All Episodes
Previous Next
June 12, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:44
June 12, 2009, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings once again to you, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us here on Rush Limbaugh, the fastest week in media and the fastest three hours.
It's great to have you here.
I am America's real anchorman and truth detector and doctor of democracy on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
One big, busy broadcast hour remaining, ladies and gentlemen.
And again, a reminder, the rules on Friday, when you get through and you get on the air on the phone, you control the show.
Show is all yours.
A huge career risk taken by me with utter confidence, by the way.
Monday through Thursday, it's about what I care about on Friday.
I'll fake it if I have to.
I've done a lot of faking today.
I don't care about much today anyway.
So I can fake it pretty well, can't I?
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address lrushbow at eibnet.com.
This is from LifeNews.com.
What are you laughing at?
Yeah, I admit that I fake.
Of course, it's part of the routine.
If I don't care about what people are talking about, I'll fake it, think like I do care.
How long have I been engaging in the risk of broadcasting on things I don't care about?
Well, 20 years of Open Line Fridays, I guess you could say I've been engaging in faking it for 20.
If I have to.
I mean, not every Open Line Friday I have to fake it.
And even, I mean, just sometimes a couple times on Open Line Friday, I have to fake it.
But sometimes it's deeply satisfying to fake it.
And, you know, I defy anybody to know when I'm faking it.
I mean, if I didn't admit that I was faking it, you wouldn't even know.
See, even I have the courage to tell you when I'm faking it.
Oh, really?
You want me to do it?
I have just been told by one of my know-it-all staff that you should announce after such a call that you have just faked it so that we will know.
Now, wouldn't that be sort of letterman-esque?
Wouldn't that be unkind?
And wouldn't it be putting down the caller who we have invited to be on the...
Look, when faking is involved, it's just better not to know.
And it's better not to even inquire.
It's better not to ask.
You don't want the answer.
Who wants to hear that it was faked in anything?
Be it a moonwalk, whatever.
Well, the no, the caller, I don't think a caller would ever, ever ask if it was as good for me as it was for them because all callers are immensely satisfied.
You realize what a thrill it is to get through on this program?
And I mean, the opportunity to talk to 20 million people, I don't care.
Some callers may hang up thinking they wish that it said something a little differently or better because I understand how callers are.
I mean, they're sitting out there on hold.
I've been there.
You're sitting out there on hold, and a producer snurdily comes on, okay, you're next, and you tighten up.
You've been on hold for 20 minutes or 30 minutes or maybe two hours on this show.
You've been on hold, and you just, okay, and then you get that notice to your next, and then you freeze up.
Oh, my gosh, what was I going to say?
What was I going to say?
I understand this.
This is why I'm the politest host on air today.
Now, may I continue the program?
Any more advice?
Any more advice from the note, I'll step?
Mm-hmm.
If you want to call me that, I'll accept it.
A gentle faker.
Okay, from LifeNews.com, as more evidence comes in that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will likely support abortion and uphold Roe versus Wade if she's confirmed, a new comment she made during a meeting with one senator provides another talking point for pro-life advocates opposed to her nomination.
Sotomayor has been meeting with each member of the Senate privately in preparation for her confirmation hearing expected to take place in July.
Senator Jim DeMint, a pro-life Republican from South Carolina, says that he had a good meeting with the appeals court judge, but he came away with a telling comment.
When I asked her if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she'd never thought about it.
Now, this is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages.
And I hope this is cleared up in her hearings.
Given her comment, Dement questions whether Sotomayor has an unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans.
She had never thought about the rights of unborn children.
And where will she go now when she needs to educate herself on this?
Probably to David Letterman.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, it's very rare these days when a public figure Republican defends me and doesn't throw me overboard.
But it happened last night.
It happened last night on the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox.
She was talking about this Letterman-Palin business, and she had as a guest the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Jane Swift.
And Greta's question was this.
I've defended Secretary of State Clinton.
I've defended Governor Palin from personal insults.
They're fair game for policy, but where are all of the feminists?
Is it because this is the child of a Republican?
Who knows what it has to do with party politics, although I think Rush Limbaugh should get credit for standing up for a common standard of decency, and I doubt there are many liberals who will recognize that.
But the truth is, it's wrong.
It was a bad joke.
David Letterman maybe should go back to his stupid pet tricks.
The other thing people are missing is this isn't like an unscripted moment.
This is a joke that's written beforehand and that he chose to deliver.
And I think that carries with it a special responsibility versus perhaps just saying something that you later regret.
Yeah, I made that point a moment ago.
This joke's written in the afternoon.
It's on the cue cards or whatever Letterman uses.
They had to run it back and forth.
Something else I might, I know there's some women on that staff over there.
Did no woman on the Letterman staff look at this?
Wait a minute, that's a little overboard or out of it.
Of course not.
They're all liberal women.
It's all fine.
The decency thing is, you know, people, we can get lost and caught up in meaningless arguments such as, well, Palin put the kids out there.
They were on the cover of magazines.
And then one of them practiced abstinence and then got pregnant.
And Obama's would put their kids out there.
All of that to me is irrelevant.
The whole thing was indecent.
The whole see, good comedy has to have an element of truth in it.
That's what makes comedy biting and funny, is that there's an element of truth.
There was no element of truth.
This was just a full-fledged slam.
It was a disrespectful, cynical slam.
And there had been nothing that brought it on.
Palin wasn't doing politics at the ballgame.
Her daughter wasn't doing politics at the ballgame.
Sitting there with Giuliani, who had invited him to go.
It was just, it was not decent.
It was not something that very many people would say in public, period.
But the double standard clearly exists, and it always will.
There's nothing that's going to change it.
This is just one of the realities of life that those of us who are engaged in politics have to live with and to understand.
All right, let me grab a call before the break.
Chicago, this is Sharon.
Nice to have you.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, thank you, Rush.
I decided this morning I was going to take a stand about what David Letterman said, and I emailed CBS and I told them I will never have his show on in my house again.
Never.
It just seems this obsession they have with Sarah Palin, it is so far over the top.
It's almost irrational.
They just won't leave her alone.
You know, irrational is right.
Irrational is exactly right.
They're scared to death of this woman.
Well, that's exactly what I said.
I emailed her, too, and I told her what I did, and I told her they're so afraid of your strength that they're not going to stop until she's destroyed.
And to make sure they, it's not bad enough, they'll stick the knife in her back, but they twist it by attacking her children.
What point, if any, is there a backlash and there is some sympathy that is extended to Palin and her family?
Well, I hope people recognize it for what it is.
It's not about being a Democrat or a Republican.
Sarah Palin, the election is won.
Obama won, and I just don't understand why they don't leave her alone.
Because they're afraid of her.
I mean, they're scared to death of her.
They are.
And anybody else that surfaced.
Look, this woman was drawing 20,000 people or more at campaign rallies.
She was the sole source of excitement and passion during the Republican campaign.
But they're going to reduce her to a joke, and that's what they're trying to do with all of this.
With what he was so far, that was so mean-spirited to do that to her daughter.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think she made a mistake in responding to it?
No, I don't, no, I don't think so.
I'm sure she gave it a lot of thought.
I'm sure she gave it a lot of thought.
And I think the point she made is that, you know, he's a pervert to even talk about stuff like that about a 14-year-old girl.
And I think it's the truth.
I think people need to hear her stand up for herself so she's not one to be.
I wonder if Letterman's going to start telling jokes about people who have children out of wedlock.
Oh, I doubt it.
I saw him a few times when somebody would ask him, well, when are you going to marry your baby's mom?
And he would just bristle.
You could just see he didn't like being questioned.
Yeah, his private life is totally off-limits.
It's totally off-limits.
You don't go there.
That's exactly.
Exactly.
But I think what he did to those girls, I mean, it's hard enough to be a teenager these days, but to be having yourself being held up to ridicule on national television when you didn't ask for it.
That girl came there for a charitable event with her mom.
It's not even a question of asking.
Who would ask for something?
Who would ask to be treated like that?
It's not a question of asking for it.
It's not a question of Sarah Palin put the kids out there.
It's a question of common decency.
Exactly.
So what if she put the kids out?
What politician's family has hidden the kids?
But I see.
They don't hide the kids.
They use them and then they hide them and then they use them and then they hide them.
But I think the liberals are just obsessed with destroying Sarah Palin.
No, there's no question about that.
Exactly.
Sharon, thanks.
Very gutsy of you on a call with this opinion from the hometown of the one.
Chicago.
Okay.
Thank you, Sharon.
Thank you.
Have a great weekend.
I was not faking that call.
We'll be back.
By the way, we discussed the latest in health care in the first hour of the program today, and there's a couple stories that I left out.
And one of them is from the Politico today.
It's about centrist Democrats, about a coalition of more than 100 moderate House Democrats hoping to unify as they attempt to limit the size and scope of a government-sponsored health insurance option, a key sticking point as health reform enters a delicate phase of negotiations.
All told, members of the New Democrats and the Blue Dogs combine for 102 votes, more than one-third of the entire Democrat caucus.
So if they hold together, they could have a serious impact.
In a letter to Speaker Pelosi this week, New Democrat leaders asked her to make sure the public option pays for itself through premiums and co-payments and doesn't receive any money through tax revenue.
Now, there is no chance.
It's too big to fail.
The second story involves Mary Landrieu from Louisiana.
She signed a letter in November affirming support for a public insurance option, but her spokesman said yesterday she didn't necessarily look at it word for word when she signed it.
When Landrieu told reporters yesterday she opposed the public option, Saunders said that she was referring only to the most liberal possible structure, a government program modeled after Medicare.
Healthcare for America Now described the letter as drafted by Landrew for her AIDS, but Saunders said that was not the case.
It is incorrect that she ever sent the letter or that it originated.
Democrats are fighting about this.
They're fighting over it.
It is being reported in certain places, not very many.
And the same thing is happening on the Waxman-Markey cap and trade climate bill.
This is from theHill.com.
Jared Allen, more and more Democrats are ready to vote against Pelosi's climate change bill, according to a congressional committee chairman who opposes his leader.
The House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson, Democrat Minnesota, said Wednesday he's at an impasse with the lead sponsor of this bill that's strongly backed by Pelosi.
He said, we're stuck.
He said regarding a clash he's had with Henry Waxman over a number of issues in the bill, and there's a lot of issues that haven't even come up yet.
Now, these two chairmen are butting heads at the staff level, despite a deadline set by Pelosi for all committee action to be finished by June the 19th.
Peterson said, I'm just estimating the number of votes that will be against this.
I suspect the list has grown as more members have gotten a chance to look at it.
I mean, my list has grown.
And moderate Democrats are not excited about Peterson's issues with the provisions in the bill, including how the movement toward renewable energy sources will affect rural areas and the biofuel industry.
His staff has been working with Waxman to reach an agreement on those and a number of other unidentified issues.
But even with the deadline approaching, Peterson gave a pessimistic assessment of quickly reaching a deal with Waxman.
They're trying to just ram all this stuff through as quickly as possible.
And it's the fringe far left that's dominating the discussion here and all the advancement of these bills.
And some of these Democrats from particular districts, the Blue Dogs, somewhat conservative Democrats, rural Democrats, wait a second, this is going to wipe us out.
And at some point, Pelosi is going to have to lower the boom here on these people.
Can't she lower the boom on 100?
That's going to be difficult for her to do.
Here's Emmett in Houston.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
It's great to talk to you.
Thank you.
I wanted to go back to the Safeway op-ed piece in the journal this morning.
And then I wanted to emphasize something about it.
I thought it was very important.
The Safeway plan is a self-funded plan, meaning they're self-insured, and they can decide to design the plan the way they want to within the confines of state and federal regulations.
And to me, it's a segue into discussing the mandates and things you talked about the other day about the insurance industry.
I like to view the insurance companies as bookies.
They're not gambling on our health.
They want and have been the source of medical inflation for the last quarter century because the more money goes in for the premiums, yes, the more they pay out in claims.
But in the meantime, they hang on to the money the same way the bookie takes his 10% cut or juice.
And I hold the insurance companies mostly responsible for the medical inflation we've experienced the last quarter century.
Well, everybody has their enemy in the healthcare industry.
You don't like the insurance companies.
I don't like the government.
I don't like Medicare, Medicaid.
I don't like the autocratic way they run it, the way they're short-changing doctors.
But you make a good point about Safeway.
It's electable.
It's not forced on it.
The whole point of the Safeway CEO's op-ed was to say we're fashioning our healthcare insurance that's offered to our employees after automobile insurance.
And in automobile insurance, you have a pretty varied fee structure or premium structure because if you drive well and if your kids don't bang up the car very much, you can get a lower premium than people get points on their license and run and stop lights and having accidents.
So the point is, the auto insurance agency has low fees, mid-range, and high premiums.
Safeway guy was pointing out we offer a bunch of different fee structures here based on the employee decision on behavior.
But Safeway doesn't force employees to quit smoking.
They urge it and strongly suggest it.
They don't force them to not eat trans fat.
All this is coming with a government plan.
You're going to be forced.
They're going to be able to regulate every aspect of liberty.
Because folks, remember the story earlier from today?
The Democrats are saying they're not even going to pay attention to the CBO scoring of this, how much it's going to cost, because it's going to be so high, nobody would agree to pay for it.
So they're going to ask Obama's Office of Management Budget to do their own scoring and come up with a fake price that makes it look like we can support it.
Regardless, it's not going to be cheaper.
There will be lines.
There will be services not offered, particularly as you age.
As you age, the federal government, via its insurance companies, will assess whether or not it makes sense to treat you if you're going to croak in the next couple of three years anyway.
And you could be left out.
The only way they can do it.
And that's going to be a part of it.
But the government plan is going to force everybody.
They're going to be able to get into every aspect of your life and regulate it under the guise of saving money and covering everybody.
And so Safeway's not doing that.
They make it an elective.
Anyway, and their health care costs have not gone up in four years.
We will be right back.
I did not fake that.
All right.
100, 102 moderate Democrats in the House to oppose health care.
Are there 100 moderate Democrats in the House?
I can say there might be 25 or 30, but are there 100 moderate?
There aren't any moderate Democrats.
This is the big joke.
There are no such things.
There is no such thing as a moderate Democrat these days.
And public option or not, the government will dictate, and that is the problem.
However, ladies and gentlemen, I need to correct myself on one thing.
Have said that with the public option, the government's going to dictate and regulate virtually every aspect of your life.
There will be exceptions.
Favored sexual practices by the American left will not be regulated.
In fact, they'll be encouraged.
Whatever, you know, make no bones about it.
Those mistakes.
Make no mistake about this.
That will be the case.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to listen to this next soundbite coming up on National Public Radio.
And we have the audio coming up.
The host is Steve Inski.
And he interviewed the Carnegie Endowments, Karim Sajapur, about the election in Iran.
And somebody is still going to have to explain to me how Obama throwing Israel under the bus relates to the voting in Iran.
And the voting in Iran is irrelevant anyway because the president's a puppet.
But I just want you to listen to Karim Sajapur of the Carnegie Endowment as he answers the question: who is still in Ahmadinezad's corner?
He ostensibly has the support of the Supreme Leader, a lot of the lower-income classes in the provinces, kind of Iran's Republican states, if you will, and certainly elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.
So I think his supporters are kind of akin to evangelicals in the United States in a sense that they're not considered a sizable portion of the population, but they're considered very committed.
They go on votes every time.
All right.
So National Public Radio has just.
You guys have to laugh.
The supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinezad are akin to Republican evangelicals.
And his support comes from a lot of lower income classes in the provinces, kind of Iran's Republican states.
When somebody sent me this, I was speechless.
That just can't possibly.
They can't.
And then I heard it and I said, yes, it actually happened on NPR.
So go back, grab audio soundbite number 25.
We've got to play this again.
This is Obama this morning in the Rose Garden, just outside the Oval Orifice.
We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran.
And obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change.
And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide.
But just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities.
And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.
This just infuriates me.
This is so, so childish and immature.
In the first place, trying to find some way to insinuate himself into a good outcome in Iran, the outcome is irrelevant.
There's no good or bad outcome.
The only thing that would change Iran is if the mullahs were dispatched.
And the mullahs are there.
And you heard even this clown on NBR saying that the mullahs still support Ahmedinezad.
Well, if they do, I can tell you right now who's going to win.
Okay, so we've got Obama insinuating himself with this, I did it, I made it happen.
I'm really good.
I'm living one speech, and why you got democracy going there?
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
And then Kareem Sajapur from the Carnegie Endowment talking about who Ahmadinezad's supporters are.
He ostensibly has the support of the Supreme Leader, a lot of the lower-income classes in the provinces, kind of Iran's Republican states, if you will, and certainly elements of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.
So I think his supporters are kind of akin to evangelicals in the United States in a sense that they're not considered a sizable portion of the population, but they're considered very committed.
They go on votes every time.
Not very large, but they go and vote all the time.
Give.
And that was a question that was also asked: do the clerics and the conservatives still support the president?
Do the clerics and the conservatives still support the president?
Don't forget Reuters put out today that they called Ahmedinezad the conservative candidate.
Now, don't forget, this guy has been embraced by Columbia University, which is not a conservative citadel.
He has been embraced by the United Nations.
They loved Ahmedinezad because he gave Bush fits.
Back to the phones.
Ben in Milwaukee, you're next.
It's Open Line Friday.
We're happy to have you with us.
Hello.
Yes, sir, Rush, and thank you for everything that you do.
Rush, I have a question, and I need your perspective on this as the great teacher that you are.
But I can't help but sit back and think that, you know, our current president is really, he's so caught up in building his library that he can't see that he's self-destructing.
I mean, the people that he has surrounded himself with, and we know that the fuel that they live by is hatred.
And to put somebody like Hillary or, you know, somebody, you know, that has openly, or Joey, I can cure paralysis Biden or whoever it may be in his key positions and the things that they're saying and they're doing, and just yesterday, even.
I mean, it goes to show the powerful force that you are when the only thing that he could talk about predominantly in Green Bay was how they and them don't believe they and them, which is Rush and the rest, who are bringing out the truth and calling it for what it is and who he is for an individual that is driven by pure hate and not common sense, which is what we see.
But your question still is, when's he going to implode, right?
Is he going to self-destruct?
I see it coming.
Well, now, wait a second.
Why?
What do you see defines self-destruct?
He could self-destruct.
Look at.
He may not have self-destructed, but he's already embarked on the destruction of our economy.
And so far, who cares about it?
So I'm not arguing.
I'm trying to draw you out.
I'm not faking it.
I want you to tell me what will be the manifestation of his self-destruction.
For him to self-destruct, he can self-destruct all day and still have a 60% approval rating.
Right.
But you know what it is?
It's hope.
It's a vestige of hope on behalf of those of us who still care.
And unfortunately, these individuals that call your program, the majority of the time who are paid by groups like Acorn to pretend whatever it may be.
But you know what?
We are people who care, who respect, who want the good for America, who want to go out and achieve, who want to work hard, who want to pick up our brothers and sisters, who want to do the right thing, who want to move forward, who want to make this country the greatest we can possibly do.
How do you do that when you're legalizing the killing of babies?
You're freeing terrorists.
You're raising taxes.
You're filling your pockets.
You're involved in, you know, Blaborovich-style politics through and through.
It's self-destruction, you know, and it's happening.
And, you know, yes, do we need more of a front?
Yes.
You are a front right now and the front that we need because that's what's driving him crazy.
And it was evident yesterday in Green Bay.
Well, you know, that's a good point.
Unlike Obama, I would not take credit for forcing his press conference yesterday.
If I had the same kind of personality as Obama, I would have opened this program today and said, folks, at that town meeting, that was all because of me.
I'm glad to see that this show is affecting the behavior of the president of the United States.
I don't look at things that way.
That's for you to say.
And I will agree that you're probably right, but I'm content to let others conclude it and to say it.
I have not changed from this.
I have not changed from my constant, over these last 20 years, expressed belief in the common sense and the decency of the American people.
And I think that there are more people waking up and more people starting to say, this is not what we voted for.
I think a lot of people thought they were electing a moderate centrist down the road that was going to bring people together, that he was a kind of guy that exemplified by his speech patterns and so forth.
But I think there are a lot of people now that have started to say, wait a minute, this is not what we voted for.
You can look at it in the polls on the GM and Chrysler bailout.
You can look at it on his health care plan.
I mean, issue by issue, he does not have majority support, yet he does have a high approval number.
Now, those two things are going to intersect at some point, and something's got to give.
And I also, I have faith, believe me, in the power of the opposition media today.
I believe that if this were 20 years ago, there'd be no stopping this.
Or 25, there'd be no stopping it.
There'd be no alternative media.
But there's a huge alternative media.
The existence of the new media today, I think, is a driving force in what has turned the state-run media upside down and has made it a laughingstock.
Because I realize now, they realize now that they're in some sort of a competition.
They're dropping the pretense of objectivity for the most part.
And they've chosen sides now for just a host of reasons.
But it's going to be an ongoing battle, and stopping liberalism is something that will never, ever cease.
And we're always going to have to battle it.
By definition, an organization or a person who is not conservative will be or will become a liberal.
Liberalism is easy.
Liberalism is very seductive.
Conservatism is more of a thought process.
It's an act.
Even though people live their lives that way, it's still to understand the essence of how you live.
It still requires a little bit of an intellectual pursuit, intellectual application.
Liberalism doesn't require any thinking at all.
It just requires feelings.
And so it's a constant battle that's going to have to be waged.
The evidence, best evidence, if you want to really express frustration, how are we here after two landslide elections of Ronald Reagan?
How are we here after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994?
How in the world, we ask ourselves, can the voters forget?
And the answer is our side stopped teaching.
Our side got wobbly.
Our side wanted to make nice with the other guys.
Our side thinks that the future is getting the gay marriage vote and the Hispanic vote.
Our side thinks that showing ourselves to be more like moderate Democrats and so forth, whatever they are, in Washington, that's the future.
So it's an ongoing battle.
But have faith because I think there are more Americans than you would believe that think exactly as you just said.
And I think they outnumber the people who fervently support what Obama is doing.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
I can't leave here today without mentioning this story.
It's from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Throwing orange peels, coffee grounds, and grease-stained pizza boxes in the trash will be against the law in San Francisco and could even lead to a fine.
The Board of Supervisors voted 9-2 on Tuesday to approve Gavin Newsom's proposal for the most comprehensive mandatory composting and recycling law in the country.
It's an aggressive push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have the city sending nothing to landfills or incinerators by 2020.
The legislation calls for every residence in business in the city to have three separate color-coded bins for waste, blue for recycling, green for compost, and black for trash.
Failing to properly sort your refuse could result in a fine after several warnings.
The mayor and other officials say that fines are only going to be levied in the most egregious cases.
Fines for almost all residential customers and many small businesses are initially capped at $100.
Businesses that don't have proper bins face escalating fines up to $500.
Now, this is fruity.
It's nutty.
The state is practically bankrupt.
And this is the kind of thing they're concerned with out there.
Grease-stained pizza box.
What if your pizza box is not grease-stained?
Okay, Ilse in Raleigh, North Carolina.
You're up next.
Nice to have you with us on the EIB network.
Yes, thank you for take my call.
You bet.
I'm originally from Vienna, Austria, and I've lived all over this country.
And the best, this plan for Obama will never work, socialized medicine.
I worked in Vienna has the most sophisticated.
You get a chance, go on the internet.
Vienna has the most sophisticated plan, which goes back to 1920.
Okay?
Now, the way that works, you have a voucher.
Everybody has an ID card in Austria.
You get a voucher.
You can go to any specialist you want, any doctor you want.
Now, I worked in London in the early 50s.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
My time is dwindling, and I got a question.
Who pays for it after you give them the voucher?
It comes out of your, like, Social Security, comes out of your paycheck.
Now, you don't have to take that plan if you don't want to.
Okay?
Look it up on the internet.
It's the most sophisticated plan in Europe.
I worked in London in the 50s with socialized medicine.
It was an utter disaster.
I worked for two dentists in London.
They were Austrian, but they had very wealthy clients.
He never took anybody that was on a social security.
You know what?
I'll tell you.
Ilse, this is fabulous.
Just get in, get it, and get out.
Get right to the facts.
This is brilliant.
And the thing I would love to propose this.
Oh, yeah, we're going to have a voucher system.
You just go in there and you get treated, and we'll deduct it from your social security.
Amen.
Love that.
We had a caller up there.
I didn't have a chance to get to upset that I haven't talked about rising gasoline prices.
I did talk about rising gasoline prices yesterday, but, folks, I don't think that you need to worry about rising gasoline prices.
Obama's now running the automobile companies.
And remember, he said there are things you can do to lower your use of gasoline, such as a tire gauge.
So now that, you know, let the government give away a tire gauge with every new Obama mobile sold, and that way you don't have to worry about the rising price in gasoline.
Have a wonderful weekend, and we'll see you back here on Monday.
▲
Export Selection