All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
June 24, 2013, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush will be back tomorrow.
The rumors are that he's resting up in preparation of having the Gandolfini meal tonight.
I don't know if that's true.
Speaking of the Gandalfini meal, I noticed during the break that Governor Christie in New Jersey has lowered the flags in that state to half masked in honor of James Gandalf.
He's had a distinct look in his face, Governor Christie, as if he wants to go try out the Gandolfini meal himself.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Douglas Bansky for Rush.
I found something during the break that you may find interesting.
We're talking about Snowden.
And I'm telling you that based upon what I know now, I'm very inclined to feel that this is an act of conscientious objection, civil disobedience, call it what you will, and I've talked to a number of very serious serious high-level conservative thinkers over the weekend who all to a man come to that same conclusion, based upon what we know now.
There may be many more things we learned, but not yet.
We don't know them.
There's a sealed complaint.
There's a sealed warrant out.
We'll get to that in a moment.
I came across a speech.
I don't know if any of you remember this.
The very, very liberal actor, the left wing actor Tim Robbins, gave a speech in 2003 at the National Press Club, and George W. Bush was president.
And here's what Tim Robbins had to say on that day.
He said, a chill wind is blowing in this nation.
He said a message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and clear channel and Cooperstown.
If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.
Now, that is a liberal talking because George W. Bush, who did not spy on the American people, whose administration, as far as we know, did not use the IRS for intimidation of political opponents.
Mr. Obama has now been president of this country.
He's been at the helm of this country for going on five years, four and a half years.
Mr. Robbins, what would you say now concerning free speech?
I'm just curious about the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, take your pick, the NSA debacle.
The talking points change to fit the narrative.
It's a long list.
It's a very long list.
Have you noticed that every time a reporter goes actually goes off script, actually does their job and reports some morsel of truth, the Obama administration then comes down on them like a ton of bricks.
Now this scandal, this NSA scandal, it has been reported and covered more in Germany, for example, than here.
These are people, if you've saw the film, the wonderful film, The Lives of Others.
You know what the Stasi can do and what they're capable of.
In Germany, there was absolute outrage when this scandal erupted.
German outrage.
Felt they said it, those people who came from East Germany, they said that America was using tactics that were similar to those of the East German Stasi.
That's a conservative radio hosts in the United States of America.
That's actual East German people in the government of Germany.
And government surveillance, let me remind you, ladies and gentlemen, government surveillance is a very, very sensitive topic in Germany.
Because they have memories of the Stasi secret police.
They were dreaded.
They had a network of informants.
They didn't have all the technology we have, but they had a network of informants.
And this is still very fresh in the minds of the citizens of Germany.
We don't have anything really like it here to compare it to.
So in a guest editorial for Spiegel online last week, Justice Minister of Germany said that reports that the United States could access and track virtually all forms of internet communication were deeply disconcerting and potentially dangerous.
She wrote, The more a society monitors, controls, and observes its citizens, the less free it is.
She wrote, the suspicion of excessive surveillance of communications is so alarming that it cannot be ignored.
For that reason, openness and clarification by the U.S. administration itself is paramount at this point, and all facts must be put on the table.
What are they doing to Snowden?
They're tracking him in hopes to catch him.
Another member of Merkel's party accused Washington of using their words, the Germans' words, American style, meaning we've got the money and technology, American style Stasi methods.
He wrote, he said, I thought this era had ended when East Germany fell.
This is what they're saying in Germany, ladies and gentlemen.
Now we got fascinating part of the story is that you've got Mr. Snowden flies from Hong Kong to Moscow.
We believe.
I think he was seen there.
We don't know what happened to him after that.
Here's Snowden who feels that he needs to escape.
And let's talk about Putin for a moment.
Putin Putin Putin.
He may have Snowden there.
He may allow him to go on to Cuba or someplace else.
We nobody knows.
It's all speculation.
But there's there's a there's something here to admire about Vladimir Putin.
We don't have it here.
And that is this.
He knows his country's national interests, and he is prepared to pursue his country's national interest.
You know, we're not in that we're not exactly in the same mode right now.
We got Obama out there saying, oh, let's cut American and Russian nuclear arms by a third.
Putin is you've got to love all this.
Um especially in the day and age when there's chemical weapons floating around in Syria, and there's nuclear powers like Pakistan and North Korea, you know, on the rise, and President Tomorrow's going to give a climate change conversation.
One of the things Obama has never appreciated, and I think this will this will follow through onto our immigration conversation coming up in the next little while.
Obama has never truly appreciated the exceptional, the unique standing that America, that the United States has in the world, the essential is uh exceptional standing.
When you when you retreat from that, there's a vacuum.
There's an emptiness on the planet, and it gets filled by all the bad guys in Iran, the Islamists, North Africa tyrants, sociopaths everywhere rise up.
Obama doesn't seem to understand or appreciate that the world isn't cooperating with at least his vocalized vision.
The bad guys have noticed that the United States is retreating.
And Putin, great example.
He's figured it out, so of the Iranians, so of the North Koreans, so of the Taliban, of course.
But the president has an objective right now, and that's climate change.
We got to deal with that immediately.
Climate change.
That's that's gonna be the big history-making moment coming up tomorrow.
Now that has got to make them laugh.
It's got to make them cheer in China and Russia, because as you know, climate change conversations are all about one thing.
They're not about any science that backs it up, it's all a hoax.
Climate change is always about one thing, which is cutting America economically down to size.
I think Rumsfeld did it.
De Rumfeld said something like this.
He said, weakness is provocative, meaning to our enemies.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, there is this idea that it's one could get very dangerously close to articulating, which is that Obama does not know our national interests.
Well, he knows his interests.
Reagan believed in an exceptional United States, and he said so, and he often talked about how fragile this was and the importance of holding on to this.
I don't know if you remember.
I it may have been on Drudge, I don't know.
There were some pictures of Obama and Putin, and in one, you've got Obama wearing these very tight jeans, and he was on a bicycle wearing a safety helmet.
It looked very silly, and next to that picture there was a picture of Putin in military fatigue.
He had a rifle and he looked he looked like James Bond.
I mean, the perfect photo to say where we are.
Of course the Russians are not going to bow down at the moment.
They've got to be shaking their heads in wonderment.
They have got to be shaking their heads in wonderment at what passes for a government in the United States at this point in history.
I mean, you know, I I'm very disappointed that Romney lost, but if you had one, just think of what we would have had.
Very honorable and intelligent and an America loving guy.
And that's what happens when too many one issue Americans end up staying home.
Now, Obama has long time had an interest in domestic surveillance.
Now, remember, when he campaigned, he was out there campaigning in the first campaign against a man who wasn't running, and that's George W. Bush.
And he was out there loudly campaigning against the surveillance policies.
He was campaigning against the National Security Agency's domestic spying powers.
And he was out there saying, was it really there to protect us?
So back in 2007, candidate Obama is saying that this is an unconstitutional spy state.
He promised his exact words were no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens, no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, no more tracking citizens who merely protest a war.
Now that's the pre-presidency Obama, the one who kept saying about the Bush administration, well, acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security.
Now, six months into his term, Eric Holder, Attorney General, endorses a domestic surveillance program, the very type of program that Obama deplored.
And that was reported in The Guardian last week.
Now, when you stop and think about it, ladies and gentlemen, we've got an administration whose think of it, whose IRS is delighted to harass its political opponents, whose attorney general is delighted to spy on reporters.
It cannot expect us to believe that it embraced broad domestic surveillance powers against Obama's campaign stances.
They can't expect us to believe they did this merely for the purposes of national security.
Was it to gather data for vote getting?
Was it to gather data to punish enemies of the Democrats?
Is it paranoid to start asking these questions?
Duggar Bansky, ladies and gentlemen, filling for Rush Limbaugh.
The phone number here, you're welcome to call if I've mentioned it.
It's 1-800-282-2882.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Show, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, if it's Doug Basky here filling in for Rush, if I have this about right, about six months into Obama's first term, uh Eric Holder, Attorney General, endorsed domestic surveillance powers well beyond what Obama had said he deplored when he was a candidate.
Now that was about six months after Obama won the first election.
So if it happened that fast, you have to know that somebody out there planned this before that time, just as Obamacare, amazingly enough, was ready to roll out immediately, too.
They had you know you don't have legislation that massive that's just written overnight.
Heck, it couldn't even be read overnight.
In fact, by the way, when we get to immigration in a little while, they're gonna vote on the immigration bill before even reading it.
Isn't that lovely?
Isn't it lovely that we do that now?
Anyway, the health care bill was prepared, written.
We still don't know by whom, but it came off the shelf.
When you combine the systemic breakdown in the NSA of American liberty, when you combine that with Obamacare, and now when you combine that with the immigration ambitions, and why not throw in the efforts of gun control as well of this administration.
You you you wonder what is holding up the the stool of American freedom.
You have Valerie Jarrett out there from the White House warning that uh that you know there would be retaliation against their political enemies if Obama won his second term.
You can bet, and Rush has analyzed this and gone through this with you numerous times better than anybody at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, you can bet if an immigration bill is passed, it is purely for political reasons, and it is a bill designed to to benefit only the Democrats.
Because we've already had uh unenforced laws on the books that would fix what's broken, but they're not being enforced.
of course, once you do that, then that only leaves gun control, and you know that that's the ultimate dream for these people.
So they can spy on you thoroughly.
Can't get Obama's college records, transcripts, can't get that.
Now, why would any law abiding citizen, ladies and gentlemen, want to be followed by the police wherever you went, which is essentially what's happening here, electronically speaking?
Why would you want the police checking your mailbox or going through your trash?
Would they want to be photographed?
Or do you want to be photographed whatever you walked out the door?
And what if it made you safer?
Throw that question in.
I think most people would rather take their chances with crime and terrorism than live under this obsessively watchful eye of the government.
You know, what happens if they start categorizing people into what they call what the government decides is high risk behavior?
Will you then have to report your neighbor or people you work with?
Well, he's getting a divorce, Bob is getting a divorce, his behavior is a little bit high risk, he's acting very jittery lately.
I got to tell somebody about it.
So the question here, Edward Snowden, whistleblower or traitor.
Well, the marketing is now to make him into a traitor.
He was certainly a whistleblower.
He certainly is a hero.
Don't know yet if he's a traitor.
Computer whiz.
But we know this about him.
You saw the interview and he saw something that he felt needed to be corrected.
And he spoke about it.
And he's given up much of his life, and he's on the run because of it.
Now there's people out there saying Snowden helped our enemies, and I'm not buying that just yet, because anyone engaged in terrorism, espionage, anyone engaged in crime already knows that the government can get a warrant based upon probable cause to wiretap your phone, even play at a hidden microphone.
This changes nothing for the people who are engaged in probable cause.
And they will never know if the government is on to them.
So is Snowden a scoundrel or is he a political savior?
He looked he did choose the Constitution over his job, put his life in jeopardy.
You have people out there saying, well, he fled to Hong Kong.
That's disturbing.
That shows he may not have good intentions.
I don't understand why he shouldn't have gone somewhere, especially under the circumstances.
There are people out there who think he's a huge hero, not just a little hero.
There are people out there, you read, go on the blogs, they talk about him like he's Paul Revere.
So why would he have stayed here?
Why should he have stayed here, knowing full well that this that this bunch in Washington would love to throw him into the darkest prison?
Or worse, you have only to read this warrant they've got out for him.
Espionage.
Hey, yes, they want to throw him in the back of the darkest prison, or worse, just to get rid of him.
Look, he has stated his reasons for doing what he did.
So far, his reasons appear credible.
And think about it.
Why would a young man give up his life and the life that he knew, maybe his own life as well, for a bunch of people such as ourselves, you, me, who he doesn't even know.
He will never know us.
I don't really see what else he could do but go someplace where he might have a chance at safety.
And he's come forward, he's given this interview, you've seen it.
Can you imagine what it's like if he's still in Moscow or wherever hands up, those people grilling him?
But can you imagine if he was up at Capitol Hill, though, those people grilling him also, the senators, congressmen, you've seen their attitudes, Pelosi, Feinseed, Schumer, Lindsay Graham.
Snowden gave this some thought.
He figured out how to do what he had to do the best way he could.
Nothing about a situation like this, ladies and gentlemen, is ideal.
And he could not expect much help here from people, from a lawyer.
Um he had a lot of guts to do what he did.
He had a lot of guts to do what he did.
Here's a quote from the guy, in fact.
He said, just pause and take it to heart.
He said, I've been looking for leaders, but I realize that leadership is about being the first to act.
That's that that sounds like a patriot speaking, not a traitor.
Now, if you were to get information that hurt this country and did it knowing it would cause damage, then okay, he's a traitor, but we haven't heard that yet.
The man knows the people he's dealing with.
He know in our intelligence agencies, he knows what they're capable of.
I think he picked Hong Kong because he knows the U.S. wouldn't risk running whatever little relations ruining whatever little relationships we have with China by by executing him in Hong Kong.
But he's on the run, and he has right to fear for his life, because you know they've made it very loud and clear they want to get him.
We'll see what happens.
More to come after this.
Thank you, sir.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen of the Russian Most Show.
Douglas Yerbanski here filling in for Rush.
I see here that Rand Paul is defending Mr. Snowden.
He says Mr. Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.
He continued, he said, I think there'll be a judgment because both of them broke the law and history will have to determine.
Meaning, he says he says they're going to contrast the behavior to that of James Clapper, the National Intelligence Director, with Edward Snowden.
Mr. Clapper lied in Congress in defiance of the law and in the name of security, Mr. Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.
He did go on, he said his opinion of Snowden could change.
I do think for Mr. Snowden, he said if he cozies up to the Russian government, it will be nothing but bad for his name in history.
If if he goes to an independent third country like Iceland, and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there's a chance he'll be seen as an advocate of privacy.
If he cozies up to either the Russian government or the Chinese government, or any of these governments that are perceived as enemies of ours, I think that will be a problem for him in history.
Well, I Rand Paul is exactly where I'm at on this matter.
Exactly.
But but ladies and gentlemen, the the whole thing, what's happened with the NSA, it's part and parcel with the with the whole other problems of the regime.
The IRS, the Department of Justice, the EPA, and on and on.
And it boils down to this, a government gone wild.
I mean, they're gonna try and turn Snowden into the Rosenbergs into Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
That's gonna fail on its face, of course not.
You know, um a friend of mine, well-known journalist wrote me the other day, he said that um John Roberts on Fox did a superb job with a report called Your Secrets, which is apparently available on Fox News uh on on the internet.
And this was before the IRS and NSA stories were out.
And it all has to do with your privacy, and these reports apparently raised a very serious red flag.
I was not I don't think I was even in the country when they were up being aired, but but that's what it that's what I've been informed.
You know there's four million people walking around with top secret clearance in this country.
That's very peculiar also.
Another friend of mine reminded me about the film The Three Days of the Condor, which I don't know if you've ever seen that film or remember it.
It's got Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway in it, 1975, going back a long ways.
And in that film, my friend reminded me that Robert Redford's character goes through all this trauma, and at the end of the movie, he's in the exact same place where the movie begins, and that is he's standing outside the New York Times, meaning, when in doubt, trust the media.
The problem that Snowden seemed to have is that the American media has become so Obama-centric that Snowden felt he had to go to the guardian.
The guardian in the UK, a British paper, a left-leaning British paper, by the way.
He felt he had to go all the way to them to report the truth about a left-wing American president because he did not feel that the American left wing press would cover it.
And he was right, because they're still they're trying to do the marketing of him as a traitor.
There's plenty to be thought about with that little fact.
The Obama media is a very strange place.
Remember, they tried to ignore the Gosnell abortion story, or to rewrite what it was about.
Blaming it on the right is one of the things they tried to do.
The Obama media has rewritten the Benghazi story as much as possible.
They've rewritten the IRS story, my goodness, how they've covered for Obama on the IRS story, and any number of Obama stories since he's been president since 2008.
The media has cast itself entirely as untrustworthy.
And now, to a guy who wanted to leak NSA secrets, or at least inform the American people that they were being spied upon.
Something that if if it was Bush, just to state the obvious, if it was Bush or any GOP president, the story would have the liberal media chomping at the bit to get the guy, to get the president, and to make this guy a hero.
I mean, that is that is an ironic little fact of the story.
Now, why did he feel to get the need to go to the media in the first place?
What do you think?
There's a reason.
I mean, I don't think that Snowden trusted the government.
Who trusts the government at this point?
Trust and government is non-existent right now.
Makes him an ideal Tea Party member, doesn't it in the future?
Well, it does.
It does.
That's what's happening.
Now, let's I'm reading about immigration online whilst we've been here talking today, and I see that uh Rand Paul has come out and he was just mentioned him a moment ago.
He's come out and he says he's not going to support the immigration bill.
Because it doesn't include his amendment that would grant Congress the power to determine whether the U.S. Southern border is secure.
Can you imagine such a thing, ladies and gentlemen?
That they that they won't support an amendment that guarantees that the border is secure.
You have to ask yourself what is really going on here.
This is look, the left have been obsessed for years with having as many things occur that will institutionalize leftism as the permanent and unchangeable state of this country forever.
And the two well, two of the ways they wanted to do this were through health care and through immigration.
None of this is new.
And yet I'm watching these senators, these Congress people acting as if they don't represent American citizens.
They just expect you to finance your own demise in the process.
So Obama gives a talk over the weekend, his Saturday afternoon address.
He says the time for excuses is over.
There's a man who knows a thing or two about excuses.
They talk about immigration reform, and by reform, what we mean today is making making illegal legal.
And there are politicians on both sides of this who have done nothing for 30 years, who want off the hook.
I mean, they become a walking arguments for term limits.
As you already know, the laws are in place, follow them, seal the border.
If these laws had been followed, there would not be millions more illegal immigrants here looking for a new amnesty bill, looking for U.S. citizenship that they don't deserve.
You gotta step back for a moment and look at the political agendas that are at play concerning this issue.
The Democrats want to pack the country through legalization, through expanded immigration with as many foreigners who they know, who they know will eventually become Democrat voters as they possibly can.
The idea here is to permanently change the political balance in the country in their favor, permanently, so that they can always remain in power, along with breaking the back of Republicans, breaking the back of conservatives.
I watched Lindsey Graham on the television over the weekend.
Lindsay Graham always goes back to the same thing.
Well, we have to support this because we we don't want to further alienate the Latino community.
Ladies and gentlemen, Rush Limbaugh has gone through with you the reality, the science, the numbers on this as perfectly as anyone has.
Your institutionalizing leftism forever, forever.
Obama tells Schumer 90% border security trigger is not acceptable.
Yeah, long they've been discussing this bill, forever, forever.
I have a story in my hands, 2007.
Harry Reid is the majority leader.
He and Mitch McConnell are working at it in June June of 2007.
All the same characters.
Schumer was involved, only Pelosi was involved.
All the same characters saying all the same things that they're saying now.
And yet, is there an immigration crisis?
Is there a gun crisis?
Is there a gay marriage crisis?
Don't think so.
Much more immigration coming up for the remainder of the show.
It's Doug Rebansky filling in for Rush Limbo.
We'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbo Show, ladies and gentlemen.
Douglas Rbanski here filling in for Rush.
I'm gonna grab a call from John in San Diego.
John, welcome to the Rush Limbo Show.
How are you today, sir?
Hey, great.
I could I couldn't help but have to call in because you're talking about uh border security and whistleblowing and and I worked at the border for sixteen years and I became a whistleblower, so I know all about the procedures that you're supposed to go through.
And uh I know that they're trying to hang this young man, Mr. Snowden, but if he was a real spy or something, he wouldn't have gone public, you know.
And and people don't really understand the procedures, uh internal affairs, office of special counsel, which is another wasted agency, uh, office of the inspector general and so forth before you go through Congress and then finally ultimately go to radio shows and uh news media.
Do you think he's not a spy?
Of course not.
If he was a spy, he you wouldn't have heard about it and he would have just disappeared, or he would have kept doing what he's doing without saying anything.
I mean, he had a flash drive, he was taking in and stealing information or monitoring the information, but once he went public with it, he's not a spy.
I would agree with that as you, too.
So I mean I've dealt with that stuff too.
Unless there's something new that comes out.
Plus, if you if if you were him and you heard the way these politicians are talking, you would run from them also, wouldn't you?
Of course.
I mean, uh I was lucky because I stayed public, I reported through the agencies, and I played their game, and you have to jump through the hurdles through their hoops, that sort of thing.
Otherwise they try to nail you and say, well, you didn't exhaust all your administrative remedies.
Yes, but what and of course what he was exposing was so enormous that um I would I would fear for my life if I were him, even going through the normal procedures.
I I uh it's because it's so enormous and embarrassing as a it's not uncommon to get death threats.
I mean I I've had death threats while I was still working at U.S. Customs, and I was forced out in ninety-eight.
I had to resign just to get out.
Um but you you've heard of the Echelon program?
Yes.
Well tell for our listeners, tell us what that is.
Excuse me.
Well, the Echelon program, I think goes back to the 70s, and uh what they do is they surreptitio the government surreptitiously monitors the government and uh the people in the United States illegally by going through a third party so they can avoid using uh Fourth Amendment requirements like a Title III or a Title VII uh wiretap.
So that means everything is sent to England, and then they uh extrapolate or take all the information from the um monitoring system, which is computerized, and then they bounce it back to what they want to use it for.
And your point.
Yeah, it is, and yeah, and your point is.
Sorry?
Your point, sir, is what about that?
Well, the the point was is that they they work around the constitutional laws and requirements to steal the information on you if you want to sit there and talk about kilos of cocaine on the on the t on the radio or telephone, then it's gonna key off certain monitoring systems, and then it's gonna track and trace the whole thing.
You're making a great point.
You're making a great you know, every government that wants to be a true regime is they they survive dependent upon their ability to watch everyone.
And that's really where we're at now.
This is something the Stasi could never have dreamt of, the technological ability to do what the this program does.
John, thanks so much for calling the Vush Limbo Show.
Hope to speak to you again, sir.
This is true.
I mean, even in socialist uh Cuba, where the partisan media and the other liberal socialists are so in love with Fidel, the average person, the average everyday man and woman, they are watched in Cuba.
They're watched and listened to.
Uh, do you here in the United States want to have a regime that maintains a twenty four hour counting of your every move, every phone call?
On and on and on.
You see, if you're a totalitarian security service, the comings of and goings of everyone get scrutinized.
Each phone call might pose a threat to the regime.
So of course they monitor for future use against you.
You talk about the knock on your door in the middle of the night.
That's that's the that's the knock that people who are libertarians, people who are liberals, people who are Democrats, people Republicans fear.
Everyone fears that knock in the middle of the night.
I think that's what Snowden is trying to expose.
No question Snowden's intelligent, so was Breitbart, by the way.
Intelligence doesn't always make a difference, but they're both smart guys.
From what Snowden said, he figured on the cost of this, as he stated, he expects most likely he's going to lose his life even at some point.
He's not suffering from any illusions about how dangerous his position really is.
Um as the caller just pointed out, he would have gone under the radar and sold the secrets instead of going public.
It is an enormous sacrifice this young man has made, based upon what we know now, based upon what we know.
Moreover, and I think this gets lost in the whole conversation.
This is not about our enemies, ladies and gentlemen.
This is about us.
This is about us.
We've we've heard stories of U.S. Army pamphlets that say Christians or Catholics are so extreme they should be watched.
We've heard Homeland Security talk about veterans, pro-lifers.
Yeah, what you want to do in this country is tear down the wall of any potential Stasi-like apparatus that functions against the people here.
Think of George Orwell.
War is peace, freedom of slavery, ignorance is strength.
He wrote that in 1984.
Now it took Snowden to prove to you, to prove to me that our worst nightmares come true.
The United States government spies on its own citizens.
Not because you're criminals, not because you're terrorists.
But because they because they feel that they can.
That's why you're seeing the words Paul Revere pop up next to Snowden's name all over the internet.
I mean, the what the U.S. government has now is data that the Stasi really, really, really would have loved to have been able to get.
They've had to work very hard to get this kind of data.
Imagine that you go out with your cell phone in your pocket at 2 a.m. to the bad side of town.
What is the conclusion you draw?
Or if you visit certain sort of websites.
What if you buy gold or guns or ammo or stockpile food?
They know if you pay by a credit card.
They know if you see if any if you receive anything through the U.S. Post Office.
They know by your credit cards if your purchases they know everything you're doing by phone, facts, email, text numbers.
They know your circle of friends.
They can guess why you associate with them.
Knowledge is power.
They know who is registered.
They know who doesn't vote.
They can send someone over to cast the ballot for you, in fact.
Um well, it's look, the great big database in Utah is meant to catch terrorists.
Yet they couldn't find uh the guys in Boston before they blew up the marathon.
And that was after the Russian government had warned us about them.
Major Sant couldn't be identified and stopped him before he shot up for Hood.
And it turns out he had a lot of internet communications with some really bad people.
Maybe they're not looking that hard for terrorists.
Maybe they're really looking for conservatives.
You never know.
Short break, ladies and gentlemen, Dougabanski here, we'll be right back.
Tucker Basky here for Varsh Limbaugh, ladies and gentlemen.
Next hour we'll get back to the immigration topic.
We might as well finish up on Snowden here for a minute.
I mean, when you've got a government that's out of control and they're up to no good, uh Snowden is guilty as far as what we know now of civil disobedience.
The idea here is think about this.
The founding fathers, by their actions should have been hung in those days.
This is about personal liberty.
This is not good government, ladies and gentlemen.
Government is a necessary evil.
But you want to keep government on a very short, very transparent leash.
The government has lost the trust of a sizable portion of the American people.
▲
Export Selection