All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:47
August 18, 2008, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbo here saying more in five seconds than most hosts will say in their whole careers.
We're here serving humanity behind a golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Lots of stuff to do with some great stories.
We got another story, snurdly.
From the Los Angeles Times back to school, high gas prices, tough economic times, follow little children to class.
It's about how costly lunch is getting.
It's up two bucks now.
School lunch two dollars.
Yeah, it's up from a buck thirty.
And the uh one school is skipping classes on Mondays to save, you know, the four-day school week, which is going to put those kids at home with the parents, which is the last place the parents want them to be during the school year.
It's amazing how tough we are making it on our kids.
And I don't know what's happening to us as a country.
Why the having do you know what?
Our kids are having to wear last year's back to school clothes.
Because the economy is such that parents can't afford new duds this year.
And I don't know how we can look at ourselves in the mirror as a country and say we're decent Nini Goodwin.
Kids have to go back to school in last year's clothes, and you know what else?
They're having to walk a little further to the bus stop because the schools are using less gas and the bus routes are not as extensive.
And so our kids are having to walk a little farther than they ever have to catch a bus.
And we just sit here and say, oh, okay.
Have we lost our souls?
It's just an evil country.
Speaking of evil, speaking of this, I shared with you moments ago the story that Obama and his city of Chicago have seen the murder rate there last year up eighteen percent.
And a lot of people think Obama's partially responsible because legislation that came along to make it tough on criminals to punish them and so forth, he did not support.
Stanley Kurtz, who uh is is a writer, has a lot of stuff posted at National Review, also had a piece in uh a weekly standard article called Obama's Lost Years.
Now, as explained by Stanley Kurtz, and this is this is about Chicago, and this is key to understand.
Obama recommended Bill Ayers.
Now, Bill Ayers is the American hating terrorist who tried to blow up the Pentagon, married to an American-hating woman named Bernadette Dorn, or Bernadine Dorne, one of the two.
Obama recommended Bill Ayers' 1997 book on the Chicago juvenile court system, a book entitled A Kind and Just Parent.
He recommended this in the Chicago Tribune, calling it a searing and timely document.
Now, as Stanley Kurtz describes it, the book oozes with liberal guilt and the notion that the problem is not crime, but rather American society.
So this terrorist, who is a friend and supporter and was a fundraiser for Obama, wrote a book blaming America.
I'm telling you, Obama is the product of what he's been taught by leftist radicals.
Here's here's an excerpt from Stanley Kurtz's article.
Ayers opposes trying even the most vicious juvenile murderers as adults.
Beyond that, he'd like to see the prison system itself essentially abolished.
Unsisfied with mere reform, Bill Ayers wants to address the deeper structural problems of the system, the American system.
Ayers argues that prisons artificially impose obedience and conformity on society, thereby creating a questionable distinction between the normal and the deviant.
The unfortunate result, says Bill Ayers, is to leave the bulk of us feeling smugly superior to society's prisoners.
Home detention, Ayres believes, might someday be able to replace the prison.
Ayers also makes a point of comparing America's prison system with the mass detention of a generation of young blacks under South African apartheid.
Ayre's tone may be different, but the echoes of Jeremiah Wright's anti-prison rants are plain.
Now, given his decision to recommend Ayres book in the Tribune, it's fair to say that Obama is at least broadly sympathetic to this perspective.
Hell yes, he is.
When Obama offers examples of ill-conceived legislation, he often points to building prisons.
Instead of building another prison, why not expand health care entitlements, he says.
Biographer David Mendel cites Obama's irritation with fellow legislators who grandstand by passing tough on crime legislation while letting bills designed to bring structural change language.
The debating Bobby Rush in 2000, Obama bragged that he had consistently fought against the industrial prison complex.
Now, take this with his answer Saturday night about evil.
In fact, Mike, let's go back and get that answer on evil from the anointed one.
Let's see.
Help me find it real quick if you can.
Let's see evil.
Audio Simpson is number three.
Yes.
Rick Warren said, Senator Obama, let me ask you about evil.
Does evil exist?
And if it does, do we ignore it?
Do we negotiate with it?
Do we contain it?
Do we defeat it?
Evil does exist.
I mean, I think we see evil all the time.
We see evil in Darfur.
We see evil some sadly on the streets of our cities.
Now, the the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil.
Because a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.
Just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.
That sounds like it makes total sense with somebody who believes the industrial prison complex is bad and agrees with some idiot that we need to get rid of prisons and just make home detention the way to go because we're we're we're we're the people not in prison are starting to feel too smug and superior to people who are in prison.
And so the evil, the evil that we confront, crime on the streets, we are responsible for it.
Because we tried to confront it.
That's what Obama said, dovetails exactly what Stanley Kurtz found in Bill Eyre's book that Obama recommends.
So ladies and gentlemen, it's it is what it is.
The guy is a walking, talking robot repeating things that leftist extremists and blame America firsters have just drilled into his head.
His brain is nothing more than a sponge for this kind of radicalism.
Back now to the audio sound bites.
This is Saturday night, the Rick Warren Forum.
Senator Obama, what does it mean to you to trust in Christ?
And what does that mean to you on a daily basis?
What does that really look like?
I believe uh in that Jesus Christ died for my sins and that I am redeemed uh through him.
Uh that is a source of strength and sustenance uh on a daily basis.
Uh yeah, I know that I don't walk alone.
Every answer is about him.
What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?
I these are some of these questions I wish I would have been there and been asked these questions.
I could have taken the answer to this question and related it to almost every other answer that I would have given, particularly global warming had it come up.
So here's McCain's answer to the same question.
One night I was being punished in that fashion.
All of a sudden the door of the cell opened and a guard came in.
He went like this, and then he loosened the ropes.
He came back about four hours later, he tightened up again and left.
The following Christmas, because it was Christmas Day, we were allowed to stand outside of our cell for a few minutes.
He came walking up, he stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross.
And he uh stood there, and uh a minute later he rubbed it out and walked away.
For a minute there, and there was just two Christians worshipping together.
I'll never forget that one.
Now, this is uh this is an answer that many critics are saying he had to know that was coming.
He had to know that was coming.
That story, that's this is too pat.
Not if it happened.
And not if McCain's telling the truth about it.
See, most of the people who doubt McCain's answer on that are fearful.
You have to understand something, folks, if you don't already.
The left in his country is scared more than anything of people of faith who understand that there are things more important than themselves and have a faith in God.
They distrust that.
They don't want that anywhere near power because they don't have a similar faith that is encompassing and guiding.
And so this is, I think, one of the reasons why they so despise George W. Bush, because he's open about his faith.
He's open about practicing it, and he's open about how important it is to him.
Here's McCain with his answer to this, which bam bam, it just came right in have to stop and think about it.
Ooh, geez, what is this?
Obama, well, Jesus Christ died for my sins.
I mean, this is you know, this is seven-year-old Sunday school stuff that he's coming out with.
And he knows that he's got an evangelical audience there for the most part, and he's trying to relate to them in that way, but this is I don't believe his hand.
Let me just put it, I don't believe that's what he thinks.
I just I uh just don't tell me to be careful, snertly.
understand the lines here and I know when to cross them.
What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?
I don't know.
It just it's just too juvenile.
It's it's it's something in a seventh grade, so it's Sunday school, it's just been taught would come out and say.
At any rate, much more straight ahead.
Don't go away, folks.
Sit tight.
The subject of wealth came up Saturday night in the Rick Warren Forum.
Both questions asked to define rich.
Here is Obama.
If you are making $150,000 a year or less as a family, uh, then you're middle class, middle class.
Or you may be poor.
Uh right?
I mean, but 150 down.
You're you're basically middle class.
Obviously, it depends on region where you're living.
I would argue that if you're making more than 250,000, then you're in the top three, four percent of this country.
You're doing well.
So there you have it, 250,000 a year or more, and you're rich.
Uh you are doing well.
Yeah, poor at 150.
Well, you might be poor if you have less than 150 grand.
Now, here is uh here's McCain answering the uh let's what a.
Yeah, here's McCain with the same question.
I don't want to take any money from the rich.
I want everybody to get rich.
I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.
But I can tell you, uh, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week, that some people would classify as quote, rich, my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to r raise their payroll taxes.
Let's have keep taxes low.
So I I think if you're just talking about income, how about five million?
But seriously, I don't think you can I don't think seriously that the point is that I'm trying to make here seriously, and I and I'm sure that c comment will be distorted, but the point is the point is the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.
All right, this is the Reagan tax formula, the Bush tax formula.
He originally opposed it, but has now come out in support of and voted for in a later date.
And again, the contrast here between McCain and Obama on this is profound in the sense that, you know, Obama's okay, what what's rich?
Well, 150,000 is not 250,000 is.
McCain with a substantive answer on how the question doesn't matter.
Who's rich and who isn't rich is not what's matters.
We want everybody to have more.
We want everybody to get rich.
We want everybody to do well.
That is the essence of conservatism.
If it's it's out there, and a lot of people have done it.
If some can, many more can, if they're inspired to, or if they happen to be self-starters.
The idea is that we're a growing economy with prosperity for one and all, and it's out there accessible if you want it, and we don't want to punish it.
Obama clearly wants to punish wealth.
He wants to punish success.
And by the way, asked this five million dollar figure.
You know what depends who you ask on what rich I've How many times over the course of these years have you heard me tell you how much Fascinating it is to me to go to a group of people and just ask them, we're on the table at dinner, what is big money to you?
And you'd be fascinated at what people say.
And it's all relative to what they have at the moment.
In my case, back in the 80s, when I was making $12,000 a year, if somebody had offered me 35,000, I would have thought I was rich because it was over, you know, 100% increase.
I would have thought it was rich.
And then after I got a little more, I thought 75,000 would be rich.
It depends on on where you are and what your dream of the future is.
Merrill Lynch, in the old days, when they interviewed prospective employees.
And if the applicant specified a number, he didn't know it, but he was disqualified.
Because what Merrill Lynch found out was that that number was their comfort level.
Once they got there, they sort of eased back.
And they stopped.
And so the perfect answer was sky's the limit.
Well, I'm not going to say what's big money to me.
I'll just tell you this.
Back in the early 90s, when I started meeting wealthy people, I ran into a Texas oil man who said, Hey, until you start at 250, 300 million, you're not a player, nobody's interested.
It depends on where your starting point is.
It depends on I'll guarantee you, somebody with 250 million, gross net worth, uh, not gross net worth, 250 million, is going to look at somebody who's got five or seven hundred million and and and think that they're that'd be cool too.
It's it's you you think people get to 250 are satisfied.
What how come people don't stop at 250?
How come some people have billions?
You know, it just all depends, folks, on on what your comfort level is, and it depends on where you are at the time.
But you should try it.
Next time you're at a dinner party, just ask people what what what without claiming to have the answer.
I mean, you're just you're just curious.
What's big money to you?
And you'll be stunned.
I remember once when I was in Pittsburgh, this is uh before I was making, I was making $20,000 a year before I was making 12.
And I went to some party on Saturday night, and there was this guy in the throes of depression.
He was just miserable.
He was not happy, and he was telling people he didn't understand why.
Because he was making this tremendous amount of money.
Now, this would have been 1973 or 74.
Making this tremendous amount of money, and it did, but whatever it was, it wasn't happy.
And finally somebody said, Well, how much you make it?
He said, 78,000 a year.
How?
Back then, 1974, that was a lot of money.
It's it's a lot of money today.
But it was even bigger in terms of inflation back then.
But there were people in the room who were making 30, who secretly thought that they would have a bigger, that their answer would be bigger than his once he divulged it, and they were stunned.
So it's it's uh this question of how do you define rich is relevant from the standpoint of tax policy and who you think needs to be punished and who you think needs to be encouraged.
And we need to encourage wealth creators because they are job creators.
And this is precisely what McCain said.
It is a great answer.
This whole thing for him was fabulous on Saturday night.
It was just it was just he was personable, he was quick, he was funny, he was he had core values on full display.
It just would be a shame.
It would it would just be a sad thing if he chooses a pro-choice vice president or even a Democrat, because he could just obliterate all the success and all the progress that he uh experienced on Saturday night with the with the wrong choice.
Um abortion.
I'm gonna save this, uh, these two bites for after the break.
Let me grab a quick phone call, Holden Beach, North Carolina.
This is Jim.
It's great to have you here, sir.
We got about a minute and a half.
Sure.
Uh talk to you, Russ.
Uh you have mentioned quite a few times that this upcoming election is a referendum uh against Obama.
Uh I've been part of that uh referendum, ready to vote against Obama.
But after Saturday, and after hearing McCain and after watching him, and uh you've spoken eloquently about his great answers and all that.
I'm ready not to vote against McCuh Obama, but I'm actually ready to vote for McCain.
And uh I think that that's what you're gonna see possibly happen over these next uh two weeks.
You might have a point if if he keeps this up.
Sure.
You might have a point.
I I did.
I get some emails from people over the week and my gosh, I might even vote for McCrazy after this, one of them said.
Yeah, now, and you're right.
If he picks the pro-choice uh VP, uh it's gonna ruin what he did Saturday.
I guarantee you something I will guarantee you the Democrats, they thought they were through with that issue.
The last thing they want is for abortion to become a presidential issue because they're making inroads with the evangelical community on gay marriage, they think, but not on abortion.
And if this if this survives, which it will, because Obama believes in infanticide, they're going to be miserable.
The saddleback forum, uh, Pastor Rick Warren, and here's the question, Senator Obama, as a pastor, I have to deal with this all the time.
All the pain, all the conflicts.
I know it's a very complex issue.
Forty million abortions.
At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Well, uh you know, I I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or uh a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity uh uh you know is above my pay grade.
Unbelievable.
The fact is is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down.
They have abortions have been declining.
Uh this is a sad answer.
Senator Obama, it is apparent now to me that everything in terms of the presidency is above your pay grade.
If you, as a supposedly sensitive liberal Democrat preaching religious tolerance all over the place, if you, as a liberal Democrat who claims to have a monopoly on understanding human rights, if you, Senator, cannot understand, you can't even answer when a human being is conferred human rights.
Even if it's two years after birth, even if it's a day after what if you can't if you won't answer that question, then you are in my mind disqualified from talking about human rights ever again anywhere.
How in the world, ladies and gentlemen, can somebody genuinely I'll tell you how somebody can genuinely answer this question.
When he got this question, he baby it basically the question was, when does human life begin?
Right?
The first thought in his mind is, okay, I can't make the now now people mad.
I can't make the feminists mad.
I can't betray the feminists, and I can't betray the left.
I can't, I can't.
So how do I, oh God, how do I answer this?
Well, uh, you know, uh uh whatever you're looking at it from uh theological, scientific, answering that question is specific.
It's the most easy question in the world to answer with specificity.
Your specificity might be wrong, and people might be disagreeing with it, but at some point, Senator, a human being has human rights.
You just will not admit that a human being is a human being at some point.
Because doing so is gonna anger people on the left who demand a doctrinaire response from you on this.
Now, what would we know about Obama's actual practice?
We know that Barack Obama believes it is proper to kill a baby that has survived an abortion.
So newborn babies don't get any rights.
His socialist friends will be mad because this means Obama's not for cradle to grave government welfare.
This could go back and harm him in any number of ways.
Obama thinks cradle to grave is the sequence of events for children born when the parents don't take one look at the kid and decide to go a different direction with their lives.
You could say, and you wouldn't be far wrong, that Barack Obama is akin to an executioner.
Don't ask him the why questions.
He just knows who.
He doesn't care about when or how.
He just knows who.
I'll tell you, he's he's he's he's gonna need one hell of a convention bounce, because this position of his is inhuman, even if he did not have this history of supporting the killing of babies outside the womb who had survived abortions.
This answer is as immature, defensive, and full of fear as any I have heard, to not be able to say with specificity when a human being gets human rights.
When does a baby, a two year old still a baby, a year old is still a baby, is it not?
You could say, well, I think I mean, with Obama, you could have said, I don't think once there's been a serious maturation of the uh the brain process, the child is able to respond to various things that we know he's human, and then human rights would be conferred.
Something.
But to say that answering the question with specificities above his pay grade is one of the biggest cop-outs, and it's a cop-out owing to the fear he has of angering a bunch of militant, irrelevant, angry women.
And offending basic liberal doctrinaire belief.
So he is a prisoner.
In he's a prisoner to liberal dogma.
He is not a unifier.
He is not anything about change.
He is not anything about hope.
Do you think a little baby has any hope with Obama around?
Here's McCain's answer, ladies and gentlemen.
And Mike, I want you to give me two seconds of dead air before you hit the answer because McCain's bam again comes out with it.
Senator McCain, what point is a baby entitled to human rights?
At the moment of conception.
I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as President of the United States, I will be a pro-life president, and this presidency will have pro-life policies.
That's my commitment.
That's my commitment to you.
And that's a core value.
One thing about McCain, he has always been pro-life.
This was not a hard answer for him.
It was not an answer derived from prior knowledge of the question.
It was an answer based on his heartfelt core belief on the sanctity sanctity of life.
If life doesn't begin at conception, where can it begin?
Where does it begin?
The last thing the Democrat Party wants is the revival of this argument.
The last thing they want, and it has happened, and it has happened in a way that their candidate can be tarred and feathered and identified accurately as a baby killer.
Or as one who supports the killing of babies.
Let me soften it a bit.
Remember Ronald Reagan, Friday, March 18, 2005, Peggy Noonan had a column.
She said, Ronald Reagan used to say in the early days of the abortion debate, when people would argue that the fetus may not really be a person, he'd say, well, if you come across a paper bag in the gutter and it seems nothing's in it, and you don't know if it's alive, you don't kick it, do you?
In other words, if you don't know, then you don't kill it, do you?
If you as an individual are conflicted about when a fetus is a human being and has human rights, if you're not sure, then you don't kill it, do you?
Yeah.
In parts of this country you do.
Because you see, ladies and gentlemen, abortion has always been a political issue that is highly defining of the left.
Now, Ed Morrissey today at a hot air blog reminds us that Russell Berman reports in New York Sunday the Barack Obama campaign has now acknowledged Obama himself lied about the bill that he torpedoed in 2003 that would have required medical providers to give normal medical attention to infants born alive during an abortion.
The admission comes with a new spin as the campaign finally admits the bill Obama defeated in committee was all but identical to the federal law that passed the Senate unanimously in 2002.
Indeed, Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday that he did, when he said the federal version he supported was not the bill that was presented at the state level.
His campaign acknowledged yesterday, however, that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and spokesman said that the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.
Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill because there is no federal abortion law.
In 2005, the campaign noted a born-alive bill passed the Illinois legislature after another clause had been added that explicitly stated the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion law.
Everything he wanted in the bill was there.
He voted against it.
So now Obama has acknowledged that the bill he shot down as a committee chair had the neutrality clause, but now he voted against it because it would have had some deleterious effect on abortion law.
Now that's just flat out untrue.
The neutrality clause that Obama now acknowledged existed in the in the law explicitly stated that the law had no intent on affecting abortions in which the fetus did not survive.
That was the entire point of the neutrality clause.
It was a simple piece of legislation.
Baby survives an abortion.
It's alive, it's outside the womb, and you can't kill it.
And he voted against that three times.
There's no other way to describe it.
Now he's admitting that they lied about it.
But he is also now really jumping on his critics for for trying to tell the truth about this.
Evil does exist.
I think it has to be confronted.
It has to be confronted squarely.
One of the things I strongly believe is that you know we are not going to as individuals erase evil from the world.
That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, is child abuse an evil?
Of course it is.
Child abuse is an evil, and we confront it, and we take children away from parents who are abusive all day.
Do we not?
Well, if child abuse is evil, as Mr. Morrissey points out here, then infanticide is even more evil.
What did Obama do when he saw this evil?
Did he confront it as one of God's soldiers or did he facilitate it?
He facilitated it.
He facilitated the evil.
The answer now from the Obama campaign is clear.
Obama facilitated evil in order to protect abortion on demand, which was never threatened in the bill in the first place.
That much apparently was not above his day grade.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Say, Mike, after we play this next from 24, we're gonna we're gonna go to uh 21 and 22 and 23.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network.
I mentioned this earlier.
Uh Chris Collinsworth interviewed Kobe Bryant, the uh U.S. Redeem team star at the Olympics.
And Collinsworth said, where does the patriotism come from inside of you?
Historically, what oh, speaking of inside of you, somebody needs to ask Senator Obama, when did his two daughters get their human rights?
Senator, when did your two daughters get their human rights?
Anybody of you in a drive-by media willing to ask him that question?
Here is Kobe Bryant's answer to Chris Collinsworth's question about patriotism.
Well, you know, it's just um our country is uh we believe is the greatest country in the world.
And it's given us so many great opportunities.
And uh just a sense of pride that you have, as you say, you know what?
Our country's the best.
Is that a cool thing to say in this day and age that you love your country and that you're fighting for the red, white, and blue, and it seems like sort of a day gone by.
That's a cool thing for me to say.
You know, I feel I feel great about it.
And uh I'm not ashamed to say it.
This is a tremendous honor.
I don't want to cause any harm or damage here to Chris Collinsworth.
I really don't, because aside from his going overboard week after week after week on the Donovan McNabb event Regarding my comments on ESPN.
He's generally been a pretty down the middle uh conservative guy.
And yet, something has to inform his question here.
Is it is it cool thing to say in this day and age that you love your country?
And that you're f and you're fighting for the red, white, and blue.
Chris, what parties are you going to?
What kind who are you hanging out with?
This is this is sad.
Who are you hanging out with?
Where is Matthews or Collinsworth gotten the idea here that it's uncool to espouse your patriotism?
He's no, he's not.
He's not.
He does not deal with the NBA.
Snerdley, he's in the NFL.
He does the NF.
Now he does hang around with Bob Costas and some of these other libs at NBC.
But before that, he was with Fox.
And they're not a bunch of libs over there.
I mean, some of them at the Fox Network are, but some w where does it where did it happen?
Do any of you feel it is something you have to whisper that you love your country?
I didn't know we'd gotten to this point where you don't really admit red, white, and blue are for you.
So it's it's something had to inform this question, and it's media.
Media buddies and people you're hanging out with.
And it's, by the way, and I I I hate to say this, but that's something that Obama was saying.
Obama is over practicing this very very philosophical.
No, we're not going to say great things about America.
We're going to admit we're imperfect when we're in Berlin.
And we're going to tell little seven-year-olds who ask me why I want to be president.
Well, because this country's not what it once was.
We are going to be critical of this country.
That's what's cool.
That's what's honest.
Somebody that he's hanging around with has informed him of this particular view.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank God for Kobe Bryant.
I mean, he could have cowed here.
He could have cowed.
Oh, really, oh, because you know, big, but I guarantee you this is going to help Kobe Bryant in endorsement deals.
It's going to help him uh in in a number of other aspects of his life.
Very quickly, Howard Dean, Friday on NPR's Tell Me More, said this about opportunity for minorities in the Democrat Party.
If you look at uh folks uh of color, uh yeah, even women, they're more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the White, uh, excuse me, than in the uh in the Republican Party.
This is the chairman of the Democrat National Committee.
There are more successful women of minority and uh of color in the Democrat Party than they are in the white or the Republican Party.
So this blithering idiot once again, as the as the head honcho of the Democrat Party injects race into the campaign.
This is Saturday in Sterling, Virginia at the fifth annual Democracy Fest.
Howard Dean, a portion of his remarks.
You are more powerful than Rush Limbaugh, because when you're in front of somebody that you know or that knows you, and that you have some things in common with them, then they're much more likely to listen to you, a guy who drives a pickup truck with a gun rack in the back in the South, and say in Tennessee or even Virginia, the southern southwestern Virginia makes $30,000 a year.
In the past, we would have assumed they would vote for a Republican.
What do you mean in the past?
You still do.
So this party, which supposedly has all this compassion and human understanding, and so nothing but a bunch of stereotypes, evil stereotypes of Americans and of America itself will be back.
A mayor in the outback of Australia has asked ugly duckling women to move to a remote Australian mining town to reverse a shortage of eligible women that has landed a local mayor in hot water.
Not enough women out there, and the uh the only hope they have is to attract some ugly ducklings, he said.
We'll have all the details and lots of stuff didn't get to today from the stacks tomorrow, so I'll look forward to it.
We'll see you then, folks.
▲
Export Selection