All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
December 26, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And don't forget to drop into RushLimbaugh.com for the latest on the web.
And of course, give us a call right here at 1-800-282-2882.
All right, my story of the day.
By the way, our program dedicated today to the memory of James Brown, one of the great figures of American music, died yesterday.
And just some terrific American music and the source and inspiration for so much more.
We are also today, this is the story of the day.
I mean, I just, I had to laugh out loud.
I wonder if they think this is, you know, that when they write this stuff, they think they're being funny.
The New York Times headline, Bush Watchers Wonder How He Copes with Stress.
The entire article by Cheryl Gay Stolberg, that's her name, not her description, is devoted to the comment, really, about how can he be doing this?
How can he be so?
How can he sleep at night?
And they even ask this question.
Does he lie awake at night as President Lyndon Johnson did during the Vietnam War, fretting over his decisions?
Apparently not, and it drives the liberals crazy.
They actually asked him, are you sleeping well at night?
To which he said, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume.
And I have to, they went back to Lyndon Johnson, so let me go back to another Democrat president for the answer, I think, to this question, Cheryl, that you raise in the New York Times today.
Mr. Bush is at peace with himself because he thinks, for better or worse now, that he has made the right decision.
He is a man.
He has made his decision.
He's done the best he could, and he sleeps well at night, convinced that that's the best that should be done.
Who else does this remind you of, history buffs?
Well, for Ronald Reagan, it reminded him of Harry Truman.
Harry Truman, at this point, in Harry Truman's life, with wrestling with the invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans, backed up by the Chinese and the Russians, we were in the middle of a very unpopular war, the Korean War.
People were dying.
Yankee fans were worried that Ted Williams would never come back.
A whole bunch of things American in those days was at stake.
It was not like World War II.
It did not have victory at the other end.
It seemed like stalemate and just continuous death was the order of the day.
And if you know that our president has dropped to the low 30 percentile in terms of popularity because of this war, lost control of the House and the Senate because, say the pundits, of the public reaction to the Iraq War, fly back with me, back to the future moment here, to President Harry Truman, who by 1951, early 52,
had an approval rating, a job approval rating, of 22%.
22%.
What was his reaction?
Well, you know, we're going to hang in there.
We're not going to concede defeat.
We're not going to back off of this.
And I know the South Koreans today are not exactly grateful.
But the truth is, South Korea was saved in its independence.
It did evolve.
And this is, again, contrary to what I said earlier in the program.
Here was an instance of our intervention that helped a people to freedom.
They didn't get it immediately.
They had dictators.
They had military coups.
They had problems establishing a democratic society out of what was basically a 3,000-year-old feudal society.
But that's the transition, transition that Iraq is going through now.
South Korea today is a democratic free market place.
It is, in fact, the 14th largest economy in the world.
It's a postage-stamp country.
It's the 14th largest economy in the world.
Was Harry Truman right?
Everyone will tell you, Democrats particularly.
Yes, he was.
But they can't stand it that George Bush might be right about Iraq today, too.
Now, George Bush, if the New York Times is right about this one, is wrong on the border subject.
And here's where we need to get into something, because here's where I do disagree with the president's continuing efforts to maintain what amounts to an open border, because the adverse impacts of that border are, I'm sitting about 16, 17 miles away from it right as we speak.
The adverse aspects and effects of this open border are apparent to everyone now in this country, not just those of us living along that border.
But the new Democratic majority says the New York Times this morning and Republican allies in the administration are working on a revival of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which provides basically an amnesty to everyone illegally in this country under very significantly nothing kind of terms, and no real protection of the border.
Now, let me take you back.
Again, 1986, history to me tells us everything we need to know.
In 1986, Ronald Reagan fell for the lie that if we gave amnesty to the illegals here, we would solve the illegal alien problem.
They would become Americans.
They would be legal immigrants.
They would make the country stronger.
Everyone would be better off.
The problem, by the way, much of that is true.
But the problem is if you don't also control the border, the 4 to 5 million who were amnestied in 1986 became 20 million today because the border is still open.
Oh, you're going to do amnesty.
We'll just come in, and whenever you guys get around to it, in the meantime, we're driving and we're, you know, we're doing this, that, and the other.
And there are, of course, don't get me wrong about this, positive and negative impacts of illegal immigration.
To me, there are nothing but positive impacts for legal immigration.
I am an immigrant, you know, the son of immigrants.
I am very much a pro-immigrant when it comes to the impact on the United States historically.
But this illegal immigration thing is threatening our country because people are coming here knowing they're breaking the law, having no respect for any other law that they don't want to obey, and basically leaving their allegiance in other countries.
And this is a growing problem.
The idea that we can solve it with an amnesty to those that are here without controlling our border means that the number next time won't be 20 million, it'll be 40 million, and there won't be much English being spoken around wherever you are, which is only one of the problems.
So if we want to get into this, let's get into it.
Because the New York Times, again, editorializing today that this exam for legal immigrants, you know, you take an examination to prove that you know something about the country you're going to become a part of.
Exam about the Constitution and history and so forth.
The New York Times makes the point that after decades of, well, this isn't how they put it, but the point is that after decades of dumbing down America in our K-12 education system, this exam may ask of immigrants more information than Native Americans know.
Well, duh.
By the way, here are some of the questions.
And then they're no, just like the K-12 system, there are no wrong answers.
Name one famous battle from the Revolutionary War.
Well, good grief.
Lexington and Concord, Trenton, Princeton, Saratoga, Cowpens, Yorktown, Bunker Hill.
Name 100.
Name one is the question.
Name one of the major American Indian tribes in the United States.
Good grief won.
I mean, how many can you name?
Cherokee, Seminole, Creek, Choctaw, Iroquois, Shawnee, Mohegan, Chippewa, Huron, Oneida, Sioux.
I mean, it goes on and on and on.
And yet the editorial is: these questions are too tough.
We can't be asking this sort of thing.
This is too tough.
An indication of the problems we have.
Now, it is not enough that today the leaked information is that congressional leaders in the White House are conspiring, I'll use the word, and I mean it, to impose upon this country an amnesty for illegals without penalty,
to impose on this country a continued open border with a catastrophe in the making, because, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't know it, the Border Patrol, or its successor agency now called ICE, immigration, et cetera, the Border Patrol, when they do catch people trying to cross the border illegally, they classify them.
This is after-the-fact profiling.
They find out who they are.
Most are Mexicans.
Some are middle Latin American countries.
Others are Venezuelans trying to get in for who knows what.
Others are what is called OTM, OTM, other than Mexicans.
This is a category.
Thousands and thousands of them in the last five years have been from nations that promote terrorism.
They have been Iraqis, Iranians, Libyans, Somalis, etc., Afghanis, etc.
They have been people who have come into Mexico, assumed Mexican names and identities and clothing, and in every way tried to slip into the border with the, you know, slipping in with the tidal wave of Mexicans and others.
They're not.
Now, if you think that's a negligible threat to the United States, with 19 of those folks wreaking the havoc they did on 9-11, I just think we ought to be a little more concerned.
I think we ought to be a lot more concerned.
And I get really concerned, and I'll come back and tell this story, about two border agents who were protecting you and are now going to jail for it.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll be back after this.
James Brown.
All right, we're back.
1-800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
In for Rush Limbaugh on the Rush Limbaugh program here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I have just made the biggest bonehead mistake I've ever made filling in on this program.
I'm embarrassed to admit that in trying to make my point about the unpopularity of the Korean War, I mentioned Ted Williams in the same connection as the New York Yankees.
That, of course, is a real bonehead problem, Boston Red Sox, of course.
So I think this is what Bob and Warwick wants to rake me over the coals for.
Bob, go ahead.
Well, Roger, you owned up to it, so I won't rake you over the coals, but that's about the most sacrilegious thing that's ever been said on this show.
I think that's probably true.
This is from San Diego of all the people.
No.
See, I remember him.
That's right.
I remember him as being the Pacific Coast League Padres.
I don't think you're quite that old.
No, but I knew he was there.
And so once people go back east, you have to understand the West Coast mentality.
They're just back there somewhere.
And I know you guys take this stuff seriously.
So I will just say that was a terrible bonehead mistake.
You are forgiven.
On behalf of all of New England, I forgive you.
Bob, I appreciate it.
Thanks.
1-800-282-2882.
Here's Glenn in Gourney.
Is it Illinois?
You've been waiting a long time.
Glenn, go ahead.
Hi, Roger.
Glenn, go ahead.
Yeah.
Hi, Roger.
My name is Glenn.
Thank you for taking my call.
Go ahead.
And the comment I'd like to make is I read an article today in Chicago Tribune by the name of Study, Oil Decline Threatens Iran by Berry Schwide.
Yes.
And he claims that Iran now is producing 300,000 barrels of oil less than his limit by OPEC.
And they have major leaks at their refineries.
And the total loss of income for Iran is $10 to $11 billion a year.
And in addition, he says it's estimated that within five years, their exports will be hefted.
And by 2015, it will be zero.
They will not export any oil to any countries.
Now, and they'll self-employ.
Now, can we wait?
Will they get the ABAM?
Will they threaten their neighbors to take over other countries to produce oil?
What is your take on it?
Well, first of all, I don't know.
I saw this in the Washington Times as well.
It's an Associated Press article.
The National Academy of Sciences has this analysis.
I don't know that you could ever say that an oil-rich country like Iran would actually get to a point where they would not export any oil.
They are having a short-term problem because they refuse to allow foreign investment or foreigners to come in to help them with their oil production.
And frankly, they're not as good at it as some of the major companies.
And so they're having the same problem that a lot of countries are having, and that is trying to keep, I mean, Mexico.
Mexico could be producing way more oil than they do, but they keep it a very in-house kind of operation, and they have a giant bureaucracy, and they don't do a lot of exploration using the latest technology.
And so it's a problem.
It's going to be more of a problem in Iran because they thought this oil would just magically come out of the ground and we would pay $100 a barrel for it.
And that isn't happening.
So to that extent, I think they are being squeezed.
They also subsidize gasoline.
They don't have enough gasoline refining capacity in that country.
They actually have to import gasoline.
So yeah, they've got an economic problem as bad or worse than the one we face with regard to our dependence and the rising cost of fuel.
And they're a net producer of oil.
Whether it's going to make them more reasonable or not, I don't think so.
And I'll tell you why.
I don't think they're going to be more reasonable because oil has nothing to do with how unreasonable they are today.
They're unreasonable today because they believe, the president of their country believes, for one, that the Mahdi or whatever his name is is coming back, some kind of figure from 1,200 years ago is returning to Earth, that all of the planet will become Islam, that the West is collapsing, that he has a duty to nuke Israel and eliminate Jews, et cetera, et cetera.
So as long as he has those views, I don't think those views are in any way shaped by the availability of oil.
They're shaped by his religious beliefs.
And as long as those religious beliefs are something he's willing to act upon in that way, then I think we've got to be concerned, whatever their short-term economic issues are.
But anyway, Glenn, thanks for the call.
Let me get to this story because it is a story I want to get to talking about, and that is the business about the two Border Patrol agents who, doing their job, are now going to jail.
And this is a tough one to get to, and I think it's something that Americans just won't believe.
Okay, so let me just tell you the story and we can get into it.
These two Border Patrol agents on the border in Texas, a van operating erratically on a dirt road, they stop it.
It's full of marijuana.
Driver takes off.
They tell him to halt.
They shoot some rounds at him.
He keeps running, runs away back into Mexico.
They say, okay, well, I guess we didn't get him.
They confiscate the van.
Some months later, this driver shows up in the United States, claiming to have been shot in the rear end at that incident, claiming that he had been illegally, his civil rights had been violated, that the officers should not have shot at him, that he's suing civilly, and the U.S. attorney down there, a Bush appointee.
Am I talking, I think, El Paso, I'm doing this off the top of my head, I think it's El Paso.
The Bush-appointed U.S. attorney prosecutes the two Border Patrol agents who, even if you accept the smuggler's story, shot this guy in the rear end because he was transporting, and he continued to run back into Mexico because he was transporting drugs into the United States.
The jury convicted him of depriving the drug smuggler of his civil rights.
And these two are now, in January, going to jail for doing their jobs.
That's the Bush administration enforcement on the border, ladies and gentlemen.
And I'm sorry, I'm 100% in disagreement with it.
If the president knows anything about this, he should step up, pardon those two officers, and put some morale back in the Border Patrol because today, I will tell you, every Border Patrol agent I have talked to says, yes, the next time I go to enforce the law, I'm going to be thinking, is the guy I'm enforcing the law against going to turn into state's witness with me going to jail because I was doing my job?
That's the Bush administration on the border of the United States, and people need to understand it.
All right, 1-800-282-2882.
We're going to take a break and come back after the bottom of the hour with more about the border and the first Muslim congressman in the United States Congress.
He's a big hit in Detroit.
And we'll tell you why when we come back.
On the Rush Limbaugh program, I'm Roger Hedgecock, back after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh now on the Rush Limbaugh program at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our phone number, of course, 1-800-282-2882.
And again, I bring up this issue.
The two Border Patrol agents, Jose Alonzo Compillon and Ignacio Ramos, sentenced to 12 and 11 years, respectively, in federal prison for shooting a man smuggling drugs into the United States.
The drug smuggler was granted immunity in return for his testimony.
He has now sued the United States government for millions of dollars for being shot in the butt.
Now, I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen, in my world, the Border Patrol agents were doing their job.
They should get a medal.
The drug smuggler should be the one in jail.
Now, just to give you some background, Ignacio Ramos is an eight-year veteran of the U.S. Naval Reserve, a former nominee for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
He responded on February 17, 2005, to a request for backup from the other Border Patrol agent, Jose Alonzo Compeon.
And they were chasing this suspicious van near a levee road along the Rio Grande River, 40 miles east of El Paso at Fabins, Fabins, Texas.
The illegal alien, let's call it what it is, an illegal alien drug smuggler, Oswaldo Aldrete Davila of Mexico, never, never said he was not an illegal alien, number one, and number two, driving that van.
He's never, he said, I just want immunity to put these two guys who shot me in the butt in jail.
And the U.S. attorney has done that, a Bush appointee.
Now, and the U.S. District Judge in this case is a Bush appointee, Kathleen Cardone, in El Paso or Cardone, in El Paso, Texas.
Now, Congressman Dana Rohrbacher of California has joined in an effort to try to get the president, he and 49 other members of Congress, writing a letter to the president asking for a presidential pardon for these Border Patrol agents.
There is an online petition at grassfire.org as well to call on Bush to pardon these agents with hundreds of thousands of signatures already gathered there.
It is something that needs to be brought up.
I am on the side of the Border Patrol.
I am on the side, as much as their hands are tied, as much as they already can't do the job of securing our border, to the extent that they do it, they need to be defended.
They need to be told this is the American public's will to support control of our international border.
It is an essential, this one, by the way, is in the Constitution.
It is an essential mission of the federal government to protect the United States of America.
It's a mission that the president, in connection with the war on terrorism, has very often articulated.
Why he can't see the danger, why we can't get a control of our own border, especially during this war on terror, is beyond my pay grade.
I have absolutely no idea.
Now, maybe you do.
I keep asking Republican bigwigs in the Congress and so forth this very question, and they'll give me this look like, How the hell do I know?
Basically, here's Chuck in Auburn, Alabama, is it?
Hi, Chuck.
Welcome to the Russian Limbaugh Program.
Hello, Roger.
It's an honor talking with you.
I want to let you know that I lived in the San Diego area when there was actually raw land between National City and Chula Vista.
There you go.
I remember those days too.
Long time ago.
Yes, sir.
My first job was delivering the San Diego Evening Tribune.
There you go.
In reference to your talk about Ronald Reagan and the amnesty he did in 86, you have to understand that Lyndon Johnson did the first amnesty when he signed the Treaty of Cordova in El Paso back in, I believe it was either 65, 66.
And he announced whenever this treaty, that was a land swap.
That's what the Cordova treaty was, a land swap between the two to straighten out the Rio Grande.
He announced this, and he said, now, like, let's say, for instance, right now, he said, as of February the 1st, everybody that's here is going to be legal.
Well, of course, there was about 150,000 more showed up between his announcement and the effective date.
But back then, it was basically the head of the household person, you know, and I don't want to be sexist, but it was basically the man came from Mexico or South America, came over here to work, and he was sending the money back.
It was just the head of the family.
Right.
But the way that they gave amnesty, they said, if you have a rent receipt, if you have utility receipt, it's something that you can show that you're here, then you have amnesty.
Well, in 86, these people, since nothing was going on at the border between, say, 65 and 86, still people came across, but they got smart.
So when Reagan did it, he said, okay, if you have some kind of a receipt, something.
Well, what happened in the meantime was they brought the entire family over here.
So you have, like, say, two families in a household.
So the telephone was in one person's name.
The utility.
Now, Chuck, the point about all this is that if we continue to give amnesty without controlling the border, the numbers go from a couple hundred thousand in the 60s to 4 or 5 million in the 80s to 20 million in 2006.
Well, the amount, no, it was $150,000.
But it was a $1.5 million.
Focus on the $1.5 million back then.
Focus on the point.
If we don't get control of the borders, the numbers next time will be double what they are today.
Right.
I agree with you 100%.
And I'll reference to the.
Thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
We've got to move on.
Let's get Jimmy in New Orleans in here.
Jimmy wants to talk about trans fat.
Go ahead.
Hey, Roger.
Pleasure and an honor, man.
How are you?
Thank you.
Good.
And Merry Christmas.
No happy holidays here.
Merry Christmas to you, sir.
Hey, point I wanted to make is in reference to the trans fat issue in New York City with Mayor Bloomberg.
And if this is being done in the interest of public safety, why aren't we concerned with real hazards such as unprotected sex?
I would think that would be much more of a fatal issue than eating a bunch of trans fat.
Well, it absolutely is.
What we need then, Jimmy, what you're saying is we need the sex patrol in New York.
And anytime that somebody is feeling like they're going to have sex, they need to place a call so that a sex monitor is in place in order to make sure that they're having protected sex.
Is that where you're going with this?
Well, I'm being farcical here because my response to the neo-fascist liberals who will say, get out of my bedroom, I'll just come back with, get out of my kitchen.
Yeah, exactly.
Get out of my restaurant.
Get out of my kitchen.
I mean, leave me alone.
There's nothing about freedom left if there's going to be somebody like Mayor Bloomberg telling me what I can eat when I can make that decision for myself.
That's exactly.
So, Jimmy, I'm with you.
I'm with you 100%.
I appreciate the call.
All right.
So I don't know.
What do you think about these two border patrol agents?
And I brought this up, and I know we don't have a lot of time left.
I just wanted to get this into your hat that this administration and for whatever else the virtues are, and there are many, has a blind side with regard to this border.
And I'll tell you, all of the talk about amnesty, all of the talk about placating all of the activists and so forth, the Karl Rove theory that we've got to bring these new immigrants into the Republican Party and we can't be seen to be anti-immigrant.
We're not anti-immigrant.
We're anti-breaking the law.
We're anti-breaking the law.
Legal immigrants, God bless every one of them.
By golly, they're probably going to become better Americans than we are because that's the way this has worked in the past.
God bless them.
But illegal immigrants tend to come here, having broken the law to get here, they'll obey whatever law they feel like obeying when they get here.
I don't know whether you've been, you're up on the statistics, but out here in California, I don't know wherever you are, this is happening.
While there are a majority of these folks coming here coming here for jobs, that's the obvious thing, they're not coming here doing jobs, as the president has said, that Americans won't do.
If you follow the Swift and Company raids on the meatpacking plants in six states, it turns out that over 1,200 of these folks were using, this is an identity theft problem now.
They were using identities of real Americans to get these jobs.
And it was kind of a wink and a nod situation.
Well, the raids took place.
Over 1,200 of these people were, in effect, taken out of the workplace because they were stealing someone else's identity.
They were illegally in this country.
Then what happened?
Here's the part that the drive-by media didn't even cover.
What happened next was the most important thing.
What happened next was lines out the door at every one of these plants by American citizens to do those jobs.
That's the issue that I think we need to address more of in this country.
All right, Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush, 1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Back after this.
We're going to have to get used to it, I guess.
Arm Schwarzenegger has now come out of surgery in his broken leg skiing accident, and he's going to be back, but apparently on crutches for a couple of months.
This is going to be, well, an image dent, I would think, the Terminator on Crutches.
He's, I know Arm Schwarzenegger, and I've been with him many times on the issues and around the campaigning.
And he is a big, strong, formidable guy.
And I don't think he's going to take the crutches very easily here.
This is going to be interesting to follow.
All right, back to the phones here.
And I want to get the Border Patrol calls in here.
Let's try Jerry in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Jerry, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Hi.
Hey, how are you doing, Roger?
You're my favorite recovering politician.
Thank you.
I am.
I used to live out in Oceanside, California.
I was a regular listener.
I'm pleased to hear you today, although I'm in Raleigh now.
And I have two things to bring up real quick, and then you can either answer online or hang up and listen offline.
One, this is not an unprecedented or a new issue with these Border Patrol agents.
A few years ago, when I was living out there, you will remember a truckload of illegal aliens running from the police.
The police caught up with them, and a couple of people got beat up by the police because of the emotion of the moment and the adrenaline pumping.
Those police officers were fired.
One ended his career, and the illegals were allowed to sue for millions of dollars, even though they were illegally in the country and smuggling other illegal aliens in.
And the other issue was while living in Oceanside, there was an accident near my house, a car accident, where a gentleman was driving under the influence of alcohol that didn't break any laws.
Somebody else ran a stop sign and hit him.
But since he was under the influence of alcohol, he was told he shouldn't have been on the road, so he had no legal rights.
He got a DUI, was not allowed to collect on insurance, and had to continue to pay for his car and for the car that hit him.
So we've got more rights for illegal aliens smuggling drugs and smuggling other illegal aliens than our own citizens have here in their home country.
Yeah, Don, it's exactly right.
And I didn't mean to say this was the only instance that that has happened.
It is clearly a tsunami of instances.
You'll be sad to know that after we lost Tony Zapotella, an Oceanside police officer in a traffic stop in which an illegal alien drug smuggler, Adrian Camacho and gangbanger, killed him and fled to Mexico.
Mexico would not extradite.
We're still in the throes of that problem.
A second Oceanside Police officer, Besant, Don Besant, was killed last week in a similar circumstance, apparently gang-related ambush.
Whether it's illegal alien or not, we still do not know because the locals put a local law enforcement put a tight lid on it, and we've been unable to find out more than the person is involved with gangs.
But you are absolutely right.
This instance with the Border Patrol agents being made the bad guys because they're enforcing the drug laws of the United States and the drug smuggler gets immunity and gets to sue for millions.
This is not new.
The problem is, I'm fed up with it.
The problem is, I've had it.
If this is the president's policy, if this is the president's policy, that we're going to not only have an open border, but if the border patrol agents dare to try to enforce even the mediocre enforcement that they do have with both hands tied behind their back, if they tried to use their feet to enforce the law, they're going to be put in jail.
I just find this atrocious.
How does a drunk driver lose their rights, even though they're a citizen and lived in this country all their lives?
An illegal alien comes across the border, breaks the law on multiple counts, and is allowed to use our court system to take money from us.
Well, amen to all that, my friend.
I'm with you 100%, and I don't know, and I appreciate the call, Jerry.
All right, to Greg in Sacramento, California.
Hi, Greg, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Good morning.
Yeah, what I've learned about this open door policy with Mexico in the last five years is that maybe the threat to America wasn't as great as we've been led to believe.
After all, we've let everybody in, millions, as you referred to, as other than Mexicans, and yet we've still not had a terrorist attack.
On the other hand, we went to the Middle East and may have started World War III.
Five years ago, it was just Osama bin Laden, and he had maybe 3,000 loyalists.
And yet, look what we've got now.
I think we've terribly exaggerated everything.
And this open border policy just proves that I think I'm right.
The threat wasn't that great because look at nothing's happened.
And look at we let everybody in.
Well, I hope, you know what?
I hope you are right, Greg.
I don't think you are because I'm aware of the kind of people that have come in, the fact that these Hamas sleeper cells exist in this country, the FBI being forced to admit that they have no idea where a lot of these people are, but they are biding their time.
Hamas made a statement two weeks ago that they would begin attacking inside the United States because of the United States not paying off the Hamas government in the Palestinian area.
So, you know, Greg, I hope you're right.
I don't think you are, and I think we're going to find to our great chagrin that this threat is much, much greater than we think it is.
Let's go to the It's because we have made recruiting for the enemy so easy by occupying the United States.
No, you can't, no, you can't get away with that on this program.
You cannot say that the war on terrorism is America's fault on this program because you will be laughed off the air.
It is absolutely, patently absurd to suggest that the war on terrorism, which has been waged against the United States by Islamic extremists dating back to at least the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979, that somehow were overreacting in 2002 by taking on Saddam Hussein and by taking out the terrorists that he's supporting.
I don't want to go over the whole history again, but this audience knows full well that the argument that we created the enemy is complete and total historic nonsense.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh back after this.
Dedicating this show to the memory of James Brown and giant music in the United States and throughout the world.
And thank you, Rush, for the opportunity for me to fill in here today.
Let's take one final call.
Nick in Chicago, Illinois, you're next on the Rush program.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
I'm afraid what's happening to these border guards is also happening to our military.
We send our people out there to fight for us, to fight these terrorists, and every time they want to use their weapons to defend themselves, they have to stop and think about the army of lawyers that's sitting back waiting for the military people to do something wrong so they can throw them in jail for the rest of their lives.
This is depressing.
This is unfortunately true and very depressing.
And right here in San Diego at Camp Pendleton, 24 Marines, I think I forget the exact number, were indicted last week for Haditha killings.
And in Iraq, good grief, we're in a war.
And there's too many damn lawyers in the military.
I agree with you 100% on that.
As a recovering attorney, I can say these things.
I'm Roger Hitchcock.
And again, I want to thank Rush Limbaugh for the opportunity to fill in.
I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as we confront every day at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We confront these issues head on.
You get a chance to talk about them.
We together as Americans will solve these problems.
▲
Export Selection