Rush Limbaugh Program - February 12, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 12, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:55

February 12, 2013, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	That's what we're interested in here, folks, is fairness and balance.
	Everybody having a fair shot and everybody having a fair result.
	That's what we do here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
	I was dead serious.
	We talked about this yesterday.
	The Democrats, Obama, they can't win in the arena of ideas.
	That's not what their campaigns are about.
	They can't even give voice, honestly, to their ideas.
	So what they do is simply discredit, tarnish, destroy, ruin, whatever word you want to use, their opponents.
	And they do it in the case of the presidential campaign, there was two to three months in the spring to summer, where all that Romney stuff ran.
	Romney didn't have any money, couldn't run, he couldn't use any of the money he'd raised for the presidential campaign until after the convention, opted not to spend any of his own.
	So all those ads about Romney being a felon.
	And Stephanie Cutter was out yesterday repeating it, by the way, that she was right, and he and Romney still is a felon.
	And the ads about Romney not caring that some guy's wife died of cancer.
	Romney doesn't care about dogs, mistreated his dog, put him in a cage on a roof of the family station wagon on an on-the-road vacation.
	And I tell you, it showed up the exit poll question.
	I told you this.
	They get the exit poll, the first wave at five o'clock.
	There were two things that oh my God, we're gonna lose this.
	At five o'clock.
	The one was that nearly 60% still blame Bush for the economy.
	Well, that alone is the election, if that's the case.
	But then the big one, 81 to 19 in favor of Obama, and the question was cares about people like me.
	Now, how are they able to pull that off?
	I'm telling you, it was with their ad campaign that totally destroyed Romney.
	And in truth, Romney may be the most decent full-fledged citizen of the United States ever to run for president.
	Maybe the most decent, most charitable, most selfless, most giving man and family ever to run, was successfully portrayed as the devil incarnate.
	When it came to what he would do to you if he were president.
	I don't think there's any question about it.
	The um the media, I don't know if you've heard this.
	There were two stories in two days.
	Yesterday, Esquire came out, and I'm glad I didn't touch this yesterday because something about it.
	It came late in the day, but something about it just my instinct said, don't touch this yet.
	It was about the Navy SEAL that shot Obama.
	Big long story in Esquire, written by Phil Bronstein, El Macho is his nickname.
	Used to be married to Sharon Stone.
	Used to be the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.
	And you remember this guy for his birthday, she got him a trip, private trip to some wild animal exhibit at the San Diego Zoo, and one of these wild animals promptly bit his foot nearly off.
	El Macho.
	Anyway, El Macho did this piece on this Navy SEAL.
	Who the guy that pulled the trigger on Bin Laden got nothing.
	Soon as he gets out, no health care, no pension, no nothing.
	How right a long story.
	And it turns out to be untrue.
	And the question not is Bronstein get it wrong or just make it up.
	Because it sounded like a good story, but it's not true.
	Military people get out of the military at five years.
	They're covered.
	They're not simply discarded and forgotten.
	Yet Esquire runs this story.
	Everybody bought it.
	Everybody believed it.
	And then Sarah Palin.
	There's a parody website put on a story that Sarah Palin had been hired by Al Jazeera.
	And there were quotes from Sarah Palin about how excited she was to go to Al Jazeera because she'd figured out that that Al Jazeera is not liberally biased.
	And some some blogger at the Washington Post, Susie Parker, runs this story making fun of it was a total parody, just totally bought it.
	I mean, you don't know what's true anymore.
	And then of course there was the um the fake news that came out of the uh Newtown Connecticut town hall meeting where the media literally made up the fact that there was heckling going on of Second Amendment types were heckling parents of children that got killed at Newtown.
	It never happened was totally made up and that story went on for days.
	And it was repeated all over the drive by media I mean I it really is journalistic malpractice is everywhere.
	Now, on the Palin story, why do you think, I mean, this woman, Susie Parker, this so-called journalist at the Washington Post, she corrected her story, by the way, as Michelle Malkin writes.
	She corrected her story by manufacturing an entirely new hit piece, sneering at Palin for trying to remain relevant when Palin wasn't even in the news.
	Well, it was a totally made up story.
	It was a parody story on Palin joining Al Jazeera says Susie Parker runs with it as though it's for real Susie Parker but we talked about her yesterday she is the woman we cited about how the ban on nudity at the Grammys was anti-feminist and led to a boring show.
	She was the woman complaining about no nipples and no uh and how did she put it um well she wanted nudity she wanted full frontal nudity on the Grammys and the fact that the CBS said that there wasn't going to be any was anti-female it was anti-feminist the mainstream media doesn't know about anything so they will fall for anything.
	In the case of Sarah Palin, in the narrative of the Templars, she's an idiot.
	They want to believe she does stupid stuff.
	So when somebody comes along with a parody, it has to be true.
	It's a great institution that is being destroyed right before our eyes.
	They're letting people into this business who are no more qualified than Elmer Fudd to be journalists.
	They're being ill-educated, maligned.
	Now, let me segue.
	Yesterday, there was a story about David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post, who appeared on the Chris Matthews Sunday show, the syndicated Chris Matthews weekend talk show.
	And on that show, David Ignatius, talking about the misstatement of the union speech tonight that Obama's going to give, predicted what Obama would talk about.
	They spent jobs and...
	and guns and immigration and Ignatius then went on to say that he really hopes that Obama doesn't approach it as a zero sum game and destroy Marco Rubio.
	Not in the speech tonight but just in the in the whole debate about immigration and I took that and I ran with it and I analyzed it quite extensively and one of the things I pointed out is that that it it was clear to me that Ignatius as a lone voice very much aware what the Obama tactic is.
	It's not just have your ideas triumph in this case on immigration now the way Obama's going to win is to destroy the opposition and that's what the zero sum game definition is for politics.
	If somebody wins, somebody has to be destroyed, not just lose.
	And Ignatius, please don't destroy Rubio.
	I I found it profound, actually, that Ignatius would say this.
	I I and I went on and on and on about it.
	We got a phone call from Vinny in Queens who accused me of overthinking it.
	And he said, You're you're your vast intellect rush is getting in the way of seeing what's obvious.
	What Ignatius is worried about is that if Obama starts trashing Rubio, that there's going to be a backlash among the Hispanic population at Obama.
	And I said, with all due respect to Vinny.
	I said, I think you're overthinking this a bit because I Ignatius said what he said.
	I hope he doesn't destroy Rubio, because he knows what Obama's modus operandi is.
	And he says, these guys, some of these people in journalism, when they talk about bipartisanship and everybody getting, they really mean it.
	To them, that's salad days.
	When Republicans and Democrats are working, as long as the Republicans lose everything, but as long as they're talking, as long as it's civil, as long as the Democrats let the Republicans join the committees and play golf with them, as long as the Republicans lose, fine, but they live to talk about it.
	But Ignatius was clearly expressing discomfort, the idea that Obama is literally trying to destroy his opposition.
	So today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, a story from the New York Times, which in my overthinking rings almost the same as the David Ignatius comment on Chris Matthews.
	Watching Obama it's by Jackie Kalmus, watching Obama for signs of change.
	And it's pretty shocking coming from the New York Times.
	It sounds at times, this story does, like they are worried that Obama could just run amok, just end up being out of control toward they don't use the word I will toward dictatorship.
	There are parts, not the whole story, because halfway through she gathers herself and then the story becomes the typical total slobbering Obama's the greatest thing ever.
	But the first half of the story is very worried here.
	It's like the way Dr. Frankenstein felt after he created his monster.
	If you are familiar with Dr. Frankenstein was very, very worried when he saw the monster terrorizing the innocent townspeople.
	And then the monster turned on Dr. Frankenstein.
	Well, here, Dr. Frankenstein is the media.
	And they've created this monster Obama, and Jackie Kalmus is in part of the story a little worried that the monster could kind of get loose and go nuts.
	And this is not the first time that I've seen questions raised about Obama's stability in the mainstream media.
	Indirectly, but it's not the first time.
	In part, this story reads like a warning to Obama.
	And then, as I say, it descends in the last half of it to the usual slavish Obama gibberish.
	Let me give you some examples.
	On Tuesday night, the president will address the nation and Congress on the state of the Union.
	But many will watch as well for signs of the state of Barack Obama.
	Inside the White House and out, advisors and associates have noted subtle but palpable changes in Mr. Obama since his re-election.
	One confidant who asked not to be identified discussing the president said, yes, he even carries himself a little bit different.
	He's relaxed.
	He's more voluble.
	He's more confident than usual, these people say.
	He's freer to drop profanities or dismiss other people's ideas.
	Enough that even some supporters fear the potential for hubris.
	The potential for hubris.
	The potential.
	Anyway, but the point is they're seeing it now.
	Meaning, you know, hubris is an out-of-control self-absorption.
	Narcissism.
	Self-love.
	Guy who can't stop looking at himself in the mirror.
	Because he loves it.
	And they're worried.
	So New York Times has found people worried Obama is getting a big head now.
	He won second and he's all and he's cussing up a storm and and he's he's just he's telling other people that their ideas are full of it.
	He's not listening to anybody.
	He's really off on his own.
	A man who attended a meeting in December between Obama and Bidness executives was struck by the contrast with a tense and perfunctory session months before the president was re-elected compared to this session.
	To say he was a different person is too strong, but he was someone who's won a second term.
	He isn't gonna run again.
	This was a relaxed, engaged president genuinely wanting to connect.
	As the president prepares to outline his second term agenda, it's clear from these personal accounts as well as his public acts that he has shown an assertiveness, a self-possession, even cockiness that contrasts with the caution, the compromise, and the reserve that he should.
	They're worried he's out of control, folks.
	They're putting it out there.
	David Ignatius yesterday, New York Times today, I'm not overthinking it.
	I'm not making too much of this.
	I'm just telling you it's out there.
	I mean watching Obama for signs of change.
	Signs for the state of Obama, and they're worried out of control.
	Uh just can't do anything wrong.
	They're really there's some people that are terribly concerned.
	And like, for example, will he overreach?
	Will he alienate some Americans?
	Will he cement the partisan divide he once promised to bridge?
	Now, of course, see that's absurd, because yeah, he promised to bridge it, but he gave up on that when the first day he was inaugurated, 2009.
	There hadn't even been any pretense at bridging the partisan divide.
	He is the divider-in-chief.
	But now they're worried about it, is the point.
	And as I say, the last half of the story, this all changes, becomes total slavish self-devotion, and Obama's a greatest thing since sliced bread and so forth.
	Among his remaining aides, it is not plain who might confront him at any danger signs.
	Meaning that nobody got the guts to say, hey, you know what?
	You're about to go off the rails here.
	telling you, don't make too much of it, but two days in a row, just wanted to point it out here, folks.
	Music.
	From the Hill.com, a former medal of well, current Medal of Honor winner has turned down an invitation to attend the misstatement of the Union tonight.
	Former Army Staff Sergeant Clint Ramesha, who got the Medal of Honor at the White House two days ago on Monday, yesterday, has declined the first lady's invitation to sit in her box tonight at the Miss Statement of the Union.
	Clint Ramesha told CNN he'll watch with friends from his former unit and his wife.
	He's done some soul searching.
	As much as a great honor it would be to be a guest of the first lady in her box.
	It's also kind of hard to break away from the friends and the family and all the great guys here.
	So he's not showing up.
	Medal of Honor winners saying no mass.
	Nomas.
	Larry in Ithaca, Michigan.
	Welcome, sir, to the EIB network as we head back to the phones.
	Hello.
	Yeah, good afternoon, Rush.
	I got a comment about Stenny Hoyer saying we got a paying problem.
	Paying for it problem, right.
	Right.
	Yeah, well, I don't know where Mr. Hoyer's been the last four years, but I can tell you this.
	We have over eight million people unemployed and dropped out of the workforce here in this country.
	That's a lot of lost revenue.
	There's no need to raise taxes.
	We need to create private sector jobs.
	That will take care of Mr. Hoyer's paying problem.
	Well, that's that's what Obama's gonna do tonight.
	Um he's gonna uh uh he's gonna say that probably already created four million of those.
	Uh we fixed the debt.
	He's he's gonna talk, he's gonna hail his job creation tonight.
	And then talk about he's gonna focus on jobs, create even more.
	Yeah, but most of his jobs were in the public sector.
	Yeah, and there haven't been eight million or four million whatever created anyway, and if some of them are replacement, but the the in terms of a net net, there aren't eight million, four million, two million net new jobs, as you correctly said, the labor force participation rate since uh January 2009 is down eight and a half million.
	That's how many jobs have been lost.
	And I don't just mean people who've lost their jobs.
	That many jobs that no longer exist to be filled.
	It's not just people who lost jobs, but the jobs are open, the jobs are gone.
	And with eight and a half million fewer people, fewer jobs, that's you're right.
	There's much less tax revenue being collected.
	But if we got all those, if we if we replaced all those jobs, we still wouldn't have the money to pay for the spending that Obama has engaged in.
	There's there's no amount of tax revenue increase that could be reasonably expected to occur that would get anywhere near paying for this spending.
	Nowhere near it, folks, and don't fall for anybody saying so.
	The End Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
	Rushlin boss serving humanity and all life forms here behind the golden EIB microphone.
	Here is Susan in San Antonio, Texas.
	I'm glad you called.
	Great to have you here.
	Thank you.
	I've such an honor to be able to speak to you.
	Appreciate that very much.
	I understand.
	Rush, my my question to you is if what you say is true that the majority of people believe the lies that were told about Mitt Romney.
	What can a conservative candidate do to get elected in the future?
	Okay, fur one thing.
	I don't believe a majority of people did.
	A majority of the people who voted uh voted for Obama for uh for a host of reasons, but remember four million Republicans that did vote in 2008 didn't vote in uh 2012, and that wasn't because of Obama's ad campaign about Romney.
	They didn't vote for Romney for different reasons.
	But the answer to your question, I don't want to cloud the issue.
	Very simple, you tell the truth about Obama.
	Do you realize that that Romney, nor any Republican consultant, ever ran a single ad telling the American people who Obama is.
	They in not one sp when Romney goes out and says, Hey, I like Obama.
	You know, he's a nice guy.
	He's just in over his head, or he's just a little misguided.
	Up against you are a felon and you don't care when guys' wives die and you don't care about poor people and you don't care about what's gonna win.
	We were afraid to tell the truth about Obama because of his race.
	Now I the the lesson learned here is that we are gonna have to define the opponent in addition to defining ourselves.
	We let them pick our candidates, A, and then we let them define our candidates while we sit around and believe this silly notion that if we are critical, the independents are gonna get mad.
	So we sit there, we play Mr. Nice Guy, and we say, yes, Obama, he's a really nice, a great family man, you know, but uh the president just didn't over his head.
	We didn't touch him on Benghazi for crying out loud.
	We didn't go anywhere near it.
	We let Democrat moderates uh uh media people moderate these debates.
	It's it's it's there's all kinds of stuff that could be called being aggressive.
	It's called being energetic, it's called being passionate, it's called articulating conservatism.
	You tell people who you are.
	You tell people how much you love them and how much you love this country and what you expect of them and what you expect of the country and greatness and exceptionalism.
	And then you tell them how all that's threatened by the Democrat candidate.
	We didn't do any of that.
	We didn't do any of it.
	So we're not even on the same playing field that Obama is on.
	A conservative can win it.
	Ronald Reagan won two landslides without a supportive media because he had the ability to get to the American people over the heads of the media.
	But the way to respond if they're lying about you, A, you run out and you confront people who are lying about you, and you tell the truth about yourself, and then you tell the truth about them.
	There's another thing that we've gotten into the notion of believing, and that negative campaign doesn't work.
	The American people are turned off by negative campaigns.
	The hell it doesn't work, and this last campaign is paramount evidence that it does work.
	Negative ad campaigns work, but we have ourselves in a straitjacket.
	We're not going to go negative and uh and we're not gonna be critical of Obama, independents don't like that, independents want us to get along, independents want bipartisanship, independents don't like Obama being criticized.
	Meanwhile, they can accuse us of rape, murder, incest, and that doesn't bother the independents.
	They just vote against us.
	I why do you think, folks, that Ben Carson is so popular right now?
	Because Ben Carson took it right to Obama.
	At the national prayer breakfast, Ben Carson, in describing what he would do to fix health care, took it right to Obama and told him what's wrong with it.
	At the same time, he was telling people what he would do.
	And when he said, why do we need to punish the guy who's putting a billion dollars?
	Why do we need to punish a guy making 10 billion or 10 million because he's already put a million in the pot?
	What are we to punish the guy for?
	Why are we punishing people here?
	You notice this guy is now becoming a hero.
	They're talking about running for president, and he's like, Well, I'm thinking about it.
	You know what he's gonna do?
	He's gonna quit surgery next summer, this coming summer, and he's made it up, he's gonna go out and start educating low information voters.
	Ben Carson has created this wave of support because he was very plain spoken.
	He was rational, was simple, and it was what everybody has wanted to hear.
	When Ben Carson, we played just two sound bites in Ben Carson at prayer breakfast.
	And my first reaction, why isn't there an elected Republican saying this?
	And why hasn't there been one saying it for 20 years?
	Instead, the Republicans are running around wringing their hands, oh, we've got to rebrand and we have to market differently.
	We've got to reach out to the Hispanics, and we've got to make sure that this group knows that we don't hate them.
	We're gonna make sure this.
	So they're admitting that all of his hate stuff works.
	Hispanics hate us, women hate us.
	Why?
	Because the Democrats have told us or told them who we are.
	We've been defined by Democrats in the media, and we don't respond to it.
	There comes Benjamin Carson, who is an obvious antidote to all of it.
	He's a living testament to how none of it's true.
	And the guy is wildly popular, and people are reacting to him not as a cult-like figure, but and not as a savior, but as finally somebody coming along once again outside of talk radio or Fox News articulating what they believe.
	And he did it right to Obama's face, where Obama was on the same dais.
	When's the last time a Republican did that?
	The last time it had Paul Ryan did it at a health care hearing that nobody saw because it was on C-SPAN.
	Uh but even that was he took it to Obama and how his health care plans all was all full of it, and budget processes, all full of it and so forth.
	Uh But other than that, it it doesn't happen.
	And we have a Republican Party's afraid to stand up for conservatism, afraid to articulate conservatism.
	And here comes a plain spoken, very rationable, sensible guy like Ben Carson, who, whether he knew it or not, was articulating conservatism, and they were going, yeah, yeah, where's that been?
	That's why the level of frustration that I have and many of you have is so high.
	Because this is not complicated.
	We don't have to rebrand anything.
	We don't need to rebrand the Constitution.
	We don't need to figure out a new way to market the Constitution.
	All this hand wringing about outreach to this group to let them know that it's not true that we don't like them.
	We do love.
	We've got to let people know that we want to help them.
	That's the latest thing the Republicans are saying.
	Conservatism by its very nature is about people seeking the best in themselves.
	And throughout society, throughout the culture.
	It's about that intrinsically.
	But if your opponent is going to run ads saying that you are a felon that you don't care when you're at a company, as long as you get your millions out of it, if some guy's wife died with cancer and you don't care, and you don't respond to that because nobody's going to believe that.
	For 25 years, I've been here at a Republican saying nobody's going to believe those claims.
	I heard the Bush administration, no, we're not going to respond to that because the news cycle is 24 hours.
	There'll be something else tomorrow.
	People have forgotten about it.
	Yeah, people forget about it.
	Look at what they did to the Iraq war.
	Look at what they did to the economy in terms of the media and the Democrat Party convincing the American people that we were losing soldiers at a rate unlike any other war in American history.
	Wasn't true.
	The surge wasn't going to work before it was even tried.
	Petrayus was lying through his teeth before he uttered a syllable.
	Harry Reid says, Mitt Romney hadn't paid his taxes.
	I got a guy who didn't pay his taxes.
	It's an obvious trap.
	It's an obvious trick.
	There are ways to respond to this kind of stuff by calling out Harry Reed.
	You don't accept his premise.
	You call him out.
	Okay, dingy Harry.
	You say Romney hadn't paid his taxes.
	Can we look at your phony land deals?
	How in the hell have you become a multimillionaire on a Senate salary?
	We don't do this kind of stuff.
	Because we're afraid people get mad at us.
	And the media will be mean to us.
	I'm voicing an elected Republican's mindset, not mine.
	I don't care if the media hates me, they always have.
	It's badge honor for me, but those guys don't like that.
	They want to be loved by the media.
	That's another thing.
	It's never going to happen.
	But I understand your question.
	Well, how can any conservative ever win if people are going to believe the lies that have been told?
	Well, you know what?
	There are a lot of people who believe a lot of lies that have been told about conservatism over the years because they haven't been reacted to, responded to properly.
	And chief among them is racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia.
	Look at this.
	Right here, folks.
	I have a story from the website here is Campus Reform University of Wisconsin.
	University of Wisconsin Superior, sponsoring a campaign that teaches students that it is unfair to be white.
	This, according to a university spokesperson who confirmed it to this campus reform website last Wednesday.
	The controversial project named the Unfair Campaign exists at the University of Wisconsin to teach students that systems and institutions are set up for us, whites, and as such are unfair.
	The campaign slogan, as it appears on the official Website, it's hard to see racism when you're white.
	But here we have essentially a university teaching students how unfair it is to be white.
	Well, that's how you get to a bunch of white liberals thinking that Chris Dorner, the murdering ex-cop in LA, is some kind of vigilante hero.
	He's only getting even with a bunch of evil old white people who've been running around running a show for all these years.
	White, it's unfair to be white.
	It's unfair.
	They got to be gotten even with.
	A playing field has to be leveled.
	Whatever.
	The project disseminates its controversial message through an aggressive campaign of online videos, billboards, and lectures.
	Posters produced by the group feature a number of Caucasians with slogans like, Is white skin really a fair skin?
	Sharpied on their faces.
	They have a picture of one of those posters right here.
	Too small for you to see on the Ditto Cam.
	The campaign was initially sponsored by the University of Minnesota Duluth, but the school dropped their partnership, labeled the campaign divisive, and alienating after a campus reform investigation brought unwanted national attention.
	If they hadn't been discovered doing it, they would have kept on.
	Lynn Williams, a spokeswoman for United or University of Wisconsin Superior, told the uh the campus reform bunch on Wednesday that, well, they don't share the concerns of the University of Minnesota Duluth.
	We don't think it's divisive, and we don't think it's alienating.
	Uh, we're using the campaigns and opportunity on our campus talk about all privilege and uh and to create conversations.
	It's unfair to be white.
	White people have an unfair advantage, and white people are being taught this.
	White students are being well, people all students are being taught this, but it's being aimed at this kind of stuff never gets countered.
	Well, that'll, you know, people aren't going to believe that just absurd.
	No, that's ridiculous.
	Nobody's going to ever believe that.
	Sir David Attenborough.
	Do you know who this guy did David Attenborough?
	Who is this who's the Richard Atman?
	Don't but don't confuse him with the historian, Richard Attenborough.
	Richard Attenborough, great, great history books on American Founding Father.
	Don't confuse.
	Maybe related.
	Sir David Attenborough has been accused of ignoring gay animals in his BBC Nature documentaries, an academic study.
	Dr. Brett Mills, the head of media studies at the University of East Anglia, where the man-made global warming hoax and its epicenter, Dr. Brett Mills,
	who's head of media studies at East Anglia, has said that while he doubts Sir David was deliberately ignoring homosexuality in the animal kingdom, he has nevertheless identified three shows that perpetuate the fallacy that animal relationships are predominantly heterosexual.
	Dr. Mills says that wildlife documentaries have a responsibility to show viewers a wider perspective on animal sexuality.
	And there's all kinds of homosexuality in the wild kingdom, and this guy is not touching on it.
	And so it's irresponsible.
	Attenborough shows push forward the idea that the survival of the species depends on, quote, traditional family units with biological blood ties and a traditional number of parents.
	And they don't they don't like that.
	They don't like that.
	They don't like the fact that survival of the species is based on heterosexuality.
	Well, I know it is.
	But see, this is the problem.
	That's discriminatory.
	It's it's it's discriminatory.
	You're leaving out the homosexual, the gay animals and their contribution to the survival of the species.
	Uh, Reginald in Atlanta, I'm glad you called your next on the EIB network.
	Hello, sir.
	Hey, black man ditto to you, Rush.
	Thank you, sir.
	Um, I just wanted to uh say a few things.
	As a black man, I'm totally disappointed in blacks who continue to support President Obama and the Democrat Party.
	And it's not that I'm even mad at them, but it's for one, a lot of them are my family members.
	But I truly feel sad that so many blacks have been just taken advantage of by the Democratic Party.
	And it's not even just Obama, it's just that party in general.
	But Rush, I'm out here working three career fields, doing what I can to sustain myself and spend wiser.
	But going by Stanley Horner, I I I mean, Stephen Hoyer, I guess I can go out here and charge for an iPad, then worry about paying for the issue.
	It's just totally ridiculous.
	And then I look at the long black unemployment lines.
	So sad.
	And it's it's like on election day, we got out of the unemployment line to vote for the Democrats, and then got right back in the unemployment line the very next day.
	And I'm just surprised that Democrats didn't even try to pass a law to allow people to vote while in the unemployment line.
	Well, join the club.
	Join the club.
	I mean, I I I can only imagine what it's like for you.
	Uh the rest of us think we're going crazy.
	It's going to be even worse for you.
	Thinking the way you do.
	Um, but we hear you.
	I'm glad you call Reginald.
	Thanks very much, and all the best.
	We'll be right back after the gay animals and the survivability of the species.
	Yep, makes sense to me.
	Black female unemployment, black and female unemployment higher than when Obama took office.
	That's a little note to Reginald, who just called us from Georgia, and we've got a brief break here at the top of the hour.

▲