All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
October 5, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We're back.
I told you it wasn't going to be long, folks.
Time flies on this program when you're having fun.
And of course, this is the fastest three hours in media, so if it's as fast as three hours, it's always going to be the fastest five or six minutes.
We're back.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man, well known now, uh Doctor of democracy, truth detector, commentator, play by play of the news, all combined, uh one harmless, lovable, really, really lovable uh little fuzzball.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at eIBNet.com.
We've got this amazing audio coming up from the uh first grand jury uh that Ronnie Erling paneled that indicted uh Tom DeLay in just a second.
I want to take a stab one more time here at this uh philosophy that I have of the court because a lot of people continue to ask me, both in the email, we've had some phone calls.
What do you want this fight for?
Who needs a fight?
I mean, that's not gonna accomplish anything.
What do you want to fight for?
And I, by the way, I'm I'm grateful for all these questions because it it gives me an opportunity to explain it again, and I will I will take as as long as it is I need to um try to make myself clear.
It's one of the beauties of a radio talk show.
You have three hours to get it done.
You don't have to worry about getting it done in 22 minutes on television.
But look, let's go back to this guy, the first call of the day, uh liberal from where was he from?
Uh he was from uh yeah, Ben in Charleston, South Carolina.
He was a nice guy, but he he said that looking to the Constitution for modern application of law is as silly as looking at the Bible.
Now, the Bible's not the Constitution, but but we'll ignore that for just a second.
Because his point is, and it's it's a lot of what Justice Breyer probably believes the same thing.
Constitution is originally written, can't possibly answer all of our modern issues and problems.
And so that's what gives them the excuse to start searching for validation in foreign law or just to substitute their own personal policy preferences in their decisions and call that law.
And that's horrible, and that is tragic and it is dangerous.
Because the Constitution's purpose, and this is why I keep saying that we need remarkable educated people that understand the culture of this court and where it is and how it's gotten here, if we're seriously going to change it, and just tallying votes,
while great if they're the right votes, is not the point, because if we don't do something about this notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on political and social matters in this country, we are going to be up a creek without a paddle.
That's not the purpose of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is not to decide all of these political issues, and yet that's what it's evolved to, and people on both sides of the aisle eagerly await Supreme Court decisions, because that's the final word.
That's where real victory or shattering defeat takes place, and that's an abomination of the Constitution and of the court.
The purpose of the Constitution is not to answer all of our modern issues and problems.
It establishes certain principles and institutions through which society can and does make changes.
You can amend the Constitution.
You can elect people to Congress to pass laws that affect modern life.
And the states, they're supposed to have a major role in governance too.
Uh they're they're supposed to have a great latitude to do the same thing.
Here's where we differ.
With the with the activists, the judicial activists.
We don't believe that nine lawyers on the Supreme Court have the authority to make changes for all of us.
Not in political matters and not in social matters.
Their function is to interpret the Constitution and the law, not make policy.
They're not elected.
They're appointed for life.
They're not accountable.
The Constitution says we the people, not we the judges.
The judges have appropriated, we the people, and say it's it's up to them.
Nine lawyers.
Nine lawyers in robes.
So the the the answer to the question, well, where does the debate come in?
Well, John Roberts, what one of the things that was great about his confirmation hearing, and I played this bite earlier this week, and pardon me clearing my throat.
I've got a some phlegm here today, folks.
Don't understand why, it's no big deal.
In forty-four seconds, in an answer to Dick Turbin, John Roberts nuked Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Laheath, all of the left's version of the purpose of the Constitution.
He nuked it in 44 seconds.
That's why you have the debate.
It's not just about you don't want to just elect a president, do you?
You have campaigns.
That's that's where the ideological case is made.
That's where it's explained to the American people who you are, what you believe in, what you stand for, what you hope to achieve, what your agenda is.
Well, the court is out of control.
It is doing things it was never intended to do.
So we need nominees that are going to go up there and they're going to say that to these people.
So the American people can hear it.
Let the Democrats go nuts.
We know that the Supreme Court's the last refuge for the left.
That's the only place liberalism can become enshrined in our culture because they can't win at the ballot box.
Well, if it can't win at the ballot box, it ought not be enshrined in a culture.
But it's being done so by virtue of activist judges.
So you have a confirmation hearing and you get a judge like Roberts who went up there and said, look at Senator Leahy.
The little guy's not always going to win with me.
If the Constitution says a big guy wins, the big guy wins.
Constitution's what matters.
Said that to Senator Durbin, not Leahy, but and Durbin had no retort to it.
That Robert's 44-second answer was like showing Dracula the cross.
And those are the things that advance the movement, not just establish votes and so forth.
If we're gonna if we're gonna look at the court as if if if our view of the court is, as conservatives, okay, the court is the final repository for decisions on political and social matters.
We're just gonna make sure that we have the votes on that court so that we win.
That's not a win.
That still isn't changing the culture of the court.
That's not changing its its role and structure.
What we need are five justices eventually who are gonna say, this is none of our business.
We're not taking this case.
This is for the states to decide.
This is for the Congress to decide.
We're not taking this case.
And not only we're not taking a case, we're not gonna go elsewhere outside the boundaries of this country, the borders of this country to find an answer to it.
That's not the purpose of this court.
That's the objective.
That's where hopefully are heading.
Now, some people may be happy.
If we get a 5-4 majority, 5-4 conservative, then we'll have all these answers.
And yeah, we'll re we'll we'll we'll put a stop to liberalism, but we're not going to change the culture of the court.
Which means that eventually the Libs will get their nominees on and it's going to swing back and forth.
There's an opportunity here to do much more, and that's all I've been trying to say.
And this is not a brief against Harriet Myers and their qualifications, I just don't know what they are.
But I I and I have no idea if she feels this way about it.
And if she does, if she would say so.
All right.
Uh quick timeout, a little early here.
We come back.
Uh some of the latest updates on the Tom DeLay case.
Uh Ronnie Earle has admitted that he had another grand jury that could not come up with an indictment.
Mort Kondracki had a great line last night, I think, on uh on Brit Hume.
The grand jury that that that Ronnie Earl went to to get the money laundering indictment, the second indictment, had not even been seen.
It was their first day, hadn't been seated for five hours.
They couldn't possibly have been presented all the evidence in this case, and yet they indicted delay.
And Kondraki said, well, you know, it's I guess it proves that this old cliche that uh a grand jury, a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich in this case, they indicted this as fast food.
This is not just a ham sandwich, this is fast food indictment, which I thought was a pretty good line, but we've got some incredible audio from the jury foreman of the first grand jury.
That indicted delay that turned out to be a faulty indictment.
The dates weren't even applicable and there was no law broken, blah, blah, blah.
All coming up right after this.
All right, this prosecutor down in Travis County, Texas.
Remember, all roads lead to Travis County.
Ronnie Earle says that new evidence obtained during the weekend prompted the money laundering charges that were brought against Tom DeLay this week.
Ronnie Earl said the Grand jury that indicted Delay last week on the last day of its term declined to indict on charges other than conspiracy to violate the election code.
So he went through a number of grand juries before this one.
This one said, no, we're not going to give you money laundering, only this only uh uh conspiracy, which is you know, sweep the rug up and see if he got anything in the trash kind of indictment.
And then all of a sudden, new evidence popped up over the uh weekend.
He said in the statement additional information that he would not detail came to him during the weekend, leading him to present the money laundering charges to a new grand jury on Monday.
Delay's lawyer, Dick DeGueran of Houston dismissed the statement as spin.
So this is crazy.
I doubt he got any evidence of any kind other than we're gonna bring this motion to dismiss.
And that's why he did this.
So today on our Austin, Texas affiliate, Travis County, Texas, uh, KLBJ, 590 A.M., the host Mark Caesar, is interviewing William Gibson, who was the jury foreman on the first delay indictment case, and we now know this this uh this this jury would not indict for money laundering anything other than conspiracy.
Now that the funny thing about this interview is that the host, Mark Caesar, pretty much thinks it's over.
He's uh he's ready to close out the interview.
And then Gibson decides to launch in and say something else.
Gibson apparently finished with the interview, but then he says, Wait, wait, those ads.
The Texas Association of Businesses, remember those ads, and then Gibson says this.
I just looked at this ad before I wrote the grand jury.
They were telling people how to vote.
This was before I ever got on the grand jury.
It bid uh hey citizen this town, I left at those things that felt that hey, that those were telling people how to vote.
Now, which ads are these, Mr. Gibson?
Those was what just referred to in a paper from the TAB that were you'll put in your local paper.
All right.
Telling people how to vote.
Uh well, they said not tell them how to be vote, but uh the so-called freedom of speech, they were put something of paper for people to look at at least to make their decision.
Okay.
But looking at those ads, people with average intelligence could tell what they were there for.
All right.
Texas Association of Business Ads.
And then Gibson continued.
Oh, this came about way before I was on the grand jury.
These bailers were in your paper, it was in the Austin paper, everybody has a paper.
That was flooded parking about here.
That those were way before everyone on the grand jury.
My decision was based upon those, not based upon what happened in the grand jury room.
Oh, okay.
So that your mind was made up uh uh after you learned about the ads.
Right, those ads way back uh telling people how the so-called freedom of space deal.
When I looked at it and say they've just been telling people don't vote for that person, don't vote for that person.
So they they didn't have to persuade you and the uh grand jury with any evidence.
You already that that was already public and knowledge there.
And way back based by its base note that they were stated their positions that I could uh state my position by hey, I don't like that.
Here's for free speech for jury foreman, folks.
Some of it was hard to understand.
Well, let me tell you the only thing you needed to understand in this was right, those ads way back then telling people how their their their uh freedom of speech uh those ads way before I ever went in the grand jury.
My decision was based on those ads, not based upon what might have happened in the grand jury room.
Did you hear him say that?
Well, that's all you need to say.
The foreman of the Ronnie Earl grand jury admits in a radio interview today that none of the evidence that Ronnie Earl presented had anything to do with his decision to agree to a conspiracy indictment against Tom Delay.
It was all about these television ads that he thinks are illegal because they suggested voting for somebody, these Texas Association of Business Ads.
Now, what does this mean?
It means that the basis for the charges, folks, is in doubt.
The juror did not make a decision based on the evidence.
Look at how sleazy all of this is.
The original indictment based on a statute that wasn't even in existence.
The facts set forth in that indictment don't even allege that delay violated the non-existent statute.
Now you've got a grand jury foreman saying it nothing that went on in the grand jury room, helped make up his mind anyway, because He walked into the room with his mind already made up.
So Earl impanels a jury at noon on Monday, which brings new charges five hours later.
How could that jury have possibly taken the time to review any evidence in that period of time?
And now one of the original grand jurors says that none of the evidence mattered anyway.
Uh that's r uh I I look at I have a transcript so understood what the man said.
He was talking about these Texas Association for Business Ads, and they were telling people how to vote, and he thought that was not right, and he somehow linked delay to those ads.
He resented TV ads that were telling people to go vote for somebody.
Now, I uh my instinctive reaction is to this.
When's the last time I saw an ad that didn't tell me that?
But but I'm I'm getting confused with the timeline here on campaign finance reform and when you couldn't do what and say what, but freedom of speech my rear end.
There isn't any freedom of speech.
If you can't run an ad that says that.
The bottom line, thank you, McCain Feingold.
But I mean, Hell's Bell's here, folks.
This is this is this is a tantamount admission that this grand jury was nothing more than a rubber stamp and had the the evidence that went on in there that was presented in there, who knows what evidence it was.
Nobody can tell us except well it's secret, we can't know.
All we know is that the foreman of the grand jury wanted to let everybody know on the radio today down in Austin, Texas, that he didn't need any evidence.
His mind was made up before he even became a member of the grand jury.
Because those TV ads and those newspaper ads.
And remember, this is the first indictment which was baseless, and Ronnie Earl found out it was baseless, and he had to go get something else at noon on Monday, because he indicted delay on a statute that didn't even exist.
The question still remains what do you do about out-of-control prosecutors like this?
To whom are they accountable?
They're accountable to the Bar Association.
And you know, that can take years.
And then even if you if you if you if you want to go that route, the only hope you've got is some judge slaps them down somewhere along the way.
But that's that's unlikely.
Law enforcement doesn't work that way.
The presumption of uh of uh truth, innocence, and justice in the American way is always with the prosecutor.
You know, our bias in this country, the accused are always guilty.
Why and this is not a political bias, I mean all of us.
We hear that somebody's charged with a crime, we automatically assume they're guilty.
Why would they go to the trouble of making charges if they weren't guilty?
I don't know.
It's just it's a uh when somebody's acquitted, we're always shocked and surprised.
Well, how can that be?
I thought they had them dead to rights.
It just these biases are very powerful.
Here's uh Marty in Springfield, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Yeah, Rush, thanks.
Ditto's from our nation's capital here.
Hey, there's one aspect of this debate over the Supreme Court nomination that I don't think anyone's brought up yet, although someone as brilliant as you may have.
So if you've already mentioned this, I apologize.
What what kind of message is Bush sent to federal judges at the circuit and district level?
I mean, if they see the president doesn't have the guts to nominate a justice with a track record of judicial restraint, it's gonna have a chilling effect on them when they realize their career is shot if they establish themselves as solid conservatives.
That is an excellent point.
Uh it has, I I don't I don't remember if I've mentioned it or not, but I have heard it.
And it and and because the bottom line is what you're really orienting uh people that want the job are to are to go stealth.
Yeah.
I mean, nobody's don't leave a paper trail.
Don't don't make yourself a target, and that's the way the president's gonna choose you.
That that's another thing.
It it it it all it all fits into the fact that there are people out there who have taken the hits and they have stood fast and they are they're true believers and they and they have uh have gone on record and they haven't they haven't been forced off the dime on their on their uh positions by the vicious attacks against them that the leftist activists had made, all these appellate judges and circuit judges, and uh basically they're I don't want to use I guess they're not being rewarded for this.
They're uh they're they're not to say they're being punished, but they're being passed over for people that are stealth and not targets.
And it does send uh uh you know, not a helpful message.
Exactly.
I I know you've mentioned in the past that the left is pushing for the uh they were always pushing for outsiders in the Roberts uh nomination because they knew that we've made a lot of progress in getting the right people on the lower courts, but it's not gonna do any good if you scare them away.
Now that is a that that is something that I haven't heard said.
Uh it might do a lot to explain.
And By the way, Dingy Harry has explained why he likes Harriet Myers, and his answer basically is well, she's not an elitist and I hate elitists, and she's a lawyer like I am, and she built herself up with a bootstrap just like I did, you know, yada yada yada.
You have an excellent point.
Bush has done a great job of stocking the bench, if you will, uh, for Supreme Court nominations, and the left doesn't want a Janice Rogers Brown or a Bill Pryor or a Michael Ludig.
They don't want these people.
They don't want an Edith Clement or a uh uh Priscilla Owen.
They don't, they don't want them, and this is one way.
Go outside, Mr. Prince.
It's time we had people who aren't judges.
Yeah, right, right.
Thanks much, Marty.
We will be right back.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Rush Limbaugh Oh, I'm bad.
This way.
And they hate that.
Greetings, uh, welcome back.
Uh a couple stories here for about uh about Oregon and a couple animal stories here for you, too, folks.
One of them unbelievable.
Uh newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts today sharply questioned a lawyer arguing for preservation of Oregon's physician assisted suicide law, noting the federal government's tough regulation of addictive drugs.
The and we were talking about this earlier with a with an anesthesiologist or anesthetist.
You know, the the uh the the FDAF yeah, well, yeah, the FD no DEA is really, really on doctors' cases.
The government's telling doctors what they can and can't prescribe now when it comes to pain medicine, even for terminally ill people.
And if they don't get enough, they're in agony.
And you say, well, if they're terminal, what difference does it make?
Uh and so this is one of the I bring this up because this is one of the arguments that the uh deaf activists in Oregon are using.
Well, hey, we'd be happy to keep them alive uh, you know, in a blissful coma uh with starvation, which we all know now is a wonderful uh euphoric thing.
Uh and so we can't prescribe him enough medicine here because the federal government's breathing down the next of the doctors.
But the 50-year-old Chief Justice John Roberts, hearing his first major oral argument uh in his role, seems skeptical of the Oregon law.
And get this, the outcome of the case was as unclear after the argument as before.
Well, thank you, Gina Holland of AP.
That is a brilliant, brilliant addition to the story.
We had no more idea after oral arguments than before how they were going to decide.
Brilliant.
We never do.
Nobody ever knows for sure what the court's gonna do after oral arguments.
What?
Uh what does she think?
The blonde what?
Oh, come on.
You're you telling me that a journalist on television is already predicting a 5-4 decision in this in which direction?
5-4 decision for what?
No.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, okay, okay.
So she doesn't know how it's just gonna be five to four.
It's either gonna be five to four for Oregon and a deaf activist or five four against them.
She's just predicting 5'4, but not how the five is.
Okay, but it's getting sillier and sillier.
We're not supposed to know Gina Holland.
We're not supposed to know after oral arguments.
They haven't even voted yet.
The purpose of oral arguments is not so the press can find out what the court's gonna do.
Folks, this is this is asinine.
We got judges who don't know what their job is up there.
We got press people covering the court, doesn't know how it works.
When it's right in front of them, another bit of news from Oregon.
A Portland woman's flight home from uh Reno was stopped short.
Well, she wasn't flying over Reno, she was stopped short in Reno.
All because the message on the t-shirt she was wearing was offensive.
Lori Heasley claims it's a freedom of speech privilege, but airline officials say the message brings safety concerns.
Uh Lori Heasley said they're bigger problems in the country.
I can't believe people can be so petty.
She boarded her flight Tuesday morning in LA, headed for Portland with a stop over in Reno.
When Southwest Airlines employees asked her to cover her shirt, her stopover became a stop off of her flight.
I was told that basically I had to cover my shirt, or I was told if I cover the shirt, I can basically stay on the plane.
So she covered the shirt, but during a nap, while passengers were boarding in Reno, the cover came off of the shirt.
I'd like to know how that happened.
And Southwest employees insisted change the shirt or change flights.
I didn't feel that I should have to change my shirt because we live in the U.S. and it's freedom of speech.
And it was based on the You remember the movie Meet the Falkers.
She took the O out and put a U in with pictures of Bush and members of his administration on the shirt.
Pictures of the Bush administration, a phrase based on the movie, meet the fuckers, but with one crucial vowel changed.
The Southwest says, you can't infuriate people.
Cover the shirt.
Freedom of speech?
Yeah, like you can you can go running down the aisle of the airplane shouting whatever you want.
But what?
Well, I just it's it's the word.
It's not it's not that it has anything to do with Bush.
It's not the word.
Uh wait a second.
It's not political speech is permissible, but obscenity is not, and profanity is not.
You can't not not in not in uh not when people can't get away from it.
This isn't you know, this airplane was not on HBO.
Southwest Airlines is Walmart.
You know, and you couldn't post, you couldn't put these t-shirts on sale in Walmart.
You know, Walmart wouldn't do it.
I can understand Southwest not want it.
It's their it's their business.
That wouldn't be catering to these kind of wackos.
So forth.
Free speech, all free speech is the government can't tell you what you can't say.
But a business can, as an employee or whatever.
Don't ever make that mistake of thinking that free speech, nobody can tell you what you can't say.
Get this from Miami.
Scientists in Florida are puzzling over a Burmese python.
That's a snake, for those of you in Rio Linda.
This Burmese python python scarfed down a six-foot alligator.
This snake ate a six-foot alligator.
A problem, however, popped up.
The snake's stomach ruptured.
Scientists in Florida found the carcasses of the snake and the alligator in part of Florida's Everglades National Park.
Photos show the gator's hind legs and tail sticking out of the snake's ruptured stomach.
I got a small picture of it here in black eyes.
You can see it.
The Miami Herald reported the scientists can't figure out how the snake got the hurricane got the the uh the the crocodile, the the alligator, uh down to the point that it can start eating it.
The snake's head is also missing.
Experts say the clash is interesting, but it also shows the exotic snakes are competing with gators to top the food chain in the Everglades.
Yeah, big competition out there.
The gators versus the snakes for top of the food chain.
Park biologist Skip Snow said he's documented 156 Python captures in the last two years.
It also goes to show you that there isn't always room for dessert.
Here is uh Frank in Uba City, California.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, sir.
Ditto's thank you, sir.
Um I was uh watching Good Morning America this morning, and there was an individual there with Diane Sawyer who was explaining that there's quite a bit of criteria that has to be met before you can get this uh right to die prescription from a doctor, and that is that you have to make two oral um requests of your doctor, one written.
You have to have it corroborated by two other doctors that you are going to die within six months.
Yes.
And that also you have to um have two doctors uh state that you are competent to make that request.
And um I was just wondering if if that's if that's the kind of law that they've written, then what's the controversy about?
It seems like it's very very well regulated.
It's very specific to certain individuals, and it can't be expanded to any other to any other.
Well, wait a minute.
Certainly, once we get comfortable with that, we'll expand it.
That's the way these things work.
It's the way we are as a society.
It's called defining deviancy down.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you know, we're gonna fight certain kind of crimes.
Like we're gonna we're gonna fight uh illegal immigration.
Until one day we figure we can't deal with it, so we're just gonna say, forget it.
Nobody does anything about it, keeps happening, but we've defined deviancy down.
In this case, once we become comfortable with, and by the way, I don't think it'd be too tough for somebody who wants to die to go get two doctors to sign off on it.
And by the way, probably how how many doctors, how many people do you know who have been told you got three months, six months who are alive a year or two later?
See, there's okay.
This is not an exact science.
You're putting a lot of power, even though it may not sound like it, in the hands of the doctors.
So you as a patient go in, yeah, Doc, oh man, I'm in bad shape.
I want that, I want that medicine, man.
I want to wipe myself up.
Okay, pal, I uh see your pain, and uh uh I'll look at yeah, you got six months.
Another doctor does the same thing.
Doctors are still making the decision.
Yep, six months, six months, we concur.
Uh patient is of sound mental state, uh, and bamboo.
Uh the excitement over this, something just it just kind of gnaws at me.
This this we have death activists out there.
You know, I there's a lot of things I understand in life, but I don't understand death activists.
I I well, in a political sense I do, but just in a strictly human sense, uh I don't.
I folks, let me tell I love the Hunter Thompson method.
You go into your kitchen, you grab a shotgun, you aim in the shotgun you can't miss, you blow yourself up in the kitchen sink so you don't create a mess, then Johnny Depp comes out to your house and blows your ashes into outer space via a cannon.
Back in a moment.
Okay, a couple other things I want to get to.
Walter Cronkite, you may have heard about this Friday night.
Larry King Lives said Americans are too dumb to vote for the right candidates.
Cronkite said, we're an ignorant nation right now.
We're not really capable.
I don't think the majority of our people of making the decisions that have to be made at election time, particularly in the selection of their legislatures and their Congress and the presidency, of course.
What else is there than a dog catcher?
Cronkite then added, I don't think we're bright enough to do the job that we preserve our democracy, our republic.
I think we're in serious danger.
This is so typically perfect.
Here's an elitist who thinks you people are a bunch of bumbling fools.
And to think this guy ever was once the most trusted man in America.
There's your left for you, folks.
That's that's who they are.
By the way, Howard Dean says that the Democrats are gonna unveil their own version of a contract with America for 2006.
Uh and and uh the number one issue is uh is gonna be universal health care.
Fine.
They did it already and they and they and they got taken to the tank on it.
So good, let them try it again.
All we got's an old playbook.
Universal health care, universal health insurance, universal medical medical.
First five will be oriented about universal health care.
The last five will be we're gonna get out of war, uh, out of Iraq, and we're gonna disband the military except for meals on wheels.
And uh what else did he say?
It's uh uh uh portability, portability of uh insurance.
That was another thing is that that's gonna be on there.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, this program continues to prosper.
Uh we continue to add new sponsors.
Uh I can announce to you faithfully and confidently that this year we will we will again, and it has never been otherwise, beat our annual projections.
And yet there is sad news.
U.S. News and World Report undergoing yet another round of layoffs has dropped one of its most prominent writers, Chief Political Correspondent Roger Simon.
The magazine has given pink slips to at least ten journalists, including Congressional Correspondent Terrence Samuel and two staffers on maternity leave.
They actually fired pregnant women.
Uh the remaining editorial staff of about 160, far smaller than those of Time and Newsweek.
So um pink slips, getting rid of big time journalists, and they'll probably say, eh, this is not gonna affect our journalism.
We're not getting rid of any essential personnel.
In fact, school bus Nagan, you know, they had to lay off 3,000 people in uh in New Orleans because he can't find he can't find a lending institution to guarantee their payroll.
And I that I'm sure that's part of the problem, but there may not be 3,000 people who want to go to work.
There may not be 3,000 people that have moved back, uh, is my point.
But do you know what he said?
He said, Well, you know, these 3,000, it's not going to affect basic city services.
They were in non-essential administrative positions.
If they were non-essential, why were they there in the first place?
Hello, bureaucracy.
Hello, government unions.
How can this be?
Recent polling shows widespread support for a new Iraqi constitution to be voted on October 15th, even in the strongholds of Sunni Arab groups that are that are fighting to derail it.
Seventy-nine 3,625 Iraqis polled, 79% in favor of the draft constitution, and 8% opposed.
The remainder didn't respond.
How can this be?
The news we get out of Iraq on television.
Well, I'm I'm surprised Iraq's still there.
It's been falling apart.
The Iraqis are also telling us Saudi, stay the hell out of our country, stay the hell out of our business.
We're not going to have some camel riding Bedouin telling us what to do.
That's what they said.
That's what some Iraqi minister said about the Saudis.
This is a major success story.
Yet we get reporting out of Iraq just like we got out of uh out of uh New Orleans.
And again, I have to remind you.
Washington Post, 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 slowed the response to the disaster and tarnished the image of many of its victims.
This ain't giant see I told you so.
I told you that the FEMA guy admitted it.
We're not armed, we don't go in there.
If there's anarchy rapes and murders taking place, that's not what we're about.
We don't go in there.
We had people ready to get them out of the dome in the convention center.
Might we say the media kills?
Free speech.
Uh tell me I can't say it.
Jeb Bush needs kudos.
Jeb Bush said yesterday he now supports federal legislation allowing drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, including areas where he aggressively fought energy exploration just four years ago.
Congratulations, Governor Jeb Bush.
And this takes the cake.
President Bush's decision to make White House counsel Harriet Myers, his second Supreme Court nominee, has upset Hispanic groups that had hoped to see the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
Anne Marie Tallman, the executive director of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said President Bush has again ignored highly qualified Latino judges, attorneys, and law professors who could serve the nation ably on the U.S. Supreme Court.
For crying out loud, for this is absurd.
If if Bill Clinton was the first black president, then Bush is the first Hispanic president.
Gonzalez, the first Hispanic attorney general.
He's all but ignored illegal immigration.
Of course, they never made these upset statements about Clinton when Clinton and first black president never appointed powerful blacks to serious positions.
Well, couldn't get a strata past the Democrats, exactly right.
Miguel Estrada, I know.
This is it, but it still takes the cake.
I mean, of all the things to get up there be this identity politics.
The the the idea that you're politics, the idea that your worth is a city, the idea that anything about you comes from your skin color.
Uh just silly.
And it just infuriates me.
And I have to take a quick time out.
Back here in just a second.
Well, this golf prodigy, uh, Michelle Wee, 15 years old Hawaii, turned pro today.
She will immediately in endorsements uh get a 25 to 30 million dollars without ever having entered a tournament.
Cool.
If you can do it.
Folks, get this.
This is Federal Way, Washington.
Two high school boys swallowed a goldfish at a screw all assembly.
They were punished with a stern talking to.
Animal rights activists say it's not enough.
After learning about the stunt last month, PETA demanded a district wide policy prohibiting the use of animals in school functions.
They said killing fish in the name of school spirit is unacceptable.
Goldfish.
These two kids, one of them had a bet if I win the student council presidency, I'll eat six goldfish.
He did.
And the school said, We're not going to tolerate things like this.
And no, but these kids made a bad decision.
We use it as a teaching moment.
Crying out, it's goldfish.
I'll tell you what, when you see the picture of this snake with the alligator sticking out of his gut, the only conclusion you can come to, folks, is we have to wipe out both species.
This is intolerable.
We'll see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection