All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
October 4, 2010, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, hang on a minute here.
I'm looking at this.
Yeah, stand by audio soundbite number 27.
Soundite 27.
And then we'll go to just like I said.
We'll go to audio sound night number 19 and in order.
And welcome back.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
800-282-2882, the email address lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have a question, a question I think only I, although others may have asked, I don't know.
Since I don't listen to others, they may have asked, and I don't know.
But I know I haven't asked it.
And until I ask it, just like until I say it, it hasn't really been asked.
It hasn't really been said.
Last week, they got us all ramped up on a new terror threat.
The Drudge Report was filled with headlines throughout the weekend.
Five European airports.
Americans are not to wear the American flag in their backpacks.
Americans are to be very careful about wherever they go because there's a new wave of terrorism set to strike and it might be from Obama.
Now, it just happens to be a month prior to an election where the Democrats, according to polling data, are going to get shellacked.
So the question, ladies and gentlemen, why is nobody accusing the Obama regime of using the war on terror or terrorism alerts for political gain right before an election?
Each time the Bush regime raised the terror threat level or changed the color code, whatever it is, or warned that there was a greater threat, you had the media and you had the Democrats accuse the administration of politicizing the terrorist threat, all the frightened people about Democrats.
And why were people to be frightened?
Because Democrats don't take defense of the country seriously.
And of course, the Democrats don't take the defense of the country seriously, which is why they would get upset over the terror threat being escalated.
But now the terror threats escalated and there aren't any allegations that the regime is engaging this for pure political.
In fact, they go out and they get churt off a Republican, well, part of Bush regime, Bush administration, Homeland Security Secretary, and they get him to be the one to warn, don't put a big flag, decal, on your backpack out there.
So here we have the regime using fear.
The regime using fear.
The Obama administration using fear.
And this is the regime of peace and love and post-partisanship and post-racial, post-whatever the hell, post-achievement, post-American.
And I just thought that I would point this out.
At the White House this afternoon, a press briefing, a question from a female reporter to Robert Phibbs.
Looking ahead to next year, do you feel the White House needs to make any adjustments in how you work with Republicans, or if it's up to them, the Republicans, to change completely?
Our focus right now is on the remainder of October, November, and December before we get to January.
But it sounds like the takeaway I get from that is that really it's up to them to change it.
You guys have, for the most part, done what you need to do.
We have, the president has reached out to and asked Republicans to participate in the activity that we know of as government.
Regrettably, the strategy from the very beginning, from Mitch McConnell to those that serve in the Senate, from John Boehner, from those that serve on the Republican side in the House, was to say no.
GOP strategy from beginning was to say no.
Hey, Mr. Gibbs, it doesn't matter what the strategy was, they couldn't stop you anyway.
I mean, even if the Republicans wanted to endorse everything Obama did, your problem was still the Democrats.
Now, look how they play this.
The Democrats were the ones that stopped Obama.
They had a supermajority in the House.
They had 60 seats in the Senate.
It was always a joke that the Republicans were saying no.
It was always a joke that the Republicans were stopping anything.
So now this just sets up exactly what I told you last week, exactly what I predicted to be the case.
If the Republicans take the House, and if they get close to taking the Senate, if they get rid of these Democrats' supermajorities, they don't even really have to take the House.
If the Democrats, if Obama is willing for the last two years to blame Republicans anyway, when they couldn't stop it, when the Republicans didn't have the votes to stop anything, what's going to make them stop blaming the Republicans when they have more votes?
This is exactly the setup for this.
Exactly what I predicted.
Exactly what I told you.
And Obama's not going to moderate.
I don't care.
This Wall Street Journal piece, I love the journal, but this piece is wrong.
Obama's not going to triangulate.
He's not going to go incremental.
He's not going to go piecemeal.
He's not going to say, you know what, I got to dial it back and work with these guys.
Yeah, I still want amnesty, but I know I'm not going to get it all working with these guys.
So I'll try to get a little bit.
He's not going to do that at all.
Obama's patient.
He's been amazingly successful the first year and a half here.
Okay, so two years, gridlock.
Gridlock is good, by the way.
Gridlock is good, especially now.
Gridlock would be great.
Nothing getting done.
But the only agenda out there is Obama's.
Even if repeal is a big deal, and it is, still not going to have enough votes to override an Obama veto of any legislation that would say repeal or defund health care.
That's going to require 2012 on a new Republican president, even bigger majorities.
But still, he's going to go, I think, full bore.
He's going to take advantage of the fact he can now blame Republicans legitimately.
I mean, Obama is going to act just like Hugo Chavez.
Hugo Chavez lost seats in his midterm election.
Chavez was just inspired to go even more extreme to radicalize.
And he's continued to radicalize after losing seats.
Hugo Chavez, Obama, same blueprint.
Etch it in stone.
Same thing is going to happen.
We know Obama's got a little list, things he wants to accomplish.
So if he can successfully run against the Republicans in 2012, which is what he wants to do, and get his second term if Michelle permits it, get four more years in his second term, that's where he'll score his big victories.
I mean, for almost two years, the press have been telling us Obama's moderate.
For two years, they've been telling us the Republicans are standing in the way of this moderate, brilliant young president.
Republicans just wanted to fail.
Republicans just want to say no.
The Republicans did not say that.
I'm the one who said it.
The Republicans would not get on board with that right off the bat.
I was out there alone on that for a good, what, nine months?
Republicans were out all publicly saying, oh, we want the president to succeed.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, this is October 3rd.
This is just a couple days of yesterday.
Hugo Chavez vowed to radicalize his socialist revolution even further after legislative elections gave the opposition one of its strongest showings during his more than 11 years in power.
He started on Sunday by announcing the expropriation of land owned by the Venezuelan agricultural company Aguyslena and vowing to hasten the nationalization of land held by the British meat products company Vestory Foods Group.
So, Hugo Chavez loses.
His party loses seats and he ramps up the radicalization of his country.
Chavez rejected the idea of seeking to mend relations with private enterprise, announcing the nationalization of about 618,000 acres this month, saying there will be no deal with the bourgeoisie.
No deal with the bourgeoisie.
Are you daring, Mithril Limbaugh, to compare our wonderful little president, Mithrid Obama, to Hugo Chavez?
Yes, Mr. New Castrati, I am.
Socialist is a socialist.
Socialism is what it is.
All I have to do is listen to Gibbs here.
I know exactly what these clowns are going to do.
L.A. Times has a story from Saturday, a couple days ago.
Democrats playing on opponents' words.
This election season, they are turning Republicans' oddball statements on topics like witchcraft and the president's religion into campaign fodder.
And at least in some races, the tactic seems to be working.
Kathleen Hennessy, Tribune, Washington Bureau.
One of the few tactics the Democrats have, making the race about some past statements and not talking about national issues.
In fact, that's a quote from the story.
The tactic was one of few available to Democrats, saddled with a national political climate, decidedly turned against them and a stubbornly slow economic recovery.
Kathleen Hennessy, let me tell you something.
The dirty little secret here is that the national political climate never was with Obama.
This is what we now know.
Obama defrauded a tremendous portion of this country, largely independents, who are ripe for being defrauded.
All you have to do to get an independent is to talk like you're neither left nor right.
You're a sinner, and just use the magic word change.
Just use the magic word change and talk about lowering the sea levels in America liking the country once.
It's a way to reach Peggy Noonan.
Just say you don't like fighting anymore.
If you want Peggy Noonan on your side, just say, we've got to stop fighting.
We have to work together.
And you'll get it.
You want David Brooks on your side?
Same thing.
You want Republican rhino media on your side?
Just say, we got to change.
We have to stop.
We can't keep going on this way.
All this partisanship.
Well, the problem with that is, is Obama was a fraud.
He's a far leftist radical.
And now his agenda proves that the American people did not vote for this agenda, Ms. Kathleen Hennessy.
And I say that with a great sigh of relief, because after the election, I wasn't sure.
None of us were.
We were going, oh, no, what the hell does this mean?
I had my doubts, sturdily.
I had my doubts.
You know, we've been wondering if we lost the country.
All these class envies, all of the class envy appeals seem to have worked.
Anti-capitalism, anti-freedom.
It's unfair if somebody has a dollar more than you do.
I know he was going against McCain, but I don't think any...
No, I don't think anybody else would have cleaned his clock.
I didn't see anybody out there willing to run against him.
This is the point.
We were running against him, but people couldn't vote for us.
There was no Republican to run against him.
First black president?
First black serious candidate?
Nobody's going to run against him.
Don't have the guts.
I'm going to be charged with racism.
You don't want this nation to experience the beauty of its first black president.
Whatever Republican was going to run was never going to run against Obama.
They never had the guts to.
Will they now?
I'm still not sure that we have a Republican willing to run against him now.
We got Tea Partiers sternly.
I'm talking about to go to the presidential.
We'll ask them to wait and see.
But my point here is that this country never was on board for Obama's political climate.
They were sold a bunch of goods.
And the reason Obama's in trouble now is because so many independents who voted for the guy, and a lot of Democrats too, are now realizing they didn't vote for this.
Who votes for economic destruction?
Who votes for ever higher unemployment?
Who votes for home foreclosures?
Who votes for declining real estate values?
Who votes for a weakening America in terms of national security?
Who votes for this?
Clearly, a majority of Americans are not going to vote for that.
A majority of Americans are not going to vote for somebody who's going to make employment worse.
They thought Obama was going to fix it.
They thought Obama was going to fix all the problems.
The country is suffering from post-partisan depression.
If you ask me, we'll be back.
Sit tight.
Here it is.
San Francisco has a long history of bold public health and environmental stances, going after everything from plastic bags and grocery stores to cigarettes to sugary drinks.
And now the latest target is Ronaldus McDonald's.
A proposed city ordinance would ban McDonald's from putting toys in happy meals unless it adds fruit and vegetable portions and limits calories.
The proposal would apply to all restaurants, but the focus has been on McDonald's and its iconic happy meals.
And of course, the AP is very approving here as they write the story.
And while they report this as the hotbed of reasonability, look at how our media just laughs at those crazy Tea Party people who complain about an intrusive government.
And they make fun of the Tea Party people for warning us about an all-too powerful government.
And here's the AP applauding the city of San Francisco banning happy meals, banning toys and happy meals unless McDonald's puts an apple in there.
It's none of their business.
Anyway, Patrick in Madison, Wisconsin, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you here.
Hi, Rush.
I'm calling really to chorus in on your earlier comments about the liberal report on discriminatory lending practices.
Predatory lending practices.
Yeah.
Predatory.
I think you were spot on on that.
And I was also going to add that I think it's an old chestnut that seems to get trotted out every five or six years in this country.
So here's the point I want to leave you and your listeners with.
It's not who qualifies for the loans at the beginning of the transaction, but rather the focus ought to be on who defaults at the back end.
If you want to prove discrimination, it's not who is and is not getting a loan at the front end, but rather who's defaulting.
Now, it's kind of paradoxical.
Wait, you need to explain that because a lot of people are thinking, well, the person defaulting is the person who got the loan.
No.
Well, not everybody that gets a loan defaults on the loan.
So I'm saying is if it's a paradox in that, let's just say African Americans qualifying for loans.
If you want to prove discrimination against the African American community as a group, you say all you have to do is look at the default rates and the default rates will be lower for the African Americans because what you're saying is that qualified African Americans are not getting the initial loans at the beginning as are equally qualified, say, white or Hispanic applicants.
And on the other end, if someone is being discriminated for, if someone at the other end, you're going to see higher default rates.
So if someone not qualified for a loan going in is going to have a higher default rate at the back end.
So that's where I think really where you want to look at.
It's the default rate at the back end.
Now, I'll tell you, four years ago when I was looking at this data for my dissertation, I discovered there wasn't any difference between black and white default rates because, or rather, it suggests that the loans are going to the right people.
The right people are qualifying for loans and the people that shouldn't get loans are not getting them.
So there was no difference in how the loans were going.
I can't say if it's the same way since the subprime meltdown.
Well, the Sun Tribe helped, that was not the case.
There were people who were not qualified getting loans.
That's right.
But I'm guessing it was across the board.
There were people, there were whites and there were Hispanics and Asians that weren't qualified to get subprime loans along with African Americans.
So again, it becomes a wash as to whether there was or was not discrimination for a particular ethnic group.
Well, you would think that.
But when you see the word predatory in this story, that's aimed at blacks.
Clearly, predatory lending was aimed at blacks.
And the story is that poor black people were sucking, you know, were forced to take loans, forced, which I don't know how you force somebody to take a loan.
Clearly.
And that's what I'm saying.
This is not new.
This comes out every five or six years that people say, well, look, X number of black African American applicants were denied loans in a higher than 20-year-olds.
The problem is with your dissertation here, the theory is that in the subprime category, it was blacks and Hispanics who were targeted.
The banks were pushed to make loans to those two groups of people.
Again, if that's the case in the last three or four years, I'm just saying four years ago when that report, another and earlier report similar to this one came out, we looked at the data and said, well, wait a minute, they're not defaulting at any higher or lower rate.
If they were defaulting at a lower rate, that would suggest that they're actually being discriminated against going in for the loans.
And that just did not and that just didn't exist.
Okay, now you're writing a doctoral dissertation, is that right?
I'm done.
But it was on decision-making, how people make critical decisions in their life.
That was one aspect of it.
Well, okay, which is all well and good.
You sound very doctoral in this.
But in these loans, Patrick, we're talking about virtually everybody who got one could not afford it.
And that was the policy objective.
The policy objective.
This was by votes.
This was redistribution of wealth.
This was pure liberalism.
Whether you're talking about front end or back end, these people were never going to pay them back.
That's why we're in this mess.
Nobody could because they were never qualified.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day, every busy broadcast day.
I'm Rush Lindbaugh kicking off brand new busy broadcast week to Atlanta.
This is Kiefer.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Amateur Dittos from the conservative suburbs of Atlanta.
Amateur what?
Dittos.
Oh, amateur dittos.
Okay, thank you.
I think I know the real reason that you went on the family guy, and it's not what everybody thinks.
I think that you needed to get your Screen Actors Guild card.
So if we do go down the tubes with healthcare and they refuse you at a hospital, even with all your money to be able to pay for your health care yourself, you will still be able to get in if you have a Screen Actors Guild healthcare policy.
Well, you are sharp.
You are quick.
You are really foresighted and quick.
You would make a great personal manager for somebody in this business who was not able to see the future.
Well, I've got a couple of friends that are fringe actors, and then another guy that, as he described it when Obama was running for president while he was working at Chicken Noodle News here, just another day helping to get Barack elected.
That my friend told me when he lost his job, thank God he had a Screen Actors Guild card, because as long as you've been active, I don't know the exact number of years, but he was still able to get great coverage even while he was looking for work because he had been a working actor within two years or something like that.
Well, I already have a SAG card because I've participated in many SAG sanctioned programs in prior years.
I can tell you that SAG healthcare is among the worst that you can get out there.
However, it would suffice.
It would help me overcome the mandate of having to buy if it ever came to that.
Sure, and I figured what constituency group is going to find some way to be protected, but the Screen Actors Guild.
Exactly right.
Now, we're just assuming here that I will not be kicked out of the Screen Actors Guild in such a circumstance.
I mean, it was, you know, it was touch and go even getting the card.
They eventually decided they wanted my dues.
But it was touch and go getting the card.
Yeah, because they wanted.
Now, you look at you.
Why don't you just rely on your AFTRA card?
And I say, well, the Screen Actors Guild is requiring a presence here.
Not all shows do, but, well, I don't want to admit this public.
Yeah, but under duress, I belong to a unions under duress.
Yes.
My union dues are going to elect Democrats.
This is, I mean, Bill Buckley had to join AFTRA in order to do Firing Line.
He wrote column after column after column opposing the fact he had to do this on the same grounds that I have complained about it.
Well, write an editorial as a SAG guy, a union guy.
Well, it's not a bad idea, certainly.
Not a bad idea.
Anyway, that guy's very sharp.
Guy, very sharp out there.
This is KC in Detroit.
KC, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Mega Dittos from Detroit Rush.
Thank you.
By the way, Reagan was president of the Screen Actors Guild in his day.
Look where that got him.
Well, to the White House, yeah.
I'll praise under God.
And I like that in the Family Guy episode, The Church of Reagan.
But also, your motivation for being on the Family Guy episode.
And first of all, with the guy having your SAG card, I don't think, I think you're more like Groucho Marx, who said that line that he'd never want to be a member of any union that would have him as a member of the game.
Or a club.
Yeah, I wouldn't be a member of a club that would have me.
Exactly.
A lot of people don't understand what that means.
Exactly.
It's a shot on collectivism as a group.
Yeah, exactly.
But your motivation and your performance, I wanted a couple comments on that in the sense that...
My motivation?
Wait a second.
You're asking me an acting term here.
My motivation?
You mean what did I use as my motivation when I read the script?
Or are you talking about motivation as to why I did it?
To why you did it, people.
I remember a few years back you did the Playboy interview.
Yeah.
And you took the stand that it was like Jesus going into the temple with the sinners.
Yeah.
That you had to justify being out among the dirty to show them how to get clean.
Right, exactly.
You go to where the sinners are.
Jesus said, in fact, you do that.
Exactly.
My only comment and critical comment on the Family Guy episode last night was when you were singing Republican Town, you said to Lois, you're saying to Lois, you're starting to sound like a Jew.
And I would think that some people, you know, very sensitive to the left, would think that you're no better than Rick Sanchez in the sense that they don't have the foreground that Seth McFarlane is a Jew.
And Lois in one of the episodes was found out to be Jewish of Jewish heritage.
So I thought, if anything, I couldn't figure out why you would say that line with the sensitivity that is out there, but I thought it was a good performance, especially with Seth Marshall.
I said the line because Seth McFarlane's Jewish and he wrote it.
Okay.
And I looked at it.
That was one of the two.
There was another thing, and I didn't quite get it myself, but I trusted the creator of the show.
So he says, if this is going to work, it'll work.
And there was one other in there that I didn't quite get, but I did not assume that I was to get all this.
I mean, some of this stuff is inside baseball.
And I would think that they would take it out.
The liberals would take it out of context at a point.
And here's what I'm saying.
I know what you're doing like what you.
I know what you're worried about is that some outfit like Media Matters is going to slice and dice and take some of these lines totally out of context as standalones, which, believe me, we're prepared for.
Media Matters has fired their best shots left and right here.
But it's a cartoon.
It was a script you will not find written by Rush Limbaugh anywhere in the credits.
People got to back off.
Besides that, anybody wants to question my commitment to Israel had better think twice before trying to make something out of this.
I mean, this is small chump change, minor little potatoes.
But I appreciate the call out there, KC.
You know, I'm really impressed by some of the professional-sounding reviews and analysis.
And by the way, I'll tell you this, folks.
And I know this is going to change the moment I say it, but I have purposely waited till the end of the program to report here.
I've got two different email accounts I'm looking at.
I've got my subscriber account for people who are members at Rush24-7, the website, and in a public email, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
And we set up filters.
We're able to tabulate here the emails that are pro and con.
And there are tens of thousands of them since the promos began running last week.
And over 90% in both accounts are favorable.
90% in both accounts in tens of thousands of emails.
Now, that's going to change now.
And in the public, I'm going to start getting spam because they think they're going to screw up with the program that we've set up.
We've already done the tabulations here.
Well, we already got the ratings.
I have seen nothing but the there was a story from TV by the numbers about Sunday night football last night, and it set a record.
It was not an all-time high, but I forget what the details are, but they did extremely well, which kind of surprised me because it was a dull game.
I finally tuned in in the middle of the third quarter, and I said, three to zip.
And I said, well, this is good.
It's a boring game.
But it turned out you got Chicago as a market.
You got the number three market, number one market, their team's playing.
So they had to be big.
And both, you know, Chicago's three, you know, the Giants, this is a save their season game.
They're one and two.
Plus, the Giants had their ring of honor ceremony at halftime.
And the only guy who got booed was Tiki Barber.
Yeah, Tiki Barber got booed.
Tiki Barber got booed, which the sportswriter community is taking as a defense of Tom Coughlin on part of the fans.
So I don't know how the show did versus all the other, but Monday Night Football won tonight, which everybody expected.
Look at the NFL, since the real, even preseason NFL, has been going through the roof.
And there's two reasons for it.
One is that it's real and it's drama and it isn't contrived and it's not reality TV, which is scripted by non-union people versus regular TV, which is written by union people.
And the rest of TV has become such a wasteland.
So you put something genuine and real on television and people are flocking to it.
Even with all the problems, and you might even say, even all the problems the NFL has is acting like a magnet.
All the bad guy characters and personalities and substance abuse suspensions, jail time, shotgun shells in the thigh or pistol shots in the thigh, standing in wide receivers of jail.
All this stuff is adding intrigue to the league.
Anyway, brief timeout is the time is racing by here.
So we'll sit tight, come back before you know it.
Don't go away.
By the way, folks, notice that none of my followers rioted in the streets after my Family Guy portrayal.
None of my followers rioted in the streets.
None of my followers threatened to burn anything over the way I was portrayed on Family Guy.
What does that tell you?
Okay, Sammy in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Hi, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Rush, how are you doing, buddy?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Look, I'm confused about something here.
You said something Friday, and I don't want to make you mad about this, but I want to ask you if you can tell me on the quote about McNabb being a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he's black.
That was a quote from somebody, and I don't know who I'm having an argument with somebody here at work about it.
You're having an argument with somebody at work over what I said about McNabb?
No, well, about it was you were quote, you were quoting somebody about it, and it got all blown out of portion.
No, here's, I don't know what your argument's about, but here's what happened.
Okay.
It's the ESPN pregame show.
It's week five of the NFL season.
McNabb is not performing well.
Everybody's wondering what's wrong.
In the production meeting prior to the Sunday show, you know, I learned they're going to be discussing why, you know, what's wrong with McNabb and what's wrong with Eagles.
There are going to be two different segments of the show.
So I'm listening to these guys, and my job is to object as a fan if I hear something I disagree with.
So they're going on and on and talking about it.
And I say, wait a minute, you guys, I think the problem here is that the defense is not getting enough credit for the Eagles' performance.
The defense is carrying the team.
McNab, I don't think he's playing that well.
I think McNab is a little overrated because the media, very socially conscious, the NFL is very socially conscious.
They want the black quarterback to do well.
I think the media has got a little prejudice in that regard.
And all hell broke loose two days later.
Nothing happened that day or the next day, but two days later, all hell broke loose.
So really, all I said about McNabb was I thought he was overrated.
What I said about the media was that I think they, as a bunch of social liberal do-gooders, are still interested in a black quarterback doing well.
And so they're willing to overlook the fact that he might not be as good as they want him to be.
And therefore, when they're wondering what's wrong and why they're tearing their hair out, the answer is right in front of their face.
That's what it was.
It was a comment primarily about the media.
Okay.
Okay.
Now, that's from the source.
I'm the source authority on this.
You can take that to wherever you are having this argument.
And I guarantee you, whoever you're having the argument with is not properly informed.
Here's the exact quote for you.
Sorry to say this.
I don't think he's been that good from the get-go.
I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
Media have been very desirous a black quarterback do well.
There's a lot of hope invested in McNab, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of the team that he didn't deserve.
A defense carried him.
Bam!
That's what it was.
And you would have thought, you would have thought that J. William Fulbright was back filibustering the Civil Rights Act for the way these people reacted to it.
That's all it was.
And it's five years ago, and they're still quoting it and talking about it in most stories about McNab.
So there, you tell them that at wherever you're working.
Folks, Tellers at First Citizen Bank on College Street in a place called Lacey called the cops on Wednesday after a man tried to cash a simple little stolen check, $470.
This prompted an investigation that led to a car trunk full of stolen mail belonging to 214 identity theft victims.
This guy, 24 years old, and his companion from Olympia, Washington were arrested on suspicion of 214 counts of identity theft, three counts of forgery.
And it was a quirk of fate that they got caught over a measly $470 check.
All of this led to permission to search the trunk, and inside they found six credit cards, seven identification cards, and driver's licenses belonging to individuals aside from the two perps.
I hear a story like this, and I say, none of this would matter if everybody had lifelock.
And it's so ridiculously inexpensive.
There's no reason not to have lifelock.
Best identity alert system going.
The number to call Life Lock, 800-440-4833.
You give them your social security.
That's how it works.
You give them your SSN, and somebody trying to steal your identity, it pops up in the process, and they call you.
Say, are you at such and such using your car?
Ma'am, it's stopped.
You don't want to lose your identity.
It's hell getting it back.
800-440-4833.
That's the number at Life Lock.
And you can save even 10% off that price.
The price if you use offer code Rush.
LifeLock at 800-440-4833.
And I said five years.
It has been seven.
It has been seven years since that McNabb comment on ESP, and that was in 2003.
Week five of does it seem like seven years is going?
It doesn't.
But every year, multiple times a year, it gets cited in story after story about McNabb.
All right, folks, another exciting three hours in the can on the way over to the Museum of Broadcasting, the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, for later display.
▲
Export Selection