All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:09
October 8, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, Rush is a little under the weather today, but he will be back for full strength Open Line Friday tomorrow.
In the meantime, while America's anchorman takes a well-deserved day to recuperate, this is your official EIB anchor baby, Mark Stein.
Honored to be with you direct from Ice Station EIB in far northern New Hampshire.
Yesterday I was talking about climate change because of Ted Cruz's magnificent performance with this chump Aaron Mayer who heads the Sierra Club who doesn't know anything.
He heads an organization devoted to environmentalism and doesn't know anything about it.
And he just repeated the 97% consensus line and I demonstrated from I think it's page 295 from my new book, A Disgrace to the Profession.
On page 295, there's an explanation of just how bogus this 97% consensus is.
It's 75 out of 77 hand-picked scientists.
That's what it is.
75 scientists of whom 90%, 90, I think it's 92.6% or something come from the United States.
And there's a tiny little clump from Canada and hardly anyone from anywhere else.
And that's what that means.
There's actually more scientists quoted in my book opposing the 97% consensus than are in the 97% consensus.
But climate change never stops because they've got this Paris conference coming up in a few weeks' time.
And we're going to have this drip, drip, drip, drip, drip all the way to the Paris conference because the Paris conference, as they said about the Copenhagen conference six years ago, is really about global government.
That's what a guy called Herman van Rompuy, whom you may not have heard of, no reason why you should have heard of him.
He calls himself President of Europe, but he's basically an obscure Belgian.
And then the French and the Germans decided to put him in and to head up the European Commission.
So he's no longer just an obscure Belgian anymore.
He's an obscure Belgian with President of Europe on his business card.
And he said that this Copenhagen thing, it was going to be the first year of global government.
It didn't work out that way, but maybe it will at Paris.
And good luck with global government because I'd like to know what polling station, what town hall, what school gym you go to to vote out global government.
But two proponents of that, Michael R. Bloomberg and John F. Kerry, the former mayor of New York and the current Secretary of State, have written a piece called All Climate Change is Local.
And they're talking up this coalition called the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group because urban centers are now home to half the global population.
And so they're talking about how vulnerable cities are to climate change and why it's mayors who are in the forefront of battling climate change.
Now, you know this, this is because I was on air the time this happened.
Michael Bloomberg got a snowstorm.
The guy who regulated the salt out of your cheeseburger couldn't actually regulate any salt onto Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan in a snowstorm.
He was actually in Bermuda.
He used to fly off to, when he was mayor in New York, he spent like four days a week there and the rest of the time he was at his pad in Bermuda.
So he was actually in Bermuda when the snowstorm hit and he couldn't get, he can't get his municipal trucks to get salt onto Fifth Avenue.
But climate change, global climate change, that he can solve.
A couple of years later, super, so-called Superstorm Sandy hits.
This is a guy who can regulate the maximum size of your big gulp soda.
So he can regulate the Coca-Cola out of your soda cup, but he can't keep the Atlantic Ocean from washing around the New York subway.
And it's very simple.
It's very simple why the New York subway filled up with water.
It doesn't have a flood barrier.
The New York, New Jersey coast doesn't have a flood barrier because no one can build anything here.
No matter how much, go back to that caller we were talking about in the first with the first hour of the show from San Diego, no matter how much money we spend, a big government, we don't build anything with it.
All we do is increase paperwork and bureaucracy.
So you can't look.
Obama goes around saying, oh, well, only government can build the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam.
He doesn't build any bridges or dams.
So Hurricane Superstorm Sandy, which wasn't that super, put all this water into the New York subway because they didn't have a flood barrier.
London has the Thames barrier.
The Netherlands has a big flood barrier.
St. Petersburg in Russia has a fabulous flood barrier, but nothing gets built here because it's got a, because the environmentalists have put in a 47-year zoning process, so they discover some rare kind of buttercup somewhere along the New Jersey shore, which would mean that you'd have to have decades of approval meetings before any flood barrier could be built in.
So the guy who can't get a flood barrier for his city wants to claim that he can, if all the mayors get together, they can change the climate of the planet.
And this is a piece that Bloomberg and John Kerry have written just ahead of the Paris talks to say that cities are in the forefront of climate change.
And yes, certain American cities are in the forefront of climate change.
If you look at Chicago and Baltimore, say, hundreds of people every month are lowering their carbon footprint to zero in Chicago and Baltimore.
Every time you look at the weekend news on first thing on Monday morning in the Chicago Tribune, you can read about all the people who've lowered their carbon footprint to zero in those environmentally responsible cities.
And that's what the people who can't actually do anything about things happening now in their cities want enough money and enough power to be able to solve the problem of sea levels in the Maldives in the year 2140.
That's what climate change is.
But don't worry, because as that bozo who heads the Sierra Club, President Aaron Mayer of the Sierra Club told this Senate committee, the science is settled.
97% of scientists, he says, agree on this, that there's no debate, the science is settled, no debate.
On a totally unrelated topic, it turns out that whole milk is good for you after all.
The United States government has had to back away from decades of dietary recommendations because science finds no connection between whole milk and cardiovascular disease more than 40 years after urging people to stop using it.
It turns out, just like my book, that the science behind the initial recommendation was flawed and known to be so at the time.
Just like my book.
My book is about the big global warming hockey stick and the fact that for the entire half of the first half of the 15th century, it relies on to tell you, predict a millennium of temperatures.
It relies on two trees, two Canadian trees, to tell you the temperature for the entire northern hemisphere.
Flawed science.
This is exactly the same thing.
The whole milk, the whole milk scare.
For 40 years, the government's been, oh, whole milk's bad for you.
Don't have that whole milk.
When I was a kid, we used to get the milk straight from the farm.
And as kids, we loved to scoop the cream off the top of the milk.
Full fat milk.
Oh, it's beautiful.
Can't beat that.
Can't beat the taste of that.
But instead, now, for years, you've stuck behind them in Star Wars.
Oh, well, I'll have a decaf macchiato.
Oh, I better make it a decaf skinny macchiato.
So I'll have the skimmed milk.
Oh, I don't know whether I'm ready.
I'm worried about my cardiovascular disease, but I don't know whether I'm ready to go to the skimmed milk, so I might just have the 2% milk.
Maybe I'll be able then to go to the 1%, the 1% milk, and we'll be able to do it that way.
We have Louis Gomert with us, who is in Washington, D.C., and has just come out of the caucus meeting where Kevin McCarthy stepped down and decided he wouldn't be speaker.
Congressman, it's great to have you with us on the show.
Always good to talk to you, Mark.
Great to talk to you.
Interesting day we've had developing here.
I see in one of the reports that people were stunned and in tears at this decision.
Were you one of those ones coming out of the room with tears flowing down your face?
Well, actually, I was one of those coming out going, wow, what a selfless act McCarthy just committed.
You know, in this town, I mean, I've put my neck on the chopping block, but it's just you don't see that all that often from folks around here in Washington.
But as I understand, he's not stepped down as a majority leader, but he has said he's not the one, apparently, that's going to be able to unite the party.
I think if he had allowed Boehner to use some heavy arm twisting, then he still might could have won.
But I'm just grateful that he chose to put party above self.
Well, and his, as I understand it, he said that he would be kind of damaged goods from day one because fellas like you would be going back to your district and essentially be having to defend him right from day one in the job because of the circumstances in which he got the job.
I know after his comment on our friend Sean's show that got blown up, taken out of context, he has been by a number of people, and of course, Trey Gowdy had an op-ed out about the Benghazi committee and what they've been doing, what they were trying to do.
But anyway, some had said it's going to make it very, very difficult.
We've got a speaker who's very careful about what they say, and that was an unfortunate statement.
So, yeah, that was a suspect.
That's all I can say, Mark.
What's the situation now?
John Boehner stays as speaker, and this election is deferred to some point down the road, but nobody quite knows when.
I have with the current speaker because he could have let us talk about it a little bit.
This was a huge development.
So Kevin makes his statement, makes this incredible statement very clearly, very depthly, and then the speaker immediately gets up and says, hey, all right, votes are postponed, and he has a right to set the time of the votes, but he says it's postponed, and this meeting's adjourned.
Well, that's been one of our problems.
Speakership, instead of letting us have some impact on, he just immediately decides to postpone.
Why couldn't we have talked about it?
Why couldn't we have two other candidates there?
Do we go ahead and have the election?
But no, he chose to immediately postpone and adjourn, which sounds like, gee, he must be planning on trying to find somebody else that he could get behind and push through.
I just think this was a great opportunity to bring us together, give us a chance to talk, and we were not given that opportunity.
So in a way, this sums up the problem with Boehner's speakership in large part.
Here, he just shut down discussion.
I mean, he did that obviously for a very, you know, for a very clear reason.
He didn't want one of the two remaining guys.
He wanted neither.
That's the way it appears.
Yeah.
I mean, normally when you have an election and one guy withdraws, the two, you know, if there's a Democrat and a Republican on a Tuesday in November and the night before the Democrat withdraws, the Republican is still in the election and gets elected president.
But here, neither of the two remaining guys in the race got to put it to the vote.
I mean, isn't that a bit...
Exactly.
And so, but that, again, Mark, points to the problem we've had for the nine last, actually, I guess going on 10 years, that he has been majority leader and then minority leader and then speaker of our party.
And that is the exact thing he accused Pelosi of in the fall of 2010 in an interview, I believe, with Major Garrett, where he was complaining that Pelosi just ran everything and that nearly all of the members of Congress didn't get to represent their districts because she and her henchmen just decided everything.
And he said if he were Speaker, all of that would be different.
Well, it wasn't different.
It was exactly the same.
Yeah, that's true.
Thanks for identifying what actually is the takeaway from all this is that now the election is on hold until the Boehner-McCarthy grouping can decide who's going to be their candidate to put in the race.
As you say, that's like he basically shut down any discussion of this and kicked you guys out of the room.
Gather one of your colleagues emerged from the room with a full plate of barbecue and slaw, and that's because the meeting wasn't long enough for any of you to tuck into any of the goodies.
Well, yeah, I mean, everybody came in and expected we were going to be there a while, and you know, they had food out for everybody, and so obviously this was a fairly quick decision.
But I mean, I think it was awesome for Kevin to make this kind of decision.
I mean, Mark, when you put party ahead of self-ambition, I mean, that's kind of what we hope more people around Washington would do.
No, he did that.
He did the right, he did the right thing.
He did the right thing there, Congressman, and he deserves to be congratulated for that.
Thanks for your call.
We're coming up hard on a break that I got.
Well, that works.
Okay, Mark.
Thanks for that.
Meg, thanks a lot.
And thanks for keeping us up to speed.
We'll discuss it in the rest of the show as we proceed.
1-800-282-2882.
Kevin McCarthy withdraws from the race, and Speaker Boehner ends the race.
There's going to be a new election sometime down the road, but we don't know when.
Mark Stein in Farush, more to come.
Mark Stein in Farush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And it was great to hear a view from Congressman Gomeut from inside the room.
Basically, as I understand it, Kevin McCarthy made his statement, and Speaker Boehner said, that's it, the election postponed, and there will be no further discussion.
The meeting is adjourned.
What's going on here?
As I said to the congressman, you know, when you've got a multi-candidate election and one guy withdraws, you don't postpone the election.
I mean, this is Banana Republic stuff.
If you've got three candidates running in an election and one of them withdraws, you don't say, oh, well, there's only two candidates left now, so we're postponing the election.
John Boehner is doing a banana republic move.
He and Kevin McCarthy, they can't get Kevin McCarthy through this election, but they don't want either of the two remaining candidates to become Speaker.
Daniel Webster from not that Daniel Webster, not the Daniel Webster from New Hampshire.
This is some new Daniel Webster from Florida, or Jason Chaffetz from Utah.
So they say, okay, one guy's out of the race, so now there's not going to be a race.
Now there's not going to be an election.
There is something parliamentarily malodorous about that.
It is not.
I do not know on what basis John Boehner has done this.
John Boehner is Speaker of the House, and he announced his resignation as Speaker of the House, and there was going to be an election.
And so various candidates announced that they would be running in this election.
And one of the candidates withdrew, and now there's not going to be an election.
Just put this in any context you care to, other context you care to have.
Suppose there's Saddam Hussein calls an election in Iraq, and there's the Bath Party, and there's the mildly opposed to the Baath Party, and there's the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Bath Party guy self-detonates, so he has to withdraw, and Saddam postpones the election until they can find some guy who can beat the other guy.
That's what's going on.
It's like not this is this is A this does not smell as it should smell.
And Boehner, who resigned as Speaker because he knew he wouldn't survive a vote, is now apparently acting speaker for as long as he wants to be until he can find a candidate that this time he can nursemade through to victory, and then it will be safe to hold the election again.
And that's what I mean when I say it's parliamentarily malodorous.
This is not an appropriate way to do things.
And if I were one of the other two, if I were one of the other two candidates, I would be furious about this.
I'll be interested to know what both Chaffetz and this new Daniel Webster have to say about it.
But beyond that, the rest of the caucus should.
The rest of the caucus is just being treated like sheep.
Look, Boehner's gone.
He's out of the speakership.
Now he's saying that because his designated successor has self-destructed, the election is going to be postponed and he's going to stay on as acting speaker.
This is the Republican Party as it controls the House of Representatives.
Rush is a little under the weather today, but he will return tomorrow for the real deal, Open Line Friday.
You need not be discombobulated by any sinister foreign guest hosts.
If you cannot wait till 12 midday Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific on Friday, you go to rushlimbaugh.com right now and sign up and become a Rush 24-7 subscriber.
And you can have Rush 24 hours a day.
You can get Rush in any medium you want.
You can get him on video via the did account.
You can get him in audio.
You can get him in print.
And you get all this extra stuff by becoming a Rush 24-7 subscriber.
You can also subscribe to the Limbaugh Letter, which has terrific interviews conducted by Rush.
I'm in there, I think about this time last year.
But in this month's issue, it's a magnificent interview with the great Victor Davis Hansen.
I just wanted to finish up on that thought I was having, half-baked as it was, before we went to Congressman Gomeut for the breaking news from the meeting, from the Kevin McCarthy meeting.
It was Mark Sanford, by the way.
I said I'd seen somewhere or other that some guy had come out of the meeting with a plate full of barbecue and slaw.
And it was Congressman Mark Sanford.
He's the Appalachian Trail hiker, isn't he, from South Carolina?
He was the one who turned out he kept saying he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, and they would be going, wow, this is like the fifth time this month.
And it turned out he'd be just going to the airport and getting on a plane and flying off to his Latin American love nest.
But he's now apparently a congressman.
And he emerged from this meeting with a full plate of barbecue and slaw.
That'll keep you going for a couple of days when you're hike in the old Appalachian Trail.
But I was talking about this milk.
This whole milk now is good for you.
For 40 years, the United States government has been saying, you know, you've got to have the skimmed milk, you've got to have the 2% milk, full-fat milk is bad for you.
Now they discover that full-fat milk is good for you and was always good for you because the science that government acted on was incredibly fragile, as this guy puts it.
The vibrant, this is, they're talking here about full-fat milk.
The vibrant certainty of scientists claiming to be authorities on these matters is disturbing.
George V. Mann, a biochemist at Vanderbilt's Med School, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, ambitious scientists and food companies, he said, had, quote, transformed a fragile hypothesis into treatment dogma, unquote.
Transformed a fragile hypothesis into treatment dogma.
That's exactly what they have done with climate change.
They did it here with this whole milk business.
That's exactly what they've done with climate change.
Government, on the climate, it's worse because government essentially pays scientists to do research justifying more government.
It's all very circular, all very circular.
In the old days, Sir Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin weren't government scientists looking for government grants.
But these guys, that's the way the system works now.
You get a government grant to come up with an answer that government wants and one that generally justifies more government.
So we have an entirely circular business.
So we see the president of the Sierra Club, an activist group that depends on maintaining this scare, testifying to Congress to demand more EPA regulations.
So it's an entirely circular process.
The government gives grants to scientists to produce research justifying more government.
And what happens is that a fragile hypothesis, as George V. Mann, this biochemist at Vanderbilt's Med School says, a fragile hypothesis gets transformed into treatment dogma.
In other words, unsound science, unsettled science gets locked into government policy.
And that's exactly what's happened with climate change.
That's what's happened with the hockey stick.
And that's the process that I talk about in my book, A Disgrace to the Profession, which is about the impact of this kind of this cartoon climatology on government policy and the disaster it's been.
And as we work our way up to Paris, as we see in this piece by John Kerry and Michael Bloomberg, there's going to be even more of that as we move forward.
Let's go to Sam in Quad Cities, Iowa, ground zero in the presidential campaign where both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are ahead.
I won't ask which of those Sam supports.
But Sam, you are live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, it's great to be talking to you.
Thank you for taking my call.
I wanted to go back to the gentleman who called earlier from San Diego.
Oh, yes.
Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
No, no, you go ahead.
It was Dennis from San Diego.
He wanted to help the poor.
Right.
And that's great.
And I have no reason not to believe that gentleman's story that he had it rough raising three kids as a single dad.
And a guy like that needs a little bit of help.
I understand that.
But the thing is, it seems like the Democratic Party and the Liberals, they seem to think that it's their job to determine what the upper echelon's fair share is.
And it's the people who are in poverty's job to determine what the fair share of the people who aren't in poverty is.
That's crazy to me.
I mean, if somebody has less than somebody else, if somebody's walking and they see somebody driving a Cadillac, they determine that, hey, that's not fair.
I should have that too.
So it's their job to take care of me.
That's not how it's supposed to work.
That's crazy to me.
And to get yourself out of poverty, you can go to school in this country for free now.
You can go to a community college, get your first two years done, not only for free, but you can make money doing it with the pay grant and financial aid and everything else that's available.
So don't tell me that you can't get yourself out of poverty.
If you don't want to do the work to do it, that's on you.
That's not on anybody else.
That's not my responsibility to take care of you because you don't want to go to school.
Well, the Bernie Sanders view, Sam, is that these guys are poor because you're rich.
And so that the way to make them less poor is to make you less rich.
And what I don't understand from Dennis in San Diego or Hillary Clinton or anybody else where the end point is here, because America already has a more progressive tax system than Canada or Scandinavia or Belgium or the Netherlands.
In other words, the rich here pay a greater proportion of the tax than they do in what we think of as far more left-wing countries.
So how much is enough?
How much do they need to take from you, Sam, to make the poor less poor?
Because that's the Bernie Sanders.
That's the Hillary Clinton.
That's the Dennis from San Diego answer.
And what's crazy about that, I'm actually glad you said that.
When I got out of the Marines, I did my time.
I did four years.
I did a combat tour and I got wounded.
I got out and I had a family to support.
I got a job as a roughneck working on a rig, and I worked a lot of overtime because that's how it worked.
And I wanted my family to have a good life.
They took 37 cents on the dollar from me because I worked overtime.
Right.
And that went to help people who didn't work.
So because I decided to work extra to support my family, they're going to take more money from me to give it to people who don't work.
Right.
That's crazy.
And that's what Bernie Sanders actually wants more of.
He keeps citing those Eisenhower 90% tax rates from the 1950s, that we should have even higher marginal tax rates so that if you work overtime, instead of paying 37 cents on the dollar, you should maybe pay 53 or 65 cents on the dollar.
That's Bernie Sanders thinking on that, Sam.
It just baffles me that in America that people can allow that.
How people can be so warped as to think that that's okay.
And it's starting at a young age now where, you know, everybody ties and everybody's friends and nobody wins and nobody loses.
I'm sorry to say it, but to a certain extent, it is a competition in life.
You have to work hard to get ahead.
You don't need to put somebody else down.
No, you don't.
No, you don't, Sam.
We're not going to have any winners and losers anymore.
We're just going to have a big redistributive tax system and everyone will just get a participation ribbon.
It's going to be like grade school.
You won't even notice it.
You'll work hard, and they'll take all your money and give it to the guy who doesn't do anything, but you'll all get the same participation ribbon.
Thanks for your call, Sam Markstein.
Infra Rush.
We'll take more of your calls straight ahead.
Hey, Mark Stein for Rush behind the Golden EIB microphone breaking.
U.S. officials say that the Russian missiles headed for Syria have crashed in Iran.
At least four missiles supposedly to be delivered from – I don't quite understand how this is going, but this is what they say.
The Russian missiles being delivered to Syria have apparently crashed in Iran.
They were supposedly coming from the South Caspian Sea, meaning that they'd have to cross over both Iran and Iraq.
That's breaking news.
As to the general view of what Putin is doing in Syria, the Daily Beast has a headline.
Obama officials say Putin's new war is a sign of American success.
The Russian airstrikes on Syria are a sign that U.S. policy is working.
A senior State Department official told shocked Syrian-American advocates in a private meeting on Monday, quote, the Russians wouldn't have to help Assad if we didn't weaken him, U.S. Special Envoy for Syria Michael Ratney said, according to multiple participants in the meeting and contemporaneous notes.
Russian intervention in Syria, he went on to say, is a sign of success for American policy on Syria.
Do you follow the Obama administration here?
It's because they weakened Assad.
It's not actually clear they did that.
A civil war broke out in Syria, and Obama then declared a red line and didn't do anything.
And I gather we've expensively trained nine Syrian rebels, of whom six have been bombed now by Putin or whatever it is.
So they're taking credit for weakening Assad.
And because Assad is weakened and Putin has had to go in and prop him up, that's a sign of the success of American policy.
You recall that Emperor Hairohito in 1945 said that the nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a sign of Japanese success because the Americans wouldn't have been forced to nuke Nagasaki and Hiroshima if America hadn't been weakened by Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
This is the Obama administration logic, that because they supposedly weakened Assad, Putin has been forced to intervene in Syria to prop him up.
The vacuum in Assad in Syria led to the creation of the Islamic State, which then spilled over into the borders of Iraq and destroyed American accomplishments in Iraq and actually destroyed the Iraqi state and erased the border and sent millions of refugees flooding into Lebanon and Jordan to the point where they're now significant proportions of those countries,
the people living in Lebanon and Jordan, are actually Syrian refugees.
They've destabilized the entire region.
These mysterious stabbings, for example, that are going on in Jerusalem, in Israel at the moment, it's not clear to me whether that isn't just these guys acting on the Islamic State's advice to just kill people with whatever you have to hand, whether it's a knife or a screwdriver.
But the United States' official position is that this is all a sign of American success because if they hadn't weakened Assad, they wouldn't have had to do it anyway.
This is the way that it works when you have a faculty lounge president like Obama who thinks the way people talk when they're sitting around at some college at two in the morning, that American power is bad for the world and that you withdraw American power and that America is so bad that whatever follows it couldn't be worse.
So it doesn't matter if you have an implosion like you have in Libya, like you have in Syria.
It doesn't matter if it leads to millions of people.
I was in Scandinavia last week.
I was in Copenhagen and I was in Malmö.
I arrived at Malmö, which isn't a large city.
It's the second biggest city in Sweden, but Sweden's not a big country.
And the railway station is full.
That's about as far as you can get from the Middle East and without hitting the North Pole.
And you get to Malmo, and the concourse is full of young Muslim men who are, quote, refugees, unquote, and who have been sent fleeing, supposedly.
They're not fleeing.
They're there because ISIS control the ports in Libya.
This is Hillary Clinton's world.
Hillary Clinton thought she wanted to do something to show her massive cajonis, a secretary of state.
She was the one who was behind, who was driving the Libyan intervention.
Obama didn't care about Libya.
He had no view on Gaddafi one way or another.
Hillary was the one gloating about him when he died and met that mysterious end involving a sharp object and his rear end.
And he took that bullet to the brain.
And she said, we came, we saw he died.
And she gave a big laugh.
Libya has imploded.
Her pal, who believed her on how they were going to create this little mini Massachusetts in Libya, he died on the streets of Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens.
And those ports, seaports in Libya, are now controlled by the Islamic State that is loading up these ships with young Muslim men who land on the European continent and were sitting in my first-class train compartment all the way from Copenhagen to Malmo across the Oroson Bridge last week.
I'm sitting there.
I got a nice first-class train ticket thinking I'll have nice first-class service, have a nice bit of high-class Swedish or Danish dolly bird come and bring me all the snackets as I'm going across the bridge.
And instead, I get in there and take my seat, and this swarm of young Muslim men comes in, takes all the first-class seats, and shoes away all the other guys except me because I ain't moving.
And we get to Malmo.
They all pour off the train.
There's more of them sleeping on the concourse.
Every single major railway station in continental Europe looks like this.
Doesn't matter whether you're at Hamburg, doesn't matter whether you're in Vienna, doesn't matter whether you're in Budapest.
It's an invasion underway because by Hillary Clinton delivering Libya's seaports and the Obama's red line in Syria, collapsing Syria and getting rid of Mubarak in Egypt.
And now there's just this flotilla, constant flotilla of ships delivering young Muslim men all the way to continental Europe.
That's Hillary's world.
She's destabilized America's allies.
Mark's time for us.
Lots more still to come.
Kevin McCarthy is withdrawn from the race to succeed John Boehner and John Boehner has postponed the election indefinitely.
▲
Export Selection