All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
February 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, Mr. Snerdley and uh all the rest of you, a couple other things to think about here.
Can you name for me the American companies that do dockloading and unloading around the world?
Go on the internet out there and try to find out one.
Try to try to give me the list.
Give me the list of the American companies that load and unload cargo at docks around the world.
And and and then and then another next thing I want you to do, I want you to go out there and and and uh call somebody in the Navy.
Everybody knows somebody in the Navy.
Call up and say, when we were at Gulf War One, or at present in the Middle East, what is the friendliest port that the Navy goes in to load up on supplies?
You know, Navy ships have to dock somewhere over there.
Where do they go?
What do you you know what the Navy will tell you?
Dubai.
Dubai is the safest place they go.
It's the most comfortable, it is the best security that they get anywhere in that region.
Greetings, my friends.
Ha ha ha.
And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the E.I. Don't do the research, Mr. Sterley, because there aren't any American companies that load or offload uh containers on docks in ports around the world.
Zero.
Zip zero nada.
And when the Brits get out of this one, this is their last uh uh operation where they load and offload containers at docks around the world.
Every company that loads cargo and offloads cargo at every port around the world is owned by somebody other than a United States concerned.
And this and this is the Brits' last one when uh when they get out.
Greetings, folks.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
All right, Supreme Court.
As you know, you probably heard the news.
The Supreme Court said today, it'll be interesting to see, too, because uh yesterday was uh was Sam Alito's first day, and the court's still there, right?
Court's still there, our rights are still secure.
Nothing happened, correct?
Same thing, Roberts has been there since late last year.
Everything's cool, right?
So the Supreme Court said today that it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the Supreme Court to reinstate the federal law passed in 2003, but they never put an effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska, and New York.
The outcome will likely uh rest with the two men that President Bush recently installed.
Justices had been split five to four in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking swing vote, retired late last month, and she was replaced by Sam Alito.
Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination, because it always is, because that's the only thing the left really cares about.
But he made it anyway.
Okay, so there's that.
Let me put that aside.
Next little story, and this this actually is from Sunday.
It's an associated press story.
Ginsburg bears burden without O'Connor.
It'll be a one-woman show in the Supreme Court starting Tuesday.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only female among the nine justices, and she's not so happy about it.
So resign.
If you don't like it, resign.
If you don't like being the only woman on the court, then go somewhere else.
Besides, David Suter's a girl, everybody knows that.
What's the big deal?
I'm talking about attitudinally here, folks.
You gotta you just dawn agrees, she's nodding her head in agreement.
Ginsburg said in a speech in September, I would I would not like to be the only woman on the on the court.
And that was an appeal uh to President Bush to send up another woman.
Bush complied, but his choice, Harriet Myers withdrew after a conservative crackdown.
Sam Alito was named to the bench.
Um so she's upset.
Uh the the uh only woman on the court.
So now what what's the point of this?
The point of this story, I mean, she made this comment back in September.
Uh, But now she's very upset.
And the point of this story is is this.
And I mentioned this during both confirmation hearings of Alito and Roberts.
One of the things that happens, and I think in part it it explains some of the decisions that have come from Justice Kennedy, who uh I know and knew from Sacramento, who worked there at the same time back in the at the eighth, he was at McGeorge School of Law.
And I've I've known him and I've got to know his family pretty well, but there's this pressure.
The inside the beltway media pressure, the editorials, the style section pieces, the profiles, the invitations to the right social cocktail parties and functions where you are surrounded by the elites, the divas of smart, who um who then start to work on you.
And you uh you like this.
You like being included in these uh elitist affairs, being invited, and uh and hobnobbing and rubbing shoulders with the truly smartest people in town, and it all works on you want to please them, you want to keep getting the invitations, you want to keep getting the editorials, and I am telling you this is as much a reason why so-called conservative justices end up moderating over time as anything else.
Now it's interesting, Clarence Thomas doesn't go to these things and he doesn't get invited, and and Scalia doesn't go to these things, and he doesn't get invited.
Rehnquist didn't go to these things, he didn't get invited, they got invited to some of them, but uh they don't they they they didn't go, but Kennedy went.
Uh Justice Sandra De O'Connor uh went.
She even went to some um event in Washington one year after the football season.
I was the White House correspondence dinner, and she sat at John Regan's table.
Reggins, the running for the diesel, number 44 for the Washington Redskins.
And he proceeded there to consume uh adult beverages in quantities that were perhaps a bit more than wise, and he ended up shouting at her, loosen up, Sandy Baby.
At uh at dinner when it may made big news.
But I'm convinced of what happens, and that's why I think this Ginsburg story uh has a a uh uh partial relevance to the oh, she's the only woman, and here comes the decision to decide the abortion case, and the swing votes, Andrew Day O'Connor is gone.
Oh, this is yeah, I'm convinced the first moments of uh pressure being allowed here are applied being seen.
And here two more stories along the same lines, and this is the real pressure I'm talking about.
First up, the New York Times.
Uh test.
This is their lead editorial today, a test for the new justices.
The Supreme Court hears arguments today in a pair of cases that could drastically weaken the protections of the Clean Water Act.
These cases are an important test of the legal philosophy of John Roberts Jr., the new chief and Sam Alito, the new associate.
If they take a hard-line state's rights stance, it'll be a sign that they agree with ultra-conservatives who want to restrict Congress's power to regulate critical national matters like environmental protection, public health, and workplace safety.
So this editorial aims at Alito and Roberts, calls them out, and says, We are watching.
And if you vote the way we think you're gonna vote, we're gonna tag you as the same way we tag Clarence Thomas, an ultra-right wing extremist without one brain cell.
That's the message being sent.
Mark my words, folks.
Uh it goes on to con describe the cases, but and contains uh a lot of overhype uh and and you know, disguised uh threats.
But I would say to the New York Times, screw you, these two men passed the congressional test, and they passed the uh electoral test.
They don't have to pass your test.
But see, a lot of these guys in Washington end up thinking they do have to pass the tests given by the New York Times and the Washington Post and so forth.
Here's the post story.
The post story is a um uh puff piece on the oldest member of the court uh and the most liberal with longevity on court.
Stevens center-left influence has grown.
Now the message here is say Leto and Thomas supposed to get up to or Leto and Roberts gonna be able to get up today, read the Washington Post, see this headline, and they're gonna get a puff piece.
They're gonna read about a puff piece about another journalist, and he's going to be lionized.
And his center left influence has grown.
Oh, how important you can be in this town if you are a liberal on the court.
This is another example of pressure being brought to bear, and I think what they're also doing here is pleading and begging with uh with with Stevens not to retire.
One day last summer, an unusual baseball practice took place in Blue Mont Park in Arlington.
A white-haired gentleman in owlish glasses tossed one pitch after another to a female catcher, half his age, trying to hit the strike zone.
They were Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, 85, and his daughter Susan Mullen, 42, getting ready for September 14th when Stevens was to throw out the ceremonial first pitch at Wrigley Field, home of his beloved Chicago Cubs.
After weeks of warmups, it's the first time I've ever heard of anybody rehearsing.
The ceremonial first pitch.
When I ran the Kansas City Royals' first pitch department, which is one of my key responsibilities, I never let them rehearse it.
You go out there, just throw the pitch.
They might have rehearsed on their own time.
After weeks of warmups with his daughter and others, Stevens took the mound at Wrigley and did not blow his big moment.
His fastball came in high and only a bit wide of the plate.
See?
So he's spry, he's strong, he's vital.
And he's got more power than ever as a great liberal on the court.
So the message here is don't retire.
That's the personal message to Stevens and to the uh new justices, Roberts and Alito.
See what you can get if you do the right thing.
Mark my words, folks.
It's not coincidental this stuff happens today when the court decides.
We'll hear the late term abortion case again.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue in just a second.
All right, let's go back to the phones.
We're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We'll go to uh Patrick in Richmond, Virginia.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Rush, you know, I just got to come right out and say it.
I think you're you're missing the boat on this port authority uh or port management story.
Okay, I have to ask you a question.
What do you think my position on it is?
I think you're for the sale of the port authority or the port management from the UK to the United Arab Emirates.
Have I said that?
I haven't said that.
I said it makes great sense politically, but it'll never fly or economically, but it'll never fly politically.
Well, what is your position?
Are you for it?
My position on it is that there's such a knee-jerk tsunami reaction that we're not thinking about it all the way through.
No, well, you know, we haven't.
We're not thinking about it.
We're using a knee-jerk reaction to form an opinion here, and we're making a decision based on fear, and I don't like doing things.
I don't like making any decision based on fear.
I'd rather be hashing it out.
I mean, talking about some of these.
I think economics education this country so woefully inept, and this is a classic example of it.
But I know this deal is not gonna happen.
That's not about economics, it's about security.
It is totally about economics, which is also linked to security.
No, no, it's about security.
See, that's the whole point.
That's the whole point.
You have got you've got one whole side of this totally eliminated from relevance.
Oh, it is.
That's my hope of the tsunami has swept you along.
Now, if you listen to Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan said a few things about national security.
And I am to think that Ronald Reagan would be the authority on national security, not Jimmy Carter.
Well, you uh I I told you I led off the program saying that the worst thing that could have happened for the United Arab Emirates is for Carter to come out and support the deal.
That effectively kills it.
I mean, that's Yeah, you're right.
My point is that 9-11 was a wake-up call.
And there are certain things that we need to revisit, and these are called strategic industries.
Is the port management a strategic industry or not?
I think it is.
Well I think that there's some economics.
We don't manage our ports now.
We don't manage the ports in question.
Exactly.
That's why after 9 11 we should have gone, oh, like up, what else should we do with homeland security?
Wait a second.
Wait, this is point you've got let me give you some facts on this.
When I it's not true to say we don't manage the ports because we do.
The British currently are the pending the the deal, the British own these container docks and ports and so forth, but it's American law that's in place.
It's American union contracts that are in place, it's American employees that are in place.
We've been through this with the Japanese.
I went through this, I've I've been through three or four days.
I'm getting really frustrated.
I'm saying some really truly insightful, brilliant things about this, and you people are not listening.
You have gotten so caught up in this tsunami.
Go back to the 80s.
We had the same fear that the Japanese are going to take over and ruin our culture.
It didn't happen.
We've had these fears.
They constantly come up there and and and uh they never prove out.
Now, in this case, if the if the UAE deal were to go through, the UAE is not going to staff it.
We're not going to have imported Arabs working for the company.
They're gonna the the U.S. laws still will operate.
There is not one U. You say we've got to get back into port security.
Where?
The United States does not own one port, one dock where cargo is loaded or offloaded in the world.
There is not a U.S. company in existence that does it.
And when the British finish this deal, this is the last one they will own.
Every dock, every port in the world where cargo is loaded for shipment to the United States is owned by a foreign country.
And quite a few of them are owned by the UAE in Hong Kong, in China, they've two or three other places.
They're in this business.
We don't own anything.
We don't we but but yeah in in uh in our own country, we do have laws and we do have uh our own safeguards, hiring practices, all this.
None of that's gonna change.
We're not bringing over United Arab Emirate Law.
They are not allowed to do that.
Just as the Supreme Court should not be looking to foreign law to determine U.S. constitutional issues, we are not going to be importing United Arab Emirate Customs or law if they were to get this deal.
Now, this is but nobody wants to hear this.
Nobody wants to hear this because and I know why you don't trust them.
You don't trust Let me tell you something.
If the United Arab Emirates, just put it to you this way, if the United Arab Emirates have wanted to sneak a nuclear bomb into one of the containers that they ship from some other port into this country, they could have done it by now.
They could have done it.
You know how many ports, you know how many containers we inspect of all those that are offloaded every day?
Five percent.
Five percent.
That's that ought to be the focus of what we're doing rather than who owns all this stuff, because we don't own any of it.
Uh but but he was all folks, he was also gonna say that it's time I stop just you know, uh being a uh doormat for this administration supporting whatever they do.
Of course, I just raised the question last hour.
How can the Bush administration not know what the political reactions is going to be?
I'm the one asking, why isn't the Bush administration curious about where the weapons of mass destruction were moved?
We all know they were there.
Why isn't the administration more concerned about border security?
I've been asking these questions all over the place.
Who do you think led the conservative crackdown on Harriet Myers?
Here's John and Trenton, New Jersey.
John, you're uh next.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Russ.
Actually, your last few comments, you put some of my thunder away.
I'm a lifelong, I'm a lifelong Democrat.
Don't consider myself a liberal.
Ran for the New Jersey legislature uh several years ago.
And and fine Teddy Kennedy uh horrible, and I find Hillary Clinton vile.
Uh, you know, much more venom than you spew toward them.
Um yet I I think uh that it is possible, and uh I I haven't heard it until lately from you, but I and I listen all the time to also hold the other side accountable.
And uh and you know, I despite what you say, my feeling until the past few months has been that when you get up in the morning, you say, How can I defend Bush?
How can I defend Cheney?
How can I defend Bush?
How can I defend Cheney?
And beginning with Harriet Myers, I see you evolving to questioning power.
And uh that's where I'm at on this Dubai thing.
It looks horrible.
I don't like that that they have a wedge in it.
Yes, you're right.
There are no other companies in the United States that can do this.
However, Dubai is the richest country in the world on a per capita basis, and if some businessman over there has figured out a way to make a dime doing this, then there's a business opportunity for Americans to do it.
And I hate Hal Burton.
I think they've ripped us off in Iraq, but I would much rather see Kellogg Brown and Rude uh do this port security, uh do this uh uh port job than any foreign country.
Ladies, China or Dubai just I'm running out of time here and I want to react to this.
I appreciate your comments.
You should know that Lady Bird Johnson is a huge, huge, huge, huge stockholder in Halliburton.
Lady Bird Johnson, huge.
Think Texas, don't think Cheney.
Second thing is, I do get up in the morning wondering how I'm gonna defend Bush and Cheney because they're under assault every day, just like other institutions I believe in.
I do believe in defending the people that I agree with and who I support, but I do support ideas, not parties or this or that and the other thing.
And Harriet Myers was just a bad idea.
It was a you know, and I wonder how did that happen.
Just like I'm wondering how this deal happened and some of these other things.
I appreciate the call.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-feeling, and all-concerned Maharashi.
Now, National Review Online, they have a little symposium, they call it, on the uh on the port deal.
And they've got a bunch of their big thinkers out there and contributors writing little essays.
And most of the big thinkers obviously come down against the deal.
One of them, a man by the name of James S. Robbins, is a little bit more open-minded about it, and I want to read to you just a few excerpts of what Mr. James S. Robbins says.
I have to wonder if the approval of Dubai Port's World is payback for recent support by Dubai and the UAE in the war on terror.
Here are some data points.
In December of 2004, Dubai was the first government in the region to sign on to the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen all containers heading for the U.S. for security risks.
They own several of the ports around the world already, where cargo is uh loaded for shipment to the U.S., they signed the U.S. Container Security Initiative.
All right, and I know what you people are going to say when I finish this, but just let me go through this.
May 2005.
Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to bar passage of nuclear material from passing through its ports and install radiation detecting equipment.
June 2005.
The UAE joined the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
October 2005.
United Arab Emirates Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
UAE banks routinely cooperate with UN and international law enforcement agencies in supplying information about suspect accounts.
November 2005.
In the wake of the terror bombings in Jordan, General Sheikh Muhammad bin Al Zaid Al-Nunayan, heir apparent of Abu Dhabi and Supreme Commander of the UAE armed forces stated that Muslim scholars who live among us must adopt a stand toward this terrorism.
If they do not declare terrorists to be infidels, they should at least consider them as non-Muslims.
If there are no honest stands toward these non-religious and inhumane operations, these attacks will continue.
December 2005, the UAE National Consultative Council called for declaration of an all-out war against terrorism and depriving any person who pledges allegiance to foreign extremist groups the right of UAE citizenship.
The council proclaimed that it regarded links to such groups as high treason.
The UAE has also assisted the coalition effort in Iraq.
In particular, training Iraqi security forces and sending material assistance to the Iraqi people.
Now, I know what you're saying.
These people are smart.
We're being dumb.
They don't mean any of this.
They're signing on to all this.
And they're just setting us up, making us think that they're our buddies when they're really not.
Hey, that's what I know that that that will that has to be the reaction if you have been swept along the tsunami that there's no way to consider this deal.
There's simply no way why we we can't possibly uh we can't possibly uh uh uh corrupt our security this way.
After you hear the lists of all the agreements they've made, uh then what's your reaction, Snerdley?
What is the reaction?
Okay.
Well, snardly's reaction is fine, but don't reward them by inviting them to participate so close uh in our country that could in in operations that could lead to disaster and so forth.
All right, fine.
I I happen to think most people's reaction is going to be you can't trust these people, they'll lie and steal just like any communist would, just like the China Chicoms do, just like the North Koreans do and so forth.
Well, you've got to think that.
If if you're not you you have no, you can't say that.
Snurley just said their governments are under attack with the same terrorists.
No, no, if you get swept up in the tsunami, you have to say that the sixteen of the nineteen hijackers came from the UAE, they were trained there, the operation was planned there.
That's what you have to say if you've been swept up on this.
That that you have to say that.
You have to constantly distrust them.
You now, one little thing though, James Robbins adds one thing here.
I I sandbagged you all.
I didn't read a whole list of things, one other data point.
He says there's a lot on the other side of the ledger, too, particularly this.
A thank you statement from Hamas to the United Arab Emirates in July of 2005 for all of the support, basically a thank you note.
But given the way relationships work in the Middle East, I can see Dubai expecting favorable treatment in return for its recent cooperation in the effort to combat terrorism, especially for supporting the war effort in Iraq.
It is the way of things.
So he said, eh, look, of course they're gonna think uh Hamas is gonna get a thing, and there's people hanging together.
But the fact that their um uh recent cooperation would lead them to expect favorable treatment is why I say most people, yeah, it's recent cooperation, and it's all a trick.
Guarantee you that's what most people who are opposed to the deal uh would say about this list of things.
Now, as I mentioned last Friday when discussing this, when I went to Afghanistan in uh February of last year, I had to stop in Dubai and from able to fly myself to Dubai, but from there I had to get on some little United Nations puddle jumper and fly around Iran up through Pakistan again, because you don't go you don't go over Iran airspace, even if they let you.
Uh you you just don't trust it.
So it makes what would be, you know, a 45-minute trip, uh, hour trip almost four hours.
So I went over early enough to get time zone adjusted and adjusted the jet lag and so forth, which gave me a couple days in Dubai, and I I had no idea what to expect, and I did not go on the web and check out Dubai before I got there, other than to look at hotels.
That was the first indication of whoa, this is not what I was expecting.
I was expecting a little desert outpost.
I admittedly had not been hardworking on informing myself of what this place was.
But I'm telling you, I was stunned.
I flew over some of the most desolate desert I've ever makes United States desert look like an oasis.
But then out of nowhere amidst the dust and the sand of the desert rises this futuristic giant city with skyscrapers and buildings that would make Las Vegas look like, you know, a suburb of a town of 30,000 people, and there is construction going on left and right all over the place.
All the signages in English.
And I met with some people during the downtime I had over there, and uh the uh some some people from the U.S. government who were uh shall I say escorting me all the way into Afghanistan.
And they were just telling me a little bit about Dubai and and the things that I remember them telling me, and I I'd be honest, I wasn't listening this closely uh because I had no idea that this was gonna become relevant, you know, my trip to Dubai, uh just a two-day stopover.
Hotel was fabulous, the food, I mean it was all it was it it's as it's as Europeanized and and uh and and Americanized as any place I have been outside this country.
And they were telling me, yeah, the Emirates have a strategy.
The Emirates have a strategy that they are going to attract international investment, and they they know where the money in the world is, and they want their share of it, and they are trying to become trading partners with as much of the free world as possible.
Uh they are the the they want to set themselves up as the outpost in the Middle East for vacations, set them up for business investment.
They want to set themselves up as a magnet for economic activity.
And did you see the story over the weekend or late last week about how somebody's going to build the first commercial spaceport, and it's going to be in Dubai.
Some company is going to build a port, uh no pun intended, airport spaceport, where average citizens, normal people, non-military and non-astronaut types, can actually take suborbital flights and learn what it's like.
And this is hopefully someday they hope it'll be the first step toward this kind of general commercial travel.
And that's that's that's who they want to be, and that's that's what they're setting themselves up to be.
Now, it is entirely possible, I suppose that this is nothing more than a giant trick to build this giant city and uh these seven emirates and make it look like something other than what it really is, because underneath all this will be the bowels of the worldwide terror operation that we are actually facing.
But you're gonna have to go pretty deep to uh to find that.
Uh it was uh I was I was taken aback by it.
I was astounded and surprised by by what I saw, because I really had no expectations.
All right, I'm gonna bite.
They're in there laughing at me on the other side of the glass, and I have no idea why.
Did I say something that I uh oh, I see, I see.
I said what I see, I get it.
Dawn is saying he's not telling us everything about those two days.
He met the big chic.
He met the big emir, and the big Amir started working on him in those two days, and now they've got their first disciple to try to sell a port deal in Rush Limb.
Is that what you're thinking?
I'll bet you're right.
I'll bet you let me take a break.
Well, in quick time, I'll be back in just a second.
All right, we are uh back.
Well, there's other news out there besides the port deal.
Uh just give you a little hint of it.
Apparently, one of the reasons Wall Street's going through the roof is down a little bit today, but uh the sell-off going on, but uh apparently the indicators for the first quarter GDP are just gonna be off the charts.
And it is going to take away all of the Democrat arguments they're making about the deficit and the bad economy, and there's one little indication there, key forecasting gauge of the U.S. economy posted its biggest jump in seven months last month, rising to a record in a good sign for second quarter growth, the conference board said on Tuesday.
Now, first quarter growth is what I'm talking about.
This is already projecting second quarter growth.
The 1.1% gain in the index of leading economic indicators marked the fourth straight monthly rise, according to the conference board.
It trounced financial market expectations of a 0.6% climb and followed an upwardly revised 0.3% increase in December.
The leading index, which measures a basket of economic indicators ranging from unemployment benefits claims to building permits, is intended to forecast economic trends up to six months ahead.
If you go to Bloomberg, we have this story here by Kevin Hassett, reeling from bad publicity and diminished expectations.
The Bush administration is about to get a much needed shot in the arm from the economy.
Booming consumer spending and a slew of other positive indicators suggest that GDP will post one of the largest gains in recent memory in the first quarter.
Wall Street is buzzing about the skyrocketing output, but it may matter more to Washington, which has only begun to take notice of the big news on the way.
David Molpass, the uh chief economist with Bear Stearns in New York, wrote in his commentary last week that first quarter GDP growth is setting up to be a blowout.
Consumption, investment, government spending, residential investment are all at least through mid-February looking even stronger than our five percent first quarter growth forecast.
More than six percent is what people are now asking themselves.
While seasoned economists like Malpas And uh Morgan Stanley's Dick uh Dick Burner prudently don't get too excited about any one blip.
There is no question that the first quarter growth number will be huge, perhaps even higher than six percent.
And it will have an outsized effect on politics and economic policy.
Sometimes data arrive at just the right time, and this may well end up being one of the more impressive examples.
While there certainly will still be a deficit, it will be smaller than expected, which will make additional tax cuts less politically difficult.
Second, the data will strengthen the hand of those who argue that the tax cuts are working.
This should create a more robust popular consensus that the effective medicine of the past should be sustained and bolster the confidence of wavering Republican moderates.
Finally, the strong data will weaken the hand of Democrats who have been predicting a deficit-induced slowdown.
The Republicans will gain political steam.
The Democrats will be scrounging around for a new story or risk sticking to their old one and looking silly.
The idea is widely accepted in the academic community and the uh intuitively obvious enough that it may well attract voters, especially those dispirited members of the Republican base.
So apparently this first quarter quarter number could be higher than six percent.
Uh and and he's right about everything he says here when it comes to the political fallout of that.
Tax cuts will be given another exclamation point.
Making them permanent will be much politically easier uh to do.
The Democrats are gonna lose another issue because they've been lying about this all along anyway.
The economy's not that bad now.
The economy's been pretty good for considering 9-11 and uh somebody's in the hurricanes, it's been awesome.
But that story has been um it's not an action line of the mainstream press.
The action line is soup lines, 1930s, nobody has health insurance, nobody has soup.
Uh it's horrible.
Soup lines without soup, but the this first quarter number, and now we've got the indications that the second quarter is just as strong.
Just keep your hat on, folks.
Oh.
One other thing.
We had a we had a glitch.
Uh Ditto Cam was up and running, it was fine and dandy, and then all of a sudden uh uh we had a glitch and it it stopped working.
I'm the one that caught this.
And so I informed our people, and uh the uh the this the glitch, it was a software glitch.
And I hate to tell you this, but that one of the one of the engineers on the staff is from the United Arab Emirates who found the problem and fixed it.
It's now up and running.
Here's Ken in Lake Arrowhead, California.
Welcome to the program.
Thanks, Professor.
I've been blessed to be a student on the front row of the institute for 15 years now.
Thank you, sir.
I want to thank you for that.
Uh Rush, you can't win over your enemies by being nice to them.
President Bush tried it with the swimmer on the education bill.
That's been tried lots of other times.
I don't think it's gonna work here.
And I don't think that the UA is uh any more our friends than the DNC.
I don't think we need to add uh we've got the DNC here for that.
We don't need uh part-time friend.
Uh interesting analogy.
I I think we could probably trust the UAE more than we can trust the DNC.
Well, I yeah, you're because there's an economic link here.
You know, you you this is not about talking we're we're not talking about trying to make our enemies our friends here.
In in in the in the sense that we're in in a political sense.
This this is not an ideological deal here.
We're we're not we're not doing this because we've got a bunch of lib Arabs that we're trying to turn into conservative.
This is strictly the the the modus operandi for this and the underlying uh uh factors for doing it remain purely economic.
Well, and it's I just gonna remind you what Sun Tzu said.
Sun Tzu said the best and easiest way to win a war is to make your enemy your friend.
If you can't succeed at that, then shoot them.
We'll be back in just a second.
And another email that uh illustrates how some of you people are not listening.
Dear Rush, you still seem to not be answering why can't we run our own ports?
We do run our own ports, we don't own them.
So because you like the hotels in Dubai, we should let other nations run our ports.
They already do.
We haven't run with uh they we run the ports.
No nation runs the port, and the Arab Emirates are not gonna run these six ports.
They're going to own them.
The British don't run the ports now, we do.
U.S. law, U.S. employees.
Why can't we bring the jobs back here from Europe?
Why send them to we're not gonna be sending one job to the United Arab Emirates because the ports that they're gonna own are here.
Why would we send any jobs to this is classic example of what I'm talking about, how the tsunami has just slipped and the tide has washed away all desire to look at all aspects of this.
▲
Export Selection