All Episodes
Previous Next
July 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
July 3, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks, Johnny Donovan, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There's never a final exam, but we are tested every day.
I am a fellow student Paul W. Smith.
And uh Rush will be here.
Best of Rush tomorrow for the Fourth of July, and then in uh person live in the chair the day after.
We have the United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez with us.
We were uh speaking in the last hour about a variety of issues.
Want to give a final thought here on immigration.
Two hundred and thirty years uh after the signing of our Declaration of Independence.
We look in the mirror.
What are we seeing as Americans?
Uh, Mr. Attorney General, what are you seeing when you look in the mirror as an American today?
Well, I'm seeing some um very proud uh Americans uh with very different backgrounds, uh different cultures, but uh nonetheless still the same commitment uh and appreciation for the greatness of our wonderful country.
That is the history of our and tradition of our country.
We've always been a country with welcoming arms, open arms, but we've also been a country that respects the rule of law, that we have that laws are on the books, those laws should be respected.
We of course now live in a post-9-11 world where we have to know who's in our country and why.
Uh and we believe that uh what the President has outlined in terms of the comprehensive immigration um legislative package is uh achieves, uh, all of that is consistent with all of that.
And um so we're we're optimistic, we remain optimistic that uh this year the uh con the Congress will pass comprehensive immigration legislation that the President can sign this year.
It's important for the aspect of our country, Paul, and that's why the President continues to focus on it.
There's no question.
Uh, my grandparents came uh the from another country, they went through Ellis Island.
Your family came from another country, but uh I think we share the fact that we both did this, uh our families did it legally, and there's still a great deal of concern that what the president has uh suggested is uh though it may be uh a a path to citizenship, it's also a path to amnesty and to lawbreakers, and eleven million or more who are here illegally that that nobody's come up with uh a really good answer on how to deal with that yet, or so it would seem.
Well, you know, we've got to be realistic here.
I mean, let's let's get real.
Uh you have uh eleven or twelve million people that are here.
Uh they're not just gonna get up and and move out of the country.
We're not gonna be able to do that.
We don't have the capacity to do that.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure w we would want to do that.
Well, there are a lot of companies that don't want that to happen.
Exactly.
And so uh we we've got to we've got to have a way of dealing with them.
Uh I I I think it is short-sighted to say, let's just deal with border security now, and then we'll worry about the eleven or twelve million people later.
Well, you know, the problem continues to get worse with each passing day.
And uh we need uh we need to deal with all of it at one time.
I think the American people expect us to deal with it at one time.
And uh again, dealing with the eleven or twelve million people is part of our efforts to secure our borders, to know who's in this country, uh to know where they're at, and I think that's very, very important, and I I again I think it's short short-sighted uh not to focus on these individuals that are here already in this country.
And that's what a lot of people are focusing on and are concerned about and want to be sure that however we deal with this fairly, that we also uh don't let people slide through who have broken the law.
It's a security issue.
It's what's right.
It's as you said, we're a country of laws, and uh and people who have slipped by or slipped under the law.
Well, no one is suggesting, certainly the president is not suggesting, that someone who's broken the law should be rewarded with citizenship.
I mean, w uh like like anyone who doesn't follow the rules, there are consequences that should flow from that.
And the President is suggesting that uh to the extent that someone has come into our country uh illegally, and if they do want to pursue a path to citizenship, there are the consequences.
That there are steps and measures that have to be taken uh in order to uh sort of repay their debt back to society for what they've done.
Uh so this notion that somehow this is all about amnesty, I just I just fundamentally disagree with that.
All right, Mr. Attorney General, I'm glad we had more time with you this time around.
We do appreciate you uh uh getting back with us here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thanks, Paul.
Uh U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
Uh, I'm Paul W. Smith in for Rush, and uh we did have to carry that over just a bit because last time he was on, I actually was seems like longer ago, but it was last Monday.
They were having their flooding and their power outages, and he was catching the plane uh to uh Egypt and there was an awful lot going on.
We wanted to give him another chance to uh flesh out some of the answers that he had uh with some of the questions that we had regarding various issues of the day.
One of the the stories uh that gets all this attention is what the New York Times has revealed, and we say these are secrets that should not be revealed.
There's actually a book called The One Percent Doctrine, deep inside America's pursuit of its enemies since 911.
And and frankly, uh winner of the Pulitzer Prize, uh author of the Price of Loyalty, uh George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.
Uh uh the author, Ron Suskin, is with us, and uh and and frankly, Ron, it's nice to touch base with you again.
Whoops, I'm sorry.
I thought Ron was here right there.
Uh this is so we can take some calls right now at 1 800 282 2882, 1-800-282-2882.
I did not understand that uh in the headphones as we were breaking away from the attorney general, so let's do it right now.
Bruce has been waiting a long time in the Stanford, Wisconsin.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
Hello, Bruce.
Hello, Paul.
Um have a uh great independence day.
I appreciate the opportunity to get on uh a national uh program like this.
You have your flag you have your flag fly flag flying?
Yes, sir.
Good.
Uh that both the American flag and the Marine Corps flag.
Good for you.
Um but what I would like to comment on is what I consider to be the propaganda aspects of our uh mass media, which fortunately you and Rush and others like you are the uh uh opposing force.
Uh up here we get a lot of um information, in fact, I think countrywide we get information on the number of deaths, a day by day count of the number of bodies that are uh are piling up in Iraq of our soldiers, but at no time do they seem to ever begin to compare uh this to the three thousand or near three thousand people that were killed on September eleventh in one fell swoop.
In addition to that, since it doesn't appear that the count is piling fast enough, they're continuing to add Afghanistan numbers to our numbers here.
I just wondered if you had any comment on that.
Uh no, it you know, I'm I get email all the time from proud parents of our fighting men and women, and they always are asking the same thing.
Why don't we get the positive news out there?
And the what what Rush calls the drive-by media or I call the institutional media.
The there's I guess that just doesn't sell papers.
It just doesn't work.
But luckily, Rush does have that kind of information on his show on a regular basis because he talks with people who are just back from Iraq or are there in Iraq from time to time that can fill us in on the positive aspects and the good things that our men and women are doing.
Bruce, I'm glad you brought that up as we go to Dale in Warwick, Rhode Island.
Dale, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show with Paul W. Smith.
Hello, Dale.
Yes.
I think the New York Times and any other newspaper in this country or any other media outlet should be prosecuted to the fullest because there's a lot of lies on the line, and this is the war that's gonna go on for a little bit.
Not before election day or not after election day.
Just don't do that again.
And I'm asking attorney Gonzalez and whoever has prosecutorial powers to protect our troops and our homeland.
Well, and you know, Dale, he was a little bit stronger on that than he was a week ago on the possibility of following up on what many people have suggested that in fact they uh find out who's leaking these secrets in, and I still don't understand who the New York Times is helping by leaking this information.
They have this great big responsibility to help.
I I don't know who they're helping other than the terrorists and harming possibly our soldiers uh on the ground.
We are at war.
Uh it just doesn't appear that that the that the the institutional media knows that or accepts that.
Margaret, in Gun Barrel City, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Uh Margaret, hello.
Hello.
Uh, Mr. Smith, my my question was how would you respond to the New York Times, their first uh defense of publishing the financial um saying that they're doing uh that the government's saying was to say that oh well the terrorists already they're smart, they figured that out.
So, you know, it's it's no big deal for them to go about it, which means that the American public that they had to tell about it must be a lot stupider than the people over there who are trying to kill us.
You know, I I really think anybody who takes the Times is probably in that category, but I don't feel like I belong there.
And I I didn't know they were doing it.
I hoped they were doing something like that.
But I don't know.
I want I want our president, I want this administration to do everything they possibly can do to protect us.
They would be derelict in their duty to us if they did not.
And I don't know w I don't know where the New York Times is coming from in any of this other than trying to embarrass and make this administration look bad.
It it's it appears to be uh what they live for now.
We uh continue here with your calls and with guests on the Rush Limbaugh show.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
Celebrating two hundred and thirty years of freedom, well one day shy of that this is the Rush Limbaugh show.
I'm Paul W. Smith in for Rush Best of Rush tomorrow, then the best Rush in person the day after.
The book is the one percent doctrine deep inside America's pursuit of its enemies since nine eleven.
Since there's been so much discussion about what the New York Times has revealed and all of that you you have to point to this book and say well Ron has been on top of this sort of stuff for quite some time.
He's the author of the number one New York Times bestseller The Price of Loyalty, George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill, uh author of a variety of other books you read his work in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere.
Uh and Ron Suskin is on the other end of our line right now.
Ron happy holiday to you.
Happy holiday to you Paul.
Last time we talked you were you were kind of scratching your head saying well you know this information that's being released is nothing compared to the information you're releasing in your book but you're not uh you're not putting yourself in the same position are you with the New York Times where some people think it's a bit treasonous to release this kind of information.
No no you know the fact is every point of information, every disclosure in my book uh we went through a very very careful vetting process to make sure that this is something that would not in v uh advantage our enemies and that was the key to um to the key to what I've got in my book.
Uh obviously the Swiss stuff's not in there.
Well you know it many people have this idea that the President Bush is disengaged from all of this and that information is just brought to him and and he kind of goes okay or whatever.
But you point out in the book his incredible intense day to day involvement.
No it's uh you know he they say he has gone operational the president is deeply involved in uh in the day to day I mean he is on the case and so is the vice president what you see in the book you know it's uh I think the Dallas uh morning news had a review this morning they had a nice title a thriller rooted in reality you'll see the president and the vice president essentially guiding the ship of state in a daily mission to uh to stop terrorists.
What uh the the way your book uh the one percent doctrine Ron Suskin got all the attention was uh the uh the excerpt in uh Time magazine which uh which really revealed the the untold story of Al Qaeda's plot to attack the subways.
This is the first instance Paul uh uh the first evidence we have of an actual operational WMD cell for Al Qaeda in the United States that came in the fall of two thousand and two but early two thousand and three they were forty five days away from zero hour uh to conduct a hydrogen cyanide attack in the New York City subways and we found out through human intelligence part of the what the book shows is that a lot of the signal intelligence and the electronic stuff that's in the Times story and others other areas it's of increasingly uh lessened value.
Human intelligence is what's going to win this war and we had some here a source inside of Al Qaeda it's a very heartening thing and he told us he said look they were ready to go and Zawahari, Bin Laden's number two, called them off.
Now we don't know why they called them off, but he did call them off.
We don't frankly know where they are now they could be still in the country.
Is this your famous source Ali?
Ali indeed indeed I I dub him Ali he I don't know his name make make that clear to everybody no one calling me I was going to figure out where the devil he is but what I do know is that we used him from late 2002 to early 2005 and we decommissioned him essentially because uh his help might have might have revealed his identity.
And the fact is is it is that what everybody in this counterterrorism world says is that human intelligence is what's going to win this war on terror.
And the way you get it is by making a reasonable case uh to our enemy.
You know, this guy Ali, just like other guys we've worked with frankly inside of Al Qaeda, you know, they're not that happy.
Some of them are feeling Bin Laden's move to attack America was a mistake you know, like any organization, time passes are second guessing and disgruntlement.
This is how you basically get someone to turn uh turn coat and turn in your your direction.
That's how we win it.
Explain to our Rush Limbaugh listeners how this uh this this one percent doctrine came about, how it was created by the Vice President.
Yeah, it's really it's an extraordinary moment.
It's two months after nine eleven, Paul.
And the Vice President is being briefed by CIA folks from NSC are there in the situation room in the White House with some harrowing intelligence.
Just a few weeks before nine eleven, Pakistani nuclear scientists sat with bin Laden and Zawahari in Khandahar around a campfire, and they talked about nuclear weapons, how to do it, what the feasibility was.
The Vice President is sitting listening to this briefing, and he says two things.
He says, you know, we need to think about these low-probability, high-impact events in a different way.
And by the end of the briefing, he had the different way.
He said, if there's even a one percent chance that WMDs have been given to terrorists, we need to treat it as a certainty.
Not in our analysis or in the preponderance of evidence, but in our response.
And at that moment, the so called one percent doctrine, the Cheney doctrine, the one percent rule, they're different names for it inside of the government, was born.
And it ends up being the guiding principle, the core of the U.S. playbook uh for foreign policy since nine eleven.
Iraq, Afghanistan, the war in terror, all of it guided by uh by by the Vice President's uh innovation.
That's and i th and that kind of sums it up and why we're where we are today.
If there's a one percent chance that Al Qaeda could get its hands on a weapon of mass destruction, and they had several, we need to treat it as a certainty.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
It's a stark book.
The fact is we are up against a historical change here when individual small groups can carry the firepower once reserved for nations.
The whole dance of state to state force and diplomacy that we know from diplomats and you know, Talleyrand and Metternich and George Cannon.
I mean, those days are are are ending.
We need to have a response, and they're trying to figure out how exactly to respond in a way that's going to be successful.
All right, a quick chance uh for a person to, I guess, disagree with the whole premise here.
I'm not exactly sure.
Is it Lena or Lana?
It's Lana.
Lana, you've got uh Ron Suskin here on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
What what is uh is uh are you upset with something here?
Hi, Paul.
Yes, I uh forced myself to watch uh Mr. Suskind on um C SPAN.
It was something at a bookstore in Washington on his book, um on 626.
Right.
And one of the statements he made at the end of his little presentation about the book was your enemy is the Christian right.
No, I never said that.
Yes, you did.
No, no, no, no.
I said I said to the folks at politics in Washington, DC I said, make no mistake, is that there are bookstores filled with uh with uh uh true believing Christians across America.
You need to engage them.
Essentially you need to know them and let them know you to have a real dialogue.
That's what I said to the group.
You said your enemy is the Christian right, and you said they have to be a good thing.
I've never said that one because I don't believe it.
I'd never say that.
Well, it's uh tough because the rest of us aren't in on this, so we we we I c I can't help you.
I'm glad you at least had a chance to have your say.
He denies uh ever saying it.
But appreciate the call.
Uh let's let's go real quick to uh uh Rapid City where we find Don who is on with Ron Suskin on the the Rush Limbaugh show.
Go ahead, Don.
Uh yeah, Paul, this is Don, and uh I feel that uh my military training clearly defined what treason was, and I feel that several members of Congress as well as the news media have uh actively uh done treasonous acts.
And we should bring them up on charges and r fully establish in the courts of law what treason is and what it is not.
Let's let Don let's let him uh answer before we have to take a quick break here.
Go ahead, Ron.
Well, you know, I'm not sure how you're defining treason, Don.
It sounds like you've got a a clear understanding or definition of it.
Uh you know, I I think that uh there are lots of folks uh in and around the government and the public who are trying to get the facts so they can make informed judgments and figure out, frankly, a way to fight and win this war.
It's gonna be a it's gonna be one that we're fighting to our grandchildren are around, and we've got to figure out how to fight it and win it.
That's that's what I find.
All right.
If you can uh stick around a little longer, we're moving everything along here a little bit, stretching out if we can keep you just a bit longer, Ron.
Ron Suskin.
As long as you want, Paul.
The one percent doctrine Deep Inside America's pursuit of its enemy since 911, Simon and Schuster, the uh publisher.
And uh back to your calls at 1800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
Right here on your favorite radio station with the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
All right, uh we'll uh wrap up here the one percent doctrine deep inside America's pursuit of its enemies since nine eleven, Ron Suskin is here, and uh people calling in want to uh want to talk with you.
Uh quick question, do you what do you think of the latest uh Bin Laden tape?
Uh the latest bin Laden tape.
Yeah.
Well, you know, um bin Laden uh I think is increasingly uh reduced to a guy who basically sends tapes.
Yeah, we put it to rap music on my morning show in Detroit, and and actually made it the most interesting tape yet that's been released by uh Bin Laden.
I recommend that to everybody.
Mocking bin Laden, I think that's a patriotic move, frankly, Paul.
Yes.
It gives you plenty of material.
No disclosures in the one percent doctrine that compromise our national security?
Uh not one.
Not one.
I mean what people find when they read it is that they're actually meeting heroes of this struggle.
Uh folks who are often unheralded, but you know, FBI, CIA, other parts of the government who are out there fighting this global game of cat and mouse.
And the and the fact is I'm getting lots of calls from sixteen-year-olds who said, you know, well, I want to grow up to be one of those guys.
I think that's that's in a in a way what's what's gonna be the key thing for us is to have kids say that is the way you act heroically in this era.
You get involved and you actually get in the fight.
Let's uh let's see what our our listeners to the Rush Limbaugh Show are feeling about that.
Linda is in New York City on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Paul W. Smith.
Linda, you're with uh Ron Suskin.
Hi, Paul.
Uh Mr. Suskind, you are a liar and a political prostitute.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
What you said yesterday on C SPAN was not the same thing you're telling the people today.
Is it because you're selling a book?
You shameless.
Try to stay calm and just say what it is that you felt he said on C SPAN.
He he portrayed first of all President Bush as an idiot.
No, no, no.
Oh, yes, yes.
Yes, yes.
Well, I sometimes poke fun at all kinds of people and and you know, it's uh it's a bookstore and people are crowded in and they're getting laughs.
But the fact is that the president and the vice president, as anyone who reads the book knows, uh are fully engaged in the war on terror.
That's why lots of conservatives, frankly, have embraced the book.
I was on Sean Hannity, he was saying, look, lots in this book I like, and let's talk about that, and conservative columnists too.
The fact is the book has something kind of for everybody.
There's some stuff liberals like, some stuff conservatives like, and that's the way it is when you have a book that is full of the the facts we've been denied up to now.
All right, let's uh see what Rich has to say.
Is it Vandalia, Michigan?
Rich?
Vandalia, Michigan.
Hey, thanks.
This is the first time in my life I get to call.
I was infuriated yesterday when I was watching TV and I saw Ron on there, and he uh he made comments about Bush that that my wife said, Why are you listening to that guy?
I was I was really sickening, and now I'm listening to him today, I'm even sick more.
He's got to do two different sides to him.
Ron, we got a we got a number of people were call calling in and saying that.
I didn't see you on C SPAN.
What happened there?
Well, you know, the the fact is that I was on C SPAN.
I was at a bookstore in Washington.
It's you know, it's let's say say a progressive crowd, and they were uh asking questions, and you know, it was generally a cheery time, and and the fact is I said there pretty much what I'm saying now.
You know, this is a this is a battle we need to fight and win.
The book is an essential how-to.
The things we've learned, the things we haven't, the things we need to do going forward.
Well, I never got the impression.
Now one of the things I did say at the bookstore yesterday is I said we need to think clearly about the dilemma of ends and means.
You I'm sure you saw that.
That's my kicker.
That's why I ended that speech.
Uh it happened a couple days ago, to say we m we need to be mindful of the fact that sometimes our means are creating more problems than we're solving.
And we need to think clearly about how what we do uh creates echoes around the world and and provides recruiting possibilities uh for our enemies.
That's one of the things that's really a dilemma.
You can understand how our audience on the Rush Limbaugh show would start to think you're getting into some dangerous territory there, and me too.
How so?
Well, be because you're you're starting to make it sound like we've brought this upon ourselves somewhere or not.
Paul, the point is how do we fight this effectively?
Effectiveness means that you do what's ever necessary, but you don't do things that hand weapons to your enemy.
That's the key.
To be effective but not advantage them by certain things you do.
That's the way you get tactics to be fine-tuned and focused in a way that frankly brings victory.
And the whole point about the one percent doctrine is that uh inside of the government even now, they're thinking they need a better doctrine, one that that embraces a broader strategy so that our actions are flowing to some goal in terms of a victory that we can see up ahead.
How do we how do we do that?
We need to win this hearts and minds battle.
At the same time, we need to win the tactical battle, which is a minute to minute battle against people who frankly are violent, malevolent, uh heavily armed, and uh and are enemies unlike any enemies we've seen.
Let's get a couple more calls in and uh snerdley uh oh okay.
Very good.
We're we we we have uh uh uh we're we're gonna take uh uh line two here and uh find out what your uh uh because Mike Jim Jack Ron and uh and uh Peter and all the rest are waiting to uh talk a little bit later, but is it Peter you're saying uh Jay uh Peter uh you get the nod from Bo Snerdley in Kansas City and the the final call here for uh Ron Suskin.
Peter.
Yes, good morning.
Peter, you're on the uh Rush Limbo Show.
Are you there?
Fine, how are you?
Good.
Go ahead, please.
Um Ron, how are you?
Hi, Peter, how are you?
Happy Fourth of July.
Now I'm gonna say a very unkind thing.
So uh rip, that's what America's all about.
You can throw the dart there.
Speak it, speak it.
And I I'm not politically correct at all.
That's blood of rep. First of all, are you are you you remember David Suscott?
Are you related to him?
Second cousin once removed.
Pardon me?
Second cousin once removed.
Never met the man he but they tell me we're a distant cousin.
I have a problem as a transplanted German who sees things in a different focus from most Americans who are not awake yet to the fact that this country is laden actually and too heavily with a certain uh kind of person, if you know what I'm saying here.
I'm trying to be very politically correct here.
Yeah, well, you just said Peter that you weren't gonna be politically correct in Speaker.
Well, I'm I'm I'm I'm nearly on the coward.
What Peter Peter, what kind of just what kind of personality?
If you can sum up your if you could do your quick question here.
What kind of person are you thinking about?
I'm talking about the ones that run uh New York, Hollywood.
No, no, no.
Peter, Peter, I can't press the buttons.
That's the bad thing about working out of another studio.
I would have killed that one a long time ago.
Uh on that uh unhappy note, the one percent doctrine, deep inside America's pursuit of its enemies since nine eleven.
Ron Suskin is the author.
Simon and Schuster, the publisher, you can pick it up, make your own decisions.
You can either like 'em or you can dislike them, and we hear from both sides here on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Paul W. Smith in for Rush.
Stay with us.
As we continue on the Rush Limbaugh Show, I'm Paul W. Smith.
Uh taking all pitches, uh curves, uh hardballs, uh fastballs, rather, uh slow pitches and bloopers, too.
We had a couple of bloopers.
We go from one Ron to another, Ron.
This is Congressman Ron Lewis has represented Kentucky's second district since uh first being sworn in Congress, May 26, 1994, home of Fort Knox, Mammoth Cave National Park, the birthplace of Abraham Lincoln, and uh over fifty thousand people who depend on agriculture for a living, so they're probably pretty excited about ethanol.
Congressman, good mor uh nice to have you here with us.
Hey, listen, good to be with you.
Yeah, we've got it all down here.
Well, you know, uh I'm speaking to you from Detroit, and you know that our uh the big two are trying to push those vehicles uh that are gonna run on ethanol, just trying to get the president of the United States attention on that one, I guess, on some of the other issues facing the auto industry.
Well, I tell you, we're uh we're excited about the opportunity for ethanol.
In fact, uh there's a new ethanol plant uh refinery being built uh not too far from where I live in in uh the second district, and then we have a biodiesel uh fuel refinery being built uh in Owensboro, Kentucky, had a uh a soybean mill there.
So we're getting uh we're getting on top of this.
I think that is uh a real opportunity for us to reach energy independence uh sooner than later.
One of the big concerns that we have as Congress takes their break, and here we have a Republican controlled Congress and uh they said it was going to be energy week and all these things that were going to happen and uh I think all that has happened is uh that that the that you were able to get rid of the uh the twenty five year ban on most new domestic offshore drilling but there are a whole bunch of unanswered questions still Congressman.
Well, and we're still working on that.
We have another energy bill coming down the pike.
But, you know, we just need to set a goal, just like John Kennedy set a goal to putting a man on the moon in 10 years.
We need to set a goal of being energy independent at a date certain time.
And I think with ethanol refineries, we don't need new technology to biodiesel refineries.
In fact, I kid and say here in the 2nd District of Kentucky, we've been making ethanol for a long time, but it's been for personal consumption with the bourbon industry.
But we could, you know, if we put our resources and our energy behind getting these ethanol refineries in place and the biodiesel refineries, you know, the opportunities for renewable fuel, I mean, that's the key.
You know, we can solve two problems here.
We can take care of our economic security by making sure that we can provide our own resources for our own fuel, whether it's drilling in anwar, whether it's building these ethanol and biodiesel refineries, using coal for coal gasification, or the oil shell we have in this country, or the tar sands that Canada uses for oil.
We have all that here.
We just need to say, look, in five years, we're going to have a lot of oil and oil.
We're going to have a lot of oil gonna be uh we're gonna be two energy independence if it if it's just on ethanol we need to get the ethanol uh uh tanks in the ground at the retail outlets I was encouraged by uh Walmart saying they're going to start selling E 85 ethanol I think that may get the momentum going.
But you I like I said we can solve two problems our economic security and our national security.
If we can tell the Middle East and and Chavez down in Venezuela we don't need you guys anymore.
We don't need your oil then I think a lot of our problems that we're facing with terror and a lot of the problems coming out of Iran and and other areas we could we could solve a lot of that.
Well and and to avoid that gridlock Congress name we're hoping that you can then solve that get that comprehensive energy package that's been elusive uh change the immigration policies, tighten the lobbying rules, overhaul the the pension plans and and renew some of the key provisions of the voting rights act.
There's a lot out there and in terms of our economic security Congressman if we don't get the out of control spending under control, we got a real problem here.
Well, I agree with that, and we've done a lot.
Last year, we were able to address the entitlement spending, and we were able to cut $40 billion from the entitlement spending.
This year, we have reduced the discretionary spending, the earmarked spending, by I think like 37%.
We've cut it by $7.5 billion below last year.
We are reforming the earmark process.
But there's a lot more.
Congressman do you agree uh that that with the earmark process right now i if it if it can't stay in the light of day it shouldn't be there at all.
Oh, I agree.
I agree 100%.
It ought to be open for everyone to look at, because we really are in a crisis in this country.
And it's basically, you know, earmarks are a problem.
The discretionary spending is a problem.
But when you look at the discretionary spending, the entitlement programs, I don't know if you've ever heard David Walker, the Comptroller General of the General Accountability Office, talk about our unfunded liabilities and debt.
Our children and grandchildren are going to pay...
an unbelievable price if we don't if we don't get control of the entitlement spending Social Security has to be fixed and it has to be fixed right away.
We can't wait until the problem hits.
And it it's going to hit before we know it.
On about uh about fifteen years, we're going to be uh there our kids are going to be hit with a debt, and that that is something they can't handle.
It's just it will be impossible for them to handle.
So it's not a matter whether benefits will be reduced with social security or whether the the reality is that by the time my daughter or my son retires, there will be no social.
There'll be no Medicare.
There, in fact, all the Congressman as the Federal Treasurer be gone.
You certainly understand the frustration that we the people have hearing that from somebody who's in the body that's supposed to fix it.
Well, and well, let me just give you an example.
We had a great plan to fix Social Security, and it would have it would have fixed Social Security and saved the traditional Social Security, and it would have created surpluses as far as the eye could see in the Social Security Trust Fund in the years to come.
But the Democrats, the Liberal Democrats in Congress, said no.
The only way it can be fixed is by increasing the payroll tax by cutting benefits and increasing the uh the uh age limit for retirement.
In fact, Charlie Wrangell said just a few weeks uh ago or months ago in uh enroll call that if he's the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he's going to do just that.
He's going to increase payroll taxes, he's going to cut benefits, and he's going to increase the retirement age.
That I mean, the American people need to know what you know the liberals like Charlie Wrangler are going to do if they gain the c game control of the House.
And let me say this too.
If the Democrats had been in power for the last four years, they would have been a hundred and six billion dollars more uh in spending than than the Republican Congress.
And I'm not saying that as an excuse for our spending, because we do need to cut spending.
But there's some of us have been saying that the Congress has been spending like uh drunken Democrats and uh Well and and it would have been worse under them, but but again, we need we need to s to look at everything and make sure we hold the line on spending, because it our kids and grandkids are going to pay for it if we don't.
All right.
Well, we'll hold you to that, Congressman, because that's all we can do.
That's exactly right.
All right.
Happy holl happy holiday to you.
Thank you for joining us.
Thanks, Paul.
All right, to Representative Ron Lewis from Kentucky here on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I am Paul W. Smith.
Nice to be with you.
Some final words uh heading into this uh holiday uh tomorrow.
Again, uh reminder, the best of Rush tomorrow on the program, and then the day after he'll be here live again, right here on your favorite radio station for the Rush Limbaugh show.
Stay with us.
You can't have the Fourth of July without John Phillips Sousa.
You just can't.
It's if it isn't a law, and we have too many of them, it should be it shouldn't be a law.
This is from Mike Mamon's personal collection at home, our engineer there in New York.
Bo Snerdly, our producer, thanks for all your help in guiding us through what some of these uh landmines today.
Uh Mike Abbott helping here in the Golden Tower of the Fisher Building, and we appreciate you tuning in every Monday through Friday to this your favorite radio station for the Rush Limbaugh Show and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where there's never a final exam, but we are tested every day, and it's been my pleasure and privilege to be here with you as a fellow student.
Uh my name is Paul W. Smith.
And uh before we go, I remind us all that uh it happened tomorrow, July 4th, 1776, the unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States uh colonies of America, when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station of which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them.
A decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Please fly your flag and remember at least the beginning of the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.
Then among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
This would be a good time for you, Mamon, to bring back John Philip Sousa, as I say, happy two hundred and thirtieth birthday of our freedom, celebrating two hundred and thirty years of freedom for Rush Limbaugh.
▲
Export Selection