All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
September 26, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the inimitable host on this program now documented to be almost always right 98.7% of the time.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network at 800-282-2882.
You know, back in the good old days, folks, the ugly knew they were ugly.
The stupid knew they were stupid.
But now there's virtue in stupidity.
We learned a lot in the last hour.
Remember the phone call from young Jill from, where was she?
Ithaca, from Ithaca, New York, who told me I was lying about the Democrats staying in Iraq if either of them, any of them, are elected president.
And I made this prediction since April.
I played the audio sound by the Mrs. Clinton from last Sunday.
There's no way.
There's no way that you can hear that and misinterpret it.
Mrs. Clinton said she wasn't going to get into hypotheticals and then precisely went into hypotheticals.
She said, well, I don't want to get into hypotheticals, but if I am elected, which is a hypothetical.
But after that, throw the hypotheticals out.
If I'm elected, I don't think we're going to be able to pull out of there.
I mean, look at what's going on.
Now, how can you hear that and not hear it?
The only explanation is if you are a liberal.
And this is one of the many things I have been trying to instruct people.
They have this cocoon that they have intricately woven inside of which they survive and live.
And anything that challenges that cocoon, their little safety net, they don't hear.
Mrs. Clinton just told the anti-war Democrats of this country she's not pulling out of Iraq if she's elected president.
They don't want to hear it.
And so they don't.
And so when somebody like me plays the soundbite and then unarguably analyzes it, why?
What did I say last hour?
Truth becomes impolite.
Truth becomes confrontational.
Truth becomes offensive.
And they run to the phones to tell me I'm the liar.
This, sadly, my friends, is who we're dealing with.
And these people think they're the ones that are open-minded.
They think they're the ones whose minds are not closed.
And it's not only their minds that are closed, it is their entire world.
And they live in these alternate universes where truth is only what they want things to be.
Quite instructive.
All right, time to go to the audio soundbites.
We're back for more comparing Mahmoud Ahmadinezad to Democrats.
Now, I understand it's probably going to irritate a lot of Democrats because they're not going to want to hear this.
But remember, I'm not saying any of these things.
It's Mahmoud Ahmadinezad saying them, followed by a Democrat who basically said the same thing.
Now, what we don't know here is who's parroting who, although my guess is that Mahmoud is parroting Democrats.
And that's why he kind of got, you know, off track when he got the homosexual question up there at Columbia.
All right, here we go.
Here is Mahmoud Ahmadinezad accusing the Bush administration of running secret prisons and kidnapping and torture and wiretapping and all that in his speech at the UN.
Setting up secret prisons, abducting persons, trials and secret punishments without any regard to due process, extensive tapping of telephone conversations, intercepting private mail, and frequent summons to police and security centers have become commonplace and prevalent.
Now, folks, this is exactly what Mahmoud does and more.
But where is he hearing this?
Here is Senator Robert Byrd.
Unchecked power to spy on our own people.
The power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners.
The torture of prisoners to extract information from them.
That resolution does not authorize running black hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law.
That resolution does not give this president or any president the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.
So I ask you, Sheets Bird there denouncing President Bush just as Mahmoud Ahmadinezad denounced President Bush.
You tell me, what's different?
There's literally no.
See why this lying, folks, is a problem?
I don't think the Democrats even really believe this.
They're just making, they're just saying this to appeal to the fringe lunatics in their base, and they're trying to drum up anti-war sentiment and hatred for Bush because they wanted to destroy his presidency.
The danger in doing this is that you got guys like Bin Laden who come out with videos now and then that parrot things like this and Ahmadinezad, who comes to the UN to say it.
Here's more.
Here is Ahmadinezad with a portion of his address at the UN General Assembly yesterday.
The Palestinian people have been displaced or are under heavy military pressure, economic siege, or are incarcerated under abhorrent conditions.
The occupiers are protected and praised, while the innocent Palestinians are subjected to political, military, and propaganda onslaughts.
The people of Palestine are deprived of water, electricity, and medicine for the sin of asking for freedom.
Jimmy Carter in December of 2006 on Meet the Press.
The apartheid that is perpetrated now on the Palestinians in the occupied territories is not based on racism.
It's based on the desire by a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land.
And in the acquisition of that land, the occupation, the confiscation, and in the colonization of that land, they are perpetuating an absolute and total division between Israelis living on Palestinian territory and the right of Palestinians to interrelate with any Israelis who are occupying their own land.
Okay, can you detect any difference here in who the culprits and the enemy in the Middle East happen to be with Jimmy Carter and Mahmoud Ahmadinezad?
Here is Ahmadinezad on the war in Iraq.
Iraq was occupied under the pretext of overthrowing a dictator and the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraqi dictator, who had been supported by the same occupiers, was disposed of, and no weapons of mass destruction were discovered.
But the occupation continues under different excuses.
We go to July 31st of this year, Charles Wrangell on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN.
We started the civil war.
We knocked off Saddam Hussein.
Nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.
Nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.
Nothing to do with 911.
I tell you, folks, if you want to, if you Democrats listening, if you want to deny, you want to call here and deny to me that Ahmed Dinezad is getting his talking points from listening as Democrats, you do it.
I want to talk to you.
Here's more.
Here's Ahmadineizad on the domestic situation in the United States.
Poverty, illiteracy, healthcare issues, and the gap between the poor and the rich.
The situation of poverty and deprivation is very alarming.
Teddy Kennedy, December 17th, 2006.
36 million Americans that are going to bed hungry every night.
36 million Americans who are going, and 12 million of those are children.
We've had the total number of people that have fallen back into poverty during this Bush administration.
We have 5 million more people that have dropped back into poverty.
And of course, if we wanted to look really hard, we could find Democrats who said almost word for word in their campaigns for president what Ahmadinezad accused the United States of yesterday.
John Edwards comes to mind.
I mean, John Edwards is running on the poverty problem.
Illiteracy, healthcare issues are all running on that.
The gap between the rich and the poor.
Do you actually think Ahmadinezad gives a rear end about the gap between the rich and the poor of the United States?
Do you think he's sitting in Iran as he formulates his strategy to deal with this?
Oh, yeah, I'm going to hit him on that.
This guy clearly thinks the Democrats are running the country.
He thinks the drive-by media is running a country, and he's parroting what he's heard them say.
He thinks he's building a bridge, a bond between himself and the American people.
Here's Ahmadinezad at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday on the Bush administration, how it can't be believed.
How can the incompetent who cannot even manage and control themselves rule humanity and arrange its affairs?
Here is Mrs. Clinton, August 3rd, 2006.
Because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy.
Given your track record, why should we believe your assurances now?
She was talking to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and calling him incompetent, unable to manage and control his impulses and urges in his own department and so forth.
Exactly what Mahmoud Ahmadinezad said at the UN General Assembly.
Finally, this.
This is at the UN yesterday.
After he delivered his remarks, the General Assembly met with reporters.
An unidentified Iranian female reporter it asked a question of Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, and he answered it.
You mentioned that there's no such phenomenon in Iran as homosexuality.
Could you please elaborate on that?
I know a few myself.
Seriously, I don't know of any.
As for homosexuality, I don't know where it is.
Give me an address so that we are also aware of what happens in Iran.
Damn right he wants an address.
Give me an address so we are aware of what happens in Iran.
Right.
You know those side-by-sides of Mahmoud Ahmadinezad and the Democrats.
I admit I love doing it.
It's fun to do.
But it also saddens me, ladies and gentlemen, that I have to do it.
It saddens me that the state of our education system, elementary has-screw college, is such that many American citizens don't get this on their own.
When they listen to Ahmadinezad, if they do, they do not.
Wow, I've heard this before.
Yeah, this guy sounds just like a Democrat.
When I pointed out, yeah, yeah.
But I guess from a professional programming standpoint, it stands me in good stead that I have to do this.
But I really, as I say, I'm saddened by it that so many people don't see it on their own.
I had a story in the stack yesterday.
I had it at the top of the stack for 45 minutes, and the program is evolving in such a way I never get to it.
But this, folks, is pretty huge.
It's an editorial from Investors Business Daily from Monday entitled The George Soros Threat to Democracy.
George Soros is known for funding groups such as moveon.org that seek to manipulate public opinion.
So why is Soros' backing of what he believes in problematic?
Well, in a word, transparency.
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely NASA whistleblower standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him legal and media advice.
I didn't know this until I read the IBD editorial.
Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship philanthropy by as much as $720,000, most likely under the Open Society Institute's politicization of science program.
Now, one thing that confused me when I read this is I didn't know that government employees could be on the take like this.
So I don't know if Hansen's still at NASA, but he's always referred to as the lone NASA whistleblower who is trying to really warn the American people about the lies and distortions coming out of the Bush administration.
And we keep hearing from the global warming crowd that we can't trust those who are opposed to the whole concept of man-made global warming because they're being funded by big oil.
They're being funded by all these big corporations.
They're being funded by people.
Well, now we know that so is James Hansen, who previous to this editorial was thought of as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
Now, I frankly never thought that because the guy's too wrong too often to just be doing it on his own.
And this is probably the case with so many on the pro-global warming side.
Nobody ever talks about how are they corrupted?
How are they being compensated?
What is their inspiration and motivation?
But once again, despite all that, we find the hand of George Soros involved in this.
Now, what this $720,000 might have meant is that Hansen could have had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda.
He could have had lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly censored spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
And that's he has portrayed himself as being censored because he's a NASI can't speak out as a lone government employee.
And now we learn that Soros gave him $720,000, probably to teach him to package himself and to have people actually get him on various media.
Hansen even succeeded with public pressure from his nightly news performances in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage.
Had Hansen's OSI funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently.
Outcome could have been different.
And that's not the only case.
Didn't the Drive-By Media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry American Mexican flag waving illegal immigrants?
Yeah, in fact, who'd they credit for this?
They credited Hispanic talk shows in Los Angeles and Hispanic talk shows on television for ginning up 2 million spontaneously angry Mexican flag waving illegal immigrants demanding citizenship in LA.
Turns out that's not what happened.
Soros' Open Society Institute had money muscle there too through its $17 million justice fund.
The fund lists 19 projects in 2006.
One was vaguely described as involvement in the immigration rallies.
Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.
So we find Soros involved in creating the flag-waving 2 million people in L.A. protesting illegal immigration, funding James Hansen at NASA.
And so what was made to look like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from the Manhattan offices of George Soros.
The public had no way of knowing until the release of the OSI's 2006 annual report.
Meanwhile, OSI Cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.
Get this.
Do people know that last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Club Gitmo was a Soros project?
His Open Society Institute gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld for the terrorists.
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured Transportation Secretary Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, to scrap a program called Secure Flight, which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names.
It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.
And they trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties.
Well, do you feel safer?
It's all part of the $74 million that Soros spent on U.S. programs in 2006 to shape policy.
Who knows what revelations this year's report will bring around events now in the news?
OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds.
OSI partners with Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in direct action, also known as eco-terrorism.
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called Democracy Alliance, whose idea of democracy seems to be government-controlled solely by Democrats.
Soros shaping public policies, as his organization calls it, is not illegal, but it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.
And while everybody's out there complaining and whining and moaning about lobbyists, here we have one of the biggest lobbyists operating under the radar without anybody knowing what he's funding and who he's buying and who he's paying for.
And so without that transparency, what Soros is doing amounts to political manipulation, which leads to cynicism.
As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears, distrust what it hears, and thus tunes out.
And that creates an even more open field for Soros to operate in when people aren't paying attention anymore because they're so irritated by it and turned off by it.
So Soros did not go away after the 2006 elections and may in fact have corrupted the global warming mirror.
Ah, yes.
Talent on lawn from God.
Rush Limboy, highly trained broadcast specialist, showing one and all how it is done.
At 800-282-2882, you can wipe the smirk off your face in there, Dawn.
Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good.
Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's absolutely no Republicans that could possibly be against the war?
Well, who are these Republicans?
I can think of Chuck Hagel and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do.
I can't think of, who are the Republicans in the anti-war movement?
I'm just, I'm not talking about the senators.
Some probably the general public like you accuse the public of all the Democrats of being wanting to lose.
Oh, come on.
Here we go again.
I utter the truth, and you can't handle it, so you've got to call here and change the subject.
How come I'm not also hitting Republican?
I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq and defeat.
The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically.
Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq.
I don't think it's winnable.
And I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you got to caught the bosses.
Well, you, you.
I mean, sometimes you really got to know when you're wrong.
Well, yeah, you do.
I'm not wrong on the worst thing that could happen is losing this, flating out of there, waving the white flag.
Do you have.
I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying anything like that.
Of course you are.
Well, the truth is truth is the truth, Mike.
We did what we were supposed to do, okay?
We got rid of Saddam Hussein.
We got rid of a lot of the terrorists.
Let's let them run this country now.
Let's get out of there and let's be done with it.
I'm never going to be able to retire.
I'm just never, it's not going to work.
You are depressing me.
Well, sometimes, like you said, you know, you, you, I. Sometimes it's not.
I have explained this so many times I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you, if you have, and that is situations change.
War is never plottable on a piece of paper or on a map.
It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future for one thing.
That's absolutely true.
Well, thank you.
So what's happened now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9-11 is facing us in Iraq.
We can't cave and defeat and run out of this.
Hey, guess what?
We won anyway.
We got Tsadam.
We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters.
We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again.
And if we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at a greater cost.
Are we ever going to take care of it, though?
How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it?
What is it?
Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican.
I am.
You can't be a Republican.
You are tarnishing your reputation because you sound just like a Democrat.
No, but how long do we have to stay there?
As long as it takes.
How long?
As long as it takes.
It is very serious.
This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists.
We stay as long, just like your job.
You do everything you have to do, whatever it takes, to get it done, if you take it seriously.
So then you say we need to stay there forever.
I do.
No, Bill.
Or Mike, I'm sorry.
I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas.
I used to be military, okay?
And I am a Republican.
And I do listen to it, but I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.
How long do you think it's going to take?
How long do we have to stay there?
You're not listening to what I say.
You can't possibly be a Republican.
I'm answering every question.
It's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up.
I said we stay to get the job done as long as it takes.
I didn't say forever.
Nothing takes forever.
That's not possible, Bill.
Mike, whatever.
Nobody lives forever.
No situation lasts forever.
Everything ends.
We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat.
With people like you in charge, you want to put a timeline on everything.
Do you ever get anything done in your life?
Or do you say, well, I wanted to have this done by now and it's not, so screw it.
You don't live your life that, well, hell, you might.
I don't know.
But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless.
And they frankly betray or portray no evidence that you are a Republican.
Another Mike, this one in Olympia, Washington.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I have a retort to Mike in Chicago because I am a serving American military in the Army.
I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly.
Thank you, sir.
And, you know, I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country.
I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that.
What I would like to retort to is that if we pull, what these people don't understand is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is about impossible because of all the stuff that's over there, it takes us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so.
There's a lot more than that that they don't understand.
They can't even, if a next guy that calls here, I'm going to ask him, why should we pull, what is the imperative of pulling out?
What's in it for the United States to pull out?
I don't think they have an answer for that other than when you're going to bring the troops home.
Yeah, safe than you want.
Keep the troops safe, whatever.
It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.
No, it's not.
And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers.
They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the menu.
The phony soldiers.
Phony soldiers.
If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve.
They want to be over in Iraq.
They understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.
They joined to be in Iraq.
They joined.
You know where you're going these days, the last four years.
If you sign up, the odds are you're going there or Afghanistan or somewhere.
Exactly, sir.
And my other comment wasn't our reason to call in for was to retort to Jill about the fact that we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that the insurgents have been using against us for a while now.
I've done two tours in Iraq.
I just got back in June, and there were many instances of insurgents not knowing what they were using in their IEDs.
They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds, and their IDs because they didn't know what they were using.
They didn't do it right.
And so it just kind of didn't really hurt anybody.
But those munitions are over there.
It's just, it's a huge desert.
If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it.
Well, you know, that's a moot point for me right now, the weapons of mass destruction.
We've got to get beyond that.
We're there.
Who cares if we all know they were there?
And Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here about talking about Saddam using the poison and mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people.
But that's moot right now.
What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working.
And all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them.
It's just, it's frustrating and maddening.
And it's why they must be kept in the minority.
I want to thank you, Mike, for calling.
Appreciate it very much.
I've got to get something.
Here is a morning update that we did recently talking about fake soldiers.
This is a story of who the left props up as heroes.
And they have their celebrities.
One of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth.
Now, he was a corporal.
I say in quotes.
23 years old.
What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart.
It wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Though, what made Jesse Macbeth Army Ranger, a hero to the left, was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield.
Without regard to consequences, he told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq.
American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children.
In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way.
We would burn their bodies.
We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque.
Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, the poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court.
You know what?
He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record.
He was in the Army.
Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks.
Briefly.
44 days before he washed out of boot camp.
Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger.
Never was.
He isn't a corporal.
Never was.
He never won the Purple Heart.
And he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.
You probably haven't even heard about this.
And if you have, you haven't heard much about it.
This doesn't fit the narrative in the template of the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who a genuine war hero is.
Don't look for any retractions, by the way.
Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military drive-by media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction is what serves their purpose.
They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the U.S. military.
In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.
Mr. Snerdley, the members of our audience are not happy with you today.
Dear Rush, these seminar callers are not being properly called out for who they are, and they are not making the host look good.
Those voters that don't listen to you or other conservative talk radio either libs or just stupid and don't engage in the process till election day.
So when you let these seminar callers dominate portions of the show, you're just hurting our morale.
That's their strategery.
They did it with impeachment in the 06 election.
You always say this in battle, so please stop letting these liars trip you up and make us even more frustrated.
Trip me up.
Have I been tripped up today by these people?
I don't care if they cry free speech.
It's your show.
And just like Columbia, you, you're not the government.
They don't have a right to be heard, as you have brilliantly pointed out, regards Dan from Manhattan Beach.
Dear Rush, I'm tired of listening to these idiots.
Isn't there an intelligent person calling you today?
Dear Rush, I can't stand anymore.
Please stop.
My tummy hurts.
Too many fools in this country.
Dear Rush, why is Snerdley letting these wackos on?
Maybe okay as the official program observer, but he's not up to it today as the official call screener gets a D-.
And that's just, that's just a sample.
Joy in Manhattan.
I'm glad you called Joy.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
Hi, Mega Dittos once again from the Upper West Side.
Thank you.
I want to tell you that I'm not surprised that Columbia invited Ahmadinejad.
I have Columbia's alumni magazine from the spring, and in it is an article by Gary Sick on Iran and also a blurb by Richard Bullitt, who is a professor of history and a Middle East specialist at Columbia.
And Bullet says, the idea that Iran is an existential threat to Israel borders on hysteria.
And Gary Sick says essentially that the United States, Bush and the United States are demonizing Iran and Ahmadinejad in order to change the subject from Iraq.
That they're blaming things aren't going well in Iraq, so therefore it's Iran's.
You know, when I hear that, it makes me wonder how long Mollinger has.
Because clearly what Bollinger said to Ahmedinezad is at great variance here with Gary Sick, who, by the way, has no credibility with me after that book of his on the October Surprise.
Exactly.
Never heard of, is it Bullet or Bullock?
Bullet, B-U-L-L-I-E-T.
I-E-T.
Bullock.
All right.
I never heard of him.
He's a longtime professor at Columbia.
Well, I'm sure he's, but I'm, you know, the academy is not my stomping grounds.
I don't own, for example, a sport coat with leather patches on the elbow.
And I don't smoke a pipe.
But nevertheless.
Well, do you wear a bow tie?
Who?
Bow tie.
No, no, no, no bow tie.
I try to wear a tie, any kind, as infrequently as possible.
But these guys are just.
Iran poses no existential threat to Israel?
Right.
That it borders on hysteria, all the hoopla about it.
You know, I hear all this, and I know it's a great privilege if you are a parent.
It's a great privilege to get your child into an Ivy League school.
But I wonder, do you people have your kids going there and it's costing you what it's costing you?
Do you ever wonder about the quality of the education they are getting there?
We hear about how big pharma, big drug destroying America, big retailer is in Walmart, big oil.
How about big Ivy?
How about the Ivy League?
What the hell is the Ivy League doing to this country with these cookie-cutter little liberals that they're manufacturing in there, not teaching them anything factual or at least a worldview that could and this, I have addressed this on several previous occasions on this program, and it's one of the big problems conservatives and liberals have, well, conservatives face.
Liberals live to infiltrate the government at every level of bureaucracy.
And they train these kids at the Ivy League to wear the striped pants, wear the right shoes, look the right way, tie their knot in their tie the right way.
That's crucial.
You can't tie.
Shelby, double wins, you can't.
You've got to tie a tie that looks, the knot has to be out of proportion and weird looking.
It's a studied attempt to look unkempt because you're so intellectually busy you haven't got time for trivia such as your appearance.
Hairs grow out of your ears so long that people can see them from two feet away.
It's the uniform, nose hairs, the same way.
Maybe a stain or two on the shirt because you had to eat lunch in such a hurry to get back to your intellectual pursuits.
You haven't got time for these things.
And you're working, I'm saying nobody ever sees you anyway because you're in the hallowed halls of the bureaucracy.
And you're there to infest and take over government and never leave it.
Conservatives do not train their young kids and children and so forth to do such things in government.
They choose to teach them to do it in the private sector.
All right.
Nancy Pelosi had a meltdown on CNN with Wolf Blitzer yesterday over the dissatisfaction that she's hearing from her base over the Democrats' failure to secure defeat in Iraq.
▲
Export Selection