All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:17
November 30, 2015, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Just an extended weekend for Rush.
He's going to be back tomorrow, so never fear Russia's going to be back behind the golden microphone.
Tomorrow's program, today you have me.
Can't believe I've done two thirds of the program and we haven't really talked about the presidential race.
I have some thoughts.
First of all, I'm now an expert in my own mind because I went to one of the debates.
The last Republican presidential debate was in Milwaukee.
The one thing I'll say in defense of the two candidates that got ripped a lot for their conduct was, and that was Kasich and Paul.
Well, they kept interrupting, they were rude.
When you're actually physically there in the building, you realize how hard it is to be off on the end.
When you're sitting off to the side, you're looking at me like I don't sound right.
Okay.
I'll stop moving.
When you're sitting off to the side like that, when you're off at the end of the stage, when the questioners are asking questions, they're always looking ahead.
When the candidates are talking to one another, talking just to the side, it's very, very hard to comment from the end without making it seem like you were interrupting.
Having said that, I thought the Kasich was kind of a butinski too, but if you're John Kasich, you're really trying to butt into the race, so that's what he used the debate for.
Anyway, I have a couple of thoughts here, and then I want to comment on some things that happened over the weekend, and the latest candidate to be surging, which evidently is Cruz.
I think that we're in a unique year.
Never before did candidates really drop out of the race or become marginalized the year before anybody voted.
Several candidates have already dropped out because their standing was poor in the national polls.
Iowa isn't the first caucus state anymore.
And New Hampshire's not the first primary state.
The first state is the polls.
The year before polls are becoming the first eliminator of any of the candidates.
My own governor Scott Walker, running for president, announced his candidacy early last year, early this year actually, January of 2015.
Skyrocketed toward the top of the polls, was thought to be a prime contender for president, and then plummeted as fast as he skyrocketed, ended his campaign.
It soared as quickly as it crashed, and then it was all over because of the polls.
I don't know that this is healthy, but national polls the year before an election are deciding who the survivors are who get to the voting, but it's certainly driving this.
That's the phenomenon of Trump and Carson, who've been running one-two for weeks now, months really.
They're running there in national polls.
Nobody has voted yet.
I do think we are now transitioning from this election in which everyone has been focused on polls to how people do in actual elections.
There are pretty strong indications that Ted Cruz is doing very well in Iowa.
In the Iowa only polls, polls just of Iowa, Cruz in some cases is up to second and almost in first place.
He's getting a lot of support from county coordinators, key people in Iowa.
He's building a strong organization there.
Let's imagine for a moment, and I'm not predicting this, but let's imagine that Ted Cruz wins Iowa.
That would make everything that's happened in any of these national polls so far with regard to him irrelevant.
In the meantime, up in New Hampshire, Chris Christie, who in these national polls is so marginalized that he was stuck at the kids' table debate, the last debate, he didn't even make the main room.
Chris Christie is putting almost all of his eggs in the basket of New Hampshire.
Just got the endorsement of the big newspaper up there, the Manchester Union Leader.
In the past, that's been pretty important.
I wouldn't think that anybody would decide their vote on the basis of what any newspaper said, but in New Hampshire, the union leader has been influential, and it has a reputation of being a conservative paper.
If nothing else, it puts Christie on the map up there.
Let's imagine Christie wins New Hampshire.
Again, I'm not predicting it.
Probably won't happen.
It would make whatever happened with the national polls prior to that an irrelevancy.
So I do think the campaign is going to change radically once people start to vote.
And the Iowa caucuses, I think our February 1st, New Hampshire is shortly after that, and then you start racing to South Carolina and all of the other states, and it's going to happen very, very, very fast.
And there's going to be a real upheaval in the race, and it's hard to predict who's going to do well and who isn't.
As for Cruz, I think if you were just going to sit back and try to predict who's going to win, aside from who you want, Cruz ticks off a lot of the boxes.
He's the one candidate who I think can juggle these two influences of I want somebody who's knowledgeable, but I want an outsider.
Well, Cruz is a member of the Senate, he's relatively new, and he's hardly been a team player while there.
He can call himself with credibility a real outsider.
Yet everyone knows that Ted Cruz is somebody who is an expert on just about every geopolitical and domestic issue that you could imagine.
He does, I think, make therefore come across as acceptable to both groups.
Christie.
His problem is that he's going to be distrusted by most American conservatives who think that he's too liberal.
But he also has some credibility in that he has been a governor and is a very, very strong orator.
The challenge for Trump and for Carson, once we get to the point of people voting, is that I think it's going to be hard for them to keep the momentum that they've built in this year prior.
I'm not saying it can't happen.
It's going to be a challenge for them.
Now let's talk for a moment about Trump's appearance on Meet the Press.
They're grilling him on this business of whether or not he actually saw Muslims celebrating after 9 11.
He made the comment that Muslims in New Jersey were celebrating after 9 11.
He seemed to back away from it a little bit on Saturday, but then on Sunday on Meet the Press when Chuck Todd was grilling him on it, he said, No, I saw it.
And I've been hearing from a lot of people, people are sending me emails, I'm getting comments on Twitter from other people who saw the same thing.
I don't feel any need to apologize for anything if I actually saw it.
First of all, it's remarkable that this is only 15 years ago and nobody seems to remember for certain how people reacted to 911 at all.
Were some Muslims celebrating?
Probably there were.
Do I recall seeing any of them celebrating here in the United States?
No, I don't.
But whether Trump saw this or not, it is fascinating this obsession with first Carson and now Trump over whether or not anything at all is being misstated or exaggerated.
Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton was held to that standard?
How about Obama?
The story that Obama told of his life, the autobiography that he wrote, by his own acknowledgement, ended up having people in it that were made up that were fictionalized.
Nobody could withstand that type of scrutiny.
In the case of Trump, perhaps he saw some televised image of international Muslims cheering 9 11, which as I recall did occur somewhere in the world, and he turned that into New Jersey.
I don't know.
I do know that almost no actual Republican voter cares much about that.
The things that the media has been focused on with regard to Republican candidates, I think are completely different from the things that Republican voters focus on.
Where is the race going to go from here?
I think we are beyond the point in which anybody's going to much care who's leading national polls.
Is Trump number one, is Carson number one, is Rubio third, is Rubio fourth, whatever.
And we're going to start start focusing more on who's doing well in Iowa, who's doing well in New Hampshire, who's going to be able to move to the next level.
At some point, elections do come into the this is still a democracy.
We do elect actual candidates, and you're going to transition from this everybody playing to the television cameras, everybody playing to the interviews, and some actual hands-on politics where people go into these counties in these two or three early states and start campaigning for votes.
And I do think that the race will of I don't know who's going to be leading in the polls in three months.
I do know this.
The polls are going to be a lot different than they are right now.
Which way they go, I'm not sure.
If you want a candidate who I think has a strong potential that'll emerge out of the pack, I would say that it's Ted Cruz.
The telephone number on the Rush Limbaugh program is 1 800 282882.
My name is Mark Belling and I'm your guest host sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling in for Rush Limbaugh.
We're talking on the program about climate change and the absolute certainty that the experts are offering their predictions up about those sea levels rising and cataclysmic impact on human beings, even though they've been wrong about every climate prediction that they've made so far.
The whole business of predicting is real tricky.
A year ago who would have predicted that Donald Trump and Ben Carson would be running one two on the national polls for the Republican nomination for president or who would have predicted that the only two undefeated teams in major college football would be Clemson and Iowa.
Or who would have predicted at the start of the NFL season that following the Thanksgiving weekend there would be an undefeated team in the NFL and that it would be the Carolina Panthers.
The certainty that people have in making predictions be wary of anyone who says for certain that they absolutely know what is going to happen.
Let me uh go to the phone lines here.
1 800 28282 is the phone number to Fountain Hills, Arizona.
Ray, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey Mark, how are you doing?
I'm great.
Hey listen I just uh just kind of wanted to touch base with a with with the issue of the the colleges and I know you're a college graduate I'm a college graduate and I I look back into those days I I was there in this mid to late seventies.
Why do we lend credence to anything that these college students are saying for crying out loud I remember being a a college student and and I I wasn't even sure that uh that I knew you know what was going on in the well that's a good point you make college students have always protested.
They've always spoken out which is a good thing.
As I said earlier, the whole reason that you go to college is to learn how to think and it's a time in which you tend to be very very open to expressing your own opinions.
That part is good.
The part that isn't good as you said is look is listening to them to the point that you're making fundamental changes in the environment of the entire university.
A few students claim that they were the victim of racism.
The football team says it's not going to play a game the next thing you know the president of the University of Missouri is out.
Somebody sees a Confederate flag on a you know on a truck on campus and we're terrified that students are fearful.
What we're doing here is we are empowering them to really run the institutions that they're attending.
We use the fear that they are a victim of something to make major decisions in turn in terms of policy that we shouldn't be taking.
The answer to your question why do we listen to them because they're providing an excuse to do what people have wanted to do all along which is to bully and shove people around it's all part of this larger trend of silencing anyone who is right of center and the threat of being called a racist is one of the ways of doing it.
The establishment of a of a speech code is another way of doing it the development of this whole victim sta victim class in which people might be victimized or harmed if they hear something that threatens them it's all part of this but yeah we've empowered them.
On the other hand if there are a bunch of conservative college students that were lobbying for something nobody would pay any attention to them at all.
Thank you for the call.
I want to share this with the audience from a listener in Indiana part of the reason that there are not enough skilled tradesmen is we stopped teaching the trades in high school.
Part of the reason that happened is that schools cut those programs they have other non-skilled classes.
Well that's partly true I mean the old shop class that you think of in high school there aren't a lot of them anymore but part of it is kids stop signing up for those classes.
They were steered by their parents and others from not going into those types of fields.
The listener goes on another part of the problem is that states pass laws that did not people allow people under eighteen to operate any equipment with moving components on welders.
Their oldest son took a welding class in high school and liked it.
He was also not a student type.
We sent him to welding school where he learned all welding arts from acetylene to plasma.
Along the line, he learned how to teach robots to weld.
He has never been unemployed.
In fact, the reason he quit his last three jobs was that they would not even allow him to take us full vacation, and he told his new company that before they hired him.
And she goes on.
The point that I'm making in bringing up this business of the lack of people and going into some of the skilled trades is you never hear it brought up by politicians who talk about how we help deal with the income gap in America.
We can debate forever the level of pay for fast food restaurant workers, but the reality is that there's always going to be an excess of people to work in fast food restaurants because it requires virtually no skill.
The real solution is how you get people into the jobs in which they can earn more money without government coming in and dictating what the wage is going to be.
Let's try Teledaga in Alabama.
Here they have a racetrack there.
Mike, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hello there, Mark.
I just want to remark about these little wingers, college students that are being afraid of such little things.
If you want to be afraid of something, put yourself in the shoes of a 20-year-old or an 18-year-old Army Ranger climbing up the cliffs at Point Du Hawk on June 6, 1944, while the Germans were tossing grenades down on top of you.
Put yourself in the shoes of a 17-year-old Marine along with his buddies, running the bad guys out of Fallujah at bayonet point.
Put yourself in the shoes of the kids that used to follow me out the door of a C 130 while I was 1500 feet in the air, jumping out and landing on the ground.
You know, that's fear.
And to tie into your uh jobs issues.
Let me comment on the first thing that you said.
I I mean, you you mentioned a couple of historic references.
You talked about Fallujah.
Imagine Benghazi a few months ago.
I I what we're doing is we're taking young people and putting them on the front line of a war against Islamic terror.
They are confronting things that most of us who are much older would probably be horrified.
Yet in the meantime, back home in America, we are turning people into a bunch of weenies by protecting them from mere ideas that might threaten them.
People are capable of quite a bit.
What the military is doing is training people for things that most of us really would be afraid of.
Back home in the United States, we feel the need to protect people from anything that would ever threaten them.
It's it's quite a contrast.
The people who actually have reason to be fearful are answering the call of duty as well as they ever have.
In the meantime, back home, we're not even allowing people to debate or argue or discuss things for fear that they might be offended, they might be assaulted, their feelings might be assaulted, or they might be hurt.
You're right about that.
You had a second point that you wanted to make.
Well, it all goes into how we're training folks.
You know, bravery in the absence of fear.
It's really being the only one around you that knows you're scared to death.
Okay.
So you're being taught to deal with fear.
Well, if they can't deal with the fear of a little sign that bothers bothers them or can deal with this fear or even adversity, how are you going to expect them to stick their hands in the middle of cold water in the middle of February to fix somebody's plumbing problem?
Well, they're not going to be able to do that.
Yeah, you know, just little little things like that.
It's all about attitude, and we're not teaching the right attitude.
People everyone wants to feel as though they are special.
I mentioned earlier that we're living in the selfie generation.
I want to be a star, I'm important.
Well, for a lot of people, they want to be a victim.
I'm not suggesting that there isn't racism on college campuses, nor am I suggesting that there isn't homophobia on college campuses.
Those things are there, but they have always been there.
The response to them can't be silencing everyone by lumping it all together.
But the contemporary victim wants to act as though he or she is feeling the same adversity as people who suffered through slavery or Jim Crow or separate high schools or separate bathrooms.
I'm not minimizing any experience that someone has now.
I'm saying that what we are doing is we are taking those negative experiences of today, hyping the impact on people, and using that as a rationale to take away people's rights.
It used to be that the only amendment to the Constitution that the left didn't like was the second amendment.
They're going after the First Amendment now too.
These speech codes that are in place and the overreactions to so-called hostile speech, really frightening.
Mark Belling in for Rush.
One day only, filling in for Rush, he's going to be back tomorrow.
Russia's newsletter, good Christmas gift.
We can still say Christmas on the Rush Limbaugh program.
None of these euphemisms that are everywhere.
Christmas.
Whether you're a believer or not, Christmas.
That's the Limbaugh letter.
If you give a gift right now in this Christmas season, you're going to get Russia's new golden EIB Christmas ornament along with the Limbaugh letter and you can sign up for it at Rush Limbaugh.com.
One of the things that I like to do when I come in to fill in for Rush is bringing up to speed on some of the things that are happening in my own home state, which is Wisconsin, where we've had quite an interesting several years thanks to the election of a conservative governor and control of the legislature by Republicans.
There's an issue right now that addresses what's becoming a huge issue in American society.
The Republicans that have proposed to deal with this are being mocked and ridiculed.
And any time a Republican is mocked and ridiculed, you need to pay attention because it means that they're probably on to something.
They've touched a nerve.
It has to do with this remarkably increasing trend of parents having their children identify as a member of the other gender.
It's happening a lot more than you think.
Find almost any large public school in America right now.
I don't mean the really small ones, but almost any large public school, there's going to be at least one or two boys who are, quote, and this is the term they use identify, identifying as girls, or vice versa.
The proposal in Wisconsin is that at the public school level, bathrooms are to be restricted to children of their own anatomical gender.
This is in response to the concerns of many parents who feel uncomfortable with girls using the boys' bathroom.
Which in some cases they are because the girl is, quote, identifying as a boy.
That girl's parents want the girl therefore to feel like another one of the boys.
The proposal also would provide a unisex bathroom for, you know, one person at a time for the children that don't feel comfortable with this.
For proposing this, they are under huge fire and they're being called bigots for not accepting the reality of transgender children.
They're being told that they are haters for trying to compel an anatomical girl, that she has to use the girls' room.
Well, what if she thinks of herself as a boy?
You're making life so much worse for them.
This is the argument that's being made.
I happen to think that the bill is a good idea because it's addressing I think a terrible mistake that many parents are making.
Just because a child, let's take a girl, identifies as a boy and does boy things, doesn't mean that that girl is a boy.
Clearly we have people who don't seem to fit in with the body parts that they have.
We all know adults who may be a male but act very female or females that may be female anatomically, but are males.
Some of them go and have the operation, others don't.
But those are adults.
I think to simply say that a child, a girl who acts like a boy is a boy and should be living the life of a boy is a terrible mistake and it's cruel.
Every one of us, no matter the age, knows girls who, when they were girls, and I mean eight, ten, twelve, fourteen, did all the boy things.
They rough and tumbled.
We called them tomboys.
They were into male things.
They kind of dressed like they hated wearing makeup, they hated wearing dresses, they weren't into dolls at all.
A lot of those kids that I remember from when I was a kid, developed into women.
It was a matter of materation.
I can think of one who ended up being in the Miss America pageant.
It's a tomboy.
She did boy things.
All of a sudden, things kind of clicked in and she decided that she was a girl and that's the way that she was going to live her life.
Can you imagine if her parents started self-directing her, well, she identifies as a boy and she'd feel more comfortable as a boy?
You'd be permanently altering the course of that person's life.
Same thing with boys.
Sometimes they get bullied, sometimes they get picked on, sometimes they cope with it.
But we all know boys who when they're young, again, five, eight, ten, twelve, they're doing girly things.
There are boys who like to play with dolls.
Parents see it, they overreact.
In some cases, they're mortified.
Oh my goodness, what's wrong with him?
I go back and think about the uh what were the dolls that came out?
The uh the beanie babies.
There were boys that were collecting the beanie babies, and we looked at those boys as why they're girls.
The boy isn't interested in sports, he doesn't want to play, he's doing all of these girl things.
He wants to have long hair.
He likes doing dress up.
He's a girl.
He identifies as a girl.
These kids are now being raised as girls.
In many cases, they grow out of it.
They're not girls.
They just have interests that are not traditionally those of boys.
Kids are intrigued by all sorts of things, and every child is unique.
And a lot of boys are into girl things, and a lot of girls are into boy things, and they might identify a little bit more.
A boy might identify a little bit more doing girl things.
That does not mean that that boy is a girl.
What we have now, though, are parents who see the behavior of the child, see a boy that's into girl stuff, or a girl that's into boy stuff, and start raising them as a member of the opposite sex because that's what their interest seems to be.
Well, he just has always identified as a boy, or she is always identified as a girl, and they're sending those kids to school and saying, okay, my son may be a male anatomically.
But she, and they'll call their son a she, feels more comfortable as a girl, and they're insisting that the schools accommodate them in that fashion.
Well, you can imagine what a jolt this is to the other boys and girls when someone who they know is a boy is functioning as a girl and the school is told to accommodate that.
I think that this is almost child abuse to go and take children at this young of an age and reverse their genders.
And I don't mean surgically, but I mean emotionally.
The vast majority of boys who are kind of girly when they are kids, become men.
And the vast majority of girls who were boyish or tomboyish and into guy things when they were young, become women.
This whole movement of transgender rights ought to be an adult thing, making permanent determinations about the gender of a child and treating boys as girls and treating girls as boys at this young of an age, I think is a terrible mistake.
I also think it's an awful mistake if you have a boy that's kind of interested in girls' things to insist that he man up, insists that he play football, insists that he take on interest that he doesn't have.
We're all different people.
It's remarkable how time allows a person to develop and eventually they move off into the direction that you might have wanted to get them anyway.
If we allow these children that are develop at their own pace rather than act as though, every 11-year-old kid is Bruce Jenner, I think we'd be better off.
Anyway, that's what's behind this issue in Wisconsin, where we're trying to uphold some type of traditional it's not even so much a value as a behavior, and saying that when you're a kid, you ought to use the bathroom that your anatomy would dictate, not how you're identifying.
And I think that this growing trend, and it is growing, there's lots of children being raised this way is being allowed to essentially become a different gender is a terrible mistake.
And the pe parents that are doing it, because they love their children, I think are not helping them.
And the school officials that are allowing kids to be whatever gender they say this week that they are, because they are compassionate and open-minded, I think are not helping them as well.
One other point on this.
In the debate in Wisconsin, those of us who have argued against allowing children to identify with whatever gender they want, we're being told that we are not compassionate, that we're haters, that we're rigid, that we don't know what it's like.
They always do that.
They always take the conservative position and say that it is uncaring and unfeeling whatsoever.
Well, maybe the compassionate thing is to be open-minded about the direction that that child has.
Maybe the person who lacks compassion is the one who simply is allowing a child to dictate what gender they are.
Maybe the greater emotional harm is going to come from the people on the other side, not our side.
Just because you have a different point of view and don't think the children ought to be allowed to make life-altering decision at this age doesn't mean that you lack compassion.
It's just that we happen to disagree with you.
The ultimate bigotry of the left, out of all of their bigotries, is the argument that people on the right are haters.
That because we have the stance that we have, it's because we hate people.
We don't care.
No, we just think that your ideas are wrong and stupid and don't help.
They claim to have a monopoly on compassion.
The only monopoly they have is on stupidity.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush.
The call screening software has crashed.
Should I make this another claim?
That would never happen if Rush was here.
Uh let's go to s let's go to Salem, Oregon.
Tim, it's your turn on EIB with me, the guest host, Mark Belling.
Hi, Mark.
I haven't voted for president in over 40 years.
What I did is I chose for the I chose the one that would cause the least amount of damage of two candidates.
I didn't want either one of them.
According to Gala, 51% of registered and eligible voters don't vote.
And when I talk to people about this election, the vote is based on whether they like the candidate or not.
As far as Trump, I might agree with the question.
Yeah, let me uh let me comment on what you what you had to say.
So in other words, you're saying you vote, you just don't necessarily vote for someone you find the least all least objectionable alternative that that's the one that you choose.
You know what you're really describing, Tim?
That's kind of life, isn't it?
Most of the decisions that we make in life, we choose the path that might be the least objectionable of the two.
You know, there are a lot of people who didn't vote for uh Romney on the last election.
They said that they didn't like this, that, or the other thing, and we got saddled with these nightmarish remaining four years of Barack Obama.
A defensive vote counts exactly the same as a passionate committed vote.
It's simply a choice that we have to make, and it's like anything else in life.
I mean, sometimes there are three things that you have to choose between, and you don't really want to do any of them, but you feel as though you have to do one of them.
Uh, what else were you going to say?
Okay, he's gone.
Let's try Des Moines Iowa and Mike.
Mike, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, good hear from you.
Um, I was responding to a comment earlier about the amount of money companies spend training employees or even fining them for that matter.
And I was wondering how about we give uh uh tax money that goes toward, you know, child's dead and defaults, right?
Defaults and all that student loans, give it to you like the association of plumbers or welders or whatever, and let them find and identify those high school kids that are better suited for whatever, you know, that and And give them an incentive to do a good job at that.
And I bet they could do it a lot cheaper than what we're spending on uh college education and default rates.
Yeah, the the whole issue of retraining that the feds talk about, and whenever a company goes out of business, we do retraining.
I think that there's value for that for people who've been in a field for fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, now their company, you know, an autoplan or something is shut down.
They need other skills.
I don't have a quarrel with that.
When you talk about young people, it really has to do with what they choose to gravitate toward.
You know, a lot of the unions have apprenticeship programs where they train people in the trades that they're in.
Sometimes they resent the fact that the emplo that the individual goes off and works for a non-union employer, but they're all responding to a need to train people to do work like this.
We have a world in which I just think that we have a lot of people who look down their noses at certain types of jobs and feel it isn't for them.
Whatever your position on the immigration problem, some of the illegal immigrants are coming here to do work that Americans prefer not to do at the rate of pay that they're going to be paid to do it.
Others come here to create problems and live off of the country.
But some are coming here for actual work.
Now, those types of jobs, the grunt jobs that nobody is going to be attracted to are one thing.
When you take it though to the next level, when we're importing people to be techies or engineers because there's a shortage of them, that's a real problem.
And I think that we are selling college as the solution for every single young person, whereas in fact, it isn't.
The cost of college has exploded and is out of control because of the poor workloads of some of the professors, the huge infrastructures that they build.
So we charge a fortune and we tell young people, well, it don't matter, just put it all in a student loan, just borrow all of the money, you'll be just fine.
You'll go into a field, you'll make a hundred thousand dollars instantly.
Some do, most do not.
I would like to see more government officials talk about the skills gap and push people on doing the good old-fashioned American jobs that our country has done forever.
I'm telling you right now, if you find somebody that's in their twenties and they're going into any of these construction fields, it's almost always because they're familiar with it from their family.
That's what their dad did.
Someone like that.
Others, they're missing out on a great opportunity.
Mark Belling in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for rush.
Can't leave without sharing with you my favorite headline of the weekend.
This is from the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. urges Turkey to seal Syria border.
Well, if anybody shouldn't be lecturing somebody else on sealing their border.
I mean, does it even occur to Obama how buffoonish those comments seem?
Well, we need Turkey to seal its border.
Sorry, too many people are coming.
Oh, and since they're urging them to seal that border, I guess that means it's possible.
What do you want them to do?
Build a fence.
So way too many refugees are getting out of Syria, crossing into Turkey, and then going to Europe.
That's a problem.
So we want Syria to seal its border.
I guess that's something that they feel they're capable of doing, and they want them to do it now, not five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty years.
They want them to seal their borders.
Huh.
Anyway, thanks for listening.
My name is Mark Belling.
▲
Export Selection