All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:02
October 9, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Standby audio sound, but let's say this at 9, 10, and 11.
And we mail zoom into 12 and 13 as well.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
800-282-2882.
I am America's real anchorman, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
800-282-2882.
And again, if you want to go email rush at EIBnet.com, I just checked email during the break.
A couple people said, now you're suppressing Republican turnout with my attitude today.
Snerdley says, yeah, I can't wait till the media hears what you said in the first hour about it all being over and there's no hope and they call you and want you to come on as a special guest.
Anyway, Snerdley and I were talking back there in his little cubby hole.
Actually, he has a palatial office with a conference table and a satellite room.
And we're sitting back there watching all this.
And Snerdley says, what would you do?
Seriously, what would you do about this North Korea situation?
I said, well, you know, we went through the whole gamut of possibilities.
Can't send any special forces in there at this stage.
We don't have enough troops in South Korea to amount any kind of a ground assault.
That's not necessary here anyway, just like it isn't in Iran.
And basically, militarily, we have to do something.
Folks, Iran is watching this.
A whole bunch of other pretenders and terrorist organizations are watching this.
And if we don't do anything outside of what we normally do, utter statements of condemnation or issue statements of condemnation, go to the United Nations and bellyache and whine and moan up there, nobody's going to take this threat seriously, least of all the Iranians or other little terrorist organizations who have grand designs.
One of the things we have to consider, though, is that North Korea has become an exporter of dangerous military technology to places like Iran.
And they work, I think, with the Chinese in exporting things to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela and other places.
It seems to me, at the very least, that we have to put some kind of naval blockade outside North Korea to stop the delivery of material to that country and to keep anything from getting out.
That seems to me something reasonable and doable.
I know people will call it provocative, an unnecessary step.
It's going to provoke the North Koreans.
The liberals are going to say everything they always say.
And if we're going to be paralyzed because of what liberals or anybody else in the world says about us, then we deserve for every country in the world at once and who to get one.
If we're going to be obsessed with what people think of us, especially when the subject is our own national security, then we deserve what we get.
This whole notion of being concerned what people think and the diplomatic reaction and so forth and the unnecessary provocation blockade would cause why we can't do that, destabilize the region, destabilize the world, is then saying there's nothing else we can do.
We can't do anything to protect ourselves because protecting ourselves, defending ourselves, the people of this country, is an unnecessary provocation and will destabilize the circumstance.
And so basically what we've done is sign a suicide pact with ourselves versus all these little tin horns who want these kinds of weapons because to defend ourselves is going to provoke them further.
To defend ourselves is going to make us even a bigger enemy at the United Nations.
It's ridiculous to listen to what it's ridiculous to get caught up in this kind of result of guilt and the desire for acceptance on the part of some people by others.
It's just, it's frustrating.
Here's another thing the president could do.
And if he does something like this, we will never know it.
He could send a little personal communique to Kim Jong-il and say very simply, do you like living?
You want to keep watching your porn videos that Madden Albright tells us you enjoy.
Do you want to keep drinking your scotch?
Because if you want to keep doing all that, there's a way you can.
We might even send you Mark Foley at the end of the day, if you're good.
And the only way we'll never know if something like that happened.
I'm serious.
Do you like living?
Do you want to keep drinking your scotch?
Do you want to keep eating your dog?
Do you want to keep watching these little X-rated films that you like so much?
And the only way we'd know is if Kim Jong-il waved the letter, look what I got, which is probably why we wouldn't do it, because he probably would.
But it's a circumstance that's far more serious than how it is being portrayed on the news today.
It's a second or third story.
It doesn't get much time.
It's not near the priority because it serves one purpose for the drive-by media and the Democrats, and that is the opportunity it presents them to say, Bush fell asleep on the job, Bush looking the other way, Bush distracted by his own decisions, Iraq, other meaningless excursions in the war on terror.
Now, they don't want to carry it too far because it is a nuclear weapon that was tested.
And this guy, Kim Jong-il, is very unpredictable.
So they'll get their perfunctory statement out like Mrs. Clinton did and continue to harp on some of the other things.
Let's go to the audio sunbike.
He says, some of these are good.
It's not about North Korea.
This is about Foley.
George Stephanopoulos on his show yesterday.
Try this.
Had Ron Emmanuel on the show, who runs a Democratic congressional campaign committee.
These guys are veterans from the Clinton era, the Clinton War Room.
This must have been one hell of a reunion yesterday on this week with George Stephanopoulos.
Another guest was Republican Adam Putnam, a Republican from Florida, Congressman Adam Putnam, Republican Florida.
Stephanopoulos, in this question, says, all week long there have been on talk radio as by Republicans, their allies, that this was perhaps a Democrat dirty trick.
And I just want to ask you plainly, did you or your staff know anything about these emails or instant messages of Foley's before they came out?
George, never saw him.
And I'm going to say one thing.
Let's go through the facts right here.
Are you aware of them?
They never saw him.
I'm not aware of them.
No involvement.
We never saw him.
No involvement.
And she said, not anything, George.
And what the fact is, this is a holy, no, there's a holy, no.
Never saw him.
That sounds like an evasion.
It sounds like Emmanuel said, I never saw the instant messages.
But he's asked point blank, were you aware of them?
I never saw them.
Never, never saw them.
Now, this is Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Jack Kingston says, he's a congressman from Georgia.
Kingston says, the speaker's job is to protect the majority.
We know that this race has been a 15-seat race to keep the majority.
Why would the speaker protect one member in a safe Republican seat?
He would not try to risk the majority for that.
There would be no reason for him to have that motivation.
And Chris Wallace turns to Marty Meehan and says, Congressman Meehan, your reaction?
I think the reason why he did it was because he didn't want to risk his majority.
The fact is, a Foley seat was a Republican seat.
What Mehan saying here the GOP covered up to protect Foley's seat.
Foley's seat was safe.
Okay, the next bite, Wallace says to Meehan, look, a former colleague of yours who now has passed away, Gary Studs, Jerry says, whatever, was in fact censured by the House in 1983 for not sending messages to male pages, but for having sex with a 17-year-old.
Now, don't Democrats, because the Democrats are in power then have to answer for the fact that they left him in power?
They didn't expel him?
Well, first of all, there was Republican Congressman Crane and Congressman Studs who were involved in activities.
Frankly, when the activities took place, in the Studs case, I was a sophomore in high school.
But in any event, that doesn't excuse what's happened here.
After that scandal, which involved one Republican and one Democrat, the House decided to set up a committee to oversee pages.
That was the response at that time.
And again, it was a long time before I was in the Congress.
They set this up.
That's a way to skate.
We did some research.
Now, we found that Marty Meehan was born in 1956.
That means that he was a 27-year-old sophomore when Jerry Studs was in Congress.
Maybe, yeah, obviously, he is a redshirt sophomore.
If we're right about the year he was born, 1956, he couldn't have been a sophomore in high school unless he went to college first and then finished his education in high school and got a master's in high school or whatever he got.
Just a minor little point.
About all this, let me ask again.
I mentioned this in the first hour.
He talks about, we redid the page program.
Yeah, we reformed a page program back then.
Yeah, you put them all in dormitories, making them one big, easy-sitting duck.
You reformed the page program in 83.
We got to reform the page program now.
And I have a question.
I have two questions.
Since it is obviously a problem to put gay congressmen with pages, that's what the Democrats are saying.
It's a problem.
The Republicans knew it, and they covered it up.
Does this mean it would be a problem to have a gay scout master, my good friend Democrat?
If we can't have a gay congressman cavorting and getting close to pages, why is it okay to have gay scout masters?
Number two, if we can't have gay congressmen having access with pages, how are we going to find out which congressmen are gay?
Either Republican or Democrat?
Is there going to have to be a little form or a line or two on the disclosure form that they all submit that they have to answer the question about their sexual orientation?
I mean, that's where the Democrats are taking this.
They're gay bashing.
They're talking about this being pedophilia.
And they're making it plain that everybody knew Foley was gay.
And why would they cover this up?
Why would they allow this to happen?
Everybody knew Foley was gay.
Well, if the gay aspect of this is what's the driving force, then I assume we're going to have to prevent anybody in Congress who's gay from interacting, however, with pages.
But how are we going to know which one of them are gay?
Hey, reminder, later this afternoon we update rushlimbaugh.com.
We're going to post a page from the August 2006 Limbaugh letter, Our Nailing the Left section.
This one is detailed events that are the Clinton North Korea legacy.
And I'd urge it.
It's going to be on the free side.
You'll be able to see it.
And I think you all should go there as many of you can and do so.
Read it.
Because the drumbeat from the left is whatever's going on in North Korea is Bush's fault.
Took his eye off the ball.
It's been distracted because of Iraq.
Blah, One thing that nobody wants to say.
And Mr. Snerdley, I should have said this to you earlier.
One thing nobody wants to say is this really isn't about North Korea.
It's about China.
Everything.
Iran is about China.
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is about China.
We trade with China in the process.
We have opened up all kinds of avenues for them to steal.
Bill Goertz's book is detailed on how they have stolen technology.
Clinton administration working with China to help them finally get missiles and satellites into orbit when they were unable to do that.
The real problem here is China.
And if you think we're going to do anything about China, you're in dreamland.
The Chinese are who prop up the North Koreans.
You know, the Chinese came out and condemned this.
They were among the first groups that condemned it, but they also then said, we must not take any action.
It would be unnecessarily provocative or some such thing.
Chinese are just happy as pigs in a pig pen over the instability this is causing.
They love nothing more.
They're not threatened by the North Koreans.
The Chinese could swat them away inside of a half hour if they felt the need to, just like anybody else could.
But no.
What do you mean, reverse domino effect?
The Chinese are worried if North Korea falls, that that means China's going to fall and everybody else can fall.
And that's why they're, well, well, well, look at the Chinese, forget North Korea, think Taiwan.
The Chinese have got designs on taking back Taiwan.
And we're going to be at some point detested there.
We have this pact with the Taiwanese.
The Chinese may fear the reverse domino effect.
If North Korea is liberated, that that could open up fears in China that they're going to be, they're too big for that.
Liberating North Korea.
You mean liberating, by turning them into a democracy or just getting rid of the nukes?
Regime change.
Regime change is not going to fit.
No, no, no.
The regime change in North Korea is not going to frighten the Chikoms.
QIICOMs are too big.
The strategy that would be required would be you have to think Reagan and the Soviets and how did we do that?
And look how long it took in that Cold War before Reagan came along and got serious about it.
And even after Reagan came along and was serious about it, it was for all intents and purposes 17 years, 17, 18 years from the time he was serious about it.
And he had allies around the world helping him, by the way, Margaret Thatcher and so forth.
Reagan didn't care what anybody thought of him.
He walked out of a meeting with Gorbachev and Reykjavik.
And everybody thought, oh, we've lost the chance for peace.
Oh, this is horrible.
And basically, Gorbachev had proposed this, you get rid of yours, we'll get rid of ours.
And Reagan said, oh, no, it's just the exact opposite.
You're going to get rid of yours.
And we're going to build Star Wars.
And so the meeting ends, and everybody was panicked, except George Schultz has said he'd never seen his president in a finer moment in his life than that.
But, you know, dealing with China is going to be a long-term thing.
And how do you, if you have the equivalent, all right, we spent the Russians, the Soviets, we spent them into bankruptcy.
They could not keep up with us militarily.
The Chinese can't either unless they steal stuff from us, technology, and they're doing it.
So it's going to require some sort of a grand strategy.
Some people think, by the way, if you put a blockade up and prevent things getting in and out of North Korea, that that is an act of war and that a war would start because of it.
That would be the essence of a declaration of war, that the Chinese wouldn't put up with it and the North Koreans wouldn't put up with it.
And there is a reality.
We have been at war with North Korea before.
There was the Korean War, and it went on and You know, that's not negative.
That's just reality.
And there is unfinished business there as a result of that.
So it's a very, very complicated issue.
But I can tell you this, it ain't going to get solved at the United Nations.
It isn't going to get solved at the Security Council.
It isn't going to be solved with diplomacy.
It isn't going to be solved with meetings, resolutions, ceasefires, or whatever it is these diplomats come up with.
Plus, you get the Russians out there practically applauding this for their own perverted reasons.
They have reasons they like the world being destabilized and so forth.
They're not exactly the model of stability themselves.
But here again, it's a real serious problem.
It has been building.
Everybody has known this nuke test is coming, and it still is not being treated as the serious event and occurrence that it is in terms of our national security.
It's being dealt with only as a political issue.
And how does this hurt Bush?
Or how can we make it hurt Bush?
So once again, as far as critics, media, Democrats, liberals, national security is not even on a radar screen for them.
El Rushbo, your host for life on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Well, the Associated Press claims to have obtained some of the proposals made by the United States, or the United States will make, regarding sanctions against North Korea.
This is what the AP is reporting as U.S. proposals for sanctions against North Korea.
A trade ban on military and luxury items, the power to inspect all cargo, and freezing assets connected with Pyongyang's weapons program.
Those are the sanctions that we are going to propose.
Now, where are we going to propose these sanctions?
We're going to propose these sanctions at the United Nations.
Does anybody expect China will go along with this?
Anybody think Russia will go along with this?
Anybody who is afraid of terrorists or anybody else, will they be expected to go along with this?
Trade ban on military and luxury items.
That's to keep Kim Jong-il from getting his porn videos and his scotch.
The power to inspect all cargo.
What, you're saying blockade?
Well, it's not a blockade.
A blockade is the physical presence of warships off the coast of North Korea in the China Sea, South China Sea.
Well, that's the point.
I don't know how we're going to inspect the cargo.
I don't know.
But there's no mention of a blockade here.
That would be, I'm telling you, that would be declared an act of war, or it would be considered a declaration of war.
And that's how it would be reacted.
Anyway, people have been waiting patiently on the phones.
We go back to Tampa.
Bob, welcome.
Thank you for waiting as well, too.
Yeah, Rush, I think that you're wrong to say that in the old days we would have, quote, taken care of business in North Korea and Iran.
This country's always been a reactionary country.
And other than Truman with a nuclear bomb in the Second World War, we've always waited until something happened.
And I don't think even Reagan and I. Wait a second.
What just happened yesterday?
Well, you know, they tested the nuclear bomb.
I don't disagree with that.
But you said in the old days, what old days?
What president would have said, okay, we're going to take military action right now because of what North Korea did?
I'm just saying historically, I don't think that's accurate.
Okay, let me rephrase it then.
Rather than focus on it in terms of an immediate military response to something, I was more trying to make the point of an American attitude that existed that doesn't exist today.
I'll wager you, Bob, that you would probably be stunned if we could do it, and it's not possible to do it, but if we could do a nationwide anecdotal poll and just ask every American, what do you think about this?
Most of them say, no big deal.
Not a big deal.
They're not going to use it.
North Korea is not going to ever nuke us.
Most people don't think those things are ever going to happen.
I agree with you.
So the attitude is that national security isn't threatened by all these things.
And it's an attitude that bothers me because we are in the midst here of the post-9-11 era.
We're in the midst of admitted enemies who are making loud proclamations against us and our future and what they intend to do like never before.
And people don't take it seriously.
I'm just saying in the old days, we would have taken it seriously as a nation far more than we do now.
Yeah, I agree with that.
And the focus previously, especially during the Cold War, was on the Cold War.
And, you know, when we put the Pershings in Europe, thank God for Helmut Cole.
You know, we had to do that through, you know, strength, but we had to have the cooperation of the Germans and other European countries to do it.
Thank God we did.
I don't disagree with you.
I totally do agree with you.
But this country has never had in its history the attitude of military action preemptively.
No, I know that.
We exhaust every other option, such as...
Frustratingly so.
Yeah, true.
But, you know, we have, you mentioned the Pershing missiles that Reagan deployed.
We.
We have taken action in the past that has been deemed provocative by the rest of the world and didn't care what they thought.
We don't have that attitude now.
We don't have that.
Well, Rush, now you can't say that.
My God.
I mean, we are in Iraq.
Come on.
The rest of the world hates us for being in Iraq.
Thank God we're there.
I agree with it 100%.
It's something that had to be done to get rid of Saddam, but you can't say that.
I mean, we took it.
Wait a second.
Look.
No, wait.
I can say it because look how long it took.
How many UN resolutions were there?
How much defiance was there in the post-net?
It took 9-11 to cause this to happen, which is essentially your point, but we eventually did it.
We couldn't take the chance.
This is preemptive action for the first time in a long time.
We couldn't take the chance that what we had intelligence-wise wasn't true.
We couldn't take the chance.
100%.
But what you just said was accurate, that it took a long time to do it, but we did do it.
I mean, going back to the Second World War with Trump, I can't think of a time that we did that.
Do you think we could do it?
You look at the action that we took in Iraq, which was, in my mind, justified.
Oh, me too.
Okay.
Well, look at how it's been reacted to.
Look at how the Democrats have done their best to discredit it.
I think it's sort of paralyzed us from doing it again when necessary for fear that the American people won't support it.
We are a representative republic, after all.
And if the American people won't support it because they think this has been a disaster, because it's being reported as a disaster, then future incursions like this that are necessary for national security are going to be less willingly undertaken, if undertaken at all.
I agree totally.
The press and the Democrats have been setting a template for this, going back to the intelligence on the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
If, you know, Iran says they have a nuclear weapon, oh my God, how can we believe the intelligence community?
I agree totally with you.
Okay, then the fact is we agree, except when we disagree.
Well, no, I just thought your comment was a little strong to say that in the old days we would have done this, that, and the other.
I just don't think historically that that's quite accurate.
I got the impression you meant in the old days the United States would have gone into North Korea and Iran militarily.
Well, let me amend it again.
In addition to stating what I said about a national attitude at the highest levels of leadership in both parties, it doesn't exist today as it did.
But in addition to that, I think there is even less willingness today to declare that we have enemies.
Well, thank God Bush doesn't have a hesitation.
Thank God he doesn't.
But as a country at whole, I agree.
I agree totally.
People want to put their head in the sand, and because the news coverage of Iraq is so negative, they just want to throw up their hands and pretend that none of these bad people exist.
I agree totally with you.
Even if they do exist, they're not going to attack us.
Even though 9-11 happened.
No, they're not going to attack us.
It's much easier to because once you admit that we face that kind of a reality, it's almost not a call to arms, but it changes your attitude about the way you're going to look at events, lead your life, vote, be concerned about things.
And most people don't want to consider.
And this is kind of funny to me because while most people are obsessed with doom and gloom and negativity when it comes to most aspects of their lives, when it comes to the U.S. being attacked by people with nuclear weapons or other powerful weapons might be used by terrorists, that ain't going to happen.
Nobody will do that.
Nobody's that stupid start a war, blah, So the reality that is out there is denied, and people invent things to be negative about when there is no justification for it, such as, well, don't even need to get into details.
I'm getting close here on time.
But look, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate it, Bob.
Thanks much.
One more call before the break.
Charles in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
The caller from Pittsburgh doesn't surprise me.
I believe whether he is aged enough to do it or not, he is a child of the 80s.
If you remember back in the 80s, and really it predates this to some degree, when everybody was so terrified, especially the elites, of the Nuclear war.
They had the protests and everything else like that.
And the attitude was: if the horrible Ronald Reagan would just give up his desire to have nuclear parity or even nuclear superiority, everybody would just get along.
And I think we're seeing that the same thing now.
These people think, well, if we just give the Koreans and the Iranians whatever they want, we'll get whatever they want.
They'll just leave us alone.
You know, you raise an interesting point.
I would state it this way.
Here we have North Korea just conducting a nuclear test.
Here we have the Iranians who are saying one day that they are, another day that they aren't developing nuclear weapons.
Then they say they have a right to.
They say nobody can stop them.
And yet the liberals in this country are only opposed to nukes when a Republican is in the White House.
George Bush, well, not forget Bush.
Barry Goldwater as a candidate in 1960.
Remember the DAISY commercial?
Absolutely.
Ronald Reagan in the 80s, the fear that liberals had was that the world was going to end because madmen had their fingers on the button.
In Reagan's case, he was president.
In Goldwater's case, he might be.
They were scared to death, and it was nothing but nuclear talk here, peace marches, global peace marches for nuclear disarmament and this kind of thing.
And now the bad guys come up with a nuclear weapon in North Korea.
There's no concern.
It's just a political opportunity to bash Bush.
So what it circles back to is your point that the real problem that liberals in this country and around the world have is the United States.
We're the ones unnecessarily provocative.
We're the ones that are too big.
We're the ones that are scaring these poor little innocent people to death.
They have no choice but then to protect themselves against our madmen.
Right.
And you could also extend it to domestic stuff.
I mean, have somebody holding you up.
Well, give them what they want.
Maybe they won't hurt us.
And I think that's almost a social disease in many ways.
It's that we're not, you know, nobody's responsible except for us with anything that goes wrong.
And then we're responsible for being strong or doing anything right or, you know, taking care of ourselves.
No, wait, there are exceptions to this.
When a Democrat's in the White House, we never do anything wrong.
Oh, yeah.
You know, and another thing about George Bush being asleep, as a president, the last president they said was asleep was Ronald Reagan.
And if he is asleep as Ronald Reagan, he's in good company.
So, you know.
When they say Bush is asleep, Reagan actually said fell asleep.
I know that.
Doddering old fool.
They say Bush is distracted.
He fell asleep on the job regarding North Korea.
That's all just politics in a heated campaign season.
Anyway, got to go here.
I appreciate your waiting out there.
Charles, we'll be back and continue.
Have you seen what an investigation has shown FEMA to have spent millions of dollars on in Florida?
Wait till you hear this.
Don't go away, folks.
We'll be right back.
All right.
Yesterday in the South Florida Sun Sentinel newspaper, there was this story.
Investigation shows FEMA spent millions on puppet shows, bingo, and yoga.
At the Panitos Learning Center in Boca Raton, disaster workers dressed as windy W-I-N-D-Y, Windy Biggie, and sunny.
And they teach 30 preschoolers a song about how the wind is good even during a hurricane.
Windy Biggie is our friend.
Wendy Biggie is strong wind.
She turns, turns, turns, turns around.
She's knocking things to the ground.
This is FEMA tax money at work.
It's also paying for Hurricane Bingo, puppet shows, salsa for seniors, and yoga on the beach.
Last year, FEMA awarded Florida $22.6 million for crisis counseling for victims of Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina.
Florida's program is called Project Hope, Helping Our People in Emergencies.
Still in operation, 450 workers across the state who spend much of their time leading games and performing shows for groups of residents, regardless of whether they're in crisis or even experience the storms.
The program, funded by FEMA but run by the Florida Department of Children and Families, is supposed to identify victims and help them recover from the psychological aftermath of the storms by providing emotional support and referrals for food, clothes, and services.
But Project Hope officials say they've had trouble locating victims because FEMA refuses to provide names or addresses of those who have sought disaster aid, citing confidentiality.
Workers have searched for Wilma victims by driving around and looking for blue tarps on roofs.
The Katrina team, whose mission is to help Gulf Coast evacuees who have moved to Florida, have scoured hotels and festivals, sometimes finding only one or two survivors, quote unquote, a week.
Job is stressful, Project Hope officials say.
Counselors regularly attend stress management sessions that have included collecting shells on the beach, silly string and art therapy, and the toilet paper game.
This fun game has the team throwing toilet paper in an orderly fashion while additional roles are constantly introduced, says a Project Hope report.
I'm not making this up.
In response to inquiries from the Sun Sentinel, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat Florida, sent an email to FEMA on Thursday asking for a review of the program.
The way some of the money is reportedly being used raises some red flags with me, said Nelson, who has criticized FEMA in the past for wasteful spending.
Now, aside from everything you heard here, which is just patently ridiculous, can I ask a question?
What in the world is therapeutic about grabbing kids who survived hurricanes and performing a song as a character called Wendy Biggie and saying, Windy Biggie is our friend?
Wendy Biggie is strong wind.
She turns, turns, turns, turns around.
She's knocking things to the ground.
This is going on under FEMA instructions.
So they, oh, so they won't be traumatized till Hurricane's Windy Biggie.
And we're supposed to, oh, look, mommy, here comes Windy Biggie.
Can't go out and pray.
It's Wendy Biggie.
That's it.
So these kids aren't supposed to be traumatized the next time a killer hurricane approaches.
Disaster workers dressed as Wendy Biggie.
What was that?
What does that look like?
How do you dress up as a lot of wind?
Maybe go as Ted Kennedy.
Liberals would say, dress up as me, so that cancels itself out.
But there are workers dressed as Wendy Biggie and Sunny, S-U-N-N-Y, and they teach 30 preschoolers a song about how the wind is good.
Even during a hurricane.
Okay, your FEMA dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars.
Now, this is ridiculous, of course, classic illustration, and there are millions of them of the ludicrous waste of money when the federal government gets hold of it.
Back here in just a second.
And we are back.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are sadly out of busy broadcast moments.
But have no fear and have no sweat, folks, because we'll be back tomorrow and do it all over again, revved up fully based on what all has happened between now and the time we get back together with you, which I look forward to.
▲
Export Selection