All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
September 19, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying for two reasons.
One is the relentless unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
The other is an ongoing optimism and a vision of opportunity at every turn.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and this is the EIB network.
I am America's Anchorman, a harmless, lovable little fuzzball, L. Rushball, also known affectionately as the Maha Rushi, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila Hun Chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number is uh 800 282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
It's our fifth anniversary of Rush 24-7 today, folks.
Actually, last week we were celebrating it all week long, but actually for its fifth anniversary.
We posted it uh late last week, and we're getting we're getting tons of great ideas, uh, emails from subscribers who want to add their own ideas to the limbaugh plan for rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
We're getting a lot of ideas, some of them serious, some of them funny, all from 24-7 uh uh members.
Uh and uh, you know, we we have a we have a special sign-up now.
Uh you'll get five free weeks.
Uh it's it's hard to believe it's been five years for rush 24-7 for the website, but it has been.
And a special sign-up deal now.
Five free weeks.
A deal is being offered to uh new subscribers.
Well, it folks, uh, it looks like for the second straight week, Donovan McNabb played like a white quarterback.
That's a quote from me, not me.
That is a quote today from Bill Conlin in the Philadelphia Daily News.
And I I had to mention this to you.
I can't tell you the number of people have sent.
Did I give you a heart failure in there, Brian?
Brian goes, oh no, no.
I didn't say it.
Bill Conlin, a white guy at the Philadelphia Daily News, starts his column for the second straight week.
Donovan McNabb played like a white quarterback.
Last Monday night, uh, did an excellent imitation of Ryan Leif.
Yesterday, he did a more than passable imitation of Joe Montana.
Now, Conlin's point later on in the column is this.
It's past time to end the QB stereotype debate.
We agreed decades ago that Sinatra and Ray Charles are both dynamite singers.
Donovan McNabb can now pass and he can run with the best backs in the NFL when he wants to or is forced to.
He's one hell of a quarterback.
Uh so let's let's let's just say that he's no longer a black quarterback.
The stereotype of black quarterbacks is they don't pass, they run.
Uh and something I have never mentioned, by the way, uh on this program, but Bill Conlin finally gets it out there in Philadelphia in the media.
Donovan McNabb played like a white quarterback for the past two weeks.
Okay.
See what happens with this now that I have uh mentioned it.
See how many mentions of this also quote the source.
What, Mr. Snurley?
What are you what are you looking at me with a point?
Um, I know there won't be.
There won't be a gaggle of reporters uh around this guy for for doing this.
He'll be praised.
He'll be praised more than likely.
I if they if they do anything.
I don't know.
We'll wait and see if uh anything happens.
Do you folks, do you know that we are winning the war in uh in Iraq?
We're winning the war.
Right right here in the Washington Post uh by reporter named Ellen Nickmeyer using enemy body counts as a benchmark.
Excuse me, folks.
Again, I should tell you I'm under the weather today, a slight fever, uh uh bordering on the flu here, and I'm but I'm I'm uh I think I'm on the downside of this.
It came up on Saturday, but I may have a hacking cough now and then.
So I uh uh beg your indulgence.
Using enemy body counts as a benchmark, the U.S. military claimed gains against Abu Mousab Zerkawi's foreign-led fighters last week, even as they mounted their deadliest attacks on Iraq's capital.
But by many standards, Zarkawi's group could claim to be the side that's gaining after two and a half years of war.
August was the third deadliest month, for third deadliest month of the uh war for U.S. troops, but we are killing more of them uh than they are killing of us.
And so whether they know it or not, the post is a reporter here we're winning in Iraq.
Uh which should come as no surprise in the Afghan elections were yesterday.
And uh they that this is the second second round of successful elections since the Afghan liberation from the Taliban in 2001.
Turnout estimated at over 50%, despite promises to disrupt the election from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
The violence on election day was insignificant.
The BBC tallies up the election day violence, skirmish between police and Taliban, two cops and three Taliban are killed, a French sold killed by a line man uh landmine, two rockets were fired at a UN combound.
Uh, one Taliban fighter was killed during an attack on a police station, a candidate's house was bombed, injuring five, three rockets uh were fired at Jalalabad Airport, a rocket attack on polling stations in uh Endar district of the Ghazni province, and uh one more rocket attack in the Kunar province.
Uh but in all there were 28,001 polling stations in 6,000 locations throughout Afghanistan.
They had 200,000 uh poll workers, and uh there were about 28,000 uh what would you say, 150 polling places at good locations, Taliban didn't even score a single hit.
So the good news continues, and I I I I mention this only within the context that I mentioned last week.
I'm not trying to do song and dance routine here, but you you uh and I again I'm not gonna apologize for beating this dead horse into the ground because I don't think it can be done.
Don't forget here that the the media lives in a constant news cycle.
They live of the moment, they miss the deeper currents that are going on out there.
And while they're looking at everything through the prism of how can we destroy Bush or how will this hurt Bush, how can we help this hurt Bush?
There are things happening right under their noses.
They don't even go to report.
I don't think there was a single network.
I think ABC might have been there with a with a subdued presence for the Afghan elections, uh, but not much uh beyond that, if if even they were there.
You've got John Roberts is gonna be confirmed as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
You have the U.S. judiciary in the process of being totally remade by the Bush administration while the press is convinced they're destroying Bush.
Uh it it's it really is an amazing thing to watch.
And and throughout all of these things, I don't care whether you go all the way back to 2001 and come forward from 9-11 and all the things since then that the press has used to try to destroy Bush and this presidency.
The fact is they've all backfired on them.
The most recent is Cindy Sheehan, except that she's back, but she can't she can't get any attention whatsoever from the media.
Especially now that she's out there saying that New Orleans is occupied just like Iraq is, and that we need to get we need to end the occupation of New Orleans.
Guess who's not interested in her?
Now she's trying to get the press interested in her again by talking about Hillary, claiming that Hillary has only been pulling a trick on people with support for the war in Iraq, but she will soon be renouncing that support.
She's just waiting for the uh right strategic time to do so.
But my point is that all these things have backfired on the left.
And I think that the uh the possibility exists for this this uh this whole rebuilding effort of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast to once again backfire on the left.
And the and they don't know that it's happening.
They do think they're winning.
They think that they are destroying the Bush presidency.
They really, really do.
Uh and and uh a lot of other people think that they're destroying the Bush presidency too, which is indicative of the pessimism that you may hear uh from certain quarters out there.
The Washington Post editorialized in favor of Roberts.
Now the cynic in me says they have no choice here.
There's nothing you can say uh to oppose the guy.
Oh, but uh take that back.
Leave it to the brilliant mayor of New York, Uh Michael Bloomberg to come out and say, Now he's up for re-election, don't forget.
And he's a Democrat running on the Republican ticket.
He's a Republican in name only.
And of course, he had to come out and say the obligatory thing to win votes in New York, and that is in New York City, and that is, I didn't hear anything from Roberts that convinces me he won't overturn Roe versus Wade.
Well, that's all it takes.
The Upper West Side's going to head to the polls as quickly as they can in New York to pull the lever for for Bloomberg.
He's running for re-election.
The interesting thing about Bloomberg is what will that, what kind of effect will that have on Hillary and uh on Chuck Schumer.
If the mayor of New York, a Republican, comes out against Roberts.
I think Schumer's going to vote against him, but I don't know what Hillary was going to do.
I think she'd probably vote against him too.
But this sort of seals it now.
They they can't really not.
Um The Post, editorializing in favor of Roberts is simply says the cynic in me setting up their opposition to the next nominee.
So they can say, well, we were fair.
Yeah, we analyzed this guy as he came.
Yeah, he's fine, but this next nominee we can't go with whoever it is.
So you can almost make book on the fact they'll oppose the next nominee.
Uh the Boston Globe has done the same thing.
Uh they have admitted defeat.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Roberts called himself a modest judge and appeared smart and even tempered.
And so um they they've admitted defeat, and they they're gonna confirm Roberts as well.
No matter where else you go in the media, here in the Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times doesn't matter.
The the focus now on the Roberts vote is not on that he will be confirmed, but how do the Democrats do this vote so that it helps them the most and hurts them the least?
Uh I you know, the the the headline of the Boston Globe here is Robert's vote holds risks for Democrats.
Strategists waive political message, fallout for oh eight race.
Uh Paul Bagalow, the forehead, is quoted in this story as saying, if you're running for president and you vote for Robert, you're gonna come to regret it.
Decisions will come down from the court that'll outrage very important Democrat voters, such as decisions on uh minorities and workers with moderate incomes and uh and all this.
Uh but Republicans uh making the case that the Democrats who vote no on the nominee are acting on politics, not qualifications.
Uh they're pointing in 1993 when Republican senators overwhelmingly supported Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she got in the 90s, I think, uh uh when uh when her confirmation vote was held in the whole Senate.
But it's just it's fascinating.
It's just funny to watch this.
While we're gonna get a new chief justice, and all signs are that the guy's gonna be great.
Uh the Democrats are still strategizing, okay.
What do we do in this vote?
How do we do it so it doesn't hurt us?
We can't let the guy get too many votes, but we got to give him some votes so we look so there everything to them is a pure political calculation.
The merits, the substance doesn't matter a heel of beans to anything.
And of course, there are their willing accomplices in the press right there helping them along in coming up with making the the uh calculation here.
So again, you've got that template or that prism, everything being how does it hurt Bush?
How does it help us?
Uh oh, what do we do now?
Now, as to the next nominee.
We know, folks, we know that they are going to go nuts over the next nominee.
They are going to lose their minds over the next nominee.
So I am hopeful the president will give them the biggest in your face nominee he can find.
I would love it if he would throw Janice Rogers Brown at them.
I don't think he will.
The early money is on Priscilla Owen.
Uh and that would be just as because she was filibustered.
And Dingy Harry has already promised a filibuster if it's Priscilla Owen.
So fine.
Nominate her.
Go throw her up there.
If they're gonna be, they're they're gonna go nuts anyway.
Let's just hasten it.
Let's have them go nuts as soon as possible, folks, because they go nuts.
They don't win over anybody.
I'm telling you, uh it is is it's it's it's plain as day to me.
Their left-wing groups are unable to stop anything now.
The Democrats themselves, because they don't run the Senate, and they are there's they're all they're left to is this filibuster.
And with Bush trying to put New Orleans back together and with Bush trying to do uh uh a number of things from whom he's getting a lot of praise from some Democrats other than Bill Clinton.
Uh I'd just I'd just be as in your face as I could on this since they're gonna act that way regardless who the nominee is.
A quick timeout, we'll be back and continue in mere moments.
All right, let's do some audio sound.
Well, let me grab it.
Let me grab a phone call or two here quickly, and we'll do the uh we'll start with the sound bites in the um in the uh in the next segment as we come back from the bottom of the hour break.
Walton uh Sarah, well, I just dealt with this.
Um uh yeah, Brian in Bloomington, Illinois.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, how's it going, man?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, uh, I want to get your opinion on this uh urban homesteading uh initiative.
To me, it appears to be some sort of veiled socialism functioning under the auspices of compassion.
Well, here's what it is.
You're talking about the president cited in his speech on uh on Thursday night.
Yeah, Thursday, and it's also on the White House website, they talk about it.
The uh okay, the urban the Urban uh uh homestead act uh is uh he he what uh President Bush did is ask Congress to approve it uh uh in in which surplus federal property would be turned over to low-income citizens by means of a lottery to build homes with mortgages or assistance from uh from charitable organizations.
Now uh I I know that I know that this sounds uh uh socialistic to you, but I'm also want to take you back to a statutory requirement the federal government act in these disasters.
The statutory requirement is found in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistant Act.
It's uh it's 42 U.S. Code, sections 5121 to 5206.
Now the Stafford Act is triggered by a major disaster declaration like Hurricane Katrina, it means that the federal share is required to be at least 75%.
Federal share required to be 75%.
And in fact, uh uh since September 11th, uh Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew and the Oklahoma City bombing presidents have approved up to 100% of the federal share under the uh Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistant Act.
So this is this is a federal statute that predates Bush that requires at least 75% of all this assistance come from the uh federal government.
You add to it the uh the Urban Homestead Act, and we're stuck.
I mean, this this is this is this is what we have to deal with if if uh if we're gonna follow the statutes.
This is why I said on Friday that, all right, we're stuck.
The federal government is required by law to spend this money.
Well, what's new?
The federal government's been spending money on this since 1964.
A great war on poverty, LBJ.
And of course, you can find numbers to prove that the Clinton administration sp or the Bush administration has spent more per capita on poverty uh in five years than the Clinton administration did.
And and I think herein is where I see the opportunity.
If there's a statutory requirement, and there's not going to be any move to come up with a law rescinding it, so it's going to survive, the Stafford Act is, I think the opportunity here to demonstrate that when federal largesse is distributed under conservative principles by conservatives, that it has a far better chance of being used in a meaningful and productive way.
Now, the Urban Homestead Act, Uh again, just to be specific, uh, says that surplus federal property will be turned over to low-income citizens by means of a lottery to build homes with mortgages or assistance from charitable organizations.
Uh when I see mortgage and assistance, I don't see giveaway.
I see deals being made.
Uh I see an opportunity here for surplus land and and uh property here to be turned over with and this is the opportunity with the with the opportunity for ownership to be part of the end result here, rather than just a flat out giveaway rather than just a flat out uh uh transfer of wealth, which is what we've been doing for 60 years.
Look, maybe I'm pie in the sky on this, but I want to repeat again.
I I uh the president's not gonna say this in these words because he's not a confrontational guy.
But I and maybe I'm investing too much hope in it, but I I could have sworn that I heard him say in between the lines, I didn't hear him say it, but his intention being we've tried it your way sixty years, we're gonna try it ours.
And uh given the requirements of these two federal statutes, there is a way to demonstrate the conservative way of building people up and bringing them out of poverty and keeping them there.
This is really, folks, it is a golden opportunity here if these principles are incorporated.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
And here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Great to be with you, my friends, L. Rushball and the excellence in broadcasting network.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan trying to get back on the front pages, brought her bring them home now tour to a Brooklyn church on Sunday, where she was greeted by hundreds of uh cheering supporters.
Hundreds?
In New York?
You can't get thousands in New York.
She was accompanied by a dozen veterans and family members of active duty or killed in action soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq and are calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Uh she said these people are true American patriots.
Speaking of the people who joined her, in contrast to the maniacs who uh run our country right now.
She had uh she had tough words for the military, the Bush administration, and even Democratic liberals such as Hilary Rodham, whom she said voters should reject if she fails to toughen her stance against the war.
She said uh we have to stop making war profitable.
She also took issue with the media, which she said has spent more time scrutinizing her past than uh Bush's policies.
The woman's clearly deranged.
Uh and I say that not because of the statement about the media, but daring to criticize Hillary if she's not careful.
Uh well, let me let me just make you a prediction.
If she calls Hillary out one more time, one more time, you are never gonna see the word Cindy Sheehan in the U.S. media ever again.
I will guarantee you she's already had the talking to.
Somebody has gotten to her and said to the words Fort Marcy Park mean anything to you.
I will guarantee you, my friends, that by the time all is said and done, if she calls her out one more time, that's it for Cindy Sheehan.
No matter how hard you try, you will not be able to find her name except on some extremist kook left wing blog, but you won't find it anywhere in the mainstream press.
You just don't do this.
You don't call out Hillary Rodham Clinton.
You don't call out a Clinton like this.
Uh not not when you're supposedly on their side.
We have two audio sound bites.
Uh th both of these are from a show that that um I I'm not familiar with this show.
Uh Donny Donny Deutsch on uh on CNBC.
You've seen it, Brian.
Of all people that have heard the show, it's Brian.
Uh at at any rate, uh, this was a big idea town meeting with uh with Donnie Deutsch, and the host Donnie Deutsch said, uh many say we can't pull out.
This is to Cindy Shehem, and he said we can't pull out.
What message are we sending to the more moderate views in the Middle East?
What message are we sending to people of Iraq?
What message are we sending that we've been defeated by the insurgents?
What what do you say to those people?
Those arguments were used in Vietnam and almost 60,000 of our young people later.
You know, we finally decided we had to pull out, you know, and um are we gonna wait that long here in this in this war?
Umil presence there is destabilizing the region, it's fueling the insurgency.
We do not need our military presence there.
We need to help them recover from our military presence there.
And we have to say bring them home now because our administration plans on bringing them home never.
They're building bases the size of Sacramento, California there.
And we have to show the Iraqi people that we mean business when we say we're gonna leave.
We're occupying their country now.
And we're Americans, we're not occupiers, we're not imperialists.
Uh I thought that was her message that we are.
Um anyway, she was after this appearance that she said we're also occupying uh New Orleans and need to get out of there.
But this next one's the money bite, uh, folks.
Unidentified pregnant woman stands up holding a picture of a soldier and says this.
My husband was hit with the IED July uh 15th and died July 21st.
He was uh part of the 325 unit out of Ohio.
He was a Navy corpsman.
He died um two weeks before the twenty-one Marines died out of Ohio.
Everyone keeps saying Al Qaeda's not in Iraq.
Al Qaeda took responsibility for the IED that killed my husband.
Basically, um they weren't there before we invaded and opened the border.
No, and you don't know that.
No one knows that.
No, there's been I served five years.
And you know what?
I'm gonna have our baby in twelve more days.
And if I do get called, I will go back, and I will serve for my country to claim my life and is not reaching.
I know my husband.
Because you know what?
You can't let them come back and not finish what we started.
You know what?
Your baby is is gonna be fatherless for a lie, for two lies.
Weapons amassed.
My child will never be fatherless because his father is an angel, and they know that.
And they will know their father and loved him more than anything in this world.
So Cindy Sheehan faces the uh critics, the people of America on this television show and uh has the truth handed to her on a silver platter, and she's too stupid to know it.
Uh just she's an embarrassment, but I'm glad that they keep putting her on TV, even if it's on a show I've not heard of.
Uh it's fabulous, fabulous thing.
Let her keep talking.
Let her that's why we're amplifying it here, folks, so you can hear uh the kinds of things that this utter wacko, who by the way, I'm gonna take you back to Friday, Howard Feynman's piece uh said that the activists of the Democratic Party, which are trying to take over, demand that somebody like Cindy Sheehan become the face of this party.
And so uh and and and so now this woman's calling Hillary out.
That uh she's she's uh better renounce her support for Iraq pretty soon, or blah, blah, blah, blah, or whatever.
You know, you don't, or else Hillary Clinton when you're on the left.
Uh uh and as I say, if she does this, she does this one more time, she's going to never ever be heard from again in the media.
She will not be able to get quoted.
Sam and Dayton, Ohio, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Family did this, Rush.
I had a question in light of the uh New Orleans uh uh standards of uh giving.
I was wondering how many more disasters can the United States endure and uh and and their aid and comfort to uh the the victims down there.
Uh let me ask you the same question.
How many more do you think we can afford?
Well I'm I'm hearing in the the the uh press, of course, all the mayors of big cities re uh evaluating their disaster plans, and it's quite uh undaunting what the potentials are.
But uh You know what I'm surprised I haven't heard yet, and I'm gonna make a prediction.
I'm gonna make a prediction that we will soon hear it.
Maybe look it, I I have not been in full attention mode over the weekend because of my debilitating illness.
Uh I'm fighting through it to be here today for you.
But I must confess I didn't want to feel any worse over the weekend and watching the news.
So this may have already happened.
I'll ask you, Sam.
Has anybody heard of anybody saying something along the lines of this?
Well, you know, the average benefit to the victims' families in the World Trade Center was one point nine million dollars.
And in that light, the victims of New Orleans really aren't getting very much at all.
Has anybody heard that said yet?
Be uh you have have you heard that, Sam?
No, I um have not.
Well, keep your ears open, pal, because it it isn't gonna be long.
It's not gonna be long before somebody say it's gonna be it it it's gonna be the media, it's gonna be an activist, it's gonna be somebody that is going to after some time goes by.
Well, wait a minute.
You know, the yeah, 200 billion, it's a lot of money, but how much per capita is it?
It's still far less than what the families in the World Trade Center.
And then they're gonna say, yeah, most of them are white in the World Trade Center, and look at the yeah, it's this is Bush is pulling a fast one here.
Bush couldn't wait to throw millions at the victims' families at 9-11, but look at what New Orleans New Orleans victims are gonna it's nothing in comparison.
Mark my words.
Make the prediction.
September 19th at 141 30 in the afternoon.
And we'll uh we'll we'll keep a sharp eye on this.
As As to the answer to the question, uh folks, maybe it is the fact that I am delirious with the fever here.
But when you ask me, can we afford to rebuild F yes, we're America, we can afford to do anything.
We're the United States of America, and we're gonna do what's necessary.
If it's disaster here or disaster, yes, we're gonna do it.
We can afford it.
We can print money for crying out loud.
We're the United States government, we can print money, we can barf.
Yes, we're gonna do it.
You know, it's time to get a grip here, folks.
It's time to get a grip.
It's one thing to talk about spending restraint during normal times.
You know how hard that is.
You think there's going to be spending restraint when politicians have a chance to earn gold stars in a disaster aftermath?
Do you think does anybody really think that the politicians that come up and start talking about budget cuts so that we don't spend as much on the recovery is going to get anywhere?
The politicians that are talking about budget cuts, and by the way, they're out there, and they're good.
They're following the limbaugh plan, so that this makes some fiscal sense.
There's no reason to have to raise taxes to do this.
When you look at all the reports of the fraud that exists in the in the funding that's gone on in New Orleans for the last 50 years, you know there's fraud and waste in every line of the federal budget.
Every line of the federal budget, there is waste and there is fraud.
We know it.
Intellectually, we know it.
You and I, the citizens of this country, we know it.
What we don't know is that the people who spend it will admit it and then go get it.
Uh you know, I I don't think people stop to think.
What the federal budget is, is it over two trillion now?
2.6 trillion, folks.
Do you have any idea how much money that is?
And for the idea to be that there's no fat in this budget, and that there's no waste, and that there's no fraud.
We know just from looking back for 10 years to Louisiana how much fraud and waste there has been in that little budget alone.
We know how much fraud and waste there's been in the redundant programs of we know the food stamp program for crying out loud advertises at the end of every budget year because they don't have enough takers, and they have to advertise for more food stamp takers to make sure their budget isn't cut the next year.
We know damn well that there's money all over this country that is being spent on things that have no intention of it being spent.
It's fraud, it's waste.
Of course we can afford it.
2.6 trillion dollars for crying out loud as anybody have any idea how much money that is.
No, nobody can possibly imagine it.
That's why you don't know.
We all just assume that's what it takes to run the country.
It always amazes me.
Every budget year, Democrats whine and moan about budget cuts.
There aren't ever any budget cuts.
Zilch, zero, nada, no budget guts.
Excuse me.
When this when when two years ago, two years ago, the budget was 1.9 trillion dollars.
It's today 2.6 trillion.
Simple addition says that's that's 300 billion less than another trillion has been spent since just in the last two years.
And yet everybody runs around and talks about all these cuts that have taken place.
There are no cuts.
There never are any cuts.
To the extent that there are cuts, it's reductions in the rate of growth.
We don't spend as much as was budgeted, but we always spend more.
I don't care what it is.
We're spending more on sea turtle research.
We're spending, it's it's it's asinine, the kind of things we're we're spending money on bridges to nowhere in Alaska.
Sorry, Alaska, I know it's a sensitive subject.
I got emails when I mentioned it last week.
But bottom line is we can afford it.
Don't anybody tell me we can't afford it.
From a From a host of perspectives.
We are the United States of America, and if we have to, we will print the money to afford it.
Not saying that's a good idea, but we will afford it.
It will be paid for.
This is why.
If we're ever going to get a handle on any of this, this is a golden opportunity to demonstrate how money can be wisely well spent for the first time in 60 years.
In this type of a disaster rebuilding effort, I continue to see it as an opportunity.
But but I'm not, I'm not part of the doom and gloom crowd that says, oh, if another disaster happens, can we afford it?
If there's another terror stack, can we afford it?
We will afford it.
This is not Zimbabwe.
This is not Saudi Arabia.
This is not whatever country you want to mention.
We will afford it.
We will spend it.
It's just a fact of life.
That's our history.
We will rebuild our country.
We will do what's necessary to get it done.
But in this, in this instance, we have a golden opportunity here to demonstrate how it can be done in a way that takes people off the federal assistance roles.
Not going to be easy, and I don't mean to paint a picture of a panacea, but the opportunity exists.
Quick timeout, we'll be back here in just a second.
Don't go away.
So I got a question, folks.
How did this idiot George Bush manage to defeat the Democrats on a Supreme Court nominee?
I mean, uh hero Ronald Reagan got borked.
George H.W. Bush got Anita Hilled.
How did how did this idiot George W. Bush do it?
Could somebody explain that to me?
Here are my predictions.
I want to go back.
This is August 29th, 2005.
These predictions of mine from the first two segments of that program, August 29th of 2005.
I've got five sound bites, and they all come from just the first two segments of that program.
I've been watching this uh uh all afternoon, all night last night.
Uh I uh got up earlier than I normally do today to see if it had uh hit landfall earlier than usual.
Uh and I was struck, I was struck by the uh all the reporting, and I guess this is natural.
I don't want to make too big a deal of it.
It's just that I'm I'm very sensitive to this.
I was struck by the apocalyptic nature of the reporting.
I was struck by the doom and gloom of the reporting, and then it kind of hit me that that's sort of what reporting has become.
Apocalyptic in Iraq, doom and gloom there, doom and gloom on oil prices, doom and gloom on everything.
And today the New York Times editorializes that the reporting on television, of course, was in fact erroneous and hysterical.
Here's the next prediction.
I've made a prediction, and I if I have to get F. Lee Levin on the phone to verify my prediction, I'll do it.
I made this prediction to him late yesterday afternoon.
I said it isn't going to be long before we're gonna see headlines.
Bush did he act too late.
And we're gonna get stories about what would Bill Clinton have done.
And lo and behold, Bill Clinton's already told us what he did, and he's lying about that.
Here's the next prediction.
I just want to put you on notice.
I just want you to beware that the libs are going to use this hurricane to advance all of the wacko aspects of their agenda, global warming, and you know what else.
You know that's happened.
Here's the next.
I have uh heartfelt relatability to what these people are going through and what they're going to face when they're able to return and and uh see what happened.
It is it is truly devastating.
I just at the same time, and I'm not trying to be aloof on this or anything like that.
I'm just telling you, I just want to warn you that the left politicizes everything in the country.
Everything is a political issue, and this is going to end up being uh one way or the other.
And I just I just want to be out in front of it, warn you of that so that you're not surprised or caught short when it happens.
The next one I have time to play because it's a little too long for the time we have left, but it basically uh points out that the recovery will be a lot faster and swifter than anybody predicts, uh, and that the people want to go back to New Orleans a lot sooner than anybody thinks.
Uh and the Reverend Jackson, this is not a prediction of news story, Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton, every NAACP leader now calling for A separate government 911 victims fund for Katrina's 400,000 evacuees.
I will have details soon.
▲
Export Selection