All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 31, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
October 31, 2005, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we're back.
Great to have you with us.
We're sizzling today, folks.
Now, look, for those of you who are trying to get the Ditto Cam and you insist in insistent emails that it's not on, I just, I'm looking at it myself.
We're all looking at it.
Our scientists at the EIB Ditto Cam Central are looking at it.
Try refreshing the website.
Set up a new cookie.
Just don't forget I said that.
Just refresh the website.
Just hit reload and then try it and miracles may happen.
Greetings and welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
I want to play this soundbite from Senator Schumer once again.
For those of you just joining us, I'm very happy with this Supreme Court pick.
I'm very happy that the left is out there having conniptions.
I told the audience in the first hour, I don't want to hear any calls complaining about what the left is saying about this guy.
That's what we want them to do.
We want them to be who they are.
We want them to come out of the closet.
No more masquerade balls.
No more hiding behind masks.
Be honest about who they are.
And when it's a court nomination, they do because it's so vital.
So you've got the NAGs.
The National Association of Gals is going to be marching at the Supreme Court at 4 o'clock this afternoon.
I hope they burn a bra.
Hope they take Maureen Dowd with them.
Go get a, you know, just Molly Yard.
I know she passed away, but get a cutout doll or something.
Go back to the whatever they have to do to be who they are because this, folks, is a battle we want and it is a battle we can win.
It's about time.
The American people will be paying close attention.
It's time to educate them finally on the role of the court in our society.
And in that regard, I want to go back and play something for you just to show you how ridiculous it's getting and what sitting ducks the left makes of themselves.
Let's go back to Senator Schumer.
And again, I think get him out there all the time.
Give him his own 24-hour cable channel.
Call it the All-Schumer Service, ass.
Here's Chuck Schumer, press conference this morning on Capitol Hill.
It's sad that the president felt he had to pick a nominee likely to divide America instead of choosing a nominee in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor, who would unify us.
Stop, Merritt.
Stop, stop, stop, stop.
That's it.
They kind of missed that the first time it went by.
Sandra Day O'Connor unified us.
Sandra Day O'Connor unified us.
For five years, ladies and gentlemen, Senator Schumer and his cronies have been yaking.
We are the most divided in our history.
They've been complaining and whining and moaning about how divided we are.
They said Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, and he's been a divider.
They have been upset that we're not unified.
Is Chuck Schumer a United States Senator or is he a Homer Simpson?
Because if they want to run around and say, we need somebody who's going to unify us, keep us unified.
Sandra Day O'Connor united us and we need to stay united.
I know he speaks with forked tongue, but this is going to demonstrate that the media listens with forked ears.
Because whatever these guys say, they're going to get away with saying, but they're not going to get away with it here.
That's the whole point.
Now, the first caller we had today was from South Carolina.
Was his name Cliff?
My memory right?
Yeah.
And I bet Cliff did that Alito gets 65 votes.
Cliff doesn't believe it.
Cliff thinks he might win, but he's afraid to filibuster.
I pointed out that his senator, Lindsey Graham, Vice President Graham, has already assured everybody there will not be a filibuster of this nominee.
And what he said was that Joseph Alito doesn't satisfy the requirement of extreme circumstances.
Not as far as the Republicans are concerned.
The Democrats may let them.
Let them go out of the ⁇ here we have a guy who's been on the federal bench for 15 years.
He's been confirmed twice by unanimous 100 to nothing votes.
He's on the third circuit.
He has more experience on the bench than any Supreme Court nominee in the last 70 years.
Let the Democrats say that this is a guy that triggers the extreme circumstances clause in the Gang of 14 agreement that allows them to filibuster.
That's exactly what we want.
It's time to get rid of the filibuster too.
That thing's lurking out there.
That thing's unconstitutional.
Go ahead and nuke it to Smithereens as well.
This is not the time to be frightened, folks.
This is not the time.
I'm telling you, if you still have it in your head, if it still courses through your veins that these Democrats are smart like foxes and they outsmart us every time and they're totally unified and they come up with these brilliant strategies and they get us to step in it, it's the exact opposite.
If anybody's running ropodopes here, it's George W. Bush running ropo-dopes on these people.
They're the ones that step in it.
They're the ones that create alternative realities.
They're the ones that create fantasy worlds in which they then choose to live.
And each time they do so, they get smacked upside the head with reality every so often.
And we're going to smack them upside the head with reality on this one too.
It's not time to be defensive.
It's not time to be afraid.
It's not time to be even offended when they come out and say all these things.
Just encourage them.
And don't even enter into debates with them.
Just say, you know, you're not saying that loud enough.
Some liberal comes up to you and says, yeah, this guy's going to, he's going to make sure that abortion takes place in back alleys.
He's going to make sure there's discrimination.
And he's going to make sure that there's slavery all over you.
Really?
If you think that, you better go out and tell a whole lot more people.
Because there's not a person in this country, aside from the wacko kooks that already believe it who are going to believe it.
If there is an extreme element in this country, it's the wacko left.
And we want them on display.
Now, I made this bet with Cliff in South Carolina, and I've just been pointing, it's just a friend of mine just sent me a note that the National Review Online has a blog called Bench Memos.
They got a bunch of blogs up there.
They have the Corner, they have TKS, they have bench memos, which is where they monitor this sort of stuff.
And there's a prediction there by Matthew J. Frank.
Now, his prediction went up at 9.33 this morning.
So his prediction predates mine.
He said, until I take a closer look, I'm refraining from commenting on Alito's jurisprudence.
But politically, his nomination is brilliant and may prove to be the hinge on which some important history turns.
Now, Matthew Frank is a lawyer.
He's a brilliant lawyer on abortion rights cases and other things, too.
That's just to give you a little biographical sketch of him.
He said, there can be doubts about the qualifications or the depth of knowledge required to serve on the court of a nominee who is.
He said, there can be no doubt.
I'm sorry, it can be no doubts about the qualifications or the depth of knowledge required to serve on the Supreme Court of a nominee who has served on a federal circuit court for 15 years without one black mark against his ethics or his competence there.
So everything will turn on just what Senator Schumer has been harping on the last four years, what Samuel Alito thinks about the Constitution and about the role of the judge under that document.
The Schumer wing of the Democrat Party brought to a fever pitch by people for the American Way.
And by the way, let Ralph Nees be on TV all the time, too.
Put the guy out there.
Let the American people hear what he has to say.
These guys ought to be front and center instead of just hiding behind press releases and memos and TV commercials and their secret memos back and forth to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Anyway, as Matthew Frank says, the Schumer wing of the party will shrilly denounce Alito and demand that every tactic be used by compliant senators to defeat his assent to the Supreme Court.
Bush has effectively said, bring it on.
Now the question is, will they bring it?
Will Democrat senators do the bidding of their party's activist groups in sufficient numbers to cause Alioto's nomination any serious trouble or even mildly bothersome delay?
Matthew Frank says, I don't think so.
I think it's largely been bluff and bluster at the president's called the bluff.
Schumer and a few others will attempt to give Alito heartburn during the hearings.
I hope the judge is entirely forthcoming in answer to questions from senators of both parties.
But whatever answers he gives, here's what I predict: there will be no filibuster attempt.
If Dingy Harry doesn't quash the idea himself, he'll be persuaded to do so by his own caucus.
A significant number of Democratic senators who announced themselves very concerned about Alito's presumptive views on a woman's right to choose and other matters will nevertheless vote for him in the end.
No more than one or two Republican senators will vote against him.
Arlen Specter will not be one of those opposed.
And the final vote in favor of Alito will be more than 60 senators, possibly more than 65, which is what I said.
I predicted 65 votes.
Made a bet.
Friendly wager.
I will pay off if I lose with a couple of EIB golf shirts.
Cliff in South Carolina has to keep listening to the program if he loses.
If I win, which, of course, is not losing.
You cannot lose anything if your punishment is to continue to listen to this program.
That's a blessing.
We'll be back and continue here in mere moments.
Stay with us.
Say, Aldermont, grab audio sound by 16.
This is funny.
Mike Wallace was on the Today Show today, being interviewed by the perky one, Katie Couric.
Mike has a book out.
CBS will not plug his book.
He has to go on the Today Show to talk about his book.
I kid you not.
He does.
And Katie said, you think Dan should have resigned, meaning Dan rather.
You think Dan should have resigned?
I do.
It seems to me that Dan should have said, if they go, I go.
If the people on whom he depended are fired, lose their jobs.
He was the guy on camera.
Absolutely should have resigned.
All right, now, that's all well and good, but there's a funny story that goes along with this that comes in radarmagazine.com.
I think it's a relatively new magazine, and they do gossip and things like that.
They do stories of media people and so forth.
And the title of this story is: I can't use the word they use in the title of the story.
But it's what happens when you're standing in a urinal, because that's where the story took place.
It says whizzing match.
I'll use that whizzing match at CBS.
When newly promoted CBS News President Sean McManus gets around to chatting with Dan Rather about the fallout from his Bush National Guard story, we hope he uses more tact than Mike Wallace.
According to sources inside the network, Wallace recently got into a shouting match with Rather after telling the disgraced journalist he should acquit over MemoGate while the two men were standing side by side at a urinal.
The argument erupted at a men's room at CBS headquarters in New York, we hear, after Wallace sidled up to his whizzing 60 Minutes colleague of three decades and told him he had just confided to Katie Couric in a Today Show interview scheduled to air this morning that he thought Rather should have resigned when his underlings were canned for basing the National Guard story on what turned out to be phony documents.
They were both standing at the urinals when Wallace casually mentioned what he had told Katie Couric, says this source.
There proceeded a 20-minute shouting match in a bathroom between Rather and Mike Wallace.
Reached for comment.
Wallace confirmed a discussion had taken place.
I don't remember whether it was in a men's room or not, but he called the notion that tempers flared BS and incorrect.
That's funny.
That's almost as funny.
This invariably happens.
One of the reasons why powerful, influential, famous people like me do not go to public restrooms.
You're standing there and somebody walks in and recognizes you and wants to shake your hand at that moment.
You know, and you just, you just, you can't do that.
I mean, here's Lane in Philadelphia.
Hi, Lane.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Oh, thank you for having me on.
I'm an optimistic Pennsylvanian today.
I'm very thrilled with the choice of Alito.
I am a Toomey Republican and, as such, have been worried about Specter in his little D ways.
And so I'm very thrilled that Alito has been chosen.
I think this will force Specter to side with President Bush.
Well, in fact, if you'll hang on here just a second, I'm going to have to find it.
I don't have it right at my fingertips because I didn't print it out.
Here, let me print it out right now.
I just found it.
Because there's a quote from Senator Specter on Judge Alito that you refer to.
And a lot of people share your concerns about Senator Specter, given that he's not a conservative.
But, you know, Judge Alito serves on the Third Circuit, which is in Philadelphia, and covers part of Pennsylvania.
Here's Specter's statement.
He made this statement today in a press conference.
I've known Judge Alito for the better part of two decades.
He sits on the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which includes my state of Pennsylvania.
He brings to this nomination a very distinguished record.
He was in the Solicitor's General's office.
He was U.S. Attorney for New Jersey.
Oh, and speaking of that, that means he was a prosecutor, folks.
The U.S. attorneys are prosecutors.
We will find out now just how much Democrats love prosecutors.
Remember, Pat Fitzgerald, a prosecutor's prosecutor, said Senator Schumer.
So they love prosecutors.
Well, let's see how much they love prosecutors since Alito was one.
Continuing on with Senator Schumer's statement, he's been on the federal bench now for 15 years.
We are in the process of assembling his opinions.
It is estimated that he's been involved in about 3,500 cases, has some 300 opinions which he has written, so that we have a very good idea as to his approach to jurisprudence.
So this is Senator Specter's statement, and it is pretty much what you said that you thought he would say.
Had you heard that he had said that?
I had not heard yet.
No, but when I heard that this judge was from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, I was just excited.
Very excited.
Knew he was...
Are you saying that Senator Spector has a geographical bias that anybody from Pennsylvania or Philadelphia where he's from would get his okay?
Well, I think he probably ought to since we're the ones that vote him into office.
So anyway.
And thank you so much for having me on your show.
I've been listening to you for a few years and just thrilled to have raised my hand and have you choose me to speak.
I appreciate that, Lily.
Thanks very much for calling.
How many of you happen to see David Brooks' piece Saturday in the New York Times?
It might have been Sunday's piece.
Sometimes those Sunday pieces come out on Saturday night.
I read this piece.
I said, whoa, they are listening out there.
His piece, why are Democrats so overheated?
And Mr. Brooks used to work at the Weekly Standard.
Let me just read you a brief excerpt or two of this piece.
Just more to chalk up here in the good news column is the point, folks.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain.
He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior.
He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove.
Leading Democrat politicians fill the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society.
Why are these people so compulsively overheated?
Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?
Well, Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called The Paranoid Style in American Politics.
Richard Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious, and conspiratorial frame of mind.
It's never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes.
They insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
The paranoid spokesman Hofstadter wrote, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms.
He traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values.
He is always manning the barricades of civilization because his opponents are so evil.
The conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction.
David Brooks summarizes this way.
He says, so some Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but they had to stretch, distort, and exaggerate.
The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy.
Now, that's the inside-the-belt way erudite elite way of saying what I have been saying and trying to dram home to you people for the last five years.
And that is the Democrats are over the edge because they lost control of the government starting in 1994.
This is their government.
This is their country.
And it's been taken away first by Newt, then by Bush, and they think it was stolen from them, particularly by Bush in 2000 and stolen from them again in 2004.
And they cannot look at themselves and see any reason why people would be rejecting them.
So it has to be some grand conspiracy.
Voting machines that don't count, ballots that were not properly counted, registered voters who were turned away, particularly if they were black.
They come up with all these cockamami conspiracies.
And when you listen to them, you honest to God think they really believe them.
Because, as I've always said, they cannot look at themselves and see anything wrong.
It has to be either a conspiracy or the voters are stupid and they are unhinged.
And nothing has changed about that.
And this lack of Rove being indicted has only added to it, mark my words.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
I'm still laughing here, folks, over Senator Schumer saying that Sandra Day O'Connor united us and that we needed pick like Sandra Day O'Connor because Bush needs to unite the country.
The fact of the matter is that it was the Supreme Court with O'Connor as the so-called swing vote that has divided us.
The Supreme Court, in its current structure, deciding political and social cases in this country rather than just legal cases, has done more to divide this country than any.
And that's a bunch of liberals by there, by the way, putting their own personal policy preferences into the law.
That's done more to divide this country than Bush or any president.
Well, you throw Clinton in there because he nominated some of these people, but the fact of the matter is the court does more dividing of people than uniting, and anybody wants to admit if Schumer wants to help unite the nation, a good way for him to start would be for him to resign.
And then Dan Rather should have resigned.
That would have united the country.
They really want to talk about uniting the country.
Shut up.
By the way, here's more.
The left is coming out of the woodwork on Sam Alito.
This from the PR Newswire, the following release today by the Brady campaign to prevent gun violence on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.
How could it have gone in any other direction?
From a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzi's and AK-47s back in America's city streets and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice.
It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.
In 1996, Judge Sam Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.
Earth to Sammy.
Who needs legal machine guns?
Ask Jim Brady, chair of the Brady campaign.
The Chicago mobsters of the 30s would be giddy, but the man I worked for who gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and signed the 86 machine gun ban would be shaking his head.
So the Brady bunch is calling him machine gun Sammy today in their press release.
Bring it on.
Just bring it on.
Machine gun Sammy.
That's Judge Sam Alito.
And I got this is a pretty good email from a subscriber, Jeremy Vincent at rushlimbaugh.com.
Hey, El Rushbos, since when is the left concerned about uniting the country?
Gay marriage, abortion, ACLU, banning Christmas, harsh punishment for sex offenders, the war, big government, etc.
It said these are all leftist positions that polarize the country and ironically enough, subjects that the court will undoubtedly rule upon in the near future.
Seems as though Bush is trying to unite the majority's voice in this country.
I'm not leaving social matters to a small group of neo-socialists.
Great comment.
Again, that's from Jeremy Vincent.
He's from Richmond, Virginia.
Here's Patricia in Belleville, Illinois.
Hi, I'm glad you waited and welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
I just want to say that I'm thrilled that the president did not cave into the feminist agenda.
I guess I come from one of those old-fashioned, dysfunctional homes where a strong man was there all the time.
And that's what makes me feel good to maintain the natural order of things.
A solid, strong, capable man in a leadership or powerful role.
Well, wait a minute, but wait a minute, What about the fact that this was Sandra Day O'Connor's seat?
This is Description O'Connor take it from?
That was a seat held by men for historically for hundreds of years.
Just one interloping woman, suddenly it's a woman's seat.
So you don't buy into the notion that the Supreme Court ought to have quotas.
Absolutely not.
Because if women have a different view of the law based on their emotional viewpoint of the world, we've got a major problem.
The law is objective, not subjective to PMS or heartstreams or whatever it is.
Kittens and I don't know what it is.
Women are supposed to be sweeter.
Let me tell you something, Rush.
Every woman I know, with few exceptions, things are backstabbing.
You can't trust women.
Give me a straightforward, honest-speaking man any day of the week, especially if you're going to have power over me.
Well, that may be a little.
Hold it a minute.
Hold it a minute.
I appreciate the sentiments out there.
Some of that may be a little over the top.
There's one thing.
There's one thing that she said that, I mean, you go to the bank on, and that is you can't trust women.
No, I'm just kidding, Dawn.
The one thing that she said that you go to the bank on is somebody's gender ought to have nothing to do with interpreting the law.
There isn't female law.
There's not male law.
There's not white law, black law, orange law, or any of that.
The law is the law, and we have our humanity in common.
And the idea that there should be quotas on the court, because only women justices could possibly understand the needs and the forces out there that affect women is just one of the reasons why this whole court has become bastardized.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, a question.
Snerdley has a question, folks.
So what is it?
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Snerdley has just asked, if that were an all-female court, would you still have the same view that gender ought not matter?
Well, that's a pretty big if.
But I could only answer that if every female nominee had been somebody I approved of.
I mean, if you had a bunch of liberal women, if you had an all-feminist, for example, on the court, we'd be in heap big doo-doo.
But that's why this stuff shouldn't matter.
But yeah, I wouldn't mind if Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Priscilla Owen were all on the Supreme Court.
Wouldn't matter to me at all.
You could find nine Janice Rogers Browns and put them on there, and I would be dancing for the rest of my days.
Hell's bells, folks.
It's a way you interpret the law.
I don't care what the gender is.
If the gender gets it right, then put the gender up there.
But that's, this is silly, this notion that there is the O'Connor seat.
But let the nags come out and complain about it.
Let them come out and whine and moan and do all this.
My theme has been, and it's not new today, getting a lot of emails.
Rush, I love to see you on offensive.
What do you mean, see, like see me on?
I've been off like this for the longest time.
Bring this on.
It's time to have this battle.
The time is right now.
I even had a first call.
Oh, boy, Rush, if you lose it, if we lose the battle, you're really.
His point was, if we don't get enough Republican votes and the nominee goes down the tubes, that doesn't mean we lose the debate with the American people, folks.
That's the key.
The key here is the debate with the American people.
And if we win the debate with the American people, their senators are going to hear about it.
Trust me on this.
It's like I've always told you, you are the audience.
You are who this program is aimed at.
This program is not aimed at anybody, Washington.
They may hear about it, and this program may hit them, but it's not aimed at them.
It's not aimed at the White House, not aimed at the Senate, not aimed at the Congress.
It's aimed at you.
This is a representative republic.
We elect the people that serve in this country.
They're supposed to have trust in us.
The more that our decisions are informed and educated, the more that trust and respect for us will flow from the highest offices.
I mean, look at the left.
Why do you think the left looks with disdain at its own voters?
If you listen to the left describe their own constituency, it's people that can't do anything, can't accomplish anything, are discriminated against, they're losers in life's lottery, don't have a prayer in life.
They depend on the people that elect them being dumbed down and ignorant.
They depend on their own voters being as dependent as possible on them.
That's not who we are.
We don't look at our voters that way.
We don't want them to be that way.
And that's a huge striking difference.
So I'm suggesting bring the debate on.
Let's flush them out.
The left, I've been sick and tired of the way they've been getting away with masquerading moderates, progressives.
We know who the real left is, and it's found a home out there on the internet with these wacko extremist blogs.
And they're exerting all the financial pressure and other types of pressure on elected Democrats.
Let's bring it to the surface.
Let the Americans see just how.
And tell you what, let some mainstream Democrats find out just who it is that has destroyed their party, is taking their party down the tubes.
Find out who these people are.
There's a lot of ground here to be gained here, folks, but it can't happen without these fights taking place.
You get into debates and then you win them.
And you win them on the merits.
You win them on the basis of ideas.
That's what's great about this pick and the opportunity that it affords.
Here's Michael, cell phone call from Lebanon, New Jersey.
You're next, sir.
Hello.
Rush, it's an absolute pleasure to speak with you.
I've listened to you for 10 years now.
And I tell you what, last week you mentioned the fact that what Bush ought to do, he ought to pull Myers and appoint the most conservative judge.
I'm just waiting now for Bush to bomb Syria, like you said.
Yeah, you know, I got a lot of praise, understandably so, for that monologue last week, because I'd set up some circumstances.
It was on the eve of this indictment, and we didn't know who the indictment was going to be.
It could be Rove, could be Libby, could have been both.
Turned out to be Libby.
But I said there's a way to fight this.
And the president, what I think he ought to do, and in fact, I said this Tuesday or Wednesday of last week, when the news media was just alive with what turned out to be nothing but dreams, hopeful dreams and rumors.
And I said, what Bush ought to do if one of his people or two of his people are indicted is say, all right, you people out there, you think that these guys have been my brain.
I don't have a brain.
Rove's been making my decisions for me.
Libby's been making Cheney's decisions.
Cheney's been making my decisions.
Well, let me tell you something.
From now on, every decision comes from me, just as it always has.
Let me tell you some of the decisions I've just made.
First thing I'm going to do, I'm going to pull Harriet Meyer's nomination, and I'm going to put somebody in there who's going to drive you liberals crazy, and I'm going to fix the Supreme Court.
I'm going to get serious on immigration.
I'm tired of sending out my little hand of friendship.
I'm tired of the new tone.
I've tried working with you guys.
I've let you write the education bill.
I've consulted with you on the Supreme Court.
You don't have any appreciation for it.
Now you want to get rid of two of my people and put them in jail.
Well, fine.
After I change the immigration policy and after I clamp down on the Supreme Court, then we're going to go bomb Syria.
And if Iran doesn't get serious about taking Israel out, we're going to bomb them too.
The hell with all this.
I got three years to straighten this country out, and I'm, by God, going to do it.
And I'm going to give you people in the media so many stories to cover, you won't know which one to cover first.
And the last one you'll cover is my guys being indicted because you're going to be so worried about the other things I'm doing.
That's what I suggested Bush do.
And Michael here is calling, where is the bomb Syria part?
And when does that start?
We're still waiting, but be patient.
Talent on loan from God, Rush Limbaugh behind this, the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Ronnie Earle, if you are listening in Travis County, Texas, have some news for you that you might find interesting.
Representative Cynthia McKinney, one of the wackiest, goofiest elected Democrats in this country, and that is saying something, must pay a $33,000 fine and reimburse as much as $72,000 to political donors after accepting excessive contributions in the 2002 election.
According to the Federal Election Commission on Friday.
The fine was part of a conciliation agreement between the Georgia Democrat and the FEC.
The amount will come out of her campaign coffers.
The allegations stem from McKinney's 2002 reelection campaign, which she lost in the Democratic primary to Denise Majette.
McKinney was out of Congress for two years before winning the seat back in 2004 when Majette left to run for the Senate.
So $33,000 fine, reimbursed $72,000.
Well, that's $105,000.
$105,000.
I wonder if Ronnie Earle would be interested in this in terms of, well, he's a zealot out there, folks, on getting the money out of politics.
Now, I don't know if you people have heard about this yet, but when the dust settles on the Fitzgerald indictment of Scooter Libby, and when the dust settles on the choice of Sam Alito, I, by the way, understand that Chuck Schumer was hoping for Judge Ito from the OJ trial here and instead got Sam Alito from the Third Circuit.
Anyway, when the dust settles from those two, you're going to hear about this story.
Some of you in the hinterlands may already have heard about it in your local media.
This story came out Friday, and all I'm going to have to tell you is the headline: Tell me, Mr. Snerdley, if you've heard about this yet: House Panel OK's school lunch funding cut.
Haven't heard that?
I bet most of you haven't heard this yet.
Yeah, it's one of these stories that kind of snuck in under the radar over the weekend because the press focused on getting rid of Scooter Libby and wondering why Rove wasn't indicted.
The House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts Friday.
This is the way AP writes this, and I'm sure this is not true.
This is the way it's written.
House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts on Friday that would take food stamps away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfast for 40,000 children.
The action came as the government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of $7 million in five years.
Representative David Scott, Democrat Georgia, said, if there are cuts to be made, why should we make them on food stamps?
This is the meanest cut of all.
The cuts approved by the Republican-controlled committee, Ag Committee, and a party-line vote are part of an effort by the House Republicans to curb federal spending by $50 billion.
The food and agriculture cuts would reduce spending by $3.7 billion, including $844 million on nutrition, $760 million on conservation, $212 million on payments to farmers.
John Boehner said, the fact is our country's going broke.
We're spending money we don't have.
We're passing it on to our kids.
And at some point, somebody's going to say enough's enough.
So they're back to the school lunch cuts.
300,000 people could cut off or I'm sorry, the food stamp story we've been covering.
There's more food stamps out there than there are applicants.
They have to run advertising for food stamp applicants.
40,000 lunches and breakfast in school could be cut off for that many children.
Now, I'm sure you're wondering, why would they do this, knowing what happened the last time?
Why would they do this?
Well, until I get more information, I don't believe this story as written.
I'm sure there's some Agriculture Committee cuts, but this is, if we're going to cut 300,000 people off food, we're not cutting 300,000 people off food stamps.
See, I know this is not right.
There's a budget cut of food stamps because we have far more money in that budget than is necessary.
And so they're just taking, okay, how much does the average food stamp user get?
And then take that budget to cut, okay, how many people is it?
300,000 people lose their food stamps.
Nobody's losing food stamps.
And I'll bet you there aren't any kids losing school lunch either.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Hey, look, folks, we can't have it both ways.
We can't run around and be all worried about childhood obesity and at the same time be concerned with reducing the consumption of food in the schools.
But I will just guarantee that's not what's happening.
I'll bet you no kid will be removed from the school lunch program.
I'll bet you not one, not 40,000, none.
You watch.
▲
Export Selection