All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:15
January 31, 2011, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Barack Hussein Obama, the Pharaoh of Chicago.
Has a nice ring to it out there, doesn't it?
The Pharaoh of Chicago.
Telling us everything's cool.
Hey, look, folks, if the industry of talk radio was responsible for Tucson, how about blaming Obama's Cairo speech for this?
Yeah, have you seen folks the liberals, the Democrats, the media seem to be more embracing of the Muslim Brotherhood than the Tea Party movement.
Have you noticed that?
I have.
And I'm going to tell you something else.
I don't care who you talk to and what they say.
Right now, nobody understands yet whether any of this is good or bad for the United States.
And that's what's missing in all this.
And that is what's good for the United States and our interests in this.
Nobody knows.
I don't care what expert you listen to, there's not a soul that can tell you.
We could be looking at one of two things.
By the way, hi, Rush Limbaugh back.
Thanks to Mark Stein for sitting in on Friday.
Uh and uh doing a wonderful job as always.
We're happy to be back here in our Southern Command bunker in South Florida, telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
There was an uprising in Iran in 2009.
Uh didn't amount to much because the regime here didn't support it.
You may have forgotten that just two years ago, but uh there were some average ordinary citizens in Iran who wanted to get rid of the mullahs and wanted to get rid of Aqladinizad, and the regime here didn't support it.
A lot of people are hoping that's what this is.
It is the Muslim Brotherhood, but what's really known about them?
Uh they claim they're for democracy and all that, but that can all be smoke-screen.
On the other hand, we have said from the get-go that if you wanted the second term of Jimmy Carter, elect Barack Obama.
Well, here we are.
And what happened in the first term of Jimmy Carter?
We lost Iran to a bunch of uh radical Islamist extremists.
Are we looking at the second term of Jimmy Carter here, losing Egypt to a bunch of uh radicalized Islamist extremists?
I mean, you can you can see when you scour various uh uh drive-by state-controlled media sites, they're desperately invested in the fact that this is all good.
That uh getting the barack out of there, we finally got democracy.
The problem with that is for them that they have to somehow include George Bush in praise.
It was George Bush who said if we go in there into a rock with a democracy agenda, then the wildfire of freedom will spread to other areas.
Well, if we're gonna say that this is the wildfire of freedom being spread, well, where did it start?
You got it.
You can't leave Bush out of this equation, which of course the media and the Democrats don't want to do.
They want to find some way to credit Obama for this, but Obama on Saturday night, Saturday night.
Linda Douglas, that well-known objective journalist who used to work at ABC and some other places, then she quit the media because she admitted she just couldn't get as much done.
She went to work for the Obama regime.
She was the health care legislation spokesbabe.
In other words, Linda Douglas was responsible for spinning the lies of health care in the media.
She quit that because she was very, very hard work.
She quit that and she went back to the media working for some, I think it's the outfit, I guess Atlantic Media that uh the Atlantic Monthly and so forth.
So Saturday night, in the midst of all of this, Linda Douglas hosts a party at her house for administration officials and certain elements of the state-controlled media.
We had uh we have what uh uh we F. Chuck Todd was there from uh NBC Comcast.
We had uh Jake Tapper there from ABC, and there's a couple other media people.
We had high administration, high regime officials, and the whole point was a going away party for David Axelrott, who Obama saw the next day.
Uh Axelrod is not leaving, he's just leaving the regime's White House offices to head back to the Chicago offices of Pharaoh Obama and his reelection bid.
But yet he goes to this going away party as though, hey Dave, been great to know you.
Hope we see you down the line.
See you at the meeting next Tuesday, Dave, wink wink.
Big going away.
I want you to imagine something.
Imagine that Carl Rove had decided to leave the White House.
And I threw a bye-bye bash for him in my house that Bush 43 attended while something like this was going on in Egypt.
Do you think you would have heard about that party the moment it was taking place?
Yeah.
And do you think any media people would have been invited?
No.
But I mean, it's just it's um fascinating here, folks, all these experts, and nobody, nobody really knows you've got Biden misspeaking, and you've even got angry and Mitchell NBC News com cancel in Washington, admitting that the typical, typical Joe Biden misspeak is just such just what we here in the regime have to deal with.
Old Joe, hey, Chuck, stand up, man, let them see.
Oh my oh, God love you.
Chuck's in a wheelchair and can't stand up, and they even told me that, but I forgot.
Oh my let's all stand up for Chuck.
Hey, Chuck.
Meanwhile, Chuck's saying, please could everybody stop paying attention to me.
I'm in a wheelchair.
So there's a there's an element of this, ladies and gentlemen, that I want to introduce.
Well, I'm not the one introducing it.
I I'm gonna pass it on to you.
Because I don't think that very many people are talking about.
I mean the media would have had a cow if the White House was having a party while the Middle East was in flames.
I don't care if it's Egypt, Iran, if if if 43 had gone to any kind of a party on a Saturday night when Egypt was in flames.
Instead, this media was running around pulling its hair out, wondering how the hell it didn't get invited.
What's so special about F. Chuck Todd and Jake Tapper?
How come they got invited and we didn't?
At any rate.
This is from uh biggovern.com's Andrew Breitbart sites, a post by Chris Street, and the title of the post, Fed Policy Burns Down the Middle East.
Who's next?
Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke launched a second round of quantitative easing QE2 in October last year, following over a year of growth in the economy at a robust rate of over 3%, hardy harm.
Most analysts poo-pooed QE2 as an insufficient economic stimulus to create enough inflation to reduce unemployment.
Mr. Street here writes, I got this to the Mr. There are two S's in it, so I'm not sure.
I warned that QE2 was like pouring inflationary lighter fluid on the world and then lighting a match with food inflation now running at 15% in poor countries.
The Middle East is just the first area to burn, but fire is smoldering in much of the world, and other fires will break out soon.
QE2 is a program by the Fed, as you know, to inject $600 billion in the financial system by repurchasing an equivalent amount of U.S. government bonds.
Once the money is paid to the former bondholder, they deposit the cash in banks.
Banks take these deposit dollars, leverage them by six to ten times, creating 3.6 to 6 trillion dollars in credit.
Given that the gross domestic product of the U.S. economy is only about 14 trillion annually, it would be impossible to immediately purchase 25 to 40% of the entire economy.
So the theory is that the financial assets rise on the huge inflows of QE cash.
Investors feel wealthier, they go to the mall and car dealerships to shop till they drop.
They think they've got money that they don't have it.
It's all it's all borrowed money, but they go spending it and they invest it in stocks.
Now, the the problem with theory is that QE2 money quickly drove up commodity food prices around the world.
We know this.
So did ethanol.
Ethanol drove up the price of corn, which is a commodity food.
We know that oil prices are a hundred bucks a barrel flirting in that range and showing upward pressure.
Now, the upward tick in commodity food prices.
It's noticeable in the United States, but not as noticeable as it is around the world.
And here's why.
In America, we spend 10% of our personal income on food for three meals a day.
And that's that's the best statistical research that there is on this.
About 10% of our 25, 30% on housing, 10% of our personal income on food for three meals a day.
The impact of food inflation, though, is devastating the over half the world that spends about half of personal income on food for two meals a day.
And that's the sad reality for much of the world.
Half of their income for essentially two meals a day.
So the 15% quantitative easing too induced commodity food price increases has reduced the amount of food poor people can purchase by almost a third.
This is written in inside insider lingo.
The bottom line is that all of this money flooding the markets has raised commodity prices, ethanol plus QE2, and commodity prices equals food, and around the world, inflation and by the way, we've been reporting this happening in the UK, these uh over fuel prices, food prices, it's happening.
It's not being reported here that it's happening around the world, and it certainly is not being reported here, the effects in this country, because of course the regime's primary objective here is to continue this myth that we're in a roaring economic recovery.
So they're not going to report the truth of inflation in this country, be it food or otherwise, energy price inflation or otherwise, and they are barely touching on the price rise in basic essentials around the world.
This guy's theory is that it is our federal spending, printing of money, QE2, that's causing this price rise and is partially responsible for the fires and the blood in the streets in Egypt.
It's just one of the many things that people there are tired of.
Now, we we're told that what's going on in Egypt is all political.
And that's silly.
It would be the same thing as being told that riots in this country are purely about policy.
When they aren't, if you go back, the history of riots in this country has always been about economic matters.
One way or another, always about poverty, unfair distribution of resources, uh, what have you.
So you'd be wise to consider the possibility that part of what's going on in Egypt is because the price of food is going up, and nobody in Egypt can do anything about it because the source of the problem is here.
And you can't take ethanol out of the equation here either, because that takes food off the market and turns it into gasoline.
Corn.
Now the riots and revolutionary activity burning down Tunisia.
You've heard about that, right?
Oh, you haven't?
Well, yeah, it's happening in Tunisia too, folks.
You might have.
If you read foreign media on the internet, I'm sure you've heard about the riots in Tunisia and in Yemen.
You've heard about the riots in Yemen, right?
Oh, you haven't?
Well, read the foreign media, and you'll hear you'll read about the riots in Yemen and Tunisia.
And now Egypt.
Egypt is third to the party here.
That's exactly right.
Jordan, King Abdullah, uh big ally of the United States, as is Egypt, by the way.
That's what's kind of scary about this.
But anyway, there's unrest throughout the Middle East.
There has been unrest in Iran for a long time.
Of course, the drive-by's here will not talk about it.
But Egypt is not the first powder keg.
It's the third.
Jordan may be the third or fourth.
And it I just want you to think about the possibility that the revolutionary activity that's caused cause that's going on is about gut-level economics.
Don't the the drive-by's here Would love to tell you that the people are rioting over freedom and civil riots and so forth.
Of course, you can't take those things out of the equation, but gut level economics.
Can I get enough food?
Can I afford to eat and feed the family?
Prices are going up, I can't do anything about it, and this idiot running a country, Mubarak doesn't seem to care.
That's all it would take.
You think Americans would riot and throw out our government if we were fort forced to cut back to eating one and a third meals a day?
Let's we we spend 10% of our income for three meals a day.
What if it cost us 50% of our income for one and a half meals a day?
What do you think?
Yeah, you think Obama went ahead and hope and change.
Um that would matter.
Once riots start, people in the cities hoard food.
People are hoarding light bulbs, folks, in this country.
There's this stupid, idiotic light bulb man.
But once riots start, people in cities hoard food to survive.
and And guess what?
Becomes dangerous for farmers to transport food.
Once there becomes shortages, and once uh prices go up, then the people that grow the food and transport it, why they become at risk for crime, which further exacerbates food shortages and it drives prices even higher.
Even higher.
Now, unemployment was modestly declining.
Inflation was flat before the Fed's August announcement of this new stimulus, QE2.
That trend remains in place.
QE2 is not significantly reduced unemployment in this country.
This is why everybody's in QE2.
QE1 didn't work.
Well, that's right.
We didn't spend enough.
The old FDR, but you're gonna spend, you better really, really spend.
We didn't spend enough.
Obama's new budget.
Trillions and trillions of new spending investment.
So guess guess what's happened here?
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Spain.
Spain's unemployment's at 20%.
QE2 leveraging of worldwide commodity food prices has sent the Middle East into flames, and you've got oil at a hundred dollars a barrel, food prices accelerating.
It's just something to throw into the mix here that the drive-by's are not telling you about.
And we'll be back and continue right after this.
And we are back.
It's El Rushbo serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Is it indeed the second term of Jimmy Carter coming true?
By the way, on the uh food shortage business, the unemployment rate, it's according to CNN, the unemployment rate Egypt 9.7%, just like ours was the month before last.
9.7%.
Do you know what the individual GDP for Egypt is?
Ours is 48,000 a year.
Per capita GDP, 48 grand a year.
In Egypt, 2,771 dollars a year.
They've got 9.7% unemployment.
Now, apparently Mubarik and other Egyptian leaders believed an unemployment rate of over 9% could become the new norm there.
Just like here, without there being any serious political repercussions.
Frankly, um, you know, I have I've I've taken all this in.
I've listened to as many people as possible, read uh as much, and I'm stunned by all the people who seem to have a full understanding of what's going on, because frankly, folks, I don't.
To be honest, we have no idea what is behind this movement.
We have no idea who is leading it.
And to get this Muslim Brotherhood, I mean, to get behind this group fully without knowing this seems irresponsible to me, and yet there are a lot of people all over the political spectrum who want to just embrace this opposition and Mubarak.
Obama, we're gonna go back and listen to some of his Cairo speech.
Obama's embraced this bunch, by the way.
Obama has embraced the Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt with calls for orderly transit orderly transition.
What if this bunch turns out to be led by Al Qaeda, the Taliban or what have you?
It's the Muslim Brotherhood for crying out loud.
Obama embraces aligns itself with protests in Egypt.
Oh that really caught me.
Because we don't know who or what is behind this movement.
We do know Obama has been focused on changing America.
We do know that Obama has spent his time abroad apologizing for our past, and he's been lauded for doing this by media, the left, the likes of Colin Powell.
If he were traditional American president, Obama would have been using our authority, our moral authority and experience to ensure our best interests remain intact.
That's what U.S. foreign policy is all about.
We lost Iran because of another apologist, Jimmy Carter, incompetent.
If we are universally for human rights in every country, as Obama said in a short, contradictory public statement last week, why?
Why did he treat the leader of Red China like some kind of great democrat hero?
Why did he praise him?
This guy is holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner in jail for crying out loud.
And Obama embraces this.
Yet we seem to Obama all about human rights all over the world.
Lots of contradictions here.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos.
Yes!
Uprisings, riots in the streets, and even the good times.
Happy to have you along.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
It might be a good thing that Obama Pharaoh Obama does not know what U.S. interests are in this Egyptian situation, otherwise he would do the opposite.
Maybe I shouldn't tip him off either.
I hear the conversation now.
Limbaugh says we shouldn't support the uprising.
Well, that's good enough for me.
Send over the helicopters with the bags of money to shower on the protests.
Limbaugh says we shouldn't support...
By the way, I just I just saw that the uh State Department, a bunch of people are moving heavy equipment in there and choppers and aircraft to get Americans out of Egypt.
Why?
Obama administration aligns itself with protests in Egypt, calls for orderly transition, a struggle to get ahead of the situation.
Well if we support what's going on over there, big peaceful, this and that, why the hell get our people out of there?
Seems a little contradictory to me.
We lost Iran.
Jimmy Carter.
In there now.
universally we're for human rights in every country.
And very contradictory public statement last week.
Why then does Obama cheat treat the Chikom leader like some kind of great democratic hero?
Why did he praise Hu Jintao?
Why did Obama insist on democratic rights for the Chinese?
Why didn't he do the same with Russia?
Here you have the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner throwing a party, big state dinner, highest honor we can bestow socially to the guy who holds the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner in jail in China.
Seems a bit contradictory.
Now, right now, folks, terrorists do not have a seat at the table of power, table of government in Egypt.
If Mubarak goes, the fact is that they're likely to have a seat.
And by the way, we're being told that in exchange for Mubarik, we need Mohammed al Baradai.
Now, there's a good friend.
Here's Mohammed Al Baradai, who did his best to tell the world the Iranians aren't up to anything.
There aren't any nukes being developed in Iran.
Or he was a little maybe more circumspect about it than that.
But ladies and gentlemen, uh there are a number of things here to be somewhat concerned about.
Egypt is an ally.
They have been for a while.
And if if this goes the wrong way, you're gonna have, if Mubarak goes down, you're gonna have terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, likely to have a seat at the Egyptian table of government, if not on the table.
Now, if I'm wrong, then it's likely the military will essentially take over the country, but that's not democracy either.
You know, I have you have you been struck by the fact that the drive-by's the supporters of the regime love to start they even some commentators on our side love to talk about this as a democratic uprising.
Muslim Brotherhood equals democrat uprising.
Anybody see a conflict?
But if it is a Democrat uprising, then wasn't Iraq worth it?
Doesn't George W. Bush deserve some credit here.
That was the essence of George W. Bush's foreign policy, particularly in his second term.
He said the natural yearning of the human spirit is freedom.
One of the things we're trying to do in Iraq is allow free elections, self-determination, self-rule, self-government.
And once the Middle East sees that, it'll start a chain reaction.
Okay, well, everybody poo-pooed that.
Well, we're that's not what we're supposed to be about.
Well, building democracy, freedom isn't for everybody.
Who does Bush think he is?
And it's not worth the loss of American lives.
You remember the drill.
Cindy Sheehan and all these people are running.
Now, all of these people who try to poo-poo what Bush was doing, claim, well, yeah, we got democratic uprising, Muslim Brotherhood, democratic uprising.
Mohammed Alberadai.
Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Right.
Yeah, don't go to China.
You might end up in jail, Alberadai.
Well, not him, he's in league with the Chicans.
Anyway, there's so much contradictory here, and there's so much hope.
The drive-bys have so much hope.
And by the way, I this is look at me.
This is a great teaching moment for liberals, including those of you in the media, the Democrat Party, what you see in Egypt right now is uncivil.
This is what it looks like.
Looting, rioting, assaulting.
I want you to compare what's happening in Egypt to Tea Party rallies, which are democracy in action.
Whatever's going on in Egypt, it's premature to say democracy in action is what we see.
What we are seeing is incivility.
Make a note.
Looting, rioting, assaulting.
The Tea Parties are civil.
Democracy in action, seeking legitimate constitutional outcomes.
And yet, and yet some liberals seem more embracing of the Muslim Brotherhood than the Tea Party movement.
Have you noticed that?
Fascinating to watch here.
By the way, the Steelers just arrived at uh in Dallas.
Steelers are staying out in Fort Worth.
The uh Packers are staying in Las Calinas.
Both staying at Omni uh Omni Hotel.
Let's see.
Las Calib, well, it's not far from Irving.
Las Calinas not far from Irving.
Uh there's a great four seasons hotel out there.
You can you could, when you're in Las Calinas, if you're on the right field, you can see the old Texas Stadium from there.
This is a suburb.
It's like uh Highland Park is a suburb.
Like where Perot lives uh is a suburb.
And there come the Steelers getting off of the plane at DFW.
And the Packers will show up later.
And it's this is this is going to be a great, great week in Dallas.
Great Super Bowl game, one of the uh one of the best matchups that uh that could have happened out of the four teams remaining.
Before we go to the break, I got I have a soundbite here I want to get out of the way.
It doesn't have any to do with what we're talking about, but I want to um I want to get this as last Thursday in Davos.
Last Thursday in Davos, Switzerland, World Economic Forum founder and executive chair, Klaus Schwab, interviewed former president Bill Clinton.
Klaus Schwab said the feeling that many foreigners have of the United States is number three.
And many foreigners of the U.S. at this moment is that the society is extremely polarized.
Imagine this.
Here's this guy, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Many foreigners, uh Mr. President, many foreigners have everything.
The society's extremely polarized.
And my question to you is what could be done to overcome this polarization?
Is it uh is this not interesting?
The whole narrative and template has been set.
Democrats say, lack of civility, polarization, partisanship.
So around the world, here come the questions for Democrat presidents.
My question, Mr. Clinton, what could be done to overcome this polarization?
Is it something which is of a momentous nature, or is it something which driven by the system will remain a factor?
What is your recipe, sir?
In 2010, for reasons I will never understand.
The Democrats reverted to the strategy of 1994, raised 1.6 billion dollars, and didn't spend even 10% of it to tell the American people what they had done.
We had no national message, and they did.
It was amplified by Roy Slimbaugh, it was amplified by Fox, it was amplified by their paid ads.
And I don't blame them.
I am not criticizing the Republicans.
They're in business to beat us.
I'm criticizing my party.
We had no national message, so our losses were roughly twice as great as they needed to be, and it's gotten everybody discouraged and thinking of the polarization.
Oh, man, oh man, so the leaders at Davos gather with the losers of the American political system of Democrats.
What went wrong?
Why so much polarization?
Well, well, they raised 1.6 billion, and they didn't spend even 10% of it to tell the American people what they'd done because they were embarrassed.
They didn't tout.
This is about health care, and they had all the Democrats running away from health care.
That was a guaranteed loser.
The Democrats, Mr. President, you know this.
The Democrats had to run away from their achievements, their accomplishments, it's the reason they were going to get shellacked.
So it's clin- it's easy for Clinton to stand on the sidelines.
Hey, hey, hey, why'd you guys spend some of that money I helped you raise and sing your praises?
Why don't you go out there and tell everybody what you did?
That's what I do.
I don't blame the Republicans, I blame my own party.
I sat there.
I told them, I told him if you don't, if you don't pass his health care bill, you're dead, you're doomed.
And had a bought it, and they voted for it, and they're doomed anyway.
So Find it fascinating.
Republicans had a better message.
It was amplified by me.
And Fox News.
In other words, Clinton's Democrats had a great story to tell.
They just didn't tell it.
Mr. President, you didn't either.
Clinton wasn't out there telling the great story of all the great achievements of the great 11th Congress.
He was and and Obama.
Because there wasn't a great story.
Now I wasn't going to mention this.
But Snerdley is insistent.
Certainly is sending a little note here.
Russia, you know, you're always downplaying yourself.
In that soundbite, Bill Clinton just elevated you to the single most important media figure in the world.
The entire Democrat Party was defeated by one man amplifying a message.
That was you, and a news organization, Fox.
And that's what he told world economic leaders at Davos.
And you just zip by it rush like it's no big deal.
They've been saying it since when 1992, Snerdly would have been saying it here for twelve years.
Ten years there worth of domestic consumption.
No, not twelve years, twenty years, eighteen years, whatever it is.
Um I guess if if if if you're talking about Democrats, if you want if you want power in America, you gotta go through limbaugh.
All right, here play it again.
I did overlook it just because that's to me that wasn't the focal point of message.
The focal point of the message here is if Democrats raised all this money and then didn't tell their story, and Clinton's excoriating that they didn't have a story to tell.
They had governed against the will of people.
What's the message going to be?
Well, I tell you what they should have done, Limbaugh.
1.6 billion dollars that they raised, and they're gonna run campaign ads, and they should have said you people in the country, you don't know what's good for you, but we do.
And that's why we did what we did, and you're gonna be thanking us down the road.
You can be thanking us a Republicans that take away your health care.
Republicans take away your house and your social security.
Republicans, if you give them the country back, they're gonna bomb parts of the house where you live.
All right, here's the here's the bite again.
Audio soundbite number three.
Bill Clinton elevating me, single most important media figure in the world at the Davos.
In 2010, for reasons I will never understand, the Democrats reverted to the strategy of 1994, raised one point six billion dollars and didn't spend even ten percent of it to tell the American people what they had done.
We had no national message, and they did.
It was amplified by Roy Slimbaugh, it was amplified by Fox, it was amplified by their paid ads.
And I don't blame them.
I am not criticizing the Republicans.
They're in business to beat us.
I'm criticizing my party.
We had no national message, so our losses were roughly twice as great as they needed to be, and it's gotten everybody discouraged and thinking of the polarization.
Well, he still didn't answer the question.
Question is why all this polarization?
Is it gonna remain a permanent factor or you're gonna be able to do something about it?
But he had his pet answer that he wanted to uh give.
Let's go to the phones to Sarah in Omaha, your first today on the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Uh uh great to talk with you, Rush.
I listen to you every day.
Thank you very much.
Um Rush, be patient with me because I'm kind of nervous, okay.
I've been listening to this uh Egyptian situation that's going on.
Yeah.
And I've been doing a lot of reading this morning early.
I've already talked to a good friend of mine in Omaha here where I live, say where I live.
Uh he's a Folberg Colonel.
He was back way back when he's been around during the Bay of Pigs and you too, okay?
I'm glad you're doing this.
Okay, why am I doing this?
Because I'm concerned and I want to know the reasoning.
I didn't know enough about Egypt and what's going on, but now I know a little bit more that I think that this is something that's a concern and concern the United States as well as Bra Britain as well as France, and that is the Suez Canal.
If you go back in history and you look up the 1956 Suez Canal under Eisenhower, uh that situation was very volatile.
Yeah, well, here's here's what's important about Suez Canals, 40 percent of uh Middle Eastern oil goes through it.
That's right.
That's what I'm saying then.
Two-thirds of during 1955, two-thirds of what Britain used went through that canal.
Two-thirds of their oil.
Now, what what I find interesting is that this whole situation with the centrifuges with Iran and all that uh hoopla, and now you've got Lebanon and a new uh order there, uh that's uh a Hezbollah, you've got Iran with Al Qaeda with Ahmadinjah,
you got Egypt now, the Brotherhood going in, they all surround uh Israel, and then they all go through that and you take that two as canal which dumps into the Mediterranean Sea, which goes out to the Atlantic.
What's interesting by the mouth there is Tunisia.
Tunisia also is having riots.
So it's very interesting what's playing out.
And if the Suez Canal, if Ahmadinjah and the Brotherhood and those people, uh uh uh Islamic extremists get a hold of Egypt, and we don't get a hold of it, what'll happen is if they Achmedinja would love to try uh shut down the Suez Canal, in my opinion.
And the reason why is he can stop all those uh ships from going through there and just cut off the American hemisphere, America or the West Hemisphere.
Well that remains I know it remains to be seen.
No no no that that remains a possibility but uh th that that if if Arkmedini Zod made that bold move.
But why wouldn't he?
Because he wouldn't be alive the next day.
Yeah but don't you think those he's angry yeah but I and I agree with you.
But what I'm saying is don't you think he's angry enough and arrogant enough to with the centrifuges happening this situation with the centrifuges for the nuclear and as well as our trying to sanction well look we really got nothing to worry about there.
We got oil from Canada we get oil from Venezuela we get oil from Mexico.
No my no another thing Arkmedini Zod has to export oil because they don't have any refineries.
He got no gasoline they don't have any gasoline they don't have any refineries has to import refined gasoline he has to find a way to get it there and if he keeps it open for himself it's going to be open for anybody else.
▲
Export Selection