All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
September 5, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, I just got to read a little bit of what the president said in his speech today about the war on terror.
And real sketchy, but he he referred to the uh opponents, the war on terror as appeasers again.
Oh, that just infuriates them.
When they're called appeasers, when they're called cut and run.
In fact, we got an audio soundbite from this morning to let you uh uh uh illustrate that.
Hey, greetings and welcome back.
It's Rush Lynn Boss, serving humanity, talent on loan from God uh here at 800-282-2882.
This is uh it's uh number four.
Mike uh CNN American Morning, Miles O'Brien interviewing Senator Schumer.
Uh question, I mean we can all do the Monday morning quarterbacking as to whether it was a good idea to go to Iraq in the first place, but what do you uh what do you say to that?
This idea of calling names, you know, cut and run or appeasement isn't gonna work.
You know, it worked in 2002 and it worked in 2004, because Americans were basically happy with our foreign policy.
Now they're not.
They're demanding answers, they're getting some answers from Democrats, but none from Republicans other than sloganeering.
That's what's helping us in these elections.
I swear, uh it's exact opposite.
Man's delusional.
It's the exact opposite.
We're getting nothing but sloganeering from the Democrats, and it's sloganeering that benefits the enemy.
Uh fact, if you look at a lot of polls, most people don't want to pull out of a rock, Senator Schumer.
And if you think that you lost elections because Republicans called you names, then you had better think again.
You didn't lose elections because you were called names.
You lost elections because of who you are and what you believe and what you said.
This proves a point that I have been trying to make to people while trying to calm you down about these supposedly disastrous results that we're headed for in November.
These people on the Democrat side still can't come to grips with the fact that they are the ones being rejected.
They can't come to grips with the fact that they are the ones losing elections.
They still blame things that have nothing to do with their defeat.
And as long as they do that, they're never going to figure it out.
Now they think it's they get swift boated and name-calling uh appeasers, uh uh cut and run, this sort of stuff.
It's exactly what they're saying.
They are appeasers.
They you want to use diplomacy.
They do want to cut and run.
Mirtha, they rallied around Mertha like you can't believe.
He's the guy that wanted to redeploy to Okinawa.
So we could make a fast reinsertion into Iraq if we had to.
Uh I'm I'm telling you, these as long as they keep uh keep themselves in denial, they they are not going to be able to come to grips with uh why they're losing.
And until they do that, folks, they're not going to figure out what they need to do to uh to win.
Tests of a deep water well in the Gulf of Mexico could indicate a significant oil discovery, according to three companies today in the first project to tap into a region that reportedly could boost U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50%.
It's called the Jack Two well.
It was drilled about 5.3 miles deep by Chevron uh with a couple of partners.
State Oil ASA of Norway and Devon Energy Corporation of Oklahoma City.
During the test, the Jack Two well sustained a flow rate of more than 6,000 barrels of oil per day.
Test results are very encouraging, may indicate a significant discovery.
Full magnitude of the field's potential is still being uh uh defined.
Discovery has industry-wide implications.
They may be the first ones to hit the jackpot, but if the current thinking is correct, this is only a beginning.
Other companies will emerge as good or better, uh, said uh said analysts.
So we we've got they went five five point three miles.
Now it the the the uh current technology, uh uh I think the if I read this right, uh the bringing oil up from this uh find would be economically justified only by oil prices over fifty or fifty-five dollars a barrel.
It'll take almost two years to start coming online.
Now, I'm reading about this is all being portrayed here as great news.
Big news, and it I and it still it still strikes me.
Why wasn't Anwar uh considered good news as well?
I mean, if if this could if this could boost our U.S. oil and gas reserves by as much as 50%, now ANWAR wasn't going to do that, uh, but it was significant.
I mean, it could take out Venezuela from the equation, I get equaled the output from uh from Texas.
Um, and war was vetoed ten years ago during the Clinton administration.
Uh we could get, I don't know, I don't know, if this thing could boost the production by 50%.
I don't know how many barrels of oil a day that is.
But it's great that if this turns out to be true, this is good news for the country and bad news for liberals, and even worse news for liberals.
Uh because the way they're structured, anything that's good for America is bad for them right now.
The economy is going great guns.
We are at full employment.
Democrats trying to make misery and doom and gloom out of that.
Another way another thing that's not panning out the way they thought, this is an AP story.
Immigration protests that drew hundreds of thousands of flag waving demonstrators to the nation's streets last spring, promised a potent political legacy, surge of new Hispanic voters.
Today we march, tomorrow we vote, they proclaimed.
But an associated press survey of uh voter registration figures from Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, and other major urban areas that had large rallies, found no sign of a new voter boom among Hispanics that could sway elections.
There was a rise in uh in Los Angeles, where 500,000 people protested in March, but it was more of a trickle than a torrent.
Protest organizers, principally unions, Hispanic advocacy groups, and the Catholic Church acknowledge it's been on very hard to translate street activism into voting cloud, though they insist they can reach their uh goal of a million new voters by 2008.
Now, when I when I see this, it infuriates me on a number of levels.
Number one, this idiotic, stupid, worthless Senate emigration bill authored by Senator McCain, is predicated on the notion that we better do what we can to get these voters.
And you talk about appeasement.
The Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Senate were out there talking about these are the future of America.
This is a back boat of America.
These are people doing jobs Americans won't do.
All of this was designed to lure Hispanic voters into the Republican Party, and the Democrats are trying to get them into the Democratic Party.
Democrats are out there actually recruiting in these protests.
It's just infuriated.
The whole motivation for that stupid Senate bill is a wash.
And look at look at the uh animosity they've created among their own base.
Look at the animosity Republicans ended up creating in their own voters over this by pandering to a group of people who haven't even been moved to sign up to register to vote.
Another thing it tells me is how many of those people protesting were actually illegals.
You know, i uh uh i i in most cases, and we make jokes about it, but it's it's it's gonna be difficult to register to vote if you're illegal.
You're not gonna show up and do it for fear of getting caught or what have you.
Um the the next thing that's troublesome about it is that the uh the the whole the whole notion that the future of the Republican Party hinges on a specific group of new voters and that we're gonna come up with a piece of legislation that panders to them rather than deal with the issue is just frustrating as hell.
And the House Republicans, as I mentioned earlier, and as you know now, have shelved the whole thing.
They've got 19 days left before they go on another recess, this one for the election.
So they'd have 19 days to put together an immigration bill.
They know it's a sort of a catch-22.
Many House Republicans would love to do it, so they go out and campaign on it.
And they they the House bill was good.
It was, it was, well, better than the Senate bill by far.
But if they do it and they produce a bill, it's gonna die in the Senate, and it's gonna make the party look totally ineffective.
And that's not gonna be good going into the elections.
So they decided to shelve it because they don't have enough time and they can't get it passed in the Senate anyway.
And they also realize that they're not going to get a whole lot of support out there for trying.
On this issue, the effort is appreciated, but it's it there's a lot more expected here than just effort on the part of uh Republican base voters and millions of other Americans too that may not even be part of the uh Republican base.
Uh the House is the only body that's been right on this.
But but McCain and sadly the White House led the Senate and define what this bill is going to be, and it and that makes the House effort to get this done impossible.
So if they run with it and lose, it'll only highlight their impotence and hurt them.
So they have to hold back.
But it's a big problem because of the White House and McCain, and the party may suffer from it.
The worst thing is it's just a huge opportunity being blown because of this.
It's just it's it's it's been sitting there all year.
There's there's been ample time for leadership.
This is what I mean.
When the White House comes out, takes a position on something that's uh uh opposite what conservatives in the in the House want to do, they're kind of stuck.
And they hung tough, I think, for as long as they could, and they refuse to go to conference on the Senate bill.
So you can you can boil it down, okay.
We're not gonna get a bill, but that's better than a bad bill.
And that that is going to be the message resonating from here.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, I don't think we're going to lose the House.
I don't buy conventional wisdom and the drive-by media is not right about a lot of things lately, and they're making too big an effort here already to make it look like it's already a lock.
But if we do, if we do lose Congress, it won't be because of Iraq, and it won't be because of the war on terror.
It'll be because of the moderates in the Senate who have sway over the party given a thin majority in the Senate regarding open borders and the White House and the Senate's wrong position on this issue.
If we lose it, if people sit out, if Republicans in exasperation say to hell with it, it's going to be over immigration, illegal immigration is not going to have a thing to do with Iraq or any of that.
The Liberals are going to want to say that we will lose over Iraq because they want to downplay the fact that they're dead wrong on illegal immigration, too.
They want to focus attention elsewhere.
And the war is vitally important.
But from a purely political perspective.
The illegal immigration issue is the priority issue of the day that neither party has the guts to run on because they're so afraid of offending the Hispanic vote.
Well, now look, there isn't one.
There's no great grand new registration among Hispanics.
The fear was worthless.
It was just a bunch of people, mostly anti-war advocates, if you want to know the truth, and a bunch of other disparate, fringe wacko groups who saw protest out there and said, Hey, it's the Vietnam 60s all over again, went out and got involved in it.
And it was made to look much bigger than it was.
It was made to look like it was all about illegal immigration when it wasn't.
It was protesting against the government and against the administration, the usual rabble, the usual human debris out there causing a ruckus, but all these elected officials quaking in fear over the fact that look at all the new voters were infuriated.
What new voters?
It's a trickle.
There hasn't been any significant voter registration, all these protests to even make a debt in this.
This is a sorry, sorry, shameless episode.
In our party and the Democratic Party as well, as well as the U.S. Congress.
Back in just a second.
Okay, so what are the Republicans going to do if they're going to if they're going to shelve immigration?
What are they going to do when they go out there and campaign?
Well, in addition to talking up national security.
The Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper, is reporting that House Republicans plan an appeal to the conservative base on fiscal responsibility in a legislative last stand before voters decide their fate in November.
The second week of September, Republican leaders are going to unveil a resolution commemorating the five-year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks that same week will also tackle earmark reform in another attempt to win back disgruntled conservatives upset with congressional Republicans for what they see as a failure to curb government spending.
Now they haven't come up with the rules changes yet.
They're not complete, but the House is expected to vote on a bill that would require individual members to attach their names to all earmarked projects in each of the appropriations, tax and authorizing bills.
The initial changes which were included in broader uh lobbying reform package applied solely to appropriations bills.
So um Jack Kingston in New York said I think we'll have a meaningful September, but it's it's got to be meaningful enough for us to keep our majority.
All right.
This isn't gonna get passed before the election, and it's not going to get signed into law, just like the immigration bill wouldn't.
Uh but they uh they are going to do uh what they can to at least demo the effort here.
Uh also what they're gonna what they're gonna do, and and these are these are good things uh as well.
The uh the House uh well, the Republicans, House and Senate, uh are gonna author spending bills for the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.
Uh the rest of the agenda, as I understand it, Republicans are are going to produce uh uh legislation uh uh that would give approval to the Bush administration's domestic spying program.
It's not a domestic spying program.
I'm reading this from the Los Angeles Times.
It's a foreign surveillance program, and there's not one Democrat that wants to shut it down.
And that's this is gonna be great.
I hope they do this.
Because you know, they've we've had this judge say in Eastern Michigan, you can't do it, it's unconstitutional.
So the Republicans are gonna say, okay, we're gonna give it congressional approval, get it the press president's signature.
We're gonna go ahead and define this program or to say it's okay to do.
Now, the Democrats is gonna be time to put up or shut up on this.
I hope they do this more than they do this earmark business.
Um I know that's important to a lot of you, but frankly, folks, uh honest with you, I don't ever expect Federal spending to go down.
It never has in my lifetime, and I'm I'm not living pie in the sky on it.
It's what elected officials do is spend money, and it's it isn't gonna change.
Discipline, yeah, but if if if you think uh there's gonna be significant movement, especially now before the election, you're dreaming.
But if they can put the Democrats on the defensive here by coming up with an actual program that allows foreign surveillance, uh legislation produced by Congress, that debate, that debate, the Democrats you know will oppose it even though they don't.
They'll have to oppose it because of their of their of their kook fringe.
The Republicans are also going to propose a new plan for using military tribunals to try terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay.
The Democrats shot that, or a judge did, and uh they're gonna try to get that as an act of legislation.
The judge took over the role of commander-in-chief.
And so those are a couple things that they uh are gonna try.
I want to go to the sound bites of of uh Casey and Santorum.
Let's uh let's go to number 10 first.
Um unlike all these Republicans in name only, Santorum is is standing by his principles.
Here he stands by Donald Rumsfeld.
I'll be happy to start there.
Uh, I think Secretary Rumsfeld has done a fine job as the defense secretary, and uh the problems that uh we are confronting are problems of an enemy that's a very potent enemy, much more potent than I think anybody ever anticipated.
We need to go out there and continue uh to fight this war on Islamic fascism, not just as my opponent likes to focus on just the war in Iraq.
That's a front of a multifront war in which we're fighting against an enemy that is a very dangerous enemy.
Now get this one.
This is uh Sam Torum's debating uh uh uh uh Bob Casey.
Bob Casey Jr., who may be the worst performance in public by a politician I've ever seen.
It was embarrassing.
Here they have this exchange about the surveillance program.
Listen, you support more intelligence gathering because your party uh has been out of front trying to undermine our surveillance programs.
You're the one who's gone Out and said that you have serious questions about our intelligence surveillance programs.
What do you think has kept our people safe?
What do you think stopped the British the British attack?
You folks have been the party, as you have been the party, of making sure that we don't have the intelligence gathering capability that we need.
And uh have joined in the party of debate.
I'm debating you, and I'm and I've looked at your comments saying that you have serious concerns about our our our surveillance programs.
I don't.
I think they're surveillance that we should keep the program.
No, we should keep the program.
Bob Casey ends up saying no, we should keep the program.
And that's the position of all the there hadn't been one move made to defund the program.
They're just purposely lying about it and mischaracterizing it as a domestic spy program as uh part of their campaign.
And Casey was nailed there by Rick Santorum.
Back with more right after this brief timeout.
All right, get this.
City of Chicago, State of Illinois promoting an event to honor Mexican independence.
The celebration called the second annual Mexican Independence Skyline Tribute will feature prominent buildings throughout Chicago being bathed in Mexico's national colors of red, white, and green for six days, beginning Tuesday, September the twelfth.
The tribute uh uh recognizes the um the important role of Mexican Americans have played in Chicago over the last century from the early days of the railroad and the stockyard industries through the steel mill boom to the president, according to a website promoting the tribute.
Today, an estimated 550,000 Mexican Americans live in the Chicago area.
Twenty businesses and landmarks are slated to participate in the second annual Mexican Independence Skyline Tribute in Chicago.
Buildings including the Sears Tower and the Wrigley building will be illuminated with red and green lights, while other buildings and locations will spell out messages such as Viva Viva.
Well, the uh event began last year to mark the September 16th Mexican uh national holiday.
One more soundbite here from uh Santorum and Casey in their debate.
Actually, um to the uh yeah, it was meet the press with Russert, and they had their uh debate.
Uh and the uh this is this is uh an example of Santorum standing behind President Bush.
Absolutely.
I agree with the President, as you see, uh the vast majority of the time.
When I agree with him, I say it.
And uh when I don't agree with him, I I say it too.
You think he's a great president?
I think he's been a terrific president.
Absolutely.
So uh he's not cutting and running.
Santorum not afraid to uh stand with President Bush.
The president out there once again today in a speech of the Military Officers Association of America, really talking up the war on terror.
This is of two reasons.
I'm sure it's it's uh election time, but it's also we're coming up on the five-year anniversary of 9-11.
It's also a very substantive reason.
There are people out there who want us dead uh only because we're alive, and we don't accept their belief in things.
And uh it's an ongoing effort to uh remind the American people that this threat is real and that we all have to face it.
We have three bites, here's the first.
The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001 are men without conscience, but they're not madmen.
They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane.
These Al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists.
They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power.
And this one I love because this is a favorite theme of mine.
You can't negotiate with evil.
I mean, look at folks.
When good negotiates with evil, evil will always win.
When right negotiates with wrong, wrong will always win.
How do you give up such core principles?
What Is there to negotiate?
Here's how the president says it.
In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call infidels.
A category that includes America, the world's free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam.
They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world.
Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year.
Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers among us.
These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom.
It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them.
All right.
Rad on Rado, Radon.
And comparing today's appeasers to the appeasers of Hitler.
The world ignored Hitler's words and paid a terrible price.
His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers and set the world aflame in war before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives.
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them.
The question is, will we listen?
Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?
America and our coalition partners have made our choice.
We're taking the words of the enemy seriously.
We're on the offensive.
We will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight until this threat to civilization has been removed.
Rado.
Raddo, Rado, rado.
All right, so uh while the Democrats are out there talking about we're not safer.
Bush has not made his any favorite.
The president is ratcheting this up and making it clear to anybody who hears it how serious the threat is and what his intentions are in dealing with it.
Mike in Mission Viejo, California, welcome, and I'm glad you waited.
Well, Rush, many dittoes, longtime listener and uh student of yours, and I just appreciate all you do for us.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Appreciate that.
The Republicans, the people who on the Republican side who want to go ahead and um want to show defeat and let the Democrats take over uh very bad thinking.
They ought to take Rush Limbaugh's message, and we ought to stand up and say these Democrats are unpatriotic, they are not supporting our troops, they are not standing with us, and I don't know why they just Republicans can't stand up from the hilltops, take Rush Limbaugh's message, and and come into the election year and tell them that they are unpatriotic.
They are appeasers, they are wanting to run away.
And um it would be a great message, just like the liberal message when we tagged them with liberalism on the United States.
I tell you what, I couldn't agree with you more when, and it's easy to say, you can make it, it's just nothing more than common sense when you have people who are actively invested in our defeat.
How in the world do you not challenge their patriotism?
When you have people trying to undermine the mission in Iraq and the morale of the troops, how do you not challenge their patriotism?
What is it?
It's not just bad judgment.
It's far more than that.
When you've got people trying to destroy the spy program that helps us identify who's going to kill us and when you call that?
When you've got people who want to punish America, the whole country for a few incidents at Abu Grab and Club Gitmo.
More than they are interested in defeating those who want to kill us.
What do you call that?
There when you when you set it up that way, I I've fine I've grown a little weary.
I've over the years, you know, to avoid controversy and to avoid unnecessary uh partisanship.
I have refused to use the word I challenge your patriotism to these people.
I've always pulled back, like everybody else does, and I have questioned their judgment.
But now, this is more than judgment.
They're not just wrong, they're making active decisions here.
They are taking positions which are intended to harm our effort to beat this enemy.
When you have a senator, Dick Durbin, who refers to people at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as the equivalent of Soviet gulags, poll pots, murderers, and Nazis.
And he will not say one word like that about the enemy.
What do you call that?
Now some people might say, eh, Russia's just campaigning and Democrats are just playing to their base and stuff.
That's far more than that.
It is when you have in the drive-by media, not one story on the heroism of any armed services individual in Iraq, and we know that there is lots of heroism.
Same thing in Afghanistan.
Not one story, would all we get are stories about how they are murderers and rapists.
What in the world's patriotic about that?
In fact, it it already has hit a nerve.
Mike, see if you can find fairly quickly.
The screaming Hillary.
She is the best example, the embodiment of just how a nerve has been touched when their patriotism has been challenged.
They have been forced to redefine their patriotism.
Patriotism now is criticizing your country.
That shows valor, and that shows guts, and that shows courage to admit that your country can be wrong.
That's patriotism.
I got you.
And also to criticize the president is now considered patriotic.
Here is how Mrs. What's the date on this thing?
Do we know off top of your head when she made this uh screeching statement?
Well, it's a couple years ago, and this is it's hard to listen to, folks, but it's worth it.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say we are America that we have a right to debate at disagree with that administration.
See?
So the nerves already been touched out there.
Uh if the Democrats keep this up, if they keep up this stance they've got, we're not safer, the administration doesn't care, uh, we're not doing what the 9-11 Commission said.
If they make it look like they want to continue to talk and negotiate with these people rather than wipe them out, uh, the opportunity will be there.
I can't imagine, though.
Anybody actually standing up and saying it, who is elected.
I I can't imagine it.
But, ladies and gentlemen, that's why I am here carrying the torch.
Oh, here we go again.
I'm gonna tell you what's in the news, and you're gonna say, gee, Rush, how many times have we heard this this year?
Democrats push for own religious voice.
Yes.
Jim Kunan, associated press writer, thirteen years ago, David Wilhelm, chairman Democratic Party, told the conservative Christian coalition that good Christians could belong to either major political party.
He was booed and hissed.
Today, Wilhelm wants to spread that message to a different audience, Democrats, and he's hoping for a better response.
With a leading poll showing only one in four Americans viewing the Democratic Party as friendly to religion.
Wilhelm and a broad-based group of Christian Democrat activists are starting an internet effort to organize religious voters whose views might be compatible with Democrats.
They have this website, WW Faithful Democrats.com.
What a pathetic name.
Well, if you have to go out and say you're faithful, there must be some doubt, huh?
Goes online today, it will showcase theologians, party strategists, political leaders, and bloggers in hopes of conducting a national discussion on politics and faith.
Wilbhelm said, It struck me as strange that people whose political world is motivo motivated by faith had to be a Republican.
Democrats need to be on that playing field.
He said the site will give religious Democrats the moral support and some language they can use.
Okay.
Democrats push for their own religious voice.
I mean, shortly after the uh 04 elections.
Well, we're gonna get stronger on values.
The O2 midterm.
Well, we're gonna get stronger on value.
You guys routinely laugh at, impugn, make fun of Christians?
What is it?
Well who do you think you're gonna be fooling?
Democrats push for own religious voice.
You know, the real question that we have for you Democrats is this.
Just what do you want us to believe you have faith in?
It's all about faith.
You have faith in global warming.
You have faith and all these cockamamy oddball kook issues.
What is it you have faith in?
Christianity is Christianity.
Religious values are what they are.
You don't need a new language to help Democrats communicate this.
I guess they think they do, because if they go out and actually talk about values as they exist, uh they will um they will anger other Democrats and liberals.
It is a tough road to ho.
Uh Mark in Baltimore, your next.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the show.
Hey, Russ, Megan Dinners from Baltimore.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I'm watching the news, and they're saying, you know, there's a difference between our war in Iraq and the war on terror, but yet at the same time, they're reporting that we call it a top kind of leader in Iraq.
The guy that blew up the shrine.
So uh, you know, it's very confusing.
What's going on out there?
Well, it actually isn't.
The Democrats' position is that the war on terror is in Afghanistan.
And that the war on terror will be over when we get bin Laden.
And that Bush doesn't care and that Bush isn't effective.
Iraq was totally unnecessary.
Iraq was something personal.
It was either oil or avenging his uh Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush 41 or whatever cocker maybe reason.
Then their other position is that by going to Iraq, we've actually created terrorists.
We've created more terrorists than there were because they're really mad at us now.
Uh and so they think if we get out of Iraq, stick to Afghanistan, find bin Laden, that's it.
And then we can negotiate with the nations of the world to help us in this quest.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, this the number two guy that was captured in Al Qaeda in uh in Iraq is not the number two guy in Al Qaeda.
The number two guy in Al Qaeda is Amon Al Zawahiri.
He's uh he's the deputy chief of staff, whatever they call it, whatever his title is to Osama bin Laden.
And he's the guy that does all the videos lately.
We haven't seen bin Laden except on um audio tape in quite a while.
This was the number two guy of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
But that ought to tell you, Al Qaeda in Iraq.
They will go wherever we are to fight us and kill us.
If they've already come here.
Folks, watch the Path to 911.
You know all these terrorist hits that happened in this country and on Americans around the world all during the 90s.
You know it.
But when's the last time you saw any pictures of the 93 attack in the World Trade Center?
When's the last time you saw pictures of the Cobar Towers being blown up or any of the U.S. embassies in Africa?
When's the last time you saw a picture of the USS coal after it was blown up?
You will see it all in the Path to 9-11.
And it will it will be unmistakable.
They will go wherever we are.
Uh Democrats' position on this is just it is shallow and it is dangerous.
Dan in uh Wilburin, Massachusetts, you're next.
It's great to have you.
Russ, it's an honor to speak to you.
I've been um approaching my fifth year as a student with the uh Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Thank you, sir.
Um kind of in a dilemma here.
Uh my wife and I, we recently we were at a weekend gathering um, and the topic of the gas prices was brought to the table.
And uh I had mentioned how nice it was to see them actually drop back uh lower again.
And uh I also made another comment.
Gee, I wonder if we'll see it hit the dollar ninety-nine mark again.
Well, one of our acquaintances there said the only reason why these prices are going down is because we're approaching the uh midterm election.
I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I didn't know how to respond to that.
Maybe you can uh shed some light on this.
Well, look, this is quite simple.
But but you're you're dealing with people who aren't going to believe it.
Um ask them just exactly how the president can get the world oil price to fall such that gasoline prices come down.
And ask them how the president can dictate people's usage, supply and demand that will cause the price to come down.
Ask them how the president can do that, and ask them how the president got the price up in the first place, or why he would do that to his own political fortunes.
Ask him why he got the price up just so he could bring it down.
It's the whole thing is absurd that any individual can control such a world market like oil and its derivatives.
It's just it's it's ridiculous.
I you shouldn't even entertain the thought.
Okay, folks, that's it.
Have to go.
But we will be back tomorrow and do it all over again, fully revved up.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection