All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
July 1, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I know America is waiting.
And so America shall hear.
What will America hear?
This.
This hysteria.
This breathless hysteria over the retirement of a lawyer.
Tells me just how out of control the courts are.
That unelected judges are perceived as the final authority in our country.
The founders never intended this.
This just goes to show how out of control and out of whack the judiciary is.
And it also just goes to show how much people cringe or crave a final authority.
People crave authority.
They crave a final authority.
Except in this case, we're not allowed to use God or the Constitution.
No, we have to have some liberal or combination of liberals be our final authority.
Well, screw that.
Yip, yahoo.
Here we go, heading off into a holiday weekend.
Whether you are a propane American or a charcoal American, it's the 4th of July weekend, Independence Day.
And of course, the weekend news cycle has been sparked.
I really hope you are not among these people that needs news to spark your 4th of July weekend.
I certainly don't.
I got a note from a friend today.
Whoa, whoa, wow, Roe Connor resigned.
Wow, this is going to really spark up the weekend.
And my reply was, I am fortunate I don't need news to spark up my weekends.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It is the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's the EIB network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Yes, folks, Sandra Day O'Connor has split the scene.
A lawyer has quit a court.
She's on a plane to Minneapolis, it is said.
She's not even in town yet.
All the news cameras are focused outside her vacant home.
And all of this hysteria, this is going to go on all day long.
And all of this hysteria, we don't even have a nominee yet.
And it's breathless out there.
This hysteria, one person, one lawyer, folks, has quit the Supreme Court.
And look at this is this is a great way to illustrate the point that a number of us have been trying to make for a few weeks now, months, even years, on the whole concept of judicial activism.
Because this hysteria, this interest, this breathlessness shows how a bunch of unelected judges have become the final authority in our country.
And people crave a final authority.
Obviously, this illustrates it.
People want somebody that has all the answers.
And unfortunately, we have invested nine lawyers on the Supreme Court as the nine people who are unelected and unaccountable who have all the answers.
We hear Sandra Day O'Connor today portrayed as a swing vote, proving that the U.S. Supreme Court's become a political institution and not a judicial one.
What do you mean?
Swing vote.
What was her judicial philosophy?
She didn't have a judicial philosophy.
She was an activist.
I mean, if the truth be known, a couple of quick points.
And, you know, this is tough to do because everybody, this is the day she retired.
She's been there since 81, Reagan nominated her to July 7th in 1981.
And of course, somebody retires and leaves.
We're full of plaudits for them, which is understandable.
But, you know, it's time to roll up the sleeves and get busy here.
In my opinion, which is not so humble, ladies and gentlemen, Sandra Day O'Connor is precisely the kind of activist.
Stand by on audio soundbite number four, and I'm going to prove this to you.
Sandra Day O'Connor is precisely the kind of activist who has done great damage to the institution of the judiciary.
She was a predictable fifth vote for most of the court's activist decisions.
And by activist decisions, I mean judges imposing their personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the Constitution.
Activism is when you forget the Constitution and rewrite it according to your own personal policy preferences.
And she was pretty reliable as a fifth vote in that regard.
Yeah, she got it right now.
And then she got it right on the eminent domain case recently.
Maybe that's why she got fed up and quit.
Who knows?
She says it was because her father or her husband is ill and she wants to spend time with him, which I believe.
But, you know, we've heard the liberals say for months that there were seven Republican justices, which is meaningless.
We have seven justices appointed by Republicans, but come on.
The party affiliation is meaningless.
And the liberals say, well, the court can't be activist for this reason why the Republicans have seven appointees there.
The issue is judicial philosophy.
There is no longer any room for appointments that are PC or stealth or what have you.
If we're going to make even small strides in returning the court to its constitutional responsibilities, the place to start is with the appointment of a person who has a solid record of fidelity to the Constitution.
You know who I nominate today?
Janice Rogers Brown.
Put her on the court.
Rush, you can't do that.
Why, she was just sworn into the D.C. Court of Appeals.
That's exactly right.
Put her on there.
She's just been through the confirmation hearings.
Make the libs go and trounce her again.
They delayed her for three years.
Let's see it all, folks.
Put her up there.
It's the kind of person we need on this court.
Sandra Day O'Connor has left.
We need to replace her with a woman.
Woman of color can't be beat.
It would help if she'd been an illegal immigrant.
I know that, but she wasn't.
Well, try to cover all the bases here as we pander with court nominations for votes.
But really, in terms of fealty to the Constitution, and somebody who's right on Janice Rogers Brown, make the case today.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says that she has to serve on the Court of Appeals for X amount of time before that she can be moved up.
Edith Jones, another great conservative female, put her up there.
Her or Janice Rogers Brown.
Hubba, hub, a hubba.
I'm for it, and let's move on with it.
If you want to know, if you're sitting there, Rush, I can't believe how coarse and unfeeling and unkind you are.
I mean, this is the day of her retirement.
Couldn't you hold your powder until next week in being critical of Sandra Day O'Connor?
Oh, okay.
Well, let's go to one of the liberal gods when it comes to these matters, the Right Honorable Lawrence Trabe of the Harvard Law School.
This morning during NBC News coverage with Brian Williams, He spoke via phone.
Williams spoke via phone with Harvard University law professor Lawrence Traub.
And Brian Williams said, while not always on the same side as Madam Justice O'Connor, what is your reaction to the news this morning, especially in light of all the rumors about the Chief Justice?
My reaction is that we've been hit by a tsunami.
She was central to the court not only because she was a centrist, but because of her doctrines and her contributions in terms of principle, both to affirmative action decisions and the decisions about religion and to decisions about the role of the state in the national state division of power.
All of those contributions have been absolutely feminine.
Okay, so you've got a liberal god, a liberal guru saying that this resignation hits them like a tsunami.
They know how important this fifth activist vote is, folks, and you've seen so many five to four decisions in this court, and you'll find Justice O'Connor right in there on that five side a whole bunch of times joining the activists.
You just do.
And the Libs know what they face.
So the Libs are going to suggest a centrist, a moderate, somebody of the same temperament as O'Connor, that it's time to clean this up.
You know, the left, it's predictable what you're going to hear.
The left's going to argue abortion rights will be in jeopardy.
And unfortunately, it's not true.
There are six justices who are solidly for abortion on demand, according to the 1992 decision to reaffirm Roe versus Wade.
So if you subtract Sandra Day O'Connor even and even replace her with a pedal-of-the-metal conservative, it still leaves five, which is a majority.
But I mean, even if Roe had been reversed, there's no reason to panic over this.
It simply means that Congress could pass statute or the states could and still be abortionist going to be just a lot less argument about it.
Abortion's legal in Great Britain, but it was decided by the people, not nine lawyers who are unaccountable and unelected.
And as such, it's far less controversial in Great Britain because the people always have a say in it, and it had a say in it to begin with.
Justice O'Connor oftentimes was a politician in a black robe.
She used her position to impose her views on the nation without the benefit of public input or an election.
And you can say that about a number of the justices on the Supreme Court, not all of them by any means.
But here's the best way.
I think the best way to pose this to people is to simply ask you a question.
Do you, as a citizen of this country, do you have faith in representative government and your own right to vote and influence your government?
Or do you want to cede that power to a handful of lawyers?
Because that's what we've done.
We have ceded our power to influence our government to a handful of lawyers.
And this circus that's going on today, and I've been waiting for it for this reason, is the greatest illustration yet.
One person, one lawyer retires, and we stop everything and focus on that one lawyer retiring and who will be the next lawyer replacing this other lawyer.
Because we crave a final authority and we don't reserve that authority for ourselves via our votes, via our representative government.
We have ceded that authority to nine lawyers.
Now, it's obvious we crave an authority.
All human beings want to know what's right and what's wrong.
And we've ceded the definition of that to nine lawyers.
So much so, particularly the left, so much so that when one of them quits, it's panic time.
And yet, we are the people who elect our representatives.
We are the people who should and could influence the direction of our country and government.
But oh, no, be it imminent bomain, be it abortion, be it property right, whatever it is, whatever nine lawyers say, we breathlessly await.
But there are positive signs.
Because now when these nine lawyers issue their commandments from on high, in certain sectors of our country and society, the people are saying, no, that's not right and are on track to doing something about it.
Quick timeout.
We will be back and continue in mere moments.
Don't go away.
Let me give you another example of the breathless hysteria, the hopes and dreams of the liberal media, all wrapped up in the retirement of a lawyer.
Audio soundbite number six, please.
ABC News this morning, the host Bob Woodruff, not to be confused with Bob Woodward.
This is Bob Woodruff.
He's talking to reporter, Congressional reporter Linda Douglas.
And Bob says, Linda, Linda, any signs of movement?
Linda, can you give us a sense of the strategy?
I mean, what's going to happen there now, Linda?
Well, the big issue here, there's been a fight that the public may not be aware of all along, where the Republicans have been trying to change the rules to prevent the Democrats from using what's called a filibuster, a long, long debate to block judicial nominations.
That fight is going to be resurrected again.
If the Democrats try to block any of the president's nominees by using the filibuster, the majority leader is going to try to step forward and change those rules, and that raises the stakes even higher.
It could shut down the Senate.
There's been a fight the public may not be aware of?
It's a big disconnect.
It's the Twilight Zone.
A fight that the public may not be aware of all along.
She's just bringing back the whole specter of the judicial filibuster by the Democrats.
Also, we're going to be talking about the judiciary in a little bit different way today.
I've got a story here.
I've got three versions of this story.
Let me make sure I've got them here.
New York Times, Washington Post, and the L.A. Times.
And you know how flabbergasted I was reading this Boston Globe story yesterday about the Democrats trying to come up with a strategy and their beliefs and so forth?
I just couldn't believe what I was reading.
And I was, does this reporter really know what he's talking about?
These people just out of it.
We got three more examples of it today about the reaction to the eminent domain decision of the Supreme Court last week.
It's all about, all three stories are about the same event, but the way they are written about is just mind-boggling.
And I'll get into that here in due course.
But let me let's open mine Friday.
Let me grab a phone call or two here quickly as we head into our bottom of the hour break.
Go to Indianapolis.
Mary Jean, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, it's such an honor.
Thanks so much for taking my call.
First person I thought of when I heard Justice O'Connor was retiring was John McCain and his comments on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago.
He basically said, you know, Tim, with all due respect, it isn't going to be 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.
It's going to be 14 senators that decide this.
And it made me sick.
And I want to just tell you, and I called Senator Luger's office this morning, that this is the lion in the sand as far as I'm concerned.
And if they can't act like winners, I'm through supporting them.
Well, wait a minute.
Now, wait.
I'm telling you, I know.
Hold on, hold on.
They haven't done anything yet.
I know, I know.
The president hasn't named a nominee.
Oh, I hope cookie roll of tape because there's Teddy Kennedy here responding to Connor's retirement.
I'm not going to have time to read the closed captioning while he speaks about it.
Obviously, he goes first because he wants to get the happy hour first here on the 4th of July weekend.
So Ted Kennedy, first Democrat out of the box.
But Mary Jean, look, I know what you're talking about.
The gang of 14.
The gang of 14 said that part of their deal was the president had to discuss the nomination of Supreme Court justice with him or with them.
Remember that?
And Bush said, oh, yeah, we'll talk about it with him.
But they said we're going to be in there.
The president has vowed to work with us.
And that is offensive as it can be.
That's not in the Constitution.
The president doesn't have to meet with the Senate and give them a list of names that they approve of before nominating anybody.
I don't think the president's going to nominate anybody before he gets back from the G8 trip, which is that won't be July 7th or 8th.
So we're going to have a week of this breathlessness.
It's just, it's going to be, I'm glad next week's a short week.
They're already talking about canceling the August recess because Bush wants the nominee confirmed by October, which is when the next session of the Supreme Court will begin.
Well, we got to, before we start ripping into Republicans here, let's wait till they do something wrong.
Oh, I don't think he ought to wait till August.
I think he ought to nominate somebody this afternoon.
I got to nominate Janice Rogers Brown this afternoon.
Let's get started with this.
Just nominate somebody.
I mean, he's, well, we're going to be thinking about this, and I'm not going to announce the results of my thinking until I get back from the G8 summit.
Look, it's no big surprise.
The White House, everybody's been waiting for a resignation here for how many years?
And everybody's known that when we got down to this point, it was either going to be Renquist or O'Connor.
Nothing I would say, you know, I would say just to tweak the left.
You know how we love to tweak the left here.
Who was the last Supreme Court justice confirmed?
Anybody want to take a stab?
Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.
So the president or his people could say, our job is to balance the most recently confirmed Supreme Court justice, and that is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is so far out on the left edge of the earth, she's about to fall off of it.
So we need to balance somebody.
And I'd try to give Ralph Nees a heart attack.
I'd try to give the ACLU and the people for the American Way, send them over to the FDA for new human testing on heart medicine or something.
I'd just, you know, I wouldn't wait.
I just, I just, now that's, this is why I'm not an elected official, folks.
I'm sure I don't understand the temperament necessarily here.
I'm sure I don't understand the collegial thought process required.
And of course, the G8 summit must take.
Oh, speaking of the G8 summit, that's why all these wacko global warming stories are out this week.
And also one in six people in the world.
I'm going to have to double check this in the stack, but one in six citizens of the world are hungry every day.
World hunger, big problem, all this stuff going in the G8 meeting.
He does have to do that first.
All right, a quick timeout here.
Open line Friday.
Hey, we've only just begun.
Sit tight.
All right.
Now, we have been on the air for roughly 30 minutes.
Actually, six.
We've been on the air for 27 minutes.
And my opinion is I've said everything there is to say about the retirement of Sander Day O'Connor.
I've analyzed it.
I have reported it, and I have suggested a course of action.
Nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
It's over.
But we're going to get all afternoon and all night, and we're going to get all kinds of endless speculation, worry, fear, potential joy, all these things based on the various commentators who don't know anything.
They're going to be coming forth to give us a list of names, who it could be, and if it's this person, how that's good or bad.
If it's that person, it's good or bad.
This person is good.
And it's all going to focus around how ridiculously important the retirement of a single lawyer in the United States of America has become.
Really, I mean, we can talk if you, if you want to talk about it, if you feel free because it's Open Line Friday, but there's nothing else to be.
This story has been reported.
It has been analyzed and it has been dealt with responsibly.
We did it here inside of 27 minutes.
We don't need to spend three hours.
If you want to, you can, but I'm not.
I'm going on to other things, other related matters.
Well, what is there to say, Mr. Snerdley?
What else is there to say?
Tell me, what is this from a journalist standpoint?
What else is there to say?
We have reported the news.
I have told you what I thought of the news.
I've told you what I thought ought to happen as a result of the news.
I've told you what I think of the other people reporting the news.
What else is there to say?
What gloat?
You want me to gloat over?
What's their gloat over?
What in the world is there to gloat over?
Oh, well, okay, yes.
Well, it is why elections matter.
But I mean, we're into Bush's fifth year now, five and a half years of his eight-year two-term presidency, and this is the first nomination.
And I'm telling you, most people in this country are going more batty over this than a presidential race.
You wait till you see this get ginned up, folks.
Once the nomination is named and their nominee is named, you're going to see this because the libs are trying to institutionalize liberalism in the courts.
That's why it matters to them so much.
And this is more important than a presidential race to them.
They will take losing the White House in order to keep court.
That's their priority.
I've mentioned this to you before.
This is going to be knockdown drag out.
And that's why I'm saying it may as well knock them out and drag them out and not play pussyfoot here anymore, not try to make friends, not try to get great styles piece section stories on ourselves in the Washington Post or any of that.
But it just grates on me that we are a representative republic.
We, with our votes via our elected representatives, we influence.
We should be influencing the direction of the country, not nine lawyers.
The very idea that we talk about them in terms of liberal or conservative or swing votes or here or there proves it's a political institution and not judicial.
And that needs to change.
Flat out needs to change, which leads me to these three stories on the same event I was telling you about.
First of all, let's do the New York Times first, stepping up their assault on the federal judiciary.
Congressional Republicans announced efforts on Thursday, directed at overturning two recent Supreme Court decisions, one that allowed government to claim private property for economic development, and another that stripped Kentucky courthouses of the Ten Commandments.
Both of these decisions are simply outrageous.
But here you have the New York Times with this sniveling, sneering attitude in the first paragraph letting you know what they think of congressional Republicans.
An assault on the federal your elected officials who plan on exercising their third amend third Article III rights in the U.S. Constitution, according to the left, is assaulting the judiciary because the judiciary to these people is God.
The Supreme Court is God.
God has nine heads and God just lost a head today.
And the left has to make sure their God has nine heads with at least five of them on their side.
And so any assault on the judiciary, just think of it in religious terms.
The left is looking at that court as God and church and sanctuary with abortion as the sacrament.
And so what they have to do now is make sure that Sandra Day O'Connor is replaced with a like-minded activist.
And all the while they've got to characterize your and my elected officials as assaulting the judiciary when all they are doing is exercising Article III rights under the Constitution.
Listen to this opening paragraph again.
Stepping up their assault on the federal judiciary, Congressional Republicans announced efforts Thursday directed at overturning two recent Supreme Court decisions.
They have the total authority to do this.
It is this silly notion that the final authority is nine lawyers is what's wrong here.
The focus in this ought to be entirely different.
The elected representatives of the people, unhappy with the decisions of nine lawyers, representing the views of their constituents, have decided to see what they can do about this.
Oh, no, no, no, no, folks, it's an assault on God.
This is the equivalent of urinating on the Koran, as far as the left is concerned.
This is as bad.
What Tom DeLay and the Republicans want to do is worse than what we're doing at Club Git Mall or Abu Ghraib.
Tom DeLay has quoted, this Congress is just not going to sit by and let an unaccountable judiciary make these kinds of decisions.
At a news conference, DeLay called the property ruling a George Orwell novel of a court decision.
Well, I thank God for Tom DeLay and the House Republicans on this.
The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to determine the judiciary's jurisdiction under Article III.
So here we have a man with enough courage to lead his party to legally and constitutionally address outrageous court decisions, decisions that are not based on the Constitution, but the personal policy preferences of a majority of these lawyers.
And he's said to be attacking the independence of the judiciary, when in fact, it's the opposite.
What's happening is these lawyers are attacking the integrity of our constitutional system.
Congress is not required to sit on its hands while the court changes the very makeup of the nation.
And keep in mind, folks, the House isn't doing anything to the judiciary at all.
It is simply exercising its power in a way the court has not.
And that is legitimately.
Let's go to the next version of the story.
Where's this from?
This is Washington Post.
House votes to undercut high court on property.
Listen to this.
This is by Mike Allen and Charles Blabington.
The House voted yesterday to use the spending power of Congress to undermine a Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes.
That is not what happened, Mr. Allen and Mr. Blabington.
And this is not undermining a Supreme Court.
See, once they rule, folks, that's it.
That's the final authority.
That's the last word.
And any of you nincum poops and scum that come along and try to change what our God says, well, you're going to, you're undermining our religion.
You can't do that.
Now, as for portraying accurately what the decision said, let's see here.
A Supreme Court ruling allowing local governments to force the sale of private property for economic development purposes.
You left out something there, Mrs. Allen and Babington.
Local government to force the sale of private property to another private property owner so that the local government can collect more taxes.
That's not constitutional.
That's not what the Taken Clause in the Fifth Amendment is all about.
That's why people are outraged about this.
Some Supreme Court decisions are so esoteric that people can't understand them.
But this one, this is as easy to understand as the House Bank scandal.
People know they can't go to the bank and write themselves money checks for cash that they don't have and get away with it for years until they're caught.
By the same token, people understand what the ownership of property means, and they don't like the fact that a government can come in and choose between two private citizens who's going to own it when one already does.
So the Washington Post doesn't even try to get the details of the story right because they're so focused.
They're so focused on reporting that Republicans want to undermine, undermine a Supreme Court ruling.
No, they want to undermine it.
They want to reverse it, which they have the absolute right to try to do.
I just, I find all this, ladies and gentlemen, I ask myself when I read these stories, are these reporters really stupid?
Are they really uninformed?
Are they really just ignorant?
Or are they so biased and partisan that they're not bothering to even hide it anymore?
Are they so focused on the template that facts simply do not penetrate what they already think of something?
They're being very consistent here.
The reason why the left loves this decision is because it empowers a government and it disempowers private citizens.
As I said earlier this week, I remain flabbergasted that so many of you Democrats continue to think your party stands for the little guy.
Your party is screwing the little guy.
I can't tell you how many number of ways it's happening, but this is just one.
The little guys in New London, Connecticut don't count when some other big guy, a corporate guy no less, comes along and a government up there can get more money out of the big guy.
So who does the government side with?
The big guy.
Now, I thought Democrats were supposed to protect the little guy from this, but no, they're right in there defending the government.
Because when it comes down to it, Democrats are for government against any guy.
Doesn't matter little or big.
Now, the third version of this story appears in the Los Angeles Times, and I will get to it right now.
And it may be the P.S. There is these thoughts.
I'll get to it right after this.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
It's Open Line Friday.
We're having a happy-go-lucky time here as we head on into the barbecue weekend of the year, the Independence Day weekend, Rush Limbaugh and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right, Los Angeles Times property ruling strikes nerve in house.
Hey, Los Angeles Times property ruling strikes nerve in country.
Property ruling doesn't phase media.
Reacting to high court decision, lawmakers pass amendment that would ban use of federal funds for some seizures of private land.
This is by Maura Reynolds and David Savage.
Angry over a recent Supreme Court decision, the House on Thursday began a legislative drive to roll back the power of local governments to seize homes and other private property for economic development projects.
No, There is no legislative drive to roll back the power of local government to seize homes and other private property.
There is a legislative drive to reverse a Supreme Court decision which said that a local government can choose which citizens it wants to own a specific piece of land when that land is already owned by one citizen.
It's about taking and giving, not just about taking.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can take and give.
It's about taking.
By a vote of 231 to 189, the House approved an amendment forbidding the administration from spending money on local projects that seize private property for business.
I'll bet that's not what it does.
I'll bet you that's not what it does.
I'll bet you, unless they're using business development here to represent another private citizen.
I'll bet you this legislation is specific as it can be on this.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California was among those who voted against the amendment, saying she opposed withholding federal dollars for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision.
Well, see, you can't do anything.
You can't do anything that will tie the hands of any government.
You can't tie the hands of the local yokels who choose which citizen they want to own the property when one of them already does.
And you certainly can't tie the hands of the massive federal government to fund the local government that will make that decision.
No matter, no wonder they can't find out what their principles are when they meet in closed-door sessions.
They're pure reactionaries.
Although the federal government does not initiate such projects, its money may play a crucial role in some of them, said Scott Garrett, a Republican from New Jersey.
The practical effect this amendment will have is it'll prohibit federal funds from improving or constructing infrastructure support on lands acquired involuntarily through use of eminent domain for private development.
The House bill was introduced Thursday by Sensenbrenner and John Conyers, the Senate bill introduced Monday by Republican John Cornyn of Texas.
Now, the LA Times, in its third to last paragraph in this story, says, usually conservatives criticize the court for judicial activism.
In this instance, they criticize the court for failing to block the initiatives of a city council.
Good Lord, folks, this is usually conservatives criticize the court for judicial activism.
In this instance, they criticize the court for failing to act.
See, to these, activism, non-activism, to them, activism is liberal and opposing it is conservative.
And that's the template.
It's called the Constitution.
Who wrote this thing?
Maura Reynolds and David Savage.
You need to go back to school.
It's called the Constitution.
It's called the Fifth Amendment.
It's plain as day what it says.
And what it says is that this can't happen.
But look where we are.
We have the Constitution because nine lawyers goofed up in reading it.
We now have to go back to Congress to write new legislation to make sure everybody understands what the Fifth Amendment says.
Now, this is troubling because it's already there.
It's like saying two plus two equals four, but some teacher says, no, it's five.
And if you say it's four, you get an F.
So then we have to write a law saying, no, if a teacher says two plus two is five, it's not.
It's four.
It's what we're doing here.
You know, it's flat out ridiculous what is going on.
And then we have journalists who haven't a clue to be able to write about this intelligently and from an informed basis.
I really don't know.
I don't know if these reporters are really missing it or if they're just trying to score points against conservatives here.
I think it's probably a combination of two because I think most reporters in the elite big media just love skewering conservatives.
And whenever conservatives lose, the left doesn't care what has happened.
They're just happy and they pile on.
And you couple that with the general cluelessness about this and you have a dangerous combination.
But don't worry, folks.
We're here.
In the old days, we'd all be sunk.
Back after this, stay with us.
And we're not through discussing the courts.
A bunch of stories about this CIA leak case.
And there's so many press contradictions on this.
I can't wait to get to this.
This is Novak business.
And the two reporters that may be going to jail.
That's coming up the next hour.
It's Open Line Friday, so your phone calls will all be part of that as well.
▲
Export Selection