All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:37
October 8, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, Siri Bob, here we're back at it.
Rush Limbo, the EIB network and the Limbo Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And today's a big day for us here, my friends.
The pre-order announcement for the next exciting time travel adventure with Rush Revere and the crew is out.
Rush Revere and the American Revolution, now available for pre-order wherever you get books.
Amazon, Barnes and Nobles, iBooks, Books a Million, you name it.
The book will actually be in your hands on the 28th of October, but it's available for pre-order now.
It's big, it's huge.
Big explanation description in the first hour.
It's available at rushlimbo.com if you want to grab it.
More details coming up later in the program.
But one more audio soundbite here from Dr. John Kelly, the U.S. Southern Command commander, Marine Corps general.
Again, this comes on the heels of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is, let me get his, he is the director of infectious diseases at the NIH, the National Institutes for Health.
And he's out there saying, who are these people claiming that Ebola can come up from Central America?
Why?
Who would do such a thing?
Why?
How responsible is that?
What is the evidence of that?
That's just people are anti-immigrant.
Well, the guy saying it's the commander of the U.S. Southern Command is all.
And here is the second soundbite in which he tells a story of a group of illegals recently found trying to get to New York illegally from Liberia coming in through you guess it.
I was down in Costa Rica a couple of weeks ago talking to our embassy personnel.
One of them relayed a story to me.
There were five or six black guys that were there at the border waiting in line to pass into Nicaragua and then on the way north.
And the embassy person walked over and just asked who they were.
And they said, well, we're from Liberia.
Been on the road about a week.
And we're on the way to New York City illegally.
They could have made it to New York City and still be within the incubation period of Ebola.
But it's just racist, I guess, to point that out.
It's just racist and big.
And it's anti-immigrant to point this out.
And especially to call it black guys.
Oh, my God.
How dare he?
This is a commander, U.S. Southern Command.
And I want you to hear those soundbites because Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes for Health said when people start talking about people coming in from Guatemala giving us Ebola, what are they talking about?
It's just, you know, connecting the wrong dots of different kinds of fears and opinions you have about immigration.
And I don't think immigration's on the mind here.
General Kelly, he's concerned about defending and protecting the country.
He's the commander of the U.S. Southern Command.
Yes, Southern Command, not Central, Southern Command, that's this hemisphere.
So anyway, you see how politics and political correctness has already come to dominate the honest analysis of what we're dealing with and the skewed opinions of how we ought to deal with it.
Now, let me go back.
Not too distant a time.
The President of the United States, when asked about ISIS, referred to them as the JV team.
Not that important, not that big.
And they were so invisible in terms of being on his radar that he did not even have a strategy for dealing with them.
And shortly after that statement, a couple others like it, some polling data surfaced.
And the polling data indicated the American people had dwindling, low and dwindling confidence in President Obama's ability to defend and protect the country.
A dwindling and low opinion of the president's leadership on foreign policy.
Within hours, a press conference was scheduled.
Not a press conference.
An address from the White House, the green room, I believe it was, in which the president all of a sudden decided to announce a strategiery for dealing with the varsity.
ISIS.
They had magically jumped from JV status to varsity.
And in terms of the real world overnight, he'd come up with a strategiery.
And I, your beloved and ever-honest on-the-point host, told you what everybody knew, but few really wanted to say was this is all being driven by polling data.
The president's already really told us his level of interest in this, which is not very high.
But there are Democrats running for reelection in November, and they're getting nervous out there about a lot of things.
They're getting nervous about the economy.
They're getting nervous about ISIS.
They're getting nervous about Americans being beheaded, journalists and so forth.
That doesn't sit well.
And you combine that with polling data.
It shows the president doesn't seem to be engaged or care about it.
Democrats begged him to do something.
And voila, he did.
And the conclusion was obvious.
That whole announcement was driven by polls, and its purpose was to get Obama's poll numbers up and attempt to renew the confidence of the American people in not just the president, but the Democrat Party in dealing with these things.
Well, how did that work out?
It didn't.
And we knew it before today because there have been previous poll results released, but we have another one now.
It's from Chris Steierwalt at Fox News, but it's everywhere.
Obama insiders and Democrats told the New York Times that they are anxious to see the president continue to pivot away from foreign policy with several calling for a new focus on jobs in the economy.
And you can see why.
Obama's about face on Iraq and Syria doesn't seem to have changed voter attitudes about his foreign policy and that of the Democrat Party.
A new, wait for it, CBS New York Times poll says that the president's approval rating for foreign policy is essentially unchanged since last month when he announced an escalation of airstrikes in Syria and Iraq and the return of U.S. ground forces to Iraq and increased arms shipments to rival rebel groups.
Last month, 39 people, sorry, 39% approved of Obama's foreign policy after a month of no boots on the ground warfare against ISIS.
His approval rating has jumped a staggering one point.
He's gone up from 39% approval to 40% approval, which means that the reason we're doing this from the regime standpoint has not worked out.
Now, I realize, my friends, it's a controversial thing to say.
The truth often is, but it's undeniable.
Six weeks ago, JV team, no strategy, meaning no engagement.
Don't really care.
Not our problem, except that it's our fault.
They're mad because of our policies and support for Israel.
They're mad because they're just mad at us.
And we've been too big for too long.
We walked all over people and we basically turned every country in the world into a hellhole while stealing everything they had so we could have a big superpower country and all that.
We kind of deserve this kind of thing.
They're mad at us.
That's why I wasn't interested.
What business do we have telling this little group where they can and can't operate?
That's their attitude.
But the American people have a different view of America's role in the world.
Because the American people view the United States as the good guy.
A lot of Americans still do view the United States as the good guy.
And they expect their president to be one of the good guys.
They expect their president to think of the country as the good guys.
And so drastic action was called for, and that meant a reversal, a 180-degree reversal on attitudes and action against ISIS, Iraq, and Syria.
But the poll numbers are in, and it hasn't worked.
ISIS is moving.
ISIS is moving, and they're continuing to grab territory.
And the bottom line is, if you doubt me on this, just check, just consult any cable news network you want, and every bit of this stratagem will be reported in terms of, is it helping or hurting Obama?
Not are we succeeding in beating ISIS, but is what's happening and is the way we're reporting it helping or hurting Obama?
That's our total focus.
And now this is now Panetta.
You add what Panetta's book is saying, and it is getting bloody out there on the Democrat Party side.
Tuesday, yesterday, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, NBC News reports, Leon Panetta showed up, and he said that Obama's approach in all of this is to be like a law professor.
You know, to sit there like you're in the faculty lounge and you stroke your chin while applying your supreme intellect to the task at hand.
And you weigh in with your words.
And you sit there and you talk with other learned intellectuals in the faculty lounge and you deal with the hypotheticals and the theoreticals and the philosophical and all of this.
And you do it in ways and terms and attitudes that convey a superior intellect.
While you, at the same time, ridicule the plebes you're trying to please and so forth.
And so Panetta says this guy just treats everything like it's a like he's a law professor, deals with it in the abstract.
And the prospect, the aspect of rolling up his sleeves and getting the job done is not the way Obama operates.
Obama's not a roll-up-the-sleeves guy and get to it.
And then Leon Panetta, yesterday on PMSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reports suggested that Obama has given up.
Let me see here.
Let me consult the audio soundbite roster and see if, let's see, yeah, let's start at number 12 and 13.
We might 12, 13, 15.
Let's see what we got here.
This is, well, it's yesterday afternoon.
Wolf, these two are from Wolf, but let's see what Panetta's got.
There's 12 and 13.
Gloria Borger interviewing Panetta.
Yeah, because we got a ban on PMS NBC.
That's right.
I don't permit any soundbites on there, so we got to turn to CNN.
So, Gloria Borger said, President Obama is taking action against ISIS.
He's conducting airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
He's really being tough out there.
What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Panetta?
He's made the decision to put troops on the ground in Iraq to try to help the security forces.
He's made the decision to arm and train rebel forces in Syria.
And he's made the decision to conduct air attacks.
So in many ways, he's made the right decisions now.
I think those decisions should have been made two years ago.
Well, it's not quite saying he's given up like he told Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, but the stuff he is saying about Obama is devastating.
Two years too late.
He's given up.
He treats everything here like a lawyer.
And Gloria Borger, not happy, then said, should President Obama have started airstrikes when Syria used chemical weapons against its own people, violating the president's clearly drawn red line?
The president very clearly should have said, you have crossed that red line, and we're not going to allow that to happen.
And I think initially my sense was they were going to do exactly that.
But somehow they backed away from it.
I think that was a key moment in time in terms of sending a message to the world that there was a question mark as to whether or not the United States would stand by his word.
Well, there was.
He's exactly right.
We drew the red line and then pretended it didn't exist.
We hadn't drawn it.
Paper tiger kind of stuff.
He's exactly right.
There's something beginning to happen here, folks.
Panetta's not the first.
He's like the fourth or fifth former regime official to come out with books or TV appearances really ripping Obama and his regime.
That has yet to happen to Bill Clinton.
And in fact, the people doing it are former Clintonistas.
The people doing this are former Clintonites like Panetta, who, on the one hand, looks like they're paving the way for Hillary, but then Panetta said something yesterday that does not look like it helps Hillary at all.
I mean, he just tore into everybody over Benghazi.
I mean, he just ripped into everybody, but there's no way that helps Hillary.
So I may have to modify slightly, ever so slightly, my analysis of what Panetta's doing here, because I still think that much of what he's doing is trying to inoculate Hillary from the incompetence of Obama and separate her from it so that she's free and clear of it if she decides to run on her own.
But nevertheless, he's just saying some devastating things here.
Now, Bill Burton went on CNN last night, Aaron Burnett out front.
Bill Burton, the deputy, former, former deputy White House press secretary, talking about Panetta's new book.
And Aaron Burnett said, it's a criticism of the president's policy, but more significantly, Bill, it's a criticism by Panetta of Obama's leadership.
He says he just didn't make a decision.
Secretary Panetta, he is a guy who has had a long and storied career in Washington and has really served his country well.
And it's kind of sad that in its twilight, he's done such a dishonorable thing by going after the president that he served at a time of a lot of different instabilities around the world.
This is so sad.
He's such a great guy.
He's such a great public servant.
And then it's so sad that in its twilight, he's done such a dishonorable thing by going after the president he served.
Oh.
So Panetta responded to this.
Charlie Rose, CBS this morning.
Charlie Rose said, there are those who say he appointed you to two of the highest posts in the country and just wait until he's out of office before you're going to criticize him.
Fine, but wait till he's out of office, Leon.
What do you say about that?
You know what?
It's exactly because I am very loyal to this president and because I want him to succeed that I think it's important to raise these issues now so that hopefully in two and a half years, you know, we can make sure that he really does have the kind of legacy that I think he deserves as president.
Yeah, and you're doing a great job building it up, Leon.
I got to give you credit here.
So, Leon Panetta doesn't want him to fail.
He wants him to succeed.
He really, really, really wants the president.
And there's another poll, by the way, speaking of Obama failure.
That many, yeah, here it is.
It's thehill.com.
Most see Obama as a failure.
Got to take it.
If you just listen to me, it wouldn't take him six years to see this.
Hey, folks, I forgot to mention something in all of the hoopla about the announcement of book three and the Rush Revere time travel adventures with Exceptional American series.
We got a brand new website.
RushRevere.com has its own site now.
We've separated it from the 2ifbyt.com website.
So the adventures of Rush Revere is finally moved up in the world.
It's got its own site, rushrevere.com.
And it's, you just go check it out.
It's so perfect for young readers and everybody actually, but it's made for young readers and their parents, grandparents, too.
And I so much on my mind here today.
I forgot to mention that too, and I forgot to show the cover of the book until the nick of time.
But it's rushrevere.com.
Now, one more thing about Panetta here.
He also is saying, when it was on MSNBC, I say with Andrew Mitchell, he said, from the very beginning, I knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.
This totally undercuts everything that Hillary has said and everything Obama has said about Benghazi.
Henry Mitchell, NBC News, Washington said, you wrote in the book that you disagreed with David Petraeus, who immediately after the fact told the situation rumor he thought it was a spontaneous demonstration outside the consulate.
Why did you disagree?
Why didn't it ring true that it was just a spontaneous demonstration?
And Panetta said, I didn't have any specific info, but the fact was that when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there's something else going on.
From the very beginning, I sensed that this was an attack, a terror attack on our compound.
Do you realize what this does?
This undercuts that silly excuse that it was a video.
It undercuts that it was an offshoot of what had happened earlier in the day in Cairo when we had apologized before anything had happened.
Somebody like Marie Harf, but it wasn't her, but somebody like her in our embassy in Cairo put out an apology for this stupid video, apologizing for it in anticipation of protests.
And then Obama and Hillary said, yeah, yeah, and those protests started because the video then spread to Benghazi.
And here's Panetta.
It's too bad he said this on PMS NBC because nobody saw it.
But that's why we're telling you about it now.
He said from the very beginning, I knew it was a terror attack.
You don't bring grenade launchers to a demonstration.
I remember looking at Petraeus and saying, look, based on the weapons that I see and the nature of the attack, I think this is a terror attack.
And he said, look, the information we're getting from intelligent sources is that it really is a demonstration.
I said, you know, David, I just don't see it that way.
I think we're dealing with what effect is a group of terrorists.
So, now, Panetta wants to sell books.
There's no question.
But where was this at the time?
Why are we not knowing this long ago?
Okay, let's start on the phones.
It's been too long.
Start with Yvonne in Tampa.
Hi, Yvonne.
Great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
I'm so thankful that I was able to get through.
I've just literally been beside myself lately about this Ebola thing.
Rush, I'm a physician, and I was in Miami in the early 80s when they first identified this virus called HIV.
And I remember back then, they didn't know a lot about it, and I had to go to this place called Belglade, Florida.
And at the time, it had the highest per catheter rate of AIDS, HIV infection, I believe, in the world.
And I remember speaking to infectious disease experts as I was concerned, and they told me, don't worry about it.
Even if you test positive for the antibody, you'll probably never get the disease.
Now, we know now if you're infected with HIV, a positive antibody, you're infected with HIV.
That's what that means now.
We didn't know it back then.
But you have to remember, AIDS was treated not as a potentially deadly, contagious, sexually transmitted disease.
It was treated in a politically correct manner, and people died.
And if you treat Ebola in the same way, a potentially deadly, contagious disease, people are going to die.
And I'm beside myself when I'm hearing these experts talk about people who are contagious.
They have means to stop people from coming in the country.
They are allowing people, this administration, to come into this country who are infected with this virus.
And people are going to get sick and people are going to die.
Now, wait a minute.
That's the way it is.
Wait, wait just a second, you racist person.
Yvonne, I was just watching CNN, and they just did what they called a reality check on Wolf Blitzer Show.
And they just said on CNN that it's impossible for Ebola to come across the border.
They told me that it was probably you're not going to get HIV.
That's positive for the HIV.
You understand I was being facetious when I called you a racist.
You understand?
I was just, I was treating you the way the left would treat you.
Because you're absolutely right.
I remember HIV like it was yesterday.
And I remember Ronald Reagan being blamed for it.
You know why Reagan was blamed for it?
Because he didn't talk about it.
Because he didn't talk about it.
That allowed it to spread.
It meant Reagan wanted people to get it.
And that became the operative theory that explained the spread of the disease, not anything else.
Reagan not talking about it became the reason it was spreading.
And you're also right.
From the get-go, HIV had political correctness attached to it.
And you were limited as a doctor in what you could say about it, were you not?
You were.
You couldn't report it the way you could report other infectious diseases that were sexually transmitted.
The same thing with Ebola.
I am beside myself.
People are going to die.
You can't allow people who are infected with this virus into this country.
The administration, this president, if people die, I really believe it's on his hands because this is something that absolutely should be contained.
Now, let me run a couple of things, Maya, Yvonne, since I have you and since you're a physician and you've been around a long time treating these things, these type of things.
When this administration, when people in the health industry and in the health sectors of the administration began addressing Ebola, one of the things they told us was that it's not spread in an airborne way.
You have to come in contact with a patient, physical contact or with bodily fluids or something.
And now all of a sudden we have this from the Hill.com no list.
The Ebola virus becoming airborne is possible.
Still unlikely, but it is possible.
And guess who's saying so now?
Tom Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control.
The outbreak involves Ebola zaire, a strain that has passed through bodily fluids, not the air, but some experts have expressed fear about viral mutations due to the unprecedented rising number of cases.
So the point is, it's changing rapidly.
Three weeks ago, not airborne.
Now it's possible.
The second bit of news that has been reported today is that Ebola can survive in male semen for 90 days after a patient recovers from it.
Had you heard that?
Yes, I'd heard that.
And I think I don't, look at there, you want to label people as panicking versus the fact that they're concerned, rightly so.
I don't believe that people are panicking.
I really appreciate what you've been doing.
You've been talking about this for a while.
This needs to be addressed, and people need to take this seriously, this administration, because this is not, this is real.
This is real.
This is going to kill people.
This is not panic.
Yeah, because viruses mutate.
We don't know how they do it.
I know.
We don't know how this is going to evolve.
I mean, and you have to be, you have to err on the side of caution.
And the president, this administration, they have an obligation to the American people to protect us.
And that's why I'm so frustrated.
Now, Yvonne, you're forgetting there's an election coming up in November.
And that is a dominant factor in, I hate to say it, but it is.
And I want to thank you, by the way, for acknowledging that we have done no panic mongering on this program by any stretch.
In fact, in service of that comment, one of the things that I have been chronicling somewhat irregularly for the past number of years is all of the erroneous health news that has been reported to the American people.
Over the years, all of this stuff that has created panic, such things as eat oat bran and you'll never get sick.
And then they say, oh, don't eat oat bran because it clogs up the bells or whatever.
And then coffee, caffeine, destined to give you a heart attack.
Then we find out caffeine might actually help with Parkinson's.
And then they say, whatever you do, don't smoke.
And we find out that nicotine, every day, there's some new discovery about some food item or some health item that can prevent you from ever getting sick or make you sick much sooner if you ignore the news.
And it's just people are bombarded.
My point is, and you know this better than anybody as a doctor, I can imagine what it's like when patients come into your office and they say, Dr. Yvonne, I just heard yesterday that if I eat two cashew nuts every day for a month, I'm going to reduce my chance of getting breast cancer by 20%.
Is that true?
And you sit here and you listen to this, say, where'd you hear this?
What was on the news?
And then somebody else comes in with whatever the latest supposed, if you drink red wine, you'll never get a heart attack.
Look at the French.
And then after that was out there for 10 years, that went away.
Guess what?
That's not true.
And so if you, all of this has to happen in context.
And now here comes Ebola.
And up till now, Ebola has been something way over there.
Ebola has been written about in thriller novels.
All of a sudden now we've got our first death and it didn't take long and it was all it was was a guy in Africa who came here and as far as the news told us he lied and he wasn't honest about things and then they said no he was.
He told us he was from Liberia.
He came here and they point is there are reasons for people to be concerned.
There's a general lack of trust in positions of authority in this government already.
There's no trust in running the economy.
There's no trust in policies that grow.
There's no trust in foreign policy.
There's no trust, period.
And it spans the political establishment.
I'm not even speaking exclusively of the Democrat Party.
There's just an absence of trust.
The institutions that people used to depend on now are held in great doubt.
And you add, you put that together with all of the flood of information coming.
And television, who knows who these people are that are so-called experts that are putting on to tell us about it.
We had a story yesterday about how experts aren't and how experts constantly get things wrong, how experts in economics are surprised every month about the jobs numbers.
And yet TV seems to have a limitless supply of experts from this health department or that health division or whatever.
And people are being bombarded.
But what you have here, when you strip all that away, you have a virus for which there's no vaccine and no cure, that the death rate can reach 90%.
That's all people have to know to then want to know what do they have to do to avoid getting it.
That's why they need to be able to trust when people tell them it's not airborne.
And then a week later, well, guess what it might be?
There's so many pressures on journalists to be the first to report something.
There's so many pressures on journalists and TV shows to be unique and have things nobody else has that it's all treated as just the next political story rather than a genuine health story.
Now, this is already being combined with illegal immigration and even the health communities refusing to tell the truth about it because it might sabotage their position on immigration and amnesty.
Well, that's irresponsible.
Immigration ought to have not one factor in this.
It ought not be a factor in disseminating information to people to help them take steps to protect themselves.
You have the general of the Southern Command saying, quite honestly, that he is kept awake at night worrying about an outbreak of Ebola in Central America.
He knows as well as the next guy that if that happens, there's going to be a flood of those people out of Central America to the United States for two reasons.
A, to get away from the outbreak, and B, to get to the nearest place they think they have a chance to get treated.
That's what the United States represents to a lot of people.
And when you have people at the National Institutes for Health belittling all that and calling it fear-mongering, all you end up doing is confusing people.
And why do you do that?
Because there's a political issue called amnesty that must survive whatever happens here at Ebola.
Those damn borders had better not get closed.
Because if that happens, the dream of amnesty might go with it for another couple of years or whatever.
And they're thinking they're so close now.
So the things that really matter to people are being subordinated to the political issues of the day.
And it has people who are thinking about is craving the truth.
They're craving leadership and authority that they trust, that they don't think has been corrupted.
And frankly, if I may be honest, I hope this program is one of those places.
I hope and trust that people who listen to this program understand instinctively that whatever is passed on about this disease here is passed on in the blinding light of truth.
If I think somebody is fear-mongering, I'll report what they say and then tell people I think it's fear-mongering.
If it's legit, it's legit, if I think it is.
But I have no political agenda attached to whatever I learn about this and then pass on.
But that's not true of everybody involved in this.
So it's scary is the bottom line.
Now you add to this what she just reminded us all of about how HIV became a politically correct disease.
And it was, HIV in the early days was the, I remember what people said about it.
It was the first disease that had civil rights.
First disease had civil rights, human rights, and so forth.
And it was all about privacy.
It was all about, remember that snurdy?
It was all about making sure that we did not find out who had it because that was an immediate stigma.
And that would lead to discrimination.
That would lead to no treatment.
So we were not allowed to know who had it.
We were not allowed to know how it was acquired.
That was also a biggie.
The way it was acquired was suppressed.
And there were stories of you just wait.
This disease doesn't know orientation.
This disease is spreading like wildfire everywhere.
There were all kinds of politically correct attachments with HIV.
And it's possible the same thing could happen here.
And now you go down to Dallas and you've got the Reverend Jackson trying to stir up that community down there claiming, well, this guy might have been saved if he hadn't been from Africa, is essentially what Jesse Jackson's been trying to tell people down there, get them thinking about.
So it's getting tougher and tougher and tougher to weed through all the noise and find out what's it.
Here's Keith in Dayton, Ohio.
It's great to have you, Keith, on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
Yes, I just wanted to call and say thanks for, you know, number one, writing a book like you did.
I know that not a lot of people out there really know that the families are affected by deployments like they are.
You know something?
Keith, if I can interrupt, I was surprised by that when I first, I don't want to give too much of the book away here, but I was surprised when I found out how many children of soldiers didn't quite understand why dad left.
And when I found that out, it was crucial that it be a central theme of the next book, which it is.
And it's a tribute to the military.
I mean, I appreciate your nice words.
You haven't even read it yet.
I hope it meets your expectations.
But that's something that I don't, it may surprise a lot of people.
Well, right.
And I'm just here to say that, you know, I know my son, he was five for my last deployment.
And to this day, I really don't think he really understands what was going on.
And I feel like if he would have had these three books or this last one, it would have been a little more comforting for him.
Him and my wife.
At age five, he didn't understand why daddy was leaving?
No, I mean, he knew where I was.
He knew the war in Afghanistan and where it was, and it was night while it was day here where I was.
But other than that, I was gone for about a year, and that was all, you know.
Does he understand now, or is he still too young?
Well, he's only six now, so it was just last year.
So, I mean, he still kind of doesn't understand.
But, you know, I mean, I'm going to end up getting this book, and hopefully, you know, it might be, I'm sure he'll love it.
And then also, I kind of want to make another point, too.
This should be marketed on, you know, military bases.
It should be spread around because, you know, military families, the wives and the kids, they're the ones that really, really suffer.
You know, they're the ones that do the time at home.
You know, and I think that it's very important to have, you know, things like resources like this book for them to help them through the deployments, you know?
Well, we have taken as many steps as we can.
It's impossible to get the book in a PX.
Not impossible, but it's a challenge.
It's not because it's ours.
It's a fairness thing.
They can't do it for it.
But we have reached out with promotional materials to a number of military organizations to accomplish exactly what you suggested.
Bottom line is, your instincts are right on the money, Keith, and we're on it.
And I can't thank you enough for your comments.
Even before you've read the book, I appreciate it.
And it really is the fastest three hours in media, too.
I'm already done.
And we have already touched on a lot, and there's still a lot to get touched on and be touched by.
And all of it above the waist.
So don't worry about it.
We'll be back with much more after this.
▲
Export Selection