All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
October 27, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Crackdown Theory validated once again.
The crackdown theory as espoused by me on this program in my Wall Street Journal op-ed validated once again, ladies and gentlemen.
The American left knocked back on its heels over this.
Withdrawal by Harriet Myers today.
They thought they had smooth sailing.
They thought they had saved one of their seats on the Supreme Court.
Now they know otherwise.
Greetings.
And welcome back.
It is the award-winning Rushlin ball program here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network coming to you today for the last time this week from the EIB Northern Command.
Conditions have improved sufficiently so at the Southern Command that I'm going to go home this afternoon.
I want to personally inspect the devastation and the damage.
But we do have full line power and uh full internet access at the studio complex down in uh in South Florida.
That's not yet the case at uh at my residence.
But uh if the power is coming on in some parts of the place where we work, that it won't be long.
They're saying November 22nd for everybody in South Florida to get their power back.
But we will be doing open line Friday from the EIB Southern Command tomorrow.
Here's phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at eIB net.com.
Couple stories here.
There are other things going on out there.
I want to share with you these two things.
We'll get back to the Myers situation because there are some other soundbites to get the left just having a conniption out there over this.
And uh that's music to my ears too when I watch these clowns on television lament the uh extreme right wing.
Anyhow they have totally screwed all this up and that just makes makes me happy.
This is a Reuters story out of New York.
Now check this lead.
This get this.
What box should you check on a job application form, male or female, if neither one is quite right.
This is Planet Earth.
And uh so as yet, animals do not apply for jobs.
These are human beings that apply for jobs, male or female, but now there's a problem.
We're discriminating against people who may not know what they are.
That's just one of many issues organizers hope to tackle at what they're calling the nation's first trans and gender nonconforming people of color job and education fair, slated for early December here in New York.
We at the Limbaugh Letter will have a correspondent or spy at this.
Catherine, you've just been assigned.
Because when Catherine shows up, there'll be no doubt she's a woman.
If it came time to check out the box, she'd check female.
And I want you to, I just want you to go.
The one thing I want to know about this, and here's the name of it again.
The trans and gender non-conforming people of color job and education fair.
I want to know, Kath.
I want you to do a survey of all the people show up.
How many you cannot peg as either male or female?
Wear your club get motion.
You can attire yourself however you wish.
Uh absolutely.
Club get mo cap and all that.
But I would just among other things that happen.
I just want a little, you know, uh the informal survey.
How many people you look at and cannot tell whether they're male or female?
Um.
And then after that, check out whether you think they're human.
Because uh now they're giving me names of the guest speakers in there and who they might be.
This is why they don't have microphones that you can hear, folks.
There is a filter on this program, and it's me.
From cross dressers to people who have surgically changed their sex, transgender people often encounter trouble going to school or getting jobs, organizers said at a City Hall news conference.
Today I'm a model of stability, but I think back to when I was waiting tables and turning tricks, said Melissa Sklars, 54, an activist and manager at a credit union.
It's time for us to leave the streets and take our place in mainstream culture.
It's time for us to be taken seriously, said Sklars, who was born male.
While there are no Official statistics, thousands of people in New York could be called transgender.
It's an umbrella term that refers to people who don't reflect or identify with the gender they were born with, uh experts say.
Nobody knows.
Figures are meaningless because most people are not out, said Catherine Rocklin, a New York clinical psychologist who specializes in gender identity.
Wonder how much she paid to go to school and for how many years to become an expert in gender identity.
This doesn't seem to be hard.
New York City law prohibits discrimination against transgender people, but employers don't always open their doors, said City Councilwoman Letitia James of the Working Families Party who is supporting the job fair.
She said we're limited, or Damian Dominic, a landscaper, said society's two-gender system poses a problem in everything from job applications to driver's licenses to health insurance forms.
We're limited to two boxes, male and female.
Uh said Dominic, 24, born female, calls herself a trans man.
There's just two options, and I can't put my true identity.
So we have to have a new box here, male-female both.
Male-female former.
Male-female other.
Dominic says she would add a third option, a line to describe gender preferences.
So we could make it an essay question and find out really how qualified they are for the job, just make it an essay question.
If you can't answer male or female with a check mark, write us an essay on who you are.
Here's the second cultural story.
This comes from Newark, Delaware.
It is an associated press story in Delaware.
This is going to really get you, folks.
In Delaware, Newark Haskrul Principal Emmanuel Calk says that he didn't know in advance that an assembly Tuesday that featured two pro-football players would include a Christian message.
In a letter that was sent home to parents yesterday, Emmanuel Cork, the Newark Haskrul principal, says the literature he saw before the assembly didn't say that the presentation was non-secular.
Calk is apologizing to students and parents.
Who are the players?
Two players from the Philadelphia Eagles, Trey Thomas and Thomas Topay.
They both spoke for about 45 minutes.
Trey Thomas, the founder of Athletes United for Christ.
Principal Calk says the school didn't know about that.
The group's website says Thomas is touring schools to promote a rally and concert for high school students next week at the Living Faith Christian Center in Pennsauck in New Jersey.
And yet the principal didn't know it.
Even though that's what Trey Thomas's website says.
So two pro-football players show up at an assembly.
They uh mention Christian ideals, and the principal sends a letter of apology home to the uh parents and the students of the school as well.
Let's go to the audio sound bites now.
And oh, oh.
Wait, before that.
Try this.
The White House is considering a plan to fund the next phase of the hurricane recovery, Katrina recovery, by dipping into existing disaster relief funds to pay for projects like road and bridge building, according to congressional sources.
By borrowing from the disaster relief funds and also seeking other budget cuts, the administration's considering offering a plan that would not require any new allocation of money.
Well now.
Are you are you following me on this, folks?
Let's go back to the aftermath when everybody was in full-fledged 100% panic mode.
And here's Mary Baby Fat Landrew demanding $250 billion.
Here's all these other people demanding $250 billion, saying it's going to cost that much.
Here we're running over to the halls of Congress to authorize the first $62 billion.
Did anybody say, hey, wait, wait, wait, we've already got money for this.
It's something called the existing disaster relief fund.
My question is, do we have surplus disaster relief funds?
We must, if we can borrow from this fund.
We've already got a fund for this.
Excuse me.
We've got a fund for this.
And yet nobody's thought to say, hey, wait, wait, we've already got this paid for.
We've planned for our rainy day.
Such is the urge to spend money in that town.
besides, with as many spending programs as Congress has created, who, what one person could possibly remember all that exist?
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
And we are back.
It's L. Rushbow serving humanity, talent on loan from God.
The Los Angeles Times has a uh interesting story today.
They say that uh uh about the CIA leak investigation, they are lewd.
They they say it's some by sources are telling them that the scooter libby's already been indicted and that it's been sealed, and uh uh other work is being done to get closer to uh other figures.
That's in the Los Angeles Times today.
There are also profiles.
Uh I have one here uh from the Associated Press on uh the the uh special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
He says a man who's been bungee jumping, even though he doesn't like heights, federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will go a long way to challenge himself as the hard driving son of a Brooklyn doorman jets between Chicago and Washington, he's fast becoming one of the country's best known federal prosecutors.
Fitzgerald says he grew up as part of a typical Brooklyn Irish American group of guys, but he also attended a small private Catholic Hasgruel where he studied Latin and Greek.
Matthew Pierce, an attorney who's gone up against Fitzgerald says he's overzealous.
Piers represented uh the head of the defunct Muslim charity, whom Fitzgerald charged with funneling aid to Al Qaeda.
He says Fitzgerald used an old photo showing his client with bin Laden hyped charges against his client as fear swept the country after the September eleventh, two thousand one terror attacks.
Uh the uh the head of the defunct Muslim charity made a last minute deal to plead guilty to defrauding his donors, uh, which was not what he was originally charged with.
He is serving eleven years.
So the son of a uh Brooklyn doorman.
And not very extensive profile, but most of the profiles that we've had, uh Patrick Fitzgerald have uh raved about his his independent uh his is his raging independent status, his uh apolitical nature, uh his hard driving Chuck Schumer said he's uh prosecutor's prosecutor.
And I must I must tell you know, I I didn't share this with you, but when I when I heard that, when I heard Chuck Schumer say that he's a prosecutor's prosecutor, I have to tell you.
A red flag went up.
First thing, how would Chuck Schumer know?
What is it?
How how does Chuck Schumer know about this guy, number one?
Number two, what does he know about him that would make him say he's a prosecutor's prosecutor?
It lay it it leads me to believe that Schumer may know more than than we do.
He may know what's coming down here.
I mean, it's clear that the Democrats in the left want as many of this administration indicted as possible because they think that'll create another water gate and it'll paralyze the Bush administration and perhaps even lead Bush to resign.
So when Schumer's out there saying he's a prosecutor's prosecutor, what does he know?
Well, what it means is Schumer's saying this guy's unassailable.
Schumer's saying he's beyond criticism.
A prosecutor's prosecutor means he's don't criticize him.
He's he's uh you d don't don't go down.
This guy is flawless.
This guy's perfect, is what Schumer's saying.
Well, okay, all well and good, but how does Schumer know this?
Who does Schumer know that knows Patrick Fitzgerald?
Does Schumer know Fitzgerald?
I don't know any of this, but I mean, does what does he know to come out with this?
This is uh i i if particularly in this political climate, it seems to me that Senator Schumer may know something that we don't know.
And uh he may he may like what he knows, and therefore he wants to go out and provide cover for the uh special prosecutor because he knows what's coming.
I mean that I didn't share that with you when that happened, but that's the red flag that went up immediately when I heard him say that.
Here is uh Andrew in Belleville, Michigan.
Uh hi and welcome to the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush Ditto's from Michigan.
Um I just uh about this Harriet Myers case, I think that there's gonna be uh a further alienation amongst Christian conservatives such as myself and just conservatives, maybe like uh Ann Coulter or Charles Krautheimer who do not represent the views that I have in this and I and I I feel like you know if I look at George W. Bush and I look at this this nomination of Harriet Myers,
what I see in the whole thing is that he nominated her because he is a born again Christian as well.
He had serious problems with addictions to alcohol and he gave his life to Christ and and was changed by that and I believe he saw the same in her as he saw in himself.
And that's why I think a lot of Christians like myself who are born again as well um feel that way right now.
I I do not agree with with Ann Coulter and Charles Krautheimer and a whole bunch of other people who have asked that she you know resign her her resignation and all that um and I think that this is going to be a further uh divide between us um because I personally feel let down with this right now and it it just really goes to show I think that a lot of the Christian base out there that went out to man the phones like so many people did such as myself for George W. Bush who really believed in where he came from because he
is a born again Christian feel alienated I that's just what I what I feel right now.
I uh interestingly that you uh interesting you say this I had some conversations with people today predicting this very thing uh uh because there's a uh obviously you had many of the nation's uh religious leaders uniting behind Harriet Myers after they had been assured uh of her vote on Roe vs Wade which believe me was going to be problematic if we ever got to hearings.
I mean that it it it that would have been that would have been full of fireworks and I you know I I said I said to these people it's it's a shame because these nominations are not about one issue and they're not about one culture they're not about it's about the Constitution and i i even even if we can be assured that her her vote on Roe is right, I I want to know that for just speaking for myself, I'd like to be assured of why she thinks Roe is bad, not just because of it's it's it's wrong to kill babies.
There's far more to Roe than that.
I know a lot of people who are opposed to abortion or for abortion who think Roe vs Wade is bad law.
The whole problem with Roe vs Wade is that nine judges, well seven of them in this case, but all it takes is five decided that the Constitution grants a constitutional right to kill babies.
And it doesn't.
Now if they can start that and they did and set the precedent that the Constitution says things it doesn't, then it doesn't mean anything at all as to the religious aspect of this it's I know that there's a there's a feeling of disappointment amongst uh some religious conservatives today but I would hope and I would predict that with the next nominee that everybody is going to end up being back on board and oriented toward the same objective
that you were oriented with toward Harriet Myers you're gonna all the other nominees the president has put up have been of the same mind of the Constitution where it where it comes to Roe vs Wade Janice Rogers Brown uh uh Bill Pryor there's a great field of people out there don't don't get caught in this trap thinking Harriet Myers is the only salvation for Roe vs Wade because that's not the case.
But it goes beyond Roe vs Wade was something I also said in the uh in the Wall Street Journal op ed that I wrote my prediction to you is that by the time all the dust settles here and we get the next nominee, you're going to be just as happy and you'll be even happier because there'll be unity behind the nominee and it would this nominee will still be of the uh of the uh constitutional mindset that will please you and satisfy you where this uh uh issue that
matters so greatly uh comes down so mark my words on this uh don't don't don't uh don't give up the ship yet the ship's just now leaving that's the point.
Make sure that you are on it.
Uh Mark in Orlando, Florida Hi I'm glad you waited you're on the EIB network.
Mega indictment gravitas ditto thank you.
You're welcome.
Uh I'd like to be blunt about Harriet Myers on my on my take I just don't feel what we know of her she was qualified for the job.
I don't know what me what running a law firm means you know running a lottery system.
I don't know what that job qualifies you as a supreme court justice.
To me the John Roberts nomination was a no brainer.
Right.
He was highly, highly qualified.
I was surprised by George Bush, which I am a very conservative Republican.
I was surprised at this nomination.
I'd like to hear your take on that.
Well, a lot of people don't have to hear a lot about saying that.
Well, you know, i I it's I I think this is this is not the day to start uh bashing Harriet Myers.
I just want to say again, I have not joined the chorus that's bashed her.
A lot of people have.
I I haven't, and this is I'm not gonna start doing that today.
I think she's done a pretty noble thing here out of loyalty to the president, and uh we move forward now, and that's where the focus needs to be.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Oh man, I love you people.
I absolutely I just checked the email.
Rush, don't chicken out just because you're talking to a Christian.
Don't say it's not time to criticize Myers.
Tell them the truth.
What do you mean?
Yeah, uh I know.
It's it it is like that.
It's like if you know, when you score a touchdown, act like it's not something unusual.
You know, don't just.
But look, uh for for those of you let me do this, all right.
People are saying, Rush, there's you j you're chickening out just because you're afraid of not making some members of your audience.
I'm not chickening out, I'm just trying to move forward.
But let me take a step back here and uh and address the last call.
Well, who was the last call?
Uh from Orlando, is that right?
Yeah, Mark, I know you're still out there, and I'm sure that you represent a body of thought that uh is is in the Christian conservative community.
Uh you should know that that the uh Washington Post uncovered a speech uh and published excerpts, which then led people to see the whole speech uh earlier this week, might have been yesterday.
She delivered this speech ten or twelve years ago down in uh in Dallas.
And if you if you read the speech, uh maybe we can get it and post it on the website just just to further your understanding here.
Uh it it shows uh I'm really uncomfortable with this, folks, because it's the woman has done an honorable thing here.
I I have tried not to pile on and and join the chorus of people who've made this personal about her throughout all of this, but I don't want anybody laboring under any misconceptions here either.
I know this speech is ten or twelve years old, there could have been changes since then, but since there's not much else to go on, I mean, people looked at this uh yesterday and got very concerned about it.
Even some who were uh really holding down the fort in her camp and and still trying to rally support for her.
The speech shows that that her views on abortion uh are are troubling.
Uh they were of great concern to a lot of people, uh not not just non-Christians, but some Christians as well.
There were also a lot of Christian leaders like Gary Bauer and others who opposed the nomination.
The whole of the conservative Christian conservative community was not united on her either.
Uh and and don't don't make the mistake of thinking so.
The issue here is is how somebody approached their role and and how they interpret the Constitution, and that's the bottom line.
It doesn't matter whether it's abortion or illegal immigration, a war on terrorism or property rights.
If you if you don't have a properly functioning federal government where each branch respects the other, then liberty itself is endangered, and you have to have you have to have people on the court that understand what its limited role is if if we are to uh you know change the the role that the court now plays in our society.
Doesn't it bother any of you?
I was thinking about this last night.
I was on vacation once back in the 90s, and I was out in my adopted hometown of Sacramento.
Some abortion case came down the line.
Some Supreme Court decided some uh peripheral abortion case.
And somehow the local TV stations knew that I was in town, even though I was not working, I was on vacation, and uh somehow got hold of me, and one of them is will you grant us an interview?
I said, okay.
And and they asked me what I thought of the decision.
I don't even remember the specifics of the decision, but that was the instant for me that I began to realize this is just a political decision, and they're asking me a political figure what I think of this decision.
I think it was something I favored, but that that's when the thought struck me.
What is it?
court's not supposed to be the final arbiter of political and social issues in this country?
That's Congress.
And the president, the elected representatives of the people decide these things.
Not these, not these members of courts.
But the fact that so many people have have gradually just accepted over time, because it's happened slowly, that the Supreme Court's the final arbiter.
Of course, the left has long glomed onto that because they're winning.
They've got more judges on the court than we do, and they're instituting their personal policy preferences, and liberalism is being instituted as law by by judges.
And thereby takes it out of the arena of ideas and debate.
That's got to stop.
The idea that the people look at the Supreme Court, uh, let's say if a controversial issue.
Let's I don't make it up.
Something besides abortion, or use abortion if you're mind if in your mind if that works best.
We're gonna say that the U.S. Supreme Court's the final authority, once they decide, issues over.
Sorry.
That's not the role of the court as proscribed by the founders.
Read the ch the the the Federalist papers or the Constitution itself, and you'll find that's not the case.
It's just evolved that way.
Well, that's got to change, and that's only going to change with the right people on the court who understand how this bastardization has occurred and are and are are eager to roll it back and return the court to its original function.
If if you have somebody who's really good on, say the abortion vote, and you want to put her there because she's gonna do the right thing, fine and dandy, but what about her understanding of all the rest of this?
Because even when the court, if it ever does, overturn Roe v.
Wade, I have I have news for you, it's still gonna be legal in this country.
All it's gonna happen is the states will pick it up and debate it, and it's gonna be legal in some states and and uh and illegal in um in others.
Eric in Nebraska City, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Never better, thank you.
Great.
Hey, didn't we just teach the liberals on the proper way of dissent?
Uh, they're not teachable.
Uh what do you think we showed them?
Well, we exercised our constitutional rights of free speech, told our senators, told the president that we didn't like this nominee, and guess what happened?
Well, you can look at it uh that way.
Uh I I d uh the the lesson that I want to treat the left is uh defeat.
You know, I I don't care if they learn how to dissent or not.
I I don't think they're ever gonna learn.
They're not gonna change the way they dissent.
They're gonna try to just go blow up buildings and shut down progress and you know tear things up and so forth, because they can't win like we do going to the people.
They've proven that, folks.
This don't you understand?
They Cindy Sheehan bombed out, Bill Burkett bombed out, George Bush is still in the White House.
You understand what their whole purpose has been since 2001 has been to get rid of George W. Bush and everything they've tried.
Everything they've tried has failed.
Now the CIA leak.
And I'm gonna tell you again, I have this dreaded fear that this whole CIA thing is actually a couped hatched by the CIA to take Bush out at best and at worst to um, or at worst, and it at best to discredit the whole policy, the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
I I I really do.
I think that if you look at it carefully, you can find that why was Joe Wilson sent over there and how did that happen?
And who was he?
And what was the purpose?
And you look at all the lying and misstatements he made coming back.
Now we've got these indictments coming down, politicizing a policy dispute.
I mean, Rovin Libby had every right to try to discredit Joe Wilson.
He's out there trying to destroy the presidency.
What the hell are they supposed to do?
Sit around, is he infallible?
Whatever Joe Wilson says, you got to bend over and grab the ankles and take it.
Sorry.
Now we're now we're gonna criminalize this if indeed that was that's what happens.
The left has been this is what they've been shooting for ever since Bush was inaugurated, folks.
And they have failed.
They've failed at doing it, now they're going back to their tried and true method, and that's using a legal system, same as they've done with delay, same as they did with Nixon, same as they're trying with a whole, they've they've tried it constantly, and this is the one fallback that they have.
They fail when they try to change the minds and hearts of the American people.
So what I want to teach the left is defeat.
I want them to taste it.
I want them to choke on it.
I want them to throw up defeat.
I want them to get so stuffed on defeat that they need pepto-bismol to deal with it.
And then I want them, I want them in the bathroom 24-7 getting rid of defeat.
I want them tasting it so much that they don't want any more part of it ever again.
I want to just flood the zone with defeat.
That's what I want to teach them.
I couldn't care less how they dissent.
David in Oklahoma City, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
That's a pleasure speaking with you today.
I want to give you a father of ten conservative Christian dittoes.
Thank you, sir.
I think this is a home run, not just for conservatives, for Christian conservatives as well.
I think we're going to start seeing conservative ideals and principles continue to win the day and to win the argument.
Just like uh the other day with Tom Coburn and his uh proposing of the spending cuts and uh more reasonable spending.
I I think we're gonna start seeing these ideas like the flat tax and the spending cuts and responsibility in government come to the forefront.
All right, I like this.
I like this.
Now, some of you are saying, oh, come on, get real out there, David.
Uh-uh.
I like this optimism.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need.
This is the energy that we need to propel this kind of thing.
And you can't do it when you're when you're not unified.
And when the Myers nomination came along and caused this little split, exactly as I said was going to happen.
Conservatives started debating things, advancing principles, and look what happens today.
Unification, energy, optimism, bring it on.
It's exactly what I knew was going to happen.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue after this.
I I know, I just I can't believe I ever used to really listen to this.
Who is this?
This is Devo, right?
Sometimes you hear music, it makes you wish you'd lost your hearing earlier.
Because I can only recognize music that I knew before I lost my hearing.
David, New York City.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIV network.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good, thank you.
Good question for you.
Um I wondered if there's a lesson that we've learned here in terms of nominating someone who's not a judge.
As you recall, Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was valuable to have experience outside the judiciary.
Yeah.
But is it a wild card to select someone without a track record?
And will that follow up the nomination process?
Well, you know, I think this whole business of i of of nominating a non-judge, the the most recent utterance of this brilliant philosophy uh came from Dingy Harry.
Harry Reid told President Bush, I think it's time for a non-judge.
We need to get rid of these.
In this case, I uh let me let me say the opposite.
I've got nothing against non-judges and their qualifications.
But I think in this case, going to the non-judge is a setup, and it is a misdirection trap play.
Because we're at a stage here.
This this battle for uh regaining control of the court, stocking it with originalists, has been waged for 40 years and really intensely in the last 25 or 30.
And we've gotta we've won elections and we've educated people, and that's why we've won elections, and here we are.
We've got a Republican president, Republican Senate, and a Republican House, all that's irrelevant for these nominations, confirmation process.
So you got a Republican Senate, Republican president.
This is not time to play games.
We have got judges, appellate judges and circuit judges whose opinions are widely known.
They have been written, they have ruled.
These people have been practicing the law.
As lawyers and judges, they have written opinions.
There's no question who they are.
The stakes at this point are pretty important.
It's not necessary to go out and and blaze a new trail of a non-judge right now if you don't know what the philosophy of that non-judge is.
It's all about knowing somebody's philosophy.
And not only that, because we've been stung on that.
After you know somebody's philosophy, how long have they stuck with it?
And how many attacks have they endured, and how many attempts for them to moderate and change have been made and yet they've stood tall and they've took the slings and the arrows, and they've bled, and yet they've hung tough.
I think at this point, it's there there's no reason to play games.
There's no reason to try to be too smart by half.
There's a great qualified list of people out there who fit the criteria for exactly what is called for now, as we, the majority, see it.
We won the election, it's our prerogative to do this.
Well, the president's prerogative, he won the election, but his his uh uh his supporters are the ones that cast the ballots.
And so I I think here that you you've got any number, look at any of these judges that withstood the filibuster.
Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen.
I'll guarantee you this, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer are not going to get hold of those people and change their minds.
Uh and Michael Ludig is not going to have his mind changed once he gets to the Supreme Court, when the Libs on the Supreme Court try to gang up on him.
And these people are not going to have their minds changed or their core philosophy changed because of what the Washington Post or New York Times editorial page might say, and they're certainly not going to have their opinions watered down because they're not invited to the right cocktail parties.
I mean, this is this is fundamental, folks.
There's there's a there's there's a reason why you look to somebody's past and their work uh output to determine what their philosophy is and how rock solid it is.
And these this pick and the one after it are crucial.
I don't care whether you're a conservative Christian and care only about abortion, or whether you're a just a mainstream population member, you're worried about the kilo decision or whatever of the the judicial philosophy of the nominee has to be known.
It has to be understood, and it has to have been tested.
And there are so many people that qualify based on all that that it would be silly to look elsewhere just to say, hey, you know what?
We need to shrink up court.
Oh, we need a non-judge.
Now I realize what you're saying here is uh is it wise picking non-judges if we have uh given what we've learned.
In this case, no, it's not wise to pick a non-judge in this case.
Let the libs pick the non-judge next time they win the president after we've already got control of court.
Let them go out and experiment.
Let them play around.
Let them put their own.
Let them tell let them do what they're telling us we had a dingy Harry, next time you win the White House, you go pick the non-judge.
You know, keep your attitude, keep your ideas to yourself.
We don't believe that you have the slightest desire to help us out.
When Dingy Harry or these Democrats go up and talk to the president, give him their ideas.
Not one person on my side of the owl believes they're trying to be helpful.
And go ahead and have them up there if you want, and go ahead and listen to what they say, but when they leave, laugh at them as they're on the way out.
But don't listen to what they say because it's just like when I hear all these journalists and or or liberals talk about, oh, I'm so worried about the conservative movement.
What does it do?
They're not worried, they'd be happy for us to implode.
They'd be happy if we didn't exist, just like we'd be happy if they didn't, as a major political force.
This idea that people, you know, I really want to help the president, I want to help him do the right thing.
BS.
These people want to do one thing, and that is destroy this president.
And perhaps now he'll stop helping them.
Who's next on this show?
Peter in Long Island, glad to have you with us.
Hello.
Hey, Megadiddos from Long Island, Roger.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, listen, the best way for the Democrats to taste defeat is to let the indictments come, whether it's Scooter Libby, Carl Rove, what have you, but stand by them and say this is all Joe Wilson's doing, this is all the CIA's doing, and I'm not gonna let them resign and then watch the Democrats fall into a complete meltdown.
That would be cool, except the president's already pretty much laid the groundwork that they'll have to quit.
He can say he didn't mind.
But look at the same thing can be let me tell you what's gonna happen.
Short of the president keeping them on board and really saying, okay, try this, Democrats.
What's gonna happen is if those two guys are indicted, if you think you have seen conservative anger at the American left to date, you don't know what anger is.
There will be hell to pay on this because the American people are not gonna sit by and watch the Democrats try to take out another administration on something as baseless and phony as this is, and it's going to be well documented how baseless and phony this whole thing is.
It ain't Watergate anymore, where Dan Rather and Walter Crankett, whoever else can define the news every day, and that be the end of it.
It ain't those days anymore.
So if they're indicted, President may have to get rid of them, but um it's not gonna be easy.
For those who want to get rid of Rovin Libby or the president, mark my words.
Back in just a second.
Time for a pop quiz, ladies and gentlemen.
What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Question number two, what countries got the most kickbacks from the oil for food scandal?
Answer to pop quiz question number one, France and Russia.
Answer to pop quiz question number two, France and Russia.
Well, I'll be darned.
The countries that most tried to block the removal of Saddam also got the most kickbacks from the oil for food scandal.
One more uh question, pop quiz question.
Who do the left want us most to get along with?
Well, I'll be damned, it's the same two countries, France and Russia.
Thank you, Senator Kerry.
And you people really want to entrust foreign policy to these numbskulls on the left?
I certainly hope not.
▲
Export Selection