All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 14, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:29
January 14, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host of this program are rooted in truth.
The discovery of truth.
We proclaim the truth and we have fun doing it.
It's a delight to have you with us, folks.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Email address LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
Snerdley, during the top of the hour break, insisted that Obama would be wise to reach out to me.
Snerdley even thinks that he will.
Let me tell you seriously why he will not.
In fact, Mr. Snerdley, let me tell you, you think it would be brilliant of him to do it.
It would be stupid of him to do it.
Now, follow me on this.
You know, Snerdley's normally a pretty quick guy, but I've had to educate him recently.
He'd been around here 20 years like everybody else has.
I've had to educate him recently on how Obama will not get any media scorn if the economy continues to plummet, that Bush will get all of that.
When Snerdley thought in six months, if things haven't improved, the American people are going to hold Obama accountable.
Ain't going to happen.
He's too big to fail.
I'm surprised you don't see this.
Obama meeting with me, and it would leak.
Even if it were secret clandestine, it would leak.
He's the president-elect.
He has a schedule.
He has a press corps that follows him around.
There's a pool bunch that follows him.
It would be known.
Obama meeting with me, ladies and gentlemen, would give me legitimacy.
And he wants, no, wait a minute.
It would.
He wants to give legitimacy to the inside the Beltway conservatives who have forsworn conservatism.
He wants to give legitimacy to the people who thought McCain could win.
He wants to give legitimacy to the people who say the era of Reagan is over.
Obama had no desire to have his mind changed about anything last night.
I mean, to say that Obama doesn't understand conservatism, I think, is a mistake.
I'm sure he understands everything about conservatism.
He just rejects it.
And to say that he wanted to have a dinner last night with some conservatives to maybe have his mind made right, that's just not realistic.
That's not, I'm sure, what was on his agenda last night.
Obama will never legitimize me if he can help it.
But that's why I've said he was trying to choose our leaders last night.
Obama was trying to legitimize the people at his dinner in hopes that they will become the quote-unquote legitimate conservative opinion leaders.
They're all establishment types and they're all inside the beltway.
And that's what his objective was, to legitimize them.
And it isn't, look at who wasn't there.
There are plenty of really superb conservatives he could have had dinner with.
People from Human Events, people from the Investors Business Daily, people from the Washington Times.
I'm talking about print and print opinion people.
There are a lot of genuine conservatives he could have had dinner with, but no, he went with the people who are being critical of conservatives, being critical of conservative leaders these days, like me.
And the last thing he'll want to do is legitimize me.
And that would run the risk of doing that were he to have a meeting with me.
Unless, of course, he asked for the meeting.
And if he asked, I'd go.
I mean, there's no question I'd go.
If after the meeting will leak it out, and Obama told Limbaugh what for.
And Obama did, there's an Obama said, and Obama did, you know, unless they tried to do it that way.
But I don't see that.
I just don't, I don't see it happening in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Ladies and gentlemen, according to A.P. Obama today, do you realize all we needed to do to make sure our economic crisis didn't happen was to become Islamic?
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, big financial institutions.
By the way, the date light on this is Detroit.
The two AP Obama writers are Jeff Karoub and Sebastian Abbott.
Big financial institutions have been battered by mortgages gone bad, but a tiny Michigan bank is getting attention in the industry by turning a profit on loans without even charging interest.
Now, would somebody explain to me how that happens?
How does a bank turn a profit on loans without even charging interest?
Fees.
No interest, but you pay, it's just another way of collecting interest.
Just call it a fee.
It specialty is financial products that comply with Islamic law.
That means no collecting interest, no short selling, no contracts that are considered exceedingly risky.
It also rules out some of the activity that got Western finance in trouble, subprime mortgages, credit default swaps, and the like.
John Sickler, the corporate director for the bank, the University Islamic Financial Corporation in Ann Arbor, said, when you look at the economic crisis we're in, if you were to follow Islamic or Sharia financing, you wouldn't have this crisis.
Well, Shazam, there it is, folks.
Here's the way out.
Islamic and Sharia financial law.
And the AP unabashedly, unashamedly runs the story as though it is legitimate.
And it's a long story.
A Sharia-compliant mortgage is like rent to own.
There's no note, there's no mortgage, but typically part of each month's payment is held toward the ultimate purchase.
The property is titled to an individual trust or limited liability corporation.
That's how it works.
Oh, Shazam.
Very easy.
Audio soundbites.
Let's see.
I guess we're up here to soundbite number two.
This is a continuation of the discussion that took place on MSNBC Monday night, in which Steve McMahon, a Democrat political strategerist, said that I, El Rushbo, is the only thing preventing the Republican Party from moving to the center, when in fact it already has.
It's already there.
It's already moved big time.
This is a continuation of that discussion.
Matthews said, do you agree with that?
He's talking now, this is Todd Harris, the Republican strategerist.
Do you agree with that that they hurt your party by pulling it too far right?
I don't think they pull the party any more to the right than Air America is pulling the Democratic Party channel.
They have more pool, though.
They do have more foal.
They have more listeners.
But, you know, you've got progressive groups on the left pulling the Democratic Party to the left.
And then Matthews, he wants to know what state that, you know, what state could I win if I were to run?
Totally misunderstanding what we do here.
Back to Timothy Geithner.
I can't let this go.
Treasury Secretary didn't pay taxes.
It is said that Timothy Geithner, and by the way, Obama's stuff.
Oh, I should tell you, Obama has cleared Geithner.
Just like Obama cleared himself.
Did you know this?
Obama has cleared Geithner, just like Obama cleared himself and his staff in the pay-for-play talks with Lagojevich.
By the way, Lagojevich today is swearing in the newly elected Illinois Senate, which will vote to impeach him.
It is said that Timothy Geithner employed a housekeeper whose immigration papers expired while she was working for him.
In addition, he allegedly failed to pay Social Security and self-employment taxes when he worked for the International Monetary Fund.
Now, just like when Rah Emmanuel's dealings with Bogojevich, Obama has thoroughly reviewed Treasury Secretary Select's Timothy Geithner situation and given it his blessing.
Everything's okay.
Obama has cleared his nominee again, so I'm glad that's over.
Having a guy in charge of the IRS with multiple tax issues might have sullied the Immaculate Inauguration.
But now that Barack Obama has determined it won't be a problem, it won't be a problem.
But it was close.
It was a close one.
Here's my question.
If Hillary Clinton's massive conflicts and political payoffs don't bother Obama or his fellow Washingtonians, why should Timothy Geithner's failure to pay taxes bother anybody?
Rah Emanuel's frequent contacts with Governor Cesspool, they didn't bother Obama.
I can still can't figure out why they dumped Richardson.
They threw him under the bus for far less than what's gone on here.
Obama has given his blessing to bailouts.
He's given his blessing to Burris.
He has given his blessing to Rah Emanuel's swim in the Illinois cesspool.
He has given his blessing to the Clinton conflict extravaganza, and he's giving his blessing to his tax challenge Treasury Secretary.
This is really a smooth transition here, has it not been, as we lead into the Immaculate Inauguration.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is change we can believe in.
Now, you may be asking yourself, why are the American people not up in arms about this?
Very simple.
It doesn't matter when Democrats do this.
Democrats can get away with no ethics because they never stand for standards.
They never proclaimed a, well, now, that's not really true.
Nancy Pelosi said they're going to have the highest ethical standards.
Obama has said he would.
Clinton said he would.
This is just rhetoric.
It's just campaign rhetoric.
We know they don't really mean it.
Just like they don't really mean much of what they say during the campaign.
It's just, it's breathtaking to watch this.
Let's listen to audio soundbites here.
Go to audio soundbite.
Let's start with number three.
We have a montage here from a senator, Senator John Kerry, and a bunch of drive-bys on Timothy Geithner.
It is possible to make an innocent mistake.
I think this is an honest mistake.
The transition team put out a lengthy list of reasons why this was just an honest mistake.
I would not describe it as a huge mistake.
It is a common mistake.
Maybe an honest mistake.
It does seem to be an honest mistake.
He made a common mistake on his taxes.
Yes, it is a common mistake.
The Obama administration is saying it was a common mistake.
It is being described as an honest mistake.
Geithner's tax problems, honest mistake.
This does look like an honest mistake.
An honest mistake.
This was an honest mistake.
Fairly common.
Geithner himself is embarrassed by this, and he's sorry.
Well, what about Kimba Wood?
I'm sure she was embarrassed and sorry.
What about Zoe Baird?
They were made to walk the plank.
But this is just so funny.
I know it's outrageous and it's maddening to hear the drive-by's lining up, but you shouldn't be surprised by this because I have predicted this.
The drive-by is going to line up and protect all of these people except Richardson.
And if the Republicans had any gonads, they would be asking if there's racism attached to the Richardson being thrown under the bus because he's Hispanic.
If it is such a common mistake, why is there a law against it?
But this common mistake business, folks, I'm not buying this.
It's a common mistake, frequently made mistake.
I'm very sorry for it.
Look, the nanny thing, that's probably a common mistake.
And not knowing whether or not your employee is legal or not.
That's probably somewhat common.
I'd also say it's pretty common.
You know your employee is not legal, but what the hell.
But this IMF thing, this is different.
When you work at the IMF, they withhold no taxes.
You're self-employed, essentially, which requires you to file quarterly estimates on your income.
And he didn't do it for a number of years.
And I think even after he was notified in an audit that he had slipped up here, he continued to commit the mistake.
Now, this is a guy that's going to be in charge of the IRS.
This is a guy going to be in charge of the Treasury Department.
Some of this is just they're asking us to believe a little too much that he didn't know this, didn't know he was being paid the gross.
I don't know.
Terms of employment are laid out.
Do you know what you have to do in order to be paid the gross?
Do you know the hoops you have to jump through to avoid having taxes withheld?
And it's just not something you can, you try.
Folks, try this.
Go in today or tomorrow and tell your boss you want to be paid the gross.
You don't want any deductions.
You'll handle it yourself.
And your boss will tell you, sorry, it is impossible.
The federal government makes me do this.
You can't be paid there.
We pay money to you.
We have to have all of these deductions.
We have to report it quarterly, weekly, whatever it is to the IRS and various other state authorities and so forth.
You can't do it.
Then look in to see what you would have to do, what kind of job you would have to do to be qualified or categorized as self-employed or an independent contractor in which you pay the gross.
I mean, I get audited by New York City and New York State every year since I moved to Florida.
And their assumption is I'm lying to them about where I live.
And they make mistakes every audit.
Every audit, they make mistakes based on faulty assumptions.
That's just a common mistake.
Imagine if it were reversed and I was the one making the mistake.
I mean, there would be penalties.
I shudder to think.
There would be hearings.
There would be hearings.
Wesley Snipes and I would be Blood Brothers exactly right.
And so there's something about this.
And I heard some Democrats say, well, you know, it's just too important.
This is such chump change.
He's just too important.
So change, we can believe in.
Yes, we can.
Hope.
Timothy Geithner here, Jonathan Alter makes that very point last night on MSNBC question, is this another Zoe Baird situation where somebody is just going to go out the window?
Or do they seem to have been honest mistakes?
And maybe more importantly, is there sort of a bipartisan feeling this guy's just too valuable to even let ordinary rules apply to him?
It does seem to be an honest mistake.
It would really be a shame if something like this sunk the nomination.
We are in very serious times.
They're quite different than 1993 when Zoe Baird's nomination was sunk for Attorney General over this kind of nanny problem.
Geithner is, by all accounts, the only person in Washington who fully understands TARP.
You know, $700 billion we cannot afford at this point unless there's gross malfeasance to take him out of the picture.
This is the drive-by sentiment summed up by Jonathan Alter.
Geithner is a genius.
He's going to save the economy of the entire world.
So what if he doesn't pay his taxes?
These are serious times we need him, and he is the only guy who understands TARP.
He is the only guy that understands TARP.
So thirdly, and the rest of you, do not doubt me ever again when I tell you the degree to which the drive-bys are going to be in the tank for Obama.
And now we continue with the audio soundbites.
Here's Andrea Mitchell with Mika Brzezinski today on Scarborough's show on MSNBC.
Mika Bzezinski says, Tim Geithner, is this a big problem?
Some tax issue for the guy?
He is hugely smart.
They need him right away on the job.
I think both senators in the Democrats and Republicans from the Finance Committee say that they need him right away to get confirmed.
He did his own taxes, by the way, which is.
And then he got an accountant who didn't tell him all the back taxes that he needed to pay.
Now, wait a minute, wait a minute, Miss.
I don't want you people to misunderstand what we're doing here.
This is an exercise.
This really isn't about Geithner.
We're not talking about Geithner here.
We're talking about the media, the way the drive-bys are covered.
Smartest guy, the only guy who understands TARP.
So smart he does his own taxes.
If he's so smart doing his own taxes, how does he miss the back taxes and the taxes that he owes and the taxes that he's not paying?
And how does an accountant catch it if he's the smartest guy that we've got out there?
Shouldn't the accounting be running TARP?
But this is just, this is, in fact, I'm going to give you, you people have heard about how expensive Obama's inauguration is going to be.
Bush has essentially had to declare a state of emergency to get the funding to pay for this.
It's over $100 million.
Bush's was $40 million or so.
The drive-bys, the AP, back in 2004, ran story after story about how outrageously wasteful, unnecessary, and expensive the Bush inauguration was.
Today, there are stories on how magnificent the Obama inauguration will be and how the cost is irrelevant due to the historical nature and the good vibes that will be extending to the country.
I've got both excerpts.
I will share them with you after the next break.
Here's Dingy Harry, by the way, held a press conference.
Are you worried about this Geithner pick now in light of the back taxes documentation?
Timothy Geithner is a person that is extremely well qualified to be one of the finest Secretaries of Treasury this country has ever had.
And there's a few little hiccups, but that's basically what they are.
I am not concerned at all.
Okay, now, if I were Geithner, I would be a little worried about this.
Dingy Harry's track record on getting people through the process is not all that good.
Dingy Harry stood in the way of Roland Burris.
Dingy Harry said, Roland Burris, I'd have a prayer getting in here.
He can't satisfy our rules.
We're not going to accept anybody appointed by Blagojevich.
This week, Burris will be seated.
Dingy Harry says, no problem.
Little hiccup.
Geithner will be in here.
No, now, if Dingy Harry's track record holds true, ladies and gentlemen, Timothy Geithner could be in trouble.
By the way, the New York Times is reporting that Timothy Geithner's confirmation hearing, the new Treasury Secretary, has been delayed until January 21st now, after the Republicans objected to holding his confirmation hearing on Friday.
January 21st is the day after the Messiah is sworn in.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, or generally, when Democrats run into ethics problems of any kind, the mantra then becomes it's time for reform.
Sort of like campaign finance reform was reform for all the corruption that was involving lobbyists and money and politicians.
Of course, campaign finance reform designed to get the money out of politics to protect these innocent little birds that are elected, when in fact they're the ones that are corrupt and are corrupting the system.
It's not the system corrupting them.
So when somebody important to Democrats gets tricked up legally, it usually spurns a call for reform.
Look at Clinton getting funded by the THICOMS.
The Clinton administration.
So we need to reform this.
We need to really because you pass the buck to the system for getting you in trouble, not you.
And so the call went out.
We need campaign finance reform.
So if the complexity of tax law tripped up the only guy who understands TARP, Timothy Geithner, isn't tax reform called for?
I mean, it's so common.
It ensnares so many worthwhile public servants.
It's a mistake that everybody makes.
It's such a common mistake.
Isn't it time to get rid of the mistake, which is the law?
Not the people.
Don't ask Charlie Wrangell about this.
This is one reform that is not going to happen.
But normally that's how the Democrats play the game.
Now, Daily Mail, UK Daily Mail online, Bush declares state of emergency in Washington as the cost of Obama's swearing-in ceremony soars to £110 million.
This is over $150 million.
Now, I was a little early when I was on the way to the White House yesterday, so I had a driver take me by the Capitol, the side that's set up for the inauguration.
I have never seen in my life so many port-a-potties all over everywhere.
They're surrounding the Washington Monument.
They're all the way down the mall.
They are on the grounds of Capitol Hill.
The seats where the 200 and some odd thousand who are given official tickets will sit to witness the swearing-in ceremony.
It's just massive.
It's just huge.
And I'm thinking all the stories we've had downplaying expectations of the number of people showing up.
Here is the story from the UK Daily Mail.
Barack Obama's inauguration set to cost $150 million, making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in U.S. history.
The president-elect will take less than a minute to recite the oath of office in front of an estimated 2 million people.
Oh, it's down to 2 million now.
The U.S. Capitol next week.
But by the time the final dance has been held at one of the many inaugural balls, the costs for the day will be a staggering 110 million pounds or over $150 million.
Do you know where this number was revealed?
It was revealed yesterday as Obama scrambled to answer questions about the nomination of Timothy Geithner.
Obama's White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement that Geithner had committed honest mistakes that he quickly addressed upon learning.
And then they went on to discuss this.
Okay, so $150 million.
Obama inauguration.
Got that?
Let's go back to the Associated Press in 2005.
The reporter Will Lester, this is a January 13th AP dispatch.
President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars, $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade, and other invitation-only parties with that kind of money.
What could you buy?
200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
A down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year.
Speaking of that, without the stimulus, we got the first three months of the 2009 fiscal year budget.
We're on track to a $1.2 trillion deficit.
And here in 2005, we're spending way too much money on Bush's inauguration.
Well, we could make a down payment on the nation's deficit.
And finally, all these questions, what could we better spend the Bush inauguration money on, have come from Bush supporters and opponents?
Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?
That was the lead, Will Lester, AP, January 13th.
Today, or yesterday, January 13th, 2009, Laurie Kelman.
So you're attending an inaugural ball saluting the historic election of Barack Obama in the worst economic climate in three generations.
Can you get away with glitzing it up?
Still be appropriate, not to mention comfortable and financially viable.
To quote the man of the hour, Obama, yes, you can.
Veteran ballgores say you should, and fashionistas insist that you must.
It is time to celebrate.
This is a great moment.
Don't dress down.
Don't wear the Washington uniform, said Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian chief creating officer at Liz Claiborne, Inc.
Just because the economy is in a downturn doesn't mean that style is going to be in a downturn, said Ken Downing, fashion director for Neiman Marcus.
Not one story so far about how many people in Darfur could we feed with this $150 million.
How many Africans could be vaccinated against AIDS for some of this $150 million?
What size home could you buy the brother George Obama still living in the shack in the hut with just a meager portion of this $150 million?
Anzatudi?
Anzatuti, yeah, what might even be able to buy her a green card with a portion of the $150 million.
What about all the children without health care?
What about all of the middle-class people without jobs?
How many people could be aided with a portion of Obama's inauguration budget?
Bush, it was $40 billion and they were asking how it could be spent.
Better spent.
It's unnecessary.
We weren't in a recession either, by the way.
We weren't in an economic downturn.
Now, in the midst of an economic downturn, oh, yeah, I mean, go out there and gussy it up all you can.
Dress it up, spend it up.
At bad economic times, this is when we need to indulge ourselves more change we can believe in.
And here now is Bill in Tampa.
Bill, great to have you here.
Thanks for waiting as we head back to the phones on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Happy belated birthday today.
Thank you very much, sir.
I'm an automotive wholesale parts distributor from Tampa, Orlando daily, and a major soft drink manufacturer, Pepsi-Cola, has changed their logo where it looks eerily similar to Barack Obama's.
They even have slogans like, are you ready to change the world on these billboards and signage?
It just amazes me how they're backing this just like the media has since his 2014.
This is business.
I mean, with business, don't make the mistake assuming this is ideological.
It's not always.
Sometimes it is.
But in this case, this is just about selling Pepsi.
And his logo was already close enough to theirs.
They could have sued him for contract or copyright infringement.
Instead, they're getting on board.
Change.
Pepsi's always had a marketing challenge.
How do we go against Coca-Cola?
Their most famous campaign was the drink of a new generation.
Well, they're back to it.
They're just basically recycling it here.
I saw somebody sent me an email.
Sunkissed is running ads that make it look like Obama and his family are endorsing the product.
Wow.
I saw a story yesterday.
Even while flying to Washington, I was doing a show prep.
And there was a story on all kinds of businesses who are trying to get themselves on television somehow during the inauguration because the people, the ratings, might rival the Super Bowl, and yet it won't cost anything if they can find a way to finagle themselves in the TV coverage somehow.
Well, they may be successful, but I doubt it because I've drank my last Pepsi-Cola, that's for sure.
All right.
Well, Luck, I appreciate the call.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks, Elmo.
Mary in Kingsford, Michigan.
You know, it's good to know there's still people in Michigan who can afford a phone call.
Mary, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you here.
Thanks, Rush.
I'm calling to make a comment about our current president and about the president-elect.
Yes, ma'am.
First of all, let me qualify by saying I am an independent since labels seem to be the coin of the realm on your program.
But I voted, I'm 65 years old, so I voted for a lot of presidents, and I voted for Nixon in 1968 because I thought he could get us out of Vietnam.
I voted for McGovern in 1972, and to just continue the pattern, I did vote for Reagan a couple of times.
I voted for Bush 41.
I voted the first time for our current president and not the second time.
What do you want, a medal?
No, I'm just making the point that I do try to think independently.
But the point I want to make is about our current president is leaving office and obviously leaving a mess behind, leaving us with an unpopular war.
And I am basically a fiscal conservative, so he has disappointed me very much on that score.
However, I do not dislike him.
I do not hate him.
Actually, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him because I think he is a good man who made some very bad choices, and he meant well.
He meant well for our country.
And so that is my feeling about him.
Give me a couple of bad choices of demon.
By the way, the coin of the realm on this program is truth, not labels.
But give me a couple of bad choices of the demand.
He took us into a war.
He started a war in Iraq, and he had very bad information.
He listened to the wrong advisors.
We were not prepared for what followed the initial entrance into the country, and we're still left with that war right now, and it looks like Afghanistan will continue to plague us.
And so also, in terms fiscally, you know, I feel, need I say that we're in bad shape fiscally, and so these things happened on his watch.
But yet, the point I'm trying to make is that it's not incumbent upon us to hate him, to dislike him.
I feel he is a good man who tried to do the right thing.
Now, relative to our president-elect, I also feel he is a good man who is going to try to do the best for our country that he can do.
And it disturbs me, Rush, to have you at this point in time criticizing him.
You're invariably negative toward him.
You're sarcastic about him.
And yet, if we're all Americans, and I'm an American more than anything, I wish him well.
There you go, using labels again.
Oh, that's a good label, American, I guess.
Oh, there are good labels.
Do you want Obama to succeed?
Yes, I do.
I do.
Our country.
So you want socialism.
You want an ever-expanding government in debt larger than we've ever been in debt.
You want tax rates ballooning to even come close to paying for it if we could.
You want national health care.
You want soft on foreign policy, national defense.
You want the CIA politicized.
I want what's best for our country.
And that doesn't mean that I'm going to support everything he does, but I'm going to give him a chance.
And that's what I think everybody should do right now is give the man a chance.
It was fine to criticize him during the campaign.
And maybe a year down the road, we can come in with the criticism again.
But right now, it's a new...
You've been following the transition.
How could we...
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to Exhibit A, Election Returns 2008.
Always correcting my minor errors, ladies and gentlemen, and my recent riff on Obama's inaugural bucks and how they could be better spent.
I mentioned an AIDS vaccine.
There is no AIDS vaccine.
We can hope that there might be someday, but that there isn't.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, what was it?
Oh, this lovely young woman who called mere moments ago lied to Mr. Sterley, typical independent, typical moderate, said to Mr. Sterley, she just wanted to talk about Bush and how much respect she had for him.
And we got a filibuster on her voting record to prove her independence because she'd voted for all these disparate candidates.
And then we got to the real meat of it when she said we need to give Obama a chance.
How can I stop Obama's chance?
What is this?
You liberals, you independents, liberals, what is it?
No criticism ever, unless it's George Bush or me or a Republican?
No criticism permitted?
That's negative.
That's hate speech.
It's uncalled for.
We must give him a year before we start criticizing.
Why?
There's plentiful evidence out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Frankly, I've even had questions.
I saw a good friend of mine last night.
I will not mention who it is because I didn't get permission to private email off the record.
Person said to me, I frankly am stunned.
You just don't want to get out of politics here on your show for a couple of three months.
Do you realize how depressed we all are out there?
And I wrote back, I said, depressed?
I am energized.
I am honored.
I am happy to be the last man standing.
I am happy to be the one lone outpost in the entire United States media where you can tune in and enjoy it and laugh and enjoy yourself and also get the truth that you're not getting anywhere else.
I'm honored to hold that position.
And I'm not having to be dishonest or make things up in order to hold it.
Mr. Sterdley just written me, wrote me a question.
When you were in the White House, did you remind President Bush he won't be on Air Force One anymore flying commercial?
Needs Zycam since he can use email.
He can't wait to get back to his BlackBerry, by the way.
He cannot wait, or iPhone, whatever he's going to, he cannot wait to get back and use email.
He can't do it because it's all subject to FOIA.
You let some of these wacko groups out there been trying to destroy him find out that his private emails are up for grabs.
And so he's not going to do it.
And Obama, I guess, is still holding out here.
He's hell-bent on using his BlackBerry, which is, by the way, this has upset the left that he hasn't purchased an iPhone.
They think he's using an ante.
Yeah, Limbo's got an iPhone.
Limbo uses iPhones and doesn't know.
I did.
I told Bush about Renai Tankless water heaters for his house.
I told him about Zycam.
In fact, about Zycam, did you know that there's a story out there that if you don't get enough sleep, you're more susceptible to the common cold?
Yeah, it's all over the place.
Well, get into all that in the next hour.
I've got to take a brief time out here.
We still have Senate Democrats are trying to make us think they might veto Obama's stimulus plan.
Now, how stupid do they think we are?
I'm going to explain this to you.
Have you, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps remembered who and who alone is in charge of the administration and the doling out of the TARP funds?
It's the Treasury Secretary, and I'll read the legislation to you here in a minute.
So why all this talk from Barney Frank and the others over how it must be spent?
They have no authority.
▲
Export Selection