All Episodes
Previous Next
June 8, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
June 8, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I got this email last night from a college student that just started some summer classes out in California yesterday describing his first day in school.
And I wasn't going to use it.
But I think it may really come in handy today, given everything we've been discussing.
I will continue to think about it.
In the meantime, greetings and welcome.
You got Broadcast Excellence, Rush Limbaugh, another excursion.
Down the EIB train track here on the Choo Choo of Truth.
Great to be with you.
Our telephone number, if you'd like to join us, is 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Yes.
Democrats generally cheered.
Republicans groused when a bipartisan group of senators crafted a compromise on judicial nominations last month.
But with the Senate now confirming several conservative nominees whom Democrats had blocked for years, some liberals are questioning the wisdom of the deal and fretting about what comes next.
Eleanor Holmes Norton said, our problem with the compromise is the price that was paid.
So she and other Congressional Black caucus members, the Janice Rogers-Brown vote today is at 5 o'clock.
That's when it is scheduled.
And she and several other Congressional Black caucus members plan to march into the Senate today to protest the impending confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown.
This is, as I say, this is nothing more than liberal whining that they can't control the courts anymore, can't completely control it.
But even if this deal is not going to last, folks, because the liberals are going to overreach.
And when this deal was made, we did react with such disgust that any Republican not running from a Navy blue state commits political suicide tolerating the filibuster any longer.
And the day will come.
Something is going to happen to cause the Democrats to blow the deal, and they will blow the deal.
I don't know if it's going to be with Janice Rogers.
Well, the votes, they had cloture vote yesterday, 6532.
But with this march into the Senate today, things are going to get interesting because there's more and more pressure that will be brought to bear on the Democrats in the Senate to change their mind.
And, you know, Eleanor Holmes Norton, when asked about, well, what about this little colored girl from Alabama being on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal?
Well, we'd rather have a rich white guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth than Janice Rogers Brown, said Eleanor Nolmes, or Eleanor Holmes Norton.
In fact, we have some audio soundbites on the Brown nomination.
Go to Soundbites 8 and 9 here, Mike.
First up is Joe Biden.
And this is yesterday at a news conference on Janice Rogers Brown's nomination.
This is equivalent to putting her on the Supreme Court in the sense that many of the Constitutional decisions that she will be called on to make as a Circuit Court of Appeals judge will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Do you see how they keep redefining terms?
Now, Janice Rogers Brown being on the D.C. Circuit is the same thing as being on the Supreme Court, folks, because many of the cases that are reviewed by the D.C. Circuit will not make it to the Supreme Court for review.
The Supreme Court won't hear some of these cases.
So Janice Rogers Brown is going to be among the judges who have the last word on some of these horribly important issues that are designed to institutionalize liberalism in America.
It's been an amazing thing to watch this.
Minority rights.
That actually means if you're a liberal today, the minority won, because we should have won because we always have won.
The Senate's ours.
The courts are ours.
You can't mess with them, you Republicans.
We're going to stop you from messing with them.
You can't have them.
They're ours.
So we have minority rights now.
Minority rights.
That's what counts minority rights, the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Now all of a sudden, Janice Rogers Brown, she may as well be on the Supreme Court because the D.C. Circuit is the last court in line for appeals to the Supreme Court in many cases, but they won't accept some of these cases.
And so she's the equivalent of a Supreme Court justice.
Well, no, she's not.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the Supreme Court.
You intellectually explain this to me.
You can't, folks, because this is as convoluted and illogical and fear and hysteria-based as anything that you'll hear from these people.
Up next, the freshman senator, Osama Babama, or whatever Senator Kennedy pronounces his name as.
I know it's Barack Obama.
This is this morning on the Senate floor.
And this is his hysterical, panicked comment.
In speech after speech, she touts herself as a true conservative who believes that safety nets like Social Security, unemployment insurance, and health care are, quote, have, quote, cut away the very ground upon which the Constitution rests, end quote.
Janice Rogers Brown believes, this has already been stated on the floor, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own, quote, socialist revolution.
She has equated altruism with communism.
She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
And I agree with everything she said, Barack, because she is right about everything she said in that speech.
You people are a bunch of socialists.
Why don't you admit it?
You love it so much.
I do not run from the term conservative, and I don't run from the term capitalist.
Whoa, man, somebody calls me a capitalist or conservative.
I flex my muscles and I say, you're damn right, and I'm proud of it.
But you liberals are just a bunch of socialists.
You want to redistribute the wealth.
You want to level the playing field in artificial ways.
And the only way you try to do it is by punishing achievers.
You don't try to level the playing field by elevating those at the bottom because you don't want them elevated, Barack.
Let's be honest about you, leftists.
You don't want to elevate people at the bottom.
You need them at the bottom so they keep voting for you.
You need them at the bottom where they can't have anything but what you give them.
You want them at the bottom so they live on your handouts.
And if they get past that, like Janice Rogers Brown has or Clarence Thomas has, look how you try to destroy them.
Your own race, Barack.
Your own people.
You're out there trying to destroy your own people and they're showing everybody else in your population how it's done.
And that's why they're a threat.
That's why you can't have them reach positions of power because they put the lie to the old liberal assurance that just follow our way, you people, and you shall reach the promised land.
Well, people have been following the enlightened path of socialism for I don't know how many decades and years, and there aren't any of them that are happy except those in leadership positions who make the rules and give the orders.
Admit you're a socialist.
If you guys wanted to level the playing field by talking to me about how to raise the people at the bottom, then I would listen to you.
But you want to level the playing field.
And by the way, who gives you the right to level the playing field anyway?
Who gives you the right to do that?
Where is it written that that is something that happens?
It may be a noble cause.
It may be something that might be right, but where's the entitlement to a level playing field?
I haven't had one in my life.
I don't know anybody else who has had a level playing field in their life.
Everybody has obstacles.
Everybody gets screwed one way or another now and then.
You overcome it.
But you want to institutionalize getting screwed as something that's part of capitalism.
And then you want to blame the successful for the others that are not making it.
And so you want to punish them.
We got to raise taxes on the rich.
How's that going to help somebody at the bottom, Barack?
It never has yet.
Raising taxes on the rich?
What's it going to do but punish the rich?
And then those at the bottom of the barrel are supposed to go, yeah, man, I feel a lot better.
Those people are suffering.
Hey, yeah, you are too, but your suffering has not improved.
Any has it?
Because of what happened to the others who are suffering?
I don't care, man.
I want him to be as miserable as I am.
Exactly.
Socialism spreading misery equally.
Liberalism spreading misery equally.
Level the playing field.
But boy, let a Clarence Thomas come along or let a Miguel Estrada come along or let a Janice Rogers Brown come along.
And those people who have escaped the lower levels, the unbalanced side of the playing field, which isn't level, those who've made it to the top, we got to destroy them.
They didn't do it our way.
They didn't do it with our handouts.
They're not dependent on us to stay at the top.
They got there on their own.
We can't have that.
You are so pathetic.
You are just pathetically absurd in this modern era with all these hundreds of years of evidence, thousands of years of evidence around the world that what you believe in fails, except in one way.
Here's how it doesn't fail.
If you're a socialist or a liberal and you win the elections and you're the majority, you own the world.
Your voters don't.
Your voters are still a bunch of dependent waifs incapable of getting anywhere without you.
So you are empowered.
So yeah, I can imagine it must be pretty cool to be a liberal or a socialist when you win elections and you're in the majority.
But it ain't cool for your voters.
They're still waiting for you to fulfill your promises and you can't fulfill them.
Because Barack, you and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy cannot level the playing field because you're going about it the wrong way.
If you want to level the playing field, stop punishing success.
Stop punishing achievement and teach everybody or expose as many people as possible to the whole concept of success.
But you can't do that either.
You know why?
Because liberals believe that people aren't capable of success.
Liberals believe you don't have what it takes to make the judgments in life necessary to be a success.
You need them to do that for you.
You're basically incompetent, inept, and stupid.
You are a rube.
You haven't got the necessary whatever it takes to live your life the best way possible.
You need liberals running your education system for your kids.
You need liberals running daycare centers for your kids.
You need liberals regulating the kind of car you can buy and where you can go in it and what you have to wear when you're driving it.
You have to have liberals telling you what your kid has to sit in in a car when you're driving the car.
You have to have a liberal tell you where you can live on a beach and where you can't live on a beach.
You have to have a liberal basically tell you where to go to get this or to get that because you don't have the wherewithal to know where to go to get it yourself.
Back in just a second.
Oh, yeah, one of the finest bumpers that we have on our rotation, hot chocolate.
Everyone's a winner.
In our view, 800-282-2882.
You know, people constantly ask me, Rush, you know, you used to do cruises.
You used to do cruises.
You used to go on these cruises.
You'd sell out the whole ship and you'd do all these appearances and speeches and we'd have a great time.
Won't you ever do them again?
I've thought about it, folks.
The problem is, honestly, if I were to do one of those cruises today, we'd need a fleet.
One cruise ship would not hold all the people that wanted to go.
And so if you've got more than one cruise ship, I mean, what am I supposed to do?
Get on a wave runner, go back and forth from ship to ship, or helicopter back and forth, helicopter back and forth, have the ships go out in tandem, you know, where you're always inside of the other ship, docked at the same place.
I don't know.
But I think about this now and then, and it's just something that, well, you know, that's the thing.
Where would I want to cruise to since I live basically in the tropics?
I mean, what's the point of cruising someplace when I can drive there every afternoon after work?
Last time I did, what?
Well, no, that's HR said, the last time I went on a cruise, a war broke out.
No, no.
Well, wait a minute.
Was that the Gulf War?
I did have to come off the cruise because we attacked the air war began in Gulf War I, and I was in Antigua.
Had to get off the boat in Antigua.
He did the program for three hours then, and then had to, you know, catch a whole bunch of flights to get back in time to New York to do the program.
That might be the last time I did a cruise.
I've been through the Panama Canal, but not on one of these group cruises.
And the Panama Canal cruise was funny because they get some guy from Panama on the loudspeaker system of the ship to start telling you about the jungle.
You know, the area the canal goes and they destroy the jungle, you destroy the world, the guy says, environmental disaster and so forth.
And I've got the myth of that in the stack anyway.
I keep getting emails about why don't you do another cruise?
And I just want you to know I'm always thinking about it.
And don't, folks, don't anybody think there's, I have nothing is on the agenda.
So don't get the wrong idea here.
I'm just saying that I just know if we did it today, we'd need more than one ship.
We'd fill the first ship up in the first day.
Maybe two days.
At any rate, I got to read this note that I got from a college student.
I was just going to keep it on file, as it were, but I got this, and it just fits with what we're doing today.
Dear Rush, I think you're going to love this.
I just finished the first meetings of two classes I'm taking this summer here in California.
The two classes are World Geography and Environmental Geology.
First, the World Geography class.
Similar to what we do in our first day of class in grade school, the professor asked each person in the class to state their name, their major, why you're in the class, say a little something about themselves.
All the students except me claimed that they were in the class to meet a general education requirement.
I said I was in the class because I would probably find the subject material interesting on some level.
And as I came to find out, interesting was an understatement.
Finally, the professor told us a bit about himself, specifically what he did this past weekend.
He told us that he participated in a Native American cleansing ritual.
He was detailed in his description of it as well.
He said that he and 30 other participants were dressed in bathing suits, crammed themselves into a little hut that stood three feet off the ground, perhaps 10 feet in diameter.
The hut was sort of like an igloo.
After everybody's crammed inside, the Indians throw in 27 heated stones, then pour water on top of them through a hole in the top of the hut.
All the openings are then closed and you sit in sauna-like conditions for four hours with no breaks.
It only is worse than a regular sauna in that the temperature is much higher and the participants are encouraged to excrete all their bodily fluids.
Yes, if they have to go to the bathroom, they just go on themselves and each other in the hut.
The professor went on to say that he did this because he believes in trying everything at least once and that he lost five pounds doing it.
Once we got into the syllabus, he explained that we won't be studying the location of countries or their cultures or cities or anything that he claimed we probably learned in high school.
We're going to focus more on globalization and the U.S. policy towards other countries.
We're going to study all continents except Europe.
He then went on to say that he usually kicks off the semester by showing the Michael Moore film Roger and Me, but did not explain why he no longer does that.
Instead, we watched documentary about how the IMF, the World Bank, slave trade, and globalization are responsible for Jamaica's economic crisis.
The documentary was in the same fashion as the Moore films, outdated footage, bogus claims about the nature of the IMF loans, and a complete misrepresentation of Jamaica's economy.
For our first assignment, we are to write about this film and about the reasons Jamaica suffers from poor economic times.
Of course, the purpose is to assign blame to America and globalization.
Now, the environmental geology class, that's even a bigger joke.
First off, the professor has a terribly thick accent.
It's hard for anybody to understand what he's saying.
The class is geared toward human impact on the environment.
We started off with the population problem.
The professor painted a typical doomsday picture about how the world's overpopulated, that humans are using up all the natural resources.
He drew a graph about the rise in global population, its plateau, and then a chaotic plummet due to the depletion of water, air, and food supplies.
I couldn't resist, so I raised my hand and I baited him into saying something outrageous.
I said, so what are we to do about this problem, professor?
It seems like this will happen no matter what we do to prevent it, based on the way you're describing it.
And Rush, as God is my witness, I am not making this up.
The professor went on to say that China had adopted a policy of one child per family, but it was apparent that his support for that was half-hearted.
He actually said, I swear to you, perhaps this is a good argument for same-sex marriage.
These are just a few of the biggest things that happened in my first day of classes.
I'll let you know how the rest of them go.
So the population myth is still out there.
Paul Ehrlich is still apparently a disciple.
This is some environmental geology class.
Population is going to destroy our ability to create enough natural resources or to have enough natural resources to feed and house and clothe everybody in the world.
So China and their one-child policy was mentioned as a solution, same-sex marriage, mentioned seriously as a solution to the population problem.
So I figure this all fits with what we've been discussing today.
This is not going to tell you where the university is.
I don't want to get student in trouble, but it is in California.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
And look at now, Jimmy Carter, classic example of how you rise to power in the Democratic Party.
You fail.
You fail.
The more you fail, the more you get elevated to positions of prominence and respect in that party.
Jimmy Carter's out there now saying we need to close Gitmo.
The Washington Post today, still trying to feed off their latest poll.
This is nothing more than an editorial on the front page.
It is not a poll.
It's simply an editorial.
For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half the American public believes the fight there has not made the U.S. safer, according to a Washington Post ABC News poll.
While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to social security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting, in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded.
More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
Why would that be?
Could it be that the mainstream press and the people they talk to in these polls are the same people that listen to them and read them and watch them?
Could it well be that because the template of every war the United States gets involved in is filtered through the template of Vietnam by the Washington Post.
And so you go out and talk to people whose answers you know are pretty much going to substantiate the point you want to make in your poll.
And this business about the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable.
While two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down.
Six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting.
Front page editorial.
Let me give you a little story.
Wasn't long ago, I was with some people.
And these are moderately intelligent people, very successful in their own right.
The subject of Iraq came up.
And it means a couple, a man and a woman.
And the woman said to me, well, you know, I just, I look at the news every day.
I don't know what I think.
I said, well, what do you mean?
Well, I just don't know what I think.
I mean, it seems like the Iraqis are killing each other.
I mean, every day, 10 people die in a car bomb.
And I said, what are we doing there?
10 people every day dying in a car bomb.
I think the Iraqis are killing each other.
And I said, well, no, it's not the Iraqis killing Iraqis.
It's terrorists that are coming in primarily from Syria that are killing Iraqis because they don't want the Iraqis to set up a government based on voting and freedom and democracy and democracy-like structure.
But 10 people a day.
I mean, it's just, every day I see this.
I said, do you know how many people were lost in D-Day?
No.
Would you be surprised to learn that we lost about 1,500 soldiers in a training exercise for D-Day?
We lost them in one day.
I didn't know that.
So would you be surprised to learn the number of deaths and casualties at the Battle of the Bulge in World War II?
But they're 10 people a day, and it's just killing each other.
I said, do you not get the point that I'm trying to make?
The casualty rate in Iraq is nothing compared to wars we have won.
It's nothing.
The casualty rate in Iraq is nothing.
Are you saying it doesn't mean anything?
No, I'm not saying it doesn't mean anything.
I'm saying we need a sense of proportion here.
I said, let me ask you this.
You remember when the media was counting up eagerly to the 1,000th death in Iraq?
Oh, yeah, and I thought that's just too high.
It's unacceptable.
Yeah, so that was very bad news, 1,000 deaths in something like a year and a half or two and a half years in Iraq.
And that's when I shot the number out about how many we lost in the training exercise for D-Day.
And then I went on to explain why this is happening and what the purpose of it is.
And after going through it all, which I've shared with you all here what the purpose here is, we're trying to establish in that region of the world freedom for those people so they can do something besides raise their kids with hatred for America and so forth.
Dealt with.
Uh, you know, receive with with.
Uh, the person was interested.
These two people were interested what I had to say, but you could tell that it was very foreign.
They're just they.
They were totally, totally swayed and trapped by just the daily reports of the mayhem.
And I said, you know, let me ask you this question, if during World War Ii, every day the mainstream press had been eager to report American casualties, and if the press in World War Ii had been actively opposing our mission in World War Ii, do you think we would have won it if the same kind of media had been reported?
Let's say that training exercise for D-day, let's say that that became a week-long story on American television during World War Ii.
If that news had leaked out, what do you think the odds would have been of us prevailing?
No answer just, you could see the wheels turning and they were and they were thinking, but this this, I see a poll like this and I know who they're polling, I know who they're talking to and so do they, because they want these answers and they want to portray these people as a majority of the American people.
This is all about attempting to create anti-war support or anti-war views in the American population because, to these people, embarrassing George Bush and defeating George Bush is more important than defeating our enemies.
And it's just amazing, it just it continues to happen.
And I think it's happening with greater frequency because, despite this poll and despite all the efforts of the Washington POST and NEW YORK Times to affili this outcome, they have failed.
The vast majority of the American people are not opposed to this.
The vast majority of the American people are not demanding we get out.
The vast majority of the American people are not unaccepting of this.
They just want us to think that's the case.
Here's Gary in Bakersfield, California.
Welcome to the program, sir.
It's great you have uh, the time to wait for us.
Thank you.
Well, thank you, Rush.
Uh hey, I I called in to talk about this judicial nomination deal, but I would you allow me to add a little piece of evidence to what you just said there yesterday or a minute ago about comparing the news coverage now to what happened in World War Ii.
World War Ii, they didn't even allow a picture of a dead American soldier for over a year and a half.
Okay, so you can just contrast to the kind of coverage you're getting now and you can see the results exactly, but anyway, I wanted i'm glad to see that you are, I think, seeing the light on this judicial nomination deal.
I think it was a good deal for our side from the beginning, and I think that the fact that this deal was gonna could very well fall apart was foreseen by the beginning.
I was just telling my wife, I think it was last week hey, this looks like Carl Rove written all over it.
And the next day you happened to mention, I think, a rumor or something that that that one of the senators said that he was asked by the White House to do this, and to me it's a win-win situation.
Either either they're going to start on the bucket again.
No hold hold hold, hold up, wait a minute now wait wait, just a second.
You're you're.
I appreciate the call, but you're wrong on two counts.
I've not changed my opinion of the deal, and the second thing is about Karl Rove being What that story was had to do with.
There were people trying to portray Bill Frist as disingenuous and leaderless.
And the word had spread.
And I know who it was.
It was, well, it was either DeWine or Lindsey Graham.
And the evidence points to DeWine, but it's still just a suspicion.
But somebody was out there, one of the participants in the deal was out there saying, hey, hey, look, the White House made us do this.
The White House called Frist.
Frist and the White House got together and they told us to make this deal because they didn't have the votes.
And it was just these guys trying to save face after the outcry of anger from the right in this country over the fact the deal was made.
They were running away from the deal.
They were running away from it.
Now, as far as my changing my, and I did some research and I asked some people that I know, and I said, the White House involved in this?
White House and Frist make this happen?
And I got the most vehement denials from people I trust that I've gotten on anything.
And I don't call and ask them much about things because, well, I just don't, but I did on this one because that was so, that was just, nobody had even alluded to that.
And these guys in the deal start saying, hey, don't blame us.
Frist and Bush made this happen.
Well, that's not the case.
As to this deal, I still maintain to you, it's going to fall apart.
And I'll tell you why it's going to fall apart, because the filibuster is still possible.
The judicial filibuster, still alive and well.
And these Janice Rogers Brown, she may make it this afternoon.
You trust the Democrats to follow through on their end of a deal.
You go right ahead.
I'll wait to see the evidence before I believe it's going to happen.
Everybody says Janice Rogers Brown is going to be confirmed with a vote at 5 o'clock this afternoon.
I know that the Congressional Black caucus is going to march into the Senate this afternoon and try to stoke those Democrats into breaking the deal.
And I know that it's going to happen on the next one, Bill Pryor.
And I know that Frist is going to send some judges up that technically, theoretically not part of the deal because they're going to trigger this filibuster.
The Republicans are going to do their best to trigger it because they know it's lurking out there.
And it's going to happen.
It's going to happen with a Supreme Court justice.
It's going to happen with one of the existing nominees.
But it is going to happen because it's still alive and well.
It could have been killed.
It could have been knocked off.
It could have been eliminated forever.
And we could have gotten these judges confirmed at the same time.
And we could have gotten all of Bush's nominees confirmed at the same time.
But the filibuster is still there.
It's still alive and well.
And as I'm sitting here talking to you today, I'm telling you, this deal is going to fall apart.
The deal is going to fall apart because the Democrats are not going to be able to keep it.
Frist is going to filibuster, or Reed, Dingy Harry, these guys are going to filibuster something down the road.
This extraordinary circumstances, and everybody says, well, Rush, they can't say extraordinary circumstances now that they've allowed these three to be confirmed.
What do you mean they can't?
They've redefining, they just got through saying Janice Rogers Brown is essentially on the Supreme Court because she's on the D.C. Court of Appeals.
And since the Supreme Court won't hear all of the reviews or won't review all the cases that the Court of Appeal hears, she may as well be a Supreme Court justice for crying out loud.
That's convoluted as anything I've ever heard.
Then they're out there saying minority rights.
We must have minority rights.
We must have the minority and an ability to separate or to shape this judiciary.
No, the minority doesn't get to do that.
But now we have minority rights.
Minority rights means the liberals actually won because they should have won.
These three justices, these three judges, if they get confirmed, these next two for the total of three, you just wait to what their base is going to do.
If you think that nothing's going to come of the Congressional Black Caucus marching into the Senate this afternoon, WhittelmoveOn.org marches into Washington or People for the American Way or threatens to withhold money or what have you.
This deal is going to fall apart.
Mark my words on that.
I'll be happy to be wrong about this.
I don't want to be right.
Just so you understand, I will be happy as I can be to be wrong about this, but we'll see.
Back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
I'm holding here in my, well, let me grab a call.
This guy's been waiting for a long time.
I'll get to this rainforest myth story right after we talk to Justin in Orlando.
Hi, Justin.
Thanks for waiting.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, God bless you.
Christian conservative black terroridos.
Hey, I like to talk about the Democratic Party when it comes to faith.
They accept no evangelical faith except for one, and that's the one that comes from the black community.
And this makes me angry because what I see when they deal with the black community, it's like a liberal married man that's screwing your sister who was raised in church.
Because what they're doing is that they're getting everything they can out of your sister.
They're getting their votes.
They're getting their voice out of your sister.
They're getting kids for the government programs and kids for the government school.
They're getting everything for the government.
And they're not giving anything back to your sister.
In fact, your sister, because they're married to liberals, or the liberal name, your sister can't even wear the name.
Blacks will not wear the name liberal for the most part because we hold to religion and we know that there's something wrong with that, but we give everything up to these liberals and they just take from us.
They make us hypocrites.
They make us needy and bitter and keep coming back to them.
And they have no issues with keeping us on the bottom rung.
You know what?
You're like, you treat you like a mistress who'll never wear the wedding ring.
Never, never.
But they want to have the cookies from us.
They want our vote.
They want our voice to accuse somebody of being.
They don't even walk into your churches.
As much as they hate Christianity and religion, they'll walk into your churches and pass the plate.
And they'll take the money after the plate's passed.
They want the money.
They'll take the money after the plate's passed, and they'll walk in as long as you're not preaching about God.
If you're preaching about Bush or preaching about the Democratic Party in the church, they'll be glad to walk into church with you.
Thank you.
And they make us hypocrites.
They make us put down our religion so we can get some government cheese.
And when they leave, then we pick up our religion again.
We don't mention God while they're here.
Yeah, I know.
I know.
If you mention God, I mean, it's like showing Dracula the cross.
I mean, they'd be fleeing.
Justin, I appreciate the phone call.
That's pretty well said.
Somebody understands it and gets it.
LA Times Today, rainforest myth goes up in smoke over the Amazon.
I love this story.
I'll never forget when all the clear-cutting began down there.
You know what the environmentalist Wackos said?
They said, you know, you're destroying the lungs of the earth.
They said the lungs of the earth, the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the earth, that's where the air is purified for all of us to breathe.
And that's what this story is about.
Ever since saving the Amazon became a fashionable cause in the 1980s, championed by Madonna, Sting, and other celebrities, the jungle has consistently been likened to an enormous recycling plant that slurps up carbon dioxide and pumps out oxygen for all of us to breathe from LA to London to Lusaka.
But far from cleaning up the atmosphere, the Amazon is now a major source for pollution.
Rampant burning and deforestation, mostly at the hands of illegal loggers and of ranchers, release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the skies each year.
Brazil now ranks as one of the world's leading producers of greenhouse gases, thanks in large part to the Amazon, the source for up to two-thirds of the country's emissions.
Daniel Nepstad, an American ecologist who has studied the Amazon for 20 years, said it's not the lungs of the world.
It's probably burning up more oxygen now than it is producing.
But even this, if you don't read any further than this, you still think it could have been the lungs.
It could have been really great, but probably the Brazilians led by the Americans are destroying it and clear-cutting it and burning it up for development and blah, blah, blah.
However, if you read long enough and deep enough into this story, you will come across this passage.
Even without the massive burning, the popular conception of the Amazon as a giant oxygen factory for the rest of the planet is misguided, scientists say.
Left unmolested, the forest does generate enormous amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis, but it consumes most of it itself in the decomposition of organic matter.
For sure, the Amazon is not the lungs of the world.
It never was, said Paul Barreto, a researcher with the Amazon Institute of People and the Environment.
They also said that all of this destruction was going to lead to and cause global warming, and that's back in the news, thanks to Tony Blair.
The story will never go away, and yet I keep hearkening back.
They all said it's too late to fix it now anyway.
So if that's true, how could we have caused it?
We'll be back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
Democrats are promising to hold fast to their Bolton filibuster.
McCain says there's no way he can put together a group of moderates to stop this one.
Yes, the deal's a great deal.
And your podcast of this program probably will be to you in less than an hour if you subscribe and are a podcaster.
▲
Export Selection