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 it's the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, 800-282-2882.
The email address nerdly loves that.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Great, great to have you with us.
Great audio soundbites 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 delighted to be on.
I 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 wanted to comment on it from the angle that 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.
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 a 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 this administration's use of these surveillance protocols is not a or willing is not an all-willing departure from his prior administration.
Take up.
Mara, we are not in the National Honor Society here.
You really?
I mean, I like the point you're making.
Don't misunderstand.
Clinton could settle this and so could Jimmy Carter, but do you really expect him to?
Well, no, it's a rhetorical question of course.
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 denouncing the war on Iraq, the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
He comes back to New York and speaks out in favor of it.
I'm not so sure the president is not going to speak out.
I think, as always happens in these circumstances, the Clintons are nailed.
So what they're doing, the gherellik going out there and talking to the Washington newspaper saying, well, we was unsettled what was going on.
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.
It's all being done by Bush because he's power mad 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 McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing.
And Carter had to do it because he was dealing with the Iranian hostage crisis.
There's no excuse for this.
And if you think Clinton's going to come out and give cover to Bush on this, I'd be the most stunned person in the country if this happened.
I think they're circling the wagons.
Try to do just the opposite.
And I do agree with you.
As I said, I think it was, my question was really rhetorical.
I think it just underscores, as you point out, the lack of honorability, the lack of honor.
And again, on such a critical issue as National Security.
Exactly right, Maura, and thank you very much for calling.
Now, there's another possibility out there.
And it's, I mean, throw it up against the wall, it may stick.
They may know that the goose is cooked here.
I mean, 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?
Don't say national security.
If they cared about national security, they wouldn't be doing this as a party in the first place.
So it's not that.
I think that 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 happening.
And this is a story in the Charleston, South Carolina Daily Mail.
But I mentioned this just to indicate 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, it cannot 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 fingers stack.
I'm going to read the excerpt from the story to you.
Here we go.
Try this, ladies and gentlemen.
This is from 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.
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 been 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.
Now, 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 Robertson 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 that 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 time out, folks.
Back in just a moment.
I have a real dilemma facing me.
The email is full of people who say that this Daily Mail newspaper, in which I quoted recently in a story about 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 apologize, 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'd make sense to be Charleston, West Virginia.
I did have a mentor tell me that, though.
Oh, you don't apologize.
You apologize.
That's the end of it.
It's over.
You're going to be doing that the rest of your career.
Audio soundbite time.
Ted Stevens late yesterday on the Senate floor.
This is during the debate on his Anwar bill.
This is being filibustered in a manner of speaking.
All Stevens did was look at the way McCain got his torture bill attached to the defense appropriation bill and said, well, I'm going to 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 on.
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.
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 NWAR, little cows and caribou and grassy areas, and it's not.
But that's for another time.
Here's Stevens before the vote late yesterday in the Senate.
I look at the Maherty.
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 sake that I've turned you down?
So, okay, the Libs had to respond to that.
So up stood Sheetsbird.
Sheets Bird 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 sound familiar, folks?
Tom, can you give me a talk?
For old type's sake, can't do it, Sally.
That's from the godfather.
That's their first godfather.
That was Tessio, Abe Vagoda, Tom, to the Considieria, the Coralians.
You get me off the hook.
Just can't do it, Sally.
Ted Stevens, come on.
When have I ever done you wrong?
I'm the chairman of appropriations.
I've given you everything you ever.
What have I ever said no?
Can't do it.
I love you, man.
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 day 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 McCain who uses the same process Ted Stevens was using.
And nobody says so.
In fact, he's being praised as some sort of hero.
McCain, the conscience of the Senate.
McCain saving America's reputation and image all over the world.
Here comes Ted Stevens.
We're only talking about energy independence.
And they slit his throat.
They slit his throat.
Did he say that?
Stevens is going to travel?
Is that right?
So Ted Stevens said, I didn't know this.
Ted Stevens said that he's going to travel to every state where there is a senator that did him wrong on this, and he's going to tell them.
He's going to tell the voters in that state.
He's particularly singled out Maria Cantwell and the state of Washington.
He's going to go there and he's going to tell the voters exactly what kind of representation they've been getting and what he's been doing for them.
Well, that is, 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 with the warrantless searches, a lot of business owners have been dealing with those for a lot of years.
Supreme Court back in 72 said that if you're a gun dealer, they don't even need to get 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 by you being in a highly regulated industry.
And since you have weapons, you're dangerous, therefore they can search.
Yeah, well, the difference here is that you are dangerous.
Al-Qaeda's not.
You have guns.
You have guns, and you're an American conservative.
And plus, you live in New Jersey.
That, I mean...
Well, I remember...
I mean, you pose a distinct and present danger to the American left.
Of course, they're going to do that to you.
Well, they do.
You don't see the nuance here.
You don't understand this.
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 a statutory allowance for a search, the probable cause is met.
And you would figure that would be the same under the Patriot Act or whatever else we need to keep this country safe.
Yeah, well, keep thinking that way because you're onto something.
It's just all of these examples.
Get this one.
John in Knoxville, Tennessee.
You're next.
Add to this, if you will, sir.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
It's just a real pleasure to talk to you.
I've listened to you for absolutely, I think, since you started broadcasting in Sacramento.
Thank you.
I used to live in California, and I manage the unit of Pacific Bell that dealt with wiretaps, facilitating wiretaps with the federal and state and local agencies.
One thing that is being missed here, when people say wiretap, what comes to mind is going to somebody's either home or the location where their line appears and putting a device across and 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 that's being talked about.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, but it's not even done that way, right?
They go to the central office now if they want to do this.
Well, in some instances, yes.
In other instances, they'd go to what's known as the Be-Box, the terminal location, and put what they call a loop extender across, and then they would build a line that would go out to the law enforcement location.
They can also go to the central office.
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 to the point.
No, no.
The circumstances we're talking about here is not even close to that.
What we're talking about is a known telephone number.
Normally, it would be a telephone number outside the United States that NSA is looking at.
And I'm not giving out anything that's classified.
I mean, I just know this because of the way the system works.
And they're targeting microwave transmissions, and they're pulling down these numbers.
In order for them to go ahead and get a 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 going to originate from.
See, that's precisely 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 what we would call exigent circumstances because the time we waste getting a court order, there very well could be just enough information passed that we miss that could keep a building from being blown up, from keeping one of our officials from being assassinated.
I mean, the...
You know, I have to stop you here, John, because of time, but you're exactly right.
And you have reminded me of a piece by 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 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 Knoxville, Tennessee makes a great point.
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 may allow whoever it is 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 that.
The computers at the NSA are the ones that are mining all of this data.
And in fact, there's a link to Abel Danger with this.
And of course, Abel Danger is the special outfit in the Pentagon that actually dug up the whereabouts Osama of Mohammed Atta and these 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 they keyword search, 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 Ada and the hijackers, somebody tried to suppress that somewhere because whatever reason.
We still don't know.
And we're not going to 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 that's probably something similar to what's happening with this whole Abel 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 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 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 nabbable or hearable by a hacker or by a government?
Why aren't there any safeguards?
You want to spend the money and get yourself a scrambler and try to scramble it, but a hacker can break those too.
You have no 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've got something to say, say it.
If you don't want to have anything, say it.
Keep it on the water, 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, grandparents have these receivers, cell phone receivers in their Cadillacs.
And here in Florida, they drive around and they listen to this for entertainment.
If they hear something, they're like, record it and give it to Democrats.
Exactly right.
Have you heard, you sound like you're pretty technically up to speed.
When I tell you about the, or when I mention to 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 is the next shake up the baby bells like crazy.
Because 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 can hide where you're calling from.
You can make a call from here to Dubai, and you can set it up so that they think you're calling your office from across town.
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 dial up to 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 go out and try to get voice scramblers and all this, but the point is these are the kind of things 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 going to have to devise some way of tracking this.
Because you know that the people who have terrorists in these networks are going to 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 attempt to monitor all this stuff is massive.
You couldn't do it with search warrants.
And if you are of a mindset that, well, you know, the odds that we're going to get hit again are so rare 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 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.
And when you have now Hollywood's coming out with a bunch of movies that are glorify terrorists.
I haven't seen this Spielberg movie, Munich, but some critics have seen it now.
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 70, 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.
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.
So then 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 angry 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 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 McVay 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 McVeigh 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.
The priorities are put them in order you want, getting themselves back in power, destroying George W. Bush, and a couple of others that 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 on balance.
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 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 bombs and stuff, a bunch of explosives the week before last year's election.
None of it takes, but 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 18 points since November the 2nd.
Now, this doesn't make the left sit back and say, okay, we've 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.
There apparently is a movie coming out or is being made.
I don't know, 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 produced the movie, what is it about Mary?
There's something about Mary.
Wasn't Cameron, what's her face in that?
Yeah.
What's her name?
Diaz.
You look at this movie on making fun of the intellectually disabled, and the Special Olympics gives a stamp of approval.
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 you're an apologist for the Bush administration.
Whatever they do, 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.
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 focus on that.
What the hell is that?
If it's not a civil liberty, it's the First Amendment.
When we chip away and chip away at the civil liberties.
And I opposed it.
Your premise.
I'm not going to let you get away with a premise.
I am not a lapdog for this administration.
Well, I am a lapdog for the Constitution and the defense of this country.
Yeah.
Yeah, y'all 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 going to go, what happened to our civil liberties?
And doesn't that sound familiar?
Doesn't that sound like one day?
I want to wake up alive.
Well, yeah, absolutely.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah.
That's an incidental thought.
I want to wake up alive.
Let me tell you something, Jerry old buddy.
You think you got it bad with civil liberties now?
I'm going to 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, Niss 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 ended 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 going to be more at home with your real friends.
And the Jefferson Davis South didn't want him, and they sent him to Canada.
You think 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 Namby Pamby 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 liberties.
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've 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 some 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, very well, sir.
Thank you very much for calling.
Listen, I was calling earlier.
You made the statement about the Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia could have leaked the FISA 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 West Virginia, both Byrd and Rockefeller.
Yes.
I don't agree with them on everything.
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 how's that one for you?
Yeah.
But anyways, how I feel about that suggestion that you made, that it could have been him or Judge Robertson, I believe it was, could have leaked it.
You know, they may have.
I don't know, but there's no evidence to suggest that.