All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
March 22, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 98.5% of the time.
And I have to tell you why that is.
The views expressed by the host of this program result from a daily, relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
And if you can't stomach the truth, if you don't have the courage, if you don't have the guts, if you're part of the new castrati that can't deal with truth, you listen to this program at your own risk.
It could drive you nuts.
Remember, this program is a program tailored exclusively to rich Republicans and right-minded conservatives and those who aspire to be one or both.
800-282-2882, the phone number, if you'd like to be on the air today, the president is out there again today.
The town meeting going on in West Virginia.
Where is it?
Wheeling, Morgantown?
I forget where he is.
It's Wheeling.
See, even when I'm not sure that I'm right, I usually end up being right.
Sometimes even when I think I'm wrong, I'm right.
And it can be a burden sometimes because when I am wrong, people have very little tolerance for it.
A lot of people, when they're wrong, that's okay.
It's okay to learn from your mistakes.
When I'm wrong, uh-oh, is it over for Limbaugh?
It makes the AP wire.
All right.
There was a soundbite.
I'm sure some of you in your local news heard this in the news break at the top of the hour.
It's the third time, the political soundbite of the president.
The reporter came back.
It's the third time in three days the president has attempted to stem the declining support for the war.
Now, is that hard news?
Is it soft-headed news?
Or is it news?
Or is it fear that the president's out there trying to turn this around?
I want to go back, since we're talking about the military, we're talking about the reporting that comes out of Iraq.
And we talk about, you know, we've had a number of Democrats over the course of the past couple years literally impugn.
And I don't, yeah, they think they know.
I think they know they're doing it.
Some of them may not.
Just I'm cut them a little benefit of the doubt here.
When they have described the average military man and woman.
Well, you know, they say, it's just, it's unfortunate.
These are kids can't find a future.
They can't get an education.
They can't get a job.
The economy's rotten.
They got no choice.
They got no choice.
And they join the army and they get sent over there in an unjust war.
Oh, it's just terrible.
They end up impugning them and saying that they're idiots.
They've got no future.
They're basically a bunch of gun-toting hicks.
They do it under the gauze of attempting to be compassionate and make people believe that they think these poor young kids are being used and exploited for unjust imperialistic means.
But it still comes off as criticism bordering on impugning their abilities, their motives, and their work.
Forgotten in all this is that it is a volunteer army.
You know, I've always said in reaction to this, okay, hypothetically, even though it isn't true, let's say that it is.
Let's say it is a bad economy.
Let's say we're in a bad economy.
And let's say these kids can't get into college.
They can't find a job.
So they go, so what?
Why impugn them?
They're still joining the United States Armed Forces and they are still risking their lives.
Why impugn them?
Unless you have an inherent built-in dislike and distrust of the military and this president.
And if you combine those two elements, Then you can further understand why this never-ending criticism takes place.
But why rip them?
And then after you do that, after the liberal Democrats and the media do that, then the time will come when an election nears and it'll be time to exploit them for their own benefit.
Democrats will exploit these same people that they have spent two, three years impugning, ridiculing and criticizing, and trying to demoralize, by the way.
They'll turn around, get close to an election, and try to use them as a means of exploiting them.
Remember the story we had earlier this week?
The Dingy Harry Reid recess manual for senators when they leave Washington to go back to their home states and visit with their constituencies.
This little dingy Harry offensive, I call it.
It's a six-page PDF document.
I have that document.
We summarized it for you earlier this week.
Call it a memo.
And I have to tell you, you know, America survived the Tet Offensive.
There's no question.
America survived the Ramadan offensive.
And I want to boldly predict to you today that America will survive the Dingy Harry Reid offensive, which is what this March assault is going to be.
Just a couple of examples.
Hold a town meeting with troops at a local military installation.
When selecting a location at the military installation for the event, make sure to select a space that allows easy press access and clearly conveys the message in the shot.
Planes, vehicles, equipment, and signage in the background enhance the pictures coming out of your event.
So we're getting near an election.
Dingy Harry and his party, after impugning the military.
Well, no, no, no, we support troops.
We just don't support the war.
After promoting a nothing like Cindy Sheehan, and now they're making a movie out of her, starring Susan Sarandon.
I do note the resemblance, so I can understand the casting.
Now it's time to use these.
Now, all of a sudden, the Democrats, and by the way, all six items in this memo, all six suggestions from Dingy Harry Reid's office to his senators, his Democrat senators, all six involve the military.
Now, this is not going to please the Kooksville liberal Democrat base.
They hate the military.
And now their boys and their girls in the Senate are going to come out and start exploiting the military and try to make themselves look like big hawks like they love the military.
It isn't going to work because everybody knows it isn't true.
People have not forgotten, despite the daily coverage of the media out of Iraq, people have not forgotten what has been said and done about the U.S. military and by whom over the course of the past two or three years.
And if by chance they do forget, I will ride to the rescue as we near the election to remind everybody exactly who said what.
Here is another memo bullet point.
Hold a town hall meeting with state officials at a local National Guard unit at their armory to discuss the security impact of long deployments.
Ask National Guard members to offer input on how security and disaster response at home is compromised by long deployments.
Work with veterans organizations to find recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan veterans willing to discuss the mental effects they or their fellow veterans have experienced.
Oh, we feel so.
We want to portray them as a bunch of wrecked and psychologically destroyed people because George Bush is sending them to an unjust war.
We love these military people.
We want to show you what Bush is doing to them.
Well, there is a problem with this, my friends.
You may remember the name of Mark Hassara.
If you don't remember the name Mark Hassara, let me remind you.
This easily is two and a half years ago.
And I got home one day after work and there was this package.
Big package.
So I opened it up and tears, as I dug deep into the contents, tears started forming in my eyes.
This package contained an American flag folded properly in a Teflon bag.
It also contained a number of plaques, pictures.
Each certificate, actually, I did the framing myself and have it proudly on display in my fashionable library.
But each certificate had a picture of an airplane, the identity of the airplane, the identity of the group the airplane was in, the pilot's name, and a verification that that flag had flown on that airplane during the original invasion of the Iraq war in 2003.
And there were four or five airplanes in a tanker, a KC-10, which is a DC-10 tanker, which is what Mark Hassara flew.
And that flag had flown on all of those airplanes.
And all those guys were buddies.
And Mr. Hassara had drawn the assignment of mailing all this to me and writing a letter explaining what it was about.
These people were honoring me and this program by flying a flag on each of their aircraft during the original invasion and refueling missions that they were going to present to me, unbeknownst to me.
And it's, I mean, it's not uncommon.
This is something that has a long history, but what's uncommon is for me to be included in it.
And I was shocked into a moist-eyed silence.
And I do.
I have all of these certificates framed, the letter is framed.
The flag is unfolded now, and it's framed on a display on the wall.
And I have stayed in touch with a number of these guys, including Mr. Hassara, who, after he heard of Dingy Harry's recess plans of having the military be exploited by Democrats seeking re-election, sent me the following note.
Sir Rush calls me sir.
Hopefully others have sent some of what I'm sending to you on this already, so I may be adding to the dogpile.
Senator Reed's staff apparently has not consulted the military's uniform code of military justice before formulating this media campaign plan.
While listening to you yesterday on a drive up north, I began laughing because we're not allowed to make the kinds of appearances that Senator Reed's office has espoused.
A good base commander will prepare for this kind of event, and most are probably preparing now.
A smart base commander will have his public affairs office folks draft a good message, which is on point, stating that we're doing all the right things in Iraq, and we support the democratically elected leadership of the U.S. in the global war on terrorism.
This message may come from the DOD public affairs folks.
Also, it'll be controlled by the very people they're trying to ambush.
A smart base commander will get some folks from his base that are pleasing to the eyes and public appearance savvy, probably from his staff, and one of the units in his group.
They'll deliver their briefed message, and that'll be it.
Any possible questions will be briefed to them.
We'll also the Public Affairs Office message and spin on the possible questions.
They'll be set up for this.
Anyone who goes off the reservation and makes a political comment one way or the other may be punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If we get ambushed on the street corner, we will still have the public affairs media points to talk from and the message that the base commander's office, public affairs officer, wants to portray.
This is why you never see military members at political rallies or at the Democrat-Republican Party conventions.
We are to be apolitical in our views, as this keeps the military from getting into the U.S. government politics or politicians chili.
We have seen on numerous occasions what happens when the military gets involved in politics, and this is why the Uniform Code of Military Justice has restrictions against these kinds of media appearances.
The founding fathers knew the dangers.
They formulated our Constitution to keep the military at arm's length respecting politics.
Watch the Joint Chiefs sometime in a State of the Union address.
You won't see them participating in standing ovations.
We all have our own beliefs and views with respect to politics.
We vote according to our conscience, but we are not allowed to appear in these kinds of rallies.
Veterans can.
Active duty can't.
And even veterans, there's a strict code here.
They can run for office and then they can go do whatever they want.
Paul Hackett did, but it's very, and I went and I looked it up, and I'll find it for you.
I got to take a break here, but I can find the actual site from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
And Mr. Hassara here is absolutely right.
And the punishment is pretty severe for violating this.
Now, it doesn't surprise me that Dingy Harry would be unaware of this.
It also wouldn't surprise me if Dingy Harry is aware of it and is saying to hell with it.
I'll protect them.
But it'll be interesting to see what falls out from this because a lot of there have been others who have written the same thing that Mr. Hassara has sent me after he heard Dingy Harry's March offensive plans.
We'll be back.
We'll continue in mere moments.
Okay, here's the specific site from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Article 88.
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Military Department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, Commonwealth, or position in a possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court martial may direct.
Subject to court martial if active duty engage in the kind of stunts that Dingy Harry has set up for Democrat senators who go home to mount their, what I'm calling it, the Dingy Harry offensive, not to be confused with the Ted Offensive, this March as they go home to campaign during the essentially the Easter recess.
Here's Alan in Syracuse.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you.
It's an honor to speak to you.
I've been listening to your show for 17 years, and I want to say upfront that I'm a liberal.
Yep.
And I respect the fact that you're a conservative, and I think that that's what makes this country great.
Unfortunately, I don't think you respect liberals, but I think that the country needs both of them, liberals and conservatives.
And that's what the police are.
Well, I agree with that.
I agree with that.
I've always said that we need at least two liberals.
On every college campus.
I know.
I've heard that one.
But I think we need a few more than that.
And we need more conservatives.
We need conservatives also.
But anyway, my concern is you're talking about the media, and you're a very good poster boy for the president.
I think he needs those people, unfortunately.
I get such a kick out of this.
I just do.
Okay.
But now you're criticizing the media.
The media is the reason why this war is going badly, because the media, the way the media is spinning this thing.
Wait a second.
I've not said that the media is the reason the war is going on.
No, no, I don't believe the war.
I don't believe the war is going bad.
What I've said is the media is trying to gin up anti-war support among the American people so that Bush will withdraw the troops so we can get out of there.
They are invested in defeat.
The media and you guys want us to lose.
See, no, no, no.
No, the media is a mirror, and the media points to what's going on.
And unfortunately, it's not going well, so it's very good to criticize the media because it's the media's fault things aren't going well because they're showing all these things.
First of all, Rush, do you seriously think that Al-Qaeda?
Let's go one point at a time.
Let me respond to that.
I'm not denying that there are things that aren't going right.
There are plenty of things over there that everybody knows we didn't anticipate.
But there are also tons and tons of things representing progress, and the media ignores those.
Maybe you sure report the bad news all you want, but they don't do stories on the valor of our military.
They don't do stories on the success.
They amplify the words of John Kerry, who basically accused American troops of terrorizing Iraqi women and children in their homes at night.
You know, it's a one-sided story, and it's a one-sided story because there's an agenda behind it.
They're not mirroring anything.
They're trying to create.
They're trying to create public attitudes of anti-war fervor because they want anything they can do to bring about the failure of George W. Bush.
And if they could force Bush to withdraw and to quit and give up like they want to do, then they would consider it a victory.
And that's what's sick.
Losing is a victory to these people.
So in other words, you think the media wants to call for the destruction of the United States?
This is what you're trying to say?
Calling for the destruction, calling for the destruction of George W. Bush.
They're calling for the embarrassment of this country in this particular conflict.
They and the Democrats.
Now, I'm going to answer you.
They and the Democrats are doing everything they can to sabotage our effort to defeat this enemy.
See, I think George Bush is the one that caused the problems by going there in the first place.
No, I don't think so.
I think it's a series of terrorist attacks for the last 25 years culminating in the 9-11 attacks.
Those are the people actually responsible for this.
You're the second person today who told me George Bush is responsible for the war.
George Bush, Iraq, as we know, had nothing to do with 9-11.
No, no, no.
You know what?
I have more of a best interest than you because I have nothing to do with it.
You are purposely.
If you've listened to the program for 17 years, there's obviously things that you hear, you don't want to hear, that you reject.
The Iraq invasion has been explained countless times by the president yesterday, by me.
I think I actually do a better job explaining it than he does, but I am a professional communicator.
And he isn't.
Look, I got to go.
Constraints of time.
I appreciate the call.
It was a thrill and a delight to speak to you.
We will continue in just a moment.
Are you ready?
Constantly ready, ladies and gentlemen.
Prepared and always on the move.
Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman and truth detector, 800-282-2882.
Had this story in the stack yesterday, and I didn't have a chance to get to it, but it's still there.
And it sort of fits in today.
Abu Ghraib dog handler, unrepentant about prisoner abuses, an army dog handler, an army dog handler convicted of tormenting Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison with his snarling animal, was unrepentant, telling a court-martial jury that soldiers aren't supposed to be soft and cuddly.
And that really makes the new castrati mad.
Sergeant Michael J. Smith, 24 of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, found guilty on Tuesday of six of 13 counts.
A judge later dismissed one count, and Smith could face up to eight and a half years in prison.
His sentencing hearing was set to continue today.
Smith told a court-martial jury that he wished he had learned in basic training how to better avoid getting into trouble with superiors.
Soldiers who do not end up in a heap of trouble, he said.
Prosecutors said that Smith let his unmuzzled black Belgian shepherd Marco bark and lunge at several prisoners for his own amusement.
One of the photographs that exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal shows his dog straining on its leash just inches from the face of a cowering terrorist.
Prisoner.
Sorry.
Soldiers are not supposed to be soft and cuddly, Smith testified.
Defense attorney said that Smith was a good soldier, believed he was doing what the government wanted canine handlers to do at the prison in Iraq, and that is provide security and frighten interrogation subjects.
Defense Attorney Captain Mary McCarthy said that all that Smith's dog did to prisoners was bark at them.
Master Sergeant Shannon Wilson, who directly supervised Smith at the kennels in Fort Riley, Kansas, where Smith's unit is based, testified that Smith was an exceptional soldier whose infractions didn't amount to abuse.
Anything short of being bit is a psychological deterrent, she said.
The defense also argued that Abu Ghraib was a dangerous, chaotic place where policies were so murky that even the colonel who supervised interrogations testified that he was confused.
The jury deliberated for about 18 hours over three days.
Trial began on March the 13th.
Smith was found guilty of maltreating three prisoners, conspiring with another dog handler in a contest to make detainees soil themselves, dereliction of duty, assault, and an indecent act.
The assault charge was dismissed.
Smith did express remorse for, well, the indecency conviction for Smith was directing his dog to lick peanut butter off the genitals of a male soldier and the breasts of a female soldier.
And he did express remorse from that.
I didn't want to leave that out in case anybody was familiar with the story accused him.
That could be a little, but I guess that could be a little scary.
But look, he expressed remorse.
I mean, that's, see, that's in the military.
That'd get you diddly squat.
In an American courtroom, it'd get you exonerated and acquitted.
But in the military, forget that.
Smith expressed remorse for that action.
That was foolish.
That was stupid.
That was juvenile.
There's nothing I could do to take it back.
If I could, I would.
The trial of another dog handler, Sergeant Santos A. Cordona of Fullerton, California, set for May 22nd.
So, what is this?
Eight could get eight and a half years.
Eight and a half years.
This is just absurd.
And I don't know if you've seen this or not.
The World Cup, the Soccer World Cup FIFA World Cup in Germany, set to become a battleground between fascists and Muslims, according to an Italian member of a new European neo-Nazi movement.
In a statement published by the Italian daily Republica, the member of A.S. Roma's notorious Ultras hooligan group claims neo-Nazis across Europe met in Brunau in Australia, or Austria to plan attacks against supporters from Islamic countries during the World Cup in Germany from June 9th to July 9th.
We are united.
For the first time, we are talking and planning together with the English, with the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, everyone with the same objective.
At the World Cup, there will be a massacre.
We will all be in Germany.
It'll be Turks, Algerians, Tunisians.
The Turks, we can't stand them.
In our country, there aren't that many.
But in Germany, there are many of those guys there.
They are Islamic terrorists.
We will attack them.
They are all enemies that need to be eliminated, just like the police.
If we make the Roman greeting, the fascist salute, they put us in prison.
We will be tens of thousands.
Nothing but the English are feared.
So basically, a bunch of neo-Nazis have threatened to massacre Muslims at the FIFA World Cup in Germany this coming summer.
Boyd and Socrates, New York, I'm glad you waited and welcome to the program.
Good afternoon, Rush.
I believe the media fully understands their ability to impact people's behavior and world events, and that's displayed by their policy of not showing people who run onto the field of play in sporting events or onto the Oscars on the stage there.
So they don't encourage that behavior.
Yeah, exactly right.
There's no question about it.
The idea that they're just mirroring is absurd.
That's what Hollywood says, too.
All their movies are just mirroring American culture and society.
At the time, that's absolutely crazy.
They're all trying to influence, which is fine.
I don't care.
It's just they will not admit it.
You know, they hide behind these lofty bromods and these declarations.
No, We are just doing our constitutional duty, maintaining informed public blah, blah, blah.
It's all garbage.
They've all got an agenda.
They always have had.
It's just now that they've been called on it.
This whole episode last night and today of the media acting very defensive and trying to defend their honor is evidence enough for me that we struck a nerve yesterday in the open criticism of the way they, and so did the president, the way they're covering the war.
President, without doing so directly, accused them of spreading propaganda.
Now, I'm not being critical.
I'm not going to criticize you, but you've got to understand what you're doing is a service to the enemy.
Those are my words, not his.
Let's see, do we have Helen Thomas is a kook?
I don't even know if I want to waste time with Helen Thomas.
I got Dianne Feinstein.
Yeah, that's it.
Oh, she was.
Feinstein's on hardball last night.
I'm amazed.
You know, Dianne Feinstein has this image of being the confidence of the Senate.
She and Senator Birds.
She's a cut above everyone else in intelligence and reason and so forth.
And I just, you know, I just don't get it.
I mean, you talk about image being conjured in Korea.
Here, grab soundbites 14 and 15.
We'll just give you a little sample.
Dianne Feinstein on with Chris Matthews last night.
And I think Matthews and Dianne Feinstein are both examples of people who were on the wrong side of history all through the Cold War.
And now they accuse Cheney and Rummy of being trapped in the past.
But they were clearly on the wrong side.
If John Kerry and that whole crowd, had we prevailed, had they prevailed in their techniques, the Cold War, there would still be a Soviet Union.
We would have propped the Soviet Union up as it was exploding because those guys think that we need a competing superpower to maintain balance in the world.
They would have propped it up.
Yeah, but if Kerry had his chance, he'd have gone over there and rebuilt the Berlin Wall.
Just to show his solidarity with the peoples of Europe.
There's a couple sound bites here.
Chris Matthews said to Diane Feinstein, do you think Secretary Rumsfeld and Cheney, to some extent, the vice president, are trapped in a kind of World War II Cold War mentality?
They think they're fighting the Nazis.
They think they're trying to liberate Eastern Europe, where the people were so glad to throw off the Soviet yoke, they didn't need any U.S. troops.
They certainly didn't need any troops to help them form democracies.
They were crazy to do it.
Do you think they're trapped in the past, these guys like Rumsfeld?
Yeah, I think so.
I think this is a huge learning experience about the doctrine of preemption and regime change.
I think fighting a state-to-state war with armies that are regulated and controlled is one thing.
I think fighting a war in the shadowy world of insurgency, or call it terror, whatever you want to do, where you stop a bus and you pull 45 people off that bus and you shoot them in the head, that's a very difficult thing to do with a regulation military.
Let's not forget.
I mean, this is this.
Do you need me to characterize this for you?
It is a huge learning experience about the doctrine of preemption and regime change.
Fighting a state-to-state war with armies that are regulated and controlled is one thing.
Fighting a war in the shadowy world of insurgency or terror, whatever you want to do, that's a very difficult thing to do with a regulation.
Well, what's her idea?
But in agreeing with the notion that these guys in the administration are stuck in a Cold War mentality, there have been people who've made pretty good analogies to the fact that we're just facing another ideological enemy like we had in the Soviet Union.
They're not a state.
And there are people think it's a clash of civilizations, a clash of cultures.
But when one of those cultures in the midst of the clash has as the objective eliminating you and your culture, I think you have to take it seriously.
And you have to stand up to it.
You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend that if you don't attack them, if you don't respond to them, if you ignore them, that they'll go away.
All you're doing is showing your weakness if you do that.
So Matthews then said, well, is there real war over there now, right now as we speak, March 2006, between the Sunni and the Shia?
Or is it a battle between the U.S. and the terrorists of the kind that attacked 9-11?
When Muqtada al-Sadr went to Basra and said, you've got to cut the head off the snake, and the snake is America, and we were responsible for bombing the Golden Mosque.
I mean, that is so bizarre, but it is a symptom of the kind of thinking that really uses the American presence to foment a lot of the trouble.
If you remove the high-profile American presence, you remove the ability to foment the trouble based on America's back.
And I think the time has come to do that.
So, for the second time in a week, Senator Feinstein has allowed herself to be intimidated by a lie told by Muki Al Sadr that we blew up the mosque.
Oh, we got to get out.
We got to get out.
The straw that broke her back is a lie from a terrorist.
A terrorist says something that's untrue and accuses the U.S. something we didn't.
We got to get out of there because it's just making things worse.
That, folks, is irresponsible at best.
We will continue.
Stay with us.
Back to the phone's river to New Jersey.
This is Tom.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Appreciate your patience.
Hello.
Hey, Dinners Rush from the Blue State here.
Just wanted to go over.
I heard your morning update this morning talking about the wonderful things that Corzine's doing to the state here.
Yes.
And just wanted to let you know that, you know, I'm on a lot of construction sites, and I get to speak to people frequently about what's going on in the state.
Yes.
And I tried to warn them over and over and over and over again.
So did we.
We did the same thing here, the same thing here, but it's hopeless.
It's literally hopeless.
I know that I know without knowing because I am clairvoyant in these ways.
I have empathy.
I know you're going to ask me, how can the people of New Jersey cope with this new Governor Corzine?
And the answer is bend over forwards and backwards and grab them because they're all you can do.
In case you missed today's morning update, folks, let me give you the details.
I'll tell you why old Tom here is beside himself.
Last November, I mean, you people basically still have four more years of this, unless he decides he wants to run for president.
Last November, when Corzine was elected, I predicted right on this show that the residents would pay the price, literally.
And lo and behold, Governor Corzine, facing a $4 billion deficit, wasted no time proving me right.
His first budget raises state spending by $2 billion, and it's the taxpayers of New Jersey who get the shaft.
The sales tax is going up $0.06 out of every dollar is not enough.
Corzine wants $0.07.
New Jersey smokers already pay $2.40 in taxes on a pack of cigarettes.
That's not enough.
Corzine raised the tax 35 additional cents.
So if you are in New Jersey, you still smoke.
It's time to put your wallet in the shoes so you can bend over and grab the ankles as you pay $2.75 in taxes per pack, the highest in the nation.
Thank you, Governor Corzine.
I know that's more than, no, a pack of cigarettes costs more than $2.75 down here, doesn't it?
What do you mean, buy them discount?
You mean the taxes in New Jersey on a pack of cigarettes are more than a pack of nobody's going to believe this.
Nobody's going to, I didn't think you could get a you didn't know you couldn't get a pack of cigarettes for under five bucks, I thought, anywhere in this country.
I mean, I don't smoke them, but I've used you snur okay, where, where, where do you spend?
You say, said discount.
Where do you go to get the go to supermarket?
Supermarket's not discount.
I don't want to get sidetracked here, but the point apparently is that people in New Jersey pay more in taxes on a pack of cigarettes than Florida residents pay for a pack.
But we're not through here, folks.
You want to drink?
Adult beverage taxes going up too.
You like to take baths and showers, water the lawn once in a while.
Good for you.
Water taxes are going up too in New Jersey.
So are the taxes on luxury cars, as well as some real estate transfers.
There are some spending cuts.
Let's see, the budget deficit $4 billion spending cuts.
Let's see, let's see.
Some state employees are going to be eliminated, but not.
Those of you lucky enough to be a member of a union, you're safe.
And look at the state colleges.
State colleges are going to have about $170 million, $170 million.
That's like they could take a quarter away from them, given the size of the budget deficit.
State college is going to lose about $170 million.
Now, I'm confused.
What have I always heard from Democrats about education?
That we're not paying enough.
We're not spending enough.
We're underfunded.
And yet here's Governor Corzine raising your taxes and cutting these state colleges.
So what do you have here?
When you add all this up, you have a blue state, you have a Democrat, and you have a budget.
What does that equal?
That equals tax it, spend it, bend it, and grab them.
So those of you in New Jersey, what can you do?
It's like I told the people, I went at Sacramento some years ago in the midst of the Gray Davis fiasco.
What could we do?
I said, You're stuck.
I'm leaving.
I'm going back to a no-income tax state, but you are stuck.
And with those cuts, by the way, and the overall budget's going to go up 10%.
But those of you in New Jersey, I feel for you.
We've been warning you for 18 years, but if you're going to continue to vote these kinds of people in, then I say bend over and grab them.
You deserve it.
Yep, John Corzine, governor of New Jersey, spending like a drunken oil executive.
All these taxes go up, and nobody ever complains about that.
But when the gasoline price goes, whoa, hell breaks loose.
We be back, folks.
▲
Export Selection