All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 25, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
September 25, 2009, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now look at this.
Look at the MSNBC right now saying Iran was caught red-handed building a second nuclear.
They weren't caught.
They admitted it.
They just out and out told us.
What are we supposed to do?
Obama is so smart.
He's so good.
He's caught the Iranians building his second nuclear plant.
They admitted it.
It's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And the telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
And I'm going to get to your phone calls quick here.
In this hour, people have been waiting patiently.
It's Open Line Friday.
I generally try to get to the phones in the first hour.
I didn't accomplish it today.
So I'm going to make up for it in this hour.
I just want to remind you, Barack Obama.
This is when.
This is June 2nd of this year.
Iran's aspirations are legitimate.
President Obama reiterated that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy provided it takes steps to prove its aspirations are peaceful.
He said this while in London on a date with his wife.
Or no, it was in France.
Well, both places, actually.
Both places.
Here's the story.
After struggling to turn Qaddafi's insane ramblings at the UN into English for 75 minutes, the Libyan dictator's personal interpreter got lost in translation.
I just can't take it anymore.
Qaddafi's interpreter shouted into the live microphone in Arabic, and he just collapsed.
Another UN Arabic interpreter had to take over, told the New York Post, Gaddafi's interpreter just collapsed.
The first time I've seen this in 25 years.
He just couldn't take it.
He's not exactly the most lucid speaker.
It's not just that what he's saying is illogical, but the way he's saying it is bizarre.
However, I think I could have made him sound a lot better, but I just couldn't handle it anymore.
Translator collapse.
And Governor Patterson's wife, whose name is Michelle Patterson, is emotionally stunned at President Obama's request that her husband not run for another term.
So the governor's wife ripped into Obama, saying it's very unfair the president asked New York's first African-American governor not to seek office.
You never heard of that before, said Michelle Patterson.
David is the first African-American governor in the state of New York.
He's been asked to get out of the race.
It's very unusual.
Seems very unfair.
Hey, Michelle, you've got to learn something.
It doesn't matter to Obama that your husband is the first black anything.
He's the only first black anything that matters.
And your husband stands in his way.
So your husband's got to go.
All of these terror plots.
Look at this.
North Carolina terrorism plot targeted military.
Man accused in Dallas bomb plot.
Also, terrorist plots uncovered in New Jersey and in Illinois.
Do you remember when the government announced these threats?
The Democrats all said, it's lies.
Bush is lying.
He's just trying to distract from his failures in Iraq.
He's just trying to keep the country on edge.
He's just trying to make the country think that we have a security threat when we don't.
He's making it up.
Now we got five threats here over the course of two days.
And while we got these threats, your Democrat Party is actively working, as we speak, to tear down the laws that help us apprehend these guys.
And will anybody in the drive-by media suggest that these are trumped-up, fake, phony charges by Obama?
No, I don't think so.
This is the last thing Obama, this stuff's not going to happen, see?
This stuff wasn't supposed to happen.
When Obama was elected, there wouldn't be any more terrorism.
The people are going to learn the United States was a good country again.
They got rid of Bush.
We got a new president.
We got our Redeemer.
And so no reason to hate us.
One of these terrorists is an American convert to the peaceful religion of Islam.
Isn't it funny?
You've been watching some of the protests at the G20 in Pittsburgh.
And what a joke that is.
I mean, here, MSNBC, Iran caught red-handed.
Now, I don't read the story that way.
Let me find the story as it appeared in the Washington Post today.
Hang on, folks.
I put it.
It's coming up.
President Obama, the leaders of Free France, blasted Iran's construction of a previously unknown, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Iran acknowledged the existence of the facility in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I don't know that we uncovered anything, but the drive-by is trying to credit Obama for it.
But anyway, these protests at the G20.
I've noticed something about these.
Every time there's a G-Anything protest, have you noticed the protests stop being leftists?
They become anarchists.
Have you ever noticed this?
Isn't it funny?
Isn't it funny how as soon as these peace-loving leftists put down their daisy chains and they start throwing rocks through store windows, the media stop calling them leftists?
They suddenly become anarchists.
And of course, anarchists never described as being from the left or the right.
We're supposed to think that they're from both sides of the political spectrum.
That way, the left isn't tarred with being violent and destructive, but it's the same bunch of people that always protest everything.
The same exact groups that you would see at any peaceful leftist protest on any issue.
Even Code Pink is in Pittsburgh, camping out in Tent City like Gaddafi did.
I mean, some of them put bandanas over their faces and they wear black clothes, but it's the same usual suspects.
It's the animal rights crowd.
It's the environmental wackos.
It's all the same bunch.
The nuclear freeest people, the anti-nuke people, the global peace march for whatever people, it's the same bunch of people, every protest.
But now all of a sudden, when they get violent, it's those darned anarchists.
The anarchists, the last time they showed up was in Seattle.
We had a G-something there.
Otherwise, it's just peace-loving leftists.
And then there's this.
Folks, I'm going to tell you something.
I think this next story is absolute proof that the issue is dying.
That people are not hysterical over it enough.
So they make up more and worse sounding numbers.
From Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post, new analysis brings dire forecast of 6.3 degree temperature.
Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
This sort of reminds me of the minimum wage.
Remember, it had to be $7 an hour.
And you said, hey, why not make it $10 an hour?
Why don't I make it $10?
Why stop there?
If $7 is good, why not $10?
Yeah, pay for this, make it $15 an hour.
Yeah, that's even better.
Let's make the minimum wage 20.
That's even better.
Exactly right.
Well, let's make it 30.
No, a little bit too high.
Why?
It's the same thing happening here.
They can't get enough hysteria.
People aren't buying into it.
In the last 12 years, temperatures have plummeted.
They're not raising.
So now they get more and more dire predictions.
But the thing about this is that they say, they admit that even if we implement every carbon emission program designed to stop it, it won't matter.
I mean, this, listen to this.
The planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges.
A much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released yesterday by the U.N. Environment Program.
I don't know about you, but out in Los Angeles, the weather forecasters couldn't even get yesterday right.
And these guys are now talking about the end of the century.
But even if we implement everything, it won't matter.
That's dire.
That tells me the issue is dying.
Because when you're going to throw that in there, then why do anything at all?
Why do anything at all if it isn't going to matter?
The new overview of global warming research aimed at marshalling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year.
Oh, I see scientific research now has an aim.
They admit that scientific research has an objective, and that objective is to marshal political support.
Even under the optimistic scenario of reducing carbon emissions somewhat, the average global temperature likely to warm by 6.3 degrees.
Okay, so we can do one of two things.
We can ignore all of this and just take our chances, or we can go find a cave and live without toilet paper.
You've seen the accompanying story.
Soft toilet paper, got to go.
Clogs up toilets, clogs up pipes.
Soft like Charmin.
We got to get rid of it.
Now, 1989 or 90, we had the list from some environmentalist wackos, 50 things we need to do to save the earth and getting rid of toilet paper.
Everybody laughed.
1997, we got to get rid of SUVs.
What are we doing today?
25 years ago, Richard Lamb, governor of Colorado, says old people have a duty to die and get out of the way.
25 years later, Newsweek magazine cover story, the case for pulling the plug on Granny.
Do you know that we were going to give $2.5 million in aid to Libya through the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development?
And the State Department now says are rethinking this, giving $2.5 million in aid to Libya, including two foundations run by Qaddafi sons.
This is after lawmakers on Thursday asked it to cancel the plan because of Gaddafi's speech.
But we were going to do it in the first place.
Meanwhile, unemployment in America skyrocketed.
We got our stimulus plan here.
And guess what about that, folks?
How's this Hope and Change working for you?
Nearly $3 million in stimulus money targeted for fighting wildfires is being spent to restore public parks and watersheds in Washington, which has no national forests.
The Forest Service has directed that $2.8 million in wildland fire management funds approved under the Porculus bill go to groups that'll create green jobs in D.C.
The projects are intended to restore public parks and watersheds in the city and highlight the value of urban parks, including a park two miles north of the White House that once was plagued by crime.
What are we doing fighting fires with stimulus money anyway?
What the hell?
But even so, okay, we've allocated it to fight fires and somebody gets their mitts on us.
No, no, no, no.
Green jobs in parks, national parks in Washington.
There aren't any parks in Washington.
No, no, no.
It doesn't matter.
And unemployment, as I say, approaching 10%.
$2.5 million in aid to two charities run by Qaddafi Sons.
Hasn't been rescinded yet.
They're just rethinking it.
Back after this.
Okay, it's time to go to the funds, exactly as I said would happen.
And we're going to start in Naperville, Illinois.
And this is Laura.
Laura, you're up first.
It's great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, it's an honor to talk to you today.
I have a comment and I have a question.
First, I was going nuts last night when you were on Jay Leno because I was thinking the same thing you just said.
You know, where does he think he makes his money?
And Bill Maher and Michael Moore, you know, they have all these, you know, these cars and they make all this money.
It's like, you know what?
I think that they make far too much money for, you know, for what they do.
So can they give me some of that?
Or can we cap their money?
It just, that just kills me.
Well, yeah, let me, for those who, let's play the answer.
I think it's number two.
Let me find it.
No, it's not number two.
It's three.
Yeah, grab audio sound by number four.
And this, this, this, this, now, this is one of those, as I said earlier, after the show was over, and I watched, I watched it in an airplane flying home.
And you always think of things that you'd like to say or should have said.
And I knew it was a nine-minute interview.
And so I was.
I'm as like I was launched from a bazooka last night.
I'm rolling through trying to get as much said as I could.
And this is one of those things.
I wish I'd have added just a couple of things.
Here's the question.
I watch Wall Street.
I go, okay, you can make a million, two million a year.
Okay, you can make 10 million a year, but 800, 900 million?
Some of these people make a billion dollars at some point.
I mean, how much pie can you possibly eat?
I mean, where did it go?
I mean, somewhere it went wrong because when I was a kid, Howard Hughes was the richest man in the world with $3.2 billion.
And now people have hundreds of billions.
Other people have absolutely nothing.
The economic pie is growing.
It's not a zero-sum game.
Just because somebody has $800 million doesn't mean somebody lost it.
It means the market produced it.
It's none of my business what they make, Jay.
It's certainly none of yours, and it's certainly not Barack Obama's, what anybody makes.
No, but, you know, but to me, it's this whole question of what you said you believe in the capitalist system.
How you make it.
No, no, no, it's not.
If you believe in the capitalist system, then you have to erase from your worldview what does somebody need?
It's not about need.
Capitalism is not about need.
It's about providing.
It's about growing.
It's about opportunity.
It is about doing whatever you want to do.
Did Wall Street deserve?
That's what American Exceptional is.
Well, I'll tell you about Wall Street.
Do they deserve the $700 billion that they got?
Now, using your theory, using your theory, all those things.
You're talking about the outlook.
Are you talking about TARP money?
All of it, the TARP.
Giant scam.
Jay, if we don't give them $700 million in the next 24 hours, the world financial system will crash.
We're hearing it.
If we don't do health care by August, oh my God, the health care system will crash.
No, we didn't need to give them $700 billion.
The biggest problem we have right now that caused all that was the subprime mortgage crisis, which was lending money to people who had no way of paying it back.
And there were two people that led the way on that.
Three, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd.
Well, I think everybody was in on that one.
No.
No.
The Bush administration tried to regulate this and tried to get this brought under control because it made no sense.
Acorn was out forcing banks, pressuring banks to lend money to people who couldn't pay it back, all under the guise of we must have affordable cars.
Well, I'll tell you what, when we come back, are you ready to take our green car challenge and see how you do?
Oh, yeah.
This will be your first time in a non-petroleum-based car.
It will be.
I have driven golf carts, and they are electric, but they are not cars.
Now, this, this, no, doesn't matter.
Snurdley is shouting again in my ear as I'm trying to do the program.
He didn't even understand your answer.
Doesn't matter.
The audience did.
You got to understand the reason why this was so cool last night.
This was prime time network television.
This stuff doesn't get said in prime time network TV.
So it's a win-win.
But I should have said to him, Jay, you have over 200 cars.
There's pictures of them all over the studio.
I mean, he's got some really old, classic, and I must think expensive cars.
I should have said, Jay, do you need 200 cars in your collection?
Well, I collect them.
But do you need them?
But the whole notion that somebody has $800 million, to see, I think it's a good thing.
If Howard Hughes was the richest guy in the world at $3.2 billion back in the 70s, and now we've got many people with much more than that, and not just in this country, I'd say we have an expanding global economy.
And I'd say a lot of people who used to be poor aren't.
But people just don't look at it that way.
And it's also, you know, here's one of the things about it, the TARP money.
I know there are people who disagree with me.
I have friends on Wall Street.
You're wrong about this rush.
They needed that money.
If we didn't infuse that capital, it would be like not calling the fire truck when your house is halfway burned down.
It would be just the same thing.
People are going to disagree with it.
But one thing, one thing, and this is another thing I thought about after I watched the show.
And I'm not criticizing myself, folks.
Don't misunderstand here.
I'm not beating myself up.
But I always recognize that no matter how good something is, it can always be better the next time.
And another thing I would have loved to add.
Okay, maybe we needed to infuse the capital.
I'll grant you that just for the sake of discussion.
But the way to prevent this from happening again is not to start capping how much people earn.
And that's what we're doing.
I mean, it was all over the Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times last weekend, and into money.
Monday, new limits on what people on Wall Street and related type firms can earn.
It's none of Obama's business.
And this includes, by the way, companies that are not even taking and did not take bailout money.
It's none of his business.
Capping what people earn is not going to prevent another meltdown in the banking system on Wall Street.
That is not the solution.
They're not fixing what's wrong.
I'll tell you what's wrong when we come back.
I would now, but I'm out of time.
Okay, one more thing here on the financial crisis and back to the funds.
Now, one of the things that happened, and this is, by the way, true.
Now, we can argue whether they needed the TARP money.
People respectfully disagree over that.
But most of the financial people I talked to and most of the financial media people just bought Paulson hook line and sneaker, we ain't got it, hell yeah, we're going to die.
The country is a finished.
The world financial crisis is over.
How are we going to fix it?
What was going on was this.
The people that were running banks and investment banks were able to leverage up their balance sheets by 30 times.
Now, one of the ways that they did this and one of the things that led to them doing it was the subprime mortgage crisis.
They had a bunch of horrible debt out there and worthless paper.
And so they tried to sell, they created new investment opportunities or products to insure against the failure of that bad paper.
And then they started selling and buying and trading those things.
And so they had on paper all of this future money being repaid.
All this money that they had led.
Look at all the interest we're going to make, but it was never going to happen because they were lending money to people who couldn't pay it back because of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton.
And then these same people were running around saying, don't worry, if the money doesn't come in, they'll bail us out.
And Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank and Chris Doddson, yeah, we will bail you out.
And people were saying, no, you won't get bailed out.
But the Democrats, I mean, this was their hookline and sinker into getting more votes from poor people and illegal aliens and minorities.
Get them into houses they can't afford.
Make sure the Democrats get the credit for it.
The banks that are lending the money, we'll pressure them to lend the money.
And if the workout, we'll bail them out.
And that's exactly what happened.
No other business is able to leverage up its balance sheet by 30 times.
You own a radio station.
You cannot legally run your books in such a way that your radio station is worth 30 times what it is.
But this is what these investment bank guys were doing.
And then they were paying themselves on that basis, which upsets guys like Leno.
And the only reason they were allowed to get away with it was Democrats in government, folks.
Chuck Schumer, big.
I mean, these guys in New York, the senators and members of Congress, they're in bed with these Wall Street types.
Everybody thinks these Wall Street types are big Republicans.
It's the exact opposite.
Anyway, so you start talking about what people earn.
The bottom line is preventing this from happening again is not in any way related to capping how much people earn at a bank or on Wall Street.
Okay, Katie in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
I'm glad you waited and hello.
Hi, Russ.
It's great to talk to you again.
Is this the Katie?
Pardon?
Is this the Katie?
From last year.
Yes.
Yes, this is the Katie.
All right, well.
Go ahead.
I just say welcome back.
Oh, thank you.
I'm glad to be back.
I watched you last night.
You were excellent, as always.
But you owe me for the first 20 minutes I had to sit through that Dolt Leno show.
I can't stand him.
But I hung in there because I was waiting for you to come on.
But you were excellent.
There is one part, though, that bothered me a little bit.
And I know.
Everybody's always got to complain about something.
No, I'm not.
There was always a whiner in every crowd, and snerdly found you.
No.
But I want you to expound on this because I think your answer was abbreviated because of the time constraint.
And you probably would have had a more clear answer if you had had more time.
All right, go ahead.
What's the question?
What bothered me was the loaded question that Leno gave you if Bush was a good president?
I love President Bush.
I've been a Bush supporter since 2000.
My first time I ever voted, I voted for him, and I continue to support his presidency.
You said two things.
You said he kept our country safe.
Yeah.
But he was bad for Republicans.
Damage the Republican Party.
And it's two good things, Jay, you should be happy about.
Yes.
But I would hate to think.
Jay looked lost, by the way.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, why would you say that?
So you're upset with my answer.
Well, I just think it'd be horrible to sum up his presidency.
I think there was so much more to his presidency.
And I know you, and I know that, you know, I know from listening to you, that you're not John McCain, and you're not going to give him a verbal public flock.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Here's my thinking.
I knew the Bush question was going to come.
Okay.
I knew I had nine minutes.
I don't want to talk about George Bush.
I want to talk about Obama.
I want to talk about what we face in the future.
I'm not going to get dragged into debating Bush with these people and waste my segment.
So I knew the question was coming, so I tried to come up with a pithy little answer that had some comedy in it since it's a comedy show.
See, I had thought that because, you know, nobody likes to dwelling on the past when there's just so much more pressing right now and in the future.
I kind of knew that that was probably the case, but I just wanted to say that.
Plus, I'm not going to join the chorus and start ripping George W. Bush.
Okay.
I just wanted to make sure because I live in Michigan and I have to deal with this.
I had a woman at Walmart tell me the other day that the reason why Michigan is in the toilet is because Bush, quote, left us sitting pretty.
I know.
You've got this country's full of idiots like that.
And nine minutes of me on tonight's show is not going to change their mind.
Yeah.
So there were other things.
There were so many things.
Like I wanted to tell the wedding crasher story last night of last week in Washington.
And I wanted him.
I asked him, would you please bring up what Barney Frank said about me on your show the night before?
Oh, yeah, yeah.
He never got to it.
I wanted to respond to Barney Frank, as I did on the radio.
I wanted to respond on Jay's show.
Did you hear what I said on radio about it?
No.
Well, Barney, I don't want to waste time finding the bite, but Barney was on the other night with Leno, and Leno said, okay, I gave you three names here that you can have dinner with.
And you tell me who you choose.
Glenn Beck and Calder Rush Limbaugh.
And Barney Frank said, oh, because it's so painful.
He said, so painful.
Did he bring his pain pills?
Which he answered him all the time.
That's what Barney Frank said.
So I wanted Jay to remind me of this so I could say, Jay, I was hoping you wouldn't bring this up.
I really wanted to turn the other cheek.
But then I thought that's probably what Barney would like.
Oh, I was, I just, I wanted, but I couldn't lead him there and pull the joke off.
He had to bring it up.
And it just didn't.
He didn't do it on purpose.
It just, we were, there's a lot of stuff he wanted to bring up that he didn't get to.
The wedding crasher story was one because he was, he had a question for me.
He did tell me this.
He said, do you do any research on liberals?
I'm going to ask you.
Do you do any research on liberals?
Now, my whole life has been spent researching liberals.
That's what I do.
I know them like every square inch of my shrinking yet glorious naked body.
What I was going to say, yeah, Jay.
In fact, I met one just the other day.
And then I was going to do a wedding crasher story.
But it never came up.
There's a lot of stuff.
Reasons to go back on, Katie.
Yeah.
But fear not.
I didn't throw Bush under the bus, and that's not my interpretation.
I love George W. Bush.
He's a personal friend.
Yeah, I knew it, but I still just, I had to be sure because we've had so many people defect and, you know, throw him under the bus, John McCain, of all people.
I had a really hard time voting for him because I remember everything, everything that he's always said about George Bush.
And I had a really hard time voting.
I agree.
You're not alone there.
Yeah.
Okay.
I appreciate the call, Katie.
And you weren't whining.
I thought you were going to be the one complainer today, but if you weren't, I take it back.
Folks, before we go to the break, this is from London.
It's a Reuters story.
A British store is launching a range of underpants for left-handed men, an innovation it says will save them both time and embarrassment in front of the porcelain.
In our view, this is a vital step toward equality for left-handed men, said Rob Fauterund of Debenham's store.
Almost 10% of British men are believed to be left-handed, but men's wide-fronted underpants have traditionally had a right-handed opening from the time they were invented in 1935.
As a result, left-handed men have to reach much further into their pants, performing a Z-shaped maneuver.
Who knew any of this until this store conducted this great research?
Left-handed underwear for left-handed men.
This reminds me of the time that I called a bunch of sporting goods stores in Pittsburgh asking for a left-handed baseball bet.
Now, that was funny.
We'll be back.
More phone calls after this.
Stay with us.
And we're back at Rush Limbaugh.
This is Open Line Friday.
You know all these terror suspects out there?
What are there?
Five of them out there?
Five terror.
Oh, do you know?
Megan Kelly, Fox News, gave birth today.
A baby boy, seven pounds, 10 ounces.
It was human.
She worked all day yesterday and even did her regular appearance on O'Reilly last night and gave birth today.
Now, I knew her due date was October, so it's a little early, but I've never heard of this.
I thought with maternity leave now, you take, what, a month?
What do you take, Dora?
What is it?
Three days?
Take two weeks before you give birth to get out of there, and then three months before you come back, and then in the three months, you decide, I don't like working anymore.
I want to stay home and raise the kid, and that makes the feminist mad.
That's what your wife did.
What, two weeks before took maternity leave?
Right, six months total.
But did she go back to work or not?
Wow, that's it.
One day or two.
Brian's wife went back to work one day every two weeks, so enthralled with the child.
It depends on if grand.
No, it doesn't.
If grandma's around to help with the kid, it means it's a matter if you can afford a nanny or not.
Okay, well, I know about it.
I shouldn't even be weighing in on this.
I'm just, I don't know a damn thing about this.
I'm just, I'm stunned that gave birth today, worked all day yesterday.
It's just not done.
I mean, I'm giving her a compliment.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not criticizing her.
Congratulate her and her husband, Doug, on the new human baby.
Now, back to these terror suspects.
The FBI says they do not know if these individual terror suspects are acting alone.
The Democrat Party is, as we speak, undoing the laws that would help us catch these people.
And we already know what the Democrat Party and Obama think of interrogating these terrorist types.
So what kind of questions are we asking them?
We don't know if they're working alone.
Where are we conducting the interrogations?
Starbucks?
What can we ask them?
And if they don't cooperate, what can we do?
I'm serious.
What good is interrogating them when any form of interrogation, according to this administration, is torture?
And Obama just told them at the UN that we're not going to do that anymore.
What can we possibly?
Okay, okay.
So we sit down with them at Starbucks, say, would you please tell us if you're working alone or if you have associates?
And I guess they'll just tell us.
That's how it works.
Well, but if they don't cooperate, then what do we do?
Buy them a second cup of coffee?
Maybe take them for lunch instead of just the Starbucks?
Maybe, look, we really don't mean you any harm.
We're really just trying to help you.
We need to know: do you have any associates here that were planning on blowing up the building with you?
Do you?
I'm not talking.
Oh, darn it.
Please?
How are we going to get any information from these people?
I'm just asking.
Just asking.
Here's Frank, Stanford, Connecticut.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
How are you doing?
How are you doing?
By the way, I'm a big fan of Megan Kelly.
I like her analysis.
I also have a lawyer, but I'm congratulating.
She's a very smart woman.
Extremely bright.
When she comes on, as much as I admire Bill O'Reilly, Bill O'Reilly doesn't know the law like she does.
And she is right.
I don't agree with every single analysis she gives, but she's right.
I would say at least 80% of the time.
Well, that's approaching my accuracy rate.
It's not bad.
Listen, I don't want to start into a Mark Levin rant because I'm infuriated by some of this, but you were talking today about propaganda and the young kids.
Ralph Peters is right.
There is an unholy alliance today between many of the people in our culture, particularly Hollywood, and the people who are really our enemies, who want to destroy the very foundations of this country.
And I know that sounds extreme, but I'm saying it anyway.
I'm particularly referring to Oliver Stone, Susan Sarinden, and the other actor whose name I can't recall, whose mother was in the TV for a long time, that guy, they are in bed with Hugo Chavez.
My girlfriend is from Chile, and Hugo Chavez is sending incredible, and I'm a big fan of foreign policy, and John Bolton is right.
John Bolton is right.
We better take this guy, Chavez, seriously, because he has an intent, and he's nothing but a low-lifing knave to destabilize as much of Latin America, if not all of it, as possible.
She lives in Chile.
Bolivia is on the border.
They're sending incredible amount of military hardware and arms to Bolivia to foment another war to destabilize Chile.
He intends to do it throughout all of Latin America.
And this man better be taken seriously because it's right on our back door.
Well, I think he is being taken seriously.
President Obama patted him on the back and yucked it up with him down there at one of those summits.
I think Obama, if you look at who Obama likes to hang around with and who he doesn't like to hang around with, you see who he's comfortable with.
He's comfortable with guys like Chavez and Daniel Ortega and all these other reprobates around the world.
But you know something, you raise a really good point about the unholy alliance between these Dolts in Hollywood and these dictators.
You know what it is?
They envy their power.
Obama envies the power a Castro has.
He envies the power that a Chavez has.
All leftists envy that kind of power.
But you know this video with the school kids?
Have you seen that?
Have you heard that?
Oh, I've seen it several times.
All right.
The only thing I watch anymore is that.
Well, let me tell you something.
That's no different than that.
It's the same thing as the White House orchestrating propaganda with the National Endowment for the Arts.
It's no different than what Acorn's doing.
This, this is.
It's not uncommon that there's video of it for the first time, but this is, this is how the left operates, propagandize, brainwash people, get them when they're young uh, make folk heroes out of people like Fidel Castro Chevera uh, Hugo Chavez uh, and all the rest of them.
I mean folks I, I can't say this enough.
I mean it's really really serious when the terrorist leader of the world, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, runs around the United Nations and on American media saying, the?
U.s president agrees with me about his country, about his own country.
That is not a beautiful thing.
Thanks for the call out there Frank.
Well, the Democrats, the Democrats are really pulling out all the stops.
Now another dull Democrat loser says that criticism of Obama is racist.
Uh, that's from Walter F Mundo today.
Uh, who says that there is a racial edge to Obama's foes.
Next they'll bring out Mcgovern.
He's Alive.
Okay, good.
Good.
Then they'll bring McGovern out next.
I mean, they're in the bottom of the barrel on this now.
▲
Export Selection