All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
July 18, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha.
Welcome back.
Yes, we are.
We're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here at the EIB network and the Rush Limbaugh program.
800-282-2882 if you want to join us and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
This is an amazing story.
It's an AP out of Los Angeles anti-gang legislation.
And police crackdowns are failing so badly that they are strengthening the criminal organizations and making U.S. cities more dangerous, according to a report that's going to be released today.
Mass arrests, stiff prison sentences, often served with other gang members and other strategies that focus on law enforcement rather than intervention actually strengthen gang ties and further marginalize angry young men.
This, according to the Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that advocates alternatives to incarceration.
That's right.
We're making them mad.
Damn right, we're making them mad.
It's the same reason why we have terrorists in the world because Bush went to Iraq.
We're talking Mithril Limbaugh about 12, a 13, a 14, and 15-year-old Mithril Limbaugh, who's invomiting gangs that's likely to be ephemeral unless they're pulled off the street and put in prison where they will come out with much stronger gang allegiance thief, said Judith Green, co-author of Gang Wars, The Failure of Enforcement Tactics, The Need for Effective Public Policy Strategies.
Now, the real piece des résistance in this study is a quote from Wes McBrudd, the executive director of the California Gang Investigators Association, dismissed the findings of the report, which he said was written by thug huggers.
A bunch of thug huggers.
The Investigators Association is a professional organization for police officers.
We're making them mad by trying to catch them, and we're making them mad by putting him in jail.
And we just, we have to stop.
Do we have to come up with new strategies?
All right.
My friends, I can't avoid this.
No matter where you look, John and Elizabeth Edwards, well, I should say Elizabeth Edwards is all over the news.
In the Chicago Tribune, Democrats pledge support for wide access to abortion.
Okay.
Here's how the story opens.
Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health care plan would provide insurance coverage for abortion.
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the Family Planning and Abortion Rights Group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health.
Who's running here?
Is Edwards running?
Is the Brick girl running or is his wife running?
Does he speak at all?
Actually, Snerdley and I were talking about this.
And we think these two are running a pretty deft strategy themselves here.
Like Edwards goes out and he, as the candidates say, oh, I'm not comfortable around those people.
That's why I'm not gay marriage.
I don't think the wife goes out to a gay pride parade in San Francisco.
I'm all for it.
John's got some problems.
I'm all for it.
So they take care of it that way as she leaves and cover both sides of the issue.
Okay, that's the Chicago Tribune.
From the Associated Press, Elizabeth Edwards tells voters her husband, the Brick girl, is a tough guy who can stare the worst in the face and not blink in an ad set to start airing Wednesday in New Hampshire.
Elizabeth Edwards appears in the ad that the campaign hopes will highlight the couple's marriage.
So Elizabeth says that John is going to make sure abortion is covered insurance-wise.
Elizabeth says that John is tough.
You get to the Washington Post and Edwards defends his anti-poverty tour.
He has to be on defense.
He's having to defend it.
We have audio soundbites of much of this.
In fact, we have the ad.
We have the audio ad of Elizabeth Edwards, the audio of the ad, saying that John, her husband, the Breck girl, is a tough guy.
I've been blessed for the last 30 years to be married to the most optimistic person that I've ever met.
But at the same time, he has an unbelievable toughness, particularly about other people.
And that is his ability to fight for them.
We're not going to outsmart him.
He works harder than any human being that I know, always has.
It's unbelievably important that in our president we have someone who can stare the worst in the face and not blink.
I'm John Edwards, and I approve this message.
The worst in the face is she talking about the bathroom mirror every morning.
I'm sorry, Dawn.
I'm sorry.
Unkind, unkind.
I'm not supposed to comment on people's physical powers.
Okay, last night hardball with Chris Matthews as guest as John Edwards.
A little montage here of Matthews gushing about Elizabeth Edwards while interviewing the Brett girl.
Let me ask you about your wonderful wife, Elizabeth Edwards.
Of course, her name's Edwards, as you know quite well.
One of our golden oldies here, that's the wonderful Elizabeth Edwards talking on the telephone with, well, I'll leave no adjective here, and culture.
Still with hardball, Matthews says to the Breck girl, your wife has challenged Hillary Clinton today.
She was quoted as saying that you would be a better advocate for women than Hillary Clinton.
Well, I think it's not shocking that my wife is for me.
I'm proud to have her support.
I hope I get her vote, too.
Now, I think the points he was making, I actually talked to Elizabeth this afternoon about this.
I think the points he was making is if you look at things like poverty, there are more women in poverty than there are men.
There are more women who don't have health insurance than men.
There are more women who are affected by the minimum wage than men.
And in these kind of substantive areas that have a direct impact on the lives of women, I've been very aggressive and I've been out front and leading on those issues.
Okay, I'm refraining here from full comments about this.
I just don't get it.
I don't get, I don't understand, and I'm in touch, folks.
I have not lost touch.
I am in touch.
The size of this audience proves I am in touch.
I don't get it.
I don't see what is the bright light here.
Why is this guy he didn't even win his own state as vice president, carry his own state as vice presidential candidate?
He was going to have trouble being re-elected to the Senate, which is why in run.
The things he says are shockingly average.
We must make work pay.
I forget what the second one was, but oh, we need to start bussing people to schools so we have diversity.
We've been doing it for 50 years.
I don't get it.
I just don't understand where the perception here of brilliance is.
Next question.
Matthews says, it's interesting, Senator.
One of the things I've discovered in politics is that people react to what they think is unfair tactics.
And here they thought that Ann Coulter was being unfair.
Your campaign raised almost $400, $400,000 in the hours after your wife made that call.
Does that surprise you?
It surprises me a little bit, but I'm not shocked that a lot of people, and particularly a lot of Democrats, like the fact that Elizabeth was standing up to this woman and this hate-mongering.
Go, Elizabeth, is what I got to say.
You know, I appreciate her having some backbone and courage, and somebody's got to speak out when these people use the kind of language that this woman's been using.
Fair enough.
I mean, someone has to speak out, and it's going to be my wife.
Somebody's going to speak out.
It's going to be my wife.
Not to mention the fact this whole Ann Coulter thing was getting mad at her about was something typically taken out of context by people.
But I don't even, that's par for the course.
All right, so Matthews then asks this question.
What's it feel?
I've never been poor, and you have.
All right?
I'm not talking about the haircuts and all the nonsense.
I'm talking about your own personal experience as a human being.
So you know what it's like to be poor.
Tell the people watching right now who haven't been what it's like.
Do you believe this?
Do you?
This is what I don't get.
This guy has exhibited expertise on nothing.
Here's the answer.
We're going to listen to it together.
You go into a restaurant with your family and you sit down and everybody, especially when you're young, and that's the only time I was poor, Chris.
And you sit down and then you start to order something and your father says, we have to leave because we can't pay for this.
And you get up and leave.
And it's humiliating.
I mean, it feels humiliating when you're young.
And it's particularly humiliating to see your mother and father have to go through that.
And so we don't want anybody to be treated without dignity and respect in this country, which is part of what motivates me to this cause.
Yeah, this is this is.
Yes, we're supposed to believe it.
They walk into a restaurant with no money.
They walk into a restaurant with no money or very little money, and then they're surprised that there is a price next to every item on a menu.
Oh my gosh, they charge here.
Why, we can't go.
We've got to leave.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy this.
Before you even get to that, you have to say, wouldn't they know by virtue of where they're going whether they can afford it or not?
Why walk into some place if you're poor, you've got to be near home.
You certainly aren't traveling around.
You got to know your surroundings.
You got to know where you can afford what.
I mean, if you only could afford, let's see, what?
Oh, a lawnmower.
Why would you go to a Mercedes dealership?
There's something about all this, folks.
It's just.
What is being treated with dignity?
The guy that owned the restaurant was supposed to feed them for nothing?
Who humiliated anybody in that circumstance?
This is also not about poverty.
This is about liberalism, pure and simple.
One final thing.
This is a little bit of a discussion here, a montage actually, of Chuck Todd, who is the NBC News political director, used to run the hotline out there.
And he was talking with one of the anchorettes, one of the Infobabs.
She said, Elizabeth's verbal attack on Hillary Clinton, certainly making the headlines today, is Elizabeth overshadowing the campaign.
And here's a montage of the NBC political director's answer.
Elizabeth Edwards does seem to be the one Edwards who can consistently make headlines.
She seems to be almost the more compelling figure right now in the Edwards camp.
I think what the campaign likes when she goes on the attack is because she is a sympathetic figure and people genuinely seem to like her, it's hard to push back at her.
If she attacks Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton's not going to come and attack her.
Oh, yeah.
And it's something that the campaign knows it can get away with for a certain amount of time.
The question is, is there a point when Elizabeth Edwards maybe steps across some sort of imaginary line where she's going too far?
The question is, is there a point where Elizabeth Edwards, apparently not, because nobody's going to hit back.
Too much sympathy out there.
Anyway, a little long in this segment, my good friends, so we'll take a brief time out.
Resume shortly.
All right, get this, folks.
This is from LiveScience.com.
A headline of this story, study, Americans don't understand others.
It gets worse.
Rugged American individualism could hinder our ability to understand other people's point of view, according to a new study.
And in contrast, the researchers found that Chinese are more skilled at understanding other people's perspectives, possibly because they live in a more collectivist society.
The cultural difference affects the way we communicate, said study co-author and cognitive psychologist Bose Kaiser of the University of Chicago.
The study, though oversimplified compared to real life, was instructive.
Kaiser and his colleagues arranged two blocks on a table so participants could see both of them.
However, a piece of cardboard obstructed the view of one block, so a director sitting across from the participant could only see one.
When the director asked 20 American participants, none of Asian descent, to move a block, most were confused as to which block to move and did not take into account the director's perspective.
Even though they could have deduced that from the director's seat, only one block was on the table.
Most of the 20 Chinese participants, however, were not confused by the hidden block and knew exactly which block the director was referring to.
While following directions was relatively simple for the Chinese, it took Americans twice as long to move a block.
That strong, ego-centric communication of Westerners was non-existent when we looked at Chinese, Kaiser said.
The Chinese were very much able to put themselves in the shoes of another when they were communicating.
You see how this works.
Rugged individualism.
That's why the world hates us, and we're blockheads because our rugged individualism makes us selfish.
And we refuse to see the perspective of other people.
We must change our ways and become more collectivist as a society.
The long march of liberalism continues.
Here is Brian in Fremont, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Oh, it's an honorable great one.
How are you today?
I'm fine, sir.
Thank you.
From the great state of Michigan, contrary to the fact that we have two of the most liberal senators in the Senate, yeah, Levin and Sabinow.
Sorry to report on that.
Rush Reason I'm calling.
Sometimes in the liberal media, it seems like every other day, with the troops in Iraq, they report how long they're there.
They're there for six months.
They're there up to 13 months sometimes, and how dare they have to stay there that long in combat and battle.
Number one, they did sign up, but my father was a veteran of World War II.
He's no longer alive, but that's beside the point.
He married my mother in Newport News, climbed on the Queen Mary the next day, and was in the South Pacific for three and a half years without one day of RR.
And so I guess whether that was right or wrong at that time or whatever, I guess I get a little sick of the media reporting on that.
As a society, as a society and culture, we have elements who have become cisified, not nearly as tough.
Life has become easy, and challenges are not familiar.
And hardships, well, we make ours up.
I'm not saying we don't have any.
There's some hardships out there, but we got a wuss culture in parts of our culture.
I'm not talking about the military.
They're not complaining.
It's the Democrats who are complaining.
And they're just bringing it up because it's just another way to criticize Bush and to say we don't have a good military.
Bush hasn't built it up.
We're using it wrong.
These poor soldiers, these poor troops, they're in danger.
They're in a sectarian civil war.
They're not protected.
Bush didn't give them Humvees.
Bush didn't give them up-armored Humvees.
Bush didn't give them body-armored Bush.
Bush hates them.
Bush is Hitler.
And all this.
It's a drumbeat that is never ending.
Meanwhile, the Army, the military is meeting its recruitment goals.
They might be short one month, but they're not behind because in previous months, they outdid their expectations or their quotas, what they needed.
So the people signing up, you're right.
They know what they're getting in for.
And even the guard people.
Look, I've been to Afghanistan, as you know, and I've flown around the country on a C-130 with a guard crew from Texas.
And I spent a lot of time talking to these guys, and they weren't upset about being there.
This is what they could do to defend their families and defend their country.
And they were thinking they might get sent back after their first tour, but they weren't whining or complaining.
Now, they knew that I had a microphone, and they knew that I'm a meaty guy, but they were not whining or complaining.
And there was not a superior officer around them when I was with them.
And I went all over the country.
The only place we didn't get was to Bagram Air Force Base because of a problem with the C-130.
It took off and we had an engine failure to turn around and land.
But I talked to a lot of these people and officers too.
I didn't find any of these people complaining.
Now, this is some years ago.
The only complaint they had was, how come we're not getting news coverage over here on how successful our operations are?
Because they do have cable television over there.
They see CNN and all this.
And they saw the criticism going on of the soldiers and the operation in Iraq.
They were swarming about their successes.
And I told them it's because what you're doing over here that's successful is not considered newsworthy.
Doesn't fit the template that America is failing and that George Bush has got us mired in a bunch of screwed up, horrible policies and so forth.
So I'm glad you called out there.
Brian, I appreciate it very much.
Got to go.
Won't be long.
Be right back here.
Rev it up once again.
All right, let's talk about this cigar tax, the cigarette tax.
The president says he's going to veto it.
He reiterated today his threat to veto Senate legislation that would substantially increase funds for the little children's health insurance program by levying a 61 cent a pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes.
This includes that whopping 20,000% increase on the tax on cigars.
The tax on cigars right now at 5 cents, it'll go to 10 bucks on large cigars.
By the way, for those of you who are not cigar aficionados, as am I, a large cigar is defined as anything that is not a cigar that'll fit in a pack of 20 like cigarettes does, or do.
And those aren't cigars.
They might be called cigarillos, but if they're made by a machine, you may as well give them to the homeless.
So the point is, every cigar is a large cigar.
10 bucks.
The president is threatening to veto it.
Now, here's my problem with this.
This is liberalism on the march.
This is not a health issue.
Just like global warming is not a science issue.
This is liberalism.
This is a tax issue.
This is what liberals do.
They raise taxes and they get people to go along with it by targeting a segment of society that is defenseless and helpless.
The itty bitty children.
And they target the evil in society who are behaving in ways that liberals highly disapprove, i.e., smokers.
They've about run the cigarette tax thing dry, although that tax is going to be exorbitantly high now.
But now they focus on a forgotten area of the tobacco industry, the premium cigar industry.
And I'm going to tell you people, there's no comparison to a cigar and a cigarette.
The cigar is pure tobacco.
There are no additives in it.
There are no chemicals in it.
Only idiots inhale them, and not many do for very long.
They are a relaxation experience.
And they have a total, there's a whole different mindset with your cigar aficionado than a cigarette smoker.
If you want to smoke cigarettes, I'm not condemning anything.
I'm just pointing out the difference here.
The percentage of the tobacco business that is devoted to cigars is, I bet it's less than 2%.
All the cigarettes worldwide and so forth, this tax will put them out of business.
But I'm getting off the main point.
I am deviating from my main thrust.
The main thrust is this is not a health issue.
They're using again the witty bitty children and targeting these evils.
Why in the world should one segment of our society be targeted for a tax increase to pay for health care benefits that the parents of these kids ought to be finding a way to afford themselves?
And if that can't be done, then spread the burden of paying for it.
But we've already got how many damn children's health programs do we have?
I know that the taxes on cigarettes already are going to a lot of this.
That's why I've said for years, the cigarette smokers of this country deserve our thanks.
They deserve Congressional Medals of Honor because they continue to buy these things and their taxes are funding children's health programs already.
What I think ought to happen here, I think the products that these itty bitty children use ought to be taxed.
They're the ones they ought to be forced, their parents, to pay for their kids' health care.
Why should cigar smokers have to do it?
What do kids eat?
They eat vanilla ice cream.
They eat Doritos.
They eat Coke and Pepsi and 7 Up and whatever.
Red Bulls spiked with who knows what.
I don't know what they do.
But make them, make the parents of these kids, every time they buy our Snickers, raise a tax on a candy bar five bucks.
A diaper tax, absolutely.
And if you get throwaway diapers to save the environment, tax those at $10 a diaper.
Cartoon taxes, that's right.
If you watch Cartoon Network, special tax collected on your cable bill.
I mean, if the itty-bitty children are going to be the beneficiaries of this, why in the hell is somebody who has nothing to do with the itty-bitty children paying for it?
How come big governments are going to come around, and you know what?
They think that they, well, they know I think this is going to succeed because they have created such hatred for cigarette smokers in this country.
They have successfully over the years created such hatred.
Secondhand smoke, kill, it doesn't.
First-hand smoke doesn't universally kill.
I see these numbers, 400,000 cigarette-related deaths a year.
They don't know that.
Prove it.
But the numbers out there, just like 3 million homeless were out there.
Dawn, it looks like you're really getting irritated in there.
Is it because I am not sympathetic to the plight of our poor, obese, itty-bitty children who don't have health care?
This is not about the kids.
It's just the technique to sell this.
And of course, you know, name for me the pro-smoker lobby.
You know, there's a cigar association, cigar maker cigar association.
There's a trade group.
I've spoken to them.
Great bunch of guys.
Everybody I've met in the cigar industry, fine person.
And they're being targeted here.
They haven't done a thing.
Kids don't smoke their product.
Anyway, it just burns me up.
President's going to veto it.
Reiterated his promise to do that.
Here's Mark in Tom's River, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, how are you doing?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, is the media going to be screaming about what Harry Reid did last night and bring him up on torture charges and demand to send it if he closed?
That's right.
Sleep deprivation.
Waterboarding of recalcitrant senators.
Actually, they went home.
Did they?
They did.
They went home.
Some of the senators went home.
Some of the senators did not pull an all-nighter.
That's what happened.
Dingy Harry scheduled votes for like 2 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m.
And a bunch of the women, senators, I went to Barbara Boxer and said, you got to go talk to him.
This is not going to work.
We need three or four hours sleep here.
So Denji Harry relented, and the last vote was at 1 a.m. and the next vote was at 5 a.m.
And between those four hours, senators went home.
As reported by Dan Abash at CNN.
Tom in Highland Park, Illinois.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, Rush.
Hey.
You know, when libs claim scientific justification for global warming, you need to understand there's a reason why they call it scientific consensus rather than scientific theory.
And the reason is theory needs to incorporate all the known data.
And there's some excellent reports out there right now showing that the nearby planets in our solar system are experiencing similar rises in their surface temperature.
Yeah, we reported at Mars, even Pluto, which they screwed by deplanetizing it for a while.
But people got kids got upset.
You can't tell us that Pluto is not a place.
They had to make it a planet again.
Well, there's another report out this year showing that all the planets in the solar system are experiencing similar rises in their surface temperatures.
So if we're going to accept this scientific consensus as theory, we have to conclude that our American economy is causing a greenhouse effect across the whole solar system.
Now, they realize they can't get away with calling it theory, so they've come up with this code term, scientific consensus, to hide the fact that they're advancing a political agenda rather than scientific theory.
They're relying on the basic scientific ignorance of most people.
Oh, consensus.
Why?
Most scientists agree?
Well, it must be true.
They're relying on that.
Let me ask you a question.
I should ask Roy Spencer this, but I don't have access to him right now.
You seem to be informed on the.
Do we have the technology to actually or accurately measure surface temperatures on these outlier planets?
Well, you're probably exceeding my technical knowledge, but there are the higher the temperature, the different the radiation is, and the different the color is.
And through that, I believe that they can measure the surface temperatures of the various planets.
Right.
But here, this is a little bit more.
Well, that makes total sense to me, but then all those things that you talked about that our telescopes reading, all those radiation and the color and all that still has to go through our polluted global warming atmosphere with all that CO2 in it.
That might be distorting it some.
I think the more important thing here, Rush, is why they are pushing global warming as such an important part of their political agenda.
Would you care to suggest to your listeners why they're doing this, or could I help you?
Why don't you go ahead?
I've already told them what I think.
Well, I think we don't have to guess at it.
We can look right at Kofiana, a speech that he made last spring, I believe, as the Secretary General of the U.N., where he claimed that global warming was such a serious worldwide problem that nations needed to forsake their sovereignty to the United Nations to fix the problem.
We all know what they say the problem is.
It's the American economy.
So what they're asking us to do is turn over the last successful capitalistic democracy over to a group that is highly dominated by either dictators, communist nations, or highly socialized states like France, Germany, and England.
What I would suggest they're doing is advancing an agenda for worldwide socialism.
Would you disagree?
Nope.
Nope.
That's what the objective of socialists is.
To wipe out capitalism wherever they can find it, gain control over as much of the wealth of each nation as possible and the population.
Well, the problem with that, I mean, everybody wants to help out the unfortunate, but I've never seen a communist regime or even a highly socialized state that has not relied on autocratic rule.
Therefore, socialism really is the enemy of democracy.
We've never seen a democratic communist nation anywhere raising its head in history.
And if the American Democratic Party, if we look at their agenda, it's very hard to find one thing on their agenda that you can distinguish from any communist or socialist regime that ever raised its ugly head in history.
Aside from one thing, the Democrats have not yet proposed shooting people who try to escape or who disagree with them.
I don't think that's accurate because last week or two weeks ago, we raised a monument to the goddess of democracy in Washington, which is supposed to commemorate the millions of people that died under brutal communist regimes.
And it was held in our American liberal press as a controversial monument that the monument was not telling the full story of communism.
If the full story of communism isn't murdering millions of people unnecessarily, then what is the other side?
No, it is.
No, it is.
Communism kills.
Undeniable truth of life number 18.
Communism kills.
There's evidence to support it.
Well, the reason that they won't let the whole story be told is because they don't want the whole story to be told, and they want that monument to go up.
Anyway, I think all of liberalism is oriented toward control of resources and control of the population for a whole host of reasons.
Interesting call, sir.
I'm up against it here on the programming format, so I must take a brief EIB Extreme Profit Center timeout.
Okay, up next, ladies and gentlemen, an object lesson in how the drive-by media lies misrepresents and distorts on purpose in order to continue to darken the cloud that they have created over the administration.
Here's the headline.
Reuters, ex-Cheney aide gets 10 years in prison in spy case.
First thought when I saw this, Sandy Bergler.
Nah, we went to Cheney aid.
So I read further.
A former White House official who took top secret documents from Vice President Cheney's office and gave them to opposition figures in the Philippines was sentenced today to 10 years in the clink.
Philippine-born Leandro Aragon Sillo, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, pleaded guilty last year to taking the documents that included details on threats against U.S. government interests and military personnel in the Philippines.
Now, if it weren't for me, you would think if you saw this story, oh, wow, what's going on in Cheney's office?
First, a Scooter Libby.
Now, this guy, this administration is, hey, they've lost control.
But I, ladies and gentlemen, am going to give you the whole truth.
This story does not mention this, that Leandro Arrogan Sillo worked on the security detail assigned to the vice president from 1999 to 2002, where he held a top security clearance.
He later took a job as an intelligence analyst with the FBI in New Jersey.
Now, this guy worked in the office of the vice president from 1999 to 2002.
Dick Cheney didn't become vice president until 2001.
The guy was in his position for three years before Dick Cheney showed up.
He wasn't Cheney's guy.
He was inherited, probably via, you know, career bureaucrat path or whatever, but he was in the office of the vice president.
I don't know who put him there, but he was in there during the Clinton administration.
So the drive-bys try to paint this as yet another example of the failures and the corruption of this administration.
It was the Bush administration which caught the guy.
That's the correct spin, if you want to have any spin.
This is Raphael in Miami, Florida.
Hi, Raphael.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Hey, how are you doing, Mr. Rush?
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
I called, you know, because I watched that, like you told me yesterday.
It's just amazing.
It shouldn't be called that, Rush.
Just like you labeled it the amnesty bill.
It needs to be called the surrender bill.
And Americans might get it then.
Americans get it.
No, because every time you see redeployment, you see this, you see that, you never see that if we do what they ask us to do.
No, look at the American people are getting this.
You might have a good idea out there to call it the surrender bill the next time it comes up.
And it will.
They're going to keep bringing it up regardless because they're harassing the president.
They would love to have it stick and work.
But the American people get this.
And I say this because if the American people wanted what the Democrats want, it would have happened.
Yeah.
Yeah, I find it amazing that now they trust the CIA so much.
You know, the CIA comes out with the report.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, and, you know, the Schumer and Wax.
I mean, there was never an investigation good enough when Clinton was president.
But now they want to investigate everything on this president instead of doing the job to the people.
But I think Americans really, a word sticks.
Like amnesty stuck.
That's what everybody would call it, amnesty.
And it just stuck.
And I believe it's the same for surrender.
Yeah, but you know, this is another thing.
You're right.
Amnesty was what it was.
It was not spin.
It was a trick.
But this, that immigration bill failed because the failures of this government to enforce existing law is having huge impact on the lives of people.
They don't need to be told that this is an amnesty bill or that was an amnesty.
They know that the Congress, that the Senate was trying to bamboozle them and make it even worse.
And it's already having huge impacts on millions of people.
And they were going to put up with it.
It could have been called a Civil Rights Act in 2007, and they would have opposed it because they know what's in it.
And the same thing with this.
When you look at the latest poll out today from Zogby, congressional approval, like Bush is at 34%, congressional approval at 14%.
There is a reason here.
And one of the reasons, it's not because they're not passing big liberal bills, it's because they're nothing but negative doom and gloomers, whiners, investigators, subpoena, surrender.
What's the other one?
Subpoena, surrender, whatever it is.
There's a slogan I came up with them for him yesterday, and they're that, and it's obvious to everybody.
Back here in a minute: it's subpoena, surrender, and censor is the slogan for the Democrat-led Senate.
Have a great night, folks.
21-hour break.
We're coming right back, all wrapped up tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection