All Episodes
Previous Next
March 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
March 1, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, goody goody gumdrops, ready to go for another exciting hour of broadcast excellence.
Here we are, my friends.
America's anchorman is who I am.
The well-known radio raconor general all-round good guy, Rush Limbaugh, here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There are no graduates.
There are no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Mike, standby, audio soundbites four, four, was four and five at least.
I'm focusing today.
We're talking about the port deal because it's just not going to go away.
It just isn't going to go away.
I mean, even before I had begun the first hour monologue today, the phones were full with people who wanted to discuss nothing but the port deal.
And I'm sure some of you are wanting to call because there's just now things that you've learned.
I guarantee you, whatever it is you've just learned, we discussed it last week.
That is why you need to spend every waking moment of this show listening to this show.
So you will be on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
The focus today, though, is on the politics of this and the disingenuousness of the Democrats in their opposition to this.
So I have a question for all of you liberals who have suddenly found religion on national security.
For the last four years, you haven't cared a whit about it.
Didn't matter one I owed it.
In fact, the biggest threat was George W. Bush.
Bush was spying.
Bush was torturing.
Bush was just killing people for oil and Cheney and Halliburton.
The big threat was Bush.
Bush was Hitler.
Now all of a sudden, you've discovered an enemy.
All right, fine.
You have discovered an enemy, the United Arab Emirates, and you have discovered a threat, the ports.
You've discovered a vulnerability.
We are vulnerable to port infiltration.
And especially since an Arab company, the United Arab Emirates, is going to own or operate manage some of these terminals at these ports.
So a series of questions for you.
Should we use the authorities and the powers of the Patriot Act to monitor our ports?
If you liberals are worried about infiltration, if you're worried about terrorists sneaking into this country under the cloak of secrecy, under cover of darkness, with the willing participation of the United Arab Emirates, should we use the authorities granted under law under the Patriot Act to monitor these ports?
Should we use our National Security Agency intercept program to monitor possible infiltration by al-Qaeda of our ports after the UAE takes control of these nine terminals?
Should we?
If we've got a security problem, we've got a security problem.
Another question, should we aggressively interrogate al-Qaeda detainees to determine whether there might be future attacks on our ports?
Should we talk to the detainees that we have now in Club Gitmo or some of these other secret prisons, Abu Ghrab, do they know anything about a potential threat posed to our ports because the United Arab Emirates is going to own nine terminals there?
And until you liberals can say yes to all three of those questions, you are the appeasers that we have always said that you are.
The point is, you liberals don't support securing the ports, even when they are operated by an American company.
What's the difference?
Why couldn't we do the Patriot Act, use those provisions?
Why couldn't we use the NSA domestic or foreign intelligence eavesdropping program?
What does it matter who owns the ports if the ports are vulnerable?
If anybody can infiltrate anywhere, why have you opposed the very programs the administration's put into place to protect these facilities?
Can any liberal call and give me the answer to this?
And in fact, you can't, because I have a friend who is secretly on the People for the Liberal Way mailing list.
And get this.
Here's their latest dispatch from People for the American Way.
Is the government spying on you?
Find out.
You want to know if the government is spying on you?
Use the Freedom of Information Act to do so.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, anyone has the right to request information from the government.
Last strengthened by Congress.
So People for the American Way is still in the process of trying to cast the NSA spy program as domestic spying.
Bush is spying on Americans.
Bush is really not trying to catch terrorists.
He's spying on you.
And People for the American Way want you to find out.
The same people who now all of a sudden tell us that we cannot do this port deal with United Arab Emirates because, and we're not racist and we're not xenophobes.
No, no, no, no.
We just, I mean, it says Arab there in the United Arab Emirates.
If it's a United German Emirates, we wouldn't have a problem with it.
United Oklahoma Emirates, we wouldn't have a problem.
It says United Arab Emirates.
All of a sudden now, we face a massive threat, a possible infiltration of our ports by terrorists and all kinds of people coming and blow us to smithereens again.
All right.
If you're going to stand by this threat, if you're going to base your opposition to the deal on that premise, then will you join the rest of your citizens in taking steps to find out who they are and what their plans are before they can execute them?
Well, no, Rush, we're not going to do that.
Our step, very simple step, we're just going to make sure an Arab country doesn't own any of these terminals.
Oh, that alone, that will stop the terrorists from getting in, huh?
Is that the position you libs are going to put yourself in on this?
Just keep the Emirates from owning these nine terminals, and we don't have to worry about anything else.
No terrorists will get into the terminals unless the United Arab Emirates owns them.
So if we can just prevent the United Arab Emirates from owning these nine terminals, now we don't have a terrorist threat to worry about other than George W. Bush.
You see the position they've gotten themselves in here, folks?
The very mechanisms that we have come up with as a society, as a country, to try to prevent future 9-11s from happening, the Democrats oppose.
They're trying to destroy every program that we house detainees and interrogate them by calling it torture.
They're trying to destroy the ability to monitor phone calls from foreign countries to this country or from this country to foreign countries involving terrorist suspects talking to somebody in this country.
I'm going to miscast that as domestic spying so as to kill the program or to kill Bush.
They're trying to make sure that we cannot operate prisons.
They're calling them torture chambers.
They don't want any aspect of the intelligence gathering operations in place, the Patriot Act, to be used.
They're trying to kill that.
And they applauded with glee when they did.
And yet, all of a sudden, they have found a dire threat to our ports.
Simply because of ownership by the United Arab Emirates.
I would think that this threat exists at any port, regardless who the operator of the terminals is.
And as such, we better implement some of these programs.
If these ports are so vulnerable, I don't know yet of a terrorist act at a port.
I don't know yet of a terrorist act facilitated by activity through a port.
Not saying it won't happen, but the Democrats' position on this would make far more sense if they were acting like airlines and are acting as airlines and airports.
If we're not going to ban Arab-owned airlines from flying into the country, well, hell's bells, what's the difference here?
What's going on?
Well, the difference is, Rush, we inspect every passenger.
We know who's on every airplane.
We don't know what's in the cargo holds.
We don't know what's on the manifests of these ships coming into the UAE.
Well, true, but even as such, I don't yet know of one terrorist act facilitated through any of our ports.
But now the Democrats have found this dire threat.
Yes, my friends, we are vulnerable.
We are exposed.
We are practically standing naked before the world, begging them to hit us.
And yet the Democrats still, I'll wager you, will oppose every technique and every authorization under the Patriot Act, NSA, you name it, to find out in advance when this is going to happen.
Their position is that the ports can be made safe simply by keeping a certain owner out of nine terminals.
We will be back in just a moment.
Well, I'm sure you've noticed it today, and I'm sure last night too, the drive-by media continues to lie about this rigged CBS poll.
Here's just an example: the Knight Ritter Tribune News Service, William Douglas, doing the honors here as the drive-by media writer.
Bush approval rating nearing Nixon's levels.
President Bush's job approval rating fell to an all-time low 34% in a poll published Tuesday.
They don't even talk about the sampling of this poll and how it was so overweighted with Democrats, overweighted with independents.
And by the way, if you look at the internals, if you look at the way there was a lot of questions in this poll, if you look at if you, and just to remind you, one of the questions in this poll totally and dishonestly and purposely miscast the NSA spying program.
It's not domestic spying.
It is foreign surveillance.
And so the question went something like, President Bush has a plan here to prevent terrorist attacks, monitoring some phone calls in the United States.
Do you think this is good or bad?
Well, that didn't describe accurately, even come close to describing the program.
The answer thus is useless.
The answer is worthless.
This poll was meant for the exact reason that it is being used now.
It was simply to make news.
This is not a poll for education, information.
This is simply the latest technique for media people to make news.
And they're out there hyping this poll, which everybody now knows is flawed, if not purposely rigged, that it's a CBS poll.
Ought to be raising eyebrows everywhere.
The level of unprofessionalism and irresponsibility, utter irresponsibility on the part of the drive-by media continues to exceed all bounds I thought that could contain it.
There doesn't seem to be any internal concern over the lack of professionalism, the lack of accuracy.
None whatsoever.
And that's why I say they have simply become in the open what they have always been and tried to hide, and that is out and out ideologues.
A subchapter, if you will, of the Democratic Party or of the American left.
So they're out there continuing to spew the results of this poll, which are obviously flawed.
Listen to how our buddy over at CNN, Bill Schneider, dealt with the waiting.
Oh, I was going to say one other thing.
When you go through these questions and you look at the answers, they had something like 27% Republicans in the poll, 40% Democrats, and the rest were Independents.
Well, if you look at the answers to the questions that the Independents gave, they practically mirror the answers the Democrats gave.
And I think independents, you know, I think most of them are phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and rollers anyway.
They're gutless moderates.
They don't have the guts to tell us who they are, what they stand for.
They want us to believe they are the open-minded among us and the far-minded.
They're above the fray and they're not ideologues.
Oh, no, no, no.
And they wait issue by issue by issue until they've examined everything before they come to a conclusion, which is BS because all they do is wait for the majority to form and then like cowards, sign up with it so they can be part of the big click, all while masking the fact that they really are gutless wonders.
I have no respect for moderates, and I've made that clear on this program countless previous times.
And I don't see any difference here between an independent and a moderate.
They bought it all down.
They're still liberals.
And if you look at the answer to these questions in this poll, you will see there's very little difference between the way the independents answer the questions.
So basically, you had a poll sample with 27% Republicans.
And the balance was Democrats.
And that's the way the poll came out, by the way.
34% approval for Bush, 18% for Cheney.
If those numbers are accurate, but I'd like to ask our friends in the drive-by media, I'd like to ask you this question.
If those numbers in your highly touted poll are so accurate, how is it that the Republicans are running rings around the Democrats in fundraising?
And don't tell me it's just the fat cats because Democrats have more fat cat contributors than Republicans do.
Big business gives to both sides the protection racket, so you cancel them out.
I'm telling you, if those poll numbers are accurate, the Democrats ought to be just swamping the Republicans in terms of campaign donations from any level.
The $5 givers, the $25 donors, all the way up to the $1,000, $2,000 donors, whatever the max is now.
And it simply isn't the case.
18% approval for Cheney.
That is such crock.
But I want you to hear how our old buddy at CNN, Bill Schneider, dealt with the sampling in this poll.
Wolf Blitzer said to him, whenever there are bad poll numbers for Democrats or Republicans, they always come out and say the poll wasn't good.
There was a disproportionate number of Democrats or Republicans.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard complaints like this.
We're hearing it right now from Republicans who hate this CBS poll.
But give us your thoughts, oh guru Bill.
Well, there were an unusually high number of Democrats in the CBS News poll, but it's not unusual for party affiliations to fluctuate with events, particularly if voters are angry about something, as they clearly are about this ports deal.
Sometimes those shifts are temporary.
That is unbelievable.
He says the oversampling of Democrats in the poll is probably because people are so mad about the ports deal that they're calling themselves Democrats in this poll.
CBS couldn't find any Republicans.
Come on, Bill, you've got to come up with something better than that to explain.
How many of you people change your party affiliation willy-nilly like this?
He can't support the statement.
They have to find a way to support the poll.
Remember, the only way you make that statement, if you think your audience is a bunch of Doomkoffs, if you think your audience is an idiot bunch of people, if you have contempt for your audience's intelligence and you don't respect them, that's how you come up with an answer like that.
Hey, let's not forget, what was the recent poll that CBS did a flash poll after the State of the Union address?
Remember that?
And Bob Schieffer had to report that 73% of the audience liked it.
How do they explain that away?
Well, you know, we have found, and this is before he gave the results of the poll, he went out of his way to discredit his own flash poll, his company's own flash poll.
He went out there and he said, well, we have found in previous State of the Union addresses, Republican presidents generally draw a much larger audience of members of their own party and vice versa.
Democrats watch State of the Union addresses more when their party has the presidency.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
That being said, and then he paused, and you could hear the disbelief in his voice.
73% of the people in their flash poll right after the speech said they liked it.
Bush did a good job.
He had to discredit his own poll before giving the result because he couldn't stand the number.
Or somebody at CBS, we always associate these things with the anchors, but there are countless people behind the scenes writing these words on the teleprompter, producing these newscasts and shows.
Remember, it's a product, and is like any other product gets packaged and produced.
It's sometime what not in there.
That's just as important as what they do put in it.
Dingy Harry had to get in on this, pretending to be a member of the Drive-By Media.
He spoke to the press late yesterday about the president's poll numbers.
The poll numbers we've seen of the president, where he has a 34% approval rating, masks the approval of the vice president, which is down to about 18%.
But these poll numbers are indicative of the failures of this presidency.
All right.
Now, let's go to the Today Show today.
Matt Wauer talking with Chris Matthews about the president.
And Matt Wauer said the latest poll has the president at an all-time low.
Is it the economy?
Is it Iraq?
Is it Afghanistan?
The Ports deal?
What is it out there, old guru Chris?
It's terrible news for the president.
29% on personal approval.
People don't like the president even more than they don't like his policies, which is a staggering blow because he's had two things going for him, the war on terror and likability.
They're both gone now.
So they're out there, the drive-by media, flogging a botched, rigged, flawed poll, and they think they're getting away with it.
Which they're not speaking.
How about that list of things?
Is it the economy?
Is it Iraq?
Is it Afghanistan?
Is it the Ports deal?
Got to take a break in about 30 seconds here.
But you get, honestly, if you just research the news yourself, you go to various websites to look at the news, I will guarantee you that even I, my friends, before I was able to get my arms around this and get a grasp of this, even I was confused with all of the economic reporting just looking at the headlines that are out there today.
Quick timeout.
I will explain what I mean when I come back from this brief EIB Profit Center timeout.
That's what we do here every day, folks.
More fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, doing what I was born to do.
All right.
Now, you look at the economic headlines today.
Dow ends down 104 on mixed economic data.
Job fears push down consumer confidence.
Stocks fall on signs of weakness in economy.
And Google, that's the first two are AP.
That one's New York Times.
This is ABC News.
Home sales down.
Is the end near?
And the Washington Post, the fears under our prosperity.
And then you go to the Christian Science Monitor.
Signs of an economic surge.
Despite some weaknesses, the economy can grow at 4% to 5% this quarter.
I told you this last week.
We were onto this last week.
We are cutting edge of societal evolution here, folks.
The economy's indicators in the first quarter are through the roof.
Fourth quarter growth was revised upward to 1.6% from like 1.1%.
And hell's bells, we're coming out of Katrina.
We're coming out of a whole bunch of other Hurricane Wilma and so forth.
And there's a lot of factors that go into slowing down the GDP, oil and energy prices and so forth, less consumption.
Now here we are, the first quarter, we're going through the roof, and yet the drive-by media cannot let go of the fact that we're in an economic tailspin.
And you heard it in Matt Wauer's question to Chris Matthews asking why Bush's poll numbers are down.
It's frankly absurd.
Here is Jeff in Troy, Michigan.
Jeff, thanks for the phone call.
Nice to have you with us.
Good afternoon, Rush.
I'd just like to bring up a point about our wonderful Congressman Conyers.
Oh, yes, yes.
I mentioned this in the first hour.
Yes, he being a wonderful underpaid public servant, I'd like to know where he gets the money to pay $25,000 a year to send his son to Cranbrook.
Is that what it costs to go there?
Yes, per child.
And it's in West Bloomfield and Bloomfield Hills.
Yeah.
Which are the two, you know, two of the top per capita cities in the country.
Well, that is an interesting question because Conyers' salary is $140,000, basically, something like that.
He's in the leadership as a committee chairman.
I don't know.
It's going to be around $130,000, $140,000 a year.
After taxes, that's going to be what?
$80,000?
Maybe.
Well, I'm not particular about the way he figures his taxes after hearing some of the stuff about him.
Well, now we're not going to go there.
We don't know what he's doing with his taxes.
There may be a secret provision that Democrats don't have to pay them, but we just haven't discovered it yet.
Okay.
But no, it's a good question.
Where does he come up with the 25 grand on that kind of a salary?
Well, maybe plays Cattle Futures.
Maybe he's been saving.
Maybe.
Well, what does she do?
I know the wife works, but she was running for office.
Well, remember, she ran for two states.
Now she's on the city council of Detroit.
What does that pay?
A million?
No, it's an excellent question.
But even as interesting as the question is, how does he afford $25,000 a year tuition to send his son to the private school?
Something as large to me is, why is his son going to private school?
Maybe he's using a voucher program.
Maybe that's how he's doing it.
How else could he do it?
The point is, he's not sending his son to public school.
Oh, no, no.
Can't have that.
Nothing, that's not good enough for the son of John Conyers.
Now, when it comes to your children and you wanting to send them to a $25,000 a year private school, you are out of luck unless you have it.
If you don't, people like Conyers are not going to do anything for you.
They're going to make sure your kid, in fact, has to go to his dilapidated rundown public school to make sure that we save those schools for the inner city, save those schools for the unions.
Wes in Greenville, South Carolina, you're up next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Pledged to speak with you, sir.
Thank you for my political awakening of 10 years ago.
Appreciate that.
Rush, I know we can only hope out here, but surely, President Limbaugh, okay, the day was, if you were the president, how would you have brought this up?
You know, I'm really mad at the president for failing to understand the ammunition that he has handed over to the Democrats here.
I agree with you.
It's not a bad idea, but he's brought it to us just a terrible way.
Okay.
Don't you agree?
Well, I'm not sure yet.
I'm not sure this is not going to blow up on the Democrats.
One of the things that I have always cautioned people to be patient here and don't assume the worst.
We conservatives have such a history of being out-foxed or shooting ourselves in the foot, which is what you think has happened here on the part of the president, that we are just, we're conditioned because of life experiences to think it's almost like we're afraid of success.
No, this really isn't real.
This isn't going to last.
We are.
When I hear Republicans talk about it, yeah, we might lose some seats in the House.
Don't talk that way.
What the hell talk that way for?
If you're talking that way, you're thinking that way.
If you're thinking that way, it may happen.
It's asidine.
I don't understand it.
Now, so the Democrats are the ones, I had a series of brilliant questions.
I guess it's very persuasive argument to continue to portray them as on the wrong side of national security.
This porch deal is a phony position they're taking.
And in time, we'll be able to make this case, and we'll be able, if we can get some people to ask them these questions, we'll be able to find out exactly where they really are on this, and we'll find out it isn't where they're claiming to be.
They're not concerned about security here.
If they were concerned about security, they wouldn't be trying to demagogue the NSA spy thing, the foreign intelligence gathering.
They wouldn't be trying to sabotage the Patriot Act.
They wouldn't be trying to characterize our prisons as torture chambers.
And none of that's going to change.
I mean, my question is real simple.
Okay, because we have the questionable ownership now of the United Arab Emirates Company of nine terminals in these six ports, that poses, let's, okay, assume they can't stop the deal.
Deal goes through.
All right, now we've got a threat.
It's the United Arab Emirates.
And they are Arabs and they are friends with terrorists.
And they might have an undercover operation to sneak terrorists in on these ships.
They're going to be coming into their terminals in these six ports.
Are we maybe going to have to use provisions of the Patriot Act to find out about this?
Are we maybe going to have to start monitoring foreign phone calls into and out of this country in order to find out if a plot using one of the UAE's terminals is in fact being hatched?
And if the Democrats are honest about what they're saying, they've got to say yes.
We've got to use the provisions of the Patriot Act.
We've got to use the foreign intelligence gathering apparatus that we have and all these other provisions that they're trying to fight.
Now, we're going to be able to corner them on this.
Now, the other two aspects of your question, what would President Limbaugh do?
First, there wouldn't be a President Limbaugh because I refuse to take the job on the basis of too big a pay cut.
But I will play along with this hypothetically.
Here's what I know about this.
Here's what I know about the, and it's limited, but since 1988, there have been over 1,500 such examinations of deals where a foreign country or company would end up owning an asset such as terminals at a U.S. port.
I think one of them has been rejected.
Maybe two.
I'm not sure.
It might be as many as eight.
I'm getting confused on all these numbers, but it's not a very high percentage of them.
And as far as I know, none of them ever reach the presidents.
People have this notion that the president is hands-on with virtually everything happening in the country.
Simply not possible.
Hell, most presidents can't even get their arms around the State Department.
Most presidents have nothing to do with the CIA, though they try.
Most presidents have no, they don't appoint or fill all the jobs in all these agencies with their own appointments.
Some of these people are career, liberal Democrats, been there for years.
There are just certain things that happen that never reach the attention of the president because they are delegated by others to do.
Now, that having been said, I'm not, Bush said he didn't even know that this was being considered.
That tells me that it's not that big a deal, that none of these things are big, that they're handled, that they're dealt with.
And when they are learned about, as this one was, if there's a problem, it gets looked at.
There have been plenty of purchases of assets in ports and terminals by countries that we would consider enemies, even though we have a friendly relationship with them.
They still pose a threat.
The CHICOMs, now Hong Kong, I mean, since they're controlled by the Chikoms, and they run the Panama Canal and they do a number of things, these things have been called to our attention before.
So under the, if what I've heard is right, I don't know that President Limbaugh would know about it any sooner than President Bush did.
I don't know that I, as President Limbaugh, would say, by the way, if any Arab company wants to buy some of our ports, you let me know.
I don't know that I would say that.
So I don't know that I would know any more than President Bush did.
Now, maybe after 9-11, what you wish President Bush would have done would have reorganized all of this as part of the enhanced security to say, anytime this goes on, we want to know.
But my take on this is that Bush does not consider the Emirates a threat at all.
I think he considers them exactly what he said them to be, an ally.
Now, the politics of this, very quickly.
I understand what you say about the politics of it because you're looking at the numbers in polls that say 70% of the American people oppose it, and yet here's President Bush supporting it, putting Republicans in a bind.
And that does present people with a lot of fear.
It's an election year.
This is one of the reasons there was this out-of-control conventional wisdom tsunami early last week, everybody reacting to this before they really knew the details.
There's going to be a vote at some point.
The Democrats will insist on it because they want to go on the record as being for national security, and they think this is the issue.
I have offered the prescription to trip them up, screw them up, and nuke them on this.
I don't know if our bright lights, the Republican Party in Washington, will utilize it, but I have made it available by expounding upon it here on today's award-winning program, as all programs I do are.
But when it comes to that vote, the Republicans are going to be hard pressed to go against the president.
But if they do, it'll be because of an election year.
And it does look like a suicide deal politically.
There's no question, I know it does to you.
It looks like that today.
But I can't remember things off the top of my head, but I count for you probably on both hands, the number of instances in the last five years where you felt the same.
Oh, my God, Bush did what?
Oh, my God.
Where you thought the Democrats are going to smoke us?
The Democrats are going to get back into power.
Democrats were going to embarrass Bush.
It was all over.
And it always seems, always, it always seems to end up biting the Democrats in the butt, or else they open the door of the issue right into their nose.
And I'm just telling you, it is early yet to determine political winners and losers on this thing.
This 45-day inspection period is going to allow for a lot of things.
One of them is the opportunity for more and more people to be educated on it, and the Democrats will continue to demagogue it.
The thing that frustrates me politically is that there seem to be some Republicans that want to jump the fence and help the Democrats demagogue it for their own political reasons.
I hope that answers the questions.
It did for me.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
A friend of mine just sent me a note saying that John Conyer's son might be attending this private school on a scholarship.
Now, you have to cut me some slack here, folks.
I, fortunately, do not have children, so I don't, and none of my family has been sent to private school.
Well, wait, that may not be true.
I think my brother, I'm not sure about it, but I still don't.
Do they offer scholarships at private schools for sixth graders, second graders, and third graders?
Anybody know?
She said that might be how Conyers is getting his kids in there.
Okay, it was being.
Why toss it out?
He was being tutored for four grades, but what's that got to do with anything?
They offer these private schools do for these little rugrats?
Private schools for crumb crunchers offer tuition assistance?
I guess so.
Maybe for Congress kids.
There's no question that on his Congressman's salary, he can't afford a 25 grand tuition.
And he's got two sons.
I don't know if both of them are in private screw or not.
But if it's both of them, that's 50K.
That's a thousand for those of you in Rio Linda.
He, you know, well, I know on a Congress, well, he still has to have a place to live.
He's got to.
He's got to have his Michigan home, and he's got to have his Washington home.
Now, I know everything in Washington is free because the lobbyists take you to a cocktail party, and a lobbyist takes you to dinner, and a lobbyist takes you to breakfast, and a lobbyist takes you to tea, 25 grand.
Yeah, but still, it doesn't add up.
No matter how you slice it, it doesn't add up.
Here's Van in Tucson.
Van, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to get your take on an idea.
Remember after 9-11, the big flap about airport security, many of us on the right thought that this could be well handled by private interests, hopefully for-profit interests.
But of course, we had to have a new bureaucracy and buy a lot of votes.
I'm wondering if down the road what the Dems are getting ready to do is to propose just such a bureaucracy for the ports, keeping in mind that a lot of these ports are in what are now red states.
Yeah, but what are we going to do?
What kind of security are we going to have in the ports with a new bureaucracy?
Are they going to say the Coast Guard can't do it?
Coast Guard's incapable.
Where's the security going to be?
Are we going to inspect every container?
Well, I'm not sure that they're really concerned about security.
What they're concerned about is they've got a political opportunity with this UAE handle.
No, because they're going to try.
Well, hypothetically, you're speaking if the UAE deal goes through.
Well, no, I'm saying that they would try to block it, and their substitute would be another bureaucracy that would be, in effect, another voting block for them.
Okay, okay.
So I got just a TSA for the ports, and that way they wouldn't have to use the Patriot Act provisions.
And they'd all be professionals.
Exactly right.
Just like just.
Well, I think we can handle this very easily.
We just tell everybody shipping stuff into the country now, if there are no weapons of mass destruction in the cargo, just write no WMDs in this box so that we don't have to waste time inspecting it.
Just put no WMDs in this box.
No nuclear weapon is in here.
Make it simple for us.
Back in just a second, folks.
Don't go away.
It would help if I turn on the real radio announcer microphone.
And we are back, ladies and gentlemen, just in time to tell you that there's an hour remaining in this presentation, which is the fastest three hours in media today.
I also told you this story last week, just now coming out in the drive-by media.
OPEC not happy with Bush's drive on oil addiction.
OPEC accusing Bush of threatening energy security by wanting to wean America off our dependence on foreign oil.
This is the cutting edge of societal evolution, this program.
You don't need anything else.
▲
Export Selection