Iraq, come back and report, which was this report that Congress demanded.
He came back and reported.
Uh, and he's gonna go back and continue to do his job.
He's just not the kind of man, no military is, no active military man's gonna get drawn into this.
Uh he recognizes it's it's a it's a trap.
Uh once he were to respond as you suggest you wish he would have, then they would have been allowed to turn the whole proceeding into a uh uh dissertation on him rather than his report.
And he wasn't gonna go there.
He was not gonna give them that chance.
By the way, Mr. Snerdley, it's not a Saturn out there that uh GM brought by, it's a GMC.
It's a GMC Acadia.
I looked it up on the website because you're raving about it out there.
I knew it.
I got the note last night, but I forgot what was coming.
It's between 29,000 and 38,000.
So it is a great family car.
It's just it's it's it looks like a crossover.
Look, it looks like the Cadillac uh that that crossover that they brought by.
A minute what uh Well, we're talking about the style.
We're not talking about the body line and the curve, Snerdly.
We're talking it's not a my point, it's not a full-fledged giant father SUV.
It's a child SUV.
All right.
But regardless, sturdily loves it.
Uh from um from Canada, this is uh from WWW Canada.com.
I'll bet it's I'll bet it's true here, or if not yet, we'll soon be.
Young adults are living with their parents in ever increasing numbers, according to data from the most recent census released Wednesday.
Sociologists attribute a large part of the latest rise to choice rather than necessity.
Staying in scrual longer and difficulty finding a stable full-time job are historical reasons behind a trend.
It's been on the upswing for the last 20 years, but experts believe the most recent rise in kids refusing to leave has been in large part fueled by shifting family values, both traditional and liberal.
On the one hand, newcomers to Canada often expect their children to remain in the family home until they get married.
On the other hand, baby boomers often have a relationship with their adolescent and uh adult children that's more akin to friendship compared to past generations.
I can believe that.
And that's the threat to America.
It is.
The baby that that's that's the threat to America.
These baby boomers that raise their kids as their friends, and now the friends, why if you're why would you want to leave home?
Most kids can't wait to get away from their parents.
But if the parents are going out of the way to make them their friends.
Uh anyway, twenty years ago, just shy of a third of young adults between twenty and twenty-nine lived with their parents.
Uh what age?
Twenty and twenty-nine.
That many.
Twenty years ago, we're talking about Canada here.
In 2006, 43 and a half percent of the four million Canadians between twenty and twenty-nine lived with their parents.
Unreal, unacceptable, unbelievable.
Sturges, Michigan.
Andrew, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
How are you doing, Ross?
Never better, Andrew.
How are you?
Great.
Listen, here's the thing.
I'm a college student.
I've been in college for about four years.
And every day I get to read the school newspaper, which is filled with liberal bias.
I can't go, I pick up the New York Times, you see the move on.org ad.
It's full of liberal bias.
Uh my question for you is sort of I I would like some insight on this and how young people uh you know can step away from this liberal bias.
It happens in the classrooms, it happens in the in the newspaper.
And the only thing that I could find was a book written by Jeff Gannon, uh Media Wards.
And that's right, that was a really good book that sort of opened my eyes.
You know, why why aren't people talking about this?
Why are young students talking about this?
Uh I'm not familiar with that book.
Uh as excuse me, as to what you can do.
Sounds like you don't need any help in fighting media bias.
You've spotted it.
One thing you you know, the thing that you can do is once you've spotted it, teach other people how to spot it.
Teach other people it may run into some obstacles, but um, you know, you you can uh there's a lot you can do on your own, given your innate talents here as you have described them.
Tina in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Welcome to the uh program.
Oh, God, Russ.
24-7 did uh Thank you.
Um my question is where is the fallout?
Remember this this week you were um uh the from the drive-by's he started calling Obama Obama after, you know, na renaming Usama.
You want to know why the drive-by's are not hitting me on this?
Yeah, I thought it'd be immediate.
Uh well, they may not know it yet.
Uh, because if Media Matters for America hasn't reported it, then they may not know it.
They don't listen to this program and they don't go to my website.
They go to one Hillary Clinton sponsored website to find out what was said on this program.
And if those clowns haven't picked up on it yet, they don't know about it.
Well, it just surprised me.
I expect It'll it'll happen.
It'll it'll start somewhere on a blog since it'll you've you've taken care of it now.
Uh can I just tell you one more?
Yeah.
I wanted to tell you that I literally tell my children they may not get sick at school during 11 and 2.
They may not get sick at school during 11 and oh well.
God bless you.
God bless you, Relax.
Thanks for the call out there, Tina.
I uh I appreciate it very much.
Uh, what she was talking about, uh ladies and gentlemen is Obama Ubama thing.
I observed on Monday.
Uh, that virtually every network, all of his Fox has always done this in their graphics and on their in their style book, The Talent talking about bin Laden, you gotta call him Ubama, uh uh Osama bin Laden.
Uh now Fox have been doing it, but the others have not.
They've always been calling him Osama.
All of a sudden, because I read the Stitches in the Fastball, I started noticing they're all now calling him Usama bin Laden.
I said, why would this be?
And I thought maybe to distinguish him between Barack Obama and so forth.
So I jokingly and with great creativity and ingenuity for a couple days referred to him as Ooh.
Barack Obama.
Uh, and they haven't picked up.
I don't care if they do.
You know, it doesn't change anything when they pick up what I do here.
All right, folks, splitting the scene, heading to Lincoln, Nebraska tomorrow, U.S. C Nebraska tomorrow night will be on ABC.
Well, they call it ESPN on ABC.
Regardless, have a great weekend.
▲
Export Selection