All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:15
December 9, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Greetings.
Great to have you with us as we launch another three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence, hosted by me, America's Anchor Man, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling.
Maha Rushi.
It's Friday, folks, so let's roll.
You know what that means.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Oh, gee, I cannot wait, folks.
I'm looking forward to talking to you today on Open Line Friday because as you know, it's a great career risk.
And I endeavor to take each Friday.
I turn over the content portion of this program on phone calls to the callers.
Normally Monday through Thursday, it's uh what interests me at all times.
Because if I talk about things I don't care about, it's gonna sound boring, and who's gonna listen?
Is gonna want to listen.
But on Friday we roll the dice, and uh so whatever you want to talk about, pretty much uh will fill fit the bill.
A telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
So the GOP fighting back.
This little ad, have you seen this ad, the video of the ad with uh with the Howard Dean and John Kerry and a white flag waving across the screen?
In fact, Mike, we have the audio of this ad.
Let's find the audio of that ad.
We can't show you the video yet.
Uh video podcaster coming soon, though, and uh, and you might you might see such an ad under one of those video podcasts.
Here is this is uh there's five seconds of uh of music and then text on the screen.
There's no announcer at the beginning on the screen when this starts, you see, Democrats have a plan for Iraq, retreat and defeat.
Then a white flag waves, and Howard Dean appears.
The idea that we're gonna win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
So there's no specific time frame, but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th.
There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, uh uh uh you know, women.
Did we did we nail Carrie on this?
He's all over the place now, having to justify this and having to explain it.
Snerdley was right, said you're gonna get this kicked up every bit as big as you get Durban kicked up on his uh on his Nazi in the poll podcomes.
Maybe not quite that big, but still Carrie here it is Friday.
He made the comment on Sunday.
He's still out there, he was on the radio today trying to explain it away.
But you know, we might call this um uh white flag day uh here on the EIB network, or you can you can sing a song, I'm Dreaming of a White Flag Christmas.
Imagine General Dean leading our forces.
Our deal.
Well, we we can't win this.
And then he's out there barking orders about face.
Everything Dean says is about face.
We're gonna change direction every second I think about it.
These guys are just becoming jokes.
I told you people, and I've been telling you for the longest time that that when these people lose power and when they're out of power, and then when they feel power uh uh even even uh further uh loosening from their grasp, they get wacky.
They just get crazy, and in the process, they tell us who they really are.
Because of the panic that sets in, and this is just uh it's been a it's been a wonderful and marvelous week.
Have you heard of the name Louise Arbor, ladies and gentlemen?
Louise Arbor is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
And you know what she's done?
She has accused the United States of undermining a worldwide ban on torture.
And she's accused us of weakening human rights around the world.
Here's her statement.
Uh she issued this statement for Human Rights Day.
The principal, once believed to be unassailable, the inherent right to physical integrity and dignity of the person is becoming a casualty of the so-called war on terror, unquote.
The so-called.
Don't you like it when I do these effete liberal elitist female voices, Dawn?
The so-called war on terror?
So-called.
Obviously, this United Nations High Commissioner, whose office is in the city where the Twin Towers once stood, doesn't believe it.
Doesn't believe there's a war on terror.
She criticizes America in her statement for holding prisoners in secret detention centers, which she calls a form of torture.
Just holding them in a secret detention center is all it takes.
Making innocent people beg for their lives before beheading them in front of video cameras.
No, no, no.
That doesn't, that doesn't.
That doesn't merit a torture complaint from Louise Arbor, the UN High Commissioner.
On human rights, you can behead all of the Westerners you want, and she won't say a word about torture.
She won't say a word about the war on terror.
You can blow up all the innocent women and children you want in the streets, on buses, or at wedding parties.
And the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights won't say a word about it.
Holding terrorists involved in these deeds in secret, that's torture.
That's torture, according to the UN.
When we attempt to apprehend the beheaders, when we attempt to apprehend the homicide bombers and the insurgents of the terrorists, and we catch them, and we put them in jail, put them in prison.
That's torture.
To Louise Arbor, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Now, but we we we must acknowledge she has the capacity to be pro-America.
The High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations, Louise Arbor, does praise, quote, past U.S. leadership, unquote.
Translation, the Clinton administration.
Precisely, folks, the people who did nothing to combat terrorism gets praised, get praised by the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations.
Ms. Ms. Arbor, if the UN had done its job and stood up to Saddam, instead of looting Iraq via Kofi Annan's corrupt oil for food scandal, we might not be in Iraq now.
If past U.S. leadership had responded to terrorist attacks instead of staining intern dresses, we might have been able to dispose of bin Laden and his cronies long ago, but instead, we get lectures from you, a dim-witted twit, also known as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Ms. Arbor, let me put this to you in diplomatic terms, diplomatic terms that you will understand as a as a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
In diplomatic terms from the American people to you.
Place your lips on the collective American posterior and kiss it.
Unbelievable, folks.
In the New York Times today, the the media just they cannot give it up.
There's so many elements of their whole modus operandi wrapped up here in one story.
It's a story by Douglas Gell and the headline, Qaeda Iraq link, U.S. cited tied to coercion claim.
Coercion.
Torture?
Oh maybe.
Here's the lead.
The Bush administration based a crucial pre-war assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner.
While in Egyptian custody, who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The official said the captive Ibn al-Sheikh Alibi provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the U.S. in January of 2002 in a process known as rendition.
Aha!
It's a story that's designed to do two things.
Bush lied about pre-war intelligence, and he got suckered by it because of his own policies of torture.
It was torture, it was coercion, it was rendition, and Alibi lied.
He said whatever he had to say just to get out of jail and just to save his life, McCain is right.
the theme of the story.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Kaida members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts.
The Bush administration used Mr. Libby's accounts as the basis for its had a role in that.
Now this Libby guy is said to be the uh cause celeb number one.
The fact that Mr. Libby recanted after the American invasion of Iraq, and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the CIA in March of 2004 has been public for more than a year.
But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libby made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libby contended that his statements had been coerced.
Classified Defense Intelligence Agency report.
Issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libby's credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment.
Oh, they don't use the word, but it's just it just leaps out.
Leaps off the page, torture.
Bush tortured our Libby.
Alibi lied.
That led to false information, which led to an unjust invasion of an unjust country and it caused an unjust war.
Well, there's only one problem with this whole story, folks.
And that is that it was Bill Clinton and his administration who first talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network.
Years before George Bush made the same statements.
Have details coming up.
Stay with us.
Don't go away.
It's open line Friday.
I am Rush Limbaugh already off and running and having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
So the New York Times has the story today that one of the main sources the Bush administration used, providing a link, not to 9-11, but a link between Al Qaeda and uh and Saddam, just on general principles.
Was the result of coercion and rendition Alibi, the source transferred to an evil prison in Egypt.
And the Bush administration coerced this information.
That means they tortured him.
And he lied to save his life, and we all know what happened next.
And of course, purpose of the story today is to say, see, torture doesn't work, rendition doesn't work.
Bush lied about pre-war intelligence.
We are the U.S. media and facts are not going to stand in our way.
We're going to make this case no matter how far off the beaten path we have to go to do it.
There's only one problem.
It's the same thing with saying Bush lied.
The Democrats said all this first.
The Clinton administration, I have the Washington Times here from June 25th of 2004.
Right there.
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama's Al-Qaeda network years.
Before President Bush made the same statements, in fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and Al Qaeda.
One came from William Cohen, Clinton's Secretary of Defense.
He cited an Al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Remember the bombing of that?
That was a it was an Advil plant, basically.
But it was supposedly uh uh a place where weapons of mass destruction were being made, and Clinton launched a missile in there and blew it up.
Because it was Al Qaeda and Saddam that were linked.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on November 4th of 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The uh indictment disclosed a close relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists, as you know.
The 1998 indictment said Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West.
Now, it's it's history repeating itself.
Here's the Clinton administration, which did diddly squat About any of this other than to file indictments.
Um mentioning all of these things that Bush supposedly is torturing out of people, renditioning out of people, lying about.
It was false, phony evidence, but except all of this is ignored again, just like all the 98 statements of Clinton and all the Democrats back then talking about Saddam's desperate and dire threat, his weapons of mass destruction.
It's never remembered.
This New York Times story today is an absolute uh embarrassment.
It ought it's an embarrassment to the paper.
It's a joke.
They can't even go back to their own archives.
They can't even go back in history, recent history, in preparing this story.
And they don't want to because they don't want to find out what's to be found in 98.
And of course, we can't link Clinton to any of this because we're too busy rebuilding his legacy.
You know what Clinton's doing today.
This this global climate change meeting up in Montreal where everybody's trying to get us to go back on board with Kyoto, including bin Laden.
Contentious UN climate conference entered its final day today with the long-term future undecided in the fight against global warming, and with a surprise visitor on tap to rally the pro-Kyoto forces, Bill Clinton, who has pr as president championed the Kyoto Protocol,
clamping controls on uh greenhouse gases, was scheduled to speak at the conference this afternoon in an unofficial capacity, but potentially at a critical point in backroom talks involving the U.S. delegation.
So here's an ex-president.
You know what he's doing?
He's hunting for the Nobel Peace Prize, pure and simple.
It's the Jimmy Carter Bash America tour all over again.
Clinton sees what you have to do.
So he's been over in Dubai bashing Bush and bashing America.
Now he's going to go up to Canada.
The official position of the United States is Kyoto sucks.
Nobody wants to be part of Kyoto except a bunch of poor nations that are using it to get into the back pockets of wealthy nations.
It's not going to stop global warming because we're not causing it.
It's not going to make a s di uh uh uh snivelling bit of difference.
That here's Clinton's going to go up there arguing for it despite the official policy of his own country.
I guarantee you, this is nothing more than Clinton trying to be God to the left and get his name at the top of the list of the Nobel Peace Prize candidates.
He wants it, folks.
That's what will cement his legacy.
But in the meantime, Bill Clinton's irresponsibility, his lackadaisical treatment of the oval office.
He spent more time staining the dresses of interns than he did dealing with terrorism.
And Dick Morris will tell you this.
Because Dick Morris was there.
We're learning now all of these things that Clinton said about Saddam in '98, including the fact that he was linked to Al-Qaeda.
Ignored by the Democrats, ignored by Howard Dean, ignored by the media, because of course the template is to blame Bush for all this, and of course, it's also to um uh promote McCain and his anti-torture amendment from the BBC.
Let's go back to 2003.
Douglas Gell is in fact wrong about his story if the BBC is right.
Documents found in Baghdad show a link between Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to the Sunday Telegraph in London.
That paper discovered the files in the bombed headquarters of the Muqabbarat, the feared Iraqi intelligence service.
It says the files in Arabic show an Al-Qaeda envoy invited to visit Baghdad secretly in March of 1998.
So you can I just two sources we found today.
I told the BBC, uh I noticed on some of the documents there were some marks uh erased out.
We we scraped away with a razor, and underneath we found the name Bin Laden three times, obviously realized this was highly significant.
These documents explain that an envoy from bin Laden came to Iraq in March of 98 to discuss contact between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence.
And nobody's saying this led to 9-11.
Don't misunderstand.
But the New York Times is trying to say the Bush administration lied and got faulty information about this link between Al Qaeda and Saddam via torture.
The New York Times story is just factually wrong.
And it may be more problematic than that.
Back in just a moment.
Oh, yeah.
Open line Friday rolls on.
We'll get to your phone calls here.
And just someone, do I sound like I have a stuffed I have a cold?
I sound a little stuffy.
I I sound s yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because I do I sound that way to me too, but I don't have a cold.
I w I was up late last night.
Uh Zan Calder's birthday yesterday.
We went out to dinner.
Uh uh, a bunch of us, and and uh didn't inolate, I guess about eleven o'clock, ten thirty, I got home and but I had a lot of work to do.
So I sat up and I was working and so forth.
For some reason, uh it's like I have a tired voice, but I don't have a cold or anything.
And if I had a cold, I just get some Zycam.
Tweak it up there.
You know, Zycam, by the way, Zycam's got a new product, and and and and uh and we're gonna be talking about it, but I gotta tell you, because it's kind of funny.
Zycam has a product to help you deal with your cold.
You know, it's it's it's a cold remedy uh medicine.
It's not it's not a preventative thing.
It's it's and it it comes in a little pre-packed spoon, and and the pre- you just dump the contents of the spoon into whatever hot beverage you want.
It's odorless and tasteless, and you take it and you drink it.
It doesn't put you to sleep or so forth.
It's supposed to help relieve symptoms.
People said, well, Rush.
Why would Zycam make something like this when they have Zycam that if you do it right, you will you will you will either not get the cold or or it will reduce the symptoms dramatically?
I said, because some people are not gonna go out and get the Zycam, and so they're gonna get a cold, and then we're gonna be able to tweak them.
See, if you'd have gone out and gotten the real Zygam first, you wouldn't need this stuff.
So it's actually a brilliant marketing campaign, a new product to actually sell more of the original product.
And of course, we will be making this clearer down the point is I don't have a cold, but if I did, I would have used some psycham and zapped it.
But uh I just wanted to uh uh ask, and I'm I may not hear myself sometimes the way you do, so I wanted to clarify it.
I know people get terribly worried at the first sign of any illness that I might have.
So important am I to uh the country and and their lives, they get worried.
And I don't want anybody to worry.
Everything's fine here.
Just uh just a little voice fatigue.
North Dakota representative Earl Pomeroy.
Does that name ring a bell to anybody?
His son, Earl well, no, it was his nephew.
It was his nephew.
Gosh, I wish I just this story just cleared, so I I didn't have time to ask anybody to go back to our archives.
His name was Ben.
Now this is this is a North Dakota family, Earl Pomeroy was uh he's a North Dakota congressman.
He was back in the early 90s.
His nephew, who was what, six, twelve at the time?
His nephew Ben called us.
One of the most amazing calls, talked about what a B.I. itch it was to be in that family.
He was a conservative, and his mom was somewhat, but they couldn't really be open about it because uh Uncle Earl was a big Democrat congressman and so forth, and it was just the funniest thing to hear what what it was like around the dinner table and so forth.
I will never forget the name Earl Pomeroy as a result of this call.
Now, Ben has since matured to an adult, and I think we lost him.
I think Ben has joined the enemy camp.
And I think I think Ben, if he were to call today, would would not reflect the same uh opinions and attitudes he did as a 12-year-old calling the program.
But anyway, Earl Pomeroy's in the news.
He is accusing Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean of overstepping his bounds, saying the former presidential candidate should not give up on the war in Iraq on Monday.
You tell me these people are not imploding.
They're imploding everywhere.
If you watch any of the cable news shows at night, you can see veritable panic.
The economy is way up on the upswing.
Bush's approval numbers are coming back.
Uh there's nothing they can glom onto, nothing that they have used that they thought would destroy the president has worked.
Uh somebody somebody said to me recently, Rush, you know, you're half right about the Democrats and this desire to pull out.
It's not that the Democrats actually want to pull out.
It's not Mertha.
That's not what Mertha wants to do.
What the Democrats really want is for Bush to do it.
They want to pressure Bush into pulling out.
They want Bush to look like the coward.
They want to try to put it up political pressure, have enough public opinion polls.
That's even stupider.
If that's let's grant that that may have some accuracy as a theory.
I don't happen to believe it, because I think the Democrats are telling us exactly who they are.
They are anti-war, they are anti-military, anti-victory.
Uh and anything good that happens in this country, folks, is not gonna help them the way they've positioned themselves.
I mean, how would you who who is the brain that that put this party in this position?
And if you were in politics, how would you like this position?
The only way that you benefit is if the country is in misery.
The only way you benefit is if we lose in Iraq, we lose everywhere we go.
We have soup lines, constant national disasters, natural disasters, everything going to hell in a handbasket.
That's what it takes for you to win.
Who is the wizard that constructed this party in this way?
They're all doing it together because that's how they view the future.
That's how they view life.
They have to look at things and see doom and gloom.
In fact, liberalism is a doom and gloom psyops operation.
The media is their is their propaganda arm.
Their whole outlook is doom and gloom.
They have a psyops operation they've been running on this country for 50 years.
Psychological operations to convince everybody that there's nothing ahead but doom and gloom, utter misery and despair.
And they've got their propaganda arm, the mainstream press to plant the stories every day.
But it has resulted not in what they figured their triumphant return to power.
In fact they are now marginalizing themselves with people actually questioning their patriotism, not just their judgment questioning their sanity, questioning their their their real intentions This is something that they've brought on themselves and it's recognized by people like Earl Pomeroy, who's basically saying Howard Dean, shut up in fact that's what he says he was on WDAY radio in North Dakota yesterday.
And Earl Pomeroy's words to Howard Dean, he's my words to Howard Dean are simple.
Shut up.
We have young men and women with their lives on the line.
The debate has fallen far short of what they deserve.
Pomeroy said Dean wasn't representing Democrats like him when he discussed the war.
He's not hired to make major policy announcements on behalf of all the Democrats as our party chairman I believe he needs to focus on the nuts and bolts of winning elections and what that translates to his fundraising.
But Dean's not done a very good job of that.
And we told you when he was hired he wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut on policy.
He's a candidate he wouldn't be able to keep his mouth no Democrat can keep their mouth shut on anything period when it comes to bashing the country, bashing success, bashing the military, bashing corporate America, bashing the elements of capitalism is what liberals live to do.
Now there's a mantra out there in the in the media folks and I know you've heard this because some of you have called and asked me about it.
I know it's on your mind.
Rush can the Republicans hold the House in 06?
Do you think do you think the Democrats might take the house back?
What about the Senate Rush I mean I mean that's what their objective is and they and they they think they've got it done.
I I I folks I want to help you look at things in a different way constantly do that here stay on offense be confident the real question is this what happens when the Dems lose more seats in the Senate in 06 and 08?
What happens when the left loses more seats in the House?
That's the question would somebody tell me what this party is doing that is inspiring anybody to give them more power?
Would somebody tell me what policy they're advancing?
What idea?
What idea for economic growth?
What idea for national security?
What idea?
Give me one.
One thing that they're saying the American people are going to rally around and say, yep, those are the people that I want leading me.
You can't name one.
It's the height of folly to talk about a bunch of people like that sweeping to big majority wins in the House and Senate, particularly the House, where you've got at most 20 seats are going to be competitive because of incumbency.
and redistricting this idea that the Democrats are going to take it back that's just mainstream media spin.
That's to put everybody on a defensive the real question is how many more seats are they going to lose?
And then what are they going to do?
Because if you go back to 2004 when they took that shellacking in the presidential race and in the Senate you remember what they were sounding like oh boy we got to get on the values parade here we gotta we gotta reach out to the people in the do has there been any of that?
Have the Democrats tried to fix any mistake they thought and they admitted that they made after the 2004 race or even after 2002 nope zip zero nada they have retreated as I said they're going to get further and further to the extreme they're gonna get they're they're going to become uh more and more honest and open about who they are because their frustrations at not being able to succeed the way they used to when they had a monopoly with their psyops agents in the mainstream press, their propaganda arm.
It's not working like it used to.
That still has power, but it's not working like it can't count on them anymore.
No Democrat presidential candidate, folks, has received even 50% of the vote since 1980.
Popular vote has not happened.
Now you tell me this is a party on the rise.
You tell me that's a party that's going.
You got two I give you an example.
There's a football game Sunday in Pittsburgh, a Chicago Bears, the Pittsburgh Steelers.
It's an interesting game from this standpoint.
The Bears don't have an offense.
The Bears have a rookie quarterback that just it's a pathetic offense.
But they have defense that score in 14 points a game, Sag.
They got a defense that's terrorizing.
There's that word, terrorizing opposing quarterbacks.
They got the Al Qaeda defense, the Chicago Bears.
They got the insurgent.
I'm not kidding you.
On the other side, and they're going one direction.
They're getting better.
You get that team a quarterback and an offense, and Katie barred the door.
Pittsburgh Steelers coming off of 15-1 seasons.
Yep, yep, we're going to erase that.
We're going to erase that championship loss.
We're going to be back.
And we are going for it all.
And they're going the other direction.
The offensive line's got two rookies.
They can't stop the defense of the Chicago Bears on paper anyway, but the Steelers can score points, but can they score points against this up and coming DVD?
You got two teams going two different directions.
The Steelers have lost three and all.
The Bears have won eight in a row.
On paper, it's a fascinating game because the Bears' offense doesn't score any points.
But uh the way it's going for the Steelers, here's a team that has no offense.
The Bears probably score 42 points.
Quarterback probably throw for 365 yards.
It'll be 42 to nothing, and Ben Rothisberger will be sacked 20 times in the first quarter.
Now, the analogy is this, and I'm not comparing the the Steelers to the Democrats because the Steelers are not in that bad shape.
In fact, they could win the game.
But you've got two teams going in totally different directions.
The Democrats are just like they're going in a totally different direction.
They're not moving up, they're not going forward.
They are not building.
They don't do it attitudinally.
They don't have confidence.
They are disrupted amongst themselves.
They are not unified.
And that's a big thing to them.
They don't have a policy on anything that they can announce that people stick to.
They've got one senator off the reservation and they're trying to scalp the guy, Joel Lieberman.
They're trying to do whatever they can to keep him from harming them.
Why?
Because he's out telling the truth.
He's got an alternative point of view.
The Republicans, on the other hand, they may not be doing everything we want them to do.
Well, we know they're not, but they're not imploding, and they're not falling apart.
And they are not obsessed and and and totally dominated by negativism and doom and gloom.
They still remain they're optimistic and cheerful selves.
You've got a president who is rock solid in his beliefs, and he's not going to be talked out of what his policy is.
He's not going to come down to their level.
It's you've got so this whole notion of with the Republicans going to lose seats, and the Democrats gonna take back the House.
Folks, I'm telling you, the real question is how many more seats are they gonna lose in the House?
How many more seats are they gonna lose in the Senate?
Media's not just wrong.
They are sometimes dead wrong.
They're 180 degrees wrong.
Bush economic plan, they labeled it a bad plan, horrible plan.
It's a good plan, it's a great plan.
The economy's roaring.
The post-war plan, they say it's a bad plan.
Might just be as good a plan as the economic plan proved to be, and the war plan proved to be.
The news is starting to turn around on that.
And what are they gonna be left with?
What will the left be left that's got a nice ring to it?
What will the left be left with?
Well, what do they deserve to be left with?
Given the shovels, folks.
I'm telling you, they're burying themselves back after this.
Stay with us.
U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, an unbelievable ruling, and this one truly is unbelievable.
The upshot of this is that they've said it's okay for jurors to consult the Bible.
Uh, in in I I kid you not.
But before we get to that, folks, more on this business here of the of the Democrats, everybody getting all worried here.
Oh my God, Russia, they're gonna take back their house together because you're falling prey to a to a psyops campaign, the doom and gloom psyops campaign and a propaganda arm of the liberal media is is is is getting to you.
What's going on here, as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal some time ago now, is a conservative crackdown.
Look at what has happened since the conservative crackdown began.
Harriet Myers withdraws.
Sam Alito nominated.
Bush has gone on the offensive about the progress in Iraq and the absolute necessity for the war on terror.
And it's working.
Bush has finally begun to talk about the facts of this economy.
Tax cuts that he created.
Yesterday, the House extended tax cuts.
Capital gains tax cut uh or capital gains rate at 15%.
It looks better than it did yesterday for this surviving, and that's crucial to the economic recovery continuing.
Joe Lieberman is speaking out for the war like a true statesman.
Democrats, on the other hand, are continuing to crack up, carries out their slandering soldiers again.
Mertha has been exposed as somebody who likes the bright lights a little bit too much.
Howard Doreen Dean has surrendered before the French even have the chance to surrender.
Dean's out there waving the white flag.
We can't win.
We can't win.
We have no business we winning.
Hillary is being heckled by the kook fringe on the Democrat left, and her chalkboard voice that reminds us all of our first and second wives is driving everybody nuts.
And Bush's poll numbers are taking off.
Now, somebody tell me with this scenario, where is this whole bit of thinking that the Democrats are going to take back the House?
And that the Democrats are going to take back the Senate.
Come on, I want to know where this comes from.
I I am cautioning you people.
I have warned you people about this several times.
You do not fall prey to the propaganda that appears daily in the mainstream press.
Herb and West Palm Be Ah, Herb's back.
His cell phone dropped out, but he's back now.
Herb, welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hi.
I can't believe I got through twice in one day.
I lost my darn cell.
Well, we have a way of making those things have.
We can track these cell calls with the help of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office.
I'm sure you can.
Oh, God.
I've been listening since about 86.
This is the first time I've ever gotten through.
You were asking.
And the only thing I can think of that they have done recently is to call for a balanced budget.
Several of them mention that whenever they get a chance.
Right.
Okay, I I'll I'll grant you that they're saying it.
I don't hear it much because all I hear is we can't win in Iraq.
Uh, we don't deserve to win in Iraq.
Bush lied.
Uh Rumsfeld stinks.
Rice stinks.
Uh, everybody's got to go.
Rove needs to be impeached.
Rove needs to be indicted.
Bush needs to be in TP.
Cheney's got to go.
Halliburton needs.
That's all I hear him say.
Now, if they're out there talking about a balanced budget, fine.
Nobody's hearing it.
And guess what?
Nobody cares.
Nope, nope, no, not in that.
They care about tax cuts first.
This balanced budget the way the Democrats mean it is tax increases, and nobody wants a Democrat balanced budget the way they're going to do it.
History has proven this.
There's no reason to be afraid of these people, folks.
Quick timeout.
Herb, I'm glad that you are able to maneuver your way back through here back in just a moment, folks.
First hour is in the can.
Open line Friday, and El Rushbo, the fastest week in me.
Can't believe it's Friday already, but sit tight.
▲
Export Selection