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 in the first two years of the first term.
	And 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 in a number of other places, and they do not wear uniforms.
	And I remember that they were seriously talking about the restraint, and we were 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 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 testimony, 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 in the world can it help?
	What's going on there?
	Now, last night, I have makeshift operation here when I'm on the road.
	When I'm at home, I have everything I 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'm not able to travel with that exact kind of setup.
	So last night, I'm outside.
	It's gorgeous out here at night.
	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 get 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 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, nobody that is inside, inside information, said, you know, what if it's like the military in 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, as an Alinskyite, had 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 Service, this friend of mine was, what if Secret Service said, well, what if there just didn't a whole lot of respect for Obama?
	And I wrote back, that doesn't matter.
	That shouldn't be a factor at all.
	The job is security.
	Whether you like the president or not, he's the president for crying out loud.
	There's no explanation for this 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 explain, well, it's just a culture.
	You know, we've got a cultural problem.
	What culture?
	This is a tradition.
	This is an institution that's supposed to be immune from 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 and 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.
	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 dried, 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 are 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, that's what we were joking about.
	It's a joke that we were telling 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 my memory, and 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.
	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.
	You welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
	A telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbo 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 going to 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 going to beat him back.
	He didn't get a bump, and Wolf was beside himself, and he brought Gloria Borger in to 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 have been saying, Rush, you haven't really been talking much about 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 Republican say, we have got to continue to repeal Obama?
	Have you heard any Republican 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, when people talk about a wave election, how is that going to happen?
	Are they really sitting there, really believing that the only 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 that 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.
	Here you have greatest opportunity to offer contrast.
	You've got the country off the rails, going in the wrong direction.
	The people, as expressed in polling data, vast majority think so.
	There's a general malaise.
	Here you have an opposition party and it's silent.
	It's 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.
	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 be miscast as mean criticism of 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 soundbites.
	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 going to 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 earlier in the month, the Democrats were down for.
	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 going to 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 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, is the White House stenographer for the Associated Press.
	Absolutely.
	If they 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.
	Oh, 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 come up with an economic message.
	Can you believe, folks?
	I don't know how true this poll is.
	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 Obamacare.
	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 going to say about the economy leading into the election.
	And I know fewer and fewer people are listening to Obama.
	And 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 going to be able to go out and say whatever he wants with hardly any pushback to it, just to me, it seems like a really busted and blown opportunity, which itself raises a lot of other questions.
	Back to the phones we go.
	This is Jason of Lake City, Florida.
	Hi, Jason.
	Great to have you on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Thank you, Richard.
	Appreciate it.
	Hey, quick question.
	I was wondering if there's any correlation with any of these Gitmo detainees that are fighting with ISIS.
	And the reason why I'm thinking that, wasn't there just five major Gitmo detainees released that were the head of al-Qaeda?
	Not sure.
	Recently released, you mean?
	A couple months ago.
	A couple months ago.
	Well, I know that there have been releases somewhat frequently over the past couple of years.
	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.
	But that worries me.
	Are they still releasing these detainees while we're fighting a typical Democratic war?
	Look, I'm going to have to check to see if you're right.
	I don't mean to insult you by not believing you, but I've got to confirm that.
	I'm happy I'm talking to you.
	But the problem here is that Obama wants to close Club Gitmo.
	The umbrella under which all of this is happening is Obama beat the terrorists.
	There isn't any Al-Qaeda was decimated.
	We killed bin Laden and Obama, the valiant gladiator, he finally, Bush couldn't do it.
	Nobody could, but Obama came along and did it.
	By the way, closing Guantanamo Bay, that's a promise to his extremist lunatic fringe base from way back when.
	There have been reports that three of the five Taliban released for Bergdahl are now fighting with ISIS.
	I know I've heard that.
	You remember Bergdahl?
	He was the deserter that we negotiated an exchange for.
	And we got him back and we released five Taliban.
	And I don't know how reliable this is, but I've seen reports that some of the people we released in exchange for Bergdahl are now fighting with ISIS.
	That wouldn't be a surprise if that's the case.
	But clearly, there's an attitude about Islam.
	It's not just this administration.
	I mean, this goes back even to the Bush State Department after 9-11 convening that forum.
	What did we do to make them hate us?
	It's like this penalty in the NFL last night.
	Hussein Abdullah, not to be confused with the king of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz.
	This is safety for the Chiefs.
	Intercepts a pass from Brady, scores a touchdown, a 15-yard penalty on sportsmanlike conduct for praying in the end zone.
	He slid in there.
	He 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 should have been any penalty whatsoever.
	We don't have any penalty for those kinds of displays.
	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 Abdullah.
	I think there's a general fear that permeates much of our government here in the way that they deal 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's conflicting, there are conflicting reports on whether anybody from Club Giftmo has ended up at ISIS.
	The report that three of the five Talibans swapped for Bo Bergdahl or fighting for ISIS comes from a website called PoliticalFears.com.
	They 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, Qatar for you traditionalists.
	Now, never mind that Qatar is or was one of the major supporters and funders of ISIS, but PolitiFact is denying it.
	So they're unconfirmed reports.
	And I just wanted to make that clear.
	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% of them.
	The Government Accountability Institute report also included a breakdown of Obama's presidential daily brief attendance record between terms.
	He attended 42% of his briefs in the first term, 41% in the second term.
	And 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.
	Presidential brief 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 guy, Zbigniew 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 that said Obama is intimately aware of our briefing, some such thing.
	They 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 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 even 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 known.
	The news just didn't get to me or some such convolution.
	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 all, still has that view that that's how he's looked at.
	I think the guy is dangerously out of touch 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 he's getting answers, but ABC is not running his stuff.
	The other networks are alluding to it, but ABC isn't running their own reporter stuff on this because it is.
	It's circled 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 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 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 data.
	Not happening.
	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.
	Thanks, sir.
	I just want to make a point about the Secret Service security breach at the White House and such.
	I think people are conflating a lot of what happens at the Secret Service.
	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.
	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.
	Now, wait just a second.
	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 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 compute to normal people.
	You shouldn't be able to get in there no matter if the first family.
	Well, 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, the vice president, if the vice president had been in the residence at the time, whatever the case may be.
	Now, surely they have that responsibility, but 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, wait, 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 nothing.
	You mean surely the Secret Service doesn't have standdown orders if the first family is not there and somebody jumps the fence and is approaching the building.
	Oh, look, here comes such and such citizen.
	Well, let's open the door and let him in.
	Obama's not.
	It can't be that way.
	Well, it's not.
	Certainly it is not that way.
	But what I'm saying is the level of security and kind of that shrillness that's going on now about, you know, the Secret Service is not.
	If 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 uniform division who are stationed there at the White House.
	Of course, just as everything else, When 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, 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 gets shot?
	I mean, when there's no one.
	Am I missing something?
	Is somebody out there saying that these people should have been shot?
	I haven't heard that, but they got in the building.
	That is crazy.
	And I'll tell you what, I know that as a former, I'm sure you want to protect the agency.
	I'm sure that's foremost on your mind, and it's probably an embarrassing thing and all that.
	It is.
	To people like us, we don't understand how, whether anybody's there or not, somebody can get that close, that far in, whether they get shot or not.
	We're under the impression that if we even look the wrong way on the right side of the fence, that we're going to 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 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.
	There was only so much of it that I could really inject.
	But 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 are still there, you know, obviously getting ready to retire, but, you know, those types of things.
	Obviously getting ready to retire.
	Look, Jim, or Tom, I appreciate the call.
	I'm way long here.
	I've got to go simply because I'm out of time.
	I understand your desire to, as a former agent, you want to protect the reputation and all that.
	None of this makes any sense to those of us who have a clear opinion of what would happen to us, 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 committee about the culture that would allow this kind of thing.
	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 has taken over.
	Now, how would that manifest itself in, say, this guy that walks across the lawn, jumps the fence and gets all the way into the White House and in the group?
	What about politically correct attitudes could prevent that?
	And one of the prevailing viewpoints with people who hold politically correct views is that all these people are victims, 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.
	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 got to allow for a multi-gendered force and this, that, since they're not going to pull their gun on the guy, as the previous caller just said, 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 Chavetz, Utah suggests that the Secret Service is now more political because they moved it from Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security after 9-11.

▲