All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 23, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
September 23, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, folks, and welcome back.
Uh Rush Limbaugh here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, America's Anchor Man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, a harmless, lovable little fuzzball ready to go on Friday.
Now, from sunny South Florida, it's the winner of his fourth National Association of Broadcasters Marconi Award, Rush Limbaugh with open line Friday.
And here's the telephone number as you know how it works on Friday, 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIB net.com.
Lots to do here, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's just get started.
Yesterday I thought we were making progress in my quest to join forces with liberal Democrat activist groups like Moveon.org.
Uh, all of their anti-American war protest movements, uh, the websites and so forth, but we're making progress.
And and I can cite some small uh evidence of progress today, but there's a big item here that indicates they've got a long way to go.
The uh as the uh anti-American war movement arrives in Washington this weekend, many top Democrats are leaving.
Nationally known Democrat war critics, including Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Senators Hillary Rodham of New York, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, John Kerry of Massachusetts, will not attend what the anti-American war movement sponsors say will be a big anti-American war rally tomorrow in Washington.
The only Democrat officeholders who plan to address the anti-American war rally are Representatives Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and John Conyers of Michigan.
Today's lead this is a night ridder story.
Today's leading Democrats had a party divided over the war, and many Democrat leaders are wary of standing with anti-American war activists who represent much of the party's base.
Have you noticed, folks, just in this week alone, how everybody or many in the mainstream press are now beginning to refer properly to who is the Democrat Party base, and they are beginning to uh cast the elected Democrats as at odds with that base.
This is what we mean when I say that this program's on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
In some cases, we don't just tell you in advance what's going to happen.
In some cases, we actually cause what happens.
And I think that we have succeeded here in properly identifying for a lot of people the divisions in the Democrat Party.
And this is a biggie, because this is the heart and soul of the Democrat base, the anti-American war movement.
And as spokesman for the Democrats who are skipping the anti-American war event all said that they had schedule conflicts.
But some leading anti-American war activists are not buying it.
Tom Andrews, a former Democratic House member from Maine, who uh now the national director of Win Without War said, There are a lot of people here who are wondering, where are the Democrats?
He said the Democrat Party has an identity crisis on this issue.
We need voices, we need leadership, but fear is driving our leaders.
A poll this week by the so-called non-part.
Don't give me this jazz that the pew is nonpartisan.
As Pat Buchanan said, Pew may be nonpartisan because the janitors are Republican.
Pew research is nonpartisan.
At any rate, a poll this week by the Pew Research Center found that 51% of Americans want to keep troops in uh Iraq until it's stabilized, but the ranks of those who uh want to set a timetable withdrawal have grown to 57% from 49% in July.
Uh evidently some people chose both answers in this nonpartisan uh Pew Research Center uh poll.
Uh anti-American war organizers said they expected a hundred thousand people tomorrow.
The rival group plans a rally Sunday in Washington to show support for the arrival groups.
It's only the pro-America group, and it's gonna be huge too, and they're showing up, but they're not gonna allow the anti-American war rally to hog the news cycle all weekend long.
But there you have it.
Uh this is this is uh this is a bad move for only if Hillary doesn't show up, she's not gonna move up in the Daily Chaos poll.
If uh if Carrie doesn't show up, if Al Gore doesn't shift somebody this is a this if there's an elected Democrat with guts, he will show up after now seeing that no other elected Democrats gonna be there, none of the presidential wannabes are gonna be there.
If Al Gore wants his party's nomination in 08, he goes.
You're shaking your head in there, Mr. Snerdley.
Uh they don't know they th they may think it's suicide.
Well, it is suicide, but that's my point.
They're in a jam.
It's it's it's is it's a quick suicide uh uh where you're not even aware it's happening, or it's a slow, painful suicide where you're aware of your death every moment.
What do you do?
Which one do you choose?
But uh only John Conyers and Cynthia McKinney.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, at the same time, uh well, I don't know at the same time or not, there's a big four-day Congressional Black Caucus convention going on in Washington.
It's a four-day event.
I I did it start yesterday.
Okay, so the the anti-American war rally will be in conjunction with the Congressional Black Caucus convention.
You've got to hear some of the soundbites from this thing, folks.
Let's just uh we'll take him here in order.
This is Hillary Clinton taking my advice by getting on board with some of the lingo of the anti-American war left.
People lost their lives and people lost everything they owned, and maybe we could have prevented some of that damage and devastation.
And we need to know the answer as to whether we could or not, and we also need to have the best minds at work about what to do going forward.
It is not confidence building that the first contracts issued went to Halliburton on a no-bid contract.
Oh, yes, he looked at the standing O that that gets.
See, that's exactly how this is the story about uh Hurricane Katrina.
So see, Mrs. Clinton gets it.
She's starting to get it.
The code word Halliburton, the uh the Democratic base loves that.
Here's a little bit more.
Let us hope we've already learned some lessons, so we are better prepared with the impending hurricane known as Rita, and that we will do a better job.
I think we are, because we were embarrassed in front of the entire world that we didn't do the kind of job people expect America to do to take care of Americans first and foremost.
Oh, that's right.
Just tell that bunch we were embarrassed before the world.
We look like a bunch of incompetent third worlders.
They will love that, Mrs. Clinton.
She's right on board.
And let's let's introduce some of the other speakers at this congressional black caucus event here, that great American, a backbone of America, Harry Belafonte.
The wreckage that is taking place down in the Gulf region, southwest part of the United States.
Where's the rest?
We have a lot of wreckages around this country.
Where?
And perhaps the most distracting and perhaps the most important wreckage to take a look at is really the wreckage of the Democratic Party.
This poverty that our country is witnessing has never gone away.
Most of the politicians I know of have visited these places of poverty.
They make it their business when they're running for the highest office in this nation to go into the heart of our pain, our anguish, our indignities, and make promises only to walk into the places of power and then deny us.
I guess part of the reason I'm here is to really look through the ravages of the Democratic Party and see if anything is really worth salvaging.
Well, well, old Ill Rushboe here on the cutting edge, don't you think here, folks?
Tell you what, there's a lot of people that want power in whatever this new Democrat Party is going to be.
That could have just as easily taken a turn and gone right to the White House and bash Bush, which is what Belafonte usually does.
Now, I have to tell you, uh take a break here, but I got uh an email last night, and I I I get a few of these, but this is so much email I don't have a systemized response.
But something about this email I got yesterday compelled me to reply.
It was an email from a college student out in uh in Washington.
And he had been given an assignment by his liberal professor professor.
Uh uh big essay question related to a theory in in some journalists' book.
And he asked me for some help.
And I thought I went back and forth with this because if if I if I help this guy, am I really helping him?
Uh if I essentially write the guy's paper, how much help am I actually giving him?
So I said, okay, I'm not gonna I'm not gonna write what I would put as a paper, but I uh I'll just give him a few little ideas to hopefully spur his mind.
Well, I got going and I kept going.
And when I finished with it, I said, you know something this reminds me of something that that is sadly missing throughout the conservative movement.
That's a return to fundamentals.
I've been doing this program uh we're into our eighteenth year, and uh for a whole host of reasons.
I mean, can't go back and do the first year all over again, can't go back and do the first day of the keep moving forward.
This is why I've always said it takes six weeks of steady listening to have this program really understood by a new audience member, because it takes that long or longer for the context of this all to come into into place.
Um it really makes as we have new people tuning in all the time, and we have new readers to the website, we have new readers to the Limbaugh Letter all the time, who are just now getting interested in this.
And our discussion of conservatism here may be over their heads on the learning curve basis.
So uh last night I sent my reply to uh the editrix of the Limbaugh letter, Diana Schneider.
I said, Diana, I want to run this in the next issue, and I want to start a new section in the newsletter.
We're gonna get rid of something in there that uh that's tired, I don't know what yet, but I want to replace it with a fundamentals section every week or every month in the in the newsletter.
We're going to go back to the roots of conservatism issue by issue by issue and explain it.
Sort along the lines how to defeat a liberal only better.
Uh it'll be an ongoing series.
And I'm gonna read to you what I wrote this college student to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, because what Harry Belafati said here is he doesn't even know it.
He doesn't even know how right he is.
He said, This poverty that our country is witnessing has never gone away.
Most of the politicians I know have visited these places of poverty.
They make it their business.
His point is they do all these things, but it never gets fixed.
Well, there is a reason that he doesn't understand, and that formed the basis of my reply to the college student last night.
I'll share it with you when we come back.
Don't go away.
Okay, we'll get back to the black caucus sound bites here in just a moment.
But here's uh the essence of the email I got from the young college student in um actually it's in Oregon.
I said the state of Washington's in Oregon.
Uh I know how busy you are, but have you read the book by Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas?
Well, I'm being being made to read the book or read the book um in an ethics class and write an essay response to a question that my professor's asking.
Here's the question.
Economic equality has long been a major theme in American political discourse, especially with the populist policies associated with the Democratic Party.
According to Thomas Frank, how is this theme of uh this theme connected with the backlash phenomenon in American culture?
How has the backlas led to a change in class definitions and traditional political alignments?
I know you don't have time with this rush, but I just thought I would try.
It's getting hard on these campuses anymore.
Thanks for everything you do.
So I had the time, and I thought here's what I wrote back.
I said, This is easy.
First, your professor's premise is flawed.
Economic equality has not long been a major theme in American political discourse.
American economic opportunity is the real theme.
The premise of economic equality has long been a theme of liberals who blanch at the sight of any inequality they perceive, which is fine as far as it goes, but it is their attempted solutions to this problem that uh have wrought even more inequality.
When liberals see haves and have nots, they attempt to equalize or make fair these imbalances, and they do so by punishing those at the top of the ladder, so to speak, in order to bring them down to be more on par with the have nots.
They never attempt to educate or inspire the have nots to do better and move up or prosper, and that's because they don't believe it's possible.
Their faith in the individual is dwarfed by their belief in and love of government, as the great equalizer with themselves in charge of it, of course.
The backlash Thomas Frank refers to, I believe, results from the have nots getting frustrated now, because years and years of promises by liberal politicians have failed to improve their lot, and let's hearken back to Harry Belafonti at this point.
The liberal authors of these schemes, which promise to rectify this inequality in poverty, are wont to accept the blame themselves for the failure of their own policies.
They shift the blame back to the haves.
They accuse them of being greedy and unwilling to share.
It's why we constantly hear liberals demand more tax increases on the wealthy.
Somehow that will magically improve the lot of the have nots, but it never works, because it can't.
Redistributionist policies have never succeeded in all of human civilization in equalizing a society economically.
Our own great society in war on poverty have transferred over six trillion dollars from the haves to the have nots since 1964, and yet the Thomas Franks of the world still complain.
It's time to seriously examine the failure of these policies and your professor's premise.
We have the proof it doesn't work.
The problem is that liberals refuse to have their results examined.
They insist their intentions be credited, which in their minds makes them nicer and more compassionate than people who would rather educate the have nots to become self-reliant and less dependent on governments.
Now the problem you're going to encounter with this in class is this.
Liberals and maybe your professor believe that capitalism, the basic economic foundation and architecture of America, is flawed precisely because they believe it is to blame for this economic inequality.
That capitalism by design is unfair, and so it must be regulated, policed, monitored, eventually punished.
This is why the enemies of liberals are small and large businesses.
Walmart, the latest example, along with big oil right now.
And along with wealthy people, the rich and the successful.
These are the enemies of liberals.
Liberals think that they're just lucky.
They've won life slaughter and have a duty to give back via high taxes and any other scheme that they can dream up.
Now this plays well with the have nots, because they've been made to believe all these years to resent the successful via the liberals' use of class envy language, and end up feeling satisfied not when they do better because they don't do better.
They feel satisfied when they think the rich, who are stealing from them and not sharing with them, are harmed economically.
And then the cycle continues, as it has for over 70 years since the days of Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
Thomas Frank, in his book, now wonders why all of a sudden these have nots are starting to vote for Republicans.
Because he thinks that these have nots are voting for the people who've kept them poor, which is absurd.
These people are beginning to see that much of America continues to prosper beyond anyone's wildest dreams while they continue to await the fulfillment of all those liberal promises.
Hello, Harry Belifante.
And they're also figuring out that sixty years of failed promises just mean more failed promises.
They want in on the action, as do people who used to be members of labor unions.
Country used to be 35% organized labor, today it's less than 2%, or 12%.
I told the student here, I said, I believe it's a tragedy that the left in this country has literally destroyed so many of their own voters' futures by lying to them, by telling them they have no chance because the deck is stacked against them, by telling them things will be made more fair if liberals remain in charge so they can punish the rich.
Capitalism has its problems, and it does require certain regulations, as all societies require laws.
But there's no question that liberalism and socialism fail each time they are tried, whereas the capitalist system of this country has produced the richest country in the history of civilization.
And this is not to say that government can't help.
It can and it should.
There are lots of people who, for one reason or another, simply cannot get by without our compassionate assistance, and that compassion has always been there.
You can cite the war on poverty in the Great Society and other ongoing similar programs as evidence.
The shame is when liberals control the government and attempt to make as many Americans as Possible dependent on them and the government for the sake of cementing their power.
That results in millions of people not given the chance to reach their own potential, to be the best they can be, but according to their own ambitions and desires.
To this liberals and maybe your professor will say something that will reflect their belief that many people really have no potential because of the unfairness, the structural institutional unfairness of American society.
And the cycle will repeat.
So I don't know what this kid's gonna write.
What he's gonna say, I don't know, but I can imagine when he challenges the premise of the professor.
I would love to be there.
Okay, we'll get back to the black caucus uh sound bites when we come back.
Stay with us.
Don't go away.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
We are back in the cutting edge.
Lots going on.
Open line Friday.
We have that soundbite I was laughing about a half hour ago.
I'm watching television, Bush doing a little presser, and I didn't know who the reporter was because I'm reading a closed caption.
A reporter's giving Bush grief for going into Texas now before the hurricane.
Aren't you gonna get in the way?
You and your underwrites.
And I'm I'm saying it's stuck on stupid.
I mean, these are the same people that got on his case for not going to New Orleans before the hurricane hit there.
Here is how it sounded.
It's David Gregory of NBC.
Sir, what good can you do going down to the work in some way, Mr. President?
One thing I won't do is get in the way.
But I mean, what could you actually do?
I mean, isn't there a risk of you and your entourage getting in the way?
No, there will be no risk of me getting in the way, I promise you.
We're gonna make sure that we're not in the way of the operations.
What I am gonna do is observe the relationship between the state and local government, particularly out in uh Colorado Springs.
That's what I want to see.
See, Northcom is the main entity that uh interfaces, it uses federal assets, federal troops interface with local and state government.
I want to watch that relationship.
It's an important relationship, and I need to understand how it works better.
We will make sure that my entourage is not getting away of people doing their job, which will be search and rescue immediately.
And uh rest assured, I understand that we must not and will not interfere with the important work that'll be going forward.
Now, you have to really see this because the president's almost laughing through this, and he just he can't he can't believe.
I mean, he's having a lot of fun with these guys, it's hard to hear that.
But Gregory just comes off as a just a child.
Just a spoiled rotten little child, gonna keep asking this question until he trips Bush up.
Actually, he's not even asking the question to get an answer.
He's asking the question to establish the point.
This is he's editorializing with the question.
Don't you think you'll get in the way?
What are you going down there for?
What do you got?
Yet, what was it three weeks ago?
Where were you?
Why were you strumming a guitar out in San Diego?
Where were you?
Why were you on vacation?
Where were you?
How come you were in Washington?
Why didn't you go?
These it folks, I'm telling you, everybody sees through this now.
Don't sweat this stuff.
I know it got your blood boiling, got my blood boiling.
Gotta grab hold of yourselves.
You gotta embrace yourselves, love yourself, and say, this is good.
This is good because it's it's obviously over the top.
All right, back now to the congressional black caucus sound bites.
They get even better.
Back to Harry Belafonte.
There's a lot of people out here who are really pissed off.
We are angry, we're we're upset, we're we're we're we're we're sad, we're hold our children, we wheel our wheelchairs, we look around for some comfort, and we don't find any.
Well, we have to look to ourselves.
Our foreign policy has made a wreck of this planet.
I'm always in Africa.
That's my business.
I move among the poor.
I move among the tragic, I move among those who are the victims of human and moral disaster.
And when I move to these places, I see American policy written on the walls of oppression everywhere.
Oh, yeah, and this this he's talking to the Congressional Black Caucus, which is part of Democrat base.
Anytime you go rip America, these people love it.
They are out of their chairs, they are standing ovations constantly, you have to shut them up.
They just love this sort of stuff, and it kept going.
Here's more of Harry Belifant.
Deo.
Daylight command me won't go.
I would hope, and while the black caucus celebrates this moment, while we have all these wonderful black leaders and our white progressive associates, that we would get off.
We would get off the rhetoric, get off the redundancy, and dig deep into this country, and let George W. Bush let the Christian right, let a whole bunch of folks running away with this nation know that their legs have just been amputated.
Right on, right on, right on, right off.
So the hatred here really flowing here at the Congressional Black Caucus event.
And then Hillary Clinton wants to get back in on the action, get back in the groove.
What Harry said is so important.
Now we heard a lot in the last election about moral values.
And you know as well as I do that there's a big move on to get people to forget that it's not only private morality, but public morality that needs to be looked at and considered.
Stop the tape a minute.
Stop the tape.
Stop it.
This is where Hillary wants to define.
These people have to redefine these things like patriotism and morality because they aren't patriotic or moral.
You know, patriotism to them is ripping the president a new one each and every day and hopefully driving him out of office.
And morality to them is big government giving as much money away as possible to keep people poor and keep them voting Democrat.
Here comes her attempt to redefine morality as a public thing that government must be in charge of.
I went to Sunday school every Sunday when I was growing up.
But I must have missed the Sunday school lesson that taught us that taking care of rich people was more important than taking care of poor people.
So...
And I don't think that we should cede the moral high ground to anybody who tries to put forth a private moral agenda and ignore what is the most important part of what we are called to do, which is to do onto others as we would have them do onto us.
And if you think about the golden rule as being a good rule to live by, it's also a good rule for governments to govern by.
Oh, it's not.
Not with you people in charge of it.
Can you imagine?
Let's apply the liberal golden rule to Al-Qaeda.
Shall we?
Adolf Hitler.
Yeah.
Oh, this is this is too good.
What was this?
Um the Sunday school lesson that taught us that taking care of rich people was more important than taking care of poor people.
Taking care of rich people.
Uh and by the way, this next bite, Hillary Wright aiming.
I mean, aiming right for the kooks, right for the base of the Democratic Party who think that the last two elections have been stolen from them.
There is a concerted effort to make it even harder for poor people and non-English speaking people and elderly people to vote in this country.
Stop the tape.
Yes, there is.
Ladies and gentlemen, so many people having a tough time voting that we are instituting a new plan in this country.
A commission chaired by James Baker and Jimmy Carter have recommended photo IDs for all voters.
Photo IDs for all voters.
Now, on the on this on the surface, does this make sense to you?
We all have photo IDs, driver's licenses, to vote.
Voter IDs.
And yet, and yet the Cynthia McKinney's the other tricks of the Atlanta Urinal Constipation.
Uh, and by free, free photo.
If you do not have a photo ID, some official will come to where you are and give it to you.
Take your picture, make the ID there, and give it to you.
You don't have to go anywhere, you have to pay anything.
They will give it to you.
And yet, the Congressional Black Caucus opposes this.
Now stop and ask yourself a question.
Why in the world oppose this?
What logic could possibly explain opposing this?
Now, the the Democrats and a lot of other people believe this is just a conspiracy.
It's going to lead to a national idea, and everybody's going to be able to keep track of wherever everybody goes, no matter what they do, it's going to be.
Well, okay, fine, it's a conspiracy.
Well, how do you explain Jimmy Carter being part of it?
Jimmy Carter's not for anything.
He's going to help Republicans.
And yet here he signed on to this.
And he and Jim Baker have a response in the New York Times today to all the criticism they're getting about this.
Folks, there's only one explanation to why the congressional black caucus is re-cue that soundbite.
Recue it to this one you just played, get it back to the top.
There's only one reason to oppose this, and that is because they are engaging in fraud themselves.
The photo ID will eliminate voting fraud.
You can't vote if you're dead, and you can't vote if you have a picture of yourself alive.
You can't you you cannot vote once or twice.
You can't vote for you if it's gonna make fraud much, much harder.
That's the only reason I can think of.
There is no sensible reason to oppose this.
Especially when we talk about fair elections, we gotta have fair elections.
Well, these are the people claiming elections aren't fair.
But when it comes to identifying every voter, no, we can't do that.
And they dream up some massive conspiracy theory to run out there and sell to their constituents to get them to oppose it.
Now, knowing that, knowing what this really is, they're afraid that this is gonna stop the fraud on the Democrat side of things.
Here's Hillary's point again.
There is a concerted effort to make it even harder for poor people and non-English speaking people and elderly people to vote in this country.
Stop the how?
How in the world?
When we're gonna take, we're gonna give them an ID.
We're gonna give them a photo ID.
We're not gonna charge them.
And in Georgia, in Georgia, they're gonna go to you if you can't get to where you have to go to get one of these.
They're gonna go to your house.
So, Mrs. Clinton says a concerted effort to make it even harder for poor people and non-English speaking.
What?
By getting a photo ID?
That's some somehow a burden?
Yeah, this is this is reenacting the old voter, the poll tax.
Poll tax is nothing that has nothing in common with the poll tax.
But let's see the rest of the.
I could go on in 20 more minutes about this.
I'll shut up here.
This needs to be a high priority for everybody here today to make it absolutely clear.
We are not going back on voting rights.
We are going to continue to go forward on voting rights, and we are not going to let a state like Georgia pass a law that is gonna cost people 20, 25, 30 dollars to get a different kind of ID that can only be gotten at a few places in the state.
And if you don't have it, you can't vote.
That is a modern form of voter suppression and a poll tax that we have got to be against.
If she starts screaming here again, we're starting reminding everybody of their first and second wives, and I and and that's just a total sorry about that, Wendy.
That's just a total, absolute lie.
Georgia's not charging anybody to do last I heard.
They're gonna go to your house to give you the ID.
Anyway, Charles Wrangle is up next.
We have to take a brief time out.
But as you know, when you have these events, you start out slow.
Tempo is slow.
So you get Harry Bellafonti, the gravelly scratchy voice you can barely hear.
Then you get Hillary.
She gets the energy up a little bit more and gets the crowd all revved up, and then you bring on the big finale, and that's what we have next in Charlie Wrangles.
Sit tight.
We're looking this up.
Uh I I have a uh I have a vague memory that back in uh 93 and 94 when when Hillary Clinton was trying to advance her uh socialized national health care plan.
I my memory is that there was an ID card component of this.
That they had to have an ID card.
And I and I don't remember it was a photo ID or not, but you had to have an ID card.
You had to have one.
Well, you weren't gonna have access to her health care plan if you didn't have an ID card.
And a lot of people back then were very much uh concerned this is a backdoor uh trick uh to get a national ID card going.
But so it once again, Mrs. Clinton doesn't even remember her own beliefs.
National ID for her health care system, but not to vote.
Can't do that.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, can't can't have a free photo ID card to vote.
I want to know something.
How does a photo discriminate against poor and non-English speaking people?
It seems to me that if you need a photo ID to buy a beer at the grocery store, the same standard ought to apply to voting.
If you need beer to buy adult beverages, if you are in a photo ID to prove your age on any number of required uh uh purchases in this country, what's what what's the big deal?
And I I know what it is.
They just they're afraid they're gonna get caught.
Or not caught with their days of fraud and abuse, their fraud and abuse at the polls will be becoming to a screeching halt.
All right, the PS there.
Resistance.
Here is we have a sea of uh just two more bites here.
Charles Wrangell at the Congressional Black Caucus making a direct pitch to the base of the Democratic Party and their anti-American war activists.
When George Bush took this country and tried to abolish every progressive step that we made, when he took this nation into war against a country that was no threat to the United States of America, when he made certain that all of the distortions of weapons of mass destructions and terrorists and attacks on 911 and identification while al-Qaeda,
when 1,900 Americans have died, 25,000 people are maimed in the hospitals around this country, and tens of thousands of Rockies, all God's children have been killed because of democracy, which is real oil in disguise.
When you're able to see not the Emmett Tills, not the murders of children, not just the fire hoses and the Bill Connors, but you're able to see Katrina when you can actually see that if you blacken this country and you pour in this country, it's not an inconvenience, it's a death sentence.
Well, uh this is just ranting and raving, but of course the answer is well, you know, you've been doing what for how many years working on this uh poverty uh congressman?
And you had Bill Clinton in the White House for eight years, you had FDR all those years, you had Jimmy Carter for his four, you had JFK, had LBJ, Great Society.
This is what I mean.
The left will never examine the failures of their own programs.
They're only supposed to look at their intentions, their intentions are honorable, they have big hearts, but we're never supposed to examine the failures.
If Mr. Wrangle wants to understand the problems that he cites in this country and around the world, the best thing for him to do is look in the mirror.
Here is his last bite.
George Bush is our board.
And if that doesn't get to you, nothing will be able to get to you.
And it's time for us to be able to say that we're sick and tired, we fire it up, and we're not gonna take it anymore.
I've been hearing this my whole life about how you're sick and tired and you're fed up and you're not gonna take it anymore.
And I hear the same complaints and whines and moans for all my life.
I've heard nothing uh from you that would indicate anything's been improved even when you guys ran the show.
I mean, this is this is over the top.
I mean, it's this is this is beyond believability.
George Bush is our bull Connor.
If you want to Bull Connor is a guy turned fire hoses on Martin Luther King.
Bull Connor to draw that analogy to George W. Bush is so over the top uh that it doesn't have a chance of uh connecting with anybody but these these wackos in this audience that already believe it.
But one final observation.
In all of we had nine sound bites here.
We've had Hillary Rodham Clinton, we have had Harry Belafonte, and we have had Charles Wrangle.
I hear two angry black males.
I hear an angry white female, but I didn't hear one angry white male at the Congressional Black Caucus.
Convention or whatever.
Hmm.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue.
Stay with us.
And we'll uh get to your phone calls of the next hour, folks.
Uh Bull Connor, Democrat, right?
Bull Connor Bull Connor was a Democrat.
Slavery, segregation, internment of the Japanese, poll taxes, literally tests.
Democratic Party did all that.
Democratic Party did all that, folks.
Bull Connor was a Democrat.
George Wallace was a Democrat.
Lester Maddox was a Democrat.
These are all Democrats that Wrangle's here complaining and whining and moaning about.
By the way, uh Mrs. Clinton's task force drew up a plan to issue all citizens a national health care ID card.
Uh documents forced from the government using the Freedom of Information Act showed that the plan included inserting a special government-designed chip into the cards, not just a photo.
Mrs. Clinton wanted a government-designed chip in every person's health card, and you had to have one to get health care under her plan.
Ha ha!
▲
Export Selection