All Episodes
Previous Next
July 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
July 22, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Now that I have your attention, let's get into the meat of the uh program here.
It's Open Line Friday.
We're taking uh your calls as well on issues that maybe have not been touched on as much as you would have liked in this uh previous week here, something that you feel needs a little more exploration at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I've got a number of those myself, so uh don't let me monopolize it.
Jump in here at 1-800-282-2882.
I do want to tell you I've got a great kick out of this uh Gitmo, the Club Gitmo Gallery at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Keep those pictures coming.
I gotta tell you, there's some funny stuff up there.
People buying the Club Gitmo uh gear at the EIB store at Rush Limbaugh.com and then emailing photos.
Wearing the club Gitmo gear in various poses.
Oh my.
Club Gitmo at Rushlinbaugh.com.
Uh club, this is where you send it, Club Gitmo at Rush Limbaugh.com.
And it gets posted.
It's updated daily.
There's some new stuff up there just this morning.
Um and uh by the way, this is fun.
While Rush is away, the uh program will be podcasting the guest host shows for members of Rush 24-7, and there'll be some all kinds of additional podcast uh podcast uh bonus materials, including exclusive audio of Russia's unedited interview with Rudy Giuliani.
Print interview is coming up the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
So again, if you're in the Rush 24-7, you get all of that.
We're taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
Now, the the uh Kilo versus Hartford case that I brought to your attention the last time I was guest hosting this program is the day that the Supreme Court came down with this case saying that the homes in Hartford, Connecticut could be taken basically to make way for a parking lot for uh Pfizer, not Hartford.
New London.
All right, New London.
Hey, I live in San Diego.
What do I know?
Anyway, this is um this is how they handle it in China.
Uh three hundred men, this is from the Washington Post of July 22nd uh today.
The the uh 300 men wielding shotguns, clubs, and pipes, attacked a group of farmers, the men, by the way, apparently were from the local communist party, attacked a group of farmers in this small village of Sheng Yu, about uh a hundred miles.
No, I have no idea how to pronounce it.
A hundred miles southwest of Beijing.
The 300 men attacked these farmers who had been sitting in pitched tents on this sixty-seven-acre piece of property that they had been farming, resisting demands to surrender it to the government so that it could be used for a facility for storing coal ash for the nearby state-owned power plant.
In other words, the government wanted to take private property for this public use.
Now, they didn't go into court, and they didn't have ACLU attorneys, and they didn't go to the Supreme Court, and they didn't go through all of this paper shuffling.
They sent 300 goons down there with shotguns and pipes and to take the farmers out.
The farmers stood their ground.
And this became big news because apparently it's not the only instance of the Communist Party's, and I'm quoting from the Washington Post this morning, Communist Party's inability to deal with a growing problem in the countryside, that is the seizure of farmland by local officials to build roads, dams, factories, and other projects, often for personal profit.
You see, if they just had a Supreme Court, they would have known how to handle this.
Just five to four, and you can do what you want to do, and you guys will like it.
Yikes.
The farmers are standing up for their property rights in China, but not in the United States.
1-800-282-2882.
Uh and while all of this uh interesting stuff is going on, the reporters in the White House cannot get over the Carl well, one of them any.
I just single out for this purpose the wonderful Helen Thomas, who cannot get over.
Cannot get over rove.
Listen to this.
This is Scott McClellan being pummeled again yesterday in the press briefing.
Uh this is after the bombs go off in London, all that other stuff.
The fourth question to McClellan is this exchange.
Why does uh Carl Rule still have security uh clearance and access to classified documents when he has been revealed as a leaker of a secret agent, according to Time Magazine's uh correspondent.
Well, there is an investigation that continues, and I think the president has made it clear that we're not gonna prejudge the outcome of that investigation.
We already have the two.
We're not gonna prejudge the outcome of the investigation through we have access to security.
Through media reports, and these questions came up over the last week.
As I was trying to tell you, uh these questions have been answered.
So there you go.
I mean, that's funny stuff.
I mean, she's now become a parody of herself.
It might as well be Saturday Night Live.
Gosh, great stuff.
All right.
To the phones.
Here's Charlie in Long Island, New York.
Charlie, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, how are you doing, Roger?
Normally I love the Rush show, but I guess your one cop your one blanket statement kind of upset me about I guess you kind of assume that all cops are overpaid in an F. Well, I'll tell you what, uh my uh experience out here, and particularly in these LA things, is that uh they they need to go to the range a few more times.
Uh I agree with you.
I'd agree with you and I'm sure it's more a department that just doesn't have the time to send them because they're spending their average day handling uh I'm sure millions of calls from the balking dogs to the violent family domestic overworked and underpaid.
The guys that ran in there with the pistols and the bulletproof vests that were like shirts against fully automatic weapons and the bank robbery in LA, I didn't see them driving the other way.
I didn't see you know the armed civilians coming out with their hunting rifles to help them.
As far as I know uh police officers are not you know terrorism experts.
They're not psychologists, they're not lawyers, they're not social workers, they're not paramedics, yet they do all those jobs and you know obviously you can't pay anyone enough, including the military to make the sacrifices to lay down their life.
So obviously when you look at it and you know the person isn't doing something they're overpaid but then when they do something, I guess people do feel bad like, you know, the over 200 police officers killed a year, over 15,000 in the past hundred uh years uh I guess then they're underpaid.
Is that correct?
Charlie let me tell you something.
I'm tired of this whining okay it's a lot of the and Charlie listen to me.
I'm tired of the uh politicians who have made wimps out of cops.
I'm tired of the judges who have who have manicled cops and not allowed them to be cops.
I don't want you to be a psychologist.
I don't want you to be a social worker.
I don't want you to be a politician.
I don't want you to be a mediator.
I want you to get bad guys and put them in jail.
That's foreign then people need to stand up for police officers when these things happen instead of all the policies that are out there about you know you can't profile, you can't solve this fun, you can't do this if what happened in Fallujah with the military or the military guy who shot the guy on the ground happened in the United States, the cops that have done that and I support what they did in Fluja that was absolutely necessary that they thought the guy had a gun and he was still dating if that happened in the United States they'd all be in jail.
They all would have been sued it you know you don't go out and blame the police departments if they don't have whether it's the training or they'll be the duality we're agree we're in agreement.
We are absolutely in agreement Charlie that's a you need you need to put some with a pistol against a machine gun we'll go do that we have to in that tube came in with a gun up according to eyewitnesses a handgun took this guy down and shot him five times in the head.
No questions asked he's a terrorist he's dead that's the kind of cop I want on every street corner in every town in this country.
I'm tired of cops who are counselors I'm tired of being understanding I'm ti I'm tired of all of that uh baloney.
I want cops who are going to arrest bad guys, and if they resist, shoot them.
I agree with you, but that's not what this country is going to allow.
Ah, that's the problem, Charlie.
As far as my understanding of London, if the average police officer does not carry a gun, he doesn't need it, it's not as dangerous in that sense.
That's their first shooting for the year, as far as my understanding.
That, I'm sure, was a specially trained special operations officer, and that's his job.
He's not supposed to go out there and handle all the nonsense.
You know what, I'll find out, Charlie, how much he's making, and I bet it's less than you are.
Is that what it's about?
So, do we get extra money then?
know Charlie here's what I'm saying all I hear from cops all the time is how overworked they are and how underpaid they are and how nobody pays any attention to them and they're asked to do too many jobs.
I'm f I'm in favor cutting through all that and saying you're absolutely right let's get cops back to doing cops jobs.
I I'm all for that just remember I mean you can look up the statistics our average life m life expectancy is a lot shorter than the average person.
And I guess that's because you know we're too busy eating donuts.
I'm sure that's the excuse has nothing to do with the stress on the you know the everyday job on the things that we do handle.
The fact of the matter is we're not going to be able to Let me ask you a question, Charlie.
Let me ask you a question.
Are you stressed out in your job because you're facing bad guys or because you're second guessing your decisions because you're afraid you're going to get retaliation from your superiors and the politicians?
I would go with the second one 100%.
Charlie, I'm with you 100%, and I appreciate the call.
1-800-282-2882.
Scott in Riverside California, you're next on the Rush Program.
Hi.
Hey, Roger, thanks for taking my call.
Sure, thanks for calling, Scott.
I'm a conservative.
I'm a constitutionalist, and I I wanted to ask you your opinion.
Why do you think that the supposedly conservative party, the Republicans, are five to one in favor at this point of selling out our sovereignty again, selling selling out the Constitution again and uh signing on to this CAFTA?
What part of the Constitution are we selling out to if we sign the uh Central American Free Trade Agreement with these small countries in Central America?
What part of the Constitution are we violating?
The same part that we violated when we signed on to NAFTA, and that's the part that gives Congress, I don't know the exact provision provision, but it gives Congress and only Congress the power to regulate trade, not some international bureaucracy.
The regulation the the Congress is entitled to sign treaties, right?
Yeah, treaties, uh, but not they're not allowed to sign over their own power.
They're allowed to sign treaties.
Well, now wait a minute.
Well, in the Constitution that the founders wrote, treaties are the quote, supreme law of the land, unquote, correct?
Um no, the constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Really?
Yeah.
Well, you got to go back and read the founders' uh constitution, Scott, because treaties, uh, when they're signed, all the time sign over some authority, whether it's NATO, uh, whether it's uh even a a treaty of extradition between two countries where you're gonna extradite criminals, you give over some of your right to uh to to control those criminals, you send them to the other country requesting them.
That's what treaties do, and treaties are allowed in the Constitution.
So again, I challenge you to tell me what is it about CAFTA?
Because there may be some things.
I'm not saying there's not, but I challenge you to get precise with me.
What is it about CAFTA that's unconstitutional?
With it in the case of NAFTA, for example, when we had the trade dispute with Canada over steel or uh uh lumber, one of the two, I can't remember.
It was a tariff situation, and NAFTA came in and said the United States cannot do this, and they ruled and they made law.
They also have the power to Canada didn't do that.
No, no, no, no.
Canada did not do that.
There there is a there is a mechanism between the countries where we have representatives on this on these groups that work out these trade disagreements, but that's all done by by treaty that's been signed that's been voted on by Congress and signed by the President.
Again, Scott, I I I appreciate what you're saying, and there may well be some issues in CAFTA.
I don't like the illegal alien parts of it, I don't like some parts of it.
But I'll tell you what, overall, the process of signing treaties to make trade freer so that we can create more jobs and more wealth, because that's what free trade does, is a constitutional process.
Now, again, maybe other callers can point me to specifics that are not constitutional.
I'd love to hear it.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
Let's take a break and be back on open line Friday with your call next after this.
Goodbye, Hawaii.
Goodbye, Hawaii.
That's the title of an editorial I read in the uh Wall Street Journal, and it's I followed up with some research.
It seems there's been a bill introduced.
Why don't I hear about these things?
Hawaii's Democratic Senator Daniel Akaka.
AKAKA.
And Republican Governor Linda Lingle as well, supporting him.
He's introduced a bill.
Uh the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which would apparently grant de facto sovereignty to the 400 or so thousand people who identify themselves as Native Hawaiians.
Now, the proponents say this is just a gesture to the Native Hawaiians by giving them parity with Native Americans by calling them a tribe under federal law.
Um The Office of Hawaiian Affairs in the state of Hawaii has said that the terms of the bill uh under the terms of the bill, this new tribe, the Hawaiian tribe, could declare, quote, complete legal and territorial independence from the United States and the re-establishment of a Hawaiian nation state, unquote.
Roll over Jefferson Davis.
Good grief.
Here we go again.
Secession.
Now, these 400,000, I've been to Hawaii many times, 400,000.
There are almost I'm going to just give this to you straight, and you can just take it for what it is.
There are almost no 100% native Hawaiians.
Because Hawaii has been washed over by all kinds of other people, various different kinds of Polynesians, Japanese, Chinese, whites, what have you.
In fact, Hawaii is the most r mixed race place in the in the country.
Talk about diversity.
What happened that caused the problem is that radical leftists have seized upon the issue of Hawaiian rights to command kind of a the the natural the natural empathy people have to the natives who are there.
When you go to Hawaii, you try to pronounce these Hawaiian names.
They're kind of cool.
You have this whole Hawaiian history, uh Kamehameha, and uh all those other people in a Hawaiian history, and it's kind of interesting.
But 400,000?
No.
No.
Because that all came about in the U.S. Census.
In the U.S. Census, the census people said, so what race are you?
You know, which is this crazy thing anyway.
Well, I'm 23 races.
No, you can't say you've got to pick one.
One?
Oh, but I'm 23.
No, one.
Okay, I pick one.
Native Hawaiian.
I love that.
I love native Hawaiians, so I'm a native Hawaiian.
So under this bill, somebody who is what?
Now they're going to devise a racial test.
One twenty-eighth native Hawaiian, one sixteenth native Hawaiian.
Who gets into this group that suddenly has the right under this bill, apparently, to declare independence of the United States, to seize land, to question the title of all land held in the Hawaiian Islands by everybody who's out there?
It's crazy.
If it's not seizing land, then uh if they're going to have all legal rights as native Hawaiians, does that mean they have their own court system, their own rights under that court system?
Well, and further than that, are they going to go back to the real Hawaiian rules?
Let me tell you something about the old Hawaiian rules, for example, that modern Hawaiians may find a little strange.
There was a nobility in the native Hawaiian population called the Aliyi.
The Aliy had their own place, their own pathways, their own beaches, their own fish farms, their own huts.
And the commoners could not go there on pain of death.
If you walked in the sha, if your shadow as a commoner fell on a le'i, you were killed.
There was strict taboo, strict caste system.
Women were goats, uh, you know, were treated like goat.
Women didn't look like goat, but they were treated like goats.
Uh the the whole the whole thing was a feudal tribal stone age hierarchy, uh, which didn't become a nation-state, by the way.
Every little canyon in uh Maui and Hawaii had um a separate king, and they were constantly fighting each other.
Uh Kamehameha the Great united the country.
Why?
Because he got uh whiskey and firearms from the uh white traders, just like we gave to every other Indian group.
Uh the only re- I mean, you know, Custer wasn't killed at Little Bighorn by stone clubs.
Uh so the the Hawaiians conquered the Kamehameha from Oahu, conquered all the other islands because he had guns.
And the other ones, well, didn't have as many or as good or whatever it was.
So now we have the so-called nation-state of Hawaii.
It wouldn't have been a nation-state without Kamehameha and the contact with 19th century technology in those days.
But the uh the the notion now that we're going to resurrect a mythical nation-state for Hawaiians is just an attempt to, well, I think, again, uh de-disestablished, de-establish the United States of America in every way you can, whether it's the Reconquista in the Southwest by Mexicans reclaiming Oslan, whether it's uh, you know, I don't know what, but this Hawaiian thing is the latest.
And uh and pretty soon the whole notion of the United States is going to be unconstitutional.
Pretty soon Congress is gonna be passing laws uh giving back this, that, and the other.
Why don't we give back the Louisiana Purchase to Napoleon?
After all, we we flim-flammed him out of that one.
If it wasn't for Haiti and the revolt down there, and uh and uh the the the uh the casualties.
Why the French press was in an uproar.
The casualties in this French revolt uh in in uh Haiti against the French soldiers by the Haitians.
That's what caused uh the uh Mr. Napoleon to get soured on the whole North American ideal and give away, can you imagine give away the Louisiana purchase?
They want it back.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for rush today on open line Friday.
Let's get to the calls.
Tony in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hi, Tony.
Welcome to the show.
Hi, how are you doing?
Good.
Hey, I'd like to give you a little Las Vegas perspective on that Hawaii uh sovereignty thing.
Yeah.
I think it's to establish uh gaming over there.
I mean, once once a lot of these uh Indian tribes and and Native Americans establish sovereignty, you can bet that a casino will not be far behind.
Well, Tony, I didn't want to say that in my initial analysis, but my information from Hawaii is that's exactly what's happening.
Well, of course it is.
And they're going to seize land for a sovereign Hawaiian land with their own independence and blah, blah, blah, in order to put up casinos.
They're not trying to go back to the to the huts and the fish farms and uh and all of that.
I mean, they're going to the the you know, what what else would they do except it's for money?
Follow the money, Roger.
That's it.
Follow the money.
Now, of course, Tony, if uh if if the pattern holds true that that held true in the uh gaming uh Indian gaming casinos here in California, most of them are now controlled by business interests from uh your part of the country.
I'm sure they'll get their fingers into it somehow.
Their fair share, Tony.
Fair share.
Thanks for the call.
1-800-282-2882.
So the implication is that this Hawaii sovereignty thing from the standpoint of the money people is simply a scam to get casinos into Hawaii unregulated by anybody, much like uh California.
Um the same time, the Chinese, by the way, are threatening to shut down Macau, the former Portuguese colony on the mainland of China near uh Hong Kong, which was notorious for its casinos, uh, because they're not getting a fair share of that one.
Follow the money is always a good rule.
Here's uh Dion uh is it Dion on a cell phone in Cleveland, Ohio.
Hi there.
Hi, Roger.
Uh, thanks for taking my call here.
Um I want to ask you a question and then I'll just hang up and listen to your response.
You don't want to debate it?
No, no, I just want to I I want some information.
I want to find out what uh what this means.
Uh I was flipping through some radio stations earlier today, and I heard on the news about the Chinese um uh they plan to float their currency against the U.S. currency.
And uh whatever that means exactly, and what would be the implications of that to our country?
Uh could you explain that?
Uh Dean, I'm gonna give it a stab.
I'm no financial advisor, I'm no expert on these matters, but let me give you a stab from my political uh point of view.
Okay, thanks.
I'll hang up and listen.
All right, all right, Dean, thanks.
Uh the uh Chinese had pegged their wan, uh Y U A N, which is their currency, to the dollar, so many Wan per dollar years and years ago, and they kept that peg, even though the Wan grew a lot stronger because the Chinese economy is growing at nine or ten percent a year.
Ours is growing very well, but only at three, three and a half.
The dollar got relatively weaker to the one in the world market, but the one the Chinese kept the Wan at certain number of won per dollar.
The net effect of that was that uh American and other uh interests went into China, built a lot of factories, built a lot of infrastructure because the currency was stabilized.
They knew what the picture was.
The American currency, though, started to get weak because of the Wan now, because they were selling uh their stuff in the United States.
They were taking those dollars that they earned in the United States to China, they're buying treasury basically with it.
They're holding a huge portion of American debt now, just as the Japanese in past times, notably in the eighties were holding a huge percentage of American debt at that time.
Uh And it's making the uh dollar even weaker.
So the thought was China was trying to gain a political advantage by weakening the U.S. even as they were selling us all this stuff and then using the dollars not only to buy our securities, but to buy weapons from Russia, anti-aircraft carrier missiles and all the rest of that that we know about.
So they looked more like in other words, Japan didn't use that money to re-arm.
Japan was a democracy and an ally, and when they had their money, it was kind of an economic issue, but it wasn't a political issue.
China's a political issue because they're rearming.
They have 700 missiles aimed at Taiwan.
That's like one every three square feet.
Well, okay, not that much.
But anyway, this you get the idea.
Uh it is a little bit dangerous to be trading with someone who has a huge imbalance of trade, has a fixed currency, they're making a ton of money off of you, and there are benefits to the consumer because we've kept inflation down with cheap goods.
There are benefits, uh, there are detriments to workers because jobs have gone offshore.
There's all kinds of back and forth.
So what's the question about the wan?
What happened when they said, okay, we will take off the peg and the one will float.
What does that mean?
Well, it means that the one will be valued at so many one in a basket of currencies, including the euro and other currencies.
So on any given day, the one is bid in a free market as so many wan per dollar, so many wan per euro, et cetera, and they'll accept that as a free floating number that will change over time.
Here's the problem.
The Chinese are never going to opt for freedom as long as they're run by the Communist Party.
The Communist Party says we will float up to 5%.
We will not float any more than that.
The thought is that the one would get uh revalued up.
Okay.
The problem is it's going to probably revalue down because it is gaining strength against the euro as well.
Uh and uh so if the euro's in the basket, that means that maybe the the wand doesn't have to, doesn't have to revalue.
So it was an attempt to get the political heat, this idea, well, we're going to float the wand now.
We've we've acceded to your request in the United States.
We don't want to be seen as anti-U.S.
We're good trading partners.
So we're going to float our currency, and we will not be, in effect, attacking the U.S. dollar.
And by the way, we're going to do it in a way that probably will strengthen our wan to even be more of an attack on the U.S. dollar than it was when it was pegged.
Don't ever, ever, ever underestimate the subtlety, the sophistication of the Chinese.
They've been at this for 4,000 years.
We've been at it for a little over 200.
They have had no reformation, no renaissance.
Uh they have no particular religion, by the way.
Uh it's the only large group of human beings on the planet that for the most part are not driven by or governed by a moral-based religion.
They don't have one.
And they didn't have one before the communist.
They don't like to admit this kind of stuff.
They didn't have one.
They had something called Confucianism, which was a code of ethics.
It was like your local political code of ethics for the city council.
But the religion, no.
Now, there were Buddhists in China.
There were other kinds of religions.
But they were the minority.
Most Chinese do not belong to a religion per se.
And didn't before the communists got there.
So these are people who have been 4,000 years into, I mean, they make Machiavelli uh look obvious.
So when you when they do something, it is always to their benefit.
If you take that as your assumption, then you can trace it back.
It's like follow the money.
You have to follow the myriad little intertwined avenues of what are the Chinese up to now?
Because they're always up to their self-interest.
You can always count on that.
I think I told the story when I was on this show before of being in China and having been guided through the uh the great square there, Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
And uh in Tiananmen Square, which is huge.
Uh At one end is the forbidden city where the emperor used to live.
And on the side over here is the is the new uh great hall of the people built by Mao for their uh rubber stamp Congress.
And in the middle of this thing is his uh big tomb, you know, like some emperor uh in the middle of the So anyway, I'm and the guide's pointing all these things out, and we're talking about this time, and I'm listening.
She's perfect.
I mean, they know these people are so educated, they know every emperor back to the mist of time, the dawn of time, and what everyone meant to in the whole history, they know their history down to the last minute.
We don't even know in what century the civil war took place anymore.
And we only have two hundred years to cover.
They have 4,000 years.
Okay, so this guide, very intelligent young woman, and I'm saying, okay, I have a question.
Why is this square here?
And she gives me a puzzled look and she goes, well, um, I don't understand the question.
No, I mean, why why is it why isn't it, you know, five miles that way or down in the south, or why is this square here in this particular location?
And she said, Oh, I understand your question now.
Because this square is the center of the planet, the center of the universe.
She was translating obviously some Chinese words in her head into something close to that in in English, but that's what she told me.
It's the center of the universe.
That's how they think of themselves.
The middle kingdom.
You can call it communist, you can call it whatever you want to.
Their basic mentality is they are the center of the world, and everything else eventually revolves around them or should.
And once you understand that about the Chinese, then you understand a whole lot of other things are going on there as well.
All right.
Roger Hedgecock Info Rush Limbaugh, and uh we'll take a short break, come back on Open Line Friday with your calls and whatever you want to talk about.
Enough of me.
1-800-282-2882.
Don't forget Club Gitmo at Rushlimbaugh.com, back after this.
And here's the most serious thing anybody's ever said in the American media about the Chinese.
They are preparing for war against the United States.
And anybody who doesn't believe that hasn't been paying attention.
Uh the and we don't like to face these kinds of ugly realities, but uh I guess everybody heard about the Chinese general who said uh in a reported comment that China would nuke hundreds, as he put it, of American cities if the U.S. interfered with a Chinese attempt to conquer Taiwan.
The Chinese within two years will invade Taiwan if they do not take it by diplomacy.
That has been said by our uh own administration sources, and now comes the Chinese saying if you try to defend Taiwan as your treaty requires, hundreds of American cities will be nuked.
Now, saber rattling is saber rattling, and maybe it means something and maybe it doesn't mean anything, but something is afoot.
Two colonels in the uh people's liberation army in 1998 co-authored, and I won't attempt their names, uh, co-authored a treatise entitled, quote, unrestricted warfare, unquote.
This treatise has made the rounds in its English translation to the U.S. National Security Establishment and is well known.
The public has no idea.
The treatise Unrestricted Warfare recognizes the impossibility of challenging the United States on our own terms.
In other words, they are not going to try to hit our F-35 joint strike fighter at 35 billion or whatever it is apiece, but some uh astronomical amount.
What they are going to do, and this is the quote from the English language version of unrestricted warfare, where they uh are writing approvingly of the tactics of Al-Qaeda, the Colombian drug lords, the computer hackers, who operate, says the treatise, outside the quote bandwidths understood by the American military, unquote.
These two envision in this treatise, unrestricted warfare, a scenario in which a network attack against the enemy, that's us, would be carried out, quote, so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network, and mass media network are completely paralyzed, unquote, Leading to, quote, social panic, street riots, and a political crisis, unquote.
Only then would conventional military force be deployed, quote, until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty, unquote.
This is not loose talk.
And I'm indebted to Max Boot in his op-ed piece on this subject.
This is not loose talk.
This is a strategy being implemented as we speak, and part of it is the currency, part of it is the trade.
You talk about dependency, 75% of our toys are made in China.
I don't want to scare anybody, but Christmas is coming up.
But even aside from those superficialities, when you see a military buying anti-U.S.
force weapons from the Russians, including destroyers that were designed by the Russians to take out American aircraft carriers, then you know that it isn't just hit or miss, we just want to feel better about ourselves as the self-esteem builder.
No.
No.
There's a plan afoot.
They've printed it.
How many Americans in the 1930s ignored Hitler's book?
What was the name of it?
Huh?
Oh, yeah, Mein Kampf.
I even forgot.
I ignored it now.
Mein Kampf.
How many Americans it was printed in English, in which he said, I'm gonna kill all the Jews.
I'm gonna invade, you know, I'm gonna defeat, I'm gonna He said it all.
We ignored it.
The Chinese have just printed their entire plan to force us to sign, quote, a dishonorable peace treaty, unquote.
We ignore it at our peril.
Let's go to Doug and Huma, Arizona.
Doug, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, Roger, how are you?
Okay, Doug.
Thank you.
I've got a couple questions for you.
The uh the caller earlier that talked about deporting the families of these terrorists that are hitting uh London and stuff, and and likewise in the United States.
We need to look deeper than than Muslim Paris in this country.
We need to look at the uh the vast majority of our Hispanic gangs and in our big cities are illegal aliens.
Why aren't we why aren't we looking at the same philosophy there and saying, hey, we need to, because the Mexican people are just as in tune to their family as the Muslim people are in tune to their family.
And and it's a it's a perpetual cycle when you have these kids that are gang members are typically following this cycle that their parents have set for them.
So what if that's the if that's the case and you're in agreement with that, are you also in agreement of attacking the gang problems and the domestic terrorists in the United States in the same fashion?
Well, Doug, I can only go on my experience on this one because the Mexicans are a different story.
They've become Americanized in our area, at least in California, where the kids who enter the gangs may or may not be influenced by uh their family.
In fact, in many cases, the families are horrified uh that the kids have gone this way and other siblings are uh, you know, going on to college uh while uh gang members are doing what they're doing.
So I don't uh see the same kind of uh, you know, primitive, if you will, tribalism uh involved, although it's um, you know, found.
Uh I I can't make the same kind of generalities as I think I can safely make with Middle Eastern type folks who have this kind of very much stronger tribal and family affiliation where they don't even make uh judgments about who they're gonna marry uh when uh, you know, in the Mexican family are modernized enough that I know that uh they make all those decisions themselves.
You can't hold the individuals accountable and not necessarily look at the at the total support system.
So I don't know about all that, but I tell you, uh uh let me throw that one on its head because this judge in Phoenix uh said that U.S. immigration judge John Richardson threw out a deportation case against four students who had gone to Canada and then come back, through out the the uh deportation uh because he said the agents who questioned the Arizona students did it on their Hispanic appearance.
It was profiling, and you shouldn't do that illegally in the country.
Who cares?
I'm Roger Hedgecock, back after this.
If you needed another reason to admire George W. Bush uh personally, here it is.
Now I I say this because I'm his same age.
Bush can bench press 185 pounds five times and before his recent knee injury, he can run, he ran three miles at a six minute forty-five second pace.
I can run that three miles, but I'm more in the neighborhood of nine to ten, and a hundred and eighty-five pounds five times, not on my best day.
▲
Export Selection