All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
August 4, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
You're tuned to the most listened to Radio Talk Show in America, a radio talk show that is appointment listening.
Meaning people will reschedule their day in order to include this program.
It's great to be with you at our normal regular telephone number now back in operation, 800-282-2882.
It's 800-282-2882.
That number back in operation now, the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I need your help today, folks.
21 Marines from Ohio dead in Iraq this week.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, one of the great charities with which we have been associated here for over 15 years, provides educational scholarships and other assistance for the children of Marines killed in action.
They're in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey.
They are an organization of Marines, former Marines.
99 to almost 100% of all the money donated goes.
I mean, they have to maintain their office and so forth on their website, but that's it.
There's not one dollar goes into anybody's back pocket.
Nobody gets paid is the point.
They give away as much as they can of what they contribute.
We have a link to their website at rushlimbaugh.com.
I'm hesitant to give out the phone number here on the air simply because it'll just result in shutting it down or constant busy signals.
But there is an address I can give you.
And if you have, in this roaring economy, some spare change laying around that you'd like to help out, it would be most appreciated.
It's the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, P.O. Box 37, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
And again, go to rushlimbaugh.com and you'll find their website linked to on ours, and it'll give you all the background of what they do and further ways to make a donation.
But these guys, and they're friends of mine, and I've known them for, as I say, 15 years, and they really are doing the Lord's work.
And they're one of the first organizations of this type.
A lot of them have sprung up now, thankfully.
But the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation was one of the first.
Great guy named Pete Haas runs it.
Jimmy Kalstrom's involved in it.
Dick Tarickian from Lazard Fairley.
These are all ex-Marines, and they devote so much time to this that nobody knows.
They have an annual dinner every year.
They give awards to people who have helped them tremendously.
And it's always a great fun night.
Trickian shows up in a camouflage tuxedo.
And MC is the event, but they're into the cause.
It's the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
They need your help today because the 21 Marines dead in Iraq this week.
P.O. Box 37, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
Now, I want to go back to this L.A. Times John Roberts story because at the same time, I want to mention what the New York Times is doing.
We had a little column yesterday from a lib in Pittsburgh.
Reg, what's his name?
Reg Feely?
What's his name, Mr. Snerdley?
Reg Henry?
What's his name?
Whatever his name is.
John Roberts is too nice.
The day before, we had a piece from somebody else, the John Bolton is too mean.
Now we have the New York Times doing an exhaustive investigative report on the adoption of John Roberts' children.
They're working on that report now that it's not in the paper today, but they're working on it.
I'm told that the adoption records of his children are sealed, which is no doubt just going to entice the New York Times even more.
You tell the media they can't get something, and they'll turn over every barrel to get to it.
I can attest personal experience.
Then we come to the L.A. Times story today.
Roberts donated help to gay rights case.
In 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the high court nominee.
L.A. Times attempting to drive a wedge here between conservative Republicans and Judge Roberts on the basis that the Times is assuming that all conservatives hate gays.
And they have that assumption as part of this part of the story, and it offends me as it's not the case, but they make it so, and that's why the basis on which they think they can successfully drive the wedge.
Here are the details that are relevant in the story from the L.A. Times.
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
He was then a lawyer specializing in appellate work.
He helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.
He didn't write the legal briefs.
He did not argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental, it says, in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.
Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, says the L.A. Times, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.
All right, now I do know, because I have been in contact with people, and I do know that it is driving a wedge.
It's causing some curiosity and concern from people on the right.
Now, let me tell you why.
Because people are beginning to ask, what if the L.A. Times story is true?
You know, the conservatives on this committee, the Judiciary Committee, need to do their job too.
And their job is to focus on judicial philosophy.
Liberals aren't the only people who get to ask questions on this committee.
The Republicans get to, too, and they ought to probe this whole business of judicial philosophy.
Now, what happened here, there was a 1996 case, Supreme Court case called Romer versus Evans.
And that's the case that Roberts worked on.
The people of Colorado passed a ballot initiative that basically had one premise.
The initiative allowed tenants who were devout Christians to refuse to rent to gay couples.
And the people of Colorado duly voted that.
It was duly passed.
And it caused a cacophony and a firestorm.
This one had nothing to do with gay marriage.
This precedes the whole gay marriage movement or argument, if you will.
This is primarily about tenants who were devout Christians who wanted to refuse to rent to gay.
Couples have the right to do so, to be able to have the right to do so, to rent rooms or properties that they owned to gay couples.
And we had a caller from Hollywood 45 minutes ago named Keith who made the point, you know, behavior is not a civil right.
We don't accord civil rights to behavior.
Race and religion are not the same as sex when it comes to bestowing civil rights.
But the larger point, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Constitution does not provide what the court said in Romer versus Evans.
It's to be left to the states when it's not specified.
And there's nothing wrong with asking Judge Roberts about his views of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.
What does it encompass and so forth?
This particular case, Romer versus Evans, actually threw out a ballot vote of the people of Colorado and then imposed the views of six justices on the issue of same-sex rights, behavioral rights, if you will.
Judge Scalia, Justice Scalia, wrote a scathing attack on the court's action.
He was joined in this scathing attack by Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas.
Let me read to you a sentence from Scalia's dissent.
He said, he condemned the court for injecting itself in the cultural debate in the country.
Remember, and Roberts said in his questionnaire, judges are not to decide social issues.
They are to decide legal cases that come before them.
This is purely a social issue that the people of Colorado duly voted on.
And it, you know, one side won this thing.
And Scalia wrote, since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is to be left to be resolved.
It is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions.
This court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that animosity toward homosexuality is evil.
This court has no business doing that.
This court has no business being involved in social issues.
And he's calling the six judges who are in the majority the elite class from which the members of this institution are selected, meaning justices are elites.
They're picked from the best and the brightest on benches and courts from all over the country.
And he says this court has no business imposing upon all Americans.
And that's what they did.
They took a Colorado passed ballot initiative and said, that doesn't count.
And furthermore, none of the rest of you states can do this either.
And what they did was basically pronounce that animosity toward homosexuality is evil.
And the Supreme Court, in Scalia's opinion, says, that's not our role.
We don't have that right on this court.
So back to Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts worked to facilitate the Supreme Court majority overturned, did so pro bono.
Now, all anybody's saying here is that he has, you know, there's reason to ask him questions about this, especially in light of what he said in his questionnaire about the fact that the Supreme Court nor judges are to decide social issues.
That's not what they're, we read it to you yesterday from his questionnaire.
The press was making a big point that he stands for precedent.
Well, how about this standing for precedent?
This case, Romer versus Evans, led to the Texas case, which the court then overthrew or overturned.
That was the Texas sodomy law.
And there were, what was it, 16 other states or 26 other states, 16 other states that had the same law.
And in overturning the Texas law, they overturned all those other states' laws as well.
And so that's two of three legs on the way now to granting a particular behavior as a civil right.
And behavior is not the same as sex, not the same as race.
Because once you start sanctioning a behavior as a civil right, then where do you stop?
So it's something that does need to be asked about.
And of course, then this business of precedent again.
Here we're asking Roberts, what about precedent?
Oh, I respect precedent.
It's all about Roe versus Wade.
But when it came to the Texas law, that's a rotten law.
Hell with precedent on that law.
We're going to overturn ourselves, the court said.
And Scalia and Thomas wrote scathing dissents in that decision as well.
I got to take a brief time out.
We will be back and continue.
Mere moments.
Don't go away.
And just so there's no confusion, the Colorado Ballot Initiative is not just about devout Christians being forced to rent property to same-sex couples that they disagreed with.
That's just an example.
The whole purpose of the ballot initiative in Colorado was to prevent the use of the civil rights laws to be applied to same-sex conduct and relationships as opposed to race and religion.
It is risky when you start anointing behaviors as civil rights.
And the ballot initiative in Colorado was designed to stop that dead in its tracks.
And the courts, you can't do that.
We're going to legislate that behavior is civil rights.
And from that case, they went on, the Texas cases, Lawrence versus Texas, to say that same-sex sodomy is constitutionally protected.
And that all forms the basis for ruling that same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited by the states under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is what has begot the same-sex marriage amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has put all of this in motion, and it started in Roma versus Evans in 1996 in Colorado.
I just want you to understand the details of this and the trail to where it leads.
Linda, Orange County, California, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Yeah, thank you, Rush.
God bless you, Rush.
Thank you.
Look, I am so mad.
I'm just so angry this morning listening to this and the Democrats attacking Judge Roberts on his pro bono work or even worse, the Democrats attacking Mrs. Roberts for how her children are dressed.
This is, to me, it is exactly like during the 2004 campaign rush when first Edwards and then Carrie, do you remember when he started bringing up Mary Cheney during the debate?
Yep.
I mean, these are the supposedly tolerant ones among us are the ones trying to divide everybody.
He's the one, Kerry, that mentioned Mary Cheney's gay and started putting words in the vice president's mouth about all this and trying to use it in a denigrating way, being critical of it.
And again, it's based on the assumption that conservatives hate gay people, which just isn't the case.
This New York Times investigation of his children and their adoption, the reporter that's doing the story says it's just part of our standard background check.
Well, that's interesting to know.
The New York Times apparently thinks that Supreme Court nominees have to pass their own background check in the New York Times.
And so we're now going to investigate his wife and what she does and her work for the pro-life movement.
And we're going to attack the way his kids are dressed at the White House on the day he is named the nominee.
And now the New York Times exhaustive investigation into his adoption records of his children and so forth.
Part of their background test or the standard background check that I guess conservative nominees have to pass at the New York Times.
This Panama City, Florida story, a man angry with his wife because she nagged him to cuddle after sex while he wanted to watch sports on TV has been sentenced to death for killing her with a claimmer.
Christopher Offord, 30, received the sentence Wednesday from Circuit Judge Dee Dee Costello, who said the brutality of the killing outweighed any mental health issues.
The defendant struck his wife approximately 70 individual blows after spending a happy interlude with her.
Uh, happy interlude.
Snirly, you're a sex expert in there.
Have you ever heard sex described as a happy interlude?
Well, it has been here.
Her desire to cuddle after sex does not justify the extremely violent, brutal response of the defendant.
I totally agree.
I mean, guy wants to watch sports.
You know what happened here.
He wanted to watch sports and she didn't.
And so he attempted, okay, she wanted the happy interlude, had the happy interlude, and that wasn't enough.
He wanted to get back to the game or whatever it was, and he just flipped out.
And now he's been sentenced to death.
I don't think they use old Sparky in Florida anymore.
They use something else.
12-member jury unanimously had recommended death.
The only other option was life in prison without parole.
At the June hearing, the guy claimed he had a history of mental illness since he was six.
He also told arresting officers that a voice in his head told him to kill his wife.
Here's Brian in Annapolis, Maryland.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
Negative Dido from Annapolis, sir.
Great to see you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
I wanted to talk to you about Rafi Palmaro.
I'm actually a New York Yankee fan, but the only Oriel I did like was Rossi.
And I just want to see what you thought about his future for the Hall of Fame.
You know, I have to say it looks pretty bleak because I'm watching the media, sports media comprise the majority of voters, the Sports Hall of Fame, and the sports media is on an anti-steroid tear.
And this Palmaro story, this is just, it's incomprehensible to me.
I just don't understand it.
You go before this committee back in March, you wag your finger as in.
I'm going to tell you one more time.
I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, not a single time, ever.
And I never once asked anybody to lie.
And you do one of those before the committee, and then you get caught testing positive for a steroid that is not found in a supplement.
I'm at a loss.
When you know the testing program is undergoing, is ongoing, you know you're going to get tested.
I just don't understand it.
The Hall of Fame question, I've seen it said by some reporters, well, until it's conclusively proven, I got to give him the vote.
Maybe not first ballot, maybe third ballot.
But, you know, this is going to lead to, I think, even more big names being masked or unmasked, as it were.
And if these voters conclude that, and you know, by the way, his home run totals coincide with when he met Canseco at the Texas Rangers.
He was hitting eight, nine home runs a year, then goes up to 37 or 38 when he meets Canseco.
See, you just, I'd have to say that it looks bad.
Back we are, ladies and gentlemen, here, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I love this headline.
Where's this headline from?
I don't know where it's from.
AP, somebody, it's got to be AP or Reuters or something.
Democrats celebrate narrow U.S. loss in Ohio.
Could anything be greater music to our ears?
Now they're celebrating losing.
In addition to saying that losing is winning, now they're celebrating losing.
Democrats on Wednesday celebrated a closer-than-expected loss in a special House of Representatives race in Ohio, calling it a warning sign for Republicans.
Plymouth, Massachusetts.
Here's Larry.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Ross.
I want to just talk a little bit from the left about, like in Massachusetts, you know, we're not thrilled.
I'm not thrilled with the fact that judges, the SJC, make decisions that the public doesn't get to vote on.
And I had two questions for you, and we can come back to this.
One, do you think a lot of people vote on one or two issues only?
And two, are we better off not having like parties and let it break down to who people really are?
What do you think?
Are we better off not having like parties?
What do you mean?
Like Democrats and Republicans.
What if nobody, remember in the old days there was one lever that voted for everybody?
No, no, no.
No, there have been parties for, I mean, Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, for example, the parties go back a long way.
You've got to have parties.
You've got to have factions.
The Founding Fathers always spoke of factions in the Federalist Papers and their value.
No, that's not a problem.
But the federal judiciary, you know, making decisions that the public doesn't get to vote on, that's happening more and more.
And there's a reason for it.
And I've talked about this at great length.
Look at the nomination of Roberts.
The nomination of Roberts clearly illustrates that the majority of people in this country think the Supreme Court's a political institution.
And they think the Supreme Court is the ultimate decision maker on all these controversial issues.
And that's because that's what the court has said it's going to do ever since Marbury versus Madison.
And the left has attempted to use the court to institutionalize its beliefs since they can't win at the ballot box.
The left keeps losing at the ballot box.
There are big issues such as forced busing, any number of liberal issues that have found their way woven into the fabric of our society would have never passed by a vote of the people on a ballot initiative or by a vote of the people's representatives in Congress.
And the left knows this.
So the court is now a political institution.
And because it's been that for so long, a lot of average Americans look at it that way.
And an education process is needed.
That's why I was so excited about what Judge Roberts said in his questionnaire response the other day when he said, we're not here to decide social issues.
We're here to decide legal cases that come before us.
But the court has become the arbiter of cultural and social issues.
And they do it on the basis of the personal policy preferences of a majority of the judges from case to case.
And that's not what the Supreme Court's supposed to be.
The personal policy preferences of judges is not supposed to impact their view of the law, but it has become that.
Now, as to people, you know, voting on one or two issues only, I believe in freedom.
If the people are single-issue voters and that's what's going to get them to the polls, I'm not going to, I'll be critical of single-issue voters, but I'm not going to be critical of voting that way.
I'm not going to try to stamp it out.
You know, I'm not at all oriented in that way.
Is it a problem?
Can be, but I mean, it's up to people that are trying to get the votes of these people to persuade them to vote for them.
It's all a process.
And the voters are the voters.
And if somebody doesn't get a majority of votes, then it's up to them next time to try.
It's really not hard to understand this.
The biggest problem that I think we have is a total, woeful, inept education process when it comes to the Constitution in this country and the Supreme Court, the separation of powers, all of these things.
I think there's so much ignorance in this country about it because it isn't taught.
And it's one of the things we try to do here is rectify some of that ignorance by actually explaining.
And some people, but Rush, it's too hard.
It's too, no, it's not.
We make the complex understandable on this program.
It's real, it's actually brilliantly simple.
That's one of the great things about the Constitution.
It's brilliantly simple.
And it's all these elites that have made it all confusing and esoteric to people when it really need not be.
Lincoln, California.
Hello, Eddie.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, Dr. Limbo.
Yes, sir.
Yes.
You have to help me out here, okay?
I need your help.
I'm kind of disabled, so I watched Fox News all the time.
I listened to you.
And I'm so tired of these people coming up there wearing sheets and threatening us.
And I listened to you, what you said to that caller way back ago that you're in agreement.
That answered one of my questions right there.
But I have a feeling, you know, 21 Marines killed and them threatening us, blowing up London.
We're not doing enough.
I wanted to know if you agree with that.
Our intelligence must know where these people, some of the people are.
And I don't understand why we, I mean, war is ugly, but I can't understand why we can't go in there and really nuke them.
I know a lot of innocent people will be killed, but the Second World War, a lot of innocent people were, you know, killed.
I feel we're in a war here.
And I can't see how they can just keep picking at us.
And I don't know.
Maybe our intelligence do not know where they're going.
Okay, now there's two things that I want to respond to you.
The first broad question, are we fighting it effectively?
I don't really know.
I'm like you and I know a lot of other people.
Come on, what is it?
Just go in there and take these people out.
The problem is to do that, we need to go to Syria.
And to do that, we need to go to Iran because that's where these insurgents are coming from.
And we're trying to intercede as much of this infiltration on the Syrian border as we can.
We have some operations out there.
But if the insurgents are coming from these two places and from other areas, you've got to get them where they are or you're going to have to deal with them when they get to where they're going, which is what we're doing.
So could it be done more effectively?
I would think, but keep in mind, I'm not a military strategerist here.
I'm just like you.
I react to these and everybody gets irritated.
Every day you hear another five or 10 or 20 are dead.
But this is something on the opposite of that.
We need to keep in perspective.
And the military has suffered 1,800 deaths now, and the media is just, oh, they're trumpeting that, 1,800 deaths.
And we've just lost perspective.
How about the number of dead in the Battle of Iwajima?
How about the number of dead in the D-Day invasion?
How about the number of dead in a training, training mission for the D-Day invasion?
How about the dead at the Battle of the Bulge?
The difference then between then and now, we didn't know it the moment it happened then.
And we didn't see it.
We didn't see the flaming, smoking vehicle that was used as the bomb or whatever.
We didn't see it till the Saturday newsreels came to the air-conditioned movie tone news, which, you know, weeks after it had all happened.
Now, we can't go back to those days either.
So what's needed, a sense of proportion and perspective.
And you said it yourself.
This is a war and war is ugly.
But I think also what bothers people is that when they hear that soldiers are killed giving candy to kids or that a reporter is killed, you know, kidnapped by some police thugs in Basra, which happened this week.
And it's been like this, and people legitimately have questioned.
Okay, if we're going to get killed passing out candy to kids, what are we doing passing out candy to kids?
What are we using the military to do that for?
And people, PR, goodwill.
Well, is that the role of the military?
Is the military supposed to be its own PR agency as well, at least the soldiers on the ground?
There are a lot of things to take issue with here and to be, you know, get disgusted about and irritated with.
But in the big picture, what's happening in Iraq today is no different than what went on in Germany after World War II when we were trying to reestablish Germany as a democratic country.
That took years.
And we're still there.
Still have military bases.
Japan, it took years.
Iraq is way ahead of our own timetable in establishing a constitution and coming up with democratic systems for its people.
And I think the Iraqi people are starting to get fed up with all this as well.
Not with us.
I mean, they're getting fed up with these insurgent attacks.
So, yeah, on the surface, there's a lot to be irritated about, scratch your head over, but I think a sense of perspective is necessary.
We haven't had a World War II-type conflict since World War II.
Vietnam really doesn't even qualify, but you've got to understand that the media today is looking at Iraq as though it looked at Vietnam.
And what was the media's purpose in Vietnam?
And that was to gin up anti-war sentiment among the American people.
And Eddie, that's what they're trying to do with you.
That's what they're trying to do with the way they cover this stuff.
They're trying to gin up anti-war sentiment because they're opposed to it.
They're opposed to Bush.
They're opposed to the policy.
And they know that they're trying to recreate the power they had in Vietnam.
And I would urge you to resist it because this war on terror is going to take us where it takes us.
And it was never promised to be quick.
It was never said it was going to be easy.
And any wavering support for this is only bad news for the men and women on the ground in the war on terror.
They need to be supported.
That's why I've been saying today that they need your help.
We need your help with the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
These are 20 Marines dead today.
You can sit around and say, that is horrible.
You can do something about it to an extent.
And that is contribute to this fine group of people that at least provides education scholarships for their kids.
We've linked to it on my website at rushlimbaugh.com.
I understand how people get frustrated over it.
I just think a little sense of proportion and perspective is also necessary to understand that this is how all wars take place.
This is how they all take place.
War is all about killing people and breaking things, and the other guys do it too.
And I understand the frustration.
Well, we should do it more.
We're the United States of America, and these people wear sheets on their heads, as you said.
You know, well, saw some story today.
Their bombs are getting bigger.
And guess where the bombs are coming from?
The latest bombs in these Iraqi attacks, it is said, are coming from Hamas.
Well, Hamas is over in Lebanon.
Okay, so there are a lot of places that need to be cleaned out.
And you just wonder if that's in the battle plan.
I can't answer.
I have no clue.
But I got to run a quick timeout.
We will be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
And back we are.
Let's see.
Seattle yesterday named one of the top five hot spots for election fraud by the nonpartisan American Center for Voting Rights in a report entitled, and we had, they named Philadelphia yesterday, we had that, vote fraud, intimidation, and suppression in the 2004 presidential race.
Seattle joined on the list by Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and St. Louis, East St. Louis.
Now, let's see.
Seattle, that's Washington.
That's Blue State.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that's blue state.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
How did Wisconsin go, Mr. Snerderly?
Wisconsin to red or a blue state.
Wisconsin is a blue state.
Ohio, red state, but that's under dispute.
The Democrats think there was a ballot fraud there.
And Missouri was a red state.
So we've got three blue states and two red states here where there was vote fraud.
Let's see who's next.
Omar in Austin.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Good afternoon, Rush.
A pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
It's my pleasure.
Yeah, I'm actually a returning listener.
I have, I guess, just recently started listening to you again after that.
I guess I stopped back during the Clinton administration, kind of gave up on politics altogether, all the partisanship and everything just kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.
And, you know, going from both ways.
And I really was calling to, you know, to thank you.
I really thought I was starting to lose my mind.
Started watching, got set up with some DISH satellite and started watching a little bit more news and started thinking I was going crazy with what was going on.
I'd say it's a hazard.
If you do nothing but watch television, you will think that.
I have to tell you, last week, last week, I was on vacation.
I went to Europe and I didn't, I didn't.
Oh, I have to, I forgot to tell you, but I took the sling box.
Hey, Omar, I'm not going to take away your time here.
I'll make this real fast.
The guys at Comp USA gave me this sling box.
And what it is, if you get a high-speed internet connection, I had two places in Italy where I had a high-speed internet connection.
I could watch this Ti-Vo here, and I was able to watch what I had recorded on my TiVo while sitting in one.
The thing actually, it worked.
It worked flawlessly.
And I told you about it before I left.
But that's the only thing I did.
And I did it just to check and see if it worked.
I didn't watch any news at all, and it was amazing.
I didn't, I just, I totally decompressed.
I totally, my attitude changed immeasurably.
So I can understand when you say that you just had a steady diet of this stuff.
It's depressing.
It's irritating.
It's like I saw this tape of Zawahiri today, and I said, what are we propagandaizing this for?
This guy for?
This guy doesn't even have the guts to face his own people.
He hides behind the TV camera in Al Jazeera.
And then we get this guy on tape and we get CNN talking about, look at how freshly starched his shirt is.
Look how clean and manicured he is.
Well, who cares?
Why help this guy with his propaganda?
I can understand how it affects you.
Oh, yeah, it's been horrible.
I mean, even just getting back in, watching again, you know, I can see the ludicrous.
I have no idea.
I mean, you know, back when, you know, I really, you know, during the Clinton administration, just really kind of getting bad taste.
Didn't really feel, you know, I've always considered myself to be a free thinker.
I'll make my own decisions.
Don't care, Republican, Democrat.
I'm voting for the money.
What are you saying?
Are you saying that this program has helped to restore sanity in you?
Oh, my goodness.
Absolutely.
Well, to confirm my own sanity, I thought it was, you know, well, maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe all this, you know, everything you see on the TV is just so slanted.
I was like, why is this bad?
We're doing some great things here.
You know, we've got this, you know, everything going on.
They seem to spin just in a terribly negative way.
And even when I'm seeing good things, and, you know, I'm calling basically to say, you know, there's a lot of us out there, I believe.
I mean, I'm sure I'm not the only one that's finally given up.
But, you know, I haven't voted the last two elections.
I'm definitely going to be voting the next one.
You know, the Democratic Party, I don't know what's happened to them over the last eight, 10 years, but, oh, my God, it's going to start shipping people out of the mental hospital.
I'll tell you that.
They've been losing.
And it's so bad now that they're celebrating losing and calling their losses wins.
And I'll tell you, you listen to Democratic rhetoric, which if you watch the right networks, that's all you're going to get.
You're not only going to get Democrat rhetoric from the reporters and anchors, you're going to get it from the Democrats who are the guests on their shows.
And it does challenge one's sanity, I think.
That's why you have to have a positive attitude.
That's why you have to be able to laugh at it out there, Omar, and understand that it's a new day.
They don't have their monopoly anymore, and a majority of Americans are not falling for it anymore, as evidenced by the fact that they're losing.
I'm glad you called, and welcome back.
The American ballot box welcomes you back as well.
We'll take quick time out and be back in just a second.
Yes, yes, thirdly, it worked like a charm.
I told you about this before I left the sling box.
It's $259.
It's from Comp USA.
The sponsor gave everyone to take and try.
And I checked it.
I was able to watch my TiVo in this studio while sitting in a hotel room in Rome and Venice.
It was amazing.
But I didn't spend a lot of time doing it because I was trying to disconnect from all this, which worked.
But if something big had happened, it was available to me to use without having to watch CN International or the BBC.
▲
Export Selection