All Episodes
Previous Next
July 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:07
July 27, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program to the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
While Russia's on a great vacation, we are here commanded to continue the relentless pursuit of the truth.
And that's what you'll get three hours here, and of course your take on it too at 1-800-282-2882 on the EIB Network.
What a privilege to be here.
Thank you, Rush.
Let's get into it.
I was going to uh react a little bit today to some of your reaction to my uh last um broadcast here last Friday with respect to police, and we'll get uh to that.
We also have uh wow, politics today on um a whole broad array, the president meeting with the House of Representatives Republican members over CAFTA, many of them in revolt against the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
We'll find out why and what you think about it.
Uh more news on eminent domain after the Hartford case came down.
Seems the city of Hartford itself.
New London itself.
Why do I keep saying Hartford?
And the City of New London itself, in Kilo versus uh that's what it is, though, isn't it?
Anyway, is going to uh fight back.
Now, uh first of all, I have to say this, what a tremendous victory here in San Diego last night.
I am still euphoric.
I don't know what this whether this goes on in your community, but in my community, there is a determined nutball minority of people who believe that instead of the plain meaning of the First Amendment,
which guarantees all of us that Congress will pass no law restricting freedom of religion, that what that really means is that we should restrict all religion, that no religion, particularly the Christian religion, has any role in public life, any of its symbols, etc.
So for 15 years, does this go on in your community?
For 15 years, we've been trying to preserve on the top of Mount Soledad near La Jolla here in San Diego, a uh cross that is part of a war memorial erected in 1953 to commemorate the sacrifice of those who fell in Korea, since expanded to commemorate the service of veterans of all wars,
and since expanded with concentric uh concrete walls emblazoned with uh uh tablets uh the the uh the families, including my own family, gone up there to uh to honor our family members in that way.
It is a tremendous war memorial.
It is a community war memorial.
And for 15 years, one atheist who said, one one atheist who said he was annoyed and offended by the sight of a Christian cross, has sued and sued successfully because of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeal to uh get that cross torn down.
Uh the first round, not to bore you with the whole detail on this, but it it's so amazing to me how the how the Constitution of our founders has just been turned into a pretzel, and in this case turned on its head.
Uh not freedom of religion, but freedom from religion is their interpretation, and all these judges uh nod and sagely tell us that they read something in the Constitution that none of the rest of us read.
Is it just that they see things we don't see?
Is there a between the lines thing that isn't apparent on the copy I got from the founders?
I d I don't know.
But we've been fighting this fight for 15 years.
Last night, 70 Let me get off the exact number because I just love to relish in this, and you'll find out in a minute why I'm so happy about it.
75.9% of the voters endorsed a move to transfer the Mount Soledad National War Memorial to the Federal Government for Inclusion in the National Park System, following on the heels of an invitation to do so in uh last December's uh defense uh bill,
which included authorization for the Department uh Park Service to uh incorporate into its national war memorial system, this war memorial, and uh transfer out of San Diego and California jurisdiction to the federal jurisdiction, this question of whether a cross is an appropriate uh inclusion symbol for inclusion in this war memorial.
In California, our Constitution says, well, if you even favor religion, that's uh to be uh barred.
So they've used this favoring religion argument uh to uh to try to uh tear down this cross.
Um The public vote was supposed to be a majority vote, mind you, until last Thursday, when a judge, I'll tell you these judges are out of control, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't know about where you live, but where I live, they just changed the rules.
This judge, Pat Cowitt by name, had a superior court judge, a California judge, had before her the notion and the the annoyed atheists saw that we were going to win this election, get this thing transferred to the feds, the Justice Department would start defending this cross.
We'd have they'd have a whole new mountain to to climb to try to tear it down.
So they were upset, went into court, said, hey, uh this isn't right.
A majority vote, it should be two-thirds.
You're transferring park land under the city charter, it's got to be a two-thirds vote.
And we all went, What?
It's only a two-thirds vote if you're transferring park land to another use.
It's going to be transferred for the same use.
It's a na it's a war memorial.
It's been there since 1953.
It has been expanded as a war memorial.
That's all it's ever going to be.
In fact, in the f federal legislation, it said you are going to take this thing into at as specifically a national war memorial, nothing else.
The judge said, Well, because it could in the future, it possible, it might happen that we could uh they they could do anything with they could put up radar stations, they could put up uh a detention camp, they could uh bring in dogs and start abusing prisoners.
Anything could happen.
So therefore it's going to be a two-thirds vote, because it could, someday in the future, under some other circumstance than I know today, become other than Park.
Other than a war memorial.
So five days before an election, they raised the bar from majority vote to two-thirds vote.
Five days before the election.
Last night we got 77%.
I couldn't be so I mean I couldn't be happier.
I was screaming.
Last night was a great night in this fight to draw the line, a line in the sand against the crazies who have perverted the Constitution, who have turned it on its head.
And particularly in their jihad against Christianity.
In our own little community here, we have saved, I was on the Board of Supervisors, which in some of your areas of Board of Commissioners, uh, we uh we saved uh uh in Heritage Park, mind you, uh a number of architecturally significant buildings that were in the way of progress and we're gonna just get torn down.
One of those was the first synagogue in San Diego, preserved now on public land in a park uh in San Diego with stars of David on it.
Have they ever sued the synagogue with the Star of David?
No.
And I don't think they should.
I don't care if somebody's annoyed by the Star of David or feels offended by the Star of David.
Tough, look the other way.
Freedom is freedom.
Freedom for the Star of David, freedom for the Shinto Shrine that we have down on Shelter Island, San Eagle Harbor, uh where the Shinto priests rang the bell to keep the evil spirits away when they dedicated the shelter island.
So, you know, we have we have freedom of religion here.
None of those other things have been sued.
Only the Christian cross has been sued.
So this jihad by the atheists, by the ACLU, this is what we're up against here, a significant victory yesterday.
Now, of course, they're promising endless new lawsuits, and I don't doubt it.
But I just in this country I find it just well, I'm offended by people who are offended by the freedom of religion.
Because I know it's so rare.
In China this week, authorities there and the communist government arrested a hundred young people because they were meeting for a Bible study in Lang Fang City.
Wherever that is.
I know how fragile that freedom is, and how one annoyed atheist could blossom into a full fascist range of suppression of all religion.
And the ACLU, of course, taking up the craziness by, in the one hand, of course, telling us that uh we've got to uh purge all religion from the public square completely.
On the other hand, going into court in North Carolina, the ACLU suing the state of North Carolina in Wake County, in order to end the Bible's monopoly in the swearing-in procedure, as you are sworn in as a witness or a party in a lawsuit and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, and you put your hand on the Bible and put your hand up and all that.
We already have, obviously, in most states, at least in California we do, you can affirm without saying so help me God if you're an atheist, not a problem.
ACLU wants to have all kinds of other holy scriptures.
Quote unquote, including the Quran, to be used.
Since the Quran itself says it is not a sin to lie to infidels, on what basis would you swear to Allah on the Quran to tell the truth when you're in a courtroom full of infidels?
I don't know.
And how is it that the ACLU and the atheists can draw a line saying we've got a government has got to get completely out of the religion business, no symbols of religion, nobody especially Christian religion, uh, but we're gonna buy Korans for the prisoners at Gitmo.
Huh?
And prayer rugs for crying out loud.
What gentlemen, yet last night we struck a blow back against this sort of thing, and a blow for the original founder's idea that the Congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion, period.
Not on public land, not on private land.
This cross was erected with private money by a private memorial association to honor those who had uh died and given their lives in the Korean war.
The area around it with the plaques I described are festooned with other religious symbols.
Jewish veterans have the Star of David.
There is no restriction against religious symbols, except by this one annoyed atheist who wants to take one religious symbol, the Christian cross, off the top of that mountain.
Our determination in San Diego, over my dead body.
1800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hitchcock, in for Rush Limbaugh, back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
And this is the EIB network, ladies and gentlemen.
Roger Hedgecock's sitting in today, and thank you for listening and participating at 1800, 282-2882.
Let's get to those phones.
Here's Chris in Kentucky.
Chris, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Yeah, Roger.
Hi, how are you?
Good, and you.
I would like to I it seems like you're you're saying something that might be confusing some people.
I'm sorry I'm confusing you.
What is the problem?
Well, you you are saying that uh the government's trying to suppress religion or something, that uh all these lawsuits and whatnot.
Uh you know the government is separate from religion, right?
Uh the government is required by the Constitution of our founders to not establish a religion, that's correct.
Or not establish any law.
We do not use a free exercise thereof, correct?
Exactly.
And I'm all I was trying to say, I don't want uh let me get to the bottom line for you so that you're not confused.
What I'm trying to say is you do not promote a single religion.
Whoa, no wonder you're confused.
You don't you don't know how to listen.
When there are other religions, right, in this country.
Thank you for the call, I appreciate it.
In the of course there are, and you're free to uh go about your business and exercise your right to worship as you please or not worship.
That's my position.
That's the position of the founders' constitution, the original constitution.
It's not the position of the atheist and ACLU who think they have a right to use the government to tear down a cross.
How is that different?
I would challenge you in this listening audience.
How is it different when an atheist gets an order from the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals for the federal government, a federal court order to tear down a Christian cross?
How is that different from the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the Taliban blowing up that big Buddhist statue they did uh some years ago?
Uh is there any different I see no difference between those two.
It is the suppression and oppression of religion, exactly the opposite of what we're guaranteed in the first amendment to our Constitution.
And by the way, I have in my little hands, my hot little hands, how could fifty states be wrong?
This is an email I got, uh, which uh for every single state in the United States, every single one of them, invokes God.
Alaska, 1956 preamble, quote, we the people of Alaska grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, etc.
etc.
Let's go to the older ones.
Uh Massachusetts, for example, preamble to the state constitution, quote, we the people of Massachusetts acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the great legislator of the universe, In the course of his pro providence and opportunity and devoutly imploring his direction, etc.
Now, how many more do you want me to read?
I mean, this is i every single state, including, yes, California, which says in its preamble, quote, we the people of the state of California grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, etc., etc.
David in Beaumont, Texas, next on the Rush Show.
Hi, David.
Dello David.
Hi there.
Yes, you're on.
Go ahead.
Oh, you know, Roger, I was getting to think.
Um when they order, like you said, the tear down of these crosses, and I guess they have, but I've never heard about it, the tearing down of the menorahs or or any other religion uh icon or anything.
By doing so, basically, hasn't the government established the religion of atheism?
Because the First Amendment is supposed to allow the free exercise of religion, but also prohibit the establishment of a religion.
And it seems like by suppressing all religion, they have established a religion of atheism, just like you know, the Communists did.
Seems like it to me too, my friend.
Uh, I don't know how you I don't know how you avoid that conclusion that if you tear down all believing religions in because of the objection of non-believers, haven't you established the nonbelievers?
David, thanks for the call.
This, of course, is this jihad against uh Christianity by the left by the ACLU and the atheists uh goes on everywhere.
It of course goes on against the Boy Scouts.
We have a federal judge down here who has ruled in San Diego that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization and therefore should be evicted from their camp in uh Balboa Park in downtown San Diego.
They've been there for, I don't know, 60, 70 years.
Um this Boy Scout thing came out as well in an ACLU of Illinois lawsuit against the Pentagon's sponsorship of the uh annual jamboree, and you know that's going on because of the bad news, the sad news of the deaths there, I'll talk about in a minute.
But uh the uh National Scout Jamboree opened up at the Army's uh Fort A. P. Hill in Bowling Green, Virginia.
And of course, they were setting up the tents and had this uh awful tragedy of uh four scout leaders killed uh electrocuted when a tent pole touched an electrical wire.
One of those, by the way, did survive, and uh Paula Call uh was the wife of a husband who was one of the lucky ones, and she she said this about how he did survive.
He said that he was actually on the ground when my son came to him talking to my son.
My son said that he pulled him from the poll.
Um if if and I I know that that has saved his life.
The scout saved his son's life, uh as his father's life.
So scouting uh is under attack because somehow or other, uh morally straight and uh believing in God is offensive to those who do who aren't and don't.
Uh you know what?
If you're offended, start your own scouts.
Uh you can name it whatever you like.
But, you know, it it's not the Boy Scouts.
It's like this marriage thing.
You know, if you don't if you don't think marriage is inclusive enough, then start your own institution.
You know, group Labradors.
Well, I won't get into it.
But you see what I'm saying?
It's it's in a free country, you don't try to change somebody else's behavior because you object to it.
You start your own group.
Anyway, back to the scouts and the jamboree.
Uh the ACLU of Illinois went into court, U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning ruled in the ACLU's favor, saying it was too late to stop this year's jamboree on federal land, but the Pentagon cannot spend more money on these Boy Scout events.
These Boy Scouts are offensive.
They why why they believe in God, for crying out loud.
They're morally straight.
Can't have that.
The United States Senate, God bless him, the United States Senate, this past uh week voted 98 to nothing to authorize the Defense Department to spend money on the Boy Scouts jamboree.
Ninety-eight to nothing.
It's just possible.
This is how Optimistic I am the day after we won this 77% vote on the cross at Mount Soledad in La Jolla here in San Diego.
It's just possible that with the Senate vote of 98 to nothing, this uh uh vote of the people here standing behind the original intent of religious freedom.
It's just possible that this culture war is turning a corner, ladies and gentlemen.
It's just possible that you and I, it's just possible that you and I could turn this corner and after fifty or sixty years of the ACLU and the atheists and the left shredding our original Constitution and re molding it into a document unrecognizable to our founders.
It is just possible that we have turned a corner and we're back on the offensive.
It's a good feeling, isn't it?
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh, and back after this with much more and your calls too.
Britain rounding up terrorists will talk about a poll now of Muslims in Britain and what they think of what's gone on there in a moment.
Let's get back to the calls here, however, on this topic.
David in Washington, D.C. on the Rush program.
Hi.
Hi, uh good topic.
And I've wondered about this.
When I was in Oklahoma uh station there, there was a town that had a large cross like that, and they also had the cross on their city seal, and of course, they went through the same thing about they wanted everything gone.
What I can't figure out is if if atheists, let's say, if they don't think this is true, if it's all false to them, why do they care?
They're trying to destroy something that represents somet uh uh represents something they don't even think is true.
Exactly.
Do you see what I mean?
Exactly.
But I wish I mean in two elections now we've proven that we're the majority.
And I the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
All the whiners, the liberals, the atheists, just to shut them up, we appease them.
And I think we just need to get tougher like our forethothers would have been and not put up with it.
Uh amen.
And that's exactly what's happening and why I brought up San Diego as an example of this.
I want to inspire across this country a revulsion against the ACLU and their stupidity and their and their twisting and pretzelizing of our uh of our Constitution, and get back to the founders' original intent, the original intent of religious freedom, uh no establishment of religion, and not the suppression of religion and tearing down religious symbols and blowing up Buddhas.
I mean, it's just not not what I'm about.
So I'm with you, and thank you for your service, David.
I appreciate it.
By the way, speaking of Washington, D.C., Sheets Byrd back in the uh headlines here.
The uh uh senator waking up to the fact that he is not popular in West Virginia, that uh, as we as we discussed last week, in a uh matchup with a Congresswoman, a Republican Congresswoman in the upcoming race for his seat, the incumbent, Mr. Byrd, uh falls below 50 percent.
And this other Congresswoman hasn't even announced yet.
There isn't any campaign.
So uh Sheets, uh eager to rehabilitate his reputation after uh Rush and others have pointed out the man is the only living member of Congress who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
I just want to let that sink in for a second.
Can I just just this dead heir is devoted to the idea of but just want this to sink in.
The only member of the United States Congress that I know of, and if I'm wrong, please call and tell, who uh was uh in his long ago youth, I understand, a member of the Ku Klux Klan is a Democrat.
Sheets Bird.
Uh Sheets has uh a bill that would create a memorial to Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall.
We have previously uh restricted that to uh war memorials and presidential memorials.
This uh would be uh next to a four-acre site next to the uh Franklin Roosevelt memorial.
And uh this is uh a bird, uh obviously politically trying to uh say, look, I'm making up for those uh indiscretions of my youth or whatever.
But uh hold it a minute.
Let me just try this other tact because I'm on this uh talking about the ACLU atheists and so forth.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Martin Luther King, wasn't he the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.?
Wasn't the civil rights movement based on Christianity and appeal to Christian moral values incorporated into our Constitution and Declaration of Independence?
Yes, it was.
Anybody on the liberal left following Dr. Martin Luther King had to be wincing.
This preacher constantly referred to the Bible to God, to the incorporation of Christian values into the Declaration and into our Constitution.
And now, by golly, Sheetsbird wants to memorialize all of that right there on our Capitol Mall.
What will the atheists think of this?
I don't care.
I think it's great.
Lots going on in the news.
I got a news digest that's uh got some pretty good stuff in it too.
And then I want to get to the cops uh situation.
Last Friday I was uh critical of U.S. cops.
Actually, I was praising the British cops for shooting five shots, five shots in the head of that guy.
Turns out, of course, it was the wrong guy.
Uh but hey, I don't want to quibble about details.
No, I'm just kidding.
Uh but the fa the fact I was trying to get to was that I didn't think U.S. cop U.S. cops have become so politically correct, so afraid of their own shadows, so politicized.
Uh I know it's true in my community.
Maybe it isn't in yours.
And that's great.
Because I want the old fashioned cops.
I want the old fashioned cops who feel like their job is to go out, find the perps, uh, uh get them in handcuffs and throw them in the jail.
If you think that's what cops still do, you've got to start uh opening up your eyes.
They don't.
And they don't for political reasons.
And then when something happens, and I'll get to this in a moment, and LA is my I know I keep beating up on LA, but the truth is so much of this does happen in LA around here, that uh something happens, and uh all of a sudden you realize these people don't know how to shoot, uh they don't know how to much do much of anything except whine about they don't have enough training and enough uh money and they don't then a retirement isn't uh two or three times what they made while they were working or any of that other stuff that they always complain about.
So I'll get to some of your hate mail, uh all you cops who sent me hate mail uh in a moment.
But first, here's Eric on a cell phone in Michigan.
Eric, welcome to the Rush program.
Hi.
Um I don't think that the the comparison between the Taliban blowing up the Buddha statues and our having courtrooms say take on the Ten Commandments is quite a straight straight analogy.
Okay, what's the difference?
Well, the the Buddha statutes were actually at a Buddhist temple.
And so they were actually going into it would be more like the U.S. government going into a church and having them take down the cross.
No, I was talking about that one that was in the I was talking about I was talking about that one, Eric that was carved into the mountain.
It wasn't in a temple, it was carved into a mountain.
Well, but it but it was a site of Buddhist worship.
Well, so is this cross on Mount Soledad.
The cross on Mount Soledad is the site of Easter Sunday services as well.
Okay.
And right, but but when you when you set it up as some kind of a natural or a national or a federal park or something, that's actually uh and I agree that you know the whole thing with the Quran and the um courtrooms and stuff, I think it's bogus, but I'm just saying that the analogy may not be quite straight line.
Um, because if you've got a cross or something like that in a state or a federal park, that's actually affiliating it directly with the government.
Um there's uh there's a difference there between having it directly affiliated with some government and just having it at you know the site of worship.
Which is more of uh like a public um set up.
You know, uh a group of people set this up as its own entity.
Um the Buddha was uh located on public land.
Uh it was uh it was carved into a mountainside.
It was blown up because the government disagreed with this religious symbol.
The atheist in San Diego is trying to get the federal government to tear down by court order a Christian cross on public land that's also the site of Christian worship as well as commemoration of the uh of the of the fallen in our wars.
And the difference between those two is that one yeah, it uh in the war memorial, yes, that example it does sort of fit.
But I'm I'm more saying there's a lot of these cases that do come up where people make the same claims.
And the ones like the the the Ten Commandments that were in the courtroom, especially.
That's not actually the site for and in a war memorial, yeah, like it's a that I can kind of see the the correlation there more clearly.
Yeah.
But again, the Buddhist temple was in a mountainside, but uh it was also a sort of a site of Buddhist worship.
It was their church.
Yeah, so is this cross.
Yeah, of Easter Sunday services there.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, and then I didn't know that that was a that they used it as a site of worship.
Yeah.
But that's I mean, there is a difference in a lot of the cases, depending on where and what the symbol is.
Okay, well, this was the the the analogy was I I was making was to our situation here in San Diego, Eric.
Thanks for the call.
All right, so back to the the police thing.
Oh boy, did I get some uh some hot email?
Um listening to you sitting in for rush.
This is uh Gary M. Good job till you said the cops in London were better than the cops in the USA.
Let me see, they shot a person who was on the ground five times in the head from six inches away.
What a sharpshooter.
By the way, wrong guy.
Um and then this, let's see, from Phoenix, uh Sean C. Roger, I was truly stunned at what I considered your very ignorant comment yesterday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You sung the praises of uh London's police and quipped that they were such good shots they hit this terrorist five shots out of five.
Then you spouted off about how there probably wasn't even a U.S. officer who could shoot that good.
Etc.
etc.
etc.
Um.
Then I got some other very curious email that really got my attention.
Chad S. Roger, thanks for saying this about our cops.
I just visited a new police station near Sacramento where there was a rumor that the new inside firing range in the police station might be open to the public during special hours.
I inquired, and the office told me that the gun ranges have holes in the ceilings and walls where supposedly trained officers and other SWAT guys have fired their weapons inadvertently as well as purposefully, and missed their targets big time.
He said it would be dangerous for me to shoot in the police department range.
John in Denver.
I have a story, Roger, to illustrate that American police officers are horrible shots, and it's a long story, but the bottom line of it is that when he was in high school, they were his father and he were members of a shooting club in Miami, and the police would come to the shooting club also to fire, and uh the shooting club members were always always better than the police, and the police always said, Oh, it's because you guys are here all the time and you're all fifties and sixties uh years old and so forth.
And uh and you've been here a long time on this range, and you're just good on this range.
Except this kid, age sixteen would stand up and beat all the police too.
And then Roger, I grew up in San Diego, but left to find a new life here in Placerville, says uh Mike, just outside Sacramento.
I wish I could get your show up here, but uh you were talking about the British police and how they shot and killed that terrorist, how the police in this country wouldn't do it.
And he relates the story of a California highway patrol officer responding to a wounded deer on Highway 50 in Placerville in the mountains, and the wounded deer was thrashing around, and they asked the California highway patrol officer to shoot to to put the deer out of his misery and uh every the motorist out of all this d danger.
And the police officer said they that he couldn't do that.
That uh that the as a matter of a policy, uh I I just can't uh fire my my weapon like that.
Finally, the deer's out there and cars are skidding around and so forth and so on.
The CHP officer says, Okay, about fifteen minutes later, he says, I'm gonna uh uh dispatch this deer, pulls out a Smith and Wesson 40 caliber, and this is the description.
The officer took aim, was only about 10 feet from the deer, proceeded to empty the complete clip, 19 rounds at the deer, missing every time.
The officer reloaded, put another clip in, and on the tenth shot from the second clip hit the deer in the shoulder, causing it more pain.
On shot 15 hit the deer in the head, but not fatally.
And on shot seventeen, finally ended the deer's life and torture with a final fatal shot to the head.
This officer showed the most pathetic display of marksmanship I've ever witnessed in my life, and he was supposed to be protecting us.
My son at age ten was shooting a five-inch group at fifty yards with a nine millimeter.
Thank you for bringing the topic up.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
Back after this on the Rush program.
And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with police in the United States that we haven't imposed on them, that we have allowed we've allowed politicians to handcuff the police and liberate the criminals.
This has been going on for decades.
I I'm not I'm not taking on the cops because I think they're intrinsically bad.
I'm taking on this cop situation in which cops have become much more involved in their unions, much more involved in becoming a pressure group and lobbyists than they are law enforcement officers.
That's what I'm concerned about.
And I'm concerned about politicians who uh who handcuff them.
Uh case in point, New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg, who said last week that, well, terrorists come, as he put it, quote, in all sizes and shapes and forms, unquote.
And it wouldn't be fair for the police to profile suspects on the basis of a Middle Eastern appearance.
Mike, I don't know about you, Matt, but I've been watching the news.
As they collect these guys from Somalia and Pakistan and wherever, they all seem to be male, number one.
They all seem to be uh between the ages of about uh eighteen and thirty uh they all seem to be Muslim.
I don't mean to blanket here.
I don't mean to profile.
I don't mean to discriminate in any way.
Okay, I do.
I'm discriminating on the basis of fact.
The fact is that terrorists so far have been male young Muslim I don't know what else to say Mike if you're gonna tell your cops no no no keep patting down Granny by the way Granny's fighting back did you see this?
In Green Bay, Wisconsin a woman upset over being uh bodily searched having her br Brazier I guess uh searched at the uh at the airport felt up the uh TSA uh woman who was doing it crammed her against the wall and felt up her breasts now of course she's facing a year in federal prison and a hundred thousand dollars in fines apparently only the government can feel you up and not vice versa I'm trying to get the rules straight here as they evolve.
Wayne in San Jose, California Wayne, you're next Hello Wayne, you're welcome welcome to the Rush Show.
Go ahead Wayne are you prepared?
All right let's go to Stu on a cell phone in Billings, Montana.
Hi Stu.
Hey, how are you doing, Roger?
Good.
Hey, uh my my comments uh related to the uh the police and their marksmanship abilities or the lack thereof.
Uh remember that uh big old bank robbery there in uh LA I think back in ninety seven, ninety-eight with two gunmen on the body armor.
Very well uh you know I was watching a program here the other day it was all about that you know you got forty fifty cops all coming in there.
How come out of all that many cops, not one shot took out those guys in the head.
I mean, the guy took himself out in the head eventually.
There's a couple of actual reasons for that, because I followed that issue pretty closely.
Number one, the cops were underarmed because the Los Angeles mayor and council would not arm the cops.
Because, of course, arming cops means they're more dangerous.
They're more likely to hurt ordinary citizens if they have actual weapons.
So we can't have them have...
So the bank robber comes in with an automatic weapon, some kind of AK-47 type weapon.
And what did the cops have to do?
They had to go into a gun store in San Fernando Valley there actually requisition weapons that were uh you know at least equivalent to in firepower what the the robbers had in the first place.
Then when they had those weapons they didn't basically know what to do with them.
They were firing them all over the place.
Well right I real I realized they had to go get their weapons but I'm still saying I mean I used to live in the Mojave Desert we used to go out shooting all the time with pistols okay we could take out bottles and watermelon from 50, 60, 70 yards with a pistol.
And you know what you know what these guys would say and they're absolutely right the city council cut their budget cut their budget so much that they the the ammunition rounds have to be accounted for the time spent away from uh their police duties at the range has to be accounted for etc etc and these guys get every year less and less range time less and less actual firing time more community relations and diversity training and and pretty soon they're not cops anymore.
They're counselors.
And I don't think I need a counselor when the gang guy comes through my door.
I need a cop.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush, taking your calls.
And just one more.
L.A. County Sheriff's deputies who fired 120 shots at an unarmed driver in Compton, where I was born, by the way, have now been said by the Office of Independent Review of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department that the deputies used, quote, a poor tactical approach
approach unquote the uh driver was slightly wounded as was a deputy caught in the crossfire 120 shots never form a circle and start firing.
Didn't they go through the elementary stuff at the academy with these guys?
▲
Export Selection