All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
May 2, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Have you seen the little blurb today, the story on Hillary Clinton and what her real first desire to be when she grew up was?
She said, I wanted desperately to be an Olympic athlete.
You know, if she had been born in East Germany, it might have been possible.
Greetings, my good friends, and welcome to the award-winning Thrill Pact Ever Exciting Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, the debate is on, folks.
The debate is raging out there.
Did this boycott affect the U.S. economy out there?
The Washington Post boycott gives voice to illegal workers.
The day's impact on economy unclear.
Through rallies and boycotts of scruels and businesses across the nation yesterday, illegal immigrants and their supporters sought to present a case to the American people that they are vital to the country's economy and should not be subject to deportation.
I don't think anybody's...
Why don't I take that back?
I mean, I guess if you haven't been here two years, five years.
Some of them do face that they're getting back to the end of the line, but it's not going to happen.
I still don't think there's going to be an immigration bill.
Let's take a look at what do we know.
There were crowds.
There's no question there were crowds.
But let's take a look at what we don't know.
And what we don't know is the composition of the crowds.
How many showed up?
How many marched?
The raw numbers are at best estimates, sincere attempts to gauge the turnout and inflated estimates to exaggerate the turnout.
What's more important than the numbers themselves is the breakdown, not the breakdown of law and order, the breakdown of our border control, but these questions.
What percentage of the people that were marching yesterday were actual illegals?
What percentage were legals supporting illegals?
What percentage were anti-war protesters who don't care about legals or illegals?
And what percentage were anti-globalism, anti-capitalism, anti-everything, anti-posto, and don't care about legals or illegal?
I mean, we don't know who the what we're being told.
It's just like the three million homeless.
We're being told that everybody that showed up yesterday was pretty much an illegal immigrant fighting for their rights as human beings and so forth, so forth.
And I also like to know what percentage of the people that showed up yesterday were anti-Bush and the Senate scheme.
The plan here, what percentage of illegals have been here more than five years that were out there yesterday?
What percentage of illegals have been here less than two years were out there yesterday?
And of course, what percentage of illegals would go to the back of the line, pay the fine, and do what's necessary?
I just, I'm, those are the questions that I have.
The media, eager to carry the water of this group, because this group, even though Bush is with them, they somehow relish the notion that this is going to harm Bush.
I think it's there's Shelby Steele has just a brilliant piece today in the Wall Street Journal, OpinionJournal.com that I want to get to in a moment.
White Guilt and the Western Past.
Why is America So Delicate with the Enemy?
It is really a brilliant, brilliant piece.
Shelby Steele is at the Hoover Institution, Hoover Institute, which is a conservative think tank out at Stanford.
And his general thesis is that there's so much guilt in America over our prosperity and over our white supremacy, white guilty call.
He's not calling us white supremacists.
He's making the point that we have so much guilt over our prosperity that we don't use half the power that we have in dealing with our enemies because we're afraid of what people are going to say about us.
And then he goes on to explore where this came from.
Well, the way it ties into my thinking on this boycott business is and why so many people in the drive-by media support this, aside from the fact that it fits a template, it's big news.
There are people protesting.
They are angry.
But there is this kinship that they feel with anybody who doesn't like this country.
They have a kinship with Castro.
They have a kinship with Hugo Chavez.
They have a kinship with President Wu, Jin Tao.
They have a kinship with these pro.
Anybody doesn't like America because they don't like America.
And they don't like America because they're embarrassed by America because of the inequities, the inequalities, the lack of opportunity for some.
This is all in their template.
And so when you get stories on this boycott yesterday, highly sympathetic, we get a portrayal here of downtrodden poor people who are just trying to improve themselves.
And why would we want to stop that?
And then, of course, it fits in with the notion that it continues to cause unrest as far as the people are concerned, which continues to make, they hope, the people of this country feel upset and addled, depressed, and filled with doom and gloom because for some reason they think this is going to result in Democrats winning elections.
But here's the real question out there, folks.
If a million illegal aliens and their left-wing supporters hold a rally and nobody but the media notices, did they hold a rally?
You know some people saying well, I still think it's going to backfire, I think it already has backfired, I think it's they've this, is this going to keep up?
And they're only going to alert people who are ambivalent about this to start opposing it.
All of these protests, in fact, I heard a theory advanced today that the people actually behind all this are the anti-immigration people.
The Mark Krikorian now follow me on this.
This is the John Pedoritz in the NEW YORK POST, people like John Krikor or Mark Krikorian, who's a lobbyist.
He has a think tank immigration policy forget the name of it, but he's very happy at what happened yesterday.
He would like more of these protests because he thinks it's helping the anti-immigration cause, anti-illegal immigration cause, and so the the theory perhaps said a little uh uh, facetiously is that maybe the people actually behind this are the ones who want people to oppose illegal immigration because they're causing such a backlash to to take place out There.
There is an effort to spend the non-impact on our massive economy.
And it was a non-impact.
I know that so many of you in California had a great day yesterday because the roads were relatively clear.
The malls were relatively clear.
Traffic was less.
Uninsured motorists weren't on the highway.
And there's a, you know, you go state by state, there's a huge difference economically.
Let's take a look at California versus Texas.
The reason is California has a progressive income tax.
Texas has none.
So in Texas, if you have illegal immigrants and they're working and you pay them under the table, pay them cash, state doesn't get hurt because they still have to go buy things, their sales tax, and they have to have rent someplace.
So they're paying indirect property tax and they are supporting the way the state of Texas deals with its infrastructure and handles its state needs.
In California, when you pay the illegals under the table, they get away scot-free, and the state of California doesn't benefit from it at all, other than the Social Security taxes the employers are supposed to file and pay.
But in terms of the people who are being paid under the table, cash or however it's being done, they avoid the California progressive income tax system.
And so they contribute less to the overall California economy in that sense, or at least state functions than, say, in a non-income tax state like Texas.
It makes you wonder if the liberals ever stopped to figure this out, what their reaction to that would be, because they think everybody ought to be paying tax.
Well, the rich.
Now, I know that they won't care about this.
Never mind.
They won't care.
In fact, they'll applaud people, the poor, the downtrodden, the luckless, the thirsty, the hungry, and the full on occasion.
If they're poor and not paying much tax, that'll be fine with them.
But I think it's a joke.
You got the L.A. Times has a story on the massive economic impact that the boycotts had in California, the 3,000 people in Chicago.
But really, the idea that a few million illegal workers could have any serious impact on our massive economy is a joke.
It's always been a joke, but it becomes a great talking point.
It becomes a great sales point for the pro-illegal lobby, if you will.
But I think it backfired because I think they not only set back their cause in terms of PR.
I mean, they're awakening millions of U.S. citizens who become angry at these protesters, but they've also at the same time proven how little their impact on the economy is.
The impact is very slight.
And so we're getting all these stories about what would it be like without immigrants?
What would it be like without the movies made of this?
And that's a general theme that was in the news yesterday.
Well, the country didn't shut down.
And in fact, many places there might have been increased economic activity because of more opportunity to engage in it with less trouble.
So the PR is backfiring on them for those two reasons, and especially when they establish that their impact on the economy is very slight.
LA Times makes a point that, you know, it's really great.
Their employers are even helping them out.
Their employers are letting them take tractors from jobs to drive around in the protests and so forth.
It's interesting, too, to note that in that sense, the strikers, the boycotters, the people that went on the march to show their economic impact, who do they actually end up hurting?
They hurt the employers who are trying to help them.
They hurt the employers who are trying to help them.
Now, some might say, well, those are the employees that ought to be hurt, you know, because they're getting by on subsidized illegal work or illegal alien work, cheap labor and so forth.
So at any rate, that's a brief summation of it.
We have lots of stuff to do on the program today.
Illustration of how the Democratic Party and the drive-by media, no question, coordinate their attacks and somehow define the news of the day identically.
Iran claims to have discovered new uranium deposits.
Omahmoud has said that he will target Israel first if the U.S. does anything evil.
He hits out at the dangerous U.S., strongly criticized the U.S. at the United Nations, accusing Washington of threatening to launch a military strike against its nuclear facilities.
And lo and behold, the gasoline price is back up from 71 to 74 bucks.
Thank you, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Because when the oil price starts going down, that's a problem for him.
So bam, just as I told you, threatened to hit Israel and the price goes back up on the futures markets.
Oh, and did you know that the United States State Department has, what is it, has four separate versions of the national anthem in Spanish on its website?
Have it right here.
And did you know, I'm not joking, I've got to print it them out.
They've got four different versions.
It's on the State Department website, Snurdy.
I got it right here.
Not only that, not only that, in 1919, the United States commissioned the Spanish language version of the national anthem.
I have a copy of it right here.
La bandera de las estres palabre de palabras de Francis Scott Key.
Música de right there.
You can see it right there.
It is.
If you want to see this entirety, go to Drudge's website, go to the Drudge Report, and you can see as far back as 1919, the U.S. commissioned a Spanish-language version, the national anthem.
All of these wizard politicians, we're not going to allow this.
Hey, it already happened.
It's on the books.
We'll be back.
We'll continue in a moment.
America's anchorman and truth detector, Doctor of Democracy.
Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist here on the EIB network.
I got a soundbite here that will illustrate exactly what I was talking about in the brilliant opening monologue segment about the at-one nature that the drive-by media has with people who were essentially protesting against the country yesterday, regardless who they are.
This is last night's nightline, Terry Moran, ended the program.
He's an anchor, and he ended it this way.
One thing that's striking about these giant protests is how middle-class and family-oriented they seem.
Think about it.
They put hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of American cities.
There was very little trouble.
This in a country where when a city wins a sporting championship, there are often riots where people get killed.
It's a testament really to something that's obvious when you walk among these protesters, how decent and polite and well-neighborly they are.
They are gathering in great numbers to send a message to the government, to you, to me, and do it in a nonviolent, civil fashion.
It all seems very American.
Let me wipe my eye.
Be still my beating heart.
So there, you sports fans, you brutes, you violent brutes.
You tear up your cities, and you do.
I mean, so forth, but The illegal immigrants and their friends and supporters are better Americans than you.
Safer, more polite, more middle class, nonviolent.
And they're just trying to send us a message.
All right, I've got to start in sharing this Shelby Steele piece, White Guilt and the Western Past.
Why is America so delicate with the enemy?
He begins by writing, there's something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.
For one thing, it's now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power, the nuclear option aside, in the wars we fight.
And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our third world enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East.
But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we're just slogging along, if admirably, in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that can't stop us, even as we seem unable to stop it.
Yet no one, including very likely the insurgents themselves, believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to.
So clearly, it is America that determines the scale of this war.
It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.
Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced the policy of minimalism and restraint in war.
And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.
Why this new minimalism in war?
It began, Mr. Steele says, he thinks, in a late 20th century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism, the worldwide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy, and even sovereignty.
This idea had organized the entire world, divided up its resources, imposed the nation-state system across the globe, and delivered the majority of the world's population into servitude and oppression.
After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria, from Indonesia to the American Civil Rights Movement, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself.
And this defeat exacted a price.
The West was left stigmatized by its sins.
Today, the white West, like Germany after the Nazi defeat, lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation.
There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.
And I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience, but because people stigmatized with moral crimes, here racism and imperialism, lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.
They struggle above all else to dissociate themselves from the past sins that they are stigmatized with.
And when they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness.
So when America, the greatest embodiment of Western power, goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism.
Thus, in Iraq, we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past.
Two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.
Now, I'll continue this after the break, but when I first understood the premise after reading this, I thought, no, no way are we guilty.
We're not so guilty that we will lose a war.
But if you continue to read Mr. Steele's piece, you have to conclude that he's nailed it.
But I think it has to be pointed out that it is the left in this country, the left here in the world who are guilty, and they have made their guilt into our problem.
And it has become, it has almost transformed their guilt into a hatred of this country or a blaming of this country based on their own self-loathing because of this guilt.
We'll be back in just a second.
Yeah, you need at least 800 decibels, ladies and gentlemen, so as not to miss one dreamy syllable uttered by me.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, despair, tumult, chaos, protest, humiliation, torture, roaring economies, and even the good times.
El Rushbo, 800-282-2882, continuing now with Dr. Shelby Steele and his piece at opinionjournal.com today, White Guilt in the Western Past.
Now, stick with me on this, folks, as I'll analyze this.
This white guilt has a specific meaning here.
And I think, as I said before the break, what I would add to this is I think most of the white guilt is found on the left, and all kinds of guilt is found on the guilt over our prosperity, guilt at our power, guilt at our superpower status.
Now, keep all that in mind.
The collapse of white supremacy and the resulting white guilt introduced a new mechanism of power into the world.
Stigmatization with the evil of the Western past.
And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world.
In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war.
In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal.
If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have had no legitimacy.
Europe would scorn.
Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq, but in so doing dispelled the imperialist dogma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy.
Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us.
Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work, something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation, thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old.
So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work, in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation, bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty, war, if you will, as the great society.
Now, this doesn't mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq.
It's just that today, the United States cannot go to war in the third world simply to defeat a dangerous enemy.
White guilt makes our third world enemies into colored victims, people whose problems, even the tyrannies they live under, were created by the historical disruptions and injustices of the white West.
We must, quote-unquote, understand and pity our enemy, even as we fight him, such as yesterday's New York Times, Saddam, misunderstood.
And though Islamic extremism is one of the most pernicious forms of evil opportunism that has ever existed, we have felt compelled to fight it with an almost managerial minimalism that shows us to be beyond the passions of war and thus well dissociated from the avariciousness of the white supremacist past.
It all adds up to the fact that we are afraid to win because we think it's wrong.
And again, not talking about all of us collectively.
I think where he has nailed this here is identifying the mindset on the left, not just in this country, but around the world.
We're actually afraid to win because there's no question.
Folks, how many times during this war have you sat frustrated?
We're the United States of America.
What do we need to put up with this insurgency and these IEDs and these car bombs?
We could win this war inside of two weeks to a month.
We refuse to.
That's why this peace is so important, because we do fight these things in a minimalist fashion.
And all the while, even while this is happening, we are told what a bunch of brutes and how unfair we are by the lefts and the leftists in this country, the drive-by media.
We still get hammered for the way we're doing it.
You can't appease people.
It's like when you try to get along with the left, it never works.
They take advantage of you.
They think you're a sapper, a sucker.
They think you're exposing weakness.
You can't make them your friends.
They're not interested in that.
Same thing here.
We can't make the world like us.
But this is, I think, from which these comments from John Kerry and all these do, we've lost our standing in the world.
We've lost our reputation.
Shelby Steele has nailed precisely why.
These people are so self-loathing.
They have such disrespect for their own country and its past.
Kerry in Vietnam, a whole Democratic Party and a civil rights movement, which really was responsible for stopping integration early on in the period with all the Democrat mayors and governors and sheriffs down there and the senators who oppose the Civil Rights Act.
Anti-Americanism, continues Mr. Steele, whether in Europe or on the American left, works by the mechanism of white guilt.
It stigmatizes America with all the imperialistic and racist ugliness of the white Western past so that America becomes a kind of a strawman, a construct of Western sin.
The Abu Ghrab and Guantanamo prisons were the focus of such stigmatization campaigns.
Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be good, in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America.
You come out and oppose your country as the Democrats have about Abu Ghraib.
It gives them moral superiority.
They've got the guts to understand our past sins and to say we are continuing to commit them and we need to stop.
And it's the evil George Bush who needs to be reined in, not al-Qaeda, not bin Laden, not Saddam, and not Mahmoud.
People as seemingly desperate as President Shirak and the Reverend Sharpton are devoted pursuers of the moral high ground to be had in anti-Americanism.
This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left.
Virtue and power by mere anti-Americanism.
And it is all the more appealing since unlike real virtues, it requires no sacrifice or effort, only outrage at every slight echo of the imperialist past.
Today, words like power and victory are so stigmatized with Western sin that in many quarters it is politically incorrect even to utter them.
In fact, if you're Madeline Albright, you go out around the world and you lament the fact that we are the lone superpower in the world.
It is guilt that inspires this and self-loathing and disgust for the country.
For the West, might, as in power, can never be right.
And victory, when won by the West against a third world enemy, is always oppression.
It's always going to be called oppression.
But in reality, military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another.
Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism.
But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition, it's impolite to say so and dangerous to proceed.
Now, that is profound.
Let me read it again.
Military victory is also the victory of one idea and the defeat of another.
Only American victory in Iraq defeats the idea of Islamic extremism.
But in today's atmosphere of Western contrition and guilt, It's impolitic to say so and even accomplish it.
America and the broader West are now going through a rather tender era, a time when Western societies have very little defense against the moral accusations that come from their own left wings and from those vast stretches of non-white humanity that were once so disregarded.
Europeans are utterly confounded by the swelling Muslim populations in their midst.
America has run from its own mounting immigration problem for decades.
And even today, after finally taking up the issue, our government seems entirely flummoxed.
White guilt is a vacuum of moral authority visited on the present by the shames of the past.
In the abstract, it seems a slight thing, almost irrelevant and unconvincing proposition.
Yet, a society as enormously power as America lacks the authority to ask its most brilliant, wealthy, and superbly educated minority students to compete freely for college admission with poor whites who lack all these things.
We just can't do that.
We need the victims.
The left needs its victims in order to continue to promote this guilt.
Show that we're still committing these sins.
Whether the problem is race relations, education, immigration, or war, white guilt imposes so much minimalism and restraint that our worst problems tend to linger and deepen.
Our leaders work within a double bind.
If they do what is truly necessary to solve a problem, win a war, fix immigration, they lose legitimacy.
To maintain their legitimacy, they practice the minimalism that makes problems linger.
What but minimalism is left when you are running from stigmatization as a unilateralist cowboy?
And where is the will to truly regulate the southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots?
This is how white guilt defines what's possible in America.
You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism.
That's exactly right, folks.
It's a brilliant, brilliant piece.
He has nailed it this against Shelby Steele, White Guilt in the Western Past at opinionjournal.com today.
Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites and not whites to appreciate something extraordinary.
The fact that whites in America and even elsewhere in the West have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation.
One is forbidden to say this, but it's simply true.
There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today because whites see the idea as morally repugnant.
If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.
This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life, absorbed as new history, so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems.
Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win.
Amen, bro.
This is just a grand slam home run.
He is essentially saying, we're not committing sin.
There may be the lone bigot out there who's outlived his time, but the vast majority of Americans have no desire to practice the sins of the past, to be discriminatory and so forth.
We've moved beyond it.
And yet nobody wants that to be stated because there are too many people who benefit from the idea that we're still like we were in the 1800s and all the way through the 1960s and 70s.
There's an entire industry, in fact, that has cropped up to maintain that mindset within as many groups of people in this country as possible.
So I would urge you to follow the link to this.
We'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
You can find it now at opinionjournal.com because in this piece, he has explained so much of the left's attitudes and the effect that they have had and continue to have on the country.
People have asked me my entire Sterling career, can you explain liberals to me?
How can somebody be one?
And it's not possible to explain it in brief.
There are many facets and characteristics, but I've always told people that at the foundation of it is guilt.
Guilt over so many things.
I just never had the intellectual power to express it as powerfully here as Shelby Steele has.
You really need to read this, folks, and absorb it.
It will explain why we're not doing anything about immigration because we're afraid of what people are going to say about us.
We're afraid to succeed.
We're afraid to do what we know is morally right because we're afraid of the stigmatization of our past being attached to present-day activities.
We're afraid to actually go out and fight a war and win it or deal with a problem like immigration and solve it because of the ramifications of what will be thought of us, of what will be said of us by the left, not only in this country, but around the world.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue in just a second.
Go ahead, folks.
Be honest with yourselves.
Admit it.
You are addicted to this show.
It's called EIB.
It's an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact, the only healthful addiction known to exist in the free world.
Once you get it, you are cured.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
Now, I want to step off, or shall I say, jump off Shelby Steele and go to a replay or repeat of today's morning update involving Senator Biden.
Last week, as you know, we spent a lot of time in one segment describing the hard bigotry of the liberal mindset.
They see us defeated in war, and as you hear this, underlining all of it is guilt.
They see us defeated in war.
They're invested in our defeat in Iraq.
The left, the liberal mindset, disdains the competitive drive because somebody's going to win.
And when somebody wins, we feel guilty.
The liberal mindset wipes out achievement ideals so that everybody has the same equality of outcome.
Nobody's better than anybody else.
They torpedo aspiration.
They're constantly running people down, telling them to have no prayer, no hope.
America's glory days are behind us.
All the while preaching victimhood because they need more victims.
Now, along comes Senator Biden at an op-ed in the New York Times, along with his co-author Leslie Gelb, a former counsel on foreign relations president and a former reporter at the New York Times.
And the idea that Biden and Gelb have, they want to carve up Iraq.
They advocate a decentralized Iraq that would divide Iraq into three separate regions, one Sunni, one Shiite, the other Kurdish.
And this, by dividing everybody up, is supposedly going to unify the country.
Now, we have seen this before.
It was done right here.
We were supposedly a unified nation.
We were separate but equal.
We called it segregation.
In South Africa, it was called apartheid.
And let's not forget India, where Muslims and Hindus were unified under partition.
That really worked out well.
India and Pakistan, the results of partition, are still at each other's throats.
All the while, things in Iraq are looking up.
They finally have their new government in place.
Their leaders are working toward unifying the country constitutionally, not ethnically, or along religious lines.
Here come Senator Biden and Gelb, two big libs, big hearts, lots of compassion, supposedly all for integration in this country.
But when it comes to Iraq and these people of color, they just can't do it.
They're not going to be able to, they just don't have what it takes.
We feel so bad for them.
We've got to split them up.
We'll call it one country, but we'll have three areas.
This is actually an old idea.
It has been tried.
Even for Iraq, it's been proposed before.
But Iraq aspires to be one nation, not three.
They're not defeated.
Each day brings the terrorists closer to defeat.
The Iraqis are working to achieve a free, prosperous, safe nation competing in the world stage.
And what do Iraqis get from Joe Biden, who wants to be the Democrat nominee?
Pessimism.
Strategy for failure.
Strategy for failure, based on the fact that he doesn't have any faith that they can achieve anything anyway.
Which means he'd be the perfect Democrat to represent his party.
Of course, any Democrat today would be perfect to represent his party.
They all think that way.
White guilt, as Shelby Steele explains it, will also explain why the world sides against Israel and with all those various terrorist groups on the other side that the Israelis are facing.
White guilt, supremacy, people of color, poor.
▲
Export Selection