All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
July 21, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am Rush Limbaugh behind a golden EIB microphone, utilizing talent on loan from a god.
Happy to have you here.
Your phone calls are coming up soon in this hour.
Telephone numbers 800 282-2882, the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
Speaking of a free press.
The National Inquirer is now reporting that two more massage therapists are claiming that Al Gore assaulted them.
None of the flax in our orchestrated press, none of the flax for the ruling class would ever break such a story as the John Edwards story proved once and for all.
They never break a story like this.
The inquirer says Al Gore sex scandal shocker.
Police investigate two more.
The inquirer reports in an exclusive bombshell exclusive that the police have investigated charges from two more women who claimed they were abused by former VP Al Gore.
The uh the first incident allegedly took place at a Beverly Hills luxury hotel when Gore was in Hollywood to attend the Oscars.
In 2007, the second one occurred a year later in a hotel in Tokyo.
The Beverly Hills source told the inquirer, a therapist claimed that when they were alone, Gore shrugged off a towel, stood naked in front of her, pointed, and said, Take care of this.
That's uh there's uh well, apparently there's something there, uh snertly, but anyway, this this is uh just like the John Edwards News never never made it in the so-called media, but there it is.
Al Gore in a race with Tiger Woods.
Who would have thought?
Who would have ever thought that?
Now let's get back to the journalist Tucker Carlson's uh website, the Daily Caller with a follow-up story today.
Headline, liberal journalists suggest government shut down Fox News.
Here's how it starts.
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond?
As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911?
Would you try to save him from dying?
Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer on a radio station that carries NPR programming, that is not what you would do.
In a post to the listserv journalist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Sarah Spitz wrote that she would laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself.
Quote, I never knew I had this much hate in me, but he deserves it.
Spitz's hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced.
On journalists, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies.
It barely raised an eyebrow.
In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for Obama's health care bill for most people.
The protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.
On Journalist, the question was whether the protesters are garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.
Now, Byron York from the D.C. Examiner and Noel Shepard from Newsbusters sent me notes today.
So, have you got any response to this?
And uh by the way, do you think Bob Schaeffer has heard of the Al Gore story?
I mean, even even before today, I mean before today, do you think that Bob Schiefer has heard that that uh that a Masseuse in Oregon has accused Al Gore of uh of uh of sexual come on?
You think Schaeffer's heard of that?
I I doubt it, folks.
I I don't think his staff has probably heard of it.
I doubt it.
So anyway, here's here's what I I I told both of these guys in a series of emails, and I put this, put my response at Rush Limbaugh.com as well.
I said, I can only surmise, I I I think most people on the left live in a world where merit is irrelevant.
You know, I've I've I've never I've never fantasized about watching somebody die or hoping they've died.
So I can I I can't relate to this, but I can only surmise.
I think most people on the left live in a world where merit's irrelevant.
Theirs is a world in which connections, networking, butt kissing, obedient sameness are rewarded.
And I'm the antithesis of all that.
I'm a legitimate achieved, accomplished number one.
I've made it on my own without them, without having followed their prescriptions.
And I also threw in, I think they're also jealous that I just sold my New York condo at 125% profit while their houses are worthlessly underwater.
And you know, it's not it's not just that they hate how I became who I am.
They literally hate who I am.
They literally hate me.
They hate me.
These journalists, these so-called journalists hate me because I am the most prominent, effective, unrelenting voice of conservatism, and they haven't been able to stop me.
No matter what they've thrown at me, they haven't been able to stop me.
These people and their tactics are not new.
We've seen them before in other countries, in other times.
They want to destroy contrary and opposition voices and views.
They will climb over the law and the people to achieve their aims.
I mean, earlier in this administration, the president, his hacks targeted me.
His party targeted me.
Their groups targeted me.
They're all the same.
They're leftists.
Disguised as lawyers, judges, scholars, professors, teachers, reporters, anchors, senators, representatives, legislative aid, congressional staff, federal bureaucrats, and on and on.
There is no media.
We know that now.
There's just an incestuous relationship among all these various groups and a revolving door connecting them all.
And it doesn't help that I have put a lot of them out of work.
Their networks are failing.
Nobody is reading their newspapers unless they make me the story.
Nobody is watching their cable broadcasts unless they make me the story.
They don't get rating bumps unless they make me the story.
It's totally understandable that they hate me.
It's a little silly for them to want me dead.
What would happen to their ratings were I not around.
So that was basically my reply to all this.
But folks, the the the story goes on to talk about how these um journalists suggest that government shut down Fox News.
And I gotta I got a note today from a friend of mine.
I don't want to embarrass him.
But I got a note today from a friend of mine in journalism.
Can you believe, can you believe these journalists?
I mean, they've really admitted it now.
They don't care about the First Amendment.
I'm going, duh.
I mean, I must have gotten, folks, I know how I rate with people today.
I got five or six emails, and not one of them said, Do you see these people want you to die?
They all said, You see what these people want to do to Fox News?
These people want to shut Fox News down.
I wrote, hey, am I a potted plant here?
Do you not care they want to see me die?
Oh, of course that's rancid.
But can you believe they want to shut down Fox News?
I can't believe it, Rush.
They want to shut down Fox.
These are journalists and they claim to flee the First Amendment.
They're admitting it don't care about the first.
I'm sitting there going, gee whiz.
I mean, I'm used to being ahead of people, but not by light years.
But in this case, these people care about the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is an obstacle.
They want to deny the First Amendment to everybody but them.
They are the superiorists.
They are the leftists.
Uh there.
The uh the why is this, I don't know why the story's coming out now, Snow.
The site, the site was started by against some obscure person.
You know, half of the people are more on this listserve never heard of.
Uh and it was started by some obscure Washington Post blogger named Ezra Klein.
Uh, and it was sent, it's been shut down for a month or two because of what was on it.
The first batch of stuff we learned.
I don't know, Tucker Carlson's uh website, Daily Caller just got hold of the stuff.
Why is it coming on?
I couldn't tell you.
Your theory is there are no coincidences.
So some there's there's a reason why this stuff is leaking now.
Well, what's your theory?
If they well, if you're if your theory is that they hope to distract me, no, what no notice what hour I'm talking about this in.
I don't I know I don't know what the purpose is, but it is out there.
Well, the point is to me, it it just it illustrates once and for all, again and again, that there is no media.
I still feel like I'm not connecting with this.
And since they're one of these things, I think this is a really, really timely observation.
And maybe it maybe it's too uh esoteric for a lot of people to get their arms.
What do you mean there's no media?
Of course, Russia, ABC, and CBS.
Yeah, but they're not what they claim.
That's not, it's not media.
It's not, there's no journalism happening.
These are not people who are just misguided who have bias.
This is this is not uh industry go wrong.
There is no industry.
There is no industry called journalism.
There used to be, there still are journalism schools.
We know what they're being taught.
And we know how they're being uh we know how they're being raised.
One of the people that that uh I mean, you've got people from Time magazine.
Uh Michael Shearer, Roger Ailes understands his job is to build a tribal identity at Fox, not a news organization.
You can't hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong.
If Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity, I don't even know what what that means.
These people are all party apparatus.
They're just flacks.
They have various levels of power.
There are various levels of status in the ruling class.
These people think they're high ranking, but they're really just a bunch of butt kissers who are trying to advance.
They're very obedient, they're all the same.
They think the same, they speak the same, they have the same mannerisms.
There's nothing unique about them.
Uh in a merit-based world, there would be no CNN right now.
They would have failed and bombed up and out of business years ago.
Uh, in a merit-based world, there would be no MSNBC.
They don't have for what their objective is, a national network don't have any audience.
CNN doesn't either.
The uh the test pattern, walla walla Washington, has a bigger audience.
The radar at Portland, Oregon has a bigger audience than CNN does.
In a merit-based world, these people wouldn't exist, but merit basis is irrelevant, and they don't have any concept of merit-based.
It's all networking, butt kissing, it's all passing notes, it's all being part of the big click, and you have to say the right things and have the right mannerisms and uh uh be beholden to the same people, worship the same people, and that's how you climb the ladder.
And then if you get really, really big, uh, you leave journalism and you become a legislative aider, a spokesman or something for an elected official, and after you do that, well, then you go back to media and do an even bigger job.
And all the while claiming to be an objective journalist.
But it's a bunch of incestuous people.
They're all sleeping together, they're all in the same bed.
They all get up at the same time, go to bed at the same time.
It's just it's utter obedient sameness.
And when anybody, anybody outside that group happens to make it, whoa, that's just that that offends them as well.
And then the offense doubles when the content is something opposite what they believe.
So you've got Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA suggesting the federal government simply yank Fox off the air.
I hate to open this can of worms, he wrote, but is there any reason why the FCC couldn't simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?
Here's a law professor at UCLA.
The FCC does not grant Fox a permit.
Fox does not have a license.
Cable is not regulated by the FCC.
Local stations have licenses, but network, ABC doesn't have a license for crying out, CBS doesn't.
NBC doesn't.
Their stations do.
We, we here at the EIB net, we don't have a license.
Our network affiliates have licenses, but we don't.
We don't have to get a license to operate here.
The government could not, as these people want, yank us.
There's a law professor suggesting the government just yank Fox off the air.
That in itself is pretty explanatory.
And people say, well, they don't even believe in the First Amendment.
Of course they don't believe in the First Amendment.
But they will use the layers of constitutional protection to insulate them from what they do, permitting them to lie, to fabricate, to character assassinate whatever they wish to do.
And they it's it's a it's a circle, you know what?
That is what these people are.
Democrats and their front groups have wanted a race-based political battle for months now.
Starting with those congressmen who walked through the Tea Party rally and lied about the use of the N-word.
They were looking for.
They were hoping something happened.
When it didn't, they made it up.
All the liberal propagandists in the media who reported it as fact were lying through their teeth, and they still are.
The NAACP used the same lie about the Tea Party to unleash this latest round of hate.
There's one guy who could stop it, Thomas Sowell points it out.
It's Barack Obama.
Barack Obama, when he finishes office, is going to have further divided this country at every level than any president or any other individual in the history of this country.
And isn't it interesting that the so-called media ignore all of this?
Well, it's not interesting, it's factual.
They ignore all this and advance the lies of the left.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back right after this, my friends.
Do not go away.
And we're going to start on the phones in Erie, Pennsylvania.
Valerie, you're up first today.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you for taking my call.
Shirley Sherrod's reconciliation statement that she made was laudable.
But then she realized that her real discrimination was for those who have versus those who have not.
Doesn't that mean she's the perfect employee for this administration and redistribution?
Exactly right.
That's right.
That's Obaminism.
That's exactly right.
She finally figured it out.
It's haves versus have nots.
And that's what Obamanism is.
That's the route to redistribution.
And that's the part nobody's talking about.
That's what her discrimination is.
Well, they are talking about it in a way because you know, the haves versus the have nots is a great moral crusade for the left.
The haves versus have nots, class warfare is a great moral crusade.
So she now a moral crusader.
I mean, that's she has fully rehabbed herself in uh in that regard.
You know something that that some people are talking about it, very few, but you know, when she was going for an ed video tape that Wright Bart uh aired or put on his website, when she's talking about not helping the white farmer because what had happened to her own people, how she'd slough the white farmer off onto one of his own, a white lawyer.
The people in the NAACP audience were applauding and nodding in support of her comments about the white farmer.
And the context of that is irrelevant.
Why were the audience of the NAALCP meeting doing that?
When they presumably did not know the end of what she was going to say before she said it, when they thought she was talking about getting even with the man, they were all nodding their heads and applauding.
I simply mentioned this because the NAACP and the media cannot explain this and they won't explain it.
The applause and the approving nods are not taken out of context, is best I can tell.
How would you take those out of context?
When the audience thought this woman was into her full-fledged let's get at the man routine, they were all up for it, applauding and and and just like the people at the NAACP audience who were applauding and laughing when Reverend Wright mocked and attacked white people.
Let's not kid ourselves here.
The effort here now is to say that Shirley Sherrod, there was no racism there.
And no racism of the NAACP.
That's what's going on.
That was the objective in the first place.
The objective in getting rid of her summarily without examining what she had said was to make sure, hey, there's no racism here.
We are the victims of racism.
We don't have the power to be racist.
And then they thought that Shirley Sherrod had done something and said something that was racially oriented or racist oriented, so bam, she gets thrown under the bus.
Because they they they uh they have to have the mirage.
They have to have the image.
Then when it comes to racism, they're not guilty.
They are innocent, clean and pure as the wind driven snow.
So that's why she was thrown overboard.
The idea that the conservatives made this happen.
You know, you you people in the media, so-called media, you just apparatchics.
You know, apparatus, by the way, is the right term.
Uh apparatchic is a Russian colloquial term that it it stands for full-time professional functionary of the party or government.
So rather than call them media people are apparatchics.
And they were just eager as they could be to make sure that they were not tarred and fettered with the racism that they were accusing people of having because they knew it would undermine their own credibility.
This whole Shirley Sherid episode.
Let me try to put this in perspective.
It's about those who produce tape and transcripts versus those who make false accusations in Barry stories.
It's about facts versus frauds.
Very simple.
Now, Andrew Breitbart has produced endless film footage and videotape of government malfeasance in the past year.
Andrew Breitbart has essentially done investigative journalism.
The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson's website, is producing real transcripts of emails by so-called journalists who are nothing more than apparatchics.
The Daily Caller is doing journalism.
Sean Hannity had the Jeremiah Wright footage on Fox News long before anybody else did.
That was journalism.
We've had published, leaked emails from phony scientists revealing the deep and widespread fraud that became known as climate gate.
We have had real journalism exposing the fraud that is and the hoax that is global warming.
None of these, none of these instances have yet to be covered by what we're all told is the media, the new Black Panther, voter intimidation case.
They don't even know about it.
Those who do know about it suppress it.
These emails from the journalists that Tucker Carlson's website has produced reveal, just like the emails from the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, a conspiracy to suppress real news, damaging to either Obama or damaging the global warming cause, or plain old damaging periods.
What is what is the left produced?
In comparison to all of this, what has the left produced?
They have produced phony racist quotes attributed to me in an effort to destroy a business transaction.
They have produced phony accusations of racism at tea parties.
They have produced phony accusations of racial taunts toward a blank a black congressman on healthcare Sunday, fake quotes attributed to me, phony accusations of racism, non-existent racism at tea parties, non-existent racial taunts toward a black congressman on Healthcare Sunday.
They have ignored and or buried stories about Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and every other member of the ruling class.
And let's not forget Dan Rather's phony stories about President Bush and what happens.
It's just like when Lawrence Tribe writes his Magnum Opus book, and we find out he didn't write it.
Some assistant named Ron Klain wrote it, and then we find out Ron Klain didn't wrote it, right?
He plagiarized it.
And then that whole episode was reviewed by the Dean at Harvard Law, who said there's nothing here.
Nothing really went on, and now she's going to be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
That's Elena Kagan.
Dan Rather forges documents or uses them in a story to affect the outcome of an election about George Bush faking or lying about service to National Guard during the Vietnam War.
The documents are proved fake.
CBS to say face fires rather.
Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings gather with the rest of the apparatus in the media and convene an awards ceremony for Dan Rather.
Protect their own.
So what you have here is utterly fake, fraudulent, non-existent news versus factual, damaging news, the result of real journalism.
We have the new media versus state-run drive-by propaganda stenographers, apparatus for the Democrat Party, so-called elites.
By the way, the the the uh you have the apparatus, and then you have the nomenclatura.
The nomenclature, the genuine ruling class, the apparatus are the pretenders and the wannabes.
They're on the team, and they think they're going to one day be accepted in the nomenclatura, but they will never be.
They're useful idiots.
The nomenclatura, the true ruling elites in the ruling class, look at these schlubs in their so-called media and say, boy, what a bunch of pawns.
We got them right where we want.
But they're never going to advance.
They're never going to get what they want to be.
They're never going to be at the World Bank.
They're never going to be at the Council on Foreign Relations.
They're never going to be at these places.
They're never going to be people of genuine power.
They're going to be used.
They're obedient slaves, if you will, who are made to believe that they matter and made to believe that they count in the ruling class.
The so-called elites of the ruling class, the scientists, the journalists, the professors, and the politicians, the four corners of deceit, as they have been detailed by me.
A parade of smug elitists, collectivists, redistributionists, people who have marginalized professions they inherited, all in the name of bettering the lives of the little people.
And they lie in the process.
They lie, they smear, and they orchestrate it all.
They do it to control clueless people, clueless peons who don't know better, who can't take care of themselves, who don't know what they want and can't be trusted with money in their own dirty little hands.
People the ruling class don't know and don't care to know, bitter clingers, as a grossly underqualified, unaccomplished editor of the Harvard Law Review once called them.
By the way, he's now president.
And yet these brilliant micromanagers have to make up facts.
They have to engage in false accusations.
They have to make promises they don't intend to keep with money they don't have in order to get their way.
They have disclosed national security secrets.
They have promoted accusations that went on for the longest time, R. E. Valerie Plaim that were not true.
They have trashed people who are genuinely effective and who frightened them.
Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby.
Me, well, of course me can throw me in on all of this.
And the reality boils down to this.
These elites, be they the apparatus or the nomenclature, they cannot win on facts.
Their ideas do not prevail.
They are a ruling minority.
They rely on lies, union thug enforcers, acorn crooks propaganda.
They rely on voter fraud.
We will see if that's enough going forward.
We will see if it's enough.
We will see if the country, the evidence is not well, the evidence is in that it's not enough.
The evidence is clear they're not fooling a majority of people.
Issue by issue by issue.
And we'll see soon enough if they are succeeding in all of the sabotage and subterfuge.
We shall see very soon.
Quick call here is uh Patty and Naugata, Connecticut.
I'm glad you waited.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Oh, thank you so much for taking my call.
I so appreciate it.
Thank you, madam.
Congratulate you on your marriage.
Thank you.
Best wishes to you and your wife.
Uh I have two very, very important questions.
I have not heard discussed anywhere.
I wanted to run them both by me, and if for the sake of time consuming, I'd be willing to ask you the questions and even listen to you off air.
Uh the first one is vitally important also to all Americans, including myself, both are.
In regard to the financial reform bill, do you feel that Fanny and Freddie were intentionally omitted because of the variable home mortgages due to reset at the end of this year?
Number one.
Number two, the electronic medical records, known as EMR, passed in the stimulus bill regarding health care.
Currently, we have to sign a release in order to send records from one office to the other.
Do you feel they are in direct violations of the HIPAA laws and our freedoms and our information?
And currently, under this bill, there will be a password that any physician in the country can get into our private records anywhere we go in the country.
Uh last question.
First, I don't know specifically about about passwords and so forth.
I do uh have no doubt that the era of privacy of medical records is about to end.
Well about the HIPAA laws.
Well, the HIPAA, the HIPAA law doesn't even protect them.
The HIPAA law is a big fraud, too.
Did the HIPAA law help me?
The hip the HIPAA law did not stop people getting my medical records.
The HIPAA law would not have stopped the media publishing them if they gotten hold of them.
The HIPAA law is a is a is I remember the first time I had to go sign this HIPAA thing.
I said, What am I signing?
Well, you're you're signing away permission for people to see your medical records in case they want.
No, no, I thought this is about protecting them.
Oh no, no.
You have to sign this because it gives permission for us to share the records of you, uh your records with other people if they need them in case of an emergency or something.
I thought HIPAA was to protect.
Oh, no, no, no, you misunderstand.
Medical records, uh, once they get digitized, or they're they're look, ask ask ask Michael Jackson about well, if you can next time you see him, uh uh about medical.
Yeah, it'll be a while.
Uh, but uh about medical records.
Um you could ask me about medical records.
Your first question, Fanny and Freddie.
Yeah, it's because the mortgage is going to reset, but the reason Fanny and Freddie are not included is because that is the home base of the fraud.
Yes.
Fanny and Freddie is where all of the fraud took place where Barney Frank and Chris Dodd lived.
It's where they created the mess.
Yes.
That's why Fanny and Freddie are exempted.
And at the end of the year, there could be a potential huge problem because these variable mortgages reset.
Yep.
And they are not part of this financial reform.
I question intentionally.
Well, we don't know the Neil Cavuto show, Congressman Hines said they will be added at another time.
Yes.
We really don't know what's exempt and what isn't, because the proverbial secretary will have discretion to decide oh much.
That's why Chris Dodd says, you know, we're not really going to know how this is going to shake out until it's implemented.
Because there's so much of it's wide open.
Mm-hmm.
Patty.
It it it's it's up to bureaucrats to decide how they want to play this law.
Well, I've heard that these these particular financial reform bill that we will lose more liberties than we have under the health care bill.
I've heard that said too.
Uh, yeah.
They're already starting to do that now.
I mean, that's that is the express purpose of people like Obama and uh the left that is now in power.
Uh Patty, thanks for the call.
Brief time out.
Time is really flying by here today.
Be right back.
As to this question, are we gonna lose more freedom with health care of the financial reform bill?
Uh what what do you do more often?
You have a financial transaction more often, or you go to doctor more often.
I mean, you use your the financial aspects of your life are multiple times a day.
Uh some of you only go to doctor five times a day.
Uh A lot of you will use financial transactions ten, twenty-five times a day.
So I don't think there's any question about this.
Now, about financial reform, Chris Dodd.
Chris Dodd last Thursday said it's not a perfect bill.
I'll be the first to admit that.
We don't know ultimately how well the ideas we've incorporated here will achieve the results we desire.
We don't know.
It'll take the next economic crisis, as certainly it will come, to determine whether or not the provisions of this bill will actually provide this generation or the next generation of regulators with the tools necessary to minimize the effects of that crisis when it happens.
We're not going to know whether any of this is going to work until that happens.
Now, wouldn't you love to have your auto mechanic tell you that when he delivers your car after fixing the brakes?
We're really not going to know if the brakes are going to work until you're heading down the highway at 70 miles an hour, have to put on the bricks real fast to avoid hitting a Democrat crossing the street.
We really, really won't know about that.
Now, unintended consequences.
Stephen Spruell at the National Review Online, he just basically citing here the Wall Street Journal reporting this.
The nation's three dominant credit ratings providers have made an urgent new request of their clients.
Please do not use our credit ratings.
The odd plea is emerging as the first consequence of the financial overhaul that is to be signed into law or was signed into law today.
And it already is creating havoc in the bond markets, parts of which are shutting down in response to the request.
Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investor Service, and Fitch Ratings are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales.
Each of these people said so in statements in recent days.
Each says it fears being exposed to new legal liability created by the Dodd Frank financial reform law.
The new law will make ratings firms liable for the quality of their ratings decisions effective immediately.
The companies say that until they get a better understanding of their legal exposure, they are refusing to let bond issuers use their ratings.
So I guess this means if you go out and you want to buy a municipal bond and somebody can't tell you today it's triple A rated because the people aren't not going to stand by the rating because they do not know what their liability is going to be because of this bill.
This is important because some bonds, notably those that are made up of consumer loans, are required by law to include ratings in their official documentation.
That means that new bond sales in the 1.4 trillion dollar market for mortgages, auto, student loans, and credit cards could effectively shut down.
And remember, Chris Dodd said we won't know.
No one will know until this is actually in place how it works.
And Dodd said it again.
He said it last Thursday.
We're not going to know until the next crisis whether or not regulators have the right tools here to see that this works.
Sam in Brooklyn, I have one minute.
I want to get to you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
Why do you say to a lazy graham supporting Kalanak?
We played uh we played Senator Gramnesty's soundbite yesterday was very deranged.
Uh Senator Gramnesty said he would not have made this appointment.
But the person who did make the appointment, President Obama chose wisely.
Now you're asking me to analyze the deranged.
At the very least, you're asking me to analyze something that's irrational.
And the best way to understand this, Sam, old buddy O'Pell, is to understand here that Senator Grahamstee is making a play for the ruling class.
He simply wants to be accepted in the big click in Washington.
Senator Graham never got out of high school.
He really has taken it tough.
Whatever happened to him when he was one of the House managers during the Clinton impeachment.
He's been making up for that for years.
And he's groveling.
He's hoping they'll forgive him.
They never will, but this is what happens to you when you leave your integrity at the cloak check.
From the uh from the category nothing they do works.
Total U.S. government financial system support now at 3.7 trillion dollars.
On the day they sign into law a financial regulatory reform bill saying, no more of these rich fat cats gonna get away with screwing you.
No more, we're gonna be bailing them out.
▲
Export Selection