All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:46
September 28, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do you people remember all during the war in Iraq?
You remember the state-controlled media, the drive-bys, and the Democrats, all complaining that they didn't have the right body armor, and the Humvees were not armored properly.
Remember all of the unmitigated hell that George Bush got from the Democrats and the media that he didn't care about the soldiers.
And now we have a president who cannot decide even if he wants to win a war in Afghanistan.
Now, which is more dangerous.
One can be fixed, and it was.
The other is a personality flaw that is unfixable and deadly.
And that would be Obama.
An amazing story.
What was it just last Thursday night I was on Leno?
And I had a little discussion with him about Social Security and Medicare.
And Jay is a nice guy.
Don't misunderstand here.
But he is an example of the kind of people who think if the government's giving people checks that it's compassion.
And he was saying, why what's wrong with that?
I said, Jay, they're bankrupt.
They're bankrupt and they're destroying the future.
So we get this today.
Big job losses.
And a spike in early retirement claims from laid-off seasoned citizens will force Social Security to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years.
First time that's happened since the 1980s.
The deficits, 10 billion in 2010, 9 billion in 2011, will not affect payments because Social Security has accumulated surpluses from previous years totaling two and a half trillion, which is BS.
There is no Social Security surplus.
I will add to the overall federal deficit.
Applications for retirement benefits 23% higher than last year, while disability claims have risen about 20%.
The recession hit many older workers'time.
suddenly found themselves laid off with no place to turn but Social Security.
If they were younger, we'd call them unemployed, said an economics law professor at University of California, Berkeley.
and Which means that the unemployment numbers are higher than are being reported.
So job losses, early retirements hurt Social Security.
Remember there was no COLA increase, no cost of living increase in Social Security.
I can't believe the Republicans didn't make hay out of this.
Now I because while there's no cost of living increase in Social Security, members of Congress got a raise.
And they voted themselves even more money for other things.
Now this story I referenced at the beginning of the program today, and I am still stunned that it ran in state-controlled associated press.
This year, New York's deep-pocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.
They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race, and more to dabble in real estate.
Now we wouldn't want people to dabble in real estate in a recession, wouldn't we?
Oh, no, no, we wouldn't want any of that.
Who the hell dabbles in real I don't want to get distracted by that.
Meanwhile, many are losing millions.
The rich, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes, and those making over one million dollars a year are losing tax deductions that other people get.
Why, it even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.
Now a half dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it's wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states, and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.
Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower than expected state Wealth, lower than who expected.
Governor Patterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that's just what happened.
He never did.
It was Bloomberg that said it would backfire.
Patterson never said it.
Patterson said last week revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20% less than anticipated.
These doofuses, what do they expect?
The evidence is all about you tax an activity, you slow down that activity.
So you tax income, you're going to slow down the earning of income.
If you tax yachts, you're not going to sell as many.
They look at the private sector as a as a never-ending golden goose, that they can just constantly go out and grab more money from and money from now that.
Oh no, no, tax revenues are down.
How can this be?
The concern about millionaire flight has prompted some states, including New York, New Jersey, and California, to increase the highest tax rates only temporarily.
For New York, it's the second temporary increase for high earners since 2001.
But Patterson and uh economists warn that uh the first one is uh ended his schedule after three years, but that came as the economy began to grow, something it isn't expected now, because Wall Street, which historically provided 20% of state revenues, is permanently downsized.
And by the way, who's leading the charge to do that?
It's not the vast right-wing conspiracy that is permanently downsized Wall Street.
It's not the vast right-wing conspiracy that wants to cap executive pay or anybody else's pay on which tax revenue is based.
No, it's bam, it's Nancy Pelosi, it's Henry Waxman and every single damn Democrat in the country.
Detroit, Michigan, may have to declare a government shutdown again.
So far this year, half of about one billion dollars in expected revenue from New York's 100 richest taxpayers is missing.
The state budget office says losses suffered in the recession could be largely to blame, and it may still come the next year when filers exhaust their extensions.
Those seeking extensions nevertheless had to pay in April, at least as much as they owed in 2008.
The six-month extension for the balance ends in October, but given the hard times, many filers likely didn't earn much more than a year ago.
State officials say they don't know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left.
Well, I do I do, I can tell them.
At least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes.
Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Galisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times, and who was paying 13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Galisano changed his official address to Florida, and Limbaugh, who also lives in Florida, announced earlier in the year that he was relinquishing his home in Manhattan.
Ladies and gentlemen, on the days, just to tell you that I work in New York, I don't pay anywhere near $13,000 a day.
I wish it were.
That is why I have not.
$13,000 a day in New York income taxes, I wish.
That's what it cost me.
That is why I have not been to New York one working day this year, and I will not go.
Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes.
I played golf with Trump back in the spring, and he told me the same thing.
Name some names.
Golisano, owner of the Buffalo Sabres, who created 5,000 jobs from his Rochester payroll processing company called Paychex.
That's his company.
He bristled when politicians said he was bailing on New York in the spring.
If anything, New York State has bailed out on us.
And it's not just the well-known who are leaving.
Nancy Bell moving her science-first manufacturer of scientific products from the Buffalo site her father founded in 1960 also to Florida, which aggressively courted her and her two business partner sons.
They're building a new facility in Florida, and with the state's help, had 1,000 applications for 20 jobs.
States overall revenues are down at the higher income levels, said Joseph Shapiro, spokesman for the Maryland Comptroller's Office.
Foundation said that through the early 90s several states maintained double digit income tax rates for the higher earners.
Those rates were dropped, however, in the boom of a fast growing economy.
States also realized that having a higher tax rate than their neighbors would cost them talent, lose jobs, and hinder economic growth.
The liberals know this doesn't matter.
It's power.
It's control that they want taxes can undermine growth and notes that even states that increase taxes on high income earners, New Jersey, Maryland, California, face shortfalls comparatively worse than others.
Yeah, we've told them this for decades.
This is why the left had to work so hard to rewrite the history of the 80s and Reagan's tax cuts and the burgeoning revenue they brought because see, folks, it's not about revenue generation.
Now they're worried about it now.
It's about power, it's about control.
I'm still stunned the story ran though.
I'm I'm amazed you can say the millionaire is evil, but they don't just put their money in a coffee can, said Christopher Summers, president of the nonpartisan Maryland Public Policy Institute.
The millionaire employs people.
That fact is you need rich people to keep working hard so they will invest.
Even though they you can say they're evil.
You can say they're evil, but damn it we need them.
Damn it we need them.
Jane Leno has over 200 cars.
I wonder how many people he pays to clean them, maintained his storage facility I wonder what kind of economy Jay Leno single-handedly is supporting with his car collection.
Yet he asked me, gosh Rush, I mean how many how many big a piece of pie can you eat?
When when's enough enough and in capitalism the question is not when is enough enough capitalism the question is constant productivity increased productivity improvement rising tide lifting all boats.
Capitalism also is what enables brilliant people to answer the question okay President Reagan Cold War.
What are your thoughts?
Simple we win they lose all right a quick timeout we got some audio soundbites uh coming up and more of your phone calls so sit tight we'll be right back so snerdley just asked me during the break what do you think of this uh Roman Polanski stuff and since I don't follow sex perverts I had to have him update me on the story.
So he updated me on the story reminded me what Polansky did.
Swiss prosecutors I guess have tracked the guy down.
We're trying to extradite him back to the country because of the original crazy got some 13 year old girl liquored up in Quaudes and stuff and then raped her in Jack Nicholson's house well Nicholson was on vacation I'm told got to protect Jack and uh apparently the libs are just fit to be tied over this the libs are just fit to be tied over this pursuit of Roman Polanski.
I have a story here I was I really relegated this story to secondary status today but I dug deep in the stack and I found that this may explain to you why the liberals are upset.
Now, this story, the original story came out in June or July of last year when this guy was appointed the safe school czar.
But it got very little attention.
Today, the Washington Times has an editorial that has more news in it than most articles.
A teacher, remember this is a one-year-old story.
Well, yeah, about that.
A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high schooler.
school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an older man at the very least statutory rape occurred Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring he report this abuse that former teacher Kevin Jennings is President Obama's safe school czar.
Now stick with me on this.
In this one case in which Kevin Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required, he actually encouraged the sophomore kid to continue having the relationship.
According to Mr. Jennings' own description, in a new audio tape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the older man in a bus station bathroom.
Was taken to the older man's home that night.
When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape unethical.
Mr. Jennings' defenders asserted there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.
However, the new audio tape contradicts his claim.
In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the gay, lesbian and straight education network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools.
On the tape, Kevin Jennings recollected that he told the student make sure to use a condom when he's with the older man.
Then he actively encouraged the relationship.
It is reinforced by Mr. Jennings' own description in his 1994 book, One Teacher in Ten.
In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student's concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old boy, quote, left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on campus for the next two years until he graduated, close quote.
He's now the safe school czar.
Kevin Jennings is now Obama's safe school czar.
And this story is actually a year old.
It came out last year when he was appointed czar, but it got very little attention.
And the sweetnessinlight.com has a link to an audio MP3 of his comments about the statutory rape.
The bottom of the piece.
So if you wonder why the libs are really ticked off that Roman Polanski might be extradited to face the music on that long ago act with the 13-year-old girl Quaaludes and rape, understand that Obama's safe school czar is a guy promoting homosexuality in the schools and encouraged a 15-year-old kid to have a homosexual relationship with an older man.
And even facilitated it.
As I say, snurdly, I wouldn't even get to this today, but you ask me about Polanski.
And that's that.
Saturday night, Washington, D.C. Congressional Black Caucus Foundation annual dinner.
President Obama.
I was up in the G20, and some of you saw those big flags and all the world leaders come in, and Michelle and I are shaking hands with him.
One of the leaders, I won't mention who it was.
He comes up to me.
We take the picture, we go behind him.
He says, Brock, explain to me this health care debate.
He says we don't understand it.
You're trying to make sure everybody has health care and they're putting a Hitler mustache on you.
I don't that doesn't make sense to me.
Explain that to me.
He didn't understand.
I wonder if Obama pointed out that the people carrying those signs around are Democrats.
Lyndon LaRouches.
I wonder if Obama explained to whoever this was and asked him about this.
Well, yeah, we have a First Amendment in our country.
And some people don't agree with my plan.
I don't even think I believe this.
This was a favorite Bill Clinton ploy.
Yeah, you know what?
I was over there at the G14, whatever it was, and I had some of these world ladies come out and say, you know, you're trying to do the greatest thing of people of your country.
Why the why why why are your people so opposed to what you do?
This isn't this is a standard ploy.
Who was this world leader?
They won't identify the world leader.
Probably Hugo Chavez.
Who was it?
Certainly wouldn't be anybody Canada, Great Britain, or France.
Now, let's go to the audio.
Let's see if I get time here to do this for you.
The next page.
We do.
This is just prior to the immaculation.
I predicted this.
Closing Gitmo isn't gonna happen.
It's not gonna happen.
It is not going to happen.
They're not gonna close Gitmo.
I constantly suggest to people that they not doubt me.
Don't doubt me.
I checked the email during the timeout.
People think that the left in this country is going to be outraged when they find out that Obama won't close Guantanamo Bay for four years.
They won't hear that.
It's in the Washington Post today, but that's where it will die.
What they're going to hear is an executive order announced to close it.
They're going to hear that.
That's enough.
That's enough.
That was January 16th.
When I predicted they're not going to close Club Gittmo.
Sunday morning this week, George Stephanopoulos talking to Robert Gates.
Major story in the Washington Post suggesting the president's deadline of January 22 for closing Gitmo won't be met.
White House officials tell me at least some prisoners will still be there on January 22nd beyond.
How big a setback is that?
The question was, should we set a deadline?
I actually was one of those who said we should.
If you don't put a deadline on something, you'll never move the bureaucracy.
But I also said, and then if we find we can't get it done by that time, but we have a good plan, then you're in a position to say it's going to take us a little longer, but we are moving in the direction of uh implementing the policy that the president set.
And I think that's the position.
That's where we are.
So the deadline of January 22nd will not be met.
I it's going to be tough.
That's and January 23rd will not be met.
And uh January 24th will not be met.
And January 25th will not be met.
They're not going to close Gitmo.
They don't know how.
They don't know what to do with the people that are there.
So again, my friends, don't doubt me.
Actual tracks there, folks.
Actual tracks, kid songs of the revolution.
All right, so the phones are going to Lull, Kentucky.
This is Mike.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Russ.
It's a pleasure.
I've got a quick question for you.
Maybe you can help me out.
Yes, sir.
Long time ago I was watching a primary between uh Edwards and Hillary and Obama.
Asked about nuclear weapons, and I'll quote Obama.
He said, I would never ever, under any circumstance, use a nuclear weapon.
You know, and then Hillary said, Well, I won't take anything off the table.
And Edward said, Well, I'll negotiate to get rid of him.
Well, Obama's changed his tune, but my question is do I pray that Obama lied when he said that, that he would never use him?
Or does he really think that uh since he'll never use a nuclear weapon, we might as well get rid of him.
Well, but y you have forgotten that he also said he would nuke Pakistan, right?
Correct.
Uh yeah, even if they didn't give us if if remember he said he was look at what we what we what you have to do is whatever he said during the campaign, that was not to a union group or not to a teachers union, or not to a trial lawyer convention.
Every everything he said was an attempt to mainstream himself and to hide his radicalism.
Now, oh, never use uh nuclear weapon.
He was probably being very truthful there.
In an exception to my rule.
Oh, never use.
I mean he he um wouldn't they get rid of Artie Turrant?
Well, he's yeah, he's in the Didn't you hear him last week in this stupid sophomore speech he gave it to the UN?
He's gonna disarm.
He's gonna he's gonna get into all these new treaties and we're gonna lead the way and getting rid of our new because we're gonna be back to the same old stuff we were with the Soviets, where we were disarming and they weren't, and um all this this is the guy's uh a menace.
Is it dangerous?
Dangerous, naive so I I just remember ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
Bob in Port Charlotte, Florida.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're up next.
Hello.
Okay, uh uh Dentals from Florida, right?
Pleasure to speak to you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Uh I'd like to know if Eisenhower didn't take a month to send patent to help the troops at Baston, why is it taking the president over a month to decide whether to send more troops to Afghanistan?
He still hasn't decided.
I mean, he's fine time for everything else.
He goes on TV every day to give speeches, he goes to the Black Caucus Tender.
Now he's planning on flying to Copenhagen about some Olympic uh event for Chicago, everything but what he needs to do.
You know what puzzles me about the Olympics is I don't know why he cares because there are people that win at the Olympics, and and that's that doesn't fit with his agenda of nations.
You know, no nation should be better than any other or different than any other, but clearly nations are gonna win medals.
But his primary job is commander in chief.
He should be more concerned about the troops in Afghanistan and what they need and whether to send more troops to help them out.
Uh that's the way you and I look at it.
That's just a troublesome side show.
Well, I think he's playing politics with the life of our troops over there.
There's there's there's no question.
Look at I don't know how else to say this.
Obama comes from that radical left that doesn't like the U.S. military, doesn't like them being victorious.
Look at we played it, folks.
He's uncomfortable with the concept of victory in Afghanistan.
And we're we're not making too much of that.
Here we go back to the audio sound bites.
Friday night in Pittsburgh, at the G twenty summit, Obama held a press conference.
Reporters said, You said a couple months ago that the war in Afghanistan is a war a necessity.
You think it's possible to meet our objectives there without an extra infusion of troops.
And uh I would expect that the public would ask some very tough questions.
That's exactly what I'm doing is asking some very tough questions.
Uh and you know we're not gonna arrive at perfect answers.
I think anybody who's looked at the situation recognizes that it's difficult and it's complicated.
But my solemn obligation is to make sure that uh I get the best answers possible, uh particularly before I make decisions about sending additional uh troops uh into the theater.
That that is just pathetic.
The commander on the ground says we need more troops.
It's a no-brainer.
Well, it's not easy.
I would expect that the public would ask very tough questions.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
Tough questions.
We're not gonna arrive at perfect answers.
Anybody who look at the situation.
Recognizes it's difficult.
And here's pathetic Obama again on Friday at the G twenty summit.
Reporter says, Ahmed Dinizad said today that your statement of this morning was a mistake and that your mistakes work in Iran's favor.
What gives you any sense that you can genuinely negotiate with this guy?
And also when you talk about holding Iran accountable, is the military option growing more likely?
Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on October 1st, they are going to have to come clean and they are gonna have to make a choice.
Are they willing to go down the path which I think ultimately will lead to greater prosperity and security for Iran, giving up uh the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and deciding that they are willing to abide by international rules and standards in their pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy?
Or will they continue uh down a path that is going to lead to confrontation?
I'm not gonna speculate on the course of action that we will take.
We're gonna give October 1st a chance.
We're not going to speculate on the course of action.
And we're gonna we've talked to it before.
We're gonna really, really talk now.
It's like so I forget who wrote this.
Somebody wrote this.
I've got it somewhere in the snacks.
Some somebody said, you know what this speech is like.
This is like you, when you were a kid, did something wrong, and your mother said, All right, you wait till your dad gets home.
Well, this isn't Obama.
You wait till your dad gets home speech.
Or answer to uh the question about Iran.
We're gonna really talk now.
We're gonna really sit down and talk.
We're gonna really we're gonna really meaningful dialogue now, which is all anybody's been doing with Iran while they laugh about it.
Now, Mrs. Clinton, one of the things that he's talking, he's not talking about military action, he's not gonna do that.
He's talking about meaningful and tough new sanctions on them.
So let's go to Mrs. Clinton, shall we?
Secretary of State, CBS faced the nation Sunday morning, Harry Smith sitting in, said to her, You talked this summer, but if diplomacy failed, you called sanctions, crippling sanctions would be in order.
What would those Crippling sanctions be.
Well, Harry, we're exploring how you broaden and deepen sanctions.
Now, sanctions are already in place, as you know, but like many sanction regimes, they're leaky.
But in the last um eight months, uh since we've been dealing with North Korea on a similar uh set of issues, we have forged an international consensus around very tough sanctions, and that's given us some additional information about how to proceed on the Iranian front.
Oh.
Oh, so we're gonna replicate what we did in North Korea.
Well, if that's the case, Iran is going to have nukes.
We'll be back.
Folks, this is the week that signifies the end of one fiscal year for our government and the beginning of another.
And the Heritage Foundation passed along this interesting little factoid.
Our Congress will pass a bill to raise our statutory debt limit by 1.4 trillion dollars to keep up with Obama's spending.
Now you've heard me talk about Social Security, Medicare programs here last week on Jay Leno's program last week.
Both programs are broken.
And now you can add the welfare programs being deployed by the Obama administration and their intent to spend 10 trillion dollars over the next decade.
All of this information, readily available at your fingertips at ask heritage.org.
Because when you are a member of the Heritage Foundation, and it's an honor to be a member of the Heritage Foundation, you run around and say I'm a member of the Heritage Foundation.
And people will think that your IQ is twice what it is.org.
This is not news to you.
You know this.
You just have to go get it.
Now, I, my friends, am a long time member of the Heritage Foundation.
I'm not a comp member either.
I pay for it.
I don't accept comps.
I don't want to be obligated.
I don't like conflicts of interest.
I'm a longtime member, very proud to be one.
It's a worthy association that provides uh access to a lot of useful and truthful information from inside the beltway by people who are untainted by it.
You should become a member of the Heritage Foundation yourself.
You do that online at Askheritage.org.
It's a font of information waiting for you when this program ends every day.
And you'll be supporting some great work at the same time.
Candace in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Glad you called.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Megan Megadiddles Rush.
Thank you.
Uh I am concerned because my husband is in the military and he will be deploying next spring for the third time.
I want the president to be concerned enough about the war to talk to his commanders more than once in seventy days.
What is he doing, Rush?
He's trying to make sure that the Olympics are going to be in Chicago in 2016.
And all I have to say to any liberals listening out there is that Iran did not test fire any missiles while Bush was in office because Bush practiced peace through strength.
And this stuff has me scared, Rush.
It really does.
By the way, do you know it's not a coincidence that today is the day the Iranians fired the nukes?
It's Yom Kipper.
Oh, okay.
Jewish holiday.
And those missiles and their test firing are, among other things, to determine how far along they are at being able to target those missiles at Israel.
So it's not a it's not an accident.
That's a very good observation.
They uh didn't launch any kind of stuff during the uh during the Bush years.
The Norks did.
The Norks did, but uh the Iranians didn't.
You remember Biden said during the campaign, we're gonna be tested.
A box uh Obama's gonna be tested, Barack's gonna be tested.
The first six months are gonna be tested, and we're gonna have a real problem in our hands.
And uh you're not gonna understand, you're not gonna appreciate our response to it.
Are we begging you to hang in with us?
Do you remember him saying that?
Yes, I do.
Well, I don't know if this is it or if it's yet to come, but we've got a pretty good idea why Biden thinks we're not gonna hang in with him.
It doesn't it it it you know it more and more people like you you're the fourth or fifth call now since last week about this military member family worried about the commitment of the commander in chief, whether your husband or son or daughter is heading off to the theater of of battle.
And tell me, let me ask you a question.
Is is your real concern, Is your concern really based on whether or not this president will defend the country or will give your husband in this case all the tools necessary to win?
I'm concerned on both.
I want them I want him to give the commanders the tools necessary that they need to win this war, and Obama has shown no interest whatsoever in winning this war.
I mean I just want them to have the support that they need over there.
I really do.
I want them to win.
I want them to fight to win.
And I have no confidence in this administration.
I'm sorry, I just don't.
Amen.
Join the club.
More and more people have that same sentiment.
That's a dawn of reality.
It's coming up.
And more and more people are glaring at it, not happy with what they see.
David in St. Louis, glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you.
First time caller.
Um question for you.
I'm a union guy from St. Louis, uh, been a military reservist for over twenty years, son on active duty, another son getting ready to go into the Army.
And pop open my St. Louis Post Dispatches Weekend, and what do I read?
A twenty million dollar error mark for the Kennedy Institute out of a $360 billion defense budget that was snuck in there by Senator John Kerry.
Uh uh has anybody besides myself called and been alarmed by this idea?
I'm glad you reminded me.
I saw that uh uh over the weekend, or maybe it was today I looked at it.
Yeah, twenty twenty billion dollars in there for um an uh uh a memorial in essence to uh to uh Teddy Kennedy in the defense bill, defense appropriations bill.
Yeah, they say it's gonna be for the library to house his papers for a billionaire family, and they say this will only cover uh forty percent of the institute's uh initial fundraising.
Well, you guys we gotta we gotta have some sympathy for the Kennedys.
They may be a billionaire family, but they got about fifteen hundred sponges soaking it up who still haven't figured out how to get a real job.
I've got another question for you.
Yeah.
Did you see sixty minutes last night with uh General Caffrey?
I saw the audio.
I I didn't I don't watch the show anymore.
I wasn't it's called the National Football League on Sundays for me.
Uh well, the another thing that caught my attention is a military fight.
Well very quickly.
Okay, the general said he's only talked to the president one time since he's been in office.
To me, that's stunning.
Yep, one time in 70 days.
One time, with all the high tech Obama has, only one time.
But he I understand that he's gonna go get the Olympics for Chicago in 2016.
He'd been talking to Mayor Daly a lot, and that you know, Obama has his priorities.
People need to understand this.
Something I uh was hoping to get to today didn't happen, so we'll talk about it tomorrow.
I really am curious to talk to people with kids in school about Obama's desire to eliminate the summer vacation.
Just to have kids go to school year round.
So that's based on an agrarian economy, but our kids aren't working the fields anymore.
They need to stay in school.
We all have our theories what this is about.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection