All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
October 5, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And here we are already at Wednesday.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome to this.
The award-winning thrill-packed, ever-exciting and increasingly popular, the growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am firmly ensconced here as America's anchor man.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-loving, all-feeling, all concerned Maha Rushi, and the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Distinguished Institute.
Telephone number is 800 282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
We've got a great little fun little exercise that we can go through here today, folks, as we also do the play-by-play of the news.
Got some great stuff in the stacks of stuff.
We've got Jeb Bush showing some guts.
And I love this on offshore drilling.
For all off the coast of Florida, he's changed his mind.
He's all for it now.
I love this.
We're going to have uh audio sound bites later in the program.
The foreman of the first grand jury that indicted time Tom Delay for Ronnie Earl was on our Austin affiliate today, KLBJ, and the foreman of this grand jury admitted that he had made up his mind about delay before he had had any evidence presented to him.
And we've got...
Well, there's all there's all kinds of stuff out there today.
We got uh a huge C I told you so.
Uh and it's right here in the uh in the Washington Post and the headline news of pandemonium may have slowed aid.
Unsubstantiated reports of violence were confirmed by some officials spread by news media.
Five weeks after Hurricane Katrina laid waste to New Orleans, some local, state, and federal officials have come to believe that exaggerations of mayhem by officials and rumors repeated uncritically in a news media helped slow the response to the disaster and tarnish the image of many of its victims.
The media was responsible for this.
I told you this last week when all these three three newspapers led by the Times Picky Una, the LA Times and the New York Times all got in line in that order, talking about how the media had basically reported a bunch of rumors about anarchy and rape and murder in the Superdome and the uh and the convention center.
But before we get to all that, uh there are just a few more things that I want to address you uh on regarding the nomination of Harriet Myers to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, and we can couple this with this fun little exercise that I want to present to you today to uh to help illustrate a point.
Now, the Supreme Court this morning heard oral arguments in a big case.
This is a case about the assisted suicide law in the state of Oregon.
The people of Oregon have twice voted by pretty substantial margins for assisted suicide, letting the medical community off people who are terminal or who want to be off for whatever reason.
The uh opponents of this have managed to get this case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, this may not be as easy as you think.
I had uh some conversations today with people.
Hey, Rush, uh and it's interesting how people approach me.
Uh people who are not uh, you know, the pure conservatives.
It's it's it's amazing the cliches that they think we conservatives believe in.
Example, as one person said to me today, well, I want to know what you say about this.
States rights.
Oh, it's all you conservatives talk about it.
States right, states right, states' rights, and you don't like the federal government.
And now what do you say about the Supreme Court hearing this?
What about the right to vote out there to have assisted suicide?
Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just a second.
It's not that easy.
You uh you you you you simplify conservatism too much when you say it's simply states' rights versus a federal government or federalism.
What's what's at stake here?
Okay, you've got you've got the people, just as the people in California, by the way, voted for a number of propositions to um uh suspend welfare type payments to illegal, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, and a federal district court.
you can't do that.
That's unconstitutional.
The will of people was overturned.
It wasn't the Supreme Court, but it was still a judge.
The will of the people was overturned.
Almost happened in Arizona.
The California legislature wanted to overturn via legislation another ballot initiative recently in California, forget what it was about, but the governor refused to sign it, and the Democrats backed down, so they were just trying to make a show of a display here of something, but that's only because they didn't win it.
And yet here we go again.
Now the people of Oregon have said quite clearly in their battled initiatives that they want to be able to kill themselves or have their doctors kill themselves or kill them if they if they want to die.
And too many people look at this very simply.
Okay, is it states' rights?
The people can vote anything they want, including assisted suicide, as long as a majority say fine, it's what we want in this country, then uh that's the way it is, and no federal court, no supreme court's gonna tell us how to live.
On the other hand, uh is there a is there a compelling interest for the government here to protect and stand for the uh right to life and liberty in the pursuit of happiness?
And then, furthermore, do you want to turn over to the uh medical community, which signs an oath or takes an oath, a hypocratic oath to heal and make well and all you want to you want to turn the decision to kill and who to kill over to them?
And if it's not turning the decision on who to kill over to them, do you want to empower them to actually do the killing?
Uh Rush at suicide.
Now it's killing, I mean we're ending a life here.
So where do you go for the answer to this?
Is there one right answer to this?
I happen to think there is.
But others certainly will disagree.
And many of the disagreements will come down to something that's very simple, very simple and not complicated at all.
It's my life and I can do with it whatever I want.
And if I want to end it, then it's none of your business.
Well, yeah, as far as it goes, but you're not ending your life.
You're asking the medical community to do it.
And in my mind, you might be corrupting the medical community because we we we know that these kinds of laws do not solve problems, they create new ones.
And the new problem that could be created here is okay, so we're sanctioning the medical community to off people who are terminal or who desire it.
Okay, where could that lead?
Well, we saw where abortion led.
Abortion is simply the killing of the unwanted or the inconvenient.
And that has led to the same type of thinking in getting rid of the seasoned citizen population, the elderly.
If they become an inconvenience, oh, they wouldn't want to live like this.
They don't like putting it.
It's just everybody would be better off if they were if if if they've had a good life.
Let's just send them on to their great reward.
So then we further the notion that we can decide who is fit to live and who's not on the basis of many arbitrary things.
So who should referee this?
And what should we as a society think about it?
And where, furthermore, and more importantly, do you go for the answer to this?
Well, certain justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would say, if we can find evidence that in Belgium or Great Britain, the enlightened there think absolutely this is fine and dandy, then we have to take that into account.
Other justices would say, the heck with that.
Uh let's go look at what the founders of the Constitution wrote.
Founders of the country and the declaration of independence, so let's go look and see what they wrote.
What did they think about this?
Rush, assisted suicide, they didn't think a thing about it.
Oh, really?
They didn't?
They didn't.
They didn't have an opinion on assisted suicide?
Maybe not specifically indirectly, but might they have had an opinion on the sanctity of life.
And might that opinion on the sanctity of life be fundamental to the structure of this particular country?
And might it be fundamental to the ongoing greatness and survivability of this country?
Might they have said something about it?
Well, who knows, except those who've researched it?
Who knows except those who have taken the time to look at it?
What of those who haven't?
Whether they be judges or just average citizens.
What of those who haven't looked at the Constitution?
I don't care, Rush, what it says.
It's my wife.
It's my grandmother's life.
It's not your business.
It's not the court's business.
It's not Thomas Jefferson's business.
It's any it's that true.
Is that really true?
Could be, but where do you go to find out?
Since we have these disagreements and we're going to have a wide divergence of opinion on this, where do you go to find out?
Is there a single answer to this?
Some believe that the Constitution will contain it.
Some believe the answer can be found there if you just have the guts and the courage to look.
But you also if you're going to go to the Constitution and do a key word search and assisted suicide, you're wasting your time.
You're not going to find it.
You have to do a little bit more than that.
You have to find out exactly what was in the minds of the founders.
And this even could be worthless if you don't care that much about the Constitution.
If it doesn't matter to you, if it hasn't been taught to you in school, if it's not, if it's importance hasn't been drilled into your head, and the likelihood it is it hasn't since September 17th every year is called Constitution Day in the public schools.
It's the one day it has to be taught.
It may not be that big a deal to you.
And a lot of people say, my life, what my the way I live, whatever I do in my life is not going to affect the country.
A lot of people look at things like that.
It's not going to affect the country.
Maybe you alone, whatever you do want, but we're not alone.
We're about 300 million people.
My point is that these are really challenging questions.
And it's really important you get the answer right.
And is there a source authority for this?
I happen to think there is.
And that's why I believe you need remarkable people who have an ability and have studied it and care about it.
And have an honesty about them to be able to read it and interpret it properly.
Because it's not that hard.
Bunch of egghead elitists can make it hard, but it really isn't that hard.
So I know this is a big issue, and it's it's uh captivated the minds of the media, and I must, I must admit here, folks, that uh watching the media today, I I'm uh there's a there's a there's a macabre uh interest in this.
The left just seems to get more excited about anything when death is on the table.
I I don't know what it is, whether whether it's disaster death or war death or society deciding we're gonna off some of our fellow citizens, they get ginned up about it, you really get excited about the death aspect, but but you start talking about life, and somehow they just they don't have as much interest in that.
As though it is enlightened to understand that it's some people's duty to die and get out of the way.
And that not everybody has a right to life.
That depends on what somebody else wants.
So it's I I continually am amazed at these people.
In addition, last night I appeared, I only mentioned this once yesterday, it was my fault I didn't mention it more, I appeared with Greta Van Sustrad on the Fox News channel for about the first 13 minutes of the program, and I have all of that on tape, and we've posted it on the website, the uh I was on the phone, it was not on camera.
I'm just not gonna leave home and go to some fleabag studio uh down here uh uh at 10 o'clock at night.
I'm I'm busy, I'm working, so they agree to do it on the phone, and that's where it is.
We posted at Rush Limbaugh.com, uh both the transcript and the and they I think oh, we put video up there or not or audio, but uh Greta was in New Orleans.
So uh I know at least the audio's there that may be video as well.
It is okay it is, so we're streamed the video as well, but I've got the audio sound much from it.
We're gonna get into that because it has to do, uh she asked me some specific questions about Harriet Myers, and of course, uh the re I did this because um uh you know, ever every every uh today's show, Good Morning America, I mean you name it, uh they've all they've all wanted to talk to me and anybody else they can get.
Uh on this but I knew the kind of questions I would get from Greta, and uh that's why I decided to do it and I was I was pretty close to what I was going to get in terms thought of what I was going to get in the questions.
But uh rather than repeat it and go through it it's just be better for you to hear it as it happened last night.
So we'll take a brief break here.
We'll come back and we will resume with all the rest of what is destined to be broadcast excellence.
Stay with us.
Okay, here we are.
We're back.
The first uh first bite from the Greta show last night on the Fox News Channel is four minutes long, so I've got to get into it here uh pretty quickly.
There are one, two, three three of these that uh that I want to share with you if we'll get the first one out of the way here.
Her first question last night was let me start uh with your thoughts about the nomination of a Harriet Myers nomination.
I'm like a lot of people um had such high hopes and it it's based on it's based on many things.
I have I have no brief against Harriet Myers I have nothing against the woman.
I don't know who she is and I'm I'm not I really don't know anything about her which is one of the uh curious things uh that that uh upsets me a little bit there are others so eminently qualified for this that we do know a lot about that we uh have been to war with uh they have they have uh uh withstood all the pressures uh brought to bear on them because they're conservative jurists uh you don't have to worry about whether they're gonna change their minds five or ten years and now be affected by the the Washington culture.
Uh and it it just seems uh that I I said something uh uh last week in the first part of this week that has been taken uh and run with by the media and I said the pick appeared to be made from a uh a a standpoint of weakness and and let me clarify this for people because a lot of my own audience has misunderstood this um I we're in a war politically in this country which is probably usually the case but the Democrats have lost so much.
The Democrats are reeling they used to have a media monopoly they used to run the House of Representatives.
They used to run the Senate.
They basically ran Washington and ran the country.
They've lost all that the last twenty or thirty years and they haven't the slightest idea how to put themselves back together.
They are reeling and because of this war they are waging for control of the country they have one one refuge left and that's the Supreme Court.
They have turned the Supreme Court into a place where liberalism is institutionalized and taken out of the arena of ideas and public debate.
You have liberal activist judges instituting personal policy preferences and calling it law, finding things in the Constitution that aren't there, calling it law, looking at foreign law to determine what U.S. constitutional law ought to be, seeing things in the Constitution and ignoring it and they're doing this because liberals cannot win at the ballot box.
They simply cannot convince enough Americans to vote for them.
So you have control of the court system.
You can institutionalize your beliefs if you have your people as judges that go ahead and make laws that are basically liberalism and once they're laws and they're laws you can't do another you can't have your elected officials debate these issues.
And so one of the things that's crucial here in I think pounding the final nail in the coffin of the left as a dominant force in this country is the Supreme Court and there are pin people who have been working in the basements and behind the scenes of conservatism for forty or fifty years and they have they have been through a lot.
They have really worked hard to do what we were told to do go out and convince as many people as possible of our positions.
Explain them, turn them into informed voters and then win at the ballot box.
When you win at the ballot box, you have control of the political process and your president gets to name judges to the courts and we must turn around this this court.
We must change the direction that it's on and so much hope has been invested in this president because he has he said various things during the campaign and assured people he was going to populate the Supreme Court with uh uh with with certain kinds of people um the Democrats are reeling and there's no reason to appear frightened of them or to want to uh avoid a fight with them.
And I think when you're when you're waging a war with people and they're they're clearly the aggressors in the war, any sign of weakness that is shown, if they interpret it as a sign of weakness, it's only going to embolden them.
And so if if a pick is made that is appear non confrontational, no we're not gonna send up somebody who is Readily identifiable as a conservative, but we're not going to have this debate.
Democrats are going to get uplifted and think, aha, we have been able to intimidate the president into not confronting us on this.
And the court is really the last refuge they have.
And so to me, this is uh is is an opportunity that may yet I mean she may be fine.
As Vice President Prendy Cheney told me on the phone uh yesterday, in ten years we'll be uh relatively confident and assured that she was a great pick.
So uh that that we pretty much uh had to go to a well, I got started my second answer, and then uh the the hard break came up, and so she stopped me and started the second answer over again, which uh you will hear uh when we come back from the upcoming break here at the bottom of the hour.
Again, this whole thing is posted video and audio and a transcript at uh at rushlimbaught.com.
Uh and we're also gonna, of course, gonna get to your telephone calls.
We've got people uh guy knew it, lining up already to tell me what they think about the assisted suicide law in Oregon and what the Supreme Court uh decision on that should be.
So a lot yet to unfold.
We will continue in just a moment.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh talent on loan from God.
Uh telephone number 800-282-2882, the second bite from my interview with Greta Van Sustrad last night.
And by the way, I know what some of you were saying.
You just bragging, you just thought it was good, so you're letting No, it's easier to do this uh th than then try to resay it again.
None of this was scripted.
Uh, and some of you may not have heard it.
Uh so it's just sharing it with you.
The next question was uh let me talk about President Bush's choice for a second.
Why why would you think that President Bush would ever select somebody who isn't consistent with his ideology?
Well, that's a good question, and up till now he hasn't.
His choices for the circuit courts or the district courts have been uh have been right on the money, but but we know that because we know who they are.
Uh and and we know that he's been bold because the Democrats filibustered three to four of them and he he fired right back at them and said, Here I'm gonna send these people back up because I believe in them.
This is his first pick of uh significance that we don't know anything about.
Greta, it's it's not that we're not confident in this case that she may work out.
It's just that there are so many other choices that would have been a slam dunk and would no questions at all would have been asked, and those choices would have created a debate.
I I firmly believe that and go back to what I said a moment ago about how we must educate and inform the American people so that they vote uh and make this a truly democratic majority that exists, be it conservative or republic or democrat.
We're looking for the Republican majority.
Here we want it to happen legitimately.
We don't want to have to hijack a court and force our views on people we don't want them.
We want them to understand what we're about.
We want them to understand what the left in this country is all about, and the only way that can happen is if there's a debate.
So in this case, you send up your rock-ribbed conservative, you shock and outrage the left, you send Ted Kennedy off the deep end, you send Patrick Leahy and Chuck Schumer off the deep end, along with Dick Durbin and Diane Feinstein and Patrick Leahy and Harry Reed, and you make these people have a cow and let the American people see who they are and what they oppose and what they're for.
One of the greatest problems and challenges that we have is that the Democrats are continually able to camouflage and mask who they are.
They're able to present themselves as something they're really not.
They don't have the guts to tell us who they really are, because then nobody would really vote for them.
If they ever told us what their real agenda for America is, they wouldn't have a chance.
Now, Greta, uh next question uh was interrupted by the break, as I say, so she came back and she let me start over.
Um question here here's what I don't understand about people who are right now complaining about the choice, Rush.
Number one is that nobody really knows much about her.
Presumably we're gonna learn a lot about her at the hearings.
Number two, President Bush's supporters are strong supporters of him.
They voted because they trusted his judgment.
So I don't I don't quite understand why there's such a challenge from his supporters of his judgment now, because he knows this woman.
He's been working with her closely for ten years, and so I'm not so sure I understand why people are slinging arrows at him who are his supporters.
Yeah, well, I'm the the the court is more than just the place where it tally votes.
The the court is a culture.
The Constitution is a science, Greta.
It takes remarkable people.
It is a miraculous document.
It takes remarkable people to understand that, to interpret it, and to maintain it.
And people that are just gonna be sent up to the court because they're gonna vote the right way.
Yeah, that's fine as far as it goes.
Stephen Breyer, sitting judge, hawking a book on the Stephanoplass show Sunday, got to talking about original intent.
He said, Well, we can't mess with original intent because uh founding fathers had no clue that we would have automobiles and television and the internet.
They didn't dream of these things.
So we can't be bound by original intent.
And I was shocked because Stephen Breyer is a man who believes if we have to go to Mars to find law, we should.
It's it's okay to find foreign law, foreign custom if it'll inform us on American constitutional law.
That's absurd.
It's dangerous.
And what it is is the personal policy preferences of the various justices in the court being substituted for the Constitution.
When they don't think something can be found.
And here's here's here's the key to understanding that.
So you have these nine justices, and let's just uh assume that they're all of the same mindset for a moment, so I don't have to name one and pick one out.
Uh but uh a case comes before them and they think, well, there's no way we can find out in the Constitution what this says.
So we are going to have to do the interpretation here, and they go looking for all kinds of different uh uh places to confirm what they personally believe about it.
When in fact, the Constitution does provide all kinds of mechanisms to accommodate for the fact that the founding fathers couldn't anticipate the future.
They weren't so stupid as to know uh or just to think that America would be the same two hundred years from that date as it uh from their founding uh as uh that it would not change in these two hundred years.
They they they knew that it would.
And they they allowed for the Constitution to be amended.
There is a constitutional process to amend it.
And if something about it needs to be changed, we the people get in on the action.
But judges don't get to amend the Constitution based on their personal policy preferences.
Now Breyer knows the Constitution, and a lot of other, like Anthony Kennedy and and then some of the left they know the Constitution.
They just don't like it.
If it contradicts their personal policy preferences, they don't like it.
And so they have the power, they've appropriated the power to go ahead and say, well, we can't look at that.
I don't think the founders uh they couldn't have possibly known what we're having to deal with here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
What are they saying about it in France?
Or what are they saying about it in South Africa?
Or what do I think about it?
And where can I find somewhere in the world that they agree with me, and then use that as my basis for my ruling?
That's not.
Those are the wrong people for the court.
People are going to look at the Constitution and say, eh, I don't like that.
That's you that's why I maintain you need remarkable people who have a uh uh a deep respect, almost a love for the Constitution, and a a historical understanding of its assemblage.
Because it's what's it's what's held the country together.
It's what defines us as uh as a country.
It's it's one of the reasons that we have held together uh longer than any other superpower in the history of the world.
Well, you might say we got a long way to go to match ancient Rome, but uh uh well they were around they were in quite a few, you know, hundreds of years.
Uh but but nevertheless, uh the there are they're just a bunch of dangerous signs out there, so you need people who who understand the the science and the culture of this, I think.
And so uh when there are such people out there, uh it's just it's just uh sad that they're not picked and chosen.
I don't want to beat a dead horse over this, but I I I wanted you to hear the uh the uh the interview last night.
Um let's let me go ahead and play this last one.
She asked me this is this is uh predictable.
She asked me who I thought the best nominee for the party in 2008 would be.
Oh, I have no clue right now.
I uh uh that's I'm not even thinking about about two thousand and eight, but I'll tell you, this is the kind of thing that could have boosted chances of 2006.
Uh this is the kind of thing that uh if it lasts and the bases end up ends up dispirited and disappointed, uh you know, there's a reason the Democrats are smiling about this, Greta, and it's because they're at war and they're trying to get the control of the country back, and they think that this is a step back, a setback for the uh for the Republicans, but it's way too early to start handicapping 08.
I mean, I couldn't even tell you that Hillary's gonna survive the process given the way the Democratic Party's going.
She may be too too pro-war for them.
I mean, that that that's that's curious.
I just know this about Harriet Meyer.
She's eminently more qualified as a lawyer than Hillary ever was, so I don't want people thinking I'm down on her.
Okay, so she had to go to a heartbreak.
She was not interrupting me there because she didn't like what I said.
Now, what one more thing here, because I uh have uh received some emails from some of you great members of my audience.
And I we and you you were if you were here yesterday, you heard some of the phone calls from people, you know, Rush.
Rush, uh you're usually the one that that's all optimistic.
You're usually the one that that's uh telling us don't get all down in the dumps and don't anticipate the worst and don't and and why we it's not like you to go pessimistic on this.
I was thinking about this last night after after this interview, because always things in an interview you wish you'd have said when it's over.
And the the subject of optimism, pessimism didn't really come up specifically.
But I I I think we're looking at this pessimism thing turned in the wrong direction.
If you listen to what I'm saying, it's not inconsistent with anything else I've said.
I'm saying that we can accomplish things as a majority.
I'm saying we can triumph over Democrats.
I am saying we can nail their coffin shut.
I am uh uh my optimism is robust and it's visible and it's all over the place.
And it th I I th those those who are saying we can't that that okay, Rush, we d we have to settle for whatever the weakest link of five senators say.
Uh any of anybody like in in other words, well, hey, we got it get somebody in there we can't count on Olympia Snow and Link Chafey and Susan Collins.
All right, because we're settling.
Let me ask you a question.
I'm gonna I'm gonna ask you a point blank, blunt question.
Every one of you who are married or are in a relationship, or even those of you you don't want to think of your marriage or your relationship with anybody, think about your job.
How many of you regret the decision that you made?
Because you settled, thought it was the best you could do at the time, didn't really have all that much confidence, faith in yourself.
So how many of you are in circumstances that you really don't like, that you resent or lament because you settled.
No, I'm not I'm just I'm trying every which way I can here to make a point.
What are you doing in there, sturdily?
What's what's what's the problem?
Is this too personal?
That's some sometimes this is the only way to to make to make to drive home a point.
Well, the point we all have felt that have we not.
The the the people that have not been resentful or disappointed or sad at some point over decisions they made, those are very few people that have never experienced it.
When you settle, you sell yourself short.
Settling is what pessimists do.
Settling is what people would know confidence do.
So don't tell me that I've lost my optimism.
I'm the can-do guy on this, and I'm the one that's maintaining some high standards, knowing full well they can be achieved.
So there, back after this.
Don't go away.
And we are back.
L. Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned, Maha Rushy, and to the phones.
We'll start in Charleston, South Carolina.
This is Ben, who uh told the call screener he is a liberal.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Indeed.
Uh it's good to good to talk to you at least.
I just wanted to say that uh the same people uh uh that that say that we can look to the Constitution and things like this, this 300-year-old document are the same uh and answer all modern day questions you could possibly have as far as this country is concerned, are the same kinds of people who say that you can look to the Bible to answer any possible modern day question that you could possibly have.
You can just go look at the gospels or anything that Jesus said and all that's right there for you.
You know what I mean?
I actually I just think that it's uh it's a naive way to look.
I'm sure you d I'm I'm sure you do.
Uh but but the first place, you're you're you're making comparisons of apples and oranges.
The Bible is not the Constitution, and the Constitution is not the Bible.
A lot of the things were written in the Bible that we take and put right in our Constitution, though.
Uh well, thank you for saying that.
Uh Thank you for making the f making the point that the Founding Fathers were deeply spiritual people and religious and thought that there were some timeless principles that would serve this country well.
You now, I don't know, you don't even have to go to Jesus, Ben.
Uh the Ten Commandments are pretty comprehensive.
Uh I know the Libs don't like the Ten Commandments because they're judgmental, and they basically tell people what they can't do, uh, and the left doesn't want anybody telling them what they can't do.
Uh but you know i it you probably think that that the that the since you oppose the Bible that you're not a religious person, but I would submit to you that you are, and you may not even know it.
You just have a different a different deity or God or a different set of principles.
Even atheists are religious people if they don't know it.
That's what's the funniest thing about them uh to me.
But to draw a comparison between the Bible and and the and the Constitution is uh is is fallacy because the Constitution is the architecture of the country.
And you most certainly can find answers to modern day questions in it.
Uh and in fact, practically every Supreme Court ruling today uh uh claims to do just that.
The recent Kilo ruling.
They claimed that they found a method or the explanation for their ruling in the Constitution.
They interpret it incorrectly, but they still that they said that was their source.
Uh you should always look to the Constitution.
You should always look to the original intent.
Uh because that's the architecture of the country.
This is this is the the way we're put together.
And I know a lot of people on the left don't like the architecture of the country, uh think that it's inherently unfair and so forth and so on.
But I I don't think you have a real world view about this.
Uh I I think that you you uh you you just you have some pent-up resentments out there that that are causing you to not like what's in the Constitution, so you don't want it to be part of the fabric.
I don't I wouldn't say that that's necessarily the case.
I mean a lot of other countries that have bar have borrowed a lot of things from our Constitution.
I think that some of the things in our Constitution are amazing.
But we shouldn't just necessarily dismiss wholesale all of them.
All uh or dismiss wholesale everything that any other country could come up with.
I mean, eve even though that a lot of the a lot of other constitutions from newer countries uh have taken things straight out of our Constitution because they think they're great and they speak to everyone.
Uh I I keep hearing you make my point out there.
Uh if you actually meant to say what you just say, other countries borrow from our Constitution.
Um don't you I think you're misunderstanding something.
I'm not opposed to, you know, looking at how foreigners do things and making a judgment of whether we like that or not.
In fact, I got Ben, I want you to listen.
Please keep your radio on for the opening monologue in the next segment.
I I've got two fascinating stories about what's going on in Denmark and the Netherlands.
Uh and it it's relevant to what you're talking about.
Now, sure, we can look to these countries for guidance on how we want to live our lives, but when it comes to the law, the Constitution is the source of law in this country, constitutional law.
Supreme court cases, constitutional law.
There is no reason or excuse to look anywhere else if you don't like what this constitution says, because that's not the role of the judges.
Uh and yet it is one that they have appropriated for themselves.
But don't misunderstand.
Nobody's nobody's saying here that uh, hey, the French have a good idea not using underarmed deodorant and toothpaste.
We might want to incorporate it.
Free to try.
You know, go ahead.
You can appropriate if you want to drive around in a little little golf cart or a little little bicycle with uh uh you know a bubble on it and call it your car.
Go right ahead.
Nobody's gonna stop you.
Uh but but don't tell me that because the French do it, we have to do it.
You know, it's individual choice.
When you're talking about the law, though, uh especially when you're going to appropriate law from a country that does not have a constitution.
That's nothing more than judges uh not liking what they see in the Constitution because they disagree with it and wanting to make law out of their personal policy preferences, and that's not their role.
It's not hard to understand.
The problem you have with it is is that when they do that and it's an issue you agree with, you think it's fine.
That's good because you're being selfish, but you're not thinking about the effect on the country and the long term and the future.
And that's why these decisions are important, and that's why the people that make them need to be remarkable.
Back in just a second.
So much to do on this program today.
We're gonna have to speak fast.
Uh the the left is now, they don't like this business of uh of uh Harriet Myers being an evangelical.
Now she's a religious kook.
Uh the left is uh is ginning up for this, uh, and I knew this was coming.
We'll talk about that.
We got but I want you to listen the monologue segment next off of these two stories from uh Denmark and the Netherlands.
▲
Export Selection