All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
March 1, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
And greetings once again to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plane, the infiltrated, infested fruited plane.
L. Rushbow here.
Rush Limbaugh the Excellence in Broadcasting Network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and as been the case lately, the uh Ditto Camuson from the beginning of the show to the end of the show, the whole show DidnoCammed.
Uh for those of you at uh rushlimbaught.com, whose subscribers there.
And by the this is something else that I we don't mention this enough, but we've started video podcasts as well as our audio podcasts.
And you don't you don't need to I mean you don't have to you can watch them in two different ways.
You can you can watch the uh the video podcast that we do every afternoon straight from the website, or you can download it through our uh very cool rush 247 Media Center software, which is free to anybody who wants it.
But we have a lot of fun with it.
It's it's about 90 seconds, sometimes we a little long, sometimes a little short, but we we do this uh uh the morning update every afternoon after the program, and it they're they're they're funny, they're fun to do, they're fine, it's serious, it's the same.
Every ingredient that you hear on this program uh is contained in the uh in the morning updates.
If you haven't looked at one, you ought to go to the uh website now and do it.
Uh you see can't miss the logo for the morning update uh on the upper right hand side of the page.
Uh and I don't mention this enough.
I don't talk about this uh enough, but they're they're really good.
We enjoy doing them.
And I wanted to make mention of that here at the beginning of the program.
All right, the president.
He uh stopped in uh Afghanistan, stopped in Kabul, a surprise visit there.
I when I was looking at some of the video, I recognized the places that he was, uh especially one of the places with the troops uh and uh and some of the some of the external shots too.
It took me back, I was there just over a year ago, and I started having uh memories again, uh jump back to life that uh that I had, especially when I when I saw President Karzai, who I had a chance to meet with and and uh the this the troops over there.
It just it was a great week.
It really was.
Then the president went off to India.
Now, I don't know if if you've seen much coverage by the drive-by media of the president in India, but the most of the coverage that I have seen features militants protesting, uh death to Bush, death to America.
That's what I have seen.
That's what I have read.
But that's not the case.
Once again, the drive-by media trying to portray the president as woefully unpopular in this country, and it's just the opposite.
I have here uh the what is it, Times of India Online.
Uh while many uh you while United States favorability ratings have plunged in many countries, Indians are significantly more positive about the U.S. now than they were in the summer of 2002, according to a new opinion poll.
It's uh it's a Pew Global Attitude Survey found that 71% of Indians have a favorable view of the United States.
54% admire President Bush in handling world affairs.
What mostly attracts Indians is that America remains a land of opportunity despite its booming economy today.
Asked where they would recommend that a young person move in order to lead a good life.
Thirty-eight percent plurality of Indians chose the United States.
This finding may seem a weak endorsement given America's long-standing image as a hopeful new world for immigrants.
However, in no other country does even a plurality recommend the U.S. to the hypothetical young person searching for a new better life.
So the the I mean, I I think if you when you also look at this, it finds that uh the poll indicates that what is it uh they're they're basically happy over there.
They they consider themselves to be happy and gung-ho uh where the United States is concerned.
Uh and and the the drive-bys, as I say, are playing up these huge anti-bush demonstrations in India as though these were rank and file Indians that are making and all the trouble, causing all the ruckus.
Uh, but a somewhat deeper analysis of these demonstrations uh reveals that these are not mainstream Hindu Indians that are making all this noise over there.
They are Indian Muslims and Communist Party members.
That's the drive-by media is focusing on.
Uh the port deal still hasn't uh uh by the way, there I didn't I didn't talk about this yesterday, but I I I meant to.
I just didn't get to it.
Um President Bush insisted on Tuesday it was safe to let an Arab company run terminals at six major U.S. ports, even though a new White House backed security review of the deal is not yet started.
Uh Bush appeared to be wearing down the resistance of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had questioned the plan.
Frist said he was more comfortable now because he had received more information.
He said he would not allow any related legislation on the Senate floor while the new inquiry is uh is underway.
Now the the latest objection that uh uh some of the people who don't like the deal uh have raised is that the UAE has a boycott on anything having to do with Israel.
Any products, anything that goes through there, anything that's made there, anything it just happens to be passing through, they have uh they have a boycott.
Now, that's problematic.
I I'm there's nobody that can defend that.
But my only question is why does that matter if the if the whole thing is bad for security?
I mean, they the arguments some of them some of them keep changing, and I know some of the people that are uh think they've been called xenophobes or racists, or some are getting very offended by these allegations.
In fact, Susan Collins was on uh John Gibson's big show, big story on Fox yesterday afternoon, and he said this to her.
He said, People who oppose this deal or object to it are being called xenophobes, demagogues, sometimes even racists.
If people were going to level that charge at you for having uh questions about this deal, and and someone did, I did.
Uh I mean if you weren't here yesterday, I I accused Ms. Collins of demagoguing this by excerpting a three-month-old Coast Guard report uh uh on on their concerns for security uh were involving the Emirates, but those concerns were dealt with in the in the in the examination process, and they're gonna be looked at again.
And actually, you know, this 45-day thing, if if if if this is causing people to take a new look at port security, that's got to be ultimately a good thing anyway.
Uh if if if this that's one of the positive byproducts of this.
But anyway, here's her answer um uh to his question.
Um what would you say to somebody who calls you a demagogue or a xenophobe or uh a racist?
That deeply offends me, and I think it should offend uh anyone who has raised legitimate questions about whether a proper security review was done of this proposed deal.
And I think it's very unfortunate, and it portrays a bad image to the Muslim world when people recklessly throw around charges like that.
Uh there's certainly nothing in my background uh that would ever suggest that I wasn't any way anti-Muslim or anti-Arab.
And I think that's very unfortunate that the motives of those of us who have raised legitimate questions, questions very similar to the questions raised by the United States Coast Guard are having our motives impugned.
Um, maybe maybe some are doing that.
Um But when she says here there's uh uh recklessly throwing around charges like that, there's nothing in my background suggests I'm anti-Muslim or anti-Arab.
I did not accuse her of that.
I just said you demagogue the issue here.
But I think they're very unfortunate for those of us who have raised legitimate questions, uh, sends a bad image to the Muslim world when people recklessly threw.
Let me Senator Collins, the the Muslim world, the Arab world already thinks that.
They they don't they don't need for critics in America to start throwing those terms around in order for the Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, it's right.
We hadn't even thought of that, but those Americans saying that their xenophobia and racism is going on.
Well, they're right.
I think they come to that conclusion, whether they're right or wrong, I'm not even commenting on it, but they come to that conclusion on their own.
Uh at any rate, uh one more little soundbite on this.
This is an interesting story.
The drive by media yesterday did a did a number for Harry Reid for Denji Reed.
They They they really covered up his ignorance on this.
Now, we have a soundbite.
This is from CNN, the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, and they played this bite from uh from uh Dingy Harry yesterday afternoon at his press conference.
The American people will not accept the United Arab Emirates, a country which was the first, I'm sorry, the third company, only one of three companies to recognize the Taliban, a country which is boycotts anything doing dealing with Israel.
We're not going to agree to that.
And the president can say he proves it any way he wants.
There will be a vote on in the Senate on this.
He will not get by trying to jam this down our throats.
Okay, now what they didn't tell you is that right before this answer, the following exchange took place.
There is no audio of this.
I'm only have the transcript.
I have to read this to you.
There is no audio because the entire media, the drive-by media, has buried what preceded the soundbite that you just heard.
It was covered nowhere, not even on C-SPAN, but I have the transcript.
Harry Reed did not even know that PO was the name of the company selling the ports.
Here is what nobody in the media showed you, and what there is no video of or audio of now, but we have the transcript.
Unidentified reporters said, but didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports?
And see, let me stop.
No, we didn't.
There is no foreign country controlling the ports.
We're talking about terminal ownership here.
Repeat after me, class.
A port is not a terminal.
A terminal is not a port.
At the risk of being accused of high treason, I, your host, America's Anchorman, have the courage to open a dictionary and reveal a deep dark secret.
A port is not a terminal and a terminal is not a port.
Here are the definitions.
Terminal, an assigned area where containers are prepared for loading into a vessel, train, or truck, or are stored immediately after discharge from the vessel, train, or truck.
That's the terminal.
The definition of a port, a harbor with piers or docks and terminals, and long shoreman taking breaks.
That is a port operating a terminal is not operating a seaport.
Operating a building on Wall Street is not operating Wall Street.
Now, somebody had to tell you this.
I didn't want you to hear this from friends in the street that you might not be able to trust.
I wanted you to hear it from a source authority, and that's me.
So even right here in this question from this idiot, unidentified reporter, but didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports?
There's no foreign country controlling the ports.
Okay.
I finished now.
Uh didn't we already have it's tough.
It's tough dealing with these people.
They they distract me, they sidetrack me, they divert me.
I'm still focused.
Trying again here.
Third time.
Didn't we already have a foreign country controlling our ports when PO was running them for the last decade?
Dingy Harry.
I don't know what PO is.
Unidentified reporter.
Peninsular and Orient, the British company that had the contract.
No, no, no, no.
It's not a country, it's a company.
This Dubai thing is a country.
That's a difference.
One is a company and one's a country.
Unidentified reporter.
Singapore owns ATL.
It's a company that runs the port in Los Angeles and other ports around the U.S. It does not.
It does not run the ports.
Harry Reed.
Well, all I know is the British company was a company.
British stockholders, people, Americans own part of that company.
As you know, there's litigation going on in Great Britain today and yesterday on this.
And then the soundbite we played for you occurs.
The American people will not accept the United Arab Emirates.
That little preface to Dingy Harry's lament about Bush not dramming things down his throat.
Uh is uh uh being buried.
When Dingy Harry, plus the reporter, I mean, mischaracterizing port operations in general in the uh in the question, and that's how you know some of the alarmism has been spread.
Quick timeout, back with much more after this.
Stay with us.
It appears that the uh the port deal is just not gonna go away here, folks.
I mean, as a subject that uh that people wish to discuss.
We have a montage here of a press conference this morning on uh on Capitol Hill.
Uh Caesar uh Democrats, Ed Markey, Stenny Hoyer, who is uh the number two in command for the Democrats in the House to Nancy Pelosi, and we have uh Ms. America herself uh here in this montage.
This administration has failed miserably in making our ports more secure.
Dubai has brought that to the forefront.
It's part of a pattern where, whether it be chemical plants, nuclear plants, cargo, airlines, the Bush administration has allowed the industries to decide how much security is provided for the American people.
America can do better.
We know that.
For example, 100% of the containers going into the terminal in Hong Kong are inspected.
Five percent of containers in the U.S. are screened.
All right.
Now, my focus, as you people know on this port deal, is the Democrats and their opposition, which is purely political, purely opportunistic, and that their their concerns about security are uh, I think way amped up and really not even genuine.
This is just the latest opportunity they think has been handed them on a silver platter to destroy Bush.
But I mean, if you want to look at their commitment to national security and their consistency on this, the Chinese port deals on the Panama Canal, where they own the ports, run the ports, manage the ports, do security of whatever they do with the ports on both sides.
The Atlantic and the Pacific sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese do it.
Costco in uh uh Long Beach.
Uh the Chinese outfit.
Uh the Democrats were all for this.
In fact, it was it was Slick Willie who was involved with the Panama Canal deal, letting the Chinese run, manage, operate whatever the ports on both sides of the Panama Canal.
Um the uh and this the Chinese outfit that runs the Panama Canal ports on both sides has ties to the uh to the Chicoms, to the ChICOM government, and so on.
And Democrats didn't raise a stink about that.
But the the the the big point regarding the libs here, folks, they want the United Arab Emirates and every other two-bit country at the UN to determine our entire entire foreign policy, yet they object to this.
You know, when the U when the United Arab Emirates or any little other country at the United Nations objects to us, the Democrats want to grant them all the power in the world to do so.
And they want us to go out and ally ourselves and make amends and go out and make friends with these people.
We must, we must bring them into our family of nations.
We are not the world's superpower.
We can no longer act that way.
We can't do things alone.
We must bring these people in.
So whatever the UAE wants to do at the United Nations, that's fine and dandy with the Libs.
Whatever anybody wants to do with the UAE with the United Nations, French, Germans, that's fine with the Libs.
But boy, on this, for some reason, they have become uh persona non grata.
You know, and and who who do the liberals think voted the UN?
United Arab Emirates and nearly 150 countries just like them.
So they're they're gonna they're gonna be in big trouble on this down the road.
Mark my words, folks, because once again, everything they're doing is based on a foundation of falsehoods.
I'll give you an illustration.
I won't be able to finish the details before the bottom of the hour profit center timeout.
But you remember it wasn't too long ago, and I think they still are trying it.
Democrats ran this uh this focus grouped phrase by the drive-by media, and a drive-by media picked it up, and they drove into a crowd and they unloaded a hail of bullets, and then they created a all just all kinds of confusion and despair.
They hopped back in the convertible, headed on down the highway with the top down, ready to do another drive-by shooting somewhere.
That was the Republicans have a culture of corruption.
And about whom was that based?
Tom Delay and Jack Abramov.
Now it sort of cooled a little bit because it has been learned that Abramov or Abramov clients were in bed deep doo doo with many Democrats, including Dinji Harry.
But there is a story today from the Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C. Don't know where the drive-by media is on this.
They're not on it yet.
The drive-by media doesn't seem to be interested in this.
Former Conyers aides press ethics complaints.
It seems that John Conyers, Congressperson Michigan, was using the little people in his offices for personal gain.
Two former aides to Conyers have alleged that he repeatedly violated house ethics rules.
Deanna Marr, a former deputy chief of staff in his Detroit office, Sidney Rooks, former legal counsel in the district office, provided evidence for the allegations by sharing numerous letters, memos, and copies of emails, handwritten notes, and expense reports with the Hill.
I'll come back and give you some details of this, but with this story, the culture of corruption uh is gonna go over the clip as well as a as a Democratic idea.
And his port deal will end up affecting them the same way.
Back in just a second.
We go beyond the limit on this program, folks.
There is no limit here because I have talent on loan from God.
All right.
The Democrats and their and their vaunted plan to take back the House and the Senate by campaigning against the Republicans' culture of corruption has just gone over the cliff, and I have not one, but two stories.
As I mentioned, John Conyers, a couple former aides, have alleged that he repeatedly violated House ethics rules, Deanna Maher and somebody named Sidney Rooks.
In letters sent separately by each woman to the House Ethics Committee, the FBI, and the U.S. attorney's office.
They alleged that Conyers demanded that aides work on several local and state campaigns and force them to babysit and chauffeur his children.
They also charged that some aides illegally used Conyers' congressional offices to enrich themselves.
Marr decided she could no longer work for Conyers in such an unethical environment as she quit in May of last year.
Rooks had left Conyers earlier this year, or years earlier, I'm sorry.
She was a full-time staffer working in the office for him from 97 to 99.
Before leaving, Conyers placed her on paid administrative leave for several months to stop paying her in April of 2000.
Marr wrote in a letter to the Ethics panel, January 13th, I could not tolerate any longer being involved with continual unethical, if not criminal practices, which were accepted as business as usual.
A spokesman in Conyers office referred questions to Stanley Brand, an attorney who regularly defends public officials who have been charged with wrongdoing.
Brand said, We've responded fully when completely over two years ago to what the ethics committee sent to us, and we've not heard anything since then.
Here are some of the details.
The crux of the allegations involve complaints that Conyers used his staff to work on several local and state campaigns, including his wife's failed bid for a seat in the state Senate in Michigan.
In 2003, the Detroit Free Press reported about the allegations that Conyers repeatedly violated House rules by forcing staffers to work on campaigns without taking leave.
Among Marr's allegations in 2002, Conyers' aides in D.C. were sent to Detroit to help his wife Monica win a state Senate seat.
While she lost that election, she won a seat last year on the Detroit City Council.
Marr and Rooks said that Conyers tasked staffers in his district office with taking care of his two young boys, John and Carl.
If he asked you to do something, you knew you had to do it, said Rooks, 54, who had now administers a homeless shelter in Detroit.
She told the Hill newspaper that she tutored little John as Conyers' eldest son is known when he was a student at the Cranbrook School, a private school in Bloomfield Hills.
Well, another Democrat that won't let his kids go to the public school system in the town where he lives.
The tutoring took place during normal working hours.
She was not given additional compensation for the work, nor was she reimbursed for her out-of-pocket expenses.
Rooks said that when the kid received low grades, Conyers told her, Well, Rooks, you can add tutoring to your list of stuff to do.
That sounds very sexist to me.
It sounds demeaning.
It sounds almost dictatorial the way this guy was running his office.
All right, that's that's uh uh story number one.
There's a there's another story here in the stack that involves a uh uh a Democrat in oh, what did I have?
I had it here and I had it out of order, and I've got two different stacks here.
It's been a long night, and it was a long actually short morning.
There's a there's a a guy, East St. Louis, Illinois.
Can't remember his name.
I have it's it's uh Ah ah ah, here it is.
East St. Louis, Illinois.
When poor students from this impoverished city got into college, Charlie Powell Jr. chipped in so they could attend.
He got a trophy case for a junior high school.
He ran a clean, loving boarding home for people who were homeless or mentally ill, keeping them safe and off the streets.
Along the way, he rose to great power.
Great political power in recent years as a precinct committeeman and head of the local Democratic Party.
It's that position that proved to be his undoing.
In a federal courtroom yesterday, despite testimony reciting his good works, Powell was ordered to spend a year and nine months in prison for scheming to buy votes in the November 2004 election.
Opting to let his attorney and four character witnesses speak for him.
Charlie Powell Jr., who is now sixty-two didn't get the probation he was seeking, but he still caught a break from the judge who turned back a federal prosecutor's request that Powell get something close to nearly three years.
The judge said he's done a very good job for himself and the people he serves.
The simple truth is that politics in the state of Illinois is a real contact sport and obviously very dangerous occupation to undertake.
Powell became the last person sentenced among five convicted of conspiracy to commit vote fraud.
Three code defendants were sentenced to prison terms.
The longest was four and a half years, while the fourth defendant got probation.
Prosecutors provided scant evidence directly linking the defendants to the vote buying.
The government often relied on secretly recorded audio tapes in which it said the defendants could be heard talking about paying five dollars for vote in a general election and whether that amount would be enough.
State uh records show that tens of thousands of dollars were transferred from the county Democrats to the committeen days before the election, party leaders said the money was for legit expenses, including rides to the polls for people without cars.
So like like like every well, I know you the the story here says it all.
Uh it's that position of Democratic Party that proved to be his undoing.
You lay down with the dogs, you're gonna wake up with the fleas.
So bring on the culture of corruption, Democrats.
Go ahead and bring it on.
Here's a vote and and by the way, vote fraud, yeah, Democrats have been charging that since 2000.
Here's four guys sent to the big house.
One of them local leader of the Democratic Party in East St. Louis, Illinois.
Carrie in San Diego, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rose.
Good to be on.
Uh thank you.
Good uh non-union truck driving diesel burning dittoes to you.
Um I have a point to make about the whole port deal.
I uh spoke with the 20-plus year Navy SEAL who's getting ready to tear up for his third deployment into a combat zone.
And I asked him his uh whole take about the uh port issue, and he said, Look, you know, 9-11 was executed by going through American run terminals, American company terminals.
They used American company assets, airplanes, and they did it with box cutters, which are now once again legal to bring on airplanes.
So uh Are they?
He said, Wait a minute.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I don't think that's true.
I think box cutters have been legalized again.
I don't think they ever will.
I I think I think the smaller cutting devices was his point.
Yeah, yeah.
Smaller cutting device.
Like a knife.
You can you can you can take your switchblade on there, but you can't take a box cutter.
Yeah, he his whole point was that there is not going to be the shadiest even hint of a difference between who runs it.
Um it's just neither here nor there.
Um the security he he pointed out that security isn't run by the uh the management of the terminal.
It's usually run by a guy that's getting paid nine or ten bucks an hour to mosey around the fence.
So he said that that's where he saw the greatest threat.
Well, this is let me I I appreciate the call and and uh we I I went uh please don't take this the wrong way, but everything that your SEAL guy told you uh we've explored and and mentioned on the program all last week.
It's one of the irritating things about f as as a as a talk show host, as the premier host, I must confide in you people that there are parts of this issue that after a while, oh, please can we get on to something else?
Because we've started repeating ourselves now.
But on the other hand, repeating ourselves is oftentimes necessary in order to hit as many brains, minds, and hearts as possible, because some people are just now still coming to this or now getting off of their first knee-jerk reactions and are just now starting to learn about it.
You know, learning curve is not as uh as quick uh for some people.
So repeating these things um is useful uh as as far as getting comments and military people.
I'm getting email, you know, we have thousands, tens of thousands of uh of soldiers that are now members of the website, military members because of the Adopt a Soldier Program.
I'm I'm I'm getting emails from these people in our uh 24-7 email account box uh from people who've had experience with the Emirates and the people there, and they say they like 'em.
The Navy is just uh people in the Navy sending me glowing reports about how it is to deal with them in their port over there.
Um so I'm not surprised that your SEAL would have um that impersonation or impression, rather, of of the of the deal.
What you said about 911, I remember saying that the chilling thing about 911 to me, aside from what it was, was that everything used was American.
They even stopped an election.
There was an election scheduled in New York uh on on either that day or the day the following day, and and they even succeeded in stopping an election.
They came and used our flying schools.
They rented American cars they from American companies.
Well, they might, I don't know if they're American cars, but they were cars in America.
They uh they got on domestic airlines.
They didn't get on United Arab Emirates Airlines.
They didn't get on Air Saudi.
Uh they didn't get on Iraqi national airways.
They didn't got on American, and they got on United.
Everything about they hit American targets with American uh uh weapons that they had converted, American products that they converted to weapons, and that's the thing that was just striking.
So in light of that, do we take that and say, well, okay, that man, and and of course there was there was no Arab ownership uh of terminals uh or anything to do with 9-11 at the airports that were used, Newark and and uh and Logan.
Uh you know, they they didn't go through and didn't have to.
Uh so you take that, you say, okay, uh does it matter then that an Arab company is going to have ownership of nine terminals at six ports uh on the Eastern Seaboard and I think of this country, Philadelphia, Maryland, you know, Baltimore, uh, New Jersey.
Uh it's it's leads me to think that all of this debate about the port deal is actually having a very good upside to it or derivative, and that is finally a focus on security at these ports.
Not that there hasn't been, but it's causing people.
See, I think a lot of people got lax and lazy after 9-11.
We stopped showing people the pictures.
The Democratic Party has spent the last five years trying to convince you that we don't have an enemy, that there was just an isolated incident, and they tried to continually create this pre-9-11 world.
And I I remember lamenting that uh uh maybe we're gonna need to get hit a couple more times before people understand that this is a war and it was just not an isolated incident, because it wasn't isolated, and it was not the first time the World Trade Center had been hit.
First time was February 26, 1993.
And they tried to do then what they succeeded in doing in 9-11, they just they figured out they had to do it from above rather than below because of the size and structure of the buildings.
Now all of a sudden we got an enemy.
Now all of a sudden, uh Democrats, for the first time in five years are concerned about all this.
Up till then, Bush has been the enemy and the spy program and the prisons and the torture chambers and all that's been the enemy.
So I think they're in in uh in big trouble.
But when you look at the fact that We had 9-11 take place with everything involved in it being American.
Nothing had to be imported.
All they had to do was make sure the cops didn't notice the multiple driver's licenses and make sure they didn't see the overlooked or or or uh outdated visas.
Uh and and uh just had to stay out of trouble, not commit any serious crimes before the big event.
That's all they had to do.
Didn't have to infiltrate anything.
Um just come in as immigrants seeking asylum or whatever rules that they used.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue right after this.
How are you?
El Rushbo serving humanity simply by showing up here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I have a question.
If uh if the United Arab Emirates uh outfit uh ends up uh operating these nine terminals at our ports, uh uh aren't aren't Israeli goods gonna be going through there?
What what will happen to their boycott?
Are we gonna have to make sure that no Israeli goods go through the terminals operated by the United Arab Emirates if this deal goes well it'll be interesting to see what they do about that.
Now the Liberals and Democrats, here's their checklist on all this.
They will not rest until every container is inspected.
They will not rest unless every inspector of containers is CIA, FBI, or Delta Force.
They will not rest unless every commercial airliner has an anti-missile defense system.
They will not rest unless every inch of our northern border is secure, checked and screened.
Southern border forget that.
Uh, you know, let McCain deal with that.
So they they've there's so many contradictions.
Here they are, totally opposed to the Patriot Act.
I mean, it's gonna be extended, but the most of the Democrats are are just struck a compromise on it, details coming up.
Uh but Dingy Harry is running around.
We killed the Patriot Act, we killed them.
They're against any surveillance that would tip us off to terrorist activity in this country.
They're against these so-called warrantless searches, uh, which they have demagogued and contemptibly miscast as domestic spying, and yet they are just gonna go to the mat on port security.
They're being as inconsistent as as it's possible to be.
Scott in West Palm Beach, I'm glad you uh waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Well, it's a pleasure, and good afternoon.
Thank you, sir.
Okay.
I in your uh former assertion uh earlier on in the show.
I think you're right on the money in the Democrats notoriously look for opportunities, and this is nothing but opportunism on their part.
And I think one would be extremely naive to think that if uh George W. Bush hadn't uh invaded Iraq and taken out Saddam Hussein, we would be hearing nothing from them other than we should have, and how Bush dropped the ball.
Now that being said, I am opposed to the operation of the terminals.
I think it's I mean, I understand that.
Dubai uh uh the United Arab Emirates, emirates, sorry, are allies, but there are many other ways that one could show good will than to have them operate major infrastructure in our country.
Well, but but are you against all foreign uh operations of uh yes, and that actually might be.
We're gonna be we're gonna be up a creek because we don't do it.
Well, I think that in this day and age, if we were able to split the atom and get people on the moon and get a rover to Mars, I think we could figure out a way to operate a terminal.
No, it's not that we don't know how.
It it it's it's that apparently there is there they're just uh th no American company, no businessman is interested in doing it.
Um and so we we that that that would present a huge problem.
Um look, I've got to run here because of the constraints of time, but I'm glad you called.
The uh the politics of this deal as uh is uh is another thing that have people concerned, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, uh, because they think the vote on this when it's taken is gonna be very partisan, and that's gonna be bad for some somebody, wrong side going into the election details coming up.
I have some questions for you and the liberals uh in the next hour about this whole port deal versus your stand on national security and other areas.
I'll get to that in just a second, folks.
▲
Export Selection