All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 7, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:16
January 7, 2010, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, how are you?
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, eager and ready to go.
Back in the saddle, as they say, behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number here, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Well, Ben Nelson says that we shouldn't have even done health care.
Well, it shouldn't even, easy for him to say.
He also says that he didn't ask Harry Reid for any special exemptions on Medicare payments for his state.
He didn't ask for it.
He didn't ask for, no.
Harry Reid just offered the bribe and Ben Nelson took it.
Blanche Lincoln says, I don't think that should be pulled off.
I don't think that Nebraska should have gotten that deal.
Heritage Foundation here reports that the reason for all of these Democrat Party resignations and retirements, particularly Byron Dorgan and Governor Bill Ritter in Colorado.
And by the way, they're trying to recruit Ken Salazar, who is the former senator from Colorado, to be governor, to run for governor, to save the seat there.
He's now the Department of Interior head in the Obama administration.
But they're not running in 2010.
And according to the Heritage Foundation, the source of these Democrats' fears in facing the people at the polls is no secret.
The American people believe the state of the economy is poor and getting worse.
Nelson says, I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.
Ben, you did that.
You fixed the economy.
You went right along with it.
You did TARP.
You voted for the Porculus bill.
I mean, you did exactly what you say you should have done.
Thankful we should be that they didn't spend more time on the economy.
The little time they spent on it has wrecked it.
Any more time they spend on it would send it into further damage and take it even longer to recover.
Now, there's a very smart guy at the Heritage Foundation, a guy named Brian Rydel.
He might pronounce it Riedel.
It's R-I-D-L.
He is a senior policy analyst.
And it's a very simple point that he makes.
Why is it that stimulus spending fails?
Why does it always fail?
And the answer is Congress does not have a vault of money stashed away somewhere waiting to be distributed.
Every dollar Congress injects into the economy first must be taxed or borrowed out of it.
There's no possible way that any stimulus plan ever works to stimulate the economy.
It may stimulate the careers of politicians because gullible voters fall for it, but it does not.
It can't.
Economically, mathematically, it can't work.
To stimulate the economy, to cause growth, you'd have to have money that's not in the system go into the system.
And there is no such thing.
Even if you print it, you're not creating new money.
All you're doing is borrowing.
All you're doing is creating more debt.
And debt cannot finance expansions.
And that's the Keynesian theory is that it can.
And the Obama bunch believe that FDR didn't spend enough in the New Deal.
And he didn't spend enough fast enough.
That's why it took World War II to genuinely end the Depression.
The New Deal didn't do it.
But you can't stimulate the economy by taking money out of it and then putting it back in.
Audio sound by time.
This very funny, the greatest press secretary ever.
Remember that?
Robert Gibbs, smartest, most competent press secretary ever, did not like being questioned yesterday afternoon about Obama's campaign lie about broadcasting the health care negotiations on C-SPAN.
Does the president think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent that the American people could see.
How many stories do you think NBC's done on this?
Speaking for myself, that's not the issue.
The issue is whether people broke an explicit.
So the answer is hundreds of people.
That's got nothing to do with it.
I deal with the information, however much or little of it there is.
I'm saying, would people benefit by having more information?
You lack information in those 100 stories?
Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?
The Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this.
I think that's a good question.
I'm not sure if I'm doing this discussion yesterday.
I answered this yesterday.
But the president of Congress in the meantime in the House of Commons.
And he'll do so today.
Press them to the press.
Does not want to answer.
This does not illustrate the folly of these press briefings anyway.
Nobody ever learns anything.
These things are just dog and pony shows to fool the press into thinking they got access.
But Gibbs didn't even want to answer.
It starts insulting him.
Well, how many hours you spend on this on NBC?
That's not the point.
Obama promised.
He promised there'd be televised hearings and negotiations.
Gibbs had wanted no part of it.
Campbell Brown last night on her CNN show interviewed Byron Helmethead Dorgan out of North Dakota.
He said, why are you leaving?
Well, Campbell, I started at age 26 in statewide elective office.
I've served now 10 years in the state capitol and 30 years in the U.S. Congress.
That's 40 years.
It's a rare gift to be able to serve in Congress and have always enjoyed this.
But it's time to do some other things.
That did not satisfy Campbell Brown.
I probably don't have to tell you this.
A lot of Democrats are pretty angry at you tonight.
Your seat was considered safe, and your decision has put their control of the Senate in jeopardy.
How do you respond to them?
Well, again, I served 40 years in statewide elective office.
One of the news people today said, do you think you have betrayed your state by leaving?
I said, after 40 years, I mean, that's a pretty sizable career.
But you know, this is that rare moment where Democrats have a supermajority and are able to get through what they wanted to accomplish.
And so there are people, fairly or unfairly, who are saying, why are you doing this to us now?
But, Campbell, first of all, these are six-year terms.
So a decision now means that this year, the last year of this term plus another, you're making a commitment for seven years.
She just doesn't like this.
She doesn't like it.
The truth is, she's mad.
Like all journalists, she puts her words in the mouths of anonymous other people.
Well, you know, I don't have to tell you this.
A lot of Democrats are pretty angry at you tonight.
Why are you leaving?
Why are you leaving?
I mean, we're the verge of a supermajority vote.
Why are you leaving?
He's leaving, Campbell, because he's going to get skunked.
He's leaving because he has no prayer can read the polls.
And he's just the first of many Democrats that are going to get skunked in November.
Civil war may be breaking out in the Democrat Party.
Obamacare, like I told you yesterday, Obamacare is destroying this party.
Obama's destroying it.
He doesn't care.
All these people falling on the sword for him.
And there's going to be, I tell you, folks, at some point, all these people being forced to resign, big people, Chris Dodd, Helmet Head's not a small guy.
He's been there 40 years, reliable Democrat.
All these people being asked to take a hike at some point.
Now, I don't think it's going to be like Clinton, where we still haven't had the tell-all book of what really went on in there.
This guy is selling his party out.
Clinton always built his party up and protected everybody.
He never threw people under the bus.
Obama is.
He's an arrogant little narcissist, and he doesn't care who gets harmed here.
It's his agenda, and we got it.
If you can't hold your seat, we're going to get Democrats in there who can.
It's all about saving him.
So you've got a bunch of Democrats here aware that all of this health care stuff, nobody in the country wants it, is destroying the party.
Yesterday, actually this morning in Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review newspaper interviewed Joe Seastack, Democrat Pennsylvania, and a reporter said there's sort of this unease among Democrats out there, and that's coming out of what you said about Washington.
They should be.
I think the Democrats have failed as much as the Republicans have failed in order to be erstwhile servants and public servants.
What Senator Ben Nelson did and others closing that health care bill was a disgrace.
To think that you would hold out to close a deal for a special interest, I think is absolutely wrong.
Now, this guy's running against Specter in the Democrat primary for the Senate seat that Specter holds in Pennsylvania, this Joe Cestack.
And he went on to say that the Democrat caucus is not transparent.
The reporter said, well, when it comes to trust, there was a big push during the campaign to have made this whole process with health care and everything else transparent.
And broadcast with C-SPAN has been played over and over again.
When the president had said that on the campaign trail, how do you, are you supportive?
Do you want these hearings and negotiations to be on C-SPAN?
I do about 70 radio interviews now every day.
And one of the ones this morning, Snyder County, asked me Snyder County, my other state, asked me that same question.
And I'll answer it the same way.
They said it would be transparent.
Why isn't it?
At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment.
We aren't transparent.
Not just to the public, but at times to the members.
You're always going to know where I stand.
What he's talking about here is that Pelosi and Reed are working on this thing in the background.
And members of the House who are not in the leadership don't know what Pelosi and Reed are cooking up.
And Pelosi is out there saying, we're very close here to reconciliation.
We're very close to getting this done.
A lot of leftists in the House, and they don't like some of the stuff in the House bill.
This is probably going to get something here, but nobody at the end of the day except Obama is going to be happy with it.
And I include the American people.
Even Schwarzenegger, who's been out there trying to curry all kinds of favor with Obama on global warming and all these other nefarious issues, is urging California senators, hey, look, if Ben Nelson went out there and got that money, do you should do the same thing?
Healthcare reform, which started as a noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals, and loopholes.
Yet, you've heard of the bridge to nowhere, but this is healthcare to nowhere.
California's congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal that Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State because he got for the Cornhusker State the corn and we got the Husk.
That's Arnold Schwarzenegger's state of the state message out there in California yesterday.
Vote against it or get the same sweetheart deal.
There you have it.
So there's all kinds of acrimony all because of this.
And Obama is inflicting tremendous damage on his party exactly as I told you.
A man, a legend, a prophet, a way of life.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
Rush Limboy and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network to Troy, Illinois.
This is Gary.
You're up, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Ditto's Rush.
It's an honor to meet you talking to you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I was just wondering, maybe you can help me.
Could it be that this is part of the Democratic strategy to have some of these vulnerable Democrats retire so that the end so that the one that runs against the Republican can say, well, I didn't vote for that.
Well, that's certainly part of it.
But in Dodd's case, for example, he's got more than just voting for health care.
He's got a big corruption problem.
He's in bed with AIG.
He was in bed with countrywide.
Andrew or Angelo Murillo got one of these friends of Angelo VIP mortgage interest rates, a couple of them.
And there's some other problems that he has.
And I think that because of that, he's in big trouble anyway.
But you're right.
The guy that they're going to have run against him, Blumenthal, the current attorney general, who is, I mean, safe to say Blumenthal is further left than Dodd.
He's the Attorney General.
This guy was the leader in the anti-tobacco company lawsuits of way back when.
Well, I'm just sitting here in Jim's barbershop in Maryville, Illinois, and we just wondered if that might be part of the strategy that was more Democrat effort to state, keep control of Congress rather than a deal to protect Obama.
Well, they're one in the same.
Protecting Obama is allowing Obama's agenda to go through.
Look, they need 60 seats in the Senate.
If they don't have 60 Democrats in the Senate, then Obama's agenda is in jeopardy.
And so protecting Obama is protecting his agenda.
And they're just getting started.
I mean, they've got card check on tap.
They've got cap and trade.
They've got, I mean, Obama's not through changing this country.
He's not through wrecking it.
He's not through remaking it.
He needs 60 Democrats in the Senate to do it.
So, of course, if they can put Democrats up, say instead of Helmet Head Dorgan and say, yeah, this guy, he didn't vote for health care.
Yeah, they'll do anything.
Whatever it takes.
But that clearly is part of the rationale.
John in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hey, Gus Baker Ditto's Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, last time I talked to you, I was on my way to get a vasectomy.
But that's besides the point.
I do have a question, though.
What's that?
Well, our comment.
I don't know where I fall on this, but how much is somebody's life worth when you put a price as far as health care goes?
I mean, my life is worth a lot.
My kid's life is worth a lot.
I'm willing to pay for that.
I mean, I'm just kind of, I just don't know where that issue is.
Should I demand that, I mean, I want my children around.
I want my wife around, but I want to get my money's worth.
So what precisely are you saying here?
Are you making an argument that people ought to be more oriented toward paying for their own health care to protect their lives, save their lives, because it's worth a lot?
Absolutely.
I mean, I'm not going to bat an eye if my kid is sick.
We'll pay whatever we can, but I'm sure there'd be some people standing there demanding that it be done for free.
Well, certainly Obama voters are those people.
One of the reasons they voted for Obama is precisely because he made them think they're going to get improved health care, greater access, and a bunch of millionaires are going to pay for it.
Exactly.
And it comes back to, you know, you can't get something for nothing.
You can't get quality for cheap.
I mean, it shouldn't be outrageous, but you should be expected to come off your hip with something.
Well, look, I know the point that you're trying to make.
What we're up against on all of this is a very well-executed 50-year plan of alternately soft sell and hard sell on the concept that your life is worth so much that there is a moral entitlement to whatever you need to prolong your life at no cost,
that it is somehow immoral to have to pay to keep yourself healthy or to treat yourself when you're sick.
Somehow, that's what has been established through a huge percentage of people in this country.
And I'd say based on the voter returns for Obama, over half the country believes that, or believes it to at least a certain extent.
At least the employer ought to pay for it.
Or in Obama's voter's case, I mean, we've heard the typical Obama voter.
We've heard him, and it's not a pretty sight.
I mean, they are some of the most ignorant people that we have.
And they believe Obama was going to buy him a new kitchen.
They believe Obama's going to get him a new car.
They believe Obama from his stash is going to get them a job, and Obama's going to give them their health care.
Everybody else has a job.
Why don't I?
Obama's going to fit.
This is the illusion that he created.
This is blank canvas that he admitted he was, that everybody was able to make him out to be whatever they wanted him to be.
So for 50 years of drumming into everybody that there is some kind of moral entitlement to health care, that's where we are.
And plus now, because the government's been involved in the price is so unrealistic, there's no relationship to anybody's ability to pay to what the price for health care is, particularly catastrophic.
And so when that equation gets out of whack, then it's easy to understand, well, I can't afford that, but I still need to get the operation.
Who's going to buy that?
And they think the system's failed, so the system needs to be fixed so that they won't be failed anymore.
And Obama promised to do all that by lowering costs and expanding service.
None of which is going to happen.
But calculating what your life is worth.
Now, that's an interesting proposition in and of itself if you want to start attaching dollars to it.
Backpack after this, folks, don't go away.
Let me deal with something pretty quickly here.
I'm checking the email.
And by the way, you people are loving the new HD Ditto camp.
We're getting swamped with emails about it.
We know we're trying to get the volume level consistent with what it was with the standard definition version.
We're still tweaking this, but I'm glad you like it.
People say, I feel like I'm in the room with you.
That's how I feel when I'm watching football or sports on HD.
You feel like you're at stadium.
Anyway, a lot of people say, hey, Rush, how can Obama promise to televise anything in Congress anyway?
The separation of powers.
Well, it's true.
Obama cannot force Congress to televise what they do.
It's up in the House.
It's up to the Speaker.
So it's a moot point.
What Gibbs ought to say in response to these questions that the reporters are badgering him with.
Well, look, the president wants it to be seen, but the Speaker of the House doesn't.
Because that's the truth of the matter.
Pelosi doesn't any more want these hearings or negotiations televised than Obama does.
But he could throw it off on her, and he'd be constitutionally correct, and he'd be being truthful.
But to go out there and stonewall this is just, Even the media, even liberal journalists are starting to get in the act here of getting really angry about this.
I don't know whether the anger is faux anger, if they're just doing this for ratings or to try to hold on to some credibility and they'll come back, protect him at the end of the day on this, or if they're genuinely ticked off about it.
But he made eight different promises to televise all this, but he can't make that promise.
He cannot do it.
Now, he can ask him.
He can ask Pelosi to do it.
And he may have asked Pelosi to do it.
I don't care.
She was not going to do this.
I mean, they're not doing a conference committee on purpose.
There's really nothing to televise.
She's not going to let a camera in her office.
And Harry Reid's not going to let one in his.
And that's where all this is taking place.
So it's a moot point.
I saw another story while I was gone, while I was in Hawaii, another story about a huge identity theft operation.
A huge bunch of people hacked into, well, lost their identity after people hacked into a computer.
I forget where it was.
I think it was a bank computer.
It was a very secure computer, or you would think it was.
I mean, even the chairman of the Federal Reserve got hacked.
And he had some of his data stolen.
And nobody is going to totally stop identity theft.
When I see articles like this, and I think how long I have been recommending Life Lock to people, I wonder why people still don't have it.
I mean, why it's so it's $10 a month.
Why not take the step to protect your identity?
You don't want to lose your identity.
Trying to restore that is a month-long or months-long process.
And you don't want to go through it.
You don't know the frustration of trying to prove to somebody you're who you are.
You'd be standing right in front of them.
If their computer says you're not you, you're not you.
And you've got to go through all these restoration steps.
Life lock can keep this from happening.
It's less, actually, I said $10 a month.
It's less than $10 a month because if you mention my name, you're going to save an additional 10%.
Number to call 800-440-4833.
Make sure you mention my name.
That's 800-440-4833, Life Lock, and the offer code Rush.
This is Cannon Detroit.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Yeah, good afternoon, Rush.
Hi.
I wanted to comment about the terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda here in Detroit on Christmas afternoon.
I've been listening very closely to what President Obama has been saying about it and what the news media has been saying.
And when you consider that just about everything that has been suggested as far as changes that can be made having to do with airline safety would have absolutely nothing to do with preventing this attack, I am convinced that they are trying to use this as a smokescreen to redirect the attention of the American people away from what they're trying to do as far as destroying our national health care.
I really think that this is what Obama and the news media is trying to do.
They want to focus on the attack in Detroit and keep people away from health care.
Well, I don't know that that's going to work.
People are not cooled down over health care.
They're more revved up than ever about this because it has passed both houses and because it's now being done in secret.
There's really nothing much to keep up with because it's passed both houses.
We don't know what's happening now because everything being done to reconcile the two bills is being done behind closed doors, which also ticks people off.
Now, you're right about, I was driving around the other day, and I was listening to all these proposed changes the Obama administration is going to make here regarding the fruit of kaboom bomber.
And we're going to intensify air marshals, and we're going to do this, and we're going to do that.
And I had the same thought you had.
None of that has any relationship to what happened here.
What happened was a guy had a bunch of explosives in his underwear, and it wasn't caught.
Air marshals are not going to help anything, especially if you know the guy's on the airplane and you don't tell the airplane.
We knew the guy was on the flight, and nobody told the pilots.
I don't know if there were air marshals on board, but as far as we know, they weren't told.
I don't know.
We're going to beef up this and beef up that.
And my first reaction is, you mean we haven't done all this even after 9-11?
So I think you have a point.
One thing, I don't think Bush was at all lackadaisical or incomplete in implementing security measures.
TSA is a, and it is what it is.
And it largely can be inefficient because they're not allowed to actually focus on the most likely suspects.
In fact, we have to ignore the most likely suspects in order to be politically correct.
And now we're going to tighten, we have to see these airports across the country and around the world to tighten their security.
And like Nigeria says, screw you.
We're not going to do this.
Basically flipped Obama off and say, screw you.
It's going to harm our travel.
It's going to put people at too great a strain.
I don't know any part of that.
So I don't doubt that they'd like to try to distract people from the healthcare business, but they're not succeeding.
Even the press is all over this eight different promises, eight different times Obama promised that the negotiations over health care would be televised.
And Brian Lamb's out there says there's only been one hour of all of this that has been televised.
Now, here's a, let's go, somebody 17 and 18.
Here is another little illustration of what might be dark days for Obama.
This is a news hour with Jim O'Lara last night and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR, Walter Russell Meade, was the guest.
And Jim O'Lara said, the president has now said, I won't tolerate this anymore.
We've got to change things, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, things have to really change, right?
Is that the real test yet to come?
This president does have the kind of almost a Jimmy Carter problem.
He's an intellectual.
He's a very thoughtful guy.
He is trying to pull America back from confrontation and to try to lower the tone of American rhetoric, to try to take the crisis out of something as a way of reducing the country's risks and vulnerabilities.
Whenever you start doing that, people start to question you.
Are you weak?
And this president is going to be caught.
He's going to have a hard time avoiding being trapped in a way between a rock and a hard place of being so tough that he can't try the new creative foreign policy that he wants, but on the other hand, maybe being seen as weak or indecisive.
He has the kind of almost Jimmy Carter problem.
He's an intellectual, a very thoughtful guy, trying to pull America back from confrontation, to lower the tone of American rhetoric, to try to take the crisis out of something as a way of reducing the country's risks.
This is how intellectuals think.
Totally devoid of any reality.
Would you ask an intellectual to sit down and analyze lunatics like these al-Qaeda terrorists and try to figure out how to deal with them?
Oh, I'm Barack Obama, and I'm going to show him how smart I am, and I'm going to show him I hate my country too.
I'll apologize.
We mean him no harm.
We don't want any confrontation.
And all these lunatics are going to do is say, all right, all right, he's greasing the skins for us.
But he's got his Jimmy Carter problem out there, according to Walter Russell Mead.
And he might look weak or indecisive.
If he looks weak and indecisive, it's cause he is.
And there's no two ways about that.
Same show.
Different guests.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace President Jessica Tuchman Matthews.
And James Lara says, do you buy Walter's Jimmy Carter rock in a hard place theory?
I see a very different man, and I think a much taking on tough issues is not the same thing as being indecisive.
I think we remember President Carter in the context of the Iranian hostage crisis.
And it didn't look quite that way at the time that he was going, that it was undertaking.
Also, as Walter also said, this has been a much smoother first year than President Carter's first year.
Okay, so that's another intellectual.
Jessica Tuchman Matthews disagrees, says Obama's first year has been much smoother than Carter's, which is...
How about that for high praise?
But nevertheless, here you have these two intellectuals.
You know, I can do intellectual speak.
I've studied these people.
I know how to do the affectations.
I know the words.
I know all this stuff.
And one thing I know, when you do intellectual speak, you are not immersed in any kind of reality.
You're doing something else, trying to impress yourself.
You're trying to impress everybody else around you with your so-called smarts and so forth and your ability to analyze things in ways that other people just can't come up with because, you know, they're just not equipped as we intellectuals are.
But in the meantime, these are the last people you want with you in a foxhole.
I mean, they don't even know where one is back after this.
And we go back to the phones.
Great to have you with us, by the way, folks.
Barry in Birmingham, Alabama.
Nice to have you on the EIB Network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Welcome to the USSA.
Thank you.
United Socialist States of America.
Not quite yet.
We can still stop it.
We've got our emerging ruling academic elite like Russia and China.
But, you know, we're talking about this intellectual elite.
I'd love to see them stacked up with Jefferson and Madison.
I'd love to see them debate with a real Renaissance man who can run a farm and handle commercial enterprises and really walk with common sense.
These people have never seen the outside of a classroom.
And by the way, who ran the ship into the ground anyway?
If Sarah Palin is ineligible because she's not an intellectual, well, tell me, who ran the ship into the ground?
I think it was the intellectuals.
I'd rather have a farmer, a truck driver, maybe a Sarah Palin, somebody that can kill and skin a moose, perhaps.
Yeah, this is a long-felt sentiment by conservatives.
William F. Buckley Jr. phrased it well way, way, way back when he said he would much prefer to be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book than he would by the elected class of the day.
And that's that illustration.
It might have been a different number that he used, might have been more than 500, but nevertheless, he did.
I want you to hear something.
We've got two soundbites here.
This is number 19 and 20, Mike.
This is Peter King yesterday afternoon on Fox Studio B with Shepard Smith.
Now, they say Fox is biased, but Shep is an Obama apologist, and he's got two hours.
He's got 3 to 4 and 7 to 8 p.m.
They've got an Obama apologist over there at Fox.
I don't know how they can say that Fox is biased.
And Peter King from Long Island was on talking about Gitmo.
And Peter King said, I think the president should end this race to close Guantanamo and realize it's sending a very mixed signal to the world and to our people in the field.
How's that sending a mixed signal to the field?
He campaigned on that.
He's been real firm on that.
He said that gave us a black eye around the world, and studies seem to suggest that's exactly what it did.
What difference does it make where you house them as long as they don't get out?
It makes a very big difference because right now we have no place to put them.
He wants to send them to the end, and obviously he doesn't, Congressman.
They don't want to do it.
Well, they weren't going to do it up until yesterday.
Well, why was he even thinking about it for the last year?
We should not be giving in just because the terrorists say that Gitmo is a recruiting agent.
So is our support of Israel.
Does that mean we shouldn't support Israel?
You're not equating to drugs.
I mean, truly, why is it not?
He's not a lot of people being thrown around so much in the middle of all this.
President Obama campaigned on this issue, and he said he was going to do it.
He got elected.
Now he's going to do it.
And he should learn by his mistakes.
I mean, the other ones.
And it continued here.
Listen to the final 44 seconds of this.
Why do we spend time even talking about?
Why do people care?
I mean, I think you shoved him off to another country and stuck them on the end of an island and given the nation a black eye, if you believe.
No, only, only, only a person.
I don't believe him.
I think only a person who's incredibly naive would say that we deserve that black eye.
We got it because elements in the media and elements of the Democratic Party kept parodying that line.
But the fact is, they are being treated extreme humaneness at Guantanamo.
It was the right thing to do, and there were constitutional reasons for doing it and legal reasons for doing it, all of which I think have been proven right.
You have to keep them in a place where they can be interrogated, where information can be gotten from them, intelligence gotten from them.
We have the right to keep them there as long as we want to, I believe.
Now, let me ask you people a question.
Very simple.
If we gave our nation a black eye by housing terrorists at Club Gitmo, if we gave our nation a black eye in the Arab world, then what the hell is Illinois going to become?
What the hell difference does it make where you put them?
I'll answer Shepard Smith's question.
And what difference does it make where you put them?
Well, then why not leave them there?
If we have a black eye, if we are disrespected and unloved because we put some terrorists in a prison, then why the hell does it matter where the prison is if we have a black eye?
Because we put innocent little children?
See, that's what they want us to believe.
None of these people are guilty, and we haven't charged them.
We're violating their human rights.
Well, we're going to violate the human rights in Illinois, too, because they're going to have no status change.
They're still not going to be charged with anything.
So if we gave ourselves a black eye by opening Guantanamo, and by the way, that's not a target.
They can't hit that, but they can sure as hell hit a prison in Illinois or Chicago.
This is stupid all the way around.
And it's blind to simply say, well, Obama said he's going to do it and he's going to do it.
Stupid.
So I just got an email out there during the break.
Rush, what is an intellectual?
What's so bad about smart people?
It's a good question, folks.
The modern iteration of intellectual, when I use it, we're talking about academics, people who have done nothing but spend time in a library or an office or a classroom and have no hands-on real-world experience doing or producing anything, including meeting a payroll.
Pure and simple.
Overeducated.
▲
Export Selection