All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
July 7, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, look at me, folks.
I want to warn you, this is going to be one of those days.
I'm worn to a frazzle here.
I'm highly irritated.
I have spent most of the morning dealing with systems that ought not break down, which are breaking down.
I'm getting to the point where I'm going to charge people I pay to tell them what's wrong with what they're supposed to be fixing.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh, and this is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address LRushmo at EIBnet.com.
I've been asked if I might want to reassess my situation and my explanation of NASA.
Rescheduling the shuttle launches.
I said they're going to move them back after November 1st because all the Sea Turtle eggs are being moved from the Gulf Coast to Cape Canaveral, and a launch might, you know, Sea Turtle ends, season ends October 31st.
So it's been suggested to me that NASA might be postponing its shuttle launches based on what we learned yesterday from the NASA administrator.
One of his primary purposes is outreach to the Muslim community.
It has been suggested to me that NASA might have postponed its shuttle launches so that they could be sure that they would not have astronauts in space during Ramadan, which this year is August 11th or September the 9th.
Well, it's a valid question, Snerdley.
If NASA is going to be used to reach out to Muslims, I mean, obviously we would not want astronauts in space during Ramadan.
So it's a possibility.
My email today, I'm watching television.
Everybody's outraged over the appointment, the recess appointment of this guy, Berwick, Donald Berwick, to be the Medicare Medicaid Administrator for healthcare.
And all over television and the news, show trip here, they're all upset that this guy, well, people on our side are all upset this guy's been recess appointed.
And I look at this and why is anybody shocked at anything Obama does?
Why are they shocked at anybody he picks to head up a cabinet position?
This NASA guy says he misspoke.
No, he didn't.
Obama's backed the guy up.
Everybody in this administration is handpicked by Obama or people of like mind.
This is not an accident.
Obama's not some innocent waif running around there being sabotaged and undermined by a bunch of radicals in his administration.
He is the radical undermining the country.
And he's got his buddies appointed to do the work.
AP, happy as they can be about this.
President Obama intends to use the congressional recess to bypass the Senate and appoint Dr. Donald Berwick, an expert on patient care who has drawn fire from the Republicans.
His job is to oversee Medicare and Medicaid.
The appointment was me made today with lawmakers out of town for the annual 4th of July break.
The decision means that Berwick can assume the post of administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid without undergoing confirmation hearings in the Senate.
Now, the argument is, well, yeah, recess appointments have been used before, and Republicans have done it, and this is true.
And one of the cases that the defenders of Obama are citing today, John Bolton.
Well, John Bolton was not a policymaker.
John Bolton also went through a Senate confirmation hearing.
We remember it well.
They tarred and feather the guy.
But people looking for decency, fairness, Whatever for the best of the country from this administration, it better wise up real fast.
It's not for the betterment of the country.
Everything Obama does is political.
Now, who is this guy?
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
This Berwick guy, this is a soundbite from 2008, July 1st, in London at the National Health Service Conference celebrating 60 years of England's socialized medicine, which, of course, is a disaster.
And this is what Donald Berwick said.
This is just a little portion of his remarks.
Sick people tend to be poorer, and that poor people tend to be sicker.
And that any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate.
Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.
Britain, you chose well.
Okay, so we've got a socialist, we've got a Marxist, we've got a redistributionist who's now the head administrator for Medicare and Medicaid.
So, what's out of character here?
What's so shocking?
What is so shocking that the regime would recess appoint this guy without any confirmation hearings?
What's so shocking?
The regime is who it is.
Obama is who he is.
I've had to marvel today so many people on our side of the aisle shocked and outraged.
Why?
The time to be shocked and outraged was during the campaign.
The time to beat this guy was during the campaign.
Now it's too late.
You're not going to stop this guy from making his recess appointments.
You're not going to stop this guy redistributing wealth.
We're well down the pack here.
We're well down the road.
It's a little bit, you know, all this crying and caterwalling, a little bit too late now.
I mean, you want, you might want to say, well, the American people need to be informed and educated about this.
Well, they will be soon enough when this stuff gets implemented.
Try next year, try next January when all these tax increases hit and all the rationing for health care hits.
There's no way to stop it.
It's going to happen.
And then people will get their fill of it and find out what it was they elected and what they voted for.
But Obama's totally within character here.
What he's doing here is exactly predictable.
He's being precisely who he is.
The fact that he instructs his NASA guy to reach out to Muslims is totally who Obama is.
There should be no shock.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any anger or any outrage.
There shouldn't be any surprise over this.
But Rush, but Rush, he was so articulate.
He was so brilliant.
He was so smart.
What does that matter?
Let's redefine smart.
How smart is it to destroy the United States economy?
What kind of an IQ do you need for that?
What does intelligence matter here?
How smart is it if it's diabolical in its intentions?
We want to be satisfied with the notion a guy's smart.
This AP story is just amazing.
Republicans have indicated they're prepared to oppose Berwick over comments he's made on the rationing of medical care and other matters.
Democrats want to avoid a nasty confirmation fight that could reopen the health care debate.
And of course, they don't want to reopen the health care debate because it's massively unpopular.
Although the Democrats tell us how popular it is, 60% of the American people want it repealed.
41% don't think it will be, but 60% want it repealed.
Berwick was nominated in April.
No confirmation hearing had even been scheduled.
And there's a reason for that.
The Democrats don't want the country hearing about this guy.
The Democrats don't want this guy speaking in public hearings, just like they didn't want Elena Kagan to tell everybody who she really is.
I mean, we have an administration at one point, one time, they're wide open and out in the open and telling us who they are, not hiding anything.
And then the next moment, they don't want us to know what they're really up to.
But it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to know what they're really up to.
So I don't, I don't know, maybe just because I'm in a foul mood here today, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who should have gotten it before the election who are only now starting to realize the disaster that we've got.
It's too late.
November is the first chance we've got.
The government's suing Arizona.
And you know what?
In this lawsuit, they're not even citing profiling.
All the public reasons for opposing, not even citing that.
The supremacy clause, it's all political.
They're not doing this for the sake of immigration or the federal government maintaining its control.
If they really cared about states and cities violating federal law, they'd shut down every sanctuary city.
They'd shut down San Francisco and every other one that welcomes illegal immigrants and puts them on the welfare rolls.
But they're not serious about that.
What they're serious about is upending the country.
What they're serious about is getting even with this country over its successes and its power.
What they're about is redistributing wealth.
The medical here, listen to it again.
This is the guy running Obamacare, and he's recess appointed.
There's nothing anybody can do.
And this is, and this is Obama.
This is a clone.
Same thing with Kagan.
When this guy speaks, you may as well think and realize these are Obama's words.
Same thing with the NASA guy.
Listen to this again.
Sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker.
And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate.
Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.
Britain, you chose well.
Everything else is redistributionist.
Everything is going to be redistributed.
Everything.
Not just health care.
Everything.
Now, for the fun of it, let's go back and let's listen to some of the outrage from the leftists in the media and in politics over recess appointments Republicans have made in the past, particularly John Bolton.
It's July 31st, 2005, Fox News Sunday.
Chris Matthews talking to Senator Chris Dodd.
Question, Senator, it looks like Bolton's going to be there.
Recess appointment, what do you think the effect that'll have on things?
He's damaged goods.
This is a person who lacks credibility.
That's not what you want to send up, a person that doesn't have the confidence of the Congress.
The recess appointment process is being abused by Democrats and Republicans.
Remember, this was written into the Constitution to provide during these long periods when Congress was not going to be around at all and you had to put people in place.
It's an abuse of the process, whether Democrats or Republicans use it.
Fine, okay, so they're hypocrites.
Again, what's new?
What's new about the Democrats being hypocrites?
So when the Republicans do it, it stinks.
It's a violation of principle.
It's shredding the Constitution.
When Obama does it, it has to be done.
It's too important not to get done.
It has to be done.
We'll look the other way.
Here's Katie Couric and Chris Matthews.
This is from the Today Show, August 1st of 2005.
And they're talking about Bolton being recess appointed to be UN ambassador.
Over the weekend, the White House seemed to indicate that President Bush is poised to use his recess appointment power and send John Bolton to the UN without a Senate confirmation vote.
How can he do that?
Well, he can do it under the law, and he can make the appointment through the end of this Congress.
There'll be a recess appointment only good for one Congress.
He really won't have the full authority of someone like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who spoke for the whole country, not just for the president.
So they're both fit to be tied over this happening as well, but it is what it is.
And Katie Couric, who only anchors the evening news, how can he do this?
Katie, you know something?
You ought to be asking that 15 times a night on the CBS Evening News, reporting the latest news on the Obama regime and what it's doing.
How can he do this?
How can he do that?
That's what needs to be asked.
How can Obama do this?
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
We'll continue after this.
Your guiding light, El Rushball, behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There is another reason why Obama and the Democrats do not want any confirmation hearings on this Donald Berwick, and that's because we will hear that the death panels are back.
In fact, they never left.
We would hear that death panels are in and here to stay in Obamacare.
Now, we can go through the history of Bolton and what happened, and it might be, it might be wise to do that.
Bolton's recess appointment was temporary only until the end of that current Congress.
And when that current Congress ended, Bolton just stepped down.
But anybody want to bet that Berwick will not step down?
Just like Geithner, even though he's a tax cheat, had to stay on as Treasury Secretary because he's the only guy, only guy in America who has the talent, the intelligence, the ability to deal with the financial crisis.
Berwick will be the only guy who can really make this Obamacare work.
He studied it.
He believes in it.
So Berwick is not going to go anywhere when his recess appointment ends.
And the Democrats do not want hearings on this because they don't want this guy on television, coast to coast, explaining who he is and what he believes in because it will give the lie to what they're saying about Obamacare.
Now, Bolton had to resign at the end of the Congress to which he was appointed or recess appointed because the Democrats control the Senate at that time and they wouldn't send his nomination to the floor.
They had the votes.
They had the votes to confirm Bolton beyond his recess appointment, but Biden, who then ran the Senate, would not send his nomination to the floor.
Now, we can get all upset about this, but it's time to realize this is how the Democrats play the game.
We don't.
Our side doesn't play the game this way.
We're out there caterwalling and wailing and moaning about a recess appointment.
And that's all we're doing.
We're talking about how, well, it's horrible.
That's a bastardization of the process.
This is a bastardization of the Constitution.
This whole administration is.
Bolton had to resign.
And the New York Times is very happy about it.
Bolton to leave post as U.S. envoy to United Nations, even though he had the votes.
Moving on, the audio sound bites.
This is the suit of Arizona.
We have a little montage here of all of the state-controlled media on the so-called controversial Arizona immigration law.
The U.S. Justice Department suing to block Arizona's controversial new immigration law.
The federal government sues to block Arizona's controversial immigration law.
The Department of Justice today sued the state of Arizona over its controversial immigration law.
The Department of Justice filed a suit over Arizona's controversial new immigration law.
The Justice Department's filed a lawsuit against Arizona's controversial immigration bill, filing a lawsuit against Arizona over the state's controversial immigration law.
The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit today against Arizona's controversial immigration bill.
The United States today sued the state of Arizona.
It is about the controversial new immigration law.
It's not controversial.
70% of the country supports it.
What's controversial is Obama.
What is controversial is this lawsuit.
What's controversial is the fact the federal government does not want to enforce its own law and protect the borders.
That's the controversy.
But the media is trying to make the controversy here the Arizona law.
It's not.
70% of the American people support it.
Here's the Governor Jan Brewer yesterday in Gilbert, Arizona.
This is their 90th birthday celebration, by the way, a portion of what she said.
There's a movement throughout the United States of people wanting some action from the federal government.
And so we would probably see these types of bills being enacted in other states.
We need the federal government to do their job.
And if they don't do it, then Arizona will.
And she made a further observation about this.
They attempted to scare people in responding to the initial presentation of the bill.
Obviously, today we found that the federal government did not address that issue of racial profiling into their lawsuit.
Yeah, a reporter had asked her.
A lawsuit said the law is about attrition, that its sole purpose is to scare people out of the state.
Do you agree with that?
And she says, no, we're not going to scare people out of the state.
We're trying to enforce the federal law.
We're trying to enforce immigration law.
We're not trying to scare anybody out of the country.
Controversial immigration law on Google gets over 5 million hits.
If you search controversial immigration law, that's some of the hits you'll get in a Google search.
We've had this drummed into our heads 24-7, 365.
Controversial immigration law.
What's controversial is this administration.
What's controversial is the lawsuit.
What's controversial is the law, the federal law, is not being enforced.
Governor Jan Brewer makes the point here that we found out and looked at the lawsuit, the federal government did not address the issue of racial profiling at all.
Let's go back to May 19th in the Rose Garden.
Obama and Senor Wences, the Mexican president, Felipe Coleron, they held a joint press conference.
This is some of what Obama said.
My administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law.
We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights, because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.
Fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested.
And the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.
So Obama said he told the Justice Department to look at the law because it would lead to racial profiling, but his own lawsuit doesn't mention it.
You know why his lawsuit doesn't mention racial profiling?
It's because there isn't any racial profiling in the Arizona law.
The regime's been lying about this aspect of the Arizona bill, the Arizona law, ever since it first came up.
There is no racial profiling in it.
And that's why racial profiling is not part of Obama's lawsuit.
Now, to be clear, the lawsuit itself, this is actually kind of funny.
The Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona doesn't accuse Arizona of profiling or violating civil rights.
But the same Justice Department which filed suit has also attached a brief in support of an injunction against the Arizona law.
And it does suggest that it will cause the harassment of aliens who are in the state, whether legally or not.
So the lawsuit itself does not mention profiling, but they've attached a brief to it, which does.
Now, This is very important, very crucial.
One of the reasons they may not have stressed the civil rights aspect is because the law still hasn't gone into effect.
So there is no one they can point to as having been discriminated against.
The law doesn't go into effect until the end of this month.
They're trying to stop this thing before it's even gone into effect.
Howard Feynman on Mess NBC last night was asked the following question.
Would the best political argument against this law be to go ahead and let it be enforced?
And would the worst argument against it to have it stayed by a court during a midterm election period?
If they were to enforce that to the letter, the scene would be somewhere between the Keystone cops in the World War II internment of the Japanese.
I mean, they would be arresting people right and left.
They would be stopping everybody at traffic lights.
They would be overloading the federal system because they'd be transporting the people that they captured to federal authorities.
It would create mayhem, and the sight of that on national TV, I think, would be very damaging to the Republicans and to that cause.
Now, there's just one problem with this analysis, and that is you can't arrest people by stopping them at a traffic light.
This is another misrepresentation of the Arizona law.
You can't go up to anybody at any time because of the way they look or the fact they're stopped at a traffic light and arrest them.
They have to commit some offense prior, from speeding to robbery to murder to whatever it is, drumming drugs.
But you just can't randomly stop people under this law.
And it is being misrepresented in total by the schlubs in the slavish state-controlled media.
There is no racial profiling in the bill, and there is no random stopping for somebody who's not suspected of committing a crime.
So you just can't go up to people at a red light when they're stopped.
Say, hey, are you an immigrant?
Are you illegal?
Let me see your papers.
Can't do it.
Law doesn't permit it.
And by the way, when's the last time any Democrat complained about OFDR did with a Japanese?
They never complained about that.
National Security, the Democrats aren't embarrassed by that at all.
In fact, they try to make it sound like the Republicans are the ones that do that.
The Republicans don't do that.
FDR interned hundreds of thousands of people, Japanese.
It was a man of his time.
He's a great man, one of the greatest, the greatest president ever.
Talk about civil rights violations.
Now, get this.
As you know, the lawsuit against the new Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia has been dropped.
And one of the line lawyers, one of the line attorneys at DOJ, who's quit, says he was told to drop it because the DOJ is not going to pursue black defendants.
2009, Philadelphia, during a street festival, New Black Panther Party, Philadelphia chapter leader, King Samir Shabazz.
This is one of the guys Holder dropped charges against.
His name is King Shamir Shabazz, and he's speaking about white people at a street festival, Philadelphia, 2009.
This is after the election.
This is after.
Have you heard this, Snerdley?
This is after the election.
This is after the voter throw.
That happened in 2008.
I hate white people.
All of them.
Every last iota of a cracker.
I hate it.
You want freedom?
You're going to have to kill some crackers.
You're going to have to kill some of their babies.
All right.
So that's King Shamir Shabazz.
Now, you know, something that's occurred to me.
Snerdley helped me out here.
Am I correct or incorrect in observing that anger in the African-American community is much more intense since Obama's election?
It was supposed to be just the opposite.
We're supposed to have all of this unity and post-partisanship and post-racial administration.
And here it is, Obama won the election.
And here's one of the new Black Panther guys out there at the street.
Here, listen to this again.
King Samir Shabazz, 2009 Philadelphia Street Festival.
One of the guys against whom charges were dropped.
I hate white people.
All of them.
Every last iota of a cracker.
I hate it.
You want freedom?
You're going to have to kill some crackers.
You're going to have to kill some of their babies.
I mean, there still aren't any jobs out there.
There's no money.
People don't have any money.
They don't have any jobs.
The stash has run dry.
Well, it hasn't run dry.
48% of the stimulus has been spent.
42% remains unspent.
What?
The real Black Panther Party's denounced these guys?
So there's a real Black Panthan.
Yeah, these are the new Black Panthers.
They've been denounced by the real Black Panthers.
Yeah?
Well, I guess that's encouraging.
It's good.
So the real Black Panthers, who are no strangers to civil unrest and sort of themselves, they say that the new Black Panthers are over the top.
Okay, well, I can breathe easier.
It's great to have that perspective.
The current Black Panthers think these guys talking about killing white babies and crackers and freedom, which is amazing because after the election, folks, I mean, after the election of Obama, the anger and the rage here.
Stunning, isn't it?
It's overwhelming.
This is not supposed to happen.
If you look at the polling data, this country is divided.
Obama has come and he has divided this country.
Look at the polling data on him, his approval numbers on his issues, issue by issue.
I predicted this.
I predicted it, Snerdley.
Even on this program, we had people calling before the election.
Rush, don't you think maybe the election of a black guy will end racism?
Because people will see that we've changed.
We're a decent country.
I said, no, it's only going to get worse.
I said, because any criticism of Obama will be called racist.
And the race industry and the race hustlers are going to fundraise off of it, get media attention out of it.
It's going to be even worse than ever.
And so I guess this soundbite from a couple years ago, just last year, by King Samir Shabazz of the new Black Panther Party sort of gives an illustration.
But as Snerdley has pointed out, the real Black Panthers have said to new Black Panthers, that's a little much even for them.
Until we hear from the Weather Underground, though, Bill Ayers, the jury's still out.
Okay, time for a little truth-telling, ladies and gentlemen.
The old Black Panther Party has expressed its displeasure with the new Black Panther Party.
As Snerdley has informed me, the old Black Panthers say these new guys, they don't cut it.
Now, why?
Well, there's a very simple reason.
The old Black Panthers actually kill people.
The new Black Panthers are just talking about it.
The old Black Panthers walk the walk along with the Weather Underground and billiards, actually kill people or trying to kill people.
These guys, the new Black Panthers, stand around mouthing a bunch of threats, but they haven't done anything yet.
Until they go out and kill some crackers, a new Black Panthers, a bunch of pretenders.
Now, the person who pronounced the new Black Panthers, and not the old Black Panther, was another than Huey Newton.
Huey Newton was accused of murdering an Oakland police officer, a white cop.
John Fry was his name, charged with murdering Fry.
Newton was convicted September 1968, voluntary manslaughter, got two to 15 years in prison.
In May of 1970, California appellate court reversed a conviction, ordered a new trial, and after two subsequent mistrials, the state of California dropped the case.
So Huey Newton, who killed a white cop, effectively got off because of jury nullification and technicalities.
Even though there was an eyewitness to the shooting, another cop.
Another cop saw Newton shoot the other cop.
So Huey Newton, when he says the new Black Panthers, they don't cut it.
He speaks from experience.
The old Black Panthers didn't just talk about killing crackers.
They actually did it.
And until the new Black Panthers do something other than just stand outside a polling place with their hands in their pockets, they're not going to be properly respected with the real Black Panthers.
And I imagine the old Black Panthers are not all that impressed the Justice Department dropping charges.
I mean, if you're a Black Panther, you're a Black Panther, you get charges, you go through the court system and you screw it up that way.
There's a story that I found last night, McClatchy News.
I'm sorry, Cox, Cox Newspapers.
And I found this because the story mentions me.
It means the weirdest thing.
It's from the Seattle Times, but it's datelined, West Palm Beach, Florida.
And the headline, drilling off Cuba, could be sticky proposition.
Now listen to the way this thing starts.
Despite the warnings of Dick Cheney, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News, the Russians are not drilling for oil off Cuba.
Neither are the Chinese.
In fact, no one, not even Cuba, is drilling for oil off Cuba.
This pesky and persistent rumor bubbling back up with a Deepwater Horizon disaster is still nothing more than a pesky and persistent rumor aired in 2008 by former Vice President Cheney, who got the misinformation from George Will.
It was repeated on Fox News, recently revived by conservative radio commentator Limbaugh, who told his listeners 10 days after the spill the Russians are drilling in a deal with the Cubans in the Gulf.
The Vietnamese and Angolans are drilling for oil in the Gulf in deals with the Cubans.
Now, to this point in the story, I guess we all made it up.
There's nothing to it, nothing but a pesky rumor.
George Will started this chain of disinformation.
It went to Cheney, and then it went from Cheney to Fox News, and then somehow I picked it up.
But it's not true.
It's just a pesky rumor.
However, the next paragraph after that lead, however, as oil from BP's exploded well continues surging from the Gulf floor and washing onto panhandle beaches, the rumor is poised to become fact.
I read this.
I was incredulous.
Drilling off Cuba could be sticky proposition.
The first two paragraphs deny that there is any drilling in the Gulf with the aid of the Cubans.
It's a pesky rumor.
It's disinformation.
George Will's responsible.
Cheney's responsible.
I'm responsible.
Fox News is responsible.
There isn't any drilling in the Gulf with the Cubans, Angola, the Chikoms, the Vietnamese, nobody.
Got that?
However, as oil from BP's exploded well continues surging, the rumor is poised to become fact.
Well, how could it ever be a rumor?
Who wrote this?
Christine Stapleton.
I've never seen anything like this.
And I've seen everything that the drive-bys have done, but I have never seen anything like this.
It would be like me coming up.
Have you heard that rumor?
You heard that rumor the Cubans and the Chikoms and the Russians are drilling in the Gulf?
Yeah, I heard it.
Well, it's not true.
It's not true.
Except next week it's going to start.
What the name of Sam Hill is going on here?
Here are the details of this pesky rumor.
However, Repsol, a Spanish company, expects to begin drilling off Cuba in 2011, according to published reports in oil industry analysts.
Companies from at least 10 other countries, including Russia and China, are negotiating or already have signed lease deals to drill off Cuba.
And yet the first two paragraphs of this story say it's nothing but a pesky rumor spread by people like me and George Will and Dick Cheney and Fox News.
The rest of the story is details of all of this drilling that's going to go on with the Cubans, the Angolans, the Vietnamese, and the Chikoms.
And then there's this question.
Should the United States be concerned about drilling off of Cuba?
Why should we be concerned, Christine?
It's a rumor.
It's an unsubstantiated rumor spread by me and George Will and Dick Cheney and Fox News.
And now, after telling everybody in the lead of your story, it's just a rumor, now all of a sudden you're offering details and asking if we should be concerned about it.
So after asking the question, should the U.S. be concerned about drilling off Cuba?
Yes, she writes is the answer, according to Jorge Pia Yon, former president of Amoco Oil Latin America, now a visiting research fellow with the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International University.
Okay, so now we've gone from a pesky rumor, unsubstantiated, started by George Will, picked up by Cheney, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh, to the confirmation that it's not a rumor, it's happening, and that it's bad news for the United States, all of which you know already because you listen to this program, but these Cox News people write a story saying, what you've heard up to now is not true.
Limbaugh, Cheney, Fox News, George Will lied to you.
We're telling you the truth.
What they said is true.
But they're liars and they're rumor mongers.
Listen to us at Cox.
This guy, Jorge Pion, said, let's face it, the oil industry is a risky enterprise.
There's always concern for a deepwater horizon incident.
If we are going to be afraid of drilling off Cuba, we need to be afraid of the 3,500 rigs drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Wait a minute.
3,500 rigs?
There are 33 rigs that are ours.
3,500 rigs, and it's a rumor?
It's just a pesky little rumor, and it's been fed by people like George Will and Dick Cheney and me who have no credibility.
Then the rest of the story, it's, my gosh, it's happening.
And there's an expert at a Florida university that says that's not a good thing.
How much oil lies beneath Cuban waters is unknown.
Only one exploration well has been dug.
Hydrocarbons were detected.
A U.S. Geological Association survey indicated there are significant reserves.
Can I read the first paragraph again?
Despite warnings, Dick Cheney, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, the Russians are not drilling.
Neither are the Chinese.
In fact, not even Cuba is drilling for oil off Cuba.
The pesky rumor, bubbling back up.
However, the rumor is poised to become fact.
I'm reading verbatim from this convoluted, absolutely incompetent piece.
The troubling question for companies hoping to drill is what to do with the oil after they get it out of the ground.
Cuba has limited ability to ref.
What in the hell?
The troubling question for companies hoping to drill is what to do with it after they get it?
I think this person works for me.
This is how stupid she is.
This is unbelievable.
And minor correction.
I said Huey Newton condemned a new Black Panther Party not possibly been dead 21 years.
It was the Huey Newton Foundation, which said there can never be a new Black Panther Party.
There's only us, and there aren't going to be any new ones.
Now, again, if the new Black Panthers actually start killing some crackers, then maybe the Huey Newton Black Panther Foundation will accept them.
But certainly not until they just talk and talk.
▲
Export Selection