All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
October 16, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, folks.
I'm trying to find somebody here in the audio sound right.
Hey, I don't need to use it.
Greetings.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network from High Atop, the EIB building, Midtown Manhattan.
One exciting big broadcast hour to go, and looking forward to talking to you.
We'll get more of your phone calls in this hour.
I know a lot of you have been patiently on hold, and you shall be rewarded.
We're up to $51,100 on the Harry Reid letter auction at eBay.
It goes until 1 p.m. on Friday afternoon.
The proceeds will go to the Marine Corps, Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides college scholarships for the children of Marines and federal law enforcement officers killed in action.
One more, but I keep getting emails from people who are saying, Rush, I can't afford that amount of money to bid on this, but I would love to have a copy of this, and I will give a donation to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
You don't have to contribute.
Folks, we've made it available.
We did this yesterday.
Just go to rushlimbaugh.com.
You do not need to be a subscriber or a member.
We've got a four-page PDF file, full color, a copy of the Dingy Harry letter signed by him and 40 other Democrat senators, and you can have it and download it for free.
Many people as possible to have this in the country as you can see it.
If you want to donate to MCLE, you can, but you've already paid for this letter because these guys used your tax dollars and their salary to write it and sign it because it happened during the workday.
Not going to ask you to donate twice for a copy, but if it's there and you want it, you can have it.
Just download it.
It's www.rushlimbaugh.com.
I've got one more.
Well, actually, I've got two more stories about Mrs. Clinton in the stack that I want to share with you here.
This is from the Hill magazine, and it's about the Girth book, the Jeff Girth and Don Van Natta book on Mrs. Clinton.
Republicans plan to seize on an allegation from the 1992 presidential campaign to tarnish Hillary Clinton on the issue of government surveillance.
You know, government surveillance will be at the forefront of the political debate this fall because congressional Democrats and the president are squaring off here over legislation allowing this electronic spying on U.S. soil without a warrant in order to nab terrorists in the act of planning the next hit.
What the Republicans are focusing on is an allegation in a book by two Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters which suggests that Hillary Clinton listened to a secretly recorded conversation between political opponents.
The book was written by Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth, and the book is entitled Her Way.
Girth spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper.
He wrote, Hillary's defense activities ranged from the inspirational to the microscopic to the down and dirty.
She received memos about the status of various press inquiries.
She vetted senior campaign aides, and she listened to a secretly recorded audio tape of a phone conversation of Clinton critics plotting their next attack.
The tape contained discussions of another woman who might surface with allegations about an affair with Bill.
The two authors write.
Bill's supporters monitored frequencies used by cell phones, and the tape was made during one of those monitoring sessions.
Now, we know that this has happened elsewhere in the Democrat Party.
Remember that grandmother and grandfather, this couple down in Florida, driving along in their Cadillac on the way to the mall.
And just like all of us, they happen to turn on their cell phone receiver.
And they happen to monitor, like we all do, driving around other people's cell phone calls.
And they happen to overheard, happen to overheard, a phone call between John Boehner and Newt Gingrich.
And they thought, wow, this is historic.
I wonder what we should do with this.
And they sent it to Jim Morano, Jim McDermott, I forget which, I think it was McDermott from the state of Washington, a congressman, who then gave it to the New York Times who then published the contents.
This is warrantless illegal surveillance of a private phone call.
And McDermott, or McDermott, has been found guilty and has to pay damages on this for violating privacy of a conversation between Boehner and Newt.
So Hillary was doing this.
She was in charge of the bimbo eruptions.
Everybody thinks that it was Betsy Wright that was in charge of the bimbo eruptions.
It was Hillary because she knew about them.
She's the most cheated-on woman in the history of the world, folks.
And she knew it.
And she let it happen right in front of her eyes, right behind her back.
She let it happen.
She let it happen.
She allowed herself to be humiliated and disgraced because that's what it required to get her to where she is now.
She had to keep her husband in office wherever he was if she was ever to have a chance to go anywhere.
So she's out there monitoring these phone calls about potential bimbo eruptions.
So the point of this story in the Hill is that the Republicans are going to go after her on this.
Van Natta and Gerth totally stand by this.
In their book, a Republican official said that Hillary Clinton's campaign, hypocrisy, continues to know no bounds.
It is rather unbelievable that she would listen into conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our own intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by terrorists as they plot and plan to kill us.
Team Clinton can expect to see and hear this over and over again over the course of the next year.
She's made it very plain, they've made it, Republicans have made it plain that they're not going to forget about this.
The second thing, and this will wrap up the Hillary segment for the day, Jeffrey Lord, writing in the American Spectator today, presents us a hypothetical.
I'm going to paraphrase this because I don't have it right in front of me.
But he writes, let's go to Hillary Clinton's first day in office.
She's sitting at the Oval Office, very surprised, very proud, and very full of euphoria.
She's pulled it off and she's sitting there.
And she's sitting at that big desk in the Oval Office.
And Jeffrey Lord properly points out what's one of the first things that newly inaugurated presidents do.
They fire all the U.S. attorneys and replace them with their own.
Her husband did it.
A lot of presidents have done it.
Bush did not do it.
But every president is entitled to.
It is almost standard operating procedure.
But wait.
Mrs. Clinton was part of a Democrat cabal that tried to criminalize the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys last year.
Tried to get him in all kinds of hot water, tried to criminalize it, tried to criminalize the Attorney General.
They sought documents from the White House about anything Karl Rove might have been involved in.
The theory is that once Mrs. Clinton tries to fire one U.S. attorney appointed by Bush, that the Republicans in the Senate can say, uh-uh-uh-uh, you are engaging in criminality.
Tit for tat, Mrs. Clinton.
You tried to criminalize President Bush for getting rid of eight.
You want to get rid of 93.
She may be hamstrung.
Now, all this depends on whether the Republicans have the guts to do it.
Hopefully, they will.
Let's say another example.
Mrs. Clinton, after being inaugurated, is informed that one of the 2,000-year-old liberal judges in the court has finally decided to retire.
The guy's been hanging on until Mrs. Clinton or a Democrat were elected so as not to be able to give Bush a chance to nominate his replacement.
Of course, right now, the courts basically you'd have to say 5-4 conservative, maybe 4-4 with the swing vote there in the middle, Anthony Kennedy, depending on which way we go, away he goes.
But the Libs look at it now as 5-4 conservatives.
So you got this, hypothetically speaking, so you got his dinosaur justice who decides to hang it up now that Hillary's there can appoint his replacement.
The Republicans could say on the Senate Judiciary Committee, nope, we're going to filibuster this.
You guys wanted to filibuster.
We're going to filibuster this nomination.
We don't care if there's a ninth justice.
We'll be happy to sit there at 5-3.
Well, you were trying to criminalize all of our nominees, Mrs. Clinton, for all of these years, the Borks, the Thomases.
Look at what you did to Alito.
Look what you did to any number of potential appellate judge nominees, the Supreme Court nominees, tit-for-tat.
So he Lord gives a bunch of other examples of this of how, because of the actions of the Democrats in the last six years or seven now with Bush and trying to criminalize normal executive power, that the Republicans can take the same playbook and throw it right back at the Democrats.
Now, we know if they did this, that the drive-bys would ignore that the Democrats had done this in the past, but there's more than just the drive-bys out there now.
This would be delicious.
And it's not going to stop her.
Don't misunderstand, but it is an interesting way, I thought, to look at what a potential Hillary Clinton presidency could look at as it looks like, as in no honeymoon whatsoever.
You know, you fire the U.S. attorneys, that's one of the first things that you do.
It's one of the first things that Clinton did.
Then you will have, if one of the dinosaurs in the court holds on through January 2009 and a Democrat wins, the dinosaur will quit maybe two of them.
They're holding on now just to make sure Bush doesn't get the chance to nominate the replacement.
Any number of additional examples like this.
Got to run.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a sec.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limboy here at the EIB building, Hyatop, Midtown Manhattan.
Try this headline, folks.
Support for supervised drug injection is growing.
When I was first told about this, is aware in New York?
They're doing everything else in New York.
We can't do this.
We can't do that.
We can't go here.
We can't go there.
We can't see there.
We can't look there.
We can't not look there.
So forth.
There's got to be New York.
The nanny here, the mayor, Bloomberg, has got.
No, it's not New York.
It's San Francisco.
C.W. Nevius, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, two months ago, I wrote about an idea for a place in San Francisco where IV drug users could shoot up under the supervision of trained personnel.
A lot of people thought it sounded crazy.
We'll get ready to hear about it again because the idea is gaining momentum.
On Thursday, an all-day symposium co-hosted by the City Department of Public Health will examine the idea of creating safe injection centers where users could bring their drugs, shoot up, and leave without fear of arrest.
The idea is to decrease overdoses, keep dirty needles off the street, and cut the risk of spreading HIV and hepatitis C.
Those are all good things.
It's the idea of providing addicts with their own injection clinic that riles people up.
What's next?
A reader wrote when the first column appeared, giving them the drugs too.
No, but there's no, well, why not?
They got to get them someplace, and they got to be committing crimes to get them.
So why not give them the drugs?
Better quality drug, the better.
You got to give them a nice back seat of the car, a couple packs of cigarettes and so forth.
They've tried this in Sweden, haven't they?
Or one of those places over there.
Don't think it worked out too well because just more and more addicts happen to be created.
Peter Davison, who is a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, said this would be huge international news.
It'd be the first facility in the United States, and there'd be a, well, probably be a firestorm for a while.
You can count on that.
The conservative radio talk show hosts are probably already jump-starting their tonsils.
Wacky San Francisco, providing a party room for junkies.
Now they're putting words in our mouths.
Nor are public officials eager to jump on the bandwagon.
Asked for a comment from the mayor, Gavin Newsom, spokesman said the mayor is not inclined to support this approach, which, quite frankly, may end up creating more problems than it addresses.
Just when they thought they had a homeless problem, in proper focus to do something about it, they want to exacerbate it.
San Francisco.
Here's Justin in San Diego.
Justin, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, Mega, SemperFyrush, baby Dittos.
Thank you very much, sir.
Hey, I just wanted to comment on, you know, being in the military, I'm a Marine officer, and being in the military, this whole dialogue in Washington about criticizing people for what they think, it's really disheartening because it's not focusing on what we need to be doing to win this war.
But that leads me to my next point: you recommended about two months ago a book called World War IV by Norman Pedoritz.
Yes, sir.
And I went out and bought it right away, but I didn't get to it just because I didn't have time.
I just finished it, and I just want to thank you so much for recommending it.
It was an incredible book.
I'm actually going to be recommending that my Marines will be reading it.
Well, that's great.
World War IV, Norman Pedoritz, who longtime editor of, publisher of Commentary Magazine, has written just a powerful book on the true nature of the threat posed by Islamo-fascists and Iran.
I have to tell you an interesting story.
I had lunch with him Sunday up at Bill Buckley's home in Connecticut, and he told a story.
He'd gone to the Barnes and Noble on the Upper West Side here in Manhattan to do a reading.
And when I said, oh, no, I know exactly what probably happened to you.
And it did.
He had about 50 to 100 people showed up, and he needed a police escort out.
They were pretty polite during the reading and the speech that he gave, but when a QA started, they really jumped on him.
I said he never felt threatened, but a brouhaha erupted amongst the upper west siders here in Manhattan, and he needed a police escort to get out of there.
Well, that, in and of itself, just demonstrates one of the chapters in the book about the radicalization of the left.
They just don't want to hear what he has to say.
And I think, you know, one of the problems, Stan, was from the beginning of, ever since September 11th, was mischaracterizing this war so that people didn't get behind it as much.
The verbology didn't get the nation behind the concept of this actually being a world war national survival actually said.
There are a lot of people, I think, in hindsight, and anybody can use hindsight, but we've had the tentacles of political correctness around a lot of our throats, limiting what we say about things.
And we, after 9-11, we would not properly identify exactly who the perpetrators were.
We gave everybody their names, and we said they're from Saudi Arabia and so forth.
But to call them Muslims and Islamo militants and fascists, nobody really did because we didn't want to offend a whole lot of people.
And so We really, that's why he wrote the book, because he thinks that nobody is being publicly forthcoming enough in warning the American people of the genuine nature of the threat that we face.
He will be ecstatic to know that you loved it.
Yeah, it's incredible.
Well, I'm glad you called, Justin.
Thanks very much.
He's talking about the book World War IV by Norman Pedoritz, and it has been out since the first part of September.
Vinny, always love when we get calls from Vinny in Daytona Beach, or it's Deltona.
I'm sorry.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Megan Ditto is a longtime listener, first-time caller.
Just wanted to make a comment.
The Democratic Party, when they got elected, promised to reduce oil prices, and I believe we set a record yesterday at $86 a barrel.
Well, they also promised to get us out of Iraq.
Or they say they did.
They actually didn't.
They think that's what the 06 election was about, totally, and it wasn't.
It was just that in part.
I think we need to start calling them a lame duck Congress.
Lame Duck Congress and this thing in Turkey, Nancy Pelosi's war.
Well, I think that what they did is they artificially drove the price of oil up with the Armenians, so now they can possibly bring it back down again.
Well, let me ask you a question.
Sure.
And in asking you the question, I want to ask all of you in this massive audience a question.
The price of all is up to 86 bucks.
And yet, the price of gasoline is coming down.
Certainly isn't rising.
In addition to that, with the oil price rising, the job market is still expanding.
The only thing going on is the housing slowdown, the credit crunch, and that's bad decisions made by lenders.
But aside from it, consumer confidence is really strong.
How can this be?
How can the because remember, the rising oil price led to the Democrats saying we're going to take ExxonMobil profits.
We're going to get this is obscene.
This is horrible.
Meanwhile, we can't drill for our own oil because the Democrats won't support the legislation to open up fields of oil in our own territories, properly.
Those are also high-paying jobs for Americans if we did them in the Gulf of Mexico or in Alaska.
And I believe that the Republicans really need to push this oil agenda, you know, because I believe that's one of the reasons why it was focused so much in the last election.
Yeah, after the break, I got a couple sound bites from Chris Matthews' show last night with these, you know, Graham Nash and whatever, Crosby.
You know, Crosby stills and Nash stills wisely stayed away.
But Crosby and Nash made total nincumpump imbeciles of themselves.
You will hear, along with Matthews.
And we will let you hear that in just a second.
But no, there's the question, how can this be?
Oil price, 86 bucks, a record.
The economy expanding?
How can that be?
The gasoline price at least moderating, not going up, some places coming down.
How can this be, folks?
There is an answer to this.
You know what the answer is?
The economy is growing.
The economy is growing and can withstand all this, and it is not damaging the economy.
That's how all these economic stats work out.
That's their true meaning.
Rush Limbaugh having mixed minus problems here in our broadcast complex at the EIB network.
You don't know what that means, and that's why I told you I'm having mix-minus problems.
I want you to be cured.
What is the mix-minus problem?
Well, some of you probably know.
You got to hear these next two soundbites.
Crosby, Matthews, and Nash last night on Hardball.
These are singers David Crosby and Graham Nash.
Matthews says, what does a 20-year-old or 18-year-old say to you when you raise these issues like, you guys are on campus, you got tuition money, you're going to graduate, become whatever.
The kid over there fighting patriotic as hell, he's going to get, some of them are going to get killed, but you don't believe in the war.
What is this?
This is the most inane question.
These are leftover anti-war hippies.
When I read this question, it sounds like Matthews thinks you can still avoid going to Iraq by going to college.
But if you can't afford to go to college, you're going to end up being drafted to go to Iraq?
Is he asking this about Iraq or Vietnam?
I'm sorry, folks.
Let me read this again.
I happened not to see the show last night.
I had more important things to do.
What does a 20-year-old or 18-year-old say to you?
He's asking this of Crosby and Nash, when you raise these issues like, you guys are on campus, you got tuition money, you're going to graduate, become whatever.
The kid over there, fighting patriotic as hell, he's going to get some of them are going to get killed, but you don't believe in the war, but you're not doing anything about it.
Does that question make sense to you?
It doesn't to me either, but apparently it did to Nash and Crosby.
On the one hand, you've got a young kid who is patriotic, who loves his country, believes in it, and he's being told, yeah, this is the truth, and we've got to go in there to protect your mother and your sister.
And he goes over and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister.
It's a hellish situation, and we can't be wasting some of the best young people we have, sending them over there to be killed, and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the same time.
That's David Crosby, ladies and gentlemen, who is making these incoherent, almost unintelligible.
Well, you can understand them, but they're just incoherent thoughts.
They're joining.
They're volunteering.
See how he impugns that?
He tries to praise these people for going over there.
Yes, they're being lied to, and so they join up under false pretenses, and they get over there and find out they're killing somebody else's mother and sister.
And that's not what's happening.
Folks, if that were happening, if the orders were to go out and kill innocent civilians, there would be countless genuine Jesse Macbeths standing up and saying so and refusing to do it.
These guys lie to themselves like I can't believe.
And then they end up believing all of this gobbledygook about the statistics of hundreds of thousands have been killed in Iraq and so forth.
Here's the next bite.
Another portion of the interview Matthews picks up at that point.
I felt from the beginning of this war, and I'm not a Marxist, but I have felt the power of money on the side of this war.
Absolutely.
And part of it was just playing to the crowd.
Everybody was so jingoistic and let's go to war and rally around the flag.
And so you heard a lot of commercial applause for this war.
Because they're making fortunes.
Well, the old fortunes are being made.
Do you see the numbers they're making at Exxon and mobile and these things?
Obscene.
It's totally $32 billion the first quarter.
Insane.
It's coming out of your pocket, Chris.
No, I think.
And we can't afford $50 billion for children's health coverage.
A lot of blood spilled.
This guy sounds just like Mahmoudak within his odd.
That was Graham Nash, he of the British accent.
Can't afford $50 billion for child's health care.
Speaking of which, I mean, that bite speaks for itself.
I mean, why are ExxonMobil's profits obscene where Crosby stills Nash and Young's profits were not obscene?
Why is what they earned doing what they did not obscene?
But ExxonMobil's numbers are obscene.
Is it just the numbers?
No, it's not the numbers with these people.
It's the fact that this is big oil and they think they've got no choice.
This natural tendency of liberals to hate certain institutions, particularly corporate institutions.
But this is from the Politico of yesterday.
Bethany Wilkerson is the latest child being profiled by Democrats, arguing for an override of President Bush's veto of the state children's health insurance program bill.
This Bethany Wilkerson follows 12-year-old Graham Frost, who was brought out.
This is the Wilkerson family.
Their two-year-old daughter, Bethany, is covered by SHIP, had life-saving heart surgery when she was an infant.
On Monday, the Wilkerson family held a conference call sponsored by U.S. Action, a liberal grassroots advocacy group lobbying in favor of the SHIP expansion.
Now, for the record, Bo and Dara Wilkerson say they make 34 grand in combined income from restaurant jobs, restaurant jobs in St. Petersburg, Florida.
They rent their house.
They own one car, which Bo Wilkerson calls a junker.
The Frost family and their income became an issue.
Everybody's missing the point about this.
The Democrats, once again, are trotting out a family who qualify already under the current iteration of SHIP.
And they're out there making it look like these people will not be covered unless we vote the expansion.
They're just dumb.
Well, dumb.
They're not dumb.
They know what they're doing because they know that the drive-bys are not going to report this.
All they're going to do is report once again that Michelle Mulkin and Rush LeBond, the conservative fear, are going to go out and try to destroy another harmless and struggling and just very decent Democrat family.
And they're just going to try to create this whole notion, the dirty little secret, folks.
Both of these families, the Frosts and the Wilkersons, are covered under SHIP as it exists.
What the Democrats need to do is go out and find some family that makes between 60 and 80 and get 25-year-old parents who have two young kids and say, these people will not be covered under SHIP.
Tell the truth about it.
This is just, it's classic.
It's how liberals get what they want and they use willing accomplices in the press to spread propaganda and lies and distortions.
Nobody under this program would deny either the Frost family or the Wilkerson family their health care coverage.
And the president only wants to increase the program.
$4 billion.
But of course, that's not good enough.
And again, to remind you, USA Today, with a poll, a majority of Americans trust Democrats to handle the issue of children's health insurance more than President Bush.
But in this poll, they agree with the president that government aid should be targeted to low-income families.
This is a USA Today Gallup poll.
Two days before the Democrat-controlled House attempts to override the president's veto of the $35 billion expansion of the program.
52% of respondents in the USA Today Gallup poll say they have more confidence in Democrats to deal with the issue compared with 32% for Bush.
But 52% agree with Bush that most benefits should go to children in families earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level, which is about $41,000 for a family of four.
Only 40% of the people in this poll say benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000, as the bill written by Democrats and some Republicans would allow.
55% of the people in this poll are very or somewhat concerned the program would create an incentive for families to drop private insurance.
Bush and Republican opponents have called that a step toward government-run health care.
The American people have made it plain now in two different polls I've seen, this and Erasmus and poll, that they have no interest in government-run health care.
They don't want to have to give up their own insurance.
That has to be a slap at the face of Mrs. Clinton, the most cheated-on woman in the history of the world.
Has to be a slap at the face because they've done everything they can.
And throughout this whole S-CHIP program to convince people that Bush wants to deny health care coverage to poor kids, and it isn't working for them.
So there's another great sign here, folks, of how the drive-bys and the Democrats can, in fact, be beaten back and overcome.
This Fredna in Chandler, Texas.
Hi, Fredna.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
I would like to, I'm really concerned about the children in our country.
And with things like, you know, government, health care is raising another generation of, or raising a generation of young people that have a welfare mentality and a victim mentality.
And I'm married to a Frenchman, been married to him for 20 years, and I've seen firsthand in their country how their health care system works through my in-laws.
And it doesn't work well at all.
And, you know, not having a choice of where you're able to be treated and not getting the treatment you need.
And as a result, my mother-in-law died.
But my husband and I have, we have two children, and one is 17, and she was born with a rare syndrome and has had, oh, 17 surgeries.
And we have a high-deductible HSA, you know, health savings account.
And we have been through periods of time where she was CHIP eligible for a very short period of time, maybe six months or a year, because we're self-employed.
But all the other time, she never, she didn't die.
She, you know, as Hillary Clinton would like for us to think, that children will die, we took the initiative, went to hospitals, went to doctors.
If she needed treatment or surgery, which has been a continual issue her whole life, the doctors and hospitals were more than happy to work with us, put us on payment plans, cut the price, whatever needed to be done.
Right, and you, the point is here, you were able to talk to them about this and work something out.
If you had to go through a government-run program, SOL, whatever they tell you is going to be the case is going to be the case.
How much money you're entitled to or not entitled to would be the case.
Your French example is good.
The same thing's happened in the British health care system.
Same thing happening in the Canadian health care system.
This whole debate is, we need to really refocus this.
If we start telling anecdotal stories about the healthcare business and so forth, it's good, but we're missing the point here.
And also this business about indoctrinating young kids, the whole welfare mentality, that's a good point, too.
The real question here is why would anybody think, how has it gotten to the point that we as a nation, and apparently we don't yet, but we're on the way, but we've still got a frighteningly large number of people in this country who think that politicians are best qualified to run the healthcare business when they've never been in the business or any other business in most cases.
Where does this idea come from?
Why do we just accept the premise?
We accept the premise and argue the merits of the premise, which is a waste of time.
The way to defeat this is to talk about the substance of the premise and say, we're not going to accept this.
The idea that the government knows best, look at Exxon.
All these, these idiot, long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, good-time rock and rollers, Nash and what's his name, Crosby, bellyaching about Exxon.
Okay, so what are we to conclude?
Exxon is too big.
Government is too small.
We've got to take what Exxon has and give it to government.
Our government isn't big enough.
Our government is not punitive enough.
Our government doesn't cost us enough.
They raise our prices on everything.
It's called taxes.
And yet we've got to run out and impugn Exxon.
Exxon's too big.
What did Exxon ever do to these aging rockers?
Exxon has done more to get them from concert to concert than any government ever has or any government ever will.
Folks, I have a real quick question.
And I go back here to this soundbite of David Crosby on the Chris Matthews show last night.
And Crosby said, you have a young kid who's patriotic, loves his country, believes in it, and is being told, yes, this is the truth.
We have to go in there to protect your mother and sister.
And he goes over there and he finds out the job is killing somebody else's mother and sister.
It's a hellish situation, and we can't be wasting some of the best young people we have, sending them over here to be killed, and then killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the same time.
I want to know, and I'm serious about this, I want to know when Harry Reid is going to send David Crosby a letter or whoever it is that employs David Crosby or is his partner or whatever, and demand that he shut up at his unpatriotic comments because here he is on the Chris Matthews show, David Crosby, accusing our troops of killing women and sisters and mothers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
And I want to know where is the outrage on the floor of the United States Senate about that.
We'll see.
By the way, I haven't talked about this because I knew we were being had at the outset.
This morning during preparation of this excursion into broadcast excellence, I was made aware of a blog talking radio or some such thing that had a story of a woman who hosts a talk show on Air America.
I'm not going to mention her name to protect her.
She is literally insane.
And the more people find out about her, the more we'll know that she's, you know, really ready for the funny fun.
At any rate, the story was, it was announced last night on Air America, E-R-R America, that she was out walking her dog in Manhattan and got mugged.
And she got mugged wearing a sweatsuit and no jewelry and no this, so it didn't look like a typical New York mugging for money.
Then they all, all these, all these libs started speculating that she was mugged and attacked by angry right-wingers who are upset that liberal talk radio is starting to win.
Now, when I saw this, the first my instincts are liberals lie.
I didn't talk about it.
Just 30 minutes ago, we found out the New York police and her lawyer said she wasn't mugged.
She fell.
By the way, she's going to miss two days at work.
She lost a lot of teeth, a lot of pain.
This was all announced on her network, but we found out she just fell.
She doesn't really know what happened, but she wasn't mugged.
The cops say she wasn't mugged.
There was no police report.
And her lawyer said she wasn't mugged.
So the whole thing, I don't have any idea.
I don't know any more than what I'm telling you, other than they lie.
They just flat out, they flat out freaking lie.
Here's Bobby in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Hi, Bobby.
I got about one minute here, but I know you can squeeze it in.
Yes, sir.
Rush mega simplified ghettos from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
I just wanted to say that whether they know it or not, the left has bestowed upon you a great honor by calling you a microphone Marine.
And let me tell you why.
Because you exemplify all the qualities that make a Marine.
As a former Marine myself, I can say you are highly motivated.
You are accurate with your weapon of choice, which happens to be the EIB microphone.
You went through a baptism of fire instead of boot camp by starting this radio program, and you're fighting our enemies from within, our domestic enemies, and they can write my boss a letter if they want to, because I'm calling them, Conyers, Pelosi, Reed, and all the rest of them, phony Americans.
Because they say they're Americans, but they don't back it up.
God, that was great.
Golly gosh, that was great.
I thank you.
That is a microphone marine, and it's a proud thing to be.
A microphone marine.
Absolutely.
By the way, we're up to 56 grand at eBay.
That's it, folks.
No more time for more fun than a human being should be allowed to have with me.
You've got to provide your own now.
But we'll be back 21 hours, all revved up and ready to do it again, and I can't wait.
▲
Export Selection