All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:04
March 2, 2015, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You remember when the ChiComs told Google, hey, you cannot operate in this country if your search results are going to show things that are anti-the communist government.
And Google said, oh, okay, whatever you want, because China is such a big market.
So Google acquiesced to the ChiComs.
The ChiComs run Google search for the most part.
I mean, I don't think they control everything, but the point is that Google acquiesced to the ChiComs right off the bat.
You think they won't acquiesce to Obama or haven't already?
I mean, what is this miserable failure as a search term?
And you get the first thing in the list is George Bush in the Bush White House?
The searches are already manipulated.
The results are already manipulated.
I'm sure they are with global warming and all these other things, which makes it kind of curious here that Google wants to now make this whole thing official by claiming search results are now rooted in fact.
They want to rank based on whether they think the page contains falsehoods.
They want to rank based on factual content rather than popularity, how popular your page is.
That's what most people think a search return is.
If you ask any question in a search, like it's interesting.
You know, my brother asked me today, what time does Netanyahu's speech begin tomorrow before Congress?
And I didn't know.
So I thought, you know what?
I'm going to find out how these various search options are.
So I tried Siri on my iPhone.
I got a list of websites.
So I went to Google.
I put the question, what time is Netanyahu's speech before Congress tomorrow?
I got Huffing and Puffington Post.
I got CNN.
I got websites all anti-Netanyahu.
Not one of them told me what time the damn speech was.
I just got the latest links on the speech from people who were opposed to it.
No matter what I searched, no matter where I went.
So I finally said, Snirdly, call Louie Gomert's office.
Somebody's got to know in there what time it is.
11 o'clock tomorrow.
Perfect timing.
I'm sure that Bibi got together with Boehner and said, look, I got to be finished before Rush starts at noon.
And so that's what's happened here.
So the Netanyahu speech will be 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, right, right.
It'll end sometime prior to noon when the program begins here.
Now here, and by the way, if you're on hold here, you want to talk about this Congress, the Senate, the DHS funding, hang in there.
We're getting to your calls here in just a second.
We've got the Netanyahu speech at AIPAC today, which prelude to what's going to happen tomorrow.
We got some soundbites about all this and also as well from CPAC.
By the way, speaking of CPAC, Byron York, right on schedule, right on schedule, big story on how Scott Walker, he's changing his mind too much.
Scott Walker may not be making the establishment happy.
Scott Walker may not have enough finish.
Scott Walker may be a little too rough around the edge.
Scott Walker may not be ready for prime time.
Scott Walker.
It's fascinating.
And I'll tell you, all these candidates were down here this weekend.
He had the Club for Growth thing down here at the Breakers at CPAC up.
These guys are shuttling back and forth.
And then William Shatner, poor William Shatner.
William Shatner had to appear at Mar-a-Lago Saturday night, the Red Cross ball.
It is this is kind of embarrassing.
I don't, no, I didn't go.
No, no.
No, what do you mean?
No.
For one thing, you have to be minimum 80, I think.
You have to have a minimum $25 million in jewels to wear or borrow.
No, I, no, no, no, no, no.
But Shatner was a guest name.
And, you know, Leonard Nimoy died recently, Dr. Spock, and his funeral was yesterday morning in L.A.
And Shatner had agreed to appear at the Red Cross Ball here, Palm Beach, Mar-a-Lago, on Saturday night.
So Shatner tweeted how sorry he was that he was devoted to this charitable commitment and just couldn't get back in time for Lenny's funeral.
Lenny is what he called him, your friend.
This resulted in a Twitter outburst of outrage at poor Shatner for not caring about his buddy Nimoy and not having his priorities straight.
So Shatner started tweeting, okay, okay, look, I'm sorry, I can't get back.
I'll tell, well, gather some friends here and we will have our collective remembrances here on Sunday for our good friends.
Well, that didn't fly either.
So I'm doing show prep today, and there's two pictures of Shatner getting off the plane yesterday morning in LAX, two and a half hours after Nimoy's funeral.
And he was just being berated.
Yeah, he came back, but not in time for the funeral.
I thought about calling Shatner and say, hey, if you really want to get back, EIB1 is available.
But I didn't know how to get hold of him.
And it was too late, and I didn't, it was, it was, you know, I didn't want to put any pressure on him anyway.
So it just, I wouldn't want to live in that world.
I wouldn't, with this constant paparazzi attention to stuff like that.
Oh, no, I wouldn't want any part of it.
No way.
I wouldn't want any part of that A-list celebrity stuff.
No way, shape, manner, or form.
I'm too much of a recluse, too much of a hermit.
I wouldn't want any part of that.
I actually felt, I mean, he was getting beat up.
He had agreed to go to the Red Cross Ball and couldn't get back to Nimoy's funeral.
And plus the fact that he runs priceline, people didn't really accept that he couldn't get a flight this long time.
Poor guy.
Anyway, what else does there out there?
Oh, I was just saying, all these candidates are back and forth here this way.
They go to Club for Growth here in Palmyra, zooming back up to CPAC and then coming back down.
And it was a traffic nightmare here yesterday, just trying to give my house to the golf course.
The garden club had thousands of school buses taking attendees to various houses.
I mean, it was an absolute nightmare to get anywhere in this town yesterday because the candidates were hearing and the garden club was running around on Leonard Nimoy's funeral and Bill Shatner trying to get out of town.
Man, anyway, okay, Washington Times, Obama threatened to shoot down Israeli warplanes.
President Obama threatened last year, according to Middle Eastern news outlets Sunday, to use the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli fighter jets if they attempted to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities that reports the regime denounced later as flatly untrue.
Obama's threat reportedly deterred Netanyahu from dispatching warplanes into Iran after Israel discovered the U.S. had entered into secret talks with Tehran and that the two countries had signed an agreement, according to Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.
Important to note that this original story came from a Kuwaiti newspaper, not an Israeli outfit.
And it should also be pointed out that everybody involved here is denying this.
Israeli spokespeople are denying it.
Of course, the regime here is denying it.
Nobody is giving the story any credence.
The problem is with this, and here again, I've got to turn on my memory up to full speed, but I remember this.
It seemed last year, a year ago, if I trusted it, I'd do a Google search on this.
But this is not the first I've heard of a threat to shoot down Israeli warplanes if they tried.
Now, I may have read it in a novel.
But I know I've heard of this.
And it seems to me it was not in a novel.
It seems to me that this is a fear the Israelis had or an undisclosed yet nevertheless made threat to Israel should they try this.
But this was not the first time I'd heard of this when this story broke over the weekend on the Drudge Report.
Congress averts Homeland Security shutdown with one week extension.
And as I say, those of you on hold who want to talk about this, just hang in there because you're coming up next.
Congress managed at a last minute on Friday night to avert a partial shuttering of the Department of Homeland Security, passing a one-week funding measure for the agency.
Obama signed it shortly before the midnight deadline.
And that was too close, folks.
I mean, it was redesire relief here.
We came that close to not having our borders sealed and being completely protected from violent extremists acting in the name of Islam.
We came that close.
Actually, the borders are wide open.
This is a bunch of hoo-ha.
The deal came together after a whirlwind day of negotiations in which the House Republican leadership suffered a humiliating defeat when its 20-day funding bill was rejected.
Humiliating.
And the White House is calling it a humiliating defeat for the House leadership.
And so this Washington Post story dutifully calls it the same thing.
Earlier in the day, the House collapsed in failure when a last-ditch effort to fund the agency for an additional three weeks died at the hands of most Democrats and dozens of Republicans who voted against it.
The defeat, said to be a major blow to Speaker Boehner, whose struggles to get unruly members to fall in line have continued in the new Congress.
And more broadly, it was an early black eye for the unified Republican majority that had vowed to govern effect.
What a bunch of PAP that is.
This is exactly the kind of thing I was addressing in the first hour.
This is how the entire GOP brand gets destroyed.
They don't help it any, but this is exactly how it happens.
The GOP is the alternative to the failure after failure after failure policy of the administration.
And they have destroyed that alternative.
They destroyed the brand.
Republicans have helped a little bit in that regard themselves.
But nevertheless, it's been a concomitant failure that has occurred here.
Two things have been happening at the same time.
The Democrats have been implementing their agenda, all the while blaming the Republicans for the fact that Democrats' agenda is failing and getting away with it.
Then the political White House gloats over GOP's DHS flop.
Now, the next story, the AP story on this: textbook journalistic malpractice.
The AP completely fails to report what's actually going on here.
Now, mentioned this just a moment ago and last week.
Once the Senate passes a bill funding Homeland Security, which they did on Friday, the 27th, clean bill, funds it all the way through September.
That bill goes back to the House where the House could add amendments.
And the Democrats thought they might get tricked here because once a bill has amendments to it, gone is the closure vote requirement.
And that bill then gets sent back to the Senate where there's a conference committee where the House and Senate get together and reconcile the differences, negotiate, come out with a compromise based on the two bills.
But Harry Reid refused to allow any Democrat senators to go to conference with the House.
And the explanation given by parliamentarians is, well, if they can't get 60 votes, then Reid doesn't have to send somebody to conference.
Now, in any case, folks, bottom line, this is exactly where budget conciliation was used to ram through Obamacare when no Republican votes could be found for Obamacare, when there were no Republican votes necessary, and when the Democrats couldn't get the required number of minimum votes, they threw out the normal budget process and went to budget reconciliation.
That removed the need for 60 votes, returned it to 51 votes, and that's all it wrote.
This is exactly in the timeline where budget reconciliation was used to ram through Obamacare.
The Republicans in the Senate could have used budget reconciliation to ram through the House's amended Senate bill, and the Democrats would not have been able to stop them.
But they didn't.
And I can't tell you the number of emails I got from frustrated people over the weekend asking me, why won't they do it?
Why won't they use the same tactics that the Democrats used?
Why won't they go nuclear filibusters?
Why won't they use budget reconciliation?
And again, the answer, folks, you're going to hear it in our calls.
Most people don't think the Republicans caved.
Most people don't think it was a flop.
Most people think that this is exactly what the Republicans want, because that's what their donors want.
The Republican donors want amnesty.
And so the Republicans have to go through the motions of making it look like they oppose this.
And they have to go through the motions of making it look like they're trying to stop the Democrats when at the end of the day, they don't do as much as they could to stop the Democrats.
And the theory is because they don't really want to stop them because they all want the establishment in D.C., all wants Obama's executive amnesty, because that is what all the big money donors want.
I think that's true.
And I think there's even, even if that element were not part of this, I think the Republicans are in such a state of fear over any aspect of opposing Obama.
It's getting worse.
I don't think the passage of time is lessening that fear.
I think it's enhancing it.
Let's take a break and we'll come back and start working your phone calls into all of this.
Don't go away.
As promised, back to the phones we go, Rush Limbaugh.
I have my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
This is John in Salt Lake City.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for bringing me aboard.
You kind of stole my thunder there because this is the point I wanted to make.
I think we are getting sandbagged once again by the Republican leadership.
They want this.
They're playing the role, if I may spin an analogy, of the pro wrestling jobber here.
The guy who's obviously overmatched by the headliner, comes in, goes through the motions, gets flopped to the mat and jumped on within the specified time limit.
And I think they're just drawing the time limit out a little bit farther this time.
So you think the whole thing's rigged, almost scripted from the outset, designed to make us look like they're really trying and really trying and really, and maybe even getting close.
But at the end of the day, the evil villain triumphs yet again.
Yeah, they just, oh, they're just too slick for us.
Oh, they just outmaneuvered us.
Do they not realize how hapless and ineffective and absolutely worthless they look in carrying out this charade then?
But they don't care.
They're getting what they want.
They're getting reelected.
They have safe districts.
Who cares?
What happened to the, you know, I go back to 1994 when they came in with all the bluster.
What happened to the end of the Department of Commerce, Education, Energy?
It's the same claptrap.
We get it every year.
Well, but I tell you what happened there was a school lunch program and the budget battle of 1995.
That's when the neutering and the deballing of the Republicans began.
I don't think they ever had them.
I think they were just shooting their mouths up and didn't expect to win, and then they won and didn't know what to do.
Well, I don't think that's the case.
I think they thought they were going to win.
I think they wanted to win, and I think they had their contract, and they did balance the budget.
They did do some reform things.
They scared the hell out of Bill Clinton in 1995 and 6.
I want to bring up somebody that you, the hand grenade with a bad haircut said that was going to happen all by itself if no changes were made to budgeted spending by 2002 anyways.
Wait a minute.
What did the hand grenade with a bad haircut say?
He said that the budget numerous times in 92 said if no changes to the budget were made, if no changes to spending were made, the budget was going to balance itself by 2002.
That would be that was 1990.
That was 96.
That was 92.
Was it 92?
Oh, that's right.
That's right.
The hand grenade with a bad hair, that's right, 92.
And by the way, in addition to that, there were a lot of people who said, and I remember asking a bunch of leftist economists, this and Charlie Rose, just to buttress your point.
A bunch of people said, if we freeze the budget but allow for inflationary increases in every budget item, it would balance in five years.
That's exactly right.
So they're taking credit for something that was going to happen by itself, and then it was going to go nuts again.
And the Republicans did nothing to stop that.
Well, I'm cutting them a little bit more slack than you are in that era.
But it didn't take long.
I will agree with you that they didn't do hardly anything with that victory.
I think the mistake they made was assuming in that victory that the whole country had automatically become conservative, and they stopped explaining who they were and why they were doing what they were going to do, and they stopped explaining their agenda.
That may be true.
And it's been great being on with you.
I've been with CS in the end.
Anyway, John, I appreciate that.
I didn't mean to steal your thunder.
But remember who's host here.
And staying with the phone, Zell Rushlow, Rush Bo, and half my brain tied behind my back just to make it.
Oh, by the way, a hand grenade with a bad haircut is Ross Perot, for those of you who may not have recognized.
That was one of our many lovable and pet names for Ross Perot back in 1992.
Hand grenade with a bad haircut.
Here's Robert, Germantown, Maryland.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Rush, how are you, sir?
Longtime listener.
I can't even believe I'm talking to you after all these years.
Live long and prosper and all the other good things that go with it.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, I'm calling you again from the People's Republic of Montgomery County, Maryland.
I was wondering, and the previous caller had taken away a little bit of what I wanted to talk about with how the Republicans have put themselves in a position where their agenda is being quashed by the media and not taking advantage of the nuclear option, which the Democrats did, as you had mentioned, for the pushing of Obamacare.
But I think a bigger picture is, you know, you look at what Janet Napolitano did before she left and Fast and Furious and the bullets.
And here he just signed a, the government bought up all that ammo.
I can't remember the exact caliber.
And now on top of it, he signs in yesterday an executive order to ban that same type of ammunition.
So basically, it seems, look at the puzzle that these people have put out there, which is mostly confusing because there's a new item every day.
I think that's why no one can really get a grip on any of this.
Because they never stop.
There's no time to react and adjust because there's something new every day.
Yeah, it's just craziness.
And, you know, we hear, you know, talking about this, what's going on in the Middle East right now, not to mention Vladimir, you know, remember what you had said and what we all heard, you know, he'll have more flexibility after the election.
What kind of flexibility was it when we keep on giving away everything but the kitchen sink and getting nothing in return?
Well, let me try to explain why.
This is a good observation of yours.
It's one that we have made on previous occasions in many and very different ways.
We had a caller last week named Vinny from Queens.
There's about 10 of those.
There's 10 guys, 10 Vinnies, Queens, Bronx, Camden, New Jersey, you name it.
They rotate calling in here.
And Vinny, he wasn't able to hang on, but he was frustrated.
He wanted to disagree with me.
He thinks it is time to panic.
He thinks it is over.
And one of the things he was going to say is no matter what we come up with, they've got an answer for it.
No matter what we do, no matter what trick we try to play, no matter what way we try to prevail again, they've got an answer for it.
I'm going to tell you why this perception exists.
That's Vinny's perception.
And I'm going to tell you why it is.
And I'm sure a lot of people probably in frustration agree with that.
And the reason is very simple.
It can be found in the phenomenon known as ideology.
Say what you want about them.
The liberals are committed to implementing their agenda.
Come hell or high water.
Their agenda is pure ideology.
They are driven by it.
They are devoted to it, committed to it.
It is their religion.
It is their life.
As you well know, every liberal demands that whatever his pet issue is, you either agree or be silenced.
If it's behavior, you either behave the same way they do and the way they demand, or you get punished.
Militant vegetarians are not content to let you have a Big Mac.
You are going to be excoriated for doing so.
McDonald's is going to be excoriated for providing them.
The beef industry is going to be excoriated for destroying the planet.
If you say the wrong thing, say if you're a global warming denier, they set out to destroy you.
There's a member of the House, a Democrat, who has sent letters to seven universities demanding that those universities explain the funding for any professors on campus who deny climate change.
This is an inquisition.
Never mind the fact that every liberal scientist promoting global warming is bought and paid for with this grant and that grant and those grants over there.
It is their source of living.
They found a global warming denier who had happened to take a grant donation from an oil company.
And this member of Congress, Raul Grihalva or something like that, got on his remember, they're in the minority in the House.
The Democrats are in the minority.
This guy gets in his high horse and he sends letters out to seven universities demanding the universities do an investigation and reveal all sources of income for every professor who is a global warming denier.
Now, this is ideology.
They are committed to it.
They are driven by it.
They are devoted to it.
They are absorbed by it.
It is the reason they get out of bed every day.
It is the reason they hate going to sleep every night.
They do not want to take a moment off.
They are constantly doing nothing but conspiring, meeting, talking, planning, writing, teaching, you name it, their agenda, all based on their ideology of extreme madcap liberalism/slash socialism.
On the other side, you have the Republican Party, who is what?
The Republican Party does not have an agenda that you can identify, and the Republican Party has done its best to abandon the competing ideology to liberalism, and that would be conservatism.
The Republican Party is attempting to say that the foremost practitioner and the biggest success story in conservatism, Ronald Reagan, is Passe.
The Republican Party is trying to say the era of Reagan is over.
Do you ever hear the Democrats say the era of FDR is over?
The era of JFK, the era of LBJ is over.
Do you ever hear them say the era of the great society is over and we must modernize our thinking?
You never hear them say that.
The Republicans undercut their own agenda and they do not have an ideology, folks.
That's why the left has an answer for everything we do because we're not even competing against them at that level.
The Republican objectives are totally different than the Democrat objectives.
The Democrat objectives in winning office is to wield power to implement their agenda, to silence their critics, to do away with their critics, to promote their friends, to use the federal treasury to fund their efforts and to defund the efforts of the opposition.
The Republican Party, this may as well be Greek to them.
There's no way this is not how they view the world.
They certainly eschew conservatism.
They have no agenda.
They have no ideology.
There is nothing competing with liberalism.
There's not even a fight ideologically.
The Republican desire to win elections is not rooted in advancing any kind of an agenda.
As we see now, they're not trying to stop amnesty.
They're half-heartedly trying to stop Obamacare.
There is no competing ideology within the opposition party.
It is in the Tea Party.
It is with grassroots Americans.
It is with several governors.
But in terms of the National Republican Party, there is no ideological driving force behind their purpose.
If there were, this would be an entirely different landscape.
If there were, this would be an entirely different ballgame.
If there were committed conservatives who knew it, loved it, understood it, and could articulate it, the Democrats would have a much tougher time getting past what they do.
They would have a much tougher time getting public support for their ideas.
But conservatism isn't even on the field.
And that's why it appears we don't have an answer.
You and I do.
The Republican Party doesn't.
They want to win so they can have committee chairmanships in the Senate.
And you say, well, what good is that?
Well, that's power, folks.
I mean, that's in charge of the money.
The Republican desire to win, when they articulate it, is rooted in what?
Stopping Obama, maybe?
They didn't even say that during the most recent midterm election.
They didn't even have an announced agenda.
Individual Republican candidates did.
And the number one thing they claimed are going to stop was Obamacare.
Number two was amnesty, but that didn't get very far.
There's no alternative ideology competing with liberalism in politics.
There is here on talk radio.
There is occasionally at Fox News.
There is in the blogosphere.
Conservatism is robust.
It is alive and well, and it is thriving, except in the political arena.
I'm talking about on a national, you know, national party-wide basis.
So if the left is totally driven by its ideology and it's dominated by it, I mean, that's all they care.
Folks, you and I would get up and we'll go play golf or we'll go ball game or family get-together, picnic.
These people, every waking moment is devoted to two things: advancing their agenda and destroying ours.
If they ever do go to a ballgame, that's what they're talking about, and they're not watching the game.
That is their recreation.
It's their religion.
It's their recreation.
It's their advocation.
It's their vocation.
It is everything about them.
It's their identity.
It's not that they're absorbed by it or immersed in it.
It is what they are.
And that's why they seem to have an answer for everything we do.
Because there is really no competing ideology.
This is why I've, you know, from a couple of years here have been saying that if we could convince more and more low-information Americans and educate them about ideology, if everybody understood liberty.
By the way, 1988, not that long ago, 26 years ago, in a generation, one word and one picture defeated Michael Dukakis.
Dukakis was running for the presidency opposed to George H.W. Bush, who was the sitting vice president and was promising to be the third term of Ronald Reagan.
So he was promising more conservatism.
There were two things that defeated Michael Dukakis.
One was the word liberal.
All it took 26 years ago to defeat a Democrat in a presidential race was to correctly identify them as a liberal.
The American people wanted no part of it.
The other thing that did him in was when he posed as Beetle Bailey in a tank wearing an Army helmet.
He looked like a young fool.
He looked the antithesis of presidential.
It was a laugh riot.
That coupled with.
Oh, there's a third thing.
During a debate, Bernard Shaw, state control media of the day, CNN, asked Dukakis if his wife were raped, what he would do.
And Dukakis actually said something, I'm paraphrasing.
Well, Bernard, that require investigation of all the facts, and we would make sure the civil rights, everybody involved, was protected.
And he gave a clinical, dry ball, liberal policy wonk answer to the proposition: what would you do if your wife was?
And nobody, he did, not one additional shred of emotion.
He was nothing more than a clinical liberal robot.
Those are the three things that did him in.
Today, identifying somebody as a liberal does not harm them.
They are bigger jokes about that.
They're actually dismantling the military rather than Dukakis running around looking like Beetle Bailey.
And they have convinced everybody that rape is happening every day on college campus in a year of the war on women.
But 26 years ago, the word liberal could kill a presidential candidate on the Democrat side.
The Republicans are afraid to even use that word now.
Too critical, too maybe mean-spirited or one-headed.
I got to take a break.
I just saw the clock.
Back after this.
Okay, let's see where we are here.
I'm going to stick with the phones.
Yeah.
Dave and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Welcome, sir.
You are next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
This dovetails a little bit about what you were just saying.
This morning, during the top of the hour news, by a couple of times, I've heard this story that John Boehner is being criticized because he can't control the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
I'm thinking, what hasn't he controlled?
And why don't they ever say that about Harry Reid can't control the liberal wing of the Democrat Party?
Exactly.
Exactly.
And the idea that he can't control the conservative wing of the party?
You know, what do you think that means?
You got me, because to me, they haven't been able to do anything.
Maybe because they.
It means if there weren't any conservatives, Boehner would have signed on with McConnell weeks ago to this deal to fund the Homeland Security.
There wouldn't have been any talk about defunding Amnesty.
But because Boehner doesn't control those extremist radical conservatives, we were taken to the brink.
That's what it means.
If Boehner had total control over the Republican caucus, why, we wouldn't even have been talking about defunding a part of Homeland Security.
And the fact that we almost did just shows that Boehner has lost control.
Now, why don't we ever hear that Pelosi lost control to the liberals in the House or Harry Reid?
Because that's all there are in there.
But it's, as far as the drive-bys are concerned, the liberals can never be extreme.
They never have to.
They're never out of line.
They never pose a problem to the leadership, and they're not embarrassing to anybody.
But in their world, the conservatives are extremists.
They're embarrassing.
And, you know, Boehner's afraid of them, and he can't control them and so forth.
It's just, it's, you know, evidence of the double standard, which everybody is well aware of.
Okay, now, folks, in the next hour, some highlights.
Benjamin Netanyahu today at APAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
It's a prelude to his joint session speech to Congress tomorrow.
And a review of some of the things that happened at CPAC over the weekend all coming up.
So if you just sit tight, we'll be to it before you know it.
It's really hard to imagine boycotting a prime minister who speaks so warmly and so passionately of his love for America, a prime minister who never uses hyperbole to explain the threats his country faces in the Middle East.
I'm talking about Benjamin Netanyahu.
▲
Export Selection