I only need three switches to turn on one microphone.
It's called redundancy.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Thank you, Brian.
It is the EIB Network, the award-winning Thrill Pact, ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program, the program that changed the face of American media.
Happy to be with you.
Our telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, sometimes, frequently, actually, during all these breaks, I go to the email.
I check things out, and I go to all the various accounts from which I receive mail.
And rush at EIBNet.com is where the kooks send me mail.
Well, I get 8,000, 10,000 shots a day in a 24-hour period in this account.
And sometimes I just subject, you know, peruse the subject line.
And this one caught my attention, so I thought I'd read it.
The subject line is 9-11 explanation is a lie, lie, lie.
I said, ooh, okay.
So here's the note.
To me, everybody in the country except you knows and understands a Bush official explanation of 9-11 is a cover-up and a lie.
The truth is being told, and the people are starting to wake up and realize that Bush and his minions are pushing the big lie.
When they can no longer cover their rear ends with lies, they will be held accountable for their crimes against the people of this country.
Goes on to give me two links here to show that Bush blew up the World Trade Center.
So I wrote the guy back.
Hang on and don't leave.
We are sending the men in the white coats over to retrieve you and help you now.
They'll arrive in the little yellow bus.
P.S.
We know where you are because of legal tapping of your email accounts.
Be patient.
All will be well soon.
We only want to help you.
I'll tell you, this clown probably used to be a normal, red-blooded, common, ordinary, every, and I don't mean anything negative by that, common, ordinary, everyday American citizen.
And his mind has been polluted with some of this propaganda from his left-wing buddies.
And now that's where they're headed, folks.
That's where they're headed.
If they ever did get these impeachment hearings, by the way, let's talk about that.
If they ever got hearings on this NSA bid, can you imagine what that would be?
I don't believe they ever really want hearings.
I don't think that's what this is about.
They would not be able to withstand any hearings.
The facts would come out and bury them.
They'd be buried by the facts.
You call Bill Clinton up there.
You call Jimmy Carter up there.
You call their attorney generals.
It's over.
Call this guy Schmidt that wrote the piece of Chicago Tribune today, call Richard Pott.
It's over.
I mean, it's amazing.
They're literally, folks, news is being censored in order to facilitate propaganda.
Let's step back for just a second, shall we?
We know that George W. Bush is an honorable and decent and law-abiding man, but his enemies in the Democratic Party and the media and a few fools who claim to be Republicans nevertheless argue with a straight face that he has authorized unconstitutional eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
And these are the same Dumkoffs, the same idiots who insist that our troops systematically torture detainees.
Just to step back, to take away all of the minutiae and all the propaganda and just strip it bare.
And what do you have?
You have these people who want to defend terrorists, grant them constitutional rights, who want to invest in our defeat in Iraq, claim that Bush, and they argue this with a straight face that he's authorized unconstitutional eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
The main reason it isn't going to work is because it is not believable.
They would have to pound this for a considerable time without any opposition, and they would have to successfully come up with examples of this, and they can't.
They would have to successfully come up with a number of examples to incite legitimate fear, but there aren't any.
They've taken leave of their senses in their reality.
Just stop and think what they're arguing here.
They are arguing that our troops torture, and because of that, we need to confer legal constitutional rights on al-Qaeda terrorists.
Law enforcement breaks the law, so they can't be trusted to follow the Patriot Act.
So we got to gut the Patriot Act because we can't trust law enforcement.
We can't trust the feds.
We can't trust Bush.
We can't trust Cheney.
We can't trust Gonzalez.
We can't trust Rice.
We can't trust Rumsfeld.
They all stink and have to go.
So we've got to gut the Patriot Act.
And the president wants to spy on innocent U.S. citizens, so we need to impeach him.
What is the purpose of spying on somebody who's innocent?
What are you going to get?
What's it worth to you?
Why would George Bush care what innocent people and all this are doing on a day-to-day basis?
These are the same people who want no restrictions on any kind of illegal immigration into this country because they want those people to vote for them.
You know, we used to ask what ideas the liberal Republicans and Democrats propose for winning the war on terrorism, knowing they have none.
What are you for?
What's your plan?
What are you going to do if you ever get power back?
That's not the question anymore.
Now the question is, how can we stop them from undermining critical aspects of the war?
Because they don't care to win it.
They're invested in defeat.
The major concern is stopping this people from sabotaging our ability to wage war on this enemy because that's what the media and that's what the Democratic Party and the far left of this country has become, saboteurs.
You call them traitors if you want.
You can use the word treason.
Go ahead.
They are sabotaging the effort that is underway.
And they're doing it with some of the most ridiculous, baseless claims that will not bear up under any kind of scrutiny whatsoever, which is why I maintain they don't really want the scrutiny they're demanding.
They don't want hearings.
That would kill them.
That would blow up in their face.
Unless every member of the commission doing the hearing was a Richard Benvenista or a Jamie Gorelic.
If they could arrange that, but they won't be able to arrange that.
It's not going to happen.
There's a New York Times story out today.
The third installment in this scam.
And you know what the main point of this story is?
Some domestic telephone calls were accidentally intercepted.
And the story makes it plain and clear as day that the calls were accidentally intercepted and that nothing was done with the information.
And they found out they were accidentally intercepted and they took steps to see to it that it didn't happen.
May I brief you on some reality?
People in this country are accidentally imprisoned for years, even after due process.
If you listen to the Reverend Jackson and that coterie of celebs that went out to the Tookie Williams funeral.
Tookie Williams, right?
Yeah.
The founder of the Crips ended up doing the crypt walk in the crypt now, from the crypts to the crypt.
Anyway, all these celebrities out there, wrongly imprisoned, they will say, shouldn't have been there, didn't do it, maintained it till the end.
People are accidentally imprisoned for years, even after due process.
And let me introduce the New York Times and his bogus story today to something called Echelon.
This happens all the time.
Echelon intercepts everything out there, searching for keywords, looking for anything that the computer might spit out to a human being to say, dope, oop, you might be interested in this.
It happens every day, yet they run a story here.
This accidentally intercepted some domestic phone calls.
And by the way, the Echelon program first reported during the Clinton administration is becoming overwhelmingly clear, without even a shred of doubt, that this program is legal, the NSA program that Bush is utilizing, legal, and it's important.
All the opponents can do here is yell that the law was broken and that the FISA court regulations weren't followed.
But if you take a look now, more and more every day, virtually every intellectually honest legal scholar is coming to a contrary conclusion.
From former Clinton administration types to former Reagan administration types.
Haven't heard from former Carter people yet.
Still slaying rabbits out there on the rivers, probably.
All they do, all they do is yell that we didn't get a warrant.
You didn't go to the FISA court.
You can't do it illegal.
They're relying on their argument to have the one thing that they think will permeate the confusion out there, and that is simplicity.
And simplicity is the characteristic that most bold-faced lies have.
They're so simple, they're easy to believe.
Bush spied.
Bush secretly obtaining information on innocent Americans on purpose to cover up his lies for Iraq.
The real question to me remains this.
I want to know who leaked this classified information in the first place.
I don't care about Valerie Playham posing in her pajamas in her living room with her bedraggled husband looking like he's faking tear.
I don't care.
That's not a leak that damaged anything or anybody.
We've got an investigation open now with Pat Fitzgerald.
And I'll tell you some of these leaks that have shown up in the New York Times and the Washington Post lately, throw them in the hopper because I want to know who leaked this classified information.
I want to know who's sabotaging our effort to wage war on this enemy.
Media don't care about this, but we do.
The media is censoring news, actually censoring news, in order to publish propaganda.
They are ignoring all these past presidential executive orders that you can read on Drudge.
Drudge has in their PDF files.
You want to look at them?
Well, they're not PDF files, but they're essentially copies of the actual executive orders.
Go look from Bill Clinton and from Jimmy Carter.
They're right there.
Go look at this column from Mr. Schmidt today in the Chicago Tribune.
Ignoring all that, censoring them, censoring all of that to get quotes from ignorant politicians who they know will call for Bush's head and ACL lawyers and Gorellic who will say this is horrible.
This is terrible.
This is unprecedented.
Somebody is, I was up late last night working on today's program because all this stuff was coming in last night as the morning papers today went to the website publishing early and I'm assembling all this and amassing my thoughts on it.
I get an email.
Apparently Jonathan Turley's on Nightline calling for Bush's impeachment.
So well, why are they going to get Turley?
Because they know what he's going to say when he gets there.
They know what Turley is going to say.
They want some legal authority to go out and say, and since Turley was good during the impeachment, they think Turley will have credibility across the board.
They want to impeach Bush.
Turley will go out and say, yep, this is a peachable defense.
Bamo, he's there.
I'm also curious about something else.
Jay Rockefeller, in that famous letter that he released, a secret letter, handwritten letter, wrote to himself, so troubled he was by this policy, released a letter in which he complains about this NSA program about which he had been briefed.
He said that the letter dated July 17th of 03 had been sealed and secured in the offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
So he goes to great lengths concealing his views because to voice them might reveal classified information.
So he can't publicly release his views.
He handwrites the letter and puts it to vault.
In that letter, he expresses frustration that he can't even consult with his staff or counsel, and he can't draw on independent legal or technical expertise.
Complains that because of the severe restrictions, and he's on the intelligence committee, he can't even talk to anybody about it.
And Diane Feinstein goes on television and says she hasn't discussed the matter with Rockefeller because he's not on the Senate.
She's not on the intelligence committee, and it's not right.
Every member of Congress ought to be able to be briefed on this program, and she can't hear about it from him because he can't talk about it.
Okay, fine so far.
I think this is all a pile of excrement, but fine so far.
But he went to such efforts to conceal his views if he did.
Now, all this is, this is a planned little scenario.
Rockefeller writes the handwritten letter, puts it a vault, then Feinstein goes out and complains, I wish I could have seen it.
He can't tell me about it.
They create the impression that this is deathly secretive.
Rockefeller is excellent at keeping secrets.
Rockefeller doesn't leak anything in any to fellow Democrats, right?
Well, if that's true, if he went to all these great lengths to keep this such secret, and even if a fellow senator, Dy-Fi, insists that she can't discuss it with him, then from where might the New York Times have reported the following little tidbit in its original story.
Quote, according to those officials and others, reservations about aspects of the program have also been expressed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Wait a minute.
If he can't tell anybody about this, if he can't even tell Die Fi, if he can't tell staff, if he can't tell Senate lawyers, then how, in the name of God, did the New York Times find out about his letter?
Hmm?
I can't imagine this trail would be difficult for leak investigators to follow.
Who knew that Rockefeller had reservations?
He wasn't telling anybody.
Maybe he was.
Maybe Rockefeller was a leaker.
Something doesn't jibe here, folks, but we know that he started this whole scenario with his little memo back in 2002 about how to execute this whole plan.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
You know, folks, you never know what you're going to get when you start wiretapping phones of innocent American citizens.
I was just made aware of this.
We received this over the transom this morning.
The following National Security Agency wiretap was recorded on 72705 at 1 a.m. from a hotel in Bangpan, Thailand.
Hello, I am Siberian Tiger.
Yeah, I see your picture here on the web.
So you're Russian?
Yes.
But are you over 18?
Yes.
Well, where can we meet?
Because I...
Please enter your credit card number now for more time with our swimsuit model.
Oh, no.
It's around here somewhere.
Uh-oh, it's over there in my pants.
I'll have to call you back.
Never know what you're going to find with an illegal wiretap, ladies and gentlemen.
Just a sample international call picked up by, who knows, Echelon, the National Security Agency.
To the phones to Boise, Idaho.
Hi, Kevin.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, how are you doing, Rush?
Good, sir.
Thanks very much for calling.
Hey, really appreciate you taking my call.
Can you hear me okay?
Yeah, here you just find why are you in a barrel or something?
No, I'm talking on a Bluetooth headset, and it's a little bit quieter than I'm used to.
And so, hey, I really appreciate calling.
I'm going to listen to you a lot, mega dittos, by the way, and first time calling your show or any show for that matter.
And, you know, I really depend on your show and other shows for a balance in the news.
I'm a small business owner here in Boise, Idaho, and I heard about Senator Craig voting against the Patriot Act here from your show.
And so I started doing a little bit of research that caught me, and I've just been reading the Patriot Act a little bit online.
It's so hard to go through that there's so much of it.
And I was going on Senator Krebs' website to look at that.
And this is the one concerning question that I have for you that I've been kind of tossing around in my mind, which is, you know, the Patriot Act seems to give a lot of power to the government.
And I trust Bush.
I voted for Bush.
I really like him.
I like all that he's done.
It's just my major concern is what if that power was to be for a long period of time or if they vote on it and then all of a sudden it gets into the hands of somebody who's in the office that you don't trust?
I mean, especially with you hearing about your medical records, that is the major thing I think that concerns me and maybe a lot of people out there is just that, you know, the Patriot Act seems to be able to do that.
Let me, I can explain this very easily.
I appreciate the concern.
What he's asking is, okay, Bush, honorable guy, but what happens when Bush leaves office?
Let's say the next president's Hillary.
And what about the Patriot Act?
Don't to worry.
The Democrats will kill it and keep spying.
She had the 500 FBI files.
This is their normal.
They will kill the program and tell you they're getting rid of this horrible Bush plan.
It's way overdue to get rid of it.
Horrible.
And they'll just keep doing what the Patriot Act allowed them to do while nobody's aware of it.
Pure and simple.
Now, as for Larry Craig, Larry Craig is one of the four Republicans that did vote with the Democrats on the filibuster of the Patriot Act reauthorization vote.
And he has called this program, his office did, and asked to appear on this program to explain his position.
And we gladly, if we're misrepresenting what his vote's about or what we want to be told so, so he will be a guest here for 10 minutes or so at the top of the next hour.
Larry Craig will be joining us to explain his vote on the Patriot Act.
Mr. Sterden, do you think that call was a seminar caller?
Yeah.
Yeah, I think I think that's a seminar caller.
It might have even been somebody from Larry Craig's office.
I'm not going to speculate on that.
But anyway, I know it was just too clean.
All the right talking points, just to rope and loop in an unsuspecting host.
But I think the answer is one they weren't expecting.
The Clintons will just keep this program up while they've canceled it, and we'll be more unsuspecting than ever.
See you in the minute here, folks.
That's what we do here, folks.
I, as your host for life, have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Now, look at this headline.
This is from the Newark, New Jersey Star Ledger.
Random steroid testing aimed at high school athletes in state tournaments starting next fall.
New Jersey will become the first state in the nation to test its has-screw athletes for steroid use.
Acting Governor Richard Cody announced yesterday.
Well, I don't see anything to hear about search warrants.
He's going to start steroid testing without search warrants.
How can this be?
The Democrats know this.
New Jersey is a Democrat state.
This is a Republican.
Well, no, he's not a Republican.
He's an interim governor, right?
Democrat without search warrants doing this.
I'm appalled.
Speaking of steroids, you heard about what's going on in West Palm Beach, Florida.
What are there, nine or 13 members of the West Palm Beach police, nine of them, nine members of the West Palm Beach Police Department are under investigation or facing suspension or whatever because they were illegally purchasing steroids from some chop shop down where?
Port Lauderdale?
Where was it?
Somewhere down there.
Well, I don't know if it's Boca.
So we got substance abuse.
Wonder what will happen here.
I wonder what's going to happen with these nine West Palm Beach police officers.
Now, they've got an excuse.
They say they didn't do it, that they were misled, they were fooled, but there are illegal prescriptions being involved here.
There are the doctor that was not a doctor writing them.
The cops say they didn't know that.
And Hillary Clinton, you know, this deficit bill that was passed yesterday, about $40 billion in deficit reduction.
Harry Reid's out there, we got a $2.6 trillion budget.
Harry Reid's going to talk.
In fact, we might have a soundbite on this.
Let me check the roster here very quickly.
Yeah, so I had it for a minute.
Not on page two.
Stick with me here, folks.
We either have it or we don't.
I thought we had it.
There's no big deal.
Harry Reid's out there saying that this is basically this is going to terrorize the country.
The food stamp program is going to end and Medicare is going to end with a $40 billion deficit reduction, but it's just totally absurd.
And Mrs. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham-Rotom, waded back into the highly charged abortion debate yesterday.
She charged that this deficit reduction bill, she called the GOP cost-cutting measure, will boost the number of abortions in the U.S.
Well, isn't that a good thing in her mind?
I mean, the pro-choice people abortion, the more abortions that happen, the more the political issue is advanced.
Well, she said that a piece of a pending deficit reduction measure would indirectly raise the number of abortions in the U.S. by leaving poor women with less Medicaid coverage for contraception.
I sadly predict that if this measure stays in the bill, the number of abortions will go up.
The human and financial cost will go up, and many women will be really out of luck.
I don't know.
That's right.
I thought condoms were the number one.
What are we talking about here?
I thought condoms stopped abortions.
We're not raising the price of condoms.
I know this is, this is, I can't figure this out.
This is not going to sit well with the base.
The base doesn't want to hear a liberal Democrat upset that the number of abortions are going to go up.
That makes the base of the Democratic Party happy because that equals freedom to them.
That equals no prying eyes.
That equals women's right to choose.
What is Hillary upset about here?
The remarks coming from a longtime supporter of abortion rights was seen by many as an effort to reach out to voters who oppose abortion.
Well, she's triangulating abortion.
Where's the great center on abortion?
Is there a great center on it?
Yeah, go ahead and have one.
I don't care.
Is there that?
There might be some, most of them beaten down men who don't dare speak up.
But right, Brian?
But this is a confusing story to me.
She says, are we not in this body, meaning the Senate, are we not in this body committed to reducing the number of abortions?
Apparently we're not.
In the first place, the whole argument's bogus.
There aren't enough cuts and anything here to reduce anything, folks.
Democrats is so funny.
There's absolutely nothing in this bill that is...
In fact, I'm not sure there are even real cuts here.
This is just enough reductions in the rate of growth so that the deficit is going to be less than what it was projected to be.
We're still spending more on Medicaid.
Anybody thinks we're not.
Here's Craig in Peoria.
Craig, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Anytime, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Let's not forget that these are the same Democrats that weren't concerned when the Martins intercepted Mr. Newt's phone call.
Yes.
That's fascinating.
Let's retell that tale, shall we?
I'm glad you reminded me of that.
Craig in Peoria, Illinois.
There was this around Christmas time, in fact, sometime back in the 90s, Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
And there was this just darling little senior citizen couple.
What was their name?
The Martins.
Yes, the Martins.
How could I forget?
The Martins.
And the Martins were driving around in their Cadillac going Christmas shopping for the grandkids.
And like everybody who's driving around Christmas shopping, they had a radio in their car that could hear cell phone calls.
Everybody has these.
They just turn it on, dial around wherever you are in the cell.
And it's just like a police scanner.
It'll zero in on whatever active frequencies are being used in that particular cell.
And they were doing this because who wants to listen to music at Christmas time?
Who wants to listen to anything else?
They're monitoring the cell phone calls.
It's their entertainment.
They probably have a police scanner at home doing the same thing.
And as they're driving, I think they're heading to between Tampa and Jacksonville.
They're headed to shopping center someplace.
And they get this phone call.
They hear this phone call between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner, who was one of his lieutenants at the time in the House.
Now, the Martins are just cognitive old grandfolks, just out there Christmas shopping.
They said, woo, they're listening into history here.
The phone call was about strategy that the Republicans are planning for the next session of Congress.
Don't remember the specifics, but the Martins heard this.
They said, well, why we're in on history here.
So then they turned on the tape recorder that we all have in our cars that connected to our cell phone receivers in our cars.
And they recorded the conversation between Mr. Newt and John Boehner.
And then they said, this is history.
We can't just keep this to ourselves.
This is history while we're listening to the workings of the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.
So the Martins, in the midst of Christmas shopping in their car with their cell phone receiver and their tape recorder, dubbed a copy of what they recorded and sent it to, was it Jim Moran who?
It's right.
They sent it.
They sent it to Baghdad Jim McDermott, a congressman from Washington.
They sent the tape to Baghdad Jim.
And Jim McDermott heard this and said, well, you're right, Martins.
What great citizens you are.
And McDermott called the New York Times and said, look what a couple of American citizens driving around Christmas shopping happen to hear and record on their cell phone in their car.
And the New York Times said, and so McDermott says, I've got it and I'll give it to you.
So McDermott sent it over there.
And lo and behold, the New York Times published a transcript of a private phone call between Newt Gingrich and John Boehner.
And the Martins, this cogital grandparent couple, why they were American heroes as they should have been because they were out there listening in accidentally on their cell phone receiver in the car with the tape recorder attached.
It's a strategy among the Republican leadership in the House.
And that transcript appears all over the New York Times, and then it becomes the big news.
And there was nothing, you know, they weren't plotting anything other than how to achieve legislative victory on the items that are going to be brought up in the next session of Congress.
I don't know whatever happened to the Martins.
I don't know if they got a plaque.
I don't know if they're maybe even a monument to them inside the DNC building somewhere.
But there was a pretense of a legal case involved here because it was illegal.
The point is, let me eliminate the laughs here.
This was totally illegal.
This was a total setup.
Nobody has cell phone receivers in their cars and tape recorders, particularly grandparents.
The privacy of Newt Gingrich and John Boehner's phone call didn't count for anything.
The New York Times couldn't wait to publish it.
Jim McDermott couldn't wait to give it to them.
And so the point here on the caller from Peoria is, don't believe the Democrats are worried about your privacy.
And that's what I said earlier.
They'll violate it whether you know what's happening or not.
A quick timeout and be back right after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
And Robert, Grand Rapids, Michigan, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Mega Ditto's Rush.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you, sir.
Well, here was my comment.
It's regarding Senators Levin and Stabenoff from Michigan.
Obviously, they voted with the Democrats to vote against the Defense Appropriations Bill, which contained NWR drilling.
I'm sorry, I'm kind of nervous.
But what that does is put an upward pressure on the price of gasoline.
If we have less domestic oil, then we're continuing to have to tap into the global supply.
And what we need to do is tell me.
You're exactly right.
I mean, these are the first people start complaining about the gas price going up when we have any kind of supply or distribution interruption.
Well, I mean, what they're doing is they're killing the economy of Michigan.
SUV sales go down when oil prices go up.
So they're voting against their constituents.
The constituents don't matter as much as the contributors.
And the contributors in this case happen to be madcap, insane environmentalist wackos.
The Democratic Party is a mixture of a various group of coalitions.
You've got feminists.
You've got the madcap out of this world environmentalist wackos.
You have the civil liberties groups.
You've got the NAA LCP.
And they've got to keep all those groups happy.
And the new base now is this anti-war left.
They've got to keep happy.
So constituents in Michigan are not that big a deal.
Your senators are not really voting your interests.
They're voting their own national interests.
Well, that's a shame, Rush.
Well, it may be, but that's, I mean, that's the way of the world in the Senate.
True.
That's just the way.
I mean, you've got a choice.
I mean, you can vote them out.
I know it's going to be tough in Michigan.
It won't be in 10 or 15 years after enough people leave and move.
But until that time, you're stuck with these people until you can find a way to get them out of there.
I mean, can we get real?
Debbie Stabenow in the U.S., can we get real here?
How does that happen?
How does it happen?
I don't know, Rush.
Well, yes, I don't live there, but you tell me.
How does this happen?
Well, apparently Detroit's the most Democratic city in the nation, apparently.
Well, the competition is pretty tough for that one.
Detroit, New York, San Francisco.
I have to say San Francisco.
These people, they've got, you haven't heard anything until you've heard this.
The murder rate is at an all-time high in San Francisco and they can't figure out what to do about it.
Now, what does that alone tell you?
The murder rate, their solution that they're toying around with is community policing, but they don't know who would administer it and who would run it and how it would play out.
I'm not even sure I know what community policing is when you're talking about murder.
I don't even know what it is, but apparently the cops are afraid because of political correctness to arrest anybody.
or to pursue anybody because San Francisco is the capital of radical egalitarianism.
If somebody killed somebody, they had to have a reason and we better find out.
They were upset for something.
And it might be because they were unhappy that they're in the minority on an issue.
And if that's the case, we've got to understand it.
But, and you've got, you've got, well, I mean, if, well, it's, it's, it's got, you've got, that's a big problem.
And you've got the people running around there telling the military they can't recruit on college campus.
You've got, I mean, San Francisco, I mean, if you want the title as most Democrats city in the country, I'll be glad to let you think you've got it.
But the competition is pretty tough.
I'm glad you called, though, Robert.
I'm sorry I'm not able to help.
I went up to Sacramento a couple years ago to do a speech.
And there's only so much I can do here.
And I'm the question and answer session.
What are we going to do about that?
I mean, we've got this wacko governor.
We've got, this is before Schwarzenegger was in there.
We've got the Democrats just totally run this state.
Our taxes are going up.
We can't afford to live here.
What are we going to do?
And I said, your problem, I'm leaving and going home after tonight.
I don't have to deal with it.
I don't know what we can do.
I mean, you've got people in the state voting this way.
Do our best.
But I mean, if you had guts, you'd do what I do and leave.
Oh, we can't.
It's our home.
Well, I understand that sentiment as well.
But a lot of people are voting with their feet in a lot of these places for these various reasons.
Speaking of, you know, I'm going to save this for the next hour.
I've got the most sad sack story in my stack here, folks, about how journalists in New York can't afford to live there.
And yet the people they cover make all the money in the world.
It's a real problem for journalism.
I've got this.
I'll have to find this because I don't have an ⁇ oh, it's one of the biggest cry pieces that I have seen in a long time.
They get these great educations from Harvard and they go here and there.
And it's all about this typical journalist couple.
He works at the Wall Street Journal.
She works at the New York Times.
They make $250,000 a year.
And it says, because of New York taxes and because of this, because they can't afford to live in Manhattan.
They can't even afford to live in Slobe Park.
And I blame the city for pricing them out of the market.
You chose it to $250,000 a year and they can't afford to live in Manhattan.
That's where you chose to live.
You knew it going in and you knew what the profession you were going into pays.
Well, I'm saying that they say they can't.
Everybody in my ear is that you can too live on a quarter of a million.
All I can tell you is I wouldn't want to try it.
But just kidding, folks.
Just kidding.
I've lived there on less than that, much less than that.
But I'm just telling you that this is what they say.
But here, a bunch of liberal journalists complaining about taxes, complaining about the whole housing price.
But as it affects them, they consider themselves part of the elite.
They're Harvard graduates, and this just isn't right.
The people that they're covering and the people about they're doing stories are the elite and the wealthy, but they can't even afford to hobnob with them.
It's an amazing thing.
I don't even remember where it runs.
Hey, it's slate.com.
I'll find it.
And before that, we get Larry Craig at the top of the next hour.
Be right back.
Yeah, you know, I'm figuring a lot of people are going to sleep a lot better tonight knowing how strong the Democrats feel about protecting the privacy rights and the constitutional rights and the security of all Americans and all those living within our borders.
Those who once survived Ruby Ridge, they'll be sleeping well tonight.
Were they survivors of the Waco invasion?
Well, I'm sure the survivors of the Waco invasion will be happy to learn of the Democrats' policy on not spying or attacking any innocent American simply because of their religious views.
And of course, Elian Gonzalez, sitting now at the right hand of Fidel Castro.
I never knew how much Democrats cared about security matters and constitutional rights to these issues.