All Episodes
Previous Next
May 6, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
May 6, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Well, here we are again, folks, revved up and ready to go for another three hours of broadcast excellence.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Here behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Here's the phone number.
Oh, by the way.
We are going to do open line Friday on Wednesday today.
I've got some more golf buddies coming in for a mini vacation.
They arrive this afternoon and tonight.
I'll be out tomorrow and Friday.
We got Mark Stein tomorrow, right?
And uh Mark Davis from Dallas on Friday.
That's us.
Mark Stein tomorrow and Mark Davis on Friday, and I will be back on Monday.
So we're going to do open line Friday on Wednesday today, meaning whatever you wish to call and talk about, feel free.
The telephone number is 800 282 at 2882.
And if you want to send an email, I check those now and then.
L Rushball at EIBNet.com.
The only thing I ask, could you please make something other than me the topic?
I just got the soundbite roster.
80% of the audio sound bites are about me.
Well, you'll hear them, but I get so sick and tired of making this show about me, because everybody else is making this stuff about me.
I'm in a foul humor anyway.
And I get this it's it's it's just it's just you know, I try not to talk about myself on this program.
Everybody knows this, that I try to make it about the uh the issues and so forth.
I mean, gee whit.
Well, I think Snertley, you're right.
I'm not the issue, as I am the issue.
I I have uh I've become the issue.
I mean, they're obsessed.
They're obsessed out there.
Guy on the radio.
Anyway, we've got other news uh breaking out there.
The Obama administration is leaking the bank stress tests.
Bank of America needs 34 billion.
W uh uh uh uh uh Wells Fargo needs 15 billion.
They didn't even want TARP money.
All of these banks, and these are not stress tests.
You have to look at these stress tests uh as as possess tests.
They're leaking all this information about the banks, and guess what?
The banks are all still in the cramper.
And so guess what?
We need more federal involvement in the banks.
Obama gets to control the banks for a little while longer.
You know, it it you wonder when people are gonna wake up and realize what's going on, and then you see the following story, and you say they're not gonna wake up.
I just saw this.
An AP story.
Get this.
A group that studies sports in society is urging the Obama administration to step up the federal government's role in athletics, possibly with a cabinet level post on sports.
A sports, I'm not kidding, a sports czar.
Now we know that Obama's out there pushing for a different uh system in the college football playoffs.
We know he runs around doing his own brackets uh in the uh NCAA basketball tournament.
This group is called Sport in Society.
They are based at Northeastern University in Boston.
They say that the enhanced government role could serve several important goals.
United States could encourage more youth participation in sports, increase access for women, and the handicapped, and promote healthier lifestyles.
Well, now you have to think that the Obama people are gonna love this.
A sports cabinet post is actually been proposed by university people.
We shouldn't be surprised.
Um, because you know, once government starts taking over things, people who want that to happen are all excited about it.
Get this.
The haughty John Kerry, who, by the way, once served in Vietnam, says that the United States has changed policy regarding Iran.
We are not in regime change mode, said the haughty John Kerry.
He's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
He mentioned this to a um hearing exploring the prospects for Obama's new policy of engaging the Islamic Republic.
So John Kerry says the U.S. no longer seeks regime change in Iran, and as a result of this, well what would you call this?
Uh uh.
Well, not on the betrayal, dangling carrot, and in exchange for this, Carrie says that Tehran should respond accordingly by stopping its nuclear program.
I kid you not.
Our efforts, he said, speaking of the U.S. changing its policy on regime change, must be reciprocated by the other side.
Just as we abandon calls for regime change in Iran and recognize a legitimate Iranian role in the region, Iran's leaders must moderate their behavior and that of their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Did you talk to Obama about this?
Senator Kerry, he's funding Obama Hamas.
He is pushing for a two-state solution in Israel.
He is putting the pressure on Israel.
He is is blaming Israel for the problems in the Middle East.
He's going to and meanwhile, Pakistan and Afghanistan are blowing up in front of our eyes.
And by the way, Iraq is not all that stable right now either.
I mean, there's a lot of trouble over there.
Here we have John Kerry suggesting to Mahmood Ahmedine, hey, look, pal, we'll let you stay in power in exchange for us being nice, you stop your nuclear program.
If I were Ahmadinezad, I'd say, okay.
I'd say that's a deal we can accept, Senator Kerry.
We will stop our nuclear program.
Of course, they won't stop it.
They just say they should.
Just say they would.
The blind are being led by the ignorant.
Also, President Obama has announced that he is canceling the public day of prayer, the National Day of Prayer, that is tomorrow, at the White House.
Says uh uh it it's not gonna do this in no pomp and circumstance anymore, and is no big deal about it.
He's just changing the policy that was in place for eight years of the Bush administration, but there will be no public recognition of the National Day of Prayer in the White House, and he prays privately.
Now, why do this?
Why go out of his way to do this?
Why make these kinds of waves unnecessarily?
He's trying to irritate some people.
He's asserting his authoritarian control.
They say he prays privately.
I have no doubt.
Does he pray to himself?
Who does he pray to?
Now I have one answer for why he would might cancel the National Day of Prayer, because a public prayer day, a public prayer event, plays no role in getting him what he wants.
Obama is only going to spend time on events and things that will get him what he wants.
I'll tell you this, if you if you stand back and just take a look at uh at some of the things that are happening in this country, the bill carving out protection for perverts, the bill that was uh argued by by Elsie Hastings,
the bill carving out protection for perverts and denying it to old ladies and veterans, the endless assault on Miss California Carrie Pregene because she voiced her opinion against validating gay marriage, the executive order granting money to Hamas connected Palestinians to move to the United States,
he has given away all of our interrogation secrets to terrorists and is going to release pictures of supposed abuse by interrogators while not releasing pictures of Air Force One flying over the Statue of Liberty,
the threats and the bullying to hedge funds, the clients of the lawyer Peter Laurie, Acorn, now been charged in Nevada with faking, I don't know what percentage of vote registrations, but it's a tremendous number.
And they are going to be in charge of the U.S. Census?
And I could go on and on and on.
And also, how have you heard?
You if you've If you've seen this story and you've only read the headline, or even if you've only read the New York Times story about it, or if you've only heard the drive-by media discussing the story, you do not know the half of it.
I'm looking for the headline here.
I put it, uh, thought I put it at the top of the stack, but uh.
Well, now, where the hell did I put this?
Yeah, here we go.
Let me let me.
I did put it back of the stack.
Well, I shouldn't have.
New York Times today.
Charges seen as unlikely for lawyers over interrogations.
And we're supposed to cheer.
But you don't even know the half of it.
If you know the details, you still don't know the half of this.
An internal Justice Department inquiry, read Eric Holder, into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memos authorizing interrogations, brutal interrogations, has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment, but they should not be criminally prosecuted.
According to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is now likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions.
We're talking here about John Yu, Jay Bibe, and Stephen Bradbury.
So we're supposed to go, oh, good, they're not going to prosecute, but there are they are seeking, nevertheless, to destroy the livelihoods of these lawyers by asking the state bar associations where these guys live to disbar them.
But you still don't know the half of it.
Do you know the name John Demanyuk?
Some people pronounce it John Demonyuk.
John Demoniuk is 89 years old.
He lives in Cleveland.
He is accused of being a uh uh a Nazi concentration camp guard, Ivan the Terrible.
He was convicted in Israel, they threw the conviction out.
He's uh he's been charged with being at Sobibor Treblinka a couple places.
The uh he's been living in Cleveland ever since the uh Israeli Supreme Court threw out the conviction.
He has been requested to be extradited by Germany to be tried in Germany for the same crime.
His objection, now follow me on this.
His lawyers, Demoniuk's lawyers, are saying to the Justice Department, you cannot, you cannot extradite John Demoniuk to Germany.
You cannot do it because he will be tortured.
Eric Holder and the Justice Department have said to Germany and Demoniouk, Demeniouk, you're wrong.
Because Germany is going to use the same techniques on you that were proposed by Bibe and you and Bradbury to interrogate Al-Qaeda terrorists.
In other words, the Justice Department is denying Demonioc's request to not be extradited because he will not be tortured.
While saying that he will not be tortured, they are advocating that these three Bush lawyers be disbarred because they engaged in torture.
They wrote memo.
You can't, I mean, this is despicable.
And this is not about Demoniuk.
I'm not arguing whether Demoniouk is innocent or guilty, or doesn't matter to me.
But Demoniuk's argument is he shouldn't be exported or extradited because he's going to be tortured.
Our Justice Department says, no, it's not torture what they're going to do to you.
They're going to follow the same guidelines written by Bush lawyers for detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
So that's not torture.
Yet the Justice Department, Eric Holder says those three guys, you, uh Bradbury and Bybee, did write memos advocating and defining torture, and they want them punished for it.
Now you're hearing me say this.
It makes no sense.
Russia, it makes no sense.
I know it makes no sense.
It makes no sense if you're going to apply logic here.
You've got to think in terms of authoritarian tyrants to understand it one more time.
John Demoniuk, Germany wants to try him for war crimes in World War II at concentration camps.
Demoniouk's lawyers say to uh the Justice Department, please don't extradite him.
He's going to be tortured there.
Our Justice Department says to Demoniook's lawyers, no.
He won't be tortured.
They're just going to use the same procedures outlined by Jay Bibey, John Hugh, and Bradbury that we used on Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
Yet, and they say that on a Monday, then on a Tuesday, or today's Wednesday, they release a story to the New York Times saying that Bibe, you, and Bradbury must be disbarred because they wrote memos advocating brutal interrogation techniques.
I'll take a break.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Open line Friday on Wednesday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Two related stories.
This is from St. Louis, Missouri, the Fox affiliate there, KTVI Channel 2.
Officials from Boeing and the Machinists Union are warning that the proposed Pentagon budget could result in a loss of 30,000 jobs in the St. Louis area.
Over the next three years, the budget stops production of the C-17 cargo plan and cuts production of the F-18 fighter by 25%.
900 Boeing workers in St. Louis work on the C-17, 5,000 work assembling various versions of the F-18.
Okay, so St. Louis Boeing says, Machinist Union says 30,000 jobs in St. Louis, lost over the next three years with Pentagon budget cuts.
Then you come to the story.
From Reuters.
President Barack Obama's defense department plans to create 20,000 new jobs to manage a revamp of the way the U.S. buys billions of dollars of weapons every year, the Pentagon's number two official told Congress.
The Pentagon also plans to tie more contract fee structures to performance and will make sure that multi-year contracts are awarded only when real substantial savings result attract taxpayers.
So all of these budget cuts that we keep hearing about, most of them are in defense.
So we're going to lay off 30,000 people, or they're going to lose their jobs in St. Louis working for Boeing, but 20,000 bureaucrats are going to be hired at the Pentagon to expand the Barack Obama police state.
And if you didn't know about what was going on in St. Louis, you would say, oh, Pentagon planning on 20,000 new.
Oh, Obama's Obama's investing in defense.
Obama's investing in defense.
This is absolutely fabulous.
No, he's not.
He's investing in bureaucracy.
He's investing in absolutely more money and more people to be in the Pentagon bureaucracy.
He is not expanding the Defense Department.
Speaking of all this, let's go to the audio sound bites.
We'll start.
This is February 3rd this year in Washington during the announcement that Senator Judd Gregg would be Obama's commerce secretary nominee, President Obama said this.
The vast majority of the investments in the plan will be made within the next 18 months, immediately creating jobs and helping states avoid painful tax heights and cuts to essential services.
And every dime of the spending will be made available to the public on recovery.gov.
So every American can see where their tax dollars are going.
Right.
All right, now let's go forward to February 9th.
Six days later, Elcart, Indiana town meeting, after his opening remarks, an unidentified female audience member uh had an exchange with Obama, and she said, My question to you is, sir, when you allocate the money for El Cart, Indiana, will it come directly into El Cart, or is it gonna have to go around somewhere else?
We're actually gonna set up something called recovery.gov.
This is gonna be a special website that we set up that gives you a report on where the money's going in your community, how it's being spent, how many jobs it's being created, so that all of you can be the eyes and ears, and if you see that a project is not working the way it's supposed to, you'll be able to get on that website and say, you know, I thought this was supposed to be going to school construction, but uh all I haven't noticed uh any changes being made.
All right, so we were all supposed to be policemen essentially.
We were going to be able to go to this website, recovery.gov, and we were going to be able to see how all the stimulus money was being spent.
Uh uh uh not so fast.
From USA Today, although President Obama has vowed citizens will be able to track every dime of the stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending will not have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until spring, halfway through the program.
Recovery.gov now lists programs being funded by stimulus money, but provides no details on who received the grants and the contracts.
Agencies will not report that data until October the tenth, according to Earl Devaney, Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
So October 10th is the first chance anybody would have to see this.
It won't be till next year.
So once again, smoke and mirrors, but it doesn't matter.
I know it doesn't matter.
It's just what he says and how he says it.
It doesn't matter the details.
So once again, another promise or another clam or another assuredness of what it's all smoke and mirrors, it's all just one hundred percent BS.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
We're back, Rush Limbaugh, open line Friday on Wednesday.
Now, let me let me be clear about something here regarding the uh the situation with the uh the extradition of uh extradition of John Demoniuk and this uh this whole Eric Holder business on one day of certain kinds of torture, okay, certain days they're not.
Uh I I didn't mean to mislead and say that the the the Germans uh want to use the same tactics on Demon yoke that they used on Al Qaeda detainees.
I don't want you to think that that the Germans are are gonna waterboard Demon yuk.
What what what the Department of Justice is saying is that regardless of what tactics the Germans may use, even if the Germans cause Demon yuke to s to feel severe pain and suffering, this can't be torture because the Germans don't intend to torture Demon Yuke.
That is, you can't have torture unless there's an evil motive to torture, and the Germans we're not gonna torture him.
Which is an adoption of the reasoning from John Yu and uh and and and Bibi.
Whether the CIA should not torture Al-Qaeda guys unless they had a motive to cause them severe pain and suffering.
If they didn't have this motive, it would be a complete defense to any claim of torture.
So even if you inflict severe pain and suffering on someone, which is the statutory definition of torture, there's no torture unless the government agent is deliberately trying to inflict torture.
And that was the position in the memos from John Yew and Bibe.
And it's now the Obama DOJ's position.
You know, their their memos are we didn't torture these guys.
Our intention was not to torture them.
Here, we've got Andy McCarthy who is um done some great research work on this.
He's on the air to explain this and clarify this, because I did not mean to say to the Germans are gonna waterboard Demon Yuke, hey Andy, uh explain this to people in a way they can understand.
Sure, Rush.
The um the whole idea behind the you Bibi memos from 2002 was to avoid torture.
Uh the idea was to uh avoid having a situation where severe pain and suffering was inflicted on these guys.
And what you and Bibee point out in the memo when they discussed the state of mind that you have to have for a torture offense, is that when Congress passed its torture statute, and when the United States ratified the torture treaty, what they tried to do was make it a very narrow crime.
And in doing that, what they said was you can't have torture unless you specifically intend to commit the crime of torture, which means you specifically intend to inflict on somebody severe pain and suffering.
Now, did they write that to give anybody cover who was engaged in these interrogations?
Well, that's the allegation from the left.
My view of it is they wrote it because they were asked what is the legal outline, the legal contours of torture.
And you couldn't um outline what the legal contours of torture are without saying that.
And I think there's a lot of um uh there's a lot of support for that view in the fact that only a year ago, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which obviously was not trying to create cover for the CIA, in a case that involved an allegation of uh of uh violation of torture under the under the torture treaty, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals came up with the same analysis that you and Bybee came up with.
They said that even if by sending uh this fellow who brought the suit back to his home country, and even if he had severe pain and suffering and even died uh from the fact that he couldn't get correct medical treatment in the place where he was going to be sent, that wouldn't be torture because the government didn't intend for him to feel severe pain and suffering.
Uh that wasn't the point of what the extradition was.
Okay, so in what where we are here is that in terms of exporting or extraditing Dem Yanyuk, uh and his he's he's objecting because the Germans are going to torture him, our DOJ is saying no, they don't intend to torture him, so they're not going to torture him, and they're using the same reasoning that they are rejecting in the U Bibe memos.
Exactly right.
And and basically what they're saying is, even if Dem Yanyak does inadvertently suffer severe pain and suffering uh from however he's treated by the Germans, our government is satisfied that that wouldn't be torture, even if he's in exactly the pain he'd be in if they were trying to torture him, as long as they don't intend to do it.
When you and Bibi said that, the left went crazy and said they're trying to green light torture, but yet this is exactly the position the Obama administration has taken only about ten days ago.
So now we have the story of the New York Times saying that we've looked at this, the DOJ's looked at this, we really don't think we ought to prosecute or investigate Bibee and Bradbury and uh and John New.
But they we really would encourage uh state bar associations where they practice to disbar them because we still want to ruin their livelihood.
Well, uh that certainly looks like the way it's going.
No one's actually seen what this draft report says, and obviously, according to these reports, there's a lot of uh a lot going on behind the scenes to try to affect the outcome here.
But you do have to worry that all of this uh uh blather about criminal prosecutions under circumstances where there's obviously no torture case here legally, um, could be a big feint in order to make them look magnanimous if all they do is refer these guys for bar discipline, and yet it would destroy these guys' lives professionally.
Well, what are the odds that the bars in these states would follow through on this and uh and issue any discipline?
I mean, they are they afraid of the DOJ as well as everybody afraid of Washington now, to the point that whatever comes out of Washington in terms of a suggestion or request is considered a demand?
I I think Rush that that's something to be profoundly worried about.
I mean, if if they can manipulate the Justice Department process in this direction, uh, you know, the the bar associations tend to be left to center to begin with.
This, if I might remind people about last week, this is specifically why you wrote the letter to the Attorney General Eric Holder declining the invitation to participate in some uh bipartisan task force going forward, right?
Because among many other reasons, one of the reasons was your opinion is going to disagree with theirs, and you don't want to be prosecuted down the road because you think they already had their their process written and then inviting you and others that may not agree with them was just a show.
Yeah, especially given that the Attorney General last week in a speech in Germany basically said that the position I hold, which is that people should be held under the laws of war in Guantanamo Bay until the end of hostilities is a violation of the rule of law.
So I'm already on notice that he thinks my opinion uh is a law violation.
So for me to go into a meeting as a lawyer and advise the Justice Department uh to do something that he already has decided is against the law would imperil me just the way that uh these Bush administration lawyers have been uh basically put in the crosshairs by giving a good faith uh uh piece of advice about what they think we should do on these national security matters.
Talking with Andrew McCarthy, who uh is uh uh a writer editor at National Review and National Review Online and a former uh prosecutor for the U.S. uh.
attorney's office, Southern District of New York, which is Manhattan, and Andy led the prosecution team that convicted the blind sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman.
With people just tuning in, I wanted to know who the voice that they were listening to.
So Andy, you've got you've got some as as a lawyer and as somebody who's worked in the Justice Department, you're very much aware of the power uh U.S. attorney's offices have, the attorney general of DOJ.
You look at these people uh from Holder on down and the way that they're conducting business.
What are your fears?
I mean this this just seems to be like the tip of the iceberg here with the the dichotomy or the uh the feint, if you will, with the way Dem Yanyuk might be treated, and yet we want to destroy the lives of American lawyers who authored the very same belief system that they're gonna use to extradite Dem Yanyuk.
What else is going on that people may not know about?
Well, my my biggest fear rush is that we're having a repeat of what we saw in the 1990s with particularly with the wall regulations, which were a set of internal Justice Department guidelines that prevented the national security side of the FBI's House from communicating with criminal investigators and prosecutors like me.
Um those regulations created a an ethos, a philosophy within the government uh that there were things that were more important than the national security of the United States and making sure the left hand knew what the right hand was doing so that we could figure out what the threats were against us.
And the feeling that it it put in people throughout the government was that if you tried to do your job, if you tried to push the envelope, if you tried to protect the American people, if you tried to go the extra mile to figure out what the threats against us were, uh that could be professionally ruinous for you.
Um and we saw where that led on 9-11.
I don't frankly think it should have taken until 9-11 to figure it out because we were attacked repeatedly from 1993 going forward.
And I think in terms of, you know, look, what difference does it make to somebody like me or to John Yu or to Bibe, you know, you can ruin one lawyer or three lawyers or however many lawyers.
The important thing to those of us who were who care about the country is we need to have the government, uh as we've seen given the threat that we're up against, um, moving heaven and earth to figure out what the threats are against us, to figure out where the next place we might be.
Excuse me, I I get the distinct impression this administration does not think of that threat as serious at all.
Well, uh they they rhetorically suggest that it's serious, but but certainly if you look at what they're doing compared to what they're saying, uh I I have to agree that you're right.
Well, I mean, I don't know how you that's the whole point with Obama.
He says all these wonderful things like we're gonna have an a chance to track every dollar of the stimulus bill at recovery.org.
Then we learned today that the site's not going to have any worthwhile data until next year, and it's it's not even gonna have it then.
It's all a joke.
While he talks about protecting the country and so forth, he's making bad making deals with Hamas, selling Israel out.
He's got John Kerry out saying to uh to Iran, hey, look, we're gonna change our policy on regime change.
We'll accept you, we'll tolerate you.
If you guys just get rid and suspend your nuclear program.
These are fools.
They have to know that the Iranians are not going to accept this, even if they said they would.
Well, you you you make a great point, and you raised before the letter that I sent last week.
Another reason that I didn't want to go to this this uh confab on Monday was because I thought essentially it's a charade.
It's it's sort of the difference between what they're doing and what they're saying that you've just outlined.
They're contending or they're telling people that they're Studying carefully all the issues about detainees.
And yet what we're finding is that they're actually releasing detainees.
Uh about four weeks ago they uh uh released a guy outright named Binyam Mohammed, who was sent back to England.
He's the collaborator uh with uh Jose Padilla, the guy who was the uh so-called dirty bomber.
Uh he was actually planning uh mass murder attacks in American cities.
Uh he was held as an enemy combatant for about six years by the Bush administration.
The Obama administration has just released him to England.
So for all this arguing about, you know, should we do it in the criminal justice system or should we do it in the military system, you could argue that all day long, but I don't think anybody thought we should be releasing these guys.
Uh and yet that's what they're they did with him, and it's what they're planning to do with these guys, the Uyghurs, um, who they're actually talking about releasing into the United States.
Yeah, I mean, I've got this story today that uh and I've got a couple minutes here and I have to go, but uh it's being reported uh at Politico that Harry Reed is demanding specifics on where the prisoners will go and what's going to be done with them.
So this story makes it seem like Harry Reid saying to Obama, uh, where exactly are these Yahoos going to be placed?
Is there some resistance in Congress to this?
I I uh I think right now there's building resistance, uh particularly in the House.
Uh I think Representative Hookstra and and uh Frank Wolf uh have been pushing hard on this.
Uh I expect that other people are going to be pushing hard on it as well.
It's important that people know Rush.
We actually passed some law in two thousand five that makes it illegal to bring aliens into the United States if they've had terrorist training or been affiliated with a terrorist organization.
The Uyghurs are exportable on both grounds.
That's a Bush law.
It was unjust and immoral, and we're not gonna pay.
Andy, I gotta run.
I appreciate your calling.
Thanks.
My pleasure, I think.
Andrew McCarthy will be right back and continue in just a second.
Okay, let's grab some phone calls.
Uh to open line Friday on Wednesday.
And we will start in Gross Point, Michigan.
This is Janet.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's splendid to talk to you again.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I wanted to point you in the direction of Ron Gettelfinger's op-ed in the Detroit News today.
You can find it at Real Clear Politics, I think.
And it's proof that you're right.
Very early proof.
Well, I don't have to t tell it tell me what it says.
What it says, he's advocating national health care.
Uh now here's how you were right, okay, because you said number one, you can never let go of this.
You said the the UAW would end up running the auto companies, okay?
Never ever let go of that one.
Because America's gonna see what the UAW is in the next five to ten years if it lasts that long.
And the second thing you said just last week was that it's not gonna work with the UAW running the auto companies.
And the and Ron Gettesinger's op-ed today is proof of that because he knows exactly what drove has driven the auto companies to the brink of bankruptcy and now into bankruptcy, and that's the health care costs and all of the retiree pension.
So what you're saying is that Gettelfinger's desire to offload the ownership on to you into his health care retirement trust fund.
Right.
Is an acknowledgement that uh the the cannot build cars for a profit and give all the benefits that they give to the UAW.
True.
And that's why it's going to fail.
He's not going to br concede that.
He's going to try to make the American taxpayers.
Wait when you say it's going to fail, what is it?
The car companies.
Yeah, but the United Overworkers will not fail.
Well You realize there's going to be a United Auto Workers Union if there are no autos being made.
Yes.
Yes.
I mean, they'll be making I don't know what they'll be making.
They'll be making something.
And they'll be getting their health care and their pension and their retirement.
I know how in the hell can you have a United Auto workers if they're not making cars?
Uh hello.
Okay, Russ, but here let's the point is that this is Barack Obama leveling out the unjust immorality of this country over all these decades.
Correct.
He thinks these people should have something for nothing because they have been raped, the Union people and the disadvantage of downtrodden poor have uh effectively been raped by American capitalism, and they have a lot of stuff coming due, a lot of stuff's owed to them.
How is it if I startling looking at me with a with a with a look of total stunned disbelief?
If I'm wrong about this, I want you to explain something to me.
How is it that in this whole process of saving Chrysler, fifty-five percent of the company goes to unions who only had 10% of the bonds?
How are they given 55% if they only had a 10% stake in the in the debt of Chrysler?
I mean, this this whole thing is a thumb in the nose and a cramdown, if you will, of the new way American business is going to be structured if Obama has his hands in it.
Speaking of uh health care, Frank Lunz, Dr. Frank Lunz, the estimable Dr. Frank Lunz, Republican consultant on the politics, uh, language of politics, warning the Republican Party about the American people's view on health care.
Um you'll love hearing the details of this.
▲
Export Selection