All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 1, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Time to stop the chatter in there.
Time to stop the chatter.
Are you still playing with your iPads, aren't you?
Man, oh, man, oh, man.
We got broadcast excellence here.
Put them aside.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Hope you had a great Memorial Day weekend.
I am Rushland Boy, and this, the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Well, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, just walked outside the White House and said that this oil spill is the greatest environmental disaster of its kind in our history.
That means that, according to Obama, this spill is worse than Katrina.
Now, you know what he's done?
He formed another commission to study what went wrong.
Some guy named Bill Riley and former Florida Senator Bob Graham are going to form a commission.
This is after he sends Eric Holder down, a lawyer.
He sends Eric Holder down there to basically tell BP to go to hell.
Now, they got to distance themselves from BP.
It turns out that there's a very cozy relationship between Obama and Rahm Emmanuel and British Petroleum.
Details coming up.
Well, let me just ask a question very quickly.
Because it's funny to watch all these people over the weekend.
Gosh, is he not that we really wanted somebody competent?
Oh my gosh, this is horrible.
Can we get somebody competent?
Well, really, what can he do?
I mean, he's just the president of the United States.
What can he do?
Well, the question's valid because he said he could lower the seas and heal the planet.
I'll be reading an excerpt of that speech.
I'll tell you what, if bribes, smears, betrayals could plug the damn hole, it would have been capped long ago.
That's where Obama succeeds, folks.
Is anyone still surprised a community organizer cannot organize a response to a deepwater oil spill?
Is anybody still surprised a community organizer with strong personal and political ties to anti-Israel leftists will not step up, will not organize support for America's best ally in the Middle East, if not in the world.
This whole thing with this flotilla, a Turkish setup designed to provoke exactly what has happened.
The Israelis are out there playing by the rules.
You know, what's the old saying?
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth puts its pants on.
And the lie on this thing got halfway around the world.
This was not some innocent bunch of people going in.
This is an arms mission.
Make no mistake about it.
Humanitarian aid.
There might be some crackers and cheese getting off that flotilla, but make no mistake.
There's some armaments there.
This is Turkey attempting to establish itself as the Muslim leader.
The Islamists have taken over Turkey.
They're in NATO.
And this is all designed to make Israel provoked and to cause this kind of response.
And the world is condemning, even over the weekend, United Nations Security Council gets together to suggest a condemnation of Israel.
The Turkish government is demanding that we condemn Israel at the same time.
Egypt going underway.
There's also another thing that's happening here regarding Israel and Egypt, the Middle East, and that is the Egypt's call some months ago, maybe weeks, for a nuclear-free Middle East.
The United States at the United Nations sandbagged the Israelis and are supporting this effort, which, of course, has one objective, and that is to denuke Israel.
Now, Israel for 60 years has not admitted that they have nukes.
It's just assumed that they have a couple hundred warheads, but they've never confirmed it.
Everybody just assumed so.
Meanwhile, we're told the Iranians have enough plutonium now for two bombs.
They are continuing to ratchet up, and nobody is doing anything about them ratcheting up and demanding that they shut it down, not nearly as seriously as they're going to hammer Israel.
Now, Obama is demanding that Israel tell him exactly what happened.
You find, I want those details, what happened in that flotilla, and I want to know.
You know what Netanyahu ought to do?
Netanyahu wants to say, well, I want the details on the 32 people Chicago killed over the weekend, and I want to know what you're doing about it.
I want to know what role you've played.
What do the Chicago police do it?
What's the Chicago government?
I know it'll never happen.
But I mean, that's just my reaction.
Obama administration moves to distance itself from BP on oil spill response.
When the going gets tough, Obama heads for the hills, folks, and sends in the lawyers struggling to convey command of the worsening Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The Obama administration taking steps to distance itself from BP, dispatching a lawyer and an activist, the Attorney General Eric Holder, to the Gulf Coast to meet with federal and state prosecutors.
The Holder trip could signal that the environmental calamity might become the subject of a criminal investigation.
The opening of a criminal investigation or civil action against BP, if either were to happen, would create the unusual situation of the federal government weighing charges against a company that it is simultaneously depending on for the most critical elements of the response to the record oil spill.
The relationship between the federal government and the oil company has been an awkward collaboration all along.
We have them by the neck, said the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in congressional testimony last week, but it reached a turning point yesterday when the administration said it no longer wants to share the podium with BP at the daily briefing in Louisiana.
Instead, the National Incident Commander, Coast Guard Admiral Thad W. Allen, will give a solo briefing wherever he happens to be.
The PR shakeup comes in a tense period with the Gulf Coast rattled by news that the top kill didn't work.
They are trying something else now.
Government forecast shows the oil slick potentially striking the popular tourist beaches of Mississippi and Alabama later this week.
The official arrival of hurricane season is today.
We just may as well commit suicide.
If a hurricane comes and it whips up the oil on top, oh, I don't even want to think about it.
It won't just be the birds covered with oil.
It will be us.
That's the top PR firm for BP tied to White House chief of staff, Rah Emmanuel.
This is from Mark Hemingway, the Washington Examiner.
He says, over at the Next Right, which is a blog, they've pieced together some interesting connections about the White House's ties to BP, better known as the company currently polluting the Gulf.
Now, we all know that Obama was the biggest recipient of BP's campaign cash in Washington, but it seems that BP's ties to the White House run even deeper.
According to the next right, PR firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner helped BP plan and evaluate its successful rebranding campaign, focusing the company's branding on energy solutions, including the development of solar and other renewable energy resources.
And I tell you, you know, I've seen these ads.
And when I first saw these ads, I said, what is this?
Here's an oil company running ads for solar energy.
I said, this is, I knew immediately it was shakedown, or it was to prevent a shakedown.
This was an oil company.
So, okay, yeah, we'll be good citizens here.
We'll spend some money.
We'll waste the money going after solar energy.
Stanley Greenberg is the PR leader here, Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner.
Stanley Greenberg is married to Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat, Connecticut.
There was something of a flap last year when it was pointed out that White House Chief of Staff Rah Emmanuel had been living in the couple's Capitol Hill townhouse and resulting in a lot of questions about whether or not this arrangement violated congressional ethics guidelines.
Further, the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee paid Greenberg's firm $1.5 million in 2006, 2008 while Emmanuel was living with Greenberg.
And Emmanuel was even in charge of the DCCC during the 2006 election cycle.
And of course, it was the PR firm which helped BP plan its successful rebranding campaign, all the while Rah Emmanuel was living with Greenberg.
I mean, it's an incestuous bunch.
There's a story out today, something like two-thirds or three-fourths of all lobbyist donations go to Democrats.
Two-thirds or three-fourths of all lobbyists, donations to political candidates and parties from lobbyists go to Democrats.
From the Associated Press, president enraged over latest failure to stop oil gusher.
President Obama said Saturday the failure of BP's latest effort to stop the damaging flow is as enraging as it is heartbreaking.
Robert B. Rice, sh in thewallstreetpit.com, is demanding that Obama put BP under temporary receivership.
All the best and the brightest.
Not one of these moves is oriented towards stopping the flow.
And the more I watch this, the angrier I get.
I really do.
We're drilling for oil at a depth where no human being can go.
All this has to be done by robots.
A submarine can't go that deep.
The pressure would just crush the thing.
Certainly in a submarine that would be built to do this kind of thing.
Human beings can't survive down there.
Why are we drilling out there?
Why are we drilling out there in that deep?
It's because, as Charles Krauthammer puts it, environmental chic.
C-H-I-C, environmental chic.
Got to drill out there because can't drill where the oil is easy to get on shore or in shallow water.
Got to go way out there.
And this is one of the risks that happens when you go five, you go, however, I mean, miles out, six miles out, five, one mile down, and then after you hit the surface, one mile down, you still have thousands and thousands of feet to go before you hit the oil.
Have you thought about this too?
How many times have we heard over the recent years that we're running out of oil?
Not much rush left here.
There's not much.
We're going to have to go to solar or wind or maybe put little beanie propellers on top of our VW bugs and maybe fly around a little bit.
There's more oil in places of this planet and certainly easier to get than this gusher 5,000 feet down.
I mean, stop and think of this.
What is the number of gallons that they say is coming out of there a day?
And there's no end in sight?
No end in sight?
If their latest technique doesn't work, the relief wells will not be completed until August.
You imagine, can you imagine the pressure that's forcing this stuff out of the seafloor?
You imagine how much of this stuff is that?
We are no, no, I mean, common sense tells you we are in no danger of running out of this stuff.
And I would, you know, I know that we don't have probably a technique here, but somebody ought to be trying to do something to salvage some of this so they can be used.
The Saudis have a system for doing this.
And by the way, there's, they do.
Yeah, I sound like coming up on this, separating oil from water in a way that makes it usable.
But there's a story also here from the top of the stack here about, yes, it's by Elizabeth Rosenthal.
It's from yesterday, the New York Times Green blog.
The summation of this story is this.
There is more oil spilled in the Nigerian Delta every year than in the Gulf of Mexico.
For the past month, Americans have watched with growing horror as a huge leak on a BP oil rig has poured millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf.
As I wrote on Sunday in the weekend review section of the Times, there's also shock that technology has so far not been able to control it.
But it's important to remember that this mammoth-polluting event, so extraordinary here, is not so unusual in some parts of the world.
In an article published Sunday in the Guardian of London, John Vidal, the paper's environment editor, movingly recalls a trip to the Niger Delta a few years ago, where he says he literally swam in pools of light Nigerian crude.
A network of decades-old pipes and oil extraction equipment in the Delta has been plagued by serious leaks and spills.
Quote, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations, and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico.
Okay, Nigeria seems far away to most Americans, so what does it have to do with us?
Well, consider this.
According to Mr. Vidal's piece, the Niger Delta supplies 40% of all the crude oil imported by the U.S. Companies that drill in the area, including Shell and Exxon.
Here in the U.S., people express outrage at BP's actions in the Gulf, demand the oil giant behave responsibly.
But should they also insist that oil companies behave well in the developing countries where their oil comes from?
After all, many people insist on fair trade, coffee, non-sweatship clothing, and so forth.
One more excerpt from Mr. Vidal's fascinating article.
If this Gulf incident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention, said the writer, Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogone people.
This kind of spill happens all the time in the Delta.
Happens all the time.
Nigeria is still there.
And in fact, many leftists tell us that not only Europe, but Africa is a place we should emulate.
More oil spilled every year.
In the Nigerian Delta.
Than in the Gulf of Mexico.
Back after this.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back, Rushlin Boh.
America's Real.
Hankerman finally back.
A long holiday weekend, allowing a sigh of relief from millions of Americans still waiting to confirm this.
But former Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper are separating after 40 years of marriage.
Which, if this is true, it's got to mean global cooling, not global warming.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Oh, did I predict this or did I predict this?
Are the Associated Press a very disappointed Associated Press?
A member of New York, Governor David Patterson's administration, said the governor is putting together a plan that would lay off thousands of government workers the beginning of next year to help balance the state budget.
The administration official confirmed a report Tuesday in the New York Times.
Do you know the New York Times has lost 74% of its stock price, stock value in the last 10 years?
Here, here, it's a little pinch.
74% of the stock value lost in the last 10 years.
Anyway, the administration official confirmed a report.
In the New York Times, Patterson will direct state agencies to begin picking positions that could be eliminated started January 1st.
That date marks the expiration of the no-layoffs pledge that Patterson gave public employee unions last year in exchange for an agreement to reduce pension costs.
Told you, New York's just the first.
The stimulus money has run out.
Nobody else has any money.
Everybody's broke.
You can't raise taxes too much in New York or you totally shut down the city.
What is it, 75,000 workers?
75,000 people in New York basically pay the freight for the people who don't work in New York, and they can't afford to lose any of them.
And raising their taxes, like $70 billion worth of wealth has moved out of New Jersey, which Governor Christie's trying to reverse and do something about.
Frankly, not enough attention.
We're doing it here, but not enough attention is being paid to what Christie's doing because Christie, the governor of New Jersey, is the antidote to everything being done in Washington and many of the states.
And the guy is courageous.
The guy has got guts.
He is fearless.
He doesn't care what's said about him.
He doesn't care what's written about him.
And he doesn't care what's threatened against him.
He knows he was elected to do a job and he is in the process of doing it.
And he is the microcosm of exactly what needs to happen at many other states and, of course, in our nation's capital.
I've got to take a break.
When we come back, John Hofmeister, the former Shell Oil CEO, will explain the process of taking saying British petroleum could take the oil off the sea with the water, separate it, and find a use for it.
Back after this.
That's what we do here.
We make the complex understandable.
One of the many keys to our long-term success here at the EIB network.
I went to the email during the break.
Dear Rush, are you saying spilling oil in Nigeria didn't kill any Africans so we Americans will be all right?
No, no, no.
I'm not saying that at all.
Let me be clear here.
I'm not doing anything to justify this spill.
Please don't misunderstand.
I've long been an advocate of the belief that our planet is capable of much more rejuvenation on its own than we could ever contemplate.
Everything here is part of nature.
Oil is as much a part of nature as air is.
Oil is as much a part of nature as is water.
Now, what's happening in the Gulf is a disaster.
There is no question about it.
But I always like to keep perspective.
Remember, the media is blowing this out of proportion now, adding on this hurricane bit to it.
And they're making this sound and Obama's contributing to it because they love crisis.
They love disaster.
It's bad enough as it is without raising the panic.
We're not going to die from this.
The Gulf is going to recover from this.
So will the Gulf Coast.
It will recover.
Prince William Sound has recovered.
With our help, we can speed it up.
If we didn't do anything, it would recover.
Might take a lot of years, but it would recover.
The Earth is an amazing thing.
Now, I'm not suggesting anything other than trying to present you a fact.
More oil spilled every year in Africa, in Nigeria, than so far in the Gulf.
So it's not unique.
It is not exceptional.
It's not the largest.
Mexico had a spill that's larger than this.
Nobody talks about it except apparently me.
Ickstock one.
Went on for nine months.
And everybody's still there where that oil spill happened.
It is unfortunate.
It's going to cause all kinds of damage to the businesses that thrive on the Gulf Coast, not just in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, perhaps over to Texas.
I'm not saying anything good about it.
But I like to always keep things in perspective.
You know, so much of the global warming debate has centered on how fragile the Earth is and that we are destroying it.
And if you're a regular listener to this program, you know that I believe we're not capable of that.
The vanity.
I mean, it's amazing to listen to environmentalist wackos talk about us.
On the one hand, we're no different than a frog.
We're no different than a sea turtle.
We're no different than a rat.
The other hand, we are this all-powerful species that can wipe out our own climate and wipe out our own planet.
Neither is true.
There is no perspective in any of this.
So, yeah, it's bad.
Yes, it's a disaster.
It's not the worst of its kind.
And where these things happen around the world, a cleanup always follows as well.
And this will be done too.
And the idea, there's so many conspiracy theories running around about this.
Anybody thinks that there's anybody at BP who doesn't want this to stop, who doesn't want to plug this leak?
Do you realize the liability they face?
The damages, the costs?
Nobody wants this oil to keep leaking.
They're doing the best they can with it.
Unfortunately, when you're forced to go that far out and that deep down to drill and an accident like this happens, resources are limited.
There aren't that many examples of this.
So experience dealing with a fix is not readily available.
So everybody's learning on the fly here.
But the people involved are doing everything they can to get this sealed as quickly as they can and then begin with the cleanup.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
This is John Hofmeister.
This was Sunday morning.
Special extended edition of State of the Union on CNN.
Candy Crowley talked to the former Shell oil CEO, John Hofmeister, and she said, you say that British Petroleum could take the oil off the sea.
Obviously, with water, they could cleanse it and then put the water back in.
Now, if the Saudis can do it, and it seems like an obvious thing, you know about it, John, why has this not occurred to British petroleum?
It's been presented and it's been presented to the Coast Guard.
This is where I'm concerned that we have something called NIH, not invented here syndrome, because this is a different paradigm.
This has never been done in the United States before.
There may be arguments against it, which I'm unaware of, but we've been asking for either a thumbs up or a thumbs down for weeks now, and it hasn't happened.
Now, let me translate this for you.
I don't know what they're talking about here in a specific sense: separating the oil from the water, cleansing the water, putting it back in, and obviously being able to salvage the oil.
But apparently, they do it in Saudi Arabia.
Apparently, they're doing it around other places around the world.
And what's happened here, Hofmeister, the former Shell CEO, apparently still involved in this.
He's an expert.
And they have asked the Coast Guard, they've presented a plan to the Coast Guard, and they can't get an answer from them.
Now, the government's in charge.
Obama has said so.
So this is another instance, or at least Hofmeister is saying, well, you know, we got this thing not invented here.
If we end it in here, we can't do it.
He's basically describing a bureaucratic maze here that everybody's having to run.
He says, I don't know what the arguments against it are, but we've been asking for either a thumbs up or a thumbs down for weeks now, and it hasn't happened.
So nobody's getting back to them on the idea here to separate the oil from the water, cleanse the water, and put it back in.
Later, Candy Crowley interviewed the former Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush Fran Townsend about the oil spill.
She said, you laughed when he talked about if this is just something that was not invented here.
NIH.
Is that something you're familiar with?
It is, Candy.
And unfortunately, as we were talking during the break, this is one of these we are our experience.
And so what is the most recent experience with a catastrophe of this size, especially in the Gulf, and that was Katrina.
Bat Allen came in when the Coast Guard and Katrina had been the first responders in these wonderful pictures and he came in and solved it.
What it looks very much like is the U.S. government is playing the playbook from Katrina.
That's the big catastrophe they know.
And this is a very different catastrophe.
Fascinating.
Fran Townsend says the Obama bunch is simply redoing the Katrina plan, which was savaged and ripped to shreds and said to be unworkable, uncaring, with no compassion.
But that's the only plan we've got.
That's the only experience we've got.
So that's what they're doing.
They're simply redoing the plan with Katrina, which is a much different experience here.
You take that back to Hofmeister saying, no, no, no, there's a way we can separate the oil from the water on the surface, do something about it, at least get started with this.
They can't get an answer one way or the other from the Coast Guard on whether or not they should proceed.
Now, we haven't even gotten the Israeli situation yet.
This is key as well.
The media is not telling the truth about this either.
You remember, ladies and gentlemen, some years ago, the war was going on between the Hezbollah's militants in Lebanon launching rockets into Israel.
And Israel was retaliating.
You remember all the photoshopped pictures of so-called damage to civilian populations and civilian buildings, public buildings that the Israelis were responsible for?
It turned out that many of those Reuters photos had been doctored and photoshopped to make the damage look like it was five or ten times worse than it is, and the media couldn't wait.
They all jumped on the bandwagon to report this stuff.
It's the same thing happening now.
Not one shred of truth is being reported about this flotilla, who the people on the flotilla were, what their purpose was.
Their purpose was to get this provocation.
They know full well that Israel is not going to respond to anything until they know full well what happened.
While they have their PR campaign ready to go before the flotilla even set sail.
Before the flotilla even left Turkey, they knew exactly what to say.
They knew exactly what was going to happen because they provoked it.
This is not about a nuclear-free Middle East.
What we're looking at here is another all-out assault on an Israel-free Middle East.
Back right after this.
It was Hamas that attacked Israel.
It was in January 2009.
Lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, it was Hamas that violently attacked its fellow Palestinians, the Fatah.
Not to be confused with Chaka Fatah of Philadelphia for being too moderate.
At any rate, AP, ABC, everybody are confirming that Alan Tipper Gore are separating, splitting up.
I haven't heard the word divorce, but different residences.
And it reminded me, we went back to our archives.
What are you laughing at?
This is not something funny, Snirdly.
Well, the separation is not funny.
What's next is a little funny as I remembered this from the archives.
December 3rd, 2007, newscientist.com.
A rising tide of divorce is taking a huge toll on the planet.
Warns a groundbreaking analysis of the environmental impact of divorce.
The environmental cost of a marriage splitting occurs because couples and their families move into separate properties after divorce, meaning they collectively occupy more space.
That means they burn more energy and they consume more water than they did as a family unit.
Now, how does that work?
I can understand two households to get two adding to the electricity grid and so forth, but are they drinking more water than they would if they were living in one house?
Al Gore is still going to be using his fort laundry?
Well, they're still going to do the laundry at the other house.
I mean, it's separate separate loans.
This is all ridiculous.
It's all ridiculous.
We go here and try to logically analyze this and it breaks down after 20 seconds.
It's all ridiculous.
We've got this giant story here.
How much a divorce contributes to global warming?
Well, fine.
For today, I'm going to say it's true.
And I love this stuff when it comes back and bites these advocates.
Divorce contributes to global warming?
That's right.
Divorced households are smaller than married households, but consume more land, more water, and energy per person than married households, says Jiang Guo Liu of Michigan State University, which carried out the 12-country analysis with colleague Eunice Yu.
YU is how you spell it.
In the U.S., for example, 627 billion gallons of water, the use of 38 million rooms, 734 billion kilowatt hours of electricity would have been saved in 2005 alone if no one had got divorced.
Believe this.
Let me go through this again.
627 billion gallons of water.
The use of 38 million rooms.
734 billion kilowatt hours of electricity would have been saved in 2005 alone if no one had got divorced.
In the same year, divorced households spent 46% more on electricity, 56% more on water per person than if they had stayed married.
And following a split, U.S. households consumed 42 to 61 percent more resources per person than while married.
And following a split, now why would this be?
I want to have to put our thinking caps on for this.
Following a split, well, let's look at Al Gore and Tipper here.
They're going to split up here.
So what's going to happen?
U.S. households consume 42 to 61% more resources per person than while married.
How is this possible?
What is Tipper going to do while living alone or separately from Al Gore that she wasn't doing with Al Gore?
What is she going?
No, turn up the air conditioning.
I guarantee Al Gore's air conditioning is running at full blast like his heater is in the summertime, all four of his 30-inch computer displays.
No, no, no, no.
U.S. households consume 42 to 61% more resources per person than while married.
So what is Tipper going to have or do after she splits up with Al Gore than if she were living with Al Gore?
And for that matter, what's Al Gore going to have or do differently from Tipper when they split up?
Anyway, this is worth thinking because the environmentalist wackos have put this notion up there that divorce contributes to global warming.
And here is Mr. Global Warming, Nobel Peace Prize winner, now contributing to his own crisis.
To the phones, Sandusky, Ohio.
We'll start with Tom.
Nice to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Thank you again.
Same to you.
How are you today?
Very well, sir.
Thank you.
My question is this.
Bobby Jendahl is having a heck of a time down there in his state because the president or his agencies are not reacting to what he's requesting in time.
And I just wonder if it would be better for Jendahl, the Governor Jendahl, to go ahead and do what he wants to do, regardless of what, you know, the Army Corps of Air Engineers says on building these barrier islands or to let Obama bumble his way through this whole mess.
Well, there's obviously a reason why Governor Jindal is not going through with this on his own and ignoring, and I gather it's because he wants to remain close to the law, doesn't want to break the law.
It's got to be that.
I don't know why else not do so.
I think he's just made the decision he's going to follow the law.
He's going to follow the systems.
And if he can't get permission, he can't get permission.
I don't think he's doing it to set up blame.
I think he probably just has a respect for the law.
And who knows?
Well, that may be true, but at some point, you're going to have to take matters into your own hands because certainly Obama isn't doing it.
He's walking around thinking about it.
Well, yeah, it's like Arizona.
Arizona's pretty much taken matters into their own hands.
And look what's happening to Arizona.
And look what's happening to Arizona is being orchestrated from the White House through Mexico City when Senor Wences brings a ventroloquist buddy up here to address a joint session of Congress.
By the way, did you see the Los Angeles Times as a poll?
51% people in California support the Arizona law?
Yeah.
51%.
It's L.A. Times poll.
51% of California people support the law.
I don't look at it.
I haven't talked to Governor Jindal.
I'm just guessing as to why he's not saying, okay, screw it.
I'm going to build the islands anyway.
I guess he's a rule of law kind of guy, and that's it.
Otherwise, I guess he'd go through with it.
Anybody else got a better idea?
I'm open to suggestions.
There probably aren't any better ideas, but I'll still listen.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I got an idea for Bobby Jindal.
Maybe if he stopped referring to these things he's going to build on there as sand berms and started talking about building sand traps, Obama might change his mind as a Jindal could invite him down there for a bunker lesson at the same time the sand traps being built.
We got to be fair, though.
Admiral Allen has said four days ago that about half of these sand berms could move forward and be built.
▲
Export Selection