All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 9, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
February 9, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I saw the weather forecast for Dallas.
Snow and ISO, oh, good.
They're going to replay the Super Bowl.
And then I realized, no, um, dreams die hard.
Uh, Jim Webb, uh, ladies and gentlemen, the uh senator from uh from Virginia says no Moss, no Moss not running anymore.
They continue to shuffle the decks on the Titanic of the Democrat Party.
Could this open the doors for George Allen to come back?
He's uh making noises about that.
And I've he is yeah, yeah.
He's uh same thing, certainly.
He's making noise about that.
He's running.
Yeah, same thing.
Jeb Bush says he's not running, making noise about it.
But he might.
Who knows?
Everything's wide open.
Great to have you, folks.
Already Wednesday.
It's amazing how fast the week goes by when you have one of the days in the week off.
I really, this is uh it's it's already Wednesday here on the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, they've got a problem in Fort Wayne.
Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Despite garnering far more support in an online poll than any of the other suggestions.
The new government center building in Fort Wayne is not going to be named after the city's longest tenured mayor.
The longest tenured mayor's name is Harry Balls.
And they don't want to name their government center, the Harry Balls Government Center.
It's BAALS.
Uh the deputy mayor, Beth Malloy said naming the building the Harry Balls Government Center, probably not going to happen because quote, we're not going to make any decisions that look bad.
The uh AP has the story.
Scratch Harry Balls off list of names for government center.
Fort Wayne, Indiana officials against putting former mayor's name on building.
Uh, he won four terms as mayor of Fort Wern uh Fort Wayne in the 1930s and the 1950s, and there's a picture of Harry Balls here that accompanies the uh ABC story.
Uh A piece story.
I'm uh I'm I'm sorry.
So now we know uh with this story what Harry Balls looks like.
We didn't know that prior to this.
Uh I I I would think if if Fort Wayne, you might want to rethink this.
I mean, everybody is in a need of economic stimulation.
This may be exactly what the town needs to uh to get it stimulated.
And what I want to know is seriously, a cultural question.
Why wasn't this funny when the guy was elected?
He was elected four times.
Now stop and think of culturally.
Just to illustrate how things have changed here.
Back in the 30s and 50s, a guy running for mayor named Harry Balls got elected four times.
Now they won't name a building after the poor guy.
Um Harry Balls was acceptable.
Exactly right.
Harry Balls was acceptable at uh one time.
Uh says we realize that uh while Harry Balls was a respected mayor, not everyone outside of Fort Wayne will know that.
Uh said Malloy, uh the statement of the AP, we wanted to pick something that would reflect our pride in our community beyond the boundaries of Fort Wayne.
An online site suggested um well, taking suggestions for names, showed more than 1,300 votes for the Harry Balls Government Center.
That's more than three times the votes received by the closest competitor, but it doesn't matter.
Jim Balls, 51, who's lived in the city his entire life, said it's unfortunate his great uncle's name won't be considered for the building.
Well, scratch that.
Isn't going to be happening.
I finally I watched a few of the commercials from the Super Bowl, folks.
We had this discussion yesterday about what a different game I saw being in being at Cowboys Stadium than what you saw watching on television.
And you know, what you saw watching on television, you thought that it was a nail biter.
Exciting game and all that.
And I and look, again, I want to stress here.
Remember, I I've got nothing against the Green Bay Packers.
This has nothing to do with the outcome of the game.
I'm just telling you that as a as an on-site spectator, the game did not have Super Bowl characteristics.
It seemed like a regular season game.
I mean, there's all kinds of turnovers, no great heroics.
I don't know.
I just it didn't have the feel in them.
And I remember telling people in the booth after watching a couple series, it's over.
This game is over.
The Steelers cannot stop the pass, and they have an anemic offense.
They're not going to score enough points to keep with these guys.
Keep up with these guys.
It'sn't going to happen.
And I watched a game with that whole mindset, and not once during the game did that mindset change.
Not once during the game did I think the Steelers had a prayer.
Ah, the Packers.
What do you mean the Packers let them back in?
When did that?
Oh, come on, the Packers let them back in.
With maybe the third quarter you're talking about here?
In the second half, games ebb and flow like that.
There's always momentum shifts, but look, I knew the Packers have never, what is the stat here?
The Packers have never trailed by more than seven points in a game all season.
They don't let people back in the game.
And remember, I saw the Packers in New England on December 19th with their backup quarterback nearly beat the Patriots.
I mean, that is a damn good team.
Look at all the people they had on injured reserve.
The real story is the players that are potential all-pros and all-stars who never made it on the field because they're on injured reserve.
That is one hell of a team, and that team is going to be uh pretty solid for years to come.
It's very young, got a great core group of people there, good coaching staff, front office, and all of that.
Anyway, I let me get to the point here.
I finally watched some of the commercials.
And I saw the I saw the Pepsi commercial, the Pepsi Max commercial.
This is a black woman sitting on a park bench.
You know what you know which one I'm talking about.
She gets mad with her husband, an attractive white female jogger sits down next to the black couple.
The attractive white female jogger smiles and waves at the guy.
After the man smiles back, his girlfriend or wife, whoever it is, gets mad and whips her Pepsi Max can at the guy.
The man ducks, and the can of Pepsi Max hits the attractive jogger in the head.
And the ad is entitled Love Hurts.
And I thought, well, I don't know, that's kind of funny.
I was I was also humorously amazed at how you could use a baby bulldog in Doritos commercials and so forth.
I thought those were kind of funny.
But guess what's happened here with this Pepsi commercial?
Sheila Jackson Lee is blasting it as a demeaning Super Bowl ad.
Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat Congressperson from Houston.
Jackson Lee said it was ridiculous for the soft drink maker to air the advertisement during African American history month.
She said in this month of African American history, where we're trying to celebrate what's good and great.
It seems ridiculous that Pepsi would utilize this kind of humor.
It was not humorous.
It was demeaning an African American woman throwing something at an African American male and winding up hitting a Caucasian woman.
She said she's got a sense of humor and she believes in the First Amendment.
Uh, and that she thinks the Super Bowl is a great time for fellowship with uh with family members.
That's why she's so disappointed with the with the Pepsi ad.
Now, I I I have to tell you, I I looked at the ad and I did not see colors.
Well, colors, but I didn't think there's anything racial here.
This was not demeaning to anybody.
This was just, you know, I'm a conservative.
I don't look- oh, look at that.
White gal gets hit by black guy in a Pepsi can.
Oh, wow, how did they get away with it?
I didn't see it that way.
I didn't see this as demeaning to anybody.
The I I thought, I thought, if I'm Pepsi, why do I want to advertise this product by having somebody throw a can of it at somebody?
Not whether they're black or white.
I thought it was somewhat humorous, but I don't see anything anti-black in this.
I just certainly didn't think anything disrespectful.
I didn't see anything disrespectful of uh of Black History Month in this.
And yet here's Sheila Jackson Lee.
Uh she she doesn't object to hitting a complete stranger, leaving her knocked out on the ground.
She's not concerned about any of that in this ad.
Uh the the the the white girl's blonde.
Uh I don't know if that's if that's a factor in Sheila Jackson Lee.
What do you what are you looking at me for, sturdy?
What is the uh what uh there is a lot going on in the ad culturally.
Are you referring to the fact that the black guy finds the white jogger attractive?
Part of it, yes.
Well, fine.
What but but this is this is um I know the demographics and all that.
I just all I'm saying is that I I don't see this ad and immediately have a civil rights reaction.
Okay?
I don't look at the ad and say and say, my race has been offended here, and I gotta go call Jesse Jackson.
Except I can't get hold of Jesse Jackson because he's in Jerry Jones suite, wishing that it was uh Cameron Diaz feeding him popcorn instead of A-rod.
And after he leaves Jerry Jones, he's gonna go to the Steelers locker room.
That's why she couldn't get all of it.
Well, he was.
He was in Jesse Jackson suite with all the Hollywood types.
Uh or uh Jerry Jones suite.
That's where the Reverend Jackson was, and Al Sharpkin were meeting with lawyers trying to handle these IRS debt.
So there really wasn't a whole lot of people to call here, so she has to go to the media here to complain about a demeaning.
I just don't see it this way.
I can't possibly think.
Well, but but then again, Sheila Jackson Lee is one of many people just sitting out there waiting to be offended.
The purpose in life is to be offended and then try to affect or impose limits on somebody else's behavior.
Corporate or otherwise, because of how what I've done has uh has offended you.
All right.
Employers, this is from state controlled associated press.
Employers posted fewer jobs in December.
The latest evidence that businesses are not ready to step up hiring.
This totally shocks me because in the last two weeks, all we've heard is how employment is showing a hefty rebound.
Employment's coming back.
It's finally this economy is starting to rebound, and people are starting to hire.
And the number of people who are applying for benefits is going down.
Now we know it's all smoke and mirrors.
Uh the unemployment rate goes down from 9.8 to 9% because they simply erase 2.2 million jobs from the possibility from the universe of jobs.
And yet, employers posted fewer jobs in December.
The report provides an indication of future hiring patterns because it can take several months to fill many jobs.
Openings have arisen by more than 700,000 since they bottomed out in July 2009.
Analysts expect companies will start hiring again soon.
And noting that other data suggest the economy's improving, consumers are spending more layoffs are at pre-recession levels, and Dow Jones industrial average above 12,000.
That's phony.
That's just because of QE2.
The Dow Jones industrial average is going up.
People are buying stocks with uh printed money from the Fed.
Doesn't really indicate any robust economic activity.
I got a couple of charts here, actually, three charts that show the activity of America's railroads today.
Uh lumber, timber, and things associated with home building.
The uh the quantity of that kind of material being shipped on America's railroads is way, way down.
Um terms of commodities, wheat shipping is way, way up.
Uh, but for the most part, there's no increase overall in rail activity in the country, meaning there's no indication of any enhanced expanded economic activity going on.
And what we've heard about the housing market being down can be visualized in these charts about the amount of timber and other products related to home building being shipped uh being way down.
Washington is considering an extra fee on electric cars.
Drivers of electric vehicles in Washington state won't be paying gasoline taxes, so the state wants some of the lost money back by means of an annual $100 fee.
Yang told you, told you that's exactly what's going to happen.
They're urging you to save the planet.
They're urging you to save the environment.
They're urging you to be efficient and economic, get in one of these electric cars, and then they realize you're not going to be buying gasoline.
Unless you're at a vault and you're going to be filling up your reserve tank.
And you're not going to be paying gasoline taxes.
So you're going to get slapped with a fee, $100 a year fee on electric cars in Washington State.
And that's just for starters.
When they figure out that won't cover the shortage, it'll go up even more.
Let's see.
Who is this?
The Senate Transportation Committee Chairwoman in Washington State, Mary Margaret Hogan said as an issue of fairness.
Yeah, electric cars will be driving on the highways right along with all the other cars.
One of our biggest issues is preservation and maintenance of our existing highways.
We believe they should be paying their fair share, these electric car drivers.
State gasoline tax, 37.5 cents per gallon.
One anti-tax activist said he doesn't think that what's in Hoggins' bill is a fee at all.
There's a tax.
It's not a fee.
You got to pay an additional tax of a hundred bucks when you buy the electric car.
This is all always happens.
In a drought, they urge you to do with less water.
Need a conserve.
And you do that, and then you find out, they find out that they're getting shorted tax revenue, so they raise taxes on water to make up for the for the shortfall.
Political unemployment may doom 2012 odds.
This story all about how Obama's got to get that number down to 8%.
Gotta get it down to at 8%.
If the unemployment rate can break this 8% level, Obama can credibly argue he's making progress on jobs.
That's what they're setting up right here, state control political.
Okay, Egypt, health care unconstitutional, lots of things on the agenda today.
Plus your phone calls as always.
Sit tight, we'll be back and continue with all the rest of it right after this.
Already on fire.
Ill Rushbo starting a million conversations.
Coming up soon, Diane Feinstein, who is a head honcho of the uh in the Senate of the Intelligence Committee.
Actually, we have it coming up.
We don't understand this.
Extremists could easily take over Egypt.
We don't understand this, she says.
On uh on Egypt.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, Obama has recorded another message to Egyptians, and uh, we have that as an exclusive here at the EIB network coming up soon.
First in USA Today, you know, one of my pet peeves throughout much of my broadcast career has been job training centers.
I hear about the need for job training centers, job retraining centers, and I've always said, why do we need those?
We already have schools.
We send people to school, we send people to college, we send people to vocational schools, we send I know they don't graduate in a number of cases, and I know they can't even read their diplomas in some cases.
But why does that mean we need job training centers?
We don't.
This is just you talk about a waste of money.
And there's a story from USA Today.
The federal government spends $18 billion a year on 47 separate job training programs run by nine different agencies.
All but three programs overlap with others to provide the same services to the same population.
According to the government accountability office of GAO, they found that little is known about the effectiveness of the programs because half of them haven't had a performance review since 2004.
Only five of them have ever had a study to determine whether job seekers in the program do better than those who don't participate in the job training program.
Here's just one example of how we're spending 18 billion dollars, and we don't have any idea whether it's working or not.
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican Oklahoma.
Managing that patchwork of federal programs is a network of 575 business led local workforce boards running 1,300 one stop job centers.
I mean, this is this is a total waste of money.
And the fact that we even have job training centers is evidence of the horrible job we're doing in primary education in this country.
Seriously.
What was the purpose of going to school?
I mean, parents send you off to school, you gotta go.
Grade school, junior high, high school, what's the point?
To get a job.
To find a career.
To get educated in the old days for women to find a husband.
Now the purpose of school is to get three square meals a day paid for by your neighbors, get the kids out of the house so you can run around and do whatever you want to do, and while they're at school, teach them conflict resolution, uh, self-esteem classes, and how rotten Ronald Reagan and Republicans are, and what a wonderful guy Bill Clinton is, and Lewinsky's are now fine.
Oh, and by the way, you want to have an abortion?
Here's where you go to get one.
Oh, by the way, want to have sex?
Here's a condom.
And here's a little video on how to do it.
And we wonder why these little young skulls full of mush come out and can't find work.
Have to go to a job training center.
And who runs these job training centers?
Who's in there?
Could it be union personnel?
It's just a place to dump money, and it's a it's a it's totally unnecessary if we have a decent education system in the first place.
Hi, and welcome back, Rushlin Ball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Grab a quick phone call here, and then we're gonna get everybody up to speed on where the regime is on Egypt.
And that's almost as important as what's going on in Egypt.
The bottom line is the regime has no clue what's going on in Egypt.
The regime last week said, hey, Egyptians, you better make this transformation and do it now.
Today the regime is saying, eh, we want to maybe back off that a little bit.
We uh you don't have to do it now.
All kinds of mixed messages coming from the regime.
We'll sort it all out.
Uh replete with uh audio sound bites in mere moments, but first, from Syracuse, New York, this is Randy, and I'm glad you called, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Hi.
Hey, first off, it's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you so much for all that you do for this country.
Well, I appreciate your saying that.
Thank you very much.
Okay, Mike, uh my comment is yesterday, three key provisions of the Patriot failed to pass in the House of Representatives.
I'd be very curious to find out what your take on all that is, and uh and how competent you thought the Republican leadership in the House was by not getting it through.
I am not certain that that vote is final.
And I'll I'll tell you why.
You are right that three provisions did not make it.
Those three provisions are roving surveillance authorities or roving wiretaps that uh that have been used routinely by domestic law enforcement in standard criminal cases since the mid-80s.
Business record orders, the domestic law enforcement working with local prosecutors routinely rely on business records through the course of their investigation.
However, national security agents did not have the same authority to acquire similar evidence prior to the passage of the Patriot Act, Section 215.
That failed, and the Lone Wolf Provision, this Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act allows law enforcement to track non-U.S.
citizens acting alone to commit acts of terrorism that are not connected to an organized terrorist group or uh or foreign power.
Now, those those are the three that were voted down, but they were voted down under unusual rules in the House.
Now, the Heritage Foundation in their morning bell blog today starts this way.
Last night, despite a strong majority vote in favor of the bill, the House of Representatives fell seven votes short of the two thirds they needed to suspend the rules and pass three key counterterrorism amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Many of the headlines that you will read today will say things like Patriot Act extension fails in House.
The reality is much of the Patriot Act was already permanently enacted.
Of the three amendments to FISA at issue.
Two were part of the original Patriot Act.
One was part of the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004.
All are set to expire at the end of this month.
But but here's here's the thing about this that I might give you some hope.
The House voted 277 to 148 to keep the three provisions until December 8th, but Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority.
And it was that two-thirds majority, Randy, that the vote was seven short of necessary.
Now the Republicans lost 26 of their own members.
Twenty-six Republicans voted with the 122 Democrats against it.
And some of the Republicans say that they were not properly informed by the leadership on this.
Some of the rookies, some of the freshmen say they were not really advised about all this in time.
And the leader of the opposition was Dennis Kucinich.
Now, something tells me here that Republicans do not intend to vote with Dennis Kucinich.
Because he's aligned with the ACLU opposing extending the whole thing.
The whole Patriot Act.
So if Kucinich is for it, all rational people ought to be against it.
But the article notes, this is, Randy, this is the one sliver of hope out there.
Okay.
The article notes that the bill will be brought up again under regular order, which will not require a two-thirds majority to pass.
So what I'm thinking here, Randy, and this is just a wild guess, that they brought this up under two-thirds first for some procedural reason.
And it allowed some people to take a position on this.
Remember 2012's an election year.
They're going to bring it back up under normal rules.
They won't need two-thirds to pass it.
And hopefully, I'm right about this.
Uh hopefully, when that happens, that the uh law will pass, these three provisions will pass before any damage can be done.
But nevertheless, uh, we will keep a sharp eye on this.
It's a great question, and you are imminently informed, informed, to be uh so up to speed on this.
All right, uh the regime and Egypt.
First, let's go to audio soundbite number three.
We have a montage here of the regime's flip-flops and mixed messages on Egypt.
It's a this this is an anatomy of a botched foreign policy.
What you're gonna hear here is is an example or the illustration of the definition of incompetence.
Mabark has been an ally of ours in a number of things.
I would not refer to him as a dictator.
It's not a question of who retains power.
That should not be the issue.
You cannot keep trying to put words in my mouth.
What I indicated tonight to President Mubarak is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful.
It must be peaceful, and it must begin now.
That means yesterday.
Because when we said now, we meant yesterday.
The president must stay in office in order to steer those changes through.
I therefore believe that President Mubarak's continued leadership is critical.
We respect the many years of service that Frank Wisner has provided to our country.
But he does not speak for the American government.
He does not reflect uh our policies.
Egypt is not going to go back to what it was.
Less important is what we think, and more important is what the people of Egypt think.
So that's that's a soundbite montage of uh everybody that you heard there is a member of the regime.
And they're all over the board about what our policy is going to be.
Obama has recorded exclusively for this audience another message to the Egyptian people.
White House working aggressively to erase conflicting messages on Egypt that have frustrated even Obama.
What?
The frustrating messages from the regime are frustrating even the leader of the regime.
The White House working aggressively.
Who's the who's the White House here?
Who is it?
Is it Gibbs?
Is it Biden?
Is it Obama?
White House working aggressively to erase conflicting messages on Egypt that have frustrated even Obama.
Well, who the hell is in charge then?
After comments by some State Department officials or widely interpreted as diverging from the White House stand, the White House sought to dispel any notion that it's either loosening pressure on Mubarak or backing off from supporting the protesters flooding Cairo.
Much of the White House ire centered on comments you just heard here by Frank Wisner, the retired U.S. diplomat who was dispatched by Obama to help nudge Mubarak out of office.
Wisner stunned Obama officials by saying Saturday Mubarak's continued leadership was crucial and critical.
Now imagine this.
The regime picks out this guy, they send him over there, and his charge is look, Frank, when you go over there, you're supposed to just tell Mubarak he's got to go.
You're delivering a message from me, Barack Hussein Obama.
Mm-mm-mm.
And when you get there, you tell him, scram, get out of there.
So Wiz gets over there and says just the exact opposite.
That Mubarak's continued leadership was critical as Egypt worked through reforms.
Mrs. Clinton had to pipe up and say, well, he's a respected guy, but it's a stupid idiot, and he doesn't speak for us.
Well, you sent him.
The regime sends the guy.
He makes a statement, it's not what the regime wants stated.
Obama showed his frustration about what Wisner said.
Part of the confusion is stemmed from the government's own message.
Comments by some State Department people seem to back attack too far from the White House stance, particularly by raising doubts about whether it was wise for Mubarak to step down now, as the protesters uh have demanded.
What's more, White House officials are frustrated with some of the news reporting on events.
The overall concern was that the narrative was getting cloudy and certainly not focused on the events in Egypt.
They've lost control of all of this.
And they're admitting here they've lost control of the media.
They their own guy.
Total amateur hour.
And we've got, in this country, we've got some of the best and the brightest, some of the most learned intellectuals analyzing this.
In the in some of the loftiest ways.
And it's the three stooges.
This is this is Abbott and Costello.
This is who's on first.
Again, the regime picks a retired State Department guy, sends him over there with the purpose to tell Mubarak to get out of there.
To nudge him away.
Wisner gets over there and says, uh, this place needs Mubarak.
For a long, long time.
This frustrates Obama.
Uh, and now they get frustrated with some of the reporting on the events.
On Tuesday, uh, yesterday, when Obama spokesman Robert Fibbs was asked about State Department comments on the risks if Mubarik leaves, he bristled.
He said, I want to be clear.
I speak for the president of the United States of America.
We're not here to determine who leads Egypt and when they lead Egypt.
Lead Egy Egypt now, really.
Gibbs just said last week, get out of there now.
Last week, the regime's position was that Mubarak had to go now.
Now meant yesterday.
We had that in the soundbite montage.
Now meant yesterday.
And now Gibbs is saying, we don't have anything to say about this.
They send a guy over there to get rid of Mubarak.
The guy double crosses him and says Mubarak's totally necessary.
Gibbs comes back and says, screw the media, screw all you people here.
We're not, we're not here to determine who leads Egypt and when they lead lead Egypt.
Well, what the hell is this all been about then?
Obama put himself in front of that mob.
He owns that mob.
He made speeches to that mob.
He made promises to that mob, whoever they are, that Mubarak was going to be gone and some brand new day was going to dawn over there.
Muslim Brotherhood or whoever it was.
People are being killed in Egypt.
This is rampant confusion.
I know it's Obama.
We laugh at him, we're having this is serious stuff.
People listen to what the president of the United States says.
The president of the United States goes on worldwide television with that godlike reverb and pronounces Mubarik essentially over.
We support reform and we demand that it happen now.
Crowd cheers, more people join the crowd, everybody gets all hot and bothered about it.
It all breaks down, and now the White House is saying, We're not in charge of this.
Whoever runs Egypt and whenever they run Egypt, that's not what we're about.
And meanwhile, people are being killed in Egypt.
Because of this confusion.
Here's Diane Feinstein.
Well, I gotta take a break.
But Diane Feinstein.
Uh ripping the regime.
Not the Mubarak regime, ripping the Obama regime, telling them they don't understand what's happening over there.
That's coming up next.
Yesterday afternoon on television.
Andrea Mitchell, NBCU is in Washington.
She talked to Senator Diane Feinstein of California, who probably doesn't understand much of what's going on.
More on that in just a moment.
But Andrea Mitchell said, Do you think this transfer of power in Egypt?
Do you think that can be done?
You guarantees it something so that there isn't a total vacuum.
There are political organizations, a process for election.
Can that happen within weeks or at the most months?
Or do we have to wait until September?
As Mubarak says he prefers.
Now let me translate the question.
Translate here.
Here's a journalist.
Who actually, uh, by virtue of the question thinks that she has a role in policy here.
And notice the narrative, the narrative started.
We got to get rid of Mubarak.
He's rotten.
He's a dirty skunk.
This guy's horrible.
Go now.
Get gone.
That's the position of the regime last week.
Now the regime's done a double take.
And they and they're backed off that.
Andrea Mitchell either hasn't gotten the memo or she still thinks Mubarak needs to go.
She got Dai Fi up there on her show.
Is there anything we should do?
Do we have to wait weeks?
Do we have to wait months?
Is there anything we can do to get rid of this slime?
That's the question.
And here's Daify's answer.
Let me say one more thing.
And that is concern that we have over fundamentalist Islamic sex taking over.
And I think it's very real that we've got to.
Stop the tape, stop the tape, and re-cue it here.
I'm sorry, for you and real Linda.
S E C T S. They're not worried about Islamic sex in um in Egypt, groups, Islamic groups, sects, religious sects.
Here's the answer.
Let me say one more thing.
And that is concern that we have over fundamentalist Islamic sex taking over.
And I think it's very real that we do not understand the ebb and flow of the currents in the Middle East.
I remember in 2006, when it was being discussed whether Hamas should be permitted to run in um Gaza.
I think perhaps we don't understand this.
And one thing that needs to be looked at is that border with the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.
And whether the military is still able to keep weapons from flowing both ways.
Do you understand it, folks?
Diane Feinstein of the Intelligence Committee is saying we don't understand that this could be an Islamist takeover.
And she's speaking not just of herself but of the regime.
We don't understand what this could be.
Why don't we understand?
Because forces have formed here in this country, both in the media and outside, to reject that as so unlikely.
No, this is for good.
This is all about democracy.
We must blanketly support this could not be anything to do with an Islamist sect takeover.
Except Diane Feinstein says, we we don't understand.
Islamists could take over Egypt.
She's right.
Well, we'll be back in a sec.
First hour broadcast excellence in the can.
Soon to be shipped over to the archive location for the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, which you can see, by the way, at rushlimbog.com.
▲
Export Selection