All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
August 9, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Folks, just a little tease here for what's coming after the Arlen Specter and Judge Roberts story.
For those of you old enough to remember, do you remember the 1960 presidential campaign, John Kennedy, who's Catholic?
And you remember the questions that the Baptists and people are asking?
Well, now, is JFK going to be loyal to the Vatican or is he going to be loyal to the Constitution in the U.S.?
Here we are, 45 years later, and it is the party of JFK, which is now asking, will Judge Roberts be loyal to the Vatican or will he be loyal to the United States Constitution?
And they're gotten so excited about it, they brought out Mario the Pious on the Sunday shows yesterday.
He was on Meet the Press with Tim Russard.
And we have the audio coming up.
All that in due course.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Oh, hey, Brian, go ahead and turn on the ditto cam.
I forgot to give you the signal at the top of the hour.
We'll have it on at rushlimbaugh.com for the remainder of the program today.
So Senator Specter sends a three-page letter to Judge Roberts, and he raises pointed questions about two recent court decisions invalidating legislation that Congress passed under its authority to regulate interstate commerce.
That power has for decades, and for those of you in Riolinda, that means for 10, you know, multibles of 10.
Well, that's going to confuse you.
Never mind.
The power has for decades been used to produce expansive legislation, including environmental protection, civil rights laws, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The current court has been trimming back that authority, however.
Democrats have vowed to make interstate commerce a big issue in Judge Roberts' hearings, and now Senator Specter, Republican, is suggesting that he shares the Democrats' concerns.
Well, what's new about that?
He's doing his best impersonation of Senator Schumer here, if you ask me.
Specter said Monday in a telephone interview from his home in Philadelphia, said I think he said he was particularly upset.
No, wrong line.
I think Republicans have a duty to pursue this line of questioning and any relevant line of questioning.
He said he was particularly upset that the court under Chief Justice Rehnquist had questioned lawmakers' method of reasoning in striking down laws.
Well, that's just another way of saying Congress is incompetent, Specter said.
He added, I'm not suggesting we pack the court, but at a minimum, the Senate is determined to confirm new justices who respect their role.
Democrats and liberal advocacy groups, caught off guard by Mr. Specter's letter, were elated.
Were elated.
All right, let me give you just a brief explanation of this so that you understand what it is that Senator Specter is upset about.
There were two cases involving the commerce clause that the Supreme Court got right.
One was called Lopez, the other called Morrison.
The court ruled that Congress did not have the constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that didn't involve commerce and were not among the several states.
Lopez, the Lopez case, involved a federal law banning gun possession around schools.
There was no commerce of any kind.
The states are very capable of banning gun possession around the schools, and many of them do.
Some states are rural and possessing guns around schools, such as pickups and drive-by parents dropping off their kids at school is very common.
Morrison involved a federal law against violence against women, but again, it had nothing to do with commerce.
It was duplicative of many state laws that were already on the books.
So the commerce clause has been used by the Congress to pass all kinds of laws which don't apply to the commerce clause, such as banning gun possession around schools.
I mean, they had to have something to justify the law and intercede on the state's rights to do this, and they glommed onto the commerce clause.
And the commerce clause, there's no commerce involved whatsoever.
And the court struck that down.
So it's non-constitutional.
Now, this is where it gets interesting because I think Specter is simply regurgitating Schumer's absurd view of the Supreme Court's power.
And here's where it gets contradictory.
The liberals have argued for decades that the Supreme Court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of congressional laws.
This is called judicial review, and it stems from Marbury versus Madison.
So they've picked these two cases to argue that failing to uphold these laws shows disrespect for Congress and separation of powers.
It's cockeyed because on the contrary, in these two cases, Congress is disrespecting the Constitution itself, not the court.
It's Congress disrespecting the Constitution.
Congress passed a couple of laws invoking the Commerce Clause where there is no commerce taking place.
And the Supreme Court said there's no commerce here.
These laws are not constitutional.
Now, the liberals, on the one hand, including Senator Specter, love the whole concept of judicial review.
This is why they're so hell-bent on finding out what Judge Roberts thinks about overturning precedent.
I was watching some idiot on television last night.
I was flying home last night, and I had the TV on.
It's just miserable out there on TV at night.
It's just literally miserable.
I'm channel surfing around, and I've got some ding bat.
I forget, I don't even remember the show, but I got some ding bat talking about the fact that we can't overturn some, who was it?
David Gregory was talking to Bork, and he was trying to, and this was, you know, folks, this was like trying to sink a battleship with BBs.
And David Gregory is trying to nail Bork in a corner about precedent.
Well, he's, you know, we've got to worry about precedent.
And it was all about Roe versus Wade.
Why, if he doesn't respect precedent, we can overturn Roe versus Wade.
And Bork rattled off a whole bunch of cases, Plessy versus Ferguson.
I could have added the Dred Scott decision.
If the court didn't overturn itself, if the court never reversed itself, slavery would still be legal in the United States today.
If the word of the Supreme Court were final and the Supreme Court could never overturn itself, the Dred Scott decision would today still be active and we would still have slavery.
So the idea, but these are uneducated, uninformed media people who think they know it all based on Roe versus Wade.
So he's sitting there and trying to nail Bork down on this business of precedent.
And Bork just casually and calmly answers the question and blows the question out of the park in a grand slam home run.
But the contradiction of this is striking because on the one hand, the libs love judicial review, and that is when the court can say that's constitutional and that's not constitutional.
Now, all of a sudden, the libs are upset about it.
When the court said you cannot pass a federal law banning handgun possession within a certain area around a school using the commerce clause, there's no commerce involved here.
They tried to vaguely say, well, the gun had to be bought somewhere and the gun might have been bought out of state and brought by a resident into the state and so forth.
It was a big reach.
There was no commerce involved in the actual statute.
Supreme Court overturned it.
So the question to Senator Specter and Schumer and all the libs is, come clean with us.
Do you believe in judicial review or not?
Do you believe that the Marbury versus Madison decision in which the Supreme Court says it is going to alone and single-handedly determine what's constitutional and what isn't?
Or do you not?
And if you do, why are you focused only on these two cases when the court overturns congressional law all the time?
Most recently, sentencing guidelines.
The court most recently overturned sentencing guidelines.
You can't do that.
These are absurd.
They're out of proportion.
And here's the answer.
And that's why you're here, folks.
You're here for the answer.
I ask the questions and I answer them.
That's why I don't need guests and why I don't need to go on any other show asking me questions because I ask myself the best questions I will ever get asked and then I answer them.
The answer is this.
Liberals, regardless of party, want the Supreme Court to uphold Congress expanding its power over us and the states, just as they want the court itself to expand its authority over us and the states.
I think the question that Specter raises needs to be answered by him.
The question that Senator Specter is going to pose to Judge Roberts needs to be answered by him.
Which is it, Senator?
Do you support judicial review or not?
Do you think the court should overturn what they think is unconstitutional or should they not?
Yes or no?
If you think they shouldn't, then Roe versus Wade is safe and you have no business complaining about these two cases, Lopez or Morrison.
If you think that the concept of judicial review is the court grasping and holding too much power, you should tell us that you think that.
But to put the onus here on Judge Roberts, who hasn't said anything about this other than his responses on questionnaires about precedent and its value, I mean, I just, it is just, folks, this is cockeyed.
It is purely cockeyed, and it illustrates the obscene sense of power these senators think that they have.
But what it all adds up to is this, and make no mistake about it, when we're talking about a liberal, I don't care if it's a liberal activist or a liberal senator or a liberal judge.
They believe in every institution of government getting as big as it can at the expense of your liberty and mine.
Pure and simple.
No other way to analyze it.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Hi.
How are you?
Great to have you.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the nation's leading and most influential radio talk show a program, envied and copied by many, but never equaled.
Rob in Salt Lake City.
Hello, sir.
You're next.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
My question is, you just made the statement that liberals want government to grow, government agencies to get bigger at the expense of our liberty.
Yes.
Which I agree with.
My question is, why then don't they favor the Patriot Act?
Ah, that's an excellent question.
What do you think the answer to your own question is?
Do you have any idea before I tell you what I think?
I would think because it was Bush's idea.
No, not so much, although that's part of it.
But the Patriot Act, see, if you look at the left, the Patriot Act basically is an act that gives the federal government power to accuse or suspect people on the basis of behavior.
And the left doesn't want to be judged in any way, shape, manner, or form.
They think they'll come up short, I suppose.
But they simply reject.
There's one area, though, of government that libs do not want to empower and get bigger, and that's law enforcement.
They're hell-bent against that.
Look at the ACLU.
The evidence is all over the place.
It doesn't want law enforcement to get any more powerful than it is.
You know, there are exceptions to everything, but this, because it's primarily oriented in behavior, they just, it scares them.
They don't want to go there at all.
And also profiling.
Also what?
Profiling.
Profiling.
Well, profiling is basically the combination of appearance and behavior.
But about profiling, you know, the Brits.
The Brits are beginning.
The Brits are going to deport people who talk about hating Britain, England.
They're fed up with it after just two attacks now.
They're fed up with it.
I'll get to the stories here in the stacks in due course to give you the details of this.
We would have a little bit more of a problem doing what the Brits are going to do.
It'll get a little touchy if we tried it because they don't have a constitution.
And so they don't have a First Amendment which grants everybody the right to free speech.
We do.
You can burn the flag.
You can rip your country.
You can rip the president.
You can write books in this country about how to assassinate the president if he's George W. Bush.
And there's really nothing anybody can do other than engage in public condemnation.
But when it comes to profiling, the opposition to this to me is simply absurd.
It is simply absurd.
Common sense and forget the profiling issue.
The way to go about this is statistics.
Forget profiling at all.
The left is going to say, you can't judge people in the basin of skin color.
You can't judge people because of the way they wear their clothes.
You can't judge people.
Fine.
Okay, we're not going to do that.
We're going to base it on statistics.
We know that 100% of the 9-11 hijackers and terrorists were Arab.
Well, we got a pretty good idea then who they are.
We know that also other terrorist attacks around the country are being committed by 90, 100% Muslims, what have you.
So if you go with statistics here and don't call it profiling, you can't, it would be absurd to ignore them.
Even though people, well, Russia can massage statistics any way you want.
Yeah, I know.
100% is 100%.
Massage it all you want.
But I think when it comes to the Patriot Act, it's an overwrought fear of the Justice Department, the FBI.
All of these things are wrapped up into it.
But it all centers, I think, around behavior.
The left just doesn't want to be criticized.
They don't want to be held accountable.
They don't want any judgmentalism on their behavior.
And any government that gets in the way of that, they're going to hear from it.
Other than that, the power to tax, the power to redistribute wealth, all of these things.
There are a couple of things about government the left doesn't like, the use of the military and that sort of thing.
But as I said, there are exceptions to everything.
But for the most part, it's oriented around behavior.
Byron in Perlin, Texas.
You're next.
Hello, sir.
Bunstar Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
My question's concerning the upcoming race between Perot and Hillary.
I want to want your feedback that you think this race will put Hillary back farther to the left.
Not likely because as I mentioned at the top of the program, Janine Pirro's cultural issues pretty much dovetail with Hillary's.
Janine Pirot's pro-choice.
She's pro-gun control.
She's not going to differ from Hillary much except when you get to the fiscal issues.
When you get to the fiscal issues, she is anti-tax.
She is anti-big government.
She's pro-free market and so forth.
And she really, as a D, she's tough on crime.
And of course, we know the Libs are not tough on crime.
They're not tough on terrorists.
They're not tough on crime anywhere.
In fact, when crime happens, they want to find a way to blame Americans or blame the country or blame society or what have you.
So I don't think that a Janine Pirrow-Hillary Clinton race will cause Hillary a problem in terms of her effort to move to the right because Hillary's trying to move to the right on these cultural things or she's trying to put forth the illusion of moving to the right on the cultural issues.
Now, to that extent, I mean, Janine Piro could say, this is phony.
This is not who she is.
She doesn't believe this, and she's just doing this to facilitate her run for the presidency.
You know, I think, so I happen to think that Hillary is placed in a much bigger bind as a virtue of Janine Pirot running than any of the so-called smart money pundits are saying right now.
They're saying it's no big deal because who's ever heard of Janine Pirot?
And they're also saying it's no big deal because of her husband, Al and his time in a federal penitentiary.
And they're saying it doesn't care.
We don't care how close she gets.
We're going to nail her with her husband.
And we're going to forget that Hillary was married to Bill.
It'll be Janine Pirro versus Hillary Rodham in the mainstream press, not Hillary Clinton.
And, you know, Janine Pirro's maiden name is Ferris, I think.
Janine Ferris Pirrow is how she used to be billed on TV.
She dropped that and it was just Janine Pirow.
I don't know if Ferris is her maiden name or middle name, but regardless, it'll be Janine Pirrow versus Hillary Rodham.
That's how the press in New York will cover it.
But they're going to get smoked again, folks.
I have confidence in this.
I just don't believe in the mainstream press's ability, including a New York Times, to control the agenda anymore.
And I don't think any of you should either.
That's why I get so impatient with people who constantly hit me like when I go to Connecticut.
But what about Hillary?
But what about Hillary?
I'm really worried about Hillary.
She's so smart.
She's so crafty.
And the women, the 30 to 40-year-old women of America, you just love Hillary.
She's just the goddess.
Okay, that's 30 to 40 year olds.
Fine, we can handle it.
I keep telling them, you don't know what negative turnout is until she runs.
For all the 30 and 40-year-old women that love her, there are probably just as many that don't.
And let's talk about the men.
You know, you look at Hillary Clinton, you see your first and second wives, folks.
And then you see Nurse Ratchet when you get committed to the old folks' home.
I just, I'm not sitting here just wringing my hands going, oh, no.
Oh, no.
What do we do?
What are we doing about Hillary?
Oh, no.
All is lost.
Quite the contrary.
And I have never met Janine Piro, so I don't want to be misunderstood here.
I've watched her on television, you know, these chat shows, and I played a couple soundbites from her earlier today on television today.
And, you know, she's just powerful.
She is passionate.
She's well-spoken.
She's articulate.
And I'll tell you something else that comes across.
And I don't mean this as a negative, and I don't mean it in a male female.
She's tough.
What did I leave out, Mr. Snirdley?
Yeah, she's pretty.
She's pretty.
I'm trying to leave that out of it, Mr. Sterdley, because I don't want to be accused of not saying something by not saying it.
Back in a moment.
Oh, yeah, BB.
Rush Limbaugh off of the running halfway through the fastest three hours in media.
You believe it?
Here it is.
It's already Tuesday.
Of course, I'm sure this feels like Thursday to you people since I wasn't here yesterday.
A day without this program is like a 48-hour day, but we're here.
Great to be back.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
You know, it's interesting, as I mentioned mere moments ago, when John Kennedy was running for president, some of you not old enough to remember it, but because it was 1960, but when he was running for president, his Catholicism was questioned.
It's a fascinating case study in how the left recycles its playbook.
Or another way of saying it would be it's a case study in how history replays.
Because in 1960, during the presidential campaign, everybody was worried about whether Kennedy would be loyal to the Vatican or to the U.S. Constitution.
And this was said by other religious people, by the way.
And there were some Southerners, by the way, some Southern Democrats, also pretty concerned about this as well.
Well, something happened.
Kennedy was elected, of course, and he established his loyalty to the United States and not the Vatican.
And second, the second thing that happened was liberals were laughing out there that those Baptists and whoever were so weird they questioned a Catholic for being a Catholic.
But it was a watershed moment, if you will, because it was the first time a Catholic had been elected president, and people were concerned.
Well, as Senator Kennedy shouted recently, ho, hello, here we are 40 years later, and now it's the liberals who are doing what they mocked 40 years ago.
Now it is the liberals who are questioning fealty to the Constitution over fealty to the Vatican.
And this is about Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts is a Catholic, and the left's out there planting little seeds, hoping they will sprout into giant weeds and flowers of doubt.
Hey, this guy's a Catholic.
And by the way, this is not the first.
All you have to do to really make Senator Schumer mad is to accuse him of attacking a nominee's religion.
But most powerfully, you can do this by suggesting he attacks a Catholic.
Bill Pryor.
Bill Pryor from Alabama, the Attorney General, one of the nominees of President Bush to sit on the appellate court system.
And one day it was learned that Judge Pryor decided not to take his family to Disney World.
What is it down in Orlando?
Is it Disney World in Orlando?
Yeah.
Disney World because the date he had planned to take them was Gay Day.
He said, well, I'll go another day.
Well, the Democrats on the committee said, you have bigot tendencies, don't you?
You are a homophob.
And you, all of this comes from your religion.
Well, they didn't say that.
But when Senator Schumer says his deeply held personal beliefs, what else is he talking about?
Deeply held personal beliefs.
And so now, and it's back here again with Judge Roberts.
He too is a Catholic.
And the very people who poo-pooed this whole notion of questioning loyalty to the Vatican or the U.S. Constitution are now themselves back doing just that.
They even dragged out Mr. Summer replacement yesterday, Mario the Pious, on, well, not yet.
See, it's yesterday to me, Sunday, two days ago, Mario the Pious, former governor of New York, was on Meet the Press.
I'm going to go back to the archives of this program because back in the early days, whenever Governor Cuomo had his radio talk show, he was the first antidote to me that the Libs put up there.
Well, no, he's second, right?
Jim Hightower was first.
I forget which of those two.
Hightower was first, and then it was Governor Cuomo doing a two-hour show on Saturday morning, supposed to wipe the floor with me.
But we had this theme song, introduce things in which Governor Cuomo was going to appear.
Governor Cuomo has this ability to exude a self-image of one who has total ability to mesmerize people.
And it stems from his 1984 Democrat Convention speech, where they said there was a speech of all time.
He lived off that speech for quite a while.
Our theme song was Screaming Jay Hawkins, folks.
Hell on you.
Pops those peas?
Yes, and that's why we chose it, because governor Cuomo owns you in his own mind when he is speaking.
So let's go to the audio sound bites of Mario The Pious on, uh, on meet the press on sunday, the uh, the first question that Tim Russers.
Well, not the first question, one of the questions of Mario The Pious, what is relevant in a Supreme Court nominee?
Listen to this answer.
I don't think that there's any question about that.
Religion is very relevant now, more relevant than it has been for a long time.
Religion is is an important subject in this country, has been from the beginning, but now, especially in recent years, thanks to republican conservatives pushing it on, government and a president who, for example, makes a faith-based judgment on stem cells, is very strong on abortion, on the grounds that any abortion, even to save the life of the mother, is murder.
Religion is a very important subject.
They don't say that, but nevertheless and here's, here's Mario The Pious, who has spoken at Notre DAME and has spoken of his religion and how devout he is and how important it is to him.
But of course, when he's asked about this is, well, my religious beliefs are mine and I don't believe in imposing them on everyone else.
Well, he certainly does believe that and did believe it about opposing his political views on everybody else.
Well, why can't you impose your religious views on anybody?
I mean well impose share, be affected by?
What good are your deeply held personal beliefs if they do not animate your uh acts as a public figure or as a human being, or as?
What good is being religious if it has no meaning to you, what good is it?
It's just well, it probably is of no use to you.
It's simply therefore, a front.
It's simply a mask.
Look at me, i'm a religious guy, therefore i'm moral, and all this.
But when it comes to matters of morality and what, my religious beliefs are irrelevant because they're mine.
Well, what good are they then?
But the point is, 40 years ago this is what was happening to Jfk.
Now it's happening to John Roberts.
The same people who decried those 40 years ago, who asked this question, are now themselves asking the same question.
And who'd they go get Mario The Pious to come out and lead the charge as a summer replacement, because it's tough to get guests in august?
Uh on, Meet the Press.
Uh, Mario The Pious then added this after, after saying his uh comments, after uttering his comments on abortion, judge Scalia now there's a republican conservative, if there ever was one on the bench judge Scalia dealt with this tangentially, but he dealt with it.
On the subject of the death penalty, he said judges, Catholic judges, may be bothered in their conscience in voting for the death penalty because the pope has said that it is evil.
He said under those circumstances, the Catholic judge should resign.
There is no question, it's relevant.
Everybody takes an oath to support the constitution, including especially judges, so why not ask them, will you judge, apply a religious test to the constitution?
Will You start by saying, I'm not going to support the Constitution if my Pope tells me not to.
This is unbelievable.
Folks, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
This is not going to appeal to people.
And why is it that only Catholics are opposed to abortion?
I know a lot of people who are Protestants who are opposed to abortion too.
Why are they simply nailing in and zeroing in on Catholics here?
Have you noticed that?
In this case, it's because Judge Roberts is Catholic, but it's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The very same people who got angry when these questions were asked of Senator, then Senator Kennedy, JFK, are now themselves asking the very same questions.
It is an amazing ⁇ see how valuable their playbook is to them?
I wanted you to hear this because they are scared.
They are deathly afraid.
And this, too, is all about abortion and life.
And they are so tied, these feminist extremists on this issue.
It's the one thing they cannot extricate themselves from is the link to these mad, extremist, nay-roll-type abortion activists.
And it's going to tug them down even further into the quicksand than they already are on their own.
And of course, you take a look at Senator Kerry.
Now, Senator Kerry was Catholic.
Now, when you get these questions about him during the presidential campaign, did we get these questions from the Democrats?
Did we get these questions about Senator Kerry?
No, we didn't get these questions about Senator Kerry.
We didn't worry about whether he was going to be loyal to the Vatican or not.
And why not, I wonder?
Come on, folks.
Come on.
Why didn't we get these questions?
Senator Kerry, if you become president.
The Republicans didn't raise the question.
They didn't ask it that way.
This, are you going to be loyal to the Vatican?
Or as Mario the Pious says, are you going to do what your Pope tells you to do?
Or are you going to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution?
Because Senator Kerry had long ago told a Pope where to go.
And he was only, you know, he put on the military uniform again 30 years later, trying to hide his liberalism behind it.
And he also took a shot at hiding his liberalism behind Catholicism.
But he got all crossed up.
He kept contradicting himself because it was not genuine.
It's all for show on the left, folks.
The stuff that's genuine, they hide.
They can't dare show us because they would finish even worse than they do.
Back after this, stay with us.
By the way, I'd like to read something here, ladies and gentlemen.
Mario the Pious, as we just aired on our soundbite from Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert.
He said, everybody takes an oath to support the Constitution, including especially judges.
So why not ask them, will you, Judge, apply a religious test to the Constitution?
Will you start by saying, I am not going to support the Constitution if my Pope tells me not to?
May I read to you from Article 6, the Constitution?
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Right there it is in Article 6 of the Constitution.
So if some pack of senators on the Judiciary Committee decides to take Mario Cuomo's advice here and start asking Judge Roberts about whether or not he will apply a religious test to the Constitution, whether he'll do what his Pope says or do what the Constitution says, well, they were.
The left, Mario was one of their candidates at one point.
In fact, Clinton was thinking of putting him there to get him out of the way.
Remember that way back in the mid-90s, those two, They locked heads because if you go back to the early Clinton governor days with Jennifer Flowers, he's heard on tape telling Jennifer Flowers that Cuomo's like the mafia and so forth.
And there was some strain between those two, and some thought that he'd put him on the court just to get rid of him from, because once you put him on the court, you can't go make public speeches and get in the way.
Never happened.
But it's right here in Article 6.
No religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust of the U.S. All Judge Roberts would have to do is cite Article 6 if some senator picks up the suggestion here from Governor Cuomo.
Alan in Richmond, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Kia Rush, Megadoos from Evangelical Christian Land in Richmond, Virginia.
Thank you, sir.
I'm just I'm continually offended by the Democrats who have no morality yet seek to judge mine on a daily basis, as well as our Catholic friends who may be appointed to judgeships, who hopefully will be appointed to judgeships.
And the Article 6 point is just wonderful.
It's just classic.
How do people who just only care about themselves set any morality for anybody?
It just blows my mind.
Well, look, as long as there's a moral standard, there are going to be people that fail it.
And so the only way to fail and not fail a moral standard is there to not be one.
And you can get rid of the moral standard by condemning and criticizing anybody who's judgmental and saying, you don't have the right to impose your morality on me.
Who are you to define morality?
Morality is not an individual choice.
Yeah, I guess you're right.
If Clinton would appoint Uncle Mario over there on the basis of him being a mobster, that shows the level of morality that holds it.
He wouldn't have been on that basis.
Now, he wouldn't have appointed Mario on the basis he's a mobster.
Don't read that.
He would have appointed Mario to the court to shut him up so he couldn't run around out there criticizing Clinton if he felt the need to.
Or so he couldn't harass the Democratic Party and try to wrest control.
Don't forget Cuomo's son was out there too.
Don't forget Andrew.
And it was Bill Clinton who called Andrew Cuomo up.
What was Andrew running for governor of New York?
The nomination?
He was running for the Democrat nomination.
And I forget what it was, but Clinton called Andrew and said, hey, Andrew, how you doing?
You ever heard a good party?
You ain't it, pal.
You remember Bob Torcelli?
Right?
Let me show you what Bob signed.
It's just real easy.
He just signed this, and we'll never say another word about you, pal.
And you'd be good for your party this way.
I mean, it was arguably Clinton who ditched Andrew Cuomo from the political hierarchy of the Democratic Party after Andrew had served loyally in Clinton's administration as secretary.
Yeah, it was HUD Secretary, Housing and Urban Development.
That bunch of people over there on the left, loyalty is a strange, has a strange definition to it.
But I'm just telling you out there, Alan, that he would have put a Cuomo on the court, not because he was a mobster.
And I didn't say this.
I can just see this now.
The headlines tomorrow, Limbaugh, Cuomo a mobster.
It was Clinton who implied that on the Jennifer Flowers tapes back in the 90s, late 80s, whenever he was dating her.
And there was always friction between these two.
They all publicly, hey, I never said it, Mario.
I never said it.
And she just a lie, MBIH.
You know how those people are.
And Mario publicly accepted the apology, but there was always the friction out there.
But ask to your point about morality.
I mean, that's a big problem for a lot of liberals.
I mean, because they just don't want there to be any.
Judgmentalism, whose right is it?
And that's why all this value stuff bothers them.
That's why they keep talking about they lost on values in the red states in a 2004 election.
I got to go in there and say we too have value.
Listen to Howard Dean defined morality.
Howard Dean defines morality as we won't send troops to Iraq.
We won't lie about weapons of mass destruction.
He will not talk about morality in the sense that everybody else discusses it in terms of public and private behavior.
And what is the old, somebody, I forget who it was.
It was, anyway, the name will come to me.
But they said morality is doing the right thing when, oh, it's JC Watts.
Morality is doing the right thing when nobody's looking.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Basically, what's happening here, folks, is that the libs are trying to create tests that would disqualify conservatives from public office.
That's essentially what they're trying to do with all this religion stuff and the adoption, all these other things that they're going after Roberts with.
There's also an unrelated story, great one today, New York Times proving, documenting, establishing that I was right in describing to you the ineffective way that the Clinton administration and Jamie Gorelic came up with laws that prevented us from effectively fighting terrorism.
▲
Export Selection