9.04.2003
We have not had any activity in this area since the end of June. We are one chunk short of finishing the June 27 show, and there are probably a backlog of old shows recorded and ready to be fed into the maw of the transcription process. But I keep on having problems bringing up the Project HQ website - definitely not a good sign.
I am still investigating to find out what is happening with the transcription process, and its' possible resurrection. Further details to follow...
6.29.2003
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.1
[01: Tom] [edit]
[ABC news]
[ad: Insure.com]
[ad: American Express Business Card]
[ABC news: Tulia Thirteen being released soon]
[more news]
[ad: Breck shampoo]
[ad: United Family Health Care Group]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.2
[02: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Laura Ingram Show on 920 KTSI]
[Intro: Rush Limbaugh Show]
[Ad: Hopson's Health Equipment Center]
Well, interesting. Limbaugh echo syndrome and see I told you so is happening all over the place. Anyway, folks, great to be back finally. I've been gone four days, and it was so jam-packed it feels like ten. But we are back here in the prestigious Attila-the-Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Was in Ireland for four days, playing golf. Must have walked 30 days on those wind-swept links courses, and got back, oh, last night about - We got back about two hours earlier than scheduled.
We landed in Fort Lauderdale, I guess it was about six. Yeah, three hours earlier, landed about six, supposed to get in at nine, which allowed me a little time to cram last night, and figure out what all had gone on. I have to tell you, this was one of those trips - if there was newspapers - I didn't see one. Television was hopeless. In most - we stayed in two different hotels, there were four channels. And most of it was American game show reruns. That was the oddest selection of channels on hotels I have ever seen, and besides, we never there, always out playing golf, golf trip in Ireland for four days.
So last night, I just came in and just crammed, and that's where we are today, so let's do this. Let me - I've put together a little stack here. Just to touch on some of these things that I came across while cramming, and then we'll go into greater detail on some of these things as the program unfolds today. Here's the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program: it's 800-282-2882. The email address is rush@eibnet.com.
I guess one of the "See I told you so"s is this business about Hillary's book. Not only were there not a million of them printed, there weren't 200,000 of them sold on the first day. And furthermore, we have learned that "Schtieman und Schtussher", the publisher themselves leaked the data to the Associated Press about the information Hillary had to say about Bill and Monica and all that sort of stuff. It comes from the good people at the Prowler website, which is part of the American Spectator group, and it actually this is from Thursday morning, first day that I was gone.
There's a - They dredged up a worker bee inside the publishing house, Simon and Schuster, who said, quote, "No way would we publish a million copies of anything, it's only necessary that we say we did." He he he heh. "Besides, where would we put one million copies of anything?" He he he heh. You mean to tell me this is news to you, Mr. Snerdley? You hadn't heard this? You mean? So, well, OK, so maybe we're on the cutting edge here. And then, this person was asked about the astounding 200,000 copies sold.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 1.3
[03: Galen] [edit]
This little worker-bee at Simon and Schuster said there's no, quote; "There's no possible way for us to know that!"
And then Ann Coulter, Ann Coulter did a column on this, a great column about this book. And apparently, the guy, there was a guy, the first guy that showed up at midnight to buy Hillary's book, at someplace in Manhattan. The guy named Patrick turns out to be one of Hillary's campaign aides. I mean this whole thing is a typical Clinton. The whole thing, and look who's corrupting, Simon and Schuster being corrupted by these people. The whole thing was staged. It wasn't a real, live book fan out there. It was somebody that was part of the campaign.
And it says here, this is from the Spectator. Let me read it to you from their web site, little article; "Simon and Schuster is thrilled with the initial sales of Hillary Clinton's book. Internal memos indicate that the feeling of good cheer will be short-lived. Part of a plan to generate buzz on the book was the leaking of some of the most sensational tidbits that had been pulled together by three ghost-writers of the former First Lady. Said a Simon and Schuster editor; 'Ah, it was really just to jump-start the sales. It's a tried and true technique.' But the editor says there are real concerns that this book won't have any staying power. All the people that really love her, and want the book have already gotten it. We know we're not going to be seeing hundred thousands of sales two weeks from now."
But the, but 200,000 the first day, come on now. It's radio stations all over the country were sending their reporters out to various bookstores, "How many Hillary books have you sold?" "Three." "Six." "Ten." I mean there's no way it adds up to 200,000 the first day. You know, they don't get away with it. It's amazing. And back, you know, fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, when there wasn't this quote-unquote new media. You could run scams like this because nobody was out double-checking what these people, involved and associated with liberals had to say about things. But anyway, there you have it.
Now, the latest on the child tax credit for people that don't pay taxes. House and Senate Republicans must satisfy tax cutters while keeping an eye on the deficit when they meet to compromise on legislation expanding the child tax credit to more low-income parents. Jim McCreary, Republican from Louisiana, said we'll get it to the White House as quickly as we can. Now, White House wants it now.
And here's - tell me if this is changed. This is the last I knew about this. And my friends, I'm sorry. I mean, I really am sorry. It's not often I come to you, I wouldn't say it's unprepared. I may not be as up to speed as you are, 'cuz I mean, literally, if I had tried, there wouldn't have been time for - I didn't take my computer. I didn't want to mess with trying to get an international online connection from the back woods. I didn't want to mess with it. I wasn't in the hotel long enough to make it count, even if it was enough to get some sleep. I mean it was really literally, go go go go, so I may be a little bit behind you, but it won't last long.
The last I knew, the House of Representatives was sort of standing up to the President. Delay was, "Okay, look look, we're just not going to give tax cuts to people who don't pay them. We've got a tax cut bill. If you want a welfare bill, send us a welfare bill. If it's a welfare bill, we're not going to combine it with tax cuts." And the President says, "You get that damn bill to me and you get it to me by the Fourth of July. I don't care what it takes." The House said, "Okay, fine. We're gonna put some more tax cuts in it." And they added tax cuts for military people, and they added tax cuts for couple other things. And Bush, I guess, is at this point, "Okay, what the hell, I'm gonna sign it anyway." But the problem now is the Senate, isn't that right? The Senate doesn't like the new add-ons. And so it may not happen at all if they can't come to a compromise in conference. Is that about it? I love this!
I - What do you mean? Bush - This is crazy. This is absolutely crazy. "Rush, but Rush, 75% of the American people want thi - 75% of the American people are wrong! Do you give your kid what he wants, just because he wants it? Let's say you've got six kids in your family, and four of 'em want something. "Ok, that's what we're gonna do." Is that the way you do it? If they're wrong, they're wrong. There's a way of doing this, but my gosh, you've got people figuring out here that they can write themselves money from the Federal Treasury, and they already get - I mean it's not as if these people aren't getting anything. At any rate, both the House and the Senate bills, give low-income families access to bigger child credits by letting them claim a refund, worth about 15 percent of their income over 10,000
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.1
[04: Galen] [edit]
[?] The change gives bigger benefits to 6-1/2 million low-income families who make between 10-5 and less than 27 thousand. Now the House opted to make broader changes to the child credit program, and voted 224 to 201 last Thursday to extend the 1,000 dollar benefit through the end of the decade. They also make at least part of the credit available to married couples who make 150,000 dollars or more, who didn't get it in the original bill. Can you believe this? People who pay taxes were not gonna get, if they made 150 grand or more, which is you, Dawn, I happen to know, were not gonna get the child tax credit increase. But people who don't pay taxes at all were. Or are. So the House said, "Well this is crazy. So we're gonna make sure that people who make 150,000 or more also get the child tax credit."
And of course, the Senate's going; "You can't do that!"
And the House said; "Why the hell not?"
"Well, you just can't. The deficit."
"Well, what about the impact of the deficit on anything else that we do? You can't keep throwing that up in our faces. We're gonna do what's right here."
The House also gives military personnel tax breaks on their home sales and travel expenses, as well as providing tax relief for the families of astronauts who were killed in the Columbia space shuttle. Moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate said they cannot accept this bill because it deepens already record deficits.
Okay, just to see if I understand this. We can give tax credits or tax cuts to people who don't pay them. We cannot give tax cuts to people who do pay taxes, because they make 150 grand or more. We can't give the military tax breaks on home sales and travel expenses despite the fact they're the ones who save our ass every day from people who would kill us. And we're not going to - We can't take care of providing tax relief for the astronaut families who were killed in the Columbia space shuttle. It's gonna cause deficit to go up, but we can give tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes. And that's where we are.
Senate Finance Committee chairman Charles "Chuck" Grassley said; "If we don't change the House bill, I don't know if there are enough Senate votes to pass." Well, the House doesn't look inclined to change the bill. I mean, it looks like they planted a tree here, and they're gonna let it grow and they's stand behind it. So, it's interesting. I like the fact that they're taking a stand here.
House leaders reject the Senate bill as a purely political answer to questions about the availability of child credits for whole families. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, said; "I'm not interested in the business of politics. I 'm interested in creating sound policy." The Democrats said they'll not back off their insistence that Republicans prevent the bill from getting lost in endless negotiations. "If it doesn't come out before July, they're gonna get a lot of heat," said Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from
Maryland. Democrats and others also pressed for the change after President Bush signed the tax cut in May that will send rebates to middle income families this summer worth up to 400 dollars. Those checks, the President assures us, will be in the mail and to you, by sometime in July. Let me take a quick time out, here, 'cuz we must, according to the programming format. Be back and continue here in just a moment.
[Rush promo]
[Ad: Select Comfort Beds]
[Ad: AJ Golf Videos - AJ Bonner]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.2
[05: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Consumer Reports - Sunscreens and Colloidal Silver]
[Promo: Joey English]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh Show]
[Ad: South Coast Plaza]
. . .and it's late. Peter Jennings is hosting election coverage on ABC, Sam Donaldson is there, along with Jeff Greenfield. They are reliving the day and looking forward to the future. The thing about Brinkley was that he was always honest, but in this particular occasion [greement?] honest. You remember this, Mr. - Well, yeah, but unfortunately, this bite does not con - I don't think this bite has the segment where he calls Clinton a bore, but this is still pretty good. Here's the setup. Peter Jennings says; "Why don't we let Jeff Greenfield have a go at it first. And Brinkley says; "No, let me have a go at it." And there's a bunch of laughter. And Greenfield starts anyway, says, "What impressed me" and Jennings interrupts him, and says; "Let go again, David. Go ahead, what does he want to say?"
Audio clip: "I wish to say we look forward with great pleasure to four years of wonderful, inspiring speeches, full of wit, poetry, music, love, and affection. Plus more god -- nuts!" [Laughter in background of clip] "The other is that"
Rush interrupts: Ted say it .
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 2.3
[06: Galen] [edit]
you're on the air. He didn't know he was on the air. What he said was that more God-bleep nonsense than has ever been said and then he went on to describe Clinton as an insufferable bore. And all the world was in a tizzy after this: "How could this have happened?" He obviously was so late at night, he didn't know he was on the air. He did later apologized to Clinton and in one of his final interviews, he invited Clinton to appear on his show. Clinton did, and he apologized.
As I said, I was invited to appear actually twice with Brinkley. The first time I don't even remember the year, but it has to be early 90s, and at the end of the year, on "This Week", the three, or four people, Brinkley, Donaldson, I guess it was George Will at the time, yeah, then they got their guest panelists. But those three, each took 20 minutes interviewing someone from that year, and Brinkley chose me. I was astounded and he said there's no one like you. There's never been anyone like you. And he talked to me about it. Was - Yeah, it was gratifying.
There are things in your life, in your career that you mark as milestones, and that was one of them for me. And I have this little clip, Cookie found it. Actually, this is a clip from my appearance on the roundtable on April 16th of 1995, it was Easter Sunday. And actually this clip is taken from our TV show. We had replayed it on the TV show, and actually that's where we took it from. Original appearance's the April 16th 1995 issue of "This Week with David Brinkley". And the subject was the Democratic Party. And there had been a guy named Nathan Deal, a Democrat from Georgia who had switched parties and became a Republican. And that was part of the discussion. And this is what I - This is 1995 and I want you to listen to this and compare it to what we talk about today. This is eight years ago. Eight years ago. Listen to how fresh this was.
[Clip:] "The national Democratic Party stands for. His constituents don't, and that's the inherent problem in the Democratic Party. They are paying attention to constituencies which are growing smaller and smaller, they're more and more on the margins, more and more fringe interests, and they're losing the mainstream. The Democrats, they do not have an agenda, they don't have a set of ideas that they are for, that they can say affima - other than the minimum wage, and to raise taxes on the rich and to try to frighten and scare people. All they have is an accusation. Every day they accuse Republicans of this falsehood or that falsehood. It's gotten to the point that mainstream conservative Democrats have nothing they can tie themselves to. Black or white."
That's eight years ago. Me on "This Week with David Brinkley", talking about the current status of the Democratic Party. And it was that then and it's even more so today. That's - I mean, it's great illustration going back eight years. They were on that track now and they've stayed on that track and it's even worse for them today than it was back in April of '95.
Stay with us, be right back.
[Ad: General Steel Corporation]
[News: KTSI News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.1
[07: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[ad: 1-877-Love To Learn]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: We uhh, we found here during the commercial break the "Clinton is a Bore," comment from David Brinkley. This is election night November 5th 1996 and here it is;
David Brinkley: Among things I admire all of them most near the top is creativeness and everyone in this group has it. It shows in your work. It shows in your thinking and it shows in your speech. What you do, what you write, what you say and its one reason this group is so terrific. Uhh, Bill Clinton has none of it, he has not a creative bone in his body, therefore he is a bore and will always be a bore.
Rush: There you have it. That was David Brinkley. He was never more popular than after that. I don't care what the liberals say about his star studded career and I'm not putting down his star-studded career because it genuinely was. I'm just -- but that was a Seminole moment. You never got that kind of honesty on Television and from Television analysts particularly-- on the big networks and he came out with it. He eventually did apologize as I say to Clinton on the air. He invited Clinton to appear with him on I guess one of his final shows and Clinton did and he apologized, think Clinton accepted the apology and they went on but it was said and it resonated far and wide.
One of the -- one of the other things, my friends, that's continuing to grow as it is being bandied about is this prescription drug benefit that will be added to Medicare. Interesting story here from the Associated Press. Reporters name is Tom Raum, R-a-u-m, he writes that;
Tom Raum: President Bush has a tradition going back to when he was Texas Governor of taking a firm stand and holding fast and then making crucial concessions to opponents and then claiming victory. He's doing it now with on prescription drug coverage for older people.
Rush: The title of this story is, "Bush the Compromiser," and I mentioned -- do you remember the "Big Theory,"...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.2
[08: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...the "Big Theory," as espoused by me on recent weeks, in recent weeks on this program. This is in essence, what this is and what the -- to synthesize for you if you missed it, what the "Big Theory," is. The "Big Theory" is that the President is simply taking democrat issues away from them and then passing them and claiming credit. Not all of them, twenty, thirty percent, forty percent of what they want and then claiming credit for it and the policy behind this is to expand the republican base to include people who want big government.
That's why there's no talk of limited government. That's why there's no talk of government getting smaller because there's an effort to realign the parties here and one of the -- one of the strategies is being employed here is to go out and get a portion of the population, not all of it. It doesn't take all of it, just go get a portion of population that wants government to be involved in there lives and you -- if you succeed in that then you've put a real dent in the democratic party.
It would be the equivalent if, not that this is going to happen, but if the republicans get say five to seven percent, just five to seven percent of the black vote that would end the democratic parties majority. I mean that would deal them a blow that they'd have a tough time recovering from.
Well this is partially what's going on here with the Medicare program, the whole restructuring of Medicare, adding a prescription drug benefit to it, that the tax cuts here for people who don't pay taxes, things that you wouldn't normally associate with a "conservative president." They're being done for political reasons and that is to expand the Republican Party's base and to in effect denude the Democratic Party.
There's a long term goal here and what ultimately is in store I have no idea cause if the objective is to acquire a much larger party and more power as represented by more House seats, more Senate seats then do you find it's, "Okay, now we're bulletproof, we're veto proof, we're cloture proof, we're filibuster proof," then do you really go for what you believe or is this it? I don't know. I have no answer to that and won't for a while until we see it if they're able to bring this off.
Tom Raum: Bush's willingness to compromise contrasts starkly with his well-cultivated image of stubbornness and unyielding determination. The President previously engaged in major turnabouts on his educational legislation as we've chronicled here, on certain tax cuts, on the creation of Homeland Security Department and on a Commission to investigate the September 11th attacks. Now the President's original prescription drug proposal would have forced elderly people into HMO's and other private care plans to get the full benefit. That's what he campaigned on in 2000 but Bush last week, lined up with Senator Kennedy behind new legislation that would give the same Medicare prescription drug benefits to those in private plans and under Medicare there by no distinction.
Rush: See, the original Bush plan was to steer Medicare patients to the private sector for good reason. Bring down costs, number one and number two to de-emphasize government. That's the original proposal and he stuck with it and stuck with it and stuck with it. Now, it's crunch time and in order to get it he's going to have to compromise with the democrats and get rid of that element that would send prescription drug patients, Medicare patients to the private sector. They're going to stay enrolled in the full government run Medicare get the same benefit they would have gotten ergo the government remains big, the prescription drug benefit to Medicare grows Medicare to the point, my friends, it will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years. The Presidents prescription drug plan will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years and he's a republican.
Tom Raum: Bush has all but made the proposal his own, even prodding Congress to get it to his desk by July 4th. President said, "Congress must understand that we got a problem with Medicare. They ought not politicize the issue," he said this to a Connecticut audience of senior citizens last week.
Rush: As this writer points out, again this guys name is Tom Raum. He says, " Never mind that the democrats have been pushing this idea for years," and that's the whole point, folks. The democrats have been pushing this idea for years and now it's exactly what I...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 3.3
[09: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...the "Big Theory". The President proposes his own version of the plan, which de-emphasizes the government role, which sends people to the private sector, which brings down the cost and all that and then when the tough times arrive and get going they realize they might not get there, go back to the original proposal the democrats, "(unintelligible) my idea," and in the process claim credit for it. Sort of like Clinton did with the Welfare Reform and as long as he's willing to claim credit for it, then voters will get the idea that he is, this is (unintelligible). This is compassionate conservatism. This is why so many of us reacted the way we did because conservatism doesn't need a modifier but you put compassionate in front of conservatism and here now we know what it means.
Compassionate conservatism means we're going to run the government in a way that will make you think we're democrats and so we're going to steal some democrat votes here. We're going to get some of these democrats interested and the republican party is going to grow here not by changing peoples mind but by stealing current democratic voters who will be able to vote for republicans because they'll get the same thing as they would get with democrats and that's the.
Now, where this ends I can't tell you. I don't know if there is a deep dark say roadmap to peace plan here, meaning I don't know if the ultimate objective here is to get, as I say so many House seats and so many Senate seats that we're bulletproof and then we're going to really get serious about getting government smaller because they know we can't do it now.
Look, even though we've got a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate, they're slim. I do not have the votes to override or to sustain vetos if I have to sustain them. They've got the votes to override vetos if I make them. I can't get pass this filibuster business on the judges, I simply need more republicans here and if this is what it takes to get more republicans, then this is what it takes.
It - but as I say, I don't know if this ultimately leads to a good thing or not. But when I told you about the "Big Theory," and so forth this is exactly what it is and all you need to know is, that a republican sponsored prescription drug plan will be the single biggest increase in social spending in forty years.
Time to take a quick time out and ponder that one, back in just a moment.
[ad: Rush 24/7]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Zmax]
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.1
[10: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: And back having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. Back in the saddle doing that which I was born to do. It's El Rushbo the all knowing, all caring, all sensing, all perceptive, all feeling, all concerned Maha Rushie.
Here's Dave in Lafayette Indiana. Hi Dave, welcome to the program.
Dave: Good morning, Rush. Good afternoon, Rush.
Rush: Yes, good day.
Dave: I wanted to say, sounded like you were a little confused as to whether this was a good thing or not and I just wanted to add that it isn't.
Rush: I'm not confused, I'm sorry. I'm not confused, I'm disappointed. I'm not confused, I'm disappointed.
Dave: No you said before you got off, " I'm not sure if ultimately this is a good thing or not," and I was calling to tell you it is ultimately a bad thing.
Rush: Well, no, no, no. I've -- let me - okay I could understand then you're reaction when I said, "I'm not sure if it's a good thing," what I - lets keep it in context. I'm not sure where this leads. See, the bottom line is that it would certainly suggest now that George W. Bush doesn't believe conservatism can attract a large majority. That disappoints me.
Dave: It is disappointing.
Rush: It -- because Regan proved that it can, Regan won two landslides with Tip O'Neil and a bunch of socialists running the House of Representatives.
Dave: Well, can I -- can I suggest that maybe where it will go is that those people that conservatives are able to win over by compromising and being more demo - or being more like democrats, those votes will be lost eventually anyway when those people realize what they've done. You have to win people over with the ideas not with a promise that they'll give you something, "Look how nice we are," that's awful and you've...
Rush: Well, see here's...
Dave: ...always been against that sort of thing.
Rush: Well, did you say that I personally have always been against it?
Dave: Yes.
Rush: Wait a minute, are you suggesting -- wait a minute, am I confusing you and you gotten the idea today that I am for what Bush is doing?
Dave: I did at first and that's what made me pick up the phone then I realized that you were sort of, you were -- it was a little bit of tongue in cheek and...
Rush: No, there's no tongue in cheek. I'm disappointed in this.
Dave: I was just...
Rush: Because I think -- I think conservatism can attract a large majority. Here's -- look, here's what I'm doing. I was - in all the cramming I've done here, 75% of the American people, it is claimed in a survey, want prescription drug benefits in Medicare. Okay now what do you do in that circumstance if you are...
Dave: You point out to people...
Rush: ...and I'm asking, Dave, let me phrase the question. What do you do and that --you got - you're President Bush or you're republican in the House and the Senate, you got 75% of the American people claim they want a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, they don't care what the hell it costs and your job is to get re-elected, what do you do?
Dave: Well, I would hope that I'd be -- that my job would not be to be re-elected but would be to lead and to explain to them that we're not a democracy, that we are a republic. A representative republic.
Rush: Uhm, hum.
Dave: ...and explain to them why I'm doing what I'm doing. That's it's a principle stand and they're either with me or against me as he says, but...
Rush: All Right.
Dave: ...you shouldn't be in office, in any office, especially president, when your goal is to be re-elected. You goal is to lead and you know that.
Rush: Uhh, no, I - let me tell you. The first job of anybody in elected office is to get re-elected. That's -- I'm not telling you that that's what I think the job is, that's what they will tell you the job is. The first job's to get re-elected.
Dave: But they're wrong.
Rush: Well, they maybe wrong, well -- I - we're dealing with reality here. That's the way they are. That's what it is that they perceive as they're first responsibility is getting re-elected and so you got - in this case 75% of the American people who want a prescription drug benefit added and one of the reasons why is that people are living longer...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.2
[11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...and they need drugs to live healthier lives, it is said, that maybe another arguable thing but we'll get into that later. I mean lets face it, you can't turn on TV today without finding five commercials sometimes in thirty minutes that you need this pill, you need that pill, you need that drug, you need this drug and it's all, "Go tell your doctor you want this, go tell your doc-." Well, we're being forced by drug companies that we can't live without this drug or that drug or whatever. "Yeah, doc why haven't you told me about that. I want that stuff. Whatever it does I need it."
And so there are demands and we are free people you know, and we are a representative republic but still the majority gets what it wants. 75% American people are going to elect people that are going to give them prescription drug and those of us who disagree got to live with it and do what we can to change it. Problem is we think we have elected people who were there to go change this stuff and do as you say, educate people, inform people, use the bully- pulpit of the Presidency to maybe reverse this kind of thinking. So, you know. It's - this is still up in the air, I mean I -- we still don't know where it's going to end up in terms of how -- if it works.
Lets just assume hypothetically that it works. Lets assume this does create a whole new republican majority with a big alignment. There are risks here because if at that point you say, "Okay, now we got this big majority, now we're going to do things the way we really want." Then you run the risk of driving the people away that you have attracted on to your, obviously under false premises. Other than that , you're stuck with behaving the way you did in order to get those peoples voted and support and in essence, we had established the notion that government is here to make people's lives better at their demand or on their request or what have you.
But it is you know this is -- I hate to tell you people, I hate to remind you of this that all during the first year when it came to domestic issues, Teddy Kennedy writing the Education Bill and we're bailing out farmers three and four times with drought relief and the Farm Bills bigger than ever and all this and I'm calling into question all this and you, boy you people were mean to me. You were sending me emails and calling me names and telling me I should shut-up. That at least Clinton wasn't president anymore and I, you know, I though I lost a great familiar relationship that I had with all of you and it's now just more of the same when it comes to the domestic side.
Then -- here's -- let's throw one more little thing into the pot here for you to consider. We didn't get to where we are overnight. We got here through the, you know, the age-old technique of instrumentalism. The democrats just did a little more every year and a little more and it added on to this and added on to that very slowly so the effect was not profound, until one day after fifty years we all woke up and said, "You know what? We're close to a damn Welfare State in this country." So now it's time to dismantle it.
Well, you don't' just dismantle it overnight either, you got to dismantle it incrementally and is this -- I know this sounds convoluted. I'm just throwing stuff out there to inspire your thought, you creative people as David Brinkley said, "Is this a trick that has at it's root, instrumentalism," because if it does lead, if all of this ultimately leads to the ability to govern so as to get the big wins that you want, is it then worth it? Something to ponder.
Take a break, be back, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad:Liverite]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 4.3
[12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Liverite.com]
[ad: Roadrunner High Speed Online (cable company)]
[ad: Unicar Honda (local)]
[promo: KPSI]
[music sting]
Rush: Here we go. Here we go. Here's a email.
Dear Rush: the George Bush that you're describing now is not the same Bush you were pitching before the election. I'm sure you don't envision yourself as a Judas, but I do. Screw Bush, and screw you, and screw the Republican Party. Now I can put you in the proper perspective. You're an entertainer, and an entrepreneur, nothing more, nothing less. If you get me once, shame on you. Get me twice, shame on me. Signed Bill Jackson, Atlanta, Georgia.
See how fragile this is, my friends? We shall plug on, and persevere. Ol' Judas here. El Rushbo, back for more, in a moment.
[ad: National Headache Foundation]
[promo: Biography for Radio]
[promo: The Satellite Sisters]
[ABC news]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.1
[13: Tom] [edit]
[ABC news]
[ad: Effexor XR]
[ABC news]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[promo: ABC news]
[ad: Nationaltrust.org]
[promo: Loopholes (KPSI local program)]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.2
[14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hang on, I got to get something out of the printer here, its just, it's all rolling in now. Started something, this is from the Rush Comments line, those who are subscribers Rush 24/7 website at rushlimbaugh.com have a super secret direct to me email address.
Dear Rush, Exactly what will Bush and the Republican Party have to do for you to slam their socialist policies? With the exception of the war on terror, the tax cut and a few other minor advances, everything else Bush has done socialist. When are you going to speak up? Are you afraid, you coward?
Rush: What did I just do in the last thirty minutes?
Anyway, greetings my friends, welcome back. Rush Limbaugh here, the EIB Network (laughing) I was expecting some peaceful first day back, you know, sort of wading in the shallow area of the pool, just getting my feet wet for a while and then maybe cranking it up later but here we are full speed ahead. Once again "I" am the problem. Well I'm happy my friends I get the big bucks to be the problem and to deal with this stuff so I'm happy to tackle it.
Like to welcome all of you here and especially those of you who are watching on the ditto cam. Telephone number again is 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Here's a little interesting story too. This will just provide a little continuation to what we were discussing in the closing moments of the exciting first hour of today's program. This another AP story special correspondent;
David Espo: When democrats tried to mount an attack against Medicare Prescription Drug Program last Wednesday, prominent liberal Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts stayed away and the Party's leader Tom Daschle conceded that he might wind up voting for the bill.
Rush: Well, no wonder, it's their bill. That's why Kennedy's staying away. It's his bill just like it was his education bill. If you missed the first hour -- let me just recap briefly. Bush's original prescription drug proposal was to take existing Medicare recipients and send them to the private sector where they would get their prescription drug benefits. It was to take government out of the equation gradually and incrementally so as to devout power from the Central Government in Washington and enrich the private sector. And there by reduce costs by enabling people to go shop for the best deals on medical care and including prescription drugs and the President pushed it and pitched it and pitched it and finally he ran into brick wall.
So he went back to the original democrat idea which keeps everything in Washington as part of the existing Medicare proposal to the tune that the new prescription drug program that was originally a democrat idea that the President is now claiming credit on represents the single greatest amount of spending on in forty years. The single greatest or largest amount of spending in 40 years and so now here comes this story. Democrats tried to mount an attack against Medicare, these idiots, they're attacking it just because Bush is proposing it.
Attacking their own plan and Ted Kennedy said, "Well not me, I'm backing off," and Daschle said he'd probably support it because it's their plan. Daschle said, "Well, the measure will probably pass." Now he and fellow democrats grappled with an issue that has long leaned their way but now offers political gain to Bush and republicans in congress. There in lies the rub. This is Teddy Kennedy's plan. I hate to tell you folks, this prescription drug plan that's going to get signed into law is a democrat plan but guess who's going to get credit for it? Bush.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 5.3
[15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and that's by design. Bush is going to get credit for a huge government growth plan and the whole purpose here is to take power away from democrats to draw voters from the democrat constituencies.
See, the rovian plan here, it's what the big theory is all about. The plan here is not to expand the party by expanding conservative ideas and getting people to understand them and agree with them.
The plan is expand the number of republican voters by going and getting existing democrats and saying, "Hey, what you want, we've got. Listen to our plan and we're in power now and so you can be guaranteed to get what you want since we're in power. " So and Bush has a history of this going all the way back to Governor of Texas. Propose a plan and stubbornly stick with it and stick with it and if it's opposed then compromise and go with the opponents and then claim credit for the whole thing himself and that's what he's doing here.
Now, where does this lead? That's the whole question, where does this lead and I'll just put a theory out there and you feel free to nuke it and it's just a theory. Don't any, I don't want anybody out there assuming that I'm saying this is etched in stone. I'm just thinking out loud and sharing it with you.
This -- some people -- in some peoples worldview this is small stuff. Prescription drugs, Medicare -- small stuff, this is the stuff that you don't fight. This gets in your way. This gets you more enemies than friends, there's no way to win this stuff. Seventy-five percent of the American people want a prescription drug plan, don't fight it just go along with it and get them. Get them on your side because the big stuff is what you really care about.
What's the big stuff? Well, an example of the big stuff would be Supreme Court nominees, which there may be three sometime relatively soon, certainly within the next five years and lets say that you really, when you, you're Bush, you want your nominees to be Scalia types, Clarence Thomas types, there's no way you're going to get them now. Not with the currant margins. I mean even though the republicans run the Senate and run the House.
Throw the House out when you talk about judicial nominees cause they don't matter. They just don't have the votes, if the democrats are going to continue this filibuster business and if you can't figure out a way to beat them on the filibuster, change the Senate rules or whatever, then you have to just get enough republicans in there to get your votes and be able to have enough votes to sustain a veto of the democrats and basically say, "Screw them."
So you give up the little things like prescription drugs and the biggest spending plan in forty years, that's chump change, you give that up because the stuff that really shapes American life, the judges, the courts, that's what you want. So you go out and get enough people supporting you, that, when it comes time in 2004 you might get seven or eight more Senate seats on your side getting you close to sixty republicans and at the same token close to only forty democrats. Oh, that would be huge. So you do that and you get similar numbers in the House. When you get those kinds of numbers in both chambers you can "really" do things. Doesn't matter what Tom Daschle is whining about everyday, at that point, because he doesn't have the numbers to stop you.
So maybe that's it. Maybe all this is viewed just as, "Ahh, I'm not going to loose sleep over it, and I'm sorry I've got to put my Presidency on the line for something like prescription drugs when seventy-five percent of the people want them anyway. To hell with it, who am I to tell them they're wrong. I'm not going to waste my time. I don't have ten years to convince them they're wrong and I'm not going to run the risk. They're not going to agree with me anyway so to hell with it. Give them what they want. I'll buy that in exchange for my big stuff."
Now I could be as I say, "I'm theorizing out loud," now just -- a little more from this particular AP story which makes all this even more interesting;
Bill McInturff: The Democratic Party...
Rush: This is Bill McInturff, who is a republican pollster. He's talking about this whole prescription drug thing and Bush claiming credit for it as a transformational event. He anticipates that today;
Bill McInturff: ... that when Bush signs this legislation that offer prescription drugs as well as a new managed care option for the programs forty million beneficiaries...
Rush: I was going to say voters but I don't' want to be cynical (laughing) forty million beneficiaries, the democrats, here's McInturff;
Bill McInturff: The democratic Party has spent essentially a generation and a half, which would be basically thirty-five - forty years saying that the republicans were against Medicare. That's how...
Rush: ...and that's true. Republicans are against this. They're all...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.1
[16: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Social Security against this. Now what are they going to say when Bush offers the biggest Medicare expansion in history? He's a republican. You've disarmed them, you've de-Newt'd them. What can they say with any credibility? They can't and I'm - this is the big theory, I'm telling you that's what's going on here. You taking issues away from these people and you're really making them irrelevant while they stand around and go along with it.
They haven't the slightest idea what's happening to them, when you get right down to brass tacks, I don't think they do. I think they are so focused on themselves and the reacquisition of their own power, they are reflexively opposing Bush, it doesn't matter what the issue is. Even on this, which is exactly what they want. They're reflex activity was to oppose Bush. Buried in this story that I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, buried in this story is this little paragraph;
AP: This year even before the outlines of the legislation were disclosed, Daschle began work on a strategy to criticize republicans on the Medicare issue according to a copy obtained by Associated Press...
Rush: Probably via Simon and Schuster.
AP: The strategy laid down several lines of attack including the claim dismantles Medicare and spends billions to help big drug and insurance companies.
Rush: Now this is what Daschle was preparing to say before he even knew what the bill was because they reflexively oppose Bush at every turn. Doesn't matter what it is. And now they've got a prescription drug benefit that's Medicare, that's exactly what they want and they were about to reflex ably oppose it until Ted Kennedy said (mimicking Kennedy), "Ahh, wait. It's our bill." (Laughing)Anyway, one democratic strategist said if, "Bush is able to sign a bi-partisan bill, it'll take a tremendous issue off the table that the democrats have been using now for three or four election cycles." These words are those of Howard Wolfson, former executive director of the House Democratic Campaign Committee.
See, that's what this is all about. This is just taking this issue off the table. It's denying the democrats another issue. The education -- one by one, Bush is taking these issues away from them by giving them what they want and claiming credit for them, that's the key. He's getting it in the eyes of the public.
We'll take a break, be right back and continue in mere moments.
[ad: Rush Store ]
[ad: Rush for Thera-Gesic]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: Manhattan West ]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.2
[17: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Manhattan West]
[ad: www.NFID.org]
[Promo: Dr Dean Edell]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Rush, this is a no winner, no-brainer here. Republicans can't win fighting this. Go ahead, give these people a tax cut. They're poor and they need it anyway.
Rush: So now don't call me and tell me that this prescription drug benefit is too expensive that we ought not be doing it cause I told you last week, once you're going to say, once you're going to call here and suggest the government ought to give people money, in the form of a tax cut especially if they don't pay taxes then you cannot complain when another issue comes up where the government starts giving people money but you don't agree with it because you have all ready compromised on principle. Remember that.
Now I'm being inundated with email from people, (animated voice)"Well I think this is horrible. He can't do this. Why this is growing government." What's the difference in this, other than the amount of money? What's the difference in this prescription drug plan and giving all these people who don't pay taxes, a tax cut? What is the difference, my friends?
There is no difference. Don't give me this sunset business. There is no -- in terms of principle. "There is no difference, is there?" There's no thirty -- thirty or forty billion, my rear. It's far more than thirty or forty billion. Largest spending increase in forty years is going to be more than thirty or forty billion. I mean we spend that teaching Spanish to English kids in California for crying out loud.
Of coarse it's going to hurt the deficit but you can't worry about that. If the Child Tax Credit to people that don't pay taxes wasn't going to hurt the deficit or what -- then -- that's what I'm saying. It -- you can't -- you can't be for this business of paying people tax cuts that don't pay taxes and then come out and be opposed to this prescription drug plan. You got to support both on principle.
Don't tell me the money's different cause that's not the point because each one of these things is going to have different price tags but they're all going to add up to a lot of money. And if you say one's okay, then you've got to be, in order to be consistent, you got to say they're all okay.
Now I have here Tom Freedman, now, column from last -- this one is eleventh. What is that? Thursday? Saturday? No Thursday. Tom Freedman, he writes on Foreign Affairs for The New York Times. He's tackling domestic issues here and he's proven in this column that he's as clueless on domestic issues as he is when it comes to Iraq or the Middle East...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 6.3
[18: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...he had just discussed on this program in the last thirty minutes, the Bush Administrations going to agree to this Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, largest single federal spending program in forty years. Listen to this paragraph from the brilliant Thomas W. Freedman, I'm sorry Thomas L., Thomas L. Freedman.
Thomas L. Freedman: Everyone wants taxes to be cut, writes Thomas, but no one wants services to be cut, which is why democrats have to reframe the debate and show President Bush for what he really is. A man who has not putting money into your pocket, he is a man who is removing government services and safety nets from your life.
Rush: Tom, they're only getting bigger than they've ever been. Where are you? Are you still talking to Crown Prince Abdullah here? Getting your policies for what -- how in the world can he honestly say that Bush's tax cuts are resulting in the removal of government services and safety nets from our lives? They are only getting bigger. We're not taking any safety nets away, in fact, my friends we're building more hammocks.
Ah, here's Rick in Saint Louis. Welcome sir, nice to have you on the EIB Network.
Rick: Hello Rush, hang on one second, let me just get me off the speakerphone here.
Rush: Yeah.
Rick: Hi.
Rush: Hi,
Rick: What I wanted to say was that I don't have a problem with anything that Bush is doing that you've been talking about. I hardily approve of this policy.
Rush: Okay, tell me why?
Rick: Simply because I agree with your earlier premise that they might be doing this to get a bullet proof majority and I think we need it because we have eight years of Clinton and we need to start fixing in this country.
Rush: Well, if that -- see, I -- look, that why I said that there may be some thing else at work here and these people in the Bush Administration may, in fact, be looking at something like this. Small stuff, prescription drug, Medicare, they're probably saying, "Look, this stuff going to -- we're going to spend more on anyway." They're sitting there in Washington and they say to themselves, "What is the reality if we are going to make this program smaller? What is the reality that Medicare is going to get smaller? Reality is zero. What is the real --(laughing) isn't it? What is the reality that Social Security is going to get smaller? Zero."
In fact, we continue to win big politically because the democrats keep making just that charge and yet both programs only grow, so they're never borne out, they're death Nell predictions. What are the odds that we're going to pay people who don't pay taxes? What are the odds that we are not going to come through with an extension of Child Tax Credits to people who make twelve thousand dollars a year? Zero.
"This is small stuff. Why fight it." I know that's what they're saying. "This is chump change. We're not going to get distracted by this. We're going to just get this out of the way and we're going to claim credit for it while we get it out of the way and move on to the bigger stuff."
Call that facing reality my friends.
[ad: Midwest National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee]
[ad: Genself]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.1
[19: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Genself]
[ad: www.Focusonlearning.org]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[ad: The Dominatrix Reloaded]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, (unintelligible) and chaos. Your canary in the coalmine at 800-282-2882, the email address at rush@eibnet.com.
Longmont Colorado, Beverly, thank you for calling and welcome to the program.
Beverly: Hello, Mr. Limbaugh, welcome home from Ireland.
Rush: Thank you.
Beverly: I'm a senior, I'm a widow, I'm a republican, I'm on Social Security and Medicare and I'm absolutely opposed to the Medicare Prescription Program as a mandatory thing.
Rush: So am I but we are in 25% minority, Beverly. The 75% of the country wants this stuff and they don't want any means testing on it and so that's it.
Beverly: I'm not sure 75% of the country want it. I know a lot of people who are opposed to it as a mandatory thing. It would be fine as an optional for people who...
Rush: Let me ask you a question on that. I don't mean to be insulting with this, I'm really not. I'm just trying to understand. You're a senior citizen and obviously this would be a big benefit, why are you opposed to it?
Beverly: Because there are a lot of us out here who feel we can afford our own drugs either through our income or through a much better private insurance plan.
Rush: Yeah but if somebody else was going to pay for them you could really afford them.
Beverly: (Laughing) I'll pay for my own thank you. I have a really great private insurance that pays for my prescriptions, a lot of people do. It was a retirement benefit, a benefit people got when they left the company or they can just afford to pay it and...
Rush: Well...
Beverly: ... I don't think that people should have to pay for our medications.
Rush: Here's the -- here- no, you've, you know, you hit on something here that's very important and it's a dirty little secret and it can be found in this supposed statistic for this -- let me put it this way. The statistic where supposedly forty million people uninsured, that's just a crock.
There aren't forty million uninsured just like there weren't 3 million homeless. Just like there weren't two hundred thousand copies of Hillary's book sold the first day. Just like there weren't one million in the original printing. All these numbers are just thrown out there and they just establish a life of their own and they're out there and if you notice the figure forty million uninsured we first heard it in 1992. Guess it's still the same figure.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.2
[20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...it's still the same figure. Not any higher not any lower and it's all a myth. There are plenty of people that don't have health insurance but they have coverage, the other plan.
Anyway, news update;
Unknown source: The Senate Committee here has just approved the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. All seniors will get drug coverage...
Rush: ...whether they want it or not. You're going to get drugs forced on you.
Unknown source: It is estimated...
Rush: See, this is the (laughing) this is the dirty little secret. I hate to keep using that phrase but it isn't free. This is the --I have been trying to point this out for the longest time. This is being sold as such a bill of goods because many of you seasoned citizens think this is going to come to you cost free and the estimated cost that the senior citizens themselves the beneficiaries will pay over the next ten years is one point eight trillion dollars.
There are going to be minimums, there are going to be premiums, there are going to be deductibles and all this sort of stuff but seniors are going to be paying a portion of this. The balance of this will be paid by your neighbors and everybody else, but so it's moved a step closer to reality here in the Senate and it's just a matter of time. This is a fata-complee with Bush getting all the credit for it.
Here's Rob in Akron. Welcome sir to the EIB Network.
Rob: Hi Rush, how you doing?
Rush: Fine sir.
Rob: My question is have we completely lost the intellectual debate of this country. I mean what is the guiding principal about why we are giving a prescription program to anybody. Why are we not giving them a food subsidy, or a housing subsidy or a clothing subsidy? I mean...
Rush: Well...
Rob: ...it's like a huge grab bag here.
Rush: ...be patient. (Laughing) Those things may be...
Rob: Thanks a lot. (Laughing)
Rush: They may be coming down the pike. I mean we have food subsidies called food stamps. We have housing subsidies called FHA. We've got all this stuff and guess what? It's never enough. Everybody's -- everybody wants more.
I understand totally the nature of your question and I -- you know we live here in an idealistic world where you think that the -- the whole concept of limited government is one that this nation was founded upon and that's why this stuff matters so much to people other than the fact, "It's the right thing." It's was -- it's the basis on which the government was founded. The whole Constitution including the Bill of Rights limits government, not the citizens. It limits what governments role in our lives could be. That seems to have gone out the window. There's no question political calculations are being made here.
Look I don't want to be redundant. I know the people, the "new tune in factor," on a, you know, half hour by half hour basis, is large and as I say, I don't know where this ultimately leads, I'm just telling you that to the people in Washington, this is chump change. There's no -- as far the way they're looking at it, there's nothing to gain by opposing this. There's nothing -- there isn't anything to gain by it.
I'm not saying I agree with them I'm just trying to give you their mindset. There's nothing to gain and this is small stuff compared to some of the really important things that they consider like judges, judicial nominees and other matters of policy but to some of us, this is the big stuff because somebody's going to pay for this.
You know what we're not even factoring into this, is the baby-boomer retirement factor that's going to a realization soon. They're going to start retiring and look at the demands and expectation this bunch is going to have. I happen to know because I'm one of them and there's no bigger bunch of self absorbed freeloaders in the world than the baby-boom generation.
They think God created the world for them. Think God created everything in the world for them and all they had to do was get born or grow up and they would get it. I mean it's -- some of the people baby-boom generation -- their parents and their grandparents busted their rear ends get -- sacrificed everything for their kids and did it so well that the baby-boomer generation didn't have to bother growing up till it was fifty and now it's time to retire. Soon as they grow up they retire and guess what comes with retirement?
Somebody else taking care of you just like your parents and your grandkids did. How many baby-boomers still live with their parents at age 35? And say, "Well, It's just a factor of the new life style of America. I mean it's just- it's just...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 7.3
[21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...mind boggling. Hey these people are soon to join the, "Gimme, gimme, gimme I deserve it set." They're going to want to retire earlier and they're going to want a quality retirement and they're going to want you paying for it because look my friends, I'll tell you what.
There's something that's involved in this country, I don't know where it started but say if you live to be 60 years old you have achieved something big. You have accomplished something and that means you're country owes you big time and there are a lot of people -- and that attitude by the ways, been promoted by politicians who say, "there's a big debt that we owe people who've lived to be 65."
New York I can understand that being an achievement but in most of the rest of the country it's no big deal to live to be 65 but others want to be honored for it and paid for it so they -- you just - you add their retirement benefit explosion that the baby-boomers going to put on all this.
Couple -- this does add up to big stuff to me because somebody's going to have to pay for it and at some point the people whose shoulders this is going to fall on are going to refuse because they're not going to be able to live quality lives themselves while supporting others who are just sitting around doing whatever. You know thinking how much they're "owed" because of all the great contributions they've made to America because they lived to be 55 or 60.
Fort Madison Iowa and Ted. Welcome sir, to the EIB Network, great to have you with us.
Ted: Good afternoon Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Rush: Yes sir.
Ted: Don't you think that this republican advancement of basically democrat ideas is playing into the disillusion statement going around out here that says both of these political parties really the same? That there's no difference between the two? You vote republican and they push democratic ideas when the democrats think they need votes they push ideas that are republican ideas.
Rush: I can see why you think that and I -- it'd be easy to succumb to that. Even I could find myself falling in that trap today but I actually don't. I -- these are -- these are things that definitely cloud the issue but I'll tell you would never -- you would never get anything like this tax cut with a democrat in power. You would not get anything like the defense of this country with a democrat President. Their response to 9/11, the war on terror, it's not in them.
There's a -- there's still fundamental differences and they are huge between the two parties and there's no - because there's a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. What we're looking at here -- let me see if I can come up with a way of describing this or positioning this but this is one of those small little areas that overlap that does make it look like it look like there's no difference in the two parties. This is this area of social spinning.
Admittedly a big deal to you as I know it is, could tell by your call, it's a big deal to me but there are still vast -- I mean there are philosophical differences between the two parties that still survive. I mean despite this -- despite what's going on here with this prescription drug benefit to Medicare and this tax cut to people who don't pay taxes, there's still a huge difference in the way Bush looks at this country and the way any of these democratic presidential candidates looks at the country and Bush does believe in entrepreneurism. You can see this in the tax cut. He believes in the power of the individual and he does not -- as a general rule, believe that government is a solution to all people's problems.
This is an exception because of the political need to grow his party the way his advisors and him are looking at this but there's still -- there's still huge fundamental differences. Even in the area of liberty and freedom, there are huge differences. It's just that these issues come along now and then that blur the lines and give people reason, "Ahh, there's no difference between these two," and I can understand people saying it. It's - specially in times like this but you -- just listen to any -- listen to Ted Kennedy talk, listen to Tom Daschle talk, listen to Pat Lehey or any of these democrats who are opposing judicial nominees talk and take a look at the people that Bush are proposing as nominees and people that support them.
There are worlds of differences out there. It still does matter. I mean if democrats had been elected to the Whitehouse again after Clinton who knows what kind of environmental damage they would have done to this country. They'd have signed us on to the Kyoto Protocol punishing us for our technological advancements. Who knows the damage that this...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.1
[22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...out there. They might have signed us on to the International Criminal Court. They clearly, just based on the recent debate we had over Iraq, the democrats clearly want to subordinate this countries foreign policy to United Nations. I will guarantee you that there is no way any democrat would have dealt with the UN or France and Germany the way this Administration has. And the area of national defense and foreign policy is right up there at the top in terms of importance of government and it's responsibility and it is still not safe to have democrats in charge of that stuff.
I don't care what this prescription drug benefit, the Medicare, may make it look like you still can't trust the security of this country to those people. They have a different view of the world and they -- and the US role in it. They resent our superpower status. They feel guilty about it and will do anything they can to reduce our power. I mean it's -- they're -- not worthy of any trust in that regard and couple areas like that.
Quick break, we'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: On Star Advisor]
[ad: California Association of Realtors]
[ad: Genself]
[ad: Epilepsyfoundation.org]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: I give you a couple of other examples here of huge differences in the two parties. With President Bush, partial birth abortion measure will be signed into law. This is the first federal law that will actually limit abortions. This would have "Never, never happened," with a democrat in the Whitehouse. "Never!"
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.2
[23: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and President is also really ticked off these big unions by outsourcing the work done by eight hundred and fifty thousand federal workers at least opening their work up to competitive bids. You wouldn't have this happen in a democrat administration. None of this.
Now that having been said, I must also be honest. I've been honest here but I mean I've got to from both sides because I don't want you people to misunderstand me in all this. I'm doing my best to assess all this objectively and honestly as I can and I'm -- in case you can't tell I'm disappointed maybe a little frustrated. I'm not to the point of throwing up my hands and calling it quits and saying, "Ahh, to hell with it!" As I know some of you are but still it's disappointing because I know the history here.
I'll give you -- I'll give you a classic example. Europe is full of formerly conservative political parties that tried the Bush "big theory" and they end up supporting more socialism. Let's say we get this bulletproof majority that I'm just -- and by the way I'm just surmising that. I'm just -- I don't know, you know my friends, I'm an outsider when it comes to this bunch. I'm no closer to these people than you are. I don't care what you think, I'm telling you the truth. I can only assess it from afar as you do and I'm trying to figure this all out and one of the things I've come up with is,
Rush making a statement to himself: "Okay, maybe they're going for a super majority to get things they consider really important done."
Rush answers himself: "Okay what's the next step after we get a so-called "bulletproof majority"?
Rush: "Well there's the rub cause once you get the bulletproof majority, item number one, job number one is to maintain it and just as I said you earlier today, "The first and foremost important job of officials is to get re-elected.""
You don' think that should be the case. They should go there and do the job followed by or executing their principal and implementing the things that they said they were going to do during their campaign and all that but once they get the bulletproof majority they got to maintain it.
Rush asking himself questions: What good is it if you don't maintain it?
Rush answering himself: Well, how did you get it?
Rush: "Humm, guess we got to do more of that to keep it." So guess what? You've got more incremental growth of government. If that's what it took to get the super majority then that's what you got to do. This is a pitfall that is waiting to happen and it's happened to a bunch of these formerly conservative political parties in Europe and presumably this would mean continuing to parrot the liberals and stealing their issues to some extent. Denying them credit for whatever you pass and you know this is not how you build a principled movement.
You might build a movement but you're not building a principled movement. You build it by confronting the views of your adversaries, competing against them, contrasting them and then wiping them out, then defeating them, not by taking a little of what they believe and co-opting it as your own and say, "Look at us. See we're nice guys too." That's what I fear is going on because only when you defeat your adversaries in the political arena with ideas and demonstrations of truth can you then implement the limited government agenda but there's no attempt to develop this kind of support.
There's no attempt here to take on these issue by issue battles and defeat them. That's not what's going on. Takes time, lot of speeches, policy initiatives and that sort of thing. I mean there was no great ground swell for the campaign finance reform bill but it was signed. It did under the cover of darkness and look at the court. I tell you -- the courts -- look at the judges that upheld it. They were republican judges, there's not --this business of, "Ahh, we're doing this for the judges," There is no guarantee you're going to get the judges you want even the ones you appoint.
I got to take a break a little long here, back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Citracal]
[ad: Infone]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part 8.3
[24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Infone]
[ad: Casino Morongo]
[ad: World Wildlife Fund]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Second hour of broadcast excellence in the can ladies and gentlemen. However there's another hour left to go on my first day back from a four-day golf trip to the wind-swept links courses on the north shore of Ireland.
Back in just a moment, stay with us.
[ad: Camelot Theater]
[Promo: The Joy Short Show]
[Promo: KPSI Home of L.A. Dodgers]
[ABC-News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine.1
[25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Breck]
[ad: American Diabetes Association]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine point two
[26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well, despite all this, the news continues to worsen for the democrats. The Dow Jones Average is up over 140 now. We are well over ninety-two hundred now. The Dow Jones Industrial Average manufacturing sector, that news is up, The Nasdaq's up thirty-one. The economy clearly rebounding since "I" proclaimed two weeks ago the economic slowdown is officially over. Your tuned to Rush Limbaugh the voice America listens to on the EIB Network at 1-800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
There are other things of coarse out there ladies and gentlemen happening while I was away and still continue to effervesce, if you will, so let's take a look at them.
From Baghdad a couple days ago;
Unknown Source: The Iraqi Guard at the entrance of the Police Academy, one of several places where citizens could surrender their illegal weapons to US occupation forces, shook his head when asked how many had met today's deadline and it's June 14th , for handing over guns without penalty. The guy said -- the guard said, "We've had plenty of reporters and no weapons have come in. Reporters didn't give up their guns and the Iraqi citizens haven't given up theirs."
A two-week weapons amnesty program designed to reduce the number of heavy armaments in the hands of Iraqi's ended with scant results. Nation-wide - Nation-wide, one hundred twenty-three pistols, seventy-six semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, four hundred thirty-five automatic rifles, forty-six machine guns, hundred sixty-two anti-tank rif -- rocket propelled grenade launchers, (laughing) eleven anti- aircraft weapons and three hundred eighty-one hand grenades have been turned in as of June 14th.
Rush: A hundred sixty-two anti-tank rocket propelled grenade launchers (laughing) turned in by Iraqi citizens. I mean how many RPG's do these people have? I mean (laughing)only one hundred and twenty-three pistols but all these other huge armaments and there seemed to be no last minute rush of people turning in their weapons to get amnesty.
This sounds like a job here for Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. These are two big gun control advocates here in the United States. They're experts in this. President Bush could do all Americans a huge favor by urging Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein to go to Iraq and stay there until every Iraqi citizen is disarmed.
In fact I would suggest this, you got this country and we're trying to tame this country and one of the problems you can't have these citizens over there running around with guns and if there's anybody who believes that, is Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein. Now we know that they would like to disarm this country too, so what we need to do is send them over to Iraq and try to disarm the people of that country.
There's a pilot program for disarming America, just send them over there, the president could do a great job sending them over there, leave them as long as it takes. Until they personally -- well they wouldn't do it. They'd come up with some stupid commission but until they disarmed the whole country proving it can be done. It could be a valuable public service.
Listen to this oddball story. Iran, which by the way, I told you people about this. I was pressured. I warned you all about this and I -- we did an interview in my newsletter with Michael Ledeen about the insurrections that were happening daily in Iran. That it didn't require US military intervention. This is a revolution waiting to happen and it is intensifying. It is -- the Mullahs are so close -- ever so close to losing control over there it really - it's exciting thing to watch. I mean these people, it's not -- and of course it's being in the press, reported as students. That's not students, its professors, people of all stripes over there are protesting...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part nine point three
[27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...demanding freedom of one form or another. I'm telling these Mullahs are on the last legs. It's -- they are very precariously balanced over there and it's not -- it's still not getting a whole lot of coverage but it's getting more than it once was. But despite all that, Iran is recruiting -- get this -- this is a story from The Telegraph on June the 15th, just yesterday. Let me just read it to you.
The Telegraph: Iran is recruiting top Iraqi weapons scientists to join a dangerous brain drain from Baghdad as international concerns grow about Teheran's clandestine arms program. The pro-Iranian Badr Brigade, an Iraqi Islamic militia, is helping scientists to travel through tribal areas north east of Baghdad and then across the border to Teheran for meetings with senior military and regime figures in Iran.
Rush: Now you have to wonder here, folks, how Iran can recruit people from Iraq who are working on weapons that presumably don't exist or were never even going to be built at least that's what liberal democrats contend. How in the world can Iran be importing weapons Scientists from Iraq when there aren't any? And according to the democrats there never were any. Bush lied to us thru his teeth about this and yet Iran's trying to get hold of these scientists. (Paper rustling noise) Something doesn't jive.
Moving on the Middle East. I hate to tell you I told you - well I don't hate to -- I mean I don't want to be repetitive, I told you so's. I -- this was only a matter of time. This is one of these things that happened, pretty big, while I was gone. A leading republican lawmaker said yesterday, this Richard Lugar on FOX News Sunday.
FOX News: US forces may have to root out terrorism in the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians including taking aim at Hamas. Lugar who is the chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that American forces might be part of an International force to help stop attacks by Hamas, the main group behind the campaign of suicide bombings against Israeli's and other groups.
Rush: Now everybody knew this was going to happen once this "roadmap to peace" happened and then the big meeting at "Al Qaba" or "Al Qaba" however they pronounce it and these Hamas guys said, "No way." Where -- this guy Mahmoud Abass doesn't control us. We don't do what Sharon says. We don't like Israel. We don't want there to be an Israel. We don't want there to be any Jews and take this and they start engaging in more suicide terrorism and this and that.
Then we're thinking low and behold we got a one eighty. When I left town, when I left the country the President was calling Sharon out and blaming all the unrest over there on Israel, blaming all the unrest on Sharon. Sharon you got to back off. Don't defend yourself; you're destabilizing the peace process blah, blah.
Now I get back four days later and what do I find? US forces maybe joining Israeli forces to root out Palestinians terrorists. "This is big." This is huge. Hamas has said that it would reject any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Lugar said that "Such a force could be used to quell the disputes between Israel and Palestine and maybe even more important to root out the terrorism that's at the heart of the problem."
Oh really. So all of the sudden we realize that the terrorism there is the same as what we been fighting? Why I hate to blow my own horn here but how -- and it's not just me, anybody with a brain has been saying this. How-why did take so long? Is it because the "Roadmap to Peace," is in trouble? Why -- how come literally folks, how come this has taken so long to realize that these terrorists are no different than Al Qaeda or Al Schmida or who ever else. Anyway it's a step forward, it's progress.
An Israeli Army Radio reports that: The army has been ordered to completely wipe out the Palestinians Islamic militant group Hamas a day after a suicide bomber killed sixteen people on a bus in Jerusalem. Israeli helicopters killed nine Palestinians in strikes on militants after the bombing; leaving the US backed "Peace Roadmap" in tatters. Israeli Internal Security Minister said that, "No Hamas leader is safe,"
Rush: And Bush is firmly behind this. I mean when it says here, "Israeli Army Radio reports: The army has been ordered to completely wipe out the Palestinians Islamic militant group Hamas," it may sound like this is all internal Israeli doings from Sharon, but do not mistake...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point one
[28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...this. These orders are coming from Washington and it's a tantamount mission as to whose putting up the roadblock to the "Roadmap," to peace. So days of Hamas would appear to be numbered if we stick to this, fact a companion story on June 12th.
Unknown Source: United States accused Hamas on Thursday of being the major obstacle in the Middle East peace and a wave of bloodshed that has thrown the "Roadmap to Peace," into turmoil. George W. Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with the president, " The issue is Hamas. The terrorists are Hamas." His comments marked a change, a dramatic change in tone from US criticism of Israel for it's attempt to kill a Hamas leader on Tuesday. Hamas has rejected Bush's plan as "too generous" to Israel and since that attack the Middle East has been engulfed in a wave of retributive violence including a Palestinians suicide bombing that killed sixteen people in Jerusalem last Wednesday and a lethal Israeli attack in Gaza.
Rush: Anyway, how quickly things turn. How quickly -- once the "Roadmap," appears to be threatened, "Oh, there's a personal investment in the "Roadmap," and now all of the sudden they're going to nail the guys who are actually in charge of it. I guess we went the extra mile. We wanted to give the Palestinians -- "Here we're going to give you a state," see the big difference here -- this is -- I read, I can't remember where, so much I've been cramming. Somebody made a good point today.
Something I read that uhh, this "Roadmap to Peace," has strange similarities to "Oslo." And of coarse Oslo was a dramatic failure but there's one distinct difference between this and Oslo. Oslo ended for the Palestinian State. The last step of the Oslo peace process was the establishment of a Palestinian State. The Roadmap to Peace establishes the Palestinian State in the middle of the process, which is the key difference because it give the Palestinians what they claim they want before they really earned it and then the effort is on both sides to maintain it and so forth and what's happened now is that a Palestinian group Hamas has basically shown it's colors.
They're not interested in a Palestinian State and they're not interested in anything that results in the peaceful side-by-side co-existence of Palestinian State and a Jewish State. They're not interested in it and I guess people are now saying, "Okay the Roadmap to Peace proved this," even thought I don't think any proof was needed but if that's what did it -- it did it. And so now the world is aligned against Hamas in a matter of four days. Just think if this would have been done years ago when everybody -- I mean this is no great realization to people. It can't be. In the meantime;
Unknown source: Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip have gone into hiding for fear that Israel might try to kill them. Palestinian sources said this last Thursday. According to the sources, most of the leaders of Hamas including prominent political figures like Mahmoud al-Zahar and the Ismail Abu Shanab and Ismail Haniya disappeared from their homes following the botched assai nation against the terrorist Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi last Tuesday. Hamas officials in Gaza City confirmed the movements top leaders were in hiding. Say they decided to take precautionary measures to protect themselves against possible Israeli retaliatory attacks.
Rush: Where can they go? Not too many places. They will be found. We must take an EIB operational pause. We'll do that and be back with much more right after this.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for General Steel Corporation]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point two
[29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for General Steel]
[ad: Desenex]
[ad: AdminiStaff]
[ad: Brooke Street Securities]
[ad: PovertyUSA.org]
[Promo: Laura Ingraham Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[ad: PoveryUSA.org]
Rush: ...it had Mahmoud Abass, Abu Mazen whatever name he wants to go by on a given day from Palestine -- the Palestinians and all these neighboring countries. I mean -- and Bush said, "Okay, all these people are for peace. Egypt is for peace. Mahmoud Abass is for peace. Israeli's are for -- anybody who opposes this is our enemy and is terrorists." Bam here comes Hamas launching their assault.
Fulfilled Bush's prediction, so to speak, but the Hamas guys are such idiots that they took what Bush said and gave him the opportunity to proclaim them as terrorists not just people engaging in terrorist activity. They're now identified as terrorists and as such, they're dead. They are the object of the war on terrorism and when Lugar talks about sending in a Third expeditiary force, US forces, that -- he's not doing that on his own either. I mean there's some consultation going on. When you talk about US Troops going into this conflict to root out Hamas, then it -- it's clear what's going on. This is what Bush set up with all this...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part ten point three
[30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: the reason Sharon went along with it because everybody knew what Hamas was going to do. We haven't yet heard from Islamic Jihad but hopefully they'll behave the same way so we don't launch a salvo on them and then whoever else wants to mount these attacks designed to stop the process of moving forward. In the process of doing that, they're dead. And that's where we are.
And we go back to the phones now Mike in Effingham Illinois. Welcome to the program sir, great to have you with us.
Mike: Hi Rush, how you doing today?
Rush: Just fine sir, thanks much for the call.
Mike Ahh, thank you for taking my call. This is a truck driving federally mandated, eighteen handicapped, unskilled labor, dittos to you sir.
Rush: I appreciate that. It's great to have you in the audience.
Mike: How was your trip and how'd you hit it when you were there?
Rush: You know Ireland's an interesting place. I was amazed at the affluence of this country just in where we were on the ground and flying over. We flew helicopters from course to course because some of them were two hours apart by car so we made the trip in twenty-five minutes or so in a helicopter and you look down...
Mike: I hear it's absolutely beautiful there.
Rush: It was -- well I understand why they call it the Emerald Isle. I'm telling you, I've never seen more shades of green in my life. It surprised me. I thought I knew what I was going to see but no it was stunningly beautiful. All these courses we played were Links courses right on the ocean, right on the coast. I never played Links courses before and the -- actually my toughest thing was the second day at Royal County Down. That's probably the worst I played. Best I played was day three and four and was booming the ball yesterday and I mean booming. We played thirty-six on Saturday and everybody got kind of wiped out...
Mike: Ahh, that's good for you there. Keeps you strong. Well what did you think about Furyk's win yesterday. Did you see it on tape?
Rush: Uhm, I didn't -- I only saw the last couple holes when I got home there were -- he -- I did see some of Thursday and Friday's rounds late night. You understand that it was on at one o'clock in the morning over there and we were up every morning at six just to get out and hit Links...
Mike: Oh, those people are real golf lovers there. Did you have a caddy each time? Did you get the experienced pad as well?
Rush: No, I carried my own bag. What do you think, of coarse I had a caddy. (laughing)
Mike: Was it nice having those old...
Rush: Yeah they were -- they were, look it, they were all -- I was --I was shocked. I really -- I was expecting something totally different. I thought the caddies would be snobs toward players that don't play that well but they weren't at all. Everybody - they were just -- everybody I met were just nice as they could be. It was the most fun I've had on a golf trip in I can't tell you how long and that's all it was. I mean golf -- golf and the discussions every day and night at dinner was golf -- golf -- golf. There's some changes in it but I mean it was just a tremendous amount of fun. It's a great place to play and Links courses, if you've never played one, are totally different. It's unlike any thing that I've ever experienced. It only can improve the game.
Thanks for the call, back in a moment.
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
[ad: General Air Conditioning and Heating]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part eleven point one
[31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Joy Short Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Rush: Friends I have received troubling reports from the nations Capitol, unconfirmed but...
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: And I'm back in the throws of broadcast excellence defined by me, a man, a legend, a way of life. Learn it, love it, live it.
All right so now many questions, what's a Links course? How does it differ from other courses. Let me just take some time now to tell you a little about the trip and do that and I'll hopefully try to answer the questions that you have in this one little discussion here.
First place and pardon the clearing the throat there, the -- there were twelve of us on the trip. Let me give you the names of the people that you will know who were on the trip. This is not to denigrate people who I'm not going to mention, the names -- just but the names you'll know were of coarse me, Dan Marino, Matt Lauer and Michael Douglas the actor and no there were no political discussions at any time, although I'm wondering if there were some people hoping that there were at some point some discussions for fireworks to start but I made sure I wasn't going to light that fuse.
It was all very sociable. Everybody was just as congenial and nice as they could be. There were a lot of tremendous people on the trip. One of the President Forbes Publications was along, a gentleman from Boca Resorts, one of the sales and marketing managers of the Breakers Hotel here in Palm Beach. David Burke was there. They got twelve of us all -- our host was Wayne Huizenga who is a - one of the nations preeminent entrepreneurs. Owns the Miami Dolphins, Blockbuster Video and he was the host of the trip, does this quite often, and no finer host is alive than Wayne Huizenga.
There's -- it is impossible not to enjoy yourself no matter where you are with him. He sees to it won't let anybody not have a good time. He's just -- he's got it down pat. He's a man who lives life to the fullest in every venue, be it work or pleasure and there're things he loves to do and there people he likes and considers his friends and he wants to do his way and he takes those people along with him as he's doing it. Making a big party and it's one of the most unique trips I've been on.
The weather -- we were all prepared and I was told, "Look, it rains every day, be prepared, in nine holes you could see every possible weather condition except snow." Everyday it was in the mid sixties. There was little wind, it never rained, it was actually hot. A Links course...
Monday, June 16, 2003 part eleven point two
[32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Links Course is on the ocean and it's not only remarkable by the -- by virtue of it's layout and the kind of course it is but it is noted -- well, I did say layout, it's noted for it's layout. The American golf course, the first hole you start at the clubhouse and you come in the ninth hole is at the clubhouse so if you want to quit after nine you're home. And then the tenth hole is at the clubhouse and you go for your back nine and the eighteenth hole is at the clubhouse.
Links courses the first and the eighteenth hole are at the clubhouse and that's it. You go out and you're still out when you make the turn and you come back in and that's why if it starts raining you play cause you got to walk in anyway you might as well play when it starts raining. And these courses are all on the coast and of coarse the weather can be unpredictable and windy and it was none of those things this time but it can be.
They're not nearly as immaculate as American courses, not nearly as well maintained. They're not nearly as well manicured, they're not suppose to be. The rough for example, the Rough - is three feet tall and it -- if you miss the fairway -- the fairways are narrow. You miss the fairway you need a hound dog to find your ball. These caddies can find balls -- I -- you would -- never once lost a ball. I don't care where it went. Down a ravine, thirty feet up a mountain, these caddies find the ball.
I remember there's a -- one of the closing holes yesterday was a dogleg left and there's no way you can cut the dogleg. You had to hit straight out then have your second shot go into the green. My second shot was a six-iron form about a hundred and eighty yards and I pulled it left, thirty feet up the side of a mountain. Two mountains surrounding this hole and I said, "Ahh to hell with it, we're playing a four-man, to hell with it I'll pick-up you guys -- Marino was already on in two and my caddy looked at me and said, " You're not -- nobody pulls out here." You know, "What do you mean you're picking-up. Nobody picks-up." So this caddy is taking my bag and he's walking thirty feet up this mountain and finds the ball and he gets up there and he motions, "Come up here. You're going to hit this."
Now here I am, on a vacation, climbing a mountain. You know, chasing a golf ball, you know, then everybody on my team, "Yeah, you got to go hit it." I got no sympathy -- not -- so I climb up there and I, folks, if I had lost my balance I'd have tumbled over somersault down thirty feet of this mountain. Anyway I got lucky, I hit it about twenty feet from the green, almost made the par putt but I wouldn't have even gone looking for the ball. My caddy went looking for the ball toting my bag up there but these are -- but everybody I met from the hotel people to the people at the golf courses, they were just tremendous.
It was impossible not to have a good time and must have walked thirty miles maybe more in these four days. Played thirty-six holes on Saturday and we tried to sneak a peak at the US Open. I mean the US Open started, the television coverage started over there at 6:00P.M. one o'clock here -- no, 11:00A.M. here so that's like 4:00P.M. over there and we'd get in about five or six. The sun goes down at 10:00P.M. and I happened to be awake 2:30 -- 3:00 one morning and the sun was coming up and it's not dark for very long over there at this time of year and there wasn't a whole lot of -- the last hotel we stayed in did not feature - Sky TV the Murdock owned version of FOX Channel. Sky was taking ESPN and NBC feeds then putting their own announcers on it and the second hotel we stayed in only featured the coverage in their bars and restaurants, not in the rooms.
You had to leave the room if you wanted to go watch the Open coverage and I mean, most of us were dog tired at the end of every day. We're helecoptering form course to course and doing all this walking. It's hilly terrain and all that. It was different kind of golf I've ever played. I remember the first day was tough to get used to because the fairways are narrow and if you're in the rough, I mean it's just impossible. You're not even thinking par, if you hit the fairway so, unique experience.
I'm - every American golf course I play in now is going to seem easy compared to these and that's not putting down American golf courses. It's just me but I treasure the experience and everybody was in good cheer and vowed to get together again and trading business cards and, "Yeah, it's good to know you and we'll have to get together," and you know, trading cigars and all this sort of stuff so we'll see but it was really a once in a lifetime experience. I'm flattered and honored I was invited to go.
Here's John in Charlotte Iowa. Welcome to the program sir good to have you with us.
Monday, June 16, 2003 part eleven point three
[33: Immaadd2] [edit]
John: Thank you Rush. I would like to go back to the prescription drug issue real quick.
Rush: Yeah.
John: I believe that it not only takes the issue away from the democrats about prescription drugs but it also disintegrates the issue of deficit spending because the democratic party is not going to get on the radio and talk about what it costs and spending or deficit spending if it means talking about what the prescription drug program costs.
Rush: You would -- you know, I hear this a lot and it's the people -- people often offer this as justification for taking democrat issues and advancing all or a portion of them because then the democrats aren't going -- they can't say this. They're going to say it no matter what we do. They are going to say it. They are going to rip Bush no matter what. They're going to vote for this prescription drug plan in the Senate and Bush is going to get credit for it. They are going to rip Bush for not doing enough.
My friends let me tell you, this is the danger in this and I have mentioned this before. The liberals are never satisfied. I don't care what it is that they want, how ever much of it they get, even if it's all of what they say they want, they are not happy. They are never happy with what they get. It's in they're rulebook. It's in their play book and they continually -- their whole strategy, their whole political strategy here is to rip Bush, is to criticize Bush and you would also think that after this they can no longer attack Bush for wanting to cut Medicare. They could no longer attack Bush for not having the interest of senior citizens at heart.
Well you watch. You watch when we get to the official campaign of 2004. You tell me if they stop criticizing Bush on all these things. They won't. They're going to continue and they're going to get themselves in deeper hole by doing it but trust me on this. It's all they know. This is the problem that they've got.
It's like these weapons of mass destruction. They're playing this so wrong. They're sitting there trying to make the case that Bush lied about it and manipulated everybody, manipulated the intelligence agencies to lie to him so he could lie to the American people. They never had these weapons. It doesn't matter that all the democrats agreed that he had the weapons. It doesn't matter that they all agreed to it in 1998 when Clinton was saying this. It doesn't matter they've all seen the intelligence. They're all saying Bush lied to us. Bush manipulated us. Bush played the American people for fools. Bush killed a hundred and thirty-six Americans servicemen unnecessarily because there was no reason to go to war blah, blah, blah.
What they ought to be doing instead of talking -- going down this road that they weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Everybody knows that they're wrong. What they ought to be doing is demanding they be found. What's the Bush Administration doing to find these weapons? We are at great peril. We knew these weapons existed, where are they now? That's what they ought to be doing. They don't even have the brains to do that and don't' worry, some of you think that I'm giving them the idea. They not going to do it. They not going to take it especially coming from me, they won't. They think it's a set-up but there's so many ways they're misplaying all this because they -- they're trapped by something that is going to keep them trapped until they can find a way out of it and it's real simple. They have nothing to offer anybody. There's not one thing that they can say they are for. There's not anything they say or support that's inspirational. They're just -- they're dead in the water.
I mean look, they're signature issues are being stolen out from under them. Bush is claiming credit for these issues and the democrats don't know what to do about it. They have no -- they can't afford to stop it and when Bush claims credit they don't know what to do about that or how to claim credit themselves, say they forced them to do it blah, blah, blah, because they're focused on the wrong things. They're so -- let this be a lesson to you. If you can't stop thinking about yourself you're never going to be able to put things in perspective and they can't stop thinking about themselves. Everything revolves around them and the reacquisition of their own power and until they get out of that frame of mind they're just -- they are going to be stuck in a rut that's gets deeper and deeper.
Quick break, back with more after this.
[ad: Limbaugh Letter]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
Monday, June 16, 2003 part twelve
[34: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: Union Bank of California]
[ad: EarthShare.org]
[ad: Agua Caliente Casino]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
Unknown Caller: ...the pharmaceutical companies have done incentives to do because of profits to be made and when there's no more profits to be made, what happens to all the research for new drugs?
Rush: Well that's an interesting question. I don't think it's going to be totally shut out because the Medicare market, while a large part of it, it's not the sole market for drugs and the government's not going to be funding or paying everybody's but I -- this is -- this is where my over all faith in America and Americans comes into play and is a factor.
It's -- often times it's been said on this program by callers, people that have emailed me that, you know "If they keep raising taxes and they keep doing this people are just going to stop working," and look at some point that would happen if tax rates got 78% yeah but until such time that's not what happens. People don't stop working, they work harder to overcome the obstacles that are placed in front of them and the drug companies host some of the brightest minds in the country, in the world and no matter what obstacles put in their way these people are going to continue, are indeed, to come up with new treatments, new drugs and so forth.
I mean they all ready have to deal with the FDA. I mean who knows what kind of progress we'd have made, what drugs would be on the market, procedures and so forth they have to go through that beaureucratic maze and --but that's a great example. Even the FDA, looked at as an obstacle, has been overcome. It's unfortunate and I think you've also touched on something else...
Monday, June 16, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...that's important. You wait and see what ever the government gets involved in anything, prices go up. They don't go down and that's another thing that's wrong with this the- because the perception that somebody else is going to be paying for all this and when the perception is that you don't pay for it, you don't care who does and therefore you don't care what it costs because as far as you're concerned it's a benefit that you're getting. Costs are going to skyrocket here. Somebody always ends up paying for these and that's the American taxpayer.
Drug companies, like other companies will be able to pass along as much of it as they can but this is not going to kill R&D or any of that. It's not going to go to that extent. I can understand why you're thinking it would but there's still too much freedom in this country. There's still too much creativity. There is too much ambition and desire out there and this thing is not going to shut that down. There will be avenues for it, if people have to start their own little companies to do things.
You watch. That's not -- I mean it's -- on the paper it looks like a potent ional hazard and it may well be but we're Americans, we'll over come these things. That's - you know that's the damn disappointing thing about this is that no matter -- in a way, I mean in one sense it's a reason to be proud and bust your buttons cause we do overcome these things and despite all these obstacles, still the greatest country in the world, the most powerful but it ought not be this hard. And there ought not have these kind of obstacles constantly put in front of you as an entrepreneur or as a company but this as is the case with many other things will be overcome. There will be alternate routes found to get where people must go.
Kansas City, Tom, welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you with us, sir.
Tom: Thank you Rush. I'd like to suggest that what we have going on here with George Bush and the drug bill, is not some kind of political machination. That there's no deception involved here, that Bush is as he presents himself. A man who does what he thinks is right and he thinks it's right and so he supports it and the fact that he chooses the democratic bill over his own preference simply establishes his credibility as a leader.
Rush: (sigh and laugh) What? The fact - I was with you up until that. I mean, the fact that he chooses the democratic bill over his own, proves that he is a leader? Is that what you said?
Tom: A real leader Rush, doesn't lead just the people that agree with him. A real leader is willing to -- is willing to establish a standard and to lead people who disagree with him on other fundamental things. George Bush I think is a -- he's a far better and deeper reaching man than a lot of people give him credit for.
Rush: Well, I'm not going to get into that. I'm not going to disagree with how deep and individual he is or how far reaching he is but hey, look if you want to believe that there aren't any political calculations in this, then more power to you. I envy you.(laughing) it would be a lot easier to face this stuff. I'm sorry, I just -- I can't, using the very example that you gave. Abandoning his own idea for the democrat plan just to get it passed. I mean that -- that's a political calculation.
I know what's going on here. I know exactly -- it's the "big theory" and it's working as far as it goes. It's working in terms of empowering the president and his party and weakening the democrats. Got them totally discombobulated. I mean they don't know which way to look. They don't know what's up. They don't -- you know kind of like a pilot whose airplanes in a tailspin and he looks at the instruments and doesn't believe it cause he feels like he's in a tailspin. Instruments say, "You got thirty seconds to live pal!" That's what the instruments say, and the pilot says, "No, I don't feel like that," and thirty seconds it's over.
We'll be back. That's the democrats. Stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: Zmax]
Monday, June 16, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Zmax]
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza]
[ad: GetGreen.com]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Mr. Snerdly, remind me to point out tomorrow how this can all come back -- this drug benefit to Medicare or how Ted Kennedy can come back and shaft Bush on this -- not - remind me to mention it. Folks, I got to go we're out of time here. Great to be back, see you tomorrow. Adios.
[ad: The Photo Reading System]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[ad: Paul Harvey for Thera-Gesic]
6.19.2003
Monday, June 9, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Tom] [edit]
[ABC News]
[ad: Vision Improvement Technologies]
[ABC News]
[promo: realtors]
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell on KTSI]
[Rush Intro]
[Jim Rome Show intro, his telephone numbers, and news on the US Open]
[Rush show breaks in:]
. . . each day, heard here, from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on almost 600 fabulous radio stations, and over 20 million people eagerly hanging on every syllable, not just every word.
I want to start off today with a little email, "Dear Rush: My husband and I have listened to your show for years. We are conservatives and we own a business. We've heard your arguments against granting the extra tax credits to people who are making under sixteen thousand dollars a year. You note that they pay no taxes.
Rush, I'm sorry, but we just can't agree with you on this one. If you had children, you should receive the same tax credit as anyone else. And we thought we were the only conservatives who felt this way, but our friends see it this way as well. I guess we believe anytime you take money out of the government coffers, it is a good thing. If you were talking about giving straight rebates to these persons, it would be one thing, but when you're talking about not giving the full exemption on children, it's quite another. I saw Dennis Miller on Tony Snow yesterday. He echoed this view as well. I know all about the tax credits they receive, but fighting this one is not a winner for Republicans. Signed J. Roberts."
And I will come back. I said, "Dear J.: It's the initial, not a name, I don't know what it stands for - Thanks for the note, but this isn't the point. The Democrats who are complaining about this are the ones who voted against it after opposing it. Blanche Lincoln and a Republican, Olympia Snowe both voted against the tax bill with this provision after Blanch Lincoln had inserted it in the original bill. She voted for it in committee and then against it on the Senate floor. So let these Democrats get away with blaming Republicans and the President is the mistake.
Now, as to the notion that those who do not contribute - contribute in quotes - to the funding of the government. The notion that those who do not contribute to the funding of the government are entitled to their fair share of a cut or rebates is a slippery slope J. And the whole concept of limited government is going out the window with both parties, and this is but one example how. And in a truly logical sense, and quoting from you, just how is it that anyone with children should receive a tax credit when they pay no taxes?
Why is that the standard? You got kids, you get a rebate? That's all it takes? I'm befuddled on this one, J. Simply having children entitles one to gifts from the taxpayers? Where will this stop? Well, if you're making a purely political calculation, as you seem to be doing, then that's fine. But don't then complain later when the Republicans do the same thing on an issue you disagree with. 'Cuz once you endorse wholly political calculations, you throw principal out the window, and you risk being a hypocrite with the next
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Mary] [edit]
Thanks for the note and your concern for my mistakes.
You see, the point here is that the Republicans can't win on this. These were poor people And even though they get around...The people we're talking about, they're getting anywhere from 3,800 to 4,000 dollar a year refund even though they pay no taxes. It's earned income tax credit. They get 3,800 to 4,000 dollars back even though they pay no taxes.
If the point here is that we cannot appear to be harsh or cruel to these poor people, we have to-- and then if the Democrats squawk about it we've got to, "okay, here comes the money"...in order to get elected, then what is the point in standing for anything. Because where does this end? Once... This is exactly the kind of thing that is driving the presciption drug business. And I'll tell you what the foundation of that is.
If you've lived long enough to retire in this country, you have contributed and you are owed something. You are owed something simply because you got old enough to retire. And the latest thing that you are owed is somebody else paying for your prescription drugs. And this is going to happen, it's a slam dunk.
Both parties are in a race here to get that done. And then what's next? Nursing home care? There's always going to be something else. Once you establish the principle that if you're poor and have kids you are automatically entitled to gifts from the taxpayer. If you are 65 and have survived the rigors of life in America you are owed presciption drugs?
What's next? And if you can't criticize this politically, because it will lead to your doom and defeat, then I daresay the whole concept of limited government is out the window. The whole concept of government getting smaller... The whole concept of all that is encompassed by limited government is gone. I do not know how people surivived before the earned income tax credit.
And the, the personal stuff in the email J. Roberson even acknowledges "Hey, I know all about the tax credits they receive. It doesn't matter. Fighting this one is not a winner for Republicans."
That may be, but we're not fighting for Republicans on this one. We're fighting for the country. We're fighting for the whole concept of it. It's already been bastardized the notion that the people...Once it's been discovered that you can vote yourself money... It's a slippery slope and we're headed down that path anyway.
It's just a little frustrating to hear... I can understand this coming from liberals. To hear now conservatives wanting to make a political calculation just to -- This has been my problem with the Bush administration on the whole domestic front ever since 2001.
Let the democrats have whatever they want on education so we can't be criticized for being cold-hearted and cruel. Let them have campaign finance reform. Let them have this or that.
The problem is it's never enough. No matter what they get, it's never enough. If we're going to give the exemption to kids, families that don't pay taxes-- It's sort of like the minimum wage. If we're going to raise the minimum wage, say, to $8.00, why not $10.00. If we're going to raise it to $10.00, why not $20.00. If we're going to raise it to $20.00, why not $50.00. Where is? At what point?
And you go through this test with somebody, by the way. And at some point you'll reach a number where it' "no, no, you can't pay that!" And then you've got them, and you say "why?"
What is the minimum wage right now , six something? Five-oh? Let's just pick a number, let's say the minmimum wage is ten, just for the hell of it, I know it's not. Minimum wage is 10 and they propose raising it a dollar. So make the minimum wage 11.
Someone who supports that [you say] "Why stop at 11, let's make it 12."
"Yeah, yeah, good idea!"
"Well, okay, let's go to fifteen"
You keep mentioning a number and at some point they say,
"Well, you can't do that"
And you say, "Oh, really, why?"
"That's simply too much."
"Oh, really, what's the magic of the number being too much?"
At some point, it all breaks down because it doesn't make sense at any number
And...the same thing here. If it's gonna make sense to give people who don't pay taxes a $4,000 tax refund, why not give them an $8,000 tax refund, so they can really enjoy life.
And then why not maybe...give them a car!
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Mary] [edit]
At some point people, "wo, no, you can't do that. We have to do something reasonable"
And of course "reasonable" is going to differ from person to person. But out the window in the whole discussion has gone the concept of self-reliance and limited government...And what has entered is this whole premise of entitlement. And we have expanded the definition of entitlement in this country to -- It has been so bastardized that there may not be any turning it back.
But I frankly do not believe that it is coldhearted or cruel to suggest "wait a second, this is a tax cut bill, this is not a welfare bill. This is a tax cut bill. This is not the place to start handing out these" "We have to rush. The democrats are going to kills us!" Frankly, let the democrats kills us." The democrats are killing themselves, my friends, they're not killing us. The democrats are in deep deep doo doo.
You ought to see this poll that ABC News has out about Hillary. It's devastating for her. And it's got some other data in it that likewise is going to be astounding to you. Let me do that after this first time out here. We'll take our first EIB operational pause. We'll be right back. Telephone number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882. Stay with us.
[Promo]
[ Rush reading ad for "The General" (General Steel Corporation)]
[Ad -- AJ Golf]
[Ad -- Union Bank]
[Ad -- Product I.D. ran over onto next chunk]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Mary] [edit]
[Ad -- National Headache Foundation]
[Promo -- Joey English]
Want to go to the phones, grab a quick phone call. This is Julie in Vista, California.
R: Hi, Julie, welcome to the EIB network. J: Hi, Rush, this is really an honor to talk with you. I'm a long time Rush lover. I went to Dan's bake sale, so that'll tell you how much I really enjoy...and I've listened to you for a long time.
But I disagree with you on this point. I think you're wrong. When you say that low income people don't deserve the child tax credit, just like everybody else. I believe that they do. I own a child care center. I have 45 incredible women that work there. They work so hard. They pay FICA taxes, medicare taxes, they pay state disability, they pay state income taxes, they pay gas taxes. They pay higher prices on products because they're paying for the taxes that business have to raise the price of the products so they can pay their taxes.
They people pay their taxes. And this is not about refunding of federal income tax which they do -- a lot of teachers that work for me do get tax income credit. This is about the government finally saying that we have not given you a high enough deduction for your child. And it costs a lot more to raise a child than the government has given people credit for on their tax returns. And that should be credited back to people across the boards, low income or not.
Rush: Well, low income -- why is that the factor here? This is a tax cut bill. And we're talking about people who pay taxes. What does low income have to do with it?
J: I think that everybody pays taxes. It's not about just low income people
Rush: But this is not a sales tax cut, this is not a FICA cut. This is an income tax cut.
J: This is not a federal income tax cut. This is a child dependent tax credit which basically -- (cut off/edited)
R: It's part of an income tax rate reduction bill. They have increased the child's tax credit exemption $400. From 600 to 1000 -- people who pay income tax.
J: Right. It's not just for people who pay income taxes
R: Yes, it is. In fact, let me ask you this. There are some people at the high end, high income level (over 175,000) who don't get the new exemption.
J: I disagree. They should get it. I think that it's across the boards. The government needs to accept the fact that they have not been allowing enough of a credit on everyone's tax returns, for raising children. It's expensive.
R: That is a statement of principle. I'm not going to disagree with the fact that the president taxes people too much. We're talking here about people who aren't taxed at all when it comes to federal income tax. But look, I'm not going to argue with you because there's no persuading you. And I know where you're quote/unquote coming from. I know what you're point in all this is. My only fear is that this has no end.
I could ask you: why should single people continue to pay for everyone's kids. There are a lot of people who are single, who have no kids, who don't get this exemption who are ending up paying it for everybody else. There are a number of different ways that this can be posed or asked and I know what the answer is always going to be.
And that is, well, raising a child is expensive and the government should allow people to keep more of their money to do that but this particular group we're talking about doesn't have any money taken away from them in the first place. But, look, the political calculation is such that we cannot be seen to be coldhearted and cruel to these people. And I'm being literal and taking the definition of terms and words literally here
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Mary] [edit]
...is a bad, bad political mistake. This is one of those things, just throw up your hands and you say, "okay , go ahead". But I'm telling you, the day is going to come where something exactly like this is going to happen where you're not going to agree with it. And you're going to have to. Otherwise you'll be a hypocrite because the political calculation here is what's driving all this.
Ken in Belmont, New Hampshire. Hi, welcome to the EIB Network.
Ken: Hi, Rush, you hit the nail right on the head. I'm not getting any child allotment or tax rebate.
Rush: Why should you? Do you have any kids?
Ken: No I don't.
Rush: That's not fair. Even though you don't have kids you like them, don't you?
Ken: Uh, yes
Rush: And you realize that kids are the future of the country , don't you?
Ken: Absolutely.
Rush: Then you ought to get a thousand dollar exemption for every child because lord knows you've been supporting them anyways.
Ken: Absolutely, absolutely, every day of my life.
Rush: I think I'm going to support this. I'm going to suggest... I'm going to call Grover Norquist. I'm going to say "Grover, you gotta make sure that single people with no kids get this tax credit."
Ken: I'd like that.
Rush: Well, I'm going to fight for it because you people deserve it. You've been paying for others...And you don't have kids but you love them and you know they're the future of the country. Why don't you have children, by the way?
Ken: I chose not to because I'm a selfish person. I --
Rush: That's a mature view! That's a mature view! You're doing it for all the right reasons. You don't want to be a lousy parent. You don't want to be bugged by the presence of a kid. You want to lead your own life. I totally understand that. And yet at the same time with this mature view of yours, you're still being soaked for other people who probably have no business having kids, are doing it anyway. And you're supporting them.
Ken: They expect money from me and people like me. They have since I started paying taxes. It just porks me off to hear them. Because there's always a mouth full of "gimme". We must support the children, we must support them, yes, but how much is enough.
Rush: The thing about this...You know what amazes me about this. We speak of the children. We speak of the poor as though they are a constant group. If you listen to the political discourse in this country, kids never grow up. They're always children. The poor are always the poor. People don't move from income level to income level, as we know that they do. But anyway, we've stumbled into something here, my friends. And I knew that addressing this head-on in a fearless way as I'm known for would bring us to the crossroads and we're going to take the fork. And it is this:
In order to be fair, to extend the fairness of this tax cut to everybody, people without children should be given the child tax credit exemption, the full exemption of a thousand dollars. Because they love kids, their property taxes supporting schools. Some of them are unable to have kids but would love to. It doesn't matter why. But they're being left out. And some of them are poor. Some of the people who don't have kids are poor. And we need to reward poverty. They're trying. So let's move on this now.
[Ad: LifePro (unintelligible) (Life Insurance)]
[Ad: Liverite Liver Aid]
[News Headlines ]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Mary] [edit]
[news]
[KPSI promo]
[more news]
Rush: And welcome back. Having more fun that a human being should be allowed to have.
Three things, ladies and gentlemen. On the child tax credit: The first thing I want to address is, since we have established that people who do not pay income taxes -- and in fact already get a tax refund of anywhere between three and four thousand dollars a year, called the earned income tax credut -- even though they pay no taxes, they get that refund. And now those people should get that 400 dollar additional exemption per child, up to a thousand dollars, because the government should just do this to make it fair.
Then the question is this: where does it stop? At what age do you cease to receive the child exemption? Is it 18? Is it when the child leaves home? I guess it's 18. Kids 18, you lose the exemption. Well, why? You have the child. Unless they're in college, whatever. But why don't you always get the child exemption, no matter where the child is? Whether you're child lives away and has his or her own family. And has his or her own kids? Well, you're hearing more and more about people moving back home at age 30 and 35. 'Cause it's tough out there?
So there's a case that can be made, if we're going to give you an exemption for kids, make it lifetime. We're talking fairness here. You had the kid. And it's important to have children. And we're established a concept here that government is going to pay you to have kids and help you raise them. So there should be no come-off. For as long as you and your kid live you get the exemption.
Now, the second thing, I've been noticing for the longest time, the auto business has been doing anything and everything they can to sell cars. One of the things they do is offer rebates. In addition to zero percent financing, they offer rebates. If you go out and buy a car, someone will give you a thousand dollars, cash back, some two thousand. Some five, whatever it is. But is this fair to people who aren't buying new cars?
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: I don't think so. If we're going to give rebates to people who purchase cars, it's only fair to the people who don't buy them also get that rebate. Now I know we're not talking about the government here but we're talking about big business and we're talking about fairness and nobody can tell me that it's fair, given the current definitions under which we're working.
Nobody can tell me it's fair, that only those who buy cars should qualify for the rebate. The way we're structuring things, everybody gets the rebate whether they buy a car or not. That's only fair because everybody needs the money and especially if you could make a claim that you need the money for your child.
Another thing, I read the note here from J. Robertson and let me run through the note again because I have a question that I would like to further pose to J. Robertson.
Dear Rush, My husband and I have listened to your show for years. We're conservatives and own a business. We've heard your arguments against granting the extra Tax Credit to people making under sixteen grand a year. You note they pay no taxes. Rush, I'm sorry we just can't agree with you on this one. If you have children you should receive the same Tax Credit as anybody else.
Rush: I agree and for as long as the child lives but the point that I would like to make now in the form of a question to the author of the email J. Robertson. You say you are conservative and own a business and lets say that your -- one of your employees comes in says, "Guess what? My wife and I -- my husband and I just had a child. We want a raise." Are you not therefore obligated?
Think about this. If you are going to see to it that your fellow taxpayers pay a child exemption for people who are not paying taxes, isn't it only fair that you as the business owner give your employee or employees a raise or raises when they have kids? I mean it's -- it's something to think about here, if we're going to be consistent, ladies and gentlemen.
Here's Ed Lansing Michigan. Welcome sir nice to have you on the EIB Network.
Ed: Hi Rush. I'm a republican from Lansing Michigan, I have two children myself, I don't understand the cause of that letter at all. That's not a republican view. They're trying to defend a bunch of freeloaders in my mind. When me and my wife decided to have children we never once sat down and said, "Oh now what kind of kick back can we get from the government?" And uhh...
Rush: Now wait, hold it a minute now. Ho, ho, ho -- let's not get to harsh here. Some of these people are indeed working and they are indeed the working poor and I don't know how many of them per say are sitting around calculating the kick back. They surely do have defenders here.
You know I don't think -- I was just telling the staff here, I don't know that this is so much a conservative thing as it is a male-female thing. All of the people I'm hearing from who are in favor of extending the Child Tax Credit to people who don't pay taxes are women and the people who don't think it makes sense are men. This may be a Mars-Venus thing not conservative-liberal.
Ed: Well whatever the case Rush, I mean this is not what conservativeness is based on...
Rush: I agree with you. I -- the whole concept of limited government is out the window when we start thinking like this.
Ed: I mean if you have a couple kids and you're in a low income job instead of looking for the government to figure out a way to help you raise them better and provide more for them isn't it more of a conservative viewpoint that you need to try to do more yourself? Isn't that what we're all about?
Rush: Be very careful here Ed. Tip-toe around this your making yourself sound cold-hearted and cruel. Are you daring to suggest self-reliance in this discussion?
Ed: I'm daring...
Rush: Are you -- are you actually - you daring to mention people rely on themselves because there are many in this audience who are going to carve you up and spit you out for being insensitive.
Ed: Well, I think I can combat my argument Rush. I mean we've had forty years of these liberal programs and you know we're just ready to turn the corner here and I also read everyday, I can't agree with you more. On the domestic side of it I don't understand why we keep giving in because we're scared of what our perception will be.
Rush: I - you're preaching to the choir on this cause they're going to say it no matter what so why not just do the right thing. You know they're going to rip us to shreds no matter what we do so...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...we'll just do the right thing. Anyway Ed, I appreciate the phone call. Thanks very much. Let's see do I have the -- let me try -- this Tia in Newport Virginia. Hi Tia, welcome to the EIB Network.
Tia: Thank you Rush, it's an honor to speak with you.
Rush: You bet.
Tia: Uhm, if I...
Rush: Tia, Tia, Tia, hang on just a -- before you -- I want to find one thing out here. This will not take away from your precious call time, all right. I thought that as a "society" and via the legislation produced by our elected representatives, we were pulling back from this notion that we were going to pay mothers to have more children. I thought even the liberals had agreed with this. Now remember that guy in New Jersey who originally offered the legislation. I thought the whole concept was that no longer are we going to pay people to keep having more children. I guess that's sort of washed up with.
Okay, Tia, go ahead, I just wanted to get that out there. I'd forgot to mention that out a moment ago.
Tia: Okay, thank you. My husband and I were discussing this last night and we expect to be receiving a check from the government and we're thinking maybe we ought give it back. We did not pay any taxes this year. I doubt we will pay any taxes next year. We have three children. We don't get an Earned Income Credit but because of our deductions, our house, our mortgage, our gifts. We got every penny back that we paid to the government, so my husband considers this check Welfare. We don't want to be on Welfare. Should we give it back? What should we do with this money that we're probably be getting this summer.
Rush: Well, I need to ask you some more questions on this. I -- what -- you may not want to answer them. I...
Tia: Okay.
Rush: ... I'll try one question. What is, I'm just curious, what is your gross income?
Tia: About fifty thousand dollars.
Rush: Fifty thousand and see this is fascinating because this ought to be what the focus is. I'm -- I was hoping you were going to be in this forty to fifty thousand dollar range because the truth to all this is that more and more people have been removed from the tax roles precisely because of republican tax policies.
Here is a man and woman with a combined income of fifty thousand dollars and they end up washing out. The deductions that they have on their mortgage and everything else wipe out their tax liabilities so they have a net zero that they owe and that is precisely due to republican tax policy and that's good in one sense.
Yeah, well, it's good -- yes it is. It's good in one sense and it's bad in another, that means the burden has been shifted and shifted and higher, higher and so fewer and fewer people are paying taxes but never the less, I would -- this is -- you're paying taxes.
I mean you had taxes withheld and so forth, your deductions zero. I'd keep the check. You know, you're not the kind of -- you don't fit the category of the subject matter that we are discussing here. I -- don't look at this as Welfare, you're a genuine tax payer here looking at an increase in the child deduction don't -- by the way, sending it back is not easy. I mean you'd have to write them a check after you take that one and deposit -- you can't just refuse it.
Like Social Security recipients can't refuse it. My grandfather tried to do this his whole life on the same theory and he never wanted it because he didn't feel like he needed it. It wasn't fair. He didn't need it, he wanted it to go back to the kitty and it was a hassle. I mean it really was. Don't even -- just keep it and put it to good economic use. Go out there and spend it. As the liberals say that, "Rich people like you wouldn't do."
Got to take a quick time out. We'll be back and continue right after this.
[ad: Rush Store]
[ad: Rush for Sleep Number Beds]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for Sleep Number Beds]
[ad: Unicars Honda]
[ad: National P T A]
[ad: Camelot Theatre]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Yeah, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here on the cutting edge of societal evolution. Our telephone number 800-282-2882, email address is rush@eibnet.com.
You know this has been an instructive period here because in my email, in a way, not that I take them seriously, these are all republican conservatives and these callers all claim to be republican conservatives who are in support of what in essence is a Welfare bill and the efforts to spin this in such a way, explain why we can't control the size of federal government. That's my whole point about this. The whole concept of limited government is just out the window with this kind of thinking.
Look at it this way folks, the people we're talking about, sixteen to twenty thousand dollars a year, working poor earning are paying no income taxes, getting an Earned Income Tax Credit and now the full Child Care Exemption. How can you argue that these same people shouldn't receive a host of payments under a host of federal programs? Once you say that they are entitled because of their poverty to the full Child Care Exemption where do you stop with what they're entitled to. Really where?
If the whole notion see of compassion is defined by government giving back like government spending by and really, it's not government, it's fellow taxpayers. If compassion is going to be defined by or as "gifts" from taxpayers to non-taxpayers then at -- you know, where do the compassions stop? I mean there's no -- there's no real end to it.
I think better yet, in fact, how can you oppose the government creating any program to help subsidize these people. Once you make the argument that we've heard today, then why stop there? Why not start proposing new programs like a guaranteed minimum income and lets say that's a hundred thousand dollars a year. I mean everybody would like that, right? Let's just guarantee. Why don't we do that? Why don't we do that?
"Well don't be ridiculous Rush," I can hear some of you say. "What do you mean don't be ridiculous?" If we can afford the full tax exemption and a four thousand dollar refund for people who don't pay taxes...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Why can't we afford eight thousand dollars in refunds and then twelve thousand dollars in refunds. Well I mean, I know at some point even those of you who support this will reach a point where the number is to large for you and at that point I'm afraid I've got you because your answer to explain why the numbers to big,
(Rush questioning and answering himself) "Well we didn't -can't give that much."
Why not?
We can give some but not this.
"Why? What's the basis?"
"Well, that would be to much."
"Why would it be to much?"
Rush: You know uhm, we're looking here a cash payment, a transfer payment nothing more. Let's go back, in 1972 George McGovern ran for president and he argued that every American family should receive a basic income and that the government should provide it. Remember that? Wasn't it McGovern wanted to give us either one or two thousand dollars to every American. I -- I'll never forget this and he lost in a landslide and in no small measure due to this idiotic proposal of his but look what we've got here.
We've got republican callers and republicans in Congress in essence supporting that proposition. Supporting the same proposition that Mc Covern -- McGovern offered as a presidential candidate in 1972 is now being supported by republican conservative emailers to me and callers.
Yes it is. Don't say it's not. It's the same thing. Dollar amount doesn't matter, it is the idea or the concept that we are talking about here. So you know, you can wave good-bye to limited government here when this kind of political calculation is made. I don't care what the reason is.
Carol Beth in Stockton California. Hi Carol Beth, welcome to the EIB Network.
Carol Beth: Hi Rush, how are you today?
Rush: Fine Thank you.
Carol Beth: Very good, I just wanted to comment and say that I'm one of the women that's against the Tax Credit. I don't understand why I have to have compassion when it in your choice, not you personally, but your choice as an individual to have a child. That's a wonderful thing to have a child but I don't -- shouldn't have to be responsible for someone else's choice's and I don't see where that's being uncompassionate. You know if you want to have that child -children, that's wonderful but make sure you can support them and I shouldn't have to support them.
Rush: Yeah, uhm, well I'm sorry to say that this, while sensible, appears at least in early returns here in the vote counting to be in the morning view on the program today and in this audience but there's still time for this all to play out.
Carol Beth, thanks for the phone call. A quick brief break and I'll be back. Some of this polling data from ABC News on Hillary Clinton as I promised it. I haven't forgotten it and we'll ditto cam here in the next hour or two, Brian. So every body sit tight, standby, be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[promo: Larry King]
[promo: KPSI]
Somewhat amazing here. ABC runs this poll in here. I'm not gonna be able to get it all in here before the break, so, we'll carry it over. Um, forty-four percent of Americans express a favorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton. Forty-eight percent view her unfavorably. An unusually high negative rating, and an unusually strong one.
More than twice as many people view her strongly negatively as strongly positively. And she's no more popular among women than men. Her popularity largely is limited to Democrats, and is countered and exceeded in intensity by her unpopularity among Republicans. I've told you, you don't know what negative turnout is till she actually runs. Sixty percent of all Republicans and seventy-one percent of conservative Republicans view her strongly unfavorably.
By contrast, just thirty-two percent of all Democrats, and forty-two percent of liberal Democrats view her strongly favorably. Moreover, conservative Republicans outnumber liberal Democrats by two to one. That's what this poll says. Conservative Republicans outnumber liberal Democrats by two to one. And this is a national poll. Now, there's -- some other elements here, like how she loses to Bush - big - in a head to head matchup in this poll.
It's also interesting to know who was polled, and when. Hint, it wasn't likely voters or even registered voters. It was across the board, over a weekend. I'll tell you what that means when we come back.
[ad: PhotoReading]
[promo: the Coach's Soapbox]
[ABC news]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Visa]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Breck]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Weingarten and Hough]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hi folks, welcome back. Nice to have you along with us in an abbreviated week of broadcast excellence, I your host for life, El Rushbo will be away from the golden EIB microphone Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week. We will cram as much in the remainder of today and tomorrow as we can. A special welcome to those of you watching on the ditto cam at rushlimbaugh.com, a 24/7-subscriber side, nice to have you with us. Here's the telephone number for all if you'd like to participate in the program today. 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Here's a email from the Rush comments line from website subscribers;
Hey Rush, just wondering, would you mind giving all these callers who agree with the Welfare bill or the Tax Credit my address. My wife and I are expecting in September, would be great if they could just send us some money. I mean if they don't mind supporting people just cause they have children, why bother with the Government as middleman. Just send it to me directly then my wife won't have to work part time once the child is born.
We won't have to worry about childcare during the day. Could maybe go out and buy some health care insurance for the whole family as well. Thanks for getting the word out Rush, we really need these peoples help. My name's Barry Higgins, I live in Naperville Illinois, anybody wants to give me money for my kid please feel free to give them my address. Please ask them if they're going to do this to send the check either Federal Express or Priority Mail. Thanks again Rush, I appreciate it.
Rush: So I'll keep this note here for any of you who will support the Child Tax Credit being extended to people who don't pay taxes. If you would like to do what you're asking other to do, if you want to send this man and his wife some cash for the up coming child in September let me know and I'll give you the address.
You're going to have to prove you're going to send them the money. I'm not going to give you the address just so you can hassle him. You got to prove you're compassion to me. You have to show me the money first and I'm not taking it now don't misunderstand. I just need to see what it is you're going to send. Barry Higgins in Naperville Illinois. I imagine if some of you just wanted to write a check and send it to Barry Higgins, Naperville Illinois I'll bet after now he will get it.
So this is a great way to show your compassion and wouldn't it be an administrative cost savings here. I mean this is direct contribution to a man whose about to have a child and you could just contribute straight to him and you won't have to worry about this Tax Cut Bill being passed. It's still being held up in some quarters because the republicans are trying to get even more tax cuts for people who pay taxes in exchange for the democrats going along with this.
Back to this Hillary part -- let me just say some thing. I do not intend, my friends to sit here and regurgitate all this Hillary stuff. I'm just not going to do it. I will never forget all during the second term of the Clinton Administration, all these democrats saying, "Can't you people just move on," meaning people like me. "Can't you just move on. Can't you just leave this alone. You talk about something beside the Clintons," and even after the Clintons left people said "You just can't get by without the Clintons can you?"
I just want it noted, who is it that's throwing the Clinton's in front of our face everyday now. It's the Clintons and why are they doing it. They're doing it for money. She's doing this book for eight million dollars pure and simple. I don't care what political calculations there may be and there's some, I'm sure there are some. It's eight million dollars and I must say -- tell you one other thing about this. This is all -- this is so much B. S. and...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...hocus pocus about the stuff that's been released about this book so far. When did she know that Bill was cheating with Monica and what was her reaction? My friends, the truth of the matter is, Hillary Clinton was the one who put the private detectives in all these quote-unquote "bimbo eruptions." It was Hillary that was following them around.
It was Hillary that was devising strategies to deal with them, to quite them, to intimidate them. She knows her husband better than any of us do. She knows exactly what the flash points are and the potential for blow --up and she tried to head these things off at the pass and Monica, you know, got in under the radar screen.
I will always believe that she had some spies in the Oval Office, some of her staff, designed to keep track of what her husband was doing and some how this one slipped past them but there's a reason why. She has to do it this way.
There's a reason why she has to play the role of "aggrieved wife," who has been betrayed by an unfaithful husband because the fact of the matter is something the American people are not yet ready to, despite all the cultural quote-unquote "advancement that we've made," unquote. The American culture, American society is just not yet ready to elect a man or woman or couple to the Whitehouse who have a relationship that is purely arranged for political reasons.
So she has to portray herself as the betrayed wife in order to relate to as many women as she can because the fact of the matter is the American population simply is not going to elect anybody to high office who would put up with this kind of quote-unquote "abuse or disrespect," for the pure sake of political opportunism, which is what this has all been. I mean there's no question about this.
There is no question that Mrs. Clinton has known from the moment she dated this guy much less married him, that he has been as Brit Hume said yesterday on the F0X News Channel, "Waving his wand all over the country in front of anybody who'd look." She knows it better than any of us do and for her to admit that that's fine with her. That she will use that for her own political advantage, put up with it and tolerate it only for political advancement, careerism.
The American people are not ready to have that kind of couple in the Whitehouse. So she's going to do her best to portray herself as, "In the other woman," in this kind of situation. Surprise, shock, gulping for air, all these other things that are no more closer to the truth than anything else they've had to say about anything that's the least bit controversial. And everybody in the democratic side knows this and it's just so much smoke and mirrors.
I -- it's mind boggling how -- I mean Barbara Walters had so many questions she could have asked last night and didn't get anywhere. I mean, you remember Barbara Walters asked Monica Lewinsky what kind of kisser Bill is? She didn't even anywhere near asking Hillary anything like that. She didn't - she didn't ask, "When's the last time you two had dinner alone." She didn't ask if -- alls she did, "Well, what happens if he does it again?" That's not the question. The question is, "How many times has it happened since?" You know and, "What have you done?" I mean the -- it's clear that these people are not even in the same home together ever. They're not in the same city.
It's rare but Mrs. Clinton cannot get elected to anything if she admits to that and she's also made the calculation, she can't get anywhere if the name Clinton is not in her name. Cause I will guarantee you that if see ever decides that she doesn't want to be president, and if she ever decides that all she wants to do is stay in the Senate, it would make sense to divorce this guy. The only reason to stay married to him is the name and the, within the democratic ranks, don't misunderstand me here, but pure and simple, I mean, why has she stayed with him through out all of this? We all know what the answer is. And the -- this is such and insult to everybody's intelligence to watch all this be played out again.
Oh, don't give me this; "she loved him from the first moment." That may have been some of that at the top. I don't know. At the beginning, but don't tell me that -- there's nothing -- there's nothing conventional about this -- about this relationship...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...every body knows it and the fact that so many people who also know it. This is like all these people at The New York Times who knew exactly what was going on with Jayson Blair and overlooked it. I mean it's just -- it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing for the left. It's embarrassing for democrats and some democrats are starting to, you know, sniff it out properly.
As I say, I mean you remember the days democrats used to call here all the time and they would defend till the last defensible item, every Clinton scandal there was and then they'd get mad and they'd say, "Well it's just time to move on Rush. Can't you just forget it?" But these days -- it's not me, I mean I -- it's not conservatives that are putting the Clintons in front of everybody and throwing them in our face. It's the Clintons as it's always been and it's slowly, very slowly evolving, that it's democratic activist who are fed up with the fact that the Clintons will not stay out of the news.
We had the Susan Estrich column where she accused them of sucking up all the oxygen. You know I made the statement on this program about a month ago that the Clinton effort is designed to sabotage all nine of these democratic candidates for President. The last thing, but if Hillary is indeed going to run in 2008. The last thing she needs is a democrat winning the Whitehouse in 2004. That's not going to happen. They're going to do everything they can to see to it that who ever is the nominee losses big.
This guys going to lose before he even gets the nomination and they're going to see to it and now Dick Morris is echoing this and Susan Estrich is echoing this and you're starting to see more and more of these people who are coming out, they're annoyed that Hillary's book is putting the political spotlight back on all the lies and all the sex and all the conspiracy theories that were the national conversation during the Clinton Administration. It's the Clintons reviving all this and take a look at this timing. It -- I'll guarantee you that here's the money angle but right on the verge of the democrat primary season.
The Philadelphia Enquirer has a story, article titled, "Democrat Activists to Clintons, Shut Up," and this Enquirer story quotes an un-named veteran national democratic strategist who said, "A lot of us are basically sick of Bill in particular. We just want him to get lost but we can't totally speak out because he's still a good fund raiser and a lot of party activist still think of him fondly, especially African-Americans.
Now here's Hillary dredging up things we'd rather have people forget. We all ready have enough problems with middle class voters who think that democrats is a party, lack good morals and values thanks to the Clintons. Now this new stuff just makes it worst." That is a veteran national democratic strategist quoted in the Philadelphia Enquirer.
What you democrats never understood was that no one in the country was more ready to move from these people than me. I could not wait for these people to get out of the headlines. Get out of the Whitehouse. Get out of Washington. I could not wait for the sake of the country. Everybody said, "Oh you love them, your radio show wouldn't have been what it was without them." That is such a crock. It is such a crock but it was such a crutch for all of you who did not want to meet head on the substance of the criticism being launched at these two people.
So now the rest of us have moved on. Most of the country has moved on. We got a country to protect. We have a country to defend, The Clintons are a pain in the rear-end for democrats now and forgive me I don't feel your pain democrats. It's (unintelligible) you people and you can live with them and you gave it to them to us. You supported them. You've built them up and now you live with them and I'm going to tell you what. Every bit as destructive as they are to themselves so are they to people around them. Just check a number of places and you'll find out how destructive this couple is. It is -- it is -- it is just amazing.
Now some of this -- well I'm going to take a break here but when we come back, some of this polling data. Wrap this up in this ABC story because it's quite interesting and we'll move on to other things in the stack plus get back to your phone calls. Sit tight the EIB Network will roll right on.
[ad: Limbaugh Letter]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Skin Zinc]
[ad: Administaff.com]
[ad: Freecreditreport.com]
[ad: Manhattan West]
[ad: American Red Cross]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: We have here the results of an ABC poll and again this ABC News poll conducted by telephone, 1029 adults, May 28th a Thursday though June the 1st. In essence we have a weekend poll and if you don't know, weekend polls are known for one thing. More democrats are at home on weekends than republicans. I don't know why this is. I'm not -- in editorials about it -- editorialized about it, it's just about pollsters are concerned, it something they've learned. It's why they discount a lot of weekend polling and in addition the sample of 1029 people was a random...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...national (unintelligible). It wasn't registered voters. It wasn't likely voters. It was just everybody. And so the results here are quite possibly even worse for Mrs. Clinton than what the actual results show here. If you had polled registered voters during the week, not a weekend, you might have come up with numbers that are even more devastating for her than these already are.
In a stark example of the problems that Hillary would face as a national candidate only about 40% of Americans say she should ever run for President. 4 in 10. A majority 53% say she should never run and there's no substantive difference between women and men when it comes to this question. Among the broader public she trails by 24 points in a head to head general election match-up against President Bush. If that election were held today, Bush would beat her by 58 to 34%. 6 in 10 men, 55% of women favor Bush and Bush wins support from 92% of republicans but Mrs. Clinton only wins the support of 67% of democrats, which is amazing here. 60 uhh what is it here?
Independents also prefer Bush by a pretty wide margin of 55 to 31 and perhaps most troublesome to Mrs. Clinton is the relatively tepid support from her own base. Far weaker than what a national candidate would expect. Her support among democrats, 67% and liberals 62% falls well short of Al Gores 86 and 80% numbers for these same groups in the 2000 election so this -- these numbers just do not jive at all with all the attention this book is getting.
I'll give you an example. There are publicity stunts on Barnes and Nobles store in the upper west side of Manhattan. Upper west side of Manhattan is Moscow and they said, "We're going to open at midnight Sunday," cause the book doesn't sell Monday. "We're going to open at midnight 12:01. You be the first in line to get your book." 80 people showed up and they thought this was huge. 80 people in a city of 8 million and how many liberals and 80 of them showed up at midnight to get the book and they're trying to pass this off as the Rolling Stones selling out a concert, four nights in a row at Giants Stadium in ten minutes.
Then today, big signing at another Barnes and Noble in Manhattan. 250 people show up to get in line, "Oh my gosh friend, do you realize what a huge crowd that is?" 250 people could fit in the store. There's no need to put them outside. They put them in a line outside for a photo-op of it but even that pales. I mean ghee-whiz; Howard Stern drew 10,000 to a book signing sometime in the 90's at a Rockefeller Center bookstore. This is nothing. There's no big interest here.
[ad: Rush for Thera-Gesic]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[ad: Realtors]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Here we are ladies and gentlemen, I am your host for life, Rush Limbaugh, doing that which I was born to do.
A couple of emails;
Rush, how many people showed up at your book signings?
Rush: Answer. Zero. I've never had any. I haven't had to. I've not done one book - well, I take that back. I did one book interview, I guess on my second book I don't remember. It was Charlie Gibson at ABC but it was long after the bulk of the sales had taken place. I've never done a book tour. I've never done a book interview. I've never done a book signing because they haven't been necessary and lets face it my friends, as far as the Barbara Walters interview is concerned, we're not going to know the truth of the Bill and Hillary relationship.
We're not going to get to the bottom of things until Larry King asks her the tough questions. So, you know, all this has just been a bunch of sand box play-time leading up to Larry King in the real tough stuff which is, I think, scheduled for tonight.
One question Barbara Walters did ask Hillary last night, "Well what if he does it again?" meaning what if there's another Monica and of course Hillary side steps the question but you know what her answer should have been. "Well, I'll just come out with a 12 million dollar book then." That would be the answer to that. If he does it again, tell you every time he does it, it's another six million increment in my advance. So if he does it again I get 4 million increments. I say I'll come up with a 12 million dollar book. If he does it again I'll do a 16 million book. People are going to want to hear it.
This is Gideon Greenwich Connecticut. Welcome to the EIB Network sir, nice to have you with us.
Gideon: Hey Rush, remember poor old Newt Gingrich with his pettily 4 million dollar book advance which he elected to return after all the controversy and that was described as a way for Rupert Murdock who owned Simon and Schuster I think to buy influence.
Rush: No, he owned Harper-Collins
Gideon: Harper and Collins, okay so I haven't heard a peep about anybody, from anybody, about the power behind Via Com buying eight million dollars worth of influence of a US Senator Hillary.
Rush: An excellent point and you wouldn't, it's still a liberal media. Remember, now somebody correct me on this but I think to avoid a stink with her book deal she put this thing together before she was sworn in.
Gideon: Just under the wire.
Rush: Yeah, she...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...she wanted to avoid the news -- Newt's problem was that he was sworn in as Speaker of the House then the deal came and all that. She made sure this deal was done and all signed and dotted before she was sworn in as Senator. But the argument could still be made and you've done it quite well but it just. It's the difference in the media, look folks the media is fascinated with this and you -- the liberals are betting that they can get you to do three things. Liberals are betting that they can get you to love Hillary because Bill betrayed her. They are betting they can get you to still love Bill even though he betrayed her and they are betting they can get you to elect her despite her overwhelming denial.
Those are the three things that are going on here. You have to understand what is going on in this country right now. The left, and you know this my friends; I mean you're the reason for it. The left is panicked. The left is -- I mean I could say discombobulated but it's more than that. They're loosing their grasp and it's precisely because in part of the Clintons but they are loosing their power base. They're loosing their grab.
They're coming- they try to come up with their own think tank, and I, by the way did some stuff on that. This idea they don't have a think tank is outrageous but if still they're trying to so that. They're trying to come up with their own liberal talk radio network. "Oh they're so disadvantaged in the media," and so the liberals nationwide are just like the democrats in Washington. They are solely focus on re-acquiring dominance and power and they all think that the sun rises and sets on the Clintons.
Now in a few dark corners of the Democratic Party the truth is known and there are some of these people starting to speak up. And Susan Estrich last night -- FOX -John Gibson ran a one hour program after the Barbara Walters -- Hillary interview with a whole host of people on it. We got some of the audio from it and Al D'Amato was on, was one of the guests. Susan Estrich was as well and she caught her own ration of grief from other liberals on this program because she dares to point out what is the truth of the future of the democrats if they rely on these people to revive them.
But they are, they'll grasp at anything they think can beat conservatives and that's where they are right now. I'm telling you, you ought to be smiling about it because as long as they reach out to the Clintons, as long as they allow or sit idly by while the Clintons run the Democratic Party you needent worry. It's going to be frustrating because you're going to watch the media treat these people like God and the son of God, or whatever but when it gets down to brass tacks and reality, the Clintons are going to continue to take the democratic party further on down and they're just going to -- I mean sit by idly while it happens. I mean they're going to be participating in their own demise.
So you have to toughen up and put up with all this rigmarole -- you think this is bad, wait till Clintons book comes out which is a 12 million dollar book. Wait till his book comes out, which is going to be even closer to the democratic presidential primaries. Wait till you see the idolatry when that thing hits. You think this is bad? So you have to develop some resolve, some steely resolve not to let this depress you and send you back to the 90's where you thought we were losing every day cause it's just the opposite folks. But you're going to have to buck up. You're going to have to tell you this everyday because the picture in the mainstream media is going to be just the opposite cause they're longing for those days.
They're longing for the days when they think Clinton was making mincemeat of Newt and all the conservatives and the government shut down and all these things were happening. "They long for those days again." Who ever they think can bring it off and as far as they're concerned, only the Clintons can. So we got a major rehab project going on. I'm telling you it's always been that. In Clintons case it's a legacy rehab in Hillary it's the rehabilitation of her own character and image that would allow her to seek even higher office.
Patty in Geneva Illinois, thanks for waiting, you are on the EIB Network. Hi.
Patty: Hi Rush, nice to talk to you. I watched the program last night and I absolutely couldn't believe. The democrats are running so scared. I mean they have somebody -- first of all they have this whole contrived image. She just a - such made up people and they have people like Susan Estrich for the first time in her whole life I agreed with her. I couldn't even believe her. I mean she's disappointed in them, she said their timing is terrible, looks like they're doing -- they're democrats. They are...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Patty: ...they're selling their book, selling themselves when these poor guys who can't, I mean they don't have a chance, I don't think, to do anything but they're all running against each other and Hillary's out there selling her book, with her phony little blue suit on, her phony all American look ,so it's just unbelievable.
It's pitiful. And Lanny Davis, I couldn't believe him. He was panting. I mean he was like accusing everybody of Hillary bashing and they didn't. I (unintelligible) from a spectator I could not even believe that he said nice things about Hillary but he found some good things to say. They were true and honest but Susan Esteridge, she hit it right on the head. She...
Rush: Well, we'll put...
Patty: ...selfish people.
Rush: Mike, grab number 10. We'll play Susan Estrich so you can hear a sample of it but Patty this is what I'm talking about. You're going to have to -- going to have to gut it up here. You're going to have to deal with this. This is only the beginning and it's going to -- they're going to try to ride the crest of this wave -- kind of create the wave and then ride the crest of it as long as they could.
One of the funniest things in this interview was -- I forget the word for word question and answer but here's Barbara Walters asking Hillary about her Health Care Plan and "Oh Hillary, weren't you so surprised at all the opposition. I'll bet you were dumbfounded," and Hillary trying to come off like an average mother who bakes apple pies on Friday afternoon says, "Ohh, you know I just didn't have any idea, Barbara. I -- there were -- I mean there were -- I -- sometimes I just bite off more than I can chew."
"What a crock!" Hillary and Bill Clinton knew exactly what they were doing. They were trying to nationalize one seventh of the US economy and they were trying to force feed this program on the American people. There was nothing innocent about it. There was no surprise that Mrs. Clinton felt over the opposition. They knew exactly what they were doing with this. She's even out there, "I think a somebody said a (unintelligible) sent me that my names in this book."
She's -- remember the bus tour. Remember the Health Care Bus Express and we made sure that every town that it was going to stop in, there were people there to greet the bus and clap and "support" this kind of thing. In this --I don't have the passage right in front of me. I didn't bother to print it out but Hillary makes reference to the fact that "People like me had no idea what was in the Health Care Plan, didn't even deal with the specifics of it just talked about big government trying to scare people with it," and that is so incorrect.
We went into the deep detail of that Health Care Plan just as we've gone into the detail of every other policy question on this program for nearly fifteen years that matters and one of the reasons the Health Care Plan bombed out is precisely because we did go into it in detail and we did tell people exactly what was in it and especially those who wanted to go into medicine what was in store for them if they did it and this program ever saw the light of day.
They would be told what specialty they could go into. They would almost be told where they could live and work. They would be assigned to various hospitals based on the specialty. They weren't going to be allowed just to make an independent choice on their specialty. The government was going to decide what specialties had the greatest need and assign graduates of medical school to those specialties. It was outrageous. I mean it was pure centralized control over the Health Care System and I think if any thing was a surprise was the level of opposition.
I really do think, ladies and gentlemen, this is an accurate description of both of the Clintons, particularly Hillary. I think that when they strode into Washington on Inauguration Day in 1992 I actually think in their minds they looked at the rest of us as surfs who maybe ought to get down on our hands and knees and bow as they rode into town but not look at them. We hadn't earned the right to look at their face. If they caught us looking at their face we'd be banished. We were supposed to be in awe. We were supposed to be in deep appreciation.
These are superior people who rule of us. These are people far more expert, far more knowledgeable, far more intelligent, they know far more than we do about things. We're supposed to get out of the way for our own good and to let them do what ever it was they thought needed to be done. Here came massive amounts of opposition and I don't -- I think that -- if one thing did surprise them it was; A; The level of opposition and B; The detailed aspects of the opposition.
It's sort of like it was a micro-cosmism of what I have been pointing out that's happened to liberals all over the country for the past 50 years. They got a free ride for...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... trip in the media. What ever they said was reported. It was not challenged. It was promoted not just reported and as such they never had to really defend anything they said. It just became what it was. It almost became the established religion of the country and the natural order of things was that liberal democrats run the show.
Well all of those fifty years conservatives evolved and began to challenge some of these things and as we did we were attacked by the very people defending and supporting the liberals in the press and elsewhere and we hadn't developed intellectual answers to the challenges and we did and as such we can out debate these people every issue they bring up. They cannot win an ideological debate on what they believe. It's gotten to that point because they've not developed the skill and they hold a loosing hand anyway.
Think the same things with Clintons and health care. I think that you can see it in their attitudes after, on election night, in Arkansas, the little platform outside the Governors Mansion when Bill and Hillary came out to receive the "Throng," and it was pure adulation. It was as though a King and Queen had been anointed to save the country from the evil twelve years of Regan /Bush and the worst economy in the last fifty years and I think if anything did surprise them it was the level of opposition and they didn't know what to do about it other than to try to personally discredit and destroy members of the opposition rather than trying for the ideas which they obviously failed to do.
Quick break, I'll play the Susan Estrich byte couple of people have preferred to it from last nights John Goodson show on Fox. I think, yep they did, so we'll take a brief back now before that and be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: S. G. Cowan]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: 1-800-575-WELL]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Last night FOX News Channel ran a special talking about the Hillary interview with Barbara Walters, had a number of guests, one of them was Susan Estrich, John Gibson was the host.
He said, "Susan, there's a lot of people thinking that Hillary glossed over what she might have known before the famous date of August 15th 1998, when Bill supposedly told her the affair was true. It had happened. That she had not paid any attention to all the earlier indications because she didn't want to know or she wanted to come to this point later, much later, get the story out, get it behind her and move on with her own presidential ambitions."
Susan Estrich sound byte: " I think she was awful dealing with the political problem here and the political problem that she kept coming back to is why is it that lots of women look at her, women who don't have her financial resources, who couldn't go out in the world and earn a living still wouldn't put up with the kind of B.S. she got from her husband and I know for a fact and I'm sure, Dick, you know this too, that during the Senate race in New York, one of the big problems she had was that women who agreed with her on the issues, were not supporting her because they didn't like the fact that she had stuck with the "scumbag" as one of them put it to me.
And they didn't like the fact that they thought the reason that she stuck with him was cause she was so ambitious. So I thought what she was trying to do here tonight, and I think she did it pretty well, was in her blue suit, notice no black grammar outfit the kind she wore at one point during her -- the presidency. I thought she was trying to look very Middle American to reach out to average American women and say, "Look, I was hurt, I was cheery but we are a family and we love each other..."
Rush: Is that Carol Channing or is that Susan Estrich? Does that not sound like Carol Channing to you? Those of you who are old enough to know who carol Channing is. Look that's the whole point, that -- it's just another way of saying what I said earlier. You know the -- Mrs. Clinton knows full well that the people of this country are not going to sit there and know - willingly and knowingly elect a women who will allow her self to be humiliated and trampled over like this only for the political benefits she gets later.
So she has to act like any normal woman would when she learns that her husband has betrayed her. Only everybody knows that she's know that this has been going on their whole life and everybody knows she's put up with it and probably tried to manage it, in fact, for the least political damage possible all for the purpose of advancing her own political career.
Her last name being Clinton was crucial here. Without that she doesn't even get to the Whitehouse. When she gets there she's First Lady. She doesn't have any accountability. She's not been elected to anything here. She gets health care, why was that? We all know what the answer is here, not because she's brilliant.
That's another thing, this -- all of this is so patently obvious and the effort here to paint this as normal Miss and Mister America. Mister and Miss Joe Sixpack working through their troubled marriage is exactly what she's trying to do. It's another attempt at, "How can we fool them today," it doesn't change with these people. It just doesn't. Sadly, 30% of the country will buy it. About 30%, mostly democrats will buy it without questioning one aspect of it.
Back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: CedarHouseGarageDoors.com
[ad: Rub It In Crème - rubitinstop.com]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: There's a story in The New York Times over the weekend.
The New York Times: More than 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who came forward earlier this year to register with immigration authorities, "About 16% of the total may now face deportation," governmental officials say.
Rush: Thirteen thousand people are outraged, "Why this is unfair. How can we do this?" They're illegal, by the way. They are "illegal" immigrants. They are not here legally and we're going to deport them and people are outraged and calling this an abuse of government power and an example of how a powerful government is taking away our rights. Rights, well exactly. Okay good, well we'll hope for more of this, back in a moment.
[ad: Testostezine]
[Promo: The Radio Factor - Bill O'Reilly]
[ABC-News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Realtors]
[ad: Beautiful Hair Formula Breck]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Radio Shack]
[ABC-News]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hoping to please, we are back again with more broadcast excellence from the Southern Command of the EIB Network, Rush Limbaugh here. Great to have you along, another full hour of broadcast excellence straight ahead and if you would like to be on the program, "Why it's a snap," the number to call is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush@eibnet.com.
Actually, my friends, this whole business of Bill and Hillary divorcing, it isn't going to happen and anyway, I mean if Barbara Walters really wanted to get to the meat of things she could have said, "Mrs. Clinton isn't it true that you and your husband can't afford to divorce because if you ever did you would lose the spousal protection in court." I mean right now they can't be forced to testify against each other and that's a big deal.
That's -- anyway as I said;
The New York Times: More than 13,000 of the Arab and Muslim men who came forward earlier this year to register with immigration authorities, about 16 percent of the total — may now face deportation, government officials say. Only a handful have been linked to terrorism. But of the 82,000 men older than 16 who registered, more than 13,000 have been found to be living in this country illegally.
Many had hoped to win leniency by demonstrating their willingness to cooperate with the campaign against terror. The men were not promised special treatment, though, and officials believe that most will be expelled in what is likely to be the largest wave of deportations after the Sept. 11 attacks. The governments already initiated deportation proceedings, and in immigrant communities across the country, an exodus has already begun.
Quietly, the fabric of neighborhoods is thinning. Families are packing up; some are splitting up. Rather than come forward and risk deportation, an unknowable number of immigrants have burrowed deeper underground. Others have simply left for Canada or for their homeland. The deportations are a striking example of how the Bush administration increasingly uses the nation's immigration system as a weapon in the battle against terror.
For decades, illegal immigrants have often flourished because officials lacked the staff, resources and the political will to deport them. But since the attacks of 9/11, the government has been detaining and deporting illegal immigrants from countries considered breeding grounds for terrorists. Advocates for immigrants warn that such a strategy; indeed, the administration's sweeping reorientation of law enforcement toward terrorism prevention can be abused by government officials.
They note that, though it did not deal directly with the registration program, an internal Justice Department report was released last week that was deeply critical of the government's roundup of illegal immigrants after Sept... Rush: And what the hell folks, why is there an illegal imm- hell, we're going to start paying people -- tax cuts that don't pay taxes, I mean why round up illegal immigrants? People are critical of this now.
This is -- the government is to far reaching here in its objectives and this is showing a lack of compassion and if you dig deep into the story, you know what you will also find? You'll find some liberals that say, "This is the kind of thing that will cause the Arabs street to erupt in outrage.
Huh- how's this? We're going to get rid of illegal immigrants, Arabs and Muslims, there here illegally. We're going to enforce our law and it's not a law that people don't know about, it's quite well known, and by enforcing our law we're going to aggravate the - I thought the Arab street hated us anyway and didn't want to be here. None of this makes any sense.
So then we're going to aggravate the Arab street, we're going to make them hate us even more. Okay so we shouldn't expel them just so they won't hate us. Does Bush need the Muslim vote? Is that how this is going to play out? I guess based on some of the thinking that we've heard today.
Yeah, two points!
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...that's how it's going to play out. I have here a column here by Michael Kinsley that ran yesterday in The Washington Post and it's entitled, "Capitalisms Deal Breaks Down," and the real thrust of this, and one of Kinsley's either areas of deception or misunderstanding comes later in this columnistic effort, but let me read a little bit of the beginning just to set it up -- ahh, darn-it, hang on a minute folks. This has not been the - I been in such a rotten mood anyway I hope you've not been able to tell. Hang on here.(blew his nose) Stupid sniffles, all right. Two points.
The Washington Post: The fall of Communism fourteen years ago was not the end of history despite Francis Fukayama's famous prediction, it was pretty much the end of the argument in most of the world about the best way to organize society. The answer is democratic capitalism but this intellectual victory for the dynamic duo of democratic capitalism didn't resolve the tension between them.
Democracy presumes and enshrines equality. Capitalism not only presumes but requires and produces inequality. So how can you have a society based on equality and inequality at the same time. The classic answer is that democracy and capitalism should rein in their own separate spheres. As citizens we are all equal, as players in the economy, we enjoy different rewards depending on our efforts, our talents or luck.
But how do you prevent power in one from reaching into the other? In various ways we try to police the border. Capitalism is protected from democracy to some extent by provisions of the Constitution to guard individuals against tyranny in the majority, for example, by forbidding the government to take your property with out due process of law. Protecting democracy from capitalism is a noble intension at least of campaign finance laws that get enacted every couple of decades.
Rush: Then he goes on to explore this difference between the presumed equality of people in democracy and yet the required inequality of people in capitalism and then towards the end of it, he brings it all together to make his point. I'll join it in progress or jip it.
The Washington Post: Our minimum wage worker most likely falls into one of the unadvertised holes in the Bush Administration "Something for everybody tax cut." There's nothing in it for minimum wage worker, minimum wage worker who must pay the FICA, payroll tax and blah, blah, blah.
This gap around the minimum wage was supposedly inadvertent and republicans on capitol hill were eager to correct it but republican congressional straw boss, Tom Delay said incredibly, that he would allow the alleged correction, this is the Child Tax Credit that we started the program by the way, only as part of yet another big tax cut with more goodies for the serious income brackets.
Now look at the fellow who has a few million or billion. He probably has paid no income tax on most of that pile because investment profits are taxed only when they are realized, I e cashed in or sold. Any investment profit that our billionaire or millionaire hasn't cashed in, when he cashes in himself, dies, escape the income tax forever, if he can hold on for a few years under current plan the estate tax will die before he does.
His investment income also is exempt from the 15% FICA tax that hits the minimum wage worker at dollar number one. And now the tax rate on both dividends and capital gains is capped at 15%. This is supposed to elevate the unfairness of having both the corporate income tax and a tax on the profits individuals earn on their investments in corporate...
Rush: Look, the bottom -- let me - last paragraph, then I'll explain what this is about.
The Washington Post: So under the American tax system as designed by the Bush Administration, the most a person of vast wealth is expected to contribute to the common wheel from his or her last dollar of investment profits is the same 15 cents or so that a minimum wage worker is expected to pay on his or her first dollar. Now this doesn't mean we have a flat tax. We have a tax system of vast complexity with wildly different tax burdens on different people but we have a tax system that on balance knows who's in charge.
Rush: Here's the point. Kinsley has here, I think done a great service by helping some of us to understand what this debate of rich, ahh, tax cuts for the rich and so forth is all about. He's talking here about the retired rich who no longer have an income. They don't have a job, they don't have a salary, they don't have traditional income taxed at traditional rates, they are retired and they are living off the income produced by their portfolio...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... and it is that income only is taxed when it is cashed in or sold and that creates a capital gain in the capital gains rate is 15% yet working families are paying high tax rates on their income from the first dollar and his example of this is why it's so unfair the rich aren't paying their fair share and blah, blah. What he's ignoring here is that this is not who the rich - this tax cut or a tax cut is targeting. There are a lot of people who are considered rich in this country who aren't retired and who do not live off their investments.
They live off their income and their income sometimes can be quite high and they do pay a thirty -- what is it, thirty-five percent rate now, as opposed to thirty-eight point six. But the attempt here in Kinsley's column is to portray the rich as paying a 15% capital gains here. That's what I got out of this. That the true rich, the idle rich if you will, don't work and therefore don't have income cause they don't work or anything and yet these people are the ones given the best end of the spectrum. These are the people even though not working, they just retired, they got their fortune and all they do is get taxed at the 15% rate when they sell some security or whatever it is, that equals a capital gain and the rest of us schlugs are being socked with higher tax rates on the first dollars we earn and these people are getting away with.
The point -- yes, exactly Mr. Snerdly, the point is, these people have more -- have paid taxes on their way to becoming retired unless they happen to be the Kennedy's and inherited the money and didn't work for it, Kinsley's example falls by the wayside. This is by no means the vast majority of the rich but this -- see the one -- the thing that intrigued me was, "Okay, so this I who they want people to think of as the rich, people who don't work, coupon clippers.
You know, people sitting on the beach, wherever, with their big portfolios and whatever they sell to live on then they get 15% tax rate on that." And this is - these people are being given a free ride and this sort of thing and then yet we still can't come up with an increase of four hundred dollars per child for people who don't pay taxes, all the unfairness of it all.
Well the inaccuracy here is the portrayal of who the rich are. I mean, I'm going to tell you what, if you earn right now between thirty and fifty I will bet you that you think a hundred and fifty or two hundred thousand dollars a years is rich. Okay go make it, go earn it, have your two point eight or four kids or whatever and find out just how rich (laughing) you are and then listen to all the grief people give you about how your not paying your fair share because you also at that rate are considered the rich. And if you get too high like above two hundred or two hundred and fifty thousand some of these tax cuts don't even apply to you because it's assumed that you have more than you need and your not even asking for a tax cut.
But this picture of the quote "rich" as idle sitting around not earning income, they're so wealthy they can live off their -- that describes a lot of retirees. It's just a different degree of the size of portfolio pie they're sitting on but I mean it's -- it's a classic example of obfuscation and trying to confuse people about who the rich are as a means of demonstrating the unfairness. And this whole point of trying to say the deal here is breaking down, the deal is equality of everybody under democracy, equality under capitalism, something has to give and of course what's giving when the deal breaks down is that people aren't being treated fairly who don't have a lot of money- just the same old argument presented in little bit different way.
Quick break, we'll be back after this, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for Citracal]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for Citracal]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: CedarHouseGarageDoors.com]
[ad: American Lung Association]
[Promo: Biography for Radio]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: One more interesting bit of polling data here, my friends, before we get back to your phone calls.
Massachusetts sent us a Zogby poll. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the French appearing candidate and Viet Nam Vet, John F Kerry, the most popular democratic presidential candidate in New Hampshire according to polling by Zogby International followed closely by Vermont Governor Howard Dean. The numbers are 25 to 22%, Gephardt regarded as likely to win the Democratic Cauci in Iowa, finished fourth at 7%, Leibermans 3rd at 10%. However 76% after all this is done and (laughing) in the hopper, 76% of likely Democratic Primary voters said they think it's very likely or somewhat likely that President George W. Bush will be re-elected. 76% of all these democrats at the poll, it doesn't matter if we nominate, Bush is going to win anyway.
Hartfield Virginia, Craig, thanks for the phone call, nice to have you with us.
Craig: How you doing Rush?
Rush: Pretty good sir, thank you.
Craig: I just wanted to make one point...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Craig: ...the Kinsley article.
Rush: Yeah.
Craig: ...with the -- what he leaves out, he says, dollar one they start paying taxes...
Rush: Yeah.
Craig: ...but that's the FICA tax, which they're the ones who imposed that to begin with. All the liberals came up with that to begin with.
Rush: Social Security tax, yes.
Craig: Exactly, so people could be saving 15% of their money, as you say, everybody's paying the 15% between the Social Security and Medicare and yeah, nobody comes out and says that. They keep saying we're going to cut payroll tax which is essentially that too and...
Rush: Well, I've heard them talk about it, I haven't seen them do it. I've heard them talk about it. I've heard -- people been talking about cutting the payroll tax -- twelve months or so, I haven't seen anybody propose it. I - now, lot of democrats are talking about a -- what is it, a two year -- what are they are calling it? Yeah, a "holiday", a "FICA tax holiday," but what I'm trying to -- I mean , do the two-year holiday then try to reinstate that and see what happens. That'll be interesting.
This just is typical, the way the democrats talk about it but never do it. It's like Clinton. (Rush imitating Clinton's voice) " I'm going to give you people a middle class tax cut. I been working so hard on this and it's going to happen," and he gets elected. "I never worked harder on anything in my life but I just can't do it.
It's a worst economy in the last 50 years. It's a worst than I thought. It's worst than 75 years. It's been almost as bad as the depression, I can't -- I just can't do it." We all got a big tax increase but during the campaign, talked about a middle class tax cut, never happened. And now these democrats are talking about a tax holiday on payroll tax. I'll believe it when I see it. I'll support it, I'm, any time they cut taxes I'm.
Finally the Kinsley -- the Kinsley business, don't overlook here, I may not, maybe my fault here, I may not have made this clear enough. He is equating the 15% capital gains rate with the 15% rate that FICA people pay or the 15% income tax rate. He's saying, "What's fair about this?" While these multi- millionaires or even billionaires who rely only on income from capital gains get away with paying the same rate on the last dollars of their lives. That these poor people are paying on the first dollars they earn.
Well let me tell you something folks, the right answer to this is that there are a bunch of people who don't want you to become wealthy. There is a tax on wealth in this country and it's called the income tax and it is specifically designed to keep you from getting wealthy. There is very little tax on wealth and that's what -- that's what, that's the point Kinsley should have made but who's fault is that?
We'll take a break, and then I'm not advocating anything, don't listen.
[ad: United Family Health Group]
[ad: General Air Conditioning and Heating]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Monday, June 9, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: From the email;
Dear Rush, I don't know if I should be shocked, amused or appalled at your vitriol towards Mrs. Clinton and her new book. You border on psychosis or perhaps envy at her advance and the copies she is bound to sell verses what your books did in sales. (Laughing) Last week you went on and incredulously so about the level of Bush hating among some in this country. I must say, you and some of your listeners have toped that in spades in hatred for anyone named Clinton, man, woman or child, speaking of which I suppose Chelsea will be next. Get over it man, you are embarrassing yourself. Signed Barbara Christian in Chagrin Falls Ohio.
Rush: Didn't I just say to today, "I'm so tired of these people and wish they'd go away." I'm the one who said they never would go away but anyway Barbara, you know I don't want to be rude or arrogant or perceived as such here but your reference to Mrs. Clinton selling more books than I did. (laughing and banging on something)
I got a note and I don't know, you know anybody can send me anything. Anybody can call here and say anything. I just got an email note, somebody sent out of our Kansas City affiliate announced that a bookstore in Overland Park, three copies of Hillary's book had been sold by noon. Two hundred and fifty people had lined up in Manhattan, liberal Mecca, to be at her book signing. Now I'm going to tell you something, Ms. Christian, with all the publicity there's been on this book, I mean they're treating this stupid book as a news story for crying out loud. They're actually -- this interview last night was treated as -- almost breaking news, a news special.
If all they can generate is two hundred and fifty people on the upper west side of Manhattan. Zabars does better than that on their coffee special every morning. Now I mean if -- well it's - they're going to have to goose a lot of numbers here, if they're even going to get close -- I mean a million advanced copies is what were printed. And I'm going to tell you right now, this is going to open up number one and number two in The New York Times lists. It doesn't matter what the truth is, that's where it's going to open but they can't keep it there...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... for very long. It -- total number of books. You want paperback included? Total number of books that I have sold is in excess of eight and a half million, my two books. I was asked to say that folks. I -- as you plainly heard here, I did not announce this on my own. The program -- well I'll just tell you , I'm going to tell you something else folks, I'm just and I'm know what I'm talking about cause I've looked into this lately. Book sales are in the tank to the degree that you can and if you -- and if your timing is right you can be number one on The New York Times list selling seven thousand books that week.
It used to be that when I in early- the early 90's, when my first book came out I was told that if I wanted to get in the top ten of The New York Times list that I would have to sell fifty thousand copies and if it happened rather quickly I might end up near the top of the Times list and it's -- the business goes hot and cold.
I guess it's in one of it's chill periods now but recent books tout a, "Oh look at this, number one, New York Times," seven thousand copies were sold that week. And that book by the way that I'm talking about, I'm not going to mention what it was, doesn't matter, that book was not number one on the USA Today list, was supposedly a flat out tabulation of sales.
The New York Times, nobody knows how that list is put together. There are sample distributors. There are sample stores. They have their own list. They have their own subset of stores and distributors that they look at. USA Today supposedly is the closest representation to actual nation wide sales that we get .
No Jayson Blair doesn't put together The New York Times list. I -- but at one time I was at - the numbers were fifty thousand, if I could sell fifty thousand I'd get on the list and that , by the way, was common back then. That's how few books were actually purchased and I'm talking about the non-fiction list now.
Fiction's a different matter. I mean you'll have Clancy and Gresham routinely their first printing will be two million. I happen to hold the distinction of having the largest printing of a non-fiction book, I don't know how long a period, but pretty long, two million for my second book is the largest first printing of a non-fiction book in recent "histwah" and that book sold out in two months. Eight weeks.
The first book was on The New York Times list for fifty-four weeks because it was, nobody knew how it was going to do and it was printed in twenty-five thousand increments and the demand just kept coming and coming and so those sales were reports kept flowing in and flowing in, stayed at number one, I think for over forty-five weeks on The New York Times list.
Where as the second book sold just as many but in two months instead of twelve and so it was off the list in a matter of eight weeks and the story was, "Well, Limbaugh just didn't do as well, the second book," but it did. It was almost identical at two and a half million copies each and so anyway Ms. Christian, she's got a long way to go here on this. I and with so much of the book being known I mean why buy it now? And that's one of the -- well, yes I think that's an important factor. Stuff in my book was true as opposed to this but that won't matter to some of the people buying this book.
Anyway, Yuba City California, this is Jason, Jason thanks for waiting. You're next and welcome to the program.
Jason: Hi Rush, I can't help but feel like I'm going to fall on my sword here disagreeing with you so please take it easy on me, but the two quick points. First of all what you're calling a tax plan I believe is actually an economic stimulus plan that includes a tax cut so if we're going to give out more money from the government then doesn't really mater where it goes. If it goes to lower income people sure they're going, you know, they're going to spend it on microwave popcorn and cigarettes but it's still working its way back into the economy...
Rush: But hey wait, now wait, listen, hey wait, don't say -- don't say, I don't care where it gets spent. Now don't throw that in there. Don't lop that one on me. I've never made value judgments on how people spend their money. Whatever they do with it is fine with me.
Jason: Well...
Rush: It's theirs.
Jason: It's the fact that they do have more disposable income verses the people that earn more money.
Rush: I would suggest if it's a Child Tax Credit we're giving them the increased amount for, they're just going to popcorn and peanuts is a little dubious but I mean I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. No look, this - the purpose of the bill was economic stimulation. The bill it's self is a tax rate reduction. It's a tax cut, there's no question about it.
Jason: But the overall purpose is stimulus and if we get money back into the hands of the people regardless of what level it is, it's still going to stimulate...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Jason: ...the economy. Same situation for the republicans, the more money that's out there, the better.
Rush: Okay. All right. Then at what point -- why just give them four hundred? Why not give them a lot that they could really spend?
Jason: As much as we can get back into the hands of people to turn back into the economy to theorize the trickle down system the better, as long as it's not sitting in the Federal Governments Bank and it's in the hand of the people it's growing the economy. Am I wrong?
Rush: Uhh, well as an open-ended theory, no, but there are some troublesome realities that you have to throw into your equation. I wish -- I wish I didn't have to but what's -- you could take this argument in any number of different -- why not, if that is what we're trying to do here, why not as I say, give every parent a one thousand dollar exemption for their children every year that the child is alive regardless where it lives. Why not -- why eliminate the Child Care Exemption at age 18 or whatever it is. When the kid leaves, goes to school, whatever the heck it is. Why not just leave that child exemption on the table for as long as the child is alive.
Jason: Well because at some time he becomes an adult and he provides for himself but alls I'm saying is that the less money that's in the governments hands therefore makes government smaller, it's in the hand of the people...
Rush: Well, wait...
Jason: ...gives them more spending power...
Rush: ...wait, wait wait one second. Well, hold it, but you're making, I think, a crucial error and by the way you don't have to fall on your sword and I'm not stabbing you with one here. So we're having a friendly open-ended discussion, which you will loose, but, wait a second. Now the point is this, you keep talking about any money that we take away from the government and put in the people's hands, we should do. Well whose money -- it's not -- it's not the government's money. This money has to come from somewhere. On what basis do you thus claim that it is okay to do a Robin Hood on society?
Jason: But we're not imposing a tax increase on people to pay for this so my question to you is, would you rather have that money held by the government or back in the hand of the people? If they're willing to give it up by all means take it. It's not as if they're imposing a tax increase on upper end people, to be given this money, to be poorer people. See what I'm saying.
The money is sitting there. It's sitting dormant. It's either going to be spent by Ted Kennedy or it's going to be given back to people to stimulate the economy. If I have a choice, I would rather have it given back to the people. Now if you're telling me they're going to impose a tax increase on someone at any level to pay for this, I say don't do it. But if its' given freely with no penalty on current status then go for it.
Rush: I - look, (sigh) I think I'm becoming a prisoner of my own expertly communicated philosophies. I (laughing) can't, I have to admit that I will admit, I have to admit -- I will -- I'm somewhat trapped here because you -- I can't disagree with the over all theory of what you're saying but there has to be -- there has to be some, no there's no tax increase here that is paying for this but at the same time. Let me ask you if you personally would take your paycheck and go around town giving it to people so they can spend it instead of you.
Jason: No argument but see I make sixty thousand dollars a year with no write --off. I've been killed in tax...
Rush: No but see you're allowing it to be done in your name anyway if you have this belief and I -- it's, what we're talking, uhh, tax cuts and that is a -- that has a specific meaning. Tax cuts mean people who pay a portion of their income in taxes are being taxed less now but it also allow people who don't pay any taxes to have the Earned Income Tax Credit which means we'll allow them to claim they earned more than they did so they qualify for a tax refund. We're all paying for that. Now we're going to add to it.
Jason: Okay, okay that makes sense. That makes sense.
Rush: Well but it -- at what point does it end? I mean with this - what I've just defined for you is a give away program from one group of people to another.
Jason: I understand. I understand, but I still don't' think that it's entirely a bad situation for conservatives. I agree with you that we give away too much but again if you give me -- if they're going to whine and cry- all their doing - the democrats are doing is forcing the economy to be stimulated, in essence, even though we do give away too much they're shooting themselves in the foot here and I think you're missing my point.
Rush: Well the point that I've been trying to make with this is that if we had this kind of thinking and this is contrary to what your own philosophy here leads to but this just throws out the window the concept of limited government because none of this can happen unless the government steps in and takes money from somebody to give it to somebody else...
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...that's the only way it can happen. That's a pretty intrusive thing and I don't think that if you talk about stimulating the economy, transferring wealth or taking from one group to another, it's sort of like discrimination, you don't end discrimination by transferring it from one group to another so that they get "their share now and find out what it's like."
You end discrimination by ending it and then the same token, you don't -- you don't stimulate the economy by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another on whatever basis claiming that it's not going to Washington so it's -- it seems to me that the -- if we're going to do a tax cut and we're going to cut taxes on people who are paying them then those are the people because we all agree they are burden is to high and we are lessening that burden.
We are in essence over the long term we're going to be not -- we're maybe increasing the burden because the money does have to come from somewhere and it will, you know, there's going to be, no question, a stimulus component to this, the economy is going to grow and this sort of thing but, hey look at -- there's also a behavioral -- there's also a behavioral thing here too.
You know, the argument, and I made it earlier in the program today, we talk about these groups of people as though they are static that they never move. The poor are always poor and the children are always children. They never grow up and both are manifestly false. And one of the things that encourages people of the lower income to get out of it, is the idea they can and to the extent that money is going to come to them for doing nothing, you're not exactly promoting a work effort to escape that income level that they're in.
I'm stuttering, I'm looking at the clock, I'm a little long in this and I've got to take a break. But look, you've got -- they're philosophically I can't argue with what you're saying about money in peoples hands as opposed to government but this is not the way to do that for people who are at the lower end of the economic scale.
Quick break, back- next two segments going to be short but hang with us. Don't go away.
[ad: Rush Limbaugh]
[ad: General Steel Co]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: www.focusonlearning.org]
[ad: Agua Caliente Casino]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: What it boils down to is this and this is why I'm perplexed at so many of you conservatives. Why it is that you are trying to find a justification for having one group of people give something to another group of people who don't contribute to the over all cause in the first place? I -- its and this is no criticism of those people, look I'm probably a stronger voice of support for the working poor that there is.
But at some point -- there's no end to this once you start this kind of thinking. You know there has to be a foundation of common sense that supports it other wise my example of -- okay, automobile dealers, "Here comes your rebate, go out and buy your car and get a cash rebate." Why are you giving the rebates to only people who that buy cars? Give it to people who don't as well. That's only fair.
And those of you who are business owners who support this whole thing, well if you have an employee who comes to you and says, "Hey look, I'm having a baby in September and I need a raise." You're almost duty bound to give it to him because you're supporting the concept people with kids need the money and anywhere but Washington is better for the money and so forth.
Anyway let me grab a call here before we have to wrap this seg up. Dover Delaware and Sid, welcome sir nice to have you with us.
Sid: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a mention that the democrats in the Senate are raising taxes to pay this four hundred dollars they're giving back to people who don't pay taxes. They're raising customs fees and they're raising other fees, you know in order to ,so-called, pay for this.
Rush: Ahh forgotten about that. That's true. We mentioned that Friday.
Sid: Yeah.
Rush: That's exactly right. They are increasing customs fees to come up with the money to do this because, because hey - lets not forget -- Sid, that's an excellent point. All these Senators had this magical number 350 billion and this little add-on here is going to cost about 4 billion and so they're going to come up with -- they're going to raise taxes to pay for this somewhere else down the line. That's exactly right.
Another time out, I'm sorry my friends, I hate it when these segments go long because you got to make up the time somewhere, back in a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wines]
[ad: Time Magazine]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
Monday, June 9, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: PoulationAction.org]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right folks, here's the bottom-line. When you give a $400. 00 child tax credit to people who don't pay taxes, that is the government spending the money. It's not the money coming back from government. It's government spending the money, it is Welfare is what it is. It is a classic illustration of how the tax code is used by Washington to bend and shape society the way they want it. It's a Welfare payment.
It is Washington spending the money. That's how you have to look at this and it's your money that they are taking and then give- it's just -- it's just Welfare folks. I'm sorry this will offend you, the truth sometimes hurts.
See you tomorrow, have a great Monday.
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
6.15.2003
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Mary] [edit]
[News]
[ad: Insure.com]
[ad: Allegra]
[News]
[ad: Radio Shack]
[ad: Palm Spring International Airport]
[ad: KPSI Newstalk 920]
[promo: The Rush Limbaugh show on NewsTalk 920, KFSI]
[Opening music for Limbaugh show]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Mary] [edit]
Testing, testing, testing. 1, 2,3,4, yes, Yep, ready to go, folks, I told you 21 hours ago there's always tomorrow. Tomorrow is now. Great to have you with us. The EIB network. The nation's most envied, the nation's most feared, the nation's most emulated, the nation's most listened to talk radio station is on the air. I'm the host, L. Rushbo, the all knowing, all caring, all everything else, Maharushi, great to have you along, and always a delight. The telephone number if you want to be on the program today 800-282=2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Bad news for the democrats. The number of job cuts announced at US employers fell sharply in May to its lowest level in 30 months, just shy of 3 years. That's a promising sign of improvement in the labor market that has seen its share of gloom, according to a report that's just out now. Planned layoffs at US companies slipped 53% in May.
This is figures from job placement firm Challenger, Grey and Christmas. The year's total job cut planned so far at up to about 570,000, still high but it's 11 percent lower than the same period. last year. And what this decline could herald is an end to the job-cutting spree that has plagued American workers since 2001, said chief executive of Challenger, Grey and Christmas, John Challenger in a statement. This report comes as financial markets await the government's employment report for May. It's due out Friday of this week. May payroll data widely perceived as the first cleanlook at the post-Iraq War job market.
But this is, I mean, if job cuts are already on the way down, wait til this tax cut kicks in, folks, it's gonna, you know, I proclaim the market slowdown , the economic slowdown over last week, the market has thus responded, so has the economy. I said all along just waiting for a spark. And there are many of them. A lot of sparks out there. Federal reserve chief, Alan Greenspan said today that he sees indications of a fairly marked turnaround in the US economy. Data for May suggest that the economy has stabilized, he told a conference of top central bankers in Berlin.
He said the acceleration has not yet begun, before noting that recovering stock markets are suggestive of a fairly marked turnaround. "We are stabilizing and there is some indication of return. It's not at this stage by any means clear," said Greenspan, addressing the conference via audio link The two reports indicate the economy just waiting to step on the gas, there, folks. Who needs Greenspan when we have me, is exactly right. But I'm just adding Greenspan to this because so many people look at Greenspan as a harbinger.
A couple of emails. "Dear Rush, there are no weapons, there were no weapons and now the big Democrat party has its weapon. Compassionate conservative? Try murderous, try hideous, try mercenary. Mr. Bush wears sexy military garb and you applaud. What are we, Argentina? Your hatred of free and dissenting opinion is what this administration is all about.. Lies, deception, repression. What do the democrats stand for? Forget parties. Forget your constant diatribe about liberals and the left. Humans want honest government and the right to decry corruption. --Mary Watts, another Santa Fe-an"
Are these people,...they are implo-- what , you thought that was an email note from Bob Bird? You thought Sheese Bird (sp) was sending me an e--? No, this was someone from Santa Fe, New Mexico. This is just a sample. These are the people among us who consider themselves kind and compassionate
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...tolerant and peace loving and understanding and I'm telling you they're still frothing with rage I mean, here this woman calls Bush murderous. (unintelligible) there are no weapons, there were no weapons. I have and I'm going to post it on our website. I'm going to put a link to it. I got the CIA report on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. I -- you know, went through all of this yesterday, my friends, I'm going to go through it and there's a great piece in National Review Online today. That's just chock full of common sense.
These weapons, everybody that's involved knows those weapons are there or were there. If you -- if you people who are in some sort of state of denial, if you want to maintain that there never were any weapons, you had better not attach you're name anytime you make that statement because you're going to be profoundly embarrassed if you have the capacity to be embarrassed and I doubt that some of you do .Here's another email,
Email: Dear Rush, I'm a staunch environmentalist on a lifelong member of Green Peace and the Sierra Club. I'm very concerned about these recent attempts to dissolve hurricanes. We should be trying to save these mighty creatures of the atmosphere not destroy them. Just as hurricanes are beginning to make a comeback the power-hungry right wing is trying to destroy them and I will not stand for it as an environmentalist. We are raping our earth's precious atmosphere if we attempt to stop hurricanes.
Rush: Now this obviously tongue-in-cheek but I liked it. I mean this is very cleaver. Lifelong Green Peace and Sierra Club Member concerned about a recent attempts to dissolve hurricanes. We need to try and save these mighty creatures (Laughing) and not destroy them.
All right folks, look, let me find The Wall Street Journal piece on this. There's -- I just cannot let this go. Talked about it yesterday but I'm going to talk about it here again today because The Wall Street Journal confirms that which I said about this. Hang on. I guess the umbrella or the subject line for this would be, "So much for all these phony deficit concerns." Here's the story.
The Wall Street Journal: With democrats complaining that low-income families were short changed in the latest round of tax cuts, Senator Charles Grassley, republican --Iowa, plans to introduce legislation this week to extend and expand the increase in the "Child Tax Credit." "Some of us in congress wanted more family tax relief in this package than what we ultimately passed," Grassley said. "Tough negations with the House of Representatives," he said, "meant that some provisions were stripped out."
Rush: Senator Grassley that's not why this provision was stripped. Don't start blaming this on the House. Blame this on Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe, Senator. If those two ladies had just -- the provision was in the original bill if they had just voted for the original bill we wouldn't be doing this but that's not the point any longer.
The Wall Street Journal: Grassley's bill is extended to address complaints that several million low-income households gained little or nothing from the tax cut bill signed into law. The bill boosted the Child Tax Credit for most families from six hundred dollars to a thousand dollars through 2005 when the credit is scheduled to revert to the lower number but a provision that would have extended Child Tax Credit to families making between ten-five and twenty-six-six was excluded from the final bill.
Democrats have hammered away at republicans in the Whitehouse, saying the bill signed into law favors the wealthy. Now Grassley's proposal would make the higher Child Credit permanent. It wouldn't sunset in 2005. It would speed up the benefits of a larger Child Tax Credit to families with incomes in that range of ten-five to twenty-six-six. He called on democrats to support the legislation.. According to Grassley's statement, the cost of extending the Child Tax Credit to low-income families starting this year would be about three and a half billion dollars over ten years.
Rush: Now I thought -- I thought we had a hard number. I thought we had a number of 350 billion dollars that we wouldn't budge from. Not even a penny. That's why Voinovich, that's why Snowe, that's why Blanche Lincoln and it all wouldn't vote for anything greater because anything more than three-fifty was going to cause a deficit. It was going to lead to higher deficits, which are big monsters...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... we're not going to go above 350. Now all of the sudden the democrats and the press start complaining about people who don't pay taxes, who are not included in tax cuts and all of a sudden, "Oh, we'll fix it. Well yeah, we'll extend this to people -- sure, three and a half billion dollars over ten years, and guess what, we're going to end the "sunset.""
Well so much for all these phony deficit concerns and I'm telling you, many of these republicans are no better than the democrats when it comes to all this. It -- this -- the ease, the speed, the lack of any guilt or shame whatsoever over rapidly adding in a group of people who don't pay taxes into a tax cut, it just nukes this whole business that everybody was worried about deficits, doesn't it?
"But Rush -- but Rush, it's only three and a half bill..." No, don't give me this. We weren't going to put a lot of things in this tax bill. We had to go through all this stupid sunsetting, "Keep it at 350." If it was 351 Voinovich wasn't going to support it. If it was 351 Olympia Snowe wasn't going to support it. But now all of the sudden we're adding three and a half billion to it, nobodies worried about the deficit and I turn now to The Wall Street Journal lead editorial today.
The Wall Street Journal: Senator Olympia Snowe, the medias favorite republican, now that John McCain isn't actively running for President, says she is dismayed, "I don't know why they would cut that out of the bill," adds Senator Blanche Lincoln. Those last two remarks take chutzpa because if either woman had been willing to vote for the tax bill the refund ability provision would have been in it from the outset.
Rush: Just as I told you my friends
The Wall Street Journal: It's now been confirmed...
Rush: Not that it needed to be.
The Wall Street Journal: ...by the Wall Street Journal, Senator Lincoln introduced the idea to the Senate Finance Committee but then announced that she wasn't going to vote for the bill.
Rush: It was her idea. It was her idea to give tax cuts to families that don't pay taxes and then she didn't vote for it. Now she's out there doing the democratic response to the Presidents radio address saying, "How could this have happened. Why this is outrageous." Chutzpa is the least of it.
The Wall Street Journal: Miss Snowe was also one of those along with Senator Voinovich who insisted that the bill's total cost in tax cuts and new spending not exceed 350 billion. Something had to give in House/Senate conference in order to meet that dollar limit and out went the fundability for people who don't pay taxes. The bill passed by a single Senate vote with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie.
Rush: Now, there's a price that's going to be paid for this. You know what the price is going to be? More tax cuts. If we got to -- no, it is, if we got to go back in there and add this provision and we've blown the three-fifty billion, if we've blown that lid, we can't go higher than that. Now we just have. I can tell you right now what the republicans are going to do. "Okay dems, you want this in there, then we're going to get rid of these sunsets right now. We're going to get rid of the sunset on the dividends.
We're going to get rid of the sunset on capital gains. We're going to make it all official right now and we're going to need 60 votes to make this veto proof, democrats. This is what you get when you start fudging around and you start lying to the American people about it. We're going to have to re-open this thing now to get this little three and a half billion dollar provision in there, and what's this going to cost these democrats and these republicans who refuse to budge over three-fifty it's going to cost them a lot more than three and a half billion."
If the republicans play this right, if Bill Thomas and I know he will, Bill of Ways and Means, if he plays this right we're going to get even more tax cuts out of this, all because the democrats want to go play their class warfare game.
Sit tight folks, sit back, hold on and be prepared to smile ear to ear, because even more tax cuts are going to result from this. Not just the including of this little refund ability for people who don't pay taxes anyway
Back with much more, by the way we'll be ditto-caming starting at the top of the next hour. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
[Promo: Rushlimbaugh.com]
[ad: General Steel]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: The General]
[Ad: Time Magazine]
[Ad: The Doctor's Night Guard]
[Ad: One-Price Optical]
[Ad: United Family Health-Care Group's Medical Savings Program]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
Rush Intro
No, no, no, no, no. The reason why that - I got an email here. I'm not gonna bother reading it publicly. Somebody doesn't understand what I'm talking about. Look, on this tax business, the Democrats are demanding, and the Republicans are gonna put back in, this refundability for the poor families that don't pay taxes, so they get the increased child tax credit. It's an opportunity for the Republicans to attach additional tax cuts, other provisions or ideas.
The Democrats gonna vote against it? They can't. There's no way they're gonna vote against it, whatever's in this thing. The Republicans - I don't even know - I don't think they can overreach on this. But it's possible to overreach to the point the Democrats would oppose it, and then let the argument begin over who's denying people refunds who don't pay taxes in the first place. But I mean, this is the exact, I guess, kind of thing I've been talking about the Democrats have been doing since 2002. They just
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...I mean they see a pile of poop over there they step in it. They see a pile of quick sand they go step in that, and they, hell they jump in it, I mean it's like they see a swimming pool, they say, "Hey man, it's time to go for a dip," and they just gleefully jump in and they don't realize what they've jumped into until it's too late but we're going to get more tax cuts out of this because it effect this whole three hundred and fifty billion dollar limit that all these "Holier than thou," Senators, "We aren't going to vote for anything above that now that's going to cause a deficit." We find out now that doesn't mean beans. Didn't mean beans all along. So much for deficit concerns.
This news item here was the subject of today's morning updates, ladies and gentlemen, if you missed that, let me give you the longer version of it here.
Habitat for Humanity I guess started in America's Georgia. America's Georgia is famous because that where Dan Reeves was from, the famous football coach of the National Football League, famous running back of the Dallas Cow -- Oh, look I've got to do something. I've been meaning to do this for two weeks and I don't know why it just slipped my mind. I'm going to do it now since I just remembered it.
I want to congratulate Kenny Perry. Won two tournaments back to back on the PGA Tour. Won the Colonial, the Annika Sorenstam Tournament. Kenny won that not Annika for those of you who may have gotten the wrong idea and he just won the Memorial Tournament, Jack Nicolas's affair out side Columbus Ohio over the week end. Two back-to-back tournaments winners Kenny Perry, one of the new breed of forty-year-old golfers that's tearing up the links. And played with him the final round this year on Sunday at the 18th tee and he was the nicest guy. He out the money day for those guys. Sunday is money day.
Tom Pernice was my partner but Kenny Perry was in the foursome and he was just as nice as he could be and they have these guys out there tolerating a rank armature like me on money day and he's obviously, he's (unintelligible) say he's one of the good guys but he obviously is. He gives 5% of all winnings to charity and does a lot of work with unfortunate kids but it's well deserved and I just wanted to take some time to congratulate him. Been following him real closely since I met him and it's just great to see. Congratulations Kenny.
Back in a moment.
[ad: Skin Zinc]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Desert Homes Today]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: It is the most influential because it is the most effective. Great to have you with us.
Habitat for Humanity, the non-profit group that builds low-cost housing for people who don't pay taxes who get tax cuts, is opening a "Theme Park" at it's world headquarters this week. Designed to give tourists a look at the world's worst slums. Yes, my friends, you heard right. Habitat for Humanity is going to construct a "slum theme park".
Reuters: Millard Fuller, founder of the organization said he expects the global village in Discovery Center to attract as many as 70,000 tourists in its first year of operation. Essentially Fuller told Reuters, "It's a theme park for poverty housing. You come out of the Center and walk right into a slum. You'll see the kind of pitiful living conditions so many people in the world have."
Rush: Now this makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? I mean you have the family vacation; you look forward to this every year. You could go to Disneyland, you could go to Disneyworld, you could go to Universal, you could go to the Grand Canyon, you could go any number of places. You could go to an Illinois casino while they are still in business, more on that in just a moment (chuckling) you won't believe this.
Boy did we call that one! No, you can take the family to a "Slum Theme Park" and the first thing you see, ladies and gentlemen, you'll see the kind of pitiful living conditions so many people in the world have.
Reuters: After touring mock slums of Africa, Asia and Central America, visitors to the slum village will see examples of the modest homes that Habitat for Humanity builds in those regions. You'll see what a steep improvement acceptable housing makes in someone's life. We think we'll recruit a lot of volunteers this way, said Millard Fuller. Visitors can imagine children sleeping in shacks infested with scorpions or snakes. There won't be any roller-coasters or Ferris wheels, the thrills will come from trying your hand at brick-making and tile-laying and they hope discovery how one person can make a difference.
Rush: Hitler made a difference, what is this? And I love saying that. Don't roll your eyes in there, Brian. I mean, this phrase, "make a difference." Look at all the people that made a difference. I mean by itself it doesn't mean anything. Mussolini made a difference. Stalin made a difference. Saddam made a difference.
Reuters: Visitors will be able to engage in all sorts of imaginations, it'll be six and a half acres. It'll be adjacent to Habitat for Humanity's International Headquarters in America's Georgia. It has no tourist facilities yet but attracts about 12,000 visitors a year now. They are perhaps best known, Habitat for Humanity, for their work...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Immaadd2] [edit]
Reuters: ...here in the United States.
Rush: It gave Jimmy Carter something to do when he left the Whitehouse. Up there pounding nails. Well you know the story. Every, let me tell you what really launched Jimmy Carter, the Nixon funeral, and all the ex-Presidents that are still alive were there and Henry Kissinger and everybody's there and you know what the democrats think of Nixon. I mean, and Jimmy Carter.
They -- Nixon - horrible, rotten to the core and yet here's everybody out there raving, praising, eulogizing Nixon as the greatest statesman that ever lived and you just know that Rosalind Carter is sitting there jabbing old Jimmer in the ribs or elbow saying, "Listen to what they're saying about this guy. He wasn't half what you are, what are you doing and you're pounding nails for Habitat for Humanity. You got to do something besides that. You're not going to go anywhere pounding nails at this place. Is that what you want them to say when you die? He pounded nails at Habitat for Humanity."
So that launched Carter on to bigger and better things, like criticizing Bush at the right time to get a Nobel Peace prize -- a "Theme Park," folks. You understand this? You know how it is, you moms and dads and the 2.8 kids, it's time to throw the family in the back of the SUV and you're driving along and you're about ten minutes out side of your hometown and the kids in the backroom going, "We there yet? We there yet?" "No, hang on little Johnnie we'll be there soon." I guarantee you one trip to this slum theme park, your kids will never ever be asking you again, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?" It's the last place in the world they're going to want to -- what is the point?
(Laughing) I'm sorry folks but who wants to take their kids, to see rat infested dum -- Why don't we, you know, just go out and get Habitat for Homeless in there and get a little video, maybe even a live display on dumpster diving. You know how to dive in a dumpster and find the things in there that are safe to eat. Things that are not safe to eat.
A "Slum Theme Park," for vacation. If all goes well the Smithsonian will buy this thing and put it on display in Washington DC. I mean this is what the democrats want you to think of when you think of America. That it's just a giant slum under the leadership of George W. Bush. Oh, I'll bet you -- I'll bet- I'll bet that's right. Liberal schools will be doing field trips here to the slum theme park and again it's not what it's called. It's going to be called Global Village and Discovery Center and that's misleading. I mean how many people are going to end up at this place not knowing what it really is.
(Rush mimicking a child) "Hey dad, dad I want to go to the Global Village and Discovery Center in America's Georgia. I done Global and Villages." "Okay little Johnnie. Good idea." So they call the- call the uhh, call Hotwire.com. Go on the web; see what kind of hotel rates you can get at the slum village. Where you going to stay at this place? Is that part of the experience? (Rush mimicking Child) "Are we there yet? Are we there yet?"
So, something to look forward to, ladies and gentlemen, as the summer vacation period approaches. Take the kids to a slum. You don't have to go to America's Georgia to find one probably but this one will be pre-approved, see a slum this one will be guaranteed stamp of approval, Good Housekeeping or what ever, probably the Underwriters Laboratories will even put their stamp of approval on it.
Mark in Lakeland Florida. Hi sir welcome to the EIB Network, great to have you with us.
Mark: Great to be with you, Rush, and it's a great honor to speak with you. I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about the re-opening tax cuts because I think that Olympia and company and the democrats will demagogue the issue and say, "Look we made an honest mistake, and here are the republicans again want to give more money to their rich friends."
Rush: Well, let them say it. The mistake here is Olympia Snowe's and Blanhce Lincoln's. The truth is the truth and the truth is that this provision was in the original bill, Mark, and had they voted for it we wouldn't even be where we are now. I guarantee you there - the republicans will at least go for getting rid of some of these "sunsets." They're going to dare the democrats to vote against this.
Mark: Yeah, well when has the truth ever stopped the Democratic Party before.
Rush: No, that's not the point, the point -- who cares the democrats' say. The point is what we end up with.
Mark: Yeah. No, I hope you're right, I just, I'm just not as optimistic as you.
Rush: Well, I -- look, understand this and I - this is the -- to be honest, this is one of the things I'm trying to coax everybody along with and get up to the same...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Galen] [edit]
uh, speed on the same page I am. You have to understand. The Democrats lost this tax bill. They lost this. And they're out there trying to demagogue it and the weapons of mass destruction and all this, but they lost it. The polls are very strong for the President on this, the people are very supportive of this and just because the Democrats say it, does not mean that a majority of people believe it. Even this weapons of mass destruction business.
There's no clear polling data on it yet, but I will make you a bet that they - When the first polls come out on this, that they do not show an overwhelming number of Americans have all of the sudden turned on George W. Bush on this Iraq business. And the same thing with the tax cuts. So the - Mark, the thing is, no matter what the Republicans do, the Democrats are going to call it tax cuts for the rich. If all they did was just add this provision to get tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes, and extend this child tax refund, the Democrats are gonna still call the whole thing a big sop to the rich and all that. As long as they're gonna say that anyway, do what's right. And that appears to be what's happening.
Plus, one of the things - I've repeated this time and time again, Bush is gonna come back for more tax cuts every year. Well, who's to say you can't do two or three in one year? This is wildly opening the door for it. And if you know Bill Thomas, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, he's gonna see this as a great opportunity to come back for more. Because the Democrats are the ones on the barrel on this, or over the barrel. If they want to vote against this, then let them, because they will have taken care of it twice then.
This provision was in the first bill, put in there by Blanche Lincoln. She wouldn't even vote for the proposal that she initiated. And now all of the sudden, she's up there crying wolf and wondering "How could this have been left out?" It wasn't. The original bill had been voted on without all the demagoguery and without all the posturing in, this thing would have been in there. So, now the Democrats are out there, clamoring for this under the banner of fairness, and the Republicans are responding, "OK, we'll put it in. Fine."
But the question needs to be asked and turned around here on offense, Mark, not defense. What about all those deficit fear you people have? Now, what I'm trying to do is get people here on the offensive in terms of thinking. Don't do something because some defensive posture that you have, or fear you have. Take a - Be aggressive.
Make offensive moves here. The opportunity is ripe. Democrats demand this be in there, fine. Let's test them. How much do they want it? How much will they actually pay to get this in there, so that they think they'll have a campaign issue, and be able to run around, and say, "We got that thing in there the Republicans denied you poor people."
Well, this is, I'm telling you this is a golden opportunity in the real world of politics, and if I know the players involved here, I think you're gonna see an attempt made to go for even more. It's too great an opportunity.
Take a break. Be right back. Don't go away.
[Ad: Life Quotes]
[Ad: Petsmart]
[Ad: Jiffy Lube]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Jiffy Lube]
[Ad: National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Ad Council]
Rush Promo and Intro
Welcome back, folks, Rush Limbaugh program, and EIB Network.
Here's this story. Now I want to go back and refresh your memory. The governor of Chicago, Rod Blagoyevich, the governor of Illinois, Rod Blagoyevich, is like many other governors. He's facing a deep financial crisis in his state, and, as such, he's looking at the relatively new casino industry in Illinois. And if you will recall, one of the things - Now help me get this right, Mr. Program Observer, 'cuz I don't have the actual story in front of me.
This goes, what is this, about six weeks old now? Governor Blagoyevich actually suggested that the state of Illinois would just nationalize or "state-ize" the casino industry. Literally just take it over. I mean this go to casino owners and investors and say, "Your profits are ours." And basically just commandeer the businesses. And then pay the owners a fee to continue to run the places.
Now this was obviously a scare tactic that was designed to send up red flags to the casino owners that something drastic was in store for them. But he was literally just gonna take over the casinos. Just basically confiscate the profits. And then tell the casino owners, "You stay in business, guys, and we'll pay you a fee for running things, but these businesses are basically ours."
Well, here's how this has all come down now. The most profitable river boat casinos in Illinois now may cut their hours of operation in order to skirt a new 70 percent tax approved by the legislature over the weekend, gambling officials said yesterday. One casino operator, Argosy Gaming Company said yesterday that the higher tax rate was expected to decrease its per-share earnings by 25 to 30 cents this year. Company also said it was looking at reductions in marketing expenditures, introducing admission fees as well as reducing the hours to offset the tax increase.
Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Gaming Association, which represents the nine existing casinos in the state, said the legislation hikes the tax on adjusted gross receipts over 250 million, to 70 percent from the current 50 percent. While the 50 percent tax rate will apply to receipts over 100 million instead of the previous level of over 200 million. Once this is signed by Governor Rod Blagoyevich, the new rates will take effect July first. Swoik said, "I think we'll see a rollback in the hours," adding that some casinos may go only two shifts to avoid
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Galen] [edit]
profit level that would subject them to a higher tax. This, my friends, is dynamic scoring. This is exactly what dynamic scoring is. So these clowns in Illinois say, "Seventy percent tax rate on all receipts over 250 million. And the casinos are saying, "OK, fine. We're just gonna cut back on our hours of operation and never get there. We're never gonna get to 250 million, in order to avoid the 70 percent tax rate." Folks, this is a classic.
This is the best example on the boards yet that I could give you of dynamic scoring. Here is the state government of Illinois figuring these casino owners are stupid and they'll actually work for 30 cents on every dollar they earn. They'll actually invest and they'll work hard and they'll be innovative and they'll be creative in order to keep 30 cents of every dollar of profit. State of Illinois thinks that's what's gonna happen. But no, these guys are not idiots. They're saying 70 percent? You're gonna take 70 percent of everything over my 250 million dollar profit? Well, hell with that! I'm just not gonna be open long enough to get there. Screw you!
So the governor of Illinois is gonna say, "Okay, wait a minute, then we're gonna take 70 percent on 100 million." They'll do something to take it down to get their rate or whatever. And if they keep going far enough, they're going to force these guys out of business. 'Cuz these guys in the casino industry, this is not going to be worth it. In which case the state would probably move in and take over the whole thing which may be the ultimate idea anyway.
Again, Tom Swoik, S W O I K, executive director, Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said; "I think we'll see a rollback in the hours." He added, some casinos may go to only two shifts to avoid reaching a profit level that would subject them to higher tax rates. So you actually have an industry saying; "We don't want high profits at this tax rate.
It's not worth the work, it's not worth the time, it's not worth the innovation, it's not worth it. He added that such a move could decrease the state's revenue projections or the tax increase to less than 100 million, instead of 201 million they think they're gonna get. Dynamic scoring - here it is. The state's gonna end up with half what they expect because the casino industry isn't gonna play along. Riverboats will also see their admissions taxes go up, as much as five dollars under the bill based on their previous year's total.
We'll be back, ladies and gentlemen. Professor Limbaugh citing example after example after example to demonstrate that what we say here is right. We'll be back.
[Rush promo]
[Ad: Trimspa]
[Ad: Freecreditreport.com]
[Ad: Genself solar electric power systems]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Genself]
[ad: Marinall (?)]
[promo: moneytalk]
[promo: KPSI]
Rush: I've got time for a couple of quick emails here.
'Dear Rush, I guess slum theme parks is not such a bad idea. Most people in this country have no idea how good we have it compared to the rest of the world.'
'Hey Rush, your comments about Habitats Global Village are so far from reality, I can't believe that you can expect your listeners to accept any of your observations as credible. Your mouth is reflecting a mind that's closed to outside input. I'm sorry you couldn't have taken a few minutes to understand what the message of these homes is really all about. Beyond that, your comments are a great disservice to the thousands of volunteers who build habitat homes.' Signed Lyle Allen, president, Habitat for Humanity of Merced County.
I wasn't talking about the homes you guys build. Is -- that what the slum is? Is your own homes? I thought you -- maybe -- now I've really understood this now. Are Habitat for Humanity homes gonna be the slum theme park? I didn't think --
[ad: Population Planning]
[promo: Joey English]
[promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[ABC news]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Tom] [edit]
[ABC news]
[ad: Walt Disney World vacations promotion by VISA]
[ABC news]
[ad: Tyson]
[end stinger for ABC news]
[ad: General Air Conditioning and Heating]
[promo: Joy Short show]
[Promo: Rush the Lying Nazi Whore Show]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Galen] [edit]
Greetings, my friends. Welcome back. It's great to have you with us. The EIB Network and the Rush Limbaugh program, the nation's premiere radio program. The program which has re-defined the media. Great to have you along for the ride. The telephone numbers: 800-282-2882 and the email address; rush@eibnet.com, and welcome to those of you watching on the ditto-cam. Happy to turn it on today so that you may participate and get the entire viewing pleasure. You may watch the program as well as listen to it.
Hang on a minute, I just got a prop note here. The Surgeon General saying he would go along with a total outlaw of tobacco products. Really? We gotta get that. Tell Joe if he can - Apparently ABC News at the top of the hour ran a soundbite of the "Sturgeon General" saying that he would go along with a total outlaw of tobacco products.
A total ban? Outlawing of tobacco products? He would have no problem with that? The only place you'd be able to get them - at Indian reservations and at the Slum Theme Park. This boggles the mind. How much money does government need in order to finance its various programs from the sales tax of tobacco products? And the "Sturgeon General" says; "Fine, I'd be willing to totally do away with tobacco products, ban them."
A couple of emails here at Rush at friends; "Dear Rush, You are out of your league and an embarrassment to real conservatives. Please shut up. Please shut up on issues of the environment and health care and education. You are not knowledgeable in those fields. Stick to issues of a free market economy and defense and you'll regain a modicum of credibility. You do not have a sound philosophical foundation for other issues. Sincerely, Clifford Simsky."
Uh, what did I say that upset ol' Cliff? Must have been the hurricane discussion or something to do with the environment. They always come out of the woodwork when we discuss science, here. "You idiot, you stupe. You don't know what you're talking about. Shut up." [Audible crumpling paper]
"Dear Rush, I was listening, as I often do while I was out getting lunch, I was intrigued by your noting the opening of a slum theme park, AKA the Wally World version of Habitat for Humanity. The thought that kept going over and over in my mind was, when during their first year of operation do they plan on having a gay pride day?
Everyone knows this phenomenon's a world reality. Over 10 percent of the population's homosexual. What better place to show and display a warm welcome than a theme park devoted to showing the realities of world living?" Well, theme parks do have gay pride days, so when will Habitat for Humanity have theirs?
And then there's this one; "Hey Rush, wouldn't it -" This is too good. This says it all. "Wouldn't you like to be the building contractor for the Habitat Slum Park? You could cut all the corners you want? If the building collapses on a group of school kids on a field trip, it just enhances their learning experience."
[Laughter] That's the best one yet. This is from Alex, doesn't give me his last name. Or maybe Alex Talley in Rock Hill, wherever Rock Hill is. No, Rock Ridge was in "Blazing Saddles". "Wouldn't you like to be the building contractor for the Habitats slum park? You could cut all the corners you want.
If the building collapses on a group of school kids on a field trip, it just enhances their learning experience." And here's a headline; "Limbaugh Laughs at Thought of Building Collapse on School Kids". [More laughter] "See, we told you." Here's how the free market really works. You want to know the contractor business? Go to the Slum Theme Park.
OK, well, let's move on here, my friends. In the stack of stuff. This is the story from the Times of London
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Galen] [edit]
and heavy smokers would have to sign contracts promising to diet or give up cigarettes in return for treatment under radical new plans being drawn up by the Labor Party. [Two sniffs] I have the sniffles every time I start laughing now.
Written contracts would set out the patient's responsibilities while offering them help to cut down or quit smoking, lose weight, take more exercise or eat a more nutritious diet, The Times has learned. Those who fail to keep their side of the bargain or kept missing appointments could be denied free care. [Laughter]
Denied free care! Free care! These people, what idiots. They think it's gonna be free? The contracts would also bind doctors to certain standards of care and to provide a formal channel of redress if they fail to measure up. Now, the move comes amid growing concern about the strain on the health service from avoidable illnesses linked to smoking, alcohol, bad diet and workplace stress.
For example, Britain suffers a relatively high incidence of heart disease and lung cancer. The plan is outlined in five new policy documents that have been put out for consultation among Labor Party members. They'll be debated at the party conference this Autumn, agreed to in 2004, and form the basis of the next election manifesto. The Labor Party election manifesto.
So if you want free health care in the U.K., quote-unquote, "free", this would not - Now look, I know some of these practices are really responsible, some thing that everybody ought to do. Yeah, but do you want the government mandating this? What? What? Well, OK, I can see that, if your neighbor is gonna pay for your health care, then maybe your neighbor does have a right to take some responsibility over your slothful existence. It might have legs, then. The health service document describes the NHS, the National Health Service is a free -
Wait a minute, wait a minute. I don't, I'm not qualified to be discussing this. I'm not a real conservative. That guy just sent me the email. Never mind, folks. I wadded this. Let me read it again just to make sure. I may not be qualified to be discussing this. Uh, "Dear Rush, you are out of your league, and an embarrassment to real conservatives. Please shut up on issues of the environment, health care - Yeah, there it is. [Wadding paper sounds.]
OK, so much for that story. We've gotta move on. There's something here about which I'm an expert. In this weapons of mass destruction business, this won't die. I mean, Paul Krugman in the New York Times today starts out this way; "The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials back up the sources who told my colleague, Nicholas Kristoff that the Bush administration grossly manipulated intelligence about WMDs. And anyone who talks about an intelligence failure is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded the reports supporting their case while dismissing contrary evidence."
You know, folks, if you want to read Democrat talking points on a given subject, or something akin to them, read Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times. It's a daily regurgitation of the Democrat party's fax machine. Whoever has it, and wherever it's from, it goes to Krugman, it goes straight to you. Krugman I mean just a way station for it. Krugman's column's not so much commentary as it is regurgitation.
Now I know that research is not a top priority at the New York Times these days, but just this past Saturday, the date was May 31st, the Washington Post ran a news story by Walter Pincus, and it was called "Tenet defends Iraq intelligence". And the subtitle of the story is, "CIA chief rebuts allegations of pressure from administration before the war". The Post story references an unnamed source complaining of administration pressure and others making criticisms generally. And the following excerpt was the thrust of the Post story; "CIA director George J. Tenet took the unusual step yesterday of publicly defending the agency's intelligence on Iraq's possession of chemical and biological
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Galen] [edit]
growing criticism that the Bush administration exaggerated what it knew about Iraqi weapons programs to advance the case for going to war. The statement by Tenet was a rarity for a director of Central Intelligence and normally does not react publicly to criticism about intelligence matters except during testimony before Congress. It underscored the ferment building within intelligence agencies because U.S. forces in Iraq so far have not uncovered any proscribed weapons.
There's another excerpt from the Post story; "Tenet's statement yesterday suggested that he is concerned the criticism is getting out of hand and could threaten the credibility of the country's whole intelligence system. Now if Krugman had bothered - Paul Krugman in the New York Times - if he had bothered, he could have easily found Tenet's statement on the CIA's website. As the Post wrote, it was unusual for a CIA director to issue such a statement, so it would have been worth Krugman's precious time to look at it. And I've got the - I have the Tenet statement right here, it's dated May 30th, last Friday. Very short.
I'm gonna read it to you now. Quote: "Integrity and objectivity are hallmarks of the intelligence profession. Our role is to call it like we see it, to tell policy makers what we know, what we don't know, what we think and what we base it on. That's the code we live by. And that's what policy makers expect from us. And that's exactly what was done and continues to be done on intelligence issues related to Iraq. I'm enormously proud of the work of our analysts, the integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong."
Now, I know this rather significant fact is not exactly what people like Paul Krugman and the rest of you anti-WMD people want to read, but if you're gonna accuse the President of the United States of running a con by pressuring the CIA to produce phony intelligence, then you owe it to the public to mention what the CIA director himself says about such a pathetic and false charge. Now one of the things that we did - Well, last night, in pursuit of all this, went to the CIA website and the whole intelligence document.
It's amazing. the whole intelligence document is there. It's a pdf file and I sent the link to Coco Junior, our webmaster. Coco senior on vacation this week. Coco junior is doing the website and I've linked it. I told him I want the link posted so that you can go see this thing and you'll - It's not up there yet? Well! Coco, go ahead and put it up there now. Just put the thing now and let people link to it and folks when you go look at it - Give us about - I don't know - 10 minutes to get it up there, it'll be near the top of the home page. And you hit on the link and you go look at the CIA report and you tell me honestly if you think this was all phonied and faked up.
It is, the level of detail that you gotta go back to 1998, you gotta examine everything Bill Clinton said about this, and say, "That's a lie." You've gotta go back and everything the UN has been saying since 1990 was a lie. I mean, to say that the CIA phonied this up at the behest of the Bush administration is to, in essence say that everybody who has been warning the world of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been phonying it up, long before George W. Bush came along. Because all Bush has been doing is echoing things that have been said by countless people who preceded him.
Anyway, quick time out. We'll be back and continue here in just a moment.
[Ad: Rushlimbaugh.com]
[Ad: Citrical]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Blanchard and Company]
[Ad: Manhattan West Skyline Funding Company]
[Promo: Tetanus and Diptheria Vaccinations by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases]
Rush Intro
You know, when we talked about this yesterday, the run-up to the Iraq war was 14 months. It's a long time for Saddam Hussein to hide stuff, know that we're coming, got all that time to disperse it, hide it, and so forth. The same liberals who demanded that Bush spend all that time, more time on diplomacy, thereby giving Hussein more time to move or destroy or hide those weapons of mass destruction, those same liberals would have been the first to admonish Bush had he gone ahead and attacked Iraq with the prolonged U.N. diplomacy - even if tons and tons of chemicals and poisons had been found the first day of the war.
If we'd have gone in there, the hell with this diplomacy, we've given this guy enough time, moved in there, done this last fall, for example, and found these weapons of mass destruction, the same liberals today who are crying about "No weapons of mass destruction!", would have been bellyaching like you never heard. If we'd gone in there and found them. But had somehow leapfrogged over the diplomatic process.
We now have this sound bite that ran during the top of the hour news on ABC radio network. Surgeon General - All I know, I haven't heard this, we're gonna listen to this together - [bell tones sound] Hold it, I didn't cue it! What was that? Oh, sorry about that. Nevertheless, my friends, we're gonna listen to this together, as a family, together. Never heard this sound bite, only had a sketchy report what this
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Here it is.
Unknown Questioner: Admiral Carmona, would you support the abolition of all tobacco products?
Admiral Carmona: I would at this point. Yes sir.
Rush: I would support the abolition of all tobacco products. That was the Surgeon General of the -- he actually did say it. Where -- I need to know where this happened. At sounds like -- was this some sort of congressional hearing? What was it? You know what it was? Find out -- find out what it was. Here play that again Mike. I got to hear this -- hear it again.
Unknown Questioner: Admiral Carmona, would you support the abolition of all tobacco products?
Admiral Carmona: I would at this point. Yes sir.
Rush: My friends don't -- there's something about this. Just a second now - just a second. Who is it that's trying to exploit tobacco products for their own personal gain and their own political gain? The poli -- which politicians? Liberals -- liberals and democrats, okay! And they're out there making it sound like tobacco is the biggest killer on the face of the earth next to SUV's. "We got to get rid of it. Tobacco's killing people. People are using it and they don't know how dangerous it is. You've heard it all blah, blah, blah." So all of the sudden the Bush Administration's Surgeon General says, "Ahh, I'd be all for banishing it."
Could this maybe be calling a bluff? "Oh, okay you guys want to get rid of this big revenue for final. We'll be glad to. You're going to ban it in New York anyway, you're banning it in a lot of -- well let's just go ahead and ban it nation wide. Yeah, let's just -- let's just go ahead and do it." Then the democrats come back and say, "This is a dirty trick. Bush is just trying to bankrupt the states or what have you." There's more here than meets the eye, is all I'm saying.
We have a brief time out here my friends. It's the bottom of the hour; it's an EIB operational pause, a profit center break if you will. We'll be back, get some of your phone calls soon at 800-282-2882. Stay right where you are.
[ad: Math Made Easy Videos]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI-News]
[Promo: The Car Nut Show]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. We are here at the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and back to the phones.
Naples Florida. Toby, hello sir, welcome to the program.
Toby: Yeah hi Rush, I want to try to get with you on the slum theme park story.
Rush: Oh yes.
Toby: You know, I'm from South Africa and I just want to say that the experience that I had in Durban about a year ago, on a house building project in a slum. It was actually quite inspiring and I think that you should agree that volunteerism is a major sort of ingredient of any free society and the volunteerism that's involved in building houses in slums whether it be in America or other parts of the world is really very admirable and also a theme park shouldn't just be entertainment value, it should be educational and to bring American kids to a part of the world in Southern Georgia where they can see not just slums of Americans but slums from other parts of the world surely can only open their eyes to the responsibilities that we all have to look after people less well than ourselves.
Rush: I think the United States does that better than any nation on earth.
Toby: Yes, I would agree with you. I would agree with you but it's of no harm in actually bringing people's attention to it in a way, which is imaginative, but also bring (Rush interrupts)...
Rush: Well, wait a minute; I may be misunderstanding something here. I know that Habitat for Humanity is basically a self-help bunch. I mean it's all about "building your own homes." Now am I ...
Toby: It's probably that -- it's what happens is that people are selected on the basis of their social economic status, their willingness to help out in the building of their own homes but then what happens is that Habitat brings volunteers from the community and from all over the world in fact to
Rush: Yes.
Toby: ...to help them build their houses...
Rush: Yes.
Toby: ... and I'm not, and of coarse that means that the labor come free...
Rush: But that -- my question is, is Habitat for Humanity calling itself a slum?
Toby: No, completely not.
Rush: Well then what is this theme park going to be? Is this theme park going to be "Come look at a Habitat for Humanity development,"
Toby: No-no absolutely not. What they are doing is they are showing people what it's like to transform a community from a slum into a Habitat Community with decent houses, sewage, lights, electricity and so on.
Rush: That's -- well then, they need a better press release announcing what they're doing. I don't know where you got that but if that's- that's not at all, I mean, the word slum shows up throughout this story and I don't think Habitat for Humanity considers it self's -- themselves to be slum lords.
Toby: Well, whoever put out the press release, I haven't seen it but they obviously need to re-jig it somehow but you know, going to visit a slum and seeing next door what it can be transformed into after a little bit of hard labor from people like you and me who can afford to give a week of our time is actually, is extremely inspiring.
Rush: I just don't...
Toby: I would strongly recommend anybody; I mean, in this project in Durban, there were three thousand people from about twenty-five countries around the world. We built a hundred houses in one week and it was just extraordinary from 6:00am to 8:00pm...
Rush: I heard...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...a hundred houses in one week?
Toby: A hundred houses in one week.
Rush: Yeah, that's kind of scary, don't you think?
Toby: Why's that?
Rush: A hundred houses in a week? How long are these things expected to last?
Toby: Well, we had professional builders overseeing the project. The houses were simple construction...
Rush: Well, that gives us all confidence.
Toby: Well, (Chuckling)come on Rush. We had simple materials that they were strong materials. They were cement blocks, they were tiled roofs, they were...
Rush: Okay let me cut to the root of this. The thing that I 'm hearing is that Americans don't understand poverty and American need to be shown just how rotten things are. How horrible things are so they can appreciate how good they have it. Now to a certain extent, now I've gotten in trouble saying that, over the coarse of my broadcast career, I have tried to point out that compared to world poverty we don't know what it is in America.
I wrote about it in a book, I quoted Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation whose all kind of research on this and each time that I have tried to make this point I am assailed by people who claim I have no compassion no understanding. That I don't understand how bad things really are in this country and now I'm hearing that we need to do this "slum theme park," to do the express thing I've been trying to point out for the near fifteen years I've been hosting this program.
That in this country, and we've done the poverty statistics, you'd be amazed that how many TV sets there are in the average poverty stricken families home in America by virtue of the way we define it and I've often said that poverty in this country can't hold a candle to real poverty around the world and every time I do boy I --here come people out of the woodwork assailing my compassion, lack thereof or what have you.
But I - at the same time there's a small part of me that is, and I will admit this, that's offended that some how we don't know and we have to have now a "theme park" to illustrate how some in the rest of the world live. All the American and worldwide left do is regale us with how horrible living conditions are and they blame America for it. They say we are 5% of the worlds population but we rape 25% of the worlds resources and that poverty world wide is our fault because we're stealing all the resources and all of the natural things that these other countries have that their own countries could be using. We go to Africa, tours of Africa and people say, "Look what you've caused," and this sort of thing.
Now, I for one, have long been a proponent of positive thinking in advocacy on this and I think there is a movement in this country that's destined to keep people poor. That's doing everything it can to keep people in poverty and I think it's, you know -- there's a liberal wing of the Democratic Party is engaged in this. It's to their best interest. They - I mean it's their political interest to keep -- we had this -- they had a State Treasurer of Kentucky practically admit this and confirm it last week, or maybe it was -- yeah, last week. When he was talking about, "Well, you know, the poor and the middle class continue to grow in this state," that means we need more democrats here because we're the ones that understand them. I mean veritably admitting that democrats are naturally inclined to preside and rule over poverty. Not help people out of it but prevail and rule over it.
So I - there's part of this that offends me. Well, we don't know what it's really like until we see Habitat for Humanities theme park, if indeed, we all need sensitivity training, I guess, is what this is but from some of the calls we getting today I'm a little confused about what this thing is. If some people are trying to -- sounds to me like people are saying this theme park is an expose of what poverty around the world is really like and I'm getting the impression that's it's a display of "poverty in this country" and then some people are saying, "Oh no it's a Habitat for Humanity demo. Come see what we do," so there's confusion about it at least from some of the things people on the phones are saying.
Matt in Philadelphia, welcome to the program, great to have you with us.
Rush: Rush, real pleasure to talk to you but listen...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Thank you sir very much
Matt: I got a point about the weapons of mass destruction. I'm having a really hard time accepting these accusations the Administration lied, over politicized the intelligence on the weapons. I would think that they, you know, they went into this with eyes open and you know, I don't think that they're that foolish to believe that the political consequences wouldn't be enormous if they went in, fought this war under the guise of phony weapons and then didn't find them and I just don't believe that Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld and even Powell to some extent is that foolish or risky. I didn't know what your thoughts on that were.
Rush: I think it's a good point, by the way, we -- I just got the word that we posted this link, it's near the top of the home page at rushlimbaugh.com. It's a huge CIA document that pretty much details the intelligence that was given to the Administration. I mean it is amazingly detailed -- to think you -- just go look at it folks. To think that it was all made up, this would be like cheating in school. It'd be easier to learn what you're going to learn rather than find a way to cheat to pass the test and have so many people cutting a corner by cheating rather than by learning it. This would be much harder to assemble and fake rather than just do the work and produce the real results, which this is. I think your point is actually a very good one.
Matt: Thank you.
Rush: They had to know the excuse -- the risks they're running here and they wouldn't knowingly create the situation they've now created, thinking that they could live through it and survive. They're just not that kind of people, you know, the uhh, we've had eight years of Clinton where people are accustomed to the President lying. They expect a President to lie. That's what they think powerful people do, so here we have a new chief executive and the same people who have those judgments of Clinton, "Well, that's what they all do," and they're now making those judgments about Bush, he's a different animal when it come to this.
I'm just telling you, these things did exist. They are somewhere. I'm -- my friends, this rift, I'll call it, I've been going through for a month now. We know those weapons existed. Everybody at the UN, everybody at the European Union, everybody, France, Germany, Russia, they all knew the weapons existed. Saddam admitted it. There were inspectors up there in 1998 that found some of this stuff, then they were kicked out. To think that nothing was done from 1998 to 2002 on these weapons is sophistry.
The real question is -- there're two questions. If these weapons generally didn't exist, genuinely didn't, if Saddam truthfully really got rid of them, he could still be ruling Iraq today? He could have, if he would have convinced people, he would have made it very tough for this war to take place. There were other reasons given but if he could have demonstrated and if it's -- apparently it's not that hard to prove to liberals that those weapons don't exist. We haven't found them in five or six weeks, so it doesn't make any sense to me that this megalomaniac tyrant would give up everything he had on a dare. It -- he could keep his palaces, he could keep his torture-chambers, he keeps everything just by letting the world in and see he doesn't have anything.
Number two, we know they existed, where are they? That's the real question that'll haunt everybody. Where are these things and in what condition are they? Because folks, anybody who will be intellectually honest with you, and I don't care what their ideology is, any body intellectually honest will tell you they know they existed and probably still do.
You know what an envelope full of anthrax can do. How hard is it to hide an envelope of anthrax? How hard is it to hide a phial of botulinum? How hard is it to hide some of this stuff? It isn't. How hard is it to reduce it, freeze-dry it, get it out of the country.
I mean, these are the things that people ought to be concerned about but they're not because you have people that are in such a deep quest to get their own political power back in this country that they are willing to overlook some of the real threats and dangers posed by the apparent inability to find this stuff, but is going to be found and you people out there who are making all this rigmarole, hub bub about it, are going to be profoundly embarrassed again. It's going to be the Wellstone...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... Memorial all over for you. It's going to be the embarrassment of Frank Lautenburg and Toricelli all over again for you. It's going to be the embarrassment of Tom Daschle and everything else in the Democratic Party that's embarrassed you in the last eighteen months compounded by a factor of ten cause these things are going to be found.
We'll take a break, we'll be back, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush]
[ad: Rush for Sleep Number Beds]
[ad: S. G. Cowan]
[ad: Breast Cancer Research Foundation]
[Promo: Biography for Radio]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right, I want to move on to something else here folks. This is another area that the liberals are attacking Bush and those of you, by the way, on hold to discuss other things, don't go away, we'll get to you here in due coarse.
The New York Times yesterday, audit fines, big problems in handling of 9/11 detentions.
The New York Times: The Justice Departments roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants after the September 11th attacks was plagued with significant problems that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in prison in unduly harsh conditions according to an internal report released today.
Rush: That's The New York Times. The Washington Post lead editorial today, "In Denial on Detention," for one thing -- this an excerpt now;
The Washington Post: For one thing, Mr. Fine's report confirms what press accounts have suggested since shortly after the 9/11 attacks, that many of the 762 immigration detainees were simply people unfortunate enough to have a problem with their immigration status whom investigators happen to stumbled upon. Some appear to have been arrested more by virtue of...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
The Washington Post: ...orders or tenuous connections to an investigative lead rather than by any genuine indications of a possible connection with terrorist activity, the report says. In New York in the weeks after the attacks the FBI did not adequately distinguish between real threats and "run of the mill," immigration cases brought to light by the investigation, the report finds.
Now just about every one was deemed "Of interest" and the designation had big consequences. The department had a policy of opposing bail for all such people. It took far too long to give detainee's notice of the charges against them and "of interest," detainee's could not be released or deported until the FBI had cleared them of process that dragged on for long periods of time.
Rush: The Post concludes by saying;
The Washington Post: The report acknowledges the extraordinary pressures the department faces in the weeks after 9/11 and the fact that the detainee's had all broken immigration laws but as Mr. Fine said in the statement, "While the chaotic situation and the uncertainty surrounding the detainees connections to terrorism explains some of the problem we found in our review they do not explain them all."
Rush: It's not one thing, it's another. There is just a total gang up, what ever these people can come up with to gang up on Bush, whether it's weapons of mass destruction or now the detainees at Guantanamo Bay or 9/11. It's - nothing bothers them, nothing fazes them. They're just going to hammer Bush at what ever and I've got a rather simple answer here to The Washington Post and their editorial and I want to take you back to Pearl Harbor.
After the US was attacked at Pearl Harbor, you liberals' favorite President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordered the forced relocation of about 120,000 Japanese Americans and Americans of Japanese ancestry from California and the Pacific Northwest to internment camps in the southwest. They lost they're jobs. They lost their homes. They lost their property and this mass violation of civil liberties was based on one thing and one thing only, that they were Japanese. It was racism. These people had not committed any offences at all. They were not illegal aliens. The fact that FDR committed this obscene act has never distracted from the lefts admiration for the man.
I will never understand this as long as I live. Yet the Bush Administration is accused of civil liberties violations at virtually every turn whenever it attempts to deal with terrorist cells and Illegal immigrants. The Bush Administration detains 762 people for ninety days or more after we were attacked on 9/11. All of them were illegal aliens. They were not denied their right to lawyers and based on The Washington Post editorial there seems to be the suggestion that our government should have known in advance which among these people was a terrorist or not. I mean with further investigation. Everybody knows our immigration system is an absolute mess. A little more on this but I am unfortunately out of time. 120,000 FDR -- 762 Bush and who we complaining about?
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: UniCars Honda]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Unicars Honda]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: Big Brothers / Big Sisters]
[promo: KPSI]
Rush: And, that's it for the second hour of our excursion into broadcast excellence. It's not looking good today for Martha Stewart, ladies and gentlemen. We'll have details of that, and other exciting stuff in the stacks of stuff, when we come back. Don't go away.
[KPSI community calendar]
[promo: Joey English]
[ABC news]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: See Clearly Method]
[ABC-News]
[ad: ONDCP --Partnership for a Drug Free America]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Weingarten and Hough]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Go ahead, turn your radios up, folks, make sure you hear everything. You don't want to miss a syllable of the Rush Limbaugh Program, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute.
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...advance conservative studies. It's great to have you along with us. A shear-delight my friends to be here, assessing all these important things here with you people who make the country work. The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush@eibnet.com.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Times had done it again. You just have to know that these other Defense Department, Pentagon reporters in Washington - just have to wonder who he knows. Who are his sources? Where does he get this stuff?
Washington Times: Al Qaeda terrorists and related groups are set to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in deadly strikes according to a new CIA report.
Rush: Do we believe this? Well, why? Why are we going to believe this if we don't believe what the CIA said about Iraq? No. I'm issuing you people a challenge. You liberals out there, you sick puppies, who are just seething with boiling, fermenting rage over the fact that George W. Bush is President. You have seized on the fact that we haven't hound -- found any weapons of mass destruction in less time than it took us to produce the Rose Law Firm billing records. We haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in less time than it took Janet Reno to invade Waco and the Branch Davidian Compound. We haven't found the weapons of mass destruction.
It's not just that you think we haven't found them, you liberals think they never existed. You think that this was a lie. You think that Colin Powell, the CIA, the Bush Administration, Cheney, Bush, whoever else "lied" to the world in order to get this war done for what ever convoluted, kooky conspiratorial reason you have. Either blew up Iraq so that Halliburton and Bechtel could rebuild it or so we could steal the oil and build up Bush's oil buddies portfolios, whatever cockamamie, idiotic reason you people have come up with. You think the weapons of mass destruction never existed. That's the position the liberals are staking out, is it not?
They're not saying that he got rid of them. They're not saying they never existed -- well, they may say they never existed but they -- then we were lied too. So now here comes Bill Gertz, The Washington Times today saying, that according to a new CIA report;
Washington Times: Al Qaeda terrorist and related groups are set to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in deadly strikes. Al Qaeda's goal is the use of chemical, biological, radiological nuclear weapons to cause mass casualties, the CIA stated in an internal report produced last month. However most attacks by the group especially by associated extremists, probably will be small scale incorporating crude delivery systems and easily produced or obtained chemicals or toxins or radiological substances, the report said. Islamic extremist linked to Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden have a wide variety of potential agents and delivery means to chose from for chemical, biological and radiological nuclear attacks, said the four page report titled, "Terrorist CBRN Materials and Effects." This unclassified report was produced by the CIA's Intelligence Directorate and a copy of it was obtained by, dah, dut, dah, duh, The Washington Times. The report identifies several deadly toxins and chemicals that Al Qaeda could use to conduct the attacks including nerve gases, germ and toxin weapons, anthrax and ricin and radiological dispersal devices also known as dirty bombs.
Rush: So what are we to make of this? If I know you liberals the way I know you liberals and I (laughing) I know you liberals. I know what you're thinking. That all of this is continuing to be manufactured, that Al Qaeda doesn't have all this stuff. That all this is being manufactured just to make sure you or the country supports Bush at war to focus attention away from his dismal economic failures and to keep us geared up so the defense budget could rise and keep the country focused on the strong suit of George W. Bush foreign policy. That this is all a conspiracy and I want you people to know something. You liberals are beginning to sound like you have your own chapter of The John Birch Society. You're beginning to sound like it and I -- I --I...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...know that many of you out there thinking this is all one giant case of manipulation. They manipulated us into Iraq and now that we're in Iraq, "Oh-oh, now we go to Iran. Why guess what? Iran's the focal point of terrorism now, not Iraq. Why the administration hasn't found it's weapons of mass destruction, so to save face we got to go to Iran and when we get through there we're going to go to North Korea. Administration's manipulating us, and the CIA's lying all the way cause they got to do what Bush tells them or they're going to be in big --big trouble here. So Al Qaeda's the latest to have weapons of mass destruction not Saddam."
Pretty much summed up what the liberals think. I mean if -- what position can they possibly be in if they believe the CIA is lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if they believe everybody from the United Nations to the International Atomic Agency Administration to the European Union or whoever, Bill Clinton, you name it. If everybody since 1990 whose been claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is lying about it, how do they now turn around and believe this? Well this is the thing, they have to believe -- the liberals have to believe that terrorists are not evil. They have to believe that terrorists are really not as bad as Bush is making them out to be. That all of this is exaggerated.
The latest thing -- I just got through talking to the Washington Post lead editorial today, uhh liberals are now all upset about how, (Rush in a characterized lispy voice) "These human rights violation have taken place in Guantanamo Bay. These detainee's down there, some of them weren't even related to terrorism, Rush. They just been- they were denied lawyers and they were denied access to what ever this and that and it's just a shame we are going so far out of the realm of what the United States always was."
It's as though 9/11 never happened to these people. It's as thought that 9/11, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon just never happened. We all ready have an illegal immigrant problem and every one of these people detained was illegal. That's enough for me. What does illegal mean? If it doesn't mean anything then I guess we should have a different view of it but everybody detained down at Guantanamo Bay was illegal something. Illegal terrorist or illegal immigrant.
The same people complaining about this, still to this day will not complain about FDR and his one hundred twenty thousand Japanese American Citizens who were interned in camps all because they were Japanese. Pure full-fledged racism.
There are people out there that want to kill Americans and they will take any weapons they can get to do it and you have to wonder for you liberals, how many people have to die before you actually come to grips with what we face or is it that you think that Americans -- some Americans at random deserve to die because of the evil we have perpetrated across the globe. You know there are some liberals who hold that view. That we and our military are the focus of evil in the modern world and none of this would be happening were we not the provocateurs.
We're so powerful and so big that we give these people no choice but then to strike out at us to prevent us from eventually taking them over. I know it doesn't make any sense unless you understand how liberals think.
So we've got this story that the CIA now says that Al Qaeda is set to use chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons in their strikes and I just -- I want to know if we don't believe it about Iraq why in the world are liberals going to believe it about Al Qaeda? I don't know how you can? I don't know how you liberals can believe this and be consistent. You -- because if you liberals are going to claim there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then there aren't any for Al Qaeda to get. Where else are they going to get them?
North Korea? Iran, axis of evil maybe -- no you can't do that because you can't admit there's an "Axis of Evil". Even saying there's an "Axis of Evil" is provocative and Bush -- "That was a huge mistake," and he didn't sign Kyoto. "Oh, that was a huge mistake," and he wouldn't sign on to the International Criminal Court, "Oh, that was a huge mistake." Everything that the world is seeing as taking place or manifesting itself in action against the United States I guess is our fault and you wonder why nobody wants to listen to what you have to say. So we now have the same challenge ahead of us.
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...Al Qaeda trying to get hold of these weapons. If they do have them, there might be a logical connection here to how. Oh, I know, these -- the latest - there's a -- if this is another - there's a mass grave, another two hundred kids buried with there dolls, another mass grave in Iraq discovered.
I tell you what my thought was when I saw this story of that mass grave. I went all the way back to 1990 in the first Gulf War, 1991 when the, I guess it was at the time the Secretary of Defense, Colin Powell said, "Stop this massacre on my "Highway to Death," or "Highway of Death," these people are retreating. There's no sense Mr. President on continuing this. They're retreating. The pictures are horrible. You are not looking good here. "
So we let the Republican Guard and the Iraqi Military, under the command of Saddam Hussein retreat safely to go back and murder and murder and torture and rape and enslave and we find another mass grave and the very people who are now obsessed with this fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction have somehow without thinking, maneuvered themselves into a position where they had they been in charge would have allowed this to continue.
The peace movement organized itself around Saddam Hussein's torture-chambers and allowing them to continue. The peace movement organized itself around keeping Saddam in power to do what we all now know he was doing and they are gleeful that they haven't found -- we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction. I'm just -- I'm amazed and these are the people who constantly demand and get the credit for all the compassion, for all the understanding, all the big heartedness. These are the people who we can trust on human rights violations. They're going to go get the bad guys and what do they do, they organize their movement around supporting them, because who they really hate, people like Bush, not Saddam.
At any rate I got to take a little break here my friends, cause this is disgusting. The more I think about it -- it just gets -- cause I see this story, CIA says Al Qaeda ready to use nukes or other weapons of mass destruction and I know that the liberals of this country have gotten themselves in a bind. They cannot believe this now because they're out there saying the CIA has lied to Bush or Bush made them lie or whatever about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We'll be back, stay with us. You see where it's going to end up folks, as far as the liberals are concerned. They've backed themselves into about fifteen corners here, there's no way out of this, for them. We'll take a brief time out. Don't go away cause we will be right back.
[Promo: Limbaugh Letter --EIB Network]
[ad: General Steel]
[ad: Petsmart]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: LendingTree.com]
[ad: Union Bank of California]
[ad: The U.S. Marines]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: The views expressed by the host on this program are mine. We go back to the phones, welcome my friends.
This is Kelly in Tampa. Hi Kelly.
Kelly: Hi. I have to say that I listen to your on a regular basis and usually with my mouth hanging open and I'm not meaning from awe. I consider myself to be a liberal democrat.
Rush: Your mouth is -- wait a minute, is your mouth open now?
Kelly: Yes, because I'm trying to talk. I believe (Rush interrupts)...
Rush: Oh, very good
Kelly: ...that there were weapons of mass destruction or are, perhaps they were moved, perhaps they were destroyed and I "do not" understand the things that you say that the liberals are seething, the liberals are so glad they haven't found them, the liberals are this and that. The stuff that you come up with is just out of this world.
Rush: Kelly...
Kelly: I do -- I do not hear this from anybody at all.
Rush: Kelly, have you ever heard of Robert "Sheets" Byrd?
Kelly: Excuse me?
Rush: Have you ever hear of Robert "Sheets" Byrd?
Kelly: Well, yes but that's not -- He's a leader or a pundit that's listened to very often.
Rush: But he's -- he's the leading democrat in the Senate and about ten days ago, Robert Byrd accused the Administration of lying about the weapons of mass destruction and making it all up so as to take the nation to war, manipulated the people and since Robert "Sheets" Byrd opened that door, there have been liberals in the U.S. House, liberals in the U.S .Senate, liberal special interest group representatives who have joined the chorus. Tony Blair in the United Kingdom is now being accused - there are cartoons of him in British newspapers with big long Pinocchio nose because he lied about weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell has been accused of it. The CIA has been accused of making it up. I don't know -- how could you have missed this.
Kelly: I'm not missing it, I think you are totally exaggerating it. The British are weird anyway. They're the ones who said that the Jessica Lynch thing was totally made up anyway. I don't think people put a lot of stock by what the British are saying...
Rush: Kelly -- Kelly, now...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...we're going to have to stay in the present and deal with reality. Whether the British exaggerated or not the British are doing what they are doing but the British press and the liberal party, Tony Blair's own party, is about to hoist him up and demand an investigation into how he may have manipulated the information on weapons of mass destruction and lied to people about it.
Robert Byrd, United States Senate, democrat, same thing, there are democrats in this country, liberals all over this country who are making the same claim, echoing what Byrd said. I mean it's all over the place. That's the whole -- you can't read The Washington Post and The New York Times front page editorial page without running in to these stories that people doubt their ever were any weapons of mass destruction.
Kelly: You actually read The New York Times?
Rush: Well, I used to. Not much anymore.
Kelly: You know that it's a fictional publication don't you?
Rush: I -- Kelly we're not going anywhere here because you called making a claim and you don't have the evidence to back up your own claim. You claim (talking over Kelly) I'm making -- you claim -- no, you say I'm making this up and I'm not making it up. I'm sorry I'm not responsible for your ignorance.
Kelly: I don't think that I'm ignorant in that I do not know of any other democrat, liberals, friends, relatives, neighbors that think the way you claim all liberals think.
Rush: Oh, so this is it (talking over Kelly not allowing her to talk) so this is it- this is it. It's that you don't hear any of your liberal democrat friends saying this so one thing I have failed to draw the distinction between liberal leaders and the liberal rank and file. Just stand alone - just liberal citizens out there verses the liberal --like the presidential candidates, Howard Dean and John Kerry are in an argument over who said it first. Dennis Kucinich has out right accused Bush of out right lying and if you think that they're the only ones, that there's not a bunch of liberal voters like yourself that are not feeling the same thing because of their seething rage, you're just missing it.
[ad: One Price Optical]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Promo: Larry King Live]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI - News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right ladies and gentlemen, I wish to take a brief moment here and apologize but I'm going to have to do some things. Now many of you who are regular listeners to this program have heard over and over the facts about how the democrats are doing this and that, liberals are lying, they're seething with rage, they're so over come with it they've lost their rationality. They are in quick sand. They are backed into fifteen different corners. You're going to have to hear some more of it. The last call indicates that there are some who still don't even know what their own leaders are doing. There are some who don't even know what their friends are saying. There are some who don't even know what their own family members believe and they call here and let us know that.
So before I -- I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing it but I am going to do some things here just to refresh their memories or I guess in some case inform them for the first time but I want to open it up with a little parody we put together to illustrate exactly what's going on here.
(Music playing) A voice mimicking Tom Daschle: Hi, I'm Tom Daschle. Over the last few months you may have heard some democrats like Ted and I say some seemingly outrageous things...
Ted Kennedy mimic: Yeah, like don't rush to war. (laughing)
Tom Daschle mimic: And our statements may have lead you to believe that we didn't think Saddam Hussein was a threat.
Ted Kennedy mimic: But of coarse he was to the United States and the world and President Bush was absolutely right in what he did.
Tom Daschle mimic: Yes, but we opposed the President, not out of concern for your safety, for our countries future.
Ted Kennedy mimic: It was just politics pure and simple. (laughing)
Tom Daschle mimic: So when you hear us say even more incredibly outrageous crap between now and the next election, remember don't take us so seriously.
Ted Kennedy mimic: Uhm, this Bush economy is the worst in twelve thousand years of recorded history.
Tom Daschle mimic: Yes, Ted and I are saddened by that. (laughing) That was a good one.
Ted Kennedy mimic: (Laughing) (Music playing in the background)
Rush: That is what's going on behind the cloakroom doors in the democrat party rooms. They are admitting to each other what they are really doing and they're probably slapping each other on the back about how they are getting away with it because The New York Times, which nobody gives a rats rear end about anymore, is echoing what they're doing and in large part so's Time Magazine, The Washington Post a number of the usual media suspects. And so the libs are caught like they always are thinking they're getting away with it, but they're not because you my friends are no longer falling for what they say.
Now Kelly in Tampa, I'm visualizing you with your mouth open. You said you listen to this program with your mouth open and not in awe. So I can only(laughing) my mind is vividly wandering here, Kelly, and just wondering what it is that might be going on where you are that would necessitate your mouth being open.
Now I have a story here from today's National Review Online. Byron York, "The Truth about Bush's Lies, An attack from the left misfires."
Rush: I'm not going to read the whole thing but just enough of it to inform those of you out there who don't quite understand, you liberals who don't quite understand what you're own leaders are doing.
National Review Online; There's an idea gaining momentum among democrats and pundits on the left. George W. Bush is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was. This is their policy.
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: This is their objective. They think that they can pull it off. They think that they can convince the American people that George W. Bush is a bigger liar that Clinton ever was and the way they're doing it is, "Clinton lied about sex, big deal. Bush lies lead to a hundred and thirty-six people loosing their lives." That's what their doing.
National Review Online: Writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times, E. J. Dionne and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, and Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect have all suggested that Bush has a serious problem with the truth, while others, like The Nation's Eric Alterman, have said flatly, "President Bush is a liar."
The Post's Richard Cohen invoked Mary McCarthy's famous jab at Lillian Hellman — "Every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'" — before concluding: "The same cannot yet be said about George W. Bush and his administration, but it has not been around as long as Hellman was and is not nearly as creative." On the web, Bushwatch.com maintains a special "Bush Lies" section, while another site, Dailyhowler.com, keeps up a running commentary on the president's alleged untruths.
Rush: ...and it goes on to site some books that are going to be coming out like Michael Borer and others.
National Review Online: What seems particularly galling to liberal writers is the notion that Bush is getting away with his lies even as his predecessor was flayed for lesser offenses. "If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him," Drake Bennett and Heidi Pauken wrote in a recent issue of The American Prospect. "Unless the voters and the press start paying attention, all the president's lies will have little political consequence — except to certify that we have become something less than a democracy."
What's going on here? Certainly George W. Bush, like every other politician, has said things, sometimes in off-the-cuff remarks, that were wrong. But was he lying? Like Bill Clinton? As appealing as the idea may be to the president's opponents, a look at the record shows that the charges just don't stand up to scrutiny. Rush: Then the rest of this column by Byron York goes on to tackle every accusation that Bush has lied and refutes it and it's uhh, as I printed it out here it's four pages. Well, it's actually three. Nope, it is four; the fifth page is just run over -- spill over ads and this sort of stuff. But that's -- the left is actually trying to say that George W. Bush is the biggest liar this Nations ever had. Clinton can't even hold a candle.
So for you liberals to claim that you haven't heard them say there aren't any weapons of mass destruction, that Bush made it all up, that the CIA made it all up or that Bush made the CIA make it all up, you got to get with it. Folks I'm sorry I have to waste time on this but apparently there are a number of liberals out there who cannot even face this truth.
Jason, San Diego, welcome to the program sir great to have you with us.
Jason: Hey there Rush, how you doing?
Rush: Pretty good sir, thank you.
Jason: Yeah, I just wanted to comment about that last caller that said -- I don't know where she's living and what garden variety, you know run of the mill liberal she's hanging out with that don't say that Bush is a liar, that don't say that the CIA was making that all up because they're all out there, they've been saying that. Everything that you said today about that, I've been hearing that for months about how the entire war was just something set up so that, you know, Cheney could get Halliburton, you know a big multi-billion dollar contract.
Rush: Exactly-exactly
Jason: I don't know- I don't know who they're talking to that -- I mean that is the rank and file. It's not just the leadership, it's not just Kerry sitting there spouting his month off. This is everyday garden-variety liberals. I mean that's the first things out of their mouths is that this is just...
Rush: Well, I'm going to -- it's true and I'm gonna tell you some- it's dangerous because there are terrorist out there who will do anything they can to attack this country. They'll do anything they can to get away with it and if every thing this Administration is going to say in warning about it is now a lie, then we're never going to be able to defend ourselves.
We're not going to -- we're not supposed to trust the President of the United States. We're not supposed to trust the CIA. We're not supposed to trust the Vice President. We're not supposed to trust the Secretary of State. We're not supposed to trust the National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. We're not supposed to trust anybody in the House or the Senate, who is of the Presidents party and echoes the sentiments. Everybody's lying. This is where the liberals have taken us and I'll show you how easily they catch themselves or how easily they get caught. What was their big beef after the Gulf War one? What was their big beef after Gulf War one? What was it? We...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...finished the job, right, is the job finished? The jobs finished. Have they not been trapped by that? Every thing they said, didn't happen, it's now been taken care of. The mistakes they said were made back in 91, have been fixed. But, "Oh no, it was a illegitimate effort. Oh no, it shouldn't of happened. There weren't any weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any reasons for this. Saddam wasn't that bad of guy." Pretty soon they're going to be telling us the torture-chamber stuff was all made up. They're going to have to if they're going to remain consistent.
I -- you know, there's a reason you liberals cannot be trusted with the defense of this country. There's a reason you cannot be trusted, to protect this country against those who want to do damage to us, who want to do evil against us, they want to harm us, whatever you want to say. The reason you can't be trusted and it's because you are so filled with seething rage, that you put your own seeking power ahead of the truth and the consequence's that the truth may mean to the people of this country. You just simply cannot be trusted and then for people to say, "Well, I don't hear the left saying this," come on. I mean this is -- it's getting really ridiculous.
I just -- I'm glad to see it, but I don't know how many liberals know the depth of the whole you are digging for yourselves, and I'm going to tell you who's the architect of all this. Bill and Hillary Clinton -- Bill and Hillary Clinton are taking you people down to the depths you've never been so that you don't have a prayer against getting your power back in 2004. Bill and Hillary Clinton are leading this charge. Bill Clinton is the most active ex-President in criticizing his successor in the modern era that we've ever seen and it is Bill Clinton who's giving the others courage to follow along. These nine so called presidential candidates are following right along with the plan and it's all setting up Hillary Clinton to run in 2008.
That's it -- that is really- it's a little bit more complicated than that but it -- that gets pretty close to what is happening here. Your lust, your idolatry, your mistaken belief that Bill Clinton was the greatest politician to come down the pike because in your view he routinely whacked and beat conservatives at every political turn. You're following somebody who's got no guts, no principle, doesn't care a fats rear end about you when it gets down to it and he's just taking you right to the lowest depths you've ever been.
You keep up this stuff. You keep talking about this every time somebody warns that terrorists who have all ready demonstrated they'll go to the end of the earth to do damage to this country. The next time somebody warns about the latest technique they maybe trying or the latest warning goes up that suggest they maybe hitting here or there, with this weapon or that, understand that you liberals have boxed yourself in. The only thing you can say is you don't believe it and that's why you can't be trusted.
We'll take a break, don't go away.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Community Calendar]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: You know I can't stop thinking about Kelly, ladies and gentlemen. A wonderful liberal caller who doesn't even know what her friends and leaders are saying and I'm thinking about her. I'm a man of compassion, as many of you well know and she said in opening her call to me that she constantly listens to this program with her mouth open and not in awe and I was -- I'm just hoping Bill Clinton is not in her neighborhood.
Again because of my respect for women and my listeners -- I mean, she may not agree with me but she is a listener of mine. Look, as I say, I hate to keep beating a dead horse, I sound like we're covering old ground here but ladies and gentlemen, you who are regular listeners know but apparently there's a group out there that still hasn't gotten it. Let's go back, I don't have the exact date on this but it's within the past two weeks. Robert "Sheets" Byrd, a montage of his statements on the Senate floor;
Robert Byrd: Regarding the situation in Iraq, that appears to this Senator, that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation in violation of long standing International Law under false premises. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons and the occasional buried swimming pool. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11th have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who master minded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not.
Rush: That's one of the starting points for this. There's "Old Sheets" in essence saying that the President of the United Stated lied and manipulated and "Lured -- Lured" the American people into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation. I don't know how anybody can say it's unprovoked, especially from a guy like Byrd who loves the United Nations and it was the United Nations that Saddam ditz over and over again.
This is Tony in Newburg New York. Hello, Tony, welcome to the EIB Network.
Tony: Hey Rush, how you doing?
Rush: Pretty good sir.
Tony: (unintelligible) listening to the lady in Florida and you know it gets to me after a while. I really believe in my heart, the difference between a conservative and liberal is, I believe in George Bush. I believe in everything he says but if I found out that he lied to us, I would take him out immediately, but ...
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
Tony: ...they would -- they would come up with an excuse. They would make an excuse for the man and I think that's the difference between a conservative. I think we're honest- true people and really believe in our heart what we're doing and what we're saying and I don't -- liberals to me, I just don't get it from them, don't feel that from these people.
Rush: Yeah, I know what you mean. There's a -- what he's saying here for those of you out there who may not have heard. He's saying that conservatives will be the ones to deal with Bush if Bush has been lying about this. that you liberals don't have to worry about this because the conservatives won't put up with this, if Bush has lied they'll vote against him, it isn't going to happen.
But where as you liberals when you have your own President Bill Clinton, and he lied, you'll do everything you can in the world to support it and blame other for attacking him and all that. And let me be on balance that probably is true, there are, let's face it, there would be republicans out there who would support Bush no matter what because they no way that they want this crop of democrats to get back in power or what ever but on balance I get -- I get Tony's point.
Springfield Massachusetts, this is Ralph, welcome sir to the EIB Network.
Ralph: Hello Rush.
Rush: Hi.
Ralph: Pleasure to talk to you.
Rush: Thank you sir.
Ralph: I got three points I'd like to make with you. I'd like you to stress the fact that Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction cause he used them on his own people and anybody that can't see that has got something wrong with their head.
Rush: That's a big problem for them, that's right, yes...
Ralph: Second, they used mass destruction on those twin towers in New York. That killed thousands of people.
Rush: Yes, two jet liners that crashed into the World Trade Center, that's true, not what we would generally consider a weapon of mass destruction but in that case I guess it was. I get your point. Yes, the third point?
Ralph: The third point is they can manufacture these weapons of mass destruction in their living room for crying out loud. They don't need a great big factory to do it so how you going to find them? They can transport them very easily to wherever they want.
Rush: Well that's -- of course the big problem, you liberals, if you really wanted to get your power back -- I'm not worried about advising you how to do it, cause I know, not only are you not going to take my advice, you're not capable of what I'm going to suggest anyway, so I'm not worried about it but if you really do want to get your power back, you know we are at risk.
America is a nation, a great nation, at risk in a dangerous world and we all know that people are working on all sorts of horrible weapons to use, not just here, but other nations around the world and instead of getting on this silly business, "Who lied about them and they never existed and so forth," you ought to be joining the effort to try to find them to protect people, but instead, you've got yourself so wrapped up where you are you're basically giving free rein to the people who want to use these things to keep doing it and you're not going to hold them accountable. I can't -- I just -- I really don't believe it. Yes I do. I'm sorry I do.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Rush for Thera-Gesic]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
Tuesday, June 3, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[ad: Will Rogers Institute]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: A final word to Kelly in Tampa. We're so glad you called, just beware of those ears, Kelly, in some parlances they could be called love handles. We'll see you tomorrow folks, 21 hours we'll be back. (laughing) Adios.
[ad: Navs.org]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[Promo: Larry King]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[ad: Paul Harvey for General Steel]
6.12.2003
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Galen] [edit]
[ABC News]
[Ad: Insure dot com]
[Ad: GM Certified Used Vehicles]
[ABC News]
[Ad: Scotch-Brite Sponges]
[Promo/Ad: Palm Springs Film Noire Festival]
[Ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
Rush opening promo
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
Yep, nine years today, folks. Nine years. Should have been fourteen, of wedded bliss, today, ladies and gentlemen. On May 27th. Anniversary date of El-Rushbo and the lovely and gracious Marta. We dated for five years before. Should have been fourteen, it's nine. It may as well be fourteen, for all the happiness that redowns.
Greetings, friends, welcome. You are tuned to the EIB Network. This is Rush Limbaugh, and we are coming to you live from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies after a long weekend, happy to be back with you. The telephone number, if you'd like to join us, be on the program today; 800-282-2882, and the email address; rush@eibnet.com. Lots to catch up on, some things that have happened since we were last here on Friday. It was a pretty eventful weekend, and there' s a lot of stuff out there.
I want to start here with a little bit of a "see, I told you so." Richard Benedetto's politics column in USA Today this morning; the headline in this piece: "Democrats Plan to Unseat Bush - Accentuate the Negative." It's a huge El-Rushbo "see I told you so". Benedetto begins; "It should be crystal clear now that the Democrats are basing their entire campaign for winning back the White House on two hopes; one, the economy stays in the doldrums, and two, that the war on terrorism goes badly. "In either case," writes Mr. Benedetto, the result would not be good for the American people." My friends, home run city here. So, in other words, the Democrats whole rationale for unseating President Bush is shaping up as a negative message. "See how miserable this guy's made your life? Get rid of him." It could work if everything Bush touches turn out to be a flop. But it could fail if things go reasonably well, and the majority of voters see no reason to change leaders.
Where have we heard all of this before? This not uncanny? Why, it was just the last time we were here, last Fri - We were talking about how the American people see no need to change leadership right now. To borrow a favorite Democratic phrase, It's a risky scheme, yet they show no sign of straying from the playbook. Heh hehehehehehe. Hubba hubba hubba.
Every weekday, Washington is bombarded by a fuselage of relentless attack - fusillade, if you prefer - relentless attacks against the President and his policies emanating from Democrats on Capital Hill. And every weekend, the verbal assaults continue in places like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire, as the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates take to the campaign trail to make their case. In the capital on Thursday, we got a chance to see the contrast between the Bush style of campaigning and the way the Democrats seem to think it should be done.
Earlier in the day, or early in the day, the President motored to the halls of Congress to hail a compromise agreement reached between Republicans and Democrats on the tax cut. Bush didn't get everything he wanted, Democrats - Yes he did. I mean, that's the bottom line, he did. But we've already talked about that. Bush didn't get everything he wanted. Democrats didn't prevail on some things they wanted, but the President preferred to take a positive approach. Shortly afterwards, Senate Democrat leaders met with reports to offer their view. It was uniformly negative. Tom Daschle said, "Republicans have done a triple back flip over the high board, and they've created a belly flop that all of us are going to feel. They're destroying the fiscal policy of this country, tax cut by tax cut." And he goes on to quote some of the more negative comments of Democrats.
But the point is, here, that it just, it's now in the mainstream, folks. The observations made by your host on this program, day after day after day, now show up in a column on politics by Richard Benedetto in USA Today. Now, the President yesterday, um
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Galen] [edit]
The President landed at Arlington National Cemetery. Just like he landed on the aircraft carrier. And I wonder if Robert Byrd was wondering about all the costs of the President going to Arlington National Cemetery to visit quote-unquote, the troops. I mean they got mad when the President went out to the aircraft carrier, the Abraham Lincoln, and now they are very upset -- well, they should be if they are going to be consistent - they oughta be upset that Bush went to Arlington National Cemetery, went to visit the troops. Troops who have paid the ultimate price and are in the grave.
I wonder if there is back room strategizing going on as to what plan the Democrats ought to connive because of what the President did by visiting Arlington. Here's what he said, and this is, this is an amazing statement, and you contrast this with anything you hear from Democrats today. This is just from his Memorial Day speech, and it is so true, and this is so eloquent.
And there is nothing the Democrats have said or can say that equals it. I don't think the Democrats, this current crop of Democrat leaders today - I don't think they have this in them. I mean, I really don't think that this is in their fiber. The President said; "In every generation of Americans, we have found courage equal to the tasks of our country. The farms and small towns and city streets of this land have always produced free citizens who assume the discipline and duty of military life. And time after time they have proven that the moral force of democracy is mightier than the will and cunning of any tyrant."
Is there a Democrat out there that you can conjure, that you can think of, speaking this way? At Arlington? In this - I mean, brevity is the soul of wit - to have this sort of a tribute. And to make a truthful statement; "Every generation of Americans". One of the great things about freedom is that every generation of Americans produces enough people who will make a free decision to assume the discipline and duty of military life. And when called to serve and called to combat, they go. It's just something - The older I get, the more in awe of people who volunteer to join the armed forces I am. It's just something terribly unique and they are worthy of all of the citations and the praise they get.
Meanwhile, the Democrats - One of the beauties, ladies and gentlemen, of leaving the TV on, at least down here, after "Meet the Press" on Sunday, if you leave it on long enough, you'll come across the Chris Matthews Show. Chris Matthews - well, he does, he has a show on Sunday, in addition to his Hardball show during the week. And yesterday Chri- or Sunday, Chris Matthews had some Democrat hopefuls on who attacked Bush on the war and homeland defense. And he asked them, what do they know? "
You're attacking the President on all this, what do you know?" And the fact of the matter is they know diddly, ladies and gentlemen. They got their marching orders from Carville, Greenburg and Shrum. Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff interviewed Chuck Todd from The Hotline, and I don't want to go through the whole transcript here, but apparently there is a new memo out from Carville and Shrum advising the Democrats on what to do. It's basically a talking points memo.
Chuck Todd from The Hotline said, "Yeah, it's talking points more or less, and they're talking about - They do this poll, and then they use it, saying what do Democrats need to be talking about. And they really focus in not just on the domestic issues that are obvious, like the economy and education, saying that Democrats can do well on those issues, but on security issues.
And they're saying - make the argument that Democrats almost need to come out stronger, sounding stronger than Bush when it comes to domestic security and terrorism in order to close the gap that exists. That there's no chance the Democrats are gonna have if they are at all seeming like they are not pro-security at all. Now, two things about this: Why are we messing around with candidates? Why don't we just run the middle men? Why don't the Democrats just nominate Carville and Shrum? Or Shrum and Carville? Because it seems these two guys
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Galen] [edit]
all Democrats are getting their ideas from. They send this memo out and you want to hear a follow-up to it? We have an audio soundbite, this is Joe Biden, who appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert on Sunday, also on with Jay Rockefeller, Pat Robertson, Chuck Ha gel. And Russert says, "Senator Biden, this is the fourth time the country has been placed on orange alert. Is there a risk that people become too accustomed to that?
Biden; "I think there is a risk of that. I also think there's a risk that the American people think we've done more than we have to deal with our domestic security needs. I mean, we're talking about Iraq, anthrax, like every day. We've had plans in place for a long time. The agency has said three years ago that - two years ago that anthrax and rail would be a possible target. We have two tunnels where you have 350,000 people a day in the tunnel, no ventilation, no lighting, no anything. We have a 900 million dollar plan already in place, already done.
We're not funding it. The people think the 106 nuclear power plants are being protected. They're not being protected. We're not investing the money that we're supposed to invest, which would be good, by the way, to invest just for infrastructure all by itself, to boost the economy, but also to deal with things that I think American people think we're doing. And besides that, we're stretching out our 600 million dollars that are being spent by local law enforcement every time we go on this code alert. Since we've been on it, federal government's not reimbursed them. It's a national problem, and I think our priorities are a little backwards in terms of lower investment of our money."
Rush; Well, it looks like Biden's read the memo from Carville and Shrum, and I'm sure McAuliffe's is in there, the Forehead, and Stan Greenburg. So, here's Biden putting forth the Democrat 2004 election pitch -- homeland security's a mess, so we haven't spent enough, we're not doing enough on homel - Now, I can't remember the - Well, I guess this is somewhat of a common Democrat complaint. To quote, "the President hasn't done enough on homeland security", but that's based on one thing. They're just waiting for the next attack.
This is a Biden speech setting up a future attack so the Democrats can say; "See, see, we told you. He's not doing enough. There's not enough being done about this, blah blah blah blah." Meanwhile, what do they propose, what do they offer, what have they done to get on board, to be a part of this? They've done nothing but tear down, as witnessed and confirmed by Richard Benedetto's piece in USA Today as well.
So, all these problems are due to the tax cut. We're gonna get attacked. We're gonna get exposed the next time we are attacked. All the Democrats need now is the attack, and Carville, Shrum are urging these guys; "You guys better sound like you care more about national security than even the President does. Because if you don't, you're never gonna close this gap." So it appears, my friends, that this memo is being read.
We've gotta take a quick time out, here, as we're off and rolling. The EIB Network continues right after this.
[Ad: General Steel Corporation]
[Ad: Liverite at Liverite.com]
[Ad: Z-Max]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part two
00:35:00. [08: Galen] [edit]
Mr. Davis has it? I am seriously - This has to be seen. I am seriously thinking - I've never done this before. I am seriously thinking. I haven't decided yet, but I'm seriously thinking of posting the Victor Davis Hanson interview on the website. This is stuff that people need to see.
At any rate, U.S. News and World Report has - I mean Bin Laden's fortune is gone. These people - there was one intercepted terrorist was overheard on a conversation begging for eighty dollars. I mean, they are, according to U.S. News and World Report, Al Qaeda is really just been demolished. And it's not because we were distracted by Iraq. It's all part of the same war. Iraq, the war on terror, Iraq, axis of evil, North Korea. It's all the same war.
And Bush has been very plain and clear about that. You know, if it means attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, then that's what must be done. If it means using covert means to topple regimes, that's what the war on terrorism dictates. The administration should use its judgement, based on the best information it has to do what it thinks must be done to win the war, but "go slow" is not a coherent response in the midst of war.
I'd like to remind Senator Biden and the others, during World War 2, we had to fight in more than two countries, there were entire regions of the world where war was taking place. We were fighting in the Pacific theater at the same time we were fighting in North Africa and Europe. We were fighting in jungles, deserts, mountains and fields. We were in rural villages, small towns, major cities.
And you would never have heard a politician during that war urging the President to go slow. Go slow is not a policy, nor is it a strategy. It's an excuse for doing nothing. It's an attempt, and it isn't going to work, but you have to take this for what it is. I'm not worried the President or anybody is gonna listen to this. What this is worth, folks, is understanding where the Democrats are coming from. I mean, they'd love it if the President would listen to this. But the point of this comment's not to influence the administration.
The point here is to try to change the minds of the American people. That we're trying to bite off too much, and we always do, so much at one time. And if we bite off too much, then there's going to be an area that we don't cover. And that area we don't cover is going to come back and bite us. It's just another way the Democrats are trying to cast Bush as incompetent. But back to the fundamentals of this.
It is obvious - Iran's obviously building capacity for nuclear weapons. They are a terrorist state. They're harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. They're funding Hezbollah. Look, we've know from the [sp? beginnch] why Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil. You don't fight a war on terrorism without dealing with them. Iran. And I don't hear any suggestions of solutions coming from Biden or the rest of the Democrats. All I hear is fear-mongering, appeasement, finger-wagging, finger-waving and trying to make fun of various Bush policies. I don't hear one proposal. Their one idea. I don't hear one solution being mentioned by any of these people.
Andrew in Boston, I'm glad you called. Welcome to the EIB Network.
Andrew: Mega-dittoes, Rush. This is from somebody who's a [Sp: Subtanese ?] conservative up here in Boston.
Rush: Yes, good to have you on the program, sir.
Andrew: Thank you. One thing I want to say, I saw "Meet the Press" and, I hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Biden, some of the things he was saying, in that, you know, I mean, it is that they're crying "wolf", or it's they're going to be crying wolf in the sense that I don't think we're doing enough for national homeland security or anything. I think some of the measures that have been put out are jokes - the duct tape, and what have you. And like I was saying to the screener, I mean, you know, go to a Red Sox game, the security is a joke. I work in the Prudential Center up here in Boston, there are fire drills every day. The people don't even care about them any more. And you know, it is crying wolf. On that point, Biden was right. But then, I also hear with you, I don't hear any solutions coming out of them, either.
Rush: Well, let's get, yeah, I understand, but, let's focus on what you think Biden is right about. Are you judging what we're doing on homeland security by whether or not you feel safe at a Red Sox game? I mean, how do you know what's being done at these events?
Andrew: You know what? When I walked into that Red Sox-Yankee game last week. I walked in, they patted me down, and the lady felt a huge thing in my pocket, which was my cell phone. Didn't do anything, let me walk right through, didn't ask me what it was, take it out
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Galen] [edit]
or anything.
Rush: Are you a terrorist?
Andrew: of course not.
Rush: Well, it must be rather obvious then.
Andrew: What's obvious to them may not be obvious to somebody else. I'm just saying, you know, there could be a lot more that could be done.
Rush, interrupting: Let me ask you this: Has there been, has there been an attack on this nation's soil since September 11th?
Andrew: Thank God, no.
Rush: I wonder why?
Andrew: I agree with you. I totally agree with you, but -
Rush: You can't be agreeing with me and agreeing with Biden.
Andrew: Well, maybe I fell into their scare tactics, or what have you, but -
Rush, interrupting: See, that's exactly right! I want to applaud you for having the courage to admit what has happened here. Negativism is a powerful magnet. Negativism will attract a lot of people, who think, "Something's going to go wrong! It's the last days. Oh, no, we're doomed." It'll attract millions. Why do you think that people get rich writing books on thinking positively? You go to the library or you go to a public seminar, there's not one guy out there teaching you to think negatively. Because it comes naturally.
Pessimism is something that just is part and parcel. Especially during troubled times like this. You run into somebody that thinks positively, you run into somebody that is buoyant, or in times like this, you're gonna scratch your head, say, "What kind of oddball weirdo is this?" And yet, if you look around at evidence, there is far more evidence to feel secure than there is to the other. I mean, there hasn't been an attack. We have thwarted numerous attacks, we've tracked down numerous suspects. We've gotten them off the streets.
There have been numerous arrests. I mean, the track record is overwhelmingly positive. Given what's happened in Afghanistan, status of Al Qaeda now, what we've done, managed to do in Iraq. When you stop to look at the evidence, there's actually more reason to feel optimistic about this, not that it's over. And not that there's no longer a threat. But it's clear that it's - More evidence to suggest we're doing something right here than doing something wrong.
Believe me, if these people could have hit us again, in a major way, they would've done it. You have to be careful, folks, because the Democrats entire "strategery" is negativism upon negativism upon negativism, because they know there's a market for it.
And there's an element of human nature that is attracted to it. But when you hear their negativism, make sure you also note they offer no solutions. They offer no counter-ideas. They haven't come up with their own recipe for security safety. Nope, they're sitting around waiting for the next attack, so they can pound their chests, and say, "See, we told you. Bush didn't do this right." Now then, you should ask yourself, "What did they ever suggest we do, other than spend money somewhere?"
We'll take a break, be right back. Stay with us.
[Rush Store Promo]
[Ad: Trim-Spa]
[Ad: Orrick Excel]
[Ad: Mitsubishi]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Camelot Theaters Film Noire Festival]
[Promo: Joey English Show on KTSI 920AM]
Rush Intro
One other point here, ladies and gentlemen; the Democrats kept saying we shouldn't that we shouldn't attack Iraq because it diverts our attention, resources away from Al Qaeda, remember? That's false. It's totally false, especially as the U.S. News and World Report, the June second issue cover story makes it quite clear. However, here in Iran, we have solid evidence that regime is harboring Al Qaeda terrorists. And those terrorists were behind an attack in Saudi Arabia, killing scores of people, including several Americans.
Talking about the most recent attack in Riyadh. Those terrorists were behind the attack that killed, including Americans. And what does Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee have to say about it? Go slow. Which really means, in Biden-speak, do nothing. "Let's dialogue. Just talk, just complain. Just whine. But don't do anything else." The point's this, folks; even when we know of the whereabouts of Al Qaeda terrorists, and the identity of the regime that are harboring, Biden and the Democrats preach inaction. Inaction in Iran, just as they preached inaction in Iraq, just as they preached inaction in North Korea. They have no plans for fighting terrorism, but they are bound and determined to try to stop Bush from succeeding in that area.
Remember, anything that happens good for America is detrimental to their chances to re-acquire power. And Bush has proven once he sets out to do something militarily, he succeeds. Well, the last thing the Democrats want is another successful operation anywhere. Be it North Korea, be it Iran, be it continued in Iraq or even Afghanistan. The last thing they want is further successful news of American military power. Because all it does is illustrate how dangerous we are if they're in control, because no matter what they say, they just don't have it in them. Don't believe in the military. They don't believe in the projection of power.
The many liberal Democrats consider the projection of American power to be the evil that shrouds the world. They think it is our bigness and our military might that makes the world as dangerous as it is, and makes us as dangerous as it is, because the existence alone of our powerful military is provocative. And so they want to assure the rest of the world in their own way. That if they were ever in charge of things, don't worry, they would subort our interests to the United Nations.
Now, as a means of expanding this point, and I want to go back to this caller, who was seduced. Admittedly seduced by Biden's comments that we're not doing enough to protect ourselves against terrorism in this country, by Biden's comments on Meet the Press on Sunday. My friends, let me ask you a question. I want you to answer this with all the logic that you have. United States of America, the continental 48 states is a huge area
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... as the worlds lone super power how many rich targets do you think exist in this country? Not just the nuclear power plants, things as innocuous as Universities or big industrial factories, you name it. Dams, poisoned waterways, how many targets do you think there are in this country? It's almost a number two large to quantify is it not?
Okay since we all agree on that and I know you do. Could somebody then explain to me, using all the logic at your disposal, just how we defend them all? What do we do? Somebody give me a policy. Somebody give me the plan. Somebody tell me how we are going to ensure that each one of these rich targets is ensured against attack. There is a way. (Laughing) There is a way to do it my friends. I want to know, just tell what it is. What is the strategy? What is the policy that we can undertake to guarantee as best we can, that none of those targets are hit?
Take a break, we'll be back, the lines are all full but they'll be opening up here periodically. I'm not going to answer this myself, yet, cause as you know my friends, when "I" say it there's nothing left to be said and the answer is not, "Never elect democrats again," although that would help. I mean that would be a step in the right direction. If we never elected democrats again we would be eminently safer there's no question but that wasn't the answer I was thinking.
We have all these targets. We got New York. We've got Los Angeles. We got baseball, football stadiums, all these things, nuclear power plants, conventional power plants, ports, cruise ships we got all, how do we protect every one of them. There is a way. Sorry to sound erratic here, there is a way of doing it.
We'll be back right after this.
[Promo: Rush on The EIB Network]
[ad: Eharmony.com]
[ad: Palm Springs Volvo]
[ad: Desertnetwork.com]
[ad: Red Cross]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: American Red Cross]
[promo: KPSI]
Rush: And we are back. Let's grab a quick phone call here in our remaining moments this hour. Janice, in Smithfield, Utah, hi, welcome to the EIB network.
Janice: Rush, the only way we can protect everything is to go after those who threaten us. Ah -- you can't protect -- if you spend every tax dollar we had, we couldn't protect all -- of - the - things that need protecting. The only thing is to go after those who threaten us.
Rush: Amen. You got it. First call got it. There's the answer I'm sure I hope a lot of you (unintelligible) it. We've got all these targets. If there's any of you out there think it is possible to prevent an act of terrorism in this country by guarding these targets, by identifying them all and positioning troops, people, whatever, at these places. To ensure no attack takes place, you have totally missed the boat about what the war on terrorism is.
We are doing what we can domestically to identify people who are already here that might want to do this, but the real way, the only way to ensure that these things don't happen again is what we're doing. Taking these people out. Identifying them where they are, and destroying the market place, or that cauldron that is bubbling over with the, the ideology that creates these people.
That's why this business in Iran today has taken on such importance. They're harboring Al Qaeda. They're working on nuclear power. (noisily clears throat) Um, we are in a war on terrorism. It was said by the president that it's going to go on long probably after his two terms. He's been everything - as -- honest as he can be. As totally up front as he can be about it. It's the only way, folks. There's no way. Don't tell me what did or didn't happen when you walked into Fenway Park. It's not the point. We'll be back.
[ad: Palm Springs Film Noir Festival, Rick's Café, Camelot Theatres]
[promo: Loopholes]
[promo: Kim Commando Show]
[anti-abortion rhetoric disguised as news from ABC]
[national propaganda, er, news from ABC]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Tom] [edit]
[news]
[ad: Sears Auto Center]
[ad: Nexium]
[news]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[news]
[ad: Palm Springs Film Noir Festival]
[promo: Dodger baseball on KPSI]
[promo: Rush Limbaugh show]
[intro music]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Hah, hello my friends how are you. We are the Rush Limbaugh program and this is the EIB Network, I am your host the all knowing, all sensing, all caring, all feeling, all concerned Maha Rushie utilizing talent on loan from God, yeah. Telephone number is 1-800-282-2882 the email address rush@eibnet.com.
Remember the Susan Esteridge column that we pointed out on this program could not find it anywhere on the Internet other than the "Creators" website. Creators syndicate. We couldn't find it any newspaper or anywhere else. Well on the "Big Show" with John Gibson recently on the FOX news channel.
Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest host and he had Susan Esteridge on the program and he said,
FOX news -- Judge Napolitano: "Listen, you wrote this column about the Clintons, you were critical of them, it got "spiked," it didn't get printed and now you wrote another column which we all read and everybody's emailing it and then this other column you say, "I got spiked because I'm a woman, there's not enough females in the media," what's this all about?"
Susan Esteridge: "Now here's the joke. All my conservative friends picked up on this column, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and then they said "My goodness, the column has disappeared. The liberal media must be spiking the column," and the joke of course was that all the women columnists I know quickly emailed me and said, "These guys assume that when a woman writes a column the same thing happen to us that happens to them." That it'll appear in every major newspaper and the truth of the matter, Andrew, is that women don't appear in major newspapers. I mean whether it's me or Ann Coulter or whoever it is. We don't appear in all the major newspapers. I'm not playing (unintelligible) here (Andrew Napolitano saying, "But Susan.") but if you look at the numbers were not there."
Rush: This is a crazy defense. Her column was spiked. I don't care how many newspapers she's in. None of them ran it. I think she's in five newspapers, I don't care. The five newspapers she's running didn't run the Clinton column that she wrote. Now I don't' know is Maureen Dowd not a woman? Molly Ivins, is Molly Ivans not a woman? Mary McGrory not a woman? There's a lot of (laughing) there are a lot of female columnists out there, what is this?
And I have to tell you something, now this is weird, I haven't seen the second column. I see the one that nobody spi -- that everybody spikes. I see the anti-Clinton column that nobody else saw and now apparently this column she wrote answering it is all over the place and I haven't seen it. This is news to me. She has blamed this spiking on the fact that she's a woman.
I guess, well she doesn't want to take out after the papers that didn't run it. I mean she wants to get published as often as she can. I think this is kind of comical to blame it on the fact that she is a woman. I mean that's -- I can think of a whole lot of excuses that she can offer but that one. At any rate ladies -- have you seen the market today? Nasdaq's up around thirty-five and - thirty-two, thirty-five.
Rush reading unknown source: The Dow-Jones Industrial average is anywhere from 127 to 138, 135 and the truth is that stocks have jumped today lifting the Nasdaq two percent as data showing a strong US housing market an up tick in confidence fueled investors hope for an economic rebound. A report after the opening bell showed US consumer confidence landed below Wall Street expectations but still rose to a six month high in May as consumers looked forward to a turn around in business and job condition. So uhh, oh, also other data after the opening bell showed the sales of existing and new homes grew at a robust pace in April as low mortgage rates continued to fuel a firm housing market.
Rush: So you have new home sales and consumer confidence at a six time high -- six month high...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...stocks have rallied on this. Where's the misery? Where's all this misery? Where's all this pessimism? I'll tell you what this is due to folks. It was last Thursday when we signed the tax bill and passed - the tax bill was passed. I proclaimed the end of the economic slowdown. I said last week it was over and I was right. People have listened. There is a newfound economic confidence out there. All it takes is somebody taking a leadership position here. All people needed to hear was it's over so I told them, "It was over," and now people are proceeding normally as though these are robust times and they are and they're kicking off well.
So I just wanted to pass this news along to you cause it is absolutely devastating news to the democrats. Worst possible news they could get, short of another victory this time in Iran, which by the way, continue to point out here. A victory in Iran need not be military but more on that later.
Rush reading unknown source: The Supreme Court upheld the right of state workers in California to get time off to care for children or ailing relatives rejecting an attempt to scale back a law guaranteeing 12 weeks of family leave. The six to three ruling today, is a departure from the Court's line of cases that expands States rights at the expense of Federal power or laws passed by Congress.
Rush: So in essence here, the Family Medical Leave Act sort of stands, in California. Californians now can take twelve weeks off, take the dog to the vet, get time off for children or ailing relatives.
Rush reading again: State employees can sue in Federal Court to enforce their rights under the 1993 law. Justice William Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice John Paul Stevens also agreed with the out come of the case. Congress had ample and persuasive evidence that women State employees, like women in the private sector, suffered in the work place when work and family commitments clashed.
By creating an across the board routine employment benefit for all eligible employees Congress sought to insure that family care leave, would no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the work place caused by the female employees and that employers could not evade leave obligations simply by hiring men. Rehnquist wrote for the majority. Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented from this. Scalia wrote, "Today's opinion does not even attempt to demonstrate that each one of the fifty states was in violation. It treats the States as some sort of collective entity which is guilty or innocent as a body."
Rush: And what Scalia is doing here is attacking the creation of states a monolith, as a single entity. When they're not, they're separate and equal individual so I -- the story and I -- my memory does not help me here. I don't know -- it seems to me, my memory is that one of the features of the California version of Family Medical Leave is that it's paid. Remember the whole argument here is that, "What good is twelve weeks off if you can't afford it?" How can you take twelve weeks off, that's three months, unless you're paid," and I think in California it's paid, Family Medical Leave. Remember we were joking that, "That all right you people in California are going to be -- you're taxes or whatever are going to go up because you're going to be paying people not to work as they avail themselves, these opportunities to miss work."
Now this story doesn't say anything about that and in fact this may not even -- this maybe a separate case because it was taken to the US Supreme Court. The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has upheld the right of State workers to get time off to care for children or ailing relatives and they in doing so rejected an attempt to scale back the law guaranteeing twelve weeks of family leave. So I gather this is the Federal Family Medical Leave Act that's left to stand. This may not be the California version that requires people taking the time off to continue to be paid.
Quick time out, we'll be back and continue here in just a moment.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Rush for CLR Cleaner]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: Manhattan West Mortgage]
[ad: 1-8800 575-Well]
[ad: Desert Homes Today]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Onto Music]
Rush: And we are back, great to have you with us. Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network. Adam Clymer whose existence serve to rename a prominent bodily orifice in this country. Yeah you remember Bush was speaking to somebody, speaking to Cheney before a live microphone. They didn't know it was live and somebody pointed out Adam Clymer, The New York Times reporter in the audience. One of the two said, "Yeah he's a real," and then cited the bodily orifice and Bush and Cheney said, "Yeah, big time."
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Shane] [edit]
Then if he had this in tomorrow the democrat's identity crises. And low and behold on Monday. A holiday addition when hardly anybody is going to read the paper. The New York Times came out with The Democrats Identity Crises. And well I've gotten it here somewhere. Do I have it here? Yes! And guess what my friends. Its by Adam Climber. Its by the same guy that wrote the story for Miching about the Republicans.
And the headline for this story. Democrats take a stronger focus and money. The head line ought to read. The Democrats Seek money, money, money and maybe a stronger focus. And dateline Santa Fe, New Mexico. Democrats in the west came here in mid may to share political hopes and fears and to reassure that dissipate Bushes popularity there party has a future. Now its pretty bad when you got to get a bunch of Democrats together to assure each other that they still have a reason to exist. I mean this is under stating the point.
Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico said "Democrats had to develop a strong economic message and a strong National Security message." He said. "The security message had to make it clear if we need to use force we do it." Now how about that. Stop and think of this now here's the Governor of New Mexico telling Democrats we need a strong national security message and we need to make it clear if we need to use force we'll do it what does that tell you about where the Democrats currently stand and where they know they stand.
With the American people. They are admitting that the American people are not confident. There admitting Richardson s' admitting that people are right when they say its just not safe to vote demo. Yeah Richardson cut taxes he took the lead cutting taxes a wanted business investment and growth in New Mexico. The Democrats glass is not half full but half empty and it appears to be leaking is the central quote. Or passage this is not a quote. This is Adam Climbers own words. So the Democrats glass is not half full but half empty and appears to be leaking. Theirs more to this story but they didn't want people to see it. It ran Monday when nobody reads the paper. We'll be back stay with us.
[Ad: Farageezic]
[News ]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Galen] [edit]
[Local News: KTSI]
[Promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[Rush promo]
NASDAQ is up 41. The DOW is up 151. The economic slow-down is officially over. I told you. People are just waiting to be unleashed. Just waiting for some confidence spark. And that spark was provided here last week with the proclamation from on high, here, that the economic slowdown was officially over.
I gotta share with you some of the excerpts of this New York Times piece from Monday, yesterday on the state of the Democratic party. Once again, it's the New York Times. This could all be made up, but keep that in mind as you listen to this; "Democrats are composed -" They're in the midst of an identity crisis, a painful one. "Democrats are composed of an awkward coalition whose clan chiefs have not yet gotten over the idea that power is the Democrats' entitlement. And who therefore have not yet learned to sacrifice for the greater good."
Now, the translation of this is simple: The Democrats ran the show for so long they can't get used to the fact that they don't. They just can't accept the fact. They haven't gotten over the idea that power is the Democrat's entitlement. They just cannot bring themselves to do this. And they're busy trying to re-establish the natural order of things, which is Democrats running the show, and in the process, they don't know how to go about it.
"Democrats have generally spent their energy defending past accomplishments, from social security to Medicare, rather than seeking to re-focus that basic commitment to the middle class and poor, into ideas that reflect how the nation has changed since those laws were passed. After Clinton's troubles with Monica Lewinsky, he largely gave up and instead pushed small ideas like school uniforms."
There we have it, my friends, in one sentence, the Clinton legacy, courtesy of Adam Climer; "After his troubles with Monica Lewinsky, he largely gave up, and instead pushed small ideas like school uniforms." I wonder if that was part of a new Clinton class at the University of Arkansas, or wherever it was?
"As Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster put it, "My biggest problem with the Democratic Party is, we think tactically and not strategically, one election at a time. We take the issue we can exploit, but we don't take the party and say, "This is what we are about." The effect, he said, is we seem to be buffeted by what's in the political winds. A major reason was defined by Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the House from '77 to '87, when he would say that in any other country, the Democratic Party would be five parties, and he meant it in ideological terms from very liberal to very conservative. By now the very conservative wing is almost completely deserted to the Republican Party, but the Democrats are still a coalition of interests, notably African-Americans, labor, feminists, and all-purpose liberals."
Well that's exactly right
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ... that they have. They've got -- there's one central theme really that unites democrats and that is, "Big Government. Big, Expanding, growing Government," you can almost say socialism, is the one thing that unites all these district interests. They all believe government is where all power should reside, not with the individual but often times the constituencies of the Democratic Party are at war with one another and if they don't come together, it is an absolute mess. A veteran democratic consultant looked at the 2004 presidential field and found it symptomatic of a basic party problem. "Sometimes we're so respectful of our diversity we take completely preposterous people seriously."
There you have it my friends another -- the only bad thing is a quote that's in The New York Times. We don't really know if it was uttered but we will assume that it was.
The New York Times: Sometimes we're so respectful of our diversity we take completely preposterous people seriously.
Rush: Can I give you a couple names? Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson. Go on down the list -- some of these -- John Sweeny. I mean some of the most preposterous people in the country are taken seriously because they're minorities or certain ethnics and of course the democrats can't offend them so they have to accept and give them status.
The New York Times: Robert Strauss former Democratic National Chairman who says, "Democrats seem to win the Whitehouse only on republican mistakes like Water Gate or that of the elder Bush ignoring the faltering economy, calls last falls permanence on issues, disgraceful or performance on issues disgraceful. We didn't stand for anything, we got what we deserved, nothing."
Rush: You know he's wrong about that. These guys still think they didn't get their message out. You democrats are going to have to figure it out. You're going to have to listen and accept this. Every body does know what you stand for and it is why you're loosing. It's not because people don't know who you are. It's not because people don't know what you're positions are. It's not because people don't know what you're ideas are. It's because they precisely do know what you stand for. What you'll do if you get power and that is why you're finding yourselves on the short end of the stick.
Here's Arlen in Ottawa City Michigan. Arlen welcome to the program.
Arlen: Hi Rush, great to talk to you.
Rush: Thank you.
Arlen: I wanted to tell you that I was at that Ottawa County republican day dinner. I didn't see Adam Clymer or anybody with a press pass so I guess I would question did he really take down the information that he reported?
Rush: Do you know what Adam Clymer look like?
Arlen: I do not but I did not see anybody with a press pass on.
Rush: Well that's not the way to identify Adam Clymer. Let see, how can I phrase this? Cause it would really be interesting to know if Adam Clymer was there. Do you know the phrase, "The south bound end of a north bound horse."?
Arlen: Yes I know that phrase.
Rush: All right did you see one of those there?
Arlen: I have to say because the room was full of republicans, I didn't see any.
Rush: Okay well, I don't know -- I don't know if we can take this one testament, ladies and gentlemen, one witness has assigned that the reporter who claimed to be there wasn't. But I don't think people wear press badges to tell you the truth at events like this but never the less it's a good test. Adam Clymer is not that hard to find or spot or see. (Laughing) I better stop; I'm going to say something I'll going to regret.
Dayton Florida, Steve, welcome to the EIB Network.
Steve: Hey Rush uhh, Janet last hour...(Clicking sounds)
Rush: We lost him. Did we lose him or did we loose the phones? What's going on? Did somebody -- we lost - was that a cell phone I hope. All right we'll try James in Bangor Maine. Hello James, welcome top the program.
James: Hi Rush. Major dittos from a teenage product of the public High School system.
Rush: Thank you sir. Great to have you with us, congratulations on dialing the phone.
James: Thank you. I've got two quick points about Biden and the democrats complaining about Homeland Security.
Rush: Yes.
James: First of all, the -- they would continually move the goalposts no matter where we put the money. If we put the money towards the Amtrak they would say we're not doing enough for border security. If we put the money towards border security, we're not protecting the nuke plants. They're obviously never going to be happy and secondly I hear no mention from them about Buffalo cell we busted or out on the west coast, I forget, it was Portland Oregon or Seattle Washington where we busted some guys over there. There's no mention of these. We're making great progress here in America.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: well obviously another attack but you have to understand but -- the point -- what Biden and the democrats are trying to do is simply establish themselves as being on the record if and when there is another attack. So they can point back to their speech or speeches, quote them by verse and say this is when I said it. We've been right about it. The President has not prepared us. The President is not taking this seriously enough. President's too focused on Iraq, whatever it is they're going to say, this is what they're trying to set up.
Everything in this The New York Times piece about the democrats is pretty accurate. They don't win because of what they stand for. They don't tell anybody what they stand for. They're hoping for negativism. They're banking on either convincing people Bush has made a mistake or relying on Bush to make one. They only setting themselves up to succeed by getting people to vote against their opposition rather than for them and the way they're really hamstrung is that they do believe things and people know what those things are but even at that they don't feel confidence saying, "Well, and if you were a socialist would you go out and try and get elected in this era on that basis," I mean they come very close to it.
This hysteria against this tax cut, I guess everything they're doing is still focused on shoring up their base but can somebody- can somebody cite me an example -- I just want one example, somebody cite me an example where a politician has won an election opposing tax cuts or advocating tax increases. Now don't give me a politician that's raised taxes after he's elected. I'm talking about in the campaign. It just doesn't happen. Nobody gets elected promising to raise taxes.
Now, I'll tell you the problem the democrats have. They're out there ripping this tax cut of Bush's every day left and right and they keep pointing to Clinton as the thing that we ought to repeat and do. "We had all this economic health and robust activity during Clinton," well what do they think caused it? His tax increases. Why then are no democrats advocating we raise taxes on the rich and make it retroactive as Clinton did? Why aren't they doing that? Seriously folks, wouldn't that make political sense? If you really believe tax cuts are going to harm this country, then why not propose what you think helps? Tax cuts, why don't they do it? Cause they don't dare, cause they know they would fall even further.
The thing that's really interesting to me and I pointed this out last week, they set themselves up for doom and gloom and to benefit and prosper in those doom and gloom times, and they believe this tax cuts going to cause doom and gloom, they should be happy. They should be out there throwing parties. They should all be wearing those little clown hats out there and throwing you know the little whizzes in the air and those little bazooka bummers or whatever they do out there and throwing those little cherry bombs inside the building and having all -- just a big party because they think this tax cut is gonna devastate this economy, which is exactly what they need in order to win back their power, and yet there out there angry and decrying it and ripping it.
There's just nothing consistent about these people what so ever. I've never seen such a large group of people incapable of happiness. I've never seen such a large group of people incapable of contentment. It is -- the last time I saw it was when Mary Landrieu successfully got re-elected. Daschle was happy there for a couple of weeks and that was it and ever since then it's been doom and gloom time all over again for these people. It's not very infectious.
We'll take a break, we'll be back, stay with us.
[Promo: Limbaugh Letter]
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: Oreck Vacuums]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Oreck Vacuums]
[ad: SG Cowan]
[ad: Air Force Reserve]
[Promo: Money Talk]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Into Music]
Rush: And we're back, glad to have you along for the ride today my friends. It's the EIB Network the most listened to radio talk show in America.
It's happened again folks. It's happened again.
Unknown source reads: The Boeing Company struggling financially since the September 11th attack, won a 16 billion dollar contract from the Air Force last Friday to lease 100 modified 767 jet liners for use as refueling tankers.
Rush: Okay so we are going to spend 16 billion dollars to lease one hundred 767's.
Unknown source: This is a major windfall for Boeing but critics call it a little more than Corporate Welfare. The cost of leasing the planes, which doesn't include a 4-billon dollar purchase option, at the end of the six-year lease is far higher than the cost of buying the planes outright.
Rush: This is the second time this has happened. We bought a bunch of -- we leased a bunch of Boeing jets shortly after September 11th, maybe it was right before, I don't I think it was shortly after and the least cost was far more expensive than what it would have been to buy the things outright. Same thing has happened here.
Unknown source: Senator John McCain, democrat Arizona, said , "It's a lousy deal for the Air Force,"
Rush: I'm sorry, John McCain, republican, Arizona, well I -- democrat -- anyway...
Unknown source: John McCain say lousy deal for the Air Force and for the American taxpayer. Pentagon officials contend the lease deal which will or still has to be approved by congress allows the Air Force to begin replacing it's aging KC 135 tanker fleet, three years earlier than planned and required less upfront cost than a straight purchase.
Rush: This is hocus-pocus. Once again here we have -- who ever said Corporate Welfare got this one right because Boeing is represented by a lobbyist. I want to say, "Who is that lobbyist? Oh yes, that lobbyist is Linda Daschle," the wife of the coming and sweet Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle. So a client of Senator Daschle's wife gets a sweet deal. We're going to lease the planes instead of buy them. Boeing makes out far...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush reading unknown source: than if they were purchased outright. Senator Patty Murray fellow democrat from Washington called the deal a victory for all sides.
Rush: I don't know how it is but she said, "The taxpayers win, Boeing wins and Linda Daschle wins, the Air Force wins." (laughing) She didn't say that my friends I threw it in there but she might as well have.
Unknown source: and the Air Force wins and most importantly the people who fly these planes and the soldiers who rely on them win," said Patty Murray.
Rush: In one of the few quotes on record from Patty Murray where sympathy for military concerns is uttered.
This is Steve in Daytona Florida. Hi Steve, welcome to the program, nice to have you with us.
Steve: Hey Rush, I want to tag on to what Janet said last hour. Israel is a perfect example of internal security having it's limits to terrorism because they're still being attacked and they're politically held back from fully, you know, taking care of the situation.
Rush: Yes, well I was going to get to this you've provided here the transition phone call and I -- what he's referring to, by the way, is about and hour ago I was commenting on Senator Biden's assertion that we're done nothing to protect all the target rich areas from terrorism in this country and I raised the question, "Well how do you do that?"
We could -- there are so many, it's not possible folks. It's -- well it is possible there's only one way to do it though but we cannot defend every potential target in such a way as to stave off every potential attack, unless we take out the guys capable of doing the attacks before they attack and that's what we're doing. And Senator Biden just totally ignores that as a strategy, as a tactic, looks past it.
And that's what Steve here is relating this to Israel's approach to their own domestic security problem. They are not trying -- well they are doing what they can to protect their targets but they are reaching out, so to speak, and trying to eliminate those who are attacking. What do you make of the apparent conversion of Ariel Sharon over the weekend. He has cited -- he's used the word oppression to describe the Palestinians. He has said that maybe time to move out of "occupied" territories and so forth. He's -- there are a lot of people scratching their heads. I think a spokesman said he misspoke on the occupation business but it's still out there. You have any thoughts on that? I don't mean to put you on the spot.
Steve: Well, what you compromise to keep you will loose so...
Rush: What you compromise to keep, you will loose.
Steve: Right. The little territory that they'll try to compromise to keep and give up...
Rush: yeah
Steve: of their territories you'll eventually loose because the Palestinians want it all.
Rush: Well that's true, they want it all. They want no Israel or Israeli's...
Steve: Right.
Rush: ...in addition to that. I think Sharon has officially stated that they will by the year 2005 accommodate a nearby Palestinians State and I'm telling you a lot of people are scratching their heads here over what's caused this. What has caused this? Well, yeah something like they don't know. Something -
I gotta take a break here folks, we're way close to it on time. Back here in just a second, stay with us.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Math Made Easy Videos]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[ad: JPL Bible Church]
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Sadly my friends, time for the second hour of the EIB Network's Rush Limbaugh program has expired. We have an hour remaining and we will eagerly get to it in mere moments. Phone number again is 800-282-2882. Be right back. Stay with us.
[ad: Far West Ski Association -- Rancho Las Palmas Resort]
[Promo: Loop Holes]
[Promo: Larry King Live]
[ABC-News]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[ad: eHarmony.com]
[ABC-News]
[ad: Culligan Water]
[ad: Recall Grey Davis]
[Promo: Joy Short Show]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have and if you were me doing what I've been doing you'd say the same thing, folks. Rush Limbaugh behind the golden microphone yet another day as we approach our 15th anniversary August 1st I mean it's may 27th which is also my wedding anniversary folks. Number nine today, should have been 14 but number nine to the lovely and gracious Marta. Then August 1st will be 15 for this program.
What? What are you -- going to go anywhere special for what? Wedding Anniversary? Oh, well yeah, we're going to go home. I mean we love home. I gotta just -- we love home.
We went to the Giuliani wedding Saturday. We were -- is this what you're trying to extract out of me? Is this what you're tying to -- Yeah, we went to -- we were among the 400 V -- V -- VIP's that were invited to the Giuliani wedding at Gracie Mansion on Saturday in New York and I have to tell you something. This was just a good old fashion traditional wedding.
It took all of ten minutes, maybe fifteen. Judy Nathan now Judy Giuliani strode down the isle. She was met there by her --bride to be Rudy Giuliani. The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg preformed the ceremony, a couple of jokes that were told at the beginning of the festivities or ceremony and then it just strictly by the book. I mean it was a marriage that took place in the eyes of God.
There weren't -- it wasn't an hour and thirty minutes long. There weren't fifteen thousand auras. There weren't any of these classic touchy, feely poster vows with just, "you promise to love, honor and obey," she said yes. "You promise to love, honor and direct," he said yes. Naw just kidding, (laughing)obey wasn't in there but I mean the rest of it - it was just as traditional as it could be. It was great. It was you know it was great just to see a good old standard marriage and wedding ceremony take place that wasn't full of frou-frou and it was just you know get in there get it and get out.
We moved on to the reception, hors d'oeuvres and adult beverages took place afterwards and they you know the rain held off. It was supposed to be raining all day and all night and it was most of the day but it held off. Everybody was obviously very happy and it was -- we were thrilled to be a part of it. Got back later that night and it was up and it was cold, it was 51 degrees in New York on Saturday.
May 24th , yesterday, you know Roger Clemens went for number 300-yesterday afternoon at Yankee Stadium, 51 degrees again. You know you can't help but think global warming I mean all these people worried about global warming business, you go to New York and I'm tell you it's -- it may as well be fall there now as far as the -- no "the rocket" didn't make it, it was unfortunate too he had 75 friends there. His mother who doesn't travel well, she's got emphysema and last time she'd been to New York, the stadium I think was in 1999 but a bunch of family there and Yankees offence didn't show up yesterday and all.
They're in the midst of I think a five or six game loosing streak, so I think Clemens goes for three hundred again this weekend against the Tigers in Detroit and you know how few pitchers in major league baseball history have won three hundred games? Like 14, 14 or 20 something like that I forget the number but it's -- it is a real precious -- precious few and he will be the next in to that club.
I had an interesting email here. This is an interesting point that's bouncing off some of what we've discussed today regarding terrorism and our war against it.
email: Dear Rush, one comment , I agree that no subsequent attack on the US has proven that we have been doing a good job against terrorism.
Rush: No uhh, I mean I agree with that.
Email: but let's not get to the point that only if there is no attack are we being successful. The likelihood that something's going to happen some day, I mean perhaps when our guards let down, maybe when the democrats get control back someday. I mean it's extremely likely it's going to happen. Does that mean that we've failed?
Rush: No, I don't think so. Not if our track record has shown for years we have prevented any major attack. It's been two years already or it will be in September. It's been widely successful but a 99% success...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...foiling terror plots and keeping the country safe for years is a huge success even if one day the eventual attack does come. Now let's hope and pray that it won't but if it does, let's hope it's not a catastrophe like 9/11 but I think we play into the democrats hands if we assume that only if there is never an attack that we've been successful. And this a good point.
Let's say that sometime in the next six months there is another attack. We know the democrats are ready to pounce and call every thing we're doing a failure and that won't necessarily be the case as this point we don't need to fall into the trap of suggest- which the democrats clearly laid. I mean no question about this. The "next attack" the democrats are going to pounce, "It is an utter failure. Bush has failed miserably!" Even though everybody knows it's impossible to stop one or everyone. It's simply not possible to defend all of these targets that we have and one of the things that the democrats are saying, can I point out really the stupidity of the democrats here in a political sense.
If you listen to Biden or Daschle or any of the nine presidential candidates, any democrat, criticizing the President for being distracted on the war on terror by going into Iraq now maybe focusing on Iran and leaving Al Qaeda alone, they are suggesting the President is actually abandoning the defense of the country. The -- they been distracted -- in saying that he's focusing on Iraq at the expense of the war on terror they are in essence saying the Presidents let down his guard on domestic terrorism.
Now you have to know something politically here. You have to know that Bush knows this. You have to know that Bush knows there's an election in 2004 and you have to know that Bush knows that he wants to win it and you have to know that Bush knows the democrats are set themselves up to benefit from this. Do you think the President therefore is actually letting down his guard? Do you think this Administration is actually doing nothing when it comes to the domestic war on terrorism? That's what the democrats would have you believe. How silly is this? I mean in a strict political sense.
Now it may not be silly in the sense they're trying to convince people of this but the fact they might actually believe it is asinine and forget the politics of it. To suggest that any President after September 11th or even the series of attacks in this country starting in 93 with the first World Trade Center attack. To suggest that any President would just shrug his shoulders and forget it and focus elsewhere is to suggest utter irresponsibility isn't happen.
Well, are you talk -- well it's -- 1993 to 2000 it - yeah, okay, alright, it has happened with Clinton and we know it because members of that Administration have let it be known that he didn't care about terrorism and one of the reasons why that Clinton didn't care about it he didn't want to deal with the big stuff. He wanted to deal with school uniforms and gays in the military and all this sort of -- he didn't want to deal with the big things because the possibility they go wrong and he rolled the dice and, "So okay if I don't deal with it and it happens it's going to be less negative on me then if I make a big deal of it and it happens then I'm a big failure." Now that's a distinction without a difference but that's Clinton. I'm sure it the way he looked at it.
So all I care, yeah, but to suggest to all that's happened that as the democrats are that Bush is some how ignoring the defense of the American people that is pure sophistry. That is why the American people love this President. That's why the American people do not seek a change in leadership right now because they have utter faith and confidence that Bush is doing everything he can to protect the people of this country.
There was a story -- there's a story I think in the current issue of Time Magazine and it's all about how the democrats have lost the soccer moms and there's a picture of some babe out there, 34 years old with a little baby in the picture and I forget what her name is but she's interviewed in the story. She voted for Clinton she was a soccer mom now she's a security mom and she is totally 100% behind Bush. Now the difference between the soccer moms and the security moms, there's a big difference, the soccer moms actually had this idea that Bill Clinton cared more about them and their kids than their own husbands did.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: The security moms do not -- their own husbands are not a factor here because they know their own husbands have nothing to do with protecting the country less they're in the military. So they got utter faith in Bush and so the -- that was a huge voting block for the democrats and it's now shifted -- this whole segment soccer mom to security mom is now in the Bush camp. Now precisely because people of this country have utter faith that Bush is doing everything possible to protect the borders, the country and the people who live here.
And the democrats -- every time they make this charge that Bush is doing nothing -- they -- I don't think they realize how it's being received by people who have utter faith in what the Presidents doing. But they're not making themselves look good or attractive or anything of the sort except maybe to their own small little putrid base out there. I got -- I would hate to have to secure that base. Just think of what you'd have to compromise and do and be to attract the democrat liberal base. Uuh, my gosh, my God I don't know that I could do it and then look myself in the mirror.
We'll take a break. We'll be back because when you look at -- you'd have to bend over and grab the ankles and look through your legs backwards. Stay with us, we'll be right back.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: General Steel]
[ad: Blanchard and Company]
[ad: NationalTrust.org]
[ad: American Lung Association]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Got the program observer here, Mr. Snerdly and a question. Mr. Snerdly or any of you out there, do you remember how I referred to Marta before we got married? Do you refer -- member how I referred to her -- Ahh- before we were married, while we were dating. No, not the lovely and gracious. I had a code name, code-name what. Code-name what? While you think about it we'll move on to the other areas of the news. Code name Jaguar is it! A sharp got it. Code name Jaguar, whenever I spoke of Jaguar I was speaking of the lovely and gracious Marta. Now, as I mentioned earlier,
Rush reading Israeli Radio: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told his stunned country yesterday that, "he was determined to reach a peace deal and to end thirty-six years of occupation." A word he used publicly for the first time of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The word is anathema to the Israeli right, which believes Israel has a legitimate claim to the West Bank and Gaza for both religious and security reasons. Sharon said to angry hard liners in his Likud Party, "To keep three and a half million people under occupation is bad for us and bad for them." These were remarks broadcast on Israeli Radio.
Palestinians claim all of the West Bank and Gaza for their State. On Sunday Mr. Sharon's Cabinet approved conditionally the US backed "Roadmap". The three-phrase plan begins with a halt to violence and in visages a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza in 2005. Mr. Sharon's remarks indicated, "his surprising turn around could be genuine," analysts said. The ex-general was nick-named codename "Bulldozer" for ramming West Banks settlement programs through successive Cabinets and he once argued that giving up even 13% of the West Bank and Gaza would endanger Israel's security.
In his remarks yesterday Sharon left himself a way out, he said, "What'll happen if Palestinian terror continues? Nothing. Nothing will happen. The Palestinians will get nothing," he told the lawmakers. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom also told Arab neighbors yesterday that it never would accept the return of Palestinian refugees or their descendants to it's territory under any peace settlement. "There will be no way refugees will be settled in the State of Israel," Mr. Shalom told reporters at a European Union Meeting of Mediterranean States and in Greece.
Now Laura in Levittown New York, you are next on the EIB Network. Hello.
Laura: Hi, you know I'm really upset about what's going on in Israel. I'm angry with Sharon, I feel that nobody is looking at the big picture. When you hear things like "dismantling settlements" what they're really saying is "No Jews allowed to live on Arab Land." You know there are over a million Arabs living in Israel. There's you know thousands of Palestinians that work in Israel but no Jews should be allowed. It should be Jew free and you know the new se -- and that's what it comes down to. They do not want to live with the Jews. They do not want an Israeli/Jewish State and that's really what -- I mean no matter how many land concessions (Rush interrupts)
Rush: Uhh, Laura may I be blunt? They don't want Jews to live.
Laura: and they do not want to live with the Jews. They don't. I mean there are a million Arabs, Israeli Arabs, and you know the irony is, those Arabs are the Arabs that stayed and after the war, the Arab Israeli war, Israel gave them citizenship. The so-called Palestinians are the Arabs that left that lived under Jordan and Egypt. Jordan...
Rush: Okay, okay so -- so why do you think Sharon has done this?
Laura: I don't know. I think pressure from the US. I think it's absurd to say, that you know, the Palestinians -- they want Israel to let the Palestinians work back in Israel, you know but it's absurd to say that no
Rush: Well what I'm wondering is...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Where are the neo-cons on this. I thought the neo-cons were running American foreign policy?
Laura: You know, did you ever read, "I Read an Article," by Joseph Farah, it's called, "The Worlds Collective Amnesia." It's about the Arab/Israeli war and the fact that these refugees, these Arab refugees, are the direct result of the Arab countries refusing a Jewish State. They told them to leave and then put them in refugee camps. I mean Israel absorbed -- I mean over -- there were more Jewish refugees from Arab lands they were nine hundred thousand Jews exiled after the Israeli war from and their ancestor went back twenty-six hundred years to the Babylonian Exile. You're talking Persian Jews, Iraqi Jews Israel absorbed them, they integrated them, the put them (hebrew?), they built them housing, they didn't put them in refugee camps. Why is it Israel's responsibility I don't understand. The whole thing...
Rush: Oh I think you now-now, Laura, I don't (Rush talking over Laura) I think -- no, look as educated -- wait a second now, as educated as you are on this you understand -- I mean, you know full well the Palestinians are not wanted by any other Arab country. The Palestinians are a football. The Palestinians or as Adel Al Jubair says, "The Pelistenians," the Pelestinians are a means to an end for the anti-Israeli Arab Nations of the region.
The Palestinians are not wanted in Jordan. Palestinians are not wanted in Syria, they're not wanted in Lebanon, they're not wanted in Saudi Arabia. They're not wanted in Iraq. Iran's not Arab but they're not wanted there either. They are simply -- they're homeless as, by design, so as to be able to be used by other Arab countries to get rid of Israel. "That's where the Palestinians belong. It's their place. It's their State and only until the Palestinians have it will there be peace, and blah, blah, blah."
Yeah, but you know -- I'm sure that you understand all this. I'm just curious as to people's opinions on what it is that's responsible here for what appears to be an overnight change of mind by Prime Minister Sharon.
Got to take a break. We'll be back, much more on the other side. Stay with us.
[ad: Jiffy Lube]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003 part six
02:30:00. [31: Immaadd2] [edit]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
[Promo: Loopholes]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI -- Local News]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair. Here is Don in New Orleans. Hello sir, nice to have you with us.
Don: French Quarter conservative dittos from New Orleans sir.
Rush: Thank you sir, great to have you on the program.
Don: Yes sir. I follow, you lead sir. Hello?
Rush: Yeah you called you have something to say?
Don: Yes sir, on the strategy or not strategy but I think the reason that Mr. Sharon is -- has come out with this position is, I think a process is already under way in the area, what I call the Levant's -- the middle -- the Israel /Pales -- so called Israel/Palestine area. I like to refer to it just as Israel but I think that a process is already under way that's going to lead to some sort of civil war between the current Prime Minister of the Palestinians and the old radicals and I think by Mr. Sharon joining in with the present Prime Minister I think he's just accelerating this process. I think this is going to result in some sort of a conflict between the new guard shall we say and the old guard and I think...
Rush: Of Israel? The new guard and old guard of Israel, you're talking about?
Don: No, the Palestinians. I think...
Rush: Okay so you think -- what confuses is you said civil war, a war - you mean a war between the Israeli's and Palestinians is now eminent.
Don: No I mean between the new guard of the Palestinians and the old guard. I've listened to your show sir for a long time and you talked about the need for some kind of resolution by conflict and I think the resolution is finally going to be between the new guard of the Palestinians and the old guard of the Palestinians. I think there's a faction amongst the Palestinians that have said enough is enough, it is time we join with our long lost cousins, the Jews, and stop all this and put an end to all this radical nonsense and these radicals will never give up. They'll never give up to there -- they're quashed and they're dispatched...
Rush: There's only one problem, look it, I must tell you that I'm somewhat dazzled by your thinking here but if there's going to be a civil war between two factions of the Palestinians and lets say we got the reformers here that's made up of this new Cabinet and this new, call him Prime Minister, Premier whatever you want, his enemies are the terrorists. Do you think the good guys that you're describing here, Palestinians have a chance against the whack'os in the Palestinian camp?
Don: Can -- are you asking me, can the new Prime Minister and his faction prevail against the radicals?
Rush: Yeah.
Don: Oh absolutely. The can prevail in time. It'll be a difficult struggle but they can prevail and I think...
Rush: Actually so what's going to provoke this civil war is Bush and Sharon saying, "Okay, we're going to go for it, Palestinian State," which is going to anger the radicals because they want no part of co-existence with Israel.
Don: They want Israel dead, radicals want...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:35:00. [32: Immaadd2] [edit]
Don: ...saddest part of this radical faction. There's two reasons -- there's one of two reasons Arafat didn't accept the Camp David accords or whatever, the Wye Plantation or whatever you want to call it. One he's either afraid of his own death, if he signed it he'd be a walking dead man or two, he wanted no part of Israel, he is --his mythology was the destruction of Israel and so he's part of the radicals. So you know this is going to end up a civil war between the Palestinians that are tired of this and want to see a better life for the children, not their children blowing themselves up in pizza parlors and the radicals that want to see the destruction of Israel and it's -- the only way it could be resolved is by conflict and it's not going to be conflict between Israel and Palestine. It's going to be conflict between Palestinian verses Palestinian.
Rush: All right Don thanks for the call, appreciate it, appreciate your clarifications of what you meant there. So that's something we have to consider. I haven't looked at it that way. That Sharon is attempting to foment a civil war among the Palestinians but they -- that's a heavy bet that the reformist Palestinians could prevail against this mad bunch of radicals as he calls them what they are who know no bounds when it comes to inflicting hostilities. It's an interesting though, I ha -- as I say, I haven't considered it. What had occurred to me here was that Sharon has to see that Bush is a man who largely gets what he wants. Bush gets what he wants.
Bush has been talking about a Palestinians State for the longest time. Sharon is in no position to reject out of hand anything Bush proposes and problem is that right after September 11th in fact the October after September 11th Bush said he supported a Palestinians State. He was the first republican President ever to say so and right after the victory over Iraq, the pressure was put on Israel to relent once again. Palestinians State and I just, look, Sharon sees no way out of this. I mean Israel's an ally but I just- you know , he can't, I guess his version or his view, Sharon's is that there's nothing to be gained here by opposing Bush. In a contest of who's going to get what they want Sharon concludes that it will be Bush.
But this is an interesting thought never the less that this could inspire or trigger a civil war against these competing Palestinian factions. Now there's a big leap of faith here for this to be anywhere near possible you have to assume that there is a peace loving Palestinian faction. You have to assume that there's a new group of Palestinians who are fed up with the current situation. That to me seems a big leap. I mean we would assume that any normal person would want to get out of the life cycle that exists there but I think it's a big leap to say that there is a huge contingent of Palestinians that are sick and tired of it and would be willing to engage in civil war against other Palestinians to bring that about. Well let's see, time will tell as always does.
This is Gidon in Queens, Queens New York. Welcome to the program.
Gidon: Hi Rush. I can't take this any more. Sharon is a person who has absolutely no vision. He's an opportunist. He took an opportunity in Lebanon in 82 and messed up the entire situation. I was there in 82, I'm an Israeli living in America for twenty years. He is the kind of person that at this point, of coarse it's to kind of too late cause he has no choice. He has to go along with Bush because as you said, Bush basically will get what he wants. To me it's seems like it's one of those, "Okay let's try one more time. Let's go all the way. Let's give the Palestinians everything they want once again and let's all watch them bungle it up and let's see how many more Jews," like you said a few months ago. "Okay tell me now how many more Jews or Israeli's have to die before we get to peace and then we'll talk." You said it yourself then. You're a hundred percent right. It's either them or us. Do you think anybody believes there is any Palestinians leader or otherwise that really believes that, "Okay, you know what we have to stop the killing because it's eventually going to be as a detriment to us." No. They work in increments...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:40:00. [33: Immaadd2] [edit]
Gidon: ...they wait till the next opportunity so it'll take a few more generations, fine, Israel will be gone by then. They don't have...
Rush: Well, wait, wait, the only thing that troubles me here is you're saying Sharon doesn't have a vision. How can you say that with this policy?
Gidon: The only vision he that has right now is that he has kind of no choice because Bush is sitting on his back like Bush should because it's in America's interest to kind of quiet things down and try and get these terrorists, you know to some kind of a halt. But Sharon, listen, Sharon is one of these warriors, there's a myth about Sharon that he's a (unintelligible), he's a killer, he's a butcher of Jerusalem. Fact of the matter is, that Sharon is gonna try to the last day he breaths to put that (unintelligible) to sleep, so he will not take anything more of one of those really dangerous moves or courageous moves that lets say Begin would take or Netanyahu would take because he want to clear his name. Every other day somebody else in Europe or in one of these World Courts that we talk about so many times, that are worth nothing, are trying to take him to court with some more of these war crimes against the Palestinians. He's afraid and...
Rush: Well, you know, you speak -- you speak very persuasively but facts, some facts speak otherwise. The past twelve months Sharon has taken nothing from the Palestinians. Every terrorist attack has been answered with incredible force. They have (talking over Gidon) even in the Gaza, which they don't even care about, they've moved into. They had Arafat cornered. They blew up his entire building. They blew up the plumbing. I mean they -- Arafat had nothing left of his headquarters and office. It was a last minute decision that kept him from going after Arafat. What -- this has just been the last six months or so, six or nine months.
Gidon: Rush, it's only symbolism. There has not been any thing done decisively. Not one thing. Sharon and Israel could have cleaned this place up just like you know and you say all the time, "Somebody has got to win," one of the sides in order for something to happen.
Rush: I agree.
Gidon: Do you think that if Begin was there today, this would still be? There were more Jews and Israeli's killed around the world under Sharon supposed to be "The Savior of all Israeli's," than under any kind of situation in the history of the Jewish world except for the holocaust. There were more people killed during this rein of Sharon than "Six Day War" for heaven's sake. It's an outrage.
Rush: Well, but you can't lay that just squarely on Sharon. It's been happening - it happened with Netanyahu. (Rush talking over Gidon) It happened with Rabin. I mean these terrorist acts have known no end or boundary.
Gidon: You know what? When this thing quieted down, when Netanyahu was in power and Netanyahu did one thing. He put on some garb and he went to Arafat's door knocked on his door after the second terrorist attack and the last one under the year and a half under Netanyahu and he told him, "Listen here, my friend, it stops today or you're next," and...
Rush: Yeah, the good old days.
Gidon: ...it never happened again till then.
Rush: (chuckling) and I agree -- that's true. There's no -- there's no question about it. There's no question this could be solved overnight if one of these -- if everybody backed out and said, "Okay, you guys have at it and we'll be back in a couple of weeks to greet the winner," we all know what the status would be. That's what's somewhat frustrating about all this but there's some -- look Gidon, there's something you said here that doesn't jive with something that's huge in the news.
There's a story and I mentioned it earlier, the Adam Clymer story in The New York Times it didn't contain this, it's a -- but there's another story of similar strain about the weaknesses that the democrats are encountering. In one of them, one of these stories focus on the new coalition that Bush is forming among Jewish voters in America. He's just winning them over left and right and it lays at the -- it says -- the story says that one of the primary reasons Bush is enjoying such success in the Jewish community right now is his defense of Israel.
Then this thing comes along and the rug appears to be pulled out from underneath Sharon and you wonder how the Jewish voters in America, not large number, but they still are in very critical number, how they are going to react to this. The story also contain the elements of the new Hispanic alliance to republicans, which is also happening and coalescing under Bush, some of it to do with Estrada but not all of it but if there is a new Jewish coalition forming, Jewish voters behind Bush, you wonder how that's going to be affected by this. Now, liberal Jews in America of coarse are all for peaceful co-existence...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:45:00. [34: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: Palestinian State is somewhat puzzling to me. I've never understood it, I probably never will but they're never going to vote for Bush no matter what but there are a larger number of Jewish voters never the less who are said to be moving to the Bush camp and I wonder now if that's threatened because of what this latest -- what ever it was that -- they had to be directly spoken -- message from Powell, somebody that convinced Sharon that, look, Bush gonna get what he wants, it's a Palestinian State so I'm going to do what I have to do here to facilitate that.
Look, you know I got to go here because we're a little long. We've got a couple segments of eager, busy broadcasts left, stay with us and we'll get right to it.
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh on the EIB Network]
[ad: Black Swan Wine]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: UniCars Honda]
[ad: Camelot Theaters]
[Promo: Your Pal Joey]
[Promo: Rush Limbaugh]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well there's clearly something going on here that does not meet the eye, ladies and gentlemen. Now, sometimes these things are so simple that you reject the simplicity of the explanation because this can't be that simple and it may be the case here but it just -- something to me just doesn't meet the eye. I cannot see -- I just cannot see George W. Bush selling out Israel. I just can't see it.
Now this road map for peace, yeah, what have we got here. We've got a road map for peace and supposedly Israeli's have signed on to it, the Palestinians have signed on to it and if the Arab Nations around there sign on to it then everybody's signed on to this quote -- unquote "roadmap for peace." And anybody who then violates it will come under the heading of terror...
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:50:00. [35: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...rist and if you become a terrorist you are a target, you're subject to be wiped out. Only problem with that is that I have never seen the distinction between Palestinian terrorism and say Al Qaeda terrorism. If we got a war against terrorism it seems that the Palestinian terror like Hamas or Hezbollah should be fair game in this war on terrorism and yet they're not, at least not from the United States. And we don't even let Israel actually deal with them. The -- look, the United States is Israel's only ally. Israel is a tiny little country and the fact is, Sharon cannot thumb his nose at Bush and he won't. So you got this road map for peace and that's the way things are going to be. Sharon can read the hand writing on the wall, he's not an idiot. He cannot buck the United States on this. So they have nowhere else and no one else to turn to so, the question continues.
I keep asking it always come back to this to me, "Why is US policy so fixated on Israel making all the compromises to make this thing work out?" I just frankly, you know, The Limbaugh Doctrine, and this two callers ago referred to it, Limbaugh Doctrine is, peace only follows victory. Peace is not the result of negotiations between conflicting parties. You don't end conflicts with words, on paper signed or otherwise. It just doesn't happen and to believe otherwise is to suggest that this will be the first time in history that real peace between two warring factions is permanently solved by virtue of words or dictates, I just don't see it and this is in the historical context.
Debra in New York, welcome to the program, great to have you with us.
Debra: Hi Rush, it's an honor. You know a couple of weeks ago there are five suicide bombings done by the Arabs. There not Palestinians. That was a made up word, a name forty years ago by Egyptian, Yasser Arafat that was thrown out of Jordan. They already have a state, Jordan, with Queen Rania who's Palestinian. It's obvious they don't want Jews to live and we will never vote for Bush again or Powell because he's forcing Sharon and Israel, Israel was there first, to take back terrorists and they are terrorists.
We've been there and we lived there when there were bombings. First of all, these Palestinians so called Arab Jordanians live quite well on the West Bank. We've been there. They have acres of land but the liberal media here called them refugees in tight places and that's because of Arafat and all the other Arab brothers oppress them. Not Israel. Not all this anti-Semitism going on.
Rush: Yes I know, I hate to interrupt you Debra because I'm out of time. I've got about ten seconds here but that's -- that is right. The economic conditions faced by Palestinians, is due expressly to Palestinian leadership, Yasser Arafat and the rest of them. Check his Swiss bank account and then check that against the Palestinian economy.
We'll be back in just a second.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Citracal]
[ad: Redwood Creek Wine]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 02:55:00. [36: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ad: Hopson's Continental]
[ad: Camelot Theaters -- Film Noire Festival]
[ad: PopulationAction.org]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Well , we'll hold out hope here that what's happening here is that a Bush/Sharon coalition is giving the Palestinians one last chance, sort of going to pull the plug on them here once they screw this up, which will happen.
See you tomorrow folks, have a good day.
[ad: Testostezine] Dr Richard Cohen -- unable to verify
[Promo: Paul Harvey]
[ad: Paul Harvey for General Steel]
5.31.2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Tom] [edit]
[terrorism threat propaganda woven into news by ABC]
[ad: Ford/Lincoln/Mercury certified pre-owned vehicles]
[ad: Insure.com]
[sports news: Anika plays in the PGA! The horror, the horror. . .]
[entertainment news: Buffy is no more! The horror, the horror. . .]
[scam news: somebody pretended to be a rich person! They're now safely behind bars. The horror, the horror. . .]
[ad: Goodyear Tires]
[promo: Rush Limbaugh show]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Galen] [edit]
[Rush Intro]
Say, Mike, I just now got the audio roster, so here, may as well do it this way. Stand by, audio soundbites; 1, 3, 4 and 5. It may go well with what I'm going to start with eight.
Greetings my friends and welcome back at it. We are here behind the golden EIB microphone. El-Rushbo and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. Lucky to - Well, we're not lucky. We've had all kinds of email problems this morning, folks, and send and receive problems. All over an un-interrupted power supply that needed to be rewired. I didn't even bother to tell you about it, Mr. Snerdley, there was no point. Though we finally got this thing working and wrapped up.
I just got to thinking, it's amazing how dependent - Well, by choice, I mean, it's really not totally dependent. It's amazing how - Well, dependent would be the best word I could use now - on computers we have all become here. Not just this program, I mean so much of our lives. If you are computer literate, you know what I'm talking about. Those of you who don't mess with computers probably laughing about it. It's far worse - I mean, if the TV goes down, no big deal, who cares? In fact, that's like a little vacation. Yeah, I was one of the first out of the box, I mean, using Compuserve back in 1980. Well, I might have been the first. I was using email, Compuserve, on-line services all the way back to 1985, you know, when I was introduced to the stuff. By the late, great Norm Woodruff out in Sacramento, KFBK, so, when I started out there.
You know why I first wanted it? I wanted to get the NFL injury report, 'cuz newspapers were not consistent in publishing it. And when I found out I could have direct access to that and all sorts of other stuff on my computer, well it was a new day in the life of El-Rushbo.
Anyway, we are here, ready to go, ladies and gentlemen. Lot of stuff has piled up. Have you noticed, on the these periods of time when I'm not around. I, just since, I watched a bunch of the news over the weekend 'cuz I was preparing for my return to the Golden Microphone here today, not yesterday. But I had made it plain on - Well, actually I didn't. This is not a good point. I had not made it plain. How many days in advance did I say I wasn't going to be here yesterday? I just did it on right toward the end of the show. Never mind. I was just going to say when the Democrats know I'm not going to be here, they crank it up.
But it's not a good point. Because I didn't make a big deal about it. Well, I guess maybe it is. The word can spread. I mean they were just - it's - folks they've thrown the gauntlet down. It is - as far as they're concerned, Bush is now vulnerable on the war on terror, he's vulnerable on the economy. Bush's vote - It's over! As far as the Democrats are concerned. If you look at the news, if you spend any time at all just in information resource gathering, you get pretty pessimistic today. You - If you don't have a sense of confidence about things, and about yourself - I mean, it is really pessimistic out there today. Let's just go ahead and get started and I'll show you what I mean and I've got some of these sound bites will dovetail here.
Item, first, off the top of the stack. This is a story from yesterday. "Democrats now attacking Bush on security." It's a little review of the mindless debate these people had in Iowa over the weekend. Then the New York Times. I want to go back to Saturday. New York Times and Adam Nagourney. "Democrats say Bush is weak on terrorism." So Saturday, New York Times; "Democrats say Bush is weak on terrorism", and the Associated Press today; "Democrats now attacking Bush on security". Let's stick with the New York Times story. Democratic - think about - I'll tell you
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Galen] [edit]
it's time again to take these Democrats to task. I don't mind doing it, but we're just doing it over and over and as long as they're going to keep trying to take advantage of things the way they are, we're gonna keep holding them to account.
Oh - we decided to turn on the ditto-cam for the whole three hours today, so we started the program with it. So if you are watching the program at Rush 24/7, welcome, nice to have you with us. If you're not watching, and want to, become a subscriber. It's simple. And you'll be able to afford it soon. A tax cut will be soon in your back pocket. Even a capital gains tax cut's part of this new deal. Hey, we'll get to that here in just a minute.
Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today on his handling of the war on terrorism. Questioning the administration's failure to find Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserting that Mr. Bush had failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks. First off, I saw something hilarious. I was flying home from St. Louis last night. A great time at the Joe Buck - Children's Hospital Golf Outing.
You know, I know I'm getting old. There's signs I'm getting old out there, Brian. You know, I'm 52. I think of myself as a young guy still making up for some action in high school I never got. I don't think of myself as 52. I guess one of the big bonuses of coming from the baby boom generation - our parents and grandparents worked so hard and sacrificed so much to give us a cushy life that we didn't have to grow up and face the kind of realities they did so soon in our lives. As some people like the Clintons didn't learn until they were in their 40s, that there were things larger than themselves. In life.
Most people learn that in their teen-age years, but, um, my golf cart was parked right next to Rob Dibble's. Yes, Rob Dibble, the former great pitcher for the Cincinnati "Shreds", and now an ESPN analyst. And he walked up and introduced himself to me. Now, Rob Dibble, you gotta understand. Rob Dibble's one of the - he's a throwback. Oh, some would describe him as a troublemaker. He wasn't a troublemaker. He was just a very vibrant and open personality. He's a funny guy. He's all bulked up now, much more so than when he played.
But he walked up, even, just, just just this side of sheepy, and said, "Mr. Limbaugh, I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Rob Dibble." Mr. Limbaugh!? Does it look like I'm 52 years old? He approached me like I was a grandfather or something! And I'm only 52. I'm older than he is, but I'm not old enough to be his grandfather. I don't know if I'm old enough to be his dad. Mr. Limbaugh. I don't know, I just got the impression here that he was being polite to his elders. He was raised properly.
Anyway, I was flying back on the airplane. I know you thought I'd lost my place, but I was flying back on the airplane last night. I was watching news and, maybe it wasn't last night, could have been Sunday. I don't know, but there was the funniest damn thing. I could not believe it. It was on Fox. It wasn't one of these crawls, with the words moving in yellow on the bottom of the screen. It was one of these Fox news alerts with the big red banner; Fox News Alert". Oh-oh, big news, something has just happened.
Then the still graphic is "Reports are Saddam Hussein's Still in Iraq, Using Assumed Name." Assumed name! You mean Saddam Hussein's walking around calling himself Ali Akbar Abba Dabba or something? Rather than Saddam Hussein? And that's supposed to be a descri - Saddam Hussein's under a fake name? Of all things! To make news! And of all things to be using as a disguise, a fake name? You know, I could understand it, Saddam Hussein's still walking Baghdad, using Groucho Marx eyebrows, glasses and nose, but not a fake name.
Anyway, the Democrats say because we haven't got Bin Laden, and we haven't gotten Saddam, that Bush has failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks. Now let me - have I missed something? That's what I'm saying; when did we get attacked? When
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Galen] [edit]
attacked by terrorists. Did this happen yesterday when I was in the air? Did you all know anything about this?
Anybody out there knows, we pride ourselves here, ladies and gentlemen, on being on the cutting edge, here. Knowing things you don't. And knowing things before you know them. But obviously something has gotten past us here, because - Well, no, let me read it here to you; "Democratic presidential candidates challenged President Bush today - this is actually from Saturday - on his handling of the war on terrorism, questioning the administration's failure to find Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserting that Mr. Bush has failed to protect the nation adequately against further terrorist attacks." Oh, further.
So, I was gonna say, there haven't been any terrorist attacks, so where's the failure? Don't worry. I'm asking you all this rhetorically. I'll get to the summation in just a moment. The candidates appearing at a labor forum in Des Moines Saturday morning repeatedly castigated Mr. Bush for what the White House has portrayed as one of Mr. Bush's chief strengths. His record in battling terrorism abroad and protecting Americans at home. The criticisms came at a week when terrorists killed dozens of people in bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Attacks that have officials have said bear the trademark of Al Qaeda. The bombings have stirred concerns about the terrorist group's persistence, even after many of its leaders have been detained or killed. And they've also re-ignited questions about whether the war on Iraq might have inflamed suicidal terrorists. They haven't. None of this - none of this is accurate. I mean, the Democrats are gonna be saying it, but none of it is accurate.
By the way, when Bush declared war on terrorism, did he declare war only on Al Qaeda? He declared war on terrorism, didn't he? You know, Al Qaeda has become a catch-all name for all terror. You know, we got brand name terrorism now - is the way this is all unfolding before our eyes. You can just hear the info-babes on TV; "Looks like it was Al Qaeda, Ted. Terror bombing sure feels like Al Qaeda, Tiffany. Well, we have no proof yet, but it has all the earmarks of Al Qaeda, Tom." I'm sure you've heard this; Al Qaeda here, Al Qaeda there, Al Qaeda everywhere, despite the fact that we've decimated them. So it appears we've got brand names for terrorism. We've got brand names for cola drinks, for hamburgers, cigarettes, automobiles.
Now we've got brand names for terror, terrorism and terrorists. The question is this; "Does it really matter if the attack in Riyadh was conducted by Al Qaeda or Al Aksa, or Al Hezbollah ? Terrorism is terrorism is terrorism, is it not? President didn't just declare war on Al Qaeda, he declared war on terrorism. I mean, if Al Qaeda vanished tomorrow, war on terror would continue. War on terror wouldn't end tomorrow if Al Qaeda was said to be vanquished. If Al Qaeda had vanished yesterday, same thing. And for all we know, it might have. Why the focus on Al Qaeda? Is it lazy journalism or is it playing politics? Clearly the President's drawn a line on terrorism and this is a mission that's gonna take more than one term in office. Probably more than two terms in office.
The Democrats, on the other hand, would like to focus on one brand of terrorism, Al Qaeda, and specifically Osama. And there's one reason why; that's 2004. "Where is he? Where are they? Bush didn't get him yet, I will. Don't ask me how, but we Democrats will find Osama and we'll get him." So we have brand-name terrorism and all these mythical dangers that the President continues to expose us to. This all just fits exactly what I told you these people were gonna do, does it not?
And there's more. Stay with us. More information, then the analysis you've come to know, love and expect on this program will follow.
[Rush on the EIB network promo]
[Ad: Citrical]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Galen] [edit]
[Ad: Skin Zinc]
[Ad: Volvo at Palm Springs Volvo]
[Ad: DesertNetwork.com]
[Promo: Terri Parker with Desert Homes Today on Sunday at noon]
[Ad: DesertHomes.com]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: ...or violating an ethics policy at the very least and here Graham's out there eluding to things that are in this which may not be. Senator Jon Kyl, who is also on the commitittee -- committee has chastised Graham for doing this. Be very suspicious of this, this is uhm, almost unconceivable what Graham is doing but it fit the bill with what the democrats want. What Graham said Saturday in Iowa, "We've let Al Qaeda off the hook. We had them on the ropes, close to dismantlement and then we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the war in Iraq. We let them regenerate."
Howard Dean went on and had what he had to say and they basically, Gephardt, his two cents in, oh by, Gephardt, can't believe this, we got the audio. Gephardt is telling the story about his dad driving a milk truck again and he's telling the story about how his dad told the family if it weren't for the union and collective bargaining they wouldn't have food on the table or a roof over their head and as you know, his brother has discounted that whole story. There's a 1988 Los Angeles Times piece in which the entire story Gephardt tells has been discredited. His dad was a republican. His dad was ab -- his dad was destroyed when he found out his two sons were going to become democrats. His dad didn't want to drive the milk truck. His dad did that because his mother made him take a job. He was -- he wanted to be a real estate investment uhm, other thing.
Yeah, this (unintelligible) no other democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee agrees that there is any information that Bush is engaged in any kind of a cover-up at all. Not one democrat and yet Senator Graham's out there trying to impl -- well he is, not trying, he is implying that the things in this report that the Administration will not declassify because it does damage.
Uhm, look let me get started with this. It's going to be interrupted by the break but we have to -- we have to begin here by again striking down what is in fact a falsehood. It's time to take these democrats to task about all that they are doing. What -- let me ask this, "What have the democrats proposed to strengthen our war on terrorism?" What have they proposed? They have proposed spending more money. That's all they proposed but they don't have a plan, they don't have one -- they are week on National Security. Everybody knows it, they are week on the use of the military, everybody knows it. Who's responsible for taking -- for failing to take out Osama Bin Laden in the first place? It's a bunch of democrats and I got this great scoupe on this from Monsieur Ejaz in a interview in the next newsletter coming up.
[ad: Life Quotes]
[ad: FOX News]
[ABC-News]
who first asked that question? You guys...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC-News]
[Promo: Loop Holes Live]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have. My friends, if I have predicted it once I've predicted it twenty-five times. I have warned repeatedly and I'm trying to prepare you that the democrats are going to try to use terrorism as a campaign issue. The (unintelligible) last week I went back and I replayed myself three different Rush sound bytes making the prediction. I mean you can just see it. The -- they've -- it's not that they've been hoping that there's be another attack but they've been preparing for when -- cause they don't need to hope everybody knows there's going to be one. There are going to be a series of attacks.
Now, I'm sure that they're plan was that there'd be an attack on domestic US soil and they'd really go to town but they're so eager -- they're so eager to do this -- implement this strategy -- to go ahead and take this attack in Saudi Arabia in Riyadh and they'll run with it as, setting up what they want to do. You can just see in all their speeches. They just been waiting for the next attack to be able to say, "See we told you so. The President has been distracted. He hasn't finished the job. Got distracted in Iraq. Iraq is no big deal," and they just so eager to implement this that they couldn't wait. Here's how these people --a little montage for you from the uhh, their so called candidate forum in Des Moines on Saturday. This a little montage of how these democrats bash the President when it comes to the war on terror.
Al Sharpton: I want to see George Bush defeated not just because he's a republican but because he's wrong. He's wrong about tax cuts. He's wrong about having wars that are unjustified.
(Howard Dean?): Everybody's glad to see Saddam gone but the truth is it is a diversion. We're not safer today then we were before Saddam Hussein left.
Dick Gephardt: We are vulnerable to future attacks because this Administration has not done its job and has not increased our ability to have Homeland Security.
Bob Graham: We have let Al Qaeda off the hook. We had them on the ropes close to dismantlement and then as we moved resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight a war in Iraq we let them regenerate.
John Edwards: When I am on a stage with George W. Bush in 2004 as I intend to be, we have a question for the American people, " Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Rush: Hey, hey that's really original. We can't wait to answer that question. Where'd you hear that one Senator Edwards? Wonder
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Galen] [edit]
anything you knew you could come up with. You know, the question will be rephrased; "Are we all better off now than we would have been had Al Gore been President?" [Hysterical crowd noises poorly aped by Rush.] And Edwards will shrink sneakily off the stage. Again, what have the Democrats proposed to strengthen the war on terrorism?
You know, it's one thing - it's like, it's like callers to a talk show. Anybody can call and complain and moan. But what do you suggest? What do you propose? It's like many hosts of talk shows, sit around, complain, and moan, whine. What do you have to suggest? Same thing with the Democrats, here. Anybody can sit there and complain, anybody can point fingers. But exactly what have they proposed to strengthen the war on terrorism?
In fact, since the Democrats raised this, let's take all the varnish off this issue. Who is responsible for failing to take out Bin Laden in the first place? Last week I talked to Mansur Ejaz, who was the man who brokered the invitation, or the deal, the offer from the Sudanese, three times, to the Clinton administration. You know Mansur Ejaz used to be a Democrat. He used to be part of the Clinton administration. That's why he was tabbed for this. The Sudanese offered Bin Laden to the Clinton administration three separate times. And Mansur Ejaz will tell the whole story in the upcoming interview in the Limbaugh Letter Newsletter, the nation's most widely read political newsletter. It's - there's not sugar-coating at all. It's no amplification needed. Osama Bin Laden walks the earth today because the Clinton administration wasn't serious about dealing with terrorism.
Who rejected repeated offers by the Sudanese government? To help us capture Bin Laden? Who slashed our defense budget and restricted the CIA at the same time that Al Qaeda was launching the attacks against the World Trade Center the first time? And attacked our army barracks in Saudi Arabia, bombed the two embassies in North Africa? Blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole? Who enabled Al Qaeda to grow, to train, to raise large sums of money, to secure lethal caches of weapons and spread his tentacles to scores of countries? The answer, of course, is the last Democrat administration and the last Democrat president.
And where were all this time, Bob Graham, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Richard Gephart and John Edwards and all the rest of the demigogs when Al Qaeda was building and strengthening itself? Well, let's go through the list.
Bob Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He did not use his powerful post to do anything effective. John F. Kerry, one of the leading hazers of the CIA. He tried to tie the CIA to drug trafficking and murder. That's what he was doing at the time Al Qaeda was growing and doing its evil.
How about Howard Dean? Howard Dean was governor of Vermont, where he was too busy raising taxes and destroying the institution of marriage to be even thinking about terrorism. John Edwards, too busy shaking down various businesses as a trial lawyer in North Carolina. And Gephardt was occupied leading Bill Clinton's defense from impeachment for his high crimes and misdemeanors. So, you know, all these Democratic candidates could have done something. They could have urged their president to take terrorism seriously.
They could have been in there. Bob Graham, Gephardt to John F. Kerry, Dean, well, he was governor, and Edwards, he wasn't in the Senate for all that time, but some of these other guys, what have they done? You know, they can sit there and point fingers, they can blame all day long. But when you come to ask them what have they done, what could they've done, what are they gonna do, you get a big, fat zero.
And let's cut it even closer to the bone, shall we? Because we know the facts and the truth are devastating when applied against the left. Who is it that failed to increase security in our airports and on our airlines. Tom Daschle's wife Linda served as the deputy FAA administrator for years. She was in charge of security levels. Along with Al Gore, Linda Daschle assured the nation that they had increased airport security. Apparently they didn't increase it enough, because 911 happened. Do the Democrats really want to open all these - maybe they
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Galen] [edit]
Republican out there that will take what I'm saying and run with it. There might be. Well, they may not need any Republicans once they know. The point is this stuff is right out there for these people to be challenged with. Well, I mean, we can't effective - If the Democrats want to really play it any - See, the smart play for the Democrats would be to join the effort to rid the world of these people. The smart play for the Democrats would be to get on board and join everybody and say, "We gotta work together to get rid of these people, make the country safer." But what are they doing? Pointing fingers of blame as if they are innocent bystanders.
They're nothing more than objective observers and they've been watching all this, and they've decided Bush isn't good enough. Bush isn't doing anything. Well, if you go back to the recent past and you'll find that a lot of these Democrats could have done a lot. One of them ran the show. I mean, even Clinton's out there ripping Bush on all this now, at a commencement speech in Mississippi. Now, if these people want to open this door, they're gonna open it right into their nose again, and bloody themselves because they are not innocent bystanders.
They have not been objective observers. They have been people who have participated in sweeping the problem under the rug, and leaving it for a future administration to deal with. Just as they did North Korea, I might add. Now, it is clear that the American people know that George Bush has done something about this. George Bush has taken action. Now you might find some people who will argue about the effectiveness. Now, I think they'd be silly, but you might find some people who would do that. But you cannot find any action taken by any of these Democrats to deal with this problem when they had the chance. You just can't find it. You find a bunch of huff and puff words about Saddam Hussein in '98 from Clinton that was echoed by Daschle and all the other Democrats. But, yes the missiles launched, and that was it. Oh, Bin Laden, as we know, he's walking the street because the Clinton administration didn't want to deal with the problem.
American people know that Bush has led forces in victory, both Afghanistan and Iraq. They know that Bill Clinton did neither. American people know that Tom Daschle sought to sabotage the President's war on terrorism, including the war with Iraq. Oh, yes he did! Don't try to tell me Daschle and the Democrats didn't practice sabotage. All you have to do is go back to all of last summer, last fall, throughout the U.N. debate and you'll find the Democrats aligned with our friends the French. Damn straight they were trying to sabotage what the President wanted to do. In Iraq. That's why Daschle did a 180 recently, and told a home-state newspaper that Bush was right to destroy the Hussein regime. Told you about that on Friday. Why do you think he did that? Because the truth is the truth. And he's vulnerable in his re-election bid.
Now, two final points before we go to break:
First one is this: apparently the liberation of 24 million Iraqis means nothing to the Democratic presidential candidates. Apparently it counts for nothing. All these great progressives, these great liberals. All this compassion for human rights. Apparently the liberation of 24 million people doesn't mean anything. Nor does the discovery of the mass graves move them at all. I mean, that doesn't seem to have had any impact on them. When it comes to ending genocide and supporting human rights, the Democratic party apparently no longer believes that we have an obligation to do anything about that. But the American people do, and they always have.
Second point: Prior to the war with Iraq, these same Democrats argue that rather than focus on Iraq, we need to focus on North Korea, all right? Well, which is it? Should we have focused on North Korea or the war on terrorism? 'Cuz according to these people, we can't do two things at once. We gotta choose something and do it. But we can't do two things at once. We are not that big a superpower, we're not that great a people. We can't do two things at once. If we can't fight two wars at the same time, then why or who do we have to blame for that?
The truth is, of course, the war with Iraq was part of the war on terrorism, just as dealing with North Korea is part of the war on terrorism. I have been through this countless times. All the same war. World War II had the Pacific theater, the China theater, the Burma theater. We had the European thea - It was all the same war, wasn't it? Well, did we say, well, we can't deal with Japanese right now, we've got to deal with the Germans. Well, did we say oop, we can't deal with the Germans right now, we gotta deal with
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Tom] [edit]
The whole [uninteiilgible] -- we went to Italy. We went to the Sahara region of Africa. We went all over the place in World War Two. Did what we had to do. Can't do that now? Oh really? And why -- might -- that -- be? Is that the attitude the Democrats want to project in an era where the American people don't consider their security to be the number one issue on the plate? The Democrats really think they're gonna get a lot of votes from people by saying, "Well, we can't do both. North Korea or terrorism -- what is it?
Well -- I don't know, I don't know what they think they're doing, but they are not inspiring confidence in themselves. They are not inspiring anybody but their left wing kook-ified base. Which is consumed with hatred and rage for Bush. More than it is consumed with anything that's good and decent for the country. At -- by the way, North Korea -- guess - who enabled North Korea, just as he enabled Osama Bin Laden.
[faked gasp]
Rush: Rush actually said that?
Rush: Yes I did. That would be Bill Clinton, ladies and gentlemen.
[faked gasp]
Rush: You can't be serious, Rush. Rush: Yes I am. Bill Clinton enabled that little pot bellied Kim Jong Il guy, and Osama Bin Laden. He helped arm Kim Jong Il with nuclear technology. It's left to George W. Bush to deal with that. And bin Laden.
If the Democrats want to use the war on terror as a political issue, so be it. They have a long and clear record, ladies and gentlemen, of dismal failure when it comes to this war on terror. They cannot be trusted. And their actions over the weekend in Des Moines do not do anything but reinforce the notion they can't be trusted. Especially with our votes. Back after this.
[promo: Pigboy web presence -- EIB network]
[Pigboy voiceover ad: Sleep Number bed]
[ad: One Price Optical]
[ad: JPL Bible Church]
[promo: Money Talk show]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Promo: Money Talk]
[NewsTalk - 920 KPSI]
[Rush Intro Music]
Rush: All right, grab audio sound byte number 11. The Gephardt and the milk truck story, by the way, NewsMax.com has a story in fact well, they're reporting this to just -- reminding us but in The Wall Street Journal today Louis Freeh, have you seen this Mr. Snerdly? (Laughing) I mean, it just confirms everything I said to you in a blistering indictment -- indicktment to those of you in Rio Linda, of his old bosses negligence in fighting the war on terrorism.
Louis Freeh, who used to run the FBI, charged today that, the Wall Street Journal: Ex-President Clinton was so unhelpful during the FBI's investigation into the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing that he, Louis Freeh, had to turn to President Bush, Former President Bush. Writing in the Wall Street Journal today, Freeh described the Clinton Whitehouse as unable or unwilling to help the FBI gain access to key witnesses in the Khobar case because it feared exposing the role of Hezbollah and it's state's sponsor Iran. The only direct -- the only direction from the Clinton Administration regarding Iran was to order the FBI to stop photographing and fingerprinting official Iranian delegations entering the US because it was adversely impacting our relationship with Tehran.
Rush: What in the world would we want to preserve a relationship with Iran over getting to the bottom of who blew up our people at the Khobar Towers. So here's Louis Freeh saying basically what I just told you. The Clinton Administration passed it all off to somebody else. They didn't want to deal with it.
Here's Gephardt, this is from this morning actually on CNN's American Morning, oh wait I'm reading the wrong thing. This is from the candidate forum in Iowa and this is Gephardt with the other democratic presidential candidates standing on stage with him.
Dick Gephardt: As many of you know I come from a labor union household.
Rush: Really?
Dick Gephardt: My dad was a teamster and a milk truck driver in St. Louis...
Rush: Yeah.
Dick Gephardt: every day that we were with him, he told us that because he was in a labor union we had food on the table and we had a roof over our head.
Rush: That's (unintelligible)
Dick Gephardt: My mother was a secretary. Neither she nor my father got through high school. She was a great woman. She gave me my values and she made me everything that I am and everyday in the House of Representatives I've tried to simply represent people like my parents. The hard working people like you who make this country what it is and make it great.
Rush: Whoa, where's he getting that line? Never hear about the democrats talking about any people making the country great. Democrats think government makes the country great. Ah ha, now he's - this a tribute to his mother who recently died. The - two things, Gephardt's brother plus a 1988 Los Angeles Times profile both say Gephardt's dad did not like the milk truck driving job. He didn't like having to join a union. The only reason he joined a union is cause he had to get the job. He wanted to be in real estate. He couldn't get a job in real estate. Had to drive this milk truck. His brother Gephardt doesn't remember his dad saying all these wonderful things about the union. This is strictly pandering to an audience and even after having all this pointed out Gephardt continues to tell the story.
[Promo: Rush on the EIB Network]
[ad: Trim Spa]
[ad: Blue Emu]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[ad: Blue Emu]
[ad: Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel]
[ad: national Trust for Historic Preservation]
[promo: Larry King]
[station ID 920 KPSI]
Rush: Where's the time going? So much I want to do here today. We got one hour already in the can. I'll try to get your phone calls coming up as well, too, but, um, a lot of great stuff in the stack of stuff. So, sit tight, we'll be back, and continue with all the rest of it, in a moment.
[ad: Palm Springs International Airport]
[promo: Dr. Dean Edell]
[promo KPSI 920]
[terrorism propaganda cleverly disguised as news by ABC]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Shane] [edit]
[Long silence with a tone sometimes for 2:15 sec]
[News]
[ad: crditreportonus.com]
[ad: Recall Davis]
[ad: Joy Short show]
Rush intro.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Shane] [edit]
Rush intro. You see where Jason Blair, the disgraced New York Times reporter, wants to write a tell all book. And pitch a movie about his, quote unquote, "life story". Somebody will pay money you wait and see. I don't know who. I don't know who will believe it but somebody will pay the money. Hi folks. Nice to have you back. A jam packed chock full Rush Limbaugh program on the EIB network is under way. Happy to have you along. If you missed the first hour - too bad I cant repeat any of it because we've got to move forward. But it was a hell of an hour. Here's the telephone number 800-282-2882. Email address at rush@eibnet.com.
Those of you on the phones - look I know you've been there and I want, I want. You're there because I want to speak to you. If you can be patient a little while longer. Do the monologue segment then we'll get to the phones here. In ah due course. Now I got a little note here from a friend. I get these things they sound intriguing. I don't know that its accurate so I'll say that up front.
But I think it is. It's - I've seen things like it a number of times. A billion, a billion. A simple billion is a difficult number to comprehend. But an advertising adjacency did a good job of putting the figure of a billion into perspective. A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the stone age. A billion dollars ago was 8 hours and 20 minutes the rate Washington spends it. (laughs) A billion dollars ago was 8 hours, and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
Hi my friends. (sighs) So predictable but I, I've got to mention it. Here's the story its from Saturday. Headline says it all. JFK - he made Clinton look like a choir boy. Is that not the purpose? Has that not been one of the whole point of releasing all this Kennedy stuff? The Bill Clinton legacy rehab tour? Story is by Barbara Davies.
It's hard to believe now that the 60 year old grandmother sitting quietly in Manhattans Presbyterian Church was once the secret lover of the worlds most powerful man. This week after nearly 40 years Marian Fonistalk stepped out of the shadows to admit she was Mimi, a mysterious and beautiful young White House intern, who once shared a bed with JFK.
And it goes on to chronicle all the things JFK did and then concludes, Bill Clinton was a choir boy (taps papers) in comparison. And the story is a total list of the things JFK did. No, there's nothing in here that nobody doesn't know. There's nothing, nothing at all.
I mean even on the eve of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most crucial moment of the Kennedy Presidency, his eyes fell on a pretty secretary who wandered into the cabinet office. The president would later need some R and R. Get me her name and number he said to an aide. We may avert war tonight.
Well this is look Clinton did the same thing there wasn't a war going on. Until he spotted Cathleen Willey. He was at some - in Virginia I think - campaign appearance. And we had it on the TV, TV show. Clinton takes somebody aside to get - what's her phone number, who's that. And it was Cathleen Willey. And one thing led to another. So anyway no there's nothing really new in here. In fact -
What do you mean JFK let terrorists off the hook? No? Well the whole point is Kennedy engaged in so much more than Clinton did is the point of the story. And we love JFK. JFK was a great president, they say. JFK was a great man. Great guy. Look at all he did. He still was able to lead.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Shane] [edit]
Rush: and inspire a nation of peoples and by comparison Clinton's (unintelligible) I'm telling you all this is, you know, what can Kennedy do. I mean nothing could sully his reputation anyway. There's not one anybody could say, you know, I can't help this is so iron -- you remember the caller from Sacramento, Karen. Here I am praising JFK for his tax cuts and she calls me and reams me, "I don't have the right because he's a democrat and I'm a republican and I don't have the right to praise him."
Here all these democrats and liberals ripping JFK in all these biographies and new stories accompanying the new biography, just making him look like an absolute, oh, I don't know what. A (satyr?). I mean the guy, they're making him look like he was anything but a cognizant leader and I'm the one getting grief for praising him.
(Unintelligible), all this is being done, don't for a minute think, this is not being done to make Clinton look good folks and I'll tell you, there's a question I have and I really mean this, there's gonna be I think somewhere in the future, the Kennedy school -- the Kennedy family is gonna honor Clinton with something.
Somewhere the Kennedy School or something and the Kennedy Family is helping resuscitate and revive the legacy of Bill Clinton at the expense of JFK. It is one of the most amazing things, they're sitting idly by and they're watching all this stuff come out about their brother, their uncle whatever, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, all for the purposes of building back up the legacy of Bill Clinton. It is just - it is amazing to me what the Kennedy family is actually doing.
Rush reading from an unknown source: Guerillas loyal to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat clashed with militants in Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp on Monday. Seven people were killed said witness and Palestinian officials. The violence is the worst in a year. Wounded at least 21 people, Lebanese photographer Mammud Zyatt from the French News Agency, was slightly injured.
Rush: Wait, five terrorist attacks now in the last three or four days and a huge attack that came on the day that Sharon was going to be meeting with this new Palestinian official which ought to show people what the Palestinians want and that is anything but peace.
You know, look, there's a -- somewhere in my stack here. I'm going to dig this out, there's a commentary from some female reporter and there are more and more of these surfacing each week. The point of this commentary or article is that the Palestinians don't want peace and the Arabs in the Middle East don't want peace. They want the end of Israel. They want the destruction of Israel and more and more of these pieces are being written because the truth is inescapable now.
There have been so many overtures for peace, there have been so many efforts made and the closer you would appear to be getting to peace, I mean, all the liberals of the world say that dialog is the most crucial ingredient to peace, do they not? They all, I mean, well clearly the most crucial ingredient to peace is victory. I mean you don't get peace until it is preceded with victory. That's the Limbaugh Doctrine but liberals thing you can bring peace around by, "Appeal to your enemy," you can have dialog, you can nurses, doctors, clean water, exchange programs and all that gobble-de-gook, think it brings peace.
Well here there's going to be a meeting between Ariel Sharon and the new Palestinian official, "Boy, what happened?" "Oh yeah, you're going to meet? Well watch this!" and attack after attack after attack, suicide bombing after suicide bombing.
Last thing that people want over there is peace. I don't care whether you call it Oslo or Camp David or Camp David two or the "roadmap to peace", the fact is that there's no Palestinian Authority there is no Syrian, the Iranians, others -- they all have groups that they back vying for power and none of them will accept a Israeli State. I mean that's what the bottom line here.
Everybody talks about establishing a Palestinian State, the real effort being made here is the destruction of the Israeli State and the fact that there's no tolerance for "that" among all these neighboring Arab Nations. I mean if we've learned anything since September 11th is that you simply cannot negotiate with terrorist. Why in the world -- we have learned this everywhere but the Middle East is beyond me, and I...
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Shane] [edit]
big believer in democracy, republican government. But the conditions for democracy among the Palestinians don't exist, they're just not there. And are nowhere near being there. And the truth be known, folks, the Palestinians are not even all that liked by these neighboring Arab nations, if you want to know the truth. The Jordanians don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them. The Saudis don't want the Palestinians anywhere near them. The Lebanese even don't want them there. The Iraqis don't want them anywhere near them. And neither do the Iranians, even though the Iranians aren't even Arabs. But they don't want them. The Palestinians simply are being used as the weapon, if you will, of all these other Arab nations. It's so classically obvious.
"But Rush, you know, if it's all resulting from poverty by - If the Palestinians were just more" - I've actually heard somebody say that if the Israelis just were more generous with the Palestinians, provide the Palestinians with more aid, people would be stunned how much aid the US gives the Palestinians. And where does it all go? Swiss bank accounts under the control of Yasser Arafat and his buddies in the so-called Fatah movement. At any rate, quick break - back with more in a moment. Your phone calls are coming up.
[Ad: EIB collection of fine golf apparel and accessories.]
[Ad: Hotwire dot com]
[Ad: Blanchard and Company]
[Ad: Manhattan West - Mortgage Brokers]
[Promo: Bob Villa for updated tetanus vaccine?]
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Shane] [edit]
National foundation for infectious diseases commercial Dodgers Baseball commercial Radio Station commercial Rush intro. Americas truth detector. And doctor of democracy general all around good guy. Famous radio raconteur Rush Limbaugh here. Three time Marconey award winner for excellence in broadcasting. All adds up to the fact that I'm good. And it is a good show. Hears what I was talking about the a Kennedy business Senator Edward Kennedy. This is a release form the JFK library web site. A conversation with President Bill Clinton. 2:45-4:15 PM Wednesday May 28th. It would be a week from a tomorrow.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy will introduce President Clinton who will engage in a wide ranging conversation with presidential historian Michael Beishlos. President Clinton will reflect on his own legacy. Oh really no kidding and some of the central themes related to President Kennedy including the roll of the US in the world, domestic issues concerning the advancement of right and opportunities for all Americans and the importance of public service. This will be a ticketed event a limited number of seats are available will be determined by lottery. Ah ha gambling! To get into the Kennedy thing if your interested in participating in this gambling exercise. Please leave your name contact phone number and address on our special forum reservation line they leave a phone number here. But this is what I was talking.
The Kennedy family is sitting by letting the presidency of their own brother. Whatever be destroyed or besmirched even further all for the sake of rehab of the Bill Clinton legacy. Its amazing. And George in Winston-Salem North Carolina. Hi George thanks for calling your up welcome to the program. Hi Rush mega dittoes. I just wanted to say that I think that the reason the Democrats are trashing JFK's legacy so much is because the Republicans are using him so successfully to show support for Bushes economic polices.
Rush: (making noises) You know its an interesting thought but stop and think of what your saying weather your right or wrong about the reason. Your assertion still is probably more accurate than it is not and that is. That the Democrats. Its the Kennedy family and all who are releasing all this information to this historian Bob Dalic and showing up at his bio. I mean its Democrats enabling us to learn of the interns and all the babes. All this stuff is being documented now its the Democrats doing this. I mean that assertion is irrefutable its not a bunch of republican opposition research causing this to happen. Ah and some of this stuff actually comes from, I think Kennedy Library files, Kennedy family files, Kennedy some of this stuff is classified only know to the Kennedy family and people related or involved in the Kennedy Presidency. There the ones making it public.
And in the midst of all this here comes Kennedy Library exercises with a conversation with Bill Clinton and admittedly about legacy rehab. Now the theory is (stuttering) they don't mind JFK being besmirched because Republicans are beginning to use him. If that's true these people know no bounds. There is no loyalty that counts for them. If they will purposely engage in activity that besmirches the reputation of arguably there finest, greatest President JFK next to FDR only to prevent Republicans from using some of his tax policy my gosh my friends just how cynical are these people if thats not the reason for it.
Tuesday, May 20, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Shane] [edit]
Theirs, there has to be some reason. They've got to do this to save there party. Well see the thing is tax cuts I know. I mean its just hard for me to believe that they so oppose tax cuts. I mean I know the oppose tax cuts its not that they oppose folks. Democrats are scared to death of tax cuts. They are literally scared to death of these things. All we need is a replay of the 80s here and were not going to get quiet that because these tax cuts aren't that big but he comes back every year adding to them then they could be but if these tax cuts provide the stimulus that everybody thinks is going to happen then every Democrat theory is out the window.
If the economy starts coming back they are finished (in French maybe Italian). Its over 2004 may as well be canceled as an electoral event and just go ahead and say Democrats we just want to save our money. Were not going to run a candid | 
