All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
May 15, 2015, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here.
Yes, sir, Bob.
I know that there is just almost uncontainable excitement in all of you awaiting what is going to come out of my mouth today, right?
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday!
Open Line Friday.
It is a greatest career risk ever taken since Babe Ruth decided to give up pitching and play the outfield.
You get to talk about whatever you want to talk about.
When you get through on the phone today, you just pretend it's your show.
That's the way to look at it.
800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
So we got Roger Goodell is going to hear the appeal of Tom Brady, despite the fact that Brady and his lawyers asked for anybody but Goodell.
Goodell said, nope, it's going to be me.
There's all kinds of analysis swirling around about what that means.
I'm going to tell you what it means.
It means the suspension is going to go down to two games, exactly like I told you when this first thing hit.
The original suspension, four games, and appeal, it'll be reduced to two.
I'll give you my reasoning as the program unfolds.
You're going to have to forgive me.
I'm going to tell you this up front.
The Stephanopoulos story, my fire was lit on this years ago.
This to me has been there, done that.
But see, I've got to fight that because I know to a lot of people, this is earth-shattering.
See, this is why it takes a concerted effort and a constant use of empathy to do this job well.
See, I have the benefit of knowing everything.
George Stephanopoulos, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the forehead, Bagala, that whole team, Rahm Emmanuel, since they burst on the national scene in 1992.
As such, none of this is a surprise to me.
But I can't come here and say that because that's going to sound smug and know-it-all.
And I can't act like it's old news, even though it is.
Because to a lot of people, sad though it may be, they never heard of George Stephanopoulos until he got the gig at ABC.
And they have no idea.
They're just now learning what he did.
And we don't know what their impression of it is.
When it comes to millennials and low-information people, we don't know that they're bothered by the fact that he used to work for the Clintons.
They might not have a thing in the world wrong with it.
They might not think there's a conflict at all.
Especially if they're wedded to the Democrat Party, it won't matter.
Whatever it takes to win, whatever advantage they can get, they'll take.
I mean, I think intelligence guided by experience should tell everybody that it's a mistake to look at the Democrat party, modern Democrat Party through the prism of old-time politics.
There's no such thing as honor.
There's no such thing as the rules.
There's no such thing as even debate.
I mean, this is all about what you can get away with.
Stephanopoulos' apology.
I mean, when you break this down, this guy doesn't have any remorse.
He's essentially saying, please forgive me for donating to AIDS.
And please forgive me to donating to the environment.
And please forgive me.
It's a giant F you to everybody, disguised as, oh, I'm so terribly sorry.
I should have said it all earlier.
I mean, this is the guy that asks Romney in the debate in 2012 about contraception.
The guy's never been a journalist in his life.
He goes in the Clinton war room.
He was a campaign consultant and advocate.
His job was to destroy Republicans for crying out money.
And he gets hired by ABC without ever reporting a single story.
He's never, ever been a journalist.
The Republicans should have refused to cooperate with this guy from that day forward.
And now we've left it up to him to tell us that he's not going to moderate debates anymore.
We shouldn't have ever sat down for a single debate with him on.
We shouldn't go on a single show that he hosts, like the Sunday morning this week, or Good Morning America.
It's a trap.
It's nothing more than agreeing to go to the sit-down and let the Clinton war room interview you and then destroy you either at the time or after you leave.
And of course, people on our side, well, we're going to be honorable and we understand the lay of the land and we can't be cowards and we can't run away.
We must face it as it exists.
That attitude may be honorable, but unless you deal with this and change this and see, and the only way you can is by avoiding these shows and starving them of your presence, this isn't going to change.
So it's a real struggle for me.
Part of me wants to say, really?
You're just figuring this out.
And I don't mean that in a smug way, folks.
I don't even mean it in a braggadocious way.
I'm just, I'm happy some people are seeing it, and I've got to make sure I stay focused on that.
Because a part of me, I'll admit, is really ticked off that it's taken this long and what it took.
Okay, so the guy's given 75 grand large, 75 large of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
Okay.
That to me is the least of it.
But if that's what it's taken to expose this, fine and dandy.
But he's not the only one for crying out loud.
He's just the tip of the iceberg.
As I say, the real question for me is how many other journalists have been buying access by donating to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation or what have you.
But nevertheless, I'm going to go through the details because I'm not going to sit here and openly admit that the whole thing kind of frustrates me.
Because as I say, there's a lot of people that all they know, George Stepanoff, he's a short, little cute guy with a good head of hair who is on Good Morning America.
That's all they know about him.
And the fact he looks good on TV makes him a good guy.
They don't know a thing in the world.
They don't know how mean he is.
They don't know what he lies about.
They don't know how he's set out to destroy Republicans using the ABC vehicles to do it.
Some of them may not even care, such as partisanship has come to exist in the country.
Here's a great example of what I'm talking about here.
And I don't mean to be cutting.
You know me.
I'm just there's a story at the Weekly Standard, a little brief story, Weekly Standard, Bill Crystal's magazine, just to identify it.
It's not a criticism of anybody.
It's a teachable moment.
Why are Hillary Clinton's numbers so good?
This, I'm sorry.
I'm trying.
Sighing like that is very rude.
Al Gore did that repeatedly in a debate with W, if you remember.
It was very off-putting.
Here are people that are still looking through politics in the same old prism.
Polls are everything.
Up in the polls, great news.
Down in the polls, bad news.
And here are people thinking Hillary Clinton, because of all the news that's been uncovered about her and her foundation and her emails and her server and her incompetence, that Hillary Clinton ought to be sitting in her 20s or 30s, and her numbers are still way up.
Why is that?
They can't figure it out.
Ever heard of the fact that there's a giant D by her name, number one, and she's it.
So far, she's when is the last time the Democrats threw one of their own overboard?
That's all we do.
They don't do it.
They shore them up.
Now, if Hillary begins to look like she's really going to be vulnerable, then somebody else will move in, but the Democrats don't destroy their own.
And just because her poll numbers now are down, we're not even barely at the year and a half point here.
It doesn't matter what her poll numbers are now.
It doesn't matter what Jeb's number, it does in terms of fundraising, maybe on the Republican side, but it doesn't mean anything right now.
It's too far out, way too soon to make any firm judgments.
There's more important things than polling.
But the bottom line is, if we haven't learned by now that the rest of the country doesn't see the Clintons the way we do, then we're going to have to really make some drastic changes or steps in terms of reaching these people.
Because we have been saying what we have been saying about the Clintons since 1992, and it hasn't affected anything.
Getting the truth out about the Clintons, even Schweitzer's book, oh, yeah, people are having fun with it.
Even with Schweitzer's book, how come Hillary's numbers are still up?
It's because we keep either misunderstanding or misfocusing on what their appeal is or what her appeal is to Democrat voters.
And it's multifaceted, but at the top of the list is the well-considered opinion that she can beat Republicans.
And that's all that matters.
Beating us is all that matters.
To think that polling data will cause Democrats to lose some enthusiasm, it just, I think, steals them for battle even more.
And they become more and more desirous of helping Hillary when her poll numbers are down.
I know what you're shouting.
You're shouting, but what about Obama?
That's a great question.
And that's a unique circumstance.
It'll not be repeated this time around.
Unless somebody gets Al Sharpton to run.
You had an African-American young guy that, I mean, bottom line is that if somebody else comes along that looks better, Democrats will gravitate toward them.
But if they think that Hillary is all they've got, they're not going to abandon her.
No matter what Schweitzer says in his book, and no matter what they say on Fox News, and no matter what Drudge posts, and no matter what I say, or anybody else, they are not, and certainly they're not going to abandon Hillary and let us get away with having made it happen.
So there's that.
Let's see what else we have.
Oh, folks, there's so many good social, like there's a story today in the New York.
It's in the New York Post.
There's two things here about women.
The first, Heather Robbins, an independent journalist, lives in Manhattan and blogs at heatherrobbinson.net.
Why New York women wish they lived in the madmen era?
New York Post.
No, I am not kidding you.
This story is complete with women on the street interviews.
And it is delicious why adult women today would prefer, based on what they see on the TV show, to live in the 1960s.
That's what they think they rebelled against, but what they got as a result of their rebellion has changed men.
They like the men of the 60s as opposed to the men of now.
They like men that dress up, that ask them out on dates, that engage in chivalry.
They like the fact that there was the hookup culture was actually a little bit differently executed then than now.
And yeah, Draper is preferred.
Wouldn't you prefer Draper to your average liberal wussy guy?
I mean, it's hard for me to speak for women as a woman in that regard, not really qualified, but I'm just going at what the story says.
Then there's another one that is in the National Journal.
And the headline is intriguing as it can be.
Why some male members of Congress will not be alone with female staffers.
Male members.
Now, this is more than what you think.
I know what you're thinking.
Well, Rush, that's smart.
I mean, the way this culture's gotten litigious sexual harassment allegations, the last thing in the world you should do, is anywhere get in an elevator alone with a woman.
Be alone with a woman in a room.
Because even if nothing happens, all she has to do is say something happens.
And the civil rights coalitions and the feminist organizations are going to come along and support her.
And you are toast.
It is said, I don't know if it's true.
It is said that the Reverend Billy Graham never, ever would permit himself to be alone with a woman.
He was too conscious and aware that he was a target.
And boy, what a target for something that he could be.
So he never let it happen.
But there's an offshoot of this that you may not initially think of when you hear this headline.
And it is this.
Because some male members in Congress are refusing to be alone with female staffers, their own staffers, the female staffers are preparing to file discrimination claims against the men for being frozen out of powerful discussions, policy sessions, so the men can't win for losing.
If they don't put themselves in a situation to be charged with sexual harassment, they're going to be sued for discrimination.
So we've got that.
We've got, and of course, the Brady and the Patriots stuff and my explanation of why.
I think that's going to be down to two games and why I think Goodell assigned the arbitration to him or the appeal.
And the Amtraks, this one, here's another, this is falling apart right in front of the left's eyes, but they're not going to acknowledge it.
But everything they've been saying, you know, infrastructure, infrastructure, it turns out that this latest technology that would stop an out-of-control speeding train, it's there.
It's been installed.
It just hasn't been turned on.
Bottom line is this accident happened because there's no reason a bureaucracy as large as the Transportation Department or the federal government should be running the operation.
It's simply incompetent because it's too big.
There are too many people doing too many things with no accountability, no central authority, and things aren't getting done.
And then you have this, is it conductor?
Is that what they call these people?
Engineer.
He's out there tweeting all over.
A tweet fest of this guy has been discovered.
He's apparently a union activist in addition to being a gay activist.
And he's been tweeting and Facebooking whatever to left and right that the work schedules are causing engineers to work 12, 14 hours, and he's worrying about engineers falling asleep on the job.
These are long ago tweets, weeks ago tweets.
So it could well be that this was a, well, I don't want to speculate, but it's a self-fulfilling prophecy type of thing.
And we have your phone calls.
So it's going to be an exciting Open Line Friday.
We come back.
You've got to hear C-SPAN discuss me yesterday.
They read the transcript from my website in typical C-SPAN ways.
But they read the headline was fake newsman caught giving 50 large to Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
That's the headline on my website on this yesterday.
To hear C-SPAN.
I mean, this is a treat.
Hang on.
We'll get to that.
No, no, Amtrak.
No, what I was talking about is very simple.
There's a report that the safety equipment that could have prevented the accident hasn't been held by lack of funding.
You've seen that.
It was infrastructure.
The Republicans didn't spend enough money.
You've seen all that.
That's BS, folks.
It's BS from the first time the syllables were formed and the first brain of the liberal that first uttered it.
The safety equipment and the installation and turning it on has been held up because it's so complex they can't figure out how to make it work.
Specifically, the FCC, who has to release more bandwidth for the GPS system in this braking system to work.
It's installed.
It's ready to go.
They just can't figure it out.
And nobody's busting their rear into.
That's the thing about bureaucracies.
There's never any urgency.
In fact, the truth of bureaucracies is the less that gets done, the more the bureaucracy is seen as needed.
So the modus operandi for bureaucracies is to do as little as they can to get by.
If the bureaucracy accomplishes a lot, at some point people are going to say it isn't needed.
That's the perverted way they look at it.
So much of government and so much of liberalism is misunderstood because at the top of the list of things that are required is self-perpetuation.
Whatever you do as a bureaucrat, you do not do anything that will harm your bureaucracy.
You do not do anything that will not perpetuate your bureaucracy.
You do not do anything that will result in your bureaucracy having a budget cut.
And the best way to see to all that is to get as little done as possible while having convenient people to blame.
In this case, the Republicans.
Stingy, extremist, mean-spirited, cold-hearted Republicans, when that's nowhere near the truth.
There's just no urgency.
The equipment's installed.
It just hadn't been turned on because they haven't figured out a bandwidth problem yet for the GPS.
It's there.
Saving lives is not even enough to speed up the process.
So I checked the email during the break and people said, okay, Rush, can you give us some examples of what you know that we may not know because we haven't been alive long enough paying attention?
Sure.
Let's go back to the campaign of 1992.
This was Bill Clinton, der Schlichmeister, and he was opposing George H.W. Bush, Bush 41.
And in that campaign, Bush 41 was lagging behind because he really didn't take Clinton seriously.
Very few people did.
Clinton was not a frontrunner.
Clinton was, in fact, not even considered serious.
People thought Clinton was running to set himself up to succeed in 1996.
But then Ross Perot entered the scene, and that threw everything.
That threw all the formulas out of whack.
And Clinton kept plugging away while Perot distracted everybody, chipping away at Bush 41.
Perot was if people back then, if you were old enough and alive and paying attention, Perot just took this country by storm with one C-SPAN speech about government spending and responsibility and so forth.
And he just, he divided the Republican vote.
There was also Pat Buchanan was involved on the Republican side, and I made an early endorsement of Buchanan just to make sure that the primary in the Republican Party had a conservative voice because everybody thought the tendencies were that Bush would want to moderate more than he had been and get away from pretending to be the third term of Reagan.
So Clinton was allowed to sneak up.
Clinton was allowed to sneak up in the Democrat process.
He just kept winning and winning late, went on Arsenio Hall and played the saxophone and the low information crowd ate that up.
And it got serious.
Clinton became the frontrunner and Perot was finally dealt with.
But during that campaign, it was George Stephanopoulos and James Carville and Paul Bagala that were running the Clinton campaign operation.
And they called themselves the war room.
And their purpose, like the Bimbo Eruptions Division, was to simply set out and destroy anybody who came forward with any credible criticism of the Clintons, either regarding a Clinton scandal or anything else that Clinton was talking about, say, potential policy or what have you.
There were people on the Republican side doing everything they could to discredit Clinton.
Whitewater was effervescing and bubbling up, and the bimbo eruptions were all over the place.
And back then, the Republicans were making a morality play.
They were trying to convince the American people that you wanted no part of Bill Clinton.
He was immoral.
He had no character.
We needed character and leadership.
That campaign was replete with this stuff.
And Stephanopoulos was in the lead of this group with Carville and Begala to destroy any and all.
Women didn't matter.
Whoever came forward with criticism of Bill or Hillary, they were out there to clear the decks.
That was Stephanopoulos' expertise.
That's what he was paid to do.
And that's what he has done ever since.
Even while working at Good Morning America, he has been a Clinton operative.
He has been a Democrat Party hack.
That is who he is.
He has never ever been a journalist.
It got so bad during this campaign that George H.W. Bush agreed to go on Larry King Live on CNN one night.
And out of the blue, during a caller segment, guess who got through?
George Stephanopoulos.
George Stephanopoulos, working in the Clinton war room, just happened to keep dialing the call-in number for Larry King just happened to get through.
And there's Larry King acting shocked and surprised that Stephanopoulos made it through.
But then he eagerly stepped aside and let Stephanopoulos take over the show and start grilling George W. Bush or H.W. Bush.
And as was typical, George H.W. Bush made one reference to the fact that he thought this was kind of screwy, that a campaign operative of his opponent would be permitted without him knowing to appear on Larry King Live to grill him.
He made a very fast reference to this, did not make an excuse of it, and engaged Stephanopoulos.
Stephanopoulos repeatedly challenged Bush's honesty.
I mean, it was an all-out personal assault.
Larry King, acting befuddled and bemused, sitting there watching this as though he had nothing to do with it.
And nobody, nobody believed that Stephanopoulos just happened to get through.
Everybody thought it was set up, either with or without Larry King's knowledge.
But somebody in the control room gives Stephanopoulos the number, or they even may have called him.
And they put it out that Stephanopoulos just happened to be dialing it, just happened to get through, and just happened to get past a call screener and just happened to end up debating George H.W. Bush.
And the Republican reaction was outrage at first, but then the usual thing took over.
Well, we can't complain.
That's unmanly.
That is cowardly.
That is not good.
We've got to take everything that comes our way because, after all, we're seeking the most powerful office in the land.
So we sit there, and because of our sense of fair play, we allow the deck to be stacked against us.
Just like Candy Crowley stacked against Mitt Romney in a debate with Obama over Benghazi.
None of this is new.
The media are not journalists.
They are Democrat Party activists, and they have been, well, for a long time.
But I'm telling you, it's been since 1988, 1992, that they have openly just cast aside this pretense of objectivity.
And believe me, that's what Stephanopoulos' hire at ABC actually was.
It was the network formally throwing off this idea that they're objective.
They weren't going to hide behind it anymore.
They openly, okay, we're going to hire a Clinton campaign operative.
We're going to put him on Good Morning America.
We're going to put him on our Sunday show as the anchor.
They were telling everybody, this show's not about journalism anymore.
And there's nothing objective here.
And we're just going to stop the pretense.
That was the message.
I can give you countless other examples of this.
But that's just one.
Now, let's go to C-SPAN because this is kind of funny.
This morning on the show they call Washington Journal, they were doing viewer call-in segment on the whole Stephanopoulos thing.
And the co-host, Peter Slant, S-L-E-N, reads from my website to set up the segment.
And you know how things are at C-SPAN.
Tell us, James Carville, just exactly what was involved in the period of time it took you to pen your tome.
You know what?
It was all about getting kissed off.
And any of you get kissed off.
He's out there.
He poisoned our kids with cigarettes.
And Spaceman from Mars, Larry.
That's a serious charge.
We at C-SPAN take these things.
Of course it's serious.
What are you talking about?
So that's the mentality.
The NPR, very serious.
So they go to my website where the Stephanopoulos story is headlined, Fake Newsman Caught Giving 50 Large at a Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
That's the headline.
And here is the C-SPAN anchor reading it.
And then they take calls.
But here's the reading first.
Rush Limbaugh, here's his report or the transcript when he was talking about this issue yesterday.
Fake newsman caught giving 50 lards to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation is the headline on this transcript.
Rush Limbaugh said, He's not sorry for anything.
The real question is: how many other reporters have donated to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation?
That's what I want to know.
I don't think it stops Stephanopoulos.
You think he's the only one of these guys giving to that foundation?
Every damn one of these.
The Clintons have let it be known: if you want them, you have to buy them.
If you want access, you have to pay for it.
You want to interview them, you have to pay for it.
Except for NBC because they hired Chelsea.
That's Rush Limbaugh on George Stephanopoulos.
Now, it honestly, if you were here, yes, it didn't sound that way when I did it.
But that's C-SPAN reading to their audience from my website this morning.
So let's go to the calls.
First is guy Wayne from Virginia.
I do not think it's a conflict of interest.
Look, reporters give money.
They got Fox News, and you know what Fox News does and the Grudge Report.
And Rush Limbaugh.
I've been listening to him for 25 years.
I always know what my enemies are doing.
Of course, it sees not a conflict.
It's not a conflict at all because he's on our side.
Stephanopoulos, why all of these reporters give money?
He's right about that.
But you think Stephanopoulos is the only guy donating to Democrats or the Family Foundation?
Stephanopoulos, 75 grand, maybe more than most reporters give, but it doesn't matter.
They're all doing it, folks.
And it's exactly as I said.
They're buying access or buying something, or they're paying a protection money.
But this guy, this caller here, yeah, they got Fox News.
And you know what Fox News does.
No, what does Fox News do?
That's code language for other liberals watching this show.
You know what Fox News does.
What?
What does Fox News do?
And then they got the Grudge Report, not drudge report.
And then, of course, they got Rush Limbaugh.
Been listening for 25 years.
Always know what my enemies are doing.
He listens here because it's a good show.
You know it, Wayne, and I knew it.
And the next was Kimberly from Wisconsin.
There is no conflict of interest.
He is a human being.
He's worked hard to Democrats.
He's been a Democrat.
He's open on that.
This is a foundation.
So you're going to sit here and criticize every human being, whether they're a journalist or not, to help people.
What are you going to go after him if he donated to Special Olympics or to Children's Miracle Network?
Really?
People have a right to spend their money on a foundation if they choose to.
There is no conflict of interest.
He's asking hard questions because if he wants to know the truth, he wants the people to know the truth.
Unlike some people, like Rush Limbaugh.
They just can't help mentioning no matter what they're talking about.
They have to throw me in the discussion.
Screams of joy.
The very mention of my name.
Rush Limbaugh and Open Line Friday.
You want another Stephanopoulos example?
This was reported in the year 2010.
It was in the Politico.
One of the founders of Politico, John Harris, wrote that there was a conference call every morning in 2010, five years ago, 6:30, 7 a.m., a conference call every morning between the Obama chief of staff, Rom Emmanuel, CNN Democrat strategist Paul Bagala.
He's been at CNN.
He's not been an anchor.
He's been an analyst and a strategist.
So you had Ron Emmanuel, Paul Bagala, and James Carville.
You know who else is on these conference calls?
Stephanopoulos.
Every morning, the Obama chief of staff, first thing he did was have a conference call with all of these Democrat operatives because they're all buddies.
They're all traced back to the Clinton administration, Ron Emmanuel, James Carville Bagala, and Stephanopoulos.
And the purpose was to set the agenda of the day for the media.
2010.
And it's from that that Stephanopoulos gets hired at ABC.
And we are to expect that the moment he gets hired at ABC, he forgets doing all of this and he shoves that all aside and he removes that from his life and all of a sudden becomes an objective anchor and reporter with no concern for the outcome of events.
It's a magical thing.
That's what ABC wanted us to believe.
I remember flipping a wig when they hired the guy.
And it was just, it was the latest.
There's this incestuous revolving door in Washington between people that work for elected officials, presidents, senators, members of Congress, and then head to the news media for a while, then back.
I mean, look at Jay Carney.
Jay Carney was a reporter and an executive at Time magazine.
He's hired by Joe Biden to be press secretary.
Then he gets hired by Obama to be press secretary.
Then he goes back to the media.
It's no different than Stephanopoulos.
It's all the same thing.
And the Republicans put up with it as the lay of the land, just what we have to deal with the way it is.
Look, I'm, as I say, I'm walking a tightrope today because to a lot of you, this is new.
Well, maybe not in this audience.
You people know the lay of the land as well as I do.
You've been here for the duration.
But to a lot of people, Stephanopoulos is just this cute little guy with nice hair that is on Good Morning America.
And he walks red carpets before movie premieres, and he's always his cool little guy out there.
And the last thing they associate with Stephanopoulos is politics.
All of this is probably a little new to them.
But even at that, I'll wager that a lot of these low-information people are struggling to find anything wrong with donating money that's supposed to help people in Haiti or overcome an earthquake or who have AIDS.
What's so bad about it, huh?
Why are those Republicans so mean?
I guarantee you.
There is a lot of that.
Open Line Friday.
We always try to get a call in the first hour, and we're going to do it.
We're going to go to Stokedon, California.
This is Sonia.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hello.
Very, very big privilege for me to talk to you, sir.
I just wanted to been compelled to call and tell you that I grew up in the FDR area in a Democratic family.
When I left, I stayed a Democrat, of course, as did all my siblings.
Wait a minute.
Sonia, you don't sound old enough to have been growing up in FDR.
Yeah, it doesn't match the rest of my body, I know.
All right, we'll start pondering that.
That's what everybody tells me.
But anyway, I used to listen.
I heard you when you were in Sacramento.
Then when you went back east, I heard you a few, I mean back to Florida or wherever you went, I heard you a few more times, and then I stopped listening.
Two and a half years ago, I was bombarded with your radio program every morning by my son, who I was sharing rent with at the time.
My children were Democratic, but then they switched also.
And of course, then they got after me all the time.
But he bombarded me, and I heard you, but I wasn't listening.
And then, because I just had, and it was there every morning, I started listening.
It was you in the morning in Fox News in the afternoon.
I've heard this from a lot of people.
It was there, it was on, but you thought you knew that I was this mean-spirited rotten guy because that's what the media told you.
So it's on, and you hear it, but you never listen.
And then something happened.
You couldn't avoid it.
You ended up having to listen to it, and you were shocked, and you were snunned happily so because you found out it was an oasis.
And it was actually what you've always believed.
You just didn't know it until I came along and helped you to understand it.
We hear this from millions of people.
Okay, folks, sit tight because we've got more straight ahead here.
Just a brief break here at the top of the hour of a scene profit timeout.
Much more on the EIB network after we fortify and rejuvenate.
▲
Export Selection