The views expressed by the host on this program, documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the time.
We got a new opinion audit in from the official opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, the Sullivan Group.
No change.
Still almost always right 98.8% of the time.
It's a major accomplishment.
And when you get that close to perfection in your opinions, it takes a lot of being right a lot of the time to move it up even one-tenth of a point.
We look at this as a very positive result.
Did not lose any ground here in the latest opinion audit.
Great to have you with us, folks.
Telephone number if you'd like to join us.
And if you're on the hold, stay there.
We're going to be getting to you very quickly.
800-282-2882.
The email address is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Always get a big laugh when the drive-by media writes about something in the context that the drive-by media isn't covering it.
And it happened yesterday in the Washington Post, the lead editorial.
The Iraqi upturn is the headline.
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
Don't look now.
The drive-by's are trying not to look.
They don't want to see this.
This is upsetting every apple cart.
No, man.
I want to take you back.
I asked a question, and this was last, maybe a year ago, nine months ago, when the Democrats led by Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi and all the rest of them and Obama were running on and on and on about how the surge will not work.
Remember the Petraeus ad, the New York Times by moveon.org.
Remember the insulting questioning he got from Mrs. Clinton, having to, a willing suspension of disbelief, accusing him of lying about the success of the surge.
Nancy Pelosi saying, don't you come up here and lie to us about how well it's going.
That's not what we want to hear, so forth and so on.
And I asked a rhetorical question at the time.
I said, suppose, what happens if this thing works and it works well?
And just suppose the president's approval numbers start coming up as a result of it.
Suppose Obama has made his number one qualification to be president, the fact that he never approved of the Iraq war, that he knew from the beginning it was a disaster, that he never supported it like Mrs. Clinton did.
And now he's got to find a way to find a graceful way out of this.
And the Washington Post has come along and given him that.
Let me give you a couple excerpts from their editorial yesterday.
There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks, which is odd.
This is sort of like me telling you folks, it's really strange I haven't talked about this.
I wonder why.
It's like me beating myself up for not seriously, not trying to make funny.
There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks, which is odd because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war.
While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years, sending key militants scurrying to Iran.
At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda.
So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed.
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have never been closer to defeat than they are now.
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007, produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites.
Now another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained special groups that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans.
It is, of course, too early to celebrate, though now in disarray, the Mahdi army of Muki al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall.
Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments.
Then we move on to page two.
If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing more U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year.
Still, the likely Democrat nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation rather than abandoning a failed enterprise.
You cannot get any more explicit than this from the drive-by media.
The lead editorial in yesterday's Washington Post warning Obama, hey, pal, your plan of getting out of there as a failed enterprise is up in smoke.
You better start figuring out a way to plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation.
How does Obama do this with any credibility when all he has said is that it is a failure?
It has no chance.
It is doomed, and we are doomed to defeat.
Looking for an audio soundbite here because we have one on this.
It is from the lovely and gracious Mikab Zhazhinsky.
Let me see.
Grab audio soundbite number 20.
This is it.
Miko Zhazhinsky, this morning on Joe Scarborough's program on MSNBC, the New York Times reporter John Harwood says, I don't think Americans have forgotten Iraq.
You know what?
I think Americans are tired of being duped, and I think this is coming back from the McClellan book.
Everyone talks about how Americans want to win.
I don't know so much with Iraq.
So, all this good news out of Iraq, Mikob Zhazhinsky of DNC-TV, also known as MSNBC, says, well, I don't think Americans care.
I don't care if they're winning.
I don't care for winning.
Really?
Obama has got a problem.
The Democrats have a problem.
I speculated about this long ago.
The one what if that no one was discussing and nobody's discussing it now.
And it's a long shot, I admit, but so was this.
Six weeks ago, much less six months ago, did you ever think that you would read or hear about an editorial in the drive-by media, the Washington Post, talking about how the war can be won, that Obama better shift his position to sustaining an improving situation rather than abandoning a bad one?
That was just as big a long shot as this one is.
What if before the election, Bush's folly becomes Bush's triumph?
What if before the election, President Bush's approval numbers go up?
They've been hovering where?
32 to 25 percent?
What if they hit 40?
What if they start what if they're a trend line of the Bush approval numbers going up?
How many years did it take for Seward's folly, that is the Alaska Purchase, to be recognized as a stroke of genius?
I mean, when Seward purchased Alaska, oh my, what a stupid waste of money.
But now look.
How many years will it take for Bush's folly, aka the mission in the Middle East, to become one?
What if it turns out to be right in the next five months instead of the next five years or 50 years?
It's possible.
When was the last time you heard we lost the war?
When was the last time you heard we can't win the war?
When was the last time you heard the surge can't work?
When was the last time you heard the surge isn't working?
When was the last time you heard the surge won't work?
When was the last time you heard we've already lost?
Well, as recently as two months ago, and as recently as exactly one year ago, actually 14 months ago now, when Dingy Harry was waving the white flag of surrender.
How long has it been since you heard our troops are caught in the crossfire of civil war?
Our troops have no business being in the midst of a civil war.
How long has it been since you heard, why isn't the Iraqi government meeting its benchmarks?
Remember that?
The benchmarks an incompetent U.S. Congress couldn't meet itself, put on the Iraqis, and they kept asking, why aren't there benchmarks being met?
There's no political progress here.
When was the last time you heard that success of the Petraeus strategier, the surge, calls for a suspension of disbelief?
Something is happening out there, and it'll become apparent to all sooner, if not later.
But this is the question.
What if it becomes apparent to all sooner?
Mainstream media says not a chance.
Washington Post writes this piece as though they're innocent bystanders and spectators.
How come the media are not covering this?
To which you ask, well, where the hell is this on the front page?
Why is this on the editorial page?
Where is this story on the front page?
Ask yourself, is anybody in the drive-by media today as respected as the great journalist Horace Greeley was?
You remember Horace Greeley?
Go west, young man.
One of the most severe critics of Bush's folly, sorry, Seward's folly, was the very same Horace Greeley in the then mainstream New York Tribune.
Now, there wasn't any television at the time.
It was the 1860s.
And so when you hear the what-ifs, well, what if Mrs. Clinton goes to Denver?
Well, what if the McClellan book kills McCain's chances?
Well, what if Hillary supports Obama?
What if Hillary doesn't support Obama?
What if the Hillarybackers stay home?
There's that one other one-if.
What if something happens in Iraq that shifts Bush's folly into Bush's triumph?
Where does that leave the Democrats who have built their entire nominating process on the folly of Bush's war?
Now, why'd the Washington Post do this piece?
I suspect they did it and they put it on the editorial page to get it out of the way so that at least one drive-by Oregon can say, hey, we reported it and then wash their hands of it.
I'll be surprised if the drive, this does not fit the storyline, does not fit the action line, doesn't fit the template.
I doubt that we will see any significant reporting of this.
But if the news continues to improve, it may be hard for them to continue to ignore it.
And if, big if, but if Bush's numbers start going up as a result of this, you think there's chaos in the Democrat Party now?
Just wait.
America's real anchorman, Doctor of Democracy, America's Truth Detector, Rush Limbaugh, another summer spectacular from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Nick in Salt Lake City, nice to have you on the program.
Hello.
Rush, despite our differences, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I know I don't fit the mold of a Clinton supporter, but not only am I a Clinton supporter, I'm a very upset and furious Clinton supporter today.
You said it earlier perfectly.
I believe that my count has been his campaign's been hijacked by not only the Democratic Committee, but also Obama himself, I believe.
Just furious today.
I'm almost there.
I've got to give you something else to think about here, Nick.
And I know you're on a cell phone.
I can hear a little bit of a delay.
But somebody's running Obama.
Somebody's behind Obama.
And I don't mean in a conspiratorial way.
There's always a mover and a shaker behind candidates.
Reagan had his kitchen cabinet and so forth.
Somebody's pushing Obama.
Somebody's writing speeches.
Somebody has figured out that he was the best guy to get rid of the Clintons.
There's somebody in the Democrat Party that really wants Rid of the Clintons.
We know that George Soros is involved with Obama, but there's somebody that's putting the words in his mouth.
Because when he goes off the teleprompter, he is a different guy.
He does not come off as the messiah.
He doesn't come off as this great unifier.
He has trouble articulating with a bunch of stutters and pauses and so forth.
But my point in telling you this is that there must be real animosity toward the Clintons at high levels of this party to go with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he's black.
Oh, absolutely.
Well, you know what frustrates me the most is here.
You've got a candidate, Mrs. Clinton, that's done her duty.
She's sat quietly for 20 years and been loyal to our party, and now look what she gets.
I have a proposal that you may not like to hear, but if you'll hear me out on this, Mr. Clinton.
I love listening to Democrat proposals.
Well, you know, I see you guys are Republicans are upset about McCain and how he crosses the party line, but I think that he could do what's really good for the country.
And why not show the ultimate sign of American unity and national unity and join up with an unstoppable ticket?
Clinton, rather a McCain-Clinton ticket.
Well, I've thought about that, Nick.
In fact, we discussed that last week on this program, the possibility of putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket with Senator McCain.
The basic problem with it is that there's not enough contrast between the two candidates.
McCain is going to have to do something.
He can go out and get all the Democrat and Independent votes he wants, but if he doesn't find a way to get some or all of a conservative base to warm up to him, he's going to have trouble.
He's going to have trouble winning even against a weakened Obama.
He's going to have to have the Republican Party base.
And Hillary's not going to bring him that.
He's already going to get what Hillary could bring him.
Do you think Republicans or conservatives are going to vote for Obama?
I think they'll vote for McCain just to not vote for Obama.
No, They won't vote for Obama.
That's the point.
But they're not going to vote for a ticket of McCain Clinton.
They're just not.
If McCain chooses the right vice presidential candidate that appeals to the Republican base, then he stands a pretty good chance of having some of them at least vote for the ticket rather than staying home and not voting.
The Republican base would never vote Obama.
Well, I agree with that.
I think, and I know I'm skewed because I'm a Clinton supporter, but I think it'd be a great ticket.
I think you have conservatives that would vote for McCain and then a whole slew of us that would vote for Clinton.
Well, why do you like Hillary over Obama?
What's the big deal?
Well, I just don't know.
I think I speak for a lot of Democrats.
I don't know where comes Obama.
I don't know where he comes from.
I don't know his past.
Yes, you do.
You're right.
I know, but I also know that the media seems to cover that up, and it scares me.
I mean, what's he done and he hasn't done modern time?
Guys, you know, this is look at how far we come.
Nick, thanks for the call.
Look at how far we've come.
Here are, we've had two callers in a row, two consecutive Democrats, and they have both been Hillary supporters, and they've both been very critical of the media for being unkind to Hillary.
Now, that's chaos.
Can we go back to the 90s, all through the two Clinton terms?
Think back, folks.
Get into your own personal cranial archives.
Whatever the Clinton White House wanted spun was spun flawlessly and on command.
If Ken Starr was said to be a sex-starved pervert, then that's what he was throughout the drive-by media.
If Paula Jones was trailer trash and you could drag a dollar bill through any trailer park and come up with any number of Paula Jones, that's what the drive-by media said.
If all of these funny campaign contributions had no controlling legal authority and therefore there was nothing illegal about them, drive-by media just spit it right back out, just repeated it verbatim.
When Clinton would lie through his teeth, the drive-by media would marvel at how well he lied.
And then they would write stories about how such lies are actually good for people because they spare hurt feelings.
That Clinton was actually setting a trend here for getting along with one another.
Little white lies actually help.
Whatever, whatever the Clinton spin was, well, it depends on what is, is.
I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, not a single time, ever.
I never asked anybody to lie.
Whatever he said, whatever she said, wham, bam, thank you, ma'am, it was repeated.
And now look where we are.
Whatever the Clintons say is rejected.
Can you imagine?
I saw Harold Ickies on DNC TV, and he was trying to explain his case on what happened Saturday at the super delegate deal with the Rules and Bylaws Committee.
And I can see it on his face.
He's just shocked.
Years ago, whatever Icky said, they would be running to the presses right now, and it would be the lead story of the news for the next two days.
Andrea Mitchell just looked at Harold Ickies and the magic's gone.
Back to the audio soundbites.
This is Saturday in Washington.
Andrea Mitchell, after the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, said this about the protesters.
Clinton supporters have poured out of the balcony here right behind us and they're shouting, Denver, Denver.
In other words, on to Denver.
They say they want to be there at the convention.
Now, Tom Foreman, who CNN, the Democrat National Committee, Rules and Bylaws Committee, says this about the protesters.
There are many people who came out of this very, very, very angry in almost my entire time in politics.
I've never seen anything quite like it.
A lot of people yelling that they will take this to Denver, yelling that they felt robbed of their vote.
There were some Obama supporters in the middle of all of that saying they were shocked at how angry the Clinton supporters were.
A lot of the women here said they felt this was a personal affront on a gender line.
Did you hear them screaming in the background?
What are the odds of this?
Here's CNN's Tom Foreman saying, I've never quite seen anything like this my entire time in politics.
Never seen a protest like this that took place on Saturday?
Take this to Denver?
Really?
Obama supporters shocked at how angry the Clinton supporters were?
Does nobody listen to me?
On the Democrat side of this, as the commander-in-chief of Operation Chaos, I have spelled this out from shortly before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
Precisely what is going on.
I have addressed the women on the Hillary Clinton support team.
I know how upset they are.
I know how angry they are.
I can relate to them.
I have spoken to them about it.
I've let them know.
From my heart, I understand how they feel.
They feel thrown out.
They feel discarded after being made to feel they ran that party.
They have just been discarded.
They are fit to be tied.
They know full well Obama's not qualified to be president.
They know full well, and they're starting to ask themselves, what the hell did we ever do to warrant this kind of disrespect from the party that we saved?
Meaning the Clintons.
Here's David in Toronto, Canada.
David, nice to have you with us on the EIB network today.
Hello.
Great to be with you, Rush.
Thank you.
Longtime listeners since 1989.
Appreciate that.
What amazes me from the vantage point of Canada is all these people that are so angry with Barack Obama and the DNC.
Why aren't they angry with Hillary Clinton?
She's waged such a lousy campaign that she basically had this thing won, and one folly after the next, she's lost it.
That's an interesting question.
Do you have your own theory as to the answer?
Well, I just think that I really think the argument for entitlement is there.
Everybody just felt that she had it sewn up.
And it's like spoiled little kids that just are stomping their feet.
True.
But why aren't they mad at her, at least in part, even a little, for running such a horrible campaign?
Because you're right, she has.
Well, if you go back to 2004 when Gore lost to Bush, I mean, 2000 when he lost to Bush, in September before the election, he was up by 17 points.
Why weren't they angry at Gore that he lost it?
Well, because they don't think he lost it.
Well, this is my point.
They're always looking for somebody else to blame.
Obama's not to blame.
The DNC isn't to blame.
Hillary, just one step after another, has waged a negative, ineffective campaign.
She ignored the caucuses.
She dragged out the dirt when probably she didn't need to.
I think the Clinton magic is just off.
And I think you're right that she's lost it on her own.
Well, you have a lot to recommend your remarks.
There's no question about it.
Everything we said about her apparently has been realized.
She's not likable.
She's not charismatic.
She does look like Nurse Ratchet.
She doesn't appear friendly.
Testicle lockbox.
All of these things.
Now, these women that support Hillary are charging all this up, chalking it all up, sexism.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
There was a sense of entitlement, a sense of coronation.
The Clintons expected this to happen.
The coronation.
They thought it would be over on Super Tuesday.
I don't know that they ever factored in an Obama, but when Obama came around, remember a year ago when the puff pieces on Obama started, and it was about this time that they did, maybe 14 months ago, we were so convinced that Hillary and Bill were running that whole show.
I remember I said, yeah, don't think this Obama amounts to anything.
just there to illustrate for people that Hillary can overcome a challenge, that she can win a fight, because they've got to make it look like she has to struggle in order to win this.
They can't make it look like the coronation that it is really slated to be.
Then something went off the tracks.
And then when Hillary, look at everybody has said it for, I don't know how long.
The more she talks, the deeper her numbers plunge.
The higher her disapprovals go, the more she talks.
She could just shut up and just run around and just smile and so forth and not say anything.
She could protect her numbers.
But of course, in the campaign, you can't do that.
You have to speak.
As to why the women don't blame Mrs. Clinton, look, the whole feminist movement is based on entitlement.
It's based on we're a minority.
We have been savaged.
We've been taken advantage of.
We've been taken for granted.
We've been mistreated.
We are owed this.
And it is apparent the Democrat Party decided that they didn't owe the Clintons anymore.
They thought it was safe.
They thought they could survive by getting rid of the Clintons.
Now, Mrs. Clinton has done the best when she's done what?
When she's made herself out to be a victim.
When she has been a woman, the caricature or the cliché of a woman when she's cried.
Remember that planted question?
How do you do it all?
How do you do your hair and your makeup?
And you still campaign all these hours and they still look so fresh.
It's hard.
It's hard.
I love my country.
Bam!
Wins a New Hampshire primary.
Goes out and acts like this made this.
This should have made women mad.
But here's the thing.
When she portrayed herself the victim, that's when she started succeeding.
When she became Nurse Ratchet, it all went down the tubes.
Stop and think, folks, here's something that I think you women on the Hillary side who are understandably angry about this.
I mean, you're probably a little angry she played the victim card.
That's not what feminism taught you to be the victim.
You're supposed to make victims of people.
You're supposed to make people cry.
You're supposed to make people wince in pain as you zoom past them.
Here she's out there playing the victim.
It was just demeaning.
She had to resort to being a cliched woman in order to get sympathy and so forth.
She just wasn't consistent.
But where would she have been without me?
No, seriously, I'm not asking this from a standpoint of ego.
Where would Mrs. Clinton have been without Operation Chaos?
Who was it that sustained this campaign and even gave it a shot Saturday?
Who was it that came to her rescue?
The damsel in distress didn't cost her a dime.
She had to borrow money from herself, but, well, and Bill.
But who was it that sustained this campaign and made it obvious that Obama was incompetent and inexperienced and runs around with reprobates?
Operation Chaos.
Operation Chaos.
I'm not looking for gratitude.
I'm not looking for thanks.
But you women out there, Hillary, what happened to her?
How did she get screwed?
Where would you have been without me and Operation Chaos?
You wouldn't have even made it to the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting Saturday to conduct your protests because it would have been over long before that.
We have a little clip here of Bill Clinton in Millbank, South Dakota today.
He is campaigning at a Hillary event.
This is very, very short.
There's music under it, too, but this is what he said.
I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind.
I wish, somebody asked Cookie if there's any applause then.
We have a habit of cutting applause for the, just save time.
There was no applause.
Okay, no applause.
This may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind.
Doesn't mean that they're not going to take this to convention.
Clinton's never been involved in a convention flight.
Whenever he got there, it was all wrapped up.
But he's trying to make people feel sorry.
You know, I know this guy.
He wants this audience.
By the way, I want to say that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind.
You better like Hillary if you want to see more of me.
Because if you don't like her, she doesn't win this.
You may never see me like this again.
And he wants the audience to go, oh, no.
So another post-surgery, post-bypass surgery moment from Bill Clinton.
And I'll back to the phones.
Lisa in Orange County, California.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
I can't believe I'm going to have to disagree with you this morning because you are nearly perfect in my mind.
But you mentioned that Obama threw the Trinity pastor and congregation and guest speakers under the bus, and I have to disagree with that because I think he's created a whole new group of victims.
And your last comments about victims actually helps my point.
You're right.
I mean, in a technical, you know, husband and wife sense, you're right.
Well, you know what?
He didn't disown them.
He blamed the media.
He got out of the church because everybody's harassing these great men.
That's right.
And you mentioned that gal Christian being the poster child, that Hillary protester in Washington.
And you're going to see puff pieces.
And you're going to see they're going to drag out one of the shut-ins.
And they're going to be the poster child for Obama.
Doesn't matter.
You know, and you're going to compare that person with a tyrant.
They may do all that.
Doesn't matter.
I'm telling you, he had to quit the church.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, but I think he created a whole new victim group that he's going to.
There's no question.
This puts the whole lie to his race speech.
Look at this guy is setting himself up for an above-the-waist, hard-hitting campaign like he's never seen.
Nobody is going to have to get dirty.
There won't have to be any psychological warfare or opposition research in this guy.
He just keeps contradicting himself.
The bottom line is he quit the church.
Now, I don't think he really quit the church because I don't think he can.
I think the church is Obama.
I think 20 years, the people that are there, the people that are preaching, the congregation, the people he knows, that's who he is.
And he can't change that.
But on the surface, he's quit the church, which is a major, major event.
Now, they're going to try to spin it as though he did it to save the church because everybody in there is getting beaten up and so forth.
But in the parts of this country where real people live and are not impacted greatly by the drive-by media, which is a lot part of the country, big part of the country, Jeremiah Wright will never be forgotten.
Father Flager will never be forgotten.
Otis Moss won't be forgotten.
None of this is going to be forgotten.
It's going to be forever a problem for Obama.
And if they think they can sweep it away by making this church the victim.
Yeah, you know, Rush, and he won't be asked to make sense of his convoluted resignation.
You know, in fact, he said he can't disown these people.
So why leave the church?
If he's so attached to them, I don't understand.
His resignation doesn't make sense.
Yes, it does.
Well, it does in the sense that he...
It does if you listen to my astounding, in-depth and unique theory.
Once again, you're correct.
Well, would you remember what my astounding, in-depth, unique theory was?
Well.
You may not have been listening when I did this.
Which makes your calling to disagree with me even gutsier.
Well, you know what?
You are 98.9%.
888.
We can't lie about that.
Almost always right, 98.8% of the time.
Now, look, Lisa, what happened here?
You got Jeremiah Wright.
Get all these tapes.
You got God Leap America.
All of this stuff.
And it won't go away.
It just won't go away.
And then the church, the Democrat Party, they have to know this church is forever now under scrutiny.
Don't turn the cameras on in there.
Don't invite some off-the-wall preacher in to even compound a problem.
Yet, that's exactly what they did.
Except this was a Catholic priest, a white Catholic priest.
The white Catholic priest comes in.
Is this a coincidence?
This would be the height of tone-deaf stupidity to continue this knowing the pressure that's on Obama.
This is why I think it was planned.
I agree with you there.
I think that they're very capable of planning something like that.
Because he needed to separate himself from the church.
And now he can do it.
But he's going to rejoin himself with the victims of the church now because he's going to be the savior for the shut-ins, and he's going to protect America from, you know, I mean, it's a perfect plan, I guess.
You're missing the point.
No, no, I do get your point, though, that the white Catholic priest served a purpose.
Obama doesn't want any more coverage of this church.
Obama does not want the drive-bys going out and finding shut-ins, going, oh, woe is us.
It's a shame Obama had he doesn't want that.
The reason he quit the church and the reason I think they brought in Father Flager as a white guy to go nuts is because now Obama resigns over what a white guy said in his church, not a black guy.
That makes it even easier, and this is designed to get rid of all this.
Just get rid of it until the election's over.
Well, yeah, I agree with that, too, but I won't be surprised if I see an ad.
I won't be surprised if I know, I know.
I hate it that you think I'm wrong.
No, no, no.
I'm laughing.
No, I'm laughing because I can't be right, no matter.
No, you are.
You're my hero, Rush.
You really are.
I love you.
Anyway, keep us informed.
And you know what?
I can't enjoy Hillary's implosion at all because I'm so afraid of Obama.
He just makes me nervous.
That's not what I'm afraid of.
I'm afraid, too, but I'm not.
I mean, I'm afraid of Obama, but I don't think Obama has a prayer.
Yeah, no, definitely not.
I don't think he has.
By the way, did you hear last week, would you hear me do the story on John Lott Jr. has his theory.
He's done some research and found out that the growth of government can be traced to when women got the vote.
I briefly heard you.
I couldn't listen because I kind of teach part-time.
I teach a government economics class.
You do?
I do.
Where?
It's a private group, a private school.
It started out as a homeschool group, and then we are now a private school, considered a private school.
So I do.
I'm doing my best to indoctrinate the next generation here.
And you're helping me out there.
I often bring my little radio to have them listen to your opening monologue.
God bless you.
You're doing the Lord's work out there.
I'm trying to do my part, although my daughter said she's going to register as an independent.
I'm like, independent?
Okay, well, we'll.
That's just because they have to rebel.
Lisa, how old is your daughter?
She's 17.
It could be worse.
Yeah, she's got a good head on her shoulders, though, but she said she wants to get into politics, perhaps.
And I thought, that's good because she's not afraid of the people.
Yeah, independent.
Just doesn't want to have to take a stand on too many things right now, but give her time.
Yeah, give her time.
It's a shame you didn't hear the story about the growth of government being commensurate with the women getting the vote, the right to vote.
Yeah, I would have liked to have heard that, but I try to listen as much as I can.
Well, I appreciate it, Lisa.
Thanks so much.
You're welcome.
Have a great day.
Great that you called.
The one observation you can make about this whole business, because he's proved it.
I mean, the growth of government started like crazy when women got the right to vote, which just proves size does matter to them.
Is happiness overrated?
That's a news story in the stack today.
As is this story from the UK Telegraph: Scientists Reveal Dangers of Older Fathers.