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.
And our normal regular telephone number now back in operation.
800-282-2882.
It's 800-282-288-2.
That number back in operation now, the email address, uh rush at EIBNet.com.
We need your help today, folks.
Twenty-one Marines from Ohio dead in Iraq this week.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, one of the uh uh great charities with which we have been associated here for over 15 years, provides uh educational scholarships and other assistance for the uh children of Marines Killed in Action.
They're in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey.
They are uh an organization of Marines, former Marines.
99 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.
Uh there's not one dollar goes into anybody's back pocket.
Nobody gets paid, is the point.
Uh they give away as much as they can of what they contribute.
We have a link to their website at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Um I'm hesitant to give out the phone number here on the air, uh, simply because it'll it'll just result in uh uh shutting it down or constant busy signals, but there is an address I can give you, and if you have uh in this roaring economy, some spare change laying around that you'd like to uh uh 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, uh 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 uh make a donation.
But uh these guys, and then 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.
Uh 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.
Uh uh, Jimmy Kalstrom's involved in it, Dick Tarickian from Lazard Fairly's are all ex-Marines, and they are uh they devote so much time to this that nobody knows.
They have an annual dinner every year they give um uh awards to people who have helped them tremendously, and and uh it's it's always a great fun night.
Tricky and shows up at a camouflage tuxedo.
Uh and MC is the event, but they they're they're into the cause.
It's the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, they need your help today because of the 21 Marines dead in Iraq this week.
P.O. Box 37, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
Now, I want to I want to go back to this LA Times John Roberts story because uh at the same time, I want to mention what the New York Times is doing.
We had a 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?
Red Red, whatever his name is.
Uh John John Roberts is too nice.
The day before we had a piece from somebody else, the John Bolton's 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.
Uh 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, they'll turn over every barrel to get to it.
I can attest.
Uh personal uh experience.
Then we come to the LA Times story today.
Roberts donated help to gay rights case.
Uh in 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the High Court nominee.
LA Times attempting to drive a wedge here between uh uh conservative Republicans and Judge Roberts on the basis that the Times is assuming that all conservatives hate gays.
And that we they have that assumption as part of this part of the story, and it offends me as it's not the case.
Uh 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 LA 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.
Robert's work on behalf of gay rights activists whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, says the LA 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, uh, because I have been in contact with people, and I do know that it is driving a wedge.
It's 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 LA Times story is true?
Uh 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 too, and they ought to probe this.
Uh whole business of judicial philosophy.
Now, the what the 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 it was duly passed, and uh it caused a cacophony and a fire storm.
This one had nothing to do with gay marriage.
This precedes the whole gay marriage uh movement uh 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.
Uh, to rent rooms or properties that they owned to uh to gay couples.
And the the thing we had a caller from from Hollywood uh uh 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.
Uh but the larger point, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is that the Constitution does not provide what the court said in Romer versus Evans.
Uh it's it when it doesn't 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's encompass and so forth.
This this particular case, Roomer 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.
Uh Judge Scalia, Justice Scalia, wrote a scathing attack on the uh on the court's action.
He was joined in this scathing attack by Rehnquist and uh and Clarence Thomas.
Let me read to you a sentence from Scalia's dissent.
He said, and 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 duly voted on.
And it 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 past ballot initiative and said that doesn't count.
And furthermore, none of the rest of you uh states can do this either.
And what they did was basically pronounced 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 there's 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 and our 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 this case, Romer versus Evans, led to the uh the Texas case, uh, which the court then overthrew or overturned.
Uh that was the Texas Sodomy law.
And there were what was it, sixteen other states or twenty-six other states?
Sixteen 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 uh uh granting a particular behavior as a civil right.
And behaviors not the same as sex, not the same as race.
Because once you start sanctioning a behavior as a civil right, then you know, where do you stop?
Uh so it it's it's something that does need to be asked about.
And of course, then this business of precedent again.
Here we're 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, ah, that's a rotten law.
We're gonna hell with precedent on that one.
We're gonna overturn ourselves, the court said.
And Scalia and Thomas uh wrote scathing dissents in that uh in that decision as well.
I gotta 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 uh uh being forced to rent uh property to um uh same-sex couples that they disagreed with.
That's just an example.
Uh, the 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.
You know, it it it 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 we're gonna we're gonna legislate the behavior is uh is is civil rights, and from that case they went on at the Texas case is Lawrence versus Texas to say that same-sex sodomy is constitutionally protected, and that that all forms the basis uh 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 Romer versus Evans in uh in 1996 in Colorado.
Uh, just I just want you to understand the details of of this and the and the and the trail uh to to where it leads.
Uh, Linda, Orange County, California, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, thank you, Rush.
God bless you, Rush.
Thank you.
I am so mad.
I'm just so angry this morning.
I'm listening to this, and that the Democrats attacking Judge uh Roberts on his pro bono work, or even worse, the Democrats attacking Mrs. Roberts for how her children are drafted.
This is to me, it is exactly like during the 2004 campaign rush when first um Edwards and then Kerry.
Do you remember when he started bringing up Mary Cheney during the debate?
Yep, I mean, this is these are the supposedly tolerant ones among us are the ones trying to divide everybody.
He's the one, Carrie that mentioned Mary Cheney's gay and started putting words in the vice president's mouth uh uh uh about all this and and trying to use it in a denigrating way, with being critical of it.
And it 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 say, eh, 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 uh uh so we're now gonna investigate his wife and what she does in her work for the uh uh pro-life uh movement, and we're gonna attack the way his kids are dressed at the White House on the day he is uh named the nominee.
And now the New York Times uh exhaustive investigation into his uh adoption records of his children and so forth.
Part of their background test uh or or or the standard background check that I guess conservative nominees have to pass uh at the New York Times.
This uh 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 claw hammer.
Christopher offered 30, received the sentence Wednesday from circuit judge Didi 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 inter uh Snerdley, if 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, I guy wants to watch sports.
I uh you know what happened here.
He wanted to watch sports and she didn't, and so he attempted, okay.
She wanted uh the 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 he just flipped out.
Uh and now he's he's been sentenced to death.
He's gonna get I don't think they use old Sparky in uh in Florida anymore.
They use uh something else.
Twelve-member jury unanimously had recommended death.
The only other option was life in prison without parole.
At the June hearing, the uh 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, good from Naples, sir.
Great to talk about.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I wanted to talk to you about uh Rafi Palmero.
I'm actually a New York Yankee fan, but the only Oriol I did like was Rossi.
And uh I just want to see what um what you thought about his future for the Hall of Fame.
You know, uh I have to say it looks pretty bleak because I'm I'm watching the media, sports media comprise the majority of voters uh the sports hall of fame, and the sports media is on an anti-steroid tear.
And i this this this this Palmero story, this is just it's incomprehensible to me.
It's I just don't understand it.
You go before this committee back in March, you wag your finger as in I'm gonna 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 I I I'm at a loss.
I'm just you when you know the testing program is undergoing, under on is ongoing, you know you're gonna get tested.
I just don't understand it.
The Hall of Fame question, I've seen it said uh by some uh some reporters, well, until it's conclusively proven I gotta I gotta give him the vote, maybe not first ballot, maybe third ballot.
Uh but you know, this this is gonna lead to uh I think even more big names being masked or unmasked, as it were, and the if if these voters uh conclude that uh 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 I'd have to say that uh 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've uh I don't know where it's from.
AP, somebody it's gotta 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 about a little bit from the left about like in Massachusetts.
Uh you know, we're not thrilled.
I'm not thrilled with the fact that the 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?
Uh 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?
Um, well, but no, no, that's there.
No, there have been parties for for I mean Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, for example, uh, goes the parties go back a long way.
Uh you gotta have parties, gotta have factions.
Uh the founding fathers always spoke of factions in the uh Federalist papers and their value.
No, I'm I'm that that's that's not a problem.
Um but the the uh uh federal judiciary, you know, making decisions that the public doesn't get to vote on.
Uh that's happening more and more, and there's a reason for it.
And and I've I've talked about this at uh at great length.
For the long 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 where the uh is the is the ultimate decision maker on all these controversial issues.
And that's because that's what the court has said it's gonna do ever since Marbury versus Madison.
And the left has has uh 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.
They're big issues, such as forced bussing, uh any any number of liberal issues that have found their way woven into the fabric of our society would have never passed uh 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, uh a lot of average Americans look at it that way, and it's it's uh an education process is needed.
That's why that's why I was so excited about what Judge Roberts said in his questionnaire response the other day when he said uh we're not here to decide social issues.
We're here to decide legal cases that come before us.
Uh 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, uh I believe in freedom.
They want to if the people are single issue voters and that's what's gonna get them to the polls, I'm not gonna I'll uh I'll be critical of single issue voters uh uh but I'm not gonna be critical of of voting that way, but I'm not gonna try to stamp it out.
Uh you know, I I uh uh I'm not at all oriented in that way.
Uh is it a problem?
Can be, but I mean it's it's it's up to people that are trying to get the votes of these people to persuade them to vote for them.
It's it's all a process.
And the voters are the voters, and if somebody doesn't get a majority of votes, uh, you know, then then it's it's it's up to them next time to try.
It's it's it's really not hard to understand this.
The 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.
Uh I 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 uh rectify some of that ignorance by actually explaining.
And some people, but Russia, 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 uh and and uh 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.
Uh you have to help me out here, okay?
I um need your help.
Uh I'm kind of disabled, so I watched Fox News all the time and 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 uh them threatening us, blowing up uh London.
We're not we're not doing enough.
I wanted to know um if you agree with that.
Uh 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 um yeah, the Second World War, a lot of innocent people were you know killed.
And I I feel we're in a war here.
And um I can't see how they can just keep picking at us, and um I I don't know, maybe our intelligence do not know where they now there's there's there's two things that I want to respond to you.
The first the first broad question, are we fighting it effectively?
Um I don't really know.
Uh I'm like you, and I know a lot of other people.
Uh 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, you know, intercede as much of this infiltration on the Syrian border as we can.
We have some operations out there.
Uh, but you know, if if the insurgents are coming from these two places and from other areas, you gotta get them where they are, or you're gonna 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 I would think, but 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 ten or twenty are dead.
But this is this is something on the on the opposite of that.
We need to keep in perspective.
And the military uh has suffered eighteen hundred deaths now, and the media is just uh they're they're trumpeting that, eighteen hundred deaths, and you we've just lost perspective.
How about the number of dead in the Battle of Iwo Jima?
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 news reels came to the air-conditioned Movie tone news, uh, which you know, weeks after it had all happened.
Uh, 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, you know, I I think also what bothers people is that when they hear that soldiers are killed giving candy to kids, or that uh a reporter is killed, you know, kidnapped by some police thugs in Basra, uh, which happened this week.
Uh and it's it's been like this, and people legitimately have questioned why what okay, if if we're gonna get killed passing out candy to kids, what are we doing passing out candy to kids?
What we're using the military to do that for.
Um 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.
Uh 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 uh you know re-establish Germany as a as a democratic country.
That that took years, and we're still there, still have military bases there.
Japan, it took years.
Uh Iraq is way ahead of our own timetable in establishing a constitution and coming up with uh, you know, democratic systems for for its people.
And I think the Iraqi people are starting to get fed up with all this as well.
Not with us, I think they're getting fed up with these uh insurgent attacks.
So, yeah, on the surface, it there's a lot to be irritated about, scratch your head over, but I think a sense of perspective is necessary.
We we we haven't had a World War II type conflict uh 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 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 and they're trying to recreate the power they had in Vietnam.
And I would urge you to resist it, because this uh the war on terror is gonna 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 uh any any wavering support for this is is only bad news for the uh men and women on the ground uh in the war on terror.
They need to be supported.
That that's why you know I've I've been saying today that the need your help.
Uh uh, we need your help with the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
These are, you know, 20 Marines dead today.
You didn't sit around and say that's just horrible.
That's well, you can do something about it to an extent, and that is contribute to this uh this uh fine group of people at least provides education scholarships for their kids.
Um there's a we've linked to it on my website at Rushlinbaugh.coms.
I'm I understand how people get frustrated over it.
I just think a little sense of proportion of perspective is also necessary to uh 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 far 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 uh attacks, it is said are coming from Hamas.
Well, Hamas is over in uh Lebanon.
Okay, so we there's a lot of places that need to be cleaned out.
Uh and you just wonder if um uh if that's in the battle plan.
I can't answer.
I have no clue.
But I gotta 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.
Uh Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that's blue state.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
How do Wisconsin go, Mr. Snerdley?
Wisconsin a red or a blue state.
I'm not Wisconsin's a blue state.
Uh Ohio.
Uh red state, but that's under 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 uh uh vote fraud.
Uh let's see who's next.
Omar in Austin.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Uh good afternoon, Rush.
A pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you for taking my call.
You bet.
My pleasure.
I'm actually yeah, I'm actually uh returning listener.
Um I have uh I guess just recently started listening to you again after uh I guess I stopped back during the uh Clinton administration, kind of gave up on politics altogether, all the partisanship and everything just kinda left a bad taste in my mouth, and um you know, going from going from both ways.
And uh I really was calling to you know to thank you.
I really thought I was starting to lose my mind.
Um started watching uh got set up with uh you know some dish satellite and started watching a little bit more news and started thinking I was going crazy with you know what was going on.
I'd say it's it's a it's a hazard if you do nothing but watch television, you will think that.
It's uh I have to tell you last week, last week I was I was on vacation, I went to Europe, and I didn't I didn't I w Oh!
I have to t I forgot to tell you, but I took the sling box.
Hey, Omar, I'm not gonna take away for your time here.
I'll make this real fast.
The guys at Comp USA gave me this sling box.
And it what it is, if you get a high speed internet connection, I had I had two places in Italy where I had a high speed internet connection.
I could watch this TiVo here.
And I was I was able to watch what I had recorded on my Ti-Vo while sitting in one of the thing actually it worked.
It was 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 it, 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 have 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 is it's irritating.
It's like I saw this tape of Zawahiri today and I said, what are we propagandagizing this for uh this guy for?
This guy doesn't even have the guts to face his own people.
He hides behind a 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?
Uh why why why help this guy with his propaganda?
I can understand how it affects you.
Oh, yeah, it's a bit horrible.
I mean, even even just getting back in watching again, you know, I can see the the ludicrousy.
I I have no idea.
I mean, you know, back when I'm, you know, I I really, you know, during the Clinton administration, just really kind of getting, you know, 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 right.
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 and even when I'm seeing good things, and you know, I'm calling basically say, you know, there's a lot of us out there, I believe.
I mean, I I'm sure I'm not the only one that's finally, you know, given up, but you know, I haven't voted the last two elections.
I'm definitely gonna be voting the next one.
Um, you know, the Democratic Party, I don't know what's happened to them over the last eight, ten years, but oh my god, it's uh they've been losing started shipping people out of mental hospital.
I can tell you that.
They they've been losing.
And it's so bad now that they're celebrating losing uh and calling their losses wins.
Uh and I'll tell you, you listen to Democratic rhetoric, uh, at which you're if you watch the right networks, that's all you're gonna get.
You're not only gonna get Democrat rhetoric from the reporters and anchors, you're gonna get it from the Democrats who are the guests uh on their shows, and it it's 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, it the snurdy worked like a charm.
That this I told you about this before I left the sling box.
It's 259 bucks.
It's from um uh uh Comp USA, the sponsor gave it one to take and try.
And uh I I was I checked it, I was able to watch my TiVo in this studio while sitting in a hotel room in uh in uh Rome and Venice.
That was it just it was amazing.
But I didn't spend a lot of time doing it because I was trying to disconnect from all this, which which worked, but it if something big had happened, it was available to me to use without having to watch C in International or the BBC.
▲
Export Selection