All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:54
August 22, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying, because the views expressed by the host of this program are rooted in a daily, unstoppable and relentless pursuit of the truth and we find it and we proclaim it and we shout it from the mountaintops.
And if you have trouble with the truth you're gonna have trouble with this program.
You need courage to face the truth listeners program or you will go berserk.
Great to have you back folks, great to be with you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address is rush at Eibnet.com.
If you've heard about this, I want to say unbelievable.
But it isn't unbelievable, it is totally believable story involving the Uss, Iowa and and San Francisco.
The veterans who served on the Uss Iowa served in World War Ii, they served in the Korean War and they served in the Persian Gulf.
The Uss Iowa has a distinguished history.
In fact, the Uss Iow was was you.
Iowa was used to transport Fdr back to America after the now famous Tehran conference.
So veterans groups were very pleased.
They were happy when California Democrat senator Dian Feinstein locked up three million dollars to tow the mothballed ship to Fisherman's Wharf, the tourist site in San Francisco.
Well, last month remember now this is the city where the city council actually voted that a fired elections chief, a city employee, should continue to receive health benefits so that her partner could have an addedictomy operation and become a man.
That's who we're talking about here.
San Francisco city supervisors voted eight to three to oppose taking in the ship to a.
They don't want it anywhere near San Francisco or Fisherman's Wharf.
Why well, why else?
It was a protest vote against the Iraq war and the military's policy on gays.
One supervisor said, if I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace.
Not to worry, Stockton.
California residents are doing all they can to birth the ship.
Stockton, by the way, the home of a great American by the name of Alex Spanos and his family.
He's the owner of the SAN Diego Chargers and a number of uh other things.
Just a great, great man.
I'm not surprised this.
The ship has ended up in uh, in Stockton or will end up there, but I just love it when these liberals start talking about peace.
What do they think got them the peace what?
What do they think ensured them the peace that they enjoy now?
Senator Feinstein, she is not happy about this and she said something very telling.
Senator Feinstein said the vote is a very petty decision and she said, this isn't the San Francisco i've known and loved and grew up in and was born in.
Yeah, no, it's not.
It is a far cry from that, Senator Feinstein, but I'll tell you what, while it may not be the city you grew up in, these are the same liberals in spirit who've been hanging around since the 60s, showing their utter contempt for the military at every opportunity.
They're currently in that ditch down in Crawford, Texas, listening to Joan Baez, well-known communist sympathizer, rehash her anti-war tunes from the 60s.
They are running the Democrat National Committee, and they're running these kook-based internet sites, and they are running moveon.org, and they are being paid for by George Soros.
They are why the rest of the country cannot trust your party, Senator Feinstein.
And it is why blue state voters will continue to feel so blue after the elections.
This is just, it's suicidal.
But of course, San Francisco said, well, we don't care about America.
We're going to care about what happens here.
I mean, they do look at themselves as, you know, they're connected to the country, but they're a different country out there.
And they're very proud of it.
I wonder if they'll ever tear down the Golden Gate Bridge if they learn that Native Americans were forced to build it.
Not totally, but I don't even know that they were.
I'm just wondering if it was ever found out that some of the steel workers that built the Golden Gate Bridge were Native Americans.
I wonder if they would make a move to tear down the bridge.
Probably not, wouldn't want to discomfort themselves.
Now, this story, this troubles me.
It just grates on me.
And I had this about, I think six weeks ago, maybe two months ago.
And it's still brewing out there in North Carolina.
This story is from Greensboro.
Traditionally, witnesses taking the stand in court are sworn in by placing their hands on the Bible.
But when Muslims in Guilford County, North Carolina try to donate copies of the Koran for courtroom use, judges turned them down.
The chief district court judge, Joseph Turner, says taking an oath on the Quran is not allowed by North Carolina state law, which specifies that witnesses shall place their hands on the holy scriptures, which he interprets as the Christian Bible.
He said, we've been doing it that way for 200 years.
Until a legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I've been told to do in the statutes.
However, the Council on American Islamic Relations, CARE, and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the Guilford County courts.
The Council on American Islamic Relations has been joined by the ACLU.
Arsalon Iftikhar of CARE said this was the first time that we had a judge going on record and stating unilaterally what is a holy scripture and what is not, what we believe to be a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Their case is solid, according to one Duke University law professor.
I have absolutely no doubt that higher courts, if it gets there, will say that persons of Muslim faith can swear on a Quran rather than Christian Bitles, said Erwin Chemerinsky.
The case law is so clear here that a person doesn't even have to swear on a Bible to be a witness, so long as they're willing to promise to tell the truth.
Okay, do you see where this is going?
I mean, it's bye-bye United States of America.
It's bye-by original intent of the framers of the Constitution.
It's bye-bye, all of that.
What is your problem, Mr. Snirdley?
This is simply, you know, this is not, when you immigrate to America, you assimilate to the American culture.
There is no state-sponsored religion here, but it says that if you're going to swear an oath in court, you do so on the Bible.
So I guess this means, I guess if the lawyer, Erwin Chemerinsky, is right, that once, if the Supreme Courts of the land overturn this and say, whatever your religion is, you can bring that in and swear on it.
What about some of these Native American tribes who, and this goes back years and years and years, they were allowed to smoke peyote?
I guess, what is it like, marijuana or something?
It's like LSD.
Okay, it was like LSD because it's religious.
They got an exemption from the drug laws because peyote is part of their religion.
So what if they say we can't tell the truth without peyote in the courtroom?
Where does this stuff stop?
Where does it stop?
We have immigrants.
We have all kinds of immigrants coming into the country.
And if they all bring their own requirements before they will tell the truth, this is a bad sign waiting to get worse, folks.
Well, okay, for some reason, it's been okay for over 200 years.
Now, all of a sudden, we just have to throw it out.
We have to throw out another American tradition.
Just throw it out.
Just throw what out.
What other traditions are just going to be thrown away because they make immigrants feel uncomfortable?
What are we going to have to deal with next?
The lids off, folks.
Whatever it is, if this actually happens, if a court says, bring whatever you want in there, if it's your religion, swear on that, then we're going to have goats in there.
We're going to have animals.
You just don't know.
Take a look at all the religions out there.
Jurors are not going to be allowed to have eaten certain things that day before they judge someone because it might be offensive to their religion.
You just don't know where this is going to end.
And a quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Ladies and gentlemen, stay with us.
You know, folks, I think I can say this.
It's been true for a while.
I single-handedly am propping up the left wing in this country.
If it weren't for me, they would have given up.
They have such animosity for me, it gives them a reason to live.
And I think you liberals owe me a lot out there.
I mean, I'm a fundraising vehicle for you.
I'm a rallying cry vehicle for you.
I keep you unified to the extent that you are.
I am the one that continued to enable you to stoke your hatred and your rage.
I mean, you can't, last week, it was everywhere.
I mean, every syllable I was uttering, in context and out, was being flashed all over to these libs to get their blood pressure up.
And then Sunday on this week with George Stephanopoulos, the ferret-like Paul Krugman, this guy from the New York Times, was on the roundtable.
And he was on with Claire Shipman of ABC News and the syndicated columnist George F. Will.
And George Will said, we're talking here about Cindy Sheehan.
Will said she was adopted by moveon.org.
Moveon.org is central to the Democratic Party.
It's becoming a tone setter of the party.
They were very close to and celebrated Michael Moore in 2004.
They paid a price for that, I believe, that this is acceptable discourse, and they will pay a price again.
And it was time for the ferret-like Mr. Krugman to respond.
The White House has done very well with a narrative about George Bush as firm defender of the country, standing strong against terrorism.
There's always been this other narrative out there that this is a rich guy who sends other people's children off to die and never makes a sacrifice himself and in fact gives lots of tax breaks to his rich friends.
This is not about Cindy Sheehan.
This is about what happens to the Bush narrative.
Let's talk about who is really feeling threatened here.
It's driving the right crazy.
I got to give you the money quote from Rush Lindbaugh.
He said, I'm weary, ladies and gentlemen, of even having to express sympathy.
Oh, she lost her son.
Well, yes, yes, yes.
But you know, we all lose things.
This is really bringing out the ugliness of a lot of the pro-war backers and their ability to exploit the sympathy of Americans for the troops, the you know, the good stuff, and they're in danger of losing it.
And it's not about Cindy Sheehan, it's the story about Bush.
It's it, you know, in his own convoluted way, he's right about that.
This has nothing to do with Cindy Sheehan.
She's a pawn.
She's a pawn just like the Jersey girls were a pawn, like Richard Clark was a pawn, like Bill Burkett was a pawn.
It isn't a narrative about Bush from the mind of the ferret-like Krugman and others on his side of the aisle.
But would you people on the left try to get it consistent?
Either last week, I either said she didn't have a son and is lying about not having a son and lying about having a son that got killed in Iraq, or I am saying it so much that I'm getting weary of it.
What we're all getting weary of, Mr. Krugman, is the lies that are associated with all of this coming from the ditch in Crawford.
The lies that are uttered by you, the pathetic, programmed, in the template lies.
Bush is a rich guy who sends other people's children off to die and never makes a sacrifice himself and, in fact, gives a lot of tax breaks to his rich friends.
You couldn't come up with a more programmed answer.
It's almost a satirical script, and he actually utters it as though it is genuine.
FDR was a rich white guy.
Bill Clinton is a rich white guy.
He wasn't a rich white guy when he was sending people off to Kosovo, but he was in the White House doing pretty well.
I don't know what sacrifices Clinton made in the same sense that the ferret-like Mr. Krugman is discussing sacrifice.
It's just, you know, Clinton did sacrifice some good cigars.
I'd have never disgraced him that way.
But to each his own, I mean, the point here is that this is just a programmed ritual that Krugman probably says that he dreams this stuff.
He probably says this stuff 25, 30 times a day.
But send, yeah, no, if he sent, well, if Bush said his daughters off to war, no, it wouldn't, nothing Bush can do.
That's the whole point.
Whatever Bush does, but Bush didn't send anybody's kids off to war.
The last I looked, they volunteered.
Look, can I say this is again, and I said last week, you know, it's strange when the daughter of a liberal or the son of a liberal is 13 or 14, they can practically do any damn thing they want, and their parents have no right to know, including getting an abortion, go out and what else can they do out there?
They get the tattoos and all this stuff.
But let the 13-year-old men and women, boys and girls become 22 and 23-year-old men and women, and all of a sudden they don't know what they're doing and they don't have the sense to volunteer for the army.
They don't have the maturity.
And they're being sent off by a lying guy who only wants to give tax cuts to his rich friends.
Anyway, if it weren't for me, if it weren't, I'm going to raise my guilty.
These people wouldn't have half the energy they've got every day if it weren't for me.
Jim in Fayetteville, North Carolina, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
Hi.
Dittos.
I called in to say that I think that we ought to allow Muslims and people of other religions to use their sacred scriptures as it is in the statute to take their oaths.
Okay.
Now, before you jump to conclusions, I'd like to tell you why.
Or to give you a little background.
I'm retired.
I'm a retired Air Force JAG.
I'm licensed in two states and before the U.S. Supreme Court.
I served in Gulf War I from three weeks after the invasion to two weeks after the end of the war.
I support the president, and I'm a Republican.
I'm about as consistent with your views as you can get.
But there's an important point here.
I don't think we should allow Muslims to use the Quran to please them, to accommodate them, or for any other similar reason.
The reason is that the purpose of taking the oath is to impress upon the witness that they have to tell the truth, that they feel a moral and legal obligation to tell the truth.
I have taken testimony from children as young as six who are sex crime victims.
Wait, wait, but one question, Jim, I think I may have lost you.
Are you saying that we should use the Quran and let them swear the oath to the Quran because it will bind them as witnesses to tell the Simpsons?
That is correct.
It's my understanding.
I'm not an Islam scholar, but it's my understanding that in their religion, unless an oath is taken before Allah upon the Quran, I may be wrong, it's my understanding that it is not binding on them.
We want witnesses to feel bound to tell the truth.
I agree with that.
And if they take the oath on what makes us feel good, our Bible, then they're not going to feel bound.
And we cannot rely upon the truthfulness of that testimony.
As I was about to say, I've taken testimony from child sexual abuse victims as young as, excuse me, as young as six.
And it is recognized in the law that such children have no idea what the meaning of an oath is.
And what you do in a situation like that is that you elicit responses from the child that they know the difference between right and wrong.
They know that when they promise to tell the truth, that they, excuse me, they must.
You get them to promise to tell the truth, and in the law, the eyes of the law, that is sufficient.
Now, in the case of a Muslim, if they come into an American court in North Carolina or any other state or a federal court and they take an oath that they do not consider binding, then we cannot rely upon the truthfulness of that testimony.
And that's the cornerstone of our legal system.
I've got a fraud here.
Legal system.
I appreciate that.
Yes, I understand.
Question.
Do it to accommodate them or to endorse their religion or their beliefs or anything else.
But we must be able to say that the person took a binding oath.
Okay, but question.
Do you know or not know, is it true or not true that in the Muslim faith, you don't, if the judge says not a Muslim, you don't have to swear the oath?
I have no idea about that.
I don't either.
I don't either.
I'm just wondering.
I don't know the Quran, and I don't know Muslim law either.
Thanks for the call, Jim.
We'll be back in a second.
We got a great new page of pictures at the Club Gitmo Photo Gallery, ladies and gentlemen.
The Club Gitmo gift shop merchandise continues to fly off of our shelves.
People are taking photos of themselves wearing the Club Gitmo gear.
We've got a bunch of them came in from the weekend.
A woman with the Barbara Streisand star in Hollywood with a Club Gitmo flag stuck in it.
We've got more people now at Crawford, Texas, a big game hunter in Africa.
It looks like he shot some sort of giant animal, and the caption to the picture is feeding the hungry in Africa.
And he's wearing his Club Gitmo shirt.
We've got two women in liberal Oregon with a globe and a sign asking if Ron Wyden knows where they are.
It's a very chalked page.
We're up, I think, 15 or 16 pages now.
The Club Gitmo Photo Gallery at rushlimbaugh.com.
Sean in Rosewell, Roswell.
Sorry, Roswell, New Mexico.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Ditto's Rush.
Hey, I wanted to say that we're not just dealing with a tradition here when it comes to having the Bible in our courts.
We're dealing with a fundamental bedrock of what our country was established on.
And I'm not talking about a state-sponsored religion.
Clearly, that's prohibited by the Constitution.
But when our founding fathers set out our Declaration of Independence, everything, there was Christianity involved in that, and we can't deny that.
And at the same time, when we're asking someone to swear on the holy Bible, we are asking them to give their ultimate pledge that they will tell the truth in our courts.
And I respectfully disagree with your previous caller.
We can't just ask each person, hey, what's your choice on what's the most important thing for you to pledge on?
We've got to have some foundation, and that's what our founding fathers chose.
And we can't change that at this point.
Yes, we can, and we probably will.
There's a lot of things the founding fathers didn't stand for that they supposedly do, like abortion.
Well, that doesn't make it right, though.
We threw that out the window a long time ago.
It doesn't matter what's right.
What matters is what the liberals want.
Well, that's a good point.
Who says we're talking about what's right here?
It's like last week, somebody said, how are we going to have victory in Iraq?
Well, who's talking about victory?
The left isn't talking about victory, and we're not talking about doing what's right.
If this guy, Erwin Chemerensky, is right, and just be prepared for it because the scenario that you laid out is it's possible.
Who knows what people will.
In fact, Dawn tells me, Dawn, who does the transcribing here of those of you on the phone in the event that I have trouble understanding you because of bad phone lines or whatever, Dawn is a former court reporter.
Did you say federal court, federal and state, federal and state court, that they don't want here in Florida, at least in Palm Beach County, of course, doesn't surprise me a bit, that they no longer use the Bible anyway.
They just do swear and are affirm to tell the whole truth.
And in some cases, they had to even stop using the word swear because the Baptists were afraid it meant they were cursing.
It's what she just told me.
And so apparently here in the state of Florida, you can't even ask somebody to swear if their religion makes them think that they're cursing.
Swear or affirm that everything you're about to say is the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
So help you, God is not said either.
Nothing but the truth.
So help you.
So I hate to tell you this out there, Sean, but Palm Beach County got rid of the Bible a long time ago.
It's just a matter of time, folks.
Those of us who will reach a life expectancy in about 30 years, we won't live to see the worst, but those of you younger than we are will.
It's up to you.
Fred in Napa Valley, California.
Welcome to the program.
Hello.
Nat Rush, Megha Dittos, one of your longest listeners.
Thank you, sir.
It's a pleasure to talk to you.
The point I wanted to make to see these people that want to cut and run out of Iraq right now should sit back and watch Israel very closely for about the next six months and see how much this emboldens the rest of the Arab world.
Because I think the Arab world is going to see that as proof that we will capitulate to terrorism.
Wait a second.
No matter how long it takes.
Oh, wait a second.
President Bush says that this is one of the hang on here.
Well, it's historic step toward peace.
That's nonsense.
Russia's capitulation to terrorism.
Well, I think that too.
You're right.
We'll just wait.
But why do we have to wait and see?
We know what's going to happen.
Exactly.
We know what's going to happen, yes.
But I don't believe the left does.
The left's going to see this as just, you know.
I don't know how the left sees things, to be honest with you.
See, you're back now to thinking the left might have an interest in victory.
See, it's easy to get caught in that trap.
You think all Americans are interested in victory.
All Americans aren't.
That's true.
Not American victory.
I mean, there are plenty of American leftists who would love us to get our rear ends kicked and handed to us.
They would love for us to be embarrassed in Iraq.
Sadly enough, so.
They would love it.
I mean, it would validate what they think is true, what they think we deserve.
Make no mistake.
Don't, you know, the idea that patriotism is something that flows through all Americans and is defined the same way.
Don't get caught up in that.
Remember, the left, ever since Bush became president, has a new definition of patriotism, and that is patriotism is defined by how loudly and how often you criticize the president.
And they say, that's the great tradition of our country, dissent.
Oh, yeah, we've got to be able to do that.
So it's easy to get caught in this trap, but it's not the case.
All right, I want to go back to the story here.
It's from the New York Times.
I mismentioned the headline moments ago.
Democrats split on tactics for confirmation hearings.
This is the second such article.
There was one last week.
They don't know how to deal with this Roberts business.
They're all upset about it.
Remember, the first article said, actually, it may be the third.
The first article said Democrats, there's nothing really to oppose.
Guy's got 70 votes, nothing we can do.
That led to the left-wing fringe groups having a cow and sending notice to the Democrats, people like Ralph Nees and Nan Aaron, you better fight this guy if you know what's good for you.
So the Democrats had to run around and do a CYA.
And then this is, I guess, the second such story on how they don't know how to act here.
Two weeks before senators begin questioning John Roberts, the debate over his confirmation is becoming a test of Senate Democrats as well.
The party's liberal base, whose contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year have helped the Senate Democratic campaign amass twice as much as its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his conservative credentials.
It's okay.
They're split.
They don't know what to do about Iraq, and now they don't know how to act here when it comes to Roberts.
As Senator Edward Kennedy and other liberal stalwarts step up their criticism of the judge's record, other Democrats are reluctant to join them.
Senator Russ Feingold said, I'm turned off by senators trying to act like they've already found the guy out, and we know what he's like.
He's a Democratic committee member from Wisconsin.
He spent last week focused instead on calling for a pullout from Iraq.
I'm not part of any Democratic effort to set the table for the hearings by laying the groundwork to criticize Judge Roberts, said Feingold.
Several Democrat senators said the hearings on Judge Roberts are shaping up as a risky balancing act.
Failing to press him could look weak to their fringe kook liberal base, but attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle on the treacherous turf of abortion, race, and religion at a time when Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts.
Whoa!
Stop the presses.
How in the world does that get printed?
Could draw Democrats into a losing battle on abortion, race, and religion?
How can the Democrats lose on those three things, folks?
Why, I thought this country was universally for abortion, and I thought they were universally for affirmative action, and I thought the American people distrusted religion in mass numbers.
Apparently, that's not true.
Apparently, the Democrats are vulnerable on abortion and race and religion.
We're not supposed to say this too loud, but the Democrats are vulnerable and they know it.
This is blue state, red state politics rearing its head and slapping the Democrats upside the head, folks.
When they can't be who they, what have I always told you?
When they can't be who they are, because it will destroy them.
That's what I've said.
They can't be who they are.
Now they're starting to realize it.
That is, I thought, I thought these were mainstream things.
When Chucky Schumer said he's out of the mainstream on abortion, he's out of the mainstream on this.
It sounds to me like David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times here suggesting that Democrats are out of the mainstream on this, and they've got to be very careful how they handle this.
Senator John Braul, Louisiana Democrat, said the hearings were a test of his party's independence.
The interest groups are going to be out there, and this is their issue, and they're going to fight it until the dead warm over.
But gas prices, healthcare costs in Iraq are the things that motivate most people, he said.
In a Supreme Court fight, we're not expanding the base.
And even if we get 100% of the base, we don't win a national election.
So there it is.
They do not expand the base by going all out with liberalism in the court battle.
And this is a moderate Democrat saying it.
They don't get anything.
They don't pick up anything.
This is their whole point.
They don't pick up anything with their fringe kook bay.
What have I been telling you?
They're not expanding their base at all.
Folks, this is another huge sea.
I told you so.
This is why Hillary wants the felon vote.
And this is why they're interested in illegal immigration.
It's new voters because they can't expand the base being who they are.
Their base is turning people off.
As previous stories in the L.A. Times and the Washington Post on how the Democrats are puzzled that the Sheehan story has not hurt Bush and has not raised their stature.
Everything I've predicted is coming true here.
Everything.
They just, that's why there's no sense giving up and giving in to what these people want on anything, Iraq or any issue.
Back in just a second.
Back we are.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun.
America's anchorman and America's Truth Detector here combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball, Efraid of Pennsylvania.
This is Lillian.
Hi, Lillian.
Glad you called.
Hi, Rush.
I'm so glad to have gotten through.
Thank you.
Hello?
Yes.
The Republican fellow who called you and who was assuring us that it would be best for Muslims to swear on the Quran rather than on the Bible apparently did not know that the Quran allows Muslims to lie to their enemies.
Not just lie, but kill their enemies.
It approves of that because it's doing the work of Allah.
So if a Muslim who follows the Quran religiously or devoutly views the judge as an enemy, he can lie to him.
Exactly.
So I believe that he gave a very logical explanation.
It sounded so convincing.
But I think in light, in view of this piece of information, I don't think that should be the case.
Well, how is it worded?
I mean, how do you know this?
Well, I really would advise Americans to read the translation of the Quran.
It says a lot of interesting things about what Muslims are allowed or not allowed to do.
There is a book out by a fellow called Ibn Waraq.
Ibn Warak means a son of Warak.
And that's his pen name.
And he wrote, Why I Am Not a Muslim.
And I wish every American in this country would read that book.
It's very illuminating.
Well, what is it about lying to your enemies?
mean an infidel?
Somebody that's...
Somebody who's not a Muslim.
Every non-Muslim is the enemy of a Muslim.
Muslims are out to islamicize the whole world.
They don't want any non-Muslims on the...
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Are all Muslims out to do that?
No, I really don't know if all Muslims are, but I would talk about those who are terrorizing us, who are, you know, in the Middle East trying to set up their jihad.
Well, that's what jihad is.
Well, I wondered about it, I asked the gentleman from North Carolina the question, what about if the judge is not a Muslim, is it permissible to lie?
And all this, I don't know.
You have mentioned something very interesting.
I'm getting some emails from people to say that pretty much what you've said, but I personally don't know.
But we will find out.
I just wonder how many interpretations of the Quran there are.
There are many interpretations of the Holy Scripture, for example, a bunch of different versions.
So I'm not sure just how applicable this would be to all Muslims as opposed to the Islamists and if there's a difference.
But I appreciate your call, Lillian, and we'll check.
Thanks.
Here's Laura in Austin Town, Ohio.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Russ.
Listen, the end of last week watching what was going on in Israel discouraged me beyond all.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing, and I was very frustrated at the president.
But what you've taught me recently is to take a step back and try and figure out why he's doing it.
And I think the reason he is allowing this to happen or encouraging the Israelis to do this, because I think once this is done, if Palestinian terrorist groups hit Israel, I think Israel will have the permission of the United States to strike back in a military manner.
We shall see.
I know a lot of people have this theory out there, Laura, and it borders on, okay, we'll make our one gazillionth show of peace.
We will make a move here that demonstrates our desire for peace.
But if our enemies take advantage of it and continue to encroach and continue to attack us, then this will give us free reign to strike back and kick butt.
Now, this has been the theory that I've heard announced for these moves for many, many moons.
And I don't, you know, the striking back and kicking butt part never really happens.
Not totally, giving up more and more land is what happens.
I hope that that is.
I'm trying to be positive here because I.
I understand that.
I appreciate it.
Yes, I do.
Normally, I was, like I said, extremely frustrated because I think, why do we keep making Israel make concessions when, to me, the Palestinians have literally made none no matter what's been offered?
But I just want to see a bigger meaning behind this and hoping this is the president's thinking because I think it's gone on way too long.
Well, we'll see.
My question has never changed.
Why do we make the Israelis deal with their terrorists in ways in which we don't?
The American left would probably like us to deal with them this way, but we don't.
I mean, there's no similarity at all between the way we deal with terrorists and the way we ask or force Israel to.
Quick timeout, because I'm out of time, folks.
I wish I had more, but I don't.
It's just the nature of time.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Well, that's it, folks.
Sadly out of busy broadcast time today, but we'll be back tomorrow and do it again and deal with whatever happens between now and then.
Remember, this program is show prep for the rest of the media and especially the energy source for the American left.
We are honored.
And great being with you, and we will see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection