All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:16
May 13, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, they're the drive-bys.
The drive-bys keep talking about Obama going to my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
He's going to be there at 6 o'clock tonight for what they're calling.
It's not a campaign stop because it's not open to the public.
He's going to go to Thorngate Limited as a clothes manufacturer.
It's on Independence Street.
Been there since, well, when I was growing up, if not before.
I don't know if it's a union shop.
It probably is, but it's not open to the public.
It's a closed event with a bunch of union people.
In fact, our microphones are everywhere in Cape Girardeau, as you know.
Everybody keeps asking me, why, of all places, on the day of the West Virginia primary when Mrs. Clinton's going to smoke him out, why go to Cape Girardo, Missouri?
Folks, I asked myself that for about two seconds, and then I came up with the answer.
There's no mystery here why Obama is going to Cape Girardo, Missouri.
He's getting all this publicity because he's going into my hometown.
That's exactly why, on the day Mrs. Clinton's supposed to have a big win in West Virginia, the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives has come up with a new slogan.
The Democrats are laughing themselves silly about this.
The House Republicans' new slogan is Change You Deserve.
They're doing this in a television ad.
I think it's a short little 10-second ad, but it was formed the basis of their campaign.
The problem with the slogan, Change You Deserve, is that it is trademarked by a company that makes an antidepressant.
Have you ever heard of the antidepressant effects or?
I never heard of it, but apparently that's the slogan, change you deserve.
So the House Republicans come up with a slogan trademarked by antidepressant medicine.
Would somebody explain to me why the Republicans, anywhere, at any time, anyhow, would come up with a slogan with the word change in it in the first place, since that is wholly owned by the Obama campaign?
What is the ongoing fascination with accepting the premises advanced by the Democrats and then thinking we can improve on their premise?
Whatever happened to standing up and fighting their premise?
This whole concept of change, the idea we got some new candidate here with change, Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator today does a yeoman's job of exposing that there is absolutely nothing new about Barack Obama, that in fact Barack Obama is nothing more than Jimmy Carter serving his second term.
Are there, and here's Jeffrey Lord, let me give you some excerpts of his piece here today.
Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 70s, led by Jimmy Carter?
While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's performance in the Oval Office?
And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like windfall profits tax?
And as the string of American presidents and presidential campaigns gets longer, the newest candidates and the latest president have taken a looking backwards to select the presidential policies of admired predecessors.
You know, this is this, that is dead on right.
And I have to take a departure here before getting to the meat of Mr. Lord's piece.
Because on the conservative side, on our side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, we have conservative pundits in the elitist Northeastern corridor who are out there suggesting we can't go back to the 80s.
The 80s are old hat.
Reagan, that era is over.
We've got to forget that.
We've got to leave Reagan alone.
Now, that was then, this is now.
We've got a whole new set of challenges now.
We need to look to the future.
We need to take stock in what America is now and come up with policies that define the new conservatism.
And what do we have?
I don't care whether you look at Obama, you look at McCain, you look at people going back to recreate policies of the past under new names, under new titles.
But it's the same old thing.
Those of us who still proudly call ourselves Reagan conservatives are the ones looking forward.
We're the ones looking forward with the desire to save this country, to preserve the institutions and traditions that made this country great, which basically are capitalism and liberty, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Small government, get it out of the way.
Yet everywhere we turn in politics, it doesn't matter where the party, big government, more expansive government, even though it might be a compassionate government.
We got people looking to emulate the socialist democracies of Western Europe.
On both sides of the aisle, it doesn't matter.
And yet, those of us who are Reagan conservatives are told we're the old-fashioned ones, that we're the ones stopping progress.
All right, well, let me get back to Jeffrey Lord's meat and potatoes here in his American Spectator piece.
Obama's windfall profits tax idea.
Keep in mind now, Obama, a new visionary, a man trodding the political soil, unlike any man who has ever trod the political soil.
A man who will be able to unify the American people.
A man who can make us forget our disagreements and come together in common purpose.
What a bunch of BS.
There is no such politician.
Every politician, every iteration of politician has already trod the precious political soil.
It is not possible for somebody new to come along.
Just like it is not possible for something new in a football game to happen that hasn't happened before or a baseball game.
Everybody was going nuts.
Some guy in the Cleveland Indians had an unassisted triple play the other day.
Whew, well, you look it up.
It's happened before.
So is the windfall profits tax idea.
Jimmy Carter on national television in 1980, quote: Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits.
The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that legislators who sit idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters.
With Democrats controlling Congress, they got their way.
As if on queue, oil production fell to the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels.
America's dependence on foreign oil rose.
Now, some of you might be asking, well, why?
Why did our domestic oil production decrease?
Because big oil says, okay, fine, you're going to put a windfall profits tax on American oil.
We'll leave it in the ground and we'll go elsewhere.
They are, after all, global companies.
It will happen again.
There's nothing new about it, Senator Obama.
There's nothing visionary, nothing unifying, and it doesn't work.
And of course, it's not intended to work.
It's not intended to produce a drop more energy.
It's not intended to produce a drop more oil or gasoline.
Designed to punish.
Another Jimmy Carter favorite was to appear to attack the wealthy, going after rich businessmen who enjoyed themselves with the $50 martini lunch.
That was the creation of Jimmy Carter.
The $50 martini lunch elected Carter went after the martini business lunch.
Tax deduction all right, but then quickly turned on the middle class with a social security payroll tax increase.
Obama's already well on board with Carter-esque rhetoric about tax cuts for the wealthy.
What taxes will a president Obama raise?
That, as with Carter, can't be discussed as a candidate.
Number three appeasement and the notion that we can look evil in the eye and smile.
Another Carter favorite, captured forever with the image of the American president kissing Brezhnev on the cheek at a Moscow summit 1979, and that, more famously, was the notion underpinning Neville Chamberlain's desperate face-to-face with Adolf Hitler.
Didn't work either time, nor will it work as Obama seems to be seriously proposing sitting down with Iran.
Why?
Because bullies are bullies, be they Russian communists, German dictators or Iranian mullahs.
Senator McCain succinctly sums up Obama's take as a lack of both judgment and experience, which surely is true.
Here's another thing, ladies and gentlemen, this business Obama's, not.
He's being praised by Hamas.
I got to get to this before the program ends.
Richard Cohen in the Washington POST today is just fuming at McCain for daring to point out that Hamas has endorsed Obama, even though they did.
Even though they did.
What do you mean?
What do you mean, Sterlius?
They did because it's unfair, it's dirty politics.
It's dirty politics because McCain ought to know that Obama is not seeking the endorsement of Hamas and he doesn't want to make deals with him.
And, and Richard Cohen says, McCain ought to know this.
But this is just it's it's.
It's exactly what the McCain camp, the Obama camp's, all about.
Any criticism is not allowed.
That's a distraction.
Wait, will you hear this?
Get to it in due course.
Obama's views are something else.
They are the product of a worldview that's been around for centuries, failing every time it's tried.
Obama's campaign website says Obama will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.
He'll stop the development of new nuclear weapons.
He'll work with Russia to take U.S.
And Russian ballistic missiles off the hair trigger alert.
He will seek dramatic reductions in U.S.
And Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material.
And he will set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate range missiles.
So the agreement is global.
He also pledges to stop research and deployment of a missile defense, the same that Reagan created to end the Cold War.
America was led down this same path by Jimmy Carter.
Whether advocated by Carter in 79, Neville Chamberlain in 1939 or President Obama in 2009, the philosophy behind this idea has never worked period yet.
To borrow from Reagan's line in his debate with Carter, here we go again, but perhaps more astonishing Then, his advocacy of a return to Carterism.
Obama channels the Republican president to whom Carter was frequently compared, Herbert Hoover.
Obama is completely on board with protectionism, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley tariff that was a product of the Hoover administration in 1930.
The bottom line to all this is that there's nothing new about Barack Obama.
Zilch Zero Nada.
In fact, it was all tried before 1976 through 1980.
We needed something called the Misery Index to be able to categorize just how rotten things got under Jimmy Carter.
You know, this is just one of those days.
This is from the St. Cloud, Minnesota Times.
A St. Cloud State University student, a teacher training program at Technical High School, a student in a teacher training program at Technical High School left the school in late April because he says he feared for the safety of his service dog.
The school district calls it a misunderstanding.
Officials say they hope that Tyler Heard, 23-year-old junior from Matamedi, who aspires to teach special education, would continue his training in the district.
Mr. Heard, Tyler Heard, said that a student threatened to kill his service dog named Emmett, who is a black lab.
The dog is trained to protect Heard because he has seizures.
These seizures can occur every week, and they are from a childhood injury.
So the dog, Emmett, has a pouch on his side that assists those who try to help Heard when he has his seizures.
Heard said he was able or unable to finish his 50 hours of field training at the school.
The university waived the remaining 10 hours.
He said he plans to do his student teaching outside a high school setting.
We came up with a solution because I felt threatened by it, Heard said.
The school district and university are working to make sure a similar situation doesn't happen again.
Kate Steffens, Dean of the College of Education at St. Cloud State and tech assistant principal Lori Lockhart met Thursday.
Now, I have read to you this whole story.
Other than, well, I'm about halfway through it.
You still don't know why this guy left, do you?
You have not heard me say why this guy decided to leave this school.
All you've heard me say is he has seizures.
Once a week, he has the dog with a pouch, and the pouch contains ingredients to help passersby help the guy when he has a seizure.
That's why the dog is there.
Somebody threatened his dog, felt his dog wasn't safe, so he gets out of there.
The university people say a big mistake.
Here is the reason: the threat to the dog came from a Somali student who is Muslim, according to Heard, and according to St. Cloud State and school district officials, the Muslim faith, which is the dominant faith of Somali immigrants, forbids the touching of dogs.
Heard trained at Tehali Community School and Tech.
He said that his experience at Talahi was good.
The Somali students there warmed up to the dog, eventually petted him using paper to keep their hands off of his fur.
But things didn't go well at the next school.
Students were taunting his dog, and he finally felt he had to leave after he was told that a student made a threat.
Heard met with the administrator, but said he didn't feel comfortable continuing.
The administrator says, it's a big misunderstanding.
Maybe so.
Who knows?
But here's the bottom line.
As I say, this is just one of those days.
One Muslim student from Somalia was able to force this kid from a school in the United States of America because he needs a dog to help him when he seizes.
I guess this is a matter.
I don't know if it's life and death if this guy starts having seizures, but it's obviously pretty close.
So the dog is there, something like a seeing-eyed dog in the same vein.
So one Muslim Somali student is able to force this kid from a school in the USA, in this country, because he needs a dog to help him.
And the Muslim faith, the dominant faith of Somali immigrants, forbids the touching of dogs.
Let's go to the phones.
Eddie in Monroe, New York.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking the call.
Love you.
I tell you, it's easy to get in touch with President Bush than it is you.
I have one comment I wanted to make.
I think, what do you think on OPEC not pulling out enough oil because of our support behind Israel and our military back behind Israel?
Okay, I'm really having trouble hearing the phones today, so I'm having to read the transcription of what you said.
You're asking me, what do I think about OPEC not pulling enough oil because our support for Israel?
Yes.
So you think they're punishing us by keeping oil in the ground?
Maybe, maybe just a little bit.
Yeah.
Not delivering it to the United States.
Not looking at keeping it in the oil.
I'm not going to close the door on any possibility.
Because last week I was talking with some people who, no, I wasn't talking with people.
It was a Heritage Foundation report that was Sunday in the New York Post.
Damn it, I printed that out and it didn't show up here.
I knew I was looking for something I couldn't find.
It was a great, great column by a Heritage Foundation guy named Cohen who laid out the exact reasons why the Saudis want us out of Iraq.
They want us out of the Middle East.
They are our biggest enemies is this paper's theory.
I'm going to go find that.
Hang on, just I'm glad you reminded me of that.
Don't go away, folks.
All right, here is Ariel Cohen, and this was published Sunday in the New York Post on the op-ed page.
Ariel Cohen's a Ph.D. senior research fellow in international energy security at the Heritage Foundation.
He's the author of The Real World, which is a weekly column published in the Middle East Times.
It begins this way.
As you go deeper into debt, filling up your tank with $4 gas this weekend, look on the bright side.
You're helping to fund countries that hate you.
From Russia to Iran to Venezuela, America's adversaries are splurging on oil windfalls, while programs directed against Uncle Sam and his allies are funded by petroleum revenues.
Big Bucks are allowing the oil sultans and dictators to intimidate U.S. allies, buy politicians and academics, and purchase election outcomes.
Oil prices are going up partly because of supply and speculation, but also because these countries can decide to punish the U.S. or limit our influence, particularly when they disagree with policies toward Iraq and Israel.
Part of the reason they can do this is that governments of the OPEC cartel and the non-cartel producers like Russia make sure that international oil companies do not own reserves in the ground.
Exxon, for instance, spent only 4% of its exploration budget in the Middle East last year.
Local governments do not allow Western companies to take control of their own destiny.
Thus, the global oil production is at the mercy of opaque and corrupt national oil companies while the governments that own them enjoy skyrocketing oil prices and the growing mind-boggling wealth.
The ironic thing about all this is that Americans in this country, thanks to Liberal Democrats and the Obama campaign, have been told for decades to hate U.S. oil companies.
They're the big bogeyman.
The revenues of the major oil-producing countries have quadrupled in three years.
Since 9-11, oil prices have more than quintupled.
This year, Europe and the U.S. will spend approximately $2 trillion on imported oil, while the world will spend close to $3 trillion.
This money recycles back to the U.S. and the West, often in the most legitimate ways.
Sovereign investment funds have acquired large chunks of America's financial flagships, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Blackstone, and the Carlisle Group.
A foreign government acquiring a serious stake in U.S. corporate gems can influence U.S. policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The oil shakes can tweak attitudes toward extremism and terrorism and buy access to politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions.
In the future, these funds may acquire defense and technology flagships, Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, and others, or go after primary media assets from CNN to Fox.
However, oil revenues may be used in much more sinister ways.
Money can buy nuclear weapons programs, ballistic missile arsenals, and other arms.
It can also pay for terrorist armies.
Today's attempt to overthrow the pro-American government in Lebanon is bankrolled by Iran.
Hezbollah is a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary.
Its chief has the official title of the representative of Iran's supreme leader in Lebanon.
Iran paid for 27,000 rockets, Hezbollah has aimed at Israel.
Iran also buys Hamas weapons and popularity in Gaza.
In a recent children's TV broadcast by Hamas El-Aqsa TV, a Hamaznik boy is shown assassinating Bush in the Oval Office and declaring that the White House will be turned into a mosque.
Money may not buy you love, but it sure pays for propaganda.
Al Jazeera, the Qatari Arabic and English language TV, is a propaganda arm at global reach.
Viciously anti-American, it talks to tens of millions of Arabic-speaking Muslims worldwide, as well as audiences in Pakistan, India, London, and Detroit.
Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabism, is financing hundreds of religious seminaries, madrasas, educating generations of U.S. hating and anti-Semitic Muslim extremists from Michigan to Manila.
Some of them will pick up arms to fight the U.S. and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Wahhabis deny other religions the right to exist in dignity, as a recent religious fatwa in Saudi Arabia demonstrated.
Two journalists who argued for tolerance were sentenced to death.
In the U.S., a majority of mosques partake of Saudi and Gulf largesse.
The Saudis often provide religious leaders, imams, textbooks, and curricula to Muslim communities and schools.
There is little to no control as far as the content of the teachings or school books, but a Freedom House study found that these are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American, and anti-Israel.
Despite trips by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Saudi Arabia refuses to increase output, and why would they?
They can use it as a leverage to get their way, particularly in Israel.
Riyadh also employs an army of lobbyists and other influencers in Washington, London, Brussels, and elsewhere around the world.
These shadow mercenaries promote a benign image for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
They appear on TV.
They write newspaper and journal articles.
They direct university programs on Islamic or Middle Eastern studies.
Saudi princes have poured tens of millions into prestigious universities from Georgetown and Harvard to Cambridge and Edinburgh.
Former senior government officials and ambassadors are on the royal payroll, influencing their colleagues in the diplomatic service.
This is how the Saudi peace plan, calling for undermining Israel through a massive influx of Palestinian refugees, received U.S. support at the highest levels.
This is how the Carter Center in Atlanta ended up taking millions in Gulf oil money.
This is why Jimmy Carter looks like he's shilling for the Iranian Saudi client, Hamas.
If all this were not enough, Hugo Chavez is spending billions in dollar oil subsidies to assemble an empire of dependencies in Latin America.
According to evidence on a laptop taken from a dead guerrilla leader in the neighboring Ecuador, Chavez supports the FARC narco-guerrillas who are attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government of President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia, who is also on the Democrat Party's enemies list.
Chavez, an ally of Mahmoud Akhmadinizad of Iran, provides cheap oil and loans to Daniel Ortega and his wife, the Sandinista rulers of Nicaragua.
Chavez also supports leftist leaders and forces in Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay.
Their intent is to deny the U.S. influence and allies in South America and ease the way for an Iranian Hezbollah penetration of the southern cone of South America.
Russian leaders, more anti-America today than ever, have written the book on using money and energy muscle to buy friends and influence neighbors.
They made an example out of Ukraine by cutting gas supplies to it on New Year's Day for four days.
They also intimidated France and Germany into bucking the U.S. at the Bucharest NATO summit and objecting to Georgia and Ukraine being issued a NATO membership plan.
Russia's Gazprom has hired former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as the chairman of a pipeline consortium, made a similar offer to former Italian prime minister and the top bureaucrat Romano Prodi.
Putin does brisk energy business with Silvio Berluscioni and with the French president Sarkozy, though both are considered pro-American.
German businessmen enthusiastically lobby Chancellor Angela Merkel on the Kremlin's behalf.
Russia, some argue, has more clout today in Europe than Washington.
Finally, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, even U.S. friend Kuwait are dumping the dollar in favor of the Euro in energy transactions.
Now, to stave all this off and to combat its oil-rich adversaries, the U.S. needs in the short term to expand its domestic energy sector.
Increasing oil and gas production in the West, along the Pacific and Atlantic continental shelf, and in Alaska will help, and so will a coal and nuclear power buildup.
The U.S. Congress should also abolish corn ethanol subsidies and lift tariffs on the really competitive ethanol made from sugar cane.
Brazil and Africa can produce more ethanol than Iowa and Nebraska.
However, in the long term, more advanced technological solutions are vital to stem the global wealth redistribution to OPEC potentates and other America haters.
World powers have risen and fallen over major economic factors.
This should never be the case of our nation.
The oil potentate should know that the U.S. will not be intimidated or bankrupted out of existence.
Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow, International Security of Energy at the Heritage Foundation.
I spent the time to read this because we had a caller asking about the whole notion here of whether or not OPEC was keeping a lid on oil supply to punish us for supporting Israel and so forth.
I think, you know, the essential analysis of this is, and the basic analysis is that we are a great country at grave risk in a dangerous world.
And there are people, countries, despots, tyrants, thugs, who would love to cut us down to size and don't have to do it militarily.
They can do it by making us dependent on what they have that we don't have.
Making us dependent on what they have that we also have, but that we won't produce.
And they have to be happy as they can be when they look at the presidential race in the United States of America and say, we don't have to give money to either side because whoever wins, America's energy policy is going to only benefit us, the people who are trying to cut America down to size.
Because it seems to them, OPEC, Chavez, the Saudis, whoever you want to mention, Putin, the Russians, they can look at our presidential campaign and they can see that whoever wins, America is going to become more and more and more dependent on foreign oil.
And in fact, if these presidential candidates get their way, the U.S. is going to actually punish itself without any help from abroad by inflicting tremendous tax increases and regulations on American businesses that produce energy and thereby destroying the ability to create wealth on the part of American investors, corporations, and citizens.
So if you are the enemy of the United States and you're trying to punish us for whatever reason, you don't like our policy with Israel, you don't like us being in Iraq, you don't like the fact that we kicked your butt in the Cold War and the Berlin Wall came down, whatever reason you hate us, you got to be smiling big today because you're watching your greatest enemy and threat destroy itself.
Ha!
Welcome back, El Rushbo.
About to wrap it up here for another excursion into broadcast excellence.
We have a trucker on a road in Pennsylvania burning diesel.
It's Terry.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing, Megan?
Hey, I wanted to really kind of talk about what I think is the ultimate white guilt.
And being a black man, I just kind of don't see where people are really talking about where I think Obama is just how much he's hurt racism in this country.
You know, everything that is involved, I just think that obviously it's a function of relationship with this Reverend Wright.
Can't call him by his name.
Anytime, anything's going on, whatever Hillary's doing in West Virginia, it's race.
I think if you take someone who's wherever he went to school, Princeton, Ivy League guy, and has to go to a church to get a street bread.
I mean, to me, what's that saying to our young people?
I'm only speaking for young black children.
Here, a guy wants to be quote the second black president of the United States, and here he's an educated guy, and he's got to go lower himself.
And I just think that it just does whatever everything of liberalism to at least the black community really has just lowered our life expectations.
That's what I tell my kids all the time.
It just lowers our expectations.
We ourselves, we've set the Ku Klux Klan out of business.
I mean, we take a small percentage of the population, but have a much higher percentage of abortions.
You know, it just kills me when my friends sit and talk about hate crimes.
I guess one black man killing another black man.
Wait, wait, wait.
What does Obama have to do with all this, though?
I'm sitting and saying is here's a guy talking about being the president, and one of the things that he's done, he's brought out talking about this church.
And, you know, you hear people say, I belong to a megachurch.
This stuff doesn't go on.
You know, and for him to say this is the norm, it isn't.
It isn't.
It's not even close to it.
To have to sit around and basically whine and cry every time, you know, he wants to be like he's some, I don't know, polka dot man or something.
And doesn't and he's the one who's been decked race and everything that's involved with it.
And it's kind of another one of those poor as me type things that's going on with the way his whole campaign has been rolled.
Well, I tell you, you know, I think that the Obama campaign has had a remarkable transformation, and it's not good.
Well, I think it's good in one regard because the phoniness is gone.
Here was a guy who was 100% above it all.
He was not a liberal.
He was not a Democrat.
He was a messiah.
He wasn't black.
He wasn't white.
He was somebody who had never trod.
Operation Chaos saw to it that he was blunted up politically by the Clinton campaign.
It was out there.
This racial business has been brought front and center exclusively by the Democrat Party.
They have seen to it that everybody in the country paying attention knows that racism and sexism and bigotry have a home in the Democrat Party.
And now Obama's gotten to the point where he can't avoid being the black candidate and, in fact, is trying to trade off of it now.
So I can understand how you might be frustrated that there is too much racism in the campaign, but it's going to be tough to avoid when the drive-by media is also making it all about race.
Because if you disagree with Obama, you are a racist.
Pure and simple.
There are no two ways about it.
Say, look, Terry, hang on.
I want to do something.
You guys, the trucking business, you're paying through the nose for diesel.
And I want to give you some Allen Brothers steak.
You have not tasted steak, Terry, until you have tasted Allen Brothers.
I'm going to send you a rush pack.
This barbecue season, its grilling season is now open for most in the country.
And if you have not tasted this stuff yet, folks, you have to.
Just go to absteaks.com.
That's their website, absteaks.com.
Be prepared to have your mouth water when you look at the pictures of the food that is available at Allen Brothers, but they've got the best steaks.
I serve them exclusively.
Everybody raves.
They're better than what people get in restaurants.
The hamburgers and the hot dogs ditto.
So, Terry, I'm going to send you a rush pack from Allen Brothers.
If you're going to have some people over, if you've got a barbecue planned, give this stuff a try.
And folks, it's American.
It doesn't come from China.
Allen Brothers is delicious, better than you've ever tasted, and it is safe.
That's absteaks.com.
They got all kinds of stuff: the rush pack, the rush pack, more.
It's great stuff.
Folks, I apologize for being such a sour puss today, but I know it sounded good anyway.
In fact, it was great.
He'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection