All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
December 11, 2009, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
A fastest three hours and media speeding by, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us, as always on the EIB Network on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And we're going to try to squeeze a lot of you in in this hour.
Tunnel number 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rush Ball at EIBNet.com.
I just have to laugh from the UK independent.
Global warming will resume its upward climb next year.
The UK Met Office predicted yesterday at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, forecasting that 2010 will be the hottest year ever recorded for the world.
The coming 12 months will be hotter than 1998, currently the hottest year in the 160 years.
It's not true.
It's not true.
They found it in 1934.
NASA's had to revise this.
At any rate, a record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, it says later in the story.
Now wait a second.
How do you say in the first paragraph?
Global warming will resume its upward climb again next year.
The UK Met Office said in the UN climate change conference in in Copenhagen, forecasting 2010 will be the hottest year ever recorded for the world.
And then one, two, three, four, five.
Six paragraphs later, you say a record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty.
The uh Met Office statement said, especially if the current El Nino was to decline rapidly near the start of 2010.
Or if there were a huge volcanic eruption, such as that of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
So, as usual.
As usual, it might happen, but it might not.
It's gonna happen.
If there's more pollution, it won't.
If there's more pollution, Mount Penatubo was pollution.
If there's more pollution, it won't.
Exactly right.
More pollution, it won't warm up.
Oh, what does that tell us?
At any rate, you know, it has to be exhausting working at the state controlled associated press.
And the reason is that when you work at the state controlled associated press, you get shocked and surprised every day by the news that you have to report.
Retail sales rose more than expected in November, boosting hopes the all-important consumer sector will support the fragile recovery.
Uh part of the boost in sales, folks was uh the price for gasoline is going up and also online sales.
It doesn't sound like it was a broad-based increase in consumer demand to me.
Six percent surge in sales at service stations, partly reflecting the higher gasoline prices, led the overall gain.
Oh, that's how it happened.
Gasoline cost more.
And we're gonna be told yet that represents retail sales activity rising consumer.
It's all bunk.
Every bit of it is bunk.
Sales did fall.
0.7% at furniture stores, something of a surprise, since analysts have expected the recent rebound in home sales to bolster demand for funiture.
Furniture.
They thought that.
Oh.
But a diverse group of stores, including Macy's Sachs, Abercrombie Fitch, and Target did post sharper than expected sales declines in November.
This whole story, except for gasoline.
Except this whole story is about industry suffering losses in retail sales.
Except for gasoline.
And yet breathlessly they report retail sales rise more than expected.
Now, here again, this is the Washington Post, and and uh this is how the slush fund works.
Bail out for Main Street instead of Wall Street.
The Obama administration plans to channel money from the TARP money to small businesses as part of an effort to limit uh the political and economic damage From high unemployment.
The move comes as the White House prepares for a summit next week with executives of twelve of the largest banks, in which the administration is expected to press the industry to increase lending, especially to small business.
And they've got a slush fund to uh to help make it happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are not number one anymore.
From the state controlled associated press, China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's biggest market for automobiles.
The first time any other country has bought more vehicles than the nation that produced Henry Ford, the Cadillac and the Minivan.
And of course, the AP is breathlessly excited about this.
Now that the Chinese buy more cars and trucks than Americans, the shift could produce ripples for the environment, gas prices, even the kinds of cars automakers design.
China has long been expected to overtake the U.S. since its population of 1.3 billion is more than quadrupled that of the U.S., but the increase in sales happened much faster than anyone expected.
Again, everybody working at the Associated Press, I don't care who they is shocked and surprised with practically every story they report.
Here's now, here's the AP again.
Here's the AP again.
And remember told you how they do the trick to show you things are improving.
Mentioned that yesterday.
Here they do it again.
Americans' net worth up for second straight quarter.
Oh, really?
Interesting headline.
Let's dig deeper.
Inch by inch, Americans are recovering some of their vast loss of wealth from the recession thanks to gains in stock investments and home values.
Now, I guess we're supposed to forget that yesterday we read that more and more houses are underwater, not worth what people are paying for them, that there are more foreclosures going on, because this is a new day.
And inch by inch, Americans are recovering some of their vast loss of wealth.
Thanks to gains in stock markets, investments and home values.
Net worth, that is the value of assets such as homes, bank accounts, and investments, minus debt, like mortgages and credit cards, rose five percent last quarter to $53.4 trillion, the Fed said yesterday.
This was the second straight quarterly increase.
So we won't go, oh yeah, right on, baby, right on, right over.
Except there's the next paragraph.
Even with those gains, Americans' net worth remains far below its revised peak of sixty-four point five trillion reached before the recession began.
That underscores the vast loss of wealth over the past two years.
Net worth would need to rise an additional twenty-one percent just to return to its pre-recession height.
See, that's the story.
It rose, but it still sucks.
It's still below the low.
That's the story.
That's not the headline.
Americans net worth up for second straight quarter.
See the trick.
Read the headline, and this, of course, the uh Doomkoffs at the Radio Network News broadcasts at the top of the hour on this show.
America's net worth rose for the second straight quarter, Federal Reserve said, Move on to the next story.
Many analysts don't expect a repeat of the strong second and third quarter gains.
Oh, well, this is these two months are just an aberration.
Forget them anyway.
We don't expect second and third quarter gains uh to be repeated.
That's why Scott Hoyt, senior director of consumer economics at Moody's Economy.com thinks household wealth won't match its pre-recession peak until about 2012.
So Americans net worth up for second state quarter is worthless BS.
And yet, that's what people will report uh be reported, will report and be think the story is.
And now from CNN Money.com, recession's latest victim, U.S. innovation.
Patent filings fell in 2009 for the first time in 13 years, worrying Silicon Valley that it is losing its place as the leader in global innovation.
U.S. innovation slowed this year for the first time.
Do people get this?
Every story, there's great news, and then the next story, it's not great, it's bad, and even the good news is not really true.
We're just doctoring it to make it look that way.
U.S. innovation slowed this year for the first time in 13 years as the recession cut into budgets and costs to protect inventions rose.
That's unfortunate because patent filings are a reflection of innovation, said the director of the patent office.
Innovation creates so many jobs, so much opportunity for our country.
It's absolutely key to our long-term success in a global economy.
But patent filings were down 25% this year.
Let's be clear here.
Shall we?
That's the purpose of this program.
Let's be clear.
It's not the recession that's killing innovation.
What's killing innovation is the Democrat Party and President Obama.
They are not kindling the human spirit to create better ways.
This is not how you create innovation.
This is not how you inspire people to innovate when you're on the verge of passing legislation that will destroy the private sector, raise taxes, and punish achievement.
And I have a Pazar out there, but if you succeed too much, the Pazar is going to be knocking on your door and telling you how much you can pay yourself and your other employees.
It is not the recession killing innovation.
In fact, innovation is largely key to coming out of recessions.
If there's no innovation going going on out there, it's because nobody's being inspired to it, and we know why.
The Democrat Party and President Obama.
Back after this.
And we're back.
By the way, one more story here about the uh the UK Met Office, Meteorological Office.
Uh, they have embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate change science after the furor over the stolen emails.
By the way, I don't believe any of these emails were stolen or hacked.
If they were, why are the email addresses Xed out?
All the email addresses of all these uh these hoaxers are X'd out.
If you know this is not stolen if it or hacked that all of the addresses would be there, and these people they'd be flooded with emails.
At any rate, more than 1700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the professional integrity of global warming research.
Seventeen hundred scientists.
What do all of these people do?
Who are they?
And how the hell do they know?
So they're signing on to a hoax.
Follow the money.
All right, back to the phones.
We go to El Segundo, California.
Ram.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Great to be on, Rush.
I hope your shoulder feels better.
Yeah, I do too.
Thank you.
Um I seriously believe.
Now you've claimed after the job summit, you claimed on your show that Obama doesn't have the right answers, and that's why he has so many people around him that during the summit.
I seriously believe that this is the conspiracy of Obama against the people.
He knows what the right answers are, and he's purposely taking the wrong path to destroy the country.
Is this a valid point?
And I'd like to take your comments off the air.
Well, I yeah, I've uh pretty much said that same thing.
Nobody with any economic literacy at all would say that this is what we're going to do to create jobs.
Everybody knows this is not create jobs.
This does not cause economic growth.
Anybody with any economic literacy.
I have stated on purpose.
I do believe this is purposeful.
I don't remember saying he has people around him because he don't know the answers.
Uh uh, I just I I I think he has people around him to make it look like he has supporters.
And so forth.
Emily in uh in Hillsdale, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Russ.
Thank you for taking my call.
How about here at Hillsdale College, and um, this is one of my goals I wanted to do before I graduate to call you.
Um, I am calling about a children's book that I ran across while babysitting this semester.
It's called How to Get Married by Me the Bride, and it's by Sally Lloyd Jones and Sue Heat.
And it's full of Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, well, hold it.
You're speaking faster than I can keep up with her.
It is it's a what You were babysitting, it's called How to Get Married.
Yes.
By who?
It's called How to Get Married by Me, The Bride.
It's a Little Girl.
And then the book is actually by Sally Lloyd Jones and Sue Heap.
Sally Lloyd Jones and Sue Heap.
Yes.
Okay.
And it just came out this year, and I started reading it to the girls that was babysitting, and I was horrified by what is in it.
It basically completely redefines marriage.
It says that you can marry anything, basically.
It says you can marry an animal.
You can marry a flower.
You can marry your dad.
It said you can marry lots of people at once.
Um it's it even shows the little girl in the book proposing marriage instead of uh uh a guy proposing marriage, and it never even says once that you get married to someone of the opposite sex.
Like never.
It never says a boy for this little girl, it says everything else imaginable.
And I just couldn't believe how blatantly obvious it was that they're trying to indoctrinate children with this book by telling them you can marry anyone.
Oh, I'll tell you what, you think this is bad.
This is this is and it's bad, but it's it's mild compared to uh some of the stuff that's been discovered recently that uh the s the safe schools czar for Obama's doing.
He this guy back in uh in the early part of this century, in the year two thousand, two thousand one, was actually in charge of a curriculum that taught various techniques of homosexual sex, including fisting.
Uh don't know what it is, I'm not gonna tell you go ask your mom, and she might not even know.
I don't want to know.
Um But you gotta wear a latex glove for that.
I mean, it's just it's it's it's stuff is uh this it's pervasive uh throughout you know it was it was it was predicted when when the whole when the whole gay marriage matter started, one of the things that people, including me said, Well, wait a minute, if if marriage traditionally the is a specific definition between a man and a woman.
If that no longer matters, then you could marry your dog.
And people go, Oh no, no, no, that's Rush, you're getting extremely uh we're not asking for that.
We're just one of the equal rights of marriage.
But what what wait a minute?
If marriage isn't what it is, and you're gonna redefine it, then you can marry anything, and so now you've got a book.
You read a book that basically this is what's being and what age group do you think is reading this?
Is it a textbook?
Yes.
Yeah, it no, it's a it's a uh just a children's book.
It would be anywhere from the age of like two to about eight years old is the age group that they're targeting, and they're targeting little girls.
Well, so it's a picture book?
Um it's yeah, there's a lot of pictures.
Would it have to be for a two-year-old.
Yeah, there's a lot of pictures and um and then there's all this explanation of like how to get married, how to play marriage, and all this kind of stuff.
And it I mean, I just couldn't believe it.
I thought this is not how you play marriage.
This is how you're not.
Well, look at this is about destroying all of the traditions and institutions which have defined not not just America, but civilized culture throughout the history of the world.
And if you if you if you blow up the concept that marriage is between a man and a woman, then you can have then the next thing you do is redefine the family.
Uh why can't there be three parents in a family?
And why can't you adopt the dog?
And so forth.
Uh there's no end once they break down all these barriers, they can then redefine them any way they wish.
Uh you're dealing with a bunch of godless people out there, uh Emily.
You know, she mentioned that she's from Hillsdale, Michigan.
That's where Hillsdale College is.
Larry Arne runs Hillsdale.
I have I've talked to Larry Arne Hillsdale's a sponsor here.
She goes there.
I know she said she's a senior there.
And uh, you know, Larry Arne has described the learning process, the teaching process at at Hillsdale.
And one of the funniest things that he told me was that even when the students are right, they're wrong.
That even when they get an answer the answer or question right, they are still probed and demanded to say more.
It is a it is a university which teaches thinking, critical thinking, as well as the teaching of factual knowledge about American history.
And one of the uh they have a publication called Imprimus, and it's one of the best and most important publications that I read, And it's free.
It's a monthly speech digest from Hillsdale College.
Every member of the EIB audience should read in Primus.
Because in Primus, uh it features visionary speeches by the world's top conservative leaders, speeches that they've made at Hillsdale and elsewhere.
Reagan Thatcher, William F. Buckley, even including me.
Rush, one of my best speeches was, in fact, a Hillsdale speech in uh in Washington.
Now you can get well, of course I'll say what I had a good speech.
And it was uh it was uh and I had a bad cold when I gave the speech, but it was a home run.
And you know what?
You can get in primus for free every month.
Go to Rush for Hillsdale.com and sign up.
They deal with issues like limited government, traditional values, free markets, the importance of religious faith.
You know, we uh as conservatives need to know how to be inspiring, how to be visionary.
And the best way you can do that is by reading the speeches of real true leaders of conservatism.
Now, if you don't want to go to rushforhillsdale.com, you can call 1866 Hillsdale to receive him Primus today.
It doesn't cost you anything, you're not getting up on a mailing list, it's not a ruse, they're not gonna ask you for money.
I just want to let you know who they are at Hillsdale College.
I mean, uh, Dr. Arne, who was a brilliant man, actually cares about the end product of his graduates.
He actually cares about the kind of human beings, the kind of minds that they have.
And he wants people to know about Hillsdale College and what they do, and he's giving away in Primus every month to anybody who wants copy.
Rushforhillsdale.com.
We'll be back after this.
It just never stops.
Breaking news, MSNBC House passes bill letting feds break up risky companies.
Who are they to decide what is a risky company?
House passes bill to let feds break up risky companies.
This is part of the financial regulation overhaul.
This is what the Congressional Black Caucus walked out of and got six billion dollars in exchange for.
I went to Amazon.com to look at that book, How to Get Married by Me the Bride by Sally Lloyd Jones and Sue Heap.
And I've got it here.
Let me uh if I can hold this up for those of you in the doodle camera.
Here's a page of it right there.
I that's that's so one page.
Let me let me zoom out here and now read this uh to you.
You can marry your best friend or your teacher, or your pet, or your daddy.
And sometimes you can marry a flower.
You can marry someone who is just like you or somebody who isn't.
And that's a kid, baby looking at himself in the mirror.
And the woman, the girl marrying a flower is uh black, and the uh girl looks like she's marrying her best friend, looks like a tiger uh woods woman.
A Barbie doll.
How to get married by me the bride, Sally Jones, Sally Boy Jones Suhe.
Also, you gotta hear this.
This is uh Ed Mockie.
Ed Mockie from uh Massachusetts member of Congress, and Raya Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, asked him, let's talk about climate change and the whole conflict between the deniers and those of you who believe that this is a self-evident thing.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Uh, there are a few people who are still uh fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer, uh, but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelming majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we now see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.
Uh that's their new argument.
Now they're trying to compare these two things when there's no comparison.
Here's if you want a comparison to the tobacco companies.
I brilliantly came up with this last week.
What nailed the tobacco companies?
What was it?
Remember when the CEOs of Big Tobacco were up testifying, And it was discovered that they had lied about their research.
They had lied about the impact of smoking on health.
They had made up studies which showed that there was no connection to smoking and respiratory health and heart disease.
And they had lied about it.
And when they were called up on CAP when the lie had been uncovered, there was a whistleblower that went on 60 minutes, sat behind the blue dot at a black screen or whatever, blew the whistle off of that was the end of it.
So if you want to compare Congressman Maki this to the tobacco companies, if you want to be consistent, what you would be doing is dragging these phony fraudulent scientists from the climate research unit at University of East Anglia and have them over here for hearings.
You want to be consistent with big tobacco.
That's what you would be doing.
Since we're on the subject, let's go to Letterman.
This is the last night on his show, the guest is climatologist and author James Hansen, a well-known fraudster from NASA.
Letterman says, for a while, a significant part of your life and your devotion to that pursuit presented the case to Congress and groups.
You tried to get legislation and attention from the government, and it didn't so much work out.
And here lately, you've taken more of an aggressive approach to calling attention to these problems, climate change and so forth.
Is that a fair statement?
There was in 1992 the framework convention on climate change, in which all the governments, 170 governments, agreed that we should stabilize the atmospheric composition at a level that avoids dangerous human-made interference.
The Kyoto Protocol, for example, supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but in fact emissions actually accelerated after the Kyoto Protocol.
And the danger is that in Copenhagen, where the discussions are now going on, the same thing is going to happen.
Now, this is a comedy show.
Ostensibly we're watching a comedy show, and here comes this guy Hanson, a noted fraudster, talking about global warming.
He then continued with this.
The funny thing is, it's kind of a deal between developed countries and developing countries.
It's analogous to the indulgences of the Middle Ages.
If you remember the Catholic Church would sell forgivenesses for sins.
That was great.
The bishops got a lot of moolah, and the sinners got to go to heaven.
No matter what they did.
So that was great.
Now that's basically what's happening in Copenhagen.
Developed countries want to continue more or less business as usual.
So they will say they're going to decrease their missions a modest amount, but then there are these so-called offsets that you purchase from developing countries.
It sounds to me like this guy is admitting what's going on here is a religion, which we know that it is.
And then Letterman says, I want to get to the point about the emails in London.
What's that?
I don't understand it.
And what was the point?
What was the resolution?
There was some bad judgment by some scientists at University of East Anglia, but the truth is, and they said some things, and they should release their data, for example.
Science works that way.
You've got to release your data.
But the truth is it doesn't change the science when Iota.
Of course not.
We can see what's happening with the climate all around the planet.
And we know what's going to happen if we stay on business as usual.
We can't see it.
Every we can't possibly see it.
This is a fool.
This is an obsessed hoaxer.
He is part of the hoax.
We can't see it.
We see it only through photoshopped pictures and videos.
And we don't know what's going to happen if we stay on business as usual.
Oh, these guys fry me.
Don in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Great to have you, sir on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Russ, it's cool to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Got a question for you.
Yeah.
And I I'm only partly being cynical.
I don't know the answer.
Why don't you have a Democrat counterpart?
Why is there no liberal El Rush, though?
There is.
Except it takes about a hundred people.
There's CBS, there's NBC, uh, there's ABC, there's MSNBC, there's CNN, there's New York Times, there's the Washington Post, there's all kinds of them out there.
It's just it takes all of them to equal one of me, and I don't think they even get close.
But if you're asking, if you're asking why is there no liberal talk show counterpart to me.
Yeah.
Um well you know to answer that I'd have to give away broadcast and performance trade secrets.
I'm really not really not afraid of that because I don't think even if I gave away the secrets, they could execute them anyway.
But what what is the fr let me ask you?
I mean, you're you're a listener in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Let me ask you, what is it about this show that you like?
What is it that you judge when you listen to this show that makes it stand out?
What makes it the best?
Well, Rush, I'm an American.
I'm a patriotic American.
I love this country.
And I kind of like what the founding fathers had in mind and the Constitution.
I'm a big fan of it.
And your message is generally a hundred percent.
It's not necessarily Republican, but it's consistent with that American thing.
Right.
That would mean it would be conservative.
Mm-hmm.
Uh as opposed to Republican.
I agree with you.
Okay, so content.
You're saying content, content, content is what I hear you saying.
Essentially, well, you know, uh, you know, there's other entertainers out there that are well versed and you know, but they haven't done what you have done.
No, that's very true.
Very true.
Uh I want to stick with the content thing, though.
There's a story I had in yesterday's stack of stuff that I that I didn't get to, and it was, I think a Washington Post story is about Apple.
Uh-huh.
And all the experts said that every product Apple makes will fail.
They said the iPhone was going to be a major failure, the iPod would be a failure, uh that uh the Mac computer would never amount to anything.
And yet, everything Apple does turns to gold and is redefining a lot of high tech.
And this guy concluded, the writer of the story concluded it's the product stupid.
They make a good product.
It's just that simple.
People get caught up in thinking, I gotta market my show, I gotta market my product, I gotta have a good PR agency, I gotta spin this, I gotta go do a lot of TV appearance.
Make the product.
It's the product stupid, or in my case, content content, content.
Uh now there are a number of of other factors that that that uh that go into this.
I think one of them is talent, and I think most of the people on the left in broadcasting do not look and have a proper starting point as to where they are.
They look at themselves as just another branch of politics.
They don't look at themselves as business people in the business of radio.
They look at themselves as a branch office of either a John Podesta think tank or the Democrat National Committee or whatever, and and it really matters what your motivation is or what your purpose is when you undertake to do anything.
Now mine is I I understand fully what I do, I know exactly who I am, I love myself, I love myself when I do what I do, I do not aspire to something I'm not, I do not pretend to be something I'm not.
I am in radio.
I understand radio as well as I understand liberals from a business standpoint, and I understand that if the business aspects are not met and satisfied, then all the content is academic.
But the it's a fine line because the content ends up being part of satisfying the business aspects.
But there's a lot of business in this show that nobody is aware goes on.
We never talk about it because it's not part of what we do, but every business has aspects of it that you never see that it that have to be done and have to be done well and have to be done the best if you're gonna be the best, in addition to what happens publicly that everybody hears.
So it's just knowing the business and loving it and appreciating it and understanding what it is and not making more of it than it is and not trying to make it more than it can be, just realizing what it is and mastering it.
It's an attitude, it is uh preparation, it's knowledge, and it's passion.
And I don't think anybody on the left really has any of this for it.
I think their passion is winning elections and defeating Republicans.
I think their passion is knocking me off.
I think their passion is is is is not oriented at all in a in a positive business oriented way about what they're doing.
Uh Most of the people on the left on radio think of themselves as fundraisers.
They can't even exist under a traditional private sector business model.
They have to ask for contributions from NPR all the way down to Air America to uh to whoever.
If they had to make it in the world on their own without handouts or positioning themselves as nonprofits, they would they'd be lost.
They uh they couldn't do it.
And then finally, uh there's this ingredient that is relevant to, and it's called talent, and they just don't have much.
Hey, we're back on Open Line Friday.
Folks, there's one more thing I would like to explain about liberalism versus conservatism on the radio.
So...
And to do this, I will uh involve television, bring it into it, and describe two types of listening.
There's active listening and there is passive listening.
And then there's emotional versus intellectual listening.
Now, television, largely because a picture is provided, results in passive viewership.
You have the TV on and you can do something else, the sound you listen to it, but you may not be totally occupied, focused on what's happening on television because it's not you're not using using all your brain.
Half of your brain's function is being provided for you with the picture.
Now, radio, if if somebody on the radio is good, they're painting the whole picture for you.
And if it's if it's a uh a spoken word format like this is, then if if it if it's a good show, the type of listening will be active.
People will be devoting 100% of their sensory perception to it.
Which is why advertising on spoken word formats works so well.
Now, liberalism is there's it's not an intellectual pursuit.
Uh liberalism is basically the most gutless choice you can make.
It's just nothing but emotion and feeling.
I see somebody home, oh, I feel so bad.
Makes me a good person.
Oh, look at that, but I feel so bad.
Because I have sympathy, I'm a good person.
The conservative sees a homeless person, what are we going to do about that?
That's not good.
This is not good for the country.
Uh we need to find a way to make that person productive.
The liberals say that's no compassion.
But conservatism is an intellectual pursuit, and people that are turned on and inspired by conservatism will be active intellectually involved in the in the program.
And liberals just cannot ascertain this active participation, active uh audience participation because there's no intellect involved in liberalism.
It's it's purely emotion-based.
Uh now, a number of you have you're you're watching on the digital cam and you've uh you've written there's something wrong.
I'm you're you keep holding your right hand on the ear.
My gut my same old pinch nerve is back in my back.
I wish to hell Zycam made something for pinched nerves.
Uh it has been going on all week, and you know, I've had spinal epidurals and nothing fixes it.
It just has to work itself out.
And uh it's probably painful for you to watch this out there.
I'm d I'm I apologize for the uh for the distraction.
But since I mentioned Zycam, remember keep some around handy, because if you do think you're coming down with a cold, make sure you take some orange box anywhere, formulations and flavors, it works.
It'll shorten the duration of a cold if you catch it early enough, and it will lessen the symptoms of your cold, but you've got to take it as soon as you realize or think that you're coming down with uh with the cold.
It's Zycam, it's an orange box.
And the great thing about it, like like all of our uh sponsors here, it works.
Let's see.
I better, I better let me wrap it up here with I don't have time taking the caller right now.
Let me let me break out of here right quick and we'll see what we're dealing with when we come back.
Sit tight, don't go away.
Okay, the Democrats' health care legislation.
This is big.
Democrats' health care legislation polling worse than President Bush's effort to reform Social Security did in 2005.
CNN poll asked a question, as you may know, the U.S. Senate's considering a bill that would make major changes in the country's health care system based on what you've read or heard about a bill.
Do you favor it or oppose it?
Sixty-one percent oppose it, thirty-six percent support it.
Those are worse numbers than for social security reform.
And remember, it was polling data, and of course the Democrat Party, which killed Bush's Social Security reform.
But now the Democrats are in charge and they don't care.
It's all about them and giving our new president a victory.
I hope you have a wonderful weekend, folks.
And thank goodness you don't have to watch the Pittsburgh Steelers Sunday.
▲
Export Selection