All Episodes
Previous Next
July 4, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:28
July 4, 2008, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Snerdley, I'm still not sure I read that right.
Obama down in Miami, he's talking to the Cuban exile community.
They hate the Castros.
They despise the castro.
They want the Castros overthrown.
They want their island nation back.
They don't want the embargo lifted.
And Obama is telling them we need to have diplomatic relations with no preconditions with the Castros.
And he's still standing there.
They have not run him out of the building.
Live from a Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
He then said something about democracy is more than just the ballot box.
I really think.
I really think this dweeb is making it up as he goes along.
I don't even think he's writing this stuff.
I I think he axarod or somebody else is right.
I think he's got it on the prompter.
That's why he makes so many gaffes.
He forgets what other people have written for him and that what he said, and he goes out there and when he's on his own, he makes all these gaffs.
He made some kind of gaff about the Cuban exile community, which is why he's down there trying to save face and fix it, but I can't imagine what he said to him fixed it.
I didn't hear any applause.
I was sound was down, it was watching on closed captioning.
But I I know the Cuban exile community.
The last thing they want to hear is diplomatic relations with the Castros without any preconditions.
He's saying this on the heels of putting his foot in his mouth over uh uh Iran on the on the on the same basis.
Something about this guy's not right.
There's something about this that doesn't jive.
This this guy, two years ago in the United States Senate, barely could find a men's room.
He was still preoccupied with trying to figure out how to ingratiate himself into Chicago machine politics.
He didn't do one thing of any significance in the Senate.
He had more I don't care votes or I'm not here votes or present votes or whatever in the Illinois Senate.
Somebody's gotta be behind this.
None of this Obama campaign makes any sense whatsoever.
Particularly him.
Anyway, uh greetings, my friends, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, open line Friday.
Whatever you want to talk about, fair game today.
We go to the phones.
The uh program content is yours.
Telephone number 800 again, 28282.
Let's talk about Senator McCain here for just a second.
Senator McCain has thrown two preachers under the bus now.
Last night in Stockton, California.
McCain held a press conference.
I just think that the statement is crazy and uh unacceptable.
And certainly Reverend Hagee, Pastor Hagee is entitled to his views.
I've never been in Pastor Hagee's church or Pastor Parsley's church.
I didn't attend their church for 20 years, and I'm not a member of their church.
I received their endorsement, which did not mean that I endorsed their views.
But the comments made most recently by Pastor Hagee are just too much.
Okay, so McCain has disavowed the endorsement of both Pastor Hagee and Pastor Rod Parsley.
Uh and yet drawing a distinction.
Hey, neither of these two guys were my pastor.
Uh this drew a response from Barack Obama last night in Boca Raton.
You know, John McCain's having to deal with his uh uh Hagee, who said stuff that is mind-boggling.
I don't attribute those statements to John McCain.
Nobody, nobody thinks that McCain believes that stuff.
And for McCain to then suggest that every single statement that was made by somebody is somehow attributable to me, is just wrong.
Senator, you don't get it.
You don't get it.
You chose your pastor.
You were in that church for 20 years.
This nutcase baptized your two crumb crunchers.
Your wife is out spouting in speeches some of the very philosophies espoused by Reverend Wright.
I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to talk about his wife.
Well, slap me.
Uh bottom bottom line here is that this guy's getting awfully defensive.
You know, he's trying to compare.
Uh trying to is trying to uh basically um cleanse himself here with a flawed comparison between these two preachers that endorsed McCain, uh, who are not his pastor and himself his meaning he knows this association with uh Jeremiah Wright has uh has upset him.
Now there's there's even a bigger, bigger contre temps uh going up between uh McCain and Obama.
Obama went to Washington yesterday to vote on the new GI Bill, and he voted against it.
McCain was not there.
He was somewhere out campaigning.
So this is on the Senate floor yesterday.
This is Obama about McCain.
I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in his opposition to this GI Bill.
I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans.
I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue.
There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.
Well, this did not sit well with uh with Senator McCain, who again in Stockton, California last night held a press conference and said this to reporters.
I don't know if the American people will judge Senator Obama as to whether he has military experience or not, but I think they may judge him as to whether he has experience and knowledge to make the kind of judgment necessary to care for our veterans.
Now, this is a little bit like the John Kerry defense.
You didn't serve, so don't criticize me.
Uh that only works for uh uh Democrats, Senator.
Uh ask Bob Dole.
He tried it against Bill Clinton, too.
Uh Jonathan Martin at the Politico has written up this episode.
Jim Webb's GI Bill passed the Senate, bipartisan majority, 7522.
Clinton Obama were both there, McCain and California on the fundraising trail.
Obama used the opportunity to once again tie his rival to the president.
Obama said, I respect McCain's service to our country is one of those heroes of which I speak, but I can't understand why he'd line up behind the president in opposition to this bill, what you just heard him say.
The McCain campaign responded by issuing a sharply worded and lengthy statement in McCain's name.
McCain notes that his support for an alternative to the Webb measure, uh, but points out his own military service and points out Obama's lack thereof.
Part of the statement.
It is typical but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take deep cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of.
Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for president is different than serving as president.
The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he's sworn to defend.
Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect, and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge.
I think I've earned the right to make that claim.
And at the end of the statement, he says, perhaps if Senator Obama would take the time and the trouble to understand this issue, he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully, but as Obama always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions.
If that's how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election.
That is Senator McCain speaking about Obama in his little dust-up that happened of Obama started it on the Senate floor.
Joe Biden on MSNBC live this morning, co-host Willie Geist was talking to him.
Senator essentially Obama has questioned McCain for not uh backing up this bill.
How do you see these two guys coming down on this?
There's a difference between an ad hominem argument and a logical response.
A logical fallacy is an out hominem argument.
That's basically what John engaged in.
It's a little bit like my saying if we're having a debate about standards for trucking uh safety on the highways.
And I voted against making The rules more stringent.
And one of my colleagues got up and said, you know, Senator Biden's wrong on this.
This is going to make people less safe.
And I said, look, my wife and daughter were killed by a tractor trailer.
Don't you tell me what it is to deal with safety?
That's an ad hominem argument.
That has nothing to do with the response.
It's not right.
It's not fair.
It's kind of beneath us.
Whoa.
All of McCain's buddies are now lining up against him.
All of his Democrat buddies are lining up against him, accusing him of ad hominem attacks.
Now, this GI Bill, just for the sake of filling you in on this, this GI bill, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is opposed by the Pentagon because it is so loaded with short-term benefits.
They fear that it will hurt troop levels because it gives troops incentives to leave the service.
Plus, there's a whole bunch of domestic spending tacked onto this thing that is irrelevant to the GI Bill, and it is it's purposely designed.
This bill was designed specifically for many reasons.
One of them is to give Obama cover on the fact that he is an anti-military dove who has joined the let's lose chorus.
And so they're constructing things in the Senate so he can vote for to make it look like he's his big hawk and big pro-military guy who loves the troops, when in fact he's voted every chance he could to defund them, or has joined the chorus of people saying they can't win or they have lost.
Abhominum argument.
And then finally, yesterday, Union City, California.
Here is Senator McCain on Senator Obama.
I admire and respect Senator Obama for a young man with very little experience, he's done very well.
So I appreciate with his very, very great lack of experience and knowledge of the issues, he's been very successful.
You can read this two ways.
You know, you can react to this two ways.
Well, what is your reaction to it, uh, Snerdley?
Um, Snerdl Snerdley's reaction is that this is a great way to take a shot.
It was uh funny and lighthearted, and it was a great way to take a shot at the fact that Obama has no experience.
Others are comparing it to Ronaldo's Magnus and his reply to Walter F. Mondo in their debate when Reagan said, I'm not gonna make an issue of my opponent's youth and inexperience.
In the second of three debates they had, because the first debate, you know, Reagan seemed overprepared.
And uh, after that debate, everybody raised the age question again on Reagan and other things.
So he came back with that line in the next debate, and it quelled it.
Other people are reacting to this.
Wow, Obama's really gotten under his skin.
This is a cheap, overly sensitive put down and an example of McCain's temper.
That's right.
It's it's it yeah, one analogy is that it's only it's like what an 80-year-old lady says to a 50-year-old employee, young man.
Young man, it's put down.
Anyway, uh, we gotta take a brief time out.
Your phone calls and other exciting events coming up.
Hi.
Welcome back.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, well-known radio rack and tour.
General all-round good guy emitting the vocal vibrations coast to coast.
All right, I've I've got I've got enough stuff on the old on the Biden stuff now.
You can stop sending me stuff, gang.
I got it all here.
This uh caller was basically right.
Uh Biden's got this thing called a violence against women act, and it's grown and grown and grown.
It was originally part of his failed, almost invisible presidential candidacy that he introduced all this stuff back in uh in Nov uh November, December of 07, which would be last year.
And here's I think this is from his own, yeah, it's from his website.
I don't know what the date of this is, however.
The date of this particular piece, but there's a there's a piece on his website that does I think it's dated last December.
Anyway, 100,000 volunteer lawyers for battered women.
Senator Biden's National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm, and dedication of uh lawyers and infuse 100,000 new lawyers, volunteer lawyers, into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims.
To enlist train and place lawyers, Biden's bill creates a new electronic national domestic violence attorney network and referral project to be managed by the ABA.
The American Bar Association, with the help of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and statewide legal coordinators, and apparently still working on this and trying to make it become law, and he does have some co-sponsors.
Early co-sponsor was Dick Luger from Indiana.
And I think others have come and gone.
I don't know the status of it, but the caller was right.
Biden is indeed working on this.
By the way, the word I was working looking for to describe Obama when I was talking about this campaign of his, none of this makes he's a sock puppet, folks.
He is somebody's stooge.
Somebody, he's a marionette, somebody's pulling his strings.
This, and it's I don't know if it's Reverend Wright, I don't know if it's George Soros, I don't know if it's a combination of the two.
I don't know if it's his racist grandmother working behind the scenes to get even for whatever happened to her.
I don't know what it is.
But I do know that it isn't what it appears to be.
His campaign and he are not what they appear to be.
All right.
Billings, Montana.
Randy, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rash, love your show.
Thank you.
Earlier, uh earlier you were talking about the group that has organized itself around driving 55 miles an hour.
And is and I just wanted to get your thoughts on why they would need a government mandate in a group so that they could drive under the posted speed limit.
Why would they need a government mandate in a group so this you mean if the group wants to drive 55, let them drive 55.
Yeah, why do they need my why do they need permission in the government to endorse their driving?
They're not trying, they're not seeking government permission.
They are seeking government restriction.
They are seeking government control.
They want the government to mandate for everybody a 55 mile an hour speed limit.
Let me tell you about 55 or drive55.org.
I don't think that they're really who they say they are.
The drive-by media is so damn susceptible these days.
You can pick the narrative, you can pick the template.
Anything that government does or proposes is fine with them.
So some activist group gives itself a name that's susceptible and lovable to the drive-by's.
And they get a website and they post statements and so forth, and drive by's focus on them.
And at drive55.org all of a sudden is born.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a bunch of drive-by journalists themselves that are behind this movement.
It could be two guys in a fax machine who figured out they can get wider coverage with a website.
It could be a couple of numbskull little pimple zit-faced kids sitting in their parents' basement because they can't get dates, and they're sitting out there and they're just mad, their meaningless lives have got them all depressed, and they want everybody else to be as miserable as they are, so they create this little website, drive55.org, and they go out and find some so-called experts.
I mean, I've seen the pattern.
I know the pattern.
The Center for Science and the Public Interest is two skeletal anorexics.
A man and a woman.
And they've given themselves Michael Jacobson is his name.
I don't know what her name is.
But they are skeletal.
And by that I mean they look anorexically thin.
And they have succeeded in banning MSG from restaurants.
They're behind a trans fat business.
They have made sure that coconut oil cannot be used in movie theaters to pop popcorn.
They have attacked Chinese food.
What else have they done?
They've gone after ice cream.
I mean, they've they've.
And of course, they are treated as world-renowned experts.
And whenever they issue a dictum of this food or that food killing people, there they are on TV.
There they are all over the newspapers, because they fit the drive-by template and uh and narrative, which is these people are urging government to act like nannies or worse, tyrants and dictators over people's lives.
And of course, it's all done very cleverly.
It's all done in the public safety, public health, which is how the drive55.org crowd is uh is going about what they're doing.
But we don't need a drive55.org, and nobody'd know about it if it weren't for the drive-by media.
My friends, in case you've missed it, Senator McCain, since we are speaking about him today here on Open Line Friday.
Uh Michelle Malkin has this at her blog, Michelle Molkin.com.
Senator McCain is talking amnesty in full force.
Once again, he was careful not to be so bold about this when he was competing in the primaries.
In the primaries, and he was telling people, well, that's dead an issue.
It's an issue is dead and gone.
Uh I would support the bill if it came up again, but it's not what the American people want.
But today McCain, who is now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said that an immigration program is needed that protects America's borders and national security.
He called for punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants, but he also advocated a humane approach that treats illegal workers as God's children.
Who else said that in the campaign?
Who was who was God's children?
Was it Lindsay Gramnisty?
No.
Who was God's children?
Taking back to the Oh, Suckabee.
Huckabee out there using the same term.
Okay.
McCain said that they should be allowed to seek legal status in a humane and comprehensive fashion through a program they can count on in trust.
You read the piece, I mean, there's not one word about what's right, not one word about the rule of law.
What I don't understand after all of this.
Yes, I do understand it.
Sadly, I do understand it.
After all this that's happened, members of the House and Senate do not get it.
All the American people want is existing law enforced.
We don't need reform.
We've done the reform bit.
We just ain't reforming the reform.
And we are not enforcing it.
The bottom line is they know that.
They want this, whether we do or not.
And they're going to find a way to get this done despite what the American people want.
That's that's the real meaning of this.
So at a global competitiveness event, global warming event.
McCain promotes amnesty again.
In this God's children business, we're all God's children for crying out loud.
It is it's just it's so absurd.
Yes, we we have to remember, see, we xenophobes and we racists and we nativists.
We have to remember that the illegals are God's children.
Here's uh Bob in Chicago.
Bob, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Rush, good afternoon.
Hi.
Back on oil one more time.
Yeah.
Rush, the oil companies have absolutely no motivation whatsoever to drill more or produce more.
The current situation is utopia for the oil companies.
And for the traders.
The production is equaling demand.
There is no shortage of fuel.
And if they provide more fuel, then the balance changes.
Supply exceeds demand.
The price goes down, and the profits go down.
What in the world would any CEO of a major corporation in a commodity industry want to drive prices down and in turn drive profits down?
Well, there is an answer to that, but your your premise is correct.
I want to say that, but there's an answer to your last question.
You drive prices down to sell more.
I mean, you can you can you can increase profits by volume, uh, or you can try to get profits uh by as high a price as you can, the biggest margin as you can with gasoline, oil.
This is something people can't do without.
Uh it's sort of like food.
You can't they really can't do without it.
They can reduce their use of it in certain ways.
But I want to go back to your original uh premise because I'm f in in researching all this, I found a story on I guess it was it was in business week, and it was a year ago, March 12th, and it was it was about the uh annual Exxon Mobile meeting with their shareholders, and it was a three-hour meeting, and there were some journalists in there.
And the CEO at the time was Rex Tillerson.
And Rex Tillerson made it clear to everybody in the room that their concern is not fulfilling the needs of consumers.
He's got a business to run.
You're exactly right.
He's got a profit margin to maintain.
He has got expectations.
You know, they they've just like every other country or a company, they project what their growth rate is going to be every year, and the stock price depends on them hitting it.
And the stock price and shareholder value is the primary impetus of corporations not fulfilling consumers' needs.
I mean, the two are are sort of linked, but their primary fiduciary responsibility is to the shareholders.
Not in a commodity business, Rush.
Not in a commodity business.
In a commodity business, it is not the same as an industrial environment.
What other people are going to be able to do that.
No, no, no.
Did you I said they're they're shareholders, not customers.
They are concerned with with shareholder value.
That's that's to whom they have to be loyal, and so there are ways of doing this.
In fact, at this meeting, at this Exxon Mobile meeting uh in in March of 07, Rex Tillerson projected zero net growth in oil production.
Even though new fields are scheduled to come online, others are supposed to go offline or run out of supply.
But hit the the the journalist reporting the story said that the theory behind this is that if you if they if they project too much growth in one year and don't hit it, even though they do have growth, then the stock price is gonna suffer because the street analysts are gonna say, uh-oh, problem with Exxon, they didn't meet their expectations.
Exactly.
It happens with every company.
Uh and so this journalist had he said his his uh uh red line flags went up when he realized that what Tillerson was telling his shareholders was that they're not in business primarily to see to it that customers can afford the product.
They're uh they're in it to make sure shareholders and investors in the company continue to get value for the investment.
And if there are ways of doing this by managing the supply.
Exactly.
And if you keep the production down, the price is going to stay up, and the earnings are going to stay up.
In the recent article from Forbes about two weeks ago, Rush, there was a very interesting article talking about the fact that domestic production is down twenty-five percent.
And the consumption is up by thirty-five percent.
Uh that's it.
You're close.
The number's even more stark than that.
I think since the late eighties production is down forty percent and and the consumption's up thirty.
I mean, it's a it's a huge stark difference.
I I the federal government put those uh put those numbers out.
But regardless, yeah.
See, there's but there's a counterbalance to this too.
Do you think when the oil execs are being grilled by the House and Senate judiciary committees, and they respond, look, Senator, you can complain all you want to us, but as long as you're gonna keep sixty-two percent or eighty-four percent of this nation's oil supply off limits to us, then you can't blame us.
Do you think they're being honest about you?
You think they don't.
You don't.
No.
They're gonna control they're gonna control the amount of fuel that is drilled in this country, and they're gonna supplement it with import.
And use the domestic fuel as a balance.
That's all it's being used for.
They would keep that oil in the ground for the next hundred years.
There's no reason to pull it out.
Drain the Mid East, leave domestic fuel in the ground.
And control the numbers.
Yeah, I've I've heard that theory advanced too, but you're not saying let the Mid East run out of oil as a strategic move and a foreign policy move.
Are you you you you're not equating that theory or or uh uh functioning?
Use as much of it as you possibly can and leave domestic in the ground.
Well, okay, yeah, if you're gonna fund a project uses, you know, other people's money as much as you can instead of your own.
Exactly.
And don't touch your own principle.
Okay.
Yeah.
Understand that.
But there's a counterbalance to this at some point.
And and that's the market.
If the price gets too high, they're not going to be able it it it it's it's not gonna the market's not gonna be able to support it.
They still have to sell the refined products in order for these profits to be realized.
At that point you cut back on the import and you use domestic.
What difference is it going to make?
I mean, manage the oil commodity.
They don't yeah, but they don't they don't determine the world price vi strictly vis-a-vis their production.
Oh.
No, the is a drop of sorty oil more expensive than uh just in raw terms, not let's forget import and export is you know a drop of uh salty sweet crude any more expensive than ours.
Rush, I can't I I don't know.
I'm not an expert in the oil business, but I've been involved in commodity for a long, long time.
And this is not unlike any other commodity.
You can't look at the corn industry.
They the farmers with corn.
All right.
But then if I must ask this question, given what you have said here, are you suggesting that American big oil companies have engineered this massive price rise in oil?
Rush, I hesitate to say that, but you can draw your own conclusions.
Well, if they're if they're doing that, and I frankly don't think they can, because I don't think they control enough of the world's oil.
They don't have to control the world oil.
All they've got to do is control our oil.
No, but but it's look, there's no we're not bringing enough out of our ground to have an effect on it.
This is the point.
ExxonMobil is our largest American corporation.
ExxonMobil reported the largest profits recently of any American corporation, and it represents two to three percent of the world's oil.
I just common sense tells me that Rex Tillerson and his boys in there could not be affecting the world oil price with that little control over the massive uh supply of oil that is uh in the globe.
I I think I think the market's too big and too complex to be managed and controlled by any single entity, and I don't think a cabal could get together and uh and do it either.
And when OPEC does not control all the supply either, and they are in the competitor business.
And if OPEC raises their price too high and somebody thinks they can sell more of it with a lower price, they're gonna do it.
And there's a market out there for buying it as cheap as they can get it.
So I don't know how you would control this.
But look, it's a it's an interesting theory, and it is it is interesting to understand that the uh ExxonMobil, I'm sure this is true of most of them, their fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders, and they have to manage their growth every year so that they show growth.
They don't have an off-year, because then the stock price plummets, and that's when the CEO gets in trouble.
It's when the board gets unhappy.
Anyway, uh have something else on this that I'm gonna dig up here that I'm buried somewhere in the stack, and I'm gonna because it's it's about uh commodities.
Uh well, and one other thing, and their lifespan and how they all had a bubble a bubble and then what happened to them at the end of their big run.
And you'll find it fascinating.
Stay with us.
All right, now as to our last caller who was uh the commodity trader.
Yeah, commodity traders are commodity traders.
I don't think many of them understand liberalism.
And I don't I I really don't think that there is a strategic policy in place to let the rest of the world use up all of its oil while we save ours so that we are the only ones that have any left.
That's not what the Libs are doing here.
The Libs are trying to harm the United States of America.
They're trying to cut us down to size.
They don't have us they don't have any any any intention of letting us tap domestic fields.
There's no smart plan out there.
Um it's easy to contrive a situation circumstance where you might think so.
But of course, you know, oil isn't like any other commodity.
Look at corn.
Uh government subsidizes agriculture.
It does so in several ways, including now through ethanol.
Uh they would never subsidize oil.
Can you imagine the government subsidizing oil is just the exact opposite?
And I, you know, there's there's another thing, too.
When you talk about prices getting as high as they are now, the theory is that U.S. oil companies could get domestic oil much cheaper than having to buy oil at the market price from somebody else.
Now, this of course depends on the expense involved in bringing up domestic oil, but it's a very complicated thing.
To think that there's a massive plan out there is just it it one could not be managed.
But there is a there's I found a chart here.
Casey research chief economist Bud Conrad, and he had no intention of showing what I have observed.
His point here is to show if you had just made four trades over the last four decades into exactly the right sector at the beginning of a strong trend, you could have turned $35 into $150,000, or $350 into a million five, or $3,500 into $15 million.
And he tracks four things.
The 10-year racing uh price increase in gold, the 10-year raising price increase of the or the the NIKK uh stock market in Japan, that index, uh the 10-year dot-com, NASDAQ bubble, and now oil.
So here's in the fast in the past four decades of bubbles, there have been these four gold, the Japanese Nikkei, the NASDAQ, which led to the dot com bubble, and now oil.
What happened after gold in the 70s?
Gold in the 70s dropped from 850 to 250 after its big run-up.
The NICKE dropped from 40,000 to the 10,000 area.
The dot-com bus NASDAQ went from 5,000 to about 1,500.
Oil hasn't yet topped.
But when it does, the others that I'm talking about here dropped at least 75 cents when they uh 75%.
And you could you might even want to throw the housing bubble in here if you want.
Look at how dramatically housing prices are falling.
And we've got this is part the reason I'm bringing this up is is because common sense tells me that the market's not going to be able to support this 135, 150, certainly not 200 a barrel oil.
Something's going to happen.
It's going to have to burst.
And when it does, it's going to burst big like all these others have.
That's why I feel confident about this.
As we go into the weekend, and we're everybody uh, well, some people are planning on skipping the barbecues because they're just too expensive.
They read that in USA Today.
The paper plates are too expensive, the ketchup's too expensive.
Blame Teresa Hines Carey for not being sensitive to your pocketbook.
Everything's too beef, the hot dogs, the bread, the cheese, everything, the pickles you can't afford any of it anymore.
It's just too expensive.
If that's the case, then find a memorial day parade in your town.
And go there.
And in fact, have a barbecue and go to your Memorial Day parade, if your community still has one.
Hope they do.
And try to remember what Memorial Day really is all about, especially now.
U.S. military has not been this attacked and vilatied vilified since the Vietnam War era.
Except the difference is in this case, the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are cleaning up, cleaning clocks.
The news out of Ask uh of Iraq, sorry, Sader City and Bazar is so good the drive bys are ignoring it.
The Iraqis taking over in both of these Soder City, then Mookie's town.
They're doing a bang-up job.
And we here at the EIB Network select salute them, celebrate them, and honor them each and every day.
And I didn't want to let the program end today without sending out a similar tribute to one and all who have ever worn a uniform.
Supposedly Hillary had agreed to get out of the race this afternoon.
If Obama would publicly offer her the VP slot, she would say no.
The Obama people turned the deal down, they don't trust her to say no.
▲
Export Selection