All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:20
January 19, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time.
We're waiting on the new opinion audit.
It won't be until February.
The opinion auditing firm takes an extended holiday break and just this week got back into action auditing opinions.
So it'll be till February.
I wouldn't expect much of a change when you are already, I am documented to be almost always right 99.6% of the time, you got to be right a ridiculous number of times to move it up to 99.7.
Well, we'll see what the Sullivan Group says when the new opinion audit comes sometime next month.
Great to have you back, folks.
L. Rushball behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Happy to have you here, 800-282-2882.
Email address, LRushball at EIBNet.com.
The House voting on the repeal of Obamacare bill today.
Got a couple of audio soundbites.
We'll delve into some details.
We have a mantra soundbite here, a mantra montage of a bunch of Democrats and media types saying repealing Obamacare is discrimination.
Audio soundbite number six.
129 million Americans have pre-existing conditions and could lose their health care coverage if you discriminate.
The gross discrimination upon Americans for decades.
Preexisting condition discrimination.
Dr. King also taught us the time is always ripe to do right.
Last March, the time was right, and Congress agreed.
Getting rid of these discriminatory practices, repeal will allow insurers to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions.
Discrimination by insurance companies against the millions of us.
It prohibits discrimination.
Gives back to insurance companies discrimination.
Eliminating discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Do you want insurance companies to discriminate?
To discriminate based on preexisting conditions.
To discriminate by eliminating people who have preexisting conditions.
I don't think any of us want to live in a country that discriminate against people when it comes to healthcare.
John Lewis, who was beat upside once, says that I don't think anybody wants us to live in a country that discriminates against people when it comes to health care.
So you see the mantras out there.
This is all discriminatory.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, we turn to utter brilliance.
Rare do we have the opportunity to share with you such clarity of thought, such unique insight, such special intelligence.
This is yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives, Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Let's hear it from you.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process.
That is what H.R. 2 does, and I rise in opposition to it.
And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives, and we recognize that 40 million plus are uninsured.
Can you tell me what is more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their 14th Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?
This bill is constitutional, and it protects the constitutional rights of those who ask the question, must I die?
Must my child die because I am now disallowed from getting insurance.
Hell, there you have it.
I mean, that's such clarity of thought, such brilliance.
Brightness blinds.
That kind of brilliance from Sheila Jackson Lee.
Repealing Obamacare is unconstitutional and it is discriminatory.
CNN and the media is launching a full salvo on this.
You know, I think Sheila Jackson Lee is a pre-existing condition if you want to know the truth.
But that is just me.
Ed Hornick at CNN, Republicans have put the wheels in motion to try to repeal Obama's health care reform law.
CNN breaks down the issue and the effort's future.
First question from the analysis team at CNN.
What's behind the push for repeal?
Simple, says CNN.
It's a campaign promise that Republicans are trying to honor.
No.
Mr. Hornick, it's not just a promise Republicans are trying to honor.
It's something half the country does not want.
Now, Mr. Hornick, you and CNN can put this in their crosshairs anytime you want and try to destroy it.
But when a majority of Americans want it repealed, it's time to admit it is a bad idea.
For as many decades as the Democrats have run things in Washington, the fact remains the majority of the problems we have on the cultural and economic, domestic, economic side are simply the fault of Democrats' policies, pure and simple.
It's time to fix all of this.
And that's what the November election was all about.
And this effort today, the vote, to repeal Obamacare is not the fulfillment of a campaign promise.
It is an attempt to fix something that will destroy the U.S. economy.
It is an attempt to fix something that will harm the U.S. health care system.
And the American people know this.
Mr. Hornick writes, during the run-up to the midterm elections, Republicans campaigned heavily on repealing and replacing the law.
They cited the will of the people, noting that voters, especially members of the Tea Party movement, overwhelmingly rejected the Democrats' policies.
After their historic gains in the midterms, Republicans now control the House, hold a large number of seats in the Senate, and they are living up to that promise.
The GOP has been saying that the law, as currently written, will hamper prospects for long-term economic growth while doing little to slow spiraling medical costs.
House Speaker John Boehner, who used to refer to the bill as a jobs killer, now says that repealing the job-crushing health care law is critical to boosting small business job creation and growing the economy, reflecting sensitivities in the wake of the mass shooting this month in Tucson, Arizona, that critically injured a Democrat colour.
Yes, dead serious.
This is why Boehner is doing all this.
And the main thrust here is for you to know that Boehner has changed the name of the law.
What are the chances of repeal? Mr. Hornick asks.
And he answers his question with this.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that Republicans may have trouble moving ahead with defunding the law.
The measure includes $106 billion in new spending authorizations that Congress will eventually need to appropriate, according to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf.
But $86 billion of those authorizations cover politically sensitive programs that were in existence before the passage of health care reform.
Mr. Hornick's next question, what do Americans think?
50% of all Americans favored repeal, even though only one in six dislikes everything in the bill.
40% opposed such a 58%, Mr. Hornick.
At any rate, We've had a year to debate this over one year and no one can sell us that this is a good idea.
Nobody could sell anybody it's a good idea.
They had to ram this through on Christmas Eve.
They had to ram this through with parliamentary tricks.
They had to ram this through with a bunch of pork, a bunch of earmarks.
They had to buy off members of the Senate, members of the House of Representatives.
CNN seems to forget how this steaming pile of garbage was pushed through.
CNN seems to forget this is the one reason, the one reason, that the Democrats lost that Senate seat in Massachusetts to Scott Brown.
This, Obamacare, the American people were never in favor of it.
Much more than just a campaign promise being fulfilled.
Now, Wall Street Journal, Douglas Holtz Eakin, Joseph Antos, and James Capretta.
Who are these people?
Holtz Eaken, president of the American Action Forum, former director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Antos, the Wilson Taylor Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a former assistant director at CBO.
And Mr. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former associate director, the Office of Management and Budget.
So they either come from OMB or CBO.
Written well, clear and concise.
Here's a poll quote.
The history of federal entitlements is one of inexorable growth.
Once erected, more and more people get added to the programs.
Obamacare will be no different.
Spending will soar, and the tax increases and spending offsets that were cobbled together to get the bill passed will either wither away or vanish altogether.
Repeal is not a budget buster, they conclude.
And this is the previous CBO director.
Repeal is not a budget buster.
Keeping Obamacare is.
Assertions to the contrary are audacious.
The CBO says that repealing the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the coming decade and by a modest amount in the decade after that.
The CBO estimate has become the central defense by healthcare advocates fighting the upcoming repeal vote in the House.
They might want to rethink their strategy.
A close examination of CBO's work and other evidence undercuts this budget-busting argument about repeal and leads to the exact opposite conclusion, which is that repeal is the logical first step toward restoring fiscal sanity.
It doesn't take an analysis.
It doesn't take a survey.
It doesn't take research.
It takes intelligence guided by experience.
As these people point out, the simple history of federal entitlements.
There isn't one that reduced the deficit, quite the opposite.
There isn't one that came in anywhere near to its promised projected cost.
They all cost much more.
There isn't one that has succeeded.
The war on poverty has not eradicated poverty.
The great society, all of these Lyndon Johnson programs have not worked.
There isn't a one of them that has worked, depending on how you define worked.
If the objective was to buy votes for Democrats and keep them in power, yeah, it's worked.
If the expressed intended purpose of the legislation is what you want to look at, the results of that, it's an abysmal failure.
Every one of them is.
Federal finances are buckling under the weight of unaffordable entitlement programs.
How often do we hear about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?
They're unsustainable as they are right now.
Going to add the largest entitlement ever to this.
And now we're going to be told it's going to cut the deficit and that if we repeal this in essence, if we don't spend this money we are going to bust the budget.
This is no different than somebody trying to tell you, if you don't go but you live in a 200 000 house if you don't go, buy that million dollar house, you are going to blow your whole budget.
But you live in a $200,000 house, your income hasn't changed, but you go out and buy a million-dollar house, you're going to have extra cash flow at the end of the month.
It's an insult to anybody's intelligence.
Federal finances are buckling under the weight of unaffordable entitlement programs.
So what is the primary aim of Obamacare?
Open-ended entitlement expansion is the aim to more people at greater expense than any time since the 1960s.
If the Congressional Budget Office is right, 32 million people will be added to the health entitlement rolls at a cost of $938 billion, and that's not even right.
That's just what they say through 2019 and growing faster than the economy or revenues thereafter.
How then does the Obamacare bill magically convert $1 trillion in new spending into deficit reduction?
Well, it's all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, kind of stuff that put Enron people in jail or drove them to suicide, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline.
For starters, the $1 trillion price is a lowball estimate covering only six, not 10 years of subsidies that don't begin until 2014.
You may have forgotten, but we haven't.
In order to get this whole shebang passed, they had this magic figure of a trillion dollars that it could not exceed.
And the reason for that is the Iraq war cost about a trillion dollars, and so they had to keep whatever, and they used the Iraq war as a reason why we've a wasteful spending.
If we need to get out of there, it's a trillion dollars spent elsewhere.
So the trillion dollars became $900 billion actually became the operative figure.
So to have this thing cost $900 billion, needed a gimmick.
10 years of taxes, six years of benefits.
That's what we've got.
We don't have 10 years of benefits.
We've got six years.
We have 10 years of taxes.
$1 trillion, therefore, is a lowball estimate because it only covers six years of subsidies.
The uninsured were clearly less a priority than the deception of making the law look less expensive than it really is over its first 10 years.
Over 10 years of full implementation, meaning the second 10 years of this debacle, the real cost is $2.3 trillion, not $938 billion.
$938 billion the first 10 years, $2.3 trillion the second 10 years.
The difference?
We're actually going to be spending all the benefits for the entire 10 years of the second decade of the program.
So that's all you need to know.
And the column is filled with much more data and information, but right there is all you need to know.
So it is a lie.
It is irresponsibility.
And if anybody in the private sector were trying to do this, where shareholders were involved, the very people calling this discrimination unconstitutional, very people who are saying that this is a panacea, very same people claiming how great this is would be trying to put those private sector people in jail for coming up with a scheme like this for defrauding investors and everybody else.
Let me give you one more.
Next up is the Class Act.
That's for Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act.
That provides a new long-term care insurance entitlement.
The Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act hitched a ride on Obamacare for one reason only.
Premiums are collected in the first 10 years, but no benefits are provided.
So here's 10 years of income to offset no spending as an accounting trick.
So therefore, it creates the perception of $70 billion in deficit reduction, but they're not spending any money on it.
They're just collecting.
In fact, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act is a bailout waiting to happen as it'll attract mainly sick enrollees.
Only in Washington could the creation of a reckless entitlement program be used to offset or as offset to grease the way for another entitlement, which is what this is.
Again, the history of federal entitlements is one of inexorable growth.
Once erected, more and more people get added to the programs.
Obamacare, no different.
Spending will soar.
Tax increases and spending offsets that were cobbled together to get the bill passed will wither away or vanish altogether.
The thing is, you know all this.
You knew all this during the debate.
We have been lied to since the first day this whole program was explained to us.
We'll be back after a bit.
And it's back to the phones on the EIB network.
El Rushball, we're starting in Bremerton, Washington.
This is John.
It's grace to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Oh, Russ Limbaugh.
What an honor to speak to you.
Oh, gracious God.
Oh.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, Rush.
So I just wanted to call you.
Hello?
Yeah, I'm here.
Yeah, okay.
I'm one of these guys.
I'm one of those guys that I'm up on the slope snowboarding.
I'm on the street skateboarding.
You know, I'm 28.
I'm healthy.
There's not much I won't do.
But I'm not going to get insurance because I'm going to be covered.
Whatever happens to me, I won't ever need insurance because if something ever does happen to me, I won't have to have.
I mean, they'll cover pre-existing conditions with the new plan, correct?
You mean like when you break your leg or something?
Yeah, or my back or my neck or, you know, maybe something worse.
Well, yeah, that's a pre-existing condition.
Yeah, right.
Pre-existing before you got to the hospital, sure.
Right.
What's the point of insurance then with the new Obama plan?
Well, in the first place, if this thing does survive the light of day, you either will be buying insurance or you're going to get a knock on the door from an IRS agent.
And you are going to be paying a penalty or fine.
Now, at first, the fine will be much less than what insurance would cost you.
This is by design.
They want you to not buy the insurance.
They want you to pay the fine instead.
At some point over the next couple of three years, the price of the fine will exceed the cost of insurance.
The law will remain that you have to have insurance.
At that point, you will have to buy it from the government.
If you don't, if you don't, some years down the road, you can go to jail.
Mrs. Pelosi has confirmed that that is in the law.
So don't just rely on the emergency room and your pre-existing condition theory.
You might be in jail, too.
Let me put this in perspective for you, folks.
The Democrats and the media put forth this challenge.
Oh, what are you going to cut?
You say you're going to cut spinning.
What are you going to cut?
What are you going to cut?
And then we hear that the city of Berkeley is going to start paying for addictomies, sex change operations.
And what do we want to cut?
Well, I ask you, what do we want to cut?
How ludicrous is this?
The city of Berkeley is going to start adding sex change operations, paid for.
No charge to the, well, I can't say recipient.
Yeah, the recipient is an anadictomy.
No charge to the recipient here.
You're charged to everybody else.
And they say, what are you going to cut?
Where are you going to find all this money to cut?
Charles in Kansas City, Missouri.
Great to have you.
You're next on the Rush Limblock program.
Hi.
Yes.
Hi, Mega Ditto's Rush.
Great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
I want to go back to much earlier in the show you were talking about, the Comcast finally taking over 51% of NBC, I believe.
I believe you might have missed a very important point, and that was not only do they have to follow these federal regulations, but they also have to, well, pay for it.
They have to buy this 51% of this company.
And it's kind of like me going out and buying a house and the previous owner telling me, well, by the way, you can't change any of the colors.
And there's a bunch of mice living in the house, and you've got to put out cheese for them every day out of your own pocket.
Wait a minute now.
Where are you getting that?
Where are you getting from what I reported?
No, I don't report.
From what I told you, where are you getting that the Comcast can't change NBC?
Well, I'm not saying that they can, but my point is that they have to follow what the federal regulations are, but not only just follow that, they still also have to.
They're buying the 51%.
It's theirs, but yet there's all these regulations put on them by someone else when it's theirs.
Just another show of how they want to tell us how we should live and how we should run our lives.
Yeah, well, here's the story.
Comcast has been permitted to buy 51% of NBC from General Electric.
General Electric getting rid of 51% of NBC Universal.
That's controlling interest.
The regulators said, if we let you do this, you are going to have to make available to 2.5 million low-income households high-speed internet access for less than $10 a month, only to the poor.
Also to the poor, you're going to have to make available personal computers, netbooks, iPads, and other equipment for less than $150.
And then an array of digital literacy opportunities.
Then you must maintain or increase local programming at the 10 NBC and 16 Telemundo TV stations.
And you must increase children's programming, including adding 1,500 more on-demand titles through your movie repertoire.
So they are dabbling a little bit there into content, but it doesn't say that they can't do anything to NBC News.
It doesn't say, for example, let me just stir it up a little bit here.
It doesn't say that they can't touch MSNBC.
Doesn't say that at all.
I mean, they have to give away internet service to the poor and computers and netbooks and all that stuff.
Well, like, no, they could shut down MSNBC.
They could change the programming.
They could turn it into shopping channel 14.
They could do anything they want with it.
They could certainly, they're not prohibited from trying to get an audience.
NBC has decreed that NBC will not have an audience by virtue of its programming.
Comcast has not been saddled with that corporate decision.
If Comcast wants to get an audience on MSNBC, they're free to try.
That would require significant content change.
It has been well established that they've topped out audience-wise at MSNBC doing what they're doing.
I don't know how they give away this, implement the giveaway to the poor.
I frankly don't know that they do.
I just know that it says here they have to.
And the fact that somebody says you have to, and that they say, okay, we will, that could satisfy everybody since we live in a perception versus reality world.
So Comcast says, okay, we'll do it.
We'll hand around.
We'll make sure we give away high-speed internet access for less than $10 a day to low-income people.
And we're going to define low-income as $100,000 or whatever.
I don't know that we'll ever know how they're doing this unless they run a PR campaign and a parade of people living in boxcars.
Well, now, Snerdly, we don't know.
We don't know.
No, we don't yet.
Snerdly is saying, watch what political districts these giveaways end up in.
We don't know that yet.
We don't know that that's been mandated.
We don't know the story that we have here does not say that the low, high-speed internet access at low cost or the personal computers or netbooks, other equipment can only go to low-income Democrat districts.
Doesn't say that.
Now, you think that Comcast, now Comcast might do that just to keep the regulators off their back down the line.
Doesn't say they have to.
You might have a whole different attitude about, you might be wrong about the corporate thinking at Comcast.
Yes, it's a giveaway and it's welfare, but this is a cost of doing business as far as Comcast is concerned.
Let's just keep a sharp, of course it's extortion, but let's just keep a sharp.
I know it's Democrat, it's regime regulators demanding all this.
And so it's probably been stated, but not written.
And by the way, these netbooks are already going to be programmed.
The startup screen will be the Obama logo.
Who knows?
I'm sure all that stuff.
But let's true Comcast's political donations are almost all to Democrats and Democrat causes.
But I don't know for how many years.
Don't know how much of that was part of the deal to get this thing approved.
We'll have to wait and see.
Let's wait and see what they do with MSNBC.
It's just one thing.
Let's just wait and see what they do with that.
Let me tell you this.
My history, experience in broadcasting, years of experience guided by an above-average intelligence.
If I worked there, I'd be a little nervous.
I got a new owner coming in, just spent Boku bucks, and I work at a losing division.
I work at a loss leader division.
And I know that that network exists because the GE CEO had to pay a price to get all that goodies coming back from Washington to GE.
Now, if I'm Comcast, do I want to keep that gravy tame going?
Am I in a business where I want goodies from Washington to keep redounding to my benefit at Comcast?
Okay, I'll keep MSNBC as it is.
I'll look the other way and hold my nose.
I'll write it off.
I'll use it a lot.
Or I'll look at it.
Is there something that can be done with this wreck to make it respectable?
Because we at Comcast are respectable.
We want to be respectable.
And that doesn't count.
So I'm just looking.
I don't know anything.
I'm just using my instincts here.
But would I do if they had me to fix the place?
Oh, I haven't got time here, Snowdley.
Why should I give that away?
Why should I sit here on this program and tell what I would do, announce to the world what I would do to fix MSNBC and not get anything for it?
There's no way I'm doing that.
I know exactly how to fix MSNBC.
There's no way that I'm going to say that on this program.
I'm through doing stuff I don't get paid for.
Those days are long gone.
Obama's up there telling the press corps that China has a very different political system than we do.
Yeah, maybe, but not for long.
Look at, folks, I want to talk to you about spending here for just a second.
My patience is wearing out.
One of the things I find, and it's good this is happening, is I find myself occasionally not saying things because I think so many of you already know it, understand it, get it, and I'm always looking to move forward.
But this, what would you cut?
What would you cut?
We're going to cut Medicare, you're going to cut Social Security.
You don't have to cut any of that to achieve what we want to achieve.
You don't have to cut any of it.
Certainly not at first.
I'll give you the explanation here in just a second.
But you know what my answer would be?
If I were John Boehner, and of course I'm not John Boehner, if I were John Boehner and I was constantly being peppered by the press corps, what are you going to cut?
What are you going to cut?
You know what I would say?
We got to pass the bill first to find out what's in it.
What do you mean by that?
Well, that's what Pelosi said about health care.
You guys didn't, you didn't care a whit about what was in the health care bill.
The Republicans said, what's in this thing?
It's 2,000 pages.
Pelosi said, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
Everybody, whoa, okay.
Well, fine.
Republicans have a budget cut bill.
We're not going to tell you what's in it till we pass it.
How does that feel?
You like doing business that way when the Democrats ran the show on healthcare.
How about it for spending cuts?
We got to pass the bill first before we'll tell you, before you can find out.
Let's look at it this way.
Let me just give you off the top of my head ballpark list of things to cut.
We're going to cut Obamacare.
That's going to save several trillion.
We're going to cut the EPA, which has had a budget increase of about 130% over the last two years.
And the EPA is getting in the way of the private sector.
The EPA now has dictatorial powers over carbon dioxide emissions.
And the FDA is getting close to having that kind of power on drugs and the things that they oversee.
So cut the EPA, not eliminate here, not just cut it.
We're going to cut the number of bureaucrats by 20%.
We're going to cut their salaries to bring them more in line with the private sector.
We're going to cut government across the board by at least 10%.
We're going to abolish the FCC.
And the reason we're going to abolish the FCC is because the FCC is getting into the control of free speech business, and that's not their charter.
We will abolish the Federal Election Commission.
There's nothing more worthless than the FEC.
They deal with complaints after the fact.
And if anything, a slap on the wrist happens, all the policing power, all the intimidation that they claim to have doesn't intimidate anybody into anything.
Besides that, the FEC seeks to control political free speech.
So you get rid of that.
We'll abolish all of Obama's czars.
They're not even constitutional.
We will abolish stimulus spending.
And TARP will sell off 20% or more of the federal landmass that the federal government owns.
The federal government owns about 25% of all the land in the United States.
I'm just getting started.
Imagine what somebody who's familiar with all the ins and outs of the federal government could do.
We could cut the number of government vehicles by 25%.
Cut government office space by 20%.
Don't tell me there aren't places to cut here.
Responsible, reasonable, certainly excessive places to cut.
The biggest savings of all would be getting rid of Obamacare.
Cut the EPA, get rid of the FCC, get rid of the F is any number of things.
All you need is the guts to do it.
And I'm going to tell you this, if the Republicans would simply announce specifics and then be prepared to deal with the stuck pig reaction that they're going to get, they would win this next election in the biggest landslide there has ever been.
If they would just say they're going to do this stuff, stick to it, and start trying right now, they would win in 2012 with the biggest landslide ever.
This is right.
This is exactly what a majority of the American people voted for.
The American people voted against all of this new spending.
They voted against an overpowerful, over-involved federal bureaucracy.
This is what's bugging the American people.
Everywhere they turn in life, there's a government obstacle that has to be overcome someplace.
Many of them.
Get rid of a few of them just to start.
Don't get tied down in this where are you going to Social Security, Medicare, all that rug?
They'll try to steer us there, but screw it.
There's any number of places.
Let's get other people in a panic here besides the usual suspects of Social Security recipients.
Those people aren't getting cost of living increases anyway because the government's not reporting any inflation.
Ha ha ha ha.
So I just, I don't know, to me, it's not that tough.
But again, I'm not a politician.
I don't have to get votes, but I still think doing something like this, announcing it, stick to it.
And there would be such an overwhelming support on the part of the American people.
And there'd be opponents and they would be loud and they'd be panicked and there might be blood in the streets.
Who knows?
You got to expect that to happen.
I mean, the Democrat Party has led people to believe that their lives are dependent on all of this.
But we can't sustain it for crying out of $14 trillion in debt.
I'm only half joking here.
They run around these mealy mouths in the front.
Where are you going to cut?
Where are you going to cut?
We hear that Berkeley is going to start paying for anodictomy operations.
It really is.
Is there that a budget priority here?
You know, we had a slogan, just say no, right?
Change it.
Just say cut.
Who's next here?
Bill Cincinnati, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Minga Ditto, Steve Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Want to nominate you to be the mayor of Littoralville.
I'm one of few residents.
I'm getting sick and tired, Rush, of the media bombarding us with this is Obama's finest hour.
I mean, especially since they got shellacked at the last election.
Well, it's a fine speech.
Again, saying that something is Obama's finest hour is not necessarily untrue.
We used to look at the baseline.
It doesn't say his finest hour is great.
See, you're making the mistake of this is Obama's finest hour.
Yeah.
Compared to what?
When they started.
Bankrupting the country, bankrupting with the deaf, destroying the private sector.
We're talking about his finest hour.
What?
A speech?
Well, when they start comparing them to the ones that Lincoln made.
Yeah, crock.
Obama's world isn't governed by the aggressive use of speeches.
And the ruling class, the educated establishment class loves that kind of stuff.
It doesn't get anything done, but they have their own version of orgasms.
don't really have orgasms in the ruling class.
I don't want to try to describe what happens, but it's not what...
They don't deign to get down to that level.
Never mind.
We're not going to jip Fox.
I wanted to jip it because, well, the Hu Zhintao, he was speaking and they weren't translating.
They normally, you know, some translator every couple of words, but Hu Zhintao was just going, Nobody was translating.
▲
Export Selection