All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:38
May 18, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back, broadcast excellence, Rush Limbaugh, talent on lawn from God.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number.
If you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Let's see.
Caterpillar.
How's that hope and change working for you out there, folks?
Caterpillar said that it's going to cut ours at least in half for nearly 1,000 workers at its Lafayette, Indiana engine plant in its second work reduction announced this month, and a third work reduction announced in two months.
The company filed a notice on Friday with the Indiana Department of Workforce Development saying that reduced hours would affect 985 of the 1900 employees at the plant starting August 24th and might last for six months.
So how's that hoping change for you?
I mean, we uh we've had 1.8 million jobs lost since February.
Caterpillar, do you remember Obama said that the CEO of Caterpillar told him that he would start hiring people back with a responsible stimulus bill?
So Obama went out and said, Well, that's my stimulus bill.
I talked to the CEO, Caterpillar, they're going to be hiring people back.
Now they've announced their third work reduction in two months.
But get this.
In Lafayette, Indiana, or Lafayette, 985 of the 1900 employees there are going to have their hours reduced starting August 24th and might last for six months.
Now let's see, this is May June, three and a half months, basically.
Which tells me that the Caterpillar people are expecting nothing to change between now and six months from August 24th.
But nine months, there's nine months Caterpillar is projecting that they're going to be able to get by with fewer workers and work hours.
I How's that hope and change working out for you?
How's the stimulus bill?
And this Caterpillar was supposed to be one of the direct beneficiaries here, shovel ready jobs.
Fix up the infrastructure and all that.
What's so funny, Snerdly?
Gee, I can't.
What do you mean being mean?
How in the world?
What what have I just said that's mean, Brian?
What?
Because when I said how's that hope and change working out for you?
You think I announced this with glee and happiness?
But I mean, this is what we were told.
Hope and change, campaign, people elected.
Here it is.
1.8 million unemployed, caterpillar, which you would figure would get a lot of work with infrastructure shovel ready repair jobs.
Stopping work three different times in the past uh past three months.
You know, Jennifer Granholm, it was announced earlier today, the governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, is going to be in Washington tomorrow.
And immediately people started speculating, well, maybe she's going to be the announced Supreme Court replacement for David Suter.
Because it said that she's on the short list.
That's not what's going on tomorrow.
Here is what's going on tomorrow.
President Obama will announce tomorrow a historic new policy involving new greenhouse gas emission standards and new cafe standards for cars sold in the United States.
The announcement will involve a broad coalition, including state governments, Arnold Schwarzenegger from California, Jennifer Granholm from Michigan will be there, as well as both the Department of Transportation and EPA, automakers, environmental groups, and others.
The Transportation Department will handle the new CAFE standards while the EPA will handle the new greenhouse gas emission standards.
They will be initiated through administrative rulemaking, not legislation.
Administrative rulemaking.
On January 26th, Obama issued a presidential memo requesting EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to reconsider the Bush EPA's 2007 denial of waiver.
California, 13 other states sought to set their own stricter automobile emissions and fuel efficiency standards.
So if uh if if it uh historic new policy.
Now we'll have to wait and see.
The low art of political seduction could be in play here, but we have to assume here that historic new policy involving new greenhouse gas standards and cafe standards means they're going to be draconian.
We'll just have to wait and see.
The industry is dying now, I know, and they're going to kill it.
But this is the way they're going to get people into cars that they otherwise wouldn't buy by making them the only cars people can buy.
To the audio sound bites, ladies and gentlemen, Nancy Pelosi...
You know, this is we talked about this earlier in the uh in the program.
There are a bunch of people debating what ought to happen to her.
And some people think we need an independent counsel, special prosecutor, to look into her just the same way we had one look into Valerie Plain.
And that went on for two years.
And they creamed the Bush administration, and they creamed Cheney, and they cream scooter Libyan robe, and everybody that was called up to the grand jury to testify, it made big, big big news.
The difference here is the Democrats run the political process.
The advantage to doing an independent council is when you use the left's tactics against them is how you get rid of the tactic.
And nobody likes the independent council.
So use it, get rid of it.
That's one theory.
Another theory says, no, don't do any of that.
Let the politics play out.
She's already being harmed.
And we want Nancy Pelosi to be the face of a Democrat Party in congressional elections in November.
Your third option is Truth Commission.
She wants a truth commission to look into Bush and Cheney, and to uh obviously absolve herself.
But uh two of these three kick the can down the road and do nothing to her anytime soon.
Uh the third one does nothing to her but leaves her in place to twist, ostensibly.
I want to add a fourth element to this, and that is it's not just Pelosi here who's lying about all this, it's the whole Democrat Congress.
And it's not just lying about what the CIA said regarding waterboarding and torture and who knew what when the Democrats lied, they all voted for the war in Iraq, and then they said they were misled by the CIA and misled and lied to by Bush.
You know, so Pelosi, she's just the figurehead for this.
But the drive-bys desperately want to hold on to Pelosi.
They don't throw their own under the bus.
This morning on MSNBC, Morning Joe Scarborough show, the guests were Pat Buchanan and Bob Schrum.
And they had a discussion here about Pelosi, accusing the CIA of lying to her.
Buchanan said, Would you agree that Nancy Pelosi may not be telling us the truth?
No, I've known her for 40 years, so I have no doubt whatsoever.
I know her personally.
Well, she's a person of incredible intensity.
You work for Jill and I'm not sure.
Yes, I told what I thought about him in a book and got attacked for it.
Now let me tell you.
They lied us into a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.
So do they lie?
Yeah, so do.
So you see how this is playing out.
CIA lied about Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction.
I've known Pelosi forty years.
She doesn't lie, but the CIA does.
Mark Penn, uh, polster for Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, also a guest on the same show.
The co-host Mika Zhinski said, Mark, first of all, what should Pelosi have done?
You know, what what what this is a mess.
It's a mess.
What can be done now?
Well, it is a mess.
I think Pelosi would be best off just having a do-over here.
Just saying, look, it was six, seven years ago.
Uh I don't want to contest the CIA.
I don't want to divide the country on this issue, and just pull back from the whole position.
So should she apologize?
You know, I don't think she should apologize.
I think she should pull back.
She should have a do-over.
Jesus, you just have to laugh when the Democrats screw up, they get a do-over.
It's like when, you know, the CBS producer in the 2004 presidential campaign asked John Kerry a question, I forget what it was, but his answer was rambling and nonsensical.
And the CBS reporter and producer, Senator, will you want to try that again?
And they did a take two on his answer.
And now Pelosi gets a do-over, or she needs a do-over.
But not all loyal Democrats are supporting her on the this week with George Stephanopoulos, George Will, James Carville talk about Pelosi, George Will said, uh the Bush administration's gone.
People addicted to attacking it really have to get over that.
Her changes are so shrill, her charges are so shrill, no specific, and so grave that they turned something that was arguably advisable, a truth commission, into something that's becoming mandatory to find out whether or not we can trust the CIA.
That's a very serious charge that she made.
You know, seven years ago, the CIA says something.
She says since she and Senator Graham and Senator Rockefeller say something.
I I I just I don't think that Democrats really want to be at war with the CIA.
We had that, you know, before, and that's not particularly productive.
And I love the speaker.
She's a great family lady and everything else.
I probably wouldn't have done that.
Um we don't need to be at war with the uh with the CIA.
Panetta's the guy to keep an eye on here, as I said, you know, long ago.
And he's he's he's loyal to the Clintons and obviously now loyal to Obama.
And he went out last week said we didn't lie.
I mean, we and everybody's saying, well, let's see the proof here.
And nobody needs the proof.
Everybody knows she's making it up because she's changed her story four or five times.
John Boehner, Sunday morning on CNN, was asked a question where's this going?
There's some who say the speaker's been dishonest.
The speaker's accusing a CIA now of lying to Congress.
It's interesting theater here in Washington, but does it serve any policy purpose?
Lying to the Congress of the United States uh is a crime.
And if the speaker is accusing uh the CIA and other intelligence officials uh of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence uh and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted.
Uh and if that's not the case, I think she uh uh ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.
Yeah.
Okay, a quick timeout here.
We'll be back.
We will uh continue after this.
Don't go anywhere.
All right, this this whole Nancy Pelosi business, uh, folks, once again, everybody's being diverted into a discussion on Iraq, into a discussion on the CIA when the focus needs to be on Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party.
There's no question that she's lying about this.
Back on May the 7th or May of the 8th, the politico ran a story.
More Democrats briefed on waterboarding, and there's a PDF file that accompanies the story.
Some members of Congress are briefed about waterboarding by the CIA at least 40 times since 2002.
And if you look at the PDF file, some of the biggest blowhards in the party are on the list.
John Mertha, Jay Rockefeller, Jerry Nadler, uh even Keith Ellison from up in Minneapolis or Minnesota is is on the list.
If you click on the PDF file, it's um all kinds of Democrats were informed and briefed by the CIA about waterboarding at least 40 times.
This is not just about Pelosi.
It's it's about all the Democrats who are out there trying to say the CIA lied to them, just like they're out trying to say that Bush lied to them about Iraq and the CIA lied, and Bush misused intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.
It really gets frustrating to see how easily all this can be diverted from what actually is true.
Let's look at Pelosi, for example, and let's look at the House of Representatives.
From 2002 all the way to 2005, well, to the present, the House of Representatives voted to authorize the CIA's budget.
every year, year after year.
Now, 2002 and 2005 is while this interrogation program was underway.
Supposedly where all these extreme and garrett interrogation techniques were being used that Nancy Pelosi didn't know about, and that Mertha didn't know about.
And all this horrible torture was going on, they didn't know about.
They knew about it.
They were told about waterboarding 40 times.
They voted for the CIA budget throughout this period.
In other words, they voted to fund the program.
They funded the interrogation program.
They've funded the black site prisons.
They've funded the rendition programs.
They funded the pictures of water that they were using in the interrogation techniques.
And even by her own account, Pelosi knew it was going on for years.
There was never a day when she couldn't have called George Bush to threaten to cut off the funding if they didn't stop all this torture and all this enhanced interrogation.
And all these Democrats are the same way.
They were all briefed on this.
The intelligence committee in the House got briefed on all this, and I tell you the political story for May 7th, May 8th, I forget which one it is.
With the PDF story here on all of these Democrats that were briefed about waterboarding by the CIA 40 times.
And the political, of course, not something sympathetic to George Bush.
Or even uh the CIA here.
So there's no question she's lying.
The whole Democrat Party is lying about the whole thing is a ruse.
They wanted to be let off the hook for voting for the Iraq War.
Bush lied.
People died.
They were misled.
They knew everything going on.
They had the same intel that Bush got about weapons of mass destruction.
They just succeed here in politicizing all this stuff ex post facto to uh to make it appear that they're the innocent guardians of the people's welfare, and they got lied to by the shifty CIA.
I'm telling you, the lying that's going on about all of this is happening right in the House of Representatives and the Democrat caucus and the Speaker's Office on down to various committees.
And the same thing over in the Senate.
By the way, the Wall Street Journal is reporting what the draconian new cafe standards are going to be tomorrow.
The Obama administration plans to direct the EPA and the Department of Transportation to jointly raise fuel economy standards and reduce greenhouse gas pollution so as to raise the overall fuel economy of cars to 35 miles per gallon by 2016, four years faster than federal law requires.
Right now, the cafe standard of 35 miles per gallon per car per fleet is uh set for 2020.
They're going to move it up to 2016.
Now, the way this works, the the cafe standards, you have to average ever the kind of cars every manufacturer makes.
So if you've got if you're going to make some SUVs that get 14 or 12, you gotta have some smart cars that get 40 or 50, and then you have to have to average the 35 miles per gallon of car by uh by 2016.
This coincides with the Obama administration taking over the automobile industry.
Chrysler and General Motors, at least, uh, with Ford out there, they're gonna be subject to it as well.
So if if you uh if you fashion a big car, you want an SUV, you want it, you better go buy it now and keep it, keep it for a while, because it'll be grandfather.
They can't make you get rid of it.
But they'll come up with incentive programs to call it the clunker program by you out of your clunker or what have you.
But I guarantee you, these people who despise your individual liberty and freedom are going to do everything they can to get you in these dangerous, risky, experimental little environmentally safe cars that are not going to make a bit of difference to the climate or the overall health of the planet in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Brian, Yuma, Arizona, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks indeed, Mr. Limbaugh.
Yes.
I appreciate it.
Between my wife's presence and my addiction to logic, we've got a great little Limbaugh program at our house where we're raising our three children to uh push back against the liberalism that's just rampant out there.
Good for you.
And uh well, thank you.
Thank you for for uh everything you do.
We do pray for you and your continued success, and I sincerely mean that.
Thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate it.
The point I wanted to make yes uh was about Obama yesterday in Notre Dame talking about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, etc.
etc.
And there was was raccous applause for for what he was saying.
And like Obama, on the one hand, he's saying reduce the number of abortions, and on the other, within the first one hundred days, he funded programs for more abortions.
Exactly, exactly, exactly right.
Reduce the number of abortions, but what is he doing?
He's enabling them worldwide.
Brilliant point.
Thank you.
Let's go back to the audio soundbite roster.
This is humorous.
Remember last week when the Pelosi problem cropped up.
I came out with a very clever observation and a unique observation, one that wasn't heard anywhere else.
Nancy Pelosi has a chance to finally shatter the glass ceiling of dominant white male rule in the House.
And how could she do it?
By resigning.
Because Trent Fort Worthless Jim resigned and uh Newt Gingrich resigned, they were men.
They resigned when they got into some snuffles.
So here comes Pelosi with her chance to do it just like the men do.
Get in trouble and you quit.
This did not go over well in the drive-by media.
Late Friday afternoon, the MSNBC anchor Nora O'Donnell was speaking with the Republican strategist Alex Conant about me.
O'Donnell said, Rush Limbaugh says, come on now, we've had two men resign as speaker.
So if women really want equal treatment, if they really want to crash through the glass ceiling, there's no better benchmark than Nancy Pelosi taking herself out.
Those two former men who resigned resigned because they were having affairs.
Is this really relevant?
Is Rush Limbaugh now the spokesman of your party?
Do you want him saying stuff like that when you're already having problems getting women voters in the Republican Party?
It's not up to Rush Limbaugh.
It's not up to any Republicans, it's not up to New Gingrich whether or not Nancy Pelosi's going to be remain speaker.
It's up to congressional Democrats whether or not they think she has a credibility problem.
You know, you gotta give most of these Republican guys credit.
They resist the temptation to throw me and Cheney and others uh overboard when the drive-by's give them the chance to do it this morning on Scarborough show on MSNBC's talking with uh Republican representative Tom Price, who's a Republican from Georgia, and they had this exchange.
Congressman, do you believe that Rush Limbaugh or Dick Cheney are better?
Quote I'm just using terms that we hear every day on TV and radio, that they are somehow better Republicans than Colin Powell.
No, goodness.
This division bless you.
This division that we seem to be embracing across this land, it's just gotta go away.
Look, throw me out of this for a second.
Throw me out of the equation here.
How in the world can a Republican say that Colin Powell is a better Republican than Dick Cheney?
And that's what Tom Price said here.
And Scarborough applauds him for some reason.
How in the hell can you say that Dick Cheney is worse for the Republican Party than Colin Powell?
It was Colin Powell who endorsed Obama after the Republican Party gave Colin Powell the exact kind of nominee he claims to want.
Some moderate, squishy guy who's gonna go work with Democrats.
I mean, really throw me out of this.
Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, better Republicans and Colin Powell, and price is no.
Goodness.
And then also same show, Scarborough.
I guess he can't keep him off TV these days.
Scarborough said to hear Dick Cheney say we'll take Rush Limbaugh on our party, but not Colin Powell.
Would Democrats take Colin Powell in a second?
We'd take Colin Powell in a second, and we don't want Rush Limbaugh.
You've got Colin Powell.
This is the whole point of it.
You got him.
And you didn't even have to do any outreach.
All you had to do was nominate an African American.
And you got and you got Colin Powell, the Democrats that this is just now the Republicans, some of them are starting to speak up here.
Republican leaders on Sunday backed Dick Cheney's attacks on Obama, calling the former vice president a strong asset for the party.
John Boehner on CNN said it doesn't hurt us, it helps us.
Cheney's a big member of the party.
Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC.
He dismissed a report from Dan Ball's The Washington Post, claiming Republicans wince at Cheney's newfound desire for the limelight.
There was no wincing here.
The vice president expressed his view.
The vice president gets results.
What in the world are these?
Good thing I paused there and had to clear the throat.
A profanity was on the tip of my tongue.
What the hell is it with you Republicans?
Do you not see what Cheney was able to pull off last week?
You basically have the Bush policy on Gitmo and interrogations intact.
For one reason.
Dick Cheney, not any other Republicans in Washington, but Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney gets results.
And this guy says that Dick Cheney is not as good a Republican as Colin Powell is.
Meet the press yesterday.
David Gregory talking to Ed Tim Kane on, who's the chairman of Democrats, and Michael Steele.
Gregory says, Chairman Steele, you agree with Dick Cheney about Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh.
Look, I take both of them.
I want them both of them.
As the chairman of the party, I want Rush Limbaugh.
I want I want uh, you know, Colin Powell, and I'll even take Tim Kane.
I mean, he's pro-life, he's pro-business, you know, he's pro-second amendment.
My father-in-law was a Republican government.
I'm a crowd democrat.
Well, that's somewhat of a smart answer.
Uh, after uh after after a while.
Well, I mean, this is um this is this is just you know, how about how about Biden?
Biden's out there giving away the location of the secret hideaway that chained the bunker that Cheney repaired to after 9-11.
And the question ought to be you Democrat would we take Joe Bike?
No, you can have him.
Uh back to the phones.
Lewis in Illinois.
Cell phone call.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yes, Rush, Megan Didddo's Thanks.
Uh I just wanted to give a different perspective on the Notre Dame commencement uh that maybe had not here not heard before, but my wife and I are on our way back to Texas after seeing our daughter graduate.
And it was really uh uh disheartening and sickening to us to see how far uh the uh priests of uh Notre Dame and the faculty have taken the student body to positions where uh the moral clarity is not there any longer.
The focus, uh all the focus is all about social justice, worker rights, uh health for the poor, health care for the poor, and matter of fact, the biggest build new building and building on the campus is the Center for Social Justice and Peace.
That kind of gives you an indication that uh where the where the uh leadership of the school is taking the students, and I realized this over the past four years after being glad that my daughter was going there, now being somewhat melancholy about the fact that she has been subjected to this just like a majority of the students that were in that hall.
What'd your daughter what'd your daughter major in?
She was a uh biology major and a Russian major.
Biology and Russian.
Yes.
Okay.
So she was taught to be nice to frogs and to extend social justice.
Well, that's that's the commencement speaker, the valedictorian.
Uh she, you know, they praised her and she was very accomplished.
But a lot of her uh the time she spent in other countries to help other people.
In Haiti, she worked uh for a Catholic workers women's relief center.
Yeah.
Well, if I remember the Catholic workers uh from the 30s, that wasn't basically a communist socialist organization.
Uh the there are a lot of people in that hall, uh uh, even despite the students and the faculty cheering Obama on.
About my view, about a third of the families and and friends that were in the audience, sat there in silent protest, did not get up on their feet, did not applaud anything that he said, or even that matter, Father Jenkins sent who said who has been really abysmal on this whole issue.
Uh there was there was a lot of silent protests.
Those who were loud did get uh booted out, and there was and the students chanted, We are indeed, not yes we can't.
Uh a little bit different take on that.
Uh but but there was a lot of silent protest going on by myself, my wife, and a lot of other people in that organization and that hall that did not want to honor Obama in any way, shape, or form.
Well, I'm glad you called.
I'm I um glad to get your perspective on that.
Thanks very much, Lewis.
Uh John in Libertyville, Illinois, you're next.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're up on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
Um I'm sure you're aware that the vast majority of students and alumni of Notre Dame University supported the university's decision to have the president speak.
And I think it's also certain that there's no question that a great many of those people are also anti abortion like you, but I think the difference between them and you is that they they recognize that the word universe, as included in the word university, implies a very broad range of information and ideas and opinions,
and that the university should be a forum for those ideas rather than sharing your viewpoint that the university should be a place where they put on a blindfold, they uh stop anyone who they disagree with from speaking, and if they hear anything they don't agree with, they stick their fingers in their ears and go, I can't hear you.
I'm a little bit surprised and shocked and stunned here at your point of view, because you have just criticized the vast majority of major American universities who are closed to all points of view.
They're closed to the conservative point of view.
When conservative speakers are invited to speak, they're often shouted down to the point of not being able to speak and being forced to leave stage.
The university is anything but what you just described.
There is no universe in university today.
It's pure, unadulterated, one hundred percent Marxism leftism.
But we're not talking, I wasn't talking about Notre Dame, the university.
I was talking about the Catholic Church.
And the people at Notre Dame University, the theologians there, who were doing their best to undermine the Catholic Church.
I know full well what's happening on American campuses today, and it's why the country is in such bad shape, or one of the reasons anyway.
And we stay with the phones to Copeg, New York.
Barbara, I'm glad you called.
You're on the rush limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, madam.
And I just want to say God bless you.
Um my comment is about Nancy Pelosi.
Rush, I grew up, I'm fifty-six years old.
I grew up surrounded by Democrats and Liberals.
And the only positive thing that came out of that rush was I developed a good gut feeling, really good intuition.
Um, but you had that anyway, as a woman.
I mean, I never doubt a woman's intuition.
I did rush, but I didn't realize it.
I didn't realize it.
However, uh watching Nancy Pelosi, uh, from the first time she came out publicly speaking about the enhanced uh interrogation techniques, up until the last minute when she started blaming the Bush administration.
I was waiting for that to come, by the way.
I was waiting for the Bush administration to come after the CIA thing.
Um anybody with a little bit of an open mind and a little bit of sense of common sense could just listen to her words and watch her expressions.
And you know she's lying.
She is outright lying, Russ, and I believe she is a disgrace to the House seat.
I believe she is a disgrace to her party, and I also believe she is a disgrace to women in government, and she needs to step down.
Well, uh the Democrats don't look at her in that way at all.
Um do.
And if you look at you know, Nancy Pelosi had a book out called uh Reigns of Power, How I Got My Power, whatever the hell it was.
It sold, I think, five copies.
Nobody cares.
Mm-hmm.
I mean, she's not you know, to those of us that follow this stuff on a daily basis, we know who she is, and most most Americans don't, and they can they and they couldn't care less.
You know, the media's not demonized her over the years the way they did Newt Gingrich or Trent Lott or any of the other Republican congressional leaders, and so people don't really know who she is.
Um this is but I I I think the longer she's there because of the characteristics that you assign to her, the greater the odds are that we can benefit from her being there uh as the face of the of the Democrat Party.
It's gonna be up to Republicans to keep her there.
It's gonna be Rep Republicans to keep her in the media to keep her her her story alive here because the uh the Democrats aren't going to want to.
Now there may be some pockets of Democrats that want to get rid of her because they don't like her personally.
I wouldn't know, but I I don't think Rama Manuel likes her that much.
I don't think Stanley Stanley Hoyer likes her that much.
But I also know the Democrats do not throw their own overboard.
I mean, you realize how rare?
I told you at the time.
Videotape this.
DVR it.
Keep it for your archives, the Blogoyevitsch thing, because you don't see this.
You just don't see the Democrats get rid of their own.
You see the Democrats blame everybody else when one of them gets in trouble.
And I I don't I don't see a whole lot of Democrats climbing on board the anti Pelosi bandwagon here.
So all of what you say, I think a lot of people probably do agree with those who know who she is.
Jason in Bergen County in New Jersey.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
You're next.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah.
My mom raised me listening to your show, so you're a big part of my uh conservative view.
Rush baby.
Uh well, I was listening to your show on Friday where you were discussing Obama's speech at ASU, and how he spoke of college students needing to go forth and give back to society in some form.
Yes.
And forego their own personal uh goals or profit or what have you.
And armed with uh uh knowledge of your analysis, I attended my girlfriend's law school graduation on Sunday, same law school I graduated from a year ago.
And uh the guest speaker was uh reporter from NPR, and that means I don't need to mention the fact that she's a liberal.
And she spoke about the same theme that we should go out and give back to society, give back to people who are in need.
And I found that funny because she was bragging about how rich she was personally, that she was married to two very rich men over her lifetime.
So I'm thinking, um, does she give back?
And then the version of giving back that she prays obviously she doesn't give much.
Uh uh obviously not.
Probably not.
Um but uh if you're gonna tell a graduating class from a law school a give back, what are you basically saying?
Pro bono.
Pro bono, but let me get to what she used as her shining example of lawyers giving back.
Okay, thirty seconds, go.
She used the example of lawyers going down to Guantanamo Bay to help the detainees get released from Gitmo as the shining example of giving back.
Well, good, because they're gonna keep Gitmo open.
So they're gonna they're not gonna I'm I make this prediction, they're not gonna be able to shut it down because nobody wants these guys.
And uh I don't I can't see the day where the Democrats release them into the general uh uh general population.
Well, I appreciate it.
I'm glad you're able to see through it, though.
Did your girlfriend see through it?
Oh, yeah, and she said several other graduating students around her were even moaning and growing, but groaning during the speech.
Excellent.
Yeah, well, you know, this woman at NPR is not working for nothing.
And apparently she didn't marry for nothing.
And here she's telling all these people graduating law school pro bono, pro bono, go to Club Gitmo, represent the enemies of America.
With what are they going to pay these lawyers at Gitmo?
Nothing.
Okay, that's it, folks.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence in the can.
Fastest three hours in media, but fear not, my friends, in a mere twenty one hours, which will also fly by.
We'll be back tomorrow to do it all over again.
▲
Export Selection