All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
October 21, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, still tracking a hurricane here, folks.
Keeping a sharp eye on this, baby.
Looks like it is going to interact the Yucatan.
But those poor people in Cozumel are just going to get hammered.
Do you know that thing's not going to get here till Tuesday now?
Hey, that's right.
Let me say, hang on, just check that out, McDouble Shore, but I'm, well, you'll get it Monday night by 7 o'clock Tuesday.
It's long gone.
7 a.m. Tuesday.
So get here Monday night.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh's Friday.
You know what that means.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yip, yahoo.
And as promised, the ditto cam is on.
It'll be on for the remainder of the program.
El Rushbo at rushlimbaugh.com, where you can find it.
Well, no, no, no.
Don't put in El Rushbo.
Who knows where you are?
It's rushlimbaugh.com, and you will find, if you're a subscriber to Rush 24-7, you'll find access to the DittoCam beyond for the remainder of the program today.
Telephone number, if you want to join us, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
So, yeah, we had a caller in the last hour.
What about when John Kerry outed an agent on the floor of the Senate?
Well, we don't pursue the Democrats as criminals.
We beat them at the ballot box.
Remember, Dingy Harry.
We have a story here from May 13th of this year.
Dingy Harry strayed from his prepared remarks on the Senate floor yesterday and promised to continue opposing one of President Bush's judicial nominees based on a problem, he said, that is in the nominee's confidential report from the FBI.
Now, these highly confidential reports are filed on all judicial nominees.
Severe sanctions apply to anybody who discloses their contents.
Less clear is whether a senator could face sanctions for characterizing the content of such files.
Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway, Reed said on the floor of the Senate about the Michigan Appeals Court judge nominated to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
All you need to do is have a member go upstairs, look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we'd all agree there's a problem there.
Well, Reed's not allowed to see it.
Only Judiciary Committee members are allowed to see it, but apparently he saw it.
Yeah, nobody raised the stink about it.
And so all this business of investigating Rove and Libby, but apparently, as reported in the previous hour, there was no crime committed there.
Whatever, if there are indictments, and I, again, remind you that you've got so many journalists now that are quoting sources, lawyers familiar with testimony.
And so it'd be really hard-pressed, folks, to think that everybody's just totally making this up.
It does look like now that some people close to all this are talking and leaking and what have you.
And speaking of that, I remember during the Star investigation when there supposedly were leaks coming out that Democrats were fit to be tied over all these leaks that were happening.
And we just play it a different way than they do.
Speaking of Dingy Harry, I'm going to check to see how many of you, if you're, let's see, if you're born after 1945, 45, you might not be able to even play with this because you might not be old enough to have, might not have been old enough to be paying attention.
But Dingy Harry has floated a new Democrat slogan for 2006, and the slogan is, America can do better.
And this phrase is appearing more and more frequently.
It doesn't have the cachet of Reagan's Morning in America.
Probably will never go down in the history books as a chicken in every pot.
But if Dingy Harry has anything to say about it, the phrase America can do better will become a familiar part of the Democratic message in next year's elections.
Anybody heard that phrase before?
Way to go, Mr. Snerdley, and you probably only know it because I've mentioned it here a couple of times.
The message, the message in 1960 of JFK was we can do better.
We can do better.
He meant the Democrats, but he also meant the country.
We can do better.
There's a little difference between 1960 and today.
In 1960, we're pretty good shape economically.
We're coming out of the robust 50s, the post-war buildup, the industrialization of the country and putting everything back together.
And it was considered to be pretty robust time.
Eisenhower had been president for eight years, and we weren't involved in anything that was remotely like World War II.
We're coming out of that.
We're victorious.
And people were starting to get more and more prosperous.
And the Democrats, we can't tear this down.
I mean, nobody's unhappy, but we can do better.
And we're younger.
Pass the torch has been passed to a new generation.
Eisenhower, old Fogey.
He's an old guy.
Hell, he doesn't even show up.
He plays golf all the time now.
But we can do better.
This is no accident.
And I don't expect somebody under 50, 45.
I don't know how many people in their 15, age 15 or 16 paid attention.
I was paying attention to it.
I was nine when this was going on because my family was so involved in all this.
But I'll never forget that.
I'll never forget that that was what the Kennedy theme was.
And it worked.
It was positive.
It was upbeat.
Now, whether this bunch can pull it.
See, when I hear Dingy Harry saying America can do better, underlying Dingy Harry is a view of the country that is dishonorably at war in the midst of a Great Depression.
Nobody can find work.
The minimum wage hasn't been raised.
All these budget cuts want to happen.
The gas price, he looks out over the horizon of America and sees abject misery, which is not what Kennedy and his crowd saw when they looked out across the horizon of America in 1960.
So I think it's interesting that they've gone back to it.
I wonder why they haven't done it before this, in fact.
But these guys don't, I don't think they've got enough of a positive attitude about things to pull this off.
Because I think when Dingy Harry says America can do better, what he really means is America can do better with Democrats.
We can do better.
So we have the Democrats, they were smearing Nixon on ethics things back then, too, but that wasn't, you're talking about 1960?
Yeah, but that wasn't a focus of the camp.
He was vice presidential nominee.
Kennedy actually, there may have been other people who knew it.
Kennedy wasn't ripping into Nixon in that regard.
And he had Don Hewitt, you know, to stage the debates for him in such a way that Nixon looked like an idiot and Kennedy came out winning.
Tim Duncan, superstar of the San Antonio Spurs of the NBA, is known to be understated and shy, but he's not shy about the NBA's new dress code.
According to a report in the San Antonio News or Express News, he joined the Indiana Pacer Stephen Jackson with not-so-kind words for Commissioner David Stern's dress code.
Duncan said, I think it's a load of crap.
I understand what they're trying to do with the hats and the do-rags and the jerseys and stuff.
That's fine, but I don't understand why they would take it to this level.
I think it's basically retarded.
I don't like the direction they're going, but who am I?
He's a two-time NBA MVP, a three-time NBA Finals MVP, did not play in Tuesday night's exhibition loss to the Pacers.
He wore Express News called his typical injured list wardrobe, jeans, and a dress shirt.
At any rate, this is not sitting well with certain members of the NBA, but they're all Stephen Jackson, the guy at the Pacers, who's perhaps been one of the most vocal critics, still nailed it.
Did you hear what he said?
He said, they pay us, they make the rules, and I want to work.
So it's just getting some grievances off their chest here, but the NBA dress code will go into effect and it will be followed.
A lot of them are saying it's anti-hip.
Alan Iverson of the Philadelphia 76ers admits that he wants to look like a hip-hopper.
I mean, they want to run our tests.
They want to look like hip-hoppers.
They love it.
Of course, they're admitting it's anti-hip-hop, suggesting.
And that's what it is.
And they're not being, some of them are not being shy about admitting that that's what they want to look like.
At any rate, let's get a quick timeout here.
We will be back and continue right after this.
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Let's go to Los Angeles.
Elizabeth, hello, and I'm glad you called.
Hey, Rush.
Rush, you know who I think needs a lesson in advanced conservative studies?
Senator Ted Stevens.
I think his performance yesterday was absolutely disgusting.
This was during the debate of the Coburn Amendment that went down to a stinging defeat, 82 to 15 or something like that.
But basically what it was, the Coburn Amendment basically said that we're going to cancel the bridge to nowhere from some island of 50 people to some other island in Alaska that's going to cost $220 million, and we're going to send that money to Hurricane Katrina relief.
And Stevens got up and he basically threatened to resign.
He said, I've never seen this.
This has never been done in all the years I've been here.
I've never seen this.
And I'm going to resign.
Blah, Now, what you need to know, Elizabeth, is there is, and I didn't know this until last night.
And if this doesn't illustrate the big problem that we face, I don't know what does.
There is an unwritten rule in the Senate that one senator never attacks the projects of another.
Doesn't happen.
It's not written, of course, but it's unwritten.
It's understood.
You do not attack, meaning the pork barrel projects of one senator or any senator.
They're conservatives, Rush.
We don't have pork.
Conservatives don't put taxpayer dollars that are unnecessary.
We give the money back to the taxpayers.
In theory, yes, that's what we've all been striving for.
But there are a lot of conservative Republicans that love the pork game.
I'm going to tell you, Tom Colbert.
Elizabeth, look at the vote.
There were only 15 senators that voted for the vote for the amendment.
What is it to 15?
I mean, that's a long way to go to get passage on something like this.
Only 15 are of the mind that you think they all should have.
Well, that's what my point is.
How did we get there?
Have we been bamboozled?
How did we get to this place where we only have 15 Reagan conservatives?
How is that?
Have we been duped?
I want to get rid of them.
I want to put in real conservative Republicans in their place.
And I am just freaking out over that.
And Tom Colbert now is my hero for exposing that.
Yeah, look, I love your idealism, and I think it's a great inspiration to people, and I share it.
But follow this stuff.
How long have you been paying attention to this kind of stuff, Elizabeth?
Since 9-11, actually.
Okay.
I only just became a Republican since 9-11.
Okay.
Well, I thought that might be the case because one of the things that, you know, I've been following it nine or ten years old.
And one of the fundamental problems that people like me and you, you instinctively know it, have is that the power to spend money is the reason many people run for office.
You put 100 senators, you get 100 senators.
You basically can say that each one of them has 100th of the federal budget at their fingertips, if you want to look at it that way.
The idea is to get reelected.
And it's been, this goes back to the earliest days of this country.
The best way to get re-elected is to send a bunch of money back home to the district, build an old folks' home, build a bridge, build a dam or something, and then go home.
Have you ever been to West Virginia?
No, I haven't.
Virtually every highway is named the Robert H. Byrd Highway.
There are three post offices named after Robert H. Byrd.
There are rest stops that ought to be named after Robert H. Byrd that aren't.
But you can't, it's a joke.
It is a laugh to drive through West Virginia.
The Robert H. Byrd Memorial Park, the Robert H. Byrd Rehabilitation Center for Wayward Women and Former Klansmen.
Robert Byrd's name is, I mean, he's had not only the pork go back, but he's insisted his name be put on it because he knows that West Virginians are proud of him for doing that.
So what you're saying, Rush, is that the American people only vote for people who give them pork.
They don't vote for honest senators who give them their money back.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you have many different kinds of elections.
A presidential election is a national election.
A congressional election, for the most part, 1994 was a different example, but for the most part, congressional elections are all local.
You know, Congressman Bullhorn goes back to the district and spends his time telling people what all he's done for the district, how great he's been.
He got that old folks home built.
He got that dam built.
He's going to make sure that that highway gets widened and all that.
So people, yeah, I love my congressman.
He's taking care of me.
That congressman also votes on nationwide tax bills, foreign policy bills, a number of other things, too.
In the Senate, senators, they run statewide, but the state is still local compared to national.
This is why, this is why, I'm glad you called, because this is why when we win the White House with a conservative president, we want that president to advance the movement to eventually accomplish what you're talking about.
We want that president.
And this is what Reagan did.
When Reagan made speeches and press conferences, you know what he did?
He advanced the notion of conservatism.
He informed people.
He educated people about it.
He didn't just talk policy.
He didn't just say, I'm going to spend this money.
I'm going to have this education bill.
We're going to give you this new entitlement.
He repeatedly talked about it was the people that made this country great, the people who we need to place trust in and honor that trust.
He did not orient his world around government except to the extent that he wanted to de-emphasize its role in people's lives.
That's the kind of leadership it takes.
And this is why there's so much, oh, Disappointment or whatever, because now we have the Senate and we have the House and we have the White House, but there doesn't seem to be anybody leading a movement.
There seem to be Republicans trying to get re-elected and Democrats too, but there doesn't seem to be anybody leading the movement.
But I think people have a hard time believing that you can't get re-elected if you're not putting up bridges or building old folks.
You can't get elected by saying to them, I was honest.
You have more money now because of me.
You are more successful now because of me.
You have more freedom, more privacy, more, the government's not in your face because of me.
Yeah, but see, in the state next door, the congressman or the senator who is not doing that is telling his people, I got this highway built and I got that casino built and I got this built and your guy is saying, no, we didn't get those things built here because I don't believe in all this spending.
What's going to happen to him?
This is very, it is intricate.
It is complicated.
And look, I'm not just whistling Dixie here.
This is, and no offense to Dixie, I love Dixie.
But this is why you have to have a national leader of a movement.
It's more than just about getting elected.
Play, here's another thing.
If you look at the way McCain Feingold has restructured campaign finance laws, the basic, you know how many House seats are going to be competitive in 2006 out of the 435?
No.
20.
Basically, 415 are guaranteed to be re-elected simply because their districts have been drawn so that if they're Republicans, there aren't enough Democrats there, even if they all voted against them, to beat them.
Same thing.
So this is why so many people are cynical about politics.
It's why they're so cynical about it because they don't think they have anything to do with the outcome.
They don't think their vote really matters.
It doesn't mean anything.
Do we have anything to do with the outcome?
We have a Ronald Reagan.
I firmly believe we do.
But see, there's more to it than just the spending side.
Now we're dealing with a tremendous national security threat, and there are people who are not up to that task.
And so you balance things out.
If the people you elect are letting you down on one area, but really doing a great job on something that's even more important right now, given present circumstances, you have to give that weight.
And this is a long process.
Look, it took the people who believe in big government and big spending lots of years to get where they are.
And it's going to take lots of years to reverse it and turn it around.
But like anything that's worthwhile, it's hard, and it's probably going to take a long time to do it.
I hope you don't get discouraged.
I hope you don't get turned off by all of this because I think the voters really have more impact and power than they're aware of.
But it does require leadership after the elections occur.
Back in just a second, stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
You know, I'm afraid we're going to lose Elizabeth, folks.
I want to keep talking to you, Elizabeth.
Elizabeth just started getting involved in things after 9-11.
And Elizabeth, let me give you a little personal observation about all this.
I have really firm beliefs about the opportunity that this country offers because of our structure.
We have freedom.
We have a Constitution that documents the source of the freedom, God, a creator.
The Constitution indicates that our rights and the Declaration, our founding documents, our rights do not come from other men or other people.
They come from God, that we are naturally born with a yearning to be free kind of spirit.
And the problem with the left, one of the many problems with liberals, socialists, and big spenders is that they end up robbing people of their own potential by creating ever so slowly, it's been in this country, but it's built up now for so many years that it's just caked upon itself.
This notion of dependency, the notion that it's up to the country to provide certain things for me.
It's up to my neighbors to provide certain things for me.
It's like Medicare.
You know, Medicare is essentially a gift from some citizens in this country to others.
Medicare is simply, and Medicaid too, is simply good-hearted citizens of this country agreeing by virtue of action taken by their elected leaders to help people who can't pay for their own health care.
We'll do it for you.
We pay a tax called the Medicare tax, 3% on every, well, 1.92%, whatever.
It's high because it's paid on every dollar you earn.
And yet, it seems like every year the beneficiaries ask for more and very seldom, if ever, say thank you because they don't even know that their neighbors are paying for it.
They think it's quote-unquote the government.
Multiply that times how many hundreds of thousands of federal programs there are.
And what you end up with is able-bodied Americans at their birth growing up with the idea that certain things in life, particularly certain of their needs, not their desires, certain of their needs will be provided by the government.
Why, it's my birthright.
I'm an American.
My health care should be paid by the government.
Why, so should my education.
I should have to pay for my own education.
Whether the government says that we all need to be educated, well, the government should pay for my education.
My family can't.
Look at how much it costs.
Government should pay it.
And of course, there's always politicians who come, yes, I agree with you, and I will be the one making sure you get your education, guaranteeing that whoever is the recipient of such large S will keep voting for these people.
And this has been going on for years.
And the problem with it is, aside from its basic structure that you instinctively don't like, and I agree with you about, is that it robs people of their potential.
You know, I wonder, this is a great country as it is.
It's the nation, the world's lone superpower.
It has an economic engine that surpasses anything ever in human history, surpasses even the wildest dreams of people who lived only a generation or two ago.
The prosperity today in this country, your grandparents never dreamed of.
Well, your grandparents, if you're 50, are over.
And in some cases, your parents didn't dream of it.
And so you have all this prosperity produced by some.
And it gives the impression that we're great.
I wonder how much greater we could be if fewer people had been raised to believe in the concept that because the left and liberals look at people and they don't see potential.
They don't see opportunity.
They see people as basically flawed.
They look at people and say, you're not smart enough or you're not qualified enough.
You're not educated enough to make the right decisions.
You don't even know how to spend your money the right way.
We will even do that for you.
If we give you a tax cut, why you're just going to go blow it on something.
We'll use it more responsibly than you.
And the thing that's just irritating is that people sit around and accept this.
So I sit around, I wonder what kind of greatness, how much more greatness would this country be if there hadn't been generation after generation after generation of dependency created on people.
Because it really just robs people of their potential.
And I can give you an example.
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Look at how many hurricanes hit however many parts of this country over your lifetime.
You ever seen what happened in New Orleans?
Charleston, Carolina didn't see it.
You didn't even see it in Mississippi this time around.
Didn't see it in Florida with four hurricanes last year and maybe two or three more this year.
I forgot how many we've had this year.
How many have we had this year in Florida?
Two?
Has it been two?
They're all in the, yeah, two, and soon to be a third.
Seven hurricanes in two years.
You don't see what happened in New Orleans.
Why is this?
When a hurricane hits North Carolina, you don't see this.
If it hits up north and goes into sometimes they even hit New Jersey and Pennsylvania, you don't see this.
How did it happen in New Orleans?
Well, what do you have in New Orleans?
In New Orleans, you had 60-year control of liberal Democrat policies.
And you had what should have been a utopia.
I mean, if the liberals are right in their worldview, that place should have been a utopia.
There should have been no misery, should have been no unhappiness, should have been no racial discrimination, any discrimination.
There shouldn't have been any need for affirmative action.
There shouldn't have been any poverty.
Shouldn't really have been any unemployment because the liberals promise us that if we just follow their proscriptions, then everybody will have what they need.
Everybody will be just fine and happy and hunky-dory.
Well, ain't so when you look at New Orleans.
In fact, just the opposite.
When liberalism is allowed to run around unchecked, unbalanced, unstopped, it destroys people's lives because it is just like, well, I don't want to use that analogy.
If you take a human being from birth and condition that human being to constantly being cared for, needs, wants, a human being's never going to learn to take care of him or herself.
Bamo, New Orleans.
Some of them didn't.
That's why I loved what Max Mayfield said today in his press conference between 11 and 11.30, that this hurricane is going to barrel into Florida somewhere.
And he's talking about, now make sure you listen to your local officials and make sure when they tell you to do this, you do it.
And make sure that they ask you to do that, you do it.
But when the final analysis, what it all gets down to is there has to be somebody responsible for his or her own actions because that is that there's nothing better that can be done than that than people using their own responsibility, taking responsibility, their own actions, and being responsible for what they do in learning about what's coming their way and blah,
He didn't say this, but I kept, you know, hello, New Orleans.
And he notes he didn't say, listen to FEMA.
He didn't say, wait for the federal government to come in and bail you out.
So that is the thing, the human toll that liberalism has wrought, even in the greatest country of the world.
And the only reason, Elizabeth, that the human toll here is not worse, the only reason that this country is as great as it is is because of our Constitution,
our natural understanding of the origins of our freedom, and because there have been over the last 40 to 50 years a number of brave people who have dared to stand up to this notion that all we need to do to fix every problem we have is spend more money on it.
I shudder to think where we would be had there not been a Ronald Reagan, had there not been a Goldwater, had there not been a conservative movement that has enlightened and informed people on the profligate waste and habits of federal elected officials and state who spend money just for the sake of buying themselves power.
It would be even worse, Elizabeth, were there not the natural checks and balances, the ongoing effort to stop it.
The federal budget's $2.6 trillion.
Where would it be had there not been efforts to curtail spending?
And I'm not trying to be polyanish, and I'm not, you know, my optimism is not through rose-colored glasses.
I don't deny reality in order to be an optimist, but I'm telling you, the effort is well worth continuing because at stake here are the lives of people.
I mean, isn't it a crime?
Isn't it almost criminal to take actions as a government official, elected state, local, federal, what have you, that in the end take away opportunity and the chance to become all you can be to fulfill your potential?
I mean, I look at, I've had African Americans call this program.
Blacks have called this program, and they have told me over and over again that it's been the federal government, white liberals, that have destroyed the black population in this country because with all the welfare, with all the federal spending, with all the attempts to buy all the votes, they replaced the father and the husband in the black family, or did during the worst of it, before welfare reform came along.
There was no need for a father to be responsible for his kids because the government was going to do it.
This is hideous.
Yet we get away with the, liberals get away with calling this compassion.
It's destructive is what it is.
And so these things are, they're always going to be with us, these tendencies.
I mean, somebody wants to give you some money.
It's hard to say no.
It's a natural, it's a natural, everybody wants to win the lottery.
Everybody wants to do better than they are, and some people want to take shortcuts.
But the effort to create as large a population as possible that is as self-reliant as possible, I mean, that to me is a worthwhile goal.
Now, I know what you liberals are saying out there.
Oh, yeah, easy for you to say, easy for you to say.
Yeah, I got a different view of human beings than some of you liberals.
You look at most human beings and you see flaws and you see incompetence and you see incapability.
You see some sort of a deck stacked against them.
You see some sort of basic overall imperfection.
You don't see the goodness.
You don't see the potential because every person who is at this moment dependent on the federal government who then becomes self-reliant is a huge threat to liberal Democrats.
It's one less vote.
And they're not going to give up that power.
They're not going to give up their votes.
And it's just like this thing in the Senate that happened with the Coburn Amendment yesterday.
We've got this Katrina business.
We've got, you know, estimates are anywhere from $150 to $250 billion to rebuild Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Orleans.
We've got a budget and a deficit, and there's plenty of waste in that budget.
There's plenty of places to go and get that money without raising taxes or without borrowing it.
But there's not one senator that's going to let one project of his be taken away from him.
There's an unwritten rule in the Senate.
No senator is allowed to attack the projects of any other senator.
So that means today Tom Coburn is the most hated man in the U.S. Senate.
He's newly elected from Oklahoma.
The most hated man in Washington next to Bush.
So, you know, the odds are pretty steep, but it would be even much worse were these efforts not made.
And by the way, just because Coburn's first attempt failed doesn't mean the next one, the next one might, the next one might, but the process has been started.
And Mike Pence in the House.
All these conservatives in the House are doing everything they can to expand the number of people there that want to get responsible about this spending.
And they need encouragement and they need support.
So I hope we haven't lost you here, Elizabeth.
More on New Orleans, by the way, when we come back.
Mary Landrew now continues.
You know what she's upset about now?
This was started by School Bus Nagan.
School Bus Nagan actually said, I don't know how I'm going to keep this city from being overrun with the Mexicans.
Do you hear that?
I don't know how I'm going to, with Mexican workers.
I don't know.
Because the evacuees are not moving back.
But guess who's moving in?
Latinos from all.
And I'm not talking about illegals.
Latino immigrants are moving in there and they're taking the $10 to $15 an hour being offered to rebuild parts of Louisiana and New Orleans.
And they're working hard.
Some of them are living two and three to a house while they save monies that one day buy their own.
They're taking the old route to success in this country.
You start small, work hard, save your money.
That's what they believe in.
The former residents are not moving back.
And School Bus Nagan says, I don't know what I can do.
I'm going to keep my town from being overrun with Mexican workers.
And now Mary Landrew's on it.
She says that illegal workers are hurting Louisiana.
Now, I'll tell you why you think they're upset.
You think they care about the individuals that left New Orleans and might not come back?
No, they don't care about that at all.
They care about the fact that it's fewer Democrats that are going to be there that'll vote for School Bus Nagan or vote for Mary Landrew.
And Mary Landrew's electoral margins in her Senate races come from the New Orleans vote.
So you sit tight.
We'll have details on this when we come back.
Senator Mary Landrew, Democrat Louisiana, is asking the Bush administration to send immigration enforcement officers to the Gulf Coast to investigate whether federal contractors are hiring undocumented workers to do Katrina recovery work.
While my state experiences unemployment rates not seen since the Great Depression, it is unconscionable that illegal workers would be brought into Louisiana, aggravating our employment crisis and depressing earnings for our workers.
Yes, yes, now you speak up when it affects you.
And we don't even know that it is undocumented and illegal workers that are coming in.
But even so, what's more important to you, getting your state rebuilt?
When are you going to stop whining?
When are you going to stop acting like a little spoiled child?
This senator, Mary Landrew, has not stopped whining since a week after this hurricane.
She's done nothing but complain.
She's gone to the floor of the Senate.
She's gone on television threatening to punch out President Bush or anybody else.
She has whined and moaned that the schools and hospitals are being built in a rock before they're being rebuilt in Louisiana.
She did nothing but complain, nothing but whine and moan.
You might say, why?
Well, because that's what her constituents are probably doing, those that are still there.
And Major Owens got in on this yesterday on the House floor, spoke about Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.
Here's a portion of his remarks.
We've had massive removal of people, and now with the policies of this administration, suspending Davis Bacon, suspending affirmative action, making it clear that people are not welcome back, you will have permanent removal of a whole population.
You'd have permanent removal of a whole population, unprecedented in the history of the nation.
400,000 people, at least 200,000 of those people lived in the section that was heavily flooded.
They will be there no more.
They'll change the politics of New Orleans.
It'll change the culture of New Orleans.
All that matters there, and what you said is it'll change the politics in New Orleans.
That's all you.
So now we blew up the levies so that we could take those Democrats out of New Orleans, spread them out around the country, and lessen their impact politically.
Yeah, the whole purpose was they weren't evacuated on time because of local and state boondoggles and incompetence.
Now the feds went in there, got it done, and now Major Owens is saying it was a plot to destroy the politics and culture of New Orleans.
Well, we'll talk about the sharks here in just a second.
You know, at one time I promoted Major Owens to General Owens, but I think it's time for a demotion.
Sergeant Owens.
Sergeant, nobody removed those people from New Orleans.
They wanted out of there and a hurricane, and now they don't want to go back.
And who can blame them?
▲
Export Selection