All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
May 15, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And it happened.
The third uh lacrosse player at Duke University was just invited uh indicted the team captain.
David Evans is his name.
Uh been charged with rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping.
By that great guardian of justice down there, Mike Knife Wong, the DA.
Greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbo, half my brain tied behind my back.
America's anchor man emitting vocal vibrations from coast to coast.
We are reachable.
800 282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Audio soundbite number two.
This uh uh unreal question here from Bob Schiefer.
This is on Slay the Nation yesterday, talking to the National Security Advisor for President Bush, Stephen Hadley.
A lot of people have a picture here.
Are you planning to station armed National Guard troops uh on the border?
I think a lot of people can see this picture of our National Guardsmen shooting Mexican immigrants as they're coming across the border.
Is that what's about to happen here?
This is not about militarizing the border.
The president is uh looking to do everything he can to secure the border.
Uh it's what the American people want, it's what he wants to do.
He's listening to and getting a lot of good advice.
And a number of folks have suggested greater use of the National Guard.
It's one of the things he will consider.
All right, so um uh uh Schiefers, well, yeah, a lot of people picture the guards and they're just shooting these people.
Now, did that let me ask you, did that ever cross your mind when you heard that the border was going to be patrolled by the guard?
If the first thing I thought was show, it's a show.
Nobody gonna start shooting these people down there.
This is this is absurd.
And of course, we have a little uh media montage from the media this morning.
Uh they glommed on to uh uh the attitude that Mexican uh El Presidente Vicente Fox uh has about all this.
Mexico's President Vicente Fox called President Bush.
Mexico's President Vicente Fox is opposed.
He called the President.
Vincente Fox of Mexico telephoned Mr. Bush.
Mexican President Vicente Fox telephoned President Bush today to express concern.
Mexican President Vicente Fox called President Bush today to air his concerns.
You know, it just doesn't, I don't care what the issue, they all say the same thing.
Uh it's just amazing.
Anyway, Vicente Fox, he's concerned, uh, the National Guard goes.
So what?
Why should that matter to any?
What does it matter to him?
Already answered this question.
He likes the flow.
He likes the outflow of all of this.
Uh no question.
Now, the Washington Post yesterday, Dan Balls with President Bush, B A L Z, by the way, uh, with President Bush schedule for a prime time address on immigration tomorrow, Democrats believe it's time to turn tables on the president and argue that the Republicans are not the party of law and order when it comes to illegal immigrants.
A new analysis by the centrist democratic group, the third way.
Now, we told you about this bunch last week.
This is the bunch that uh that has come out and are gonna what they said things about the uh the war on terror and the war in Iraq and so forth that destined to really flummox and irritate the kook fringe base of the Democratic Party, but they have concluded the administration's failed to enforce existing laws and that the president should be held accountable for those failures in the political debate now raging in Washington.
So they've made it clear that their focus is President Bush, and it's amazing.
You know, the Democrats have not made a statement about this.
You notice all the legislation coming out of the Senate or the House has Republican names on it?
The Democrats are they're thinking of getting anywhere near this.
It's like everything else.
They're not offering a position other than what they think of Bush.
So now they think they can wrest control of the law and order vote uh from Bush because the Republican Party's punted its responsibility in that way.
Uh Bill Richardson, uh, the New Mexico governor said a report shows that the administration, despite their tough talk, is failing at border security And enforcing the employer sanctions provision.
It makes them vulnerable in what is their biggest and strongest argument that they are enforcing the law against illegal workers and are effective on border security.
All well and good.
But where's the Democrat enforcement and border security plan?
How come they get away with not offering one?
How come the Democrats get away with not having to weigh in on this issue?
The drive-by media goes to them and says, What do you think about the Republican immigration bill?
What do you think about the Hegel bill?
What do you think?
And the Democrats get this lamb based at left and right, say whatever they want, and drive by media and every single what's your plan?
Which takes me uh to the New York Times from yesterday, the Adam Nagorney story.
Hey, Democrats, why win?
Now there's a reason for this.
There's always a reason for a story in the New York Times uh above and beyond, because this is not news.
There's no news here.
This is strictly analysis or advice, however, you wish to interpret it.
Democrats are all but breaking out the champagne.
Republicans are divided and disheartened.
President Bush's poll numbers seem to be in free fall.
Many Democrats talking not only about victory in November, but about what they'll do once Congress is in their hands.
Now, such talk may well be premature.
Election day six months away, the party's lost many a winning hand.
But here is a slight see now.
When was the last time they had a winning hand that they lost?
See, what's that?
What's that mean?
That means that somebody's stealing elections from them.
That means if somebody's cheating them, what do you mean they they've lost many a winning hand?
But here's a slightly heretical question.
Being asked only partly in jest right now.
Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate this November?
Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by losing by falling short.
From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency.
There's the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting, and a gridlocked Congress.
Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008 by this reasoning, and for the future, they enhance their stature at a time when Republicans are faltering.
Indeed, some Democrats worry that the worst case scenario may actually be winning control of Congress by a slim margin, giving them responsibility without any real authority.
They might serve as a foil to Republicans and President Bush, who would be looking for someone to share the blame.
Democrats need a net gain of six seats in the House and 15 seats, Senate, 15 seats in the House.
The most politically advantageous thing for the Democrats, this is Tony Cuello speaking, is to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House, three or four seats in the Senate, but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government.
We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, plus all the programs that have been cut.
This way they get blamed for everything.
All right.
Now, I have to, with no disrespect to Mr. Coelho, but I remember Mr. Coelho was on television during the 1994 campaign, the midterm elections.
And he was on all these different shows, and he was uh being asked uh what the prospects were for uh the Republicans take the House of Just a couple of people making predictions it could happen, uh Robert Novak was one, I was another.
And I remember Quello saying, Don't worry, Newt's never gonna be speaker.
He can dream about it, but he's never gonna be speaking.
Republicans aren't going to take the House, and lo and behold, they did.
My point is that Mr. Quello, as far as my memory and analysis is concerned, does not have a good record at making predictions, nor is his analysis that uh that substantive.
I mean, listen to this again.
The most politically advantageous thing is for the Democrats to pick up 11, 12 seats in the House, three or four seats in the Senate, but let the Republicans continue to be responsible for government.
We are heading into this period of tremendous deficit, plus all the scandals, all the programs that have been cut.
What programs have been crying out loud, oh, if it were only true.
Uh this way they get blamed for everything.
Now sounds like some Democrats starting to get cold feet here over the prospect of winning, or there might be something else going on.
And I suspect what's actually going on is that some people, Democratic Party, don't think they're gonna win beans.
And this is a way of saying we did exist.
You know, they they define winning by losing.
You know, Paul Hackett uh loses by four points in Ohio special election.
It was a morrow victory.
They thought they're gonna race back to the control of the House with that loss.
Uh every time they lose an election, they consider it a win.
When they have one of their members that fails dismally, they promote him to the top ranks of stature in the Democratic Party.
Jimmy Carter.
A uh a recent example.
It sounds to me, and I read through this whole story, like there's some in the Democratic Party who don't like this notion speaker to be Pelosi, and they don't think that it's really going to happen.
And so they're covering their bets right now by putting out the notion, well, you know, we really don't want to win anyway.
We want to get close.
Oh, yeah, but we don't want to win.
We have set ourselves up for a week.
We'll take the whole ball of wax then.
We want to get so close, but we want to lose.
That way we can continue to blame the Republicans for everything.
Everything goes to hell in a handbasket.
You know, I've been asked this about Republicans.
Don't you think Russia'd be better to lose and let this country see how rotten things would be under say Clinton's.
No, you never try to lose.
That's not why you're on the field.
That is not why you're in the game.
You don't try to lose.
And I don't believe these people are going to try to lose, and I don't think they don't want to win.
I think they desperately want to win.
Power is their birthright.
Running this country, they think is their entitlement.
So there's something else going on here.
Besides, they can't guarantee the next two years are going to be fraught with disaster.
They can't guarantee the next two years are gonna launch them.
Plus, you've got the kooks out there, and it's a large contingency of the member of the Democratic caucus as well who want to win for one reason only, and that's to impeach Bush.
And now to hear Coello and these guys coming around saying, Oh, you know, we don't want to do this.
We can't uh you know, we're not gonna have a big enough majority to affect anything, and we don't want to have to share the blame when things go wrong.
So th this is this is a I mean they may think they're being strategically uh brilliant here, but they're also exhibiting cowardice.
Now, Mr. Quello quickly added, by the way, after saying that, well, obviously from a party point of view, we want to get in and do things, but I'm talking about the ideal political thing.
McGourney writes, uh, of course, no Democrats going as far as to say that he or she hopes the party fails, and party leaders are doing everything they can to avoid this outcome.
Some especially prominent leaders describe such talk as wrong and counterproductive.
Yeah, I don't buy this argument that we'd be better off uh if we almost got there and didn't win a majority in either House.
I I think uh when you stood up, uh you got to try to win, and I I hope we'll win because we'll get better public policy, it'd be better for America.
So I don't I don't buy this losing business at all.
They always find somebody.
Another worry is whether some Democrats would use their power and what could be received as payback.
Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi have talked of investigations into allegations of malfeasance across all parts of the Bush administration.
Bob Carey, uh former Democrat senator from Nebraska says it's gonna be very difficult to lead because the loudest voices in both parties will be those that feel the strongest about their certitude.
Uh it's it's gonna be the left impeach him, investigate him, and so forth.
And so apparently some Democrats don't want that to be the focus of their actions when they uh win the win the House.
I, if they win it, I still say that uh what what this is actually all about, ladies and gentlemen, is the fact they think they're gonna lose.
Uh they're speaking too prematurely about winning, and they're trying to set the table for when they lose.
It was exactly what they intended to do.
Okay, let's grab some phone calls.
Uh, I've had diarrhea of the mouth most of the day, but that, ladies and gentlemen, is because I have a lot to say that interests me and you.
Uh, this is Matt in Freeport, Maine.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, Matt.
Very well.
Thanks for calling.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
I've been listening to you since 1988.
Oh, you're a lifer then.
Pretty much.
Thank you very much for saying megadiddos from Freeport.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate your being there all this time.
Well, the reason I called was uh something you said a little while ago about a virtual wall between the United States and Mexico.
And the first thing that popped him on into my mind was virtual reality, which means basically it's it's nothing.
It's done with smoke and mirrors.
So you know, why not put the the uh National Guard on the border, uh don't give them any ammunition and just have them stand there for window dressing because obviously they're not going to shoot the Mexicans.
But more importantly, they don't have to invest in a wall uh that they want to uh you know to keep people out when i their ultimate goal is to not have a wall between America and Mexico so that uh the free trade zone could be uh you know all put together well yeah but see I I think you could have a wall and still have free trade.
You have you have legitimate border entry locations and sites.
Yeah but but the big wall would be a symbol against it as if we were trying to blockade their their free trade and and besides you know to get rid of the wall would cost gazillions of dollars and uh I just thought it would uh you know it would probably not uh wait a second I'm losing you.
I'm I'm losing why would we get rid of the wall after we built it?
Well because uh you know as uh the liberal you know way uh you know takes hold and they decide that they want to you know turn this into one you know marketing and and uh uh economic area they wouldn't want to have a wall between two you know big territories and and so they'd have to tear it down like the Berlin Wall.
I under look I I oh I understand.
I alright I see what you mean.
But that that that wall was to keep people in the purpose of the iron curtain was to keep the oppressed in it was not to let other keep other outsiders out, although it it functioned that way as well.
The problem is there was not this mass desire uh on the part of outsiders to cross the Berlin wall uh to uh to get in.
We we want to keep the oppressed in too in Mexico.
Uh but if we build a wall it looks like we're trying to keep him out.
Mexico's not going to bring their o build their own wall.
Look, it's all academic nobody's proposing building a wall that that that that that means it so uh we're talking about a virtual wall.
And as I said in the last hour, all right, virtual wall.
What a virtual wall you just like you said virtual reality.
Uh it's it's an image.
Now if if if they'll build a virtual raw wall around the Capitol building and they'll put a virtual wall around the White House and show me how that works, then I'll go along with a virtual wall on the border.
But until such time as that virtual wall is just that it's it's not a wall.
This is uh Kristen in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
Hi Kristen, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Are you there?
Yeah, right here.
Okay.
Oh my gosh I'm so thrilled.
I never thought I would get through.
Okay, you gotta slow down here, Kristen.
I know you're excited.
It's exciting thing to get through this program and talk to me, but y I gotta be able to understand you.
So take a deep breath and slow down just a little bit.
Okay.
Okay.
Listen, you know a lot of people that call in say they can tell exactly when they first started listening to you.
Yeah.
I've had the opposite experience.
I don't know when I started listening to you.
You kind of became insidious in my day and now it's just sort of my routine insidious?
Yeah all of a sudden you just became part of my day somewhere along the way.
I think I heard a lot of bad things about you and one day I was probably driving off to a meeting in the car and flipped you on and got interested and kept listening and carry out your little surprised I mean you'd heard all these bad things about me and then you turn on the radio and and you didn't hear any bad things you were intrigued.
Did that surprise you?
Uh I'm a little surprised yeah.
I was a little surprised that I I kind of considered myself to be a conservative but like I said I had heard so many Yeah well that's the people that don't listen to the program or who do listen to it purposely distort it.
Most of them haven't listened.
They just have cliches and they're trying to damage the credibility of people like me who do shows like this that are more successful than anything those people ever dreamed of being themselves.
It's all jealousy it's uh it's envy, jealousy they're mad they don't make the kind of money we make, they're mad they don't have the kind of power they're mad that they're basically a bunch of insignificant little gnats and uh and uh and this is how they uh strike back.
It just laugh at them.
They just they're they're funny.
They're actually pathetic uh uh little chihuahuas yipping at the ankles what was it you called about out there?
Well I called to make a prediction about the president's speech tonight.
Okay.
And the results I think he's gonna get from it, which I think are going to be uh pretty unhappy for him and and most conservatives like me.
I think he's gonna make no one happy tonight.
I think he this window dressing of putting a couple thousand uh national troops on the border.
What do you base this on, Kristen?
Well I think he by putting a couple thousand uh troops on the border if that's what it's gonna turn out to be and No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
We've got to go to a break here, and I want you to think about the question, w what on what are you basing the fact that it's just gonna be window dressing, it ain't gonna matter, it's gonna make everybody mad.
On what are you basing it?
It's a simple question.
I'm not challenging, there's no trick here.
I just I just want to know what you're basing that on.
Because it's an interesting take.
It sort of parallels mine.
Speaking truth to kooks from behind the golden EIB microphone, and back now to the effervescent and bubbly Kristen in Sterling Heights, Michigan.
So Kristen, I mean you gotta have a f uh basis for thinking that the president's gonna uh underperform tonight, make everybody mad and basically just apply window dressing.
Uh are you basing this on the uh leaks that you're hearing about what he's gonna say or just I guess I'm basing it on I I usually get up in the morning and read uh some conservative blogs like National Review Online and The American Spectator.
And I guess, you know, basically what the the leaks that they're getting the opinions that they're getting, they I'm basing it off of that.
So I'd be happy to be wrong.
I'd love to be wrong.
But I just think that if it turns out to be the case that it's window dressing, he's gonna make me someone who uh contributed, someone who volunteered during the last election cycle, work for him, he's gonna make me really mad, and then he's gonna make mad the people that he's trying to reach out to.
The the Mexicans, the Hispanic population.
Because if he puts a couple thousand down there, they're gonna act like it's a hundred thousand and he's militarizing the border no matter what the reality is.
Well, look, the bottom line, uh, Kristen, and you you uh that I like you, I hope these leaks are not right, but how often is that I mean the White House leaks these things on purpose to to give the media a heads up and create interest in people watching.
I think it should work the other way.
Don't leak anything, and everybody wonder what's going on.
But that's just me.
But it's it's obvious.
Uh when you boil all this down, when you synthesize it, when you when you when you get rid of all the dilution, it is apparent, ladies and gentlemen, that there are a lot of people in Washington who just don't think this is a problem.
And they certainly don't think it's as big a problem as a lot of us do.
It's just it I mean, I it's even more complicated than that, but I still maintain that oftentimes the simplest answer is probably closer to the truth than all the uh uh attempts to make answers complicated, conspiratorial and and uh and all that.
And it it boils down to okay, they hear us, but they just they don't think you know the this is one of those occasions, you know, where where elected leaders will say, my job is to listen to the constituents out there when a constituents say I'm gonna oppose a do by a portal, I've got to oppose a do by a ports deal.
And they they they wave their constitution around and say we get representative government, we we realize we're servants up here and that we're working for you and blah blah.
Then something like this comes along in the other way uh is approached.
Well, yeah, we are elected officials, we have to ask our constituents, but uh sometimes uh we just know more than they do.
Uh sometimes we gotta better bead on what's happening than they do.
They can't possibly know it all, and we are the ones with reason and intelligence up here and need people out there in the country are reacting with total emotion.
We just can't go that way.
So, you know, they've got their bases covered, which way, whichever way we go.
Democrats sitting back just loving all this.
But folks, it's uh it's just it's apparent that uh quite a few Republicans just don't think this is a problem.
For what I mean in Washington.
They just don't think it's a problem.
No matter how much belly aching, caterwalling, yelling, emailing, uh that uh that you do.
I mentioned uh earlier, thanks, Kristen, for the phone call.
Uh I mentioned uh that two years ago I predicted that this situation was gonna manifest itself.
It was gonna eventuate.
It's gonna occur, it's gonna take place, it was gonna happen.
Uh and people say, how did you know?
Easy.
You just go to these states where people are being affected by it, and it's it's not hard to pick it up.
And you find out who those people are, what party affiliation they have, but it's it's really not hard.
Now here comes a story, it's in USA Today.
California City votes on immigration issue.
Landlords who rent to illegal immigrants could face one thousand dollar fines, and homeowners who hire undocumented workers could have their cars impounded under a measure being voted on today by the San Bernardino's city council.
A group opposed to illegal immigration in the city of 200,000, which is about 70 miles east of LA collected more than 2200 signatures to force the council to consider the proposal.
If the council does not approve the measure today, the issue will go to voters on a citywide ballot.
Four of the seven council members said in interviews they expected the measure to fail today because of concerns over enforcement costs and uh court challenges.
Dennis Baxter, one of the councilmen said cops don't need to be checking under mattresses to see if some landlords ran into some illegal.
We have bigger fish to fry out there.
Crime, gang activity.
Hey, uh Mr. Councilman, you've got a lot of gang members that are coming across illegally.
What's the name of that gang?
MS-13?
Is that what it is?
I mean, there's a bunch of uh the mafia is even worried about these guys.
Uh they're a little unsophisticated right now, but but keep a sharp eye on them.
Uh so you do have gang activity as a part of this.
Whoever's cutting the next door neighbor's law, and that's a lower priority for us.
We're not going to run around and demand to see proof.
Uh Joseph Turner, 29, who led the petition drive, said the city charter would mandate a special election by September.
He said he wants the proposal approved before November so I can have a potential impact on the November election throughout this country.
It might embolden candidates to be more aggressive on the immigration issue, and we can get more representation.
So it appears that it's going to fail.
Uh but this kind of thing is happening all over the country at at state level, local levels.
Yeah, MS 13 is a gang.
Keep a sharp eye on them, folks.
Because these and they're not just in California.
They've migrated to Virginia.
They are all over the place.
Uh and uh and I'm telling you, they are they are um they're there's something to be reckoned with down the line, if not already now for a lot of people.
Speaking of uh USA Today, they've got a big poll out today.
Remember, they had the story last week, uh recycling the New York Times story from last December about phone companies sharing data uh with uh Congress and with the not with Congress, the NSA and the government of phone records and so forth, and it was just a rehash of a story.
And the day after, on Thursday, that story came out, Friday, the ABC Washington Post poll hit.
And the poll said 63% of the American people don't have a problem with it.
USA Today said, well, this bad.
Uh that means our story is not gonna have any impact.
So they spent all weekend polling, no doubt polling until they got the result they wanted.
And uh they had to poll a bunch of people on a Friday.
I I guarantee no professional pollster who wants an accurate result polls on Friday.
The only people home on Friday are a bunch of losers.
Oh, were you home Friday night, sturdily?
Ha!
No, actually, what is it?
It's Democrats who are home on Friday and Republicans are not.
They're out engaging in commerce and building the economy, and Democrats are waiting for the welfare checks on Monday.
Uh but regardless, that is the standard rule of thumb.
Democrats are home on weekends, Republicans aren't, and that's why it's not a good time to poll.
Well, I've making a perfect time for uh USA Today and Gallup.
And here's their story the majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens according to a USA Today Gallup poll.
About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other not yet disclosed intelligence efforts directed at the general public.
No, they weren't, not until the people in this poll were asked that question in a leading way.
If you look into the internals of this poll, you find one thing that stands out.
Get this.
They polled, how many is it?
They polled uh eight hundred nine people.
All right, they polled eight hundred nine people.
Over a third of the eight hundred nine people, that means about three hundred of them either have not followed the issue closely or even at all.
So if you poll eight hundred nine people and three hundred of them don't care about it or haven't followed it, it Has to mean they don't care, which means they're not worried about it.
So you throw those people out or you include them either way.
They were included in the poll, but you have to you have to understand that that uh this is a uh uh a sample here that is not made up of people who are informed, and yet those 300 people in this poll are being uh included in it as though their level of information and thought about it is as informed as everybody else in the poll.
That is a huge no-no if you're actually interested in accuracy.
But they're not.
They're polling until they got the result that they wanted.
Uh also the way questions were asked between the ABC Washington Post poll and the USA Today poll.
Here is how the ABC Washington Post poll asked uh a question, and then I'll read to you the way USA Today asked the same one.
ABC Washington Post.
It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans.
It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects without listening to or recording the conversations.
Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?
Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Okay, so in that question, they describe what the program is.
They actually gave the details.
Here's what's going on.
Here's the USA Today version question.
As you may know, as part of its effort to investigate terrorism, a federal government agency obtained records from three of the largest U.S. phone companies in order to create a database of billions of telephone numbers dialed by Americans.
How closely have you been following the news about this?
And based on what you've heard or read about this program to collect phone records, would you say you approve or disapprove of this government program?
Now, when a third of the people that you have called haven't even followed the story much, uh it explains why the why the how they were able to get to 51%, because they were able to throw 300 people out of the poll, essentially.
So it takes their sample from 8009 down to 509.
Um or they could they can include them in in uh in in other ways because, well, I didn't know much about what's going on, but we still have thoughts, and here they are.
And we have some audio sound bites on this.
Um you gotta give me number 10.
First, uh number 10's Arlen Spector, and this was on Slay the Nation yesterday.
Now, we mentioned to you on Friday where this program originated.
The program that that has these phone companies turning over their phone records to the NSA.
That program, that law signed into effect by President Clinton in 1994.
The House and the Senate, both run by Democrats at the time, voted both of them voted for this act on a voice vote.
That means there's no recorded vote.
It means they just rubber stamped it.
There were enough yes that they didn't have to go into an electronic vote.
So we can assume that a number of senators voted, well, we know they did because it was a voice vote.
So that's it's everything but unanimous uh in terms of the record.
So you have Spectre was in the Senate, Leahy was in the Senate, Kennedy was in the Senate.
Now listen to Arlen Spector.
With this answer to Bob Schiefer question, you announced last week that you're gonna call the heads of the three phone companies up to Capitol Hill for a hearing.
What do you want to ask them, sir?
I want to know uh uh how many people are being checked on their records.
Uh the news reports are that millions of people uh and that uh billions of telephone calls.
Uh I I want to know what their uh basis is in the law.
Uh there are decisions, Bob, uh, which suggest that if you're just looking at the number itself, uh that that's not an invasion of privacy.
But those are limited decisions.
Uh they don't uh encompass or program the magnitude of what is going on now.
But uh I want to know uh why the telephone companies are uh are making these disclosures about private information on such a massive scale.
Well, uh voted for it.
It's uh 1994.
The Clinton such and such telecommunications are gonna tell us everything we want to know, Act.
Uh or whatever.
I guess they've forgotten.
Now maybe he's saying, well, this is such a massive scale.
This is not what the 1990s.
He didn't say that.
I'm just assuming these people are not stupid.
Does he not remember this?
And this has been all over the place since we uh made it public, the origination of all so much of this that's happening now, but the echelon, uh, able danger, all this stuff was started during the Clinton years.
Now we've got to go take Bush out because of it.
Back after this.
I'm just waiting for this.
Uh uh watching all this video tape here of Florida officials, alligator trappers and so forth, going down there and trapping these gators that are attacking and killing people.
You know, when that happens, they go down, they find the alligator, the suspect alligator, and they kill it and slit it open to see if there are remains of the victim.
And if it's true, then that's it for the alligator, of course.
But they um they oftentimes miss because uh sometimes they like they they cut open a couple of alligators over the weekend.
One of them had eaten a football, uh, the other had eaten uh a crushed tennis ball or something.
Uh but they eventually got the alligator that uh two alligators that uh uh killed uh these two joggers, uh, female joggers.
It's dry, and it the alligators are getting hungry and uh that sort of thing.
But I watched the video tape here of these trappers.
Uh, and I'm waiting, I'm waiting for some animal rights wacko to ask the question.
Wait a second.
An alligator has the brain of an almond.
All it does is get up, and if it had a day planner, the day planner would say, get up, kill something and eat it, and go to bed.
It's all an alligator calendar would say.
What else is it gonna do?
I mean, it doesn't do anything but eat.
Well, they mate now and then, depending on the season, but uh that's it.
So at some point, somebody's gonna say, Why are we killing the gators?
It's not the gators' fault.
These people need to know better, uh hanging around in gator territory.
Actually, they think one of these gators stalked and followed one of these women.
Uh stayed hidden.
I run into them on some golf courses out here.
They're lazy SOBs.
But if they start running at you, you can't outrun them.
I mean, they those things you have to zigzag.
They're told, we're told before we go out if you see a gator.
We try to sometimes throw golf balls near them, not hit them, just to make them move.
We go see them move.
Uh, but they're just idiots.
Yeah, they're just idiots.
I saw them uh taping up the front legs all the way back, the back legs all the way forward, taping up the mouth with duct tape or electrical tape over two different parts of the mouth.
Uh, and then they get the tape measure out to see how long the thing is, and that determines whether or not it fits the suspect ID, because most people say, yeah, it was between eight and ten feet.
So they go out and nab as many of those as they can.
Uh and I'm just waiting for the animal cruelty people to say, what are we doing this?
Gator's just being a gator.
It wouldn't also surprise me to learn that some environmental wackos and animal rights people are stirring these gators up.
You know, all you have to do is go out and say, hey, alligator, here's your family photo album.
And you show them a picture of a purse, a pair of shoes, and alligator figure out what happened to his parents.
He's now a purse, they're pursed a pair of shoes, and that would make anybody mad.
Wouldn't put anything past him.
By the way, folks, I so love this story.
I probably shouldn't, but I do.
Brian Ross, Richard Esposito from the uh the blotter at ABC News.com.
Federal source has told ABC News, we know who you're calling.
They put it on their website earlier that I saw it this morning.
No wonder these guys are in a snit.
The feds know who these reporters are getting leaks from.
They know who they're calling.
Somebody in the federal government somewhere told ABC, as a as trying to help them out.
We know what's happening.
Your phone calls are being changed your cell phone.
Now give you details of this soon.
Stay with us.
A senior law, senior federal law enforcement official told ABC News that government is tracking the phone numbers they call in an effort to root out confidential sources.
The source told uh Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News in an in-person conversation.
Time for you guys to get some new cell phones quick.
ABC News doesn't know how the government determined who we are calling or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the NSA collection of domestic phone calls.
But uh, they have been told that the government knows who they are calling at ABC, which um no wonder they're in a little bit of a snit out there in the drive by media.
▲
Export Selection