All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
July 12, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back.
Great to have you here.
It's Rush Limbaugh on a brand new week of Broadcast Excellence as I serve humanity simply by being here while at the same time meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Latest opinion audit in is unchanged, documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
From FoxNews.com, a six-month election recount that turned Stuart Smalley into a U.S. Senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in the Twin Cities.
That's the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, which is a conservative watchdog group.
They found at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democrat Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken and Norm Coleman.
The final recount vote in the race showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes, fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority's newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.
Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been stonewalled.
What we did this time is irrefutable, said Dan McGrath, Minnesota Majority's executive director.
We took the voting lists and we matched them with conviction lists and then went back to the records and found the roster lists where voters sign in before walking into the booth and we matched them by hand.
And the only way we can be wrong is if somebody with the same first, middle, and last name, same year of birth as the felon and living in the same community has voted.
And that isn't very likely.
And of course, this couple with Gina Gaston's story aired only so far on Fox and Friends yesterday morning of all the voter fraud that took place against Hillary by the Obama campaign starting in Iowa.
They basically just locked Hillary supporters out of the Hawkeye Caucasi.
So now Fox News is reporting, ladies and gentlemen, that the wife of an oil executive is in the hospital after getting shrapnel in a bomb, in a package, shrapnel bomb in a package.
Now, I want to know where Bill Clinton is or Eric Holder or Salazar.
I mean, they have been whipping up all kinds of hatred against BP and the rest of big oil for all of these years, but especially now, they're out there saying BP will pay.
Remember now, the reason I bring this up is because Clinton's out there saying that all this hate talk on the radio is leading to crimes.
And they always run around and try to accuse us of inspiring these kinds of things.
Now we have an actual shrapnel bomb opened by the wife of an oil exempt.
She's in a hospital from the Houston, some five hours ago, this bomb story.
The Houston ABC affiliate, KSLA in Texas, Texas woman is in stable condition after opening a box of chocolates that was actually a bomb.
The 60-year-old victim is stable condition after surgery.
She opened the package on Friday, July 9th, and her face was pelted with nails and tacks.
Neighbors claim the package appeared as a box of chocolates left inside a gift bag.
One neighbor says there was a card attached that simply said thank you.
Shreport, Louisiana TV station, KSLA Channel 12, Eyeball News, has that woman is said to be based in Houston.
It's a Shreport, Louisiana story.
Nope.
Five hours ago, and it's receiving scant coverage, but nevertheless, it's out there.
Let's see.
Democrat governors.
This is the New York Times.
Standby Audio Soundbites 23, 24, 25, by the way.
New York Times governors voice grave concerns on immigration.
And Democrat governors warn Obama's suit versus Arizona is toxic.
That's what Drudge had as the headline.
It's interesting that Obama, I didn't know anything about that.
Sue to Eric Holder.
The Justice Department's doing this.
Of course, along those lines, it wasn't Jeremiah Wright's church.
It was Obama's church, too.
And he hasn't found a better one to take its place.
Obama's not found a new church.
In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democrat governors voiced deep anxiety about the regime's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democrat Party in the fall elections.
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here in Boston, the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democrat governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day weekend.
At the Democrats meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was said to be private.
Governor Phil Bredison of Tennessee, Democrat, in an interview said, usually the governors are saying we got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on.
He said, such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.
Now, this is kind of interesting.
The Democrat governors tell the White House they're very concerned that this lawsuit against Arizona that's very toxic.
The Democrat governors are worried that it could end up negatively impacting Democrat election chances in November.
And we've got Robert Gibbs on Meet the Press yesterday pretty much saying, oh, yeah, yeah, we can see a scenario where the Republicans would win the House.
And then Gibbs went on to say, the president is very unhappy with certain efforts at recovery here, obviously meaning Republicans blocking his ideas.
And one of the theories that's out there is that the White House actually would like the Republicans to win in November for all the reasons I've stated today previously, and that is to shift the blame for the coming disaster.
You think it's bad now.
It's going to compound worse once all these new tax increases, Obamacare, the deficit commission suggestions, once those hit, I mean, we are headed for an absolute disaster.
The war on prosperity is going to ramp up with a whole bunch of new divisions coming in January.
It appears that Obama would love to have the Republicans in power in the House to blame because that would set him up for re-election in 2012.
It also appears the governors are very much worried about this.
This lawsuit against Arizona, that's toxic, they're saying.
They tell the Obama White House people, oh, this is bad.
I mean, this is going to hurt us.
And the White House people, so it could well be that Obama's always in it for Obama.
He's always about him.
Could well be that the overriding effort here is To get as many Republicans in power to blame them for what the Democrats know is utter disaster starting next January.
Now, I thought every Democrat said that illegal immigrants are good for the economy.
I thought that Democrats believe that illegal immigrants grow the economy and create new jobs.
Isn't that the mantra?
Isn't that the template from the Democrats?
Illegal immigration is good.
These people are only trying to improve their lives.
And yet, here's these Democrat governors voicing grave concerns on immigration over Eric Holder's lawsuit, Obama's lawsuit against the state of Arizona.
Some fascinating things here today.
I guess I said when he opened the program, we have a smorgasbord of irony and hypocrisy that permeates practically every story from the stack of stuff today.
Democrat governors, who up till now have been talking about the great contributions of illegal immigrants, grow the economy, good for the economy, create new jobs.
And so all of a sudden now, Holder is suing Arizona, and the Democrat governors, whoa, whoa, whoa, we don't really, this is toxic.
Now, why would they say that?
Because the administration's focus on immigration is stepping on the Democrat governor's job focus.
They are, in terms of their own re-elect, focusing on jobs and the economy.
And here's the Obama administration suing a state.
Eric Holder.
Oh, let's see.
This is making them very nervous.
Sunday morning on Slay the Nation, Bob Schieffer talked to the Attorney General.
He said your lawsuit does not talk at all about racial profiling, or even if it mentions it, it's just barely.
It just talks about the federal government's being preempted from a duty that it has to perform.
Why did you choose to go that route?
Well, we wanted to go out with what we thought was our strongest initial argument and to focus what we thought on what we thought is the most serious problem with the law as it now exists.
Doesn't mean that if the law, for whatever reason, happened to go into effect, that six months from now, a year from now, we might not look at the impact the law has had and whether or not see whether or not there has been that racial profiling impact.
And if that was the case, we would have the tools and we would bring suit on that basis.
Oh, okay.
So we can still file a suit on racial profiling after the law has been implemented.
In fact, in fact, you see, the dirty little secret is it would be easier.
If you sue now before the law has been implemented, there isn't any racial profiling.
There isn't any racial profiling in the law, period.
But that doesn't matter.
You wait until the law is implemented and then have some Acorn member or some other Democrat plant speed down the highway or rob a convenience store, get caught by the cops, and then asked to produce their papers.
And here comes Holder.
Racial profiling, racial profiling.
That's what they plan.
You know damn well that's what they plan.
And the Democrat governors are very much worried about this.
This is toxic.
They wouldn't want to be sued by the federal government.
And isn't there, ladies and gentlemen, isn't there a potential for racial profiling in airport security?
Haven't we heard complaints about racial profiling at airports for years?
Maybe we should do away with all airport security because of this risk.
We should get rid of the Arizona law because there's potential for profiling.
No, This is more chaos, and this is more agitation, more unsettledness, more angst, more anxiety.
Which accusation here is correct?
Which accusation is correct?
White people desperately want undocumented Democrats in the country for cheap labor, or white people don't want undocumented Democrats in the country.
Because we're talking about non-not illegal immigrants, we're talking about undocumented Democrats that the Democrats want to document.
They want to register them to vote.
Amnesty is the largest get-out-the-vote drive there's ever been in the country.
So which accusation is correct?
White people desperately want undocumented Democrats in the country for cheap labor, and the Democrat governors have said this, or white people don't want undocumented Democrats in the country, which is it.
And if it is Obama's goal to get as many Republicans elected and then blame them, the bright side of this, what's the problem?
As long as our guys govern as conservatives, isn't this what we want?
Aren't we not, I don't want him, I'm not trying to be negative about this.
I'm just illustrating the Democrat plan.
I think this is what Obama's one of their policies might be, one of their secret plans.
But what we do want to take back the House, do we not?
We do want to take the Senate.
Take back the party.
Isn't this what we've been calling for?
Win the next election.
Govern as conservatives.
Isn't our concern, apart from Obama's concern, that the Republicans govern as conservatives?
I mean, that's the way to thwart whatever plan they've got here is.
But what Obama's trying to set up is all this garbage hits the fan.
All this economic activity gets even worse starting in January.
The Republicans are in charge.
Obama's going to offer all kinds of solutions.
Solutions that he knows the Republicans will in no way support.
They're going to vote it down.
Every one of them, and Obama will see, they don't care about you.
They don't care about your recovery.
This is why there must be a conservative agenda, and they better start talking about it now.
And the focus ought to be on economic growth because that's the way to head us off, even with the uninformed electorate.
So don't misunderstand, my good friends.
I'm not suggesting Republicans don't win.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just pointing out what appears obvious to me is that Obama's looking at 2012.
He needs to run against somebody.
He can't run against Democrats.
He can't run against himself.
He needs a foil.
He needs the Republican Party to be in a position where when he blames them, along with the state-controlled media, that that becomes the narrative.
Quick timeout.
We'll be right back after this.
More of your phone calls are coming up, so sit tight.
Well, you knew this was coming.
You knew it was coming.
The Obama administration will issue a revised moratorium on offshore drilling today.
Two administration officials have told the AP of the plans, both requested anonymity, so as not to preempt the official announcement.
Here's Gibbs at the White House press briefing this afternoon.
Bill Plant CBS, new offshore drilling moratorium coming out later today, eh?
What's different about this that allows you to believe you can escape another court turnover?
First and foremost, the president has and continues to believe that we have to be careful with what we're doing, given the uncertainty around what happened 84 days ago.
We know that that is not without some economic consequences to the region, but it's imperative that we have a sense of what happened before we continue to do this again.
So, I mean, to hell with the law.
We're just going to head into a moratorium.
Screw it.
What will make the court turn us down again?
We're making the court overturn us.
We're going to stop this moratorium.
We're going to stop this drilling.
And by the way, it's not because we've got to find out what caused this.
It's because we want to shut down the industry.
We want more economic pain.
The first rig has already left the Gulf.
It's in the Houston Chronicle on the way over to Egypt.
There is no question whatsoever what's going on.
This is a question of admitting it.
Same thing here with, you know, Obama.
If Obama succeeds in blaming others for his disastrous policies or not, and you know he's going to try this.
I mean, that's not even a brilliant conclusion, folks.
He's doing it.
He's been doing it for a year and a half, talking about the mess he inherited.
He wants to keep it up.
It's hard, though, to blame Bush.
I mean, Bush isn't on the ballot.
Bush isn't running anymore.
They're going to run against Bush in 2010.
They're going to help him.
But 2012 comes along.
Obama can't run against Bush.
It's going to be four years of Obama.
But if the Republicans are running things, it's easier.
So what do we need?
We need a presidential candidate who has the ability to articulate conservatism and insist that Obama is the problem, that he has had one party rule, and he now has a record, and his record of disaster is wide and deep, and it'll do him in.
That's easier said than done.
Because right now, there's not a Republican conservative out there saying it.
And it's going to take, I think they're still a little afraid to do so.
They were afraid to criticize him at first because his candidacy was historic.
First black presidential candidate.
Now, first black president.
And every bit of criticism of Obama, they're calling racist.
You saw what Howard Kurtz did to me yesterday on reliable sources, totally mischaracterizing what I said.
Anybody criticized Obama is a racist, sexist pig, and they're laying in wait for whatever person is nominated by the Republicans.
But all that nominee has to say, whoever the Republican nominee is, Mr. Obama, you destroyed the job market.
You chased investment offshore.
Your regulations are smothering small business.
Your spending policies have amassed an unprecedented debt.
This is all on you.
It's easy to say it.
It's true.
All a Republican nominee has to do is utter the truth.
The question is: will we have one with the fortitude to do so?
And it's going to be a while before we know.
Eric Holder, do we have time?
Yeah, let's go back in time to nope, wrong.
Oh, I got the wrong bite.
No, it's the right bite.
It's no, it's the right.
I have to read this further.
By the time I figure out what it is, I'm going to have not enough time to squeeze it in before the next break.
But this one I do.
This is Gibbs, White House Press Secretary this afternoon, reporter.
Number 31 here, Mike.
You've had some days to digest the business roundtable.
Administration doing is an obstacle to growth in hiring.
You have any second thoughts about the direction of your policies, bashing big business?
No.
Again, I'm happy to compare the environment that business operates in now and the environment that they operated in, say, the end of 2008.
I think corporate profits are a pretty good example.
The business community is doing fine.
This is Obama's spokesman justifying continuing to target business.
Look at their profits.
Corporate profits are a pretty good example.
They're making evil profits.
We've got to go out and seize them, which is what Gibbs is saying.
All right.
Brief time out here coming up, my friends.
Take care.
EIB Network and El Rushboard.
Your phone calls, I promise, coming up when we come back.
800-282-2882 is the number.
Another Democrat has lost his temper at a town hall meeting.
And doing what this guy did lost an election for Rick Lazios.
Last Tuesday, Representative Cyro Rodriguez, Democrat Texas, had this exchange with some audience members at his town hall meeting.
If we had not done anything in the next eight years based on CBO professional budget oversight, it would have cost us $4.1 trillion.
The CBO is already revising its numbers.
Let me finish.
Otherwise, if you're not willing to dialogue.
Don't tell the truth that.
Ma'am, don't accuse me of not saying the truth.
It's not appropriate to also determine ego.
I'm not going to take any ego, okay?
If you want to dialogue in a simple manner, don't say that I'm not saying the truth.
Whoa, he's upset another Democrat at a town hall meeting being accused of not being honest with his constituents, waving a piece of paper at them.
It is going to be, folks, it is going to be a bloodbath when November comes around.
Here's Sophia in Miami.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Arizona immigration law?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay, I am a Latina.
I live in Miami, Florida, which, as everyone knows, is the capital of Central and South America.
And I speak with people from all those regions.
And this is the breakdown.
If you came into the United States legally, you did the paperwork, you got an attorney, you pay all the fees, you waited, you interview, some even married, but they paid $10,000 to get married to somebody else.
And, okay, those people, we're against it.
Those that are, we're with Arizona.
We're against the government suing Arizona.
Those who are here illegal are the ones who are with the government against Arizona.
And the things that people mix up is like the Spanish stations here keep saying Arizona's law against immigration.
Immigration.
They just keep saying anti-immigration.
No, this is not anti-immigration.
We are a country of immigrants.
We are anti-illegal.
Illegal being the worst.
Am I still on?
You're still on.
You're still on.
What you're saying is that there are Hispanics in Miami who are not at all on board with the suit against Texas or against Arizona and so forth.
I don't know what the polling numbers are, but the assumption is...
That we are all against Arizona.
Yeah, the assumption is that every Hispanic in the country wants every other Hispanic at once in the country to come in, legally or otherwise.
And that's not the case.
They need to do a poll.
Maybe you can do it, but that is not the case.
Those of us that came here legally, we see illegal being the word.
People came here illegally.
They haven't contributed to the system.
And now all of a sudden, you're a U.S. citizen.
You know, some of us interviewed and did all this stuff and paying taxes and showed our work and all.
And all of a sudden, you're a citizen.
You vote tomorrow.
You do tomorrow.
So it's not.
Those who are here, we know the difference.
We know the words.
Immigration and illegal immigration.
Exactly.
See, that's the point.
The problem isn't with our policy.
The problem is not with the illegal immigration policy.
It is The illegal alien that's the problem.
And the Democrat Party's looking at the mass potential voters.
So, but look, I don't doubt what you say is true, Sophia.
But as far as the general public is concerned with the drive-by media, the vast majority of Hispanics are angry that illegal immigrants are not allowed in the country.
They're angry that anybody's even worried about it.
And this is all done to gin up votes.
The assumption is that the vast majority of Hispanics who are here legally will vote and be supportive of the Democrats because the Democrats are looking at this racially.
They think that you and people like you are going to be biased racially.
That if it doesn't matter that the Hispanic may be here illegally, that you're going to support the illegal immigrant who is Hispanic because it's Hispanic.
That's the way Democrats look at things.
Groups hang together, particularly groups of victims.
And that's what they're counting on.
I think they're totally misreading it as they're misreading a whole number of things.
And it won't be long before what you say is illustrated to be correct.
Pat in Calabasas, California, you're next.
I'm glad you weighed it high.
Yes, good day to you, Dr. Limbaugh.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, when we notice the outstanding job that Governor Chris Christie has done in New Jersey, which is a stellar example of conservatism over Obama's destruction, shouldn't we be hopeful that when our conservatives gain control of the Congress, that they will follow Governor Christie's example?
Well, yeah, I mean, that's the point that I have been making here.
He is a roadmap.
He's a role model for it.
Conservatives just have to be conservative.
There's a way of avoiding falling into this trap.
The problem for Obama in 2012 is that he has a disastrous record, and it is going to be even worse by the time that campaign comes around.
But Barack Obama is an out-of-the-closet socialist.
If the Republican nominee is smart, Obama will be playing defense all the time, whether you channel Chris Christie or not.
You know, Chris Christie is a great example for governing.
Right now, we're talking about campaigning, and it's the campaign that's going to determine whether or not we win.
We know right now, the Republicans know exactly what's in store for them.
They're going to be blamed for all of this up till now and the disaster that's ahead of us.
They have to head it off at the past.
They cannot just figure that the American people will get it.
They cannot just figure that the American people will figure out Obama's been in office for two years or four years, and all this negative stuff is because of him.
And I think that's their temptation.
They're just, for some reason, they don't want to make any waves.
But the trick is to put Obama on defense all the time.
In 2012, Obama will actually be running against somebody rather than a false memory of Bush that Obama continues to rail against.
And there's another thing here.
Nobody likes a whiner, either a kid or an adult.
Nobody likes a baby.
Nobody likes a whining, spoiled brat loser.
And Obama has become all of those things.
You know, Bush has acted with class and maturity in his retirement.
Obama is classless, childish, baby, spoiled brat baby and immature.
And he's a cheap shot character assassin.
That's what Obama is.
Obama's not a person of substance.
He's not a man of policy substance.
He's not a man of character, substance.
And all this is going to catch up with him at some point.
Obama has also said things about his own country that are deplorable.
He's apologized for this country, I don't know how many times.
And he's going to have to eat those words when he runs again if the Republican nominee in the Republican Party has the guts to campaign on who Obama is and what he's been.
I mean, it is clear Obama has got a chip on his shoulder about this country.
You run around and say, President Obama said the U.S. can no longer be the economic engine that propels the world.
That's not what Americans want to hear.
The way to look at this, you know the old phrase, low-lying fruit?
Barack Obama's policies are the equivalent of low-lying fruit.
You don't have to climb the tree to get to the juice.
All you got to do is walk under the tree and grab up and grab it.
It's all over the place.
It's there for the picking.
Admit it, folks.
Isn't this one of the things that has you somewhat frustrated?
It's so easy.
Never in our lifetimes has there been a better chance to contrast conservatism with this.
This is not just liberalism.
This is full-fledged socialism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it.
It's leftism.
And there's never been a greater chance to draw a contrast.
But we can't let these so-called moderates take control of the message or the agenda or it'll be over.
And by that, I mean people like Scott Brown in Massachusetts or Olympia Snow.
If those people gain control, if we have a nominee that in any way wants to go moderate center of the road, then it's kissing goodbye.
It ought to be simple as pie.
The contrast, as I say, the opportunity for this is just easy.
This shouldn't even...
Somebody ought to be able to run a campaign without hiring one consultant.
We don't need a consultant.
We don't have to have some brilliant media buyer here.
This is so obvious how to do this.
We've never before sat and watched the absolute purposeful destruction of capitalism, the American private sector.
We've never seen it happen.
It's happening all around us.
And it's going to get worse starting next January.
And that's why Obama wants to blame a new majority of Republicans in the House for it.
And it's going to be up to them to not let him get away with it.
Because we do want to win, right?
And it's sitting there for us.
It ought to be a time of great optimism here in terms of the future and stopping this agenda and derailing it.
You know, the Heritage Foundation's researchers have been busy this past week.
They contributed their own spin on why LeBron James is following me to Florida.
There's a new report, by the way, documenting the number of dollars contributed by companies on Obama's new export council to its presidential campaign years ago, some $2.1 million.
Now, Obama might wince at that disclosure.
And the Heritage people have recapped Mitt Romney's specific objections to the start treaty negotiations going on quietly.
All of this, all this research, is available to now the 670,000-plus members of Heritage.
And when you sign up and make yourself a member of Heritage this month, you are going to get their new Patriot Guide, the Patriot Guide aptly titled, What You Can Do to Restore Liberty in America.
And it's yours when you become a member.
So make yourself a member with a donation to Heritage.
Most of you contribute $50 a year, but you can start as low as $25, and you can still get the Patriot Guide.
And a lot of people, what can I do?
What can I do?
Here's another suggestion from some of the brightest conservative minds inside the beltway throughout the country.
Just go to askheritage.org.
My friends, there's strength in numbers.
Heritage membership is growing fast.
And this month you get the Patriot Guide on top of all the information, not to mention supporting all of their work in Washington.
That's askheritage.org.
And speaking of optimism, that's where you'll also find it.
Not just here, but at the Heritage Foundation.
Askheritage.org.
Be right back after this, before you know it.
Folks, it's like Ronald Reagan said, I mean, in terms of being optimistic here, we have every reason to be upbeat here about the future.
Look at Europe.
If Europe can rise up against socialism, so can we.
In fact, it's inevitable.
Reagan said the collapse of the Soviet Union was inevitable.
It morally could not sustain itself.
Neither can socialism, as we're seeing throughout Western Europe.
The only way it can be sustained is, and it can't, but it can be plenty painful while the socialists try to sustain it.
And in certain communist outposts, it can be deadly.
But socialism just isn't sustainable.
It just isn't.
And if the Republicans cannot beat an avowed post-American socialist with everything they're going to have in their arsenal of ammunition, then, whoa.
I mean, look at here's the Republicans most likely are going to win the House without having to say a word.
The danger is that they will win the House without saying a word.
They've got to say a word.
They've got to come up with an agenda pro-growth, anti-the direction Obama's taking us.
They can win even bigger.
Brian in Wyoming, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
I was listening to your reporting of the VP executive wife that was injured with that mailbomb.
And that's not unprecedented.
When I was in junior high, my father was on the legal team for Exxon to argue for the Alaskan pipeline.
And he got a suspicious package at his office.
And after that, the FBI came to our house and talked to his kids about being kidnapped and looking for suspicious packages.
And just the day after that, while we were at school, my mother had to call because a package was left on our doorstep there, too.
So that's not an unprecedented thing that happened.
No, it's not unprecedented.
But look, my point is, if the Democrats are going to run around and try to blame rhetoric for the actions of people like Tim McVay or others, well, let's be fair about this.
Who is it that's been ginning up all this hatred at BP and big oil in general?
It's Bill Clinton.
It's Barack Obama.
It's Harry Reid and Pelosi.
And it was Ted Kaczynski who was sending her.
He was the unabomber.
I think this is, of course, it's not unprecedented by any shape, way, man, or form.
But these people need to be held accountable if they're going to try to hold others accountable to shut them up.
By the way, what did they tell you about avoiding kidnapping?
Well, they did, you know, the simple things, always walk with somebody else.
They made up a buddy system for us with me and my older brothers so that we all left school at the same time.
And my mom picked us up on a different corner of the school yard so we weren't at the front of the school getting picked up.
How long did this go on in your life?
It seemed like it was just a couple months.
We changed our routine up quite a bit for a couple of years.
After you got the fake bomb in the mail?
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
One funny thing that happened, I had a WACO science teacher that wanted to recreate the trial, and he didn't know my father was one of those attorneys.
And he gave out assignments to all the kids.
You know, it's like one kid had to be the tundra, one person had to be the caribou, and he wanted to do this trial where he would recreate the trial.
Well, none of the kids wanted to be any of the oil executives, so I said I would take all of those on.
And I came home and I told my dad about the assignment.
And he's kind of a grumpy old man that wasn't very approachable, I thought, as a kid.
But when I told him about that assignment, he sort of lit up.
And the next day he came home.
He had all these typed-up 3x5 cards with that.
And we had the trial.
We had another class come in and be the jury.
And then they had to write what they thought.
And it was unanimous in favor of the pipeline after I was finished.
Way too go.
I wish I had more time, but I don't.
I've got to run.
I have the constraints of time arguing against here.
Thanks for the call, though.
And Denver Post back in June ran a story with a poll.
62% of American Hispanics support the Arizona law.
61% of Hispanics in Colorado support the Arizona immigration law, which would give credence to the anecdotal story from Sophia from Miami.
Anyway, we got much more on this and lots of other things.
▲
Export Selection