All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
February 8, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Welcome back to our search for truth here today.
And there's a lot of ground to cover.
I want to get to the cartoon issue, Iran, the Bush budget, the economy.
But let me just finish the last segment's thrust here because I'm trying to contrast the new civil rights, individual liberty, achievement, the ability to get the schools to work, the vouchers, the charter schools, what African Americans are doing in this whole country to bring about an ownership society for themselves.
And basically, that's Bush's goal for everybody.
The idea that home ownership has been going up for blacks, that business ownership has been going up.
This idea of empowerment through economics, not government handout, not guarantees, not affirmative action, but certainly some action.
And again, I pointed out Mr. Blackwell in Ohio, Mr. Steele in Maryland, Mr. Swan in Pennsylvania as indicating some of the political side of the new civil rights as contrasted to what you saw on display yesterday at the quote funeral unquote of Coretta Scott King.
Old, boring, and tired, out of date, 35-year-old rhetoric.
And here is another part of that.
Let's twist it a little bit and look at it from a different way.
One of the great hopes of the Democratic Party is Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
And boy, he's been on a fast track, absolutely been on a roll since well before he was elected and up until, well, Monday.
On Monday, sorry, last Thursday, actually, this started, last Thursday, Senator Obama wrote a letter to John McCain asking McCain to advance an ethics bill co-sponsored by only Democrat senators,
leaving out mention of McCain's ethics bill, which he's been working on with a bipartisan working group of senators, including Barack Obama.
Barack Obama sends this letter slapping McCain saying, no, we're going to go with one with only Democrat senators.
Our ethics bill is going to move forward with only Democrats.
Now, why did Obama do that?
The senator apparently responded to pressure from Harry Reid, the Senate leader.
Evidence of that, Obama's Thursday letter to McCain was emailed to reporters by Harry Reed's office, trying to get Obama back on the plantation, back in line, stop him from working with McCain so that McCain can produce a bipartisan ethics bill of whatever merit it might have.
The persistence of understanding that Obama was simply slapped down by Reed had to be actually, when did this happen?
This week, denied by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, denying that Democratic leaders pressured Obama last week to write that letter.
Right.
Right.
Well, anyway, McCain, what a smackdown this was, sends Obama back a letter.
Well, here's part of it.
I mean, talk about sarcasm.
And I love sarcasm.
One of my favorite parts of humor.
Now, get this.
This is McCain to Obama.
Quote, I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere.
I want to apologize to you.
I want to apologize to you for assuming that you were insincere.
Then he goes on to say, quote, I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss.
This is McCain to Obama, quote, I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness.
That's political talk for SmackDown, and Obama knows it, and that's the way the Democrats treat African Americans in their party.
Contrast that with the power, the absolute obvious power every day that Condi Rice has as Secretary of State.
So, just an idea for you that yesterday when Bush was sitting there taking it and applauding, smiling, shaking hands, water off a duck's back at the so-called funeral from these aged warriors with their 35-year-old rhetoric.
How cool was he?
Because he knew the future belongs to the people I just mentioned: the Blackwells and Steeles and Swans and Rice's and all those folks who are proving the American dream every day.
Now, moving on, I got a call in a local show yesterday talking about the dangers of reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
And you know that Congress is doing this 30-day-by-30-day thing on the Patriot Act reauthorization, and the left is in full roar about this.
Again, the question raised here is: what is the balance between constitutional protections for ordinary citizens and the ability of the government to protect us from attack and to prosecute the war to victory?
That's the issue.
So, the Patriot Act, there has been a focus, this caller said, on Section 605.
He says, go read 605.
You will find that George Bush wants to create a secret police with the power to arrest without warrant.
And I said, well, I'm opposed to secret police, and I think you ought to have a warrant under certain circumstances.
I don't like to see that eroded in any way, shape, or form.
So let me go read Section 605.
So I did.
And by the way, I am not, I mean, Human Events is talking about this new federal police force.
This is how Human Events started this National Conservative Weekly, by the way.
Unfathomed Danger in Patriot Act Reauthorization is the headline by Paul Craig Roberts.
Quote, a provision in the Patriot Act creates a new federal police force with the power to violate the Bill of Rights.
The reason I'm laughing, I'll read it to you in a moment.
I'll read the whole thing to you in a minute.
And we had, I think it was other, well, there were other articles about this, so you've probably seen it.
Let me read Section 605 in part to you.
It is entitled The Uniformed Division, United States Secret Service.
Not secret police, the Secret Service.
The Secret Service is, you know, the guys, Clint Eastwood was in this movie.
The guys with the ill-fitting suits and the earpieces, you know, the protect the president, that's the Secret Service.
Come out of the Treasury Department, I believe, unless they've been reorganized in Homeland Security.
But they're the guys who keep the security up for the President and the Capitol, I guess, other people.
What they're trying to do here is split the Secret Service where they keep the guys in the suits, and then they also create a uniformed division of the Secret Service.
Now, it's hardly secret police, ladies and gentlemen, when they're in uniform.
You know what I'm saying?
I think it kind of gives it away, sort of right away that it isn't a secret police.
They're in uniform for crying out loud.
Okay, that's number one.
Then, number two, here's 605 continues, that there be established a permanent police force to be known as the United States Secret Service Uniform Division to do what?
Protect the White House, any building the president goes, Treasury Building, President Vice President, foreign diplomatic missions, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Visits of foreign government officials, former presidents and their spouses, excluding Jimmy Carter.
No, I just made that up.
Any event designated as a special event of national significance.
And I'm reading 605.
I'm going down here thinking, okay, well, we want to protect these things, don't we?
And a uniform doesn't sound like secret police to me.
What's the problem?
I get to the problem.
B1.
Under the direction of the Director of Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniform Division are authorized to, and here's subsection B, quote, make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence or for any felony under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested has committed that felony.
And I thought, well, wait a second.
Every police officer in this country, every, and as a matter of fact, every citizen of this country has this right too.
If you see a felon, a felony being committed in your presence, you have the right to make a citizen's arrest.
If a police officer sees a felon breaking into, let's say a police officer on the beat, he's driving his car down the street, he sees a guy break into the local convenience store, grabbing stuff.
You know, we're in New Orleans now.
And what?
He has to go wake up a judge to get a warrant?
No.
Everybody knows what happens.
If you witness a crime, you, the police officer of any kind, step in and arrest.
You arrest for the crime you are witnessing.
That's all this law says.
And the left, and some portions of the right, apparently, human events and others, are in full throat.
Oh, my God, it violates the Bill of Rights.
It violates human rights.
It violates, I don't know, let me think of something else.
Huh?
It restates the arrest right every police officer, and for that matter, every citizen has.
If you see, and you're not a police officer, if you see a felony being committed, you have an absolute right to citizen arrest.
Unless there's some local law that says you don't, it's a common law.
It goes back to the Magna Carta, I think.
So the idea that we are going to create a uniformed division of the Secret Service, Secret Service being around for I don't know how many generations, protecting the guys who protect the president.
We're going to have a uniformed division that goes further than that, protecting buildings and so forth under terrorist threat, and has the right to arrest if they see a felony being committed.
Hello, that's what every police officer does.
What's new?
What's different?
George Bush proposed it.
Must be evil.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
Let's take a break on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Back with your call after this.
It's a Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush today and tomorrow.
Taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
You can also sign up for your subscription to Russia's newsletter now.
The February issue of the Limbaugh Letter features Russia's interview with fellow conservative Tony Blankley on the new book, The West's Last Chance, talking about what would really happen if Islamist terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction.
It's all at rushlimbaugh.com, and I'm going to get into that.
Iran and the cartoon flap coming up in the next hour.
Let's get to some calls first.
Jason, on a cell phone in Morton, Illinois.
Hi, Jason.
Welcome to the Rush Show.
Thank you, Roger.
I was just curious about your comments earlier about the whole Obama-McCain situation.
I was just wondering why you omitted Obama's retort letter to McCain, which basically said, what the hell are you talking about in PolishSpeak?
And also the fact that McCain and Obama have made amends on this whole altertation.
Well, I don't know whether they made amends.
I was looking at the hardball last night, and I guess Chris Matthews was going into this whole thing, and McCain said that he was moving on.
I don't know whether that means they've made amends.
Here's the crux of the thing.
Obama, at the instance of Harry Reid, instead of going bipartisan with McCain's thing, wanted to come up and support the Democrat proposal, which is a nine-member Congressional Ethics Commission, which would have the authority to keep this on the front page of the New York Times until at least Election Day on the culture of corruption charges against Republicans only.
McCain said, look, this thing is broader than that, covers both parties, needs to be attacked on a systemic basis, and we've got to work on a bipartisan basis to do it.
Obama had promised him he would do it.
He went back on his promise.
And as far as I'm concerned, let's get back to the thrust of my comment.
What this shows us is how Democrats treat African Americans who happen to be office holders in their party.
They toe the party line.
They get yanked back into line.
They get put back on the plantation, Jason.
I'd have to object to that, quite honestly.
I mean, granted, Obama's a Democrat, and he's going to side more with the Democrat party line than the Republican line.
But if you look at his...
No, and that's not what happened.
No, Jason.
Don't mischaracterize it.
What happened was, after promising to do a bipartisan effort on ethics, he was yanked back by Harry Reid to the purely partisan position, Democrats only, we're going to define ethics.
We're going to make it a campaign issue.
And he yanked, and he yanked himself back to that partisan position after promising a bipartisan approach with McCain.
McCain called him on it, and that's the fact.
And the fact is that the reason why Obama parted from McCain's plan is because Obama wants to have an ethics court in addition to the ethics committee to single out individual members, whereas McCain's just talking about earmarking.
So you can't really characterize this difference.
That's not true either.
Jason, thanks for your objection.
It's overruled.
I appreciate your call.
1-800-282-2882.
Always wanted to be a judge there.
Did you notice that?
A little judge thing happened on the show.
I love that.
Chris in Tampa, Florida next.
Hi, Chris.
Welcome to the Russ Show.
Hey, Roger.
One quick correction to what you just previously said about peace officer powers.
A citizen has the ability to make any arrest that's committed in their presence for a felony or misdemeanor.
That's what I said.
The difference between a citizen and a police officer, though, is their ability to make an arrest for reasonable cause.
A citizen does not have that ability.
An example of a reasonable cause arrest is this.
No, no, sir, don't get me off on that.
The point I was making is that the Patriot Act does not violate the Bill of Rights because it does not authorize for this uniformed service of the Secret Service anything that a police officer doesn't have now or that a citizen doesn't have now.
A citizen can arrest for a felony committed in their presence, as can a police officer.
And you are right, a police officer has the additional right to arrest if they have reasonable grounds to believe a person to be arrested has committed a felony.
But that's the exact language being used for this new secret service.
Yeah, exactly.
That's the whole point.
Every police officer in the country has this right.
Yes.
There is nothing different about this section than those given to the rights of a police officer by the states that they work for.
So what do you think about the fact that the left is in full throat, full roar against the Patriot Act reauthorization because George Bush is trying to create a secret police with warrantless arrest power?
They're complete idiots.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Thank you, Chris.
I appreciate the call.
Thank you.
I could not have said that better myself.
Now, there is another Democrat I cannot let go by without mentioning, you know, I get this chance too rarely to not go back to mention Congressman John Murtha.
Now, Congressman John Murtha was a topic on my local program a couple of days ago when I welcomed back three warriors to the studio, an Army veteran and two Marines who were returning in the last couple of months had returned from Iraq.
One of those Marines, Corporal Leah, a female, a door gunner in a Huey helicopter, not been many women in the Marines do that.
She had a, well, I got into it by describing what Murtha had been saying to her and then got her response.
This is what it sounded like.
Let's talk about a veteran who is talking against this war.
John Murtha is a congressman.
Oh, my God.
He's saying, you know, he's a veteran of Vietnam.
And he's saying, I wouldn't sign up today.
The armed services is broken.
We're stretched too thin.
The thing isn't working.
We've got to get out.
We've got to redeploy.
It's not worth it.
Have you guys heard him?
Yeah, I have.
And I have one thing to say to Mr. Murtha.
I would not serve with you today, sir.
And I am ashamed that you even can claim the title of Marine with me.
I am ashamed of that because you have betrayed us.
You're holding the proverbial gun to our head and pulling the trigger.
We are your brothers in arms, and you are betraying us with this ridiculous, outdated, and completely liberalistic view when you have no idea the true goal of why we're over there.
We're not trying to westernize Iraq.
We're trying to allow them to have some sort of a life.
And you know what?
They want it.
They want us there.
You need to shut your mouth.
So that was a Marine response to a Marine, and I'm just going to leave that goal where it is and see if you have any response to it.
Now, coming up in the next segment, we're going to talk after the break here at the bottom about the economy, the Bush budget, the reaction to it, some of the things that have gone on in the media with that and the Democratic response.
Take your calls as well at 1-800-282-2882 and urge you again, if you're missing Rush while he's gone for a few days, just go to the website, rushlimbaugh.com, join Rush 24-7, and you can listen to any of the radio shows you might have missed in the last month and get today's new morning update in either audio or video version as well.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush, and back right after this.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh today and tomorrow.
Thank you for listening, 1-800-282-2882 here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I have been, of course, and you and I together have gone through a particularly challenging time in the Supreme Court history with the nomination process for Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito.
Yikes.
Not to get back into that, but boy, there's more to do.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, for example, was trying to explain how he comes to a decision as a Supreme Court justice at a speech at the University of Chicago Law School.
Justice Breyer said that he makes decisions about a law's constitutionality by considering its purposes and consequences.
Huh?
First of all, ladies and gentlemen, separation of powers.
The legislature is supposed to consider purposes and consequences.
The justices are supposed to see, is the purpose and consequence consistent with the authority of the Constitution?
If it isn't, then the law is overturned, and if it is, then the law is approved.
Now, trying to get into this and explain it, Justice Breyer said that he gave examples of his stress on consequences by pointing to two decisions last year involving the Ten Commandments.
Justice Breyer said he decided a display of the commandments in front of two Kentucky courthouses was unconstitutional because he concluded that their display would cause religious conflict.
But he found that removing a similar display that had been in front of the Texas state capitol for years would not cause religious conflict, so he ruled that one constitutional.
Got that?
No, I don't either.
And I don't think anybody else does either, Justice Breyer.
Let's go to Tim in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Tim, welcome to the program.
Hello, Roger.
Thanks for taking my time.
Hi.
I'd like to comment about Dr. Martin Luther King and his wife, Mrs. Loretta King.
I had a great deal of respect for both the people.
Dr. King was a very, very well-spoken man, and also I respected him for his non-violence approach, what did happen.
I have a lot of respect for him and his wife.
And what happened at the funeral, I listened to it live here in Green Bay, and I was appalled of what some of the comments that came during a funeral, which in my mind is supposed to be respect for the family that is present for helping the departed, also from helping them cope with it.
And to bring the politics that was involved with this, to me, is just mind-blowing.
I was very, very upset.
To me, it's lack of respect.
And I was brought up as a kid, you should respect in this situation, especially.
And to bring something up like that, what is going wrong with our world if this is brought out?
To me, it was more like a show, like a circus.
It was a political show.
And Tim, it was also the kind of desperation that is indicative of the breakup of the Democratic Party.
And today, the New York Times headlines, some Democrats are sensing missed opportunities.
The New York Times got into this today.
Here's their lead.
Now, this is the New York Times.
This is not a conservative publication, as I'm sure you're all aware, just to review this ground for a minute for those students just joining us.
Quote, Democrats, says the New York Times, are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they're letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.
This paragraph says it all for me.
There are no widespread Republican vulnerabilities, number one.
There are no opportunities.
Democrats are weaker because they don't have any ideas.
All they are are anti-Bush, and everybody knows it.
Where are their alternative ideas?
Other than Mirtha's cut and run to Kuwait, I haven't heard of a proposal that would counter what George Bush is saying.
So the New York Times goes on to say, Democrats described a growing sense that they had failed to take full advantage of the troubles that have plagued Mr. Bush and his party since the middle of last year, driving down the president's approval ratings, opening divisions among Republicans in Congress over policy, and potentially putting control of the House and Senate into play in November.
In other words, all of that has not happened.
All of that has not happened.
So, what are Democrats doing?
Well, it's interesting that Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist, has an answer to the Democrat problem.
You may be interested in her answer.
She is saying that Hillary may not be the Democrat Party's next presidential nominee unless Hillary finds a way to combat charges that she's, quote, too angry.
Now, how Maureen Dowd says, how do you combat these charges that she's too angry?
In her Tuesday column, Maureen Dowd insisted that the problem is that Hillary is not angry enough.
The way to combat charges that she's too angry is to get more angry, is the advice given by Maureen Dowd to Hillary Clinton.
Maureen Dowd goes on in her column to say, you've got to love this.
You could not pay for this.
You could not, as a Republican, hope for more.
Quote, from Iraq to Katrina and the assault on the Constitution, from Shiva to Alito and NSA snooping to congressional corruption, Hillary has failed to lead in voicing her outrage.
As if Americans vote for outrage.
When was the last time you voted for outrage?
I just don't remember myself voting for outrage.
I voted for better economic plans.
I voted because I was concerned about one issue or another, the integrity, the integrity of the candidates.
I voted for a number of different issues, but I've never voted for outrage.
I just don't get that as a, wow, as an approach.
Let's see what you think.
Here's, let's see, where are we going next?
Here's Charles in Georgia.
Charles, welcome to the program.
Hi, how are you, Roger?
Hi there.
Good.
Hi.
You know, you mentioned Harry Reid yanking Obama back into the fold.
Yeah, well, that's probably correct, but I don't see what it has to do with being black.
It's just a Democratic, it's a party thing.
It's what party leaders do.
You said it was pointed out how Democrats treat African Americans, but I don't see that an example at all.
Well, let me try this one, George.
Let me try this one on you, Charles.
There's no question it's a party thing.
I mean, I agree with you.
It's a party thing.
But it is the way, and I would ask you to look at the kinds of leaders, African Americans in the Republican Party, their independence, their leadership, their ability to put forward things.
I just think that when you look at what Ken Blackwell is doing in Ohio, he's taking an independent stand from the Republican Party.
He's not being yanked back into line by the Taft Republicans.
When you look at Steele in Maryland, who's united the Republican Party behind his platform, he's a leader.
He's someone who's moving the party in Maryland toward a majority position to combat the Democrats, to give a positive view.
This is what I was contrasting, Charles, with the guy.
I'm going to talk about the party lines.
He'll get yanked back too by the Republicans, I'm sure.
Well, what is happening here, though, and let's not conjecture in the future, let's look at what's actually happening, Charles.
Here was a guy with the brightest future possible, invited by McCain to a bipartisan thing where McCain already had a lot of, in fact still has, a number of Democrats working with him on his approach, on the ethics issue.
Reed is trying to politicize it.
He's trying to pull these Democrats back.
The two Democrats that were working with McCain refused to be pulled back, but Barack Obama went along with it because, as McCain pointed out, as a freshman senator, it was hard to say no to the leader.
I'm sure it was, but he should have said no.
He should have had the courage.
He should have had the profile and courage, Charles.
Well, he's a Fresno consider.
Maybe he felt it was in his best interest to go back to the party.
Thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I want to talk about some realities for those of you who are into the Internet.
Google, otherwise known as sellout.com.
Google is, as you know, a company that is just a phenomenal success.
On the net, you can Google something.
It's even become a word, a verb.
You can Google something.
And you know that Google is challenging the Justice Department subpoena, covering a huge swath of data about the websites the company indexes and the search terms its users submit.
The Justice Department wants, through a subpoena, and they have the right to this, it's not an issue of going beyond the law.
They are looking at these search engines, and they've looked at Yahoo and AOL and MSN and all that for this kind of information, again, trying to do data mining that leads to a breakout of identification of people who are using the Internet as terrorists are for the war against the United States.
Google says, no way, absolutely not.
We're not giving into the Justice Department.
We're for freedom and we're for independence, and we're not sharing any information except when people pay us.
So we're not going to do that.
China told Google what to put on Google.
You cannot Google Falun Gong in the Chinese version of Google and get an answer.
You cannot Google liberty, freedom.
You cannot Google the Constitution of the United States, Thomas Jefferson's papers.
You cannot Google any of that in China.
And as the condition of doing business in China, Google went, oh, okay, no problem.
That's good.
That's cool.
We're cool.
We're cool with that.
We can take it off.
Not really censorship because we're agreeing.
Come on.
Let's try to get real here, folks.
The subpoena from the Justice Department seeking real information in a real war versus the censorship from freedom, the separation of freedom from Chinese citizens that Google went ahead and agreed to.
Now, come on.
When are we going to have the Google bow to Chinese censorship put in the proper perspective by the liberal community?
Because I haven't seen it yet.
Not yet.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh and back with more and your calls after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush 1-800-282-2882.
Let's go to Richard in Virginia.
Richard, welcome to the Rush Show.
Roger, I'm glad I had 23 minutes to wait because it would give me time to cool off, so I'm courteous to you.
I'm a Russian Lord.
Please always be courteous.
That's important.
I'm Republican.
I'm conservative, probably far more so than you.
I have not missed a local, a state, or a national election in 30 years.
I'm 63 years old.
But you're doing things on the program this morning that are just so disagreeable if we are really, truly, honest to God, Republicans.
And the one point I'll take you up on is Senator Leahy.
I don't like the guy.
I think it's time for him to retire.
I wish he would.
I understand he's billed himself for a box in the past for having loose lips.
But you addressed yourself this morning to him as being the leak, you know, and how Gonzalez probably looked directly at him.
And that's most disagreeable because you should state, it's my opinion it's probably him.
But, you know, there's people that listen to you that really, really have faith in this program.
And anything that comes from this program, mostly Rush, they run with it.
You know, it came from Rush.
It's by God fact.
And you're not talking fact this morning.
You're talking opinion.
Richard, Richard.
Calm down.
Richard, calm down.
Obviously, it was an opinion.
And let me just tell again, because people may be coming to the show that weren't around when we were talking about this, of what happened.
On Monday, the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, including Senator Leakey, had this hearing with Attorney General Gonzalez on the subject of the President's program to spy on terrorists and to catch their communications so that we can defeat them.
Mr. Leahy is a proven leaker.
He was found by the Senate in 1985 to have leaked and was kicked off the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1987.
He resigned his post among a flurry of articles about the fact that he was the source of leaks regarding CIA programs against Libya's Qaddafi and with regard to the Iran-Contra issue, secret information that only he had that wound up in the Washington Post, wound up on NBC News.
So he had to leave the Senate Intelligence Committee because nobody could trust him.
He went to the Senate Judiciary Committee where he is doing, in my opinion, Richard, the exact same thing.
People are consistent.
He's been consistent in public in his rhetoric.
He's been consistent, in my opinion, in his actions.
He has been trying to stop the president from having any capability of spying on, for example, Muslims in this country.
In the year 2000, before 9-11, there was a National Commission on Terrorism that urged Congress to pass, among other proposals, one that would make it easier for FBI agents to get authority to conduct electronic surveillance on terrorist suspects in the Muslim community.
Leahy led the charge against legislation that would have allowed that.
And had it allowed it, who knows, maybe we would have gotten into a conversation between Mohammed Atta and between these guys down here in San Diego, two of the terrorists of the 19 terrorists were here in San Diego.
Maybe we would have had the capability of stopping that attack.
This is how serious this is, Richard.
It isn't about whether I've been clear that this is opinion.
It's about Senator Leahy, his history of leaking, and now the most important leak of this war has been the leak of a secret program to nail al-Qaeda in the United States through their phone conversations.
We've told them we're doing it.
Now, of course, they're finding another way to communicate.
That's my problem, Richard.
And you don't share it?
Oh, I share the problem.
I share the opinion.
Great.
Thanks for your call.
I appreciate it.
We're going to take a break.
I'm Roger Hedgecock back after the In the remaining seconds, Roger Hedgecock in here for Rush Limbaugh.
In the remaining seconds, let me just flashburst to you this incredible information that is out now on the economic news.
Pessimists all over, and of course it has been the policy of the Democrat Party to be pessimistic.
That is their transportation back into power, are wrong again.
Wrong again.
Unemployment is down to 4.7 percent.
We had 2 million new jobs in 2006, 2 million in 2005, 2 million in 2004 when John Kerry said it couldn't be done.
And who's having the last laugh is Arthur Laffer.
Because, again, the lower capital gains tax rate.
Bush lowered the tax rate.
Give away to the rich.
Rich people got the benefit.
Blah, blah, blah.
The lower capital gains tax rate brought in $46 billion more tax revenue in the last three fiscal years.
$46 billion more in the last three fiscal years, $62 billion higher than the last three calendar years of congressional estimates.
In other words, they lowered the tax rate and increased the revenue by $62 billion.
Tax cuts don't hurt the government and the programs.
Tax increases do.
Remember that when Congress gets around to whether or not to make these tax cuts permanent.
▲
Export Selection