All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
August 17, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
The award-winning thrill pact, ever exciting, increasingly popular.
Growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program back for more.
Another full hour of broadcast excellence is straight ahead.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies with talent on loan from God.
I want to again thank uh Debbie in uh in Indianapolis.
She was our last caller in the previous hour, and that cannot be easy.
Uh she was speaking from very deep in her heart uh led to uh led her to tears, describing um her anguish and how she believes that Cindy Sheehan is dishonoring her son, not honoring him, and uh how she cannot relate to this whatsoever, and I I thanked her for speaking for America.
And I've got a lot of email from people who said they were crying right along with her.
Very moving call, and I I know those kinds of things can't be easy for people, but Debbie, I appreciate it, and you did uh you did great.
You know, there's the the the I I may as well just I may as well just say what I think.
I mean, that's what I do here on the program anyway.
Most people, and I I'll lump myself in with this crowd, uh, in talking about Cindy Sheehan always offer the uh predicate that it's terrible she lost her son and we grieve with her and we're far sorry for her and all that, and then it's followed by but why are people doing this?
Why why why are people saying, well, we're sorry, but she lost her son, and it's gonna be a terrible thing to go through, and but people are afraid of criticism.
So you offer that predicate and then you say what you want to say, and you can say, well, I I feel sorry for.
When you look at Cindy Sheehan, she's far more of an activist than she would want you or a lot of her supporters want you to believe.
I mean, she's joined John Conyers at these seminars, these so-called hearings on the Downing Street memos, uh, calling for George Bush's uh impeachment.
Uh she has weighed in on the Israeli-Palestinian thing and all these things.
It's just uh it's obvious that while, you know, that she lost a son, and there's no question she grieved.
Of course, a year ago she was very thankful of the president and very supportive of the president for coming out and talking to her.
And then something happened, and she did a 180 and becomes this valiant anti-bush.
On whatever the issue, she's anti-bush on whatever the issue.
She's pro-impeachment, uh, all these things.
And she's she's long been a Democratic Party activist.
She's long been.
Uh she's been a Democratic Party activist quite a while.
She's been assuaging her grief in a number of ways.
So she's my my point here is she's not just a grieving mother sitting on a chair in a ditch in Crawford, Texas.
She is an activist.
She's a Democratic Party activist.
She gets an identity from it.
She probably uh is helping her with her grief somewhat, but she's making no mistake mistake about who she is, and that's one of the reasons why she's being so so um regaled and promoted and reported on with such eagerness and triumph.
So just keep that in mind as you uh as as you watch all this.
And what what reminds me of this?
I mean, here we got the call from Debbie in Indianapolis.
Debbie's a mother.
Debbie is a mother, and she's got a son in Iraq, and but Debbie's not a political activist anywhere.
She's not pro-I mean, she may be pro-Bush and pro-Iraq, but she's not an activist.
She's living her life.
There's a difference between activists uh and people who aren't.
And I'm just telling you that that that Cindy Sheehan is an activist.
And I also repeat something I said the previous hour, because something, well, Rush, what are we gonna do with it?
Yeah, we've got to let them protest.
Yeah, well, I'm not nobody's saying they shouldn't protest.
I'm not saying they should be shut up, and I've never said that.
All I've said is nobody has a right to be heard in this country.
There's no First Amendment guarantee that you get to be heard.
And a lot of people confuse the First Amendment's right free speech, thinking that, well, that means I get to be hurt.
No, it doesn't.
No nobody in the world has to listen to you.
The fact that she's now got uh amplifiers and megaphones, uh known as the mainstream press says enough and says it all as to really who she is, what she is, and what her purpose is.
And I just want you to keep that in mind.
Now very quickly I talked about this before we get to Judge Roberts and the and the Democrats and yesterday see I told you so about the Democrats supposedly standing down thinking they couldn't beat the guy.
Before we get to that, there's been a story that we've been following on this program since its early days and it's this bill in Hawaii that would basically it's been sponsored by uh uh Senator Daniel Akaka and it would it would basically create a racially exclusive government by and for native Hawaiians who satisfy a blood test in other words it would balkanize the United
states and set up a separate government in Hawaii run exclusively by and for native Hawaiians.
And at first, this had some support in the Senate.
It had some support around the country because people didn't quite understand what it was.
But there are two supporters who, two original supporters, I have changed their mind on this.
They have a piece today in the Wall Street Journal, Slate Gordon and Huffington.
Hank Brown they write the Akaka Bill classifies citizens by race defying the express provisions of the 14th Amendment it also rests on a betrayal of express commitments made by its sponsors a decade ago and asserts as true many false statements about the history of Hawaii and it now should be defeated.
And the Senate's now poised to pass this thing uh the new race-based sovereign that would be summoned into being by the so-called AKA bill would operate outside the U.S. Constitution and the nation's most cherished civil rights statutes the champions of the proposed legislation boast that the new native Hawaiian entity could secede from the Union like the Confederacy but without the necessity of shelling Fort Sumter.
The Akaka Bill's justification rests substantially on a 1993 apology resolution passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton when we were members of the Senate representing the states of Washington and Colorado and both of them voted against it.
Remember this is Slate Gordon and Hank Brown the authors of this piece the resolution is cited by the Akaka Bill in three places to establish the proposition that the United States perpetrated legal or moral wrongs against native Hawaiians that justify the race-based government that the legislation would erect these citations are a betrayal of the word given to us and to the Senate in the debate over the apology resolution.
They thought that this was just a ceremonial thing when that was first proposed that it was just okay we're going to acknowledge that there's some native Hawaiians and that the country was theirs and blah blah blah.
No, it allows Native Hawaiians to set up their own Hawaii basically and secede and basically say to America and it's being sponsored by U.S. Senator Daniel Akaka we specifically inquired of its proponent of its uh proponents whether the apology would be employed to seek special status under which persons of native Hawaiian descent will be given rights or privileges or reparations or land or money communally that are unavailable to other citizens of Hawaii.
We were promised on the floor of the Senate by Daniel in no way the senior senator from Hawaii and a personage of impeccable integrity that as to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians this resolution has nothing to do with that.
I can assure my colleague of that the cacao bill repudiates that promise of Senator in no way it invokes the apology resolution to justify granting persons of native Hawaiian descent political and economic rights and land denied to other citizens of Hawaii.
So Gorton and Brown say that we were unambiguously told that that would be done and they have uh they have changed their minds on this they were original supporters and they've uh they've changed their mind uh a caca himself did an interview on um on national public radio.
And in this interview, he admitted that his bill could lead to independence for new native Hawaiian state in Hawaii.
He admits that now.
Uh the uh the the relevant part of the excerpt is this.
Uh the question says the sovereignty provided by your bill could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.
Senator Akaka.
That could be.
As far as what's going to happen at the end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great grandchildren.
The interesting thing about this is that the uh uh if you look at the national the NPR uh interview and the and the transcript, you find that the White House is sort of A-WOL on this, and they're not taking a position on it because Governor Lingle wants to be a senator, and so they don't want to upset any Apple carts that would hurt her chances to be elected a Republican senator from Hawaii.
According to NPR, the Justice Department's recommended a few changes, such as a safeguard for the U.S. military presence on the island, something the bill's supporters see as a positive step.
They believe it means the White House is willing to accept some version of native Hawaiian self-government.
Uh so I mean, just just to just to uh fill you in on this, uh it it appears uh that the White House doesn't really care much about this, don't think it's a big deal that the native Hawaiians want to have their own government.
Uh what, Mr. Snurdley?
What?
Mm-hmm.
Well, I mean, that's that well, that that that's the thing because listen, listen to here what Snerdon said, why can't other groups just get their own states?
Like if you're if you're a disgruntled minority in, say, Georgia, why don't you just get your own state?
You know, Georgia too.
And get independence from the United States, and that way you don't have to pay taxes or anything else.
You know, I uh I may take advantage of this and move that Palm Beach, Florida, where I live, which is an island, secede from Florida.
Because I'm telling you what, we are discriminated against down here, folks, those of us that live on Palm.
But we could the the floodgates could be wide open on this.
But the the blood test on this, all you have to do is have zero point or point zero five percent native Hawaiian blood.
Zero point or point zero five percent native Hawaiian blood, and you qualify as a native Hawaiian, and you can basically tell the United States to stick it.
And uh this this you you you may have heard scuttlebutt about this in the past uh three or four months.
Nobody thought this would get anywhere.
It was so outrageous.
Nobody thought that I mean, okay.
Here are these people sponsoring this, they're just maybe you know, throwing a pee in or two to the native Hawaiians to keep them happy.
No, it's um it's actually something that looks like uh it got close to passage, and it may still yet time will tell.
Quick time out.
We'll be back and continue with more right after this.
Amidst billowing clowns of frangrant aromatic first and second hand smoke and loving every morsel of it.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here's Joel in Decatur, Georgia.
Hi, Joel.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush, Megadiddos.
Thank you.
I'm calling about the Hawaiian issue.
Uh I'm thinking that we better chase the uh the dollars and cents of this.
Much like the American Indians had their uh reservation freedom and the ability to have tax exempt status, to run their own casinos.
Uh my guess is I can see it now, the the Tiki Casino or Lual casino on Oahu, and therefore establish not necessarily a separate nation state, but at least a separate taxing situation for the people of uh indigenous heritage.
Uh so that you in your mind they're simply trying to duplicate the actions taken by the American engines and and and get themselves set up so you have casinos over there.
Uh at least carve themselves a niche where they have the freedom to do that and they're meaningful.
Well, why couldn't they do it now?
If they want to vote for it now, let them vote for it now.
Why why do you need to revert back to some independent sovereign state?
It's All being the the thing about this is, you know, you can say that it's for this or that, don't worry about it.
But folks, the whole bunch of lies went into the resolution to make this.
Everybody said, well, Rush, you know, Hawaii was a kingdom, and when we just went in there and took over that state, why we destroyed a sovereign country.
We did not.
We did not, and Hank Brown and Slade Gordon write all about this in their piece today.
The uh the apology resolution distorted historical truths.
It falsely claimed that the U.S. participated in the wrongful overthrow of the Queen there in 1893.
The U.S. remained strictly neutral.
It provided neither arms nor economic assistance nor diplomatic support to a band of Hawaii insurgents.
Gosh, who prevent we're talking about insurgents in Hawaii, and we supported the insurgents according to the Akaka Bill.
We didn't.
So what's happening here is that a case was made felonious or falsely, uh fallaciously on the Senate floor that the U.S. was an absolute SOB to the poor people of Hawaii.
And that's what's wrong with this.
It's yet another piece of legislation that seeks an apology from the U.S. for things that we didn't do.
And supposedly there have been grieving native Hawaiians ever since.
And now it's now it's time to exact their revenge, and by God, they're gonna resect their revenge, and all you need to do to be a native Hawaiian is have zero or point zero five percent native Hawaiian blood and bamboo.
You're a native Hawaiian and you can secede from the you get your own government, sovereign solver, you get it back.
But it's all it's all based on lies.
You have to understand what this is all about, folks, and not just understand what it's all about.
You have to understand what the practical application or impact of this could be.
Um down the road on the on the rest of the country.
This is balkanization.
This is racism.
This is basically saying that certain races can say to America, screw you, you are you you savaged us and you incorporated us into your country.
We didn't want to be here, and you gotta let us have our land.
What does this not sound strangely like the reparations movement?
And you start making apologies for all this, and you just you go down the road and and uh and here's the White House not wanting to get involved in this because it might upset the electoral chances of Linda Lingle, Lind Ling Yeah, Lingle, uh, who's the governor who's a Republican who wants to be a Republican senator from uh from Hawaii?
Well, yeah, I know that you couple this with all the immigration snaffos we got, and then you can can Mexifornia uh be far down the road, and then Mexazona, and then Tex Mex.
Um anyway, Rich and Ann Arbor.
I am uh I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi, how are you, Russia?
Uh, couldn't be better.
Thank you.
I just uh, you know, I I don't really uh know if I understand exactly what they're trying to get with that bill, because I didn't think that any of us in this country were indigenous peoples.
We all came from somewhere else.
Well, but Hawaii did have indigenous there were there were Hawaiians uh that were there.
There was it's a little bit more complicated.
Didn't they come from the South Pacific on boats and they paddled there too?
Just like we did.
Uh yeah, but they got there first, so they quote unquote discovered it.
Oh, okay.
Give them that, I suppose.
Well, it's it's you know, the the point about there are no indigenous uh indigenous Americans.
That's that's sort of like this this term undocumented uh uh alien.
Uh who comes up with these with these terms?
Uh we know who wrote, for example, Romeo and Julia.
That was uh William Shakespeare.
And we know who wrote the huh?
Well, don't give me this possible.
I'm not interested in conspiracies now.
We know that Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Julia.
We know that uh we know that that Abe Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address.
Uh we know that Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner.
Uh uh we we know who wrote and authored tear down this wall.
But we don't know who came up with the phrase undocumented immigrant.
How did illegal alien morph into undocumented alien, into undocumented immigrant, or into undocumented worker?
They're illegal.
Plain and simple.
Oh no, no, no, they're not illegal, Russia, they're just undocumented.
And they're workers.
And they are not aliens.
They're not from space.
They are immigrants, undocumented immigrants.
Okay.
Indigenous peoples.
Indigenous peoples.
Uh okay, I guess those are the people that were here before we got here and savage the place.
We brought syphilis.
We introduced horses.
We introduced racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and then we had the audacity to spread it to King Kaluah out in Hawaii.
Next thing you know, we're going to be responsible for introducing the Pina Colada on cruise ships.
I mean, it's just it's just asinine, folks, but there is there is a there's a downside to this, there's a danger to it because it's letting people separate based on race, and the U.S. Constitution already protects people on the basis of race.
This is not necessary.
Back in just a second.
You wise acres, spring this on me.
I'm trying to change this subject.
This is probably what makes them mad.
We pulled this show out of there and took a lot of money with us and we did.
And it was a while before we were able to get Magnum P. I back in there.
Uh let me let me go to line four, and uh because when I do this, uh this is it.
And I I've got to move on because I made a promise to the people of this country in the audience of this program that we would discuss when I see I told you so about Judge Roberts and the Democrats.
Uh Long Beach, California, this is Poteau.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, love the show.
Thank you.
Hey, number one, Hawaii is a Samoan settlement.
It was named after our main island Savoy.
I'm Samoan, all right?
And if you want a pure Hawaiian, it is a Samoan.
So if anybody's going to get any land over there in Hawaii, it needs to come to me and my people.
Okay.
And second of all, when it comes to Polynesians and stuff, do not confuse and politicize my people and my race with those other races.
Because we don't have big chips on our shoulders.
We love America.
There's so many Samoans serving in the military right now, dying over there and putting our life over there.
We have a great relationship with America.
Okay.
We're not those upset people who want to put those big plugs in their ears and work their whole life at Starbucks forever because they can't go out and get a real job and they want to fight the man.
That is not my people.
Amen.
And I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Okay.
And I want you to understand that, because I know you Samoans are big guys, too.
Well, you know, it's not just that.
That's you know, if you want a pure if you want a pure Hawaiian, you're looking at a Samoan.
So when they could put up their little one percent Hawaiian all they want, I got 100% coming from the source.
Amen, bro.
Okay, so they need to quit tripping.
All right.
And second of all, Rush.
Let me tell you something.
I said you have to go out and quantanamo bay artwork with a golfer guy.
All right.
I'm gonna send you out some more stuff.
But anyways, when it comes to that, when it comes to Polynesians and stuff, and those people in Hawaii, they need to stop acting stupid, okay?
That is not our color.
There was a time I I was in public school here in California.
I was one of those children left behind because of the leftist acts, and I was at a party with a bunch of my friends in college.
All surfers.
You still there?
Yeah.
Okay, all surfers, right?
I was over there.
I had that Malcolm X chip on my shoulder and everything.
I was at a party with all my white friends.
There were two Samoan girls up there dancing and going crazy at this party, okay?
So I had an epiphany that night.
I looked at them like, how could you sit up in this party and sit here and party with all these guys you don't even know?
And they looked at me and they said, You know what your problem is?
Your problem is you think you're Malcolm X. Okay.
When they look at us, they say, hula hula, happy Hawaii palm trees, and their last vacation.
They're not looking at you at the eyes that you see yourself in.
And I'm telling you, from that point on, I never forgot that.
Back in 87 when I was in college, I realized it.
I was looking at myself the way that the textbook and the way that every I mean, they had me so civil rights out.
All my friends and colleagues had to straighten me out, and it wasn't until then, or that particular night, that I realized I was bamboozled in hoodwinked from these people.
Oh, welcome home, Poto.
No, no, no, no.
You know, I'm free.
Trust me.
I'm out of the leftist plantation.
I don't pick the cotton anymore.
And I look at Samoans and I look at Polynesians from Hawaiians and everybody out there.
Do not pick the cotton.
That is not your job.
It is not your offense.
Do not act like these dumb people.
Yeah, but you know, here's here's wait a minute.
Poto, here's the problem.
The only reason this bill stands a chance of passage is that there is momentum for this in Hawaii.
There have been people in Hawaii, Senator Kaka, whoever, that have been rabble rousing out there for this and try and getting this this so called native Hawaiian population loosely defined as if you have point zero five percent in native Hawaiian blood, you're a full fledged native Hawaiian, getting them all riled up about how their rights were violated and how their freedom and sovereignty was taken and so forth, and they're ginning up all this anti-American sentiment out there which needs to support for this stupid bill.
Okay, right now it's over.
Okay, because I'm gonna I'm gonna send out the message right now.
If you're Polynesian and if you're Hawaiian and if you're Samoan, do not drink that Kool-Aid, okay?
Basically, what they're gonna do is they're gonna label you, they're gonna make you high risk, they're gonna put all these things on you, and you're gonna really fail to see who you really are and what time you're really living in.
Okay.
You're absolutely right.
I couldn't agree with you more.
And I'm I've I uh I am I'm thrilled to hear you say it.
I mean, here's a guy here is a Samoan who was even attempted.
Uh the attempt was made to try to get this guy to be anti-American on a basis that he's been discriminated against on you know, some cockamami series of uh of ideas.
Poto, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate it.
And I hope that your words are rever reverberating throughout the islands of Hawai'i as a result of your appearance on this on this program.
Speak for yourself, Sturdly.
I have never been to a Starbucks.
I I would uh what does one look like?
I have never been to a I don't understand I uh there's some cultural things I just I just don't I just don't I just have coffee at home or work?
What what what what what I I coffee to me is not a beverage that you go someplace where it's served unless it's after dinner or whatever, but I just I don't get that.
And then and then the news came out the other day, Starbucks contributes to big left-wing causes like Benz and Jerry or Ben and Jerry's does and so forth, which didn't surprise me.
It's a bunch for Seattle.
What do you what do you expect?
You know, I'm too old, you know, to each his own, that's all well and good, but I mean I'm look, I'm a full-fledged American, but there are some American customs and phenomenon that even I uh will look at and how to explain that.
Um I even know people to me it's a waste of time.
I I know people who get their New York Times and go to Starbucks to read it.
Well, first off, reading the New York Times is a risk, you know, waste of time, but then I don't know.
I don't know I think people ask me all the time.
I'm when I'm outside of the well uh when I'm traveling.
Well, what's where where do you go out to eat in Palmbe?
He says, I don't want very much.
Well, where do you eat?
I said at home.
The chef fixes dinner.
What what why why am I gonna go out?
What's the point of going?
I don't want to spend three hours every night at a restaurant when I can eat in 20 or 30 minutes and get out of other things.
Well, if if I don't want to spend longer than 20 or 30 minutes eating, why would I want to lollygag around in a coffee shop like Starbucks?
Uh who's next?
Uh John in Brunswick, New Jersey.
Welcome to the uh EIB network.
Uh sales sales team get Starbucks uh as an advertising of program and made to order now.
John, welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, an honor to speak to you and the double honest actually answer one of your questions.
But you'll be glad to know that the term undocumented immigrant goes back to the peanut presidency when Jimmy Carter appointed Guy Name Lionel Castillo as the commission of immigration.
He bragged that his father was an illegal alien, send out directives that to be called illegal immigrants or illegal work, or not illegal, undocumented workers or undocumented immigrants.
So truly, we can we can trace this back to the Carter years.
Doesn't everything go back to him?
Amazingly.
From Iran to Lebanon to you name it.
The peanut president, pivotal in the history of our country.
Well, how do you know this?
I worked for immigration at the time.
And it was a joke all over the place.
We used to go.
You wait a minute.
You were you worked for the immigration, was it called INS then?
Then it was INS.
That was before the uh the uh changeover ties.
Okay, so you was INS and you worked at the INS immigration naturalization service during the Carter administration?
Even during Nixon, in fact.
Oh.
So you that okay, so that's how you know this is this is Yeah, he said directives I remember everybody would ask their bosses, should we now refer to the burglars that we get get referred to us as undocumented visitors?
Well, yes.
I mean logic, right?
I love it.
Doesn't everything go back to the Carter year.
Uh John, you're too good to be true.
Uh Are you retired?
Yes.
Well, what do you do in your retirement?
Usually forget that I worked for them.
Doesn't get any better now.
Once in a while, something charge me back, you know.
You ever go to Starbucks?
Not very recently.
Let me ask you this.
Do you have a computer?
Yes.
You uh have you visited my website?
Are you by any chance a subscriber there?
Uh yes, and I've subscribed at times in the past, too.
Oh, you have, all right.
But I just uh I try to stay away from too much computer, you know.
It's just to say the information just keeps going going around, you know.
Well, I know.
That's why you gotta be selective about the sites that you visit.
Are you still are you still a registered member of Rush 247?
No.
You're not.
Okay, well, uh then I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna reacquaint you with it.
Uh stay on hold here.
Um you have been a delight, and I want to comp you with a year's membership at uh Rush 247, and I'm gonna let you pick a couple of items from the Club Get Mo gift Shop that we will send to you as a token of our appreciation for your call.
Quick timeout will be back in uh Yes, I'm gonna get to the Roberts stuff.
I when I tell you I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna do it.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh documented to be almost always right.
Uh what is it nine is ninety eight points it's ninety point six per five or six, five ninety-eight point five percent of the time, yes, according to the latest opinion audit, uh, which is now a couple months old from the uh the famed Sullivan Group, an opinion auditing firm in my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California.
All right, yesterday the Washington Post had this huge story.
And the s this the the the summation of the story was eh, it's over.
Nothing we can do to stop Roberts.
Guy's gonna get 70 votes.
Uh, we're not gonna expend a lot of political capital trying to defeat the guy when it isn't gonna matter.
And I read this story and I said to you, don't buy this.
This we know these not they're not gonna lay down.
If anything, this is a call to arms.
If anything, this is a warning shot across the bottom of these kook left wing groups, uh that some senators are laying down.
I have no doubt that some group of Democrats in Washington were behind this story uh to to get Ralph Nees, you know, uh have his toupee standing up on end, uh, and a people for the American way, all these other groups is just just fit to be tied, and it worked.
I told you not to believe this story.
And here in the Washington Post today by Charles Babbington and Dan Balls, two different writers.
Democrats feel heat from lift on Roberts.
Groups say fight should be stronger.
Most uh major liberal groups accused uh Democrat senators yesterday of showing too little stomach for opposing Judge Robert's Supreme Court nomination, saying newly released documents indicate he's much more conservative than many people first thought.
Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont on his knees for the kooks.
The Judiciary Committee's ranking chairman said in a statement.
These papers that we have received painted picture of John Roberts as an eager and aggressive advocate of policies that are deeply tinged with the ideology of the far right wing of his party, then and now.
An influential White House and Department of Justice positions, John Roberts expressed views that were among the most radical being offered by a cadre intent on reversing decades of policies on civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, privacy access to justice, and the right to breathe.
Leahy, who previously treaded more softly on the Roberts matter.
And the White House's refusal to release other documents being sought, leaves Roberts with a heavier burden to carry during his upcoming hearings.
Senator Edward Kennedy, walking into happy hour yesterday, also took his criticisms of Roberts to new heights.
In a further bid to dispel an air of inevitability that liberals think too many Democrats have embraced, several organizations told allies they're gonna call for Roberts' rejection this month rather than wait for the Senate hearings to start on September 6th, as uh as as some members of the anti-roberts coalition have urged.
Nancy Zirkin, leadership conference on civil rights, says what we've uh seen is breathtaking in his approach to weakening the enforcement of civil rights laws.
A picture is emerging that Roberts was there every step of the way, taking a far right position.
He is no Sandra Day O'Connor.
Nan Aaron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said that Democrats who support Roberts could face a voter backlash, particularly if he turns out to be as conservatives as the groups contend.
History shows us that voters turned on Alan Dixon for his vote on Clarence Thomas, and voters gave Arlen Spector the toughest re-election of his life, Aaron said.
Ralph Nees, head of the liberal people for the American way, noted there have been almost daily revelations from the Reagan presidential library, indicating that as a young White House lawyer, Roberts was a charter member of the Reagan Bush legal policy team.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It goes on.
In a private meeting with Democrats yesterday, Knees said angrily the public was being left with the impression that Robert's confirmation proceedings were a mere formality.
And he's not going to put up with it.
And then, of course, we've got a couple stories in the Washington Post today.
Headline, Judge Heard Terrorism Case, as he interviewed for seat.
This is all about the uh the DC Court of Appeals three to nothing unanimous slam dunk decision to overturn a Clinton-appointed federal judge's decision, in which he said that military tribunals are unconstitutional.
Basically, the federal judge appointed by Clinton took the commander of chief duties away from George W. Bush.
And Judge Roberts and two other justices on the uh or judges on the uh DC Circuit Appeals court said no he didn't.
It's this judge that got it wrong, and they overruled.
Well, Roberts made this decision while being interviewed by Bush.
And so, of course, the implication is that Roberts gave Bush what he wanted in exchange for getting the nomination.
And the implication further is that Roberts doesn't care about the law.
He only cares about getting what he wants.
And then the Washington Post again.
Papers lost after lawyers review.
A file folder containing papers from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' work on affirmative action.
More than twenty years ago disappeared from the Ronaldus Reagan uh maximum presidential library after its review by two lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department in July.
Archivists said that the lawyers returned the file, but it now cannot be located.
Has anybody asked Sandy Berger where they might be?
Has anybody thought to go ask him?
What do we have here?
Now all of a sudden, Justice Department lawyers in the Bush administration are Sandy Berger.
Yes, my friends.
We're gonna even further delineate Sandy Berger and move him out of the way by saying the Republicans have their own.
Who is he?
So he four stories in the Washington Post today about what a rotten conservative Roberts is and of what a bunch of sneaks the lawyers are who stole some papers from the Reagan Library, which obviously prove the guy is a racist because they're about affirmative action.
And Ralph Knees telling a Democrats you want to get re-elected.
You better not lay down for this.
I told you all this was gonna happen.
I didn't believe that story yesterday for as far as I could throw it, even if I folded it into the shape of a paper airplane.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
And uh we gotta let's see.
Yes, we do.
Time for one more call here before I have to skate out of here.
Steve in Coldwater, Michigan.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, thank you, Rosh.
ABC top of the hour break at Richard Clark Clark comment on the State Department of Paperwork about bin Laden moving between Sudan and Afghanistan.
He blame both the Pentagon and the CIA for fumbling the ball once he got to Afghanistan and not getting him.
Well, that said, does that surprise you?
Not really.
I mean, it's CYA time, folks.
It's time for all these stars of the 9-11 Commissioner are trying to point fingers at George W. Bush.
Now that uh Mr. Schaefer, Colonel Schaefer's spoken from Abel Danger, and now that we've got another another spokesman, another source saying that the State Department desperately tried to warn the Clinton administration about bin Laden in 96, but they weren't interested.
Uh now it's time for all those heroes of the 9-11 Commission that were aiming their ammo at George W. Bush to start CYA, because here's Richard Clark.
He was the big terrorist guy, right?
He was the big terrorist expert.
He knew it all.
He and the Bush administration wasn't listening to him, right?
So you're gonna you're gonna see a lot of this, folks.
It's it's you know, these guys will be circling the wagons around themselves, and they're gonna be blaming a building.
When they blame the Pentagon, they're blaming a building.
They're not blaming the secretary who is Richard Cohen, or not Richard Cohen, uh William Cohen.
They're blaming a building.
Uh but this isn't over.
I told you yesterday, be patient.
I close today by saying, be patient.
▲
Export Selection