All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:59
February 26, 2009, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, where I, your host, often imitated, never equaled, frequently envied, meet and surpass all audience expectations daily.
Brand new opinion audit in from the Sullivan Group, an opinion auditing firm in Sacramento, now documented to be almost always right 99% of the time.
A phenomenal achievement, but not one that should surprise anyone.
Certainly it doesn't surprise me.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address lrushmo at EIBnet.com.
I know what you're saying.
If you've been listening the full first hour, so what Rush if they raise taxes on the rich?
It's only, you know, a few small percentage of taxpayers.
What's the mean?
They're going to have enough left over afterwards.
Why does it matter?
I mean, Clinton raised taxes on the rich in the 90s and the economy was just fine.
I mean, why?
Yeah, but you realize at the same time we were balancing the budget in the 1990s?
I mean, you can't compare the two eras, but there's a more fundamental reason why this ought to concern everybody.
I know it's easy to say the rich.
Well, remember, rich now starts at 250.
That's a lot of small businesses, and it ain't rich.
It's not rich, and it certainly isn't wealthy.
Let me give you these numbers again.
I said earlier this program is a series of teachable moments today.
The basic numbers are these.
Most recent year for data, 2006.
Obama says he's going to raise taxes on the wealthiest 2%.
That's 3.8 million filers into 2006.
7% of all returns.
The wealthiest 2% paid about $522 billion in income taxes.
62% of all federal individual income receipts.
The richest 1%, 1.65 million filers.
The richest 1% above 388,000 paid $400 billion or 40% of all income tax revenues while earning about 22% of all reported U.S. income.
You keep hearing about the gap between the haves and have-nots.
It's not quite what they tell you.
So the vast majority of the tax burden is being paid for by 1%, 2% of American taxpayers.
Now, Obama is saying that we have to raise taxes on these people to reduce the deficit.
Well, that's where the numbers don't work.
Because his new rate of 39.6 starting in 2011 is actually going to be 42% because the percentage that these people will be allowed to deduct on genuinely deductible items will only be 28% of every dollar.
So if they give a buck to a charity, they'll be able to deduct 28 cents of it.
There's probably going to be a lot less charitable giving as a result, but that's another point.
So you have a 42% break.
So as the Wall Street Journal says, let's confiscate.
Let's just confiscate 100% of taxable income from everyone earning over half a million dollars.
Most recent years 2006, that would generate $1.3 trillion in revenue.
That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and is tiny compared to the $4 trillion that Congress is going to spend in 2010.
So even Taking every taxable dime of everyone earning more than $75,000.
Let's go to that income level.
If you take every taxable dollar from people earning more than $75,000 a year, you would have barely yielded enough to cover the $4 trillion budget in 2010.
Now, folks, you can only do this confiscation one time because nobody's going to work to earn more than $75,000 if it's all going to be taken.
Nobody's going to work to earn more than $250,000 if it's all going to be taken.
But I use the confiscation simply as an illustration.
Even if you confiscate from these people, you don't have enough to even get close to paying for what Obama is spending, which means what?
Which means, hello, middle-class tax increase.
I don't care what he's doing starting in April with your little $13 a week tax cut or what have you.
By the time we get to 210 and 211, you're going to be in the mix.
There's not enough money in the wealthiest 2% to even make a dent in what Obama is spending.
So the rest of you are going to get taxed just as much.
You're going to have your own little, that's what it means.
And that's why it's important.
It's not just the rich.
So who cares?
I mean, they've got to have enough money left.
It's not enough to cover what Obama's doing.
And he's going to continue to operate under the illusion that he cares about revenue.
I'm telling you, he doesn't.
He doesn't care about paying for anything.
But he knows everybody else is concerned about it.
So he's going to say, well, we've got to pay for this, and here's how we're going to do it.
Every tax increase is a loss of freedom.
Every tax increase runs the risk of losing a job.
Every tax increase expands power of government.
That's what they're after.
Now, cap and trade.
Obama is going to use cap and trade to redistribute wealth to poor people.
And a lot of people don't know what cap and trade is.
I have explained it on this program on a couple of occasions, but basically here's how it's going to work.
Any company that spews carbon emissions in the process of doing what they do will be assigned an allowable level of emissions.
And if they exceed it, they will have to pay for it.
They might be able to trade with a company that is underusing what it's allowed, but the objective here is to, this is the carbon tax.
Just look at it as a carbon tax.
They call it cap and trade because what they're trying to make you think is we're saving the environment.
They're just going to put ridiculously low emission level standards on every business so that everybody exceeds them and it's just going to tax them.
The business is going to have to pay.
Now, as you know, the way business operates, they pass along the costs of doing business as much as possible to the end user, which is the retail customer.
So prices are going to go up.
Cost of doing business is going to go up.
Here's how it's described at msnbc.com.
The federal government will soon begin tapping into a huge new source of revenue by requiring companies to pay for the permission to emit so-called greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
While many of the details remain unclear, the government's going to begin issuing permits by 2012.
The basic outline is that large sources of greenhouse gases like electric utilities will have to purchase permits from the government for the gases they admit, including carbon dioxide, which we exhale.
We exhale it.
It is part of us staying alive.
It is going to become a tax when it comes out of a smokestack.
A cap-and-trade system would also be created under which the government would place a cap or a limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted.
Companies that need to exceed their allotted level must buy offsetting permits from those that pollute less.
It's not a new idea.
Training pollution credits has been around for a while.
This, however, is massive and has an ulterior motive.
Peter Orsag, the Congressional Budget Office Director, now the head of office and management of budget under Obama, told the House Ways and Means Committee in September that such a system would create a new commodity, the right to emit carbon dioxide.
A new commodity government could tax and charge you for, you exhale it.
For those of you who voted for Obama, I mean, you breathe it out.
You inhale, you exhale, carbon dioxide all over my microphone here.
I've just polluted.
The day might come where I get taxed on the average amount of exhales over the course of a week, particularly if I do it in the presence of other human beings who could thus be poisoned, they will say.
The CBO estimated that by 2020, the value of these allowances could total between $50 and $300 billion annually, an enormous revenue stream that at the high end would be equal in size to roughly half the benefits paid out in Social Security last year.
All this is, is a money grab disguised as helping the environment.
How much money can they steal this way when businesses are out of business, though?
How much can they tax people when they're not working?
If they limit salaries, like they're talking about a Wall Street, to $500,000, how is New York City going to survive?
Doesn't matter.
These are not concerns.
He doesn't care about paying for any of this.
This is about control.
It's like I told you yesterday.
In 1975, the great economist, Dr. Friedrich von Hayek, was interviewed by George Will.
Dr. Van Hayek, a brilliant free market economist, was asked, Dr. Van Hayek, why is it that so many intellectuals, and particularly economists, look at capitalism and they won't see the overwhelming prosperity and success that it has generated.
He said he troubled over this for a long time trying to understand it.
And the best that he could come up with was that to intellectuals, it's all about control.
The fun is controlling things.
That's what we're dealing with here.
An administration and an individual, President Obama, who want to control as much as they can.
This is not about paying for things.
It's not even really about raising revenue.
What it's about is removing revenue.
It's about limiting the amount of money that people have access to.
That's a great attack on individual liberty and freedom.
Bye-bye American dream.
That's what all this is about.
And so to get caught up in policy debates and agendas that are set by Democrats is to miss what this is about.
This requires a philosophical opposition and a detailed explanation of the American people about what they face.
Because Obama is promising all this stuff within the realm of reviving an economy, saving people's lives, making them more prosperous, just like he's against earmarks while they're at 9,000 in his budget.
Or in an omnibus spending bill that he's going to sign.
All right, a quick timeout.
We will get to your phone calls.
Let's see.
One.
Let's see.
Two more teachable moments here, and then we'll get to the phone.
Stay with us.
Mr. Broadcast Engineer, I want audio soundbites 10, 11, and 10 and 11 right now.
As I mentioned, Rick Santelli back on the Today Show today with Matt Wauer.
We have two soundbites here.
Matt Wauer said, Rick, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, commented, called you out in the briefing room, and after you heard his comments, you said he was threatening you.
Are you serious about that?
Let's put it this way.
Matt, you're married, are you not?
Yeah, I am.
Okay.
This is more about the feelings my wife had when she watched the body language and listened to what he was saying.
So this is the White House press secretary.
You think he's going to threaten you on national television?
Well, let's rephrase the question.
Do we think it's normal to be named by name as opposed to the general media at large, say the cable guy or some of the comments?
I find and my wife finds and many of my friends find that the direct confrontation and pointing me out by name just is not ordinary and I'll leave it at that.
Get used to it, Rick.
Trust me, it happens.
Anyway, all Gibbs said was, I don't know where his house is.
Speaking of Santelli, I don't know where he lives.
But he may not have the picture.
And he went on to say, I don't care what this guy thinks.
He's a traitor.
He works with traitors.
The fact that they're unhappy, that makes us happy here at the White House.
That's what he went on to say.
So then Lauer has this exchange with Santelli.
They continue talking.
I'm sure your wife is a lovely person.
However, what Robert Gibbs said was he's not sure that as a former trader and current television personality, you're living in the same kind of neighborhoods where people are struggling to pay their mortgages.
He wasn't threatening you.
Well, listen, I'm not saying threatening it, just to be pinpointed specifically, I find very unusual.
And I think that it's more of a decision for you as the press or all the people on the lawn that giggled at the joke about caffeine, and it was funny.
But how would they like to be pinpointed specifically?
I think that's the issue at hand.
The only thing I would say, Rick, is if you go out of your way to call out the President of the United States, you have to expect that his representative may go out of his way to call you out.
Doesn't that go with the territory?
Well, what we're really saying is calling out, as a member of the press, do I not get to ask a question or question this?
And as the press secretary, doesn't he have the right to ask you a question?
He certainly does.
It would be nice if he did it face to face, but I don't know that he needs to throw out my name.
I just have an issue with that.
Well, no, Rick, come on now.
This is who they are.
I mean, how many times did Clinton focus on people?
You got to, this is.
Oh, I know, I know, I know, I know.
Matt Lauer is who he is.
I mean, it's a good observation.
Matt Lauer sounds like Robert Gibbs' buttboy.
Robert Gibbs and Barack Obama's butt-boy.
Matt, you do.
In the soundbite, you sounded like a butt-boy.
You sounded like somebody carrying out orders.
You sounded like somebody defending the realm against one of your own colleagues.
Against one of your own colleagues who's out there simply asking a question about what the hell are we doing having to pay for people who aren't going to pay their mortgages.
Man, if there were any decency here, you'd be siding with Santelle's original point.
You've got to go out and you've got to defend as a butt-boy Barack Obama and Robert Gibbs.
To the phones we go, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate your patience and holding on.
Matthew in Pittsburgh, it's nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Mr. Lindbaugh.
Thank you for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I'm calling because it troubles me how yourself and many others classify our legislators and our current president as Keynesians.
John Maynard Keynes stated that during good times you paid off the debt, and during bad times, when you increased the debt, they have never done either one.
The only one who possibly could have done anything like that would have been a Democrat, believe it or not, Andrew Jackson.
And our current president and our legislators would say that they're Keynesians.
John Maynard Keynes is ruling over his grave.
Okay, wait.
Keynesian is simply government spending in times of recession, downtimes to try to reignite things.
It never has worked.
If you don't like the term Keynesian, what do you call?
What do you want me to call it?
Socialist Marxist as it is.
It's Marxism or socialism?
No?
I'm sorry if I'm not using the word socialist enough for you.
I think I've been using the word socialist and collectivism and even use the word dictator today.
I'm sorry I'm disappointing you.
What the hell?
Mark, and now where are we going?
Jamie in Las Vegas.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello.
Yes, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you today.
I've been for taking my call.
I just wanted to point out something to you about your comments on taxing and everything else.
And Obama's own economic advisors agree with you.
And it's in a report that I found online.
It's the economic report of the president.
It's issued by the Council of Economic Advisors, which were appointed by Obama.
And there's an entire section in that report that says lowering tax rates stimulates economic growth.
That was then.
They have removed that from the website.
That was, what's the woman's name that wrote that?
I'm having a metal block.
Romer, Cynthia Romer, I think is it.
She wrote that.
She put it on their website.
And once Obama won, bam, it came off.
And now in its place is spending a dollar generates a dollar and a half.
It used to be reducing taxes, every dollar generates a dollar and a half or a half a dollar.
They've totally reworked it.
She's been neutered, as it were.
Margaret in Appleton, Wisconsin.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for taking my call.
Yes, ma'am.
I am calling for a couple of reasons here.
I was thinking earlier when you were saying that the press is all about, well, we all should support our president and we should never deride things that he's doing and all that.
As a Christian, Rush, I do totally believe what the Bible says about praying for our leaders.
But I pray for this man's wisdom, if there is such a thing, if he possesses it in any way, shape, or form.
I pray that God will somehow provide people around him that will finally get through to him and make him see common sense, Rush.
Common sense, and look at the markets.
I mean, look what everything has been happening since he took office.
Time out.
Yeah.
I believe in prayer, and I believe in miracles, like the fog that stopped the British from wiping out George Washington.
But I don't want to just sit around and wait for it.
You want to know how to sway Obama voters.
You call them cruel.
I will explain this when we come back.
Breaking news from ABC News.
President Obama has reversed the policy of President Bush will now allow media to photograph caskets returning home from war in Afghanistan and Iraq or anywhere else.
So the media will be allowed to photograph returning caskets at Dover, Delaware when they brought back to the country.
Just another one of these things he may end up living to regret, but why do you think he would do that?
Why reverse this policy?
Why do you think the policy is there in the first place?
Well, to you people on the left, it's because, Mr. Olimbaugh, you warmongers want to hide the cost of the lost treasure of our Fathiat in our country by having people not see these Kafka when they come home from the battlefield.
You are trying to create the Eleuthan that there is no Woth and that you want these people to not see the Afral Kafka.
The other view is that those caskets are sacred.
They are family members.
Those bodies are heroes.
And they are honored in private or in some cases public funeral services when they are returned to their families.
Now, I could be cynical, too, and I could say the real reason Obama wants to do this is precisely right, Mr. Olimbaugh.
What Obama wants to do is to try to tell people the utter futility of war, the worthlessness of war, the loss of life.
It's not ethereal to ever once again fight a war.
When people see these Kafka coming home and see the actual loath, they will not be in favor of war.
And that is probably something that Obama, by the way, that's the voice of the new castrator.
I think that, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the, why change this policy?
Guarantee you.
In the Senate this afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, the Senate today is voting on two versions of the fairness doctrine.
Starting in 24 minutes, if they're on time, the first bill in the Senate on the fairness doctrine is authored by Dick Turbin of Illinois.
His bill proposes these contrivances that I wrote about in the Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Localism, meaning local content, a notice to broadcasters they must ratchet up and increase the local content on their radio stations.
Other guidelines for programming and diversity and advisory boards overseeing radio stations, making sure that the laws, the requirements in the Durbin bill are monitored and upheld.
The second vote is the anti-fairness doctrine bill offered by Senator Jim DeMint.
It's an amendment, actually, that would forever close off the fairness doctrine as something that could be voted on in the Senate.
It's, I think, the conventional wisdom is that Durbin will win and Dement will lose because there are more Democrats than there are Republicans in the Senate.
Now, of course, this is just the Senate.
It would then have to go to the House.
And it's interesting, Obama has said that he would, and he's not in favor of the fairness doctrine.
But I don't think this is the fairness doctrine.
They're not calling it the fairness doctrine.
These are new guidelines, new restrictions, local content, diversity in ownership, that kind of thing.
So don't let anybody tell you they're not going for it.
They certainly are, and it's happening in the Senate even as we speak.
Now, I want to expand on something.
A lot of people tell me, a lot of people ask me, Rush, how are we going to persuade these Obama voters or just any liberal?
How are we going to persuade them?
You know, it does happen.
I, on this program, as also this program, have persuaded millions of liberals over the past 20 years to change their minds about things.
I have received testimony from them, letters.
Some have even called asking for forgiveness.
You've heard some of them call here and thank me for awakening them.
So it can be done.
So you're saying, okay, Rush, well, what did you do?
Did you do this?
Did you purposely set out to persuade?
Yeah.
Like I've told you folks, I'm not quitting until every American agrees with me.
Why go through this every day if it's not about persuasion?
Especially in dire consequences like now.
Yeah, I'm trying to convince people.
But how do you convince liberals?
Well, you see, you have to understand why liberals are what they are.
Now, many people confuse liberalism with a set of political principles and thus begin to argue with them on the basis of those political principles.
That's not how you do it.
Liberalism is not, well, it is in some respects, but a lot of people also believe, I am one, that liberalism is a state of mind.
That liberalism is a psychosis.
And what is it based on?
What is liberalism really based on?
Well, you can use the word fairness, but what is that?
I mean, that's an obscure concept, practically impossible to apply, unless you assume that everybody is the same as everybody else, that nobody has any differences of any kind.
Then you might be able to talk about fairness, but of course you can't because that's not the case.
So this notion of fairness, what liberals really want, and there are a variety of liberals.
I mean, the intellectual liberals want control, but even the intellectual liberals and the non-intellectual liberals, the one thing they have in common is they want to feel good about themselves.
And that's why they believe the things they believe.
You can't apply logic to liberalism because it is illogical.
It doesn't make any sense.
Like Obama's budget, there's no logic here.
He can't pay for what he's spending, and he doesn't want to.
It's not about paying for it.
It's not about finding revenue.
He's going to say that's what he's trying to do simply because he knows most people want this stuff to be paid for.
They don't want huge debt.
But he doesn't care.
If he cared, he wouldn't be doing anything because we're not going to pay for it.
We'll print money or whatever.
We're not going to pay for it.
None of this or very little of it is going to be paid for.
It's not his concern.
His concern is saddling the nation with the debt.
His concern is doing all this.
He's one of the ones that wants control.
This is about personal power for Barack Obama, personal power for Democrats, and party power for the Democrat Party.
The rank and file, the Obamaites out there that look at him like he's God, like he's the Messiah, who have blank stares on their face with tears streaming down their cheeks, they just want to be part of something they think is good and decent.
They want to matter and they want to feel good about themselves.
So liberalism is simply, well, it's more complex than this, but it's basically just a way that they can feel good about themselves.
So how do you attack that?
Well, in the process of making themselves feel good about themselves, they destroy people's lives.
Just tell them that.
Just tell them they're cruel.
What do you mean, Mr. Lumbaugh?
I care about what?
Well, I care about black African Americans in poverty.
Really?
What have you done for them?
Well, we care about them.
We don't like the circumstances in which they live because of you.
I'm not doing anything about it.
You guys have.
You guys have transferred money.
You have spent money.
You have sent welfare.
You have destroyed the black family.
And you have felt good about yourself in the process.
You think you're helping, but you're not.
And that's why we are never allowed to look at the results of liberal programs.
We only have to and are allowed to look at their good intentions because their good intentions is what makes them feel good about themselves.
So all these liberals, again, there are different versions of she asked me how to persuade liberals in her neighborhood.
We're not talking about the Dick Durbins and the Ted Kennedys.
These people are far more about trying to, than just trying to feel good about themselves.
There's the acquisition of control and power.
This is the average dunce liberal that votes for these people.
It's about their intentions.
Well, we tried to help with them all.
At least we cared.
You didn't care about anything.
You never want to help people that are suffering.
All you do is increase the...
No, it's just the exact opposite.
We do.
We actually come up with solutions to all this.
We think it's unconscionable that there should be such suffering as there is in the greatest, most prosperous country in the world.
So we see some suffering and we immediately, how to fix that?
You look at it, and all you want to do is feel good about yourself because you noticed it and care.
And you might come up with some plan you think will fix it, makes it worse.
So I think if you just, I think a lot of the liberals listening to this program over the years have changed their minds.
I've inadvertently gotten to them by illustrating to them that while they're out there feeling good about themselves, they're not fixing anything.
The rage and the anger that they all feel, the rage and the anger that they all feel, to me, is evidence that they really don't feel good about themselves.
So they create these illusions that they care and they feel good about themselves, but they're living a psychosis, a psychology or what have you.
It's about making themselves feel good, and they don't.
So they're angry and enraged, and they get really mad.
They get really mad when you tell them that they are the exact opposite of what they think they are.
That's why I say tell them they're cruel.
Do you realize how cruel what your beliefs are?
Do you realize the cruelty your beliefs have been imposed on people?
They don't want to hear they are the sweetest, the nicest, the most caring and compassionate.
I mean, you make them feel otherwise about themselves and bam.
That's why they hated Bush.
That's why they hated Bush, among other reasons.
He didn't care about them.
He made them feel insignificant.
He didn't give them a time of day.
Tell them they're cruel.
Just tell them they're mean.
It's the exact opposite of the way they think about themselves.
You'll destroy them.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
You know, last Tuesday night, the House chamber during Obama's quasi State of the Union address, there were many occasions where Republicans did not applaud, nor did they stand.
Barney Frank says that that's because Republicans are afraid of me and afraid of Sean Hannity.
This is what he told reporters after Obama's address.
I don't think we found any Republican minds today.
They shut their minds down.
They're so afraid of being yelled at by Limbaugh and Hannity, they won't even clap for Obama, even when they agree with it.
They won't clip for Limbaugh.
They won't clip the friend of the friend of Limbaugh.
The mortgage is the mortgage.
He fed a new athlete out there.
And I love ethics, but they were sitting on him.
So it just continues.
It just rolls right on out there, ladies and gentlemen.
By the way, back to home mortgages.
Do you know what a cram down is?
Sterdley says he did.
You know what a cram down is, Brian?
No, it's not studying for anything.
We're talking home mortgages.
Here's, you can find askheritage.org, and you can find out what a cramdown is if you don't know.
I happen to have a story from the Heritage Foundation about what a cramdown is.
The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce the principal owed on a mortgage, a practice often referred to as a cramdown.
A federal judge would be empowered to basically break a contract.
What is the principal?
What is the principal of your mortgage?
The principal is the value of your house minus whatever down payment that you've put down.
Let's say you've got a $150,000 house, you put $20,000 down on it, so you're borrowing $130,000.
That's your principal.
The interest and taxes insurance above that.
A judge can come along and say, I'm going to cram that down.
I'm going to make that $100,000.
I'm going to reduce the principal by $30,000 so that the homeowner, the home occupier, the house occupier, can have a cheaper payment.
Not reduce the interest, the principal.
So a federal judge will be empowered in federal legislation Obama will sign to basically say the contract that you have on your house is worthless.
Now, the federal judge will not be able to raise your principal.
He will only be able to lower it.
And everybody's going to go along with this because this socks it to the banks.
It socks it to the lenders.
So what is the point of a contract?
What is the point of a contract?
Askheritage.org can answer these questions and any others that you have, in addition to the regular posts they have from their brilliant scholars on the issues of the day.
Membership is 25 bucks at the cheapest, and it goes up from there.
It's a brilliant website to have, and scholars, conservative scholars sit around thinking right, and it's a great, great, great access or asset for those of you who are looking to find places that will confirm your conservative instincts.
Now, cram down, we can expand it.
Cramdown is essentially the entire Obama agenda.
They're cramming it down our throats.
The judge can cram down the...
Why would a lending institution make a deal like this?
The judge can render the contract meaningless.
A judge should go in and reduce the price of your house, reduce the principal.
All for you to be.
You think this is about fiscal responsibility, all this stuff that Obama's doing?
Shocking stuff here.
Kind of stuff your parents told you nobody would ever do for you.
You take out a loan, you're responsible for it.
Nobody's going to ever come along until Obama.
It's finally happened.
My parents are wrong about everything they told me.
Everything they told me, they're wrong about.
Ever since we elected Obama, there's a free lunch.
Evil rich are going to end up paying for everybody else.
You don't even have to have a job to feel good about yourself.
You'd be unemployed and have your horizons expand.
Well, the Boston Globe did a story on this.
Let's see.
I haven't.
I don't want to.
We don't have anybody up there that's worth only 30 seconds, do we?
So I can't take a call because that's all I've got left in this exciting broadcast segment.
I bet there is somebody up there that's only worth 30 seconds.
You just don't know it.
We'll be back.
Hey, did you happen to see unrepentant terrorist and Obama buddy William Ayers on Hannity's Fox show the other night was interviewed by Alan Colmes.
And turns out, ladies and gentlemen, that Bill Ayers, just somebody Obama knew in the neighborhood, of course, not happy with the Bamster.
Not happy at all.
Because the Bamster is spending more money and sending more troops to Afghanistan.
And Ayers sits there and he says to Colmes, this is not helpful.
This happened once in 1965, a promising presidency.
And we ended up sending money and troops to Vietnam, and I had to end up blowing up the Pentagon as a result.
▲
Export Selection