All Episodes
Previous Next
March 4, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:38
March 4, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Limbaugh.
A harmless lovable little fuzzball, loved and adored by millions of Americans.
Reporting daily here behind a golden EIB microphone on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
People ask me, where do you get the name Excellence in Broadcasting Network?
Well, when we started, somebody said you need a network.
You gotta call it a network.
And I said, why not just name it after the high level of broadcasting it takes place on the network, and thus the Excellence in Broadcasting Network was born.
Looking forward to chatting with you in this hour.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
There's a story in something called the Washington Note today, and it uh it dovetails with some of the bloom coming off the rose in the Obama Democrat alliance.
It's not large right now.
It's kind of like a little hole in the dike, not yet a fissure, but it is like a hole in the dike.
It is nevertheless, it is just mind-numbing to watch CNN and MSNBC.
Now, but I know you're saying, but Rush, but Russia, Rush, you use that, you don't watch it.
Well, they're on now.
The sound is down, I got the closed captioning on.
I don't watch them at home at night.
Other things to do that are far more fun and pleasurable.
Don't learn anything from them anyway.
But MSNBC has been running a story all day with the graphic at the bottom of the screen.
Obama announces plan to cut government waste.
He now, see, you and I will see that, and and our heads will explode.
Cut government waste.
We say we say two things.
First, the audacity of lying like that on the part of Obama.
Secondly, the absolute sycophancy of the drive-by media to just happily report it, move it down the PR chain.
If it were Bush announcing this, if Bush were doing all of this, and then came out and said that he was he was uh cutting government spending and waste, well, the drive-by's would be convening round tables on it right now, and they wouldn't run graphics that say Bush cutting government waste.
It'd say Bush cutting government waste, ha ha, with a couple of exclamation points behind it.
It's just it's mind-numbing and breathtaking to watch this.
Here's a guy who is the author of trillions of dollars of spending that we don't have lying about the uh uh misrepresenting the fact that it's all about stimulating the economy.
And nothing could be further from the truth.
It's Orwellian, it's 1984.
Bipartisanship is partisanship.
War is peace.
Whatever he says, the opposite is true.
But whatever he says, the sycophants and the butt boys in the media simply repeat.
Is that term starting to bother you, Don?
Dawn's starting to shake her head in there.
Well, it may be hysterical, but I mean I don't I can't think of a better way to describe what's going on in that White House press room.
I mean, it's what I've always meant when I say bend over, grab the ankles, but people say I don't like that.
I don't like the could you stop saying that so much?
I even had Catherine said to me, gosh, I'm glad you didn't say that at CPAC.
I said I didn't do it on purpose, and half the audience would have got up and tried to do it just to show what it looks like.
No, but but but boy, that's that's the same, that's what happens after you bend over and grab the ankles.
How else would you describe what's going on up there?
So, yeah, there's a long, long, long, long way to go here, folks.
And remember this at the end of the day.
The Republicans can stand for everything in a book.
They could get their act together 120%.
They cannot stop what Obama's going to do.
The only place it can be stopped is if the Democrats in the Senate don't like something coming down the pike.
And there's certain Russ Feingold doesn't want this omnibus bill passed.
He wants Obama to veto it.
He uh there are a lot of Democrats starting and moderate Democrats in the House even starting to break away from this.
So that's because their constituents are advising them to get away from it.
They constituents don't like all this.
There's still a group of people in this country who would normally vote Republican who are saying, ah, I mean we got to try something new.
It didn't, it didn't work the last eight years.
See, there's so much ignorance.
Ignorance our most expensive commodity.
The economy in the years post-9-11 were astoundingly amazingly good.
The economy didn't start going south till the Democrats took over the Congress after the 2006 elections, when the Bush presidency domestically essentially ended.
But everybody's been told that the last six years were where all these failures are rooted, and there are people that believe that.
And it's just going to take a while.
It's like I keep saying, my buddy's friend, his kids in college sat down and he told them every day, intellectually, why global warming is a lie, why it's a hoax.
They wouldn't believe him, primarily because A, he's dad.
But secondly, they believe the more influential figures of Al Gore and people that drive by media, but only when it never got warm, when it's still cold as it can be and record snowfalls have happened, are they beginning to question this whole thing?
So it's it's gonna it's gonna take a while.
I mean, that's this there's a war on capitalism going on.
It's gonna take a while.
If Obama gets all these policies enacted, it's gonna take that.
And for those policies enacted to start having impact on people's lives for them to slap themselves upside the head and go, what did we do?
What is this?
And don't forget, this economy is a very powerful machine.
And the entrepreneurs in this country are not going to sit around long and just, you know, lick their um lick their wounds over what's happening to them.
At some point they're gonna get back in gear, and some are gonna do whatever they can to overcome the obstacles in their way.
They're gonna bring elements of the economy back and get ready for Obama to claim credit for it in a stimulus package.
By the way, even our buddies at Fox today.
You know what I saw out there?
The first bridge to be repaired with stimulus money.
I have been across this bridge.
The Osage River Bridge, it's uh south of St. Louis, and it goes over a tributary of the Missouri River.
Not south of St. Louis, but it's uh it's uh east and west of St. Louis, regardless.
It's a dilapidated bridge.
And so this bridge is the first bridge that's going to be stimulated with stimulus money.
I know they sent a Fox reporter out there to show us in what rotten shape the bridge was in and to explain why this one was chosen first.
And I was planned before I've read about this weeks ago, snerdily.
I'm just telling you, they just got around to sending a crew out there to report on the first bridge that's gonna be repaired with stimulus money.
Well, people see that and they say, oh, stimulus plan working.
It doesn't take much.
There's a little battle here, but we are ready for it.
We're born to do what we're doing.
I was born for this.
I was made for this.
Now, hear the story on the fissure, the dike.
The hole in the dike.
Obama the Democrats, it's from the Washington Note.
I can't get in, I'm just reading what it says here.
I can't get into names.
But if a crafty business journalist got on the phone to the biggest billionaires and financial wizards who support the Democrat Party and Obama, he or she would find a large passel of very frustrated economic elites who think that Obama's stimulus package and spending priorities are not going to either restore confidence and economic growth or reinvest in the backbone of the U.S. economy in a way that can help generate recurring returns for future generations of citizens.
The people I'm talking to are definitely not part of the market fundamentalist Robert Rubin fan club.
They see the world differently.
But I'm beginning to wonder if we really all should be very worried that some in Obama's economic kitchen cabinet are so dissatisfied with the substance of the policy outcomes that we're seeing this far.
So this story is raising the specter that voters and contributors from the the wealthy elite on Wall Street and elsewhere, starting to have some questions here about BAM's policies.
Like our buddies on the right, my good friend Christopher Buckley, who wrote a piece, you know, he wrote back in October, he's voting for Obama, a guy very smart, writes his own books.
Uh but if he takes this country this far left, I can't imagine he'd be stupid enough.
I'm paraphrasing.
I can't imagine he'd make the mistake of just a far left agenda that well, Buckley has recanted his vote.
And of course, David Brooks in the New York Times yesterday essentially said, We are surprised by the Obama we're getting.
The surprise by the Obama, we I you know, these guys like Brooks, they're the ones that have all the great Ivy League education.
These are the guys who're supposed to be the ones warning us.
And they get roped in, they get sucked in by the same pedigree.
Yeah, Obama went to Harvard, got to be one of us.
Obama went Chicago law.
Oh, Obama gotta be one of us.
But you'll note, ladies and gentlemen, that it is the average run-of-the-mill regular guys in the Republican Party and talk radio, who are able to spot these frauds from day one, and yet we are called unsophisticated, unappealing physically, we shouldn't be the face of the party, we shouldn't be listened to.
It's always these guys that have to recant their mistakes.
So in addition to our guys starting to have some problems here, all of a sudden we're being told in this story that Democrat elite, rich people having some doubts, and we're learning that some in Obama's economic kitchen cabinet are so dissatisfied with the substance of the policy that they are frustrated.
Well, they don't know what to do.
I asked one of these kitchen cabinet guys, I'm just reading from this piece, who I assume can get through to the president or at least to Ram Emanuel any time he wants, why he doesn't make his case more clearly to the occupants of the White House.
The response was, yeah, I can get through to Rom Emanuel anytime, but I get three minutes with him.
And then somebody else gets through three minutes, and so on.
Ram Emanuel's a three-minute guy.
And he's great during those three minutes, but that's all you get.
Uh note to those of you in the kitchen cabinet wanting to talk to Emmanuel.
You would get more than three minutes, but he's busy working on an Obama-directed plan to demonize me with James Carville, George Stephanopoulos, and Paul McGella.
Once they give up that project, you might get five or six minutes with him.
Wealthy donors on the outside of the political process probably should not be able to just call up the president and get their way.
But the frustration I'm hearing from a great number of these type of donors, these types are not only wealthy, and they help finance much of the Democrat Party victory in November, but they are also smart and connected.
What I'm hearing is that they are not getting through where it counts.
The uh the policy options they are proposing aren't getting into the basket of proposals that Obama is considering.
In other words, some of the big money behind Obama beginning to feel that he's not getting a full range of choices on the economy, and is being provided a narrow band of views that fit the preconceived biases of Larry Summers and Tim Geitner.
The piece is written by Steve Clemens, by the way, at uh the Washington Note.
Mr. Clemens, I know that you will hear that I commented on your piece.
And I would since you have access to these uh kitchen cabinet people that donated big time to Obama and the party and are frustrated that they can't get through to him or to Rama Manuel on their policy ideas.
I I would like you to consider something, Mr. Clemens.
Obama doesn't need a full range of choices.
He doesn't need advisors on any of this.
Summers and Geitner are front men.
Obama is doing exactly what he wants.
Obama doesn't need advice to do any of this, and he's ignoring your friends and your buddies or these elite people because he doesn't care now that he's elected.
There is, mister Smith Mr. Clemens, there is a war on capitalism going on.
And I'll tell you what I think, and you can pass it along to your guys.
I know they'll reject it.
Maybe don't use my name when you tell so that they will consider this.
But I think one of the best ways, folks to understand the philosophy, and believe me, philosophies matter in politics as much as policy.
The philosophy that's guiding what Obama's doing.
None of this makes any sense.
You don't raise taxes in a recession, you don't punish achievers, you don't tell achievers they're going to be punished in the middle of a recession when the economy does.
None of this makes any sense if your objective is a genuine private sector recovery.
But it does make sense if you have another agenda.
If you have an agenda to destroy the private sector economy, replace it with a government economy that runs the show, owning as much of the means of production as possible, then this makes total sense what Obama's doing.
And also it helps to understand what Obama heard when he was in that church for twenty years.
And what Obama heard when he was growing up and who his influences and mentors were.
You see, we in the drive-by media, Mr. Clemens, or we in the new media thought that was all important.
The other media didn't.
But here's why I think it's important.
I think he comes into office with a grudge.
I think it's a chip on his shoulder.
And I think the best way to explain what's happening here is a very simple little phrase.
One sentence.
In Obama's eyes, the wealth of our nation is being returned to its rightful owners.
Now what do I mean by that?
Well, it's very simple.
In Obama's world and in much of the left, and they have said this when they oppose trickle down, supply side, Reaganism, whatever.
They have said that the wealthy in this country have stolen it.
They have uh taken an unfair share.
You see, Mr. Clemens, this is something your economic friends need to know.
Obama looks at the world, our economy, as a zero-sum game.
It's a never changing sized pie.
Somebody gets hired, somebody has to get fired.
Somebody earns a dollar, somebody loses a dollar.
Nobody can earn two dollars separately at the same time.
That's not how they view the world.
So in Obama's world, and this is what he's been taught growing up, this is what he was taught in school.
He was taught that the wealthy, the rich, got it in unfair ways.
They had advantages.
They took money that was actually intended for the middle class and the poor.
And so what Obama's doing here, very simple.
He's returning in his mind, the wealth of the nation to its rightful owners.
That's the only sensible explanation for Obama's economic policies.
That's he doesn't care about stock market.
Said so.
Doesn't even understand it.
Doesn't even understand that a PE ratio is price to earnings ratio, not profits to earnings ratio.
Doesn't understand it.
Doesn't really get to him, it's a tracking poll.
And he ignores tracking polls.
He's ignoring this.
Stock market is the nation's wealth.
One measure of it.
And it ain't fluctuating.
It's plummeting.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue with much more with L. Rushbow after this.
Back to the phones we go.
I got a great piece coming up from Michael Ladine, by the way, who has found a passage in Alexis de Tucville describing how De Tocqueville thinks we will lose our democracy.
It is fascinating.
But before that, we go to Buffalo.
Jeff, thanks for waiting.
Nice to have you here on the EIB network.
Rush, I can't believe this.
For years, busy, busy, busy.
Today I called.
It rang.
I said, oh my God, this can't be true, but I'm on the phone with you.
Congratulations, sir.
Congratulations.
I understand the uh feelings of exultation that you are experiencing.
It is it is an honor.
I guess I feel like the Democrats when the Messiah took office, I guess.
But I'll tell you, Rush, uh, I caught your speech on Fox the other day, and I gotta tell you, you did an absolute perfect job of describing um conservatism.
It just it was to a T. I think you enlighten a lot of people.
And I'll tell you, I think you change a lot of people's minds who may have been liberals at one time.
Well, we hope.
Let me let me say something about my definition of conservatism.
It is it was not actually the classical Burkeian Russell Kirkian uh d d d definition of conservatism, and I purposely avoided that.
I didn't want to get into egghead stuff.
What the what I tried to do was define conservatism in a way that responds to the way we are characterized by media and leftists as haters, as uh bigots, as racists, as extremists and so forth.
And so that that that was the the context in which I chose to define uh conservatism.
Because that's what people, well, you know, what people think of conservatism is what they're being told uh by people who are trying to malign and impugn all of us.
So that's that's the framework in which I chose to define conservatism.
It was I'll admit it was very good.
It was close, but classical conservatism is a, you know, it's it's far more intricately detailed than that, but that sufficed well, I thought.
Thank you.
And I think you did a great job describing or telling Republicans uh what conservatives should be again.
It seems uh you know, I'm glad you mentioned that because most of my critics of this speech are fellow conservatives.
Conservatives you've never heard of, conservatives who've never contributed a dime to the movement or any impact, but I uh I want to address something you just said.
It's a good point.
Good reminder, thanks.
And we are back.
We are back.
Jumping into the fire.
Quick, Brian, who uh the uh who's the artist?
Harry Nilson.
Hands are pretty good tune.
Anyway, we're back at 800-282-2882.
And I mentioned before the break, the CPAC speech and some of the things that have followed.
Most of my critics are coming from um the the blogger conservative intellectuals, the uh the people who have really done nothing uh in in uh shaping conservatism, they would like to, but they haven't really done anything.
Uh they're not out on the front lines, they're just they're they hide behind their blogs and they analyze and they they treat themselves to how smart they are and so forth.
And I'm being hit by these people pretty hard for a whole host of reasons the way I look, uh the way I sounded, uh, that it's horrible, horrible, horrible for conservatism that I'm the face of it.
Uh most of the criticism coming from people on the right that you don't know, this is my point, you don't know who they are, unless I would tell you, and I'm not going to tell you because they've done nothing in this league, uh, quote unquote.
But regardless, one of the criticisms that I have faced from these people is that I gave a totally rotten definition of conservatism.
That I'm such an idiot, I don't even know what conservatism is.
This is people supposedly on my team saying this.
And of course, my definition of conservatism, as I just explained, was to counter the uh public description, the left's description of us as conservatives, because that's what they think, people who aren't conservative, that's what they think conservatism is.
So my explanation was to counter that.
The second thing that I'm being taken home, dragged on the colts for, is I supposedly advised Republicans to forget about policy and focus on principle and philosophy.
And these people are having a cow over the fact, how can you come back without policy?
You've got to have policy.
You've got to have some strategic policies to announce to people things that you're for.
And see, this is what's happened to the conservative movement that the so-called best and brightest who you've never heard of, and you won't on this program, the best and brightest in our movement don't understand the role of principle.
And they don't understand the role of philosophy.
See, if you have the principle down pet, and if you have the philosophy down pet, then by definition the policies follow.
But these people, by the way, want to change conservatism.
They're trying to redefine it and make it democrat-light, because they think it's uh the situations today are different than they were in the eighties, and of course, we have to adapt with new policies.
That's why they say the era of Reagan is over.
But the era of Reagan was not policy.
The era of Reagan was philosophy.
The era of Reagan was principle.
And what was it that gave us, for example, the tax cut policy to raise revenue and wipe out a recession?
Conservative philosophy in principle.
The policy, The law, the idea, the way to get it implemented, that descended from that.
What was the policy that led to our victory in the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet Union?
Well, it wasn't.
It was a philosophy.
It was principle.
And it was based on the principle of freedom.
And that eventually regimes which oppress their own people will collapse of their own immorality if you just nudge them in the right way.
Don't have to fire a shot.
The policy people in that era were the ones that wanted us to meet with all the Soviet leaders.
The policy people were the ones that wanted to get Reagan to tone down the lingo.
The policy people are the ones that wanted to get into the minutia of writing all this gobbledygook that would then form legislation or party platforms which would lay out our position on how to defeat the Soviets.
Well, before you do that, you've got to have a philosophy and a set of principles that guide you.
And right now, we're so far away from coming up with policy.
Actually, let me let me tell you, we're not.
Our principles and our philosophy stood side by side with what Obama's doing to this country, gives us our policies.
The policies create themselves.
And the policies, as I say, descend from several principles.
Freedom, the founding, the preamble of declaration, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
It's amazing the policies you can write if those are your principles.
It's amazing.
The ideas you can come up with.
Welfare reform, where did that policy come from?
Oh, yeah, there might have been people working deep down with the sleeves rolled up on the intricacies of the operation and how to implement it, tell the states what to do.
But the concept was we're destroying lives with welfare.
We are going to get people back to work, we're going to get them off welfare because we love them and because we want them to be something.
We want them to get something out of this life they have been born with more than sitting around and subsisting on something that's very little from the government with no future.
Now that's the policy or the philosophy.
That's the principle.
That too much government destroys lives, damages the future of a lot of lives.
We want to stop this because we love people.
I mean, did we before we get to this point, did any of you who object to welfare on the humanitarian grounds that it is destructive of families and people, did you need somebody to explain a policy to you before you understood that welfare was bad?
Or was it just instinctive?
You just know you've had kids or whatever, the more you give people without requiring them to earn it, the more you are seeing to it, they'll never be able to earn anything, and you're going to have to take care of them the rest of their lives.
And we believe that ultimately is destructive to people, and it insults them.
They're capable of far more, but we look at them and say, no, you're not.
We have to take care of you because you're incompetent.
Well, that's not who we are by virtue of philosophy.
That's not who we are by basis on the basis of principle.
And I don't care what it's 1980 or 2009.
That hasn't changed.
And look what's happening.
Obama is reversing welfare reform.
The stimulus bill, or one of these pieces of legislation, does away with it.
The states are going to now get more money from the federal government based on how many new welfare cases they create, how many more people are added to welfare roles.
You have to be ever vigilant against this stuff because the left is always going to try to undo anything done that emancipates people and gives them freedom.
So these people on my side are taking me over the coals because they think I eschewed the notion of even Rich Lowry at National Review didn't understand it.
And National Review.
He's the editor of National Review, which descends from William F. Buckley.
Nobody, I never said I was against policy.
Of course you need it, but policy guided by what?
If you're going to have policy that says we need to be more like Democrats, we need to identify this particular group of voters and come up with a plan and a party policy that goes and gets them, fine, but you're changing conservatism when you do that.
You're not using a conservative philosophy or principle to go do that.
You're starting to look at people the way Democrats do.
And you're looking at it on the basis, well, you have you have to win elections.
Yeah, but we've got a blueprint for that that our own party is ignoring.
So I would I would urge all of you, don't be talked out of what your instincts.
We're all conservatives here, and those of you listening who are new to the program who might be tempted to cross over, we'd love to have you.
But if you if you're if you're a liberal or moderate, independent, uh, however you describe yourself, I'm addressing the conservatives for the moment.
Don't don't don't let yourself be talked out of your instincts.
Don't let yourself be talked out about what's in your heart and what you know by virtue of life experience.
By the way, Rich Lowry's not one of the critics.
I don't want to lump Lowry's not one of people I'm talking about.
That was the one area he praised the speech.
He said it was one area he disagreed with.
But I what what I fear is that even on our side, uh what is conservatism is now for debate.
People are trying to come with their own definition and idea of it, and using what they think is their superior uh intelligence, smarts to uh overpower the whole concept, just so they can be hailed and touted as smart and revolutionary, evolutionary, moderated, modified conservatism to fit the times, which seems to be one of the things that they are doing.
I don't think the Constitution needs to be modified to fit the times.
The liberals think that.
I don't think the Declaration needs to be toyed with.
Uh Chris Matthews asked the other day in his show, you want to live?
You want to live in a world where limbaugh's writing the Constitution.
I don't have a desire to change it, Chris.
Works fine for me.
I'm trying to defend it and protect it against people who uh who are trying to change it.
So not opposed to policy, but principle and philosophy.
Those are the two things that we need to get us back on track.
And understand what our objectives are.
And it would seem to me, given what's happened with the Obama administration and things that they're wanting to enact, our follow philosophy and principles ought to just be staring us right in the face.
They should be larger than ever.
They are the antidote.
Conservatism, as it's always been known, is the antidote to what is happening here.
And one day, don't know when the antidote will be the vaccine, whatever you want to call it.
The nation will take it.
The nation will get the vaccine, and we're going to fix all this, just as we did in the 80s.
I don't know how much destruction's going to have to occur before that happens, but it will eventually happen.
In the meantime, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to not not cower and not cave when people make these uh attempts on you to modify, moderate uh what you've always known to be the principled base and foundation of conservatism, because that's that's the first battle we face really before we even get to Obama.
We're just trying to stop Obama or slow him down a little bit now.
But there needs to be a unified opposition to it.
I am willing to take that role since Ram Emanuel and Obama have anointed me the leader.
Back in a second.
You know, folks, I'm I'm starting to feel a little sorry for these Republicans.
They're accepting these invitations to go on uh on butt boy news shows.
And uh the latest example, poor old Ron Paul.
You know, I love Ron Paul.
I didn't think he was presidential material, but Ron Paul's a guy that stands for freedom.
Ron Paul just got through being harassed by David Schuster.
You you won't even denounce Ron Limbaugh.
How can you not denounce Limbaugh?
Well, we're exploring why no Republican will denounce Limbo.
What are you afraid of?
I'm thinking, these poor guys.
If anybody's being distracted, it's them.
They're not being allowed to talk about what they want to talk about.
They're having to talk about me.
I'm thinking I'm not, I haven't decided.
But I'm thinking of offering a brief amnesty period of a day or two, where these Republicans can go on and denounce me and give the drive-bys what they want, and then the drive-by as they get satisfied, they'll move on to something else.
I just want I'm thinking about this, I'll announce the policy uh on this tomorrow.
I as I as I think about it.
Right now, it just hit me as a uh what do you call a brain flash.
But uh I'll I'll just I'll I'll I'll debate with myself the policy and how it would manifest itself of granting a temporary amnesty to these poor Republicans who seem to cannot be able to get away from me.
Uh Sharon in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you here.
Hi, how are you?
Well I'm fine.
Good question.
I hope so.
Yeah.
Um I have a question.
I'm a woman that gets it, but I'm not a Nancy Pelosi woman.
I don't get up and grin and clap when I don't understand the logistics of things.
So I get it to a point.
My question for you is Hillary, you know, is going to give 900 million dollars to the Palestinians.
Wrong.
Huh?
Not entirely correct.
The Palestinians.
Actually, their terrorist leaders, Hamas.
Yes.
Is getting the 900 million.
They're getting all of it.
Yeah, but it's Mrs. Clinton is just delivering the check.
Okay.
The check was written by the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
Okay.
Okay.
That's what I've been wondering.
You think this is Hillary's policy?
Now, don't miss anything.
Hillary loves this.
The wealthiest and most numerous donors to her husband's global initiative and his library and massage parlor are Middle Easterners from oil-rich states.
Well, yeah.
They're oil shakes, uh, and and uh they of course do not like Israel.
Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton got away for a long time convincing Jewish voters that Israel was the number one priority, but now they're saying the truth.
So Mrs. Clinton's not unhappy doing this.
This will help her and her husband generate future donations to the library and massage parlor.
But uh clearly, President Barack Obama wants a Palestinian state, and he is going to give Hamas $900 million in an effort to bring that about.
Uh it's it's uh one of the most starkly anti-Israel positions our government's taken.
Absolutely.
And is there anything we can do about it?
Well, don't think so.
Okay.
The money, the checks written, it's gonna go, and uh Mrs. Clinton's gonna deliver it or somebody is.
I don't think there's anything you can do about it now.
Elections have consequences.
Oh.
You better believe it.
Well, okay, I just I it makes me sick because you know, I know the truth about Israel.
I'm not Jewish, but I know the truth.
And it makes me sick.
I've listened for years, you know, about uh firing rockets over to stir out in different places, and all that money's gonna do is they're just gonna you know, build up more.
I understand, but the the Israelis have a uh an iron-willed leader.
Yes, Benjamin uh Benjamin Netanyahu.
And uh they're they're in good hands.
Uh the Israel has faced obstacles like you and I cannot imagine its whole existence.
And they've triumphed over them, uh, and they will this.
It's not easy for them, uh, but they're used to it.
It's just a shame.
Uh when you get right down to it.
All right, folks.
It's another EIB obscene profit timeout back after this.
By the way, as to policy, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I have proposed a policy, a bipartisan stimulus plan.
My policy was proposed in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
Brilliant policy hailed by many as a genuine bipartisan compromise, rejected entirely by the Obama administration.
That's it for today.
We got tomorrow.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection