All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
January 19, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I'm Rush Limboy, and this the one and only EIB Network, as we say, here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, if you're not living on the cutting edge, you are taking up too much space.
Telephone number if you want to join us.
800-282-2882.
The uh email address.
Lrushball at EIBNet.com.
Well, they've got it in San Francisco.
And I just saw on television they're gonna have it in Berkeley, Berkeley, California, now to pay for sex change operations.
The popular adadicomy procedure made famous in San Francisco, now being adopted across the bay in Berkeley, California.
Happy to have you along here, folks.
As you know, uh, ladies and gentlemen, Obama, president of our country, said this morning during a ceremony for Hujintao that the last 30 years of our relationship with China have been a time of estrangement.
Now, uh, am I wrong?
Or or haven't our relations with the Chicoms improved quite a lot since 1980?
I mean, we've practically sold them our country.
What more could we do?
My gosh, the iPhones made over there, the iPads made what more do they want?
And that's just not the only stuff made over there.
Come to think of it, the Chicoms might say we could pay them back.
Uh, and in dollars worth 100 cents.
And in fact, folks, our microphones were there during a private meeting between Obama and the Chikom leader Hu Xin Tao.
We now take you behind the scenes at the Obama White House, as Chinese President Hu Jintao and Barack Obama are having a private, cozy, intimate dinner.
I'm glad we could share this time together, who?
Now, about our trade deficit.
Well's my money.
Oh, oh, oh, well, would you like some more fried rice?
Uh I I got uh got plenty.
Yeah, no, no, no.
Uh Kobe beef, perhaps?
The money.
The money.
Uh uh after investing heavily, our economy is soaring to new heights.
So you no worries, no what about unemployment.
Uh, dessert.
You haven't had dessert yet.
Here, here.
Try this.
It's great.
It's great.
The money.
The money.
Uh not now, Joe.
By then, uh, yeah.
Barack!
Are you having dessert in that?
Uh no.
Uh, we're just finishing up our broccoli.
You're too fat.
Or quick, hide the cake.
Do I smell smoke?
Are you smoking again?
Join us next time.
We go behind the scenes at the Obama White House.
Instead of bowing, can I just kiss your ring next time?
And that's how it went.
And there's another meeting, this is a public meeting at press conference at one o'clock.
Right in the middle of this program, Hu Xin Tao and President Obama.
And I know Hu Jin Tao has said he's going to take four questions.
But speaking of the media, you have to hear this.
We got a couple of get this kind of news stories today.
This is one of them.
Last night on CNN John King USA.
Here is a portion of the host.
John King apologizing for an earlier guest.
The guest name is Andy Shaw, the executive director of the watchdog group Better Government Association, and some remarks he made during his appearance.
Listen to this.
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago.
My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term in the crosshairs in talking about the candidates out there.
We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language.
Andy is a good friend.
He's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language.
Serious folks.
CNN issued an apology for a guest using the term in the crosshairs.
Well, hey, Mike, I'm gonna change the soundbite order.
I need to find Wolf Blitzer and Sheriff Dipstick, because that also happened on CNN.
And this is just classic as well.
Looks Yeah, looks like 17 through 20.
Folks, I'm uh play this again.
Play number three.
Again, this, this, this, or not number three, whatever it was, number 22.
This, they're dead serious.
They're dead serious.
They wonder why they have 54,000 viewers, age 2554 at 8 p.m.
During Spitzer and the Ditzer.
54,000 viewers.
We have that many on the corner of Fourth Avenue and wherever in Oshkosh.
Listen to this again.
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago.
My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term in the crosshairs in talking about the candidates out there.
We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language.
Andy is a good friend.
He's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language.
What is somebody watching CNN think when they when they hear this?
When they see this.
Somebody, you know, if I were watching, I would have said, why don't you just reshoot the interview?
Just re-shoot the interview.
What is this apologizing for the crosshairs?
My gosh.
You know, this is it says a harkens back to Ted Turner.
You couldn't use the word foreigners for a long time on CNN, and then you couldn't use the word terrorist for a while, and now you can't say in the crosshairs, and I wonder if if they would apologize if I were on there and said, why don't you guys just reshoot it?
Uh I I'm Marvel.
I just I I don't know what to say.
I just love it.
Notice the sincerity here.
Um the the hand wringing.
We're trying.
We're trying.
We're trying to get away from that language.
Now that was last night on CNN's John King, USA.
Last night on CNN's situation.
So therefore, what happened here with Wolf Blitzer and Sheriff Dipstick was before this happened with John King apologizing for his guest Andy Shaw using the term in the crosshairs.
Situation room, Wolf Blitzer interviewing the Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dipstick, and we have four sound bites, and here's the first.
Some of your critics say uh you're basically implying that you know the Rush Lemba or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin may have created the environment that led to this massacre.
Well, I think all the flamethrowers are responsible.
Give me some specifics.
Who?
Well, you mentioned uh two of them, and I think that uh people who go out and uh call for people to uh take the second amendment up in order to resolve uh certain problems.
Those kinds of statements are so vitriolic, and I can't tell you how vitriolic the campaign was against the Tea Party candidate that ran against uh Gabriel Gifford's.
See, realize what he just said there, how vitriolic the campaign was against the Tea Party candidate that ran against Gabriel Gifford.
So there's Wolf Blitz.
Uh, you know, he he he slips back into fair journalist mode.
Here's the here's the next segment of the discussion with Sheriff Dipstick.
In your investigation over these ten days, Sheriff, do you have any information that leads you to believe that this alleged shooter, Jared Lofner, was listening to these what you call flamethrowers, whether Rush Limbar, Glenn Beck, or anyone else on the left or the right, do you have any specific information that he was influenced by them?
No, I I do not, but I can tell you that he has been preoccupied the last three years with an elected official, government official.
You're talking about this congresswoman.
I am.
Gabrielle Giffords.
Uh, but because we heard that he had Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto among other books in his possession, uh, based on what you know, was he more influenced by the left or the right?
I have no way of knowing that, Wolf.
Well, isn't this just peachy?
Sheriff Dipstick doesn't know anything.
All he knows is that Lofner hated one politician.
Gabriel Giffords.
Now, do I need to get into a logic explanation here?
The sheriff has just explained unbeknownst to him, what might be the root of this event.
He doesn't have any evidence or information whatsoever that I, Beck, or Palin, anybody responsible for this, even had any language responsible for it, but he can say that he's been that that Lofner was preoccupied the last three years with an elected official, a government official.
Who?
Gabriel Giffords.
Sheriff, many people hearing this might think the way you've been talking lately that you're all of a sudden now blaming her.
The guy was preoccupied with her, not with me, not with Palin.
Preoccupied with her.
Let's keep listening as Wolf Blitzer tries and tries again to get into the deep dark crevices of the mind of Sheriff Dipstick.
Because a lot of people are asking, Sheriff, if you don't know that he was influenced by these individuals, whether Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone else, why make the accusation that they helped create this environment that resulted in six people getting killed?
Well, it just happens to be my uh my opinion based on uh 52 years in law enforcement.
You're just speculating.
I am.
Well, that's gonna make law enforcement happy.
He's speculating as to who's responsible for a crime based on his 52 years in law enforcement.
And Wolf Blitzer says you're speculating.
Yeah, yeah, I was I was I was speculating.
I mean, Sheriff, if if if Jared Lofner was focused on a government official for three years, where the hell were you?
It seems to me to be a rather obvious question.
Sheriff Dipstick here admits that Lofner had it in for Gabriel Giffords.
And Gabriel Gifford's unfortunately in the hospital, meanwhile, Sheriff Dipstick is uh is blaming me.
And Sarah Palin.
You know, Wolf Blitzer, you know the purpose of the interview.
Well, they're trying to rehab the sheriff here.
They're trying to get the sheriff back on the side of credibility by kind of a yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But no, the sheriff is sticking to his guns, so to speak.
Apologize to CNN for the phrase sticking to his guns.
Uh, but that's that's what the sheriff is doing here.
So finally, Wolf gets dipstick to admit that he doesn't have evidence that Laufner even listened to the radio.
Because I just want to make sure that you don't know something.
I know you're you know a lot more about this investigation than I know or viewers know.
No, but you don't have any hard evidence.
Stop the tape.
Wolf, no, no, no, no.
He doesn't.
That's the whole point, Wolf.
He just got through telling you that for three years the shooter has had a hate on for Gabrielle Giffords.
Where has the sheriff been in all these three years?
So here's Wolf.
You know, now you see that they're trying to rehab the sheriff.
They like the sheriff.
He's a good liberal.
Uh, he's law enforcement.
They want what Dipstick says to have some credibility.
Um by the way, Wolf, let me ask you a question.
Given that John King's apologized for the phrase and a crosshairs and I can't say CNN should reshoot the interview.
And you think you might want to change your name, Wolf Blitz?
Blitzer?
I mean, that's nobody thinks of the reindeer when they hear that term.
Blitzer sounds like big-time force being used to overcome an opponent.
Yeah, blitzer is like a little mine kompflingo.
Well, anyway, I that's just something for them to think about.
Here's the final soundbite.
Jared Lofner was listening to Rush Limba on the radio.
I don't know what he listened to on the radio.
Sorry, so you're not backing away from that controversy.
You know you're gonna get a lot of uh criticism for making these statements, Sheriff, uh, but you're not backing away.
Well, uh the flamethrowers are pointed at me almost uh everywhere in the country.
This is just the only thing I know to do here to be polite laugh.
Uh the sheriff now thinks the flamethrowers are pointed at him everywhere in the country.
So I guess it's okay for the sheriff to come out and defend himself with idle speculation, but if I do it, or if Palin does it, why it's too defensive and it's tantamount evidence of guilt?
Uh I don't know, folks.
I just uh it's just a it's one of those get this episodes, and there is uh there are two more.
Here's one.
You may have heard that Connecticut Senator Joel Lieberman is not going to seek another term in 2012.
Now, Joe Lieberman ought To be the poster boy for the kind of new bipartisanship with the news media and the rest of the Democrats now claim that they want.
Who is it?
On the Democrat side, who has done more reaching across the aisle?
Who has been very civil?
I was going to say, who has been more civil than Joe Lieberman?
And yet we're now told that he's so unpopular with the Democrat base in Connecticut that he doesn't stand a chance of being re-elected.
And yet he's the model for what we all should be.
He's bipartisan.
He is civil.
He crosses the aisle.
He works with the other side.
He is the shining example.
He fits the mold.
Speaking of bipartisanship, the New York Times in 2006 refused to endorse Lieberman because he was too bipartisan.
He was too bipartisan.
The Times didn't endorse a single Republican for Congress in 2006.
That's how nonpartisan they are.
But but Lieberman was too bipartisan.
He was too wishy-washy.
They instead endorsed that nut case on the left, Ned Lamont.
Another get this story, and there are many more, plus a lot, a lot of other stuff coming at your way.
This program continues right after this.
I want to read to you from an editorial.
There you go.
This is the New York Times, July 30th, 2006.
Just an excerpt from that editorial.
This primary is not about Mr. Lieberman's legislative record.
Instead, it has become a referendum on his warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction.
We endorse Ned Lamont in the Democrat primary for Senate in Connecticut.
They didn't like Lieberman's bipartisanship.
At the New York Times.
I wonder if CNN will issue an apology soon for their 20-year program entitled Crossfire.
I wonder if CNN will tell James Carville and the forehead poll Big Gallo they will no longer reference their movie about the 92 Clinton campaign called The War Room.
You never know.
After John King's on-air apology last night on CNN.
We were just having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race just a moment ago.
My friend Andy Shaw, who now works for a good government group out there, used the term in the crosshairs in talking about the candidates out there.
We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language.
Andy is a good friend.
He's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from using that kind of language.
We're trying, we are trying to get away from using language like in the crosshairs.
We're trying.
By the way, Sergeant Shriver has passed away at age 95.
You would think.
I've I've wondered this, folks, for I mean, I've known about Sergeant Shriver all of my life.
You would think after all he did for the Kennedys in a Democrat Party, he would have finally gotten promoted to lieutenant, but he was Sergeant Shriver his entire life.
Now get this.
I don't know how many of you have heard that Comcast, big cable network, was going to end up owning 51% of NBC.
The regulator's been working on a deal supposed to be finalized in December, but it wasn't.
Until now, federal regulators have finally approved Comcast Corporation's takeover of a 51% stake at NBC Universal.
It happened yesterday after more than a year of review.
Federal regulators imposed various conditions on the nation's largest cable TV provider, including those that would protect the burgeoning internet video marketplace and promote the spread of broadband internet access among the conditions imposed by federal regulators on Comcast.
Comcast Muxed, listen to this now.
Comcast must make available to two and a half million low-income households, high-speed internet access for less than $10 a month, personal computer net books or other equipment for less than $150, And an array of digital literacy opportunities.
This is the regime.
For 51% of NBC, Comcast has to make available to two and a half million low-income households, high-speed internet access for less than 10 bucks a month.
That means everybody else's prices are going to skyrocket.
Personal computer, net books, or other equipment for less than $150.
Does that mean if you want an iPad or a computer, you can go to Comcast and get one?
I didn't know they sold them.
This is welfare.
This is digital welfare.
And an array of digital literacy opportunities.
What the heck is a digital literacy opportunity.
They must also maintain or increase local programming at its 10 NBC and 16 Telemundo stations, and they must increase children's programming.
Whoa.
Can anybody name for me any product or service the federal government does not regulate or tax directly or indirectly?
Is there anything?
And this this Comcast merger is uh it's just it's it's amazing.
This is the same nonsense that's always put on cable networks.
You know, we have community access channels on local cable.
Community access channels.
In New York, they are porn channels.
Uh Robin Byrd, uh, Al Goldstein, uh, and a bunch of other boring stuff.
Cable access.
If you've got, I'm sure you've got local cable access channels on your cable system.
And you know, if you you don't watch it, if you do, it's and it's it's well, if you if you do, you're on it, yeah.
In Kansas City, they had a channel that just showed them raising the flag over City Hall every day.
Good good democracy.
I'm I'm a little surprised that they they stopped it just making them give poor people broadband uh and computers.
Why not flat screen TVs?
I mean, Comcast is a cable company for crying out loud.
It's maybe they figure poor people already have the flat screens.
It's the uh it's it's it's the notebooks and the computers that uh that they don't have.
I I get I guarantee you that this Jared Lofner guy was watching community access channels on cable out there in Tucson.
It's just amazing.
Now try this.
This is uh French agency news story published at Yahoo News.com.
U.S. Let me give you the headline first.
Voters credit Obonomy.
That may be a new word, Obonomy.
Voters credit Obama for economy upswing.
Except there's a problem, folks.
That's not what the story says.
Let me illustrate.
U.S. voters are seeing signs of a brighter economy and are crediting President Obama for the upturn.
But by a narrow margin, they want Congress to repeal his health care overhaul.
The Quinnipiac University poll showed that 54% of respondents said they believe the U.S. economy is beginning to recover, 43% disagree.
Nonetheless, the survey showed a 53 to 40% majority disapproved of Obama's economic management.
Well, let's try to translate this.
Here's the headline: Voters credit Obama for economy upswing.
U.S. voters are seeing signs of a brighter economy and are crediting Obama for it.
Nonetheless, survey showed 53 to 40% majority disapproved of Obama's economic management.
Now, how stupid do they think readers are?
Obviously quite stupid.
The story does not the story says just the exact opposite of the headline.
This is media bias.
This is not conservative or liberal.
This is pro-regime propaganda.
Pure and simple.
This is how it works.
Voters credit Obama for economy upswing.
That's the slug line.
That's all people on the internet see in a list of stories from the French news agency at Yahoo!
And if they dare click on it, they have to read to the second paragraph to find out no, that's not what people are saying.
In fact, they're saying the opposite.
The survey showed a 53 to 40% majority disapprove of Obama's economic management.
Now, how in the hell do you get a headline out of a majority disapprove of Obama's economic management?
They get a headline that says voters credit Obama for economy upswing.
It's an out and out lie.
It's an out and out misrepresentation.
And don't give me this business headline writers or the different people who write the story.
Doesn't matter.
Whoever wrote the headline didn't read the story or didn't like the story and decided I'm just going to make the headline the story and forget everything else.
Peter Brown, the assistant director at the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Voters are not exactly jumping for joy about the economy, but they think it's turned the corner.
53 to 40% disapprove of Obama's economic management.
Brown added the poll showed something of a disconnect between how people view the overall economy and their own finances when it comes to Obama's policies.
Whether in the end that means they give him a thumbs up or thumbs down in November 2012.
That's that's an interesting question, says the pollster.
In what could be a significant challenge to the president, the survey showed voters wanted the repeal of the vast health care overhaul by a majority of uh 48-43%.
So the health care poll stays the same.
And voters do not credit Obama for the upswing in the economy.
Yesterday, USA Today had this story, poll.
Most want Obama, GOP to work together.
And then if you read into the story, you come across little passage that 57% in this poll, this is USA Today Gallup, 57% want Obamacare repealed or scaled back.
80% say the president should work To pass legislation Democrats and Republicans can't agree on, even if it's not what most Democrats want.
Now, out of that we get a headline, most want Obama GOP to work together.
Well, we all know what's going on here.
The Republicans won big.
It was a shellacking.
It was a monsoon victory.
So here comes the media with two stories.
One today, voters credit Obama for economic upswing, out and out lie.
USA Today yesterday, poll, most want Obama GOP to work together.
The details, 80% say the president should work to pass legislation Democrats and the Republicans can agree on, even if it's not what most Democrats want.
80% say ignore the Democrats.
80% say they want Obama to agree with the Republicans.
80%.
And from this...
We get a headline, most want Obama and the GOP to work together.
And also in this story, 57% want Obamacare repealed.
So U.S. Ada USA to day Gallup 57 want it repealed, and the Quinnipia Act it's 48% who want it repealed.
Now these people are not.
These people are not journalists, they're not even writers.
These are authors.
You know, I I wouldn't be surprised if some intern, some zit-faced little intern from some junior college at Yahoo wrote the headline to the story.
It's a French news agency story, but it runs on Yahoo.
Who knows Yahoo probably did the headline.
This is what we're up against, what we've always been up against.
And I guarantee you that nobody on the left, nobody in the so-called state controlled meeting, and nobody in the uh in the drive-by's is analyzing this properly or explaining this to anybody.
So to a certain segment of population that reads this stuff, boy, man, Obama's really on a ball.
He's got the economy coming back, and Republicans have better work with him on this.
They better understand that uh the people want Obama and the Republicans to work together on this, meaning agree with Obama when it's just 80%.
80% want the president to work with Republicans, even if it means going against Democrat ideas.
Remember, folks, journalism is the first rewrite of history from Las Vegas.
Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry branded Chinese President Hu Xintao a dictator on a local TV talk show Tuesday night.
I'm not used to this kind of clarity and honesty from Dingy Harry.
He called Hu Xin Tao a dictator.
This is a remark likely to make the start of Hu's first visit to Washington awkward for President Obama at a moment when the U.S. is trying to ease tensions with the Chikoms.
Reed was responding to a question from face-to-face host John Ralston about the December compromise that extended the Bush era tax cuts.
The recently re-elected Nevada Senator veered off on a tangent intended to compare the American and Chinese systems of government to give a roundabout.
In calling Hu Xin Tao a dictator, he's trying he's trying to compare the United States and the uh and the Chaicoms.
Then there's this story from the Associated Press about Hu Xin Tao's visit, feeling snubbed, slighted even when he visited five years ago, Chinese President Hu Xintao is getting a do-over, plus the White House state dinner he sought back then but was denied.
Tonight's opulent black tie affair with President Obama, the grandest of White House soirees, will mark the first such event in China's honor in 13 years.
And it could help smooth tensions between the world's two largest economies.
Some big questions remain.
These are the big questions in the AP story.
Who will cook?
Who is not going to cook?
Who is a guest?
Who is coming to dinner?
Yes, who is coming to dinner.
But who is not cooking?
Can the White House avoid mistakes like those that marred the reception when a protocol conscious WHO arrived for an April 2006 sum?
I had forgotten this.
But this is kind of funny.
Back in 2006, Hu Jintao showed up, official greeting ceremony at the White House.
Bush didn't hold a lot of state dinners.
He he Bush doesn't like eating in a tuxedo.
He preferred working lunches.
Bush, I mean, I don't know that he had five state dinners.
I mean, uh, six, I don't know how many, it wasn't many.
And by the way, I don't blame him.
How many of you really enjoy putting on a tuxedo to go eat?
You do, Snertley?
You enjoy you enjoy putting on a tuxedo to go eat.
Yeah, I used to.
You know, I used to, but I got over it.
I got over it 30 years ago.
Well, no, I used to have to do it a lot.
I don't have to do it ever, and I rarely do now.
I hate it.
What's the point?
It's it's like it's like to me going to bed in a tuxedo.
Why do it?
But anyway, I know it's it's uh it's a page from the glory days of the past.
Well, it doesn't just me personally.
I know Bush didn't like it either.
So, who shows up on the South Lawn of the White House?
And do you remember some woman protesting the Falloon Gong began shouting during Who's remarks?
Oh.
I was we were watching this here at the EIB network when this happened, and you could see who.
Uh he had hammers and sickles in those eyes.
Who was not happy?
And Bush was not happy, and Bush is going to have to explain this, because who no doubt thought that Bush allowed it to happen.
Embarrass Who this way.
Uh Chikom leader.
Uh so Bush apologized after he and Who went to the Oval Office, compounding that insult.
A White House announcer at this ceremony called China the Republic of China, which it's not.
It's the people's republic.
All dictatorships are the people's republic of or whatever.
The Republic of China is the formal name for Taiwan, which is a tiny island that Chiccoms want to nuke if they can't get it back.
So Obama has a chance here to uh to do it over again, and he's doing an official state dinner for WHO tonight at the White House.
Quick timeout here, my friends.
Your phone calls are coming up.
Again, the telephone number 800 282-2882.
Sit tight.
We'll be right back.
By the way, just to be clear, folks, still not uh certain here whether Harry Reed meant his comment about the Chikoms being a dictatorship in a derogatory or complimentary way.
I mean, China is an authoritarian collectivist dictatorship, but we don't know that Dingy Harry would necessarily find any fault with that.
He seems to be in support of that kind of we certainly know Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times loves the authoritarianism of the ChICOMs.
He says when the ruling elite are the right people beats democracy hands down, it's the only way you're really going to get things done.
Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times.
A real question about this state dinner tonight is when everybody's going to be hungry a half hour after they eat.
But I don't know that we'll get any news on that.
Low-income students may get smaller grants.
And the newly disabled might have to wait longer for their benefits, and just about every politician is going to get an earful from a local PTA if school aid gets whacked.
This is an AP story under the slug line Republicans spending.
Republicans are finding it's one thing to issue a blanket promise to cut spending, but an entirely different matter when you actually take the scissors to one dollar out of every six spent by agencies like the IRS, the FBI, NASA, and the National Park Service.
Federal layoffs would be unavoidable, the White House warns.
That's the real world impact of the House Republicans' campaign promise to cut 100 billion dollars from the budgets of domestic agencies next week.
They plan to vote on a resolution setting appropriations for the rest of the year at 2008 pre-recession levels before Obama took office.
This story is all about terms such as freeze the poor.
Whether people are going to eat less or see the doctor less over a hundred billion out of 1.3 trillion or two, whatever it is.
It's frankly absurd, but this is how it goes.
The Republicans are gonna whack low-income students.
The only thing not in this, and I'm sure it's yet to come, is school lunch cuts and kids starving.
But they they've got the playbook out.
They got the uh they got the page from the 1995 budget battle, and they're just replaying it all.
100 billion dollars frees the poor.
People are have to decide whether not to heat their homes to eat less or see the doctor less.
All because of a hundred billion dollars in budget cuts.
It's as though if the government ceased operating, everybody would die.
But nobody can take care of themselves.
Where do we go to first on the uh on the phones?
One thing that Hu Xin Tao.
This dinner tonight better not be too opulent.
They better not go too overboard on this, because Hu Xin Tao's paying for this.
And if if if the regime goes overboard here with all kinds of opulence and expense, you know, Hu Xin Tao's gonna say, this is not.
This is not why we gave you the money.
I can get this at home.
Here's Matt in Jacksonville, Florida.
Matt, welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you here.
Hey, Rush.
Um, I think your boy, Sheriff Dipstick might be held liable in this uh accident, as Nancy Pelosi put it.
Um I've been in law enforcement fifteen years.
And this guy apparently had made numerous death threats, Lofner did.
And anybody like that.
They're supposed to be taken before a judge or a magistrate.
And if it's found that they're to be a possibly a threat to themselves or others, they're to be involuntarily committed for a psyche vow, and he obviously didn't do that.
See, I think I think this is why dipstick is trying to blame uh shift everybody's focus to uh other people, get it off of his office.
Absolutely.
And the other thing is, if I was a family member of one of these victims, I'd be suing him big time.
He should have had security out there, and he didn't.
And I know where I work, something like that, an event like that.
Even if you're not gonna commit a beat unit, don't put it out.
Hey, anybody who's off duty, you want overtime, come check out a Mark Carr and go stand by.
And they didn't do any of that.
You know, especially when Dipstick says on CNN last night that he's known for three years that the shooter had a hate on For Gabrielle Gifford's.
I you know, I I've I've heard guys like you in law enforcement are are looking at this uh mouths open with incredulity.
Can't believe it.
But it's the guy's protected.
He's a good liberal.
He's saying things the Democrat Party, the media once said, so he's protected.
Everybody agrees we have a spending crisis, right?
Including the Democrats that we got a spending crisis.
So what's the media template?
Where are you gonna cut?
Uh I mean, does that not that you need it, but isn't that further evidence of just who and what they are?
We got a spending crisis.
And they're channeling, where are you gonna cut, Republicans?
Where are you gonna cut?
▲
Export Selection