Rush Limbaugh Program - September 30, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 30, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program

37:43

September 30, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I want to take you back, folks.
	I want to take you back to the deep dark crevices of your own memory.
	Do you remember early on in the Afghanistan war, shortly after Obama was elected?
	I'm pretty sure this was uh it was in the first two years of the first term.
	And we were we were talking about the really odd rules of engagement that had been imposed upon our forces.
	And one of the things that Obama and his people were talking about was courageous restraint.
	You remember that?
	This was when American soldiers exercised great restraint in not firing on suspected terror targets if there was the slightest suspicion that they might have been civilians.
	And of course they all were.
	Terrorists hide in private homes, well, huts in Afghanistan.
	And they hide in mosques and any number of other places, and they do not wear uniforms.
	And I remember that they were seriously talking about the restraint, and we we were we were uh making jokes about how, well, maybe we need a medal for this.
	Maybe we need a medal for courageous restraint, where we honor American armed forces for not firing on the enemy.
	I'll never forget this because it was so convoluted.
	Well, here we have the the uh Secretary of Secret Service, the director of the Secret Service, who by the way, has admitted that there have been six fence jumpers this year, right?
	Six fence jumpers at the White House this year.
	And she was saying today in testimonies praising the restraint of the agents in the White House for not beating up these people that had jumped the fence.
	One of them got all the way into the green room in the White House.
	It does raise serious questions.
	I mean, how how in the world can it help?
	What's going on there?
	Now, I uh last night I uh I have makeshift operation here when I'm on the road.
	When I'm at home, I have everything I meet need in my library.
	I've got literally everything I need to be able to have a television on and be at the computer on the sofa using whatever devices I need.
	I I'm not able to travel with that exact kind of setup.
	So last night I'm I'm outside.
	It's gorgeous out here at night, and I'm outside, and plus I'm smoking a cigar.
	You can't smoke inside.
	I don't think you can smoke inside in this country anywhere, except in my house.
	So I'm outside, which is fine, not complaining.
	I'm out on the deck, and I'm smoking a cigar, and I'm doing show prep, and I start I get I get um uh some some chats with some friends started, and we're keeping track of the football game and Tom Brady being pulled and all that was going on there.
	And I happened to uh mention to one of the people I'm chatting with, what in the world is going on at the Secret Service?
	How do you have people literally jump the fence unseen and then get in the White House?
	And I think it is a serious question.
	And one of the people I was chatting with wrote back, and it was just an idle thought.
	I mean, this nobody that is inside inside information said, you know, what if it's like the military and the Clintons, meaning there wasn't a whole lot of respect there.
	Either way.
	I mean, the Clintons, particularly Hillary, the stories were that she, you know, as an Alinskiite had uh a noticeable disdain for uniformed military personnel in the White House, and she didn't want them around.
	She didn't want to see them.
	What if the Secret Services friend of mine was what a Secret Service saying, well, what if there just didn't a whole lot of respect for Obama?
	And I wrote back, that doesn't matter.
	That's not that that shouldn't be a factor at all.
	That the job is security, whether you like the president or not, he's the president for crying out loud.
	You you there there's no explanation of for this that um that that even makes any kind of sense.
	And therefore, that's why these hearings are going on.
	This is a serious, serious thing.
	And to have it explained, well, it's just a culture.
	You know, we've got a cultural problem.
	What culture from this is a tradition.
	This is an institution that's supposed to be immune from uh whatever vagaries and changes there are in the culture.
	A religion is supposed to be the same way.
	A religion has its beliefs, and it doesn't bend in shape to comport itself to whatever the popular conventions of the day are.
	It stands for what it is.
	The Secret Service stands for one thing, and that's the security of the president and the other charges that they have.
	And it makes you wonder what's going on in there.
	It makes you wonder what's really taking place inside the White House.
	It does me anyway.
	It makes me really curious what's going on.
	And not just, I'm not just talking about the Secret Service.
	I mean, are things going on in there that nobody is permitted to see, and therefore there isn't any protection nearby.
	I mean, I'm at a loss to explain it.
	And when you're at a loss to explain something that seems practically simple and cut and dry, Secret Service protects the life of the president.
	And six people get in there, hey, you wonder where are they?
	Why aren't they around to catch these people?
	Why don't they see them?
	Where people monitoring TV cameras and all that.
	What is going on in there?
	And by the way, this medal for courageous restraint, it was May of 2012, and Obama actually did want to issue such a medal.
	I'm not making it up.
	I mean, it was that's what we were joking about.
	It's a joke that we were telling that that came true.
	AP had it May 2012.
	New medal considered for military, the courageous restraint award.
	I know you have probably forgotten all this, but I, ladies and gentlemen, do not forget.
	I'm fortunate that I have a pretty good recall in in my in my memory, and I I'll never forget that one either.
	Courageous restraint.
	Now let me read to you from that article.
	Again, this is back in May of 2012, forward operating base Ramrod Afghanistan.
	NATO commanders are weighing a new way to reduce civilian casualties in Afghanistan, recognizing soldiers for courageous restraint if they avoid using force that could endanger innocent lives.
	Those who back the idea of courageous restraint hope that it'll provide soldiers with another incentive to think twice before calling in an airstrike or firing at an approaching vehicle of civilians, if civilians could be at risk.
	And there's even more.
	Most military awards in the past have been given for things like soldiers taking out a machine gun nest or saving their buddies in a firefight, said Command Sergeant Major Michael Hill.
	He was the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan.
	He said, We're now considering how we look at awards differently.
	No kidding.
	How we look at awards.
	Uh May of 2010, not 12, sorry, May of 2010.
	It was just Obama's second year when this was going on.
	Anyway, greetings, folks.
	It's great to have you.
	Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
	A telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282882 and the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
	I have another C I Told You So, another audio soundbite, C, I told you so.
	In addition to proving to you via soundbite today that this whole ISIL ISIS operation is designed to move Obama's poll numbers up.
	Boy, if you missed this in the first hour, it's too bad.
	You're just gonna have to catch up with it later at Rushlimbaugh.com.
	But we proved it that that's what this is about.
	Wolf Blitzer announcing the latest poll results on CNN yesterday, and Obama did not get a bump after announcing in a big speech that we're going to war with ISIS and we're gonna beat him back.
	He didn't get a bump, and Wolf is beside himself, and he brought Gloria Borger into commiserate.
	Oh no, what's wrong?
	And they said, well, you know, it's a little different than Bush.
	This is far more nuanced and not nearly as cut and dried as it was for Bush.
	They make all kinds of excuses.
	Proving that it was this whole thing is designed for Obama's poll numbers.
	Let's go back to August 27th.
	A noteworthy show.
	You'll recall when you hear this soundbite.
	People can say, Rush, you haven't really been talking much about the President.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Works audio soundbite number four.
	The chairman of the RNC or anybody, potential presidential candidate, I don't care anybody.
	Define what the Republican Party stands for at this moment.
	Have you heard anybody say we have got to stop the spending?
	Have you heard any Republicans say we've got to reduce the deficit, the national debt?
	Have you heard any Republicans say we have got to continue to repeal Obama?
	Have you heard any Republicans say?
	We have got to secure the border.
	We have got to stop this wanton invasion of illegal alien children.
	Have you heard any Republican stand up and say anything in opposition to what's going on now?
	Have you?
	I haven't.
	It's to me striking.
	And yet the Republicans, see people talking about a wave election?
	How is that going to happen?
	Are they really sitting there really believing that the only thing or the best thing to do is to shut up and don't become targets and let the Democrats commit harikari, and come November, people will vote Republican automatically because they're so fed up with the Democrats.
	Is that what the thinking is?
	Is it they are so afraid of presenting any alternative agenda?
	Because they're going to be attacked as racist or criticizing Obama, which means racist.
	Are they so PTSD'd that they are even wary of presenting an alternative, offering a contrast, of spelling out their own agenda and what they stand for and what it will mean for the country if Republicans win the Senate?
	Have you seen anything that says how it's going to change?
	Have you?
	And we haven't, and that's why I went through the riff.
	Uh here you have greatest opportunity to offer contrast.
	You've got the country off the rails, going in the wrong direction.
	The people uh as expressed in polling data, vast majority think so.
	There's a general malaise.
	Here you have an opposition party and it's silent, not saying a word.
	It's not presenting an alternative.
	You don't have to criticize Obama to do it.
	All you have to do is criticize the way things are happening and offer, for example, I'll give you an example.
	When you're talking about immigration and amnesty, how difficult would it be for a Republican candidate in the Senate to talk about Obama threatening to do an executive order with amnesty, and then simply raise the question, what about jobs for the American people?
	Elect me, and I will focus on jobs for the American people, not jobs for a bunch of illegal immigrants that are coming across a border that needs to be shored up and secured.
	How hard would that be?
	And how is that how could that be miscast as mean creepy Obama?
	Anyway, they're not doing it.
	And it's clear they're not doing it because the strategy of components committing suicide, just stand aside and just let it happen.
	Don't try to hasten it along.
	But at the same time, you don't have a mandate after you win.
	So anyway, the CI Told You So is a couple of more sound bites this morning, new day on CNN during their inside politics segment.
	John King is speaking with the AP, White House stenographer Julie Pace about a new CNN poll.
	And you know what it shows?
	Shows that the Democrats may in fact do well.
	This is the same poll that shows Obama did not get a bump going after ISIS.
	The same poll shows that the Democrats may be turning it around in the midterm.
	And they're so excited.
	Brand new CNN numbers.
	Democrats are gonna like them.
	Republicans will probably say, oh, it's an outlier.
	But look at this.
	Democrats now in our generic ballot.
	You ask Americans who do you plan to vote for for Congress?
	Democrats right now with a two-point edge.
	They were down if you looked at earlier in the month, the Democrats were down four.
	Uh I assume, Julie Pace, that the White House still think this is a good sign.
	The congressional ballot, the generic ballot, when there are no names, it's usually an indicator of how things are gonna go.
	And the Republicans have been leading in the generic ballot up till now by anywhere from four to six points.
	And it's been one of the reasons the Republicans have been saying, see, we got it.
	We got it.
	We got this.
	We just need to stay focused and stay quiet, go out and raise money, and it'll all take care of itself.
	The generic ballot's closed.
	There hasn't I don't need to repeat it.
	There hadn't been an alternative presented.
	And here's Julie Pace, who is again the White House stenographer for the Associated Press.
	Absolutely.
	If he can try to capitalize on some of this momentum, I think one of the challenges for the president, though, over the next couple of weeks is going to be what does he talk about?
	You know, as we get deeper into this poll, there's going to be a lot of questions about national security, about the Islamic State Group, but for a lot of Americans, it's still the economy and what kind of message can he send on the economy over the next couple of weeks, I think could be key to whether Democrats pull this out or not.
	She's so thrilled.
	She's so thrilled, my God, Obama's got a chance to save the day.
	Obama's got a chance to pull a rabbit out of his hand.
	All he's got to do is coming up with an uh come up with an economic message.
	Can you believe, folks?
	I don't know how true this poll is.
	I d I don't know how accurate it is.
	But despite that, can you believe with an economy like this, 93, almost 93 million Americans not working?
	All of the new jobs are part-time.
	All of the grief that's happening to people with Obama care.
	Can you believe the Democrats even still have a chance?
	It's unfathomable to me.
	And here they are in the media.
	They're excited about this generic ballot, and they're waiting for Obama to go out and say whatever he's gonna say about the economy leading into the election.
	And I know fewer and fewer people are listening to Obama, and he's he's he's kind of like Hillary now.
	The more he talks, the worse it gets for him, and who would have believed that?
	But the fact that he's gonna be able to go out and say whatever he wants with hardly any pushback to it, it just to me it seems like a uh a really busted and blown uh opportunity, which itself raises a lot of other questions.
	Back to the phones we go.
	This is uh this Jason of Lake City, Florida.
	Hi, Jason.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Thank you, Rosh.
	Appreciate it.
	Hey, a quick question.
	I was wondering if there's any correlation with any of these uh gitmo detainees that they're fighting with ISIS.
	And the reason why I'm thinking that wasn't there just five major uh gitmo uh detainees released that were the head of Al-Qaeda.
	Uh not sure.
	Recently released, you mean?
	A couple months ago.
	Couple of months ago.
	Well, I know that that there have been releases uh somewhat frequently over the past couple of years.
	I think it's I uh I haven't seen anything definitive, but I know what you're talking about.
	Okay, we've got these detainees, we're letting them go.
	There are clear examples in the past of this happening.
	Detainees being let go and returning to the battlefield.
	It's been a lot of worries me.
	Are they still releasing the detainees while we're fighting a typical Democratic war?
	I'm look, I'm gonna have to uh check to see if if uh if you're right.
	I don't mean to insult you by not believing you, but I've got to just want to confirm that.
	But but the problem here is is that Obama wants to close Club Gitmo.
	But the whole the the umbrella under which all of this is happening is Obama beat the terrorists.
	That there isn't any.
	Al Qaeda was decimated.
	We killed bin Laden, and Obama, the glow valiant gladiator, he finally, Bush couldn't do it.
	Nobody could, but Obama came along and did it.
	And but by the way, closing Guantanamo Bay, that's that's a promise to his uh his his extremist lunatic fringe base from uh from way back uh way back when.
	There there have been reports that three of the uh five Taliban released for Bergdahl are now fighting with ISIS.
	I know I've heard that.
	You remember Bergdahl?
	He was the he was the deserter that we negotiated a a uh uh an exchange for, and we got him back, and we we released five Taliban.
	And I don't know how reliable this is, but there I've seen reports that that some of the people we released in exchange for uh for Bergdahl are now fighting with uh with ISIS.
	That wouldn't be a surprise if that's the case.
	But I mean clearly there's a there's uh an attitude about Islam.
	It's not it's not just this administration.
	I mean, this goes back even to the Bush State Department after 9-11, convening that that forum.
	What did we do to make them hate us?
	Uh it's it's like the this penalty in the NFL last night, Hussein Abdullah, not to be confused with the King of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah bin Abdullah Aziz.
	This is safety for the Chiefs, intercepts a pass from Brady, scores a touchdown, a 15-yard penalty on sportsman-like conduct for praying in the end zone.
	He slid in there and got down on all fours and dipped his head to the turf and prayed.
	15 yards, and the NFL was out of the gate today.
	So, whoa, whoa, that shouldn't have happened.
	There was should have been any penalty whatsoever.
	We don't have any penalty for those kinds of displays.
	Uh and and even the blogs that I look at, the sports blogs, make mention, they don't just say Chiefs player Hussein should not have been penalized.
	The headline starts with Muslim Abdullah Hussein or Hussein Abdallah.
	I think there's a general fear that that permeates much of our government here in the way that they uh the way that they deal with with this reality, and in many ways try to deny the various realities that we face.
	Be right back.
	Now, just to be clear, there is there's conflicting, there are conflicting reports on whether anybody from Club Giftmo has ended up at ISIS.
	The report that three of the five Taliban swapped for Bo Bergdahl or fighting for ISIS comes from a website called Politicalfears.com that ran a post on September 15th a couple of weeks ago.
	The headline was three of five detainees swapped are now ISIS leaders.
	But there's some fact checkers out there at PolitiFact who say the report is untrue, that all the detainees are still in Qatar.
	Uh Qatar for you traditionalists.
	Now never mind that Cutter is or was one of the major supporters and funders of uh of ISIS, but PolitiFact is denying it.
	So they're they're unconfirmed reports, and I just I just wanted to make that clear.
	Uh Breitbart.com is reporting a new government accountability institute report reveals that President Obama has attended only 42% of his daily intelligence briefings, known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, in the 2079 days of his presidency through yesterday.
	Only 42 percent of them.
	The government accountability institute report also included a breakdown of Obama's presidential daily brief attendance record between terms.
	He attended 42 percent of his uh briefs in the first term, 41 percent in the second term.
	And uh the Daily Mail has a story which we quoted earlier.
	I just want to remind you an Obama national security advisor or staffer said it's pretty well known the president hasn't taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009.
	He gets them in writing.
	President Abrief is also in writing every day, and that's how he takes it.
	He does not get personally briefed.
	Now, just to contrast, the first guy that Jimmy Carter met with every day was his national security guys, the Big Nev Zhezinski.
	First person practically every day that Carter met for all the good it did him, but nevertheless he did.
	And it was pretty much true of Reagan, and it's been true pretty much every I don't know about Clinton, but it's, you know, what's happening in the world as the president starts the day is a pretty relevant thing, and it's generally one of the first items of the busy presidential days.
	But only 42% of these briefings have been delivered in person.
	The other times they've been given in writing, and no one knows, obviously, if Obama's reading it.
	I forget who it was.
	There was somebody in the intelligence community in the first term and said he's Obama is intimately aware of our briefing.
	Some such thing.
	They made it made it sound like Obama's so smart he knows what's in the brief before he's told.
	That was the kind of stuff they were reporting about him in the first term.
	He's so smart.
	He's so up to speed.
	He's so far ahead of the rest of us mortals.
	He knows what he's going to be told before they walk in the room.
	So don't worry about Obama and Intel.
	Bottom line here is nobody knows if he's actually reading what would be the most useful and important daily summary of the threats that we face.
	What we do know is that the commander-in-chief has intentionally eliminated the opportunity to discuss the intelligence findings with the quote-unquote experts who present it to him.
	I mean, that's a safe assumption.
	If he's only attending 42% of the briefings, then he's not able to engage in conversation with them.
	Ask them questions, get further.
	He's just reading it, and we don't know if he's even doing that.
	And again, we're told because Obama's smarter, and he's more informed than everybody else in the room.
	Nobody can even keep up with him.
	So that's not comforting.
	And now he's throwing the Intel people overboard because they admit they knew a lot of this for a year, even two years, and they didn't tell me.
	That's essentially what he's saying.
	How brazen is that?
	Oh, yeah, they knew it.
	And even Jim Clapper will agree, before Jim Clapper even knows he's agreeing.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	They knew about it.
	We've we've known.
	The news just didn't get to me or some some such convoluted.
	It's clear that Obama is relying on what he still thinks people think of him, which is the first-term viewpoint that he's unassailable, messianic, brighter, smarter, just loved and adored, respected, feared.
	People hold him in, still has that view that that's how he's looked at.
	I think the guy is dangerously out of touch in uh in a lot of ways.
	Now, Jonathan Carl, ABC reporter, don't know for how much longer they're not using his stuff.
	Jonathan Carl actually had the audacity to ask, well, okay, who was it precisely who underestimated ISIS?
	Was it U.S. intelligence, or was it a guy who was briefed on the threat repeatedly for more than a year, but chose not to make a move until Mosul had fallen this summer?
	ISIS was threatening Baghdad as far back as last December.
	And so people want to know that Jonathan Carl's out there asking, well, who was it specifically who underestimated this?
	And uh he's getting answers, but ABC's not running his stuff.
	The other networks are alluding to it, but ABC isn't running his their own reporter stuff on this.
	Because it is.
	It's it's it's circle the wagons time now around Obama.
	And I'm just look, folks, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is what you get when you're unserious.
	This this is the kind of stuff that happens.
	These are the kind of things that take place when you're engaging in something for reasons that are not genuine.
	In this case, just to get poll numbers up.
	This is this is purely a for-show operation.
	And the real thing that was for show was Obama's speech to the nation announcing this military action.
	That alone was supposed to drive the poll numbers up.
	Now people are starting to ask questions.
	Well, what led into this?
	And these are the questions nobody thought would be asked and for which there really aren't any satisfying answers.
	So now we've got a cluster.
	Because the operation is not really the operation.
	It's a political move designed to raise numbers in the polling that is not happening.
	Here's uh here's Tom and Little Rock.
	Tom, as we head back to the phones, great to have you on the program, sir.
	Thank you for waiting.
	Hello.
	Hi, Rush.
	Good to talk to you.
	Um I just want to make a point about the secret six uh secret service security breach at the White House and such.
	Uh uh I think people are conflating a lot of what happens at the Secret Service.
	Uh when there is a protectee, the president, his family on the grounds of the White House, okay, there's a certain level of security that is there.
	Okay.
	Uh the point I'm trying to make is if the president or his family had been there at the White House, I can pretty much guarantee you that this guy doesn't get anywhere close to the front door.
	Okay.
	Um, wait just a second.
	Are you are you speaking from actual experience that you'd rather not divulge?
	Yeah.
	It sounds like I worked there, I worked there, I was a Secret Service agent, and uh I worked there in the late 90s, early 2000s.
	Why does it matter so much if the first family is not in residence?
	It doesn't it doesn't compute the uh normal people.
	You shouldn't be able to get in there no matter if if if if the first Well I'm not I'm not saying that it is a good thing that they got there, okay.
	But the fact of the matter is without an imminent threat on the life of a protectee, the Secret Service really I can't think of any statutory authority they have to use deadly force to stop an invasion upon property because their mission is to protect the lives of the
	office holder, President of the United States, whoever it is, his family, uh the vice president, if the vice president had been in the uh uh in the residence at the time, whatever the case may be.
	Now surely they have that responsibility, but they don't they don't have that same type of responsibility to use deadly force to just protect the property because really there's nothing that the guy can get to.
	I mean Well, but wait, w we're not talking deadly, but how does somebody even get past jumping the fence, no matter who's there?
	Well, I mean, there's you mean surely the Secret Service doesn't have stand down orders if the first family's not there and somebody jumps the fence and is approaching the building.
	Oh, look, here comes uh such and such citizen.
	Well, let's open a door and let him in.
	Obama's not it's it can't be that way.
	Well, it's not certainly it is not that way, but what I'm saying is the the level of security and kind of that shrillness that uh that's going on now about you know the Secret Service is not a good thing.
	Okay, it's not the Secret Service, then who?
	Somebody's got to be guarding the place.
	If the Secret Service is if they're a body watch group, as you say, and the bodies aren't there, then what agency is there making sure the building is secure?
	Well, and it is the Secret Service, and it is primarily the Secret Service's uh uniform division who who are stationed there at the White House.
	Uh of course, just as everything else when uh there's not protectees involved And protectees there at the White House.
	There's not going to be the same level of manpower just like anywhere else there would be.
	I mean, uh, yes, they did let the guy go too far, but the question is.
	You know, do you have do you have someone waiting with a rifle so that anyone who gets over the fence starts running get shot?
	I mean uh when there's no one am I missing something?
	Has is has um is somebody out there saying that these people should have been shot?
	I haven't heard that, but but they got in the building.
	You're I'll tell you what it's not I know that you as a former, I'm sure you want to protect the agency.
	I'm sure that's that's foremost on your mind, and it's probably an embarrassing thing, and all that to people like us, we don't understand uh how whether anybody's there or not, somebody can get that close that far in, whether they get shot or not.
	Well, and I'm we're the impression that if we even look the wrong way on the right side of the fence that we're gonna be drawn into a web that we don't want to be in.
	Much less jump the fence.
	If we jump the fence, we're finished.
	Well, and and again, I mean, we don't know because the investigation hasn't come out, hasn't been made public, and who knows if it will be made public.
	Well, what did the Secret Service Director mean today when she said, well, it's the culture?
	I don't have the slightest idea.
	I mean, I was watching some of it.
	Uh there was only so much of it that I could really conject.
	But uh I was watching some of it.
	I didn't hear from her the culture remark.
	I don't know what that means.
	I mean, it seems to me, you know, a lot of the people that I worked with uh are still there.
	Um, you know, uh obviously getting ready to retire, but you know, those those types of things.
	But uh obviously getting ready to retire.
	Look, Jim, I or Tom, I appreciate the call.
	I'm way long here.
	I've got I've I've got to go simply because I'm out of time.
	I I understand your desire to as a former agent, you want to protect the uh reputation and all that.
	It just none of this makes any sense to uh those of us who have a clear opinion of what would happen to us if we tried anything like this.
	Now, to be totally fair and accurate, the Secret Service director herself did not invoke the culture.
	She was asked by members of Congress on the on the committee about the culture that that would uh allow this kind of thing.
	Uh one of the Republican representatives on the committee doing some of the questioning today, said politically correct Secret Service has allowed 1,000 security lapses.
	An internal Secret Service report revealed more than 1,000 security breaches and vulnerabilities, according to a House investigator who said that a politically correct culture is endangering President Obama.
	Now that doesn't surprise me that political correctness is taken over.
	Now, how would that manifest itself in say this guy that that walks across the lawn, jumps the fence, and gets all the way into the White House and in the group.
	What what about politically correct attitudes could prevent that?
	And and one of the prevailing viewpoints with people who hold politically correct views is that all these people are victims that they and and they have grievances.
	And that's why they're doing what they're doing.
	And it's not their fault.
	It's always the fault of the powerful.
	That these people have grievances and they're at their wit's end.
	They've got nothing else left.
	And so they're trying to get to the highest levels of authority to have their grievances, and we must listen.
	And we must try to understand.
	Political correctness does not permit condemnation.
	Does not permit judgment.
	Either considered or instantaneous judgment.
	You are not permitted to judge people under the terms of political correctness.
	Um Political correctness might manifest itself in the fact that this guy, the one we're talking about, got in the green room, overpowered female agents.
	Now, what do I mean?
	Well, the politically correct aspect was that, okay, we've we've we've got to allow for a multigendered force and this, that since they're not going to pull their gun on the guy, as the previous caller just said, if they if the protectees aren't there, they're not going to pull a gun.
	And I wouldn't.
	You know, I could be convinced that a politically correct attitude permeates the highest reaches of our government.
	Wouldn't take much at all to convince me of that.
	It's everywhere else.
	And the people in the highest reaches of government come out of the same education institutions that everybody else does.
	So why is it so strange to suspect that it would not be found in the upper levels and reaches of the hierarchy of the infrastructure of the government, even the Secret Service FBI, you name it.
	Jason Chavitz, Utah suggests that the Secret Service is now more political because they moved it from Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security after 911.

▲