All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:01
December 19, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, a lot of people are asking me, hey, hey Rush, who are the four Republicans that uh that voted for the filibuster to stop the vote on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
And we posted the roll call vote on uh rush limbaugh.com on Friday.
It might have been a little tough to weed through it all, but here are the four Republicans who voted with the Democrats to essentially kill the Patriot Act.
Larry Craig of Idaho, Chuck Hagel of uh Nebraska, Lisa Markowski of Arkansas, and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Uh Bill Frist switched his vote to no at the end as a procedural tactic so he can call for another vote at any time, as the uh Senate Majority Leader he had the uh right to do his vote was procedural, but the other four, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski, John Sununu, uh Republicans that voted with the Democrats to uh essentially kill the Patriot Act.
Greetings, folks, welcome back.
Nice to have you.
Uh L Rushball at 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at eIBNet.com.
Gets even better.
I just got a note from one of my buddies over at uh Newsmax, and they've been uh like a lot of us have been.
You know who has done a great job.
If you want to go to uh uh National Review Online, F. Lee Levin spent, and of course, he's a lawyer, and he was the chief of staff for Ed Mies in the Reagan administration uh when Meese was attorney general, and and uh Flea has spent uh gobs of hours.
He's got a bad foot, so he can't leave the house, so he's bored, so he's been working on killing Democrats politically.
So he's been working hard, and he's posted so much stuff at National Review Online uh about the uh their little blog called The Corner about a history uh uh the the historical aspects of the NSA and echelon and some of these spying things and who knew what when and how bogus this whole thing is.
When we got the ball rolling on that on Friday, and I just got this note here from my buddy over at Newsmax.
Uh here's a story published on July 21st, 2000 in the San Francisco Chronicle.
It's called Cape Carnivore.
Clinton needs to act to tame FBI email surveillance by somebody named Barry Steinhart.
Trust us we are the government.
That's what the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies are asking the American public to do when they seek to assure us that no one's privacy is being violated by its new online wiretapping system.
The system, aptly if chillingly dubbed carnivore by the FBI itself, forces internet service providers to attach a black box to their networks, essentially a powerful computer running specialized software through which all their subscribers' communications traffic flows.
Now, with all due respect to the FBI, the ACLU is not prepared to take the giant leap of faith that the FBI will only look or capture the small set of communications to which they're entitled under a court order.
We are determined to discover what exactly is being devoured by Carnivore and how the information is being used by federal law enforcement agencies.
Now, as I read this, you don't find the name Bill Clinton anywhere here other than in the headline.
And get the way the headline's written.
Cage Carnivore, Clinton needs to act to tame FBI email surveillance.
So in this case, there's a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, the FBI's a rogue agency is out there targeting everybody's email, and Clinton didn't know about it.
And Clinton now has to act.
The Democrats in San Francisco wanted Bill Clinton to get in gear and to save their privacy.
Excuse me, Democrats in San Francisco and everywhere else.
All of this has been going on throughout the Clinton administration, and he knew about it because the commander-in-chief is required to.
In order to authorize this kind of thing, I remember telling all of you, I don't know how many times over many years.
As you know, and I'm I'm not name-dropping here, but I must I must mention a name, James Calstrom, a great friend of mine.
He's on the board with me at the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Scholarship Foundation.
He was the former director of the New York office of the FBI, and I can remember him calling me.
This goes back why before we uh before we left our studios at WABC.
This goes back to 1992, 94.
He called me, he wanted to come talk to me about the threat that we all faced from terrorism and and uh uh they had they had uh legalized wiretaps.
And I uh uh the the FBI, these are the guys, folks, not Kalstrom, I know I'm not mentioning a name, but these are the guys that you know would sneak in under cover of darkness and bug the uh uh uh headquarters of mafia dons, and they would risk their lives doing this in order to get microphones in there so that they could then take the uh tapes of what they recorded to trial and hopefully convict these guys.
But at the time they didn't have authorization to do this on email.
Everybody was starting to go to email, and it was a big concern at the FBI, and and he called and he knew people are going to be upset about it, and he called me and wanted to educate me on how the program would work, as saying that we need public support for this in order to be able to get permission to do it.
The point is they didn't, they weren't a rogue agency that just started doing this, and poor old Bill Clinton had to take time out from putting semen on a blue stained dress and take time out to stop this.
Clinton was involved in it from the get-go, but this headline makes it look like poor old Bill, he is another victim of the FBI.
Now you contrast that with the coverage was started on Friday in the New York Times, and of course, poor old George.
He's not a victim.
Poor old George, why, he's George Orwell.
He is the guy that is totally, totally denying you any right to privacy and so forth.
I had to laugh, by the way, when Carl Levin with those glasses down there on the bridge of his nose like this, starts talking about his fear that people's medical records will be looked at.
Did you see that?
I'm sitting there, well, you know, I guess it depends on whose medical records you're talking about here, eh, Senator.
Here are all these guys all concerned about invasion of privacy and medical records and so forth, and lo and behold, when it comes to me, I don't have any such privacy.
They want not only to talk get my medical records, but demand that my doctors give up my doctor-patient privilege.
These guys are such hypocrites.
And uh they're dangerous.
There's a story here from editor and publisher that ran on uh, I guess it's Friday, 78, yes, maybe it was 17th, Saturday.
Ran on the 17th.
A Republican senator on Saturday accused the New York Times of endangering American security to sell a book by waiting until the day of the terror fighting Patriot Act reauthorization to report to the government has eavesdropped on people with court-approved warrants.
This is one of my all-time favorite senators, John Cornyn.
And John Cornyn basically that was that was one of the fact the point that I was making on Friday.
There is an ongoing, and I will even use the word conspiracy.
There is a conspiracy and an ongoing effort to sabotage our ability to defeat this enemy.
And whoever's behind it, where they're in the Senate, whether they're in a CIA or wherever they are, is using the New York Times to destroy our effort to defeat this enemy and also destroy this president.
So Cornyn went out and basically said the same thing.
That story's timing on Friday was not coincidental.
It was to cover up what had happened over in Iraq and the elections and to set up that vote later in the day on the Patriot Act.
There's there's no question that that's the timing of this.
There is a there is a conspiracy.
It is the New York Times and whoever it is leaking to them designed to destroy U.S. foreign policy as run by this administration and to set themselves up as the de facto heads of U.S. foreign policy.
John Cornyn.
At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this New York Times story as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
Well, as it turns out, the author of this article turned in a book three months ago, and the paper, the New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author.
Cornyn didn't name the senators in his remarks on the floor.
We know who one of them was uh was Schumer.
Schumer proudly held up the New York Times and said, We've got we can't, we can't vote for the pay.
What was Durban the other one?
Now I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you somebody here, folks, the issue is not FISIS, not the FISA, not the FISA court, it's not torture.
It's not any of the rest of this that the Democrats are trying to make hay out of.
The issue is a concerted and strategic effort by some in our country, including the New York Times to defeat us.
And I mean to say it just that way, not just sabotage our ability to defeat this enemy, Al-Qaeda and international terrorism, but to defeat us.
The same hate America elements that were at work during the Vietnam War are at work today.
They're not gonna succeed because they can't get away with it under cover of darkness and cover by willing accomplices in the mainstream press.
The New York Times led the effort for a special prosecutor to investigate this phony Valerie Plame matter.
They led the effort.
It happened to set the precedent for such investigations now.
This is going to come back and bite these people and take a big chunk out of their rear ends before it's all said and done.
New York Times' own reporter, Judith Miller got caught up in it.
Now, as I said last hour, it is time to investigate this breach of our national security.
Time to subpoena James Ryzen of the New York Times.
to subpoena him to appear before a grand jury.
The left can talk all at once about civil liberties, but until the left respects the liberties of the American people, we know this is nothing more than political, empty propaganda.
They don't care about civil liberties.
They can talk about civil liberties all they want, but what about liberty?
What about freedom that's at stake here in the war that we find ourselves in that was brought to us?
And let me go one step further.
We want to know the names of every member of Congress who was briefed on this program, and we want every one of them asked whether they leak to the media, and if so, we want them expelled from Congress.
This is war, damn it.
These phony reporters and phony politicians must not be allowed to get away with this.
It is essentially our defeat.
Every member of Congress who knew about this program and is running around acting like they didn't know anything about it and demanding investigations.
Let's find out who they all are.
They were briefed twelve times, the president said.
Find out who they are and subpoena their records and who they've been talking to.
Want to talk about civil liberties?
Let's talk about liberty.
Cornyn got the ball rolling officially on Friday.
The American thinker, as I've said to you many, many times, one of our favorite favorite blogs here, Thomas Liffson's blog, has written some really powerful stuff.
The New York Times intelligence scandal.
The New York Times and the Democrat left, the overlap is considerable, have gone into water that they may be deeper than they suspect with the printing of a year-old story based on intelligence leaks on the very day the Senate voted on cloture for renewing the Patriot Act.
Democrats are now on the hook for weakening our ability to prevent another 9-11.
We hope and trust this Patriot Act failure will be rectified quickly.
But if we get hit, if it's not fixed, and if we get hit again, we will know who to blame.
We've got the names of four Republicans and all the Democrats in the Senate.
I'm not sure about Lieberman.
But we've got the names of people to blame if we get hit again because they've built the wall preventing us from connecting the dots.
Before 9-11, everybody was concerned.
We didn't connect the dots, we didn't connect the dots.
We made a hero out of this this Colleen Rowley person, the FBI babe up in Minneapolis.
Now we're trying to connect the dots and they're trying to accuse Bush of spying.
Can't have it both ways.
Congressional leaders of both parties were informed of the program approved by the president to monitor telephone calls between U.S. citizens and foreigners, so the program wasn't secret.
But the time spin on the story was otherwise.
There will be ample time for further examination of the facts and the president showing that he means business.
But now that the Plaim case is established that leaking secrets from the CIA is a crime, and that reporters may be jailed if they refuse to give up their sources.
Some chickens may well be coming home to roost.
It's far too soon for the American thinker to lay out where we think this case may be going, but we think the president's skill as a poker player, one who knows how to encourage his opponents to bet on a losing hand is at work again.
People who pay attention to media spin may think the president is in trouble.
We don't.
Stay tuned.
All right, grab a phone call quickly here.
Uh Oklahoma City, this is John.
Glad you called, sir.
Great to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Rush, it is a very blessed honor to be the first caller on Christmas week with you.
I just wanted To mention here with you and uh get your comments.
There was a story on Matt Drudge last week from the AP.
It was dated uh December 15th, one day before all of this uh New York Times stuff came out, and it mentions something about a spy satellite being used uh to view uh suspected people uh involved with the Oklahoma City bombing.
Yes.
And uh uh it didn't no one in the media seemed to pick up on it.
I don't know if they were fixated with the Iraqi elections or if they just simply didn't want to report the story.
Well, there's two reasons.
They're fixated with destroying Bush and helping Clinton win the Nobel Prize and writer legacy, so not going to mention that when they're getting ready to savage Bush on doing uh, you know, the same sort of thing.
Clinton Clinton gets a total pass in all this stuff.
It's it's it's evidence that his was a do-nothing, amount to nothing administration, not even worth commenting on.
Yeah, well, it it just makes it it just uh foils me when presidents are uh sworn in uh to defend this country and the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And it seems like those words become hollow when we go to the media and ask them for discussion.
That's actually that's actually a good point.
As far as the Democrats are concerned, the sworn enemy is George W. Bush.
George lied, uh George Bush lied to get us into war, he lied about pre-war intelligence, he's created more terrorists.
If you if if you take these people at their word, if you listen to Democrats, and if you actually believe what they say, this man ought to be in jail.
And yet when it comes time to vote on any of this, no Democrats show up other than the Patriot Act.
They will not show up to get us out of a rock.
They will not show up, they will not vote once to back up the message that their words convey.
Uh as far as they're concerned, George W. Bush is the sworn enemy, and I'll tell you what the reasons are malty, but he beat him twice.
They think that he's an idiot, a cowboy, a frat boy.
They don't understand it.
They don't, they they just they they they've lost power.
They haven't had power in Washington in terms of running the House for 40 years.
In terms of presidential elections, since 1980, they haven't had a presidential candidate get over 50% of the popular vote.
They're not the mainstream.
Their birthright is power.
They think they are entitled to it.
They don't understand how it's been taken away from them.
They're blaming voting machines, hanging Chads, any number of other things.
They don't look at themselves.
Bush is the big big enemy.
By the way, get this.
The Senate is now taking up and war.
Drilling in the art in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
Democrats and some liberal Republicans are reportedly planning to try to remove an amendment from the defense appropriations bill that would permit exploration in an area no more than 2,000 square acres, a tiny tiny speck of lifeless ice in the massive state of Alaska.
Now it's interesting.
We're going to see who stands for energy independence and low fuel prices and who doesn't.
But it's there's also something else interesting.
This is exactly how McCain got at asinine foolish torture bill.
He attached it to the defense appropriations bill, which also funds the military, funds the war in Iraq.
And the White House didn't feel it could veto it.
Wish they had, wish they'd threatened to, wish they'd had some comment, but they didn't.
Went along with it.
Ted Stevens from Alaska, chairman of the appropriations committee.
That's the committee that authorizes expenditure of money in the Senate.
Looked at what McCain did.
Oh, is that how I get and war?
Okay, I'll attach and war drilling to the defense appropriations bill.
And McCain said, how dare he put me in this kind of position?
I can't believe he would do unbelievable.
I know, folks, it's unbelievable.
The same thing McCain did.
He's sitting there thinking he's been tricked.
And he thinks Stevens is low ball for doing it to him.
And he's he's he's conflicted now over what to do.
But now the Democrats, they're gonna take it out.
Now the Democrats are finding a way to get it out of it.
They're gonna try to anyway, with the help of some Republicans.
No such talk on the torture bill.
Why?
Well, because they had set it up in such a way that anybody who did so would have been accused of being pro-torture.
And of course, gutless wonders that most politicians are.
They didn't want to face that charge with a chance to knock it out of the ballpark as the hanging curveball that it would be.
Okay, I'll vote for it.
But now we're talking about energy independence, and we shall soon see.
We shall soon see who stands for energy independence and low-fuel prices and who doesn't.
And we're gonna name names on that one.
The only Democrats to vote to kill the filibuster, by the way of the Patriot Act, were Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, two red states, and they're and that says it all.
Lieberman voted with the libs on this one.
I guess he felt like he had to throw one to the party because they're trying to drum him out of the party now.
They literally are.
They're having meetings over what they can do about Lieberman.
So I guess he thought he had to throw up a bones.
The two Democrats that voted to kill the filibuster, the Patriot Act, Ben Nelson, Nebraska, Tim Johnson, South Dakota, Red States both, Republicans, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski, Johnson UNU voted with the Democrats to kill the Patriot Act.
Back in just a second.
America's anchor man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, America's play-by-play man of the news, America's news commentator, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Ill Rushball with talent on loan from God at Christmas time on the EIB network.
All right, let's go to the audio soundbites in Dingy Harry.
Chris Wallace chewed Dingy Harry up and spit him out yesterday.
Chris Wallace said, I want, I want to ask you directly, Senator, because you know you're raising an issue about consultation.
Were you ever briefed on it?
Did you ever object to this national security spying program?
Listen, the program has been in effect.
It's been in effect for four years, according to the New York Times.
I was briefed a couple months ago.
The program been in existence for a long time prior to that time.
This is something that's the president, vice president, and there is no way he can pass the buck.
I was, I had an I vice president came up to talk uh to us uh one day this week.
I wonder if they checked that off as one of the times that they consulted with us.
There were four members of Congress there.
Maybe that's uh counts for four of the twelve.
This is the president's responsibility and the vice presidents, and they cannot pass the buck.
This is incoherent.
They got a focus group phase, can't pass the buck, but the he says, look, listen, program's been in effect, been in effect for four years, according to New York Times.
I was briefed a couple months ago.
Program's been in existence a long time prior to that.
Well, what is it?
It's been in effect four years or a long time prior to that.
Well, we know today it's been in existence a long time before that.
We know that Clinton authorized echelon.
We know that Clinton was was examining emails of people, FBI program called Carnivore.
We know that Bill Clinton authorized the U.S. spy satellites to track white supremacists after the Oklahoma City bombing.
Dingy Harry.
Do they really think this is like akin to Jim Wright?
Do these guys really, really think that Dingy Harry is the guy to turn it around for the Democrats?
I mentioned earlier, and I think it's a good time to mention this again.
The Democrats love to cite congressional approval polls, and their congressional approval is less than half of what Bush's is.
And Democrats are all excited about that.
Well, yeah, that's right.
It makes sense because the Republicans are running Congress.
Oh, really?
Really?
Find a lot of Republican voters who wouldn't believe that.
Can't find a Republican leader anywhere.
But beyond that, take a look at your television news.
Just randomly tune in.
I don't care when.
Who do you think runs the Senate?
Bill Frist or Harry Reid?
Based on media coverage.
There's no question.
Harry Reid is perceived as running the Senate.
Go over to the House.
Who's perceived as running the House based on news coverage?
Nancy Pelosi or who?
You ever see Roy Blunt?
He took over for delay.
You ever see Blunt on TV?
Who?
Hastered?
Who the hell is over there on the Republican side that is ever consulted by the press or asked anything about them?
None.
Zilch.
Zero.
Nobody.
My contention is that as far as the public is concerned, the Democrats run Congress, and that's why those polls are half of what George W. Bush's are.
They won't admit it.
They're too arrogant.
By the way, I'll take you back to Friday.
Taking back to Friday, Dingy Harry said this to the press after the Patriot Act was defeated.
Think of what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate.
We killed the Patriot Act.
This is a Democrat Party meeting.
Democrats applauding killing the Patriot Act.
They, the vast majority of them, voted for it.
As the president pointed out today.
What's changed in it?
What's changed?
New York Times story.
Bush secretly spying.
This is no different than Bush lied about pre-war intelligence.
They saw the same intelligence.
Dingy Harry admitted, you heard him admit just a moment ago, he was in on the program.
He knew it existed, but Bush can't pass the book as some non sequitur meaningless focus group phrase.
So the Democrats are out there applauding essentially the resurrection of that wall which prevents connecting the dots, such as that wall that prevented us from finding out prior to 9-11 that 9-11 was going to happen.
Democrats are out applauding that.
They are out applauding the defeat of the United States of America.
They think they're applauding a political victory.
But this is not about politics.
It's like last Friday, the National Security Agency story hits in the New York Times.
And you probably heard this on one of your many affiliate radio stations in the news at the top of the hour.
New York Times story on National Security Agency, big setback for Bush.
Oh, really?
Big setback for Bush.
It's a political thing.
National security, big political thing.
So our national security is weakened, a setback for Bush.
Well, I thought that would be a setback for all of us, including a Democrats who engineered it.
Let's move forward to Sunday and Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Wallace played the soundbite you just heard, Harry Reed getting applauded for claiming that the Democrats killed the Patriot Act.
Wallace's senator, is that really something to celebrate?
Of course it is.
Fact is that I voted for the original Patriot Act.
It was the right thing to do.
And the Patriot Act that I talked about there, uh, at least some semblance of it, came out of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate unanimously.
It passed the Senate unanimously.
It was a improvement over what we had.
It was sent to the House of Representatives and came back in a fashion that I thought was very bad, as did a bipartisan group of senators.
Now keep in mind what we're talking about.
2003, New Year's Eve in Las Vegas, hundreds of thousands of people come to Las Vegas.
And do you know that those people that came to Las Vegas had their credit cards looked at?
They had what rooms they stayed in, what cars they rented.
Now, what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, but not in this instance.
It's in some federal data bank.
That's what the Patriot Act is doing to the American people.
And we have to make sure that Big Brother doesn't take over this country.
No, you want to take it over, and you're five times worse than Big Brother could ever hope to be.
Can I ask a question?
Now I'm serious.
I want to ask a question.
Can somebody cite for me one instance where the Patriot Act has led to the wrongful arrest of someone who was totally innocent, who didn't do diddly squat, somebody whose civil rights were violent.
Anybody that went to Las Vegas in New Year's Eve, are they in jail?
Have they been charged with anything?
Has the information been used?
I'm not even sure this is all true.
One of the reasons, though, if you remember, there were all kinds of rumors about Las Vegas on this weekend.
New Year's Eve 2003, remember Oscar Goodman, one of my all-time favorite mayors of Las Vegas.
The news it leaked out that Las Vegas might be hit on New Year's Eve.
And Os, you can't do this to us.
Don't leak this now.
Let us know privately.
We can deal with don't leak it.
You're going to hurt tourism.
I even remember this.
I remember the fact that Las Vegas was and the 9-11 clowns, didn't some of them go to Vegas for one fling with capitalism before they decided to flow fly themselves, didn't they?
I think they did.
They went out to inspect the hedonism they were thinking they were going to destroy.
They went out there, they wanted to see what it was all, they played around in it.
There's a track record.
There's a link, there's a connection.
This is this is absolutely sick.
I'm telling you, Harry Reid is personifying the people who are seeking to destroy our ability to defeat this enemy.
Because in Harry Reid's mind, Al-Qaeda's not an enemy, 9-11 didn't happen, and we don't need to worry about these kinds of things anymore.
George Bush is the real threat.
And the real and beyond that, the real threat to America is that Democrats are not in power.
That's what they're really worried about.
Democrats are until they're in power, this country isn't safe, this country isn't right, whatever have you.
This is a sick man.
This is a sick man, and I am clo you know, I I detest, I detest these liberals.
I detest them with every fiber of my body.
And it's getting harder and harder to laugh at these people.
Because this is not funny.
This is not funny.
And when they went when when when tax uh tax increases were passed, they applauded that.
It's 1993 when Bill Clinton's new tax tax increase bill with the retroactivity was passed, they applauded that.
They're not into your privacy.
They don't care about your privacy.
They don't care about your security, and they don't care about your economic prosperity.
They don't give a rat's rear end about that because to them, they're the only ones that matter.
It's all about them.
Not you.
Just like they constantly wail and moan about the poor, they constantly wail and moan about the homeless.
They constantly wail and moan about the black population.
Well, what the hell have they ever done for any of those groups except make it worse for them?
I ask you.
Back in just a second.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
Happy to have you along for the ride today, kicking off a full and brand new week of Broadcast Ex.
We'll be with you all the way through December 23rd, while most hosts take vacation, as it's very important.
And the reason they take vacation is because there's no ratings.
They figure they can be away.
There are other times in the year where there are no ratings and take vacation and I also, as a powerful, influential member of the media take vacations when there are ratings, because it doesn't matter.
We win anyway.
After 18 years, you earn some things in this business.
I just got an email.
I didn't know this.
I got an email from a friend of mine in St. Louis.
Rush.
He said, paraphrasing.
And I haven't seen this, I I I probably ought to double check this, but but uh we will.
Paraphrasing, Russert said people go to war to protect their civil liberties, so it isn't counterproductive, or isn't it counterproductive to take away these liberties while doing it?
Uh can I ask all of you uh out there listening?
How how many of you think we go to war to protect civil liberties?
When is the last time you heard a president declare war on the basis that we got to go protect our civil liberties?
I can't think of one, and I have a fertile memory, my friends.
Lots of deep dark crevices in my brain, and still half of it's tied behind my back to make it fair, and even that I don't remember.
We do not go to war to protect our civil liberties.
That's like saying we go to war for peace.
We don't do that either.
You go to war to kill people and break things, and that leads to the other things.
The primary reason for going to war, you heard the president talk about it time and time again today to save lives.
We go to war and we are at war to save our lives, so that we will then have the opportunity to continue protecting our civil liberties.
Our civil liberties are worthless if we are dead.
If you are dead and pushing up daisies, if you're sucking dirt inside a casket, do you know what your civil liberties are worth?
Zilch zero nada.
You aren't even here.
Ask the families, ask the people who were in the World Trade Center towers right before they were attacked.
If they are more concerned with the loss of their civil liberties and the loss of their lives.
They can't sue Saddam Hussein for loss of civil liberties because they're dead.
How can you sue somebody for your civil liberties being taken away when they've killed you first?
This gets more absurd with the passing of each hour.
Who's next on this program?
Texarkana, Texas.
This is uh Al.
Isn't that where Perot was born?
Is that I think it I I I think I could be wrong, but nevertheless, Alan, welcome.
Nice to have you on the show.
it's great to talk to you.
Merry Christmas, and thank you for everything you do.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I just wanted to say I really hope that every conservative will will be ready and be patient.
And God willing it won't happen.
But if it does, if there's an attack after the Patriot Act now is is dead, every Democrat, especially the leadership, they need to be held responsible for this because if it's proven that any that the attack was made possible because the intelligence industry did not have the tools of the Patriot Act to prevent it like they have the last four years, it's the Democrats' responsibility.
Said this on Friday.
We know who to blame.
If we get hit again, we know whose responsibility it is.
It's a Democrats in the Senate and these four Republicans, Larry Craig, Chuck Hagel, Lisa Murkowski, and Sununu.
For what reasons I can't imagine they voted with the Democrats on this.
Probably something to do with civil liberties.
Because I guess I guess, you know, you gotta be concerned, folks.
Uh if you lose your civil liberties, uh uh uh what worth is uh what what's life worth if you lose?
You may as well you may as well die.
What Craig doesn't like some of the provisions in the House bill.
Larry Craig doesn't like what you know what the provisions in the House bill are that Larry Craig doesn't like.
Because I don't know, I don't know what the provisions in the House bill are that Larry Craig doesn't like.
I I don't know what Hegel's reason is or I don't know any of the reasons, but I know they weren't sent there to vote this way.
That's not what the people who elected them thought was gonna end up happening.
By the way, can I ask a question?
Uh this whole NSA thing, this is how the template is set, and I'm not gonna accept the premise that civil liberties have been violated.
Somebody tell me what civil liberties have been violated.
I want to know.
Give me one person who is in jail who has been falsely charged because of the Patriot Act.
Folks, I'm not I'm gonna leave myself out of this.
Tempting, but I'm gonna leave myself out of this.
Patriot Act hasn't been diddly squat to me.
I'm gonna leave myself out of this.
I want to know what civil liberty is being violated.
I want the press to answer this question.
If we're gonna go to war to protect our civil liberties, what the hell civil liberties have been lost?
What are we losing?
What are the civil liberties that we have lost?
The press is disloyal as ever.
Nobody's stopping their anti-American reporting, apart from a prosecutor that they demanded.
What's the press been stopped from doing?
What civil liberties have anybody been uh uh uh uh uh prevented from utilizing?
What?
Somebody tell me.
Oh, you know who I'm I take it, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
How my friends, I apologize.
I forgot what this is about.
We are talking about the civil liberties of terrorists.
They're the ones who must be protected.
They're the ones who protected against so-called torture.
They must be given the rights.
Thank you, Senator McCain, afforded to U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution.
They're the ones who must get lawyers.
They're the I'm that's what the Patriot Act is screwing with the terrorists.
Sorry, we're back in just a sec.
I mentioned at the beginning of the program these journalists, this press conference is so ignorant.
I don't mean stupid.
They may be that too, but I mean they just ignorant.
They just don't know things.
What about FDR?
Did FDR protect civil liberties when he rounded up 110,000 Japanese Americans and moved them from their homes and businesses to internment camps?
Huh?
Did he?
Went to World War II was to protect civil liberties.
Ask the 110,000 Japanese.
The problem is that the people in the media just don't know history.
They've got no context because history began in 2001, as far as they're concerned.
Look at Lincoln.
For quite a lot of Abraham Lincoln.
Civil war, he suspended habeas corpus, which the Supreme Court said in 2004 not only applies to U.S. citizens, but terrorists.
Man, what would the media today say about Lincoln?
Well, it's he suspended habeas corpus.
There's no question about it.
And FDR, we go to war, civil liberties, protect civil liberties.
I'll tell you.
Uh folks, we've got to take a break here because the end of this sterling and exciting broadcast hour is over.
We've got more straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection