All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
July 21, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic second hand cigar smoke.
Deal with it, liberals.
Rush Limbaugh the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
And we are back two hours left to go.
Didnocam is on at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Be on for the uh remainder of the program by off next week, uh starting tomorrow.
I'll tell you about that and who will be sitting in um a little later.
The uh uh uh up next, folks are we're a little departure here from the uh normal programming format.
Uh we very seldom have guests here and very seldom uh have authors.
Uh well, I want to make an exception today with Bernard Goldberg.
We've had him on before to talk about previous books.
Hi, Bernie, welcome back.
Rush, thanks for having me.
You bet I'll tell you I want to tell you why, not just because I really do admire your work and have for a long time, and plus you you seem to suffer Bryant Gumble very well.
Uh but the the and I've watched you on these shows.
I've watched on this uh the the revolving door of cable shows, and I've been frustrated by some of the questions you've not been asked.
And then and the last straw was when you got set up by that uh the guy over on CNBC.
Oh, that was incredible.
Um I I I want you to tell people about that.
But first the title of the book is one hundred people who are screwing up America.
This is uh essentially, I guess you're exploring the cultural decline and and uh naming some people it might be responsible for, correct?
That's exactly correct.
And when you explore the cultural decline, uh the one thing liberals cannot be, it just they cannot be judgmental.
And and it's you know, so so they watch television at at during the family hour with their kids, and it's one you know, cheap sex joke after another, or they listen their kids listen to gangster rap, you know, which is a vile, nasty music, and and they won't complain about it the way conservatives will because then they'll be judgmental.
And I'm saying, when did becoming judgmental of trash in the culture become a bad thing?
You know, I don't think that's a bad thing.
But what happened last night was an all-time low.
It it was a totally unimportant show.
Most of your most of your listeners rush probably never even heard of Donny Deutsch or the big idea.
But I gotta tell I never heard of it.
Well what what did he used to do?
He's an advertising guy, and he was a successful advertising guy, but he knows nothing about broadcasting.
I only mentioned the show to make a bigger point about what's happened on the left, if if I may do that.
Sure, go ahead.
They invite me on to have a debate about the book.
Fine.
And the debate about just wait, just you and Deutsch?
Well, the first segment was me and Deutsch, but then they say they're gonna have four other people on, and they tell me that some will be on agreeing with me and some will be not agreeing with me.
And I think fine.
I don't usually like these food fights, but but fine.
So I said, okay.
I come on and after the segment with Deutsch, they have four not liberals, leftists, and Donnie Deutsch making five.
It was a total sandbag.
It was a total ambush.
They they lied to me to get me on, and then it's okay if you don't read the book and want to ask me questions.
All five Rush admitted they never read the book, but that didn't stop them from a non-stop attack.
Well, that's because you're being judgmental in your book.
Well, yeah, but they haven't read it.
They haven't read it.
They're attacked.
It doesn't matter.
And and they they stacked the deck in in in the panel.
Five against one, right?
Well, who was on the panel?
That's I have not been in the middle.
The older people, these are people you'd never heard of.
The only one you might have heard of is Linda Stasi, who's the uh the the resident liberal at the New York Post.
She's like the gossip columnist.
So here's the worst part.
It was taped, and it ran last night, but what they did, I mean, this is as unethical as it gets.
What they did is they took out all the parts where Donnie Deutsch, the host, was made to look foolish.
Uh you know, at one point I said to him, I said, You need five people.
You need five people to try to argue against me, Donnie.
I said, You're throwing spitballs at a battleship.
Well, that didn't see the light of day.
They took a lot of stuff out that that embarrassed their host.
So so number one, they ambush you.
Number two, all five people don't read the book and are bragging that they haven't read it while they're attacking, and they then edit the tape to make their guy look good at my expense.
But you know what?
It's a totally unimportant show.
The big point is, the big point is that this is what the cultural elite liberals do these days.
The big They can stab you in the back, no problem, because they know what's best.
That's the problem.
This time they did it to me.
Big deal.
Big deal.
An insignificant show, big deal.
They did the exact same thing, Rush, to Judge Bork.
They did the exact same thing to Judge Pickering, the judge from Mississippi who who they made out to be uh uh soft on crossburners, and they're gonna do it again, Rush, with Judge Roberts.
And that's why Ralph Nees, the head of uh People for the American Way, is number 10 on the list in this book.
Good.
I was gonna get some of the names in the book here in just a second, but I w one more thing about this this uh the show on CNBC is where it was.
It's on CNBC, but I'm telling you, Rush, trust me, if there were 15 people on the whole planet watching the show, I think I'd be surprised.
Well, I know.
I mean, I could ask you why you bothered to go there, but but the the the number one observation that I have this is to me, it may be the first time it's happened to you, but it's not new.
It happened to me the first time I went on crossfire in ninety one or ninety-two, and it was with Novak, Novak and Kinsley.
And they asked me and some other uh talk show host from Chicago to come on to talk about uh I forgot what some issue of the day, and it wasn't.
It was a sandbag show in which talk radio was attacked as the uh medium that was gonna kill America culturally and so forth.
And I I I've you know, you go through the pre-interview and the pre-book, and the pre-interview is not to determine uh what you can contribute to the program.
The pre-interview is to determine what will upset you and irritate you, so they make sure they do it.
Exactly.
I I don't go on these shows anymore because you cannot trust the people that book them.
You cannot trust the people that host them, and it's uh it always is and and you look at you one one of you versus five of them, and that's what they call balance.
Yeah, but but you know what the what you know what the good can that came out of this?
The American people, I think, are they basically have a sense of fairness.
They see something like this, and this is why the left in this country, this is why the left is losing the country.
This is why the left is losing all the elections they're losing, because this doesn't bother them.
I go I'd go a step further and say they don't even think what they do is wrong when they do stuff like this.
No, they're too elitist to believe that.
Well, you know, can I make a point on that?
I I say in the book, I say in the book, even when I agree with liberals on this issue or that issue from time to time, I no longer want to be seen as part of that group because of precisely what you said.
They are elitist, they are snobby, they look down at people, the kind of people who are listening to us now, if they like to eat at red lobster, god forbid, or go bowling, or if they go to church on a regular basis, or if they fly the American flag on the Fourth of July, they they find these people pathetically hopeless.
And and it's the elitist elitism and the snobbiness that gets me as much as almost anything else uh about the the left these days.
Well it's also you made a point just yesterday or the day before that forgive me for stating the obvious, that was right on the money.
The crazy left, this is a crucial point you made.
The crazy left has become the mainstream left.
That's the real that that's the real problem.
It's great.
Yeah, it's they are imploding and then and and it it it it offers uh you know boundless opportunities for you to uh detail it in your book.
But the thing that you know that that strikes me, you worked with these people in one of their enclaves, the media, and uh arguably you still do when you do some of the stuff you do for HBO, but I mean you were at CBS.
I mean you were surrounded by it.
It did did um uh was this a slow evolution, the realization you had of what these people were, but did it hit you upside of the head one day as a surprise?
It it was a slow evolution, but I can tell you the time it hit me.
Uh I was I was based uh in California for CBS, and they got a new anchor man in 1981, Dan Rather, and they brought me to New York to become a national correspondent on the brand new CBS evening news with Dan Rather.
Now I'm going to work and I'm seeing homeless people that look like, you know, they're they're talking to spaceships in the sky, and then I and then at 6 30 at night I'm watching the CBS evening news with Dan Rather, and the homeless people look like, you know, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, you know, people out of central casting.
Uh, I'm looking at the AIDS story, and I'm looking every day on the news that AIDS is is a heterosex it's gonna be a heterosexual plague in about ten minutes, and I'm saying that's a terrible thing.
Let me do a little research, and it just isn't true.
So when I got to New York, I realized that that the things I was seeing with my own two eyes, it they just didn't jibe with the stuff that I was seeing on the news that night.
And that's when I started to say, you know what, this isn't about you want to have liberal values, I think you're misguided, but be my guest.
But don't put them on your newscast.
Leave it out.
We're s we're not that stupid out here in Middle America.
We could make up our own minds about what we see.
But they started championing causes.
They didn't just report stuff.
This is right when Ronald Reagan took office.
It was right after he was sworn in.
And I think liberals correctly felt as if they were on the outside looking in.
So they stopped reporting about stuff and they started championing stuff.
But only certain stuff, only the stuff they agreed with.
And then when I wrote about it, I became as you well know, I became a pariah.
But you know what?
My life could not have been better since I wrote about it.
Every now and then, maybe even not every now and then, maybe just once in your life.
You have to do something you really believe in and take the consequences.
I did, and here I am talking to you about a book about the American culture.
And they're still doing their little minute and a half stories on a program that fewer and fewer people are watching every day.
And you're still reporting on sports-related stories for HBO, which is not anybody would cons uh confuse with a conservative uh outlet.
It may be the best show on television, real sports.
It's a serious, it's a serious show about the American culture with uh with a sports uh angle to it.
And and it's a very serious show.
I I I'm very proud of the stuff I I do there.
You should be.
Bernard Goldberg's our guest.
Uh, we're talking about his latest book, a hundred people who are screwing up America will get some names when we come back.
Stay with us.
Welcome back.
Happy you can join us today, folks.
We're talking with Bernard Goldberg and his new book, A Hundred People Are Screwing Up America.
It's number three, nonfiction Amazon number four, first week of the Wall Street Journalist.
It opened at number six in the New York Times this Sunday, it'll be number five the next week in the New York Times list.
Um one of the things that's been somewhat frustrating, and I know you have to reserve some things to be read when people buy the book, but can you give me some names in this like a hundred people who are screwing up America?
I mean, that's it that's enticing.
Are there any conservatives on this?
Am I in this book?
Rush.
Rush, please.
Please.
No, but but I'll tell you, they they they wondered that on that that show last night on CNBC.
Uh no, of course you're not on this list because you you know, I I live in Miami and and it's it's a liberal town, and a lot of my friends are liberals, and they're good, you know, decent people.
But when you hear people saying, Oh, I don't I hate Rush Limbo, or you know, they say just something nasty like that.
I say and you do listen to them, and they say no.
And it's the same thing with the book.
I I hate what the book stands for, but they haven't read the book.
What is it with the left these days where where they jump to these conclusions, they they know exactly what they like and what they don't like, but fear.
Bernie, it's fear that their worldview is gonna be upset by the truth.
They they have this shield, this boundary that surrounds them, and anything that's factually true gets bounced off of it.
Nothing gets into shape, the template or the prism through which they're looking at things, and that's what your book does.
I think you're I think you're absolutely right about that.
And and you know, their fear that's their problem because that's why that's why they're losing elections.
That's why they're losing the country, because they don't want to they don't want to confront what so many Americans are confronting.
And in a sentence I'd say is that the culture is getting meaner and angrier, and uh, you know, they don't want to be judgmental about things like that at their own peril.
Yeah, it keeps them on defense, too.
If it nobody wants to spend their lives on defense, you want to be on offense, but fear keeps you on defense.
Well, you want a few names on the list?
Yeah, give me yeah, uh give me some conservatives first if there are any on this book.
Well, there's one, and this is the one I've taken the most heat for, but even when I take heat from the right, it's it's civil and and intelligent heat.
And that's Judge Roy Moore of Alabama.
The point I make about Judge Roy he's the judge uh this former uh chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court involved in the Ten Commandments case.
Yeah.
And a federal judge told him to move the Ten Commandments.
And uh he said no, I'm not moving it.
I make absolutely clear in the book, this is not about whether the Ten Commandments should or shouldn't be at the courthouse.
Even the Supreme Court can't make up their mind about that.
So it is not about that.
But the point I'm making is that if conservatives rightly complain about liberal judicial activism.
Rightly you know liberals not interpreting the law but legislating from the bench then I don't know I've got a problem with a conservative judicial activist who who refuses to obey a higher court ruling.
Now listen Rush you or I or anybody listening to us can go out and commit civil disobedience if we feel strongly enough about a subject and pay the consequences.
But when judges start to do that I'm afraid it leads to anarchy.
Hey this was my point when it happened interestingly enough and I did catch some some some grief for it I think I think we were right about that and I think conservatives should really really understand that one more conservative a couple more and then I get some libs well there's a feel free fear free to launch.
Doesn't matter who it has no but the person's in your line of work that's why that's why I'm hesitating.
No go ahead.
All right uh there's a conservative radio talk show host that's on late at night uh or at night named Michael Savage.
It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with this issue or that issue.
You know I may agree with him on on on taxes or immigration or whatever.
But and I know this is bad radio to compliment the host, but you're gonna have to put up with it for ten seconds rush.
You are immensely civil to people you disagree with I mean immensely civil you you you don't have to agree with their argument.
You can you can debate their argument but you you are very polite and very decent and I'm a I'm a listener on a regular basis I know what I'm talking about I've I've never heard this guy.
I've only heard people tell you he sounds insane from what people tell me about it but I've never I've never I've never heard him if I'm gonna yell about liberal anger and meanness I just can't overlook that.
But let's make no mistake about this there are way, way more liberals on the list.
Okay you mentioned you mentioned the reason is simple.
I think they're screwing up America a lot more than conservatives are.
Well we we agree again you mentioned Ralph Nees I'm not gonna ask you who number one is uh but but give me we've got a couple of half minutes left here.
Give me just some liberal names you don't have to elaborate why people can read the book for I'll tell you what let me give you number f three and four.
Okay.
Number four is Jesse Jackson and I was asked by Time magazine are you afraid you'll be called a racist because you wrote about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and I said wait a second wait a second.
I grew up during the civil rights movement.
It was the most important and moral movement of my lifetime.
And then Martin Luther King gets assassinated and guys like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson take over and turn it into nothing more than a cheap partisan political movement and I have to worry if I'm gonna be called a racist I said I'm not buying that.
You can try that with somebody else but I am not going to run away and hide because I'm writing about people who I think have cheapened a very important and very moral movement.
Sorry.
So that so that that's number four.
Number three is Teddy Kennedy he's he is as you know Rush a man of conscience.
He is the unofficial conscience of the Democratic party.
And he's not here because he's a liberal Democrat.
He's here because as the unofficial conscience of the Democratic party he was willing to wreck a man's reputation Judge Bork for cheap political gain.
And we don't have to go through what he did with Judge Bork, but I think William F. Buckley nailed it.
He said when Kennedy is on the attack he is a distillery of meanness.
By the way number two on the list is the publisher of your favorite newspaper, the New York Times.
Oh Greg, that little pinch is number two he's number two.
Hubble well hey look I I have to thank you for making time.
I we only got hold of him this morning, uh, folks, because I didn't see this Deutsch Show last night, but I heard about it, and I've I've um it just it makes me mad when these people do this, and I I I wanted to give you a chance to uh you know speak without being interrupted and set up and sandbagged by these people and then and uh because your book deserves that and your work deserves it.
Uh and you're not a mean guy either.
I mean, you were totally uh out of place on a on a cast of characters like that last night, and they're trying to, by virtue of their own behavior, make you look the same uh to people who watch.
But I appreciate your making time.
I wish you all the best with the book and uh and stay in touch and keep writing because they just keep getting better.
Rush, I don't mean this as a cliche, but I can't thank you enough.
You're the cavalry that's you know, writing to my defense, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
Oh, you're more than welcome.
Uh Bernard Goldberg, formerly of CBS News, now with HBO's Real Sports, the book, one hundred people who are screwing up America.
And we will be back after this.
Not only do you get the truth here, ladies and gentlemen, you get it in an understandable way.
The left calls that simplistic.
Because you're a bunch of buffoons.
We just make the complex understandable, and we do the best job of translating liberalism that is done in the American media today.
Great to have you back.
Thanks again, Bernard Goldberg.
And a reminder, we will be talking to uh Senator Rick Santorum at the top of the next hour.
Same circumstance.
This guy's getting piled on.
He's getting piled on on television and uh by and also by Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, uh, and he is exhibiting an uncommon courage and not backing down in this onslaught.
Local papers uh in Pennsylvania also dumping on Senator Santorum, and I know him, and I know him to be a fine guy.
And I he's a he's uh in terms of his character and uh and his decency, there's none better.
And I I want to find out from his mouth what this is all about, because I don't trust what I read about it in the media.
I don't trust what I watch about it.
I just don't.
I'm sorry.
No, I'm not sorry.
I'm proud to say I don't trust it, because it's the truth.
So we'll ask him about it and uh and and try to get the gist of this uh this this kerfuffle.
Uh I love it when the left gets all kerfuffled because it means somebody's told a truth about them.
And we'll find out just what that is.
Get this.
I didn't predict this, but I could have.
I didn't predict this, but I should have.
More than half of Americans.
This is an AP story.
More than half of Americans say Supreme Court judge uh judge nominee John Roberts should uh be required to state his position on abortion before being confirmed, with women more likely than men to want such a declaration.
Mr. Snurdley has come up now.
I I I claim these polls are just media editorials.
What's your new name for these?
Mr. Snerdley has coined a term for these pollatorials, as opposed to editorials, these are politorials.
Now, I guarantee you, if if I didn't know better, I'd say AP called Senator Schumer.
Says Senator Schumer, we're doing a poll out there on this nominee.
What should our question be?
And of course, the Democrats have said, he's not getting on that hearing.
He's not getting out there until he tells us what he's gonna do.
Oh versus Wade.
If he doesn't tell us that, he's dead meat.
And of course, they're gonna invoke the Ginsburg rule.
Well, you didn't make Justice Ginsburg uh answer any specifics in terms of questions about cases that might come before her as a justice on the court.
That was then.
That was then, this is now.
You're gonna answer this or you are dead meat.
And so uh here comes this politorial, uh, which says that more than half of Americans say the Supreme Court nominee should be required to state his position on uh abortion.
Media's claiming to be all concerned about the politicization of the confirmation process, yet they stoked the flames with these idiotic polls as if it's even relevant to the qualifications of a Supreme Court justice.
It's it's completely irresponsible, but it illustrates just what's important to the left.
This is about government by judiciary, government by at least five or six lawyers wearing black robes sitting in a stone building, marble building in Washington.
That's what's important.
And the sacrament to their religious belief, if you will, is abortion.
One thing I agree with Ann Colter about in her column, yes, it was more than one, but one thing it really stood out.
She said that the only way a conservative nominee will ever be confirmed without any fight whatsoever is to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearings.
Preferably a partial birth abortion.
If a nominee went before Kennedy and Schumer and Leahy and said, I'm gonna do an abortion for you.
I went to school.
I'm just a judge, but I know how important.
And here we're going to abort a baby right here in a confirmation hearing room.
Will that get me on the court?
And that's about the only thing that would uh without uh without a fight.
And then there's this.
This is from uh News Day, which is in New York.
The headline, coincidence or conflict.
Last Friday, on the day he met with President George W. Bush of the White House to seek elevation of the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts also lent Bush some support from the bench, his vote in a key war on terror decision.
Roberts signed a three to zip U.S. Court of Appeals decision issued that same day, approving Bush's plan to use military tribunals to try some prisoners at Club Gitmo.
The ruling overturned uh overturned a district court, and it was lauded by the Justice Department.
Now, of course, you cannot count you and uh oh, the next line.
Judges are supposed to recuse themselves in situations where their impartiality can reasonably be called into question.
Was Robert's role just an interesting coincidence or a conflict?
Well, considering it was three to nothing, and considering that the lower court judge was behaving extra constitutionally, it's an irrelevant story and it's an irrelevant question.
Now they're trying to go after the guy because he ruled.
The president does have anything to say about the timeline of these rulings before courts.
Roberts was on the list long before this ruling came out.
The ruling was the right ruling.
The lower court judge, a Clinton appointee, said that the president cannot determine how detainees are going to be tried, that they have to be given constitutional rights, the same as if they were American citizens.
Well, we've been using military tribunals since World War II.
These are prisoners of war.
The military has its own code of justice.
But because the left is trying to hamstring this president, they're trying to take away powers that he has, because they want to weaken him, and whether they weaken the country in the process is of no concern to them, apparently.
So the DC Court of Appeals, three to nothing, overruled the judge on the basis of the Constitution.
The President is the commander-in-chief, not a Clinton-appointed federal judge.
The federal judiciary does not get to just by fiat tell the president how he can conduct a war.
And yet the left attempted to usurp that.
Here comes the sycophantic slavish newspaper like Newsday with its own huge circulation problems.
Fewer and fewer people reading it now, trying to mislead everybody else about what went on, trying to portray some kind of conflict here.
They're just upset because they got a judge who did the right thing, and lo and behold, he's been nominated for the Supreme Court.
And that frightens them and scares them.
But back to the same old business about him being scared to death.
Mike in Clarkston, Michigan, as we go back to the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks, Ross.
Megan Diddles from Spartan Country.
Thank you, sir.
Um I just wanted to talk to you about uh the fact that, you know, if anybody's read the Al-Qaeda handbook, it talks in there about, you know, eliciting the media in their own.
Can I can I can I can I ask you a question?
Sure.
I assume by saying the Al-Qaeda handbook, you mean the New York Times.
Well, yeah, well that's a good one.
Where does one go to get the Al-Qaeda handbook?
Uh uh I I I know the New York Times does have its Al Jazeera domestic section.
They don't call it that, that's what it is.
Where do you go to get the uh Al-Qaeda playbook?
You can get it at the uh Department of Justice, they have it printed from uh raid that uh Oh, okay.
Um but it talks in there, you know, about instances like uh Club Gitmo where you just they want you to cry foul to get the attention of the media.
Yes and the and the media plays along.
Well, of course they're totally willing to be used when it's against their own country if a Republicans in the White House.
Sure.
And you know, uh playing that the sound by you did today with John Major, which uh I I agree would be great to uh to be president for a day.
Um the uh the info babe, you know, she talks about she asked if he thought that his policies were responsible.
Well, you know, just does she realize that if he were to instill adopt the uh Al Qaeda's policies that she wouldn't be a reporter, she wouldn't have a job, no reporter would have a job.
No, no, no, no, no.
They don't think that far ahead.
Uh they're they they have a they have a prism, the template.
I hate to overdo the you overuse the word, but um you got a war.
Okay, the guiding principle is the war is unjust and ignoble, and anybody who supports it is also unjust and perhaps criminal and therefore responsible.
I mean, if you look at the Democrats are out there saying all this terrorism was is Bush's fault.
That's why John Howard's statement earlier today was so so grand.
Uh hey, all these things happened before we went into Iraq, these acts of terrorism.
But the template is it's Bush's fault, it's Blair's fault because they started the war, and that's it.
That's as far as it goes.
Um they're they're not they're not concerned at all that they may be facilitating an al-Qaeda PR objective with their actions at Club Gitmo.
It's like yesterday at Club Getmo.
We uh we got misled on this.
The media reported this all wrong.
We had a story that uh some Afghan uh guests at Club Gitmo finished their stay, paid with credit card and left.
Uh and then when they got out, they started spreading lies about the fact that the food in there was so bad that some of the some hundred and fifty of them are on a hunger strike.
Well, we checked into this.
There's no hunger strike going on at Club Gitmo.
Club Gitmo has added a new option in the spa, and that is the euphoria of starvation.
Uh they learned a lot from the Shivo case from the medical community and the legal community.
So they've simply instituted a new spa program down there called Euphoria by Starvation.
And so they're just trying to discredit once again the United States.
Thanks for the call.
This is Kip in uh Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you very much for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Uh Rush.
The uh I called a couple of days ago to talk about this, but uh unfortunately it's become a more timely issue today.
Uh what I'm concerned about is uh uh our strategy in Iraq has been stated at this point to be uh that if we can give them the opportunity to create their version of a free society, uh they won't we we won't have uh terrorism coming from Iraq.
As you've stated, free people don't go to war.
They don't attack people.
However, the uh the bombers in Britain uh from the first incident were at least homegrown.
Perhaps I think some of them were even born there.
One of the gentlemen uh even had children, I think one as young as eight months old.
Uh and yet the fruits of freedom were not sufficient to dissuade these people from killing themselves and others.
Now, I support our policy in Iraq.
I I think it's it's the best thing that we can do at this time, but uh as a good little mind-numb robot, it causes me to reflect as to whether or not um our our strategy is going to be effective.
And it it makes me ask some questions.
And I wanted to bounce this off of you because of course you're the expert, not me.
Well, yes, I am.
And let me let me uh let me try my hand at this.
These young kids may have been natively born, but their parents weren't.
Their parents emigrated.
And that's a factor.
You had militants immigrating.
These are people, by the way, that were sent packing to Pakistan for training and came back.
But yeah, they were gotten hold of uh by uh by by people parents and uh and relatives uh who arrived in Great Britain with a with a chip on their shoulder and probably with a strategic purpose.
Um and so what you have here are children of immigrants who are natural born citizens, in that case, nothing is ever flawless and foolproof.
But the uh to to take these uh these four kids, these four young men, and to uh uh you know, you you it and and and say, well, the whole process of democratizing and creating a free society isn't gonna work.
You gotta look at the the the the Brits have have had m way way too open a border policy, and all kinds of poisonous mullahs are in the country that can get hold of these young kids.
Uh and and it's it's you know part of the part of the territory.
Now, the alternative is what?
Okay, I guess free people really is not the way to go.
Saddam, you're out of jail.
You got your country back, we are out of here.
Uh I don't think that's the way to go either.
Yet you know, there's some principles involved here.
And people talk about human rights and civil rights.
Let me tell you the the essential human right, if there is, is freedom.
It's how we're created.
Uh And while there are exceptions to everything in a free society, you've got you've got criminals.
In a free society, you have the insane.
In a free society, you have liberals.
But you have violence at the same time.
But you don't have cultures that are based on suppression and uh uh uh tyranny that raise these kinds of people.
They end up becoming the exception, not the society, not the culture.
And that's the effort here.
I gotta run because I'm a little long.
We'll have a brief time out.
Be back right after this.
And we are uh back.
All right.
Uh Erwin Chemarinski, who's uh uh where is he, is a lawyer somewhere, law professor somewhere.
He was big during the O.J. trial.
He's got a got a column that ran somewhere.
I don't even know where it ran, says uh be prepared to filibuster Roberts.
He's trying to encourage these law professors and these elitist lawyers trying to encourage the Senate's Democrats to uh to filibuster this guy.
Uh and if the truth be known, it it is a bunch of uh like that the I forget the guy's name, a lawyer from Yale Law.
Uh uh Bruce Atkinson, I think is his, I'm not sure, but I guess close, but a lot a lot of these guys are actually responsible for uh creating this whole judicial filibuster concept.
And uh these are the people convening these meetings to, you know, redo the constitution that we have talked about.
Then we have an AP story, Democratic filibuster of Roberts, unlikely.
But I'm telling you these radical law professors will push for it anyway.
They think they own the uh country.
Then in the uh Washington Post today, Peter Baker and Charles Babbington, Democrats say nominee will be hard to defeat.
Yeah.
That doesn't matter.
They're going to try.
Just mark my words.
They'll they'll they'll go to the Matt over, he didn't produce enough papers from the solicitors general's office.
We asked for documents, and they're hiding something from us.
He didn't answer questions the way we wanted, didn't answer questions fully.
Uh they can't go at the guy as substance.
And they uh in fact, the the left's out there complaining that they don't know enough about the guy to oppose him.
You know, they're actually acting like it's not fair.
It's not fair.
Bush nominated somebody that we don't know anything about.
But if you listen to some of these people on television talk about it, it's laughable.
It isn't fair.
We don't know it for we don't know, we don't have enough to oppose this guy.
How are we supposed to oppose him?
Hey, we don't know anything about him.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, and again, then they just continue to be amazed.
What Bush is doing what he said he was gonna do.
Nobody does that in this town.
Howard Feynman writing about it again.
I'll have that for you later.
Stacy in Boulder, Colorado.
Hi, welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
17-year listening dittoes from the People's Republic of Boulder.
Thank you so much.
Uh, my point, I had two quick points, but one of them was the Katarina Vanderhoo.
Sound by you did they're using very disturbing uh talking points about the balance of power and um the checks and balances as if it applies to parties and not as it's a legit the branches of government, what the founder said.
They say, well, Republicans basically are in control of too many branches, so we need to check and balance them as a minority party, and that's just not the way it was intended.
Hey, this I know this is nothing new.
That's why the left created this new definition of losing.
The definition of losing is winning.
Uh the all this attention on minority rights.
When the when the Republicans in the minority, there's no such thing as minority rights.
When the Democrats are in the minority, well, a minority has rights, you know, this is a democracy.
And the translation is we should have won.
So we're gonna act like we won.
No, founders never intended.
You're right, Van and Hoovel did say this, but it's it's just spin.
Uh founders never intended this to be a one-party country.
Why?
They never intended this, and that's why we've got to make sure the court stays on our side.
Blah, blah, blah.
It's pure panic, folks.
It's abject fear.
But the thing is, you have to realize just like Stacy here, she picked up on it.
A lot of people are picking up on it.
The Libs do not know just how sophisticated and wise the audience in America is today.
They do not know how little they are succeeding in getting away with the plays in their 30 and 40-year-old playbook.
As I say, it's off-tackle left, off tackle left, off tackle left.
We're stacking the linebackers, and we're pushing them back, pushing them back, pushing them back, and they're losing ground.
They still don't know it.
They still think it's first down.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
We have a caller I don't have time to get to right now.
Cliff, stay on the phone.
We'll get to you, but he's right.
Um the media now profiling Judge Roberts' wife because she is part of a pro-life group.
Oh, yes.
▲
Export Selection