All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 30, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
December 30, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the EIB Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We are here on the last broadcast day of 2005.
I'm almost reluctant to let go, and I did find out today that this day, this last day of our year, will be longer.
Well, by one second.
But still, you'll have to endure one second more of 2005 than you thought on the last day.
This is not the actual last day, but it is the last broadcast day.
And it has been a remarkable year.
Now, what I'd like to do today, in addition to the fact that it is Friday, and I believe, Mike, that we have a special little song we sing on Friday, right?
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
We're dancing out here, telling you.
I just saw the news in L.A., 20 feet, 20-foot surf.
No, don't tell me this is news.
At the beach, there's surf.
Hello?
I think we're angling for that federal money.
Declare an emergency.
Surf at the beach.
Anyway, welcome to the show and to Open Line Friday.
Now, here's what I want to do on Open Line Friday today.
I want to focus it, because it is the last broadcast day of the year, on those stories that you thought and why.
And I'd like to just get a blast from you on this, were underreported, not reported, misreported, etc.
Or a story that you liked that was reported that we should remember about 2005.
So let's give it the whole spectrum of stories, from stories that were great stories that should be remembered and that you want to emphasize, bad stories that were reported that we ought to remember as well, maybe bad stories or negative stories or some kind of story that was underreported or misreported.
So all of that.
I did get a bunch of interesting feedback from yesterday's story.
We talked, of course, about New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.
Zeb writes, Roger, are you as surprised as I am Senator Ted Kennedy has not been in New Orleans following Katrina?
He has experience with drowning victims.
Of course, the experience wasn't very positive is the problem, I guess, with that particular observation in this listening audience.
Also on the same subject from Ralph in Charlotte, he says, I think the Superdome would have been restored in New Orleans by now if it was privately owned.
I believe if the owner of the Saints also owned the stadium, he would have fixed it by now.
The only reason it hasn't been fixed yet is that the government owners have to come up with plans and schemes to get money.
They will argue about what should be done and where will they get the money and who will be in charge and all of that.
And if it was privately owned, the Superdome, the owner would just get the work done and get his tenants paying rent again and use the facility to make money.
He says, I'm tired of government ownership of things that should be privately held.
Government paralyzes everything it touches.
Hard to argue against that.
Yes, of course it's self-serving.
The best next to Rush is this email's title.
Always hope to hear you as you fill in, Roger.
Wish you were national in our area and our future destination, Florida.
Good luck on that move.
The New York Times is always entertaining to me because I always know how to read it.
Like I used to know how to read Pravda in the old Soviet days, the Moscow newspaper, where you read between the lines, Pravda means truth in Russian, and it's kind of the most ironic title for a newspaper because, of course, it was an organ of the espouting the line of the Communist Party of of the Soviet Union.
But the New York Times, in a much less way, is also the organ of a certain political agenda called infantile liberalism.
And so they're, you know, every day their agenda is on display if you know where to look for it.
So here I am.
I love it.
I start actually in the New York Times.
This is a little insider secret here on Talk Radio.
I start with the business page because they don't understand business, don't like business, hate capitalism, hate Bush, hate everybody who has anything to do with the free market that has produced their prosperity.
And therefore, I start with that page because it is the page they are least able to mask their agenda.
So here, I was not disappointed today.
Here today is, this is classic.
Front page of the business section, New York Times headline, U.S. growth may hinge on businesses.
Now just take the enormity.
Get your arms around the enormity of this statement.
U.S. growth may hinge on business.
Duh.
What did you think it hinged on?
Pluto?
Government?
Michael Jackson?
I mean, what was it that you thought the government, that the economy hinged on?
Economic success.
This could only be printed in this kind of infantile liberalism paper.
U.S. growth may hinge on business.
No.
So I read the article because I thought this is going to be something new.
So of course, they start out with the liberal agenda.
The housing market is gradually fading as a prop for the economy.
A prop.
An economy that's growing by more than 4% a year.
Nearly the rate, by the way, on average, since Bush came in after 2003, that the late 90s produced when the New York Times was trumpeting the best economy ever.
Lower unemployment rate than during the Clinton years.
So they go on.
The bond market is an inverted yield curve suggesting the economy is headed for a sharp slowdown, perhaps a recession.
So then, here's this.
So why do most forecasters predict that economic growth will remain relatively strong next year?
In other words, here's the Times.
What are they thinking?
We're going into a recession.
It's the Bush recession right before the congressional elections.
It's on my agenda.
It's on my script.
It's got to happen because the Democrats have got to win.
The natural party of power has to get back into power.
That's the script for this year.
So who are these forecasters?
How dare they say that the economy might remain strong?
So they go on.
I just got such a kick out of this.
Reading now from the article.
So how do most forecasters, why do most forecasters predict economic growth will remain relatively strong next year?
Perhaps because they're counting on other sectors that have been relatively weak, particularly stepped up business investment to help sustain the robust expansion of the last 30 months.
By the way, the phrase robust expansion in connection with the last 30 months and the economy, that's the first time that has ever been printed in the New York Times.
Robust expansion in connection with the economy of the last 30 months.
What are they talking about, stepped-up business investment?
It's been stepping up now for several years, big time.
So they quote Richard Berner, chief domestic economist for Morgan Stanley, quote, I think the surprise will be that housing prices and housing sales will decelerate, but the economy will do just fine.
How can this be?
The Times cites 53 economists surveyed by blue chip economic indicators predicting the growth rate in 2006 will drop, Will not drop much below the 3.7% average so far this year.
By the way, it's closer to four.
Then they go on to say, but this outlook also assumes that consumer spending, deprived of the lift from rising home prices and mortgage refinancing, will not drop very much.
They just can't get it.
They can't stand it.
Business.
Those evil businesses are investing.
They're producing more jobs.
They're producing more wealth.
And they're depriving us of the recession that we need to get Democrats back into office.
You could tell while I was laughing.
This set off my whole morning.
And this put it all in perspective.
Something you won't read still in the New York Times.
An op-ed piece I got emailed to me by a friend by a doctor serving in Iraq, Captain James E. D., M.D. in the U.S. Air Force, a captain.
He is a Harvard Medical School-trained emergency physician.
He's stationed in San Antonio in the Air Force in his home base, currently deployed to the 332nd Expeditionary Aeromedical Evacuation Flight, Balad Air Base, Iraq.
He writes: The emergency rooms in Iraq can be eerily quiet or can suddenly explode into a flurry of action, like the day a Bradley troop carrier was hit by a roadside bomb, engulfing the occupants in flame and twisted metal.
As an emergency physician, these are the days I trained for but dread to see.
The tent hospital shook as the Black Hawk helicopters landed with seven injured soldiers.
They had blast injuries from the explosion, shrapnel wounds, and extensive burns across their arms, legs, and faces.
The sight was horrific.
I focused on one soldier who was the most severely injured.
His face, arms, and legs were severely burned.
His gloves were welded to his fingers by the heat, though he remained conscious and able to talk.
His concern was for his men.
He asked over and over, how are they doing?
I encouraged him to hang on.
I told him his men were in good hands and getting the care they needed.
Everything would be all right.
I desperately wanted to believe that, but my experience as a physician told me otherwise.
Before he was placed on a ventilator, he recalled that the Bradley had been hit.
The large troop door was damaged and could not be opened, trapping the men inside, the only escape through a small front door.
What he didn't tell me, but we later learned, was that he had gotten out with minimal burns but went back into the vehicle to rescue his trapped comrades.
This soldier had suffered severe burns in the process of single-handedly saving the lives of his fellow soldiers.
Despite our efforts, he died days later.
He had given his life to save others.
As one of the doctors later captured it, we met a hero last night.
This doctor goes on to write, I often reflect during the holidays on the classic story of George Bailey in the movie It's a Wonderful Life.
I too find myself standing at that metaphoric bridge wondering if I've made a difference here in Iraq.
Is the poignant story still valid?
The answer for me is a resounding yes.
I met the first of many heroes on the night of that Bradley incident.
The courage and sacrifice of this soldier is not isolated.
It is the norm here, a daily occurrence.
What I have witnessed has profoundly affected me, and I was completely unprepared for it.
Why had I never heard these stories back home?
As a physician in a stateside military hospital, certainly I should have heard these stories, but either I had not listened or, more likely, they were not told.
The news that I was accustomed to at home seems but a shell of what I see before me out here.
Every day here, I meet ordinary men and women displaying profound compassion for each other and doing extraordinary things.
I cared for a Marine who dived on a grenade, shielding his men from the blast and saving their lives.
He lost his hand, took multiple shrapnel wounds, and was in critical condition.
Yet all he wanted to know was how his comrades were doing.
I spoke with another Marine who stayed on patrol during the Iraqi constitutional election instead of seeking medical attention for a gunshot wound in his arm inflicted two days earlier.
When I asked him why he had delayed medical attention, he said the election was the next day.
He had a job to do, and he would not let his men down.
His arm could wait.
Before I deployed to Iraq, I opened the newspaper and saw little of these kinds of heroic acts.
Where are the front-page stories on my fellow soldiers and Marines?
I wish the public and the policymakers could look into the eyes of these soldiers, he writes, and sailors and airmen and Marines and see what I see, hope and commitment.
I see it every day.
They have burned hope behind their eyes, deep compassion in their hearts, and a steadfast belief that each one is here making a difference.
As I celebrate the holiday season here in Iraq, he finishes, I am filled with a great sense of wonder and appreciation for what our men and women in uniform have volunteered to do.
They have answered the call of their country, and they have served with dignity, pride, and honor.
This holiday season and I do not need to watch.
It's a wonderful life.
I've come face to face with many George People.
I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush and taking your calls right after this.
And we're back.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush Limbaugh back next week.
Of course, as we open up here at the Limbaugh Institute, yet another great year in radio broadcasting in 2006, and what a great year it's going to be.
You need to be right here for all of the information you're going to need to negotiate these waters.
By the way, even though Arnold Schwarzenegger's name has come down off of the gym in Graz, Austria, as a result of their unhappiness at the execution of Tukey Williams, you remember the anti-death penalty folks.
I guess they're pro-death penalty when the criminals kill people, but they're anti-death penalty when we seek justice against the criminals.
That's sort of the Austrian mindset.
But Arnold did the right thing.
He sent him a letter saying, take my name off it.
You want to object to it?
Tough.
Take my name off and stop using me to get tourists to come to your town and spend a lot of money.
Done.
So they had to.
The name is still on, however, at the Arnold Classic Gym in Baghdad.
The Arnold Classic Gym in Baghdad.
There are apparently a number of these gyms across.
You know, you can tell when things are starting to return to normal, when guys show up for their workout.
You know, you can tell it's just one of those little things that tells you that things are getting back to normal.
All right, to your calls and what you think about the stories of 2005 and where you think you're going in 2006.
Here's Bradley in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, Bradley.
Welcome to the RUF program.
Hi, thank you for having me.
I'm a first-time caller.
Thank you.
I wanted to just mention that I think being a conservative, I definitely recognize, like most of your audience does, that there's such a lack of reporting in regards to the hard work that's being done both in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as down in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina.
And as a National Guardsman, I had the opportunity to go down and help for a month with cleanup efforts down there.
And I recently saw a report on ABC talking about the Coast Guard and how they do roughly 5,500 rescues a year, and that's on average.
And after Hurricane Katrina, they had done well over 30,000.
Wow.
And it's just a small example of the hard work and dedication of the people that are down there helping out.
And it's such a, you know, there's so much work to be done, but there's still people working and giving everything they have to help.
You mean you expected that to be reported?
Say again.
You expected that to be reported.
Absolutely.
But I mean, until I was turned onto your show, I really couldn't stand watching or hearing any kind of news because it was politically motivated and not based on facts.
Yeah, I feel like I'm listening to your show.
Well, I appreciate that because when Rush is here, obviously we all get that.
And I'll tell you what, if you only listened to certain outlets of the media that we've discussed here, you would think that Bush deliberately murdered black people down there, that he blew up the levees, that he withheld water, that people were murdered in the Superdome because Bush couldn't get there in time, that he flew over and just looked down like some Louis XIV figure waving at people dying.
That would have been the story.
Except, of course, it wasn't the story.
Not even close, not even on the same planet.
So, Bradley, I appreciate you coming to that conclusion.
The purpose of this program is to get more and more people to come to that conclusion that there is a lot more than what you see in the elite media.
And now there are alternative ways to get information where you can get around that liberal agenda, that infantile liberalism, and come to some kind of fact-based news on this program, on a lot of other programs, on the net, in the blogs, et cetera.
Anyway, Bradley, welcome to the program.
We appreciate you and appreciate your being here.
Here's Chris in Overland Park, Kansas.
Chris, welcome to the Rush program.
How are you doing, Roger?
Good.
Happy New Year.
Happy New Year to you, sir.
Thank you.
I was just, you know, with the Internet, it's kind of interesting to me why there, and here's the point.
This is a new place for an entrepreneur to make a bunch of money.
Come up with a Newsmax type Internet site, only have soldiers tell their story.
I think that is a great idea.
I wonder why it hasn't been.
They'll have advertisements and all that to pay the tab if necessary and get the word out.
And then they start branching out into all sorts of areas that the elite media just won't give us.
That's a heck of an idea.
A number of blog sites, of course, have come up in the last couple of years.
And one of those on which we had nothing but just letters from the troops would be a heck of a site, I think.
But based on this letter I just read, which I could hardly get through without being emotionally involved in it, I got to tell you that that is an absolutely great idea.
Okay, so we will do that.
And we'll talk about that.
Hey, a lot more news going on today than I figured there would be.
So we're going to get to it.
On the border, on the economy, on the cloning scam.
Where do you hear this one?
So stay with us.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the EIB Network, the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Roger Hedgecock at KOGO Radio in San Diego filling in today, the last broadcast day of the year.
And we're looking for you on this Open Line Friday.
What do you think about the stories of 2005, the individuals who stood out, the stories that were underreported, misreported, the stories that were reported, that we should remember, the good stories and the bad as well.
So we're opening it up to you and maybe your best prediction for 2006 as well.
Here's BJ in University Place, Washington, is it?
Hello there.
Welcome to the Rush program.
Good morning, Roger.
Hi.
One thing that just has me steamed, and I think it's just been really underreported, is the problem with the leaks within the administration.
And I think with the Valerie Flame thing, I think it put them on the defensive.
And I'm worried that they're not investigating them because they're worried it's going to come and it's going to be someone of their own.
And I don't really think it's their own if it's somebody else leaking.
And it's a national security threat.
And I think people haven't been really pushing the issue.
Well, there's breaking news on this.
In fact, in the last couple of moments, the Justice Department has announced it has opened an investigation regarding the recent leaks about the classified domestic surveillance program run by the National Security Agency.
The leaking of that program to the New York Times, their story first ran on December 16th, and then CNN and others were going with it as well.
There will be an investigation now of the unauthorized disclosure of classified information here, and the Bush administration is opening it up.
In fact, they should have a statement from the Bush administration here during the program.
So stand by.
What about the prisons?
And that's the other one, the significant.
Well, they're already investigating that.
And the prison thing was pretty funny.
The media, the Times and others, had figured out that there was a Romanian airbase where the CIA was torturing people.
And they flew over and dropped in on this airbase unannounced.
And of course, the airbase has got a couple of people on it.
They're going, the what, the who?
And, of course, there was nothing there.
So, no, there's already an investigation of that.
But in terms of the leaking of it, I don't know.
But the leaking, the more serious leaking here, because the torture thing was made up, the rendition issue was kind of made up since the first rendition that is taking people to allowing them to be taken to other countries for torture or interrogation.
That's been done throughout the Clinton administration, apparently.
And again, no excuse if it's illegal, but it isn't.
If another nation has an interest in the person and requests, just like we do all the time in the U.S., we request people to be sent to the U.S. for trial or for interrogation because our interests are involved as well as some other countries.
And my issue has never been if it's right or wrong.
Somebody's leaking this information.
Somebody's leaking.
I agree.
And I'm hoping that even though the Bush administration got hit hard with the plane thing, that they're not going to, and it sounds like they are investigating it now, which is the first I've heard about it because it's just driving me insane.
They've got to share up their house.
I agree.
No, it just came over the wire, and it is going to be investigated.
There is going to be as much emphasis put on this as was put on the other one because, and I don't agree with you that the plane thing made the Bush administration look bad.
The fact is that, well, the other day, just to show you where I think this plane thing actually fits in the news of 2005, one of their five-year-old twins, while Mr. Wilson was being interviewed in an airport, one of their five-year-old twins, a young boy, piped up and said, my daddy's famous and my mommy's a spy to the interviewer.
So I don't know, BJ, I kind of just put that in that perspective.
Now, look, I want to look ahead to 2006 as well and give you some of my ⁇ and see if you think my predictions will be on point.
First of all, I believe that this is going to shake up both Democrats and Republicans, the frontrunners for the presidential nomination of 2008, and this will be the year when all of those things start to gel.
2006 will be ⁇ will be Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Now, I'm not saying which party, but I am saying I think it's Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
Iraq is still going to be the central issue in 2006.
No big predictive powers on that.
But whatever happens in Iraq, civil war, Islamic state, fledgling democracy, capitalism, whatever it is on the spectrum of possibilities that have been raised about the future of Iraq, I think what will become clear in 2006 is that it'll be up to the Iraqis.
It's going to be up to the Iraqis.
And that's going to be something very important.
Now, what will Bush get as increasingly lame duck?
And of course, there'll be a big push to make him more lame duck than anybody's ever been in a second term.
But I bet you, I think Bush does get tax reforms.
He does get spending restraint because how else are Republicans going to win elections in 2006?
We will get illegal immigration, strengthened borders with Mexico, and a lot more on the Canadian border as well.
And I think that the Republicans will hold the House and the Senate.
And let me go way out on a limb here because I've been wishing, beyond wishing, I think it's factually possible, more than likely this year than ever, that Fidel Castro may finally shuffle off the stage in Cuba and give that oppressed nation its first chance in 45 years for freedom.
So a couple of my 2006 picks.
Let's see what yours are.
Jeremiah in Kansas City is next.
Jeremiah, welcome to the Rush program.
Hey, Rogers, good to talk with you.
Hey, thanks for calling.
Yeah, my point, I just wanted to kind of compare the press and how they responded to Clinton with how they're responding to Bush.
The few military operations that Clinton was involved in, I don't remember all the names of them, but I do seem to remember the press using the same names and kind of being on the same page with Clinton.
However, with Bush, one thing that I hear a lot, but I haven't really heard anybody talk about was how every time you hear Bush talk, you hear him refer to the war on terror.
And when you hear the press, every time I turn on the evening news, it's the war in Iraq.
And as if it's not a worldwide effort.
Well, there was a world of difference.
Look, I mean, this has been documented by Rush so many times here.
There's a world of difference because we go into Kosovo.
There was no United Nations approval, number one.
There was no even NATO approval.
We go in there unilaterally.
The press loves it.
Then we pull all our punches trying to help the poor Kosovars who then turn around and burn down all the Christian churches in Kosovo.
I mean, it was just a complete foobar all the way around, okay?
So, Jeremiah, I got to tell you that it's absolutely correct, and we better learn to live with it.
We're not going to change the infantile liberalism of the elite media.
What we are going to do is change the information that average Americans get because here and elsewhere, there's going to be alternative information that you're going to be able to get as a consumer of information and make up your own mind.
Yep.
Yeah, I appreciate the call.
Now, on the economy, I did get feedback as well.
Here's this from Bob.
Subject, economy sucks.
Quote, I am in software, and this has been the worst year in a long time.
This has been the worst years in a long time.
The work is not plentiful, not are people willing to pay anything but the bottom of the barrel prices.
Now, obviously, Bob is a recent graduate of the public school K-12 system and does not have spell check or grammar check.
Or if he's writing code, I bet there's a reason why nobody wants to buy it.
I'm going to read this sentence again, Bob.
The work is not plentiful, not are people willing to pay anything but the bottom of the barrel prices.
Good grief.
He says, I have not seen a salary increase more than the cost of living in years.
I have even had to endure a $10,000 pay cut after 9-11 and have not recovered.
So when I hear about the great economy, all I think about is wait.
All my expenses have gone up and my salary stays flat.
I measure inflation at about 10%.
Everything from taxes to milk have gone up.
Everything from taxes to milk have gone up.
Look, there's a reason, Bob, why you aren't making any money.
You're adult.
You are adult.
You are a semi-illiterate dolt.
And in any society, you're not going to be getting ahead.
However, as you look around, you understand that people who paid attention to grammar and class and are literate are doing much better.
I did get feedback as well from Longasai, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, Longasai, Ecuador.
Ludwig writes, and I got this call yesterday from this farmer in Oregon, the wheat farmer.
Remember, he was so down, and I even counseled him to change careers.
I mean, I didn't like to see the guy be so negative and pessimistic.
So he says, Roger, that farmer from Oregon is right about the environmentalists.
As far as the wheat market, what you should tell him is that he should diversify his crops.
He has to continue farming.
That is his life.
Well, if you're going to continue farming, you better find some way to make wheat a paying crop for him or diversify because he's stuck now in a rut and very pessimistic.
And it was hard to listen to that conversation.
If you're pessimistic this year in the best economy that probably this country has ever experienced, I don't know what's going to happen when a recession inevitably does come at some point in time.
There'll be some combination of goof-ups by somebody that'll lead to some overreaction, underreaction, whatever, so that you get some kind of recession.
It's inevitable.
That's the way the business cycle works.
We haven't repealed it.
Look, here's the bottom line for me.
There's no survival.
There's no survival in pessimism.
It isn't the American way.
If you're in a rut, if you're stuck, here's a resolution for you for New Year's.
Get out of it.
Get optimistic.
Get new training, get new job, get new, you know, get yourself going.
And first of all, get an attitude that you can do it.
Oh, by the way, we had a request on the starting a military blog to get all of these letters from our soldiers and sailors and Marines and airmen in the front when they send these incredible letters like the one I read in the last segment back to the U.S. There is one.
I have to go up and look at this, but I just got this flashed to me.
Military blog directory at millblogging.com.
Millblogging2Gs, millblogging.com.
So if you want to check that out and see if that's sufficient or we should start our own.
But I agree with you.
These messages from these soldiers are so right on.
There ought to be some way we can access them in an organized way.
All right, Roger Hedgecock in for Rush with a short break.
Back after this.
I love this story out of Dallas, Texas.
A new Dallas Public Library Code of Conduct has been enacted and homeless advocates are upset.
That's because in case you've noticed, haven't noticed, downtown or central libraries in most American cities are giant homeless shelters.
At least they are here in San Diego.
The Dallas rules prohibit a variety of activities including sleeping, eating, bathing, loud talking, bathing in the library, loud talking on cell phones, fighting, bare feet, and having sex.
Now, you know, there's got to be some kind of right to privacy of these homeless people to do whatever they want to do.
The urban outdoorsmen have rights too.
You can just see this lawsuit coming a mile away.
We've got, what, a $200 million central library in San Diego when we don't have any money to fund anything else that they're still promoting in San Diego when all it is, of course, is a glorified, not all it is, but too much of what it is, is a glorified homeless shelter.
And I think Dallas is having apparently the same problem.
Let's get to Jack.
And speaking of callers from San Diego, here's Jack.
Hi, Jack.
Welcome to the, I was going to say Kogo, where you usually come.
Hi, Jack.
Happy New Year's, Roger.
I want to give you my prediction for 2006.
Shoot.
On or about March 20th of next year, there will be a preemptive strike on Iran.
And here's the part that we have to worry about.
It's been almost four years since Iran has been labeled as part of the axis of evil.
That's given them four years to plant sleeper cells inside the United States, and state-sponsored terrorism can be a lot more devastating than terrorism by rogue agents like al-Qaeda.
Well, there's no question about that.
Well, because they would have access to, say, a dirty bomb.
I understand.
What you're suggesting, Jack, is that there will be some kind of preemptive strike and the Iranians have a capability of striking back.
Well, they've had four years to prepare.
And the reason why I pick March 20th is because that's the date that Iran has announced that they're going to start selling oil for Euros, not dollars.
Interesting.
Well, I don't know.
And you know, it's interesting.
We will put this down, by the way, in the great projections for 2006.
And I guess my only feeling is that I think there is a nation more immediately threatened by Iran than we are who has made some statements.
Their military people made statements in Israel this week with regard to the likelihood of a bomb in Iran, an atomic bomb being ready to go and missiles that could strike Israel.
I think they're going to act before we do.
Well, you may be right.
The preemptive strike will come.
It may be from Israel.
It may be by the United States.
It may be joint.
Interesting.
Well, it's a chilling thought, Jack.
I appreciate the call.
Something obviously does have to be done.
Here's Bill in Trumbull, Connecticut.
Bill, welcome to the Rush program.
Hello, Roger.
How are you?
Good, new.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
What it's called about, I go back, we can step back a couple of callers to the news media and the Clinton administration and how they reported, or should I say not report, on any of the military actions that Clinton was involved in.
There was little or no information that you ever saw in the major media concerning what they were doing in Bosnia for all those years, what was going on in Haiti.
I know we had a military presence there for most of the Clinton administration.
Never knew what the people were doing down there.
Never saw any interviews, never saw anything from the military people there.
And we had no idea what Clinton was doing in Iraq.
I mean, every once in a while you hear that he bombed somebody.
Yeah, well, there was coverage, Bill.
But I think what your point is, there wasn't this skeptical coverage.
There wasn't this coverage that starts with the presumption that the DOLT in the White House doesn't know what he's doing and he's probably doing something illegal, and it's our duty to find it out and expose him before the public.
They didn't have that frame of mind in terms of Clinton.
And in that respect, you're absolutely right.
Yeah, that's true.
You're right.
Well, thanks for that.
I appreciate the call.
We're going to take a short break on the Rush program.
Back right after this.
I know most of us hated to face it, but George Bush in 2005 was even right about Social Security.
In just a couple of years, the revenues from Social Security tax will not cover the over-promising we have done in this fund over the years, we Americans through our Congress, both parties.
And it is a monster that's going to just chomp us in a couple of years when we realize there's no surplus of Social Security.
We've been using the surplus to fund general fund things for so many years.
That's kind of fading now, and there will be in a few years the need to take all the Social Security revenues to meet the promises we've made.
And then in a few years after that, to have to dip into the general fund to go back the other way in terms of, and how are we going to do that with where we have promised everything else, too.
So John James Lockhart, who's the Deputy Commissioner of Social Security Administration, has said, quote, we have over-promised.
Duh.
No kidding.
I've got time for Jim, don't I?
In Harrodsburg, Kentucky?
No, I don't.
Jim, you hang on, Jim, because I'm going to have time for you in the next hour.
And we're going to get into this.
My favorite story of non-reporting, under-reporting, misreporting is the economy.
And I want to get back to that and what's going on in it.
And take your calls, too, at 1-800-282-2882 as Roger Hedgecock sits in for Rush Limbaugh.
He'll be back, of course, next week as we begin, all of us here at the Limbaugh Institute, as we begin another great year in 2006.
▲
Export Selection