All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:24
May 17, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I still can't get over this Posner guy, Michael Posner apologizing to uh the ChICOMs over our Arizona immigration law.
You know the Chicoms have internal passports.
You have to have passport to go to province to province in China.
That's how controlled they are.
And the reason is the ChICOMs cannot tolerate all the people in the rural areas moving to the city.
If that happens, then all hell breaks loose because the Chicom, not even a Chicom government can control a billion people who are upset about things.
So they have these internal passports you have to from province to province.
I mean they would be amazed the Chinese people would be amazed that we are not enforcing our own border.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882.
Here is Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona in Phoenix on Saturday at a press conference.
While the president is making wise cracks and playing racial politics, some groups have suggested that Arizona be punished for enforcing laws that our federal government has failed to enforce.
That is misguided at best.
Our purpose today is to help the rest of the nation understand the crisis which confronts our state.
Our nation's government is broken.
Our border is being erased, and the president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience.
Whoa, this woman sounds like she has a talk show.
But she doesn't have a talk show.
She is the governor of a she.
Would it be nice if we had some male Republicans that had half of this courage?
Wow.
Blasted Obama.
I mean, that's an understatement.
Our nation's government is broken.
Our border is being erased, and the president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal convenience, political convenience.
That is dead on right.
That's dead on accurate.
Here's more of what she said.
It's fair to ask whether he intends to be the commander in chief or the comic in chief.
Since the president's joke was so inappropriate, I suppose if I wanted to join in the comedian game, I could suggest that he'd not give up his day job.
Unfortunately, though, he isn't doing very well at that one either.
The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer.
Do we know of one Republican senator speaking this way?
We have some Republicans in the House that speak this way.
Here's what she's referring to from the White House Correspondents Dinner back on May 1st.
We all know what happens in Arizona when you don't have ID.
Adios, amigos.
President of the United States telling a joke about a circumstance where by now we've all heard the details of what's gone on in Arizona, even spreading north from the border, further into the state.
Is the governor lying?
Is the governor making all this other?
Is the governor just a pure partisan hack?
Plus, he's got all of these idiot mayors around the country suggesting that Arizona be boycotted.
You can look it up.
It's unconstitutional for a city or region or state to boycott any other city, region, or state.
Only the Congress can regulate interstate commerce.
Mayors can't, and governors can't.
This is the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
And the federal government has done so much damage to our country in the name of the Commerce Clause, and now we're supposed to think the states have the right to do what they want in this regard.
Was tit for tat now because some Arizona citizens are saying, okay, stay out of San Diego.
Do not go to San Diego.
I guess uh there were some conventions or trips planned there.
Okay, California, you want to play this game.
We'll stay out of your state.
We'll stay out of San Francisco.
And we'll ship you as many of these illegals that are coming into our state as we can with one-way bus and train tickets.
Miss USA, the Miss USA pageant was last night a Shiite Muslim who tripped on her gown won the pageant.
The runner-up, Miss Oklahoma, Morgan Elizabeth Willard, Judge Oscar Nunez, an actor on the office TV show, said Arizona's new immigration statute authorizes law enforcement authorities to check the citizenship of anybody they believe may be in the country illegally.
Critics say this may be amount to racial profiling.
Do you think that this should be mandated by the state or by the federal government?
I'm a huge believer in states' rights.
I think that's what's so wonderful about America.
So I think it's perfectly fine for Arizona to create that law.
And I am against illegal immigration, but I'm also against racial profiling.
So I see both sides in this issue.
Typical pageant contestant both sides, but she's mostly right there, and this is uh that's in Las Vegas last night, the uh 210 Miss USA pageant.
No, they didn't boo her.
Well, it didn't boo her because there wasn't a question on gay marriage, but uh that happened last year.
She was the runner-up.
Uh, Miss um, I don't know where the winner, so I'm having a metal block here, but if she's a Shiite Muslim, and she tripped on her gown.
Uh and she won the uh won the award, Nora O'Donnell yesterday on television, the Chris Matthews show.
He wasn't there.
She was the fill-in host.
They're all in the drive-by's.
They're just a gog with uh with this poll all over the country showing massive support, the American people for the Arizona law.
A new NBC Wall Street Journal survey, a surprising 69% of whites in the country say they support Arizona's law.
Those numbers may explain why Arizona's Republican governor thinks it's a potent political issue.
Miss Michigan, Rima Facy, is the is the new Miss USA.
So, anyway, folks, it's a uh it's it's it's a fascinating thing to watch here because it really Obama is dividing the country.
It is happening before our very eyes.
People can see uh precisely what this regime is up to, what their what their purpose is, uh, and can now see exactly how radical it is.
Now, the Washington Post today, Tuesday's primaries could provide early answers for election year by Chris Salisa and Dan Balls.
An angry electorate, which already has delivered a series of shocks the political system, will render a fresh verdict on Washington incumbency and both parties in a slate of high-stakes contests Tuesday that are shaping up to form one of the most important voting days of the year.
Arlen Spectre could be the next incumbent to fall, but by late Tuesday night, everybody from Obama to Mitch McConnell could feel the sting of voter anger.
That has shaped the election climate, and that could produce a dramatic upheaval in Congress by November.
Everybody has a different definition of the anger.
Anti-incumbent, anti-Obama, anti-establishment, anti-Washington.
But the expressions of displeasure are everywhere.
Some voters think that Washington is spending too much.
I would have a question for these people in the media.
They write the story, Dan Balls and Siliza.
They write the story without one regard for context or one regard for history, recent history.
During the campaign of the Obama administration, what were we told?
A new day, a new man, a politician unlike any who has ever trod American soil, a man who can unify not just Americans, but the world.
We will have a post-partisan presidency.
We will have a post-racial presidency.
We are going to have a unity and a happiness and a contentment.
Unlike that we've ever seen.
Now, the very people who either wrote those stories or echoed them when the regime made those statements during the campaign is now filled with stories of the gigantic unrest and diabolical dislike for Washington,
D.C. Do you not think, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Silissa, that after you write a story here that tries to lump the Republicans in with the Democrats in all this anti-incumbency, and you do so uh facetiously and falsely, do you think you might go back and ask,
how did this happen when you led everybody to believe you and your brethren in the drive-by media led everybody to believe that there wasn't going to be any more discord?
It was going to be loving bipartisanship.
It was going to be unity and love and content and peace.
The world was going to love us, Iran would stand down, the North Koreans would stand down, Europe would once again love the United States.
Instead, Europe is disintegrating before our very eyes.
The Iranians are nuking up, the North Koreans are nuking up.
There is more partisan divide in this country than at any time in my life.
The exact opposite of what these people expected, the exact opposite of what they reported is happening.
And yet, here is this story.
Everyone has a different definition of the anger.
Shouldn't the story be?
Why is there anger?
There is an all-time high disrespect for Washington, 75% in the American people.
75% think Washington's a big problem.
They don't trust it.
In just a year and a half after the election of the one who we've all been waiting for, the Messiah, why is there anger?
That should be the there's anger everywhere.
There's anger on the left, there's anger.
Why?
How can this possibly be?
Are you in the media not the least bit shocked?
None of this was supposed to happen.
Democratic pollster Peter Hart said anybody searching for a meaning from Tuesday's races need only look to grievances that have been building for months.
How many times do we need to tell the same story?
Which is voters are looking for something that's not in Washington right now.
Whoa.
Democratic pollster.
Voters are looking for something that's not in Washington.
But we were told that when Obama got there, that it would be almost heaven-like, idyllic, utopian, and now there's anger unlike anybody's ever seen, and voters are looking for something that's not in Washington right now.
I can understand them writing this if Bush were still in office.
But Bush is gone.
And the smartest, cleanest, most well-spoken president in our history, is bombing.
And yet we get stories on anti-incumbency.
What's really going on here, uh ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Balls, Mr. Silizza, the rest of the media trying to equate Democrat primary fights like SeaStack and Spectre, and what's going on in Arkansas, with uh voter unrest with liberal Democrats and Republicans in name only.
They are intentionally here trying to confuse the subject.
This primary is not a reflection on the unrest across the country.
It's whether the Democrats in Pennsylvania will back one of two losers.
Spectre or C-Stack?
C-Pack.
C-Stack.
Spectre, C-Stack, dogfight, top Senate Super Tuesday primaries.
The New York Times has angry voters, but how many?
Now the fight in Arkansas is between a liberal who poses as a moderate, that's Blanche Lincoln, and a liberal who is a liberal.
And once again, this has nothing to do with what's occurring across the country, which is a conservative revolt against socialism.
That is what the revolt is.
And the revolt Is against Obama.
It is against anybody in Washington who is for the expansion of Washington.
Put very simply, ladies and gentlemen.
People in this country today do not think by a wide margin that they should be paying for others in this country who don't want to work, or who don't want to pay for their homes or don't want to pay for their health insurance.
Furthermore, people in this country today don't believe they should be paying for all of that for people who aren't yet born.
There is a revolt against socialism.
There is a revolt against statism.
There is a revolt against the regime, Mr. Balls and Mr. Silizza.
I'm real I'm I really.
I know they don't miss it.
They're just trying to deflect attention.
They don't want anybody to remember all of the platitudes that we were treated to during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Postpartisan, post-racial, euphoric, utopia, contentment, happiness, peace breaking out all over.
What the media, what these guys are trying to do, they're trying to use the primaries tomorrow to intentionally misstate what has and is taking place in this country.
In Pennsylvania, you have a you have a you have a battler among many Democrats to stop Spectre because they don't view him as a Democrat.
He's a turncoat.
In Arkansas, you have a battle by the Libs to take down Blanche Lincoln, who's not liberal enough for them.
It has nothing to do with the rise of conservatism and anger over our uh out-of-control government.
Kentucky's different.
There is a battle between a more establishment candidate and Rand Paul and the GOP primary there.
Uh the more establishment candidate is uh the Secretary of State of Kentucky, Rand Paul's a private citizen, and a lib media will do anything they can to downplay the rise of conservatism and the opposition to big government that exists in the country today, and try to focus what are people mad at?
Are they mad at incumbents?
Are they mad at Washington?
Are they mad at Democrats?
And they want to say they're just mad at Washington.
They are missing it.
Or if they're if they're not missing it, they're deflecting attention away from it on purpose because the anger is at them.
The anger is at the left.
There is a rising ascension of conservatism here against socialism, against big government, against the Obama way of doing things.
That's what's happening, and that's what they don't want to report.
Okay, back we are Rush Limbaugh, a cutting edge of societal evolution and to the phones.
Nice to have you on the program.
It's my pleasure, Mr. Rush.
Maharashi.
We have a new configuration on golf courses here in California up in the Santa Barbara-Golita area.
Unfortunately, because the environmental wackos don't let us drill, the pressure in the ground is so great the oil seeps up on the golf course.
So if you hit a good drive, you're liable to end up in an oil trap in the middle of the fairway.
Now, how much exaggeration are you putting into the story?
Uh, let me check my shoes.
No, there's not any exaggeration.
You mean the oil is virtually seeping into the fairways?
Yes.
It seeps up everywhere.
Uh, you know, where unless you got concrete on top.
Santa Barbara, where did you say?
Galita.
So the point being, here we're having to drill 5,000 miles deep, and then 35,000 more feet after that, and yet we've got oil willing ready to be tapped here on shore.
There's oil ready to be tapped on shore, and frankly, even like you say on the continental shelf, we've got the environmental wackos gone wild to where they are controlling the agenda, and we can't even recover our own oil.
If we if we allowed, you know, responsible, what I would say environmental friendly drilling, we could get ourselves out from under the gun of this foreign oil cartels that have been using our money to pay for the nuts that try to blow us up.
Well, there's no question about that, and I I uh uh make it makes you wonder, doesn't it, what the real objective of the environmentalist wackos is.
And we know that they're anti-capitalist, we know they are anti progress, uh, and we know that they are anti the country.
We know that they don't like oil.
So here we have an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that leads a Democrat media commentator to say God is a Democrat, meaning this is a great thing that's happened.
So you have a person on the left who speaks for many other leftists, expressing joy that the oil spill has happened.
Now why?
What is the good in this?
Well, if you look at it from the left's point of view, through their ideological and political point of view, they think that this kind of oil spill, so bad, so horrible, will convince the American people to never ever again support any oil drilling anywhere by Americans.
But note that none of these people ever travel the world and tell the Chicons to stop drilling, or the Saudis, or the Kuwaitis, or anybody else.
The Vietnamese, the Cubans, the Mexicans, it's only us.
It's only America.
Woodshaw uh which is supposed to stop uh drilling.
And it's just a another eye opener as to who these people are anti-progress, anti-capitalism, pro-big government, want to roll back lifestyles and so forth in this country.
And they are running the oil drilling agenda.
Well, isn't this rich?
Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, uh, responding to British Petroleum's successful attachment of a tube to the oil leak, siphoning some of the spill to the surface and into oil tankers, saying it's not a solution.
This technique is not a solution.
Fine, what are you doing, Ken?
Besides launching eight investigations into what is the federal, what's the regime doing about this?
But Myther Limbo, Myther Limbaugh, you say that you don't want the government doing things, and now you're that many government do things.
I am suggesting that the government's got its priorities out of whack, Mr. Castradi.
The government's primary purpose is to protect and defend the people of the United States, and it's not doing that.
This government is destroying the very capitalist system that led to the prosperity of the greatest greatest amount of prosperity of people in the history of the world.
Sits up and says, I'm not going to pull it up with that.
Oh, Pub, I won't put up with anymore.
I don't tolerate not a leak.
I'm not going to put up with it.
So go ahead and have your investigation.
Somebody's trying to stop it.
You guys saying from afar, that technique is not a solution.
Nobody said it was a solution.
But they are trying.
They're doing what they can.
John Harwood today, New York Times, angry voters, but how many?
Now this is hilarious, this story.
Three United States Senate primaries on Tuesday offer new signs of the election year intentions of America's dyspeptic voters.
See what they're setting up here is the American people in November are going to have another childlike temper tantrum by throwing out Democrats.
That's that's what they're setting up here.
All of you voters, you're deranged and you're unstable.
A few voters anyway, he says.
How many are really angry?
He said the voters on Tuesday is just a sliver of the population.
There's no groundswell out there.
So prior to this story being published, the Tea Parties, just a bunch of racist, hate-filled, firebombing mobs, swarming town halls, and now we're nothing.
It's just a tiny sliver.
Nothing to get worried about, Mr. President.
These people showing up on Tuesday, just a small sliver of the population.
Yet the voters rendering these verdicts on Tuesday will represent only a sliver of the population.
So that's intellectually dishonest.
Not everybody can vote this Tuesday.
There aren't primaries in every State, Mr. Harwood.
Of course it's a sliver of the population, but that is not to say that these voters are irrelevant.
How can we on one day be a mass growing mob that wants to blow everything up that you wish had planted the bomb in Times Square?
And here on election day, we don't count.
We're not we're just a sliver.
Can you get us right once and just stick with it?
We're either the unruly mob that wants to blow up the country or we don't matter.
But you don't get to interchange it, depending on the news outcome you'd like on that particular day.
He writes polls show that Republicans are at least poised to erode the Democrats' House and Senate majorities, but as with the Democrats' midterm gains four years ago, the uprising will almost certainly be narrow and targeted, not a mass movement.
In the 1994 midterms, for example, overall turnout as a proportion of eligible citizens dropped slightly.
So what?
So now we're trying to diminish what happened in 1994.
Not that many people voted anyway.
Doesn't matter.
So history must always be revised.
The truth of the 80s, the truth of Reaganism, the truth of supply side economics, the truth of the 94 elections.
The truth of the destruction that is being wrought daily by the regime.
Can't write that.
Have to revise that, have to mischaracterize.
We don't have to continue the fiction.
In his own poll?
In no other poll does he have a 50% approval rating.
Back to the phones we go.
Larry in Keith, Ohio, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi.
Thank you, sir.
Bravo to Dan Brewer.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Hey, uh, question on this sexual predators uh reversal or whatever the Supreme Court supposedly done.
Well doesn't that open a gate to other uh unlikables, unwantable, undesirables like computer hackers.
Well, as I say, I have not read the law.
I I and I haven't had a chance to read the decision in uh at great length.
But it is it is puzzling how you can single out one group, people who have served their sentences who are considered sexually dangerous.
You can you can hold them beyond the service of their term, but nobody else, uh including terrorists.
Well, is this the uh Supreme Court's way of uh apologizing to society for their length of endearment?
I have no idea.
It's a seven to two vote.
Uh, and I I as I say, I've got to spend some time.
It just came out this morning.
I was in a show prep crunch.
And as always is the case with Supreme Court decisions, there's much more to it than just the four or five paragraphs we get uh when when something is reported.
I do know that this was overturning a state.
The states can do this.
Now, the states have the right to keep citizens, prisoners beyond the service their term for whatever reason.
This allows the federal government to do it in uh in in only in cases of uh people who are deemed to be dangerous in a sexual way.
And I just off top of my head when I read this, I don't know why only that group of people is deemed to be so dangerous that they can be held after they have served their terms.
Whereas with terrorists, we're trying to release them.
Or give them trials.
We're trying to release them, and sometimes their their home countries don't even want them back.
So there does seem to be some confusion, but it's 7-2, and we only had two dissents.
It was uh Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Laura in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
First, a shout out to Cheryl Kay from our clinic.
She says that you're her hero, and just wanted me to to say that she's crying almost about what's happening in this country, so tell her to hang you there.
Um I wanted to call because you were talking about Mr. Posner and China, talking about the poverty and the crime in this nation.
Well, the fact is there aren't too many uh trapped in poverty, but it's not because of conservatives.
The U.S. Census Bureau says That um the majority of people trapped in poverty are engaging in behavior um that are they're having babies out of wedlock, which is liberal saying it's okay, you know, here's your condom, continue the behavior.
It's conservatives uh that are trying to teach abstinence.
I taught for five years, and we're trying to uh hold a high ideal of we don't want you trapped in poverty.
And with criminal behavior, we know that 70% of the men in prison came from homes with no fathers, single moms with no fathers in those households.
Again, conservatives want fatherhood initiatives, marriage initiatives, and bringing back intact uh families, so all of those social ills are not there.
It's liberal harm that you always talk about, but it's in the social arena.
You're you're right about the conservative uh fiscal agenda, too, that we demand balanced budget.
But the social agenda is just as important because it's related to all of these social ills.
Well, true, but I don't think the ChICOMs are are are are looking at it that way.
The ChICOs are are simply to me it's it's it's outrageous.
We we expect communist countries to rip into us.
We expect to get on them to get on our case, especially since they lie.
What is unprecedented is that we're now agreeing with them.
So the ChaiCon say, you know, you got a lot of poverty and you got a lot of homelessness and uh you got a rising crime rate, don't lecture us.
And our guy says, you know, you have a point.
Look at our look at our Arizona law.
That's that's what's that's what's new here.
You know, the p uh poverty in this country, by the way, compared to poverty in China, there's no comparison.
How many of China's people in poverty have a couple of television sets, maybe a couple cell phones and a car?
How many of them have ninety-nine weeks of unemployment compensation?
Uh I just these comparisons here are are are ridiculous.
Now it's it's it's quite understandable that a you know a communist country would lecture us.
That's been going on since the beginning of communist countries and and our country.
But this is the first time I know of we've ever agreed with them in their assessment of us.
Back in just a second.
Okay, here's a little bit more on the Supreme Court sex case today, holding people beyond the length of their uh prison sentences.
The majority of Pittman was written by Stephen Breyer, who is a uh a huge proponent of uh following international law.
And a majority opinion written by Breyer argued that the federal civil commitment law that Congress, long-standing authority to provide mental health care to prisoners in its custody, if they might prove dangerous, whether sexually or otherwise.
So apparently at the root of the ruling, according to Stephen Breyer, is that holding a prisoner in jail is the same as requiring them to get psychiatric treatment, that we're doing it for their own good, that they're nuts.
That's somebody who is dangerous sexually.
Uh obviously loony-tounes, and we're gonna keep them there under the guise of helping them.
Psychiatric treatment.
Justice Thomas wrote, Congress's power, however, is fixed by the Constitution.
It does not expand merely to suit the state's policy preference or to allow state officials to avoid difficult choices regarding the allocation of state funds.
Now, we've often heard the left describe various uh Supreme Court decisions they disagree with us.
Well, you know, we're we're heading down a slippery slope now.
And this this could be a slippery slope.
I mean, if they want to say they can hold sexual offenders, sexual predators who are still dangerous because they still need psychiatric treatment.
Who in this country does the left think does not need psychiatric treatment?
Chilling, chilling ruling here today, if you ask me.
Houston, Texas, this is Jason, and welcome to the EIB network.
So nice to have you here.
Hi, Russ.
Uh, well dumb listener, a big fan.
Thank you.
I was calling in, I find it's extremely ironic that the state of uh California, who is currently violating federal law for the sale of illegal drugs and or the paraphernalia associated with it, it's trying to dictate to a state that is enforcing what federal law is not being, you know, done.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, just wait.
How is California violating federal law by selling illegal drugs?
Well, the state does it.
Not necessarily the state, but there are communities within California, in Fino County, I believe is the name of it, where all the marijuana is sold and used and whatnot.
Oh, you mean under the guise of uh medical purposes?
Correct.
Okay.
And uh and so in it's obviously it's illegal by federal law, and uh I find it extremely ironic that the state of California is then gonna dictate uh to another state that is choosing to enforce federal law.
Well, you're you see, once again, we start analyzing it's a good point, don't misunderstand, but we start analyzing these things rationally or logically, it's not gonna make any sense.
Not the the boycotts of Arizona are not based on genuine heartfelt concern for anything.
They're not based on rationality or logic.
Uh California and elsewhere boycotts of Arizona purely political.
The oil spill is purely political.
We need to depoliticize the oil spill.
We need to depoliticize the environment.
The whole thing has become politicized.
Four corners of deceit media, government, academia, and everybody else.
It's just it's it's incestuous, and it never stops.
Everything is a political opportunity or a problem uh for the left.
Nothing is real.
Nothing is as it is.
The oil spill is not an oil spill that might threaten marine life and poison the Gulf for a number of years.
It's that's not what it is.
This is an opportunity to expand and create crisis, to expand the opportunity to implement more liberalism and big government uh growth, expansion in the American law.
It's it's they just say they're concerned about the oil.
But you don't see them doing anything to try to stop it, do you?
Do you see one leftist group out there trying to stop it?
Do you see any group in the government shrieking about all this?
Are they out there trying to stop it?
Or are they simply pointing fingers at blame?
And are they simply saying, see, see, this proves we can't drill for oil.
We gotta stop drilling for oil.
Are they trying to stop it?
All of the problems their their legislation's created, war on poverty.
We just had somebody call who accurately described what liberal welfare policies have done regarding black families.
Split them up, they've blown up the black family.
Single parenthood is almost a guaranteed invitation to poverty.
Do we see them doing anything about it?
No.
We see them criticizing us who want to do something about it, as trying to impose our morality on people.
Do they really care about all these things they say they care about?
No.
They want you to think they do, but they don't.
It's all a political opportunity.
Every negative thing that happens.
Dick Gephardt, back in the early 90s or early 2000s, stock market was plummeting after the dot-com bubble.
He's all happy.
Every hundred-point drop in the stock market, we pick up another seat.
They're not real, folks.
They're not genuine.
They're not tolerant, they're not compassionate.
They don't have a monopoly on feeling.
And even their supposed commitment to fairness is not a commitment to fairness.
Their commitment to fairness is nothing more than an attempt to punish high achievers.
It's no more complicated than that.
Jason, Traverse City, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, I how you doing Russia?
Very well, thank you.
I'll get I'll get right to the point.
Uh I got some more deception for you by the left, and they're doing it right here in Michigan, and and we're pretty sure that uh uh Mark Brewer and the uh Michigan Democratic Party are behind it.
There is a a movement, a petition drive to get a third party on the ballot, a Tea Party on the ballot, but nobody here in Michigan, even uh none of the Tea Party leaders in Michigan even have an idea of who's running who's behind it.
The uh the organization is actually doing the petition drive is is a company called uh uh Progressive Campaigns Incorporated, and it's it was reported on outside lancing dot com.
They uh they apparently they they get paid a dollar of petition or a dollar a signature, and uh they're trying to get this uh this on the uh yeah uh I know I've heard look, Dingy Harry tried to do this in Nevada.
He tried to get a a a guy, a Democrat, uh an extremist nutcase, to say he was running on the Tea Party to try to split the vote uh and so forth.
They're scared to death of this.
The left must by definition be scared of what's real.
They have to be frightened by what's real, because none of what they are is real.
Everything they are is a lie.
Everything they are is uh is a head fake, is a distraction.
Something real comes along, real and substantive, and they panic, and they have to destroy it.
And that's what they're trying to do with the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, me, whoever gets in their way.
You know, I'd be back to this predator decision, the uh we're gonna keep sexual uh predators, dangerous people after they have completed their sentences.
Isn't it um peculiar that the states are trying to hold on to these sexual predators past their terms and are letting violent criminals go free?
And not just terrorists, I mean closing down prisons and places because they don't have the money.
▲
Export Selection