All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
April 21, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We are back from the heavily fortified secret EIB's Southern Command, Rush Limbaugh, with broadcast excellence.
Happy to have you along.
I have, of course, now documented to be almost always right, 99% of the time.
You people don't understand what it requires to get an accuracy rating of almost always right, 99% of it.
I mean, even to move that up to 99.1% is going to take me six months of flawless opinion audits to move it up just one-tenth of uh of one percent.
I would like to note that in the time that my opinion audits have been tabulated.
I have never lost.
It's never gone, say, from 98.6 to 98.5.
It's only gone up.
Uh, great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-288-2, and the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
All right, more on the CIA stuff.
Obama releases half the story in his interrogation memos.
Oh, how horrible a country we are.
This is just terrible.
And it was a weighty decision.
He had to think about it for so long and discuss it with a lot of people, which is flat out BS.
He couldn't wait to release these memos, and if the truth be told, if he gets the slightest chance to clear the path to his stupid dumb idiots in Congress to prosecute former Bush administration officials, then he's not going to stand in the way of it.
You mark my words.
This is all about cutting the USA down to size.
Joe Joe Axelrod, David Axel, whatever it is, and David Axarod says that the uh the era of anti-Americanism isn't cool anymore.
Ha!
It's policy.
Anti-Americanism is policy in the White House.
Now, these CIA memos, there's a second set.
Vice President Cheney talked about them last night with Sean Hannity.
He's seen them, and they show the success of these so-called extreme measures.
I mean, you can call them, you can call them torture, um uh whatever you want to call them.
Extreme measures, enhanced measures.
But folks, there's a book I won't I won't tell you about here in just a second, but there have to be we just know this to be the case.
There have to be lots of people who have sacrificed greatly in the field.
We can never hear about them, and we can never hear about their success stories, but they've kept us safe.
And I will guarantee you that the people in the field, CIA counterintelligence operatives, they feel betrayed.
They have to feel betrayed.
Now there was this giant pep rally that made me sick yesterday at the CIA.
It was a bunch of total BS.
Drive by media said that Obama got rock star reception, the CIA.
Just like he got a rock star reception in Baghdad.
Do you know how they set up that photo op and all the screaming soldiers?
They went around and they only allowed soldiers that had voted for Obama in there.
Now you took any and now at the CIA.
Do you think anybody other than the Secretarial Poole and people with hardly any clearance were able to get in there and see this thing?
I guarantee you the whole thing was stacked as well.
All of this is for show.
It was designed to show that the CIA is totally 100% up to speed with what Obama's doing when that cannot be the case.
People who have trained all their lives, devoted their lives to defending and protecting this country in some of the most dangerous places in the world have to feel betrayed, especially with the release of Obama's memos.
We keep hearing from the left that going to Iraq created more terrorists, and doing this created more terrorist torture.
Abu Ghrab, Guantanamo Bay created more uh terrorists.
How about the release of those memos?
How about the release of Obama's memos?
Gave away all the techniques, advised everybody, here's all they're gonna do, and here's training on how to resist it.
How many terrorists did that create?
How many people are now eager to sign up with the Islamo fascists after getting a load of the release of Obama's terror and torture memos.
Here is a montage again, the drive by media giving Obama well, saying he had rock star treatment uh at the CIA.
Hugo Chavez does not even get press like this, and Hugo Chavez owns the media.
The idea that the CIA universally loves Barack Obama, especially yesterday, is absurd.
He was received like a rock star there.
It was like a campaign event complete with screaming fans.
It was a rock star reception.
Greeted like a rock star.
Treating him like a rock star.
The president was greeted like a rock star this afternoon by employees of the CIA at agency headquarters.
Just amazing.
They all say the same thing.
Every damn description, doesn't matter where you go, don't matter what you watch, you hear the same treatment of an Obama event.
He got rock star treatment.
By the way, the uh first wave of Pulitzers was announced yesterday.
What have I always told you?
You budding young journalists in journalism school out there, what have I always told you?
If you really want to advance, if you really want to enhance your resume, if you're working for a small town paper and you want to move up, what do you do?
You destroy somebody.
You delve into their private life and you destroy them, not their public life.
You delve into their private life.
And so what the New York Times got a five Pulitzers for the Elliott Spitzer story.
If anybody should get a Pulitzer for that, it's the it's it's the hooker.
Anyone could reprint what the hooker said.
But there's five Pulitzers for destroying Spitzer.
And then there was another somebody else uh oh, Kwame Kilpatrick.
The Detroit Papers got some Pulitzers for destroying Kwam.
Well, anybody can read text messages.
But there you destroy somebody, destroy somebody's personal private life.
And you get a Pulitzer.
In the meantime, the New York Times announced today that they lost 76 million dollars in the first quarter.
These practice these people practically losing a million dollars a day.
CNN has no audience.
They gotta be losing money too.
Time Warner could probably use CNN as a loss leader, because CNN, you know, it's a boutique agency, a boutique division.
So CNN gives the Time Warner liberal imprimauter all the proper cocktail party uh invitations in New York, all of the at a boy, at a boy.
They gave him only 600,000 viewers, and they look at Fox's five million and they'll say, Well, those are just cult followers.
We have the real news uh audience.
Yes, six we have Anderson Cooper.
We were for Obama.
We're good people.
I mean, they can't be making any money.
Yes, they can.
Advertising agencies are polluted with young little feminists and liberals that that are the media buyers, and they will funny ad buys to CNN, they'll funnel ad buys to CNN uh on behalf of clients when they don't deserve the buys, and they'll probably get rate card rates.
I would I'd be stunned to know that CNN's losing money.
I think it's all a you know, a nice little game the libs have cooked up.
I understand this because we couldn't just trust me.
I know this to be the case.
And if it even if CNN, let's just say CNN recognized that they've got no viewers, and that the viewers they have are becoming smaller and smaller, they're losing their audience.
What changes would they make that would end up having them be any different?
They are committed Obamists, they are committed liberals.
If they broom the entire executive suite, they're gonna go out and hire the same kind of people who come in to run the place then, and they'll put on, well, maybe we'll change the cosmetics of this show, we'll change a different set.
Maybe get a different liberal to host the losing 8 p.m., 9 p.m., and 10 p.m. hours.
Just go get some new liberals in there.
They're not gonna change anything substantively.
The New York Times isn't either.
Both both outfits, CNN New York Times losing.
Well, I don't know about CNN.
New York Times loses money half Nova Fist.
And I'll guarantee the last thing they think that's wrong is their content.
The last thing they think is wrong is their product.
They're blaming it on the recession.
Okay, we can't sell ads.
I mean, our ad sales are down 27% is the recession.
I'm not having any trouble.
Have you seen this story about all these members of Congress, everybody gaining weight during the recession?
The recession has caused people to quit their gyms.
You know, a lot of Congressmen are overweight.
It's a common joke about how fat Congressmen and Senators are.
And so they've taken up, well, yeah, it's a recession.
A lot of people out there, not Congressmen and Senators, a lot of people have had to cancel a gym uh uh membership and they're not doing as much exercise in a recession as causing a lot of people to gain weight.
Recession and global warming.
Fatties, by the way, are causing more global warming.
Let me tell you something.
I have lost 35 pounds in 41 days in the middle of a recession.
Everything they report is just stupid.
Everything they report is BS the recession causing people to gain weight.
Yes, Mr. Limbaugh, because nutritious foods, organic nutritious foods are in thunder supply and they're much more expensive, and so people are having to resort to eat junk food and they are gaining weight at the retulphabet.
Really?
It's it's it's it's somebody else's fault, forcing all of you liberals against what you think you know to be good for you into these fatty foods.
The recession's doing this?
That's right, Mr. Limbaugh.
If he's on the circumstances that were unintended, brought in by the Rethekin, it's white people are gaining weight, and that's why, that's why we need the end of rethessum so the people join the dim thing.
The reporting that we get from the drive-by media today is just insufferably insipid sophistry.
Plus it's bogus.
So here's here's Obama, big rock star at the CIA.
I just don't believe it.
That was a pep rally.
And it was a pep rally after the memos, the interrogation memos are released.
It was a show because Obama took some hits on the release of those interrogation memos, so what do you do?
You bop over to the CIA and you show that the CIA loves you.
And then you get your sycophants and the media to follow you over there and then report that you got rock star treatment.
You know how many people work, Langley?
10,000 people work at Langley.
At any given time at the CIA headquarters, there are fewer than a couple of hundred counter-terrorism operatives.
They're in the field.
The very people who feel betrayed are not there.
If you've ever read a Vince Flynn book, I'm talking about the Mitch Rapp types.
They don't have offices and hole up in the CIA.
They're hauled up in caves and other places most Americans wouldn't go, along with the special ops guys and the SEALs.
And they're not there to give the President of the United States rock star treatment.
Who is there?
A bunch of secretaries, a bunch of paper pushers who have lower security clearance than the janitorial staff that cleans the director's office.
That's who shows up.
That's who gets organized for the Obama pep rally.
The men and women who work in the clandestine service, to my mind, they don't know what in the hell to do.
They've just been compromised.
Every tool at their disposal has been taken away from them now.
I would think their morale's at an all-time low.
They have to live under constant fear that they're going to be indicted.
Uh not for just doing their job right now, but for doing what they were told was legal in years past.
You get the right Democrat and the right committee and they find the right uh CIA operator, bring them up there for violating a law he thought was legal in the past.
Vince Flynn wrote a book about this called Extreme Measures.
I've read the story, I know how it turns out.
When we get hit, not if this entire administration, as well as all the political opportunists on Capitol Hill, are going to be culpable.
If you want to know, if you want to know what the result of the release of these memos is and his phony little dog and pony show rock star pep rally at the CIA was about yesterday, go get extreme measures by Vince Flynn.
And if you have it, read it again.
Now here's here's Obama informing the CIA he ended the interrogation techniques that worked.
Here's uh condescending to them, I think.
I have put an end to the interrogation techniques described in those OLC memos, and I want to I want to be very clear and very blunt.
I've done so for a simple reason, because I believe that our nation is stronger and more secure when we deploy the full measure of both our power and the power of our values, including the rule of law.
I know I can count on you to do exactly that.
Here's Why would anybody at the CIA listen to a former community organizer with no experience in executive management or intelligence?
Why would anybody listen to this guy come over there and condescend to them?
He has just helped Islamo fascists recruit more terrorists, is what he has done under the guise of protecting American values.
What American values is he talking about.
The values we're concerned about, where the CIA is concerned, is defending and protecting the country.
He makes a joke here about being criticized on uh on cable shows.
I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples and would willingly and gladly kill innocents.
Al Qaeda's not constrained by a constitution.
Many of our uh adversaries are not constrained by a belief in freedom of speech or representation in court or rule of law.
I'm sure that sometimes it seems as if that means we're operating with one hand tied behind our back, or that those who would argue for a higher standard are naive.
I understand that.
You know, I I watch the cable shows once in a while.
I uh he understands what these people are going through.
He's talking to people not even in counterterrorism.
He's talking to people not even in the field.
He understands he watches cable TV too.
He understands what?
He understands he's made their job practically impossible.
And then he went and said this.
So, yes, you've got a harder job.
And so do I. And that's okay.
Because that's why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans.
And over the long term, that is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we're on the better side of history.
There he goes again.
Don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks.
Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes.
That's how we learn.
So he goes over to the CIA once again as the morally superior man in America, forget president, and says, this country's made some mistakes, it was unjust and immoral before I got here, but now we're moral.
Your job is going to be harder, but this is what's going to make America greater.
Swear, folks, uh it's just the I want you to think about something.
If if we had a conservative president, conservative Republican, who in the first week had announced the cutting of the Department of Education, and it announced that the federal budget will be cut in half, then the next week had empowered the CIA for even stricter guidelines and tougher guidelines on torch.
Can you imagine the drive-by media and how out of whack they would be?
And yet dramatic changes in what has always defined this country's greatness are taking place seemingly every day, every week.
And we basically get pep rallies of cheering Obamaites.
As though this is some great day for America when we all know it isn't.
Ah, what a great song this was.
From my early days as a DJ, Spanky and our gang like to get to know you for a few days.
I want to go back to this Obama soundbite at the CIA yesterday afternoon.
Listen to just the first part of this.
I understand that it's hard when you are asked to protect the American people against people who have no scruples.
Yeah, you try and would willingly and gladly kill innocents.
Now listen.
Al Qaeda's not constrained by a constitution.
Stop telling me.
Al Qaeda's not constrained by a Constitution.
Your president, our president, Barack Obama, looks at the Constitution as a constraint.
And we know this because President Obama is also the kind of man who has legal people around him who look at the Bill of Rights who see it as a set of what is called negative rights.
I know a lot of people, "Negative rights?
How can a CIA be negative rights?" Because the C the Bill of Rights be negative rights.
Because, folks, to liberals, the Bill of Rights is horrible.
The Bill of Rights grants citizens freedom.
It tells the citizens what the government cannot do to them.
The Bill of Rights limits the federal government.
And that's negative to a socialist like Obama.
That's negative to an elitist like Obama.
The Constitution is negative.
So he's got constraints.
The Constitution tells him he's got things he can't do that he wants to do.
That's not his job.
He is there to defend and protect it.
Not unilaterally change it.
Take it to the limit.
We exceed the limit.
We exceed audience expectations.
We meet them and exceed them each and every day here on the EIB network.
I I want to belabor a point.
Because this is fundamental and it's crucial into uh to understanding Barack Obama.
He's over the CIA yesterday.
He's got this pep rally of secretaries and custodial staff assembled.
And they're cheering him on like he's a rock star.
And he tells them, yeah, I know your job's gonna be a lot harder now because of me.
We've but but but but and I know Al Qaeda's not constrained by a Constitution.
Folks, it is so important to understand how he looks at the Constitution.
He's not alone.
This is how liberals look at the Constitution in general.
They look at it as a constraint on them.
They do have there there's a there's a new I don't know if you're gonna call it legal theory, but uh liberal judicial activists harp on this, right about it all the time.
The theory of negative rights in the Constitution.
Now, all of us who understand the Constitution, who were taught the Constitution, who've read it, would never imagine anything negative about it as it relates to ourselves.
The Constitution protects the average citizen.
The Constitution basically lays out our freedom, and it limits what the government can do to impinge and infringe on our freedom.
And people like President Obama see that as a constraint.
The Bill of Rights, first of first Ten Amendments specifically spell out what the government cannot do to intrude on our freedom.
And that's called negative rights by people like Obama because it limits government.
And that's just not fair.
They believe in government, not you.
They believe in government, not the individual, and so Constitution's a problem for them.
They look at the Constitution as having them in shackles.
The Constitution is sort of like a miniature prison for them.
They're constrained by it.
So what's the easiest thing to do?
Change it.
Or just ignore it, or get your liberal buddies in the judicial system and rewrite it the Constitution from the bench.
And this they have done.
I j I just think it's crucial, hugely important to understand from where President Obama comes on a daily basis.
He loved making the CIA's job harder.
He loved it by imposing some mythical version of U.S. values, which are not U.S. values, they are Obama values on the counter-terrorism people at the CIA.
And it was just a couple of weeks ago that President Obama said, no, we're not, we're not going to live in the past.
We're not going to look at the past.
We're not, we're not going to prosecute Bush administration for that.
That wouldn't make any sense.
Apparently, President Obama has caved to pressure from the left and now says he is open to prosecutions for torture.
This afternoon at the White House in the Oval Orifice, he was uh meeting with King Abdullah of Jordan, took some questions from a giddy drive-by media corps.
A reporter said, I want to ask you about the interrogation.
You were clear About not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions.
Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy?
Quickly on the second matter, how do you feel about investigations into the special commission or something of that nature to go back and really look at the issue?
The OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings.
That's why I've discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.
For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that have been provided from the White House.
with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions.
I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that.
I'll tell you, I it's hard to go through a day of this program without getting boiling blood mad.
Without just getting livid.
This doesn't happen in the United States.
This happens in third world nations, where you imprison your predecessors.
This just doesn't happen here.
Besides, this is all bogus.
Nothing was done that was illegal.
And yet the whole country thinks that it was.
Extreme measures, torture.
We let down our moral guide and we behaved immorally.
I uh it's just it's mind-boggling to have to sit here and listen to this and see that there is a stupid ignorant press corps lapping all this stuff up, in fact, advocating for this, advocating for the prosecution of administration of the Bush affair uh Bush administration that came up with these immoral procedures.
Obama then continued with this.
I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, uh outside of the typical uh hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines to the extent that there are independent uh participants who are above uh reproach uh and have credibility,
uh, that would uh probably be a more sensible uh approach to take.
Independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, we need to do this outside the typical hearing process.
We still need to go after them, we just have to do it a different way.
Either they have great credibility and are above reproach, we're still gonna go after them.
We just have to do it in a way that's not public so that you don't see it happening, so that we don't besmirch their reputations in the process.
This business, folks, of the Constitution being looked at as a shackle.
The brilliance, the brilliance of the founding fathers was separation of powers, everything in the Constitution was designed to protect against a president like Obama.
The express purpose of the Constitution is to stop somebody like Obama who wants to have the federal government now have equity stakes in the automobile companies and in the banks and control the credit markets, the financial systems, and anything else he can get his hands on.
It's to stop the President of the United States from handcuffing U.S. security and limiting freedom of the American people.
The Constitution was written with people like Obama in mind to stop them.
It's been turned upside down and on its head.
The Constitution has.
Because now the Constitution has looked at some limiting the great Messiah.
Why the Constitution limits the greatness of the one who has finally restored morality and justice to the American nation.
Everything is ass backwards.
And we have a sycophantic press corps engaging in journalistic malpractice.
We have a legal profession, which is sidled up with this administration.
A legal profession supposedly defending and devoted to the Constitution as well.
Nobody standing up with the Constitution.
Nobody.
Now, but Rush, but Rush Obama says Yeah, he wants you to think he's defending the Constitution by telling you it's imperfect, and it needs to be changed to allow him more latitude to save you from the economic crisis or whatever crisis he creates down the road.
Quick phone call from Kim in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Rush, it's a privilege and an honor.
Thank you.
And I appreciate the fact that you're a voice for so many of us who don't have a voice.
Thank you very much.
I'm calling to voice my concern about the fact of Obama releasing recklessly the interrogation secrets that we have, because I believe it really puts every sailor, soldier, and marine in imminent danger should they be ever taken captive.
Obviously, um Al Qaeda and those types of regimes have no respect for human life whatsoever.
So I think we all remember what happened to those two uh soldiers who disappeared in Iraq and whose mutilated bodies were found later as a source of retaliation.
And um, I believe because of the reckless release of this information, that really does put every single soldier, sailor, marine deployed or currently um looking to deploy.
You know what?
I I want to I want to respectfully disagree with you on one small thing here.
I don't think the release of the memos puts our uniform personnel in greater harm, or puts them in greater harm's way.
They always have been from the moment they put the uniform on.
I don't care what year, I don't care what war, I don't care where they're deployed, they are always in harm's way.
Now it may well be that we have run up against a bunch of terrorists who commit atrocities unlike previous regimes, although I don't think anybody could outdo the Nazis.
And I don't think anybody can outdo the Japanese of World War II.
The point is, evil is always there, and it's always going to focus on the men and women who wear our uniform.
What has changed with the release of the memos is that the enemy will be less intimidated of our men and women in uniform.
Our men and women in uniform are going to be constrained and shackled and worried that any action they take could later come back and land them before a congressional hearing and maybe in jail for just defending and protecting the Constitution and the country of the uh and the country.
They have, after seeing this, the people you're talking about who've beheaded and have created all these atrocities and committed them, they're going to be emboldened to do even more because they're going to get away with it.
We're not going to be able to retaliate.
Our hands have just been tied.
Or the men and women in the uniforms' hands have just been tied.
And by the way, this isn't new.
Look at the Marines at Hadith.
The John Mertha wanted to convict solely on media reports.
We've got the men and women of the armed forces under assault in this country by a political party and an ideology in this country, and they have been for quite a while.
What's changed is not the release of memos.
What's changed is we have a president of the United States who has just as much disregard for the men and women of the United States military as every other liberal who's come along but has never been president before.
We'll be back.
An animal rights extremist from Berkeley, California, an animal rights extremist, i.e., a liberal, was just added to the FBI's most wanted list of terror suspects.
Daniel Andreas Sandiego, 31-year-old computer specialist, has been on the run since 2003.
He's wanted in two bombings in 2003 of corporate offices in California said Michael Heimbach, an assistant director of the FBI's counterterrorism division.
He's a known animal rights extremist.
He added that Daniel Andreas San Diego's set an improvised explosive device in the bombings that caused extensive property damage and economic hardship.
So they've added a Berkeley, California animal rights extremist to the most wanted terror list.
Any um anybody from the Tea Parties on this list?
Is anybody know?
I don't think there's anybody from the Tea Party's on the FBI's most wanted list, are there?
In fact, I'll bet you if you look at the FBI's most wanted list, you'll find a bunch of libs.
One way or the such thing as a right-wing animal rights activist, Mr. Sturdley, not even they.
We'll try to spin it that way.
Uh, Mike in Kansas City.
Great to have you, sir.
Well, Missouri, nice to have you on the program.
Hey, Rush, Megadinos from the Show Me State.
Thank you.
Hey, um, last night, when I was watching your interview with Greta, um, you made a lot of good points.
It was a great interview.
You're a real patriot.
But you said something that really not really scared me, it was distressing because I'd been thinking it.
My wife and I have 25 years have been thinking about it.
But you said with all the power he has assembled, 80% popularity, control of the House and the Senate, that there may be nothing we can do to stop him.
Well, that's not quite exactly what I said.
I said he's got 88 popularity among Democrats.
I said not even Reagan had 88% popularity among Republicans, and the point here is that the partisanship in this country and the blind obedience, the mind-numbed robots, are in fact Democrats.
What I meant by there's nothing we can do to stop it, which I also said there aren't anywhere near the votes in the House to stop it, and the Senate, it is kind of iffy.
But right now, in a just in in a democratic fashion in Washington, there's nothing to stop anything he wants to do.
The only thing that's going to stop him is if he overreaches even for some Democrats, which is hard to imagine.
But but at some point, the cumulative effect of all of this is gonna is gonna wake people up at some point.
I hope.
At some point uh is it that's he's gonna be able to be stopped.
But right now, I mean, you tell me what can be done to stop him.
Well, and that's uh I don't know what can be stopped at the end of the day.
Let me give you an example.
He goes he goes out and and and the tea parties.
The Tea Party's overwhelmingly successful.
The drive by media does everything they can to impugn the Tea Parties and the participants.
What does Obama do?
Convenes a big public relations show at the White House, first ever cabinet meeting, and announces budget cuts.
And so the people and so people say, Oh, he's cutting the budget.
Okay, good.
Obama's cutting the that's all they hear.
They don't know details, they don't care.
Uh and he's got the the power of the bully pulpit in the White House is immense.
George Bush never used it.
This is an example of a president using it like Clinton did.
Well, what do you think about the fear factor of all the labels they're putting on conservatives and people that believe in God and people that believe in life, that we sit there and we show up at these tea parties and then they start taking pictures and cataloging us, and then we have something to fear.
Don't you think that's going to drive a lot of us away from going out there and exercising our First Amendment right?
I I I hope not, but clearly it's one of the it's one of the objectives.
Look at let me give you another example of this.
This situation, what is the Miss USA pageant?
All right, the runner up from California, what's your name?
Pregene?
Carrie Pregene.
I think your name is Carrie Pregene.
How in the world, a militant, stupid idiot blogger, ends up as a judge.
Some guy named Perez Hilton.
It's not even his real name, it's a parody of Paris, Hilton.
He's got a blog site.
He ends up as a judge.
He ends up as a judge, but okay, so he asks Miss California.
Well, what about gay marriage?
Well, I don't think that's right.
I think marriages between a man and a woman.
The whole place went nuts.
The whole place booter out of the all the judges and then the entertainment press from e weekly to entertainment this to People Magazine starts dumping on this poor girl, the Carol or Carrie Pregene.
And this is an illustration of what I have been mentioning in recent months about how we've lost the pop culture.
Yeah, I knew it was Carrie Pregene.
The Miss USA pageant is now on 100% politicized event.
With bloggers as judges, asking political questions, and disqualifying somebody because of their answer.
Anyway, I'm I'm I'm up against it here.
Uh we've got to take a break.
Be back and continue after this.
When we get back in the next hour, mere moments and I'm going to give you the real reason for Obama and the left's actions, the CIA, interrogation memos, etc.
▲
Export Selection