All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
May 13, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I don't know if all of you heard my question.
As I concluded last hour's stupendous presentation, let me ask you the question again.
You think about it for a while.
President Bush this week will be in Saudi Arabia.
He's going to meet with the head of the royal family there, King Abdullah.
And he's going to ask King Abdullah to raise the oil output, to increase oil production.
What is wrong with this?
What is wrong with this?
Greetings, my friend, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program today.
Can't believe the first hour is already over and that we're into the second one.
The email address is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Have you thought of it?
It's ought to be a very simple answer.
We're going to go to Saudi Arabia and we're going to ask them to do what we won't do.
We're going to ask them to increase their oil production and try to get a handle on some of the prices by flooding the market with additional supply.
And yet we won't do it ourselves.
Cal Thomas, great column today in defense of big oil.
He went out, he talked to Peter Robertson, who's the vice chairman of Chevron.
And Peter Robertson told Cal Thomas that it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources.
He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Snurdley, what was the statistic you gave me late last week?
Big oil has been investigating and spending money in alternative sources of energy for how many years?
For 20 years, and they've spent about $100 billion on it.
One company has.
Forget which.
For 20 years, and they've spent $100 billion on it.
What do they have to show for it?
Nothing that's anywhere near close to replacing oil.
Now, the vice chairman of Chevron, again, Peter Robertson, told Cal Thomas, President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is highly embarrassing because he's calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we're not doing it ourselves.
The last refinery built in America was in 1976.
Tighter government regulations are the main reason.
That's how unserious we are about our own energy crisis.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, said that there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it.
85% of offshore oil is off limits.
Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalist wackos and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe, Denmark, Norway, the UK, lease offshore locations for oil exploration.
The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricane Katrina and Rita, 1,000 offshore wells were destroyed in the Gulf of Mexico, but not one of them leaked.
Not one leaked.
1,000 offshore wells were destroyed.
Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
I don't believe, as far as the environmentalists are concerned, it has anything to do with environmental damage.
That's just their cover.
This has everything to do with cutting the United States down in size.
This has everything to do with attacking capitalism and the world's lone remaining superpower.
And I have to tell you, it offends me to no end to see the Republican Party going along with this.
It offends me to no end.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff that we expect to come out of the Democrat Party and liberal Democrats.
We expect it, and we expect to battle it.
We expect to fight them on it.
We expect to defeat them on it.
But I guess that has gone by the wayside now.
And it's just frustrating as it can be, the idea that we now have ways to do all this without any environmental damage at all, and we still can't do it.
And yet, we run around the world asking other oil producers to produce more biting my tongue here.
I'm just I've read some emails here during a break.
But Rush, but Rush, do you understand McCain is simply seeking Democrat votes?
It's about winning the election.
Look, winning the election, seeking Democrat votes.
He doesn't really mean this, Rush.
He doesn't really.
I'm not, I can't take that chance.
I've never heard him so enthused.
He was more passionate in this speech than I've heard him in years about anything other than maybe amnesty for illegal aliens in campaign finance reform.
But I think it really buys into this.
So I don't care if it's about getting Democrat votes.
I don't want Democrat votes this way.
Cal Thomas' piece continues.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here's the main problem.
According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40% since 1985.
We had all these stats last week, by the way.
No offense, Cal, but we did.
U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40% since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30%.
According to government estimates, there's enough oil in areas accessible to America, 112 billion barrels, to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years.
Mentioned all of this last week.
I'm glad it's showing up in print here.
The outer continental shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil, 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration and war in 95 when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago.
That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built, despite protests from environmentalist wackos who claimed it would destroy the caribou.
It didn't.
But the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments because most of the oil remains off limits.
We're becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
And I remember Clinton says, well, it'd take 10 years for this stuff to come online.
Well, 10 years ago, if we'd have started, we'd that was 14 years ago when Clinton said it.
We'd have that million barrels a day being pumped right now.
Bill Clinton, for his part, could probably go to the oil companies because he's going to need a job.
He's going to need something.
I wouldn't be surprised, folks, when this presidential campaign is over, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a movement.
It'll be a quiet movement.
There's going to be a movement with the African-American community to get Clinton's office moved out of Harlem.
After all this race card business that they've been playing, well, they have been playing it.
And Mrs. Clinton running around talking about the white people won't vote for Obama and so forth.
It ain't going to be long before the black community tells Clinton we don't want you here in Harlem anymore.
You're no longer the first black president, in which case Clinton's going to need a gig.
So, what Clinton ought to do, get on the phone to big oil.
Hey, guys, you understand how really valuable to you I am.
You talk about foresight.
I see so far down the road, farther than you see down the road.
They wanted me to okay that drilling up there in Ann War back in 1994, right?
And what was the price of oil back then?
Price of oil back, $19, right?
All right, look at how much money you would have lost by drilling way back then.
I have saved you until now.
If you start drilling now, if we get permission, I'll work with you on this.
I still have a lot of influence with people.
You're going to start pumping oil down there, $126 a barrel.
I have saved you money.
I have earned you money.
We're going to get this done, guys.
You are my buddies now, and I can get this done for you at a price that you never dreamed of being able to get.
They kicked me out of Harlem.
I got to go somewhere.
I may as well go with you guys.
No place else in my party is going to have Mahilla McCain's taking my place in my party.
What kind of dog?
Hi, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
El Rushball, talent on loan from God, George, in Gillette, Wyoming.
We're going to start on the phones with you today, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Hello.
Thank you very much.
It's an honor.
Appreciate that.
Greetings from the great coal-producing state of Wyoming.
It's amazing to me.
You're the only voice of reason on this global warming subject.
I, in grade school, studied about dinosaurs 60 million years ago roaming the earth.
And the very coal that we produce is a deposit from the plants and animals that couldn't possibly live in the environment that we have in Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Canada today.
I mean, there is evidence of cypress trees, fish fossils, dinosaur fossils, all kinds of physical evidence that proves that this earth was a lot warmer then than it is now.
Of course.
This is what gets so tiresome about this.
The very concept that John McCain could believe in dinosaurs and believe in the ice age that carved out the great Rocky Mountains and still have an energy policy that he's got, it sickens me as much as it does you.
Yeah, but let me tell you something.
You say I'm the only voice of reason.
That's not true.
There are a whole lot of people who hold this view, and they're more numerous than anybody knows, and they are going to be sorely felt on Election Day.
Now, I will admit that I am the largest voice on this, and as such, I carry a great responsibility with me on this.
There's no question that I'm the largest voice on this.
This is what becomes so frustrating: common sense, an undeniable past, as opposed to a wild-guess future.
We know, there is no doubt, that it has been much colder in many parts of the world, including ours, in the past.
And we know that it happened because of nothing ancient man could have done or did do.
Natural climate variations.
In fact, global warming scientists explaining why it's not going to get warm.
There's an arrested movement here in global warming for the next 10 or 12 years because of natural variations, natural cooling variations.
Now, this is very clever of them because you see, the template, the action line on all of this is there is global warming, and it is man-made.
And so, when something's going to happen to delay the accuracy of their forecast, such as 10 to 12 years of cooling, then of course that can be a natural variation, A natural variation into what man is doing.
The earth fortunately has the ability to counteract what we're doing, but only for 10 or 12 years.
And after that, it's going to smoking hot.
It's just going to climb.
The temperature is going to climb, but we're not going to be able to do anything about it.
Blah, If there are natural cooling cycles, which we know to be the case, then it just stands to reason, there have to be natural warming cycles.
And so we have an indisputable past.
Examples such as those offered by George here, and there are countless other examples of ice ages and mini-ice ages.
And of course, it's a lot warmer now than it was during those ice ages, so we know there's a natural warming cycle as well.
So we are going to ignore the known past and trade that in for a wild-guess future.
And this wild-guess future is only a wild guess.
It's not a wild guess in one area.
There's one part of the future that we can predict.
If either Senator McCain and his government or Barack Obama and his government get their way on this, what I can predict to you with full knowledge, I will be exactly right in the future, is that you're going to lose a little freedom, you're going to lose a little liberty, and it's going to cost a lot more to live.
And we're going to destroy a lot of wealth trying to create new wealth with alternative energy by getting rid of oil, carbon emissions, so forth and so on.
All of this is being done.
We know that's going to happen if these two guys get their way.
And what's going to happen as a result of that is that we're going to get poorer.
There is an attack on capitalism taking place throughout the world.
And it's just outrageous that we have American leaders willing to facilitate that attack on capitalism and then have the audacity to say that what we're going to be doing is somehow related to free markets.
I guess this is Rick in Chicago.
Rick, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thanks much.
Longtime listener, love the show.
Sometimes I wish I could come down, give you a pat when you're feeling a little low.
Well, I'm not feeling low.
I'm trying not to explode here.
That's why you hear me pausing and saying, I'm trying not to literally blow up here.
I'm not sad.
I have this question of you.
Whose oil would you rather be using right now, ours or someone else's?
If, in fact, there's a limited supply of oil on the earth, whose oil would you rather be using?
I'd rather be using ours.
I disagree with that to some extent in that I think what we need is oil security and not so much to use our own oil.
Well, now, wait a minute.
You cannot.
You cannot be serious.
Do you think being dependent on a bunch of people that have no love for us somehow increases our oil security?
I think that Bush, by moving the number of troops and support that we have in the Mideast, he perhaps thinks that we have the security we need.
Don't think, I don't follow that whatsoever.
Bush, by moving the number of troops and support that we have in the Mideast, thinks we have the security that we need?
Security for the delivery of oil to this country.
When you take in all factors, you know, a lot of it comes from South America, some from Russia, a lot from the Middle East.
By having our own.
What are you saying?
If any one of these countries declines to sell us oil, we're going to attack them?
Not necessarily, but we're certainly in a position to say what you're doing right now ain't so good, and we'll do something about it.
If it's an economic threat, it's a threat.
Yeah, well, there wouldn't be any economic threat if we had our own oil and if we were using our own oil.
And it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as it is today.
Gasoline, all the derivative products of oil wouldn't be nearly as expensive because there wouldn't be the ability to have contrived shortages.
The idea that we are more secure by using somebody else's oil, the thinking on this is let's use theirs.
Sort of like the idea of using other people's money when you want to finance your business or your home or whatever, go out and borrow it and so forth.
I don't want that kind of debt when it comes to oil.
I'd just soon have our own.
Believe me, the reason we're asking, there is no grand strategy here to protect our oil and only go get it when the rest of the world runs out.
That's not what this is about.
There's no grand thinking, nobody's forward thinking saying, okay, let's use up all of Saudi's oil and then there'll be nobody's.
And let's have Shugo Chavez use up all of his oil and then he'll be a nobody.
And let's have the Russians, let's have them use up all their oil and then they'll be nobody.
And then when they don't have their oil and they're nobody, that's when we'll start getting our own and we will once again own the world.
Ain't going to happen is not part of the plan, primarily because that kind of thing would take so many years to play out.
The amount of oil that is underneath the ground in all these countries that you have mentioned is decades and decades and decades.
This is not the way to do it.
We are not increasing our security at all by not having our own oil.
Pure and simple.
Chris in Denver, thank you for calling, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Mega Harvard Dittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I am such a fan.
You are my non-Jesus hero.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thanks very much.
You're welcome.
So listen, Rush, I just wanted to thank you for really helping me get through Harvard successfully in every way.
Before I got into Harvard and started doing well, I was in college and I was sort of a kind of a wishy-washy liberal.
I made believe that I was in line with conservatives that I was around, but I wasn't.
And I got in a little trouble with the law, and then I started listening to you, and you really inspired me and helped me pick myself up out of the gutter and inspired me to reach for the stars, as it were.
And so I ended up getting into Harvard.
I'm now almost 25.
I've got a master's degree from Harvard, and it's thanks to your inspiration that I did so, so well while I was there, and the Limbaugh Letter helped me out, really made me proud to be a conservative.
I just wanted to thank you for that.
Well, I appreciate that.
What do you have your master's in?
Sorry, say again.
Do you have your master's?
You're 25 hours away from it.
I can't tell you.
I have my master's.
I'm almost 25 is what I'm saying.
Oh, okay.
What's your master's in?
I'm MFA in voice and speech pedagogy.
Oh, voice and speech coaching.
Okay.
Yeah.
I primarily have worked with actors, but right now I'm looking to, I'm here in Denver looking to work with politicians, and I'm hoping to help get our House Senate and State House and Senate fully and strongly conservative Republican again after kind of sliding back in the last six or seven years.
Well, it's going to be a while.
Don't give up the fight.
Well, I'll try not to.
Just be patient out there, Chris.
Be patient.
You're young.
You can, in your lifetime, once again, see the promised days.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Ha, hurry, you rush limb boy.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, operating as usual here as America's real anchorman, the truth detector, the doctor of democracy, all combined to one harmless, lovable little fuzzball, as well as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Operation Chaos.
Little economic news here: the economic downturn hitting roughly one in 10 middle-aged and older Americans, especially hard, which is compelling them to borrow money for everyday living expenses and to seek help from family, friends, or charities.
This, according to a survey released today.
Telephone survey, 1,002 adults, 45 and older, nearly 4 out of 10, said that they had helped a child pay bills or expenses.
Among retirees, one-third said that they had helped their children pay bills.
8% said that they had helped a parent pay bills or expenses.
Survey's margin of sampling error, plus or minus three points.
Survey released by the American Association of Retired Persons, a supposed nonprofit advocacy group for Americans 50 and older.
These people say they're cutting back.
It's not just the elderly, ladies and gentlemen, or the middle-aged elderly.
At the wine rack in Morgantown, West Virginia.
By the way, you know what the drive-bys are saying?
Hillary's supposed to smoke Obama in West Virginia today.
Some people saying it could be 80-20.
Others are saying it ain't going to be that high.
So the drive-bys are running little crawls across the screen.
And one I saw just minutes ago said only 17% of West Virginia residents have college education.
Now, you know what the implication there is.
The implication is that Hillary's getting a stupid vote, the stupid rural hick vote.
And of course, Obama doesn't want the stupid rural hick vote, so this is fine.
They're trying to discredit the drive-bys today, are trying to discredit already whatever Hillary's victory today in West Virginia is going to be.
Anyway, the story is from Morgantown, West Virginia at the Wine Rack.
It's a wine store where sales from the $10 and under shelves are booming.
Jocelyn Vorbach says aloud that most of her customers won't say.
Friendships now have price tags and dinner guests are gauged.
There are friends who get the $300 Camus.
There are friends who get the $10 bottle.
They're saying, I like them, but I don't like them that much.
Even wealthier customers are stocking up on bargain wine, though they tend to be purchased by the case.
Before, they wouldn't be caught dead with a $9.99 bottle in their presence, but now they will.
As long as I tell them it's a good one, they'll spend under $10 for a bottle of wine.
So the upscale West Virginia population, the West Virginia rich, are really dialing it back, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to buying wine and other things.
Consumers now be considering things, may not be considering things like clothing labels and coffee brands or cooking at home versus dining out.
When times are trying, the focus turns to value.
The status premium that people are willing to pay shrinks.
Whether the product is a high-end lipstick or a gas-guzzling vehicle, great chunks of the middle class have the needs down pat, so it's all shopping for emotion.
Now, instead of trading up, we're trading down, but we're still trading.
It's not as if all of a sudden we've gone into voluntary simplicity.
This is a spokesman for the rich.
James Twitchell, a spokesman for the rich, explaining what the rich are doing.
They're still trading.
They're still buying.
But they're not buying designer labels.
They're not buying designer wine.
They're buying functional stuff.
I am embarrassed.
I am embarrassed by this.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the rich are spared when the economy tanks, but that's wrong, says marketing expert Pamela Danziger, who studies the consumption habits of Americans earning at least $75,000.
It's about 32 million households.
Those comfortably off with an average income of about $150,000 really do the lifting when it comes to consumer goods.
We're talking about the people who shop at Nordstrom's and Macy's and Nieman's and all the same small specialty chains, and they feel a great lack of confidence, which is translating into significantly reduced spending, and they're going to different stores.
Also, within the report, affluent Americans say they will continue to travel, though within the U.S. more often than overseas.
They will take more short vacations, and businesses like cruise lines that trade in American currency should benefit.
Okay, so I guess the economy, even the rich are taking it on the chin.
Well, they're not taking it on the chin.
They're just dialing it back a little bit.
Now, here's what do we talk?
Rich here is $150,000 or above.
Can you tell me, Snerdley, you tell me what's wrong with this story?
What about the premise?
The whole premise of this story is wrong.
I want you to tell me what it is.
They used to buy the $300 Camus.
I would love to be able to find a bottle of Camus for $300, by the way.
If they used to buy a, maybe that's a West Virginia price.
A three.
That's right.
Snerdley got it.
People have always shopped for business.
I don't care who they are.
It is a very few number people who don't care about the price.
I mean, folks, some of the most hard-nosed negotiators on price are the people who would never notice the difference in the price that's being asked and what they end up paying.
It is a matter of principle.
The more you make, the more sensitive you become to being ripped off.
And you don't want to be ripped off.
The more you make, the more you learn that there's an entire industry out there designed to separate you from your money.
The more you make, the more you learn that there are people out there in business who don't think you care what something costs because you're so busy, you don't have time to worry about such mundane things.
The people that earn a lot of money and have a lot of wealth are out there trying to make deals just like everybody else is trying to make deals.
It's just as silly as saying all of a sudden at Christmas time, consumers are bargain hunting as though they never do the rest of the year.
I mean, this is, the whole premise of this is wrong.
They're just trying to create the notion that it's so bad economically that even the people who normally don't have to worry about the cost of things are worrying about the cost of things.
It's just Snerdley asked me if I have any $9 wine.
You know, none that I've bought.
I might have some that somebody gave me, but I don't have any that I bought, any $9 wine.
But what have I got to do with this?
You're just trying to divert me here from the story.
Folks, I'm telling you, this whole notion that whoever's wealthy, I don't care what level of wealth you're talking about.
You know, I know some billionaires, and these are some of the toughest negotiators when it comes to what things cost.
You know, you think that there are some, I guess there are some.
People on Palm Beach probably, they couldn't care what things could just pay it and move on because they've got other things to do in the day.
But there are a lot of people.
Yes, nerdly, that's where I live.
But there are people.
I'm telling you, this idea that nobody, that the rich don't bargain hunt or that the wealthy don't, it's a matter of pride.
Some of the biggest tightwads I know are some of the wealthiest people I know.
And frankly, it's funny to watch.
It is funny to watch.
I know some people, you know, we're talking about oil price and gas.
I know some people used to have, don't any longer, used to have their own airplane.
And let's say they had to go to, pick a spot, let's say they go to New York.
They would scour around at all the available airports.
This is long before the gas price, the oil price became what it is now.
They would scour before they decided what airport they were going to land at where the jet fuel price was cheaper or cheapest.
And if it was a dime cheaper, they would fly 30 miles out of the way just to avoid being ripped off.
The idea that people throughout the spectrum of affluence don't care what things cost is absurd.
So the point of this story is just to make it appear that the economy is so bad that even the wealthy are cringing and going cheap, which you ought to feel good about because isn't the whole point of liberal Democrat politics to not improve the lives of the poor and the middle class, but to make the rich suffer?
So here we got a story about the rich suffering.
The drive-bys have outsmarted themselves.
This ought to make people happy.
We'll be back after this.
Despite, despite the turn in the Republican presidential campaign yesterday, I am Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We go to Rockford, Illinois.
This is David.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next.
Martin Rush, nice to talk to you today.
Thank you, sir.
Good afternoon, actually.
I know, I was calling up about your statements earlier regarding the cigarettes, the menthol for against black people.
I think it's more not so much that they're trying to target black people, which, you know, they're targeting anybody to make a profit, but they want to keep their menthol, their flavored cigarettes, as the only flavored cigarettes that are exempt so they can make even more profit.
Oh, so it's a big tobacco scheme.
Yeah, just to keep making more money.
I say, I say, so the government ban, the government ban on all the other flavors besides menthol really is not true.
This is big tobacco scheming to get rid of the cinnamon and the clove-flavored cigarettes because they're not profitable.
Stick with the menthol, which is profitable.
Make more profit.
Yeah, but the problem is that big tobacco is being told by government that they have to ban all but menthol.
It's government making this decision.
Well, do all the big major ones, do they all make the menthol?
I mean, I know the big major ones make menthol, but do all the big, major ones.
They do, they do, but you're missing the point.
Nobody smokes clover cinnamon.
It's not a big deal anymore.
But blacks smoke, 75% of black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes.
Everywhere in the country, we're trying to dissuade people from smoking cigarettes.
Smoking flavored cigarettes is said to be an enticement to young churon because it masks the harsh flavor of a normal cigarette.
But we're going to leave menthol in there.
So we're encouraging African Americans to smoke.
Of course, there's profit in it.
But this is crystal clear.
The very liberals who claim to want the best for our minorities are now thinking possible for them to continue to get menthol-flavored cigarettes, which they smoke 75%.
And we know what they all say about tobacco, nicotine cigarettes, that it kills, causes cancer.
So the government's firmly standing behind cancer for blacks via menthol cigarettes.
They want all the other people, white people, who smoke cinnamon and clove flavored to quit because they won't be able to get the little candy cigarettes.
But the black people are going to be able to keep getting their candy cigarettes.
So the government, the liberal government, saves the white people and kills the black people via cigarettes.
I'm telling you, wait till Jeremiah Wright hears about this.
Or wait till his substitute, whatever new preacher at the Trinity Church, when they hear about this, I want to see that sermon.
Here is Ken in Brooklyn.
Ken, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
You're next.
Nice to be on your show, Rush.
Thanks.
Thank you.
You know, for once, I agree with something you said.
What's that?
Because I'm a typical, you know, quote-unquote liberal that we should open up more refineries and produce more.
Not drill more, not go into Anwar, not do a lot of things, but produce more, yeah.
Well, how are we going to produce more?
How are we going to refine more if we don't have more to refine?
Well, it goes back to the merger, I think, a year ago with the two biggest oil companies merging, made the biggest corporate merger in history.
We have to realize that the man behind the curtain in our government is big oil.
They own presidents, they rig elections, they are in complete control, they are aligned with the military.
In fact, every time a war breaks out, gas spikes 50 cents a gallon.
And we have to deregulate, I mean, we have to un-monopolize the oil business.
We have to not be under their thumb and not, you know, be the people ignoring the shoes and the cuffs behind the curtain.
We have to stand up to big oil.
Now, that doesn't mean not producing more petroleum refineries, but I think we're being strong-armed by big oil with high gas prices to make us an uncle for Anwar.
What do you mean by uncle for Anwar?
What do you mean?
I think they're raising the prices to make us cry out so that we can.
Oh, so they can get more oil to monopolize us with.
So that they'll ply us away from resisting Anwar.
Yes, I see the lights are going off now.
So this is all a ruse to get us a drill for more oil so they'll have even more monopolistic control over us.
Pretty much.
Yeah.
Okay.
Jeez.
So you think big oil is pretty much unregulated.
They get to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it.
Well, did anyone see a trial for John Lennon's murder?
They own the media.
I see your point.
And by the way, you didn't know Hillary Bill Clinton met with Stephen King in the mid-90s in the White House.
Stephen King or Stevie Wonder?
Author Stephen King.
Stephen King and Bill Clinton met.
Oh, that's right.
I forgot.
Damn it, you're right.
And Nixon and Reagan used him to kill John Lennon.
Well, you can't leave Stephen King out of this.
No, he's the evil ogre that haunts us in the middle of our dreams.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Nixon and Reagan used Stephen King to wipe out Lennon.
Lennon murdered Leonardo.
Yeah, Monday Night Football so that Cosell would be able to announce the assassination during the Franklin.
Yeah, yeah.
Like the Roman Arena.
And we never did see a trial.
No, but I mean, the lunatic that shot Lennon got sent up.
What was that?
The lunatic that shot Lennon got sent up.
A year and a half after the murder, he pled guilty behind closed doors.
There was no trial.
Yeah.
Yoko didn't complain.
She used Nixon's ace in the hall.
And Big Oil's behind this.
Well, Big Oil wants that oil.
And they knew John Lennon was the one thing that would have stood up to this war and united the public against it.
John Lennon would stand up to which war?
This war we're in right now.
They knew they had this plan for the money.
Two years ahead of us.
You mean that Big Oil, working with Nixon and Reagan and Stephen King, wiped out John Lennon back in, what was it, the 70s?
1980, December 19th.
1980.
On Jim Morrison's birthday, 1980.
No coincidence there either, is there?
No.
So you have 24 years ago, Nixon and Reagan conspiring with Stephen King to convince some idiot to go out and waste Lennon because they didn't.
No, Well, because they knew 24 years later, we'd be in Iraq, and only John Lennon could stop it.
That's right.
Okay.
Okay, that last caller.
What was our last caller's name?
Ken from Brooklyn.
He was right about two things.
He was right when he said that we haven't built a refinery in too many years.
And he was really right when he said he was a typical liberal.
I, ladies and gentlemen, I had planned on offering, because he was talking about oil and pollution.
I was going to give him a rush pack.
I was going to give him a rush pack from Allen Brothers.
Great steaks and hamburgers and hot.
I was going to give him one of those just to be nice.
But I gave up the plan halfway through the call because I figured all the guy would do is take it out and lay it at the grave of John Lennon.
And who knows what would happen to it then?
▲
Export Selection