All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
January 12, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, my friends.
Great to have you here.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and we come to you each day from the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No graduates.
There are no degrees because the learning never stops.
Great to have you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
It wasn't long ago on this program, ladies and gentlemen, that I, well, it was being a little facetious, but I made the point that when you compare three of the most important issues facing the country today,
amnesty for illegal immigrants, the full implementation of Obamacare, and leftist control of the Common Core education curriculum, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are aligned perfectly.
And I said, make a hell of a ticket that between the two of them, they would decide who'd be on top, of course, who would be the candidate for president, who'd be the candidate for vice president.
But it was to illustrate a point.
And it was right on the money, by the way.
And of course, the point being illustrated was that here you have the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee and that a man considered to be the next savior of the Republicans in the effort to win the White House, Jeb Bush, who pretty much agrees with her.
Or maybe that's not the way to put it, but Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, whose position on these three issues is hardly different.
So it was a way to make a point.
Now, all of a sudden, not all of a sudden, there have been lingering reports that Mitt Romney was going to get back into this.
That he was going to make another run at it.
He was telling his friends and his fundraisers to get busy and start lining things up in case he decided to go for it once again.
And a lot of that was predicated on what it appeared Jeb Bush was going to do.
If Jeb Bush was going to get in it, and Romney certainly was, so went the smart thinking or the conventional wisdom.
AP had this story over the weekend in a move that surprised his most loyal supporters and former staff.
Mitt Romney told several donors Friday that he is seriously considering a third run for the White House.
It's a dramatic shift for Romney after months of insisting his career in politics is over.
How many times did Hillary say she would never run for office again?
I don't know that she ever did, actually.
Now, should Romney follow through and enter the race, this is according to AP, the former governor of Massachusetts who made millions in private equity.
Why'd they throw that in there?
Have you ever seen a story on how Mrs. Clinton got rich?
Have you ever heard a reference to how Bill Clinton got rich?
The former governor of Massachusetts who made millions in private equity.
The former president who made millions charging people $500,000 per speech.
You never read something like that.
But private equity is supposed to be really exclusive, really rich.
Private equity is the enemy of everybody.
Private equity, those guys are stealing all the money.
They're stealing it from you and they're stealing it from me and they're stealing it from the poor.
Should Romney follow through and enter the race, the former governor of Massachusetts who made millions in private equity would hardly be a lock to win his party's nomination for the second time.
Romney attended a private gathering of donors on Friday at the New York offices of Woody Johnson.
It doesn't even say here how Johnson made his money.
You know how Woody Johnson made his money?
Lucky Sperm Club.
He's from the Johnson ⁇ Johnson family.
He's one of the many heirs to the Johnson ⁇ Johnson.
He owns the New York Jets.
And he's a Republican, but the AP does not characterize how Woody Johnson became wealthy.
Romney attended a private gathering of donors Friday at the New York offices of Woody Johnson, leading Romney donor in 2012 and owner of the Jets.
Two people at Friday's meeting, which included a conference call, was attended by roughly 15 of Romney's most generous and loyal donors said the gathering was meant to be an open-ended discussion among old friends.
Toward the end of the session, which went about an hour, Romney told his one-time allies they should tell their friends that a Romney 2016 campaign is under serious consideration.
He also acknowledged that he needs to act quickly should he decide to run because of all these other people that might get in, including Jeb Bush.
Now, this is all kind of fascinating to me, because if you put Romney in with Jeb Bush, and then you throw in...
throw in, say Christie.
Let's say all three of these guys decide to run.
And I don't know about Christie, but the popular conception is that he might.
But even if it's not, even if you just have Romney and Jeb Bush, do you realize what that does?
There has been talk about how the Republicans, and Jeb Bush has even referenced this, about how these Republicans, these establishment Republicans need to figure out how to secure a primary victory without having to pander to the Tea Party, without having to pander to the conservative wing.
In other words, without having to pander to their base.
They don't want to have to go out there and start talking about things the base cares about because those things embarrass them.
So they've been talking about ways they can go out and maneuver and arrange things so that they can get Jeb Protective, get the nomination despite the base.
Okay, now if Romney throws in, well, let me say one thing about the other.
One of the theories has been to get as many conservatives running in the primaries as possible and to water down each one of them by way of splitting the donor dollars.
Rather than having one pedal-of-the-metal conservative that all those donors could get behind, you have as many in there as you can and you divvy all that money up.
And that would lead and leave the primary, the Chamber of Commerce, mainstream establishment Republican donor class undiluted to align behind Jeb.
But Romney entered into the scene.
If he does, then that puts immediate pressure on the standard or establishment Republican donor class, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, because both those guys would be going after the same dollars.
They'd be going after the same donors.
And this is something that they're not factoring in, but it's something that they're going to have to deal with now if both these guys are going to get in because those donor dollars are going to be split.
Because if the nominee were either one of them, the donor dollars would all align behind them.
But now you split them up, and that puts at risk their primary strategy.
I don't know how you win the primary by dissing your base anyway, but they claim that they've got a plan.
They claim that they figured out a way to do it.
They figured a way to win the nomination without lowering themselves to sound like they're conservatives.
That's really what they don't want to have to do.
They don't want to have to talk about immigration the way conservatives do.
They don't want to have to talk about Obamacare the way conservatives do.
They don't want to have to talk about tax cuts.
They don't have to talk about limited government.
They don't have to talk about any of that.
They want to get the nomination for the Republican Party without mentioning any of that, much less supporting any of that.
And the way they intended to do it, I am certain, is by splitting up donors, by divvying up, by watering down the money conservative nominee or candidates in the primaries would get.
What if the conservatives befuddle them all and align behind just one or two rather than endless parade of these guys trying to get in?
Seems unlikely.
You've got, what's his face?
Huckabee looks like he wants to get in.
Now, Ted Cruz may want to get in.
Marco Rubio, it looks like the plan to keep it small may bomb anyway, but doesn't mean that the donors can't rally around one.
But watering down the mainstream or the establishment donors would be something they hadn't figured on.
Now, they'd all come together in a line after the primary if one of them wins.
But it's just, to me, I don't know.
I look at this stuff.
It's just a guy on the radio.
I'm just an entertainer.
I just look at this stuff and I look at the Republican leadership and what did they not get?
Every time they nominate one of these guys, one of the people they really like, they end up losing.
And they lose big.
They lost big with Romney.
They lost big with McCain.
They lost with Bob Dole.
And now Jeb wants to get in and he's part of that crowd.
I mean, he's not Northeastern liberal, but he certainly is not Tea Party conservative.
And the Republican, I mean, I know they want to win.
I know they desperately want to win with a candidate who's not a conservative, but they aren't going to.
It just isn't going to happen.
How many elections is it going to take for them to realize this?
You can't win the White House by ignoring your base.
You can't win the White House by publicly or even privately claiming you don't need your base.
You can't win the White House by taking your base for granted and assume they're going to vote for you because they hate the other guys, the Democrats.
Because as the base has shown, they'll sit home.
They'll stay home and they won't vote.
To teach a lesson, to make a demonstration of some kind.
Yet they keep nominating people that are going to lose.
Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
It's clear that the Republican Party nationwide is not seen and doesn't want to be seen by most of its members as a Northeastern moderate or liberal party.
But the powers that be in that party seem to want it to be seen that way.
And they seem to want the party to win with that identity.
And it just isn't going to happen.
And I say they're sitting far from the citadels of power.
I mean, I'm just observing Experience guided by intelligence.
Anyway, a brief timeout.
We'll take it, come back, and we will continue.
Boehner's getting in on this, by the way, not as a presidential candidate, but in another way, which I'll explain when we get back.
Sit tight.
It will not be long.
Checking the email rush.
What you said about Eugene Robinson doesn't make any sense.
All right.
Here it is again.
The Daily Caller.
It is a good thing there are not many terrorists in the U.S., but not because it's generally good to have a country free of violent extremists.
Rather, it's because those same radicals would have plenty of weapons at their disposal in this gun-loving country.
That's the argument.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson offered up on Friday during Anry and Mitchell.
In meeting you in Washington and her show, discussion about the recent terror attacks in Paris.
Eugene Robinson actually said, for those of you who didn't believe me, just to keep it in perspective, he said, I don't think we should imagine that the conditions and the threat are exactly the same in the U.S. as they are in France.
They're different.
In fact, one thing that's different here is that weapons are universally available.
And so it's actually a very good thing that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more of that kind of carnage here.
You follow?
In Paris, the cops are not armed.
In America, they are.
In France, the cops, cops, many of them don't even have cars.
They show up on bicycles.
They have billy clubs.
The terrorists had military-grade weaponry.
They had military training.
They had obviously been rehearsed.
And here comes good old Eugene Washington of the Washington Post and MSNB saying be worse here because these clowns, guns are available everywhere in this country.
You walk in, you get anything.
It had been worse.
We should be thankful it didn't happen here because we got no gun control laws in this country.
And these guys could have run in and they could have gotten anything.
They couldn't have gotten anything worse than what they had.
It's just asinine.
But you see, this is the moral equivalence argument rearing its ugly head.
And here again, even in a certain real-life circumstance, we had 12 people killed in France, which is notably pacifist.
And a Washington Post columnist assumes it would have been much worse here because we are a much worse country when it comes to controlling guns.
So we should be thankful it didn't happen here because the carnage could have been widespread.
Who knows how bad?
And once again, the bottom line is this country is the one that's troubled.
This country is the problem in the world.
This country is behind the enlightened times.
Yeah, they got far more sensible gun control laws in France.
They got harsher gun control.
I mean, when your cops are not armed, I mean, I don't know how much worse it can get.
When you disarm your police force, by the way, it's not universal throughout France.
There are exceptions to it.
There are tactical weapons units, SWAT units that are armed, but just the standard beat cop and the homicide crew, none of them, they don't have any weapons.
Billy clubs is it.
And by the way, it's much the same way in the U.K., where they have been practicing political correctness for even longer than we have.
But you take a look at what's happening in this country.
Who's the problem right now?
Cops.
Thank you, Mayor de Blasio.
Thank you, Al Sharp.
Everywhere you go in this country, what's the problem?
The cops.
So don't be surprised if you hear not long down the road that maybe the solution, maybe the cops would stop murdering innocent black kids if they didn't have any guns.
And then somebody will pipe, what a minute didn't take guns.
It was a chokehold.
It didn't.
There wasn't a chokehold.
He died in hospital, an ambulance on the way to hospital.
It doesn't matter.
The cops are now the focal point of evil in this country, along with the U.S. military.
And if you can't get gun control the conventional way by eliminating the Second Amendment, then go ahead and disarm law enforcement.
Like they did in France.
And then write a story about how, oh, man, it would have been even worse here.
Oh, my God, because our gun control, oh, gee, you can get a gun anywhere.
Oh, my God.
We should be thankful it wasn't here.
Don't doubt me.
You people, he wrote it.
He said it.
They're going to make something like my mind couldn't make something like that.
I'm not that stupid.
I don't even think this way.
Here's Frank in Old Forge, Pennsylvania.
We head back to the phones.
Great to have you with us, Frank.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
Happy birthday, Megadittos.
Thank you.
A Limbaugh Letter and 24-7 inaugural member.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
Rush, you know, what I heard over the weekend with this analysis, do you remember back in the 80s around when Reagan was in office, Gary Kasparov, the chess player?
Yes, I do.
Okay, he had an analysis.
Now, Gary Kasparov is a Russian through and through.
And what he had said is, look, the problem with Islam and the Islamics, he didn't say anything about terrorists or jihad.
He said, the problem with Islam and the Islamics is that there's 300 or 400,000 that are ready to go and attack.
But he said, that problem in and of itself, the 80% of the Muslim religion ideology that's behind them support it.
So the 80% aren't going to take action, but the 300 to 400,000 that will take action is he was just amazed.
He said, look, this is a threat.
This is a threat to Russia.
It's a threat to everybody.
And remember, the Russians told us about the Sarnaevs and their travels to Dagestan.
So what are we going to do with that information now, Rush?
Let me tell you something.
I think you better prepare yourself.
Again, using intelligence guided by experience, nothing is going to be done about it.
Well, listen, the message is for, you know, your.
I mean, I'm not trying to be paranoid.
I'm just telling you.
Obama wouldn't even show up at a rally condemning it.
It isn't going to change much with this much in charge.
Eugene Robinson is so short-sighted, but it's typical.
The difference is if anybody at Charl Ebdu, the magazine, if any of them had had a gun, they might have been able to prevent as many assassinations as took place.
But not only did the people at Charliebdu have no guns, neither did the cops.
The only people that had guns were the terrorists.
In this country, if you wanted to, if you run a magazine, you could have some weapons in there.
If you want.
Same thing with schools, even though there's a prohibition on it.
It's all asinine.
It's just, it's, it's.
I'll tell you, every day dealing with the Ebs, I don't know what it is.
Lunacy, idiocy, insanity of people on the left?
But it gets harder and harder to just accept this stuff.
Just the ongoing, I mean, the proud display of ignorance that these people engage in every day, coupled with the arrogance that they're the smart ones among us, that they are the elitists, that they're the intellectual bad boys, and they're dangerously uninformed, woefully naive.
And they think that all the rest of us are a bunch of rubes.
Here's Brenton Dayton, Ohio.
Hey, Brent, great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush, glad to be here.
First-time caller, and I just have to take the opportunity to your birthday to say you have a great show, but you really impact people in a meaningful way.
I know this from expertise because I am one of them.
So thanks so much.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hey, I have two comments.
The first is, frankly, I believe I just heard you say intelligence through experience.
I think that if someone were to stay on this story of Abu Ghraib photos being a basis for the radicalization of these two specific individuals,
I'm not sure there's going to be any evidence at the end of the trail of threat Trump there simply because they were so young when those photos frankly had their 15 minutes of fame and there's such a high volume of resources that radicals generate themselves as well as just whatever they use of our own output.
I frankly find it highly suspicious that that was the motivation and I don't think there's going to be any basis for it.
At the same time, because it's time stamped to Bush's administration, it becomes very useful.
So that was my first comment.
And then second, if I were to harness my inner rush lip off and listen to the comments of Eric Holder on Sunday and analyze the very specific distinction he made in answering the question, are we at war with radical Islam?
He went back to the notion of we are at war with terrorists.
And what he's saying is, sure, we'll draw the line at weaponizing oneself on the basis of your beliefs.
But as far as the ideas of Islam, in whatever form and fashion, radical by whatever definitions you choose, no, we're not at war with that.
And if you want to subjugate women, if you want to hang gays in the square, if you want to impose Sharia law anywhere on planet Earth, no, we don't believe there's any moral basis to object to that.
So we're going to simply draw a line at killing people or killing innocents.
And although I have a 2.0 GPA and I graduated from one of those sketchy Christian colleges, I think my basic understanding of the rules of logic says if you arbitrarily draw a moral distinction on the basis of killing, but then don't draw it anywhere else, I don't think any philosophical contortionists would say that's a tenable position.
Okay, no, you're exactly right.
So let me ask you what you think.
Why do you think that Holder and every other Democrat in the world and every member of the media is simply why will they refuse?
Why do they refuse to honestly characterize militant Islam?
Why, for example, in your example about Holder, why wouldn't he not agree that we are at war with radical Islam instead of saying, as you quoted him correctly, well, we're at war with those who would commit terror acts who would corrupt the Islamic faith.
Why is, I mean, Holder knows what's going on.
He knows what Sharia law is.
He knows that it is in total confrontation and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Why won't they condemn this?
Well, I do think it goes back to the 30,000 foot you theme that you offer in almost every area and every topic, and that is that Western moral guidance, most likely rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic, is not a basis from which they want to advance America's role in the world.
So when you have a Judeo-Christian ethic that would uphold human rights, you know, again, let's not rehearse all the mistakes that we've supposedly made in the country throughout our history.
But they basically, in my opinion, and again, I'll just say intelligence guided by experience.
If you're a shrewd watcher and observer of the way that they conduct themselves, it's a rejection of Western values that, as we all know, are rooted in, frankly, Judaism, but also the reformed Christian ideas of one's role in either their individual community or as an example throughout the world.
But they all run around trying to convince people that they are active practicing Christians.
Yeah, well, I mean, I'll unfortunately have to refer to the Bible and just say, you know, we know people by their fruit.
You know what I mean?
If you get a cherry but continue to claim it's an apple tree, I think somebody's going to have to wonder what's wrong with your view of the world or your ability to process it in any reasonable way.
Okay, so just to make sure I heard you correctly, you think that people like Holder, let's throw Obama in there, you can throw most in the media in this group, and certainly vast majority of the membership of the Democrat Party, throw them all in this group, the American left, that they know what Islam is.
They know what militant Islam is, and they know we face it, but they simply cannot come to grips with an America in the world that is advancing and growing as founded with a Judeo-Christian ideal in terms of law, in terms of morality.
Just can't stomach it.
Don't want any part of it.
Don't like the whole concept that American exceptionalism descends from America's belief in Christianity.
Don't want any part of that.
And so they simply will fail to openly acknowledge the enemy we face because they do not want to build up a version of America they don't like.
Is that it?
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, I would offer just maybe one slight clarification, is that is to say, to the degree that the rank-and-file media, I don't mean producers and editors, et cetera, but to the degree that individual people who might interview Obama or write on Obama, et cetera, certainly the talking heads, I don't give them that much credit for having some type of nuanced worldview position.
I think they're more reflective of an American culture that has a lust for power and a desire to be accepted by whatever group holds that power.
So I would basically offer the lapdog commentary for rank-and-file media members.
But yeah, within the context of what we would call the American left, certainly within the ivory towers of education and well, no, I don't know that your distinction is necessary.
You can't go anywhere on the American left and find anyone willing to make an honest assessment of who our enemy in the war on terror is.
You can't even find agreement on their side that we should even call it terrorism.
You can't even find agreement that we're at war, much less with who.
Well, I can't even believe that in my first time on the Russian limitless show, I'm going to mention this name, but I believe it deserves mentioning in response to your comment.
And that is, you know, clearly Bill Martin doesn't know what to do because he sees this with some degree of clarity, albeit some of his hypocrisies on other issues.
But he sees this clearly and doesn't really know what to do with his own ilk.
So, yeah, I mean, I think there's some exceptions, but yeah, that's right.
Now, Marr's a good example because he's classically conflicted.
He hates all religion.
Yeah, he certainly does.
And so I think there's a measure of consistency, but I think to the degree that you have some of those guys like Maher who at least say, well, wait a second.
We have to, you know, we have to acknowledge that.
But nobody, wait, here's the, nobody on that side's listening to Maher.
I frankly, and I don't mean to be rude, please don't interpret my tone here as rejecting your point.
I just don't care.
Marr's not going to influence any of those people.
He might influence his audience and some others.
But when it comes to Holder and Obama, they don't care what Bill Maher thinks, and they don't care if Bill Maher goes off the reservation.
They themselves refuse to honestly characterize the enemy with whom we find ourselves in battle.
They are doing everything they can to get us out of that battle, which is guaranteeing victory.
There's a show of opposing ISIS, but there's not a real effort to stop ISIS.
That's just one example.
No, go ahead.
I completely agree with that.
And I think this is sort of an intellectual exercise.
But had several key European leaders not publicly stated on the largest megaphones that they have that they, in fact, are at war with Islam or whatever the distinction was, war with radical Islam, I would wonder if that would have, I wonder if that reality actually affected the participation of sending Biden and or the president or at least the Secretary of State.
Well, now about that, I'm watching the press briefing at the White House that's happening right now while talking to you.
You would be interested to hear Josh Ernest, the White House press secretary, just said, if you can believe this, he just said that he doesn't know if Obama was even invited to this little march or show of support, whatever it was, in Paris.
He doesn't know that Obama was invited.
Two reactions.
Do we really believe they didn't invite Obama?
And secondly, would that have stopped Obama if he really wanted to be there?
Even if he wasn't invited, if he really wanted to be there, he would go.
Josh Ernest just said there were only 36 hours to prepare for the march, and somehow the other 44 world leaders were able to make it.
Of course, a lot of them are already there in Europe.
But Holder was already there.
How hard would it have been to send him?
How hard would it have been to send Biden?
They were already there.
They didn't.
And there's a reason for this.
Anyway, I also wanted to go back to your point about the Abu Grab pictures.
Absolutely right, you are.
This guy, one of the two terrorists now dead, who participated in the murder at the French magazine, this idea that the photos of Abu Grab are what weaponized him.
They're what motivated him.
and what turned him into a terror cop.
When I first saw that, I'm going to get in trouble.
When I first saw that, I said, what Democrats this guy been talking to?
That's right out of the Democrat Party playbook to blame Bush for all of this, to blame Abu Graben.
Here comes one of the perps at this murder spree blaming the pictures of Abu Grab.
How about the imams in the mosques that he goes to?
It wouldn't take any pictures coming out.
That's mild stuff.
It wouldn't take any of that to radicalize these guys.
These guys become radicalized long before, even if Abu Ghrab happened before they were born or two years old or whatever.
Doesn't matter.
They can be shown pictures.
But that's not.
This just means these guys have been trained in the art of using the U.S. media.
That's all that means.
When this guy says, oh, yeah, I was a fun-loving, peace-loving man until I saw photos of Abu Ghraib, and then I decided to throw in with Allah.
Come on, give me a break.
These guys study our media.
They know how to get sympathy from our media.
They know how to get tacit support from our media.
If our media hates Bush, if our media wants to blame all of this on Bush, these guys clearly know how to feed that.
And that's what this guy did.
And so now we've got editors and reporters falling right in line, predictably so.
Hey, you know what, Bush?
We can trace this back to Bush, Abu Ghraib.
Why, even one of the murderers said so.
It's just too easy.
But that's what they want.
That's the narrative completed.
That's the template fulfilled.
And voila, so we run with it.
It can't be that they're radicalizing themselves.
It can't be that they are innately evil.
It can, no, there's always got to be a catalyst.
There always has to be an explanation.
It's always going to come down to what did the United States do to make these guys mad?
What did we do to make them hate us?
What did we do that justifies their terrorist actions against us?
And that's the view held by current crop of leadership.
And we are in trouble because of it.
I heard that Bibi Netanyahu, Benjamin Nathaniel of Israel, was not invited to whatever this thing.
I don't know what they think, a freedom march.
I don't know even what it's called.
A rally thing in France.
He went anyway.
He wasn't.
In fact, he may have been told, not only that he wasn't invited, they may have told him to stay away.
And he said, screw that.
And he showed up.
And you got the press secretary for Barack Hussein-O on TV right now complaining and whining, well, gosh, he only gave us 36 hours, man.
That wasn't nearly enough time.
I don't know that he was even invited.
Golly, you know, really tough.
I don't think they really knew.
It's clear Obama wanted no part of it.
And there's any number of justifiable explanations.
Well, but understandable reasons for it, for why Obama wouldn't want to be there.
Here's Mike in Banger, Maine.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Happy birthday, Mr. Lembaugh.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I want to thank you, sir, for writing that book, The Brave War Pilgrims.
Because I bought that from my son Saturday, and we spent half the weekend, I would say, reading that book.
How old is your son?
My son's nine.
Nine years old.
Cool.
Right in the target age group.
Right.
Well, I would read some and he would read some.
And I even, I didn't know that Paul Revere was a silversmith.
But I learned some stuff myself.
Well, that would not have been in the Brave Pilgrims book.
But regardless, you are.
Did you buy all three or did you just buy one?
I just got the one, sir.
But the thing about it is it gave me more than just the learning.
It gave me the father and son time together, and I thank you for that.
Well, I want you to hang on here, stay on hold, because I would like to send you the other two for you.
We've got Rush Revere and the First Patriots and Rush Revere and the American Revolution.
And they're all great.
And we love each one the most when it hits.
Brave Pilgrims has always got a special heart place because it's the first.
Now, Mike, do not hang up because we need to get your address.
Send the audio versions and other things.
But you said What you said was exactly one of the things that we hoped for, that parents and grandparents would take the time to actually read the books with and to their kids and grandkids.
It warms my heart.
I cannot thank you enough, and I really appreciate the fact you took time to call and say so.
Don't hang up again.
Brief time out, my friends.
Back in a jiffy.
All right, another exciting, busy broadcast hour comes to a screeching halt.
And I've not forgotten the divorce rate.
Not the 50% figure that everybody thinks.
That is coming up.
As well as, try this headline: Boehner's Embrace of Republican Rebels nudges House caucus to the right.
Hmm.
And we have a call.
▲
Export Selection