All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
December 23, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
And greetings to your thrill seekers, conversationalists, music lovers, and fellow travelers heading all out across the fruited plain, over the river and through the woods.
The woods is where it's really fun.
On the way to wherever you are, and uh hope you're hope you're having a great time as you're in transit.
We'll try to enhance that today on the EIB network.
El Rushbow here with the whole crew on the day before Christmas Eve.
A telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program today is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at B A E IBNet.com.
I usually I like working this week.
I I uh uh a lot of people uh decide to you know split for the hills, but I like working this week because it's one of my favorite times of year, and I know that that these are not normal times, uh not a normal time of the year with all the travel and the holiday festivity and the and the spirit.
This is one of the weirdest years in that regard because this has been one of the most contentious intense uh albeit important weeks uh of the year and certainly of the past couple of months, they've all been intense, but I mean this this this sort of stands out because normally this week is everybody's gone uh uh official Washington has buried a hatchet for a while, but that hasn't happened.
I mean, they were they were still going at it yesterday and and last night on this uh uh uh effort here to impeach Bush and to prove that he violated the law and his constitutional authority uh and all that.
So it's kind of hard just to let that go.
I mean, there's still things that need to be discussed today, and we will do that.
But we'll also it's open line Friday, but I've almost forgot that oh, geez!
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
See what I mean?
I mean, I almost forgot that.
So open line Friday, you know the rules.
Uh when when you call, we talk about what you want to talk about.
Now normally Monday through Thursday, this program is about what interests me.
I refuse to sit here and talk about things I don't care about because it's boring.
I will sound boring, and then people will be less inclined to be glued to the radio.
But I take this great career risk every Friday as a highly trained broadcast specialist, allowing essentially rank amateurs, and I say that with all love and respect, to take over the uh topic selection depending on well when they call.
So whatever's on your mind, whatever interests you, feel free.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the uh email address is rush at EIB net.com.
All right, let's go to the audio tape.
Last night, uh uh Angela or Andrea Mitchell was sitting in for Chris Matthews on Hard Boil, and she had Richard Posner on a Richard Posner, is uh a judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
He was on the show via telephone, he wrote a great piece in the Washington Post uh earlier this week uh regarding this whole con uh controversy and and and uh uh uprising over whether or not the president is spying illegally on American citizens.
And of course the press has run off on that tangent because it's one that they started with his bogus New York Times story that ran one week ago today.
So the Times, just to illustrate, Times runs this bogus story, becomes the focus of all media reporting.
When they have a press conference of the president, the president is asked only about what the media is reporting.
What about this?
What about that?
What about that?
Uh there are a lot of other news events he could have been asked about, but wasn't.
But in all fairness, the president himself has gone out and and addressed these issues himself because he's had to.
Rasmussen Paul is out today showing that Bush's approval numbers are up to 50%.
Uh it it's something like a six-point gain since the last poll came out.
One of the uh uh most startling increases uh in a short period of time on record.
It just it it it just illustrates two things.
The president has the bully pulpit.
He can have all the supportive media he wants, uh but he has to get out there and lead, and people Crave leadership.
People crave, they want to get behind.
It's something else it points out.
This week, I said the last probably the last couple of weeks, the president has, while not said ideological things, he has sounded it.
He has not talked about a new tone.
He's not talked about trying to get along with Democrats.
He's upbraided them.
He has called them out, sometimes by name, sometimes by state, but nevertheless he's called them out.
I don't think it's incidental or accidental or coincidental that his approval numbers go up.
I have always maintained that when Republicans govern and talk as conservatives, they triumph and win.
You know, everybody needs to be led, especially when you're talking about the country.
The president is the leader of the country, and certainly the leader of the party that elected him.
And when he goes out and behaves in such a fashion, it'll rally people to his uh to his side, and that apparently is what's happened.
The economic news is good.
All of the news going into the Christmas weekend is spectacular.
Rumsfeld is over in Iraq and he's announcing troop withdrawals.
Of course, I'm waiting for Mertha to stand up, or some Democrats stand up and claim credit for this, even though this has been the original plan from day one to begin troop reductions once the Iraqis have demonstrated that their government's in place, they have the ability to uh uh take more of a uh uh a role in their own security.
And this has always been part of the plan.
I just you know that the Democrats have been out there demanding this for the past month, and one of the reasons why is they knew it was going to happen, and so they can now take credit so the president's listening to them, presidents doing what they want.
Uh and and so it's it's it'll be interesting to see this.
It won't be too long for that to pop up.
No, I haven't forgotten Posner, but but there are other things I want to set the table with.
In addition to the Democrats trying to track trying to take credit.
I I uh what when it happens, and I I say this a lot, but you people watch the media, the media amplify and echo what the left uh says, and and so it it makes it appear as though that that's the national mood or the national mindset.
The uh the left is more whacked out than even I knew.
I have learned that some of these extreme left-wing liberal bloggers have weekly phone calls and conferences with Dingy Harry.
I kid you not, Dingy Harry and other Democrats are having regular phone con conferences, conference calls, sometimes sit-down meetings with these wacko bloggers on the left.
Now, the wacko bloggers have a different agenda than Dingy Harry.
The wacko bloggers don't care what it takes.
They just want to win.
They don't want to win with an agenda.
They don't want to win with the with a positive set of uh things that they want to do for the country.
They just want to beat Republicans.
And whatever it takes to do it, they will do it.
And that's who the Democrats, and I told you this.
That's who the Democrats are listening to more and more and more.
And I'm just gonna predict to you, because this is this is the last time we'll be together uh before the end of the year or for this year.
It's gonna tell you as the new year rolls around, it's gonna be an election year, and I'm just that the Democrats are gonna get wackier and wackier because who they're listening to, and while at the same time, they're gonna think that they are winning.
They're going to think that they are carrying the day.
It's gonna be a phenomenon that has uh repeated itself several times.
Uh I think you could trace maybe the original starting point of this phenomenon to the Wellstone Memorial, uh, when they thought that was going to launch them to great heights.
You got the puffster.
Puff Dashell out there today in the Washington Post re-writing history.
It is stunning what the puffster is attempting to pull off today in the Washington Post.
He goes back to the authorization for use of force that Congress gave the president September 14th, 2001.
And he says it never included in America.
It never included any, it only included people that had any association with Al-Qaeda.
The president clearly has overstepped the authority we gave him.
You go back.
I have written op-eds about that.
I have we've shared with you earlier this week an excerpt of uh of me, this program, reading parts of that resolution and parts of my op-ed about it.
It is one of the most all-inclusive, it's a declaration of war.
It is literally a declaration of war, and it gives the president full authority to make up his own mind on anything to do what when.
But it was it, this is three days after September 11th.
And now Puff's trying to rewrite history.
Oh, no, no, it doesn't say that.
No, no, no, no, it doesn't mean that.
These people cannot tell the truth.
They can't even tell the truth about what they say.
This is Like what they're trying to do with their own statements they made about weapons of mass destruction back in 1998.
They're trying to revise that history.
Well, we didn't really say that.
We're going to ignore that we said that.
History began in 2001.
They're trying to pretend it all doesn't exist.
They can't pretend that resolution doesn't exist, but now Puff's out there in the Washington.
You know what the Washington Post also did?
They ran a news story on page A6 or A9 about Puff's op-ed.
They put Puff's op-ed on the op-ed page and they write a news story saying Puff's got an op-ed in our paper today, and in his op-ed Puff says X, and then they get a little bit of an analysis of what Puff said.
I mean, why they just put it on a front page and make him a reporter.
He's your new reason.
New needs work anyway.
Hire him as your reporter.
But look who the Democrats have to trot out.
Here's a guy who was defeated in his home state re-election precisely because of his position on things like this.
He was a Washington liberal Democrat from a blue state or red state, bunch of conservatives, and they took him to task, and he's out of work in terms of he's a lobbyist, but he was voted out of office.
And this is who the Democrats can turn to now.
A defeated former majority leader to set the record straight.
So nothing has really changed for them.
History revisionism, uh, which is essentially not telling the truth, trying to rewrite it.
And it's the same same plan from the same playbook that they have been utilizing ever since that Rockefeller memo that was uh discovered back in 2003 that orchestrated the strategery that they are now playing out and trying to say Bush lawed and is spying on American citizens.
Anyway, we'll take a break.
We'll come back with the Richard Posner appearance with Andrew Mitchell on Hardball last night.
It's good.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Don't go away.
Ha, welcome back.
Great to have you and Merry Christmas from all of us here at the EIB Network to all of you.
I can't let this Puff Dashel thing die.
I you know I was I was hoping to gloss over it, but not gloss over it, but I don't I I just I just resent having to give these guys so much time.
But as some I've just I just have to I have to drill something home.
Let me read a uh a couple of little excerpts from Puff's piece just to illustrate how literally out of it he either was or still is, probably both.
And I'd also like you to understand that the the possibility that that uh well the reality here, and that's not a possibility, the reality that he is just willing to go on the pages of a major newspaper to lie through his teeth like this.
Stunning.
He writes this just before the Senate acted on our compromise resolution talking about this thing in September 14th of 2001.
The White House sought one last change.
Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote.
The administration sought to add the words in the United States and after appropriate force in the agreed-upon text.
Let me read you the agreed-upon text.
The resolution.
All necessary, granting the president all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons.
The president determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the attacks of September 11th.
Then the Puffster tell us that the White House at the last minute wanted to add in the United States an appropriate force.
This last-minute change, the Puffster writes, would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers, not just overseas, where we all understood he wanted authority to act, but right here in the United States, potentially against American BS, Puff.
Literal B.S. I will guarantee you that did not cross his mind.
I will guarantee, not on September 14th.
These guys weren't thinking about it.
Well, maybe some libs probably were, but this is so clearly he didn't.
There's nothing on the record about Puff saying this.
I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority, so I refused.
Puff.
What did you not get about 9-11?
Where were we attacked?
We were attacked in the United States.
We were attacked by a cell of 19 People who had been here for a year or more in and out, learning to fly airplanes, learning to crash them, learning to do any number of things.
They had been they were in the United States.
We were attacked in the United States.
The idea that this desired specificity is substantive indicates that the Democrats now want to go back and rewrite history led by Puff Dashell so as to be able to fit the template that they are working off of today.
We were attacked in the United States.
The idea that the president was not asking for some sort of authority to make sure similar cells couldn't be tracked.
It's absurd.
It's absurd.
Dashell wants us all to believe that the president was only asking and should only get, and he was only authorizing the pufster was, all of this authority to work overseas.
This is why, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot trust these people with the defense of this country.
I think more and more of these people actually now believe we're not even at war.
I think 9 11, it's just one of those coincidental things.
Another terrorist attack it doesn't.
And that's how they get away with saying Bush lied, made it all up, wasn't necessary, and they offer lip service to, well, we'd love it if we capture bin Laden, but but we never intended it.
We'd never intended is right.
Never intended to take it seriously.
Can't count on them to take it seriously.
And the puffster comes out and illustrates the utter ignorance.
I I don't know what other word it is there is for, the utter ignorance to suggest here that the president, after being attacked in this country, was not asking for the authority to deal with this again in the future is just over my head.
It's absurd.
I don't know how you get there from here unless you go back as the puffster is doing and rewriting history.
Now here's Richard Posner.
He was on hardball last night.
He is the um uh uh judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit wrote a great piece saying that all of this computer uh mining for data is not an invasion of privacy.
And of course, all week long uh hardball and the media have been trying to cast this as nothing more than spying and a violation of law.
You can't do this without warrants, etc.
And Posner has written just the opposite.
So I'm I'm kind of surprised the sitting judge appeared on television, but I'm glad he did.
Here's the first question.
Why couldn't they at least rely on the fact that they had seventy-two hours before having to go to that court?
They could have moved quickly, could they not?
I I know that you believe that this program's necessary.
Well, foreign intelligence surveillance act is quite limited.
The communications that can be uh intercepted are limited to communications between agents of a foreign power or agents of a foreign group.
So you might have a telephone call, we have a terrorist or terrorist suspect or someone knows about terrorism at one end, person on the other end doesn't know anything about it, isn't a foreign agent, isn't a terrorist or anything, and yet that telephone call might contain information that the government could use to identify a terrorist, find out his address, his phone number, his plans, and so on.
So I don't think the act is adequate.
It's not so much the warrant problem, although the the warrant provision is very cumbersome and complicated, it's that a lot of important communication may contain a lot of foreign intelligence information, just as not within the scope of the act.
Speaking of the foreign intelligence service court and act, so here Andrew and Is just starts trying to argue with uh with uh with a lawyer.
She says, Well, um uh one of the reasons for the resignation of one of the judges from that court was his concern that the administration had been presenting warrants that were the result of what you might call tainted evidence.
They'd come from illegal or uh warrantless surveillances.
So he felt that the court was perhaps being used to clean up this whole procedure and felt so uncomfortable that he quit.
The legal questions are very difficult because of course the administration argues that you know we're in a war against terrorism that as a result of a joint resolution of Congress that amounted to a declaration of war.
During wartime, the president has a lot more authority to engage in uh interception of communications than it does in ordinary peacetime.
If you accept that argument, it's just an argument at this point, but if that's accepted, then it would be lawful for the government to intercept certain communications.
Well, that's an end justifies the means argument.
How Roger you were.
No, no, no, no, look.
No, no, you're all wrong.
Maybe the first time.
It's uncertain.
It's a it's an uncertain area.
What kind of powers were conferred on the president by that joint resolution?
It's arguable one way or the other.
If the legal argument is correct, well, if the legal argument is correct, then there is no legal problem.
And of course, this is where the Democrats want to split hairs, and we're talking about in the time of war.
But positive is great on this program.
I've got one more bite that I have to play with you.
We'll do that after we come back from the break.
It is open line Friday.
We'll get to a lot of your phone calls today.
So stand by and have something good to talk about.
800 282882.
We'll be right back.
This better not be happening.
I'm going to blow a gasket if it's happening again.
I'm about ready to blow a gasket anyway.
I think it's happening.
Yep.
It's happening.
I'm going to lose we're going to lose all of our email accounts here again.
This must be the twelfth time in twenty days that this is happening.
Even despite all the redundancy that we have built into this system.
Even at home I can't stay on.
I've got two T1 lines at home.
I had to put in a second T1 because the first T one kept dropping out.
The first T1 is from ATT.
So I went to a different company to get a second T1 as a backup.
Well, they both go out at the same time because I've learned that they're both controlled by Bell South.
So we uh we haven't had any internet service at home.
I had to go out and buy one of these wireless cards and use my laptop at home.
Uh with three backup system, they all go down.
Now we've lost email here at the studio again.
Uh and it just it is burning me up.
I am I'm about I'm gonna start naming names pretty soon with all of this.
How long how many months have been we would we've been working on this trying to get this fixed?
At least three solid months.
This has nothing to do with the hurricane.
Three solid months.
The amount of money that we pay for this.
I mean, I can understand a you know th the the the uh primary system going down, but the backup and everything else at the same time uh is just getting to the point.
I I don't know how other businesses stay in business when they have to work with Bell South or when they have to work with ATT.
Uh and and of course the the third problem we've got here has nothing to do with them.
It's our own, it's it's uh it's something else.
Uh at any rate, here's this here's this final little bite from Richard Posner on Hardball.
Andrew Mitchell asks him, Well, where do you come down, Judge, on the side of security trumping civil liberties?
I think in this situation, you have to ask yourself as a citizen, would you be terribly worried if you knew that the government was collecting uh uh your, you know, digitizing your phone conversations and email conversations and having them searched by computers for possible information relevant to terrorism.
If that disturbs you terribly, that's gonna, you know, uh affect your judgment of this balance between security and and civil liberties.
On the other hand, my my feeling about that is I don't regard that kind of scrutiny as a profound invasion of privacy.
On the other hand, I am very worried about terrorism, and I'd like the government to be collecting all information that might contain clues to uh further terrorist attacks.
And there you have it.
This really spells out the difference.
There are people who want to roll the dice that terrorism is not a problem, that we're really taking it too seriously.
That we have no business declaring war against it.
It's not that bad.
It's not that serious.
And so Bush is not warranted in doing any of these things.
Uh and then that brings up the civil liberties crowd with their phony uh arguments about all this.
We had a call yesterday from a guy who wanted them as loss of civil liberties.
And you know something, folks, and I I I I went off on this guy, really went off on a rant on this guy.
If you want to talk about the loss of civil liberties, we are losing liberties in this country uh as fast as you can count them.
Whether they be civil or anything else, and many of the liberties, quote unquote that we are losing, are being brought about and caused by the same little people who were concerned about the loss of their precious civil liberties.
They are demanding because they don't like something, and because something offends them, or because not everybody supports it, that it be banned, or that it be uh uh Relegated to a few areas where it can take place or something.
And it's an all-out assault and it never stops.
It's on the kind of car you drive.
They try to make you feel guilty about the kind of car you drive.
They make you guilty if you want to smoke.
They haven't banned the product, they haven't banned tobacco, but they want to make sure nobody can smoke anywhere.
And they, you know, come up with all these phony secondhand smoke studies, which uh we've documented World Health Organization buried a study on secondhand smoke that showed it wasn't deadly, it didn't even cause illness.
It may some people don't like it, makes them uncomfortable, but it doesn't kill people.
They're having enough trouble proving that primary smoke kills people because not everybody that smokes dies.
And so, but but all these all these little attacks on what I consider to be normalcy, all these things that traditional uh that have gone on in this country, uh so many little nadering nabobs are so upset with because they don't like it.
It makes them feel uncomfortable.
They're basically unhappy people in the first place.
They want everybody to be miserable with them.
And so they're they're you know, that's the nanny state.
It's these people that know better for everybody else based on what they want.
The way they live their lives, everybody should everybody else should be made to live their lives that way as well.
This whole argument about civil liberties uh uh being being taken away.
I can't find any examples of them.
I can't find any examples where the Patriot Act has been overblown, overused.
I can't find anybody falsely accused.
I can't find where anybody's civil liberties have gone by the wayside.
When it comes to civil liberties, you got this guy Tukey Williams, and the whole left is out there worried that he was n his his execution was not spared.
And the next thing you know, he's gonna get the Nobel Prize.
And I mean their idea of who should have civil liberties and who should have what kind of freedom uh the the people that are victims of crimes don't get nearly the sympathy from the left as the people who caused them and create them and commit them.
And yet they call in a worry and they get all concerned about pressus erosion of civil liberties.
Not realizing how often that they spy on others if they can, not all not realize they're not admitting uh to uh to all of that.
So it just it's it's it boils down to whether or not you think we have a serious circumstance that we're dealing with here.
And it's obvious now that many on the left don't think it's serious at all, don't think it's worth nearly the effort that we're putting into it, i.e.
the war on terror, wherever it takes us.
To the phones, uh open line Friday, Jack Portland, Connecticut.
Nice to have you, sir.
You're up first today.
Uh uh Rush uh dittoes from a long-term time listener from the deep blue state of Connecticut.
Thank you, sir.
In the Washington Post, there's an article about a fact that uh Nancy Pelosi has threatened to remove members of her party from positions of uh various committees because they sided with uh the Republicans.
When are Frist and Hassart going to start maybe doing the same thing with some of our wayward Republicans?
I I don't think it'll ever happen.
I uh well, I I don't I don't think I can't see it happening.
It's not that's not who we are.
Well, maybe we ought to be.
Well, I don't know.
Do you really want you want to start mandating uh thought and votes?
You want to start mandating that that this is how people have to act.
See, it's I don't think it's getting the Democrats anywhere.
You you think it is because you're reacting to uh what you think is a constant and consistent message in the media, and you think that that consistent message is working.
I maintain that it's a consistent message, but it's making it look like idiots.
It is not redounding to their favor.
Now, years ago it would have.
Years ago it would have, but it's not now.
But there's no way we're in the practical reality of this, there's no way we're gonna bring people like Lincoln Chafee or or Susan Collins into line.
I mean, what kind of party discipline could be affected on them?
Well, we ought to just get rid of them.
Well, yeah, but that has to happen at the ballot box.
Yeah, and unfortunately here in New England, uh deep, deep, deep blue.
Yeah, like where you are.
You know, try coming up with a Republican senator from your state.
Tough.
And if you get last time we had one, his name was Lowell Wiker, and we all determined that a Democrat would be better, Joel Lieber.
Absolutely.
You know, so your own state provides uh example of this.
I you know th th this is a uh I know it's a bugaboo question for people uh uh because the Democrats do seem more aligned, but look at the look at look at what their discipline gets them.
I mean, do you actually the Democrats have the ability to put their heads in the sand and ignore how things sound.
They ignore the substance.
It's not about the substance to them.
It's all about winning.
But are they?
I'd rather be right on the substance and have a shot at convincing the American people through their hearts and minds.
Then I would one try to enforce uh action on things I know was not going to win, wasn't working, wouldn't work just for the sake of having a consistent message in party discipline.
And I I'm just you know, I I think the president can do some things on these matters.
I think the president can uh maybe do a little bit more than he has when it comes to party discipline.
But overall, we're never gonna end up uh with with the same kind of thinking uh or the same kind of so-called discipline that the Democrats have.
You have to realize that these Republicans you're talking about are liberals.
You know, they just they're rhinos, Republicans in name only.
Um and so to, you know, converting them to conservatism is just as challenging as converting any other liberal uh to uh to conservatism.
They get angry at the same things other liberals do.
They get as irrational as other liberals do.
Plus they'll tell you that their constituents who elected them are all liberals and expect them to act that way, as you well know, living in um uh in in Connecticut.
I wouldn't trade places with the Democrats today.
You know, people say to me, uh uh and have said to me over the course of my career, Rush, do you realize how your life would be different if you were a liberal?
And they go down the list.
Hollywood would love you.
You would have a television show in prime time on a network.
You could name your ticket and price for virtually anything.
You would you could get movies made.
You could do all if you were just a liberal.
Isn't that tempting?
It would wouldn't wouldn't you love to do that?
And then and then they and then they come and say, Yeah, I'd have email.
And I wouldn't have little political rats at ATT and Bell South playing games with my connectivity.
Because that's what's this is there's no reason this stuff drops out like this on on uh accidentally.
Businesses couldn't stay in business doing this.
Anyway, how do I get sidetracked?
They come to me and say, look at how much you'd be part of the big click.
Every you'd be really popular, Letterman and Lenno wouldn't love you, and you'd be a standing guest wherever you wanted to go.
Wouldn't that be more fun for you?
And I I look at these people, I said, I got that out of my system in high school.
Being part of the big click is not the name of the game here.
Being part of what is considered to be the mainstream is not the name of the it would be the end of me if I were to do that.
If even if the switch were genuine, let's say I wake up one day and uh oh, for reasons I can't explain, I'm a liberal.
Maybe Bell South or ATT have been sending little liberal waves into my brain while I'm sleeping when I don't have connectivity.
Who knows?
It it would it'd be the end to me.
I wouldn't, I wouldn't trade places with liberals today because they live a lie.
They have to liberals are miserable.
You think they're happy because they get all this attention and because they're, you know, they they sit around singing kumbaya with one another.
It's my contention they are miserable.
They're not intellectually independent.
Look at when one of them strays, what happens to them.
I don't want thought control determining what I have to think and do, and I don't want this kind of discipline determining who I have to run around with, who I can like and not.
I don't want any part of that.
I I I don't I don't encounter happy liberals.
You know, when I go out socially, I can leave it all at the front door.
I don't I don't go out as a conservative.
Most people think I walk in the door as one and I'm willing to take over the room and gonna dominate it by talking about what a bunch of rot gut apes of liberals are, but that's not what happens.
I just I just go out for a good time.
Liberals can't leave it at the front door.
They determine who their friends are, they determine what they say, they determine their whole world view on the basis of it, and that's why they're miserable.
The pursuit of happiness is something that that has escaped them.
Uh and I maintain it's because they know that they're in the minority and they know that their their thinking is odd and uh and irrational on many things.
I wouldn't trade places with them for I won't I don't care if the mainstream press loved me and gave me the kind of treatment that you want to get because of party discipline, it isn't gonna happen.
That's not at all what makes my boat float, or not at all what makes uh makes us click here.
I'm a little long, we've got to take a break, we'll be back.
Stay with us.
We are back on the day before Christmas Eve here on Open Line Friday on the EIB network, Steve in Southampton, New York.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Thank you very much, Rush.
Merry Christmas.
Same to you.
First, I'd like to say thank you very much for opening up my eyes to a wide world of politics.
I'm leaving my career in construction management.
I'm going to go back to school for broadcasting, and hopefully I can follow in your tradition of broadcasting.
Well, go for it.
Thank you.
My point is this is we need leaders today that are gonna be proactive, i.e., President Bush and not reactive playing politics with national security.
Tapping phones is proactive.
Playing politics with national securities is reactive.
It's time to stop this domestic insurgency called Nancy Pelosi and Vinji Harry.
Yeah.
Well, it it is, you know, the president has enemies on many fronts.
And there are some in this country, yet the puffster said that his resolution did not allow the president to fight the war on terror in America.
Didn't allow to fight in the in the United States of America.
That's where we were attacked, Senator.
It is where we were attacked.
We were attacked in the United States.
And Puff said, no, that was too broad.
We didn't give him that authority.
To uh fight the war on terror in the United States.
No, no, they wanted that in there.
But we we wouldn't put it because we were concerned then about civil liberties.
My rear end.
You were concerned then about civil liberties.
Let's another thing on civil liberties.
How many of you people, and you know, political correctness.
How many of you encounter it?
It's not the question, not the right question.
How many of you encounter it every day?
The question is how many times a day do you encounter it?
What do you think political correctness is?
It's not an infringement on civil liberties, primarily speech.
You can't say what you want to say.
If a liberal who doesn't like it is going to be around and hear you, you might get expelled from school, you might get sued, or you might get fired.
All because of words you utter.
Political correctness is one of the largest obstacles to truth that the left has set up, and it's an infringement on civil liberties and a whole bunch of civil liberties.
You think affirmative action, that is portrayed as something that's widely expanding freedom and civil liberties?
It doesn't.
Affirmative action, quotas, whatever you want to call it, does nothing but infringe on people's rights.
It blames people for discrimination who've never engaged in it simply on the basis of the color of their skin.
It's it it's said to be something imminently fair.
It's the most unfair thing a government could do.
It sit around, sits around and just judges people on the basis of the color of their skin.
It says, Well, we've got to make amends for what happened during the days of past discrimination.
All right, fine.
How are you gonna do that?
Well, we're gonna give these people whose relatives were discriminated against.
We're gonna give them a little head start.
We're gonna have a little uh uh uh advantageous treatment.
Uh test scores are not gonna need to be as high.
Their strength, if they want to be a fire department and they're a female, not gonna be as uh as high, their the requirements.
Okay, uh, when are you gonna end all that?
When are you gonna say the playing field's been level?
Whoa, it'll be years, decades, centuries.
There's so much past discrimination.
Why it's still going on?
Why we'll never be able to level.
Oh, so we're gonna now just change the color that we discriminated against.
You can't say it's discriminated, because if you say that we're now discriminating against a new group, then they're gonna call you a racist.
Then you have to end up defending yourself on charges baseless that you are a racist.
Now you tell me that's not a loss of civil liberties.
The left has engineered more civil liberties defeats for people in this country than any of theirs have ever been threatened.
Be back after this.
Stay with us.
As usual, the first hour drawing to a quick close, ladies and gentlemen, and it will soon be in an armored courier on its way over to a secret warehouse that no amount of spying will ever find, housing all tapes, kinescopes, and digitized recordings of this program that will someday make up a giant listening room in the limbaugh museum of broadcasting.
I am your host, America's anchor man, L. Rushbow.
Did you see Sensenbrenner yesterday?
Senson Brenner took it to the Senate on the uh on the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act was extended for six months, would have to have taken it right into the middle of the campaign uh year in 2006, and Sensenbrenner was not gonna put up with these guys in the House are fed up with the Senate.
Republicans and Democrats.
I mean, the Republicans in the House fed up with every senator, every Republican or Democrat, and they're not gonna uh had a conference report, and these four senators just blew the hell out of it, along with all the other Democrats, four Republicans joining these Democrats to filibuster the thing, and Sensen Brenner blew his stack yesterday and got the extension down to what six weeks?
Five weeks, something like that.
▲
Export Selection