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

Time Text
All right, my friends, we are back.
We are back under a beefed up security detail here at the EIB Southern Command.
I was threatened by a member of the Long Beach Longshoremen last hour on this program.
And as such, we have tightened our security procedures and beefed up security personnel here at the secretive and unknown to anybody, EIB Southern Command Location.
Greetings and welcome back, Rushlin boss, safe and sound.
Don't worry, friends.
I'm okay here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
If you missed the previous uh well, the last call the previous hour, uh, a man identifying himself as a proud member of the Longshoreman Union in Long Beach, a man named Jerry called and said, Don't you don't you threaten my union or what and don't don't don't you don't you criticize my union.
What he was referring to is that I continue to dig deep on the port deal.
And I have learned that uh much of the opposition to the port deal from the likes of Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, Senator Boxer, and others, uh, may not be what it seems.
They're they're hiding, I think, under the cloak of being concerned about national security.
Uh, but when you look at it, what really is happening here is that they are all huge recipients of large contributions from the longshoremen's union, which, I mean, and it's not a surprise to anybody.
Organized labor supports the Democratic Party uh uh in rote.
It's just they don't even think about it.
It's just as a reflex action.
And it's a little hypocritical because we already have all kinds of business deals and arrangements with the United Arab Emirates and the Clinton administration way back when, you know, sold them 60 F-16s.
Uh we've allowed them to own property in this country and so forth.
But when I with the longshoremen uh uh uh union members threatened me, it jogged my fertile memory.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, I recall that in recent years, I thought it was two or three years ago.
Turns out it was uh it was well a little over three at 2002.
Um there was a strike by the Long Beach longshoremen over the uh modernization of procedures, cataloging and inventorying cargo that was on ships and was offloaded.
And they were if you remember this, it was the barcode scanning controversy.
They wanted to put barcode scanning on all of the incoming uh uh cargo to help find out where it is.
Rather than send off a bunch of human beings to try to find it.
Let's find out exactly where it is.
Let's computerize it.
And the longshoremen fought this.
This is nothing new.
Unions have been fighting advanced technology since there has been advanced technology.
They've been, I mean, that they're afraid it will affect their jobs, and they went on strike right around Christmas time in this year uh in order to make their case.
And they had ships that couldn't get into port because the ships that were in port wouldn't be offloaded, and no ships couldn't be reloaded and sent back out.
Ships out in the Pacific waiting to get in.
Uh and it got so bad that people were demanding that President Bush get involved.
This was Christmas after all.
The Longshoremen, uh let me read to you, this is from um uh uh little website here with Slate.com, uh, and it's just a it's titled Short Port Report.
I'll just read you an excerpt.
And that's exactly organized workers have resisted new technology since the 1800s, and that's exactly what the longshoremen are doing now.
The port operators want to start using barcode scanners to speed cargo through terminals.
More likely than not, those operators will want to engage outside contractors to run the new scanners, and those contractors will employ non-union labor.
It's easy to sympathize with workers whose jobs are displaced by technology.
Easy pass has meant the elimination of many decent paying jobs for toll booth clerks.
Um and of course, we used to have a buggy whip industry and a buggy industry, but with the car out went the buggy in the buggy whip industry.
Uh Union members in question here get paid more like accountants than day laborers.
According to the Pacific Maritime Association, the average annual salaries at the ports for longshore workers, $82,895 a year for Class A workers, 118,444 for clerks, and 157,352 a year for foremen.
This piece published, by the way, Wednesday, October 2002.
The six-figure clerks who chart the inflow and outflow of the trucks in the containers frequently by hand say they'll be happy to use these new gizmos, but only if the barcode jobs are unionized.
And that's what the um that's what the fight was over.
And I am sure that that's what the concern is here.
You say, what's this got to do with the UAED port deal, Rush?
Stick to the issues.
I'm I'm getting there, folks.
You stick with me.
Realize I never get lost in this program.
I never lose my train of thought.
I never forget what I'm going to say.
I always stay on track.
There is no doubt that the concern in these six ports is uh that longshoremen have is exactly over the same thing.
We have, I shared with you a story today from the New York Sun about how the uh the United Arab Emirates uh port company is modernizing and streamlining all of its ports around the world.
I told you that the number two, actually a number one port operator in the world is is owned out of Hong Kong.
And they don't want to buy the uh six ports in question here because they don't want to deal with the union regulations.
I doubt that anything's gonna change, and I've been saying that all week.
But I can understand their fear that things might change.
And so they that's why they're donating heavily all these years to protect their jobs.
That's what the union people do.
So we're faced with the age old problem of how do we modernize and advance technologically without putting a whole bunch of people out of work.
And so there has to be obviously uh thought attached to all of this.
What always happens, I mean, I hate to tell you something, but during the NAFTA debate, you know, all we heard about was a singer sewing machine plant up in New Hampshire, you know, and how people be put out of jobs, but you know, economics is what it is.
The global market is what it is.
It can't go back with a wall around the country, pretend that this global economy and interlinked uh economic dependence is not happening.
You can't can't turn back the hands of times on uh time on things like this.
I actually think this.
I was telling um, I was telling uh my staff here during the break that what I fully expect to happen is that uh if the UA deal does go through after all of this tsunami and all the bad PR, the UAE people are gonna bend over backwards to show they have no intention of causing anybody here any harm.
And they'll probably hire more longshoremen, and they'll say, just sit on the dock, you're on permanent break, and we're gonna pay you whatever you'd get paid for it.
We're gonna increase the number they'll do this for a while, just as uh as a PR issue.
I know some of you are saying, what's the difference?
Permanent break and a regular job.
Don't make that joke, folks.
I have been threatened by these longshoremen people now, and we're not gonna make jokes about them.
I've already had a beef up security.
You start telling jokes about them, I'm gonna be in even further peril.
But there's no question that at some point these ports are going to be modernized.
I mean, it's just the way of the world.
There's going to be new technology.
There's going to be faster ways of getting port in and out of the docks, offloaded and onloaded.
It's going to happen.
And uh there'll be steps taken to, as this modernization takes place to incorporate everybody involved.
Found another longshoreman story for you.
This is from the Capital News Service.
It is from Friday, March 12th of 2004.
Longshoremen worry that port security proposals could hit them hardest.
And I'm just going to read to you what the story says.
Men with criminal pasts in need of a job of long term to the one industry here that would take them.
This is from Baltimore.
The waterfront.
Well, don't blame me.
I'm not the one who said yesterday, let the mafia have this.
Somebody said, turn this back over to the mafia.
And snurdly agreed that it'd be better than a UAE.
That's what you said yesterday.
Don't bl I'm telling this is the guy who wrote this is named Joe Eaton, E-A-T-O-N, and that lead story is his.
For those of you who are members of the Longshoremen's Union.
And many of the same longshoremen who found a solid paycheck at the port of Baltimore worry that could change under a 2002 law that aims to protect American ports from terrorism.
The law requires criminal background checks for longshoremen and other dock workers who could lose their jobs if they have a conviction in their past.
The Department of Homeland Security is still developing rules for the checks and could not say when they might take effect, but any time is too soon for longshoremen here.
The waterfront saved a lot of people, man.
I mean a lot, said Anthony White, 36, a second generation longshoreman, who's been at the uh port of Baltimore for five years.
White conceded he has a felony conviction for a crime he refused to talk about that's 17 years old.
Said he knows several other longshoremen with records.
He worries about their families, he questions how they'll pay their bills.
You got to get your life together, man.
Why why do they want to take that away from you?
You have a car payment, you have a house payment.
What are you supposed to do?
Well, obviously we need uh we need income insurance.
You know, just like we have health insurance, income insurance.
You know, speaking of that, there's a story.
I can't wait to get to this.
Story in the Wall Street Journal about health care costs and how fast they're rising.
It might be cheaper to just buy every employee a house than give them health care.
That's how out of control it's gotten.
I will have the details coming up for you.
The bottom line here in this Baltimore story, uh the longshoremen uh opposed background checks on dock workers passed in 2002, intended to improve national security.
Uh they opposed it.
So, and they contribute to Democrats.
So that's that's the connection here.
So when you when you hear these Northeastern Liberal Democrats talking, not communicator, not communicator, not communicating.
Think longshoreman union, longshoremen union, longshoreman union contributions.
Quick time out here, folks.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back.
L. Rushball, the cutting edge of societal evolution, your fearless anchor man and play-by-playman of the news.
We're pondering posting some uh longshoremen cartoons at Rushlimbaugh.com, see if we start any riots.
800 282-2882 is the number.
If you would like to be on the program, let me let me address something I think that's bothering those of you who uh uh uh uh oppose the deal.
Uh and I think it's part of the tsunami effect, and it's quite understandable too, uh, in a mass hysteria way, given the post-9-11 world we live in.
Well, that's what the tsunami is.
It's been mass hysteria.
It's been it it really has that's that's one of the reasons I red flags went up.
Uh and I would imagine that when when when some of you first heard this, you had pictures form in your mind.
You had visions of Abdul and Sahib wearing turbans operating the cranes and driving the uh equipment on these uh docks at these at these six ports.
And good God, what are we doing?
How stupid can we be?
Admit it.
That's that's what you saw.
That's that's what you saw.
If we're gonna have a United Arab Emirates company owning it, then you concluded that the they're gonna hire their own people.
And and now if that were going to happen, that would change the whole tenor of the deal.
There is no question.
Now you are talking about a genuine legitimate security risk, uh because you'd have to go through all kinds of hiring um uh practices and steps.
You'd you have to you would have to implement the Patriot Act practically as a as a as an employment tool.
And I can understand people having that attitude.
Uh I also know that when you hear me say, well, the uh uh uh Dutch companies, uh but uh Denmark kind of that's a big company out there, and the Brits, they're into port business and getting out of it and so forth.
You think, well, okay, fine, well, those those are nations that we have had a long and traditional relationship of trust with.
The United Arab Emirates, even if what we're being told is true that they are new allies in the war on terror and that they are um uh on our side in this, and if you happen to believe what I do, that what they actually want to do is be like us, uh then you say, well, yeah, that's that's but that's just been since 9-11, and can we trust them?
Because you don't have a long period of institutional trust such as that that we have with long-term allies like the Allies, uh like the the British and the uh well, not the French and not the Germans, well, some of the Germans, uh but the Danes, the Dutch, and so forth.
So all these things are understandable.
People uh in a post-9-11 world are being asked to trust uh sort of things that there's not an institution of trust, trust or to believe in.
And I understand I understand all of these uh all these things.
Uh uh, which is you know why I'm I'm spending the time on this that I am, and as I say, just I'm just sharing with you the thought processes that I have as I learned things.
For example, reading the Wall Street Journal today, they got an editorial Ports of Politics, and interesting paragraph here.
The timing of this sudden uproar over the port deal is a tad suspicious.
A bidding war for the British-owned PO has been going on since last autumn, and the PO board accepted Dubai's latest offer last month.
The story only blew up last week as a Florida firm that is a partner with PO in Miami, Continental Steve Adoring and Terminals Incorporated, filed a suit to block the purchase by Dubai.
Miami's mayor also sent a letter of protest to President Bush, uh, as the journal editorial writers say it wouldn't be the first time certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.
So we now know also that there is a uh a partner of PO in Miami which doesn't doesn't want this sale to go through and has enlisted political support from the mayor of Miami.
It's common.
Uh no big deal, but there are elements of this that that uh they're being reported.
You just have to dig deep to find them.
The mainstream press is simply doing what it's been reduced to doing.
Bush is bad, Bush is selling us out, and let's give the Democrats 90% of our broadcast time to express their thoughts on it.
Uh they're not giving us any reporting on this.
What is why I'm spending the time here doing it uh myself.
I also, uh after having been threatened by the uh longshoreman in Long Beach, I asked Cookie to find out who owns the Port of Long Beach.
Because I wanted to find out if perhaps it was foreign owned.
Turns out it is not.
The Port of Long Beach is owned to the city of Long Beach, and it is governed by the Board of Harbor Department Commissioners.
We called them.
And the Port of Long Beach operates as a landlord.
The Board of Harbor Commissioners leases port shipping terminals and other facilities to private firms.
And uh and some of them are are no doubt foreign.
No question about it.
Phil in Idaho Falls, Idaho, thank you for waiting.
You're up next on the EIB network.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
You know, I was wondering, are you having a little bit of a double standard here?
You talked about the importance of the Patriot and keeping the Patriot Act in uh full force and not letting down our guard.
Are we letting down our guard on the ports?
Well, uh I thought I'd just address that.
Uh if if if the fear that a lot of people first had, no doubt, was that every employee of these six ports would become a essentially uh a foreigner, uh somebody from the Emirates or somebody from the Middle East, then you'd have to you'd have to almost have a Patriot Act to go through the employment procedure to check security and backgrounds and all of that.
That's not the case.
The the the case is that the United States will continue to and its laws will oversee the operation, the union contracts will remain the same, the uh uh Coast Guard and Customs are still gonna be doing what they're doing, as though they do it now.
It's just it's somebody else can be writing the checks.
Just somebody else gonna be writing the checks and making the profit on the operations at these uh at these six ports.
But I don't I don't know what this has to do with the uh with the Patriot Act.
Uh like I say, if if if you're gonna if you're gonna attach this uh this danger to the UAE, then you gotta stop them from flying into the country with their commercial airlines.
You've got to make sure that whatever property they own here, they divest themselves.
They get out of it.
Freeze their assets, and then we've got to make sure that if if they are funding, and that which they are Columbia University Muslim studies courses, we can shut that down.
Uh I I just you know, there's we got to stop selling them fighter jets like Clinton did back in 1998.
60 F 16s.
They could have used those against us already.
Yeah, so turn it up.
All right, I'm gonna I'm gonna stir the pot a little more here.
We checked out the port of Los Angeles, uh, ladies and gentlemen, and we found out that 80% of the berths are owned by foreign nations, foreign companies, with the vast majority of them owned by the ChICOMs.
The SHICOMs have quite a few berths at the port of Los Angeles.
Well, they and I've I this does not do not surprise me.
Uh correct me if I'm wrong.
My memory on this is a little admitted fuzzy, but uh did the Chiccoms try to buy the Panama Canal, or did they buy it?
Can't I don't know if they own it or if they tried to buy it and everybody raised a uh a big uh big stink about it.
Let's listen to some media analysis of this, and I referred to this earlier.
Uh how you know I am often portrayed by the media and by the Democrats as a simple-minded simpleton, and you are mind-numbed robots.
Why, ladies and gentlemen, I see only black and white.
I don't see nuance.
I don't see the gray areas.
Everything's either right or wrong, good or bad.
Uh and uh that equals simpleton.
And they are the ones with the nuance.
They the elitists are the smartest people in the world, and they are able to see things that mere mortals and plebes like you and I are incapable of seeing.
What a 180 has taken place today on the Today Show, the perky one, Katie Couric, apparently headed to the anchor chair at CBS, talking to Tim Russard about the ports.
And Katie said, we're hearing about two conflicting images of the UAE.
One is an ally in our war against terror, another is a home to two of the 9-11 hijackers.
What depiction is accurate, Tim, or is it some kind of combination of the two?
It's a combination.
The fact is, hijackers from September 11th did come from the UAE.
On the other hand, they have helped U.S. officials apprehend some Al-Qaeda officials.
The president is saying to himself and the people around him, if I go before the world and say we're gonna cut back on this deal because the UAE is an Arab country, what is that going to mean?
What is that going to mean to the future of our foreign policy?
It's a more nuanced approach, frankly.
That the Democrats are usually trying to argue.
This time the Democrats have the simple issue, we're for national security, Mr. President.
Yeah, and and they're gonna they're it's gonna come back and stab them in the back because all of a sudden their whole their whole modus operandi has been exploded.
They we don't have any enemies.
The Democrats have been trying to tell us that we don't need to be doing any of this.
We don't need the Patriot Act, we don't need to have this NSA spying program.
We don't need Abu Ghrab.
We don't need these foreign prisons.
We don't need any of the steps that we're taking because Bush is the one creating the terrorists.
If we just stop Bush, then well we're gonna be safer.
Now all of a sudden we've got an enemy.
And who do the Democrats zero in on?
The United Arab Emirates.
So I say, if the Bin Laden family were buying the ports, then we'd we'd have a you know a different a different take on this.
But even Russert points out that uh frankly it's the president and uh of course me, because there aren't too many other people other than me and the president who are being nuanced on this.
Everybody else is um just relying on the simple.
And of course, when he says the Democrats have the simple issue, we're for national security, Mr. President, we also know that Democrats uh are inexorably linked to unions, and the unions are very much frightened and scared about this deal, and uh will have a uh major impact on how Democrats react to this.
Again, it's allowing them, their association with the unions here is allowing them to um to uh stand up under the banner of national security, which is really great.
I mean, uh, just why'd it take them so long?
And how do how come they chose the United Arab Emirates as the enemy that they wanted to recognize as posing a grave threat to the country?
So the next question from Katie Couric uh what do you think about the Arab American community claiming it's bias and bigotry that's driving this?
And in fact, President Bush suggested it as well when he compared all of a sudden Middle Eastern companies held to a different standard in a British company.
Is there some truth to those claims?
Well, the Arab community certainly believes that, and if you look at the numbers, Katie, there are about 360 ports in the United States, about 30 percent uh have terminals operated by foreign companies, including China, Singapore, Denmark, and so many Arab Americans are saying, why us?
Why is the UAE being singled out?
Democrats and Republicans in the Congress will counter because it was a country that was directly involved in September 11th.
Let's go to Cut 8.
That question about their involvement in um 9-11 was brought up to Rumsfeld yesterday during his uh briefing.
Uh and here is the exchange.
It's an unidentified male reporter.
Two of the 9-11 hijackers were from the United Arab Grants.
It's an undercurrent.
One ought not, in my view, to hold a country of origin responsible for every citizen they may have at any given time, particularly when people have multiple passports.
Um does the name Mark Rich mean anything to you?
Mark Rich, pardoned by uh President Clinton has been involved in a lot of nefarious criminal activities.
Um used to be uh an American citizen.
Does does it make sense that we are uh that that countries uh that don't want to deal with Mark Rich are gonna say, we can't trust you, Americans.
Look at Mark Rich.
Uh by the way, I I might add that that uh the Democrats have been doing their best to alienate as many foreign countries from President Bush as possible.
They've been traveling to Saudi Arabia.
You know, if somebody wants to look at who's really posing a security risk, look no further than Al Gore, who goes over to Saudi Arabia last week, still this has not been reported on the mainstream press, and starts telling lies to an Arab audience, and he was doing it for payment, about the horrible treatment that Arabs are receiving in this country.
Rounding them up wholesale, putting them in prison, not charging them, and they're never to be heard from again.
And on the cuspidical Al Gore, less than a week after he makes the speech, here we are announcing a deal to sell these uh these six ports to the uh to the United Arab Emirates.
What a blowhard idiot.
Now, you may not be an idiot in terms of speaking because his audience back here in the country, the left-wing kooks uh that they're gonna determine the next Democratic presidential nominee, may love it.
But the fact is, with the cartoon controversy and these riots all over the world, and there's gore out there saying that we are rounding up Arabs in this country wholesale and sequestering them without legal protection or without any charges.
So it's just absurd.
And you've got Clinton basically going overseas and saying, I'll tell you what, we ought not be uh publishing any of these pictures of these uh the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed and so forth.
I think the press ought to be more responsible about this.
So he's coming out against freedom of the press, but these guys and Jimmy Carter, they've been going around the world, ripping the United States and its policy in the war on terror, ripping the United States and its policy of the war in Iraq, ripping George W. Bush personally and so forth, all for their own personal gain.
You think that's not whipping up a bunch of anti-American frenzy over there when an ex-president and an ex-vice president do this kind of thing.
You know, I think it's it's it's helpful to have a little perspective here.
Um now here's more on the uh Panama Canal, Atlantic and Pacific entrances, and this is from the uh uh Washington Times.
Well, the the the uh Hutchinson Whampole LTD, a giant Hong Kong-based, and you know who controls Hong Kong now, the Chicons, the Brits gave it back.
So the Chicoms run Hong Kong, a giant Hong Kong-based shipping firm uh with ties to the ChICOM leadership and the people's liberation army was awarded a 25 to 50 year contract to run the two major ports on Panama Canal's Atlantic and Pacific entrances.
This happened during the Clinton administration in 1999.
Thank you, Jimmy Carter, who was the first guy to surrender control of the Panama Canal.
And uh so, you know, folks, there's there's uh th this kind of thing has been going on for a long, long time, and the and the and the Democrats, these people who are talking about national security and all this, um have they've got no leg to stand on when it comes to this particular deal.
And who was it?
Was it during the when you the people's republican uh uh the people's uh liberation army during the Clinton administration, what was the story about about this um this one guy from the People's Liberation Army, son of some Chicom leader who was trying to buy something in California.
Maybe he was trying to buy a port.
Or whatever, he wanted to ship guns in or some such thing as that.
Remember, I can't, I don't I don't know what became of that.
Uh but uh this this if you have just take your time to look at this and you will find it's not uncommon and you'll find that it's uh the the what what makes this different is nine eleven, of course.
But the Chiccoms are threatening us.
The Chicoms have ICBMs, uh the North North Koreans are in bed with the Chicoms and so forth.
Uh and one of the ways that we are dealing with the Chiccoms is infiltrating their country with capitalism.
We are infiltrating that company, we're exporting capitalism, and uh uh you know, their their market is taking off and it's you know, they need our market, as it were, in order to maintain their own economic viability.
A quick time out.
We'll be back.
Me making it less likely they'll send one of these ICBMs our way.
They'll threaten it, and uh they get in bed with the uh the Chinese uh with the with the Iranians, the Russians maybe.
Wait now, make no mistake, we've got enemies.
And we're gonna have enemies, we're always gonna have enemies because we're the world superpower.
And we're gonna have uh we're at the top, people envious, people don't like us, and there are bad people uh plain as simple, is this they're bad bad people everywhere, regardless of any circumstances uh surrounding them, just bad people.
And these things all have to be dealt with in a uh responsible way, case by case basis.
Quick time out, more coming after this.
It was only mere moments ago, ladies and gentlemen, that I asked you if I was not correct when I said that one of your primary fears when you first heard the deal with was that you could uh you conjured up a mental image of uh turban wearing Arabs running the cranes and so forth, thinking that the United Arab Emirates would import their own people as employees and so forth.
Yes, you did, Snerdley.
That was exactly one of the fears that you had, and a lot of people did too, and not and let me just show I was right about this, and to show you just how knee-jerk reaction the simple-minded the media is.
I want to just a little question here for you.
Five seconds, you have to listen fast here, and this is from Martha Raditz to Scott McClellan, the White House briefing today.
She is an ABC News reporter at Scott, we just go back to the hiring.
So who's running the forklifts?
I mean, do we have any control over that?
Good Lord, here is the mainstream print.
This is ABC for three days.
It has been announced on this program, it's been findable, discoverable everywhere.
The longshoreman union will continue to be the union.
There the forklifts are going to be run by the forklift operators of today.
The jobs are gonna be held by the people who have the jobs today.
The only thing is going to change are the people writing the checks.
And she doesn't know it.
And McClellan's probably answered the question already twice by the time she gets to it again and says, Well, just go back to the hiring.
So who's who's running the fourth?
Well, I'll tell you what's spawning that question.
She obviously has the same mental picture.
She has the same mental picture.
And so, at any rate, again, more evidence.
I just know these people.
I just know them.
It is scary.
If they knew how I how well I know them, they would be haunted.
Here's Ingrid in uh in San Jose.
Ingrid, thanks for calling and welcome to the program.
Yes, hi Ross.
You know, it's the same mental pictures that you scared us for the last five years, including this administration about terrorism, Muslim and Arabs.
It's like the Fox watching the hen house.
You know, this is not about Republicans or Democrats.
This is about the security of the United States, you know.
And you have been in a Republican first and an American last, always.
And this is just the way it is.
You know, you tell out the country to the high end of the.
I'm not.
Yet you are wasting you are wasting my time.
Ingrid, the most appropriate question I could ask you as a liberal is when did you start caring about national security?
The second second question I can ask you as a liberal grandchildren of the case.
If you haven't taken the time, Ingrid, I am speaking, and it's my program, and this way we aren't going to waste time.
We waste time when you speak, Ingrid.
You're just you're so off base.
You're so you think that I'm doing this just to support Bush and the GOP.
The GOP's not supporting this.
The GOP is as opposed to this as you are.
The GO some members of them are just as as opposed to us as the Democrats are.
I had I've been supporting this long before Bush said a word about it.
And supporting it is not the same thing as coming down firmly in favor of it.
I still don't think this thing's gonna pass.
I have not made it.
I am in the process.
To me, it looks like a good deal.
That's what this whole exercise been a bit.
This is Wednesday.
We've been working on this for three days.
I've been feverishly doing show prep nightly as I as I continue to get ready for this broadcast each and every day.
And I I I I uh as much of my support comes from the type of opposition this deal is getting, as much as the research that I have done into looking into it and seeing what's bad about it, good about it.
And I understand that what's bad about it are the fears that people have, which I you know totally understand.
But uh at any rate, the idea that I'm carrying anybody's water here Ingrid, you ought to see my email.
My audience thinks I've lost my mind.
Just like they think I lost my mind during the parole candidates.
Like they think they lost my mind during NAFTA.
My audience thinks I'm nuts.
It's not because they think I'm being sick of fancy to George W. Bush.
They just think I'm crazy.
It's like they think Bush has gone crazy in twenty-four hours.
But I have dealt with this before, and I will I will deal with it in in this instance as well.
I appreciate the call, and I thank myself for rescuing this call so that it wouldn't end up being a waste of time.
Max in Cleveland, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
Uh Ken Blackwell Biddles from Ohio.
Thank you, sir.
Yes.
Yes, uh, you know, I think where does he come down on the port deal?
Do we know?
What's that?
Where does Blackwell come down on the port deal?
You know, I don't know that, but as long as he's governor of Ohio, I think we'll be okay.
But um, you know, my point is not to argue with the economically.
I I agree with you, and then you know, it's obvious how disingenuous the media and the democrats are about these things.
But uh one person I did hear speak on this was uh Jim Woolsey, who was the former CIA director.
Yeah.
And one uh one of his concerns, and this this made sense to me and seemed valid to me, was the fact that not that the employees of these companies obviously would be foreigners.
Uh they're obviously not, and you've explained that obviously.
But uh the fact that a United Arab Emirate Company owning this would allow maybe the possibility, and it may be far-fetched, but maybe not so, of uh Al-Qaeda operative or somebody like that to infiltrate this company, which would give them access to port security procedures, protocols, uh things of that nature, which which when it's in hand.
That's a legitimate concern domestic company.
That that's that's that's a legitimate concern, but they could do that now.
They're in the country already.
They infiltrated the country and blew up uh the buildings after hijacking airplanes on nine-eleven.
They infiltrated our flight schools.
Um I still say uh, you know, why spend eight billion dollars to blow up a an American target when you can just load a container with a bomb, one of your other ports and ship it in, since we only expect inspect five percent of these things.
I mean, I don't think they're that crazy to spend eight billion dollars to blow up an American target when it wouldn't cost them hardly anything at all uh to do.
Quick time out, my friends.
Fastest three hours in media.
We only have one left.
Stay with us.
Okay, another hour on its way to the secret warehouse location, non-unionized, where artifacts and exhibits from this program are kept for the future limb broadcast museum.
▲
Export Selection