All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 21, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
October 21, 2005, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back.
We are on a roll today, folks.
We are smoking.
We are sizzling.
It's the EIP network.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's play-by-play man of the news, firmly ensconced in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
And we'll be squeezing as many of your phone calls in as possible in the final hour today, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, since we have lots to do here, folks, still lots of stuff in the stacks of stuff.
We're not through here with Sergeant Owens.
Now, he used to be Major Owens.
He's a congressman from New York.
I promoted him once to General Owens when he did something well, but I've demoted him back down to Sergeant Owens today, son.
So why did you just make him private Owens?
That's because we need to allow even further room for Sergeant Owens to plummet.
If we make him Sergeant Owens, there's not much, he doesn't have much breathing room down there at the bottom of the ladder, as it were.
Now, this is all about New Orleans.
See, this is just classic.
The Democrats are looking at New Orleans and they don't see individual suffering.
They see mobs of Democrats no longer congregated and they can put on buses to get to the polls.
They didn't use those buses to get them out of town to save their lives, did they?
No, sir, Rebob.
Comes time to vote.
They're out there on buses.
Get them to the polls.
Now Major Owens is all upset that they have been removed.
Negroes and black people have been removed from New Orleans by evil forces trying to bust up the Democrat Coalition of Louisiana.
Of course, we all know that there was no proper evacuation order executed by local and state officials, and those people were clamoring to leave in the aftermath.
Remember, we had a toxic soup.
Remember all that?
Remember all this horrible, incorrect reporting?
Why, we had a toxic soup, we had mass murders, we had death, we had crime.
We had where thousands and thousands and thousands of bodies would be found once the water receded.
And in fact, there were even some, what, Mr. Snowden?
That's right.
There were people, there were people who were worried that sharks were infesting the waters of New Orleans, the toxic soup.
Because as you know, a shark can handle anything, folks.
Sharks, the sharks have handled, they've evolved through all kinds of global warming, global cooling, ice ages.
Oh, speaking of that, the Greenland ice shelf, the Greenland glacier getting thicker.
Environmentalists say, this is a problem.
How can it be a problem?
If there's global warming and that's bad and the ice shelf is melting and all of a sudden it's getting thicker, isn't that good?
No, because it's the agenda that counts and the agenda is going to be tough to sell the melting ice caps when the Greenland ice shelf is getting bigger.
So yeah, sharks are going to be swimming around in the toxic waters of New Orleans, but the bottom line is those people wanted out of there and now they don't want to go back.
And why would they?
In fact, I was stunned.
It wasn't that long ago.
Everybody was worried about, you know, wringing their hands.
Oh, the Ninth Ward.
Oh, it's so bad.
It's destroyed.
Why?
It's never going to be again.
As though they wanted a slum, basically, to come back to life as a slum.
So there was a debate over what do we do about the Ninth Ward?
Oh, such a loss of culture.
Such a loss of old New Orleans and so forth.
And I said, this is sick.
This is absolutely sick.
Well, anyway, Major Owens, now Sergeant Owens is all concerned.
The first bite we played talked about massive removals of people.
And now with the policies of this administration, suspending Davis Bacon, suspending affirmative action, making it clear people are not welcome back.
They don't want to go back, Sergeant.
Now, here is another bite from Sergeant Owens.
This is yesterday on the floor of the House of Representatives.
It is not exaggerating to talk about massive Negro removal, black removal, African-American removal, massive removal of a population that was considered undesirable in order to make the marketplace, give the marketplace the opportunity to really make tremendous profits.
What?
You can imagine how the ancient Israelites felt when the Romans decided to do one of the most brutal and cruel things ever done.
And that is they took the whole nation.
They took the whole nation and moved them out, spread them out over the world, you know, the 12 tribes.
They broke them up into 12 tribes and moved off their homeland.
Massive removal.
Well, you have something similar to that taking place in New Orleans.
Okay, so Major Owens here has just compared the evacuation of New Orleans, which was done to save people's lives, to the removal of 12 tribes of Israelites to make them basically slaves.
I mean, the Romans made slaves out of them.
And Major Owens says, and this has been done in order to make tremendous profits in New Orleans.
This guy's notion of history, folks, this is not the first time that I've listened to him recite history and been scratching my head.
Let's go back, shall we?
And don't forget there were concerns about the shark-infested waters of New Orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane.
We go back to February 23rd, 1995.
The then Major Owens was on the floor of the House of Representatives.
You're going to hear laughter here because this bite comes from my old television show, and a studio audience was laughing when this speech of his was a special order on the floor of the House.
Now, you might think, well, this is, and by the way, Elizabeth and Ellie, this is for you because I'm sure you don't know about this.
So I'm happy.
And for those of you who weren't listening back in 1995 and may not, and we've played it a bunch of times since, but it's probably going to be new to a lot of you.
And you just heard Major Owens talking about a massive Negro removal, black removal, African-American removal, massive removal of a population that was considered undesirable in order to make the marketplace, to give the marketplace the opportunity to really make tremendous profits.
Do you understand what he's saying?
The only way that a marketplace can be profitable is to remove African Americans.
But this is not the first time that Major Owens, now Sergeant Owens, has gotten caught up in this theory.
Here is Major Owens, February 23rd, 1995.
What about the 200 million people who were lost in the Atlantic crossing?
Very conservative estimates say that the slave trade, just the crossing of the Atlantic, bringing the slaves across, there were 200 million people who died just coming across.
So great was the number of people who were thrown overboard that it altered the ecology of the ocean.
The sharks, even now, trace or follow afterships along the trail, seeking the flesh that was thrown overboard in all those years, 200 years of the slave trade.
This is a member of Congress, folks.
This is a member of Congress speaking on the floor of your House of Representatives.
It altered the ecology of the oceans.
When he said this, we ran the numbers.
He said there were 200 million people who died just coming across.
And that was a conservative estimate.
That was a conservative estimate.
Now, who are these people?
These are people in the slave trade.
They're throwing away their profits.
throwing overboard their uh their product if you will if you look at them that way this would be no different than the oil tanker guys just unleashing the oil in the ocean on the way over because they didn't like oil but they get paid for nothing when they showed up at port well we we we ran the numbers here on on uh 200 million people who died coming across and and 200 million slaves Now this is hard to follow.
We'll put this up on the website so you can follow numbers there, but it's hard to follow numbers when you're listening to them.
Without a blackboard, 200 million slaves is equal to nine ships carrying 304 slaves every day for 200 years.
So you'd have to have nine ships with 304 slaves every day for 200 years.
Now, 304 slaves times nine ships equals 2,736 slaves per ship on the ships.
200, that would be 2,736 times 365 days is 998,640 slaves a year.
998,000, basically a million slaves a year times 200 for the number of years would be just under 2 million slaves.
We didn't count the leap years in there.
That's why we're a little short.
But that's what it would have taken to throw them overboard.
And yeah, just to get them here.
If they had all stayed, it would have taken that many ships all that time with that many slaves just to get them here.
Now, remember, this was a conservative estimate.
But there were so many slaves thrown overboard.
It altered the ecology of the oceans.
And to this day, the sharks still swim the route.
They follow after ships along the trail seeking the flesh that was thrown overboard in all those years.
200 years of the slave trade.
It simply is not possible.
But I guess those sharks, folks, are not stupid because where are they swimming now?
They're in the toxic waters of New Orleans.
And it won't be long before Sergeant Owens figures that out.
Back in just a second.
Okay, Houghton, Michigan, next.
And Bill, I'm glad you called.
Welcome.
It's great to have you with us.
Hi, Rosh Mega Davidos, long time listener.
Thank you.
I just wanted to call and talk about, I was watching the news this morning of all these regional FEMA directors that are still piling on Mike Brown, that they sent him emails that they were running out of oxygen and this and that.
I'm just wondering, I mean, is that Mike Brown's job?
Was he supposed to drive down there in a delivery truck with oxygen?
Oh, no, no, this is CYA.
There's a scapegoat.
Everybody's piling on him.
It's a way to deflect any attention on these people.
It's gutless, but that's what's going on.
Exactly.
I mean, if they run out of time.
This is the way bureaucracies work.
Bill, go ahead.
What were you saying?
I didn't mean to talk over you.
If they run out of fax paper, do they call Mike Brown and say that, you know, we're going to be running out of fax paper?
Can you bring that down to us?
You're looking at this the wrong way.
You're applying logic to a bureaucracy.
A bureaucracy's primary purpose is to perpetuate itself.
It can only do that by making sure it's never blamed for anything.
Or if they can't really prevent that, they'll cause the blame to go to one guy who's been made the scapegoat and the fall guy who's now gone.
No bureaucracy is ever responsible for anything that goes wrong unless they have to have a sacrificial lamb.
But the whole purpose of a bureaucracy and all these individual leaders is to keep their jobs.
So that's how you have to understand this.
Folks, something happened yesterday, and I want to try to explain it to you.
When it first happened, I got mad about it.
There has been, there's a special prosecutor named Patrick Barrett, and he's been looking at the Henry Cisneros case since that's many years.
The amount of money I think that's been spent on this was up to $20 million, maybe more than that.
I'm not sure how much it was.
But the Senate, the Democrats and the Senate have wanted this investigation ended, and they don't want a report released because of whatever is in this report.
It goes beyond Cisneros.
And yesterday, Charles Grassley, it was reported, voted and led the vote to stop the investigation.
And everybody just got fit to be tied.
Why can't Republicans figure out how to play this game?
It turns out that Grassley was helpful in this.
The liberals wanted to kill not the investigation, which is mostly over.
The liberals wanted to kill the release of his report, Mr. Barrett's report, which is sitting with the three-judge panel that oversees the office of the independent counsel.
Apparently, there are lawyers for certain people named in this report, and they are filing motion after motion trying to delay the release of this report.
And they're working all of Capitol Hill to kill of it, to kill all of it.
And that's what failed yesterday, thanks to Grassley's actions.
So Grassley saved the possibility that we will someday see the report.
So, I mean, it's quite natural now.
We, the public, want to see this report.
There's been an effort by Senate Democrats to block the release of a port that's been a report that's been filed by the independent counsel with the circuit court that oversees the investigation.
And Senator Grassley succeeded in putting language into a bill demanding the release of the document.
So there's something in that report that apparently people in the Clinton administration don't want you to know about.
I'm told that there have been nearly 200 motions filed by people who don't want this report made public.
So this has been sort of under the radar, this independent counsel investigation, and it's almost over.
And the Democrats want to just, their first effort was to defund it some years ago, just take the money away from it because it was so apparently where it's leading is so embarrassing.
It goes way beyond Cisneros and it involves people in the Clinton administration doing what?
I don't know.
We won't know until the report is released.
And Grassley saved the possibility yesterday that the report will be released.
Let's move on to the 9th U.S. Circus Court of Appeals.
The Bush administration urged a federal appeals court yesterday to overturn a judge's decision nullifying a congressional ban on a type of late-term abortion.
The case before the Ninth Circus is one of three in which federal judges have ruled that the ban is unconstitutional.
Last month, the Bush administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear another of the cases.
The government argued yesterday that Congress determined the procedure is never medically necessary.
Judge Sidney Thomas wondered whether Congress findings matter at all, given the conflicting testimony of doctors in lower courts.
Judge William Fletcher said a doctor may end up performing the ban method during an abortion in order to do it properly and for the health of the woman.
And in response, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Katzis said there are medical arguments on both sides, but the court should defer to Congress's findings.
You have a judge here who wondered whether Congress's findings matter at all.
Huh.
We don't need welfare.
We don't need judicial reform.
That's number one.
Here's number two.
Federal Appeals Court, U.S. Ninth Circus, yesterday upheld the Seattle Schruel District's use of race as a tiebreaking factor in Haskruel admissions.
We conclude that the district has a compelling interest in securing the educational and social benefits of racial and ethnic diversity, said the Ninth Circus.
We also conclude the district's plan is narrowly tailored to meet the district's compelling interests.
In Seattle, students list which Haskruls they would prefer to attend.
When a Haskruel has more applicants than classroom seats, the district uses a series of tiebreakers to decide who gets in.
Race was the district's second most important tiebreaker after whether a student has a sibling at the scrule.
A Ninth Circuit panel sided with the parents last year in a 2-1 ruling, but that decision was overturned Thursday by the full Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
So once again, you have judges who are taking it upon themselves to decide social policy and cultural policy and describing compelling interests that involve race and diversity.
The school district has a legitimate role to play in this.
So they basically have just upheld the whole concept of affirmative action.
Are you aware of the rift going on between George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger?
This, folks, Schwarzenegger is going to snub Bush.
What's happened is that Schwarzenegger needs to fundraise out there in order to raise money to run TV ads to pass the four ballot initiatives that he is intent on passing.
And so the RNC has sent the president out to California.
He's out there now at the Reagan Library, by the way, right now, to raise money for the Republican National Committee.
And Schwarzenegger begged, don't come out here after our election, please.
Come out here after the 8th of November and we'll do joint appearances.
And the White House said, we come when our schedule permits.
And so Schwarzenegger is going to snub Bush when the president begins his visit to California amid a clash over fundraising for the Republican Party.
And, you know, Schwarzenegger's people are saying, you know, we went to the convention and we spoke up for the president.
We did all kinds of things.
All we want is a little cooperation from the White House, and we're not getting it.
So there's a competition for Republican dollars out in the state of California, and the governor is personally miffed.
He's going to snub a visit with the president.
What do you think of that?
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Happily, ladies and gentlemen, making the complex understandable, as long as we're talking about court news, let's stick with the appeals court.
This is a California state appeals court.
This is going to frost you.
Illegal immigrants injured on the job are entitled to workers' compensation benefits despite their legal status, according to the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
They ruled in a case involving the Torrance-based coffee roaster Farmer Brothers Company, which had tried to deny workers' comp benefits to an employee who was in the country illegally.
Farmer Brothers argued that federal immigration laws superseded the state's workers' comp system, which provides medical care and disability benefits to injured employees.
The court disagreed, upholding an earlier decision against Farmer Brothers by the State Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.
Pre-judge panels said the unanimous ruling issued late Monday, California law has expressly declared immigration status irrelevant to the issue of liability to pay compensation to an injured worker.
Again, California law has expressly declared immigration status irrelevant to the issue of liability to pay compensation to an injured worker.
So the court basically saying, hey, the law is what it is.
We can't change it.
The plaintiff, Rafael Ruiz 35, claimed that he injured his shoulders, his back, his neck, and his hands by repeatedly lifting heavy sacks of coffee beans, according to his attorneys.
Attorney Carl Krogsing of San Leandro, who filed a brief on behalf of the California Applicants Attorneys Association, that group represents injured workers, told the Los Angeles Times that the decision affirms both the common sense application of California law and what every other court in the country has routinely found, that federal immigration law does not preempt state workers' compensation laws.
Now, I realize that at the outset, ladies and gentlemen, this frustration.
But don't you think it's a little wanting your cake and eating it too for a company to knowingly hire illegals and then when they get hurt on the jobs, oh, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
They're illegal.
I don't owe them any workers' comp benefits.
Not as easy to come down on the side of the company here as you might think.
I mean, if they're going to go take advantage of whatever advantage there is in hiring an illegal and the illegal gets hurt, then they come out and say, hey, he's illegal.
I don't have to pay any of these benefits.
Screw you.
You don't think it washes, do you, Brian?
I mean, it's a little tough.
Teddy Kennedy is in a hot seat with the Libs.
Senate education leaders yesterday unveiled a hurricane relief package intended to prevent a bitter fight over vouchers.
Instead, it seemed to start one.
The largest teachers union and civil rights groups condemned the plan as a national experiment in private scruple vouchers, which bill sponsors called a mischaracterization.
Notably, the interest groups found themselves at odds with Senator Kennedy.
We are not supporting that, and that's a big not.
It's a voucher bill, said Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association.
Kennedy and fellow Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, they've worked together in the waitress sandwich routine at La Brasserie in Washington.
It's now not open.
They developed the bill with the Education Committee Chairman Mike Enzi, a Republican from Wyoming, and Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee.
And it would allow both public and private scruples to seek reimbursement of up to $6,000 for each displaced student they serve or $7,500 for each student with disabilities.
Cost a total of $2.4 billion.
Hurricane Katrina forced more than 370,000 students to flee the Gulf Coast.
It's just for a year.
Program's just for a year.
But the education groups and the civil rights groups think Senator Kennedy caved on this.
And I'm kind of surprised he went along with this.
I mean, vouchers, that's like tax cuts.
You just don't support them.
You just don't support them at all.
Because what the liberals are afraid of is that the program works, and all it needs is to be shown that it works.
It demo it one time, and it's all over.
And Senator Kennedy, for some reason, caved on that.
And how about this, Cesar Chavez?
I'm going to specifically thank Justice David Souter and Justice Stephen Breyer for this of the United States Supreme Court.
Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez recently had an audience of foreign and local dignitaries in stitches with a joke on himself delivered with the deft timing of a stand-up comedian.
Don't you love the way the press treats these thug, murderous dictators as just the greatest people walking the planet?
Castro and his efforts to revive his lovely island paradise.
And of course, Gorbachev, the rest of these guys are just great, great, great.
Mao!
Oh, yeah, we must listen to Mao.
Mao had some of the finest philosophy a human being could ever absorb.
Now it's Hugo Chavez.
Delivered with the deft timing of a stand-up comedian, the story helped show how a leftist leader, detested by Washington and much of Venezuela's traditional elite, commands a huge following among Venezuela's poverty-stricken majority.
The story featured Chavez and two of his friends.
They die.
They're admitted to heaven, but warned that touching a dark cloud near Heaven's Gate would have dire consequences.
Through missteps, the two friends touch the cloud.
They go missing one by one.
Each returns shackled to an extremely ugly woman.
Next, Chavez goes missing.
He reappears beaming arm in arm with actress Boderick.
His friends protest noisily over unfair treatment.
Boderick cuts him off.
No, It was me who fell, and he didn't touch the cloud, so I got Chavez.
Now, what does that have to do with Stephen Breyer and David Souter?
Nothing.
I just, that's his joke.
This was supposed to be the funniest joke anybody's ever heard.
You're probably scratching your heads as you listen to the joke.
I didn't deliver it with the deft style of a stand-up comedy because I don't see the humor in it.
There's got to be some believability, folks, for good humor to be humor.
And I can tell you that I know Boderick, and Boderick wouldn't be anywhere near Hugo Chavez in heaven or anywhere else.
So the joke doesn't work for me.
But nevertheless, Hugo Chavez then went on to justify his government taking private property, just like Mugabe is doing, on the basis of the Kilo decision from the United States Supreme Court.
He said, well, I'm on firm ground here.
I can take the land of any citizen I want.
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court, a country that hates me, actually has given me the backing to do what I'm doing.
Their Supreme Court says I am perfectly within my rights.
In fact, this is a good thing for me to be doing to taking your property and giving it to somebody else who's going to pay me more for it.
So thank you, Justices Breyer and Justices Souter, because now a third world, well, not third world, but this is an oil power.
But now this man is engaging in dictatorial regime, power and so forth, and justifying his actions with rulings from our own United States Supreme Court.
Here's Frank in Tarpon Springs, Florida on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
I wanted to follow up on the Arnold Schwarzenegger dissoning himself or snubbing the Bush administration.
I think that you're going to find as we move into this new election cycle that a lot of Republicans are going to be distanting themselves from the president with his job approval number in the high 30s with the Valerie Plain scandal at the White House with the House majority leader under indictment with the Senate majority leader under investigation for securities fraud.
I mean, the list is pretty long.
If you're up for re-election, do you want to hit your wagon to that?
Well, you know, I will agree with you overall, but I don't think your reasoning is the primary reasoning why that.
If that happens, it happens.
Can I tell you why the primary reason?
I mean, some of what you said is applicable, but I think if what you say happens, if in 2006 People running for Congress and the Senate don't want the president around.
Those that don't, it'll be for the following reason.
There's no way they can run on his agenda.
They can't run on.
Blue staters.
Blue party.
I think blue staters are going to be the people that are in districts that are heavily Democratic or that those are the people that you'll see Republicans that'll try to distance themselves from the president.
Blue staters are going to be the people in districts.
Well, okay, well, whoever it is, but it may happen in some red states too, is the point.
And look, here's this, this, folks, this is another hear me out on this because this is another problem with the Myers nomination.
A lot of people throughout the last five years, and you know who you are, you've sort of held your nose at the Medicare entitlement and Kennedy writing education bill, campaign finance reform, because you love George W. Bush.
The tax cuts were great.
The war on terror was paramount.
The war in Iraq paramount, national security paramount.
Plus, we just detest the press and the Democrats or the liberals.
Okay, now we fast forward to re-election time.
If you want to win an election amongst the Republican base, it's going to be very hard to go out and say, and we need more Medicare spending and a bigger Medicare entitlement.
We need to continue to expand education like has been done in this administration.
We need more laws like campaign finance.
You can't, that's not an agenda that conservatives can run on.
And were it not for the Myers nomination, that might not have happened.
I think the Myers nomination is a tipping point in a lot of this.
But at the same time, I don't think all is lost by any stretch, as you well know.
I think all these debates between conservatives make us stronger, make us more unified, make us better.
And having our debate in open for people to hear it informs them about who we are, what we believe.
But I think this Myers nomination could end up, well, I don't know what could happen, but I think there are things that could happen that would erase it as a negative and turn it into a big positive.
She could have a great appearance for the committee.
Who knows?
There are any number of things that could happen here, folks.
And it's way too soon to start predicting doom and gloom.
This business with Schwarzenegger and Bush is strictly over one thing, and that's about fundraising in California and the timing of it.
Schwarzenegger resents that the RNC is sending the president out there to compete against him, essentially, for Republican campaign donations when Schwarzenegger wants to advance his agenda.
And everybody's, you know, the Republican Party says, California, we need you to get up and run in here.
We need the Republicans out there to stand up.
And Schwarzenegger's trying to do that.
And here comes the RNC and the Republicans out there.
Well, kind of siphoning off our money before the election.
Come out after the election.
So this Schwarzenegger thing, I don't think is a harbinger of what's going to happen in 2006.
Well, it may be a harbinger, but the reason is totally unrelated to 2006 if it does happen then.
Thanks for the call out there.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in a moment.
Tell that caller from San Francisco he's next, but I got to do this delay thing first because I want to go back to the first half hour of this program where I made a point to you about the press and the way they cover delay and this case.
And to do that, I want to lead off with a soundbite again from Delay's attorney, Dick DeGurin, who spoke to the press.
And he basically said, please, just read our motion.
Our motion is crystal clear.
We wrote it in non-legalese so anybody can understand it, including reporters.
Just read it.
Can ask me all the questions you want, but just read it.
Here's basically what he said.
The motion talks about Judge Perkins and his political activities, which have been in opposition to Congressman Delay.
And frankly, a judge should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
That's what the cannons say, and so that's what we're asking.
There are several quotations from moveon.org that are very insulting to Congressman Delay.
They're set out in the motion.
I encourage you to read the motion.
It's in terms that even reporters can understand.
The latest thing on moveon.org's website is that they're trying to raise money by selling t-shirts with Tom DeLay's mugshot on the t-shirts.
And I just don't think it looks right for the judge sitting on Congressman DeLay's case to have contributed to an organization such as that.
All right, so please, it's all in the motion.
Just read the motion.
And I can tell you from personal experience, I have a lot.
Unfortunately, the press is not going to read the motion.
Well, they might read the motion, but if it doesn't advance the story, they won't bother with what's in it.
And what do you mean by doesn't advance the story, Rush?
Well, advancing the story would mean, in the press's lingo, advance the story means does it get us closer to Delay's guilt and conviction.
See, the press has got their template on this.
The press has the agenda.
They've got their view on it.
Delay is guilty.
Delay is going to be convicted.
Delay is scum.
Delay is the worst thing that ever happened next to Bush and Nixon.
We got to get rid of him.
Anything that would counter that will be ignored.
So this motion spells out plain as day why this judge needs to be recused and why this whole prosecution is political.
And by the way, this phrase, I'm not choosing it by accident.
I have been told, well, Rush, your motion didn't advance the story after we had been victorious with a couple.
Your motion didn't advance the story.
Well, thank you.
Advancing the story is when I lose, and when you get closer to guilt, that's advancing the story.
Now, to prove it, I have a story here from the AP by Larry Margasak.
Representative Tom Delay turned his conspiracy and money laundering case into a partisan war, asking the presiding judge to step aside because he made Democratic contributions and seeking to move a trial out of Texas' heavily Democratic capital city.
Three contributions went to John Kerry, others went to moveon.org, and some went to the Democrat National Committee.
So you see, in this reporter's mind, it's delay making this partisan.
Delay is responsible for this becoming a partisan thing.
The judge is an innocent guy.
The prosecutor is an innocent guy.
Here comes Delay.
And he's turning it partisan.
So whatever's in Delay's motion is irrelevant to this guy.
It doesn't matter.
They've turned it around, in fact.
They took around, they take the facts in the motion.
Here's who this judge is.
Here's who he's contributed to.
Here's Ronnie Earle is.
And the report is delay turns this into a partisan war.
So, folks, when it comes to legal cases, when the press, and they always have a side chosen, in the Plamegate, it's Rove and Libby are guilty, and that's all they can see.
And anything, anything that's written or said or from this prosecutor that comes out that does not cast guilt or suspicion on them will be ignored.
Same thing here with Delay.
Lawyer, please read the motion.
Can tell you, they're not going to read the motion, or they might read it, but if it doesn't fit what they choose as an outcome, they are not going to report it.
And it is just one of the greatest lessons you can find in this whole way to understand the press and how there's no pretense at objectivity, fairness, or anything.
They even claim it.
This is not even fair to report this story on delay this way.
He started a partisan war, minding his own business, and gets a baseless, stupid, partisan indictment.
And that's not starting the war.
Because, see, no, the prosecutors never lie.
Prosecutors never make anything.
If there's an indictment, there's got to be evidence.
Why would they mess with it?
Just an absolute bunch of flaming idiots back after this.
Thanks to all of you for being with us today.
It's been a thrill.
And we'll be back Monday, regardless where we are.
Hope it's here.
Might have to go to New York.
Drat.
Try not to.
Thanks to all of you.
A lot of people on the phones that we didn't get to thinking delay is showing great leadership in all of this.
And I agree 110%.
Have a great weekend, folks.
▲
Export Selection