All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 23, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
February 23, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's a red letter day for the media, folks.
Actually, it's sort of a day of conflict for the media.
They love being able to play the video from Hurricane Katrina as the White House issues.
They love showing the flooding of New Orleans again so they can blame Bush.
But they got bad news coming out of Europe and bad news coming out of South Dakota.
But at the same time, they got good news happening in Iraq.
See, we had that mosque bombing and the media and the left going, civil war.
All right.
We want it civil.
They've been hoping for a civil war over there since before the first election.
And now they're so excited.
They think they're going to civil war.
Yes, we told you so.
We predicted it.
We want Iraq to fail.
We want Bush to fail civil war.
Yes.
Except might be ready to temper that attitude just a bit from Najaf.
And it's an online Iraqi paper.
Wait a minute.
There's a paper publishing over there?
Oh, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I'm sorry, folks.
This actually might be a paper owned by the United Arab Emirates.
In fact, I think it is.
But I don't care.
I'm going to tell you what it says anyway.
Radical Shiite cleric Muki al-Sadr, Muki is our nickname for him.
Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered his army militia to protect Sunni mosques in majority Shiite areas in southern Iraq.
This is an official from his office making the statement today.
Muqtada Sadr has ordered the Mehti army to protect Sunni mosques and religious places in Basra and in other regions where his movement is influential, said Sahib al-Amiri.
The move follows attacks against dozens of Sunni mosques nationwide after the bombing in Samarra on Wednesday of one of the holiest Shiite shrines.
The Mehdi army militia was partly disarmed following clashes with U.S. forces in 2004.
So Muki's telling his Shiite buds to guard the Sunni mosques.
Now, I'm going to make you a wild guess here, but when something like this happens, okay, who benefits here?
You had to ask that question.
Who benefits?
Well, any opponent of the Iraq war benefits because they think this will lead to civil war.
And that's what they've been hoping for.
Yes.
Civil war.
Yeah, Bush, he couldn't do it.
He couldn't put that country together if he tried.
Then you have the Iranians.
I wouldn't take the Iranians out of this equation at all because the last thing they want is for this whole thing in Iraq to work.
And if you're talking about the Iranians, you've got to be talking about that jerk.
What's his name, Basher Assad in Syria?
You know, bin Laden, whoever the al-Qaeda leaders of the day happen to be.
But with Muki moving in here using his forces to protect his enemies' mosques, that is not something that happens in a civil war unless Muki is being very, very wise in infiltrating those mosques to blow up even more.
There is a possibility.
Yes, I hadn't considered.
It could be that the story I just told you is an utter lie.
It's nothing but propaganda planted by Rumsfeld to stem the tide of what everybody knows is inevitable, a civil war.
Yeah, civil war in Iraq.
So the media gets all excited about the possibility of civil war, and then news comes out of South Dakota that democracy is going to rear its ugly head, and that is always bad news for the media and for the left.
Story is this, South Dakota lawmakers yesterday approved the nation's most far-reaching ban on abortion, setting the stage for new legal challenges that its supporters say hope lead to an overturning of Roe versus Wade.
The measure, which passed the state Senate 23 to 12, will make it a felony for doctors to perform any abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman.
The proposal still must be signed by Governor Mike Rounds, who is a Republican who opposes abortion.
The bill was designed to challenge the Supreme Court's ruling.
Can you imagine how Tom Dashell has to feel?
This was his fiefdom.
The bill was designed to challenge Roe versus Wade, blah, The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future, said Representative Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill in South Dakota.
To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the banned ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman.
Hunt said that such special circumstances would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.
Kate Luby, the director of Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, which plans to immediately challenge the ban, said that while she was not surprised, she was still a little shocked by the vote.
Clearly, this is a devastating day for the women of South Dakota, she said.
We fully expected this, yet it's still distressing to know that this legislative body cares so little about women, about families, about women who are victims of rape or incest, or the environment, or animals.
She didn't really say the environment or animals, but that's just because she ran out of breath.
So, abortion in South Dakota has become what many people think it should have been from the outset, and that is an issue decided by the people by their elected representatives in the states.
And this just can't be good.
I mean, you don't, you don't, this is exactly why liberals hate democracy, because they don't win there.
They don't get what they was.
It's why they're, I have no question, no doubt that they're opposed to democracy in Iraq.
I mean, to them, it doesn't work.
I mean, if you're a Democrat, would you like democracy?
They don't win anything.
Well, one of the main sponsors, one of their, there's a Republican main sponsor.
One of the other main sponsors of the bill is a Democrat, a Democrat woman.
And that's, I know about it.
Democrats in both houses voted for it.
I know that's why it scares them.
You know, I mean, the Democratic tide.
I mean, this is not supposed to happen.
I mean, Republicans, yeah, you can expect this, but so many Democrats supporting this.
That's why this democracy stuff can't be trusted.
It's too big a risk.
You tell me where democracy worked for Gore.
You tell me where democracy worked for Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam.
No, that's not something that they trust.
All right, now, speaking of Kerry, and speaking of, we could even bring in a few Supreme Court justices on this.
We're told that the truly enlightened are in Europe, right?
We need to build up allies, bridges of commonality with our brethren, French and the Germans, and not United Arab Emirates.
Screw them.
But we need to build up these Europeans, they're enlightened.
And Supreme Court justices say, you know, when you look at foreign law and compare it to the U.S. Constitution, we're really, we're in the back of the bus.
We really need to get ourselves advanced.
Okay.
For all of you who believe that, two stories.
And I want to preface the stories by telling you or ask you a question.
Has Europe become a threat to blacks and women?
From WorldNet Daily, Netherlands is actually pondering forced abortions for blacks.
A health official in the Netherlands has called for a debate on the idea of forced abortion and contraception to deal with what she sees as a crisis of unwanted children.
Alderman Marianne Vanden Anker of the Leaf Bar Rotterdam Party wants specifically to target communities of Antillians and Arubans, where she sees the biggest problems of unwanted children.
According to the report, Alderman Marianne Vanden Anchor of the Leaf Bar Rotterdam Party said that children from these groups run an unacceptable risk of growing up without love and with violence, neglect, mistreatment, and sexual abuse.
The exceptions, she said, and there are some, can be counted on two hands.
Vanden anchor pointed to the growing number of Antillian youth gangs in Rotterdam whose members come from loveless homes.
Now, Antillians and Arubans would be the black natives of the Lesser Antilles Islands and Aruba, Caribbean islands, settled by escaped slaves.
They're now Dutch colonies.
It's the, you know, everybody knows Aruba because of Natalie Holloway.
And how about that jerk?
But speaking of this, I normally don't bring up gossip and pop culture garbage, but this, this, that little pimple-faced jerk, Vandensloot, Vanderst, is going to appear tonight on, they sent their ace investigating reporter Chris Cuomo down there, and this Vandersloot guy actually submitted to an interview, and he admitted that he was in a casino, likes to go to a casino on free poker night or some such thing,
and that this Holloway babe and a bunch of other girls sidled up to him, and he said he eventually wanted to have sex with her and invited her to have sex.
She said, okay, sounds good, but he didn't have a condom and neither did she.
So they parted ways for one of them to go get a condom and then they never met up again.
That's his story.
I just.
Anyway, that's how we know Aruba.
And they are Dutch colonies now.
Netherlands, if you forgotten, Netherlands is the progressive utopia like New Orleans was where prostitution is legal.
Not saying that's true in New Orleans.
Liberalism ran a day in New Orleans.
It should have been a utopia, but of course there is no such thing.
But the Netherlands, prostitution is legal, and the annoying old people are euthanized at the whim of doctors or relatives.
And now they are considering forcing blacks to have abortions.
Netherlands, of course, would be the picture of where the Democratic Party would want to take the U.S. Margaret Sanger would no doubt be leaping for joy right now if such behavior were allowed where she is.
I kid you not.
And this little story contains every warning I have ever sounded on this program about the culture of death.
And when you start disrespecting the sanctity of life, you're going to start killing people because they make you inconvenient by living.
And that's what this is.
What a bunch of hogwash.
We're going to have to abort people because they grow up in poverty, essentially.
Or because they come from loveless homes and they end up joining gangs.
The other story is Newsweek.
A year ago, Newsweek told us that America is dead and that Europe's economic model is vastly superior.
Well, now Newsweek is reporting that Europeans and the European model isn't working so well when it comes to women.
It sounds impossible, but it's true.
For all the myths of equality that Europe tells itself, the continent is by and large a woeful place for a woman who aspires to lead.
According to a paper published by the International Labor Organization this past June, women account for 45% of high-level decision makers in America, including legislators, senior officials, and managers across all types of businesses.
In the UK, women hold 33% of those jobs.
In Sweden, supposedly the very model of global gender equality, they hold 29%.
In Germany, women hold just 27% of meaningful jobs, leadership jobs, and Italian women, a pathetic 18% of power jobs.
So, once again, two great examples: that the role models of the American left are not role models at all.
Well, one caveat: they may be, actually.
If you get serious about analyzing what the left actually wants to accomplish, they may be role models for them.
Back in just a second, stay with us.
So, now, Mr. Sneddley, I have people emailing me applying for the job of butler.
People want to be my butler.
Just to prove me wrong that Americans won't be butlers anymore.
I've got probably five or six.
Do what hold auditions for.
I don't want a butler.
That's the thing.
I don't want a butler.
I have a major domo, and I've got others.
I don't need a butler.
The butler, I don't want some start.
I already have it on the road, butler.
But I don't.
Let's just, I'm just telling you here that this is not, they don't really want to be butler.
This is just a trick.
They just want to meet me, and they just also want to prove me wrong when I say Americans will not be butlers.
Speaking of butlers, the forehead, I guess, has officially signed on to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Political strategist Paula Forehead Magala is urging Democrats to open their wallets on a monthly basis to help re-elect New York Senator Hillary Rodham Rodham, who already has a campaign war chest of $21 million.
I'm asking you, I'm asking you to join Team Hillary as a monthly supporter.
They want a tax, they want a tax on your support for Hillary.
That's essentially what they're asking you for.
And he says this is to help make sure we have the means to fight back each and every month right on through the coming election.
This is an email that the forehead sent out to Mrs. Clinton's supporters.
The email links to her request that donors sign up for a monthly contribution of up to $250 to be automatically deducted from their credit cards.
I'm not kidding you.
Despite her already overflowing campaign coffers, the forehead does his best to make it sound like Hillary's re-election bid is in dire straits.
Republican attack machines going after Hillary big time, he says.
There's one thing they sell at.
That's the politics of personal destruction.
It's the old playbook.
They still can't come up with anything new.
He warns that the GOP has gone so far as to enlist notorious political pit bull First Lady Laura Bush, who recently scorched Hillary by calling her attacks out of bounds.
Worse still, he says that Hillary's opponent, John Spencer, recently met with the White House and was told that he had their full support.
Of course, McGalo doesn't mention Spencer's campaign war chest has just a million dollars in it, less than 5% of what Hillary has to work with.
Instead, he warns that unless Democrats dig deep and pony up every 30 days, the GOP's attempt to silence the strongest, smartest voice we have in the Senate may succeed.
All right, let's go back, grab audio soundbite 14.
Let's listen to the smartest voice the Democrats have in the United States Senate according to the forehead.
Suppose you were meeting today to decide who got the vouchers.
First parent who comes says, I want to send my daughter to St. Peter's Roman Catholic School.
And you say, great, wonderful school.
Here's your voucher.
Next parent who comes says, I want to send my child to the Jewish day school.
Great, here's your voucher.
Next parent who comes says, I want to send my child to the private school that I've always dreamed of sending my child to.
Fine, here's your voucher.
Next parent who comes says, I want to send my child to the school of the church of the white supremacist.
You say, wait a minute, you can't send, we're not giving you a voucher for that.
And the parent says, well, the way I read Genesis, Cain was marked.
Therefore, I believe in white supremacy.
And therefore, you gave it to a Catholic parent.
You gave it to a Jewish parent.
You gave it to a secular private school parent.
Under the Constitution, you can't discriminate against me.
Suppose the next parent comes and says, I want to send my child to the school of the Jihad.
Wait a minute, we're not going to send a child with taxpayer dollars to the school of the Jihad.
Well, gave it to the Catholics.
You gave it to the Jews.
You gave it to the private secular people.
You're going to tell me I can't.
I'm a taxpayer under the Constitution.
Now, tell me how we're going to make those choices.
Yeah, it's none of your business is the answer to the question.
She's acting like government.
This is typical, going to make every decision for every family because, as we all know, the way Mrs. Clinton looks at families is with contempt and derision.
Most families don't know how to get out of bed in the morning, can't even find the train platform or a bus station.
They're just idiots, and they need help, and they need to stay in a public school system so we can maintain our ties with the unions there.
While she is sending her own daughter to the most exclusive private schools in Washington, D.C.
I don't sound like she's trying to mimic anybody.
This is not, I mean, even ignore the words.
Just ignore the words.
It's hard to ignore the words, but ignore the words.
This is not the speech of somebody that's the smartest person in the world.
This looks like continual wandering in vain for some thought, and this is what we got.
This is how she looks at school choice.
She obviously doesn't believe in the First Amendment.
She obviously thinks that all money belongs to Washington and that it's up to her and her buddies to tell people where they can and where they can't go to school.
And I think if this is what they're going to need raising money every 30 days for, if Democrats contribute it, they're going to get exactly what it's costing them.
And that's going to be a giant ripoff at the same time.
We'll be back in just a moment.
If only this were true.
It's one of these things I see and I say, ah, please make it true.
Please let it not be a satire or parody.
Unfortunately, this is a satire and parody from our buddy Scott Ott at Scrapple Face.
Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, announced today that he would back the sale of a British company that manages U.S. seaports to a state-owned firm in the United Arab Emirates only if President George Bush will order the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap phone calls and emails involving Dubai Ports World.
I said, please let it be true.
Please let it actually be an AP story.
It is not.
This is a Senator Kerry quote, if an Emir in Dubai is talking to an American port manager at the gateway of a major city, we want to know why.
And we can't allow the whiners in the civil rights movement to jeopardize our national security in the name of the so-called right to privacy.
Senator Kerry rejected calls for the UAE wiretaps to be approved by the FISA court.
No, no, no, no, we're not trying to build a legal case.
We're protecting our homeland from a potential devastating terror strike.
People need to wake up to the fact that we're living in a post-9-11 world.
Some of these things just disappoint me.
Who's next?
Blink on a Sandusky, Ohio.
This is Kate.
Kate, I'm glad you called.
Yo, yes.
I was just calling about Hillary's comments about public education and the voucher system.
Yes.
It's just so frustrating to listen to her.
As you pointed out, her daughter went to one of the finest private schools around.
I wonder why she didn't go to the public school system.
But second of all, what's happening is, like, I live in a great public school system, so my kids go there.
But as I told the guy that I talked to before, if I lived in the city of Cleveland, my kids wouldn't go to their city school.
They'd go to a private school.
I mean, there are great public schools, and there are poor.
And I was a public school teacher for 11 years, and I would certainly support public education.
That is good.
But she's telling these people who don't know any better, she wants to keep those people where they are so they have that base someday to vote for them.
She doesn't want them to know that they could advance themselves in our society.
Of course, because she doesn't think it's possible for them to advance themselves.
You have to understand that about liberals.
Well, we're all liberals looking like everybody.
They're all victims.
Everybody is a victim of some oppression somewhere in life, and they can't make it.
We've got too many winners of lights lottery who are blocking the upward mobility path of all of the downtrodden.
That's right.
They have so many egalitarian views of things.
The thing about what she said to me, look at the examples she comes up with.
The school for jihad, the school for white supremacists, supremacists.
Now, you know, these are, granted, I mean, she's speaking to a typically lunatic Democrat audience, but those things give you an insight into what she thinks as well.
I don't know of a school for white supremacists, and I don't think our society would tolerate one.
I think it's totally absurd.
Talk about, she's always accusing the Bush administration Republicans of throwing the fear card out there in the war on terror.
Oh, yeah, she's terribly upset about this.
She says Democrats are going to have to get on the right side of the security issue because we're getting killed with it because Republicans are distorting us and they're continually playing the fear card and they're telling everybody that the Democrats don't care about national security.
She's the one that's throwing the fear card all over the place.
The school of white supremacy, the school of jihad.
Yeah, they might try to teach people how to hate America or whatever.
I mean, for crying out loud.
These are quite illustrative of great pathways into the inner workings, if we don't already know, of the gray matter inside the noggin of Hillary Clinton.
This is Marty in Orlando.
Marty, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Ditto from Orlando, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, Rush, the Democrats oppose Arabs controlling these U.S. ports because it's a national security issue.
However, they don't have any problems with Arabs controlling the flow of oil to this country by not allowing us to open up Anhoir or the Gulf of Mexico to become more independent.
It just doesn't seem to make sense.
Now, that's an interesting thing.
You got my mind racing.
On the surface, that sounds really good.
Because if you're going to be worried about national security with as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia and that part of the world, why not be afraid?
And that stuff's got to be tankered in.
That comes in through our ports.
And some of the ships are Greek, and some of them, you know, the ships are owned by different countries, companies, and outfits all over the place.
You know, I begin to think, folks, that the only way out of this is to just turn the whole port operation over to Amtrak.
And that way, nothing will ever get anywhere.
And if a terrorist does happen to sneak a bomb into a container, it won't go anywhere.
So if we really want to be safe, put them in charge.
Amtrak can run the ports.
Don't even mess with the United Arab Emirates.
Now, your point, let me deal with your point seriously, because I think it's a good point.
But it points up: as I have looked at people on my side of the aisle who oppose this, one of the things that continually pops up in their reasoning is that this is a border control issue and that they are worried that this deal is symptomatic of this administration's lack of concern for protecting the border.
We pandered a Vicente Fox.
We don't want to enforce illegal immigration or immigration law.
We have trouble doing that because we know the political pressure is there, cheap labor for certain people, and that makes cheaper products, and it's a dichotomy dilemma for people.
But that seems to be one of the major problems.
So your comparison to oil is, well, it makes a lot of sense because, in fact, a lot of Democrats, in fact, would disagree with you and say that we don't trust the Arabs, and that's why Bush went to Iraq.
Bush went to Iraq for the oil, for Halliburton, and so forth.
I mean, this whole episode to me, aside from the merits, problems with it, or the substance of it, by the time this is all over with, folks, I will predict to you that once again, the Democrats will have shot themselves in the foot on this.
And the one thing I am just as principled and devoted to the idea that liberal Democrats deserve political defeat at every opportunity as I have ever been.
And to the extent that they're helping us, this deal has that added benefit.
Who's next on this program?
San Diego Glenn, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you with us.
Mega Ditto's Rush.
Thank you.
Welcome to America's finest city.
Hey, I have a question.
Why is it so easy to get an abortion for children who have not even grown up to commit crimes yet?
And yet it's very difficult for us here, especially here in California, to find someone to execute our prisoners who have been convicted of crimes.
That's a good question.
When they were having trouble finding anesthesiologists, again, you realize this is a Ninth Circus Court of Appeals problem.
Yeah, well, so what happened was, okay, we've got death row inmate due to be executed, A.
And somebody said, you know, the way we do this, this lethal injection business, there could be a lot of pain here.
There's three injections that these guys get.
The first two, they could cause a whole lot of pain.
And then the condemned might wake up and the whole press.
We had to get some anesthesiologists in there and knock them out so that when we administer to lethal doses, they don't know what's happening.
Well, the anesthesiologist said, Hey, we are doctors, we practice and we swear by and we sign the Hippocritic Oath.
We are not, we are not licensed to kill people.
To which I said, Why is it so hard in that state to go find an abortion?
Go down to Planned Parenthood.
Well, is there somebody at Planned Parenthood who understands anesthesiology?
Because that's what we need.
In order to do this, we need an anesthetist who will participate.
Now, your other question: why is it so easy to get an abortion?
It's so difficult to have an execution.
I mean, that's I'd have to recount 18 years of this program to get because you know the answer to that.
Abortion is a sacrament to feminism, which is a branch of liberalism.
There's so much tied up into abortion on a political and feminist side that I don't want to start, I don't want to open that right now, especially with such little time left in the program.
So, we'll accept your question as a rhetorical question.
Maybe the way, and you'll have to, my mind is just flitting all over the place here today, folks, as it most of the day does.
Maybe a way to get an anesthetist to go into San Quentin and participate in this execution is to tell him, no, no, this is just a partial sleep execution.
You're not actually killing or executing the perp.
This is just partial sleep, a partial sleep procedure.
You know, come up with an accepted term for what happens, or make it sound like the fact that there is pain with the administration of these three drugs is a sickness or is a medical problem that the anesthetist is actually solving.
And it might be a way.
If you massage these things, it's like letting Amtrak run the ports.
It's the safest way to make sure no terror bomb gets anywhere in this country.
Back in just a second.
All right, my friends, you're going to really dig this next story.
You're going to love this.
It's from Montreal, Quebec.
Canadian teenagers view their parents as their primary source of information on sex and healthy sexuality, according to a new Ipsos Read poll.
In a survey jointly conducted by the Canadian Association for Adolescent Health and Ipsos on the sexual behavior and knowledge of teenagers, researchers were startled to discover that a majority of teenagers identified their parents as the most valuable resource for information on sex.
One of the most surprising results of this study was how parents underestimate their importance and the role teens expect them to play when it comes to their sexuality and sexual health, said Dr. Miriam Kaufman.
And again, one of the startling, one of the surprising aspects of the study was the shock that experts expressed at finding teens who talk to their parents.
And they also were shocked to learn from these teenagers that their parents give good advice.
They were startled to learn that the teenagers in this survey trust their parents on this matter.
And no doubt, my friends, the researchers were startled at the all-knowing cradle-to-grave garbage that the public schools try to stuff in these teenagers' heads doesn't work.
And they're probably disappointed.
They thought that most of the answers from these teenagers would buttress the notion that school is where they're learning all they need to know about sex and sexuality.
In fact, these teenagers indicate that what they're learning in school is confusing them.
And this is in Socialist Canada.
Now, here's what, of course, this is Socialist Canada.
May I get personal with you people for a moment?
Think back to your own childhoods.
Just think back to any of the teenage years.
Well, it has to be after you've discovered and learned what it was, sex, I mean.
Do any of you actually have memories?
Do you is that something you thought your parents actually did?
I mean, you know they had to because you wouldn't have been there otherwise, but is it something you pictured happening?
Well, I would say most people probably answer no, I just didn't look at my parents that way.
So in that case, in that circumstance, why would you go ask people that you don't think that you can't imagine engaging in it, anything about it?
But in Canada, socialist Canada, the parents probably do it in front of the kids.
And so that opens the door for quite, mommy, what is that?
What are you doing?
Greg in Diamond Valley, California.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Bungie, Jump Dittos.
Thank you.
And I wanted to comment on the fact that with this particular topic of port snort, I have found it very interesting how we've actually followed your whole thought pattern with it.
You know, it sounded like Monday you weren't quite certain where to go with it.
I was troubled by it.
Yeah, each.
Now, my knee-jerk reaction as well was, this doesn't sound right.
This seems wrong.
But, you know, as we followed how you were thinking it through each day, we continued to kind of evolve with you.
And it sounds to me like your tendency towards it is more positive today.
You're still probably not 100% sure on it because you're still looking into it.
But I think it's been a very interesting topic in that.
Well, thank you.
I did officially come out yesterday in support because I was, or was it today?
It was today.
We had a caller from Cleveland who demanded to know where I came down on it.
He said, enough straddling the issue.
And he was right.
I'd been brilliant this week.
I had made, I mean, without taking a position, people thought I had.
And that's an art.
It's a refined and well-honed talent, and you can't do it at home.
And so I came out, but there's two sides of this.
There's the political, and I'm still not sure where the political side of this is going to take.
I think what's going to happen is that we're going to revise this whole secret process where these deals are analyzed by this government agency.
It should do this anyway after 9-11 so that surprises like this don't happen.
Aside from that, I do think that a lot of politicians who were knee-jerking on Monday are going to look at it in more detail, learn more about it.
And it's, well, now that my understanding is refreshed and fully informed, I think there might be room to work on this.
We'll start hearing them talk that way.
But I still have concerns about it.
And not because this guy in Cleveland, okay, okay, good.
So you said you're for it.
So three years from now, when we're hit, we can blame you.
I said, no, go ahead if you want to blame me, but that's, I don't, I'm not afraid of, you know, taking that risk.
I just, I've looked at it.
Both sides of it, the economics of it don't concern me.
And all the other factors of the fact we don't own operations and businesses like this, and the Americans don't own them.
They're other companies.
The Dubai people are all over the world doing this.
The Navy loves their port in Dubai.
So does Tommy Frank's.
It's the best port in the world.
The fact they want to be like us, on that basis, it's fine.
But there is the border issue that is troubling the aspect of it that seems to be consistent with the fact we're not dealing with the border when it comes to immigration and that kind of thing.
Anyway, I appreciate the comment.
I really do.
But I got to run because of the constraints of the programming format.
Right back.
Lots of emails from people say, hey, Russia, so far behind the times.
I talk with my daughter.
I talk to my son, whatever, about sex all the time, usually during primetime television shows.
I don't watch a whole lot of primetime TV other than 24.
And there's not much sex on that show.
We'll see you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection