All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
December 20, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi.
How are you?
Greetings to your thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists.
All across the fruited plain, Rush Limbo.
A program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations daily.
And that's no mean feat.
Not just everybody can do that.
We are here at the EIB Southern Command.
Our signal being sent out to the world from high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
If you want to be on the program, telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Why didn't Congress declare war?
I submit to you that they did.
Shortly after 9-11.
Uh in the immediate days after 9-11.
I want to take you back.
I mean, I could read the transcript of what I said, but I don't play the tape of what I said.
This is August 29th of 2002.
And this uh this is is leading up to the Iraq war.
Now, the Congress, let's not forget this.
This is we're coming up on the congressional midterms in November of this year, and it's about this time that Congress is whining and moaning about the fact that we're on the when they're also the verge of of uh uh the Iraq war.
Congress is whining and moaning, they want to get in on this.
But in 2002, uh 2001 is still fresh enough from everybody's mind that the uh uh people are all for this.
And the Democrats have been out there running for re-election 2002, and they've already started distancing themselves from the White House and from the President on the need for military action.
All of a sudden, we're getting up to the uh start time of the Iraq War.
Democrats want to get back in on this.
They demand a new resolution where they can personally go on record in a campaign year.
But prior to that, there was a the initial resolution shortly after 9-11, and I wrote a bunch of op-eds about this, and I was summarizing one of them here in this bite again from August 29th of 2002.
I think it's amazing that the president got this from Congress, but I know why.
It happened in the heat of the moment, three days after September 11th, and everybody wants to show unity and resolve and all that.
But here's let me just read the relevance section here from the op-ed itself.
Clearly, Congress has an important role.
Article 1, section eight of the Constitution states that Congress has power to declare war.
And on September 14th, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states in part that, quote, the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned,
authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.
Now, what is that if it's not a declaration of war?
And let me let me read to you the uh the part of this that that really is the final nail in the coffin.
The president, singular, commander-in-chief, one person, is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines,
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.
There's nothing, I mean, look, I know it offends some of you to point out, but it's true there's nothing in here that says the president has to prove it to anybody.
Now, the question is, is that a declaration of war?
It was.
If you go to the Constitution, you will read and read and read and read, and you will find nothing about the language of such a declaration.
There's no such, there's no official language.
If you're going to declare war, there's no template, in other words, that Congress must write and utter and sign.
The Congress also passed a joint resolution in October of 2002, specifically authorizing war against Iraq.
What they were doing in 2002 here, this is August 29th was the third resolution they wanted to get.
Three times they affirmed.
And in all three of these cases, go get whoever is planning to do it again wherever it takes us, according to your judgment.
You don't have to prove it.
It's clear as a bell.
Now these people have simply forgotten all this, conveniently so, so that they can pursue this on a uh political basis.
Let's go to audio soundbite number one, because one of the big news stories that's out there today is is Jay Rockefeller on uh on spying.
Uh and and a couple stories here.
This is uh Catherine Schrader and the Associated Press.
Some Democrats say they never approved a domestic wiretapping program, undermining suggestions by President Bush and his senior advisors that the plan was fully vetted in a series of congressional briefings.
Uh Jay Rockefeller said, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
Well, you already had.
The bottom line is you already had two or three times.
He said, as you know, I'm neither a technician nor an attorney.
Okay.
Maybe we have here the first honest things Senator Rockefeller said in a long time.
This statement in writing is shocking.
Because basically what he's saying is, I'm incompetent, and I'm not up to the job of being a senator on the intelligence committee, because I am neither a technician nor an attorney, and I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
And he's the Democrat that runs the he's the leading Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
He's basically saying, I I'm not qualified, I'm incompetent, I'm not up to the job.
This is written after being briefed on a top secret.
This is a letter that he sent out.
Everybody's going ape over this letter.
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky, wait, you covered us.
Good.
You sent out this letter.
Well, this letter's written after being briefed on a top secret national security matter after 9-11.
This sounds like a resignation letter to me.
This sounds like Rockefeller saying, I am not up to this job.
He said he's weak.
He's incapable of being part of the solution to the problems posed by the war on terror.
He's admitting to being incompetent.
That's how you have to read this note.
He wrote this letter to cover his rear end.
But the bottom line is when you look at it, this man doesn't deserve to be on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Here is a bunch of reporting.
We have a montage of reports here from Andrea Mitchell, uh, Kelly Wright, Suzanne Malvo, Ed Henry, Randy Meyer, and uh Gloria Borger, all reporting on Rockefeller's secret letter.
Tonight, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller released this letter he wrote to Vice President Cheney two years ago.
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller, one of those briefed in secret, released a letter.
senator jay rockefeller released a letter in a very dramatic development tonight jay rockefeller has just put out a two-page handwritten letter Top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, has released a handwritten letter he wrote to Vice President Cheney in 2003.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, today he released a note he wrote to Cheney expressing his concerns.
He couldn't tell other members of his committee, he couldn't tell anybody on his staff, he couldn't even type an email about it, which is why he wrote this handwritten note, put it in a sealed envelope, and saved it for a day like today.
Uh-huh.
And what did he say?
I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.
As you know, I'm neither a technician nor an attorney.
The precedents that we have cited on the first hour of this program today are if I can find them, Senator Rockefeller, who is the Democrat, leading Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, could certainly find them as well.
Chose not to.
What, Mr. Snur?
What?
Well, I know I see Miss Snerdley.
See, you can say that because you're the official program observer.
Uh you have no official tie or responsibility to utterances on the program.
You observe.
I utter.
I speak.
And I I I and Snarley wants to.
Okay, I'll repeat what Sturdley says, because it is valid point, and I have the same thought, which is this.
All these secret Rockefeller memos pop up all of us suggest at magic.
It's like man, the right time we get the secret Rockefeller memo.
We got the secret Rockefeller memo outlining the strategy that's currently being played out by the Democrats.
Now we get this secret letter that he couldn't tell anybody about.
Handwritten.
Was it post-dated?
How do we know?
Have we carbon date tested it?
Well, these are legitimate questions.
This is awfully convenient that Rocky would have this letter.
Now, here we have, let's go to uh Hardball last night.
Chris Matthews on vacation, the guest hostette, Andrea Mitchell talking to Senator Feinstein.
The question, have you discussed this letter with him now since it's come out?
No, he won't discuss it with me.
But um Where's this?
I say good for him.
No, I don't know.
Your colleagues, your longtime friends.
No, no, no.
The point is he can't discuss it.
You see, that's why it isn't proper oversight.
This this kind of thing, as I tried to point out in the earlier segment, should have come to us in writing, and we should have been able to review what the plan is.
I know the woman has a reputation of being bright and so forth, but uh she's not chairman of committee, is she?
And as such, she's not the ranking Democratic Committee, is she?
No.
So as such she's not entitled to it.
What are we gonna get here?
Everybody in Congress has to know this, so one or two of them or five or ten can go to the New York Times and leak it.
The whole point, he advised the relevant members of Congress according to the law at least a dozen times, he said.
Now, Diane Fine, we didn't know about that, we didn't know about this, so the point of this, he didn't inform anybody, he didn't tell anybody didn't tell me, and now Rockefeller can't discuss it, uh, which which is true.
I mean, he's not legally allowed to discuss, but he can release the letter.
But he can't discuss it with anybody.
He doesn't have to discuss it with it.
The letter speaks for itself as far as the case that the Libs want to make.
So the next question was uh Patriot Act, it's gonna expire at the end of the year with a lot of uh what he and you would claim are legitimate protections the U.S. citizens need.
There is substantial concern about two sections, the National Security Letters and Section 215, the so-called library provision.
Now, what's happened is over the years, I think the credibility through Abu Ghraib, through the violation of the Geneva Conventions, the conventions against torture, uh what just happened on electronic surveillance of Americans, uh, I think without authority, has caused serious concern about how these two sections will be used.
And this is in the two sections.
This is precisely why these people can't be trusted.
None of this is true.
None of this is true.
We were not surveilling Americans, we were surveilling Al Qaeda.
There was authority.
It has been long granted by the FISA court itself, without a court order, is frequently mentioned in the FISA statute.
It's there.
They choose to ignore it because it doesn't serve their political purpose.
By the way, Mr. Sturdley, Jay Rockefeller, all concerned now.
He can't discuss this.
He's got to respect the rules of confidentiality confidentiality.
Isn't he the guy that leaked the story about our super secret satellite program?
He and uh Senator Turbin.
Didn't didn't didn't didn't Rockefeller say we've got problems with this, the budget and the money that was and nobody knew the program was going but he leaked that, so he's clearly got no compunction against leaking things.
This letter is is is highly suspicious to me.
Uh is particularly with its uh with its time.
But it's irrelevant anyway, folks, because these people, while thinking they're at the beach, are actually in quicksand.
We'll be back, gotta take a quick timeout.
More broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Merry Christmas, happy holidays to one and all from all of us here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Went back to the archives.
Um we found the story on uh on Jay Rockefeller.
It's uh from July twenty-third of this year.
Uh all reliable buddies at Newsmax.
The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into whether Democratic Senators Dick Turbin and Jay Rockefeller and Ron Wyden leaked details about a secret black op CIA satellite program last December in a move that may seriously compromise national security.
The CIA made a request to the Justice Department to investigate and possibly bring criminal charges against these three senators.
This, according to uh uh former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Jed Babbin, uh says my information is the information is ongoing.
Media reports on the satellite leak last December indicated the Bush administration was concerned about public comments by Turbin, Rockefeller, and Wyden, and that the CIA had requested a Justice Department probe.
And then of course we have Pat Leakey Leahy, who leaked intelligence about plans to hit Libya and was kicked off the Intelligence Committee for it.
So if these senators can't discuss these things, then I assume that they agree that uh this leak should be investigated.
Then the NSA leak that led to the New York Times story on Friday.
We need to investigate it.
We need to find out who's leaking all this national security stuff because you're not supposed to do it.
Here's Rockefeller.
He won't discuss this with anybody all of a sudden.
Maybe it's because he is being investigated on this other leak, but regardless, uh it's it smells, folks.
Rotten in Denmark.
Here's Jim in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Morning, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good, sir.
Thanks for the call.
Ditto, sir.
And may I say before I saw Merry Merry Christmas to you?
Thank you, sir.
You're welcome.
Uh Russ, during the break, I had heard um in the news about the word impeachment uh being mentioned in buzz around Washington.
What are your thoughts on that?
Predicted it.
I predicted this.
I said if Bush wins the I said this in the fall and a summer of 2004, maybe even the spring.
If Bush wins the election, then they're going to start trying to find ways to impeach him.
That's just my prediction coming true.
It doesn't surprise me at all.
It's all these people have.
They don't have one way to win elections other than to scandalize their opponents and to try to criminalize them, put them in the in the in the dock.
They don't they don't have one thing there for.
They don't have one policy in Iraq, national security.
And they well, actually, I'm wrong about that.
Their policy on national security is defeatism.
They are invested in our defeat.
I'm not surprised about you think it's going to get any traction, Rush?
Uh no, I don't think it's going to get any traction.
They they admit that they're going to have to win the House in 06 before they can control it.
The Republicans aren't going to bring articles of impeachment against their own president.
The Democrats can gain control of the House in 06, they're saying that they will.
John Kerry's out there joking about it, saying he'll do it.
He says he's joking about it, but he means it.
Barbara Boxer has already sent a letter.
Because John Dean, John Dean somewhere said that Bush admitted him an impeachable offense in his press conference yesterday.
So Barbara Boxer, ooh, exciting.
John Dean, he's our third authority.
John Dean and Jamie Corellix.
So fire off a letter demanding to know what the uh evidence is.
She says that Dean confirmed his comments.
He's fired off a letter to somebody.
Yeah, they're they're gonna they're gonna talk about it, but I this is this is they're just sealing their own doom doing this.
This isn't this is a and I'm gonna be eager to see it.
But I don't I don't I don't see this going anywhere.
I in fact, the thing that I've never really understood about these people, well, I can't say I don't, because I understand them like every square inch of my glorious naked body, but really, even I at some point just reach reached that status where I don't get the they cannot be this stupid, and I know they're not, but what's happened to them?
They've lost their heads.
They're so obsessed, they've got so much rage and so much anger that they've lost all rationality.
Bush is not their opponent in 06 or 08.
Unless they plan on trying to nationalize the House elections in 06 and let them try.
They they don't have one national issue that people are gonna vote with them on.
I hope they do try to nationalize those elections.
By nationalize, I mean go into every one of the 435 congressional districts and campaign on national issues rather than which representative built the nicest nursing home, who got the most pork to build a bridge, or 15 bridges if you're Alaska, or what have you.
If you nationalize, this is what the Republicans did in 94, nationalized the election in the House races and talked about how untrustworthy the Democrats are, how corrupt they were coming out of the House bank and post office scandals, how we can't count on them in times of war, the economy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And it worked.
Now, if they're going to try to nationalize the elections, I wish them well because they don't win national elections.
Since 1976, they have not received over 50% of the popular vote in presidential elections.
Bill Clinton never did.
He got 42% or 43 and 49.
He never got 50% or more.
No Democrat has.
And then after 06, um, you know, folks, I keep telling you, and I I will keep telling you, it's nothing more than a redux.
It's Watergate brought back to life.
It's Vietnam brought back to life.
That's all this is.
They've got nothing else but their past.
Their glorious past.
Their glorious past when it comes to the Iraq or the Vietnamese war.
Yeah, that's real glory for you Democrats.
It gave you George McGovern.
It gave you a landslide defeat in 1972.
But you think you won 72 because you got Nixon out of there as a watergate.
So you're relying on the same thing to happen here.
You know, you can't make history repeat itself precisely.
It's why it's history.
The future is unknown.
They're trying to make their future known by reliving and reorchestrating the past.
So all of these issues in 2005, they want to draw connections to 2000 or 30 years ago, and it's going to bomb royally.
Reagan, Bush, whoever is not their opponent.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
All right, satisfied's curiosity.
We finally got the audio sound bite from WJR in Detroit with Paul W. Smith, who was talking to Carl Levin today.
Somebody called earlier who was going to tell us what Senator Levin said about me.
Okay.
And I don't want to hear third hand, nothing against callers.
If he said it and it's on tape, we can get it.
Well, we reached out and we got it.
And we want to play for you what happened.
Paul W. Smith this morning talking to Senator Levin, played him a soundbite of me uh from yesterday's program and got Senator Levin's uh reaction to it.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned you yesterday.
Oh my God.
I've arrived.
I want you to hear.
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.
You see that?
I'm sitting there, well, you know, I guess it depends on whose medical records you're that 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.
Are you gonna go to bat for Rush on this, Senator?
I always have on that issue.
He's a he's an American citizen.
I disagree with him vehemently, but I'll protect his rights any day to privacy.
Well, uh, gee, uh uh.
Great to know.
What what uh what uh I should have listed him and put him on a defense team.
Uh okay.
Has anybody heard him say that before?
He said, as I've always said.
Maybe he's man means as he's always said in a generic sense.
Anyway, that's what Senator Levin said about uh my particular circumstances.
Now, I want to go back to the audio soundbites.
Uh, let's go to number four and number five.
We've got one more Feinstein soundbite from uh MSNBC last night, Andrea Mitchell, guest hosting for Chris Matthews, and they're talking about the Patriot Act and uh Andrea Mitchell says, but won't it expire now with the uh House having gone home for the holidays?
Won't it expire?
Patriot Act will not exist as a result of this debate, this filibuster.
The House said they would come into session uh on Thursday if necessary, and certainly the leadership can come, and if there is an agreement and the leadership of the House is willing to go along with it, that will settle that.
The point is there's ample time to settle this.
Now, there are probably some members of my party that don't want to see a Patriot Act.
I am not one of them.
And if I at any point in this uh feel that there's a disingenuous streak and that people are trying to kill the Patriot Act, I will not be part of that.
Well, let's go back to her leaders, Senator Dingy Harry.
This is uh last Friday after the Senate voted down the Patriot Act.
Senator Reed went over to a party with a bunch of Democrats and said this.
Think of what happened 20 minutes ago in the United States Senate.
We killed the Patriot Act.
Yes, Senate Democrats applaud killing the Patriot Act.
So what we have prior to 9-11, these same people whining and moaning about not connecting the dots, now the president trying to connect the dots, surveilling Al-Qaeda types, not domestic Spying on American citizens, suspected Al-Qaeda types, and now the press is trying to connect the dots and they want to impeach him.
Now they accuse him of spying.
So protecting your country is now an impeachable offense.
Protecting our liberty and security is now an impeachable offense.
Preventing another 9-11 is an impeachable offense.
So I guess if you don't adopt, I'm telling you who's who's whose policy that the Democrats have totally embraced is the ACLU.
This is j this is the ACLU front to back from the beginning to per to current, when old Norman Thomas, the grandfather of Newsweek's Evan Thomas, when he founded the ACLU, big socialist, ran for president six times, when when they started that organization, it's come full speed, full circle now, and the Democratic Party has simply embraced the total agenda of the ACLU.
And if you don't, if you don't, if if if you don't embrace their pacifism and anti-Americanism, then it's an impeachable offense.
By the way, speaking of impeachment, yesterday was a big anniversary.
It was uh Happy Clinton impeachment anniversary day, December 19th, 1998.
Uh we're going to start talking about impeachment.
Maybe we need to lead a movement here about expulsion from Congress.
After all, who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy these days?
Who is it that's doing everything they can to prevent us from successfully waging war against this enemy.
So if we're going to start talking about impeachment, let's talk.
Let's start talking about uh expulsion from Congress.
Hmm.
You know, go on offense.
Don't have to accept the premise here just because it's a bunch of Democrats that offer it.
Mike in uh in Garden Grove, California.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Uh mega dittoes rush uh from another mind-numb robot.
Uh I was thinking uh that the this all adds up to the Democrats trying to uh pull off what happened to Bill Clinton in his midterm elections is to turn over the Congress to uh the other party for balance of power.
They're trying to make the case that uh, you know, the president's out of control, he's got all this power and he's misusing it.
Well, I think that may be one of their campaign techniques.
I mean, they I think they're they're already alluding to that.
They're running around saying, this is what you and Feinstein herself, this is what you get with one party rule.
Well, if you Democrats don't like one party rule, there's a way around it in this country.
It's called win elections.
You stop complaining about hanging cads and doctored voting machines and go out and get an agenda that a majority of Americans support and will vote for.
Until you do that, you are going to be a whining, nattering bunch of negative pessimists.
You're gonna be part of the doom and gloom crowd, and your propaganda oriented in that direction is gonna seal your fate even further.
One party rule as though somehow the Republicans have come in and stolen and created a coup d'etat.
See, this goes back to what I'm doing.
Democrats, that's a birth entitlement to power.
They are entitled to it because they're liberals.
And when that doesn't happen, there's there's something wrong, and it's hanging Chad's, or it's it's it's uh it's it's voting machines that are screwed around with.
It can't possibly be because they're doing something wrong that the American people are rejecting.
It just can't be that.
Then they have this radical egalitarianism.
I don't know if you've this this this is this is one of these arguments that drives me up the wall.
Let's say in a room of ten people, eight of them believe X. Two of them believe Y. The liberals happen to be the two who believe why.
They will try to deny the eight who believe X because there are two in there that don't.
And they will say, well, what about all the people that don't agree?
Well, it's a democracy, it's a representative republic, it's called go win elections.
What about the people who are opposed to this policy or that?
Screw them.
Until they win the majority, and we can feel sorry for them if you want to get worried about them and all that sort of thing, but in terms of letting the tyranny of the minority turn things upside down, it's simply ridiculous.
And that's where we are now.
We've got a minority of Democrats in the House and Senate getting together with the New York Times, packing that paper full of lies, and I'm sure the New York Times eagerly participates, in order to essentially handcuff our ability to wage war against this enemy.
And it's nothing but lies.
Spent the first hour of this program read reading from you uh to you from the FISA law itself, quoting Jamie Gorellick, quoting Jimmy Carter, quoting pr uh and then Bill Clinton on all the times they did exactly what Bush is doing.
And what's stunning to me is that there are people who are informed.
They are they're clearly say they're informed, they say they're educated.
They've been to college, they've got degrees.
They have spent their lives in the news business, they've spent their lives in academia, they've spent their lives in think tanks.
It is amazing what they don't know.
It is amazing what they purport not to know.
It's amazing how to them history seemed to begin in January of 2001.
None of this is new.
None of this is unprecedented.
And in fact, perhaps the precedent that's being said is we are actually at war when these processes are being used.
When Clinton did it, we weren't really at war.
He hadn't declared war.
We had the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, but Clinton was out there solely interested in himself.
The erection of that wall was to make sure we couldn't find out what we needed to know about illegal campaign contributions coming from China.
It served the purpose of letting Clinton also say he was tough on terrorism, but where wasn't any war on terror back then?
Clinton, we were pulling out of Mogadishu.
We were cutting tail and running everywhere we could where we were being attacked.
Clinton wouldn't want to deal with it because he didn't want his approval ratings to come down.
He's worried about that constantly.
So we wouldn't take on any hard, tough issues.
But it's all there if you go look in the record.
But man, the New York Times come out and says something.
The rest of the media just gobbles it right up, doesn't question it, not curious, doesn't go look to history, doesn't find out.
Is this really unprecedented?
Don't go read the FISA law.
Don't find out all the occurrences in the FISA law itself, quote unquote, without court order.
It's all there.
I can find it.
I can find it on my little Mac.
Well, I have a big Mac.
But I can find it on my computer.
Countless others of people like me can do it too.
Why can't they in the mainstream press?
Why can't they at the New York Times?
Well, the fact is they can as well.
And when pointed out, this thing, these things, if they are pointed out, they will poo-poo them.
Oh, you're just being partisan.
Oh, that's not relevant.
Oh, this is far worse.
We are trying to protect our civil liberties.
Wrong, oh, Doomkoffs.
We are trying to protect and save lives.
Your civil liberties are worth dirt.
Your civil liberties are worth zilch if you are room temperature.
Doesn't matter what your civil liberties are.
That's not why wars are fought.
We're not, we don't go to fight wars because two out of ten people are unhappy.
We don't go try to save the country because two out of ten people don't like what's going on, or four out of ten, whatever the number.
This radical egalitarianism coupled with everything else about liberalism is going to end up paralyzing the country on virtually everything.
But it's not, we're not talking here about social security reform or tax cuts or Medicare.
This is national security.
And for the first time in my lifetime, we have a major political party which is now chosen sides.
And the side they've chosen is defeat of the United States of America.
Now they will deny this.
No, no, no.
We're trying to protect civil liberties.
We're not, we're not seeking defeat.
I don't care what your intent is.
The result of your actions is what is dangerous, dangerous, and poses the threat and can't be tolerated under any theory.
Radical egalitarianism, rights of the minority, or what have you.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Back after this, stay with us.
All right, I'm going to take a call from Altus, Oklahoma.
It's Mike.
Uh Mike, welcome to the program.
I just want you to I mentioned this exact thing in the first hour of the program.
Go ahead, Mike.
Merry Christmas, Rush.
How's it going?
Thank you.
Very well.
Thank you.
I just wanted to point out one thing that uh since the early eighties, the Department of Defense has been guided by an executive order that Ronald Reagan put out.
And it was Executive Order 1233.
And that's which I cited last hour.
Okay, and that's for collecting on U.S. persons or not collecting on U.S. persons, but 1233 allows U.S. entities to collect on U.S. persons for 13 different categories.
And number 11 is international terrorism.
And this is all publicly available information.
It's not anything classified.
It's out there.
I know.
I know.
How is I I was able to get it.
Yeah, any members that are in on of Congress that are on the Hip C or the Senate Select Committee on it, they all know this.
They all know this.
It's been out since the early 80s.
And we know it in the intelligence community as well.
There's no secrets about it.
We are you in the intelligence community, sir?
Yes, sir.
Aha.
Aha.
So we have source authority and credibility in one call here.
Well, I'm I'm glad that you uh got through, Mike.
I'm not trying to to uh uh dilute what you said by saying I said it in the last hour.
I I uh simply trying to buttress the fact.
And and I uh so I appreciate the call.
Thank you, uh thanks very much.
I want to go back to this Carl Levin bite for just a second.
I some thoughts occurred to me here as as I uh I heard it cold, and I want to go listen to this again, as I definitely have some reaction to it.
This is from this morning on WJR, our Detroit affiliate.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned you yesterday.
Oh my God.
I have arrived.
I want you to hear.
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.
You see that?
I'm sitting there.
Well, you know, I guess it depends on whose medical records you're the you're talking about here, eh, Senator.
Hear 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.
Are you gonna go to bat for Rush on this, Senator?
I always have on that issue.
He's a he's an American citizen.
I disagree with him vehemently, but I'll protect his rights any day to privacy.
Now, in the famous words of that great Indian chief sitting bull, how?
How has he done this?
You know, I I'm sure this is gonna irritate some of you out there, but uh uh on the on the surface, since I don't know what Carl Levin has is done on on particularly my behalf, not that I am expecting any, don't misunderstand.
I just don't know of anything.
But it does seem to me that Senator Levin has done more to try to protect the privacy of terrorists wherever they may be found than domestic citizens.
Just seems to me, just on the that's that's my whole point.
The Democrats today have an agenda, folks, if you stop and look at it, very popular with the enemy.
And by enemy, I mean international terrorists.
But the enemy doesn't vote.
It's the only problem the Democrats have, and neither do ex-felons in most states.
Uh illegal immigrants are not supposed to vote, but well, uh in most states.
But that this is their this is their natural consistency or constituency, I should say.
You've got you've got international terrorism, ex-felons.
And I have this question as well.
Did uh speaking of Clinton, did Clinton have a resolution from Congress authorizing war against an enemy of any kind when he sent Gorellick up to the Senate Intelligence Committee to explain how he didn't need to get warrants for anything?
That the president's inherent authority, that's her quote, inherent authority in the Constitution.
His inherit authority, he doesn't have to listen to anything that Congress says when it comes to national security, because he's commander-in-chief.
That's what she said.
It's in the Washington Post.
Well, Byron York found it.
It's National Review Online, but it was in a Washington Post story back in 1994.
Jamie Garellick said that.
Clinton doesn't need anybody's permission or authorization.
Well, granted, because Reagan said it up this way, so did Jimmy Carter.
Ergo Bush doesn't.
Well, of course, Bush needs to be impeached over this.
But I want to know when Gorellick was up there in '94, in the summer of 94, arguing for Clinton's authority to go do whatever he wanted to do whenever.
Did he have a resolution from Congress authorizing war against an enemy of any kind?
No.
Bush does.
Three of them.
If I were a liberal today, if I were a reporter, if I were a Democrat, thank God I'm not, and if I were consistent, I would have to say, if I weren't a snivelling little hypocrite, that Clinton had less of a legal basis to authorize warrantless searches than Bush, who has done so during a recognized war.
Back after this.
What do you say to that, Ms. Gorellic?
Folks, we are smoking, and it's gonna get it's gonna get it's gonna get hotter.
Uh you just sit where you are.
I got a Barbara Walters interview with a uh failed suicide bomber that aired on Good Morning America today.
You gotta hear this.
▲
Export Selection