All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
June 1, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You see where a Batwoman's coming back in a cartoon of comic books as a lesbo.
Coming back as a lipstick lesbian.
Batwoman.
Or is it Batman?
It's Batwoman.
Batwoman's coming.
Not Batman's not coming back to lesbian, right?
No.
Good.
Thank God.
Well, it'll happen eventually anyway.
Batman is a lesbian.
Anyway, greetings, uh, my friends, and welcome.
Welcome back.
El Rushbow here having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Uh your highly trained broadcast specialist at 800-282-2882.
The email address is uh rush at EIBNet.com.
Little immigration news.
Senator John McCain called on Orange County Latino leaders yesterday to support his immigration bill, saying that it was time for them to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves.
You are the role model.
You, you are the role models.
See, uh McCain said to a mostly Latino audience of 340 gathered at the Hyatt Regency Irvine.
McCain came to Orange County to garner support for the uh Hispanic 100, a three-year-old organization that has organized events with President Bush, garden uh Governor Schwarzenegger, and the gubernatorial candidates McCain later attended a fundraiser for his PAC in Los Angeles, cancelled an appearance as we told you yesterday in San Diego for GOP congressional candidate Brian Billbray, apparently over their differences on illegal immigration.
In Orange County, McCain said Latino leaders must press Congress to approve a final measure that mirrored legislation he co-wrote with Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
The Senate approved a version that increases well, again in details.
Um at any rate, uh Senator McCain out pandering uh now to this group.
Um it reminds me, folks, of the way uh Senator McCain was pandering uh to sell his campaign finance reform legislation.
Uh see a lot of uh a lot of parallels here uh loaded with platitudes for the group that he's speaking to.
You're the backbone of America in the future.
We'll cease to exist without you.
Dire predictions of what'll happen if his bill doesn't become law.
And of course, if you look at campaign finance reform, what hat screwed everything up.
Why does anybody listen to the guy?
He's got a terrible track record on these kinds of big pieces of legislation.
And yet, you know what people just seem to get in the line and follow this guy wherever he goes.
And I'll tell you why.
It's because he gets favorable coverage in the drive-by media.
And that's what his Republican colleagues would love to also get and uh benefit from, and so that's that's why.
But it's uh it's astounding.
Now, the Senate immigration bill that's uh uh being talked about here makes the same mistake as the 86 amnesty by restricting the ability of citizenship and immigration services to share information on illegal alien guest worker applicants who are criminals and terrorists.
You know who said this?
Emilio T. Gonzalez, whose agency would have to administer a guest worker program.
He said not allowing the U.S. citizenship and immigration services to share information on someone who applies, mean they can't begin the process of removing criminals and national security threats, even after they're rejected from the guest worker program.
Well, Shazam, this is precisely what I told you.
There's no enforcement in this bill anyway.
Not only is there no enforcement, there are obstacles to accomplishing what the bill's supporters promise us will happen.
I mean, this is this is this has echoes of the Gorelic wall prior to 9-11, where CIA and FBI couldn't share information because of basically grand jury secrecy.
We were fighting terrorism in the courts.
Uh Mr. Gonzalez said it's important for us to be able to act on what we get when we run a background check on somebody.
He said this in a briefing with reporters in which he weighed in on the Senate immigration bill, which would offer a chance for citizenship to millions of illegal aliens.
He got You have to understand who this guy is.
This guy's part of the executive branch.
This guy is he he's he's the he he runs it.
The director of U.S. citizenship and immigration services, USCIS.
And he's out there ripping the bill.
Mr. Gonzalez says he hasn't seen any deal breakers in the bill, but he said moving forward, policymakers are going to have to answer key questions about eligibility, types of acceptable documents, information sharing, and limits to uh judicial appeals.
He says we don't ask those hard national security questions, shame on me.
And he's being told he can't on the basis of what's in the bill.
On the issue of information sharing and confidentiality of applications, Mr. Gonzalez said the law usually allows his agency to share information when its employees come across an application that raises questions.
But he said the 1986 amnesty included confidentiality provisions that prohibited sharing information from those applications, and he said the Senate bill makes the same mistake.
We ought not to be kept from using that information.
Well, the bigger question is I told you this is just a rehash of the Simpson Mazzoli bills, just a rehash.
And Ed Meese did a whole column of the New York Times about how it's the the wording is is in many cases identical.
This is not an immigration bill.
It's anything but.
Senator Kennedy, key backer of the bill, said that the underlying bill struck a balance that still allows law enforcement to go after cheaters, while at the same time not discouraging illegal aliens from coming forward.
Senator Kennedy said, our bill removes criminals and those trying to game the system, but it also...
My gosh, they're not enforcing anything now.
This is this is such an asinine premise that all of a sudden there's going to be all this enforcement in this bill.
Kennedy said his main worry was that sharing information would discourage some aliens from coming forward because they would fear making a mistake, an innocent mistake that would hurt them later.
So we can't share any information.
We can't allow these agencies to cross-check applications to find out if the bill says if you're a felon or whatever, you gotta go.
We're gonna deport you, you can't come.
But now they can't check to find out.
Because the same provision that's in the 86 bill is in this bill and well, Kennedy says, Well, we we we we we uh uh got to discourage uh can't discourage aliens uh from coming forward.
They might fear making an innocent mistake, and that would uh that would hurt them later.
So you can clearly see that the the Senate has a totally different agenda on this than than the vast, vast majority of American people.
I got to take a uh brief time out here, we'll be back and continue in mere moments on the EIB network.
Stay with us.
All right, people have been patiently waiting on the phones, and so we will reward the patients.
And we'll go to Amy in uh Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
Your first today.
Nice to have you, Amy, and welcome to the program.
Thank you so much, Mr. Limbaugh, for taking my call.
You bet.
I apologize if this is a poor connection because I'm on my cell.
No, no, it sounds very good.
Oh, good.
Uh, this is such an emotional issue for me, so I will try very hard to be objective and lucid for you and for your audience.
My husband is a soldier with almost 18 years in the U.S. Army, serving his second tour in Iraq in three years.
I think you are so right when you say that the answer is not to send in more troops.
Because these troops, the strength isn't even there to send them.
There are soldiers serving their second, third, and fourth tours of Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I really believe that you're going to see a mass exodus of people leaving military service in the next two years.
Is that it?
I'm sorry?
Is that what is that the conclusion of your comment?
Yes, sir, I believe that.
I I just think that a lot of people like my husband who are could serve beyond 20 years or more, they're they're just not gonna do it.
Well, I mean, that I would I wouldn't be surprised, but I I'm the reason I'm confused is because you you said you couldn't agree with me more, and and what I I'm not I missed what you're agreeing with me about because I'm not Well, I'm I'm sorry, sir.
Uh, you were saying earlier that sending more troops is not the answer to solving the problems in the Middle East right now with Iraq and Afghanistan.
And I that's that's true, but that was in the context of uh there there are people calling for more troops now.
Uh and and uh the time, you know, if if we had used the full force of our power at the outset, um uh and that we could send in the ground troops a little bit later after more of the country was secured rather than just Baghdad.
If we're gonna go to war, we're gonna go to war.
And this is hindsight, and it's very dangerous to do this, and and I'm I'm not trying to be critical.
It's just to me, the the the context in uh uh in all of this, Amy, is that the U.S. doesn't fight wars the way we used to.
Uh we have constraints that we've placed on ourselves uh that are I mean, they're right out of the new age psychobabble Bible, uh, if you ask me, worrying about what people are gonna think of us and maintaining our image around the world and so forth.
If this stuff is really about our national security, then uh it's not a question of uh do we win it?
It's a question of when.
Uh the possibility of losing can't really exist.
Uh we're the United States of America.
Now, what the future status of the uh U.S. military is going to be, uh I wouldn't be surprised if if people have been in 1820 years uh don't go.
These people in the military, as you know you're married to one are are special, different, unique people.
Uh and I don't think we're ever going to have a problem fielding a fighting force uh as long as the nation remains uh at risk in a dangerous world.
This is Eugene in Pittsburgh.
Great to have you on the EIB network high.
Uh Pittsburgh Steeler and Army veteran ditto, Rush.
Uh picking up on the topic of Jack Mertha and his lurid uh political grandstanding.
Uh wouldn't you think that as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he would have a similar responsibility to not exert undue command influence on the outcome of it of an investigation?
Well, legally, no.
Well, it doesn't apply to him.
That's the point.
I'm uh look I just want to prepare you.
I've got a whole stack of stuff about Hadithha, and I'm gonna get to it here in a minute, and I'm gonna show you exactly what I'm talking about.
The media, everybody has already got this the worst event ever.
It's gonna redefine U.S. military policy, it's gonna redefine U.S. military X, Y, and Z. We're gonna we're now sending the military to values training.
We have to send soldiers to values training as a result of this uh episode.
But Mertha no he's not bound by the because he's not in the um uh in the in the Pentagon and he's not part of the military, he's retired.
Uh but he's not he's not constrained in what he can say.
I'm just telling you, he's he's just gonna be one voice of countless thousands.
You better brace yourself for it.
Are you still there?
Yes.
Well, I mean, I know that he's not in the chain of command, but as uh member of the House Armed Services Committee, he has a moral obligation to uphold the trust.
Come on, we're talking about a Democrat here.
Uh we you gotta you gotta get your expectation of what do you mean moral obligation?
Ha ha ha ha.
This isn't the 1940s.
But this is a war, and it's surprising how easily President Bush is getting rolled on this.
But they don't think it's a war.
You uh you have to understand if you if you really nail some of these Democrats down, they don't think this is a war.
They don't think it was they don't think 9-11 was an act of war.
It was a crime, they think.
It was uh it was a uh uh you know a random terrorist event, but it didn't represent a war.
It wasn't an attack by one country against us.
So they don't look at it as a war.
And they they think the immorality is all on Bush's side and on our side.
You know this.
You know that they think the true threat in all this is George W. Bush.
Right.
And and to pick up what you've you've been saying for more than 18 years.
The obligation uh of leadership is the obligation to continue to educate.
Uh yeah, uh, you know, I think Bush um uh he's he's has been criticized for not explaining what this Iraq thing is all about.
Frankly, I got tired of hearing him explain about it.
He was doing it all over the place, especially before we went in.
Uh he was he's flying to Cincinnati, is flying all over the place.
Speeches in the morning and the afternoon speeches at night, uh that haven't been as frequent uh uh in last couple of years.
Uh but th th th this the when you when you say it's the obligation of a leader to educate couldn't agree with you more, but um i again uh we don't we don't have uh uh a president who is an ideologue, and therefore he's not leading a movement, so there's there's not uh he'll explain policy uh uh now and then, but in terms of the the ideological underpinnings that form the policy, we're not gonna get that because they're not there.
I'm not being critical.
Uh You know, there are Republicans, there are Democrats, there are liberals, they're conservatives.
Uh, and you can be a Republican and not be a conservative.
You can be a conservative on some things, moderate on others, country club blue blooders on others, and liberal Republican on and uh uh the the president is uh conservative on a lot of things, uh, but he's not what you would call an ideologue.
And no, I'm not sitting around pining and moaning and wishing there were a Reagan.
It'd be great if there were, but I'm I'm I'm just grounded in reality.
I'm not I don't sit around wishing things were different than they are.
What does that get you?
Unless you have the power to change them yourself.
Now, right now I don't have the power to change elected leadership in Washington or anywhere else.
Uh uh I don't not know.
It's June 1st.
There's not an election here today, Mr. Snerdley.
There's no power to make any significant changes here.
So you deal with what you have, and you understand it in uh in that context.
Uh you say Bush is getting enrolled on this.
I know that's the popular perception.
Uh but if you I'm telling you, look, and you're probably just judging that on his approval numbers.
If you dig deep into the internals of these approval numbers, you will find that uh the the people that disapprove of the president's job performance run the gamut.
And they cross the political spectrum.
And many of them are Republicans and conservatives who are upset because we're not using shock and awe, upset because we're not doing this and not doing that.
It's uh some of it's gasoline prices.
Uh, some of it is a fear over the economy, some of it is just that people have been conditioned to think negatively about everything regardless of reality because their daily absorption would drive by media.
But I I don't I don't think the American people have given up uh on Iraq, and I don't think the Sadita thing, whatever it is, uh, is is going to cause the vast majority of the American people to turn on the U.S. military and adopt the liberal idea of the U.S. military, uh, that being that it is the focus of evil in the modern world.
That is not going to happen.
Mertha is not going to carry the day.
John Kerry's not going to carry the day.
These guys are not going to carry the day, but they're going to cause you a lot of heartburn in the meantime.
Justin in Fresno, California.
Hi, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you, Rush.
You'll forgive me uh while I rant.
I'm just so angry.
I'm a 34-year-old son of a naval Air Force man.
My Uncle Emil uh was shot down over China in World War II, and I am just sick and tired of people like Jack Mertha categorizing all of our men and women in the armed forces as uh you know uh killers and and and and I I tell you what,
the mentality of these left-wing nuts is now being taught in our school system where my children are going, and these liberals have hijacked the school systems, and we need good people like you and my father to teach the principles of freedom and and that our our men in the ark forces are doing the right thing.
And and I just you know, I I can't emphasize enough how much these people are tearing down this country by the rhetoric they're using.
And make no mistake, that's their objective.
The people you're talking about are trying to change the fabric of this country.
There isn't there they're they've there there is a blame America crowd, there's a hate America crowd, and they're mostly leftists, they're a combination of socialists and quasi-communist multiculturalists, and uh they're they're just they're they're they're losers in life, they're lost souls, they're looking for meaning, uh, and they've got themselves uh into certain positions of power, such as education, uh where predominantly most of them reside now, still some in the courts.
But we're making we're making big progress, but I couldn't agree with you more about Mirtha.
I'll tell you, let me ask you a question.
Have you ever heard Jack Mertha criticize any of our enemies with the with with the the language that he uses to describe our own military?
You know, it's absolutely amazing to me.
Well, I get you know it's not because I understand the mentality of the left, thanks to education, you know, that I get from your show every day.
But you know, we hear just garbage about everything that our men do, and there's not one thing that that you know talks about.
Yeah, but look at you.
But look at look at look at you, Justin.
You don't believe it.
So I'm telling you, there are far more people like you out there than you know.
You don't believe it, it makes you mad.
These people, like I brilliantly pointed out yesterday.
People like Mertha and only act like they so so concerned about innocent Iraqis and the horrors of their lives.
They didn't give a rat's rear end about the lives of the Iraqis when Saddam was torturing them when Saddam was raping them.
They didn't care about what was going in Rwanda when a genocide wiped out four hundred thousand people after the fact they apologized, they got platitudes Clinton did for apologizing.
I should have done more.
I just I'm oh he's such a great man.
If they cared about the lives of average Iraqis, then they would have been on this case of Saddam Hussein uh a lot sooner than they are.
The idea they want to blame U.S. troops for this is is uh is ridiculous and it's not persuasive.
As I say it's gonna cause your heartburn, but don't panic about it.
A man, a legend, a way of life, El Rush Ball, talent on loan from God.
Colleen in Rutherford, New Jersey, gr is it Rutherford or is it East Rutherford?
No, it is Rutherford, New Jersey.
East Rutherford is east of Rutherford.
Well, I g I gathered that I uh sat I don't mean to insult you.
No, I'm joking, I'm joking.
Well, Rutherford's a really really beautiful town.
We have New York City as our backdrop.
We're seven miles from New York City.
Oh, I know exactly where it is.
I've been there.
Oh, have you been to Giant Stadium?
Yes, absolutely.
Oh, okay.
All right, that's a Peterborough airport, and there's a there's a there's a couple of good restaurants over there that uh you sneak in in and out of yeah.
Oh, all right.
What restaurant have you do you want to mention one or you don't want to mention?
No, no, no, no.
I'm just trying to let you know of my familiarity with where you live.
Oh, good.
All right, all right.
Now have you gone to any of the football games here or no?
Oh many.
Oh all right, all right.
Now my husband is an ex player.
Oh, is he?
Yes, for the Giants.
For the Giants, really now you got me curious.
It was an offen he was an offensive lineman.
They just did a story in the local Rutherford paper today, actually, on him living it's called uh giant living amongst amongst us in uh Rutherford.
It's Doug Van Horn.
I don't know if you know the name.
Uh Doug of course I know Doug Van Horn.
Good, okay.
Absolutely I know Doug Van Horn.
I mean, I don't know him, but I know the name.
Absolutely.
You are Colleen Van Horn.
Yes.
Oh my god, Rosh, it's not that oh, well, you are Rush Lindall.
Oh my god, I'm corresponding.
You have no idea.
Well, anyway, it's it's it's nice to meet you, Colleen Van Horn, and and uh you you tell Doug that uh he was a great player.
He was fat great player.
Oh, well, he had a long s he he played for thirteen years, so uh I definitely I I definitely uh can understand that.
He he's very, very, very um humble.
He's a very humble person.
Well, just so you know, he was great.
Now, Colleen, what was it?
What was it that you call about?
Okay, um well, first of all, I I just can really I I'm just at the breaking point here right now because I'm just so upset with this country.
And I have been watching for the last past week of Memorial Day footage on uh, you know, uh documentaries coming from Iraq.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it is just very disheartening.
This they have just decided to cut forty percent of homeland security to New York City.
Yes.
And I believe that they have given the citizens of this area a death sentence.
I mean, if that's not telling us the towers aren't there anymore.
And if you're not what that is telling the American people that we forget you as fast as we possibly can.
And when all these young men come back, and I have a nephew who was very brave, and he enlisted two years ago because of Carl Colleen, I'm I'm I'm uh losing uh uh train of thought here.
Uh are you re w you you're you're equating the uh forty percent reduction in uh funding from Homeland Security for the New York area to troop cuts in Iraq?
No, no, no.
Meaning that when these troops we're fighting the war still right Now.
And we are fighting a war still right now in Manhattan in New York City.
And you're telling us right now that it you would cut the funds.
If you're if you can get the funds to New York City, then you're basically cutting the funds to Iraq.
Because the reason why we're over there fighting is because of what happened here in 911.
Well, I I look, I know this has people in New York up in arms.
Uh Peter King, uh Chuck Schumer are basic.
What what did King say?
He said he yeah, he's almost I think I'll have to paraphrase this, but I think I read where he actually called this a declaration of war against New York or some such thing.
That may be a little extreme.
I'm not sure he said it that way, but they're they are they're livid and they're really upset because some of the money from Homeland Security is going to places that New Yorkers think is the hist.
Uh Kentucky and uh and and Wyoming.
Uh and so you can understand the anger, but you know, uh here we go again.
I'm b I'm back to the basics of conservatism here.
The idea that a certain amount of funding uh is somehow going to lead to disaster.
Uh I guess it's a reality of American life today because so many years uh people have been inculcated with the notion that government spending makes something better.
Spending on this, spending on that makes it better or insures us or protects us or some such thing.
Uh and I'm uh you know, I'm I'm not I don't make that association.
Uh the idea that a 40 percent reduction in spending somehow makes New York more vulnerable than it already is a disconnect to me.
Uh I don't I don't uh you you you telling me that if we had fully funded the terrorists would be uh uh less motivated to attack, and with they now find out that New York's getting forty percent less than they were going to get uh from Homeland Security that terrorists are gonna be more motivated.
Oh man, they're gonna give them as much money as they were gonna get, why we're gonna have a much better chance of hitting them.
Yeah, Peter King, as far as I'm concerned, Department of Homeland Security and the administration have declared war on New York City.
Those are those are very, very strong words.
Uh well, it is i uh it's it's um I'm tr I'm trying to be reserved here.
You know, Peter King is he's been all over the reservation lately on a whole bunch of things.
The port deal accused me of being a hack for Bush, uh uh flack for Bush on that issue, and now this declare a declaration of war on New York City by the uh by the administration.
Uh well there was I do remember that.
Snerdley's got a good point.
What was the initial allowment?
Twenty was it now was it twenty billion that we gave the first time and a lot of it went unspent.
It was twenty million, twenty billion, whatever.
A lot of it went unspent, uh so forth.
I'm not trying to get New Yorkers all all riled up here, but the the idea that this is a declaration of war, that the federal government, the administration are saying in New York drop dead, uh is just extreme.
Uh it's it's it's a bit over the edge.
Colleen, great to talk to you.
Nice to have you on the program.
Jonesboro, Arkansas, Bull, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush, Megabinos.
You bet.
I I I'm calling.
I just seem to have a problem, and and I'm truly humbled because you are always right.
Yes.
Not rarely.
Always.
Thank you.
And I just can't seem to understand how or who or what is motivating John McCain when eighty, seventy, eighty percent of Americans are against that piece of uh bogus legislation on immigration.
Who's he pandering to?
I mean, is he is he sitting back looking at how George Bush, uh Mr. Compassionate Conservative work with Kennedy on some of those other bills.
What what's motivating?
Um, let me let me try to explain this to you, Bo.
I've we we've we've taken several stabs at this uh over the course of things.
In the in the first place, you have uh so many things, I think.
There is a I I don't mean to overwork this theme, but I do believe that it is salient, and that is guilt.
I I think that there is there are a number of people, particularly in the Republican Party, who will not do anything if it can be portrayed as discriminatory or uh um uh any any type of mistreatment against any people of color.
I just don't think, especially a presidential candidate, a guy who aspires to the high office.
The second thing is McCain is not up for re-election anytime soon, so he doesn't have to face the voters on this other than when he gets to the uh primaries, and he will face the voters on this.
In a political sense, one of the things that's amazing to me about this, just in terms of politics.
We all know that McCain has been trying the past uh number of months to make inroads with conservatives who uh cast him aside in the 2000 primaries.
He's gone and met with uh Jerry Falwell.
He appeared on the 700 club with Pat Robertson.
Uh he's uh he's done a number of things to try to re-ingratiate himself uh with the conservative base.
Then this issue comes along, and he if if he did make any inroads with the conservative base, which I doubt, but if he did, he's just wiped that slate clean with this because there is no way the conservative base is going to reward John McCain for something like this.
There's also arrogance.
Those people uh this this disconnect is profound, and they really look at Bo.
You and I were just a bunch of rubes, we're just a bunch of hicks.
We don't know what's good for the country.
You know, we're unsophisticated, we don't know enough, uh we're we're not they're looking at us like liberals look at everybody.
Unsophisticated, incapable, incompetent.
Uh in addition to that, all of these people represent voters.
Potential voters down the road, and there are Republicans who think they can get some of these newly arrived immigrants, legal and illegal, by acting like Democrats.
Uh and uh why would you do it?
Why why would any Republican try to out Democrat or Democrat?
It makes no sense.
It would be as stupid as if a liberal came along and started trying to be a conservative, like Hillary did.
Nobody bought it, didn't buy her anything but a bunch of angst in her own party and a bunch of disrespect that she's paying the price for now.
Um in addition to all of that, um there there are special interests that are contributing mightily to these people, and many of them uh are are from big business.
Uh you don't see big business types marching on the street and doing protests and all that, but they do contribute a lot of money.
Uh so there are there are a lot of reasons to to try to explain this.
Uh none of them are going to make any sense to you, uh, but they all uh taken separately or added together uh will help you to understand it a little bit more.
But at the end of the day, the bottom line is uh they they're doing it because they think they can get away with it.
They they're doing it, Bo, because they think you'll forget it.
That something else will come along, some issue by the next election will come along, and you'll have forgotten all of this.
Uh passions will be roiled on other things because Senators only a third of them are up every two years.
That is why you look at the House of Representatives.
Everybody in the House goes for re-election every two years.
And so when you find out what the American people's pulse is, the pulse of the nation will be represented by the House of Representatives, because those people have to face their constituents every two years, and it's a specific group of constituents.
It's districts, it's not whole states like senators deal with.
So uh we'll we'll see.
This conference committee is going to get started sometime this month, and it'll be interesting to see what actually happens.
We have some audio sound bites from the president who spoke to the Chamber of Commerce today, and I haven't read the transcript of them yet.
I haven't had time.
But uh, some people are telling me he uh took a little bit tougher stand on some of these things.
We'll maybe listen to a couple of them and see if that's true.
Back after this, stay with us.
I did a little research here.
Uh uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, about this uh New York City funding business uh from Homeland Security.
I have a question, by the way, uh, For those of you in New York who are listening to this program on our magnificent flagship there, WABC.
Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary just pointed out that New York is getting, still getting the uh largest amount of money of any city, state, what have you, uh, from Homeland Security, in spite of these uh these cuts.
Uh and he made the point that a lot of what New York has been getting is for capital improvements, and that many of those have been completed and so the same level of funding is not necessary, that they're still getting a significant amount of funding uh for protection and uh first responders and this kind of.
But here's my question.
For all of you in New York, whether you're uh the liberals in New York, and I know that we have countless many liberals listening to this program in New York.
Now I have a very simple question.
Are we at war or not?
You all think that Bush is lying, lied us into war.
It isn't necessary.
There wasn't going to Iraq and all the war on terrorists, it's just sort of crazy.
You know, Bush made a mountain out of a molehill here.
Um, and it it's clear that many liberals believe that Bush is a real threat uh to our security.
Bush made the world hate us, and Bush equals Hitler.
I mean, you liberals in New York know who you are.
So what the hell?
If there's no war, and if Bush lied about it, made it all up, then who cares how much money you don't get from Homeland Security.
Well, see, the answer is you'll catch him with the question because there are no more World Trade Center towers there.
There something happened there, whether they want to call it a war or not, something happened there.
There was an attack, and they think it could happen again, and they don't want any less protection from the federal government via Homeland Security.
So it must be that deep in their souls and deep in their hearts, even the liberals in New York admit we are at risk.
And I don't think they're really afraid that Bush is going to attack.
I don't think Bush is going to order a bunch of stealth bombers to fly over Manhattan and start dropping ordnance.
Uh so obviously all of this blowhard pontificating about Bush overreacting, Bush lied, this, that, and the other thing.
Apparently, the outcry in this city is sufficient enough to make me believe that there are a lot of liberal New Yorkers who think we're in a war or that we might get hit again, and they're worried that uh there's not enough protection coming from the federal government.
And I can't have it both ways on this.
We're either in a war or we're or we're not.
Now, you New Yorkers, you have, and I'm one of you.
Um, there's some.
Uh uh I but I'm I've I've lived there enough to know that they have a unique way of covering shortfalls in funding.
Uh raise cigarette taxes, raise this taxes on public transportation.
Again, raise the gasoline tax.
I mean, liberals love tax increases.
Tax yourselves into security.
New York, you're gonna sit around and actually just let Bush make you more vulnerable.
So Bush has cut your funding by 40%.
You're more vulnerable.
Oh no, we're greater.
Fix it, tax yourselves into security.
Tax increases solve a myriad problems, do they not?
I mean, you're trying to stamp out uh smoking anyway in that town, uh uh raise liquor taxes, raise restaurant taxes, raise a hotel tax.
There's any number of taxes, raise raise the uh the freelancer tax.
Raise the income tax, raise taxes, period, and you'll recoup and pay it yourselves.
That might be a problem.
All right, we are we have gone to work here at the EIB network, folks.
We care about New York and its vulnerability to future terrorism because of this drastic draconian 40% cut in funding from Homeland Security.
The clear path, New York, you can't sit around anymore and wait for somebody else to protect you.
You're gonna have to do it yourselves.
If Homeland Security is gonna screw you out of 40% of what you were gonna get, you gotta rescue yourselves, you gotta protect yourselves, depend on yourselves, and the way to do that is tax yourself to security.
And we are working on various activities, because you tax activities, which you do, liberals tax behavior uh that they don't like, tax behavior they do like, we're working on a list of potential tax increases for New York uh that would ride to the rescue, save the day, and come close to replacing the 40% security funding you just got screwed out of by Michael Churtoff at Homeland Security.
▲
Export Selection