All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
May 27, 2009, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know, I know.
I was just putting some things in order here.
Great to be back with you, my good buddies.
It's Rush Linbaugh and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network and the most listened to radio talk show in America.
It's been that way for 18 or 19 years, and there's nothing on the horizon that says it's gonna change.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, and the uh email address L Rushbaugh at EIB net.com.
Um I wanna I want to conclude this discussion here of the procedure we should take in um dealing with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, and remember now my theory here is that she needs to be opposed on substance.
She's not qualified.
She is she takes the oath of office, she she's she's gonna break it the minute she takes it because she doesn't view the law the way the oath of office for Supreme Court justice is written.
By her own admission, in her own words.
All this empathy talk is simply a code word for letting justices write laws from the bench.
The purpose of opposing Sonia Sotomayor is not stopper because it can't be done.
The purpose of opposing Sonia Sotomayor is to explain to the American people who Barack Obama is.
We go back to his 2001 interview on Chicago radio, and this is Obama discussing the Warren Court, the Earl Warren Supreme Court is not radical enough.
As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.
It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and warrant court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused.
I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
And uh in some ways we still suffer from that.
So once again, the court is to be used to redistribute wealth.
Now, this is a gold mine for the Republican Party opposing Sonia Sotomayor because he has named her as a mirror image of him.
The essential constraints, he looks at the Constitution as a constraint.
Remember his statement, Al Qaeda is not constrained by a constitution.
And he says that as a member of the political class.
He says that as president.
He looks at the Constitution as something that reels him in.
So the Constitution either has to be changed or it has to be ignored.
And the easiest way to change and ignore the Constitution is via the judicial system.
And particularly at the highest level of the judicial system, the Supreme Court.
The Constitution's a charter of negative liberties, he says.
Says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state governments must do on your behalf, but it most certainly does.
Says it must protect you.
It must come for the common defense and provide for the general welfare.
The Constitution proscribes government on a lot of things that are for the benefit of the American people.
But what this means to Obama is when he says that um the Constitution doesn't say what the federal government can do on your behalf, means it doesn't say that it can tax the rich at a higher rate and give the money to the poor.
It doesn't say that he can redistribute in fact the Constitution does not have Marxism in it.
The Constitution doesn't have socialism in it.
And as such, Obama is constrained.
And the civil rights movement did not get as far as it should have gotten because it was so focused on the court rather than community organizing.
Well, okay, now the community organizers in the Oval Office, then the community organizers gonna see to it that, the court does his bidding.
Hello, Sonia Sotomayor.
This isn't worth opposing simply because she's guaranteed.
There's going to be other Supreme Court nominations.
There are going to be future elections.
Are we going to just throw in a towel on those two?
Are we just going to assume that opposing anything Obama does because he's a minority?
Is going to anger voters?
And we're cooked.
Final soundbite.
Obama and the Constitution as reflecting America's fundamental flaw.
I think we can say that the Constitution reflected a enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.
I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now, and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
He, of course, is talking about slavery.
By the way, it is these three sound bites that have led me to conclude that we have here an angry man with a chip on his shoulder, not some cool, calm uh collected guy, but a cold, calculating, angry man who did hear what Jeremiah Wright said for twenty years while sitting in the pews of that church in Chicago.
He did hear what Bill Ayers said about America.
America's unjust.
It was con it was constituted as unjust, and that unjustness permeates to this day.
So now it's time to change all that.
And we're going to change all that by desecrating the Constitution.
Hence Sonia Sotomayor.
The fact that she pays no attention to the law is perfect.
The fact that she uses empathy, the fact that she is a racist and a bigot is perfect because in Obama's world it's permitted to be a racist and bigot if you're a minority because you have been discriminated against since the founding of the country.
And it's about time that that was made right.
That's what all of this is about.
That's what all of his administration and his presidency is about, returning the nation's wealth to its rightful owners.
And this needs to be pointed out to the American people.
And it can be pointed out in the scope of confirmation hearings on Sonia Sotomayor.
They have to go after her for being Hispanic.
Nobody's ever suggesting that.
Don't go after freeing a woman.
No, no, no fool is saying that.
You know what my problem is, folks?
I want to be very honest.
I have never been an oppressed minority, even though I am in a minority.
I don't think like one.
Conservatism is an oppressed minority today.
The Republican Party is an oppressed minority.
The only problem I have is I don't think that way.
But they all do.
When you're an oppressed minority, what do you do?
You willingly go to the back of the bus and you willingly shut up and you willingly don't make waves.
If ever a civil rights movement was needed in America, it is for the Republican Party.
If ever we start needing to start marching for freedom and constitutional rights, it's for the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is today's oppressed minority.
And it knows how to behave as one.
It shuts up.
It doesn't cross bridges, it doesn't run into the bull connors of the Democrat Party.
It is afraid of the fire hoses and the dogs.
It's compliant.
The Republican Party today has become totally complacent.
They are an oppressed minority.
They know their position.
They know their place.
They go to the back of the bus.
They don't use the right restroom and the right drinking fountain, and they shut up.
I don't think this way.
I don't, I don't think of myself as an oppressed minority, or as a member of an oppressed minority.
And I hope I never do think of one or myself as one.
I'm just an American.
Truth is a truth.
I'm an enlightened individual.
An enlightened individual is one who seeks truth.
Barack Obama is not an enlightened individual.
He is a narcissist.
Barack Obama seeks himself, seeks adoration, adulation.
He's like narcissists.
He's stuck On his own reflection in a mirror in a pool of water.
He sees himself as something he's not substantive.
He sees himself the way he sees a reflection of himself.
And he wants everybody else to see him the same way.
Barack Obama thinks of himself as a member of an oppressed minority, but he's not taking it.
He's fighting back.
He's going to go so far as to desecrate the Constitution to address his grievances.
Republican Party?
They've mashed it, they've got it down pat.
Washington, D.C. may as well be.
What?
Snerdley?
What may for Republicans in Washington may as well?
Washington, D.C. is the old South for Republicans, if you want to draw the analogy.
They have gotten comfortable being an oppressed minority.
And they play the game.
They don't speak out.
They don't shut up.
Or they do shut up.
And when they do get gutsy and try to shut up or speak up, they um do so in a way that won't offend anybody.
Wall Street Journal, November 15th, 2003, review an outlook.
Why the Democrats borked Estrada in their own words.
Now that the Senate has concluded its 30-hour talk-a-thon on judicial filibusters, we thought readers might like to peer inside the filibustering Democrat mind such as it is.
This plunge into the murky deep comes from straff, a staff strategy memos that we've obtained from the days when Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001-2002, or rather appeared to run the committee.
The real bosses are the liberal interest groups that more or less tell the senators when to sit, when to speak, and when to roll over, and which Bush judges to confirm or not.
Here are some excerpts.
This is a memo to Dick Durbin.
You're scheduled to meet with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss this serious concerns with the judicial nomination process.
The leaders will likely be Ralph Nees of people from the American Way, Kate Michaelman from Nayroll, Nan Aaron from the Alliance for Justice, Wade Henderson from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Leslie Prohl from the NAA LCP Legal Defense Fund, Nancy Zirkin from the American Association of University Women, and Marcia Greenberger, National Women's Law Center, Junior Leichtmann National Partnership.
The primary purpose of meeting with these special interest group leaders will be on identifying the most controversial and vulnerable judicial nominees.
The groups would like to postpone action on these nominees until next year, when presumably the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent.
November 7th, 2001, memo, Senator Durbin, the groups singled out, the ones I just mentioned, the groups singled out three, Jeffrey Sutton, Sixth Circuit, Priscilla Owen, Fifth Circuit, and Carolyn Coole, Ninth Circuit, as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year with an eye to voting him or her down in committee.
They also identified Miguel Estrada, the DC circuit, as especially dangerous.
Estrada has a minimal paper trail.
He is Latino.
And the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.
They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.
There are other memos in the story to Senator Kennedy telling him who to meet with and how to react and how to behave.
But here's a memo to Dick Durbin from the special interest group saying that Miguel Estrada on the DC circuit must be opposed because he's Latino.
Why?
The Democrats get away with opposing people because they're Latino.
We get punished if we oppose somebody because they're Latino, and we have to shut up because somebody's Latino.
We have gone out, we've had two people in our party sp literally, John McCain and George W. Bush, grant amnesty.
Now, how many millions of illegal Hispanics in the country?
Did it get anybody anywhere electorally?
Estrada nominated for a high court position, uh, Alberta Gonzalez, they were opposed because they're Latino by the Democrats.
Now they didn't say so publicly, these are internal memos, but the Democrats can oppose Latinos left and right, and they can oppose blacks left and right.
And they never seem to pay a price for doing it.
Why is that?
Why does nobody get concerned a Democrats may be alienating voters from these various groups?
Why when they oppose Clarence Thomas, did they not suffer one loss of a black vote?
Why?
And yet the Republicans have been made to believe, in their currently extinct status, that opposing Sonia Sotomayor simply because she's Latina will ruin their chances for the Hispanic vote.
A vote they don't have anyway, and a vote they're not going to get this way.
They're behaving like an oppressed minority.
Whatever their masters tell them to say or do, not say or don't do, they say or don't say.
They don't do.
They are entirely compliant.
They are obedient.
The Republican Party today is totally obedient.
Now there are some exceptions.
We got some great conservatives in the House.
I'm talking about the old guard country club blue blooders that are trying to define the party and run it.
They're obedient.
They are so obedient that many of them endorse and vote the Democrat candidate.
That's how obedient they are to their masters.
They have mastered the art of thinking and acting as oppressed minorities who are not interested, by the way, in emancipation of freedom.
All right, time to go to the phones.
It's been uh about an hour and a half since the program began, and we haven't gone on the phones.
That means all of these people have been on hold that long.
This is John in Crofton, Maryland.
Thanks for your patience, sir, and hello.
Rush, you're my favorite.
Thank you, sir.
I can understand.
And you're you're and you're not a narcissist as Obama is.
Uh the trouble with Obama is he is uh a mean narcissist known as a sadist in this country and Obama have a sadistic, masochistic relationship.
He's he's torturing everybody, and there are a lot of people that are ready to go along with it.
And they'll tell you to shut up because of the mob psychology.
But just take an example of your Super Bowl winning team being invited to the White House and uh in an off the cuff uh comet they were told to wear old clothes, you know, they can come in wearing casual clothes.
And I heard it reported that for four hours they packed boxes of things to be sent to the troops, and they didn't have the normal rah-rah fun time, uh, which is traditional for the Super Bowl team.
And then on the same day, a bus came all the way up from Virginia, it was a little bit late, and they locked the gates on them and sent these kindergartners back home crying.
So this guy has no sympathy for anybody, no empathy.
He picked his alter ego for the Supreme Court.
She's just like he is.
They both disrespect the Constitution, they both violate their oath every day they're in office.
I think you're right.
We have to show this woman.
Uh if she's got any warts, we have to show 'em because you know, only a few uh warts have come out right now.
But we haven't even gotten into her tax situation yet.
Who knows?
But one thing, if he gave a speech...
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We have to assume as an Obama nominee she has a tax problem.
We have to assume that she does.
Simply because she's an Obama nominee.
It it it seems to be a resume uh requirement.
Now about the Steelers at the White House.
I have not read anywhere that the Steelers were upset that they had to pack boxes for four hours and didn't get to do the usual White House party.
I don't know that uh teams being invited to the White House have a party anyway.
Normally they show up for for lunch, they have uh coat and tie on a little tour and they're ushered out of there.
They don't stay for four hours.
Uh there's a story in the Pittsburgh papers today, Hein Heinz Ward got to talk to Obama for thirty minutes and it made his day.
It made his life.
Number eighty-six, wide receiver, Pittsburgh Steelers Heinz Ward got to talk to Obama about his life and about his job is just loves Obama.
While they're packing boxes, they were packing boxes of uh of goods to send to the troops.
Now the kids, the kindergarten kids, you're right, they got turned away at the gate because they were ten minutes late.
Five year olds in tears from a suburban Washington, Virginia kindergarten.
Turned away in tears because they were ten minutes late.
And I g I I will just guarantee you, I'll guarantee you that if they had showed up in the Supreme Court in a tour there, and Clarence Thomas had told them they couldn't come in, because they were ten minutes late.
There would be recall hearings.
If Bush had turned away a bunch of kindergartners, there would be impeachment hearings.
I got to take a brief time out here, ladies and gentlemen.
But have you heard that there's a uh the energy secretary, Stephen Chu announced yesterday wants to paint roofs white to combat global warming.
We'll have the details.
And highways white, by the way, too.
At this very moment, as we speak, the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, conducting a press conference on the status of our relationship with North Korea.
They have launched yet another missile.
This is six of them.
They are testing underground nuclear weapons.
Now you have to assume that if North Korea is doing this, the Iranians are soon going to be capable.
Uh, and the Russians and the Chinese are involved in this whole mix as well.
The Russians are out saying, Oh my god, this just lead to nuclear war.
Hell, Mrs. Clinton's up there speaking.
Does anybody remember?
And by the way, she's saying that that uh North Korea is ignoring the international community.
Hey, Mrs. Clinton, they have been ignoring the international community for 15 years.
Since 1994, they have been ignoring the international community.
The international community has done nothing about it.
And now North Korea, if we are to believe the seismic results that people say they've seen, did light off a nuke over the weekend underground.
They've got one.
If we're to believe this, nobody stopped them.
Now what do we do?
Not much we can do.
Do a bunch of press conferences, how much we oppose this.
Remember Mrs. Clinton went on Greta Van Susterin's show on Fox within the last couple of months and started laughing and joking.
Hey, Kim Jong-il, if you're watching this show, we want to talk to you.
Do you remember that?
And I'm sure she was credited by many on the left for an amazing uh ability to reach out and a desire.
Fifteen years the international community has failed to deal with North Korea.
About the same amount of time they failed to deal with Iran and uh and and uh Iraq.
Lou and Pullman, Washington, as we stay on the phones.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you for a great 20 years.
Yes, sir.
I want to uh get right to it.
I uh want to take issue with my uh fellow subscriber Nancy.
I think that we ought to be just like the Democrats.
I think we should ignore gender, race, class, and sexual orientation when the person that we're looking at doesn't agree with us.
That's what they do.
Look at Clarence Thomas.
Uh uh.
We should do what the Democrat we should emulate the Democrats and ignore what?
Gender, race, class, and sexual orientation when the person doesn't agree with us.
Well, who's doing that now?
Well, the Democrats are there.
I mean, tell me the Republicans who are opposing Sonia Sotomayor because she's a woman or a Latina.
Oh, none.
But I think we should ignore the fact that she is and go right for the issues.
Well, it doesn't matter if we do.
The media is all over the place with the fact she's Latina, the first one ever nominated.
First one nominated Supreme Court, first woman, her compelling story.
We can ignore it all.
We are ignored.
We're the ones that do ignore this stuff.
We're the ones to whom none of this does matter.
Right, but that why my point is that uh Nancy thinks it's gonna come back and bite us, but the Democrats do it all the time, and it doesn't seem to bite them.
Yes, that's been my point all day.
Absolutely.
I was I've been on hold for a long time.
I thought you said you agreed with Nancy, though.
I thought you were not a good thing.
No, no, no, no, no.
Nancy, I want to take issue with her.
Oh, I thought you were disagreeing with me.
No, no.
I apologize for the contentiousness.
You're just echoing what I said.
Yes, I think we ought to ignore it, but they always do one thing, though they take into account gender, race, and class.
Well, that's that's the point I've been making All day, these people, the Democrats can trash all kinds of blacks, minorities, Latinos, and it never seems to hurt them.
Why does it only hurt us?
When we do ignore it, it's not a factor to us.
I couldn't care less, for example.
Where Sonia Sotomayor came from, whether race or gender is.
She's a disaster as a on the basis of her of her history as a judge, Don in Vermilion, Ohio.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thank you.
It's uh pleasure to speak with you.
My point was uh in regard to the email that you read earlier.
Uh from standpoint of a conservative, there's no such thing as a Hispanic vote, an Afro-American vote, a Native American vote.
It doesn't make any difference.
Um it is the same.
And it's so basic, just like you have been saying, it's so fundamental.
I I don't understand what's confusing about this.
There should never be any question what the conservative response to anything should be, because the fundamentals of conservatism are what our foundation is, and there's never uh anything that's nebulous about that.
Very easy to understand.
Well, you're right.
Let me let me paraphrase this.
You're right as far as describing conservatives, but you're wrong if you want to include the Republican Party in it today, at least.
Again, I better specify which Republicans I'm talking about.
And I'm talking about the old guard.
The the Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, uh uh, the the the country club bluebly are inspector types.
Uh they're the ones who do want to do identity politics.
Now, he you you say that the conservatives, you know, we don't we don't the fundamental conservative does not does not look at people and see Hispanic or white, black woman or whatever.
And I know what you mean by that.
You mean by that that as one who who believes in the conservative ideology, we see people as people.
See people as Americans.
We want a great country, and as such, we want everybody to succeed.
We want everybody to be as good as they can.
We want everybody to strive to be the best they can.
And in the process, we want to get all kinds of obstacles out of their way.
We have faith, we have belief in ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things.
Just get out of their way.
Inspire them and motivate them, and they'll do it.
The liberal looks at people with utter contempt, condescension, and contempt, doesn't believe people are inherently good or qualified or competent or able to overcome these obstacles in life.
And by definition, the liberal who seeks power over people, thus places these obstacles and makes people dependent, and then says you can't do it without me.
So, yeah, we're we're but but the Republican Party has bought into the notion here that we need to get that segment of the vote, and then that segment of the vote, and then that segment of the vote or population, if they are to win.
The Democrat Party, for its uh almost its entirety, has been a coalition of various interest groups.
In fact, it's a it's an amalgamation of coalitions.
You've had big labor, you have feminism, you have big environmentalism, you have anti-capitalists, you have, and they they all have their own single issue pet peeves, but the thing that unites them is their belief and love of huge government controlling everybody else's lives.
A Republican Party and the conservative movement was not put together with this kind of attitude.
It's not put together with that kind of mindset, controlling people's lives.
Democrats live and breathe.
Liberals live and breathe, and they go to school to get trained to work in and control government.
On the other hand, what we want to do is reduce the size of government.
We don't want to take over.
We don't want to work there.
We want to be in the private sector.
So we're already at a bit of a disadvantage.
Because their life, their world, is built around government.
Ours is built around avoiding it.
You know, making it as constitutional as it can be and function as it's constitutionally directed to, but then that's it.
Liberals look at it in an entirely different way.
Let me read something here real quick.
I just gotta All right.
Um Vin Weber this afternoon on Andrea Mitchell in DC News.
She spoke with Vin Weber, Republican strategist.
She said, is there a real pitfall here for the Republican Party going after Sonia Sotomayor on her ethnicity?
When we've seen how Hispanic voters have flocked to Obama in a real change from the way many more supported George W. Bush.
The front pages of just about every paper in this country today describe this as President Obama picking the first Hispanic justice.
And Republicans should be very wary of challenging that.
Furthermore, when Republicans get holier than now about identity politics, I remember how proud Republicans were when President Reagan named the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor.
We were proud that we broke that ground as Republicans.
They'd better not start abandoning that and start pointing fingers about identity politics to the first Hispanic to go under the court, or they're going to find themselves in trouble.
I guess we have to throw Vin Weber in the group who's now a member of the oppressed minority.
Don't go after Then I I don't know anybody who opposes her on ethnic grounds.
I don't know anybody.
I guess I guess what these people are afraid of is that any opposition to her will be said to be based on ethnic grounds.
Okay, so to avoid them saying that about us, we won't say anything.
We'll just throw in the towel.
And then when we get our chance, we're gonna nominate a Latino.
We did that, and it didn't help us.
And then we're gonna nominate a black that's we did that.
It didn't help us.
This is not complicated to me.
But see, I don't think like an oppressed minority.
We'll be back.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
The U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, CHU, said yesterday, the Obama administration wants to paint roofs and energy reflecting white, as he took part in a climate change symposium in London.
He is a Nobel laureate in physics.
He called for a new revolution in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
You know, the air is fizzling out of the global warming movement.
ABC is going to be running a show by Mike Judge that's going to be making fun of an environmentalist nut o family in the Midwest.
That's an it's an animated series.
But then there are other bits of evidence that the blooms off the rose, that the people, they just don't have the same energy to join the environmentalist wackos as they once did.
And they're doing everything they can to reinvigorate the interest in this movement, because of course it will also advance uh big governmentism, statism, socialism, whatever you want to call it.
However, Stephen Schu said that look it, even if we paint every roof white, uh there's no silver bullet for tackling climate change.
He said a range of measures need to be introduced, including painting flat roofs white, making roads and roofs a paler color, could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for eleven years.
Now, would somebody explain to me how he knows this?
Hey, just throw these statistics out.
If we paint every roof in America white, well, yeah, every flat roof.
Why did and that's another thing?
Why does the roof have to be flat?
White is white, the sun's up there, the sun shines down on a flat roof or an angled roof.
What the hell difference does it make?
Every roof has to be flat.
And if we paint every roof in America white, it's the same thing as taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years.
If that's the case, what would you rather do?
Paint your roof white or have the government owned General Motors and Chrysler and make a bunch of little podunk cars you don't want to drive.
If we can do something that will effectively remove the carbon emissions of every car in the room for 11 years, then why are we doing anything else?
Why are we doing cap and trade?
Why are we getting rid of SUVs?
Why are we doing anything else?
But they want to stop at roofs, making roads and roofs a paler color could have this effect.
It was a geoengineering scheme that was completely benign and would keep buildings cooler and reduce energy use from air conditioning.
How much paint this going to take, by the way?
How much of a footprint does paint manufacturing?
Here's here's the the real question about this.
I need a scientist to answer this for me.
I understand how clouds at altitude can help reflect de heat.
But I want to know how something white on the surface of the planet, where does that reflected heat go?
If the road is white and the heat reflects, aren't you going to boil?
If you happen to be walking on it in the summertime, where does this reflected heat go?
Are we being told here that reflected heat is not damaging at all?
But direct heat is seems to me if we have global warming, wouldn't we want dark roofs to absorb the heat?
Yeah, it may be cooling your house a little bit.
This is all such goblety gook.
This is also irrelevant, and I have a companion story to illustrate this.
This is well, I don't know the website.
I apologize for that.
It looks like it's a national review uh website, but I am not sure.
But it turns out this the author of this is uh Greg Polowitz.
It turns out that three huge uh proponents, huge proponents of the idea to paint the town white, are former colleagues of Secretary Chu from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and they're looking for their share of stimulus loot.
Why does the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory need to share in the stimulus funding?
How complicated can the proposal be?
Buy paint, buy rollers, paint roof.
Why do you need a whole lot of money for this?
But they are looking for grants, and this is the dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen of the entire environmentalist wacko movement.
The proponents, be they from science, be they from the lay community, are all looking for money.
They're looking for donations, they're looking for grants from the government to advance a cause.
They're looking for money, and whatever it takes to get the money, they will claim they're researching.
And then of course they'll be duty bound to produce the results that the grant or wants.
So we got to go out and paint roofs white, and that's the that's the only story.
You have to go to a blog to find out why.
The drive-by's in reporting that Stephen Chew want you to paint your roof white, they'll tell you why.
Oh, you save the planet.
You know, tell you that two of his colleagues are behind the ruse in order to get stimulus money.
Stimulus money, which is supposed to be creating new jobs.
How's that stimulus money working for you if you're unemployed?
How's that hope and change working for you?
So now environmentalist wackos want their fists on the stimulus money under the gauze of saving the planet with a white roof or white roofs.
From the politico.com, rural democrats threatening to vote against climate change legislation, cap and tax, unless the EPA halts new proposals that could hamper the development of corn ethanol.
Ethanol has a Democrats by the short hairs the same way the unions do.
It doesn't work.
It is ineffective, and rural Democrats say they're going to vote against climate change or tax and change, the the marquee bill, cap and trade are going to vote against it if anything's done.
The change ethanol subsidies.
We'll be back.
Hey, you know all those uh all those police officers saved by the stimulus in Columbus, Ohio?
I think there were what, 25 cops saved.
Those jobs will be uh probably lost in Columbus, Ohio.
Twenty-five officers uh it it they it because the payment of their salaries reverts to the local community soon, and Columbus is broke.
▲
Export Selection