Rush Limbaugh Program - October 2, 2006, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:11

October 2, 2006, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
	You're tuned to the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program.
	I am your host, a highly trained broadcast specialist, documented to be almost always right ninety-eight point five percent of the time.
	It's a sheer thrill and delight to be with you.
	Uh 800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, the email address here, rush at EIBNet.com.
	I'd like to welcome to the uh program Jim Garrity from National Review Online has a blog called the Carry Spot, TKS, uh just a brilliant body of work during the campaign of 2004, cited often by me, not stolen by me, but cited often by me on this program.
	Jim has a book out called Voting to Kill.
	It's been out since September 19th, and he went out, uh, has gone out and interviewed a number of Americans about the issues on their mind as the uh midterm elections come up in November.
	Jim, welcome.
	It's great to have you here with us.
	Rush, some very long-awaited megadiddos.
	Thanks so much for having me on.
	You bet.
	Jim, now I'm going to start off by telling you a little story because uh uh and and let me ask, I don't want to I don't want to be wrong in my in my presumption, but but the the focal point of the um uh of the book is that the people you've talked to do take seriously the threat posed uh by terrorists around the world, whatever you want to call them, Islamo fascists, the war on terrorist a serious thing to them, correct?
	Oh, absolutely.
	Hits them deep in their bones.
	Okay.
	So I'm I'm up all in New York over the weekend, and I went to uh a dinner party Saturday night at a friend's house, which is in plain view of West Point, and uh a bunch of people looking out across the Hudson River at West Point, and one of them uh made mention, you know, this is the birthplace of the American Revolution.
	And I wonder how many people today even think about the American Revolution, how many people are taught the American Revolution?
	And it wasn't until Dolly Madison had to run out of a burning White House with a picture of George Washington that the American people back then got serious about the threat posed by the continual presence of the British, the British had burned down the White House, and that finally got the American people all upset.
	Uh history textbooks today say the American Revolution began when Bill Clinton was elected.
	Uh and and so uh the question the question came up at dinner is um is America finished?
	Do you think enough people care?
	And one of the one of the guests said, I believe in the total resiliency of the American the American people are fully aware of the threat that we face, and they will respond to leadership when that leadership tells them in a convincing way the the threat that we faced.
	And I raised my hand and said, Well, when are they when are they gonna respond?
	See, what was 9-11 if it was not a wake-up call?
	So what what's your take on this after having spoken to a number of Americans?
	Is is there a s uh uh would you say a majority of them uh that are gonna vote that are well aware and prepared to vote on this as an issue?
	Uh Rush, we used to hear about the silent majority, and I think what I would call these folks are the not vocal plurality.
	Uh there are a lot of folks who, yeah, they know day by day they don't necessarily think of these things.
	Uh, and you hear about g high gas prices or some other issue that's in the news, and then you get something like that foiled plot to uh bomb the London airliners, or the bombing plots that were in Denmark and Germany and all these other places around the world.
	And all of a sudden people wake up to it and they realize uh oh my goodness, this is we are in a life and death struggle.
	Um I have time to share the anecdote of the security moms in my book.
	Right.
	Sure.
	Um basically the timing of the attacks on the morning of nine eleven for many parents came after they had dropped their children off to school, and either they're on their way home or they just arrived home, they turn on the TV, they see something is terribly wrong.
	Uh, and then they realize that oh, I've got to get to my kids, I've got to make sure that they're safe.
	And they face this sudden terrible decision of having more than one child at more than one school.
	And they many of them describe it as feeling like a gun had been put to their head saying, which child do you pick up first?
	Which child to make sure is safe first.
	And this to them was probably for many of the most traumatic moment of their lives, something absolutely horrific that uh they all they want in a leader is someone who will make sure they never face that moment again, that sort of uh choice again.
	Well, uh, I guess that's the question, is that sentiment still uh prevail?
	I saw a Washington Post poll or story, I think it was by Jim Vandeh, but I'm not I'm not sure that he was the writer.
	But the headline says Republicans losing security moms, and it was about a poll.
	Uh if you read the whole story, it did indicate that Republicans were losing the support and trust of security moms, but that the Democrats weren't picking it up.
	Uh, and it was uh that was a problem for the Washington Post.
	But uh is the emotion of the security moms you just described uh the same today as it was in the days after 9-11.
	I think so.
	Um if you remember the carry spot coverage, I had a mentor named Obi-Wan Kenobi.
	Uh I used that because I didn't want uh he didn't want his name out there, but he basically says that once you go into the voting booth, uh all of the attack ads, all of the screaming headlines, all of the shouting back and forth goes away.
	It's almost like the whole room goes silent and it's just you and your ballot.
	Uh and he described it as an almost sacred experience.
	It all of a sudden it takes away all of the riff-raff, all of the other distracting messages out there, and you look seriously at the two names on the ballot in front of you, and you begin to think more seriously about what that choice signifies.
	And that, you know, what what it is is a pretty rare experience in human history to get the right to choose your leaders.
	Uh and so Americans do take that seriously.
	And so, you know, they may not have the same seriousness when they're talking to a pollster on the phone or even talking to Jim Van Dye.
	Um but I think Americans do basically take this extraordinarily seriously once you get all the distractions out of the way.
	Something like, say, Congressman Foley.
	Well, let me let me bring that up.
	Uh by the way, if you're just joining us talking with Jim Garratty, his book is Voting to Kill, and he is uh a blogger, the Terry Spotted National Review Online, which is one of this program's favorite websites and blog sites.
	Um the the the Foley episode has now had uh, you know, full throated treatment ever since uh Foley resigned on Thursday after well, actually since the emails were uh leaked and and their existence known since I guess Thursday, Friday morning and what have you.
	Um the the the impression is that this is the issue now.
	Republican corruption, culture corruption is back.
	George Allen, Tom DeLay, Janine Pierrot up in New York is a nationally uh known story, and now this Foley business, and it does appear the Democrats have once again lost their footing on their opposition to the war on terror and Iraq, and now they're rallying around this Foley thing.
	Um and I wondered how you felt about it, since your book is basically uh supporting the premise that the war on terror and the threat America face is the issue on which people to vote gonna vote.
	Does this change that?
	Um these sorts of issues come along every now and then.
	Uh you know, scandals.
	We we saw them believing that the uh Abramov scandal was going to absolutely be the issue that decided this year's elections.
	Yeah, where's that?
	Yeah.
	It's nowhere.
	My my first instinct is that this might be the second coming of the Wellstone funeral, um which I'm sure you remember from 2002 was this you know, an event that Republicans attended, and everyone wanted to, whether they agreed with Paul Wellston or not, pay their respects and and you know, pay tribute to a guy who, even if he didn't agree with them seemed like a very decent guy.
	And it turned into a partisan pep rally.
	Um and I think that eagerness to score political points, we're seeing it a bit in the coverage so far, and I could see this if the Democrats are not careful, they will echo that exact same sentiment of politicizing.
	What is at its heart a tragedy that, you know, knows no no partisan lines.
	I mean, this is just a poor terrible thing to happen in this poor kid's life.
	And now they're gonna, you know, refocus the entire Democratic campaign for two thousand six over this.
	You know, I mean, honestly.
	Well, I no, I don't think I think there's gonna be more of this kind of stuff.
	I I think the Clinton war room is in full speed, and I I think there's a whole host of these things they're holding uh to release in a timely fashion, i.e., press leaks or bombshell stories, not just about sex scandals and so forth.
	But you know, Jim, the one thing about this, this this when you compare it to the Wellstone Memorial, understand it in the sense the Democrats really overplayed it.
	Uh Wellstone's death a tragedy, but this is pedophilia.
	And I th there are a lot of people who just have no patience tolerance.
	They don't want to be made to try to understand anything about it.
	Uh they they don't want to be bought off with trips to rehab.
	This is pedophilia.
	And there are some people who fear it's gonna have legs because of that.
	Oh, it is no way that every Republican should be saying that they'd like to, you know, beat this guy with their own bare hands.
	I mean, there's no doubt that, you know, uh no one should make any effort to defend this guy.
	But, you know, to say that this is some sort of issue that I I I have my doubts that people when they look at their congressman and the challenger in front of them and their Senate race, their governor's race.
	I have my doubts that this is what's gonna be in on on their minds, because ultimately this is one guy, and as far as we know, one page, maybe there are some others, but this is, you know, this is not necessarily the grand issue of the Republic that uh was gonna affect every single person on the level that terrorism is.
	So I would uh I I would assume you would then believe that the Democrats are making a mistake by not uh giving voters something about them to vote for uh on whatever the issue is, they still are not doing that.
	They're still trying to run on the basis that Republicans are scum and you can't trust them and put us back in power because it's ours and we deserve it.
	But in terms of um uh the issue of terrorism, I would assume if your theory is correct that you would have to believe that they're actually hurting themselves with their position on Iraq and Jack Murphy cut and run, the president fighting back on it.
	You think this will prevail on election day.
	Absolutely.
	Uh and what's inter well, we'll we will see.
	But I we saw a very similar dynamic in 2004, where Kerry was polling on certain issues very well.
	Everyone liked his plans to give us all free health care, and you know, I'm gonna spend more money on this, I'm gonna spend more money on that.
	Uh and really across the board he was doing fine, except for this big glaring weakness on the issue of terrorism that, you know, Bush was beating him like a drum on this.
	And the lesson of 2004, even to a certain extent two thousand two is if voters don't think you can handle protecting the country.
	They don't care what you have to say about prescription drugs or health care or any one of these other issues that you know they can be important.
	But no issue is more important than who's going to keep me safe.
	Who's going to make sure that uh you know somebody doesn't plow in a it's an airliner into my skyscraper.
	There could be a lot of people comforted by this, and I'm one of them.
	I I have to tell you that I'm uh not as confident as you are that the uh 9-11 was five years ago.
	We don't even show videotape of it anymore.
	We never are allowed to see the suicide jumps from either of the two towers.
	Those are suppressed.
	It's too soon.
	We can't deal with it emotionally.
	The Democrats have tried to paint a picture that it was uh, you know, just an episodic event, not part of any systematic effort uh on the part of people that want to kill us, not just a battle in a war.
	It was just, yeah, we kind of screwed up, but uh these things happen now and then and not much we can do about it.
	Uh we need to go back to having our normal lifestyle.
	They're trying to do their best to erase from people's memory that it happened.
	In the meantime, we have not been hit since.
	Uh Madrid has, London has foiled a plot among the airliners, as you pointed out, we haven't been hit.
	And the uh theory that some people have is that we've just get sort of getting a uh a false sense of complacency about our security.
	And if that transfers into people voting differently than uh on security, it'll have a negative outcome.
	So people are going to be comforted to hear your theory on this, I think.
	Well, you know, it's one of those things where even if they don't have the images on the television screen, they don't go out of our heads.
	You know, this that's something that, you know, even if if you I never saw a picture of it or video of it for the rest of my life, I'm never going to forget it.
	And I think a lot of voters are that same way.
	Plus, you know, we saw the the ratings for that uh past 9-11 movie.
	They actually won its time slot one of the nights and did very well the other night.
	I there's an interest in this.
	And the more that the Democrats and certain elites in the media say, Oh, we shouldn't talk about this.
	This is something that's uh too emotional, it stirs up too many bad memories, it's too soon.
	People notice that, and I think people kind of resent it.
	They they resent being treated like children, and they resent being talked down to of what they can and can't handle.
	Certainly they didn't have that problem with pictures of Abu Grabe or uh, you know, uh the the picture of the Virgin Mary with dung on it and all these other horrific images, but we're not allowed to see the one that will make us as Americans angry.
	I mean, people know the score on this.
	So it's safe to assume that your um uh your your opinion or your thoughts on the what I call the drive-by media's effort to shift public opinion on all this is ultimately going to fail.
	Abu Ghrab, Club Gitmall, all these things designed to portray America at its worst, the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, we've got to give these people lawyers and trials, that that's actually infuriating more people than uh anybody gives credit to.
	If I were in charge of the RNC, and sadly I am not, I would be running the footage of Senator Dick Durman of Senator of Democratic of Illinois comparing U.S. troops in Guantanamo Bay to Nazis.
	Twenty-four-seven.
	Just remind these people what they think of our armed forces, what do they think of our efforts in the war on terror, and how they see us as the bad guys.
	Because, you know, every American, even a whole lot of conservative Democrats, a lot of Joe Lieberman Democrats out there know we're not the bad guys in this.
	You know, even and and their attitude towards our guys in Guantanamo Bay and our guys fighting the war on terror all around the world is do what you gotta do.
	We trust you.
	We know you're not bad guys.
	You just you know, life requires you to make some difficult choices and do some tough things, and you know, we're fine with that.
	Do what you have to to keep us safe, I think is the overwhelming mentality of so many Americans.
	Aaron Ross Powell Jim, you know something?
	Uh I'm inclined to adopt your belief and be confident about it for for a host of reasons, but one main one.
	And that is you've got a book coming out, it's out, it's election time on the premise of how people are going to vote.
	If you're wrong, you're going to have a lot of trouble selling your next book.
	Absolutely.
	Yep, yep, yep.
	Hopefully I will not be in the remainder bin by mid-November, though.
	Well, best of luck with it, and thanks for your time today.
	This is um I'm I'm glad that you were you had some time because I I don't think the American uh people can hear enough, especially in these times, positive thinking and confidence about themselves.
	Uh you've obviously talked to them, researched it enough to write a book.
	You're ultimately expressing confidence in the seriousness of the American people, and I think they need to hear that about themselves.
	Um I appreciate that.
	Thank you so much, Jim.
	Rush any time.
	You bet Jim Garrity, uh, the book is voting to kill, and it's uh uh by a man who uh is uh got a great piece, it survived the two four 2004 election, by the way, the carry spot, TKS.
	As I say, this piece was this blog was just a font of information, humor and serious combined about the absolute foibbles of the uh of the carry campaign and the man.
	So this is a good read.
	It's a good book.
	Happy to recommend it to you.
	Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue here in just a second.
	All right.
	We're back, El Rush both serving humanity, simply by showing up a harmless, lovable little fuzzball, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here on the EIB network.
	Now I have to admit, my friends, I'm a little confused about certain aspects of the situation here involving Mark Foley and the uh and Paige.
	Now the school system, the public school system has since uh the late 80s uh been teaching us that kids are gonna have sex.
	Uh we can't stop them.
	It's not our business to stop them.
	I mean, you got so far as uh teaching them to use condoms with bananas.
	Or in some cases, peanuts.
	I mean, youcumbers, uh, but peanuts too.
	I mean, you got you have to give them all life possibilities out there.
	And uh we had parents out on Long Island uh who are inviting uh uh their kids to have their boyfriend or girlfriend spend the night at the house because it'd be cleaner and safer than if they were conjugating in the back seat of the family sedan.
	Uh it went so far as to say we might even put a pack of cigarettes on the nightstand uh so that you can have a smoke uh after you have sex.
	And and now I realize that that's sex among teenagers, but the public education sex ed program does not say that it's wrong.
	You start talking abstinence to them and they go nuts.
	Yeah, easy for you to say we can't stop this.
	So we we gave them condoms to encourage the risky behavior.
	Now the liberals also tell us that uh sex and gender issues are just lifestyles.
	Choices, not choices.
	Maybe choices in the case of sex change, like the Choppadic off of me and the adodictomy.
	But these are just lifestyle things, uh gender and so forth.
	That we're not to condemn.
	Uh that any two people can love each other, any four people can love each other.
	Uh you can define your family however you want, including your animal or animals.
	This we have been taught by the tolerant left among us.
	Kids can have sex, too.
	I mean, it's not not just somebody just in their age group with anywhere else.
	Alternative lifestyles.
	Um, but not if the person is sexually active, but younger, apparently.
	So there's there we find here that there are limits that uh there are things that will offend liberals.
	Or are there?
	Because I continue to ask, are they really offended by this?
	How many of them wish you they were in on the action?
	Well, Gary, that's what I'm saying.
	Gary Studge person was 17 years old.
	Barney Frank, Stephen Gobey was running a little male prostitution ring out of Barney's basement.
	Barney didn't know about it.
	He said he arranged, I think he got 33 parking tickets fixed so that the uh the visitors uh could park right there in front of the Barney's Barney pad.
	Uh but I I'm I I just I don't believe that they find what Foley did repugnant.
	They have defended it too often when it has been discovered to have been taking place amongst uh their ranks.
	So there is looking if they want to play the hypocrisy game, which they are doing, and that's what they think is the strong suit that they have, sort of like the Ace and Hole, then we can play the uh hypocrisy game as well.
	Here on the EIB network.
	We will be back.
	Your phone calls coming up next.
	Ha, welcome back, my friends, uh Rush Limbaugh.
	Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	All right, try this.
	Stories out of Chicago.
	When Susan Connor's three-year-old son started humming the McDonald's jingle, a research project was born.
	Susan Connor knew where he'd heard the fast food giant's catchy tune.
	Remember her three-year-old is is start humming the McDonald's jingle.
	And a red flag goes up.
	Now let me ask you, mothers out there.
	If you're sitting around the house and your kids start singing the McDonald's jingle, are you gonna panic?
	Susan Connor did.
	And she'd been thinking, well, how did this happen?
	Where did her son care hear the McDonald's jingle?
	And then she remembered.
	On the Disney Channel during the wiggles, a show for preschoolers.
	Her kids out there watching the wiggles.
	You ever seen the wiggles?
	I have no clue what the wiggles are.
	But nevertheless, it's a school for preschoolers, uh show for preschoolers on the Disney Channel, and she said that her son had absorbed that theme, the McDonald's jingle from watching TV.
	So she's put together a study on food ads aimed at toddlers, and it appears in the October issue of Pediatrics.
	It would be a marketer's dream to know that they were successful doing this.
	Messages for high fat, high sugar foods permeate programming for preschoolers on Nickelodeon, the study found on the Disney Channel shows for the youngest children, and even on PBS.
	Shows like Sesame Street companies woo the kids' loyalty by linking logos, licensed characters, and slogans with fun and happiness.
	Disney and PBS promote themselves as ad-free, but fast food companies dominated sponsor messages.
	They're upset about this.
	I mean, this is this is they're they're looking at this as near criminal.
	How dare Disney poison the mind of my three-year-old with the McDonald's jingle?
	They're trying to get my kid oriented toward going the So McDonald's not new, uh, but they join the ranks of Walmart now as enemy of America, in this case, the enemy of American kids.
	We had a call not long ago from a guy who was all upset and wanted to know my thoughts on whether Congress would indeed ban online gambling.
	Said it didn't know.
	Wasn't quite sure how it would fall out.
	Well, Congress did.
	Congress has passed a bill to curb online gambling.
	It was snuck through on the back of the port security bill.
	It took a backdoor move by the Senate majority leader, but the bill designed to curb online gambling in the U.S. has passed in the Senate.
	Senator Frist helped get the internet gambling ban attached to a defense bill designed to boost security at the nation's ports.
	The bill passed on Saturday.
	The uh the bill calls for banks to work with the federal government to stop transactions between customers in the U.S. and offshore gaming companies.
	The uh the bill makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make transactions with online gambling companies.
	Now people are speculating that one of the reasons for this is to protect Indian casinos from competition.
	But the fact that it was snuck in on the back of the port security bill takes me to a column today by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal.
	Why did Congress kill a measure to keep felons out of U.S. ports?
	Congress is patting itself on the back for passing the Port Security Act last Saturday.
	Don't forget, as part of the Port Security Act, online gambling has been killed.
	But the day before, a House Senate conference committee Stripped out a provision, stripped, it was in there.
	They stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security jobs.
	Port security isn't just about checking the contents of cargo containers.
	It also means checking the background of the 400,000 workers on our docks.
	So what happens here?
	We can't have the Dubai port gang in here.
	We can't have the United Arab Emirates and Dubai Ports world running to ports, but we can have felons as members of unions that work at the docks.
	Work at the ports.
	U.S. harbors are filled, according to fund, with convicted workers, workers convicted of serious crimes.
	Just last year the Justice Department filed a RICO suit.
	We've talked about this before, charging that the 65,000 member East Coast based International Longshoremen's Association is a vehicle for organized crime.
	The last time we mentioned this, we got a call from one of these guys out in LA, warning me in no uncertain terms to be very careful how I discussed the longshoremen's union.
	The House Senate Conference drastically watered down a Senate passed requirement that aligned the standards for hiring dock workers with those used at airports and nuclear plants.
	The statute still bans workers who've been convicted of treason or espionage and terror-related offenses, which is not very many of the people at work at the docks, but a seven-year timeout period on hiring those who've committed crimes like murder, bribery, identity fraud, and the illegal use of guns was dropped in the dead of night at the behest of unions, fearful that too many of their members could lose their jobs.
	Yes, I'll that's how I'm gonna tell you, I'll read this again, because I realize, and I'm bouncing off of Jim Garratt's book, his Garrety thinks the people of this country when they go to the voting booth in November, when they get into the privacy of that voting booth, they're going to be voting security and safety.
	And I I want to I to the extent that I hope that's true, I want you to I just want you to hear what's been done.
	You remember?
	The congressional outcry over the Dubai ports deal.
	It was every bit as frenzied as this Mark Foley thing is.
	Both parties were in a race to see who could get to the finish line first as against the Dubai Ports World Ports Deal.
	So Saturday night, they stripped out a provision that would have barred serious felons from working in sensitive dock security.
	Now the statute, as negotiated between the House and the Senate, still prevents workers who've been convicted of treason or espionage or terror-related offenses from working at the ports.
	However, a seven-year timeout period, meaning for the next seven years, these are the people, these are the felons that can work at the ports.
	Those who've committed crimes such as murder, like a murderer who's been convicted, can work seven years before they're going to take up the issue again at the ports.
	Bribery, identity fraud, and illegal use of guns.
	and All of the proscriptions against those convicts were dropped in the dead of night at the behest of unions who were fearful that too many of their members could lose their jobs.
	The hell does that say about whose members of these unions?
	The security stakes are too high to trust serious felons who could be manipulated or bribed by people trying to smuggle a nuclear device or chemical weapon into our ports, said Senator Jim Dement, a sponsor of the provision that they dropped.
	Security analysts echo his fears.
	They say terrorists working with truck drivers could plant a bomb aboard a cruise ship or pack a 40-foot cargo container with explosives.
	Stephen Flynn, a former customs official now with the Council on Foreign Relations, told ABC News that if a bomb went off in a seaport, we would likely see a closing of the seaports, bringing the global trade system to a halt, potentially putting our economy into recession.
	Officials at several ports echo these concerns.
	There's a gaping hole in port security, said Byron Miller of Charleston, South Carolina, the nation's sixth largest port.
	Right now, by law, we can't do background checks on 8,000 people who work at this port.
	He noted that a state bill to provide background checks was killed last year after the unions apply to full court press against it.
	That such a political deal as this is possible, writes Fund can be seen by the clout of the unions who were able to gut the felon ban in the House Senate Conference Committee.
	Senator Daniel, in no way, the Hawaii Democrat assured colleagues he would fight for the ban in conference, but in reality fought to have it weakened.
	His staff even called the Port of Charleston officials and told them that their port would be shut down if the demand amendment became law.
	And Mark Foley resigned.
	Mr. Miller can't confirm the call was made, but other port officials remember it.
	Mr. In No Way's office declined to respond to Funn's questions about his role other than to send Fund an email claiming the center supported the Dement Provision.
	But too many elements of the unions that now control the docks are already involved in crime.
	The Dement Amendment would also have uh had the added benefit of going a long way to cleaning up the mafia control of many of our nation's harbors.
	Too little has changed since 1954 when on the waterfront depicted union corruption and violence.
	While less brutal today, tight union control of the ports remains a fact of life.
	Just ask the factory owners who had to endure parts uh shutdowns and shortages uh just months after 9-11 in 2002, as ports from Seattle to San Diego were forced to shut after a union slowdown paralyzed operations.
	The last time member of Congress kowtowed the union pressure on a national security issue was in 2002, when then Senate Majority Leader Tom Dashel led an effort to block creation of the Department of Homeland Security unless federal union work rules applied to its employees.
	The ensuing political backlash became an issue in that year's fault elections and helped defeat several members.
	Will someone dare to object to the bizarre favoritism Congress has just shown felons at our nation's ports, or will the issue be swept under the legislative rug.
	Again, let me read to you the relevant data here.
	The statute still bans workers who have been convicted of treason, espionage, and terror-related offenses.
	But a seven-year timeout period on hiring people to work at the ports who've committed crimes such as murder, bribery, identity fraud, and the illegal use of guns was dropped in the dead of night Saturday night.
	They did remember to ban internet gambling while continuing to allow these types of felons to work at the ports.
	Can you imagine a do by ports rule people when they hear about this?
	At any rate, uh got to go quick timeout.
	Broadcast excellence continues immediately upon the conclusion of this.
	And we are back.
	Jack L. Rushball here, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	Brand new week of broadcast excellence from the Los Angeles Times of Sunday.
	It's a uh a complimentary ports deal story.
	Now Fund has his story today in the Wall Street Journal about how the mob is running the ports.
	And because there's so many mob members we can't get rid of murders, people engaged in bribery, misuse of firearms, illegal use of guns, and so forth, seven-year moratorium on uh on not hiring those people or getting rid of them.
	The only thing you can't be convicted of treason or having ties to terrorism, we won't hire you at the ports in that circumstance.
	Los Angeles Times turned.
	It's actually AP, the FBI's top counter-terrorism official, harbors lots of concerns, weapons of mass destruction, undetected homegrown terrorists, and the possibility that old-fashioned mobsters will team up with Al Qaeda for the right price.
	Though there's no direct evidence yet of organized crime collaborating with Al Qaeda, the first hints of a connection surfaced in a recent undercover FBI operation.
	The agents stopped a man with alleged mob ties from selling missiles to an informant posing as a terrorist middleman.
	That sounds pretty serious to me.
	That case and other factors are heightening concerns about a real life episode of the Sopranos teeming with Osama bin Laden's followers.
	Yeah, we're continuing to look for a nexus, said Joseph Billy Jr., the FBI's top counterterrorism official.
	We're looking at this very aggressively.
	Hell.
	Based on what the Senate and House Conference Report came out with Saturday night, we don't need for these guys to team up with Al Qaeda.
	You already have a bunch of felons working there at the ports.
	Who is next on this program?
	Carolyn in uh in Hamburg, Pennsylvania.
	I'm glad you waited.
	Welcome to the program.
	Hi, thank you.
	Um I just thinking, you know, if you play out the scenario that the the Clinton war room is trying to impact elections, and they're going to continue trotting out these Republican dis indiscretions.
	Then, you know, if I go into that booth and it and it's the the quiet of, you know, the moment that I vote, and I and I base my vote only on the level of, you know, the lesser of two evils, I'm still pushing Republican.
	Because the Clinton, he's got the whole indiscretion not vote locked up for me.
	Right.
	Well, I think what they're trying to do is suppress turnout.
	Uh they're trying to keep people like you from going to the polls and making whatever choice, lesser of two evils or what have you.
	They're they're trying to dispirit the Republican base, and they're trying to dispirit Republicans in office uh as well.
	It's a it's a and it's all coordinated.
	It's well timed.
	Uh and I'm I'm convinced there's gonna be more of this, not dribbling out, but they will be bombshells over the next five weeks.
	It's part of the coordinated effort.
	So uh the effort is to again keep you from actually going to vote.
	You they want you to get so mad, ah to hell with it.
	A pox on both their houses.
	To hell with because they think they're gonna have a better get out the vote uh organization than Republicans will if they can succeed in uh in in causing this this massive uh bunch of people in the Republican Party to become dispirited.
	Well, it's not gonna work for me.
	Good.
	I'm happy to hear that.
	I don't think it's gonna work for me either.
	I don't I I think they're overplay everything they do.
	Uh and and this Foley thing is that everybody thinks this like Abramov.
	Folks, Abramov really did not invite in i uh infuriate a whole lot of people.
	Remember Bob Nay resigning was supposed to that's gotta be a tip of the iceberg, this Abramov scandal, why four hundred and eighty-five trips in the White House, meetings with Carl Rove, Republicans are toast.
	People think that this what goes on in Washington.
	As I said earlier, when's the last time the American people loved lobbyists?
	I mean, lobbyists have always held been held in some disdain by average Americans, because they think they're out there peddling influence, average Americans don't have.
	They don't think it's anything abnormal that access is so crenout.
	Wow, did selling the Lincoln bedroom hurt Clinton?
	Did all of those coffees did the Chicoms uh contributing to his campaign, Charlie Tree did any of that.
	Johnny Chung did any of that hurt Clinton.
	Why uh the the the idea that Abramov is gonna is gonna hurt the Republicans is absurd.
	Uh any people upset about it even as we speak.
	Bob in Auburn, Massachusetts.
	Welcome to the program.
	Hi, Rush.
	Great to talk to you.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	You bet, sir.
	Um earlier you mentioned uh Jerry Studds here, one of our congressmen from this great state.
	Uh yeah.
	Yeah.
	Uh just a quick comparison to what Foley did and what he's what he actually did to let people know if they don't remember.
	Well, you gotta remember about Foley, and in no way am I saying what he did was right.
	I don't find it right.
	I I really I find it reprehensible.
	But what what people have to remember is he's getting what he's the what he's getting today because of words he transmitted to a minor.
	Words.
	Okay.
	And he was a gentleman enough, so know what he did.
	He resigned from Congress.
	That's where Foley is right now.
	Now, if people want to talk rem remember about Jerry Studs, he was a congressman here in Massachusetts.
	I got forty by I I need you to focus because that forty-five seconds before I have to go to the break.
	Okay, anyway, he got censored.
	He was arrogant enough to turn his back on the on the person as he read the censor.
	And what people have to remember is this guy didn't send words.
	He actually had sex with an underage male page.
	Yeah, but you see, the difference is the Democrats expect imperfect human behavior.
	They coddle it.
	They think alternative lifestyles, all those things that people think are odd and abnormal.
	They they they embrace that.
	That's that's imperfect behavior.
	They coddle it and they embrace it, and that's how they define their compassion.
	But Republicans rather judging people and calling them sinners and saying they're wrong.
	And so when somebody like Foley even under his words, it's a great opportunity to point out hypocrisy the Democrats think.
	But it's not gonna work, folks.
	Don't sweat this.
	You know, Mark Foley could have said that he mixed some pills with his adult beverage, was on his way to vote when he sent those instant messages.
	But he didn't do that, folks.
	He stood up there or sat down or whatever and faced the music.

▲