All Episodes
Previous Next
May 26, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:41
May 26, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Wow, this is great, folks.
This is utterly fabulous.
Anita Dunn is the White House communications director.
Technically, she's the boss of Robert Gibbs.
She is out there saying, now get this.
Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, is out there saying, hey.
Go easy on the Senate Republicans.
Rush Limbaugh does not speak for Senate Republicans.
She's out defending Senate Republicans.
And what she's actually trying to do is to is to manipulate the Senate Republicans into opposing Sotomayor.
But about the nomination, she is saying, hey, we got to cut some Republican senators some slack here.
They don't, they don't they don't agree with what Rush Limbaugh's saying.
Well, now wait a minute.
And Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for them, she said.
Now wait a minute.
It was just last week, and the week before that, and the week before that, and a week before that, and a week before that, and a week before that, a week before that, and a week before that, and a week before that, that I did speak for the Republicans.
Since since late January, from the White House out, it has been I am the leader of the Republicans.
I speak for the Republicans.
AP call today.
They wanted a roll on my first hour comments on Sotomayor.
Because even though I passed the leadership baton to Colin Powell, they said I'm still the uh leading voice for the Republicans.
The Democrats put up billboards saying that I speak for the Republican Party.
And today the White House communications director Anita Dunn says, hey, go easy on the Senate Republicans.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't speak for them.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you back.
We are here at uh 800-282, 2882.
If you want to be on the program, our email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
Here is more proof, ladies and gentlemen, why you just need to trust me.
Just don't doubt me.
Over the years, I have repeatedly and very patiently, very declarative, but very patiently, said that exercise does not equal weight loss.
That to lose weight, you've got to cut back what you eat.
You simply cannot exercise enough to lose weight.
You don't burn enough calories.
Even if you jogged for an hour and you didn't reduce what you eat, you would not lose weight.
And of course, since that goes against all the conventional wisdom, people react to say I'm giving people bad advice, I don't know what I'm talking about, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I've never said exercise is bad for you.
I've just said a matter of hill of beans to losing weight.
Once again, I'm demonstrating this.
Seventy, what is it now?
74 days and uh what is it 54 pounds, and I have lost.
And I've play golf as it, which I do anyway.
And that's it.
I've had a couple instances of exercise aside from that.
We're not gonna talk about it.
Uh but regardless, I've never had a I'm too much an expert on this.
So there's this headline, there's a story out now from MSNBC.
Exercise not likely to rev up your metabolism.
Studies bust myth that working out gives you a fat burning boost.
Start exercising, you'll become around the clock fat burning machine, right?
That's long been a commonly held belief among exercisers and fitness experts.
But a new report finds that sadly it's not very likely.
The notion that exercise somehow boosts the body's ability to burn fat for as long as 24 hours after a workout has led to a misperception among the general public that diet doesn't matter so much as long as one exercises.
This is Edward Mellenson, an exercise physiologist and an associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver.
People think they have a license to eat whatever they want.
Our research shows that's definitely not the case.
You can easily undo what you set out to do.
Amen, bro.
I understand this, and I am not a scientist.
In the new report published in the journal Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews, Mellenson and colleagues discuss research to date on the issue of burning fat during and after exercise.
And they conclude that while people do burn more fat when they are exercising and when they're not, they have no greater ability to burn fat over the next 24 hours and on days when they're couch potatoes.
If you exercise and replace the calories you burn, you're no better off with regard to how much fat you burn off than if you didn't exercise.
And in the subhead for the next section, I'm not going to bother reading it to you, experts flabbergasted.
Experts flabbergasted.
Now, this is not to say you should not exercise.
It's not that exercise doesn't help with weight loss, melonson says.
It's that it's harder to lose weight with exercise than diet.
That's not surprising when you consider that it might take an hour to burn 400 calories, but just five minutes to consume them.
Essentially, weight loss comes down to mathematics, experts say, and the number of calories in versus the number of calories out.
Ray Lahood, Transportation Secretary Barack Obama, a Republican moderate, by the way, Ray Lahood, told a group of reporters at the National Press Club last Thursday, he quote wants to coerce people out of their cars.
In Newsweek magazine last week, nationally syndicated columnist George Will published a piece critical of Lahood entitled Ray Lahood, Transformed, Secretary of Behavior Modification.
He's joined a transformational administration.
I think we can change people's behavior, Will reports in Lahood said over lunch.
The moderator of the press club event asked Lahood, some in the highway supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative.
Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and coerce people out of their cars?
And Lahood answered, yeah, it's a way to coerce people out of their cars.
Look, I mean, people don't like spending an hour and a half getting to work, and people don't like spending an hour getting to the grocery store.
And all of you who live around here know exactly what I'm talking about.
You know the dreaded thing is to have to run an errand on a weekend around here to try to get home at three o'clock in the afternoon or even five o'clock in the afternoon.
What are they going to use?
Candy?
How are they going to coerce us out of our cars?
See, it's mass transit.
We must have mass transit.
And when you if if if they coerce you out of your car, by the way, the best way to coerce us out of our cars is to force us to buy the crap that Obama Motors is going to be making at Chrysler and General Motors.
That might be the fastest way to get us out of cars is to is to mandate the sales of cars that nobody wants.
The Power Line guys, John Hendraker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff, have an interesting post from yesterday.
The idea that President Obama's supporters trust him precisely because they believe he frequently misrepresents his own beliefs is being more widespread.
My friend Bob Cunningham was one of the first to uh explicate this phenomenon.
And yesterday he sent his thoughts to Power Line.
This is it, and this is key because there's a companion story following this, so listen up.
It has long been noticed that Obama's slipperiness had been accepted by the left during the Hope and Change campaign when he took positions, for example, and notably NAFTA, foreign trade generally on both sides of the issue.
They were willing to cut him slack in most cases, precisely because they assumed, of course, that he was lying to someone about the issue.
Since each side could reasonably assume this, the unions that when he made free trade noises, when he assured Canada that he wasn't protectionist, the rational liberals when he pandered to the unions on NAFTA in Ohio, for example, they could all support him thinking he was just lying.
But to the other side.
Don't worry.
We can trust him because he's lying, was in fact left-wing hope.
So whenever Obama would say something the left didn't like, no way he's just lying.
He's just lying.
It's okay.
He's lying to get elected.
Which they support.
This has been particularly noticeable with a gay marriage issue, Carrie Prijon, being exactly right when noting that her position is identical to Obama's.
But Obama gets a pass from homosexual activists because they just assume he's lying about it.
To the conservative blacks, for example, 70% against gay marriage in California.
Then yesterday in the New York Times, Frank Rich came as close as anyone's ever seen to acknowledging openly the we trust him because he's lying view.
Here's what Frank Rich wrote.
Obama's opposition to same-sex marriage is now giving cover to every hardcore opponent of gay rights, from the Miss USA contestant Kerry Prijon to the former Washington mayor Marion Barry, each of whom claim with nominal justification to share President Obama's views.
But in reality, they don't share his views.
Obama's long been a fierce advocate for gay equality.
The Windy City Times has reported that Obama initially endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage when running for the Illinois Senate in 1996.
In reality, Obama is always, always lying to somebody, and often it is the left.
He sister soldiers them.
On renditions, Guantanamo, wiretapping.
But where are they to go?
They just accept he's lying.
And if he's lying to the right, they support him.
Trust me, I'm lying.
Somehow it doesn't sound like a tactic that will work over time, say the power line guys, but uh, nevertheless, it is a modus operandi of President Obama.
Yeah, he's an exceptional well, no.
Who was it?
It was uh it was Bob Carey who said that Bill Clinton was an exceptionally good liar.
I don't know that that's what's being said about Obama.
They know he's lying.
With Clinton, you didn't know it.
That's why he was exceptionally good at it.
Obama is openly lying, but his supporters love him for lying, whatever it takes to screw the right.
If he has to mislead him and lie to him to get elected, then the left is all for it.
And this is a burgeoning theory.
Wall Street Journal has a story that I think is a little bit of a companion to this.
It is by Brett Stevens, who works at the Wall Street Journal.
Sometimes it takes South Park, the TV show, to explain life's deeper mysteries, like the logic of the Obama administration's policy proposals.
Consider the 1998 gnomes episode, GNOME's episode, I'm spelling it or pronouncing as it's spelled, in which the children of South Park, Colorado get a lesson in how not to run an enterprise from mysterious little men who go about stealing undergarments from the unsuspecting and collecting them in a huge underground storehouse.
What's the big idea the gnomes explain?
Phase one, collect underpants.
Phase two, we don't know.
Phase three, profit.
Now, lest you think there's a step missing here, that's the whole point.
What's phase two?
Asks one of the kids in South Park.
A gnome says, well, phase three is profits.
This more or less sums up Obama's speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S. The president's plan can briefly be described as follows.
Phase one, order Guantanamo closed.
Phase two, question mark.
Phase three, close Guantanamo.
Granted, this is an abbreviated uh exegesis of the speech, which did explain how some two-thirds of the daytini detainees will be tried by military commissions, but on the central question of the 100 odd detainees who can neither be tried in court nor released, one searches in vain for an explanation of what the president says he's going to do.
He announces he's going to close Guitmo.
Phase three is close it, but there's no phase two.
Well, okay, what happens when you close it?
Oh, no, no, no, worry about that.
We're just going to close it.
Now take the administration's approach to the Middle East.
Phase one, talk to Iran, Syria, whoever.
Phase two, question mark.
Phase three, peace.
In this case, the administration seems to think that diplomacy, like aspirin, is something you take two of in the morning to take away the pain.
But as Boston University's Angelo Codavilla notes in his book, Advice to War Presidents, diplomacy can neither create nor change basic intentions, interests, or convictions.
To say we got a problem, let's try diplomacy.
Let's sit down and talk.
Abstracts From the important question of what are you going to say?
And why should anything you say lead anyone to accommodate you?
And that's perhaps the best example of this three phase philosophy.
Okay, Iran, North Korea.
Well, we're going to sit down and talk.
We're going to have engagement.
And then we're going to have peace.
Well, yeah, but wait, you left something out.
What are you going to say to them?
And how are they going to react to what you say to them?
Details, details, don't bother us with details.
I'm the Messiah.
I'm saying we're going to have engagement with North Korea.
We're going to engage it with Iran and we're going to have peace.
Yeah.
Well, hell.
No, no, no.
Details.
You're getting bogged down on the unimportant things, the Obama people say.
We're doing something never before done.
We're going to engage North Korea, even though Bush did it left and right and then stopped because it was worthless.
Clinton engaged North Korea and sent Madeline Albright over there.
Give that little potbellied dictator a sexual thrill.
Imagine that, but it apparently worked.
But he's still nuking up.
So we engaged, and we're going to have peace.
Well, how?
They just tested a bunch of nukes.
So that's how it works.
You just say what people want to hear.
You don't tell them how it's going to happen.
You just tell them what they are.
Okay, I'm going to f it's like health care.
Bring in a bunch of experts in a task force to the White House.
Give them a speech.
Send them out into study groups.
Two hours later, have them back, ask what they said.
Next day say problem solved.
Wait a minute.
What did they do?
Nothing.
We talked about it.
So we're going to fix health care.
Phase one.
Phase two.
Question mark.
Phase three, it's solved.
We're moving on to environmental policy.
That's how it works.
And plus, in the middle of all that, when Obama lies, his own supporters love it.
Because they know he's lying and they know that he knows he's lying, and his lying is to allow him to get away with his ultra liberalism, and so it all fits, and it's all okay.
And we will be back.
Mama got a squeeze box.
Yes.
And so who?
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Listen to this.
This is Anita Dunn.
On MSNBC live this afternoon, Andrea Mitchell in her TV show.
Mitchell says, um, Rush Limbaugh called Sonia Sotomayor a reverse racist and hit her and the president hard in other comments on his broadcast today.
How would you respond to that?
I think in fairness to the Republican senators, I am willing to say that Rush Limbaugh probably does not speak for them.
We've been heartened by the positive reaction and really the excited reaction that this choice has gotten from you know many people across the country, an extraordinarily qualified nominee who not only has a compelling personal story, but has extraordinary judicial qualifications as well.
She's not qualified.
She's not qualified because she doesn't understand justice, but she does have a compelling story.
There is no question, and that's gonna be used to sell her.
Because there isn't a soul.
That is the after they get after they create tears during the Senate confirmation hearings of this story.
That's all she wrote.
But again, all of a sudden now I don't speak for the Republican Party.
You know, she didn't clear that with James Carville and Rahm Emanuel, because now I don't speak to the Republican Party, so they gotta they gotta take that part of their agenda down.
I don't speak for the Republican Party anymore.
I'm a maverick now.
I'm out there on my own.
Here's Paul and Culpeper, Virginia.
Hi, Paul, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hi, Rush, Megaditos from the Blue Ridge Mountains.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, uh, I say this with a heavy heart, but the Republicans must back the uh confirmation of Sotomayor.
Don't worry, they will.
Yeah, they they they've got to do it because uh she's gonna get confirmed anyway, or if not, she barely gets defeated, then we another liberal candidate gets in, and the Republicans will get beaten over the head left and right every day that they hate Hispanics.
It'll confirm in the mind of a lot of Hispanics that the Republicans hate them, and uh it'll be a disaster.
Well, see, I disregard that.
And I I I dealt with this earlier in the program.
You've just explained why most Republicans will not oppose her.
But she should be opposed, not for the purpose of defeating her confirmation, because I don't think it can be.
She should be opposed because opposing her will help the country understand who Obama is.
And the country must understand who Obama is.
The media is falling short in its responsibility.
They didn't vet the guy.
The American people must know who Obama is.
By being critical of Sonia Sotomayor's record, you can explain who Obama is.
This is a pipe dream, this Hispanic vote business.
George Bush nominated a bunch of Hispanic judges.
He had an attorney general who was Hispanic.
And the left went out and destroyed both of them.
The way to get Hispanic votes is with conservative founding principle values, repeated unalterably in a campaign.
This identity politics approach that the moderates and a Republican Party want to make is not going to work.
It's already been demonstrated that it doesn't work with McCain.
We are back.
It's great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh on a cutting edge of societal evolution.
Look, let me uh let me tackle something head on here because the last caller addressed it.
We've had two callers now.
Hey, we need to support Sotomayor because if we don't, the Hispanics are gonna hate us.
And we're gonna need the Hispanic vote.
Republican Party, when it wins, does not do identity politics.
The Republican Party doesn't go out and say, okay, we got this policy for Hispanics, this policy for blacks, this policy for whites, this policy for the rich, this policy for the poor.
That's not how Republicans win, it's how Democrats win.
Now I just folks, you people are going to have to face reality.
If the Republican Party did not get the Hispanic vote last time, with the architect of amnesty for illegal aliens as our nominee, what makes you think there's anything we could do to get the Hispanic vote along those lines.
We can't stop Sonia Sotomayor.
The opposition to her ought not be based on stopping her.
Might happen anyway, but because look at the more people look into her record, you're gonna find out what I mean.
When I, you know, she I I referred to her today as a reverse racist, and you can see it in the Ricci case that's currently before appeal on the Supreme Court with a decision coming in late June.
She cited against a white firefighter and was admonished in her reasoning by a Clinton-appointed Democrat judge for not even addressing the constitutional issues.
She ruled against the white firefighter, Ritchie, and other white firefighters just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past.
The law was totally disregarded.
That's what I mean when I refer to her as a reverse racist.
Obama himself is one, the chip on his shoulder that he brings to office.
It's if people just listen to what he said over the course of his career, it's unmistakable.
I know the media is gonna harp on this reverse racist stuff, and I just want all of you to know that I am perfectly willing to back it up, and I'm proud that I said it.
It happens to be true.
Reverse racism is what affirmative action is.
And no racism is good.
The original majority white racism that was bad that we've dealt with, if in all this racism really existed, how did she get where she is?
That was my whole point in the first hour.
Her personal story is very compelling.
She overcame all kinds of odds, but they weren't as bad as Obama wants us to believe.
She came to realize her wildest dreams during the Reagan years and the Bush years and the Clinton years, supposedly when this country was imperfect and unjust and immoral, according to Obama.
But to go get the Hispanic vote, you you think that that's the view of moderates.
Hey, look at us, we don't hate you.
Well, the premise that we hate Hispanics is wrong in the first place.
George Bush had them all over his administration, and the liberals tried to destroy every damn one of them.
The two most prominent were Miguel Estrada and uh and Alberto Gonzalez.
And it doesn't have anything to do with Hispanic, it has to do with liberal versus conservative.
And the media is gonna side with the left, and the Democrats are gonna try to destroy any conservative or Republican who's gonna be successful, particularly minorities.
Particularly Republican minorities.
Ask Clarence Thomas.
Ask Mike uh uh Ken uh uh Blackwell in Ohio.
Ask Thomas Sowell, ask any number of black conservatives.
If they are treated at all like liberal minorities are.
And they're not.
So the idea that we can go out there and support Sotomayor and somehow this is going to be remembered in two or four years.
Oh, you know, the Republic.
If if our number one Hispanic supporter, John McCain, author of Amnesty for Illegals, running against his own party on the issue, was not able to get the Hispanic vote, then please explain to me how supporting Sotomayor is going to accomplish it.
This is what's wrong with our party.
We accept the premises of the left, and we very defensively and cowardly proceed on the basis of those premises that we're somehow mean spirited, extreme wacko, racist, sexist pigs.
And we're not.
You know what I'm beginning to think after after these two stories I read about how Obama supporters love the fact that he lies.
Maybe we ought to start lying.
Ask yourself this.
If you want to be like the liberals are, maybe to go get liberals, we need to start lying.
Just like we need to approve Sotomayor and not oppose her, maybe we need to start lying just like Obama does.
As a strategic political move.
Lie about everything we plan to do.
Maybe we should go out and join the trashing of big business.
Maybe she we should join the trashing of the military.
Maybe we ought to embrace Hugo Chavez and sends the Republicans in Congress now to have a meeting with him.
Maybe we ought to come out in favor of tax increases.
Maybe the Republicans ought to embrace national health care.
Maybe the Republican Party ought to become pro-choice.
Maybe the Republican Party ought to speak out against the California Supreme Court today, which upheld the ban on gay marriage.
Just lie.
Just lie about what we believe.
Obama is proving it works like a charm.
After all, the goal is only to get elected.
That's the battle in the overall war, isn't it?
Just to get elected.
So let's lie.
We'll just lie.
Like Obama does.
His supporters love him for it.
I mean, if we're going to go with a Hispanic vote by saying we don't have a problem with Sotomayor's judicial work, her body of work, if we don't have a problem with it, we'll say, oh, yeah, she's wonderful.
It's great.
Lying works.
Clinton got away with it.
Let's just try it.
In fact, let me try it.
I'll lead the way on this.
Someday when I don't tell you, I will lie about everything I believe on this show.
And see how you like it.
And we'll see if the left likes me any more than they already do.
We'll see if the media turns me into a lovable figure.
Dustin in Indianapolis.
I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Megadozrush from Fly Over Country here in Indianapolis.
Thank you.
I just wanted to comment with the about the wonderful story of Sonia Sodemeyer, which is uh it's an amazing story, but I wonder where the liberal policies that Obama holds dear and wants to implement to get the economy going and to remake America.
Where were those policies for uh um the mother who worked six days a week to put food on the table?
And I also find it interesting that all of the nominees for Supreme Court, for cabinets, for you know, all these posts in the government have an amazing story of hard work and personal responsibility to get to their own point in their life.
Yes.
I've yet to see a nominee for a government position.
Thank the welfare system, thank government policies for allowing them to achieve the American.
This is this is great.
You are absolutely right.
And one other thing I would just contend to say.
Yes.
I contend that the true great American story in this in this um nomination today is Mr. and Mrs. Sotomayer, the parents of the Supreme Court nominee who came to this country and worked their tail off to let this woman achieve what she's achieved.
I don't disagree with that, but she did too.
Nobody can look it.
She got divorced.
She has not remarried.
She has no children.
Something I read this morning.
She is a workaholic, and her clerks become her family.
And they go home with her and work, and they, I mean, she's she has her, so she's a hard worker.
She's a she's a she's a very hard so would John Gotti.
But the story is very compelling.
And and and I uh nobody's gonna stop oppose that, but your point is brilliant.
Every one of these nominees, we're all told how a tough day.
They came from the wrong side of the track.
Then they praise their you're right, they don't praise a government program.
They don't say AFDC got me here.
And uh, and they don't see affirmative action got me here.
They don't say that.
Even though it's applicable in many of their cases.
They don't say it.
They credit hard work, good old conservative values.
Excellent point out there, Dustin, it really is.
I have a brief time out, but uh next story.
Eight health risks in your own backyard.
And again, what's the source of this?
MSNBC.
Eight health risks in your own backyard.
So we're supposed to keep the kids inside all summer.
That's what the story is.
But you know how dangerous it is inside.
They've already told us how dangerous it is inside.
And now they're gonna tell us how dangerous it is outside.
We'll be back.
And we are back.
Great to have you with us.
Well, I knew it was gonna happen, uh ladies and gentlemen.
So listen up.
Drive by media, AP reporting that I referred to Sonia Sotomayor as a reverse racist and Obama as a which I did.
I stand by it.
I have an audio soundbite from Sonia Sotomayor and a quote from a speech that she made in a separate occasion to illustrate the point.
Here's the soundbite.
All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is court of appeals is where policy is made.
And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know.
Umink wink wink.
I'm not I'm not promoting you, and I'm not advocating it, and I'm not.
You know, they're saying that we take this comment out of context.
But she's on a panel, you ought to see the video.
She's on a panel, and I they all start winking and winking.
We know it's court of appeals, and by the way, Supreme Court is an appeals court.
Never forget.
So I've heard some people say, well, she was talking about the appellate Supreme Court is an appeals court.
The final is the razzle, it's a last stop on a big frontier.
And Court of Appeals is where policy is made.
Right there, she is saying she's the antithesis of a judge.
Judges do not make policy.
The elected leaders of the people make policy.
Okay, so she's the antithesis of a judge.
They're reporting I said that she is.
The left can say that's been taken out of context all they want, but it's not.
In another example of her uh uh uh radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it's appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, their experiences as women and people of color.
Reverse racism.
She's a minority.
Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed, and they're not.
The court is where the law is dealt with in the same speech.
Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
If that's not a racist statement, I don't know what is.
Reverse racist or whatever.
Let me read it to you another way.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in another speech, said, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived the rich white man's life.
Do you think there would be any dispute that John Roberts had made a racist statement?
Now you might be saying she's entitled, Rush, because she's a minority, and minorities do not have the power to implement whatever racism they have.
It was Jesse Jackson's old argument that black people cannot be racist because they don't have the power to go along with it.
Excuse me, she's on the Second Circus Court of Appeals, and she has used this power in deciding cases, and she has been rebuked by fellow judges on the Second Circuit.
So you're gonna hear evil limbaugh, call Obama and Sotomayor, reverse racists.
It's all we got the transcript already up.
First hour of the program, first half hour, everything I said about Sotomayor and Clinton.
I'm sorry, Obama.
Second half hour was devoted to my reaction to Colin Pell and Tom Ridge.
Both transcripts are now up at Rushlimbaugh.com for the drive-by media to more accurately misquote.
Let the misquoting begin.
If anybody is ever taken out of context in any of this, it's me.
But I don't follow that up with...
And of course, nobody has ever reported the compelling story that I have that have brought me to my heights.
Just the exact opposite.
I'm portrayed as somebody born with a silver spoon in his mouth.
So but it is what it is.
Racism is what it is.
Reverse racism is what it is.
And so do my ore qualifies by verses of our own words.
Candy and I am Chris in Burnsville, Minnesota.
You're up.
Hello.
Hey, hello, Rush.
How are you, say?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
It's such a such a pleasure to get to talk to you after listening to you for a couple of years.
I used to uh before I get to my comment.
Uh on 37, back when I was about 18, I used to hate you, Rush.
Oh, did I hate you?
And the funny thing was I never heard a word you said.
Just what I heard.
Thankfully, I had the uh I had the uh the foresight to actually listen to what you said, and now I could not agree with you more.
I drive for a living, so I I listen to you every day, and thank you so much for being the voice of millions out there, Rush.
We appreciate it.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
So what I called about um all the the racism talk and everything, it seems to me that so far in Obama's presidency um more than pushing a socialist agenda agenda, which to me is just leveling of the playing field, not dependent on race, age, gender, or anything, that it's their racist policies.
He's waging a class war.
Social economically minorities have always been Exactly.
That's why he shows up with a chip on his shoulder.
This is an angry guy.
I know, and he's making everyone, you know, I I I try to I try to not get too angry, but I do, you know, and I get mad, and uh, you know, it's just um yeah, it's just so so much more insidious than just socialism that he's trying, it's kind of like you saying, okay, Whitey, I'm gonna pay you back now.
That's what that is.
That's what you think's going on.
That's what it seems like to me with a lot of his discussions.
And you're and you are a former lib.
I wouldn't say I was a former lib, Rush.
I just I you know I didn't like you when I was younger.
Oh, you know, I was into the punk rock music and and all that, and I just, you know, anti-establishment.
You were a long-haired maggot infested FM type.
I got it.
All right, but you're on our side now.
And I'm with you a hundred percent, bro.
You have you have nailed this.
Obama's brother, by the way, still living on pennies a day in Kenya.
In a hut!
Hut hut.
Another exciting excursion into broadcast excellences in the can.
And as always, I stand by every word of it today.
And you've been great on the phones except for two occasions.
▲
Export Selection