Rush Limbaugh Program - March 28, 2011, Monday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 28, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:42

March 28, 2011, Monday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Hey, hey, hey, hey.
	How was your weekend out there, ladies and gentlemen?
	Hope it was cool.
	It is dark here where we are.
	It's nighttime dark here.
	I mean, it is cozy dark here.
	And we love it.
	Really do.
	Greetings, my friends, and welcome, Rush Limbaugh and the E.I.B. Network.
	This the Rush Limbaugh program, the most listened to radio talk show in the country, has been for a long time and will be for as long as I'm here.
	As long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where here is.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882, email address.com.
	First, the uh president of the United States locked out of the White House after his vacation plans changed, and he comes home early.
	He came home early to find his NCAA brackets in tatters.
	Then he sees his secretaries of state and defense are not on the same page as to why we're in Libya.
	Did you see this yesterday?
	Meet the press yesterday.
	Gates says, no, there aren't any vital U.S. national interest.
	And Hillary jumps in, cuts him off, and not another word is heard from Gates the rest of the show.
	What is the term I heard over the weekend?
	Hawk hens.
	The Obama hawk hens.
	Meaning the babes of the well, the women.
	There aren't any real babes in this bunch, but the uh the the hawk hens.
	I mean, just shut Gates up there.
	So then Obama has to hastily schedule a national address tonight.
	By the way, seven and a half hours for Obama to figure out what he's going to say.
	7.30 tonight.
	Big uh big big remarks from the Oval Office.
	I'm thinking about doing a Wolf Blitzer here.
	We're only six hours away now from President Obama and a big announcement on Libya.
	We're only five hours, 45 minutes away now from Pres for the whole show here.
	Everybody.
	Have you ever noticed?
	Have you ever noticed, folks, the media is constantly, they are breathless.
	Each time Obama is going to say something, the media just gets breathless as though his words can mean anything.
	He's going at 7.30 tonight to preempt or make sure he doesn't step on dancing with the stars, which is at uh 8 o'clock on ABC.
	But have you ever noticed the media is always waiting breathlessly for Obama to say something.
	Tongues hanging out, hitting the street side.
	They seem to be always living in the hope that Obama will make a pronouncement that will suddenly change everything.
	You would have thought, you would think, they would have learned by now that they're always going to be disappointed.
	That those days are long gone.
	There aren't any magic words.
	And while Obama might speak well, he doesn't communicate well.
	He's a very, very poor communicator.
	So anyway, he's got this national address at 7.30 tonight to clean up any of the confusion as to why we're at war.
	And by the way, I now know why we are at war in Libya.
	It's got a chart right here.
	We are at war to protect European energy.
	We are at war in Libya to protect European oil and energy.
	This is stunning when you um when you see this chart.
	We'll put it up at Rush Limbaugh.com.
	I forgot to send it up to Coco, but I'll do that when the break comes around.
	It's patently obvious why we're here.
	And then the story, latest headline today is Sarkozy.
	That's France for those of you in Rio Linda, Cameron, UK.
	Uh call on all Libyans opposing Qaddafi to help create a process of national transition.
	It's about oil.
	I have no problem with, by the way.
	Don't misunderstand.
	I'm not a leftist who bemoans that.
	But I know Obama can't dare say it.
	That's why there is so seemingly much uh confusion.
	Is why Gates says one thing, Hillary says another, Obama's got to now go clean it up.
	Did you see where the the uh Biden's people locked up a reporter over the weekend in Tampa?
	Some guy named Alan Ginsburg has his mansions, I think it's Tampa, somewhere here in Florida, and there was a big fundraiser.
	Had about 120 guests at this guy's house.
	Biden was gonna come in and make some remarks.
	They had one reporter, Scott Fuller, I think is his name, Brewer or something.
	I've got it here.
	I didn't intend to be talking about this right now.
	It's in the stack someplace.
	They got this guy and they put him in a closet until Biden shows up and makes his remarks because they did not want him mingling with the guests.
	And he's not upset about it.
	I mean, this is the epitome of state control media.
	They put the guy in a closet.
	There's a picture of the closet where the guy was.
	He would open the door.
	Can I come out now?
	No, not yet.
	Shut the door back on him.
	Signor Wensis.
	And he's uh he's on record.
	Hey, look, it's not as bad as what it seemed like.
	Can you imagine if it was Cheney and if he'd put a reporter in a closet in some guy's house and didn't want the reporter mingling with the guests?
	But it wasn't any big deal.
	At any rate, uh, ladies and gentlemen, this is uh uh a comedy of errors.
	It is, except it's not funny, but it does appear to be a uh uh a comedy of errors.
	Biden, by the way, has said nothing about this kinetic military action.
	He said nothing about it.
	Gates, Hillary.
	You've got uh Obama speaking at 7.30.
	What kind of community organizer is this?
	Always the community organizers are organized.
	Wouldn't you think that anyone who proudly calls himself a community organizer would be a little bit more organized than this.
	He's running a kinetic mess.
	And he's supposed to be the organizational expert.
	His own community does not know why he started a third war.
	They don't know why he's on vacation while bombing a Middle East country.
	They don't know why he kept the Bush tax cuts.
	They don't know why he's publicly celebrating Brazil's oil.
	Oh, oh.
	This is another thing.
	I got hold of Coco today, the uh our webmaster, and I said, Look, and I've had it with this.
	I want you to go back to the website, and I want you to find as many examples as you can of me talking about Obama supporting with money the Brazilian oil industry.
	Because everybody's acting like like there's a post at National Review Online and nothing against Mr. Hayward here.
	Stephen Hayward, National Review Online, credit where credit is due.
	And this is a a post at NRO crediting the Washington Post.
	The post lead house editorial notes Obama's incomprehensible remarks in Brazil, supporting more offshore drilling there, while still opposing it here at home.
	Well, you people in this audience have known about this for two years.
	We have been telling you, I have been telling you about Obama's in-bed under the sheets relationship with Petrobras, George Soros, and Brazil about the drilling.
	Here we coco found August 24th, 2009, about a year and a half ago.
	Last week, the regime announced two billion dollars for Brazil to help them drill for oil, the company that's getting the money, the largest stakeholder, George Soros.
	So two things are happening here.
	We are handcuffing ourselves in terms of our own energy exploration and development and discovery and use.
	At the same time, we're helping another country, in this case, a Democrat contributor, Soros.
	So once again, George Soros, who would love to see this country on its hands and knees, Soros would love to see this country suffering.
	Soros doesn't need two billion dollars from Obama.
	Pelosi doesn't need a government jet.
	She and her husband could buy four of them themselves.
	They don't need government jets.
	They just want you to pay for everything, so they don't have to.
	Soros doesn't need two billion dollars from us if he wants to explore for oil in Brazil.
	He's got his own two billion dollars he can throw into it.
	But no, we are gonna give two billion dollars down there to a company in Brazil, the largest investor at the time, Soros, a big Democrat contributor.
	We've been talking about this since August of 2009.
	We did a morning Update on this.
	This has been a constant refrain and long before the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
	And at one time, I think the number was actually 10 billion that we were thinking of investing.
	And you might remember my talking about this because it was in conversations about not just helping Brazil, but the Mexicans keep drilling.
	The Chicoms are drilling in the Gulf of Mexico with uh with the Cubans, the Vietnamese are getting involved.
	We've been talking about this for two years.
	We've known for the longest time here that Obama is anti-the U.S. oil industry.
	Now all of a sudden Washington Post comes out with an editorial calling Obama on all this, and a lot of other people, and it's not news.
	It's not new.
	Folks.
	This has been uh this has been going on well at least since August 24th of 2009.
	We first talked about this way back then.
	Last week, maybe the week before, Obama went to Brazil and made it official, and so everybody's now having a cow over this.
	But this isn't new.
	It's been around for many, many moons.
	So the aspect of the story that Obama is helping the Brazilians drill for oil, and he says he wants them to be able to drill for oil.
	He wants them to be able to be energy independent, but not implementing identical policies here.
	In fact, doing just the opposite, harming our own ability to be energy independent.
	But some people just learned about it last week when Obama went down there to speak about it.
	We've known about it for a year and a half, and as such, so have you.
	Okay.
	Seven hours and ten minutes.
	President Obama and remarks on Libya.
	We'll be back.
	Don't go away.
	Back in 2009, ladies and gentlemen, the uh original reports were the U.S. government was offering to provide up to $10 billion in loans to Brazil and Petrobras.
	Now, back in August of 2009, uh, $10 billion in loans has got scaled back to $2 billion at least uh so far.
	And the the journalist uh White House website proudly says Obama committed to creating the most open and accessible administration in American history.
	But the uh vice president had a fundraiser.
	It was in Florida, and the reporter, who's the reporter uh well, I didn't print out enough pages of the story to get the reporter's name.
	Doesn't matter.
	It was a fundraiser.
	Biden and Senator Bill Nelson were there.
	They hadn't yet arrived.
	It was held at the uh the gigantic mansion of property developer Alan Ginsburg, Winter Falls, Florida.
	And the reporter gets stashed in a closet so that he can't talk to the guests until Obama shows up.
	Obama shows up, they let the guy out, then they put him back in the closet, or when when Biden shows up, they put him back in the closet.
	Turns out from the Daily Caller, this is not the first time.
	Saturday's incident was the well, not the first time that the vice president kept a member of the media stuck in a tiny room during an event, March of 2010.
	Baltimore's son reporter Justin Fenton was on duty to cover a Biden fundraiser in Maryland, was forced to wait for an hour in what he jokingly called a cage that was guarded by the vice president staffs.
	It's the second time.
	Truly state-controlled media.
	And this reporter uh in Florida doesn't care.
	It's not that big a deal to him.
	He's out there saying, hey, there's been a lot of, you know, it wasn't nearly as bad, wasn't it?
	Cage in there.
	I mean, and they just asked me in there so I couldn't mingle with the guests and see.
	You let a Republican try this.
	You let Cheney stash a reporter in a closet someplace next to.
	I mean, they'll shout Abu Gray.
	Yeah, exactly.
	They would shout Abu Graber any number of uh things.
	Bob Herbert leaving the New York Times, ladies and gentlemen.
	Frank Rich has left the New York Times.
	David Brooks is still there.
	But listen to what Bob Herbert said.
	Bob Herbert, by the way, the first regular African American op-ed columnist at the time, leaving after 18 years.
	So I'm leaving the New York Times and the rewards and rigors of daily journalism with the intent of writing more expansively and more aggressively about the injustices visited on working people, the poor, and the many others in our society who find themselves on the wrong side of power, said the 66-year-old journalist.
	Sounds wonderful.
	Sounds compassionate.
	Sounds very caring and so forth, but I read stuff like this, and I honestly, folks, I scratch my head.
	Who hasn't been focusing on the poor for as long as there have been poor?
	Who hasn't been focusing on the injustices visited on working people?
	The many others in our society who find themselves on the wrong side of power.
	All of this stuff is cliched.
	And the problem with it is that people like Mr. Herbert believe that the reason that there are poor people and that there are injustices visited on the working people.
	And people in our society who find themselves on the wrong side of power is because of capitalism, because of the American system itself.
	Their quarrel is with America.
	America is what creates poverty.
	America is what doesn't fix poverty.
	America allows injustices to be visited on working people.
	So What kind of injustices is he talking about now?
	Oh, you mean the injustice in working conditions and salary and benefits and health care for, say, the teachers in Wisconsin?
	Or the public employees in California, or the state teachers in California, or the public sector union people anywhere, those injustices where they make twice as much money as their private sector counterparts, with pensions and health care until they die.
	Those kinds of injustices?
	Is that is that is that what he means?
	And a wrong side of power.
	It's a never-ending quest.
	It's a recipe for constant misery and unhappiness to be focused on all this.
	And of course, the left has been implementing their solutions for how long?
	Well, we've had for as long as humanity has existed.
	There have been people trying to fight these injustices and fix them and so forth.
	And they've had their various programs and ways.
	Has it worked?
	It hasn't.
	But we're not supposed to look at the results of their efforts.
	No, only their good intentions.
	Same thing here with Mr. Herbert.
	Oh man, what a big heart.
	What a great guy.
	He's leaving the times to continue and expand his efforts on the part of the injustices visited upon working people.
	And the poor and many others in our society.
	If Mr. Herbert had a different view of what caused these problems, and therefore a different solution to these problems, and therefore wrote about that might be a quest that mattered.
	Might be a quest that actually bore fruit.
	Results.
	But the same people have been trying the same things.
	For generation after generation, for I mean, decade after decade, century after century.
	And the answer, this is what's frustrating to me is the answer to poverty is the United States of America.
	Compare poverty here to anywhere else around the world.
	There's hardly any comparison whatsoever.
	There's another thing.
	The New York Times just established a paywall.
	The poor will no longer be able to read the New York Times.
	The poor will no longer be able to read Bob Herbert.
	and They just established a paywall.
	That's right, you now have to pay to read the New York Times on the internet.
	$35 a month to read their website.
	$35 a month to read their website.
	Bob Herbert quitting.
	Now, some uh enterprising hackers have found four lines of JavaScript to be able to beat the paywall.
	The New York Times has spent tens of millions of dollars Establishing their paywall.
	Tens of millions of dollars to go pay and keep people from busting it.
	Four lines of JavaScript have been written that totally bust the paywall.
	But the poor don't even know what JavaScript is.
	So the poor will not even be able to read.
	The people suffering injustices at work will not even be able to read the New York Times anyway.
	Maybe this is why Bob Herbert left.
	Contributing to the digital divide.
	Absolutely, no question about it.
	Media Matters has declared an open war against the Fox News channel.
	David Brock, founder, described in an interview an all-out campaign of guerrilla warfare and sabotage aimed at the Fox News Channel.
	There's one problem.
	Well, it would be a problem normally.
	This is like this is like saying that the judge in Wisconsin has a problem.
	She really doesn't because of the nobody's going to challenge her in this, but Media Matters is listed as a charity.
	Media Matters is a 501c3.
	Media Matters as such is not permitted to engage in partisan political activity.
	Well, that's all Media Matters has ever done.
	Media Matters is an arm of George Soros.
	It is an arm of every American and international leftist organization.
	It is a partisan political organization, and it has as its objective to destroy, discredit, and impugn anything that is not leftist or liberal.
	And it's gotten away all these years of being listed as a charity.
	You can give money to Media Matters and get a charitable deduction for it, and yet they are engaging in partisan political activity.
	Somebody's going to have to do something about this.
	They have to change their designation as something because as of now they're breaking the law.
	They are not a charity.
	They are a partisan political group.
	David Brock, Media Matters has announced that he is out to harm Rupert Murdoch's business interests.
	He said they says that in the article here about what Media Matters intends to do.
	Now, Media Matters is engaging in illegal activity, therefore.
	Prohibited if you are a 501c3 tax exempt charity.
	What Media Matters is doing, you can call it tortious interference, which occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships.
	And this is what Brock has claimed.
	He's announced they're out to harm Murdoch's business interest.
	You cannot use a tax-exempt organization to break the law.
	You cannot use a charity to engage in partisan political activity.
	And that's all Media Matters has been doing since their inception.
	Will somebody call them on it other than me?
	Will somebody officially bring them up?
	We'll see.
	They're not in trouble if nobody will.
	They'll just keep on.
	Audio sound by Time, your host.
	A couple of mentions over the weekend.
	First off, uh, actually this morning on uh on the daily rundown on MSNBC former Virginia Republican Representative Tom Davis is a guest of Savannah Guthrie.
	She said, What what kind of compromise Speaker Boehner willing to make here on the uh on the budget?
	He has his House Republicans pass uh you know some money and budget cuts.
	Uh we know the figure is going to be somewhat lower than sixty billion.
	The final deal is is it a matter of uh how many votes he has to lose?
	The players here, too, are the media.
	You know, Rosh Limbaugh, it shapes a lot of opinion, a lot of phones light up on this kind of thing.
	There are third-party players in this that we don't talk about.
	Third party players that we don't talk about.
	This is about a hundred and five billion dollars of implementation costs of health care.
	The whole point of the election in November was to roll back repeal Obamacare.
	Here's a chance to defund it of 105 billion dollars in implementation cost that would go a long way toward repealing Obamacare.
	The leadership, eh, we'd have to break a rule to do that.
	Continue resolutions don't allow us.
	We're not we're not gonna go there.
	We'll just we'll cut five or six billion dollars every two weeks, our continuing resolution.
	They continue to fear a um budget shutdown.
	Government shutdown.
	They fear that they will lose it PR wise.
	Meanwhile, Friday night on MSNBC, David Brooks had an entirely different view of the conservative media and whether or not they have any influence at all.
	The fill in host was F. Chuck Todd.
	He talked to David Brooks, said, uh, Bachman Trump, Palin, we're the cable catnip, the media catnip.
	What do you do if you're Romney and Plenty when you're dealing with those three?
	You got to distinguish between the conservative media industry and the people who are actually running for office.
	And there's been very little evidence, I think, in past elections that one has really affected the other.
	So for example, Rush Limbaugh and Mark LeVane, a lot of the conservative radio jucks spent two years attacking John McCain.
	McCain still won the South Carolina Republican primary, the Florida Republican primary.
	One Republican cult consultant once told me Rush Limo can't deliver a pizza.
	People like listening to Rush, they like listening to that stuff, but it doesn't really affect how they vote.
	They want somebody who they can plausibly see as president.
	This is the uh this is the gentleman who looked at the crease in Obama's pants and decided not only was he going to be president, but a good one.
	He was gonna be a great president.
	David Brooks, Republican consultant once told him Rush Limbaugh can't deliver a pizza.
	I bet I probably could.
	I bet I could deliver a pizza if I said my mind to it.
	Well, anyway, this is the kind of stuff that's uh that is that is uh out there.
	Obama, by the way, has gone all for four on his NCAA brackets.
	Now a lot of people are saying, they kind of give me the business here.
	Well, Rush, nobody gets the brackets right.
	I mean, that's what's fun about it.
	Yeah, well, fine and dandy, but Obama stopped everything to do his.
	You know, we're not talking about Joe Six Pack at the sports bar.
	We're talking about the president of the United States who spent more time taping, dealing with thinking about his NCAA brackets than he did Libya.
	So we have a montage here of March the 16th.
	And then yesterday, this is the president talking about his bracket picks, juxtaposed with uh Jim Nance of CBS and Gus Johnson of CBS, and Vern Lundquist and Marv Albert.
	I think Ohio State's got the talent.
	Wildcats going back to an old Kentucky home, the final chance.
	Uh I think Pitts are gonna win.
	The Big Jones do it again, but Smith's 11 coming back.
	Uh so I'm I'm going with Duke.
	UConn goes back to the final four for the fourth time.
	Kansas.
	They're gonna go all the way.
	In a third of King of Commonwealth has made it to the final four hockey golf the couple one thing for big hawk.
	Hello, Rio de Janeiro.
	Hello!
	Sidage!
	Maravilhosa!
	President Obama on his brackets.
	Can't wait to hear him tell us who he, you know, what his mock draft, first ten rounds of the NFL draft are gonna be if he goes there.
	Uh Saturday, White House YouTube channel, President Obama Libya mission is succeeding.
	We're succeeding in our mission.
	We've taken out Libya's air defenses.
	Gaddafi's forces are no longer advancing across Libya.
	Places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000, that Gaddafi threatened to show no mercy.
	His forces have been pushed back.
	So make no mistake.
	Because we acted quickly, a humanitarian catastrophe has been avoided, and the lives of countless civilians.
	Innocent men, women, and children have been saved.
	This just adds to the confusion of what this is all about.
	Gaddafi's still there.
	I I you know, we this is really hard.
	I mean, we're we're we're dealing with uh somebody who's not grounded in reality on this in any way, shape, manner, or form.
	This is my gosh, folks, it's embarrassing.
	It's worse than embarrassing.
	Also Saturday, White House YouTube channel.
	When someone like Gaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region.
	And when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives, then it's in our national interest to act.
	And it's our responsibility.
	This is one of those times.
	Gaddafi threatens a bloodbath.
	Well, here we go.
	And a lot of other people now are picking up this refrain that we offered last week.
	Well, there's a lot of bloodbaths around the world.
	Darfur, North Korea, Syria.
	Why aren't we there?
	It was fascinating.
	I meet the press yesterday, and the audio is coming up here, but it was a this this was a stunning power play.
	Meet the press yesterday after defense secretary Robert Gates conceded that Libya is not a vital interest of the United States.
	Stop and think of that.
	He conceded, Secretary of Defense, Libya is not, and the action there not rooted in a vital national interest of ours.
	Before he could complete his comments, Mrs. Clinton cut him off.
	And she launched into a minute and forty-second monologue seeking to justify U.S. military involvement in uh in Libya.
	We've got the audio coming up, some analysis, your phone calls as well.
	We'll get to all of it right after this.
	All right, for those of you watching on the Ditto Cam, it is off, and the reason it's off is because I have it zoomed in for something I'm gonna show you in a minute.
	If I let me show you, that's what it looks like if I turn it on.
	I'm not gonna leave it on like that, because all you can see is my oral cavity.
	And while I'm proud of my oral cavity would open it for anybody, I'm I've I'm I'm I have different sets of standards here for the uh for the for the broadcast.
	Quickly to the phones before we get into this uh Libya business, Moscow Mills in Missouri.
	This is Rich.
	Great to have you on the program, sir.
	Hi.
	Hi, Rush.
	Uh listening to the program today, and uh just had the call, you know, hoping to get through because it seems like uh Mr. Brooks is kind of on edge out there.
	David Brooks.
	Yes, sir.
	Uh New York Times audio sound that we just played saying I couldn't deliver a pizza.
	Yeah, it seems like he I don't know.
	It might have something to do with that crease and the fact that his uh his political discourse is is going from according to listeners to you, because I don't really know the man other than through you, because I don't go to liberal media outlets, but it seems uh we've gone from a crease in Obama's pants to you and delivering pizza, and uh it just seems like the political discourse is really gone downhill.
	Yeah, the civility was missing uh in the uh in the comment that's true.
	Even though Brooks himself didn't say it, he was quoting a uh a Republican consultant.
	Uh it is quite quite insulting and cutting.
	Um say that I can't deliver a pizza, I clearly could deliver a pizza.
	I could I could I know where to take pizzas if somebody wants one, I could clearly do this.
	Well, they usually say if you spell a person's name right, that that's all all the publicity they ever want.
	Right.
	Well, look at you understand what's going on here.
	There's a there's a there's a clear that clearly there's a an i in internecine battle going on within conservative media uh as uh as there is within the Republican Party at large, uh the rhinos, the moderates, the leftists, and the elites don't want anything to do with conservatism in the Republican Party.
	And well, yeah, that's right.
	Snerdley is saying Brooks have been ragging me for two years.
	I can't say that Brooks have been ragging me.
	I may have started it.
	Uh in fact, I probably did.
	If you want to call it starting it.
	I mean, I've I have been offering critical analysis of Mr. Brooks' analysis for uh for quite a while.
	Well, I don't care.
	He can fire back however he wants.
	Look at Lewinsky delivered pizza.
	Look what I got her.
	I'm sure that I I don't take it as an insult.
	And I know these Republican consultants don't like it.
	Snurdly, the one thing you've never been able to get it through your head and understand, because you don't want to believe it.
	And it's the one thing I do know.
	And folks, the rest of you out there, I you you would be wise to listen to me on this.
	When talking about the Republican Party, uh people like me are we're a thorn in their sides.
	They have to they have to uh act as though that uh they're they're happy we're around that we're somewhat helpful, but I guarantee you the honchos of the Republican Party get together with the honchos of the Democrat Party, and they both complain about their so-called media friends and allies.
	I mean, we hold them to high standards, uh and so I am um I'm under no illusions that I'm loved and adored by these people, and Brooks is uh I th I think a great illustration of that.
	I know he's probably talking about I could I could I could probably name the consultant who told him that I can't do it.
	Look at the consultants who got all ragged off when Christine O'Donnell was was won the uh won the primary in in Connecticut.
	Remember, they're all saying, okay, you guys know how to do this, and go ahead, you run our campaign.
	You go do it.
	Now, these are the guys that live in live and breathe.
	They make their money trying to tell candidates I can get you the independent vote.
	They're not ideologues.
	They live and breathe in this great 20% of undecided voters, the independents or whatever, that's where they make their money.
	That's what they go sell their abilities.
	And of course, um I I'm I'm not undecided, I'm not an independent.
	Uh and nor are very many of us uh in this audience.
	I know who they are, and I know what they're um that's a good question.
	How do we win the independence without them in the November election, you mean, right, HR?
	How do we w?
	We won the independence with a great question because the Republicans didn't do anything to win the independence.
	The reason we won the independence because Obama, that's why I kept telling you guys on Friday you're out here demanding and I pick somebody endorse them right now on the Republican side.
	I'm telling you, the election's gonna be about Obama.
	The independents flocked to the Republicans because they are appalled at what Obama is doing.
	They are appalled at the direction the liberals are taking the country.
	This is why people like me get frustrated to Republicans who are afraid to be conservative.
	Because finally, more and more people than ever before are seeing as clearly as they've ever been able to see what liberalism is and what it does.
	To a society, to a country, to its to our fiscal uh standing fiscal responsibility, what have you.
	We are broke.
	They see it, they finally see the incompetence that is Obama.
	They see it now.
	Where did they flock?
	They flocked the only way they could, the only place they could, the Republicans.
	But it wasn't because the in fact, if there's anybody who could make a claim to attracting the independence, it would be the hated Tea Party people because they were the ones offering an alternative.
	The Tea Party, much more than the Republican Party was offering policy alternatives.
	And the Tea Party, much more than the Republican Party was offering substantive criticism of Obama.
	Obama care, uh, the stimulus, TARP, uh the subprime mortgage mess.
	There was substance in the Tea Party, grassroots substance.
	The Tea Party.
	The uh Tea Party was not afraid of articulating what it believed, what it thought the problems in the country were.
	So the independents heard that.
	They saw the uh uh the things in front of their face that the Obama was doing.
	And so, yeah, you could make the case that the Republicans won the independent vote without one political consultant coming up with one strategy to do it.
	It was pure and simple liberalism on display.
	Let me, I'm gonna give you an advance.
	I wasn't gonna do this now.
	I had it all timed out.
	But here is why we're in Libya.
	There's the chart.
	This chart shows every energy and oil installation in Libya, offshore and on.
	Every one of them is a European-owned entity.
	You got BP, you've got ExxonMobil.
	This chart is from StratFor.
	StratFord.com.
	We will put this at rushlimb.com.
	Sarkozy and Cameron today have come out and are urging Libyans to oppose Gaddafi.
	This is no more a humanitarian mission than it is a mission to save the animals and the pets of Libya.
	This is about European energy.
	Pure and simple.
	And who was there first?
	Who didn't wait for us?
	The Europeans.
	We were stragglers, were we not?
	We were the last there.
	This is there are no vital U.S. interests, we're told.
	Gates says no vital U.S. That's not true.
	And Mrs. Clinton interrupts him.
	And goes on a minute and forty second monologue on Meet the Press yesterday to suggest that there might be some vital U.S. interests.
	Well, that's a pretty big chunk of that country, particularly along the coast on the uh on the northeastern northeastern coast of this country that's got a lot of energy installations.
	Now, the lower left-hand corner as you're looking at it, the lower left-hand corner lists by color code every country that owns one of those installations.
	Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	On the cutting edge, you can't.
	You knew about two billion dollars for Brazilian oil on this program a year and a half ago.
	Not last week, when everybody else found out about it.

▲