All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:08
December 22, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm sorry I'm late getting the show started, ladies and gentlemen.
I was answering another email from another woman who is no matter what, not pleasable.
Greetings and welcome.
It's well, it's just the excellence in Broadcasting Network 800-282-2882, the email snerdly loves that.
Email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Great, great to have you with us.
Great audio soundbite's coming up.
Ted Stevens was done wrong in the Senate last night.
He was mad.
He was sad.
He's thinking about leaving the Senate over what happened to him last night.
We will have details in a moment.
I want to go to Maura, who's in London.
She's an expatriate American.
Her husband is a 24-7 subscriber.
She's been on the phone for a while, and I'm glad that you called and I appreciate your waiting.
Oh, thank you for having me.
I'm I'm delighted to be on.
Um I'm just wanted to comment on the issue of the Clinton White House's use of warrantless search and surveillance, which is now finally getting out there.
And I'm I wanted to comment on it from the angle that uh this angle.
Since Clinton has, as you predicted he would, breached the former president protocol of not commenting on issues during his successor's term.
Yes.
Why is he silent on this very critical issue?
This issue that's so critical to our national security.
Give it time.
We don't know why.
Why isn't he disabused since he decided to ignore former president protocol?
Isn't it now incumbent upon him to disabuse the press and the unwitting victims of the press from the notion that the Bush administration's use of these uh surveillance protocols is not a uh uh uh or welling is not an all-willing departure from uh his entire administration.
Take up Mara, we are not in the National Honor Society here.
You really I mean, I I like the point you're making.
Don't misunderstand.
I got Clinton can s can settle this and so could Jimmy Carter, but do you really expect him to?
Well, no, it's a rhetorical question, of course.
Of course, as Bill.
What has Bill Clinton shown you that would make you think he's honorable?
Here's a man who during the 2004 campaign was everywhere he could be heard in Europe denouncing this country and this president.
Here's a man who was just a few months ago over in Dubai demouncing the war on Iraq, the war at Iraq and the war on terror, and then he comes back to New York and speaks out in favor of it.
Uh I I I'm not so sure the president is not gonna speak out.
I th I think as always happens in these circumstances, the Clintons are nailed.
So what they're doing, the Gorelic going out there and talking to the Washington newspaper saying, Well, uh we was unsettled what uh what was going on.
Uh, we weren't sure that Congress couldn't trump our inherent authority.
That means they're circling the wagons.
The Clinton people, and they are loyal to Clinton first foremost and always, are circling the wagons, and at the right time they'll come out and do just the opposite of what you say.
They will say they didn't do this.
They never had any intention of doing this.
They will say that this effort by the president is phony because he lied about the war in Iraq.
There's no reason to be spying on people because it's just it's a phony war.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Uh it's it's all being done by Bush because he's power bad and hungry and wants to spy on innocent American citizens.
We had to do it in the Clinton administration because we were dealing with white supremacists like Timothy McVay of the Oklahoma City bombing, and Carter would have to do it because he was dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis.
There's no excuse for this.
And if you think Clinton's gonna come out and give cover to Bush on this, I I would I I'd be the most stunned person in the country if this happened.
I think you're circling the wagons to try to do just the opposite.
And I I do agree with you.
As I said, I think it was uh my question was really rhetorical.
I think it just underscores, as you point out, the lack of honorability, the lack of honor.
Um and again, on such a critical issue as national security.
I exactly right, Maura, and thank you very much for calling.
Now there's another uh possibility out there.
And it's I mean, you throw it up against the wall, it may stick.
They may know that the goose is cooked here.
I mean, they they they they the why come why why speak out and say, yeah, we did this when the media wants to impeach Bush when Clinton's own party hopes to impeach President Bush over this.
Why would the Clinton people come out and defend it?
And don't say national security, then it's it's not that the if they cared about national security, wouldn't be doing this as a party in the first place.
So it's it's not that.
I I I think that they're just they're they're happy to accept the cover the mainstream press is giving them, and they'll either lay low or they'll come out and join the cacophonous rage that exists on the left.
But again, I just want to call your attention back to the newsweek piece that runs at MSNBC.com where there is outrage that you aren't upset about this.
The American people are not mad about president's approval numbers are going up.
The economy continues.
Consumer confidence is up again in November.
The news in Iraq is positive.
The attempt here to make chicken excrement out of all this is patently obvious to everybody, and most people don't want to think of their country in the ways the Democrats portray it.
It's just that simple.
Let me give you another tip here.
Something that is uh that is happening.
And this is a story in the Charleston, South Carolina Daily Mail.
But this I mentioned this uh just to indicate how how broadly the tentacles of this template have woven themselves into the fabric of American media.
Stories by Justin D. Anderson of the Charleston Daily Mail staff, the headline, Senator silenced by old law.
Why don't you just put tears in this?
Oh no, can it be?
Because of a clause in a federal law, Democratic U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller could not bring to the Senate floor his concerns about President George W. Bush's executive authorization of a domestic spying program, his office said.
And the story goes on to say, poor Rocky.
Poor Rocky, he wanted to alert the country.
He wanted to protect us, but he couldn't.
Because of a clause in federal law, he couldn't do it.
So this is the template.
DNC talking point.
It's in the Washington Post today.
A senior senator is powerless.
Tell that to Senator McCain.
Tell it to Vice President of the Media, Lindsey Graham.
Here's the dirty little secret.
Rockefeller may in fact be the leaker to the New York Times.
And you know what else is now being speculated?
If you go back to that New York Times original story, and I have that story here in my formerly nicotine-stained finger stack.
I'm going to read the uh excerpt from the story to you.
Here we go.
Try this, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from the last Friday's New York Times story.
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 vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Now, uh Mr. Justin D. Anderson of the Charleston Daily Mail kind of screws around with your story here.
Poor Rocky, he couldn't say a word.
Somehow the New York Times knew he had talking.
I wonder how.
But that's not the thing.
Listen to this next little sentence.
Let me pre-read this just again.
Put it in context.
According to those officials and others, reservations have been expressed by Senator Rockefeller and a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters.
Some of the qu we overlooked that last Friday, but now that Judge Robertson has in a puff of conscience, resigned from the FISA court.
There is speculation out there that Robertson and Rockefeller are leakers, and Roberts resigned because he was going to be forced out as having leaked, and instead he forces himself out.
He resigns and takes this moral high ground.
I will not sit here and preside over a court that violates the law in such a way.
When in fact he may be dirty.
This is being speculated in a number of places, nothing official, just wanted to pass this on.
But for all this talk about the valorous Jay Rockefeller, who couldn't say a word.
Somehow his name and his reservations end up at the New York Times on Friday, as well as a judge presiding over a secret court that oversees intelligence matters.
Could it be the Judge Robertson resigned and retired from this court because he leaked information to the press regarding the NSA process?
Could it be?
It's possible.
Anything is possible in this.
Quick timeout, folks.
Back in just a moment.
I have a real dilemma facing me.
The uh email is full of people who say that this uh Daily Mail newspaper in which I quoted recently in a story about uh uh uh Senator Jay Rockefeller is not in South Carolina.
It's not Charleston, South Carolina, that it's in Charleston, West Virginia.
Now the dilemma is this.
One of my early mentors in broadcasting told me you never apologized, and you're never wrong.
So as far as we're all concerned, the paper is in Charleston, South Carolina.
And whatever you think is irrelevant.
No, I'm just kidding.
I apologize.
I make sense to be Charleston, West Virginia.
I did have a mentor tell me that, though.
Oh, you don't apply.
You apologize, that's the end of it.
It's over.
That just you're gonna be doing that the rest of your career.
Audio sound bite time.
Ted Stevens late yesterday on the Senate floor.
This is during the debate on his and war bill.
This is being filibustered.
Uh of us in a in a in a manner of speaking.
All Stevens did was look at the way McCain got his torture bill attached to the defense appropriation bill.
He said, Well, I'm gonna do that too with Anwar.
We need to be drilling out there.
And whereas the whole Senate went along with McCain's torture bill, the Senate said, We're not putting that out.
We're not drilling there.
You can't do you why, this is an abomination, Senator.
What you're doing to the Senate, what you're doing to the legislative process is unprecedented, it's never been done.
How who do you think you are?
We love you.
We can't support this, Senator.
Get it out of there.
Essentially.
The left has gone so far as to publish a bunch of phony pictures of and war.
Little cows and caribou and uh all grassy areas, and it's not.
It's it's it's but that's for another time.
Here's Stevens before the vote, late yesterday in the Senate.
I look at the minority, I asked any one of you has anyone ever come to me as chairman of appropriations or any other function and told me that you needed help for your state that I've turned you down.
So, okay, the libs had to respond to that.
So up stood Sheets Bird.
Sheetsbird stood up and said this.
I came here and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I would die upholding that oath.
Now the Romans honored an oath.
And I feel the same about that.
I love my friend from Alaska.
I say I love him, but I cannot go down that road.
I've told him so.
I love him, but I love the Senate more.
Does this does this sound familiar, folks?
Tom, can you get me off the hook?
Oh, time's sake.
Can't do it, Sally.
That's from the Godfather.
That's their Godfrey first godfather.
That was that was uh Tessio.
Abe Vigoda, Tom to the consularia, the uh calling.
Can you get me off the hook?
Just what can't do it, Sally.
Ted Stevens.
Come on, you I'm the when have I ever done you wrong?
I'm the chairman of appropriations.
I've given you everything you ever, when have I ever said no?
Can't do it.
I love you, man.
I love but I can't do it.
I love the Senate more.
So Stevens is near tears saying this on the Senate floor yesterday.
This has been the saddest day of my life.
It's a it's a day I I don't want to remember, and I'm sorry to see it come to an end.
Because I am drawing the line now with a lot of people I've worked with before.
Well, let's see.
What's 2005 almost six?
It's as good a time as any to get it, I suppose, for a Republican.
He's getting it.
We'll see if he means it.
What he's saying is, all right, don't come to me anymore when you want anything.
You want help with your appropriation, you want help with your pork, you want help.
Don't come to me.
He's been sold out, and he's, you know, you have to understand because here's here's McCain, who uses the same process Ted Stevens was using, and nobody says a word.
In fact, he's being praised as some sort of hero.
McCain, the conscience of the Senate.
McCain's saving America's reputation and image all over the world.
Here comes Ted Stevens.
We're only talking about energy independence.
And they uh they slip.
They they slit his throat.
They slit his throat.
Did he say that?
Stevens is gonna travel.
he really is that right?
So Ted Stevens said, I didn't know this.
Ted Stevens said that he's gonna travel to every state where there is a senator that did him wrong on this, and he's gonna tell them.
He's gonna tell the voters in that state, particularly singled out Maria Cantwell and the state of Washington.
He's gonna go there and he's gonna tell the voters exactly what kind of representation they've been getting and what he's been doing for them.
Uh well, that is f I can't wait for that to happen.
In fact, I'd like to facilitate that happening somehow.
We have ways.
Here is Patrick in Westfield, New Jersey.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you on with us, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I was just saying that uh with the warrantless searches, a lot of business owners have been dealing with those for a lot of years.
Uh Supreme Court back in 72 said that if you're a gun dealer, they don't even need to get a uh a warrant to enforce the gun control act.
They can enter your premises at any time because the greater good and the governmental interest is served um by you being in a highly regulated industry, and since you have weapons, you're dangerous, therefore they can search.
Yeah, well, the the difference here is that uh you are dangerous.
Al Qaeda's not.
You have guns.
You have guns and you're an American conservative.
Yeah.
And and and and uh and plus you live in New Jersey.
That I mean I mean, you pose a distinct and present danger uh to the American lift.
Of course, of course they're gonna do that to you.
Well they do not have to do that.
You don't you don't see the nuance here.
You don't understand this.
What the what the Libs would say to you is, well, that's okay.
That's okay because that's all allowed by law.
But the president wants to spy on people just because he's power mad without probable cause and so forth.
Well, they do the same thing with OSHA and EPA.
It's just uh you know, hey, it's all statutory allowance for a search, the probable causes met.
And you would figure that would be the same under, you know, the Patriot Act or whatever else we need to keep this country safe.
Yeah, well, uh keep thinking that way because you're on to something.
It's just uh all of these examples.
Get this one.
John in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Uh, you're next.
Add to this, if you will, sir.
Yeah, hi, uh, Rush.
Um it's just a real pleasure to talk to you.
I've listened to you for absolute I think since you started broadcasting in Sacramento.
Thank you.
Um I used to live in California and I manage the uh unit of Pacific Bell that uh dealt with uh wiretaps, facilitating wiretaps with the federal and uh state and local or agencies.
One thing that uh is being missed here, when people say wiretap, uh what comes to mind is uh going to somebody's either home or the location where their uh line appears and putting a device across and uh taking and sending that transmission to either law enforcement or some other agency to listen to.
That's not what's being talked about here.
What's being talked about here is a known number um that's being wait a minute, wait, but it's not even done that way, right?
They go to the central office now if they want to do this.
Well, the uh in some instances, yes, in other uh instances they'd go to what's known as the B-box, the terminal location, and uh put a uh what they call a loop extender across, and then they would build a line that would go out to um the law enforcement location.
They can also go to the central office.
Uh depends on how the telephone company is set up to go ahead and interface with law enforcement.
But they don't have to get into your house to do it.
No.
No.
Um the circumstances we're talking about here is uh not even close to that.
What we're talking about is a known telephone number.
Uh normally would be uh a telephone number outside the United States that NSA is looking at, and I'm I'm just I'm not giving out anything that's you know classified.
I mean, they just know this because of the way the the system works.
Uh and they're going they're they're targeting microwave transmissions and they're pulling down these numbers.
In order for them to go ahead and get a uh court order for any number calling that number, they'd have to lay a court order on every telephone company in the United States, because they don't know where a phone number is gonna originate from.
See, that's precisely it what you the the way to synthesize it, we don't know who we're looking for.
We don't know who we're looking for, and the other thing is this is uh what we would call exitant circumstances because what we're The time we waste getting a court order, they very well could be just enough information passed that we miss that could uh keep a uh a building from being blown up from keeping uh one of our officials from being assassinated.
I mean, the the You know, this I have to stop you here, John, because of time, but you're exactly right, and and you have reminded me of a piece by uh a judge in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Richard Posner, and a piece he had in the Washington Post yesterday.
It dovetails nicely with what you're saying.
I will uh remind people of that after the break.
Thanks much for the call.
Sit tight, folks, won't be long, and we will be right back.
Hi, we're back.
John from uh Knoxville, Tennessee makes a great point.
We're just surveilling random phone calls.
You got a number, maybe is all you've got, but you don't know who you're looking for.
It's not as though you can go out and get a warrant.
And besides, if you try, the time it takes to do this, it may uh allow whoever it is you're you're looking at to slip away.
Richard Posner's point yesterday was that none of this violates privacy.
It's all a computer doing there.
The computers at the NSA are the ones that are mining all of this data.
And in fact, there's a there's a link to Abel Danger with this, and of course, Abel Danger is uh the uh the special outfit in the Pentagon that uh actually dug up the whereabouts, Osama of uh of Mohammed Atta and these uh other hijackers and had evidence they were in the country a full year before 9-11.
But it took a computer to gather all the data, and then after the keyword search, they they look at a number of different things.
Who knows what the keywords are?
But the computer mines all this stuff, and then human beings go through what the computer finds.
And most of it's thrown away.
It's irrelevant.
And even the stuff that we find, like on Mohammed Atta and the hijackers, they somebody tried to suppress that somewhere because whatever reason, we still don't know.
And we're not gonna find out very easily because it is going to make a whole lot of people look bad.
And Washington is about a lot of things, but one of the things at the top of the list is when anybody in the upper strata of the establishment there falls in the water to circle the wagons to make sure the sharks don't get to them.
And and that's probably something similar to what's happening with uh this whole able danger business.
Here's Roy in New Haven, Connecticut.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Nice to talk to you, sir.
I was just wondering if if anybody has mentioned the fact that I am currently speaking on a cell phone.
I use mostly cordless phones in my house.
You know, I go on the computer frequently.
All of that is on the wall, all of that is in the air.
It's all in the ether, and you have no expectation of privacy, because anybody with the technology can reach out and grab it.
Not just the government, anybody with the technology.
Go to Radio Shack and buy it and listen to anybody you want to listen to.
Okay, now now that's an interesting point you make.
You describe a reality, but then some would say, well, why is that good?
Why should we put up with it?
Why should everything we're doing be uh be uh uh nabbable or hearable uh by a hacker or by a government?
Why aren't there any safeguards?
If you want to spend the money and get yourself a scrambler and try to scramble it, but uh hacker can break those too.
It's if you have no expected expectation of privacy, regardless of what the ACLU may think.
If you're out there in the open air, there is no expectation of privacy because anybody can reach out and grab it.
So if you got something to say, say it.
If you don't want to have anything, say it, keep it on the wire, and they'll get far less of your information.
Especially, you know, computers are one thing, but people on cell phones, those are just radio transmitters.
Right, they are.
They're really just radio transmitters, and as we know, uh grandparents have these receivers, uh cell phone receivers in their Cadillacs.
And here in Florida who drive around and they listen to this for entertainment.
If they hear something they like to record it and give it to Democrats.
Exactly right.
It's uh it's have you heard uh you sound like you're pretty technically up to speed.
When I tell you about the or when I mentioned you, the IP phone, do you have an IP phone?
Do you know what I'm talking about?
I know what it is, but I don't have one.
Well, this uh this is the next shake up the baby bells like crazy.
Because if an IP phone allows you to make phone calls on your internet line out of your computer using a soft phone, and there are companies offering this service.
The thing that you you can you can you can disc you can you can hide where you're calling from.
You can make a call from here to Dubai, and everybody you can set it up so that uh they think you're calling your office from across town.
Uh and and with a T1 line, you can handle 64 phone calls at one time on an IP line.
There are no long distance charges on internet connections.
I mean, you become you dial up to a London or Dubai or wherever website, it's the same as if you log on to your local community website.
There's no difference in price.
So no long distance charges.
And these things are out there and they're happening.
But the point is, that stuff, you talk about being in the ether, that genuinely is in the ether.
Now you can you can go out and try to get voice scramblers and all this, but the point is that these are the kind of things, you know, the the the inventors are always going to be ahead of government.
The inventors and the technology geeks and the entrepreneurs are always going to be ahead of bureaucrats.
The bureaucrats are going to hear about this, and I'm sure they have, but they're gonna have to devise some way of tracking this.
Because you know that uh the the people who have uh uh who are terrorists and these networks are gonna have enough money to get the latest that they can get.
Satellite phones are probably old hat to them now.
They're probably using some other technique.
The uh the attempt to monitor all this stuff is massive.
You couldn't do it with search warrants.
And if if if you are of a mindset that, well, you know, uh what we're the odds that we're gonna get hit again are so rare and and and and all that.
I don't think we need to worry about it.
We don't need to violate everybody's civil liberties.
If we get hit another time or two, so what?
It's worth protecting our privacy rights.
And I think that's an attitude that some people uh on the left have, and it's because I don't think enough people really realize the severity and the seriousness of the threat, nor the fact that we are at war, nor the fact that we have an enemy.
Uh and I uh when you have now Hollywood's coming out with a bunch of movies that are glorified terrorists.
I haven't seen this Spielberg movie, uh Munich, but some critics have seen it now, some uh this pre-screening releases are out, and a number of people like Bob Tyrrell saw it, the American Spectator, and I'm sure a couple other people have.
Apparently, what Spielberg does in this movie is try to make sure nobody gets blamed except retaliation.
Retaliation is a mistake.
Retaliation doesn't work.
So the point is, yeah, the people who murdered the Israeli athletes at Munich and the Olympics in 70s, yeah, they were bad, but what the Israelis did going after them only made it worse.
And so the whole notion that, and Spielberg's apparent attempt here is to is to solve the Middle East crisis with a movie.
Uh and and by not assigning blame to anybody by just saying the whole conflict makes no sense.
There are no bad guys and no good guys, everybody's bad.
Or everybody's good, they're just misunderstood, or what.
And you've got other movies that are being made about 9-11 that are going to try to humanize these people.
There is an ongoing effort by the left in this country to humanize the people that strap bombs on their kids and send them on the buses to blow up innocent people, to humanize people who hijack airplanes, kill the pilots, and fly them into the World Trade Center in the Pentagon.
There's an ongoing effort by the left to humanize these people and try to make them look like they have a genuine grievance, and this is an outgrowth of their behavior.
It's an outgrowth of a long set of uh uh uh angry uh angry uh uh grievances they have against us because of what we've been doing with our power mad imperialist behavior around the world.
So we've got people in the in the Democratic Party who are trying to handcuff our ability to win this war against the enemy, handcuff our ability to get news from them and information from them and interrogations, handcuff our ability to even fight this enemy.
There's a whole lot of things going on here.
There's an effort being made by the left in this country to totally weaken this nation's ability to defend itself and to go even further, there is an effort being made to establish that the United States is responsible for all that is happening to it by this particular enemy.
Now you wouldn't see Spielberg making a movie after Oklahoma City saying, you know, trying to capture McVeigh would be a bad move.
That's only going to exacerbate the white supremacists, it's only going to make them matter.
That's not the way to solve this.
You would never see that movie.
In fact, you'd see just the opposite.
You would see how evil McVay really was and how evil all of his buddies really were.
And you'd get the truth about that.
But there's something about this enemy.
And I think you can't take the fact that Bush is president out of this equation.
Because I don't think any of this would be happening if 9 11 had happened while Clinton was in the office, and this kind of reaction by our country were taking place, you wouldn't have anything like you have in the New York Times today or from Hollywood.
They would be glorifying Bill Clinton and they would be all over these terrorists and be trying to do everything they could to defend the country.
And it just illustrates what their real priorities are.
And the priorities are not the national security of the country.
Priorities are put them in order you want, getting themselves back in power, destroying George W. Bush, uh and a couple of others that you could uh you could add to the list.
But all of these efforts that are being made to humanize and soften this enemy.
You couple this with the rapid advances in technology out there that these people who do intend us harm, the enemy could use against us.
And then you say we've got a president doing whatever he can to try to find out what they're going to do before they do it so as to prevent it.
You find out the left in this country is trying to stop that and impeach that president as a spy.
It's got to slap you upside the head, folks, and make you realize the stakes.
And I think people do unbalance.
That's why they're you haven't seen have you?
Correct me if I'm wrong, other than on television, you haven't seen a whole lot of there aren't protests in the street.
People aren't running around upset they're being spied on.
There's there's no massive national outrage on this, just like there was no massive anti-war movement, despite they tried to make Cindy Sheehan look like she was leading millions.
She wasn't.
She's a fringe kook, and all of her supporters were bought and paid for.
But one way or another, there was no massive anti-war movement.
There was no massive movement of people angry at Bush over the National Guard story.
The media wasn't able to sell it.
They weren't able to sell at the New York Times, the fact that Bush failed to capture all these weapons and uh bombs and stuff, uh a bunch of explosives the week before last year's election.
None of it takes.
But it's pro it it's pounded every day, and so people that watch it get an overall sense that things are not well, but they still the people promoting this line of thinking have not made the connection into people's hearts and minds, and this country is not angry, and they are not outraged at Bush.
In fact, these approval numbers are coming up, and the approval numbers and the way he's fighting the war in Iraq are up eighteen points since November the second.
Now, this doesn't make the left sit back and say, okay, we got to give this up and go for something.
They're just pounding harder.
And as they pound harder, they distance themselves and marginalize themselves even more, all the while missing.
That's the interpretation most people are having of them.
Quick time out, we'll be back, and to continue in mere moments.
What's it called?
It's called the Ringer.
Apparently there's a movie coming out.
Or it's being made, I don't know, but uh, but it's a comedy.
They make fun of the intellectually disabled, and the movie has been given a stamp of approval by the Special Olympics.
And it's by the people that produce the uh movie uh uh what what is it about Mary?
There's something about Mary.
Wasn't uh wasn't Cameron What's her face in that?
Yeah.
What's her name?
Cam Diaz.
Uh you look at this movie on making fun of the intellectually disabled in the Special Olympics gives a stamp of approval.
Oh.
The Christmas time debut.
Here's Jerry in Corvallis, Oregon.
Jerry, nice that you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, thanks, Rush.
Listen, I'd like to focus on the issue of civil liberties.
And and you're an apologist for the Bush administration.
Whatever they do, uh I don't I don't think you find anything wrong with that.
And when they chip away, let me just finish here.
This is my perspective.
My perspective.
Here's what I hear.
Uh uh I uh uh uh That's not true.
I have been all over this administration for signing campaign finance reform, taking away our free speech.
Yeah, with respect to civil liberties here.
Let's let's look at that.
Well, what is what the hell is that if it's not a civil liberty, it's the first amendment.
You're you're ch when when we chip away and chip away at the civil liberties.
And I opposed it.
Your premise.
I'm not gonna let you get away with a premise.
I am not a lap dog for this administration.
well, I am a lapdog for the Constitution and the defense of this country.
Yeah.
And so you Yeah, you should try it sometime.
So you condone chipping away at the civil liberties, and then one day we're all going to wake up and we're gonna go.
What happened to our civil liberties?
And and and doesn't that sound familiar?
Doesn't that sound like a I want to wake up alive.
Well, yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah, that's an incidental thought.
I want to wake up alive.
Let me let me tell you something, Gerald, buddy.
You think you got it bad with civil liberties now.
I'm gonna tell you what.
If you hate Christmas, you win.
If you don't like nativity scenes, you win.
If you think perversion should be normalized and legalized, you win.
You don't talk to me about civil liberties, Miss Pal in this country, buddy, because civil liberties are on the loss on the side of right, justice, decency, and morality.
We're losing all that under the guise of civil liberties.
We do have a problem with civil liberties, but it's not coming from George W. Bush, it's coming from people like you and others on the left who don't like the fact that you're in the minority, who don't like the fact that there's a majority out there and you call that tyranny, and so you want to force your minority views on everybody and end up destroying some genuine decency and goodness in this country.
I don't want to hear about this civil liberties garbage.
I'm getting sick and tired of it.
If you think you've lost your civil liberties, go back to the Civil War.
Let me tell you what Abraham Lincoln did.
There was a governor, a guy Democrat who was running for governor in Ohio, and he was an agitator.
He was agitating for the South.
The South was the enemy.
Lincoln went and had him put in jail.
He sent troops to get this guy as a candidate for governor of Ohio and sent him down to the South.
Sent him down to Jefferson Davis.
You're gonna be more at home with your real friends, and the Jeff Jefferson Davis South didn't want him, and they sent him to Canada.
You think you've he suspended habeas corpus.
But guess what?
That doesn't happen anymore.
Your chipping away theory is all wet.
You wouldn't have survived in this country when Abraham and he's considered one of our greatest presidents ever.
You Nambi Pambi liberals today do not know what the loss of civil liberties is all about.
You're out making up all these crazy things while you are enforcing and demanding the loss of freedom and civil people can't smoke where they want to smoke anymore because you people can smell it 500 miles away.
People can't get guns to defend themselves as much as they would want, because you people are afraid of guns or despise them or what have you.
We've got constitution, we got liberals looking at the Constitution, and they don't see something there and they say it is there.
The right to an abortion.
You want to talk about civil liberties?
Try being a baby in the womb.
What are your odds?
Don't talk to me about this.
I have put up with this patiently and calmly with you people, but your ignorance is becoming dangerous.
I feel so much better.
We will be back after this.
Beckley, West Virginia.
Hi, this is Brian.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Ditto's Rush.
How are you, sir?
Fine.
And uh very well, sir.
Thank you very much for calling.
Well, listen, I was calling earlier.
You made the statement about the uh Senator Rockefeller uh from West Virginia could have leaked the uh FASA to the press.
I feel that that was an unfair suggestion to make without any evidence on that.
Now I'm a Republican, but I respect my two senators that's from uh West Virginia, both Byrd and Rockefeller.
Yes.
I don't agree with them on everything.
Right I don't agree with President Bush on everything.
No, no, well, and I'm sure you don't agree with your wife.
No, matter of fact, I'm going through a divorce, so uh how's that one for you?
Yeah.
But anyways, uh the what what the how I feel about that suggestion that you made that it could have been him or just Judge Robertson, I believe it was.
Uh could have leaked uh you you know they may have.
I don't know, but there's no evidence to suggest that.
Well, I okay, I look, I understand.
They may have, we don't know.
It was unfair to suggest it, but they may have.
Unfair to suggest it.
Um we don't know, but they may have.
Um you just speculated.
And I really don't think it's fair.
▲
Export Selection