All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
January 27, 2011, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Testing, testing, one, two, three.
Yeah, and everything's fine and dandy.
Here we go from Los Angeles, ladies and gentlemen, EIV Network and El Rushbaugh, as always, serving humanity simply by showing up.
One moment, please, while I turn down the volume.
There we go.
Nothing's changed, folks, except this.
We don't have a Ditto Cam out here, and we've tried to make that very plain and visible at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's just a temporary thing.
We'll be back with a ditto cam on Monday, and not here tomorrow.
Mark Stein will be.
You people on the East Coast, all the way up from Washington, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, where you people snow record snowfalls.
New York City, a record amount of snow in the month of January.
Record, total, since records have been kept.
You would think Al Gore was in town doing a global warming meeting.
But those of you stranded in all this, how does all the talk about windmills and high-speed rails sound to you today as a solution to your problems?
Just amazing.
We've got lots to do on the program today.
And again, ladies and gentlemen, no ditto cam today.
We'll say this repeatedly.
Still, I will get emails out to Wazoo wondering where the Ditto Cam is.
Now, I have to tell you a little story.
We're flying out here yesterday afternoon.
We got wheels up right on schedule.
I got wheels up at 4 o'clock, and I'm seated in the captain's chair on EIB1, and I'm watching on my iPad the remainder of the movie, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.
I watched the first half of it the day before.
So I got my headphones on.
I'm listening to this, and I looked and I see that we're over Tampa on our way to Los Angeles.
The door from the cockpit opens.
The pilot sheepishly walks through the door facing me.
The most, I can't describe the look on his face.
He has this, I don't know what, dour, sad, scared kind of look that somebody has on their face like they've got something to tell you, but they just don't know how they're going to tell you.
Well, immediately recognizing that look, I, I'm sure, affected a look of frustration on my own face because I was really into the movie.
So I took off the real radio announcer headphones that I use when trying to hear audio on my iPad.
The pilot kneels down on one knee and I said, oh my gosh, he's going to start praying.
What's going on?
He blinks his eyes.
He looks to the right, looks to the left, looks to the floor.
I don't say anything.
He says, look, I don't know how it happened, and I don't know how to tell you.
I said, gee, what could this be?
We didn't get your luggage on the plane when we took off.
I said, is that what this is about?
Yeah.
You just got your windows tinted in your car.
We couldn't see anything in the back seat, so we didn't.
Oh, so this is my fault.
I got my windows teated, tinted for security.
So you didn't see any luggage, even though you know I'm going to L.A. for four days.
Sorry, boss, I don't know.
We can FedEx it.
I mean, we can get it out to California.
I said, FedEx luggage?
Oh, geez, I can't do that.
What if it doesn't get there?
I mean, some of this stuff, I'm doing television shoots.
We've got to turn around.
So we had to turn around over Tampa and head back to West Palm Beach, where the airport is.
It's the only time I ever admit being there.
And put the luggage back on the airplane.
So we got out here an hour late, which was no big deal, but I can't, when he came back to tell me that story, the look on his face was, well, you can imagine what I thought.
I was waiting for him to do the Troy Palomalu cross, like praying before the play.
Oh, my gosh, this turned out to be nothing more than more than luggage.
And I said, look, you know, this jet fuels, you're going to have to dial throttle back so we don't do anything.
You got to dial it back to 550 miles an hour just to save some money on the way out.
He said, I'll pay for the fuel.
No, you're not going to pay for the fuel.
You're going to have to explain to me how this happened.
He didn't really say the tinted windows, by the way.
I know he didn't have, that's what it is.
The windows are new.
They're tinted.
And he didn't see the luggage in there.
And he didn't have the guts to tell me that.
Not guts courage.
He's fine.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm just saying this has never happened.
So I don't know what's going to happen the rest of this trip.
This has never happened.
They take off without the luggage.
So we're here, nevertheless.
And so far, everything has been hunky-dory.
And we've got a couple of shoots for the Haney Project this afternoon and tomorrow.
And by the way, I must tell you, ladies and gentlemen, the TV ratings for the Obama State of the Union show were down over last year, significantly down.
The Gulf Channel ratings for the same time, 9 o'clock on Tuesday night, I just heard this morning, were a record high.
Voila!
I mean, that's not a great thing.
I don't know what is.
And I want to thank all of you for making it happen out there.
We got all kinds of exciting news on the program today.
Great sound bites as well.
And we'll be getting your phone calls.
The phone number is the same, 800-282-2882.
This is from Gallup.
Somebody in the drive-by media not doing their job.
And they're really trying, by the way.
We've got, folks, we have unemployment news today.
It's unexpectedly high.
Claims for new unemployment assistance, unexpectedly way, way up.
And so if you read the story from state-controlled AP, you find out it was the snow.
Really?
So we went and we looked at the labor department's report.
The labor department is the official agency announcing unemployment numbers.
So we read it.
We scoured it.
The labor department doesn't say anything about snow in their report.
People get fired when it snows.
People can't get to work when it snows.
I guess the way they have to do this is if you have a job, but you can't get there, you are counted as unemployed that day as far as the AP Steno pool is concerned.
The only thing I don't know is if they call the White House first and get clearance to run this story.
But the Labor Department makes no mention of snow.
So AP just put it in there.
So we've got that.
We've got, and so they're trying, I've got contradictory stories.
Economy, it's, I mean, it's, it's on, it's, it's on afterburners.
I mean, it's really racing.
And then it's next story.
No, no, it's not.
The reverse thrusters are on.
The economy is slowing down.
And then here from Gallup, survey finds more Americans approve of Republicans than disapprove of them for the first time since 2005.
After Tucson, after the state of the, well, I don't know if it's after the State of the Union, but certainly after Tucson, after the first two years of the regime, the numbers are 47-43.
Americans' opinions of the Republican Party have improved to the point where now more than half have a favorable than unfavorable opinion of the party.
The last time Americans viewed the GOP more positively than negatively was in 2005.
The results are based on a USA Today Gallup poll conducted January 14th, 15th, and 16th from the weekly Standard blog by Jeffrey Anderson.
This is actually a January Kaiser health tracking poll conducted jointly with the Harvard School of Public Health now shows Obamacare to be less popular than at any time since its passage.
Now put those two things together.
Republican Party more favorable than disfavorable, or unfavorable, for the first time since 2005.
And for the first time since Obamacare became law, Kaiser now shows 50% of respondents holding an unfavorable opinion of it.
That's up from a previous high of 45% in this poll, with only 41% holding a favorable opinion of it.
The Kaiser health tracking poll has always been an outlier poll showing unusually favorable results for Obamacare.
Previously, the largest margin of opposition in this poll was just three points, but a nine-point jump in opposition seems like a bit more than an uptick.
Almost a 10-point margin doesn't seem all that roughly divided.
Kaiser Harvard's political leanings are evident in its write-up, according to the blog, as a shift from 41% opposition last month to 50% opposition this month is described as an uptick.
Almost 10 points is not an uptick whatsoever.
So Obamacare, and this is a poll, as I say, traditionally favorable to the regime.
Now, we know in most polls, the number of people that oppose Obamacare and want it repealed are in the mid-upper 50s and some polls low 60s.
So here, Republicans more favorable than unfavorable, first time since 2005.
Obamacare less popular than any time since it became law.
Let's see what's next in the stack of stuff here.
Let's see.
Well, interesting numbers.
Going back over the past State of the Union addresses, when George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address in 2007, unemployment was 4.6%.
When he gave his last State of the Union in 2008, it was 5%.
That's up 0.4%.
Compared to when Obama gave his State of the Union address in 2009, 7.8% and in 2010, 9.7.
So Bush's last State of the Union, 2008, 5%.
In Obama's State of the Union, 9.7%.
And the president is touting the growth of government and more government programs as a way to grow the economy.
From the stenographers at the Associated Press, employers will hire more workers this week, and the economy will grow faster than envisioned three months ago, according to an AP survey that found growing optimism among leading economists.
Now, these are the economists that have been predicting this ever since January 20th, 2009, and they're going, but unemployment will stay chronically high, nearly 9% by year's end.
The latest quarterly AP economic survey shows a majority of economists say it'll be 2016, my good friends.
2016 or later before unemployment drops to historically normal rate of around 5%.
Now, notice here, I've read this story front to back.
AP tries to avoid mentioning the extension of the Bush tax cuts as part of the cause for any of the supposed optimism.
But you know that the extension, I mean, Obama's out there trying to take credit for it.
Obama's out there.
Look what I did.
Look what I did.
They're cutting taxes.
The AP wants to leave all that out.
Also, the pie-in-the-sky projections don't even add up.
For instance, how can you double the number of jobs added and not lower the unemployment rate?
And that's what this story says they're going to do.
They're going to double the number of jobs added.
So, headline says it all.
AP survey outlook for 2011 economy is brightening.
What's next in this stack of stuff?
Oh, from the Wall Street Journal, deficit outlook darkens.
Federal budget deficit will reach a record of nearly $1.5 trillion this year due to the weak economy.
Now, what is your average news consumer to do here?
Outlook for 2011 economy brightening, AP.
Wall Street Journal, federal budget deficit reach a record high, nearly $1.5 trillion in 2011 due to the weak economy, higher spending, and fresh tax cuts.
This is according to congressional budget analysts, the beloved nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
But according to the previous story, what weak economy and what fresh tax cuts?
Haven't been any tax cuts.
And this is blasphemy here to write about a weak economy.
What's next in this stack here?
Let's see.
Let's see.
Ah, from the AP.
Okay, AP, let's just do this in chronological order here as we've done it.
AP survey outlook for 2011 economy is brightening.
Deficit outlook darkens.
Slowing economy.
Wall Street Journal.
Back to AP.
The economy isn't growing fast enough to lower unemployment.
Still needs help from the Federal Reserve's $600 billion Treasury bond purchase program.
That was the assessment yesterday of Fed policy.
What is a news consumer to do here?
AP survey outlook for 2011 economy brightening.
Uh-uh.
Federal budget deficit record high, $1.5 trillion.
Weak economy.
Economy isn't growing fast enough to lower unemployment.
And here we have the previously mentioned unemployment news.
The number of people applying for unemployment benefits rose sharply last week, but the figures were largely distorted by rare snowstorms that swept through the Southeast.
Applications surged last week by a seasonally adjusted 51,000 to 454,000.
That's the highest level since late October.
A government analyst said that a major reason for the spike was the harsh weather in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
That forced many companies to shut down temporarily.
Did they fire people?
Also prevented many people from applying for benefits.
Oh, no, my God.
Failure couldn't apply for benefits.
Man, if you can't apply for benefits, your world is empty.
When state orifices, which had closed, reopened and people were able to file for their benefits, that pushed the number of requests up sharply.
As I say, there's no mention of snow or any weather anywhere in the Department of Labor's press release reporting this week's jobless figures.
But we've compared and contrasted this with the earlier news article from the same writer, Janine Aversa.
So the AP is contradicting itself all over the place.
Did it ever snow during the Bush years?
Will we ever hear about snow and any impact it had on the unemployment numbers during the Bush years?
There has been an in-depth analysis of the State of the Union speech word by word by Alvin Felsenberg, and this took place U.S. News and World Report.
And he says that Obama's State of the Union was tantamount to plagiarism.
Doesn't surprise me if it was.
Obama's heart wasn't in this.
He just wasn't able to fake all this enthusiasm for the country, all this enthusiasm for Reaganism and all that.
Oh, Time magazine, cover story, photoshopped Reagan with his arm around Obama.
Yep.
We got that.
We got all kinds of stuff just waiting for the EIB ill rush boat treatment.
We'll get to all the rest of it right after this.
Do not go away.
And we're back.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes so far.
I was asked during the commercial break, ladies and gentlemen, if why did they just send the backup EIB plane to California?
Had the mistake been discovered, say, over Dallas, it would have made economic sense just to go ahead and fire up the backup plane to bring the luggage.
But since it happened over Tampa, we're mindful of economics and all this.
We always try to be efficient here with our costs.
So it made more sense to just go back to get the three, sorry, two bags than to fire up EIB 2.
Because then we'd had a deadhead EIB2 back.
We're not like the president.
We don't take two airplanes everywhere we go with 15 cars and so forth and so on.
We are responsible with our own money.
Would you believe if I told you, and I'm sure you would because it is I telling you the NAGs were ticked off at Obama during the State of the Union speech.
The National Association, gals, that's our pet name for the National Organization for Women.
Anyway, this is actually a post from Carrie Lucas of the Independent Women's Forum.
Anybody who naively thinks the government capable of fairly and efficiently investing in industries that create jobs and fuel economic growth should read the NAGS latest press release.
The NAGs are okay with the whole concept of allowing government bureaucrats to dish out billions of dollars to big business in support of politically popular endeavors, but the NAGs are ticked off.
They are peeved that their particular pet interests were slighted in the president's laundry list of targets for government progress.
The NAG president Terry O'Neill said this.
President Obama spoke about creating jobs through building our country's physical infrastructure, investing in research and development, and reinventing our energy industry.
Were the objectives.
But currently, these fields are dominated by men.
Much work remains to be done to bring women into parity in these vocations, known as STEM, science, technology, engineering, and math.
Until we make significant progress in this area, if we want to talk about creating jobs for women, we have to talk about rebuilding our human infrastructure, including teaching, nursing, and social work.
Note, they left out housewife.
These positions not only employ women, but they serve some of the most vulnerable people in our country, those the president promised to safeguard.
So the NAGs on the president's team nevertheless upset because targeted areas by Obama are areas in which women are not employed.
Science, technology, engineering, and math.
How petty, how petty can you be?
I don't recall.
I have been behind the golden EIB microphone for coming to 23 years.
And prior to that, three and a half years in Sacramento, and prior to that, basically, except for five years, since I was age 16.
I do not recall a single time when the nags were happy about anything.
Not a single time.
And if Obama can't make them happy, I don't know who can.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have El Rushbo in Los Angeles today, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Since we're talking about the NAGs, the NAGs are unhappy with Obama's State of the Union show because the job growth that he envisions as a result of government involvement, traditionally jobs that don't employ women, the NAGs are unhappy, which is not unusual.
May as well stay focused on stories that might make the NAGs happy.
That's possible.
From Los Angeles, again, the Associated Press, having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does.
Oh, yeah.
Pregnancy is a disease out there, folks.
That's been the way the NAGs have spun that story for as long as I can remember.
Pregnancy is a disease.
But having an abortion, nah, it doesn't increase the risk of mental health.
It's according to one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions.
The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much, much more of a factor.
Abortion in Denmark has been legal since 1973, same year as it was here.
The Danish study included 365,000 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007.
Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling before and after an abortion or a delivery.
During this study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.
You nags have a long way to go.
That's an unhealthy ratio.
I mean, that's way, way too few abortions compared to the number of births.
That doesn't say much about the political success of your number one agenda item.
They're crying out loud.
280,000, almost 281,000 births compared to 84,000 abortions.
Why, if I were a NAG, I'd be embarrassed.
Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion.
Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling.
These numbers are tough to follow on the radio, but let's give it a shot.
Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling, similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.
With first-time mothers, or while first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, wait a minute, what's the point of the story then?
Study says abortion is not a mental health risk, but that having a child is.
And yet, first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems than first-time aborters.
So how do we arrive here?
Again, it's the AP.
While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher.
About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.
7 out of 1,000 who delivered sought treatment versus 15,000 out of, or 15 out of 1,000 who aborted.
I mean, the headline's wrong.
The details of the story prove the headline is wrong and the opening lead is wrong.
But how about that opening lead?
Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does.
But the dirty little secret is that having the abortion causes mental health problems, not leads to.
That's what they didn't tell us.
The Illinois Supreme Court, this, again, for you nags, it's about the Rah Emmanuel story.
The Illinois Supreme Court judge whose husband endorsed one of Rah Emmanuel's opponents in the Chicago mayoral race says she will not recuse herself from hearing the former White House chief of staff's appeal to the high court.
Aren't we beyond that?
Women have minds of their own.
We have spouses in every kind of business except science, math, technology, and engineering.
That's according to the NAS.
This is Justice Ann Burke.
People are saying she should recuse herself because her husband is close to somebody opposed to Emmanuel.
Well, I don't have to do that.
Aren't we?
Women have minds of their own.
We have spouses in every kind of business.
Her husband's Ed Burke, an influential Democrat Chicago alderman who endorsed the former Chicago Public Scruels Board president Gary Chico for mayor in a Chicago Tribune WGN poll last week.
Chico was in third place, breaking with a city elections committee in a Cook County court.
An appellate court ruled Monday Emmanuel had not resided in Chicago.
Well, you know the details of this, but anyway, a woman standing up for us.
There's no conflict out there.
And even if there was, I'm a woman and we have jobs in it.
Have we gotten past this?
We have, if we're talking about liberal women.
Oh, ladies and gentlemen, we have a, Mike, I know you have it standing by here.
The story will dovetail with this next one coming up here from the Los Angeles Times.
The Justice Brothers, the Reverend Sharpton, or Reverend Jackson, turns out are livid when they heard about our story yesterday that not one of the top 10 nominated movies for best film features an African-American actor or actress in a lead or support role or any person of color.
And they have said us, of course, we devoted to equal time and all that.
Justice Brothers have asked for airtime for this.
Somehow we knew they wouldn't be happy, which is why we readily agreed to offer them 90 seconds here to rebut obviously left-wing bigotry, racism, and sexism, homophobia, and all the rest of it coming out of Hollywood this year from the Los Angeles Times.
Again, listen very carefully.
Turn up your radio from the Los Angeles Times.
Got that?
From the Los Angeles Times.
In fact, Nate Jackson, the Los Angeles Times, a last-minute decision to serve fried chicken and waffles at a campus dining hall in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. was a regrettable choice and lacks sensitivity UC Irvine officials acknowledged yesterday.
Again, Nate Jackson, writing in the Los Angeles Times, a last-minute decision to serve fried chicken and waffles at a campus dining hall in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. was a regrettable choice.
The meal was served at Pippin Commons, January 17th, the first day of UC Irvine's 28th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Symposium.
The theme of the three-day campus event was Uniting Our Voice for Change.
Speakers have included Julian Bond, the late Dick Gregory, and the late Yolanda King, the civil rights leader's daughter.
The menu, again, this is Nate Jackson from the Los Angeles Times.
The menu and a sign in the dining hall reading MLK Holiday Special, Chicken and Waffles were pulled together at the last minute by a chef and other cafeteria staff members said UC Irvine spokeswoman Kathy Lawn.
The culinary choices were made without any university oversight, she said.
UC Irvine student Ricardo Sparks, a 20-year-old chairman of university's black student union, lodged a formal complaint with the administration.
Thomas Parham, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, tried unsuccessfully to schedule a meeting with Sparks and another student who had filed a complaint.
Sparks said he had waited to respond until he rallied other students to attend the meeting.
University officials said that they're trying to set up a meeting with Sparks and other critics for next week.
The chef has not been disciplined.
It was unclear if any action would be taken in the future.
Fried chicken and waffles.
UC Irvine.
Story by Nate Jackson in the Los Angeles Times.
El Rushbo, sound bites, audio soundbites, and your phone calls coming up when we come back right after this.
You know, there is one advantage, and I can only think of one, folks, but there is one advantage to having an abortion, and that is you don't have any problems with the birth certificate.
And we'd all have to all have to agree with that.
The week after the Republicans announced plans to investigate waivers granted to organizations for health care reform provisions, the regime's health department made public new waivers for more than 500 groups.
What are we up to here?
We've got to be pushing 800 companies, unions, and groups who have been given permission to ignore the new health care law.
We heard about McDonald's.
I love this story.
All during the healthcare debate, we kept hearing from the left what a rotten bunch of people McDonald's are because they don't pay their employees health insurance.
So Obamacare passes.
And McDonald's says, you know what, we're going to need an exemption from this, or we're going to have to fire a lot of people because we simply can't afford the health care provisions required in this bill.
And it was an election year, so Obama, the regime, granted the waiver to McDonald's.
The waiver, when anybody gets one, basically the government's saying, okay, the law doesn't apply to you.
So another 500 waivers have been granted.
Department of Health and Human Services is granting temporary waivers to organizations that would not be able to meet the reform law's new requirement for annual coverage limit.
We're going to spoke with lower premiums.
Everybody was going to get covered.
The cost of care was going to go down.
Everybody was going to get treatment.
And now we find out that people need waivers because they can't meet the law's new requirement for annual coverage limits.
As of last week, HHS had granted waivers to 222, or I thought it was higher than that, but we'll go with that.
This is the hill.
222 organizations covering 1.5 million people, though the number of groups receiving waivers has now more than tripled.
The number of individuals covered by the waivers increased just $600,000 to $2.1 million.
And Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS secretary, has the flexibility to grant waivers.
And this, as the secretary shall determine, that phrase is throughout Obamacare, as the secretary shall determine.
Now, why are they granting these waivers?
I thought this law was the panacea.
This law was going to cover 32 million people that didn't have insurance, including those McDonald's employees and those Wendy's employees and those Walmart employees.
and those Burger King employees and the Taco Bell employees.
Now we find out those people had health care to one degree or another.
And with a new law, they can't afford to maintain the health coverage they're giving their employee.
They need an exemption.
They need to be forgiven.
They need to be told, all right, the law doesn't apply to you.
But we are told this is just temporary.
Well, clearly, ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is there.
This law is going to, and by design, if these waivers weren't granted, what would happen to these people?
You would lose the health care that the president said, if you like your health care coverage, you keep it.
If you like your doctor, you keep him.
If you like the coverage you got, if you like the plan you've got, why nothing's going to change?
Well, yeah, unless you get a waiver.
But what if the waivers weren't granted?
What would happen to these people?
They would have no health care.
Either that or McDonald's shuts down, one of the two, what are you McDonald's going to do?
The employees are saying, all right, all right, I'd rather have a job without health care than health care and no job.
Well, maybe some people would say that.
Well, they wouldn't have either because McDonald's will go out of business or come close to it.
So the law is being touted by all these people as the panacea, and it's clearly harmful.
But these waivers are temporary.
Obviously, they're temporary because winning the future is all about winning in 2012.
And after that, all bets are off.
So every day we continue to learn about the absolutely destructive characteristics of Obamacare each and every day.
And that's why the polling data keeps showing more and more people oppose it.
More and more people want it repealed.
No matter how much Obama tries to sell it, no matter how much he talks about it or little in his healthcare or State of the Union speech, no matter what they've done, they cannot sell this to people.
And that's healthy, folks.
I'll tell you why, because the root reason they can't is because people don't want government in charge of this.
Americans are not Europeans yet and don't want the government in charge of any of this.
Plain and simple.
Let's grab a phone call quick before we have to time out for this break.
It's Tracy, Dayton, Ohio.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
You bet.
I just wanted to make a comment on the unemployment numbers as someone who has been employed, unemployed for about three years.
But one thing I think this is a little skewed because don't most people apply for unemployment online?
I have no idea.
I don't have much experience with it, but I'm told that's true.
I'm glad you mentioned that because one of the things I was wondering, they say unemployment rate went up or the applications for unemployment went up because of snow.
Now it seems to me that snow would keep people away from the benefits office.
But they try to tell us that because of snow, more and more people pile into the benefits office.
None of it makes any sense.
There's no logic to it whatsoever, especially now if you say it's all done online.
Well, you can apply for jobs online.
That's how most people, I mean, I'm not saying that's the best way to get a job, but that is kind of the way things are now.
So why wouldn't they have time to apply for jobs at the same time?
Well, because there's this thing called the interview.
This is true.
But really, unemployment benefits, you file for it online.
You don't have to go to the unemployment office necessarily or Walmart.
No, I actually applied myself within the last month for benefits and was turned down.
Why?
Well, why were you turned down?
I apparently have exhausted my benefits, although.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
What in the world happened to all these extensions?
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
By the way, I meant to mention this yesterday.
Michelle Bachman's camera blunder was not a blunder at all.
Everybody was ripping her CNN response to Obama's State of the Union.
She appeared to not be looking at the camera.
There were two cameras.
One camera was CNN's.
The other camera was a direct feed to the Tea Party Express.
She chose to speak to that camera, knowing full well there'd be more people watching that camera, the Tea Party Express, than watching CNN.
Plus, she was doing the Tea Party response.
So it was not a blunder.
It was not an error at all.
▲
Export Selection