All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:26
July 23, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limboss still documented to be almost always right.
99.7% of the time.
No, Mr. Snerdley, I've not seen any footage of the massive protest in Times Square against the Iranian nuclear deal.
But I saw the story on CBS Eyeball News webpage, Channel 2 New York, their webpage, but no pictures.
It's amazing.
Supposedly massive protest in Times Square.
Thousands and thousands of people in Times Square, thousands.
Times Square is a big place, but you put thousands and thousands of people, you condense them in there, it'll be noticed.
And I read the story, I read the text on the eyeball two news website, but there's no photos.
And I didn't see any video.
So I haven't seen any footage.
There has to have been some.
I mean, the news, I mean, the media, they they they take footage of everything.
So they've it's it's kind of like that video the LA Times has of Obama meeting with Khalidal Gibrani or whatever, the uh the anti-whatever big fundraiser, anti-this, anti-that.
They won't release that video.
They wouldn't back in 2008.
And I guess this footage from the massive anti-Obama Iran deal in Times Square last night is going to remain hidden too.
I don't know what we can do to force them to air it or to publish it.
Maybe somebody's seen it.
I haven't.
You haven't either.
Well, we'll keep a sharp eye.
From the CBS Eyeball News San Francisco, headline American teens are having less sex, according to a study.
Wait, just a minute.
Is anybody believed that?
Does anybody I've I've always been told there's nothing we can do.
I've always been told going back the early 90s, remember when condoms became a big deal, the AIDS scare was in full bloom, and uh parents were letting their teenagers have sex in spare bedrooms out on Long Island instead of back seats of the car because it was cleaner.
Safer, they thought.
And and uh all the while, you know.
I would express kind of shock at this.
And I'd have callers, enlightened callers tell me, Rush, you can't stop kids from having sex.
There's nothing you can do.
You can't stop it.
Well, then why can we stop them from smoking?
If you you you say you can stop them doing this, you can stop them from bullying, you can stop them from whatever else they're doing you don't like, but why can't you s we can't rush, we just have to pray.
We just have to give them condoms and and keep our fingers crossed.
But now all of a sudden, American teenagers supposedly are having less sex.
Now get this next next part of the sentence.
Let me just read the whole sentence to you.
American teenagers are having less sex, especially boys.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed roughly 2,000 boys and girls aged 15 to 19.
They found a percentage of teenagers who reported they had sex at least once has dropped significantly since the 1980s.
The decline for male teenagers was greater than female teenagers.
Okay, back to the first sentence.
American teens having less sex, especially boys.
How does the math on that work?
I mean, if we're just talking teenagers, it doesn't mean teenage girls could be having sex with college guys.
This is strictly teenagers.
This does not mean having sex with winos wearing the Peter Jennings trench coat with a sack of wine on 7th Avenue.
How does this work?
How does the math of this work out?
In 2013, 44% of teenage girls surveyed said they had experienced sex compared to 51% in 1988.
For teenage boys, the drop was more dramatic.
In 1988, 60% reported they'd had sex compared to only 47% in 2013.
So wait.
So in 2013, 44% of teenage girls said they had sex.
Wouldn't the numbers be equal?
I guess not.
I don't know.
I don't want to get too deep in the weeds here.
Changing sexual mores could explain the overall decline, but one expert believes it's because teenagers are better educated about sex.
Okay, Dr. Brooke Boker, adolescent medicine specialist, children's national health system.
Adolescent Medicine Specialist at the children's national health system.
Who do you think pays for those two organizations?
Anyway, Dr. Brook Booker says that their smartphones may provide a private, comfortable space to access information.
Oh, you mean like porn?
Could it become we're raising voyeurs rather than participants?
They're looking in the web, Booker told the Washington Post, they're looking for guidance from parents, guardians, and doctors.
They can and will make positive decisions for their own health, both sexual and otherwise.
Well, let I'm I'm gonna take this at face value and then offer some unique commentary available only here.
So let's accept this at face value.
American teenagers are having less sex according to study.
Note that this is a problem to people reporting stories.
Oh no, there's what's wrong.
A scant 30 years ago, this would have been a great news story.
It would have been worth celebrating.
Parents would have been happy, the churches would have been happy, a lot of people would have been running around trying to take credit for this.
But here in 2015, it's a problem.
American teenagers are having less sex.
And all of these experts are asking themselves, what are we doing wrong?
Well, what have we turned boys into in 2015?
Now I'm serious, folks.
Just try to answer the question as objectively as you can.
When I ask this question, just imagine, think, observe all that you know and have seen.
What have we turned boys into in 2015?
What are they?
Well, they're a number of, they're a mixture of things.
And they hear it all, by the way.
They are either bullies or predators, or brutes, or they are pajama boys.
Timid, metrosexuals, feminists in their own minds, playing now a secondary role, because they have been made to feel guilty over the transgressions that men have committed previously.
So now they are drugged up in order to keep them quiet and content and out of everybody's way.
And while they're drugged up, they're watching video games, some of them violent, some of them pornographic.
Meanwhile, sex is everywhere.
It is everywhere on TV in all forms.
It is present in loving relationships, it's present in hookups, it's throwaway, it is rape, it is every maginal form of sex, is easily viewable and accessible.
When I say TV, I mean any video streaming that they want to access.
In many places, because of the political agenda attached, heterosexual sex on television is often portrayed as violent And aggressive towards women, rape or just short of it.
On the other hand, it's also gay sex is portrayed as loving, sensitive, fun, hip, natural, normal, cool, you name it.
That those kinds of descriptions of heterosexual sex on TV cannot be universally attached.
Now, if you are a young boy who feels like an outsider, self-esteem problems, uh, don't have a lot of self-confidence, for whatever reason you just aren't in the big click and you know you're never gonna get in a big click, what have you doesn't matter anymore.
Who needs the real thing?
You can turn to your phone or your tablet and you can see whatever kind of sex you want.
And then you can play all kind of pretend mind games and imagine that you're actually doing it when you're not.
Really, sometimes all it takes is an HBO subscription for all of that.
But if HBO doesn't get it done, Netflix will.
And if Netflix doesn't get it done, well, try Hulu.
I mean, you can find wherever you want to go, whatever you want is there for not very much money.
In the process, we have um we have removed all of the mystique and the magic and the wonder and mystery of sex by just pushing it at kids,
constantly pushing it, making a joke of certain forms, making a joke of uh monogamy.
I mean, look at Russell Wilson, a quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks, and his girlfriend, the well-known personality of Ciara, announced publicly that they are going to abstain from sex until marriage, and they are now mocked and laughed at constantly.
Even by people who report on them, who report glowingly about how they do their jobs, Wilson, a quarterback in the NFL, CR, what is Sierra Singer?
Whatever, the the coverage that they get professionally is glowing.
Now they're laughed at, they're made fun of, they're mocked, and furthermore, they are when they make themselves abatable.
They're told to explain themselves.
They're told to justify themselves.
Anyway, I think if you want to look at teens having less sex, I think there's all just desensitization that has taken place, mystique, wonder, mystery, all that's gone.
Um I'm not old fogying this.
I'm just objectively observing what I've seen taking place culturally and mixing it with this uh with this headline.
But really, the big story is here that the people reporting this are upset by it.
They think something is wrong with fewer teenagers having sex.
That's actually the big takeaway.
Welcome back.
I have, ladies and gentlemen, here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Finally found a picture of the anti-nuclear deal protest in Times Square.
And I'm gonna turn the ditto cam on here and show you the picture.
There it is.
Pretty big, wouldn't you say, Mr. Snerdley?
There's a lot of people there, and this picture is the only one I have seen.
This was last night, Times Square Rally, anti-Obama, Iran, Nuke Deal.
We will also put this up at Rushlinbaugh.com so you'll be able to have a uh better shot of it, digital shot of it if you want to be able to spread it around to people.
Because honestly, we haven't seen any video.
Okay, to the phones, we're gonna start with Daniel in my adopted hometown of Sacramento.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Thank you.
Good morning, Russ Diddles from uh dry and liberal Sacramento, uh I consider to be your home.
Um I'm calling regard to a uh discussion you were having earlier about John Kerry and you mentioned Rubio asking some questions and uh it struck me as odd and I'm coming from a legal background.
If if Kerry goes over and negotiates with these folks and I over there and makes uh quote a deal and then comes back here and it's got to be ratified in order to take effect.
How can he say the Ayatollah or whoever over there has any qualms with us still looking at it?
It's got to be ratified by Congress, which means there's no deal yet.
So I'm I'm I I can understand why Rubio may not have asked that because you know you get busy in those those hearings and you're not gonna be able to do it.
Well, because it it it doesn't have to be ratified.
It's not a treaty.
Then why is it going through Congress?
I uh I admit to ignorance on this.
Well, it they it it needs it needs congressional vote, and it needs a uh uh uh a majority here that uh that could survive uh or would not to to defeat it would require enough votes to override a an Obama veto.
But it's being voted on as a piece of legislation.
The hearings are taking place on the basis it's a piece of legislation.
The Senate's conducting the hearings, but that's because there's a there's a bill called the Corker Bill.
And the Corker bill was designed the cork, it's look at this is so convoluted.
Obama did not did not want a treaty for the very reasons that you specified.
So Congress, showing that they can be cooperative, came up with the Corker Bill.
And the Corker bill simply takes the place of the constitutional provisions on a treaty.
It's totally redundant, except the Corker bill was written in a convoluted and and sort of perverted way, which makes it, because of the inability to get enough votes, impossible, almost impossible to stop this.
So the hearings are just to show.
Let me ask you, Raj, let's let's assume for the sake of the argument that Congress did have the votes all of a sudden somehow to say not only no but hell no to this deal.
Then what?
Well, then what then they can stop it?
They need thirteen votes in the Senate, and I think this is to this is to override a promised Obama veto.
Okay, but let's assume that's the case.
Then then then in fact we have no deal.
That would be that would be that yes, that that would be the case.
So any good negotiator, any good mediator, such as what Kerry is supposed to be, has to tell them over there, look, folks, we don't have a deal until it's done back home.
So how how can anybody claim argument uh as an argument that if we don't do this, folks, we're gonna have egg on our face, they'll never trust us again.
Never mind that we don't need their trust, but how can they say that because there is no deal?
He must have had to tell them that.
No.
He must have had to do what?
Kerry, a as an effective negotiator would have to tell them we don't have a deal until we go home and get the approval back there.
I don't I I I I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I don't think that's what Kerry told them.
This deal it it has been no no, look, you're you're dealing in hypotheticals and and there is a reality that the UN has approved it.
It's done.
What's happening here is for show.
The only way what's happening here can matter is if they you gotta let me finish.
If the Senate can come up with thirteen Democrats and the House can come up with thirty-seven Democrats, then they can defeat this.
If that doesn't happen, it's all a sudden now.
Kerry, I don't believe told the Ayatollah that Congress can stop this.
I don't think he told them that.
I I get it.
I get that, Rush.
My my point is is shoving this back in folks' face, like when Kerry says a comment like that.
I I I get realistically what you're saying that this is gonna go through.
This is a sham.
But to hear Kerry sit there in front of Rubio and say, if we don't do this, then they'll never trust us again, uh, assumes that the deal's already been made.
And and so that that that belies the fact that this is all a sham.
No, no, call them on it.
Hold it just a second.
It has.
The deal has look, the way these things normally happen, take Obama and and all the realities of this moment out of this.
What happens is a president wants a treaty.
He wants a deal.
Let's let's look at the law of the sea.
Take let's take something that has not been ratified.
That the law is being followed with.
The president wants something, he negotiates With the other nation or nations of the world, and he tells them it's got to be acceptable to my Congress.
My Senate has to be able to approve this.
And that is pressure that would be utilized in negotiations for the U.S. point of view to prevail.
And that's how it happens.
So the president, if he wants this thing, has to pretty much know before he gets going what the Senate will accept and what they won't.
In this case, none of that matters because of the Corker Bill.
In this case, it's what Obama wants.
And this is happening today, it's not a side show per se.
But it it, I'll tell you the primary purpose is so Republicans can get themselves on the record for what they think about it, and Kerry can get himself on the record, but in terms of what's happening here today actually affecting any change is moot, I think.
Unless, I mean, I it's a long shot.
I but I look at what happened in Times Square.
I mean, I can I can see way, way, way down the road through the fog, I can see, depending on Chuck Schumer and how many liberal Democrats loyal to Israel start getting guilty consciences over this, I can see where this could run into trouble in the next 80 or 90 days.
It's going to real, real long shot.
But as far as Kerry talking to the Ayatollah, let me tell you what happened.
I mean, I don't know this, but I am sure that it was implied, if not stated direct.
Don't worry about our Congress.
They're not going to stop it, Mr. Ayatollah.
That's not going to happen.
You're dealing with me, not those schlubs.
And it went from there.
Okay, this next soundbite, I think will um.
Well, it'll it'll make all of this a little easier to understand.
It's not going to make it uh seem to make more sense, but it's another soundbite from John Kerry answering a question from a Democrat senator, Christopher Murray.
And the question is tell me if this is how you read the consequences of Congress rejecting the deal.
Now, look, I the last caller, I understand what he was asking.
Don't misunderstand.
He was focusing on why does Kerry worry about the Ayatollah not trusting us any longer?
Caller's point was Kerry must have already told the Ayatollah that Congress is going to approve it.
And then he doesn't want to have to go back to the Ayatlay, hey, guess what?
You know, is that Congress didn't approve it.
Uh and what's Kerry doing telling the Ayatollah, assuring the Ayatollah this is a done deal when it isn't a done deal.
And all I can tell you about that is, folks, there is no way under the sun that Barack Obama was going to sign the Corker Bill if it made ratification harder.
There's just no way.
Obama is not going to sign anything that would get in the way of this deal getting done.
I mean, if you if you if you're confused over the Corker bill, look at it that way.
Obama's not going to sign anything and didn't to make his job harder.
The Corker bill is just a face-saving measure for Republicans who promised their voters they were going to oppose Obama and fight back Obama and try to stop Obama.
And the Corker Bill is an effort to make Republican voters think that all that's happening.
It's a face-saving maneuver, but it's not working.
It's not going to accomplish its mission.
Everybody's suspicious of the Corker bill for proper reasons.
All right.
The real question about this trust in the Ayatollah, what does it matter whether the Ayatollah trusts us?
Now, don't misunderstand that.
My point is the question of trust ought to be using them.
This area, this this area of trust, it should be us doubting they will stay true to the terms of the deal.
After all we know about what Iran is, who Iran Is what Iran does and how many promises Iran has broken.
That's why there are sanctions all over them.
This area of trust ought to be flowing from us to them, not the other way around.
And for John Kerry to go up and tell members of the Senate, hey, you better sign this, or the Ayatollah's never going to trust us again.
So what?
That's not even the question.
Why are you automatically assuming that you can trust him or any of these Iranians?
They're the ones out there bragging about how this doesn't change any of their policy towards us.
They're still conducting rallies, death through America rallies.
They're still promising and bragging about the fact that despite this deal, they're going to be buying, selling, importing, exporting all kinds of weapons.
They still hold four Americans hostage.
What in the world is this trust business?
It's 180 degrees out of phase.
It should be us, using experience guided by intelligence that should distrust them and get a deal according to that.
That would allow verification, that would allow inspection.
All of these things that you do when you don't trust the people you're getting into business with.
Reagan, Soviets, trust but verify.
But it's it's 180 degrees out of phase here.
Somehow John Kerry is convinced that it's up to us to make them trust us.
As though we're the bad guys, as though we're the ones going to violate the deal.
What the world could we violate?
Well, it turns out there are some things we can fight.
Do you know that in this deal we have promised the Iranians that we will not allow anybody to sabotage them?
Do you know that we have promised the Iranians that we will work with them to repel any attack on their nuclear plans?
That would mean, including by Israel.
We have promised the Iranians that we will, in effect, be their guardians.
Hells Bells.
Now back to this soundbite.
Again, Christopher Murray, Democrat Connecticut.
Tell me, Senator Kerr, Secretary Kerry.
Tell me if this is how you read the consequences of Congress rejecting the deal.
There's a long history of mistrust and much deeper than that.
The whole context of the revolution out of which the regime comes.
So if we say no, after saying in good faith we're here to negotiate and we can come to agreement.
But we walk away from it, not because we chose to, but you choose to.
We certainly aren't going to be dealt with.
A lot of other people won't know who to deal with.
But more importantly, he's not coming back.
There's no way people who say get a better deal.
No way.
This is hopeless.
This is worse than even I imagined it would be.
Okay, let's take this from the top.
The first thing that Kerry is saying, what he says is a long history of mistrust and much deeper than that.
Of course, that sentence makes no sense grammatically.
You couldn't diagram that sentence and get a passing grade if you had to.
There's a long history of mistrust and much deeper than that.
The whole context of the revolution out of which this regime comes.
That's our fault, folks.
Iran properly.
Kerry is saying that Iran is right to suspect us.
Iran is damn right to suspect us.
Why?
Well, because we backed the evil Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.
And he was a bad guy.
But he was our bad guy.
Well, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was overthrown.
Do you know where the Ayatollah hominy was before he came back and took over Iran and turned it into the Islamic Republic of Iran?
He was in France.
I don't know what he was doing.
I don't know specifically where in France, the Ayatollah was in France, fomenting revolution among extreme Islamists and Muslims inside of Iran from France, fomenting the revolution.
We got to blame for because we supposedly the Shah was our guy.
Kerry is saying essentially, hey, We created this mess because we backed the Shah.
And the Iranian people hated the Shah.
So as far as Kerry's concerned, all of this distrust that the Iranians have for us is deserved.
Because we had forced an awful oppressive dictator on them.
But now they have the government they want.
They have the Ayatollah, Oteola Hamini, the Ayatollah Homini, they're both the same.
Two different people, but they pronounce the names the same, according to Pierre Salinger anyway.
They've had different presidents, but the same mullahs and the same Ayatollahs.
This Ayatollah hominy was younger when the first Ayatollah hominy was hominying.
Now this Ayatollah hominy is hominying, and he's running the show.
So Kerry is saying that it's our fault.
And the Iranians therefore distrust us from all the way back in the 70s because we backed the Shah.
So, next, if we say no, after saying in good faith, we're here to negotiate, we can come to an agreement.
So the previous caller's questions has been answered right here.
John Kerry was telling the Ayatollahs and everybody he was negotiating with that all you have to do is come to an agreement with me.
I represent the United States here.
I represent the U.S. and the P5 plus one nations.
If you have to get an agreement with me, that's all you have to do.
And in Kerry saying, next sentence, if we walk away from it, not because we chose to, but because you choose to, he's he's pointing his finger at the Senate here.
But if we walk away from it, not because we chose to, but because you choose to, they won't know who to deal with.
So what Kerry is saying here is you people in the Senate, you can't have anything to do with this because you don't have a singular person that has any authority or power like I do.
I'm the Secretary of State, you're not.
Your senators and members of Congress, and I'm the Secretary of State.
I'm the one to talk to them.
I'm the one that made a deal, and I'm the only one that can walk away from it, and I'm not going to walk away from it.
And if you walk away from it, then you're undermining me, and you're undermining America, and you're making it so that the I told us will never know who they're dealing with ever again, and they can't trust us.
Now, if you're a low information voter and have no idea how things like this work, that's going to make total sense to you, even though it is in wanton giant violation of American procedure, constitutionality, statutory and otherwise.
Because in all of these negotiations like this, every party to it knows it has to be approved by the U.S. Senate if it's a treaty.
They know that it has to be ratified after the negotiators leave.
What John Kerry apparently has said to these guys in Iran is that he's the final authority.
He obviously is pretty much assured his Iranian negotiators that he's it.
And don't worry about Congress.
We got them handled.
We got the corker bill.
They can't stop us.
We got it handled.
And now that Congress is making noise and puffing up their chest and making it look like they do have the power to stop it.
Kerry's getting all nervous.
And he's warning them that if you guys walk away from this, it's going to be you walking away from it, not America.
It's going to be you walking away from it, not Obama.
And the Ayatollah's not going to know who to deal with.
And they're never going to trust us again.
And we can never go back.
If you blow this, we could never go back.
We're going to go back to where we were.
Does anybody want to go back to where we were?
A lot of people would rather go back to where we were than what this is.
A lot of people would be very happy the Iranians are not going to get 150 billion dollars.
The Iranians are not going to get wanton access to material needed to complete their nuclear program.
Yeah, a lot of people wouldn't be upset at all going back to the way it was.
Because what this does is guarantee they get a nuke.
I don't care when.
This guarantees they get it.
And this guarantees that we help them get it.
And this guarantees that we will stop anybody outside who tries to stop them, that we will join with them.
This guarantees they get a nuclear weapon.
Nothing else did.
This guarantees They become a nuclear nation.
So, yeah, Senator Kerry, Secretary Kerry.
A lot of people wouldn't mind going back to what it was before you got involved in this.
Look, folks, i i the thing to remember about this Iranian deal is from Obama's perspective why he wants it.
I it's like Obamacare and it's like the stimulus bill.
The actual results of it don't matter.
That's not the reason for this.
I know that's hard for people to believe because most people think that you have um objectives and goals that you want to accomplish because you believe in the specifics.
In this case, Obama's just looking for a legacy.
He's looking for historical I don't know what the word is, but he just he he he wants it written about him from now to the end of time that he's the president that got an Iranian nuke deal when no other president could.
He's the guy that got national health care.
Never mind that both might be disasters.
That's not the point.
He knows that the history writers are not gonna say that.
He knows the people writing history, at least immediately, are his buddies, and they're gonna regale and hail him as the only man ever capable of doing either one.
That's what he wants.
Doesn't care.
Obama cares an absolute disaster for the people who've signed up for it.
It's a disaster for people that have it.
Anyway, I've got to go back to the phones, because if I don't do this, I'm getting so worked up about all this stuff that I won't shut up.
And I have to shut up.
I'll give myself a break.
So we go to Washington, D.C. Guy, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Megaditas.
Uh Rust have been listening to you for six years, and I'm finally got you on the phone.
Well, great to have you here.
Yeah, I live in Washington, DC, and it is very difficult to live here.
Uh but the problem is that the people that true believers, they actually believe what Obama says.
I had lots of people yesterday, and they just uh doesn't matter what I said.
Republicans are bad, Democrats are good, and the the facts don't matter.
It that really doesn't make a difference.
Yeah, welcome to the club.
I've had these frustrations for I can't tell you how long.
Yeah, the my neighbor is uh one of the girls got attacked a few weeks ago by an illegal alien and she got out okay, and uh the next night they called the legal alien, and the neighbor first thing she did was blame white people for it.
And I don't know why she said it.
She said, you know, it is uh not a legal alien white man in call it's a great demonic.
Well, of course.
No guy, let me explain this to you.
You have uh your neighbor who uh was an act of thievery committed by an illegal alien, and they caught the illegal, and the first thing she did was blame white people for it.
The re you know why?
Because the thief was made a thief by white people because the thief got mad because he knew that the white people were blaming him, so he figured, what the hell?
They're making me a thief because they don't like me, so that's how it works.
That's the logic.
Whites or or conservative or Republicans, whatever, that's how they end up being blamed for all these things.
Now with the problems, I have a ten-year-old who, by the way, reads all your books.
Thank you.
And I have to be very careful when I talk to him because he goes to school and tells it.
Because I have to be very careful what I say, and he loves you.
And uh, but I have to be careful because he goes to a school in False Church City, what is the communist state of False Church City, and they're all liberals.
I have to be very careful how to talk to my tenure old.
Guy, what is your nationality or ethnicity?
Where were you uh where are you tracering here?
I I'm Dutch, uh from the Netherlands.
Netherlands.
All right.
Yeah, and now when you have you ever did you live there?
Excuse me?
Did you live there had you at some point in your life?
Yeah, I went uh I lived since when I was twenty-four.
I went to boarding school there and I lived there, and uh I used to live.
Did you ever have to worry in the Netherlands what you said in your home that the authorities someplace might hear it and you would be in trouble?
And not dead death, but pretty close.
But you do have that fear here in Washington.
Now you do.
Now you're absolutely do.
Uh I'm very careful what I say.
That's amazing.
You're worried that you might say the wrong thing, that your young child might blab it at school, the wrong person might hear it, and he could pay a price for it.
Now it is uh we used to live in a safe house in Mexico, and uh we used to listen to his show every day, and he was at a time four years old.
And uh Safe House in Mexico every day.
What do you mean he was what what do you do, guy?
Uh safe house in Mexico, the Netherlands, and now you're in Falls Church.
What do you do for a living?
Uh I saw flowers.
I was uh say from excellent that's an excellent cover.
That is an excellent cover.
You can fight gay marriage from that job.
Um, it's kind of difficult because all my customers are gay and you know, they're very nice people.
I was just kidding.
I'm just taking things in the news and trying to make a joke about it.
But look, you know, you he you folks, he got a great, great point here.
I mean, this is not far.
It's not there yet, but it's not far from the way it was in the Soviet Union when parents were afraid of being exposed by their kids, either purposely or inadvertently.
I mean, this guy says what he thinks about something, and his young child hears it and goes, Yeah, my dad said last night, your dad said that.
Yeah, yeah, my dad.
Okay, thanks, little Johnny.
Where does your dad live?
We've got two things here, major to cover the next hour.
Donald Trump and Planned Parenthood, and your telephone calls.
All of that coming up before you know it.
Sit tight, my friends.
▲
Export Selection