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 anchorman, America's truth detector, a doctor of democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Here behind a 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 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 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, I check those now and then.
Lrushbaugh 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 soundbites are about me.
Well, you'll hear them, but I got 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, it's just, it's just, you know, I try not to talk about myself on this program.
Everybody knows this.
I try to make it about the issues and so forth.
I mean, gee, whiz.
Well, I think, Snerdley, you're right.
I'm not the issue as I am the issue.
I have become the issue.
I mean, they're obsessed.
They're obsessed out there.
Guy on the radio.
Anyway, we've got other news breaking out there.
The Obama administration is leaking the bank stress tests.
Bank of America needs $34 billion.
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 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, you wonder when people are going to wake up and realize what's going on.
And then you see the following story and you say they're not going to 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 system in the college football playoffs.
We know he runs around doing his own brackets in the 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 going to love this.
A sports cabinet post has actually been proposed by university people.
We shouldn't be surprised 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 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, what would you call this?
Well, not on the betrayal, dangling carrot.
And in exchange for this, Kerry 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 blaming Israel for the problems in the Middle East.
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 Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, hey, look, pal, we'll let you stay in power in exchange for us being nice.
You stop your nuclear program.
If I were Ahmedinezad, I'd say, okay.
I'd say that's a deal we can accept, Senator Kerry.
We will stop our nuclear.
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.
He says, it's not going to do this in no pomp and circumstance anymore.
And there's 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.
He prays privately.
Now, why do this?
Why go out of his way to do this?
Why make these kinds of waves unnecessarily?
Because he's doing it on purpose.
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 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 stand back and just take a look at some of the things that are happening in this country, the bill carving out protection for perverts, the bill that was argued 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 Lauria, 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, have you heard?
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, I thought I put it at the top of the stack, but I didn't.
Well, now, where the hell did I put this?
Yeah, here we go.
Let me, I did put it at the back of the stack when 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 and 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 Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury.
So we're supposed to go, oh, good, they're not going to prosecute.
But 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 Demenyuk?
Some people pronounce it John Demyanyuk.
John Demenyuk is 89 years old.
He lives in Cleveland.
He is accused of being a Nazi concentration camp guard, Ivan the Terrible.
He was convicted in Israel.
They threw the conviction out.
He's been charged with being at Sobibor, Treblinka, a couple places.
He's been living in Cleveland ever since the 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, Demenyuk's lawyers, are saying to the Justice Department, you cannot, you cannot extradite John Demenyuk to Germany.
You cannot do it because he will be tortured.
Eric Holder and the Justice Department have said to Germany and Demon Yuk, Demonyuk, you're wrong because Germany is going to use the same techniques on you that were proposed by Bybe and you and Bradbury to interrogate al-Qaeda terrorists.
In other words, the Justice Department is denying Demon Yuk's request that I 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.
I mean, this is despicable.
And this is not about Demon Yuk.
I'm not arguing whether Demon Yuk is innocent or guilty or doesn't matter to me.
But Demon Yuk'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, Bradbury and Bybey, 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.
Rush, 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 Demenyuk, Germany wants to try him for war crimes in World War II at concentration camps.
Demonyuk's lawyers say to the Justice Department, please don't extradite him.
He's going to be tortured there.
Our Justice Department says to Demon Yuk's lawyers, no, he won't be tortured.
They're just going to use the same procedures outlined by Jay Bybe, John Yu, 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 Bybey, 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, to the Fox affiliate there, KTVI Channel 2.
Officials from Boeing and the Machinist 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 this 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 news.
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 hikes 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, Elkhart, Indiana town meeting, after his opening remarks, an unidentified female audience member had an exchange with Obama, and she said, my question to you is, sir, when you allocate the money for Elkhart, Indiana, will it come directly into Elkhart or is it going to have to go around somewhere else?
We're actually going to set up something called recovery.gov.
This is going to 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 I haven't noticed 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.
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 10th, 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 it gets 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 claim or another assuredness.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
It's all just 100% BS.
Brief time out.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
We're back.
Rush Limbaugh, Open Line Friday on Wednesday.
Now, let me be clear about something here regarding the situation with the extradition of John Demenyuk and this whole Eric Holder business on one day of certain kinds of torture.
Okay, certain days they're not.
I didn't mean to mislead and say that the Germans want to use the same tactics on Demon Yook that they used on Al-Qaeda detainees.
I don't want you to think that the Germans are going to waterboard Demon Yuk.
What the Department of Justice is saying is that regardless of what tactics the Germans may use, even if the Germans cause Demon Yuk to feel severe pain and suffering, this can't be torture because the Germans don't intend to torture Demon Yuk.
That is, you can't have torture unless there's an evil motive to torture.
And the Germans, we're not going to torture him.
Which is an adoption of the reasoning from John Yoo and Bybe.
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 is no torture unless the government agent is deliberately trying to inflict torture.
And that was the position in the memos from John Yu and Bybe.
And it's now the Obama DOJ's position.
You know, their memos are, we didn't torture these guys.
Our intention was not to torture them.
Here, we've got Andy McCarthy, who has 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 that the Germans are going to waterboard Demon Yuk.
Hey, Andy, explain this to people in a way they can understand.
Sure, Rush.
The whole idea behind the U-Bybee memos from 2002 was to avoid torture.
The idea was to avoid having a situation where severe pain and suffering was inflicted on these guys.
And what you and Bybey point out in the memo when they discuss 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 outline what the legal contours of torture are without saying that.
And I think 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 trying to create cover for the CIA, in a case that involved an allegation of a violation of torture under the Torture Treaty, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals came up with the same analysis that you and Bybe came up with.
They said that even if by sending this fellow who brought the suit back to his home country, and even if he had severe pain and suffering and even died 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.
That wasn't the point of what the extradition was.
Okay, so where we are here is that in terms of exporting or extraditing Dem Yanyuk, 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-Bybee memos.
Exactly right.
And basically what they're saying is, even if Dem Yanyuk does inadvertently suffer severe pain and suffering 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 Bybe said that, the left went crazy and said they're trying to greenlight torture, but yet this is exactly the position the Obama administration has taken only about 10 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 Bybe and Bradbury and John Yu.
But we really would encourage state bar associations where they practice to disbar them because we still want to ruin their livelihood.
Well, 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 going on behind the scenes to try to affect the outcome here.
But you do have to worry that all of this blather about criminal prosecutions under circumstances where there's obviously no torture case here legally 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 issue any discipline?
Are they afraid of the DOJ as well?
Is 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 think, Rush, that that's something to be profoundly worried about.
I mean, if they can manipulate the Justice Department process in this direction, you know, 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 bipartisan task force going forward, right?
Was, 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 process written, and 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 is a law violation.
So for me to go into a meeting as a lawyer and advise the Justice Department to do something that he already has decided is against the law would imperil me just the way that these Bush administration lawyers have been basically put in the crosshairs by giving a good faith piece of advice about what they think we should do on these national security matters.
Talking with Andrew McCarthy, who is a writer, editor at National Review, a National Review Online, and a former prosecutor for the U.S. 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 the voice that they were listening to.
So, Andy, you've got some, as a lawyer and as somebody who's worked in the Justice Department, you're very much aware of the power U.S. Attorneys' Offices have, the Attorney General of DOJ.
You look at these people from Holder on down and the way that they're conducting business.
What are your fears?
This just seems to be like the tip of the iceberg here with the dichotomy or 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 going to use to extradite Demyanyuk.
What else is going on that people may not know about?
Well, my biggest fear, Rush, is that we're having a repeat of what we saw in the 1990s, particularly with the law 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.
Those regulations created an ethos, a philosophy within the government 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 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, that could be professionally ruinous for you.
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 Bybee?
You know, you can ruin one lawyer or three lawyers or however many lawyers.
The important thing to those of us who care about the country is we need to have the government, as we've seen given the threat that we're up against, moving heaven and earth to figure out what the threats are against us, to figure out where the next place we might go.
Excuse me, I get the distinct impression this administration does not think of that threat as serious at all.
Well, they rhetorically suggest that it's serious, but certainly if you look at what they're doing compared to what they're saying, 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 going to have 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 not even going to have it then.
It's all a joke.
While he talks about protecting the country and so forth, he's making bed, making deals with Hamas, selling Israel out.
He's got John Kerry out saying to Iran, hey, look, we're going to 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 Ama Ahwadinejab, the Iranians, are not going to accept this, even if they said they would.
Well, 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 confab on Monday was because I thought essentially it's a charade.
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.
About four weeks ago, they released a guy outright named Binyan Mohamed, who was sent back to England.
He's the collaborator with Jose Padilla, the guy who was the so-called dirty bomber.
He was actually planning mass murder attacks in American cities.
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.
And yet that's what they did with him, and it's what they're planning to do with these guys, the Uyghurs, who they're actually talking about releasing into the United States.
Yeah, I mean, I've got this story today, Dave, and I've got a couple minutes here and I have to go, but it's being reported at Politico that Harry Reid 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's saying to Obama, where exactly are these Yahoos going to be placed?
Is there some resistance in Congress to this?
I think right now there's building resistance, particularly in the House.
I think Representative Hoekstra and Frank Wolf have been pushing hard on this.
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 2005 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 according to on both grounds.
That's a Bush law.
It was unjust and immoral, and we're not going to pay it.
Andy, I've got to run.
I appreciate your calling.
Thanks.
My pleasure, Rush.
Andrew McCarthy, we'll be right back and continue in just a second.
Okay, let's grab some phone calls 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.
I don't have time.
Tell me what it says.
What it says, he's advocating national health care.
Now, here's how you were right, okay?
Because you said, number one, and you can never let go of this.
You said the UAW would end up running the auto companies.
Okay, never, ever let go of that one.
Because America's going to 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 going to work with the UAW running the auto companies.
And Ron Gettelfinger'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 pensions.
So what you're saying is that Gettelfinger's desire to offload the ownership into his health care retirement trust fund is an acknowledgement that he 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 concede that.
He's going to try to make the American taxpayers when you say it's going to fail.
What is it?
The car companies.
Yeah, but the United Auto Workers will not fail.
Well.
Do you realize there's going to be a United Autos Workers Union if there are no autos being made?
Yes.
Yes.
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.
Yes.
I know, Peter.
Well, how in the hell can you have a United Auto Workers if they're not making cars?
Hello?
Okay, Rush, but here.
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 disadvantaged and downtrodden poor have effectively been raped by American capitalism, and they have a lot of stuff come and due.
A lot of stuff's owed to them.
How is it if I sturdley's looking at me 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, 55% 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 debt of Chrysler?
I mean, this whole thing is a thumb in the nose and a cram down, if you will, of the new way American business is going to be structured if Obama has his hands in it.
Speaking of health care, Frank Luntz, Dr. Frank Luntz, the estimable Dr. Frank Luntz, Republican consultant on the politics language of politics, warning the Republican Party about the American people's view on health care.
You'll love hearing the details of this.
▲
Export Selection