All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
February 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, you see the latest media take on Bush's trip out to the renewable energy lab today.
Apparently, two weeks ago, they were downsizing the renewable energy lab because of its lack of importance.
They fired 32 people.
They eliminated 32 jobs.
So just before Bush got there today, they reinstated the 32 people.
Greetings, folks, great to have you back.
Great to be with you.
It's a delight.
It's a thrill to be with you here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have today.
I get an email from somebody.
You've never sounded more frustrated and angry than I have heard you this.
I'm not frustrated or angry.
I'm having fun here.
I'm oh, snurdy.
You're frustrating and angering us with your fun.
Is that it?
All right, well, I'm going to continue then.
Because I continue to do research while this program is underway.
During commercial breaks, I am constantly looking for more data and more information, even as I work feverishly during off hours to prep this program.
Now, here's a phone number if you want to join us: 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
In the first place, when we talk about, and I've slipped up on this, we talk about ownership of these ports.
We're not talking about foreign ownership of the ports.
The ports in the United States, have you ever heard of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?
Well, that's who technically, these are government entities that run these ports and they will continue to.
They don't own them per se.
I mean, you could say they're owned, but they're actually operated or are owned by government elites.
Same thing in the port of Baltimore.
And they are the landlords.
And they end up leasing space facilities like berths and terminals to operators like the PO people from the Brits, the British company that is selling their berths and terminals that they own to the United Arab Emirates.
The facility, like the Port, New Jersey Port Container Terminal, is leased to an organization 50% owned by the British company and 50% owned by Maersk.
Have you seen, you know what Maersk is?
They're a Danish company, the largest ocean transportation company in the world.
They have 18% of worldwide ocean-going capacity.
And you've seen their, you've seen, well, I live on the ocean.
There are container ships that leave the port of Palm Beach, and who the hell, who knows who owns that?
I'm not surprised the Emirates aren't interested in that.
But see these container ships leaving for ports unknown, probably the Bahamas and so forth.
And it seems like half of every cargo container say Maersk on it.
Driving around the Maersk also has their containers on trucks that are transported overland.
You've seen the company.
And they're Dutch.
In Baltimore, the British company that owns the ports leases the Seagurt and Dundalk Marine Terminals on a competitively bid basis.
They don't own or operate the port of Baltimore.
They own or they lease various terminals and docks and so forth, berths.
In Maryland, the equivalent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is called the Maryland Port Authority, and they act as landlord.
And that's what this is.
So if the United, and by the way, I have to stress again, I'm not, it's got so many, so many, you're really ought to touch on this.
I can hear you.
You're for this deal.
You're missing the boat rush.
I have not come out in favor of the deal.
How many times do I have to say it?
I know it probably sounds like that because I'm the only voice that's not been swept up in the tsunami that says, this is dead.
This is dangerous.
This is risky.
These are a bunch of Arab terrorists.
Who's stupid enough to do this?
Just because I'm not echoing that, it is assumed I'm for the deal.
I've told you up front since Friday that economically, this is a great deal.
Politically, it stinks and doesn't have a prayer.
But economically, it is a good deal.
But this economics education in this country is so woefully inept.
Look at how many people are talking about the fact that the Emirates are going to own the ports.
They're not.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is not being bought.
It's not being put out of business.
The people that work there are not going to, you know, have nothing to do.
They're going to still work.
U.S. laws, the Coast Guard will still inspect every ship that comes in.
It's U.S. law.
U.S. law is not going to be suspended because ownership changes.
Pure and simple.
So all I'm telling you is, folks, that there's a lot of knee-jerk reaction to this that I'm calling the tsunami that it's preventing people from learning how these things operate.
I mean, if you didn't know any better, you would say that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, all of a sudden, is going to be sold to the United Arab Emirates, and the United Arab Emirates are going to bring a bunch of their people over here, and they're going to be running it, and they're going to be hiring people, and they're going to be letting in what they want in, and not in what they don't want to come in.
Not true.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is still, and it's, by the way, they're not going to own nearly all the terminals.
They're not going to own all the berths.
There's so much about this that is not understood because it's not being reported.
And it doesn't help when all these politicians get up on the soapbox.
I'm not going to put up with this because it's pure pandering to the constituents' interest.
I mean, if Chuck Schumer, no foreign ownership, okay, Senator, you're going to kick Maersk out.
You're going to kick the Dutch company that has 18% of worldwide shit.
You're going to kick them out?
They're Dutch.
Maersk is foreign-owned.
You're going to kick them out?
He's no foreign ownership.
The problem is, there is no domestic ownership per se, other than the existing government entities.
And we don't own any ports around the world that load and offload cargo to and from the United States anyway.
We're not going to be losing any jobs.
None of that is the is none of those things are factors.
Another interesting little tidbit here: the United Arab Emirates, which is home to nearly 53,000 millionaires, accounting for a stronger density of high net worth individuals than the world's richest nation, the USA, is poised to record a major surge in private wealth over the next three years on the back of a vibrant economy driven by record oil revenues and all-around growth.
This is a private bankers group report.
According to the latest estimate by private bankers, UAE's private wealth sector would sustain the upswing at a level exceeding the Gulf average growth rate of 12.5% per year over the next three years.
In other words, folks, one out of every 80 residents in the UAE is a millionaire.
I would love to see the low-income housing there.
One out of every residence of the UAE is a millionaire.
So I just, what I'm trying to do here is present, and my capacity to do this is limited because I'm not that familiar myself with how the day-to-day operation of these ports concerns.
All I know is that there's some real insanity out there.
Some people are saying it'd be better to let the mafia run the ports like they used to than to let the UAE run the ports.
Sterdley is agreeing with that.
And, okay, so you want to bring back and promote organized crime to run the ports.
Okay, it's our crime, so we can deal with it.
There are criminals and took care of the mafia took care of business of World War II.
Well, if it was so great, why did we just not let them continue to do what they were doing?
It's okay.
So let me take a quick timeout here.
There are, as I say, other items in the news.
I have a story here, great evidence that the era of big government is over.
And the whole concept of big government as a way to get things done is suffered a big chink in its armor.
And I'll explain when we come back right after this.
My friends, it's been a while since I mentioned this.
I mentioned this Friday.
I mentioned this at the beginning of the program today a couple hours ago.
There's another element to this port deal.
Keep in mind.
And that is that there are all kinds of lessons to learn here because there are all kinds of things happening.
Lots of illustrations.
Until this port deal came along, the Democratic Party would not acknowledge that we were seriously at war with a serious enemy.
Now, all of a sudden, they acknowledge it.
All of a sudden, we can't do the deal.
I mean, you've seen the Democrats out there.
The Kooks and the Plagosphere don't want it.
Chuck Schumer doesn't want it.
None of them want it.
Why?
I mean, if they were to be consistent with all of their expressed views the past three or four years, they ought to be welcoming this deal.
Because these people, we're the ones making terrorists.
We should do this to show them we mean them no harm, that we want to be their friends and their buddies.
If they were being consistent, I mean, they've got it all tied up in that we haven't gotten bin Laden.
But Saddam wasn't worth it.
We're just creating more terrorists.
They're trying to construct this whole notion that we live in a pre-9-11 world.
But this port deal comes along and my golly gosh, these people are just acting paranoid.
You can't do it.
No, what are these people?
Terrorists, this is actually horrible.
Now, I know it gives them an opportunity to attack Bush.
But at the same time, this is a rope-a-dope tactic, if nothing else, by Bush, because now the Democrats have come out and admitted that there is an enemy.
But up until now, Abu Ghrab wasn't necessary, Por Club Gitmo wasn't necessary, the NSA domestic or foreign intelligence isn't necessary.
We don't have any enemies.
The biggest threat posed to world security, they think, is George W. Bush.
Now, all of a sudden, it's the UAE.
Don't forget that, as there's a lot to learn here in this.
And political events are happening here that Democrats are going to, they're going to regret having had a knee-jerk reaction themselves on this because next time they run around acting like there are no enemies, the enemy is Bush.
Somebody can say to them, why did you oppose the port deal?
If there are no enemies, if they really have nothing to fear, what's the problem?
Now, this news here, this is another one of these things.
If you just look at this on the surface, you go, ho-hum, predicted it, no big deal.
Millions not joining Medicare drug plan.
Despite outreach, poor seniors miss out on low-cost coverage.
A $400 million campaign with the Bush administration to enroll low-income seniors in prescription drug coverage that would cost them just a few bucks per prescription has signed up 1.4 million people, a fraction of the 8 million eligible for the new coverage.
At this rate, by some calculations, the government is on track to spend about $250 for each person it enrolls.
And even then, it would have only 2 million poor senior citizens taking advantage of what is perhaps the most generous government benefit available today.
Now, we can all come up with the obvious reaction to this.
Well, I never did want this.
It's too complicated.
All they want is the drugs.
Just go to the store and get the drugs.
You don't have to go through all this rigmarole to get these drugs.
That's not the lesson here.
Coming on the heels of the report out of Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, the congressional report, what did that report do?
That report said government at all levels botched it, state, local, federal.
Botched it.
What does that equal?
Big government doesn't work.
Big bureaucracy doesn't work.
Here is, by definition, the mainstream media, the Washington Post calling it the most generous government benefit available today, and the intended recipients don't want any part of it.
Now, this tells me that this is a good sign in the sense that I don't know the numbers yet, but fewer and fewer people are looking at government programs as their panacea.
And the Wall Street Journal's got a great story today on health savings accounts and how they work everywhere they're tried.
And they go on to say that the reason we have this botched up health care coverage as it is now, because it's just like withholding.
It started in World War II.
And just to simplify everything, and because there was competition for qualified workers back in World War II, health coverage began to be added as a benefit.
Withholding started back in World War II as a means of the government getting its hands on tax revenue immediately.
Of course, that's never going to go away.
Withholding is a way of life now.
But the journal makes the point that the original health care benefit should have been an HSA, a health savings account.
There's another story out there today about putting the so-called 44 million uninsured in perspective.
This number is thrown around 44 million uninsured.
Well, they've got to be poor.
They've got to be downtrodden.
They've got to be left out losers in life's lottery, blah, blah, blah.
But that's not who they are.
Many of them are illegal immigrants who are not entitled.
A lot of them are people under 35 who choose not to pay for it because they don't think they're going to need it.
When you're that young, you feel invincible.
You feel like the major health crisis you're going to have away down the road in life.
So there are people, and then there are people like me.
I don't use it.
I pay for it out of pocket because I don't want to go through the hassle.
It's a pain in the rear and it doesn't work anyway.
You know, if I have to go to the doctor's office for 10 minutes and I want to have to take two hours with an hour and 45 minutes of it, filling out forms and answering personal questions, so forth, so I self-insure.
And it makes the point that there are a lot of people who do that.
The whole point is that you add up this 44 million uninsured and it's not 44 million people being forgotten and left out by society.
A lot of it is people not qualified because they're illegal immigrants and a lot of it is people choosing to not have health insurance, self-employed people and a number of other things.
I mean, there's still a significant number of people without insurance, but even in that case, the emergency, they go to the emergency room and they're treated at law.
So essentially, you can say everybody has health insurance for an emergency circumstance.
But it's just more and more evidence here that the panacea of big government able to take, and take a look at New Orleans.
I got an email today, and I haven't been able to verify this because I haven't had time, but I got an email today saying that three of the city council members of New Orleans, in making a plea for former residents to come back, said, we don't want any soap opera watchers.
If you come back here, you better be prepared to work.
Now, I haven't been able to verify this, but if it's true, I will not be surprised by this.
But if you look at New Orleans, what was New Orleans?
New Orleans was the liberal panacea.
There is so much evidence that leaving your life, leaving your wants and needs, particularly your needs, to a bureaucracy and big government is not the way to go.
And it's a long way to go on this.
I'm just saying the trend is positive.
I'm telling you that this consistent message of conservatism and its message on big government is resonating.
It's going to take a lot more time for it to fully resonate.
It will continue to do so.
There's all kinds of reasons for optimism out there today, is my point.
Annie, in Newbury, Port, Massachusetts.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Greetings from a Massachusetts conservative in the closet.
Thank you.
I just wanted to answer on behalf of Play Margaret Thatcher to your earlier caller who asked pointedly, what would Ronald Reagan do?
And anyone who's a self-respecting Reagan Republican understands the essence of his philosophy, which is peace through strength.
And part of that philosophy involves being tough on defense and at the same time holding out a carrot.
It's the carrot and stick approach.
And if we don't do that with governments that are at least moderate and open to Western trade, then we're going to have big problems economically.
So you think, in essence, you think Reagan might be okay with the UAE port deal?
Absolutely.
I'm not sure.
Reagan, I don't know about Reagan, opposed the Panama Canal handover.
Well, I think it's tough to know what Reagan would do.
I understand your thinking, and you expressed his philosophy pretty well.
It's impossible to attach because he's passed away what he would do in this circumstance, but you might be able to get indicators as you've done.
Right.
Again, let me stress this because so many people, and I understand why, it's because of my skill.
So many people think that I have come out in favor of the deal, that I'm lobbying you to support it, and that I am chastising those of you who don't as non-thinkers.
And that's not at all what I'm doing.
There's an opportunity for education here.
And anytime I see a tsunami of conventional wisdom, you know this about me.
It's why I picked Texas in a rose bowl, because everybody else said it was going to be USC.
And I just, I have a problem going along with everybody else.
I have never been one of these everybody else conformists.
And we've got a tsunami here.
And when I see a tsunami, so wait a minute, what is this really all about?
Because there's knee-jerk reactions going on.
And I'm just trying to look at some of the other aspects of the deal.
You're free to make up your own mind here as always.
Redefining hip on the radio, Rushland bought talent on loan from God.
That New Orleans story is true.
Public housing residents who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina are not welcome to return to the city unless they are willing to work.
Three members of the New Orleans City Council have said at a meeting of the Council's Housing Committee yesterday, City Council President Oliver Thomas said that for too long, government programs and agencies have pampered rather than improved lives.
See, they know they can't build it back the way it was.
They had allowed a welfare state to its own self-contained welfare state, and they know they can't do that.
Consequently, former residents who don't, quote, roll up their sleeves, unquote, are better off staying away.
We don't need soap opera watchers right now, Oliver Thomas said.
We are going to target the people who are going to work.
It's not that I'm fed up, but that at some point there has to be a whole new level of motivation of people have got to stop blaming the government for something they ought to do.
Oh, folks, do you?
Okay, so nobody wants the big Medicare deal.
Katrina reports as government screwed up.
Now city council members in New Orleans say to rebuild the city, we've got to have soap opera watchers.
We have people who got to stop blaming and depending on the government.
So they are admitting that liberalism failed and liberalism fails.
When he finished, when Oliver Thomas finished, Councilwoman Jacqueline Brechtel-Clarkson and Renee Gil Pratt said that they backed Oliver Thomas's position.
Clarkson said the preference in public housing should be given to occupants who verify an intention to work.
The remarks were confined to permanent public housing and had no bearing on efforts to get thousands of displaced residents into trailers scattered throughout the city.
Well, I know they are.
These are impeachable statements if you're a Democrat.
These are statements that will get you disinvited to the next Democratic National Convention.
These are statements that will have Jesse Jackson questioning your right to be a leader of a black community.
But that, I think, is just a sign of how desperate things are.
They know they have to downsize the plantation.
And they can't sustain it the way it was.
Folks, this is this is, and not only is it good news, it's sensible news.
If you're going to rebuild a city, would you put out a call for welfare recipients first?
Okay, we want to rebuild our city here.
In fact, we don't want to rebuild.
We're going to build a new city.
We're going to select a site.
There isn't a city there.
And the first people we want are welfare recipients.
We want first people we want are people who are going to live in public housing and watch soap operas all day.
No.
You would not do that.
I know.
There are ports in New Orleans that can sell them to the UAE.
I know.
There's any number of workable options here.
Any number of them.
I got a fascinating, well, to me, it's a fascinating email.
We always talk about opportunity and jobs in this country and making the most of yourself.
Dear Rush, as a powerful, influential member of the media, could you tell me what you would want as in personal qualities and characteristics in a personal assistant?
I've often thought that I could work in such a position for an executive, and I wanted to know what qualities are important.
Thanks for your time.
This is from Nicole.
Nicole, let me tell you, the first thing that you do not do is go read what Maureen Dowd says about this.
Maureen Dowd says that executives want actually to be married to their secretaries and assistants.
They want masseuses.
They want waitresses and other things.
And she resents that, and she thinks that's that she says that men have no desire to actually have relationships with intelligent women.
The fact that she's alone all the time is evidence of that, she thinks.
She says that all men don't want to be troubled with intelligent women.
They just want female services.
But I'm going to answer your question honestly because I think this question was submitted to me honestly, so I'm going to answer this question honestly.
And the first thing, what would you say?
Now take off your sexist hat, Snurdley.
What would you say the first requirement that we're going to assume educational and vocabulary and these kind of things are there?
We just assume that.
Because an executive will weed out somebody that doesn't have that.
I mean, you've got to learn to read, write, and speak the language the best you can.
That's true of any job.
You have to basic communication skills.
Consider those are given.
What is the most important requirement for a personal assistant?
What is it?
Okay, attitude, yes, that's true.
But there's something more important than that.
You have got to be with, Nicole, you have got to be willing to work the hours your boss works.
Personal assistant means just that.
I don't mean you've got to be on call whenever the boss needs you.
Your day doesn't end at 5 o'clock if his doesn't or hers doesn't.
If the executive's day ends at 10 o'clock, that's when yours ends.
Not that you have to be on site, but you've got to be available to take care and do things.
That's the first requirement.
Now, that will require attitude.
That'll require all kinds of motivation.
And you can't be focused on how much every half hour longer than a normal day is going to be, you're going to be paid.
You get that worked out up front.
And after you agree to it, shut up about it and let your work take care of it.
But that's the first and foremost requirement.
Now, I'm assuming that other qualifications are a given, that you can write, that you can speak, that you have a nice phone demeanor and sort of thing when you're representing the executive that you work for.
Because a personal assistant is going to be that executive's lifeline.
You're going to end up taking a lot of the phone calls, returning a lot of the mail, and you're going to have to know exactly how your executive thinks and what he would say or she would say in a certain situation so that you can handle it.
Because another big part of your job is to say no to over 90% of the people that want to talk to the executive because he doesn't have the time.
And you are going to be required to spend the time.
So that's what I would say off the top of my head.
Now, Snerdley wants to put his sexist hat back on for the egg.
Okay, give me one thing without your sexist hat.
What is it?
Okay.
Oh, that's not sex.
Okay, I thought you were going to say something else.
Appearance matters too, Nicole.
You got to have, you have to, you have to have to have a nice appearance.
Pure and simple.
And that's just, that's, that was as true of males or females, either one.
You've got to have a respect for how you look and how you carry yourself.
You're a branch of the executive that you're working for.
And with some executives, I will leave, I will not mention names.
It would help if you were single.
I just threw that in for Maureen Dowd.
Art in Shepard, Montana.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
All right, Rush.
You've got to understand the British and the Arabs to look at this deal.
First place, the British have an immigration policy that allows anybody from any member of the former Empire, Commonwealth, or Protectorates to enter the state.
So nothing's going to change relative to the British part of the company, except maybe the CEO, CFO, and COO.
The second thing is that all of our ports receive shipping that is controlled out of Liberia or a Panama registry.
And the only requirement to work on those ships is that you are willing to work cheap, that you can do the job, and that at least one member of the person can speak the language of the officers on the ship.
And the last thing is, is that in every bloody port in the United States, there are utility tunnels that you can get into that sneak out, and they don't have control of those.
So absolutely nothing is going to change except the CEO, CFO, and COO.
So you're endorsing the deal.
Or not endorsing, but you don't oppose it.
I can't see that it's going to change anything.
I mean, you know, One thing I've known from working as an engineer with people from every country from Ireland to New Zealand and most of the people along the African coast.
And the only country I didn't work with anybody from is Afghanistan, is that most of them are interested in making money.
And that is the whole deal.
They don't give a darn about one thing or other.
They want to support their families.
They want to make money.
And they want to do it as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible.
Yeah, that's pretty universal, I think.
To see what people, and I know what people, I have empathy, so I can imagine the audience listening to you that's frightened of this deal saying, all right, that makes it even worse because this desire to do nothing but earn money makes them susceptible to being infiltrated by terrorists who are going to become employees on these ships that you described and use the ability to get into port easily that way and then get off the boat and get lost in society and set up your sleeper cell.
May I say one thing else, Rush?
Well, but of course.
You've mentioned Halliburton as a possible operator of the ports.
Most people don't realize that Lady Bird Johnson originally owned Brown and Root virtually outright.
And she is now one of the, she or her kids, I don't know what the status is right now, are principal owners of Halliburton.
Not majority, but principal.
And they have far more assets in Halliburton than Dick Cheney ever could possibly conceive of having.
Well, plus, Cheney doesn't work there anymore.
No, I mean, but he, like I say, he put, I think he put everything in a trust fund.
I'm not sure whether he sold it off, whatever he did.
But Ladybird and or her family control more of Halliburton.
All right, so how did that happen?
Lady Bird and her family, they owned Kellogg Brown and Root.
No, they owned Brown and Root.
And when Halliburton acquired Brown and Root, and I was working for Halliburton, Halliburton, Brown Root at Comanche Peak Power Plant down in Glen Rose, Texas at the time, she just traded her stock for Halliburton stock.
That was all there was to it.
And she came out occasionally to some of the projects to give people pep talks.
I wasn't there when she did, but she did that down there when she owned Brown and Root.
So, I mean, let's face it, it's a Democratic company, not a Republican company.
I mentioned this in the last hour, and it's to understand Halliburton, you have to understand Texas, understand its ownership and understand its operation.
You have to understand Texas, Texas politics, Texas business.
I find it interesting throughout all of these attacks on Halliburton ever since, well, even prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that Halliburton, they keep chugging along.
They don't have a crisis PR firm out there defending them and set any of this straight.
They just keep chugging along.
And here are the Democrats attacking a country, a company, whose principal owner is Lady Bird Johnson, a Democrat.
I think getting the word of that out, you know, would, I'm glad you called and confirmed that.
That will change the tenor and tone of some of the criticism.
One thing we can say: Ladybird Johnson never shot Harry Whittington or anybody else in the face on a quail hunt.
Back in just a moment.
Stay with us.
Okay, just got an interesting email, and this is from a woman who is the author of the book Undercover in Islam, spinning the news from Saudi Arabia.
Her name is Lisa McCubbin.
Hi, Rush.
Of course you know this, but you are 100% right about your take on the Dubai port situation.
I lived in Saudi Arabia for two years.
I frequently travel to Dubai for weekend getaways with my husband and two sons, who were seven and nine at the time.
Americans need to stop lumping all Arabs and all Arab countries together as if they are of one mindset.
We need allies in the Middle East.
If we continue to blow this Dubai thing out of proportion, we're only going to damage one of our best allies in the region.
People who haven't traveled to the Middle East and don't take the time to learn about Islam are only speaking from ignorance and fear.
Thank you for not being afraid to speak out the truth on this issue.
I'm not speaking about Islam here.
The Islamo-fascists and I think this whole al-Qaeda and all their branches, I don't even think they're a religion.
I think they're just an ideology.
They're just a fascist movement that's operating under cover of a religion.
Anyway, I lived on one of the Riyadh compounds that was bombed by al-Qaeda terrorists on May 12, 2003.
I'm writing a book about what it was like to live in Saudi Arabia before, during, and after 9-11.
So her name is Lisa McCubbin, and she's a subscriber.
She's a member of Rush 24-7.
And she's the author of her book, Undercover in Islam, Spinning the News from Saudi Arabia.
I don't know that the book is finished yet.
She's writing it.
Let's see.
I'm just going to be waiting tonight to see if I, of course, I don't have to watch these shows because I hire people to do it and then tell me what's on them.
I like Matthews and these guys, because I'm going to tell you what.
If Matthews and these guys are consistent, he's going to have Chuck Schumer and any other Democrat who opposes this deal on and accuse them of creating terrorists.
Well, that's the consistent position.
They have been saying we've been creating terrorists by not having proper allied relationships.
We're creating terrorists by creating an enemy that we don't really have by going into Iraq and by tackling Al-Qaeda the way we're doing it with all these torture treatment centers and prisons and the like.
Why, we're creating terrorists.
Now, all of a sudden, they're the ones who worry about the port deal with the United Arab Emirates.
So, Chris, if you're going to be consistent, I know it's two hours to showtime.
You need to go out there and get Chuck Schumer on and ask him why, all of a sudden, he's willing to help create terrorists by portraying allies like the United Arab Emirates as no different than Osama bin Laden.
It won't happen, but if there were any consistency about it, it would.
John in Boston, I've got about a minute here.
Can you squeeze it in in one minute?
I can get it in in one minute.
First, Rob, thank you for some life lessons you've taught me over the years.
But three names for you: Muhammad Atta, Kenneth Hime, USS Ramsey.
What do they all have in common?
Oh, they were all in America.
They're already here.
Yeah, and for those.
They don't need the ports to attack us.
They're just waiting.
Makes everything mute.
Okay, I get your point.
They don't need the ports to get in because they already can get in and so forth.
So the terrorists are already here, he says.
So, folks, just so you understand this, just so you understand my position, I'm going to say it one more time.
I know this deal doesn't have a prayer of happening.
Doesn't have a prayer.
The economic side of it, though, to me is fascinating.
The lack of understanding about how these ports work on the part of most Americans is fascinating.
The idea that a tsunami of conventional wisdom can get going this rapidly.
Democrats live to throw out charges that conservatives are racist, sexist, bigots, and homophobes.
You take a look at the Democrat opposition to this, and you tell me if it isn't based on racism or a bunch of other profiling.
I mean, we can profile the UAE port owners, but we can't profile people going through our airports.
We have to sit the security wand over grandma and a two-month-old.
So there's just a whole lot here that to me is sort of like a mind exercise because there are parts of this that nobody understands and nobody's trying to understand it because of these fears.
And I've always been leery of making decisions based on fear.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
I have thoroughly enjoyed being with you all today.
It's always a thrill and a delight.
And I will look forward to being back tomorrow and doing it all over again.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your host for life.
Cheerio, folks.
▲
Export Selection