All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 16, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
November 16, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Roger Hitchcock filling in today and tomorrow, and coming at you from the left coast here at KOGL Radio in San Diego, and reminding you, faithful Rush listeners, of our Adopt a Soldier program here, Rush Limbaugh, offering to match up contributions from the listening audience to give a combo subscription to warriors stationed worldwide in the United States Armed Forces.
That is a combo of the Rush 24-7 and the Limbaugh letter.
So all the information on that at rushlimbaugh.com.
Adopt a soldier.
We in California and throughout the Western states are ruled by, and I use the word carefully, we are ruled by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affectionately known here in our area as the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit, 47 judges, 26 of whom were named by Jim Carter and Bill Clinton, is, well, on its own trajectory.
Just to give you a flavor of this, in the past few years, the Ninth has tried to make POT legal, ban the Pledge of Allegiance, give prisoners a right to procreate, and hand cross-dressers a right to political asylum.
Last year, it tried to kill a legally conducted recall election in California.
So this court, already on its own trajectory, its own vision of the progressive world we should live in, has now, well, done away with parental rights.
The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of Southern California's Palmdale School District and against parents in a case where parents sued the school district for a survey that was given to the kids, first, third, and fifth graders.
So some of these kids as young as six years old.
Now, the survey had a lot of parts to it.
Every part was sent home to the parents for review except for the sex part.
The sex part was not sent home.
The parents sued when they found out about the sex part, where kids as young as six were asked the following questions.
The frequency, the children were asked about the frequency of, number one, touching my private parts too much.
Number two, thinking about having sex.
Three, thinking about touching other people's private parts.
Number four, thinking about sex when I don't want to.
Number five, washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside.
You get the idea.
I don't need to go through the whole 10 horrific parts of this question.
But kids as young as six were asked this without parental permission.
The school district was sued.
The parents argued that they, not the public schools, have the right to raise their children according to the values that the family desires.
The court ruled otherwise.
And the court specifically, Judge Stephen Reinhart, a Jimmy Carter appointee, one of the most wacko judges in the history of the United States.
This person absolutely, well, I won't get into detail except to just tell you what he said about this case.
After you've now heard the questionnaire and the efforts of the school district to hide it from parents and the school district's assertions that, well, they have a right to do this kind of thing.
Judge Reinhart said, quote, there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.
That, of course, was not, unquote, that was not at issue.
Information about sexual matters is going to come to these kids from a variety of places.
The fundamental right of parents is to know when the schools are delivering their little sex values through the method of asking questions.
But this is the one that got me.
Reinhardt said, quote, Parents have no due process.
Now, check this: parents have no due process or privacy right to override public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.
In other words, you have no right.
We're going to teach your kids what we want to teach your kids, and you have no rights.
In fact, said Stephen Reinhart, a Jimmy Carter appointee, quote, no specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty, unquote.
I can't imagine a more extreme misstatement in the annals of American judges.
You want to talk about an extremist federal judge.
You want to talk about an out-of-the-mainstream judge.
It's Stephen Reinhart.
No history of parental control for what kids read or are exposed to?
The whole history of American education is defined by parents controlling what their kids read and learn.
That's how the public schools got started.
It's only in recent years and with these kinds of judges that wealthy teachers' unions made rare what once was common parental control.
And what is this ordered liberty concept?
What nonsense is this?
What kind of oxymoron is ordered liberty?
Ordered liberty.
A contradiction in terms.
What kind of Orwellian craziness is this?
Now, look, we have come to expect this nonsense from the Ninth Circuit out here.
It has carefully built a reputation for especially bad jurisprudence of the far-left sort.
So bad that the United States Supreme Court, in recent decades, has made it the most reversed appellate court in the land.
Last year, the Ninth Circuit reversed 75% of the time, more than any of the other 10 appeals courts.
And that number, by the way, was an improvement.
In the late 1990s, they were overturned 80% or more, given the year.
Now, the Ninth Circuit, to most people, is a laughingstock.
To us, it is the example of why people like Alito and Judge Roberts and others are critical, crucial, bottom-line, non-negotiable, absolute must-have improvements in the federal judiciary, or we in the former United States of America will be subject to a new tyranny,
the tyranny of the black-robed ex-lawyers in their sole discretion of what they think we ought to be doing.
And we will march lockstep and we will smile.
We will be in our own North Korea, our own private North Korea, created by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where parents have no right to even question the deceit and perversity of the local public school board.
It is outrageous.
All right, so there's the latest From the Golden State.
Here's Fred in Miami.
Fred, welcome to the Rush program.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And Julie, enjoy when you do the show.
And I'm fuming here listening to that.
I'm a Peter Pan kid.
And for those of you who don't know what that is, it's the exodus of Cuban kids that left Cuba many, many years ago.
One of the main reasons for that was that Castro declared that parents no longer control their kids.
So many, many parents, including mine, send their kids to the Peter Pan program by ourselves 40-some years ago.
And I see that here, and it's a point to see a judge.
You know, it's almost like being in Cuba, you know, 45 years ago.
And that's the scary part.
Absolutely.
And thank you for that call because it verifies the point I'm actually trying to make here, which is that if you have a canary in the coal mine and the canary dies, you know the gas is coming.
You've got to get out of there if you're a minor.
The canary in the coal mine for tyranny coming is when parents are stripped of control of raising their children.
We used to, in the post-World War II era, there was analysis of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler.
One of the first things they did was take control away from parents for raising children.
And Hitler would make speeches in which he would tell older audiences: you know, I may not convince all of you of the ways of Nazism, but you give me your children, I'll be in power forever.
And that's exactly what happened.
It's what's happening now in the United States.
Now, I don't know, you know, I just want to throw out the warning bell here because there are certain marks along the way, and obvious ones like a caller earlier in the program advocating censorship of the Internet by nations, that you can get an idea that tyranny doesn't come because it's imposed on you against your will.
It comes because you agree to it.
It comes because in little step after little step after little step, you give in.
You get along.
You go along.
And little by little, those rights our grandfathers and great-grandfathers took for granted are taken away.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush, taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
And I'll tell you what, this is a fun day because I'm just getting into all kinds of issues I've been wanting to do for a long time.
How about this one?
I've been grinding my teeth about this gitmo thing for months, and I appreciate that Rush made me laugh about it with the club Gitmo gear at rushlimbaugh.com.
And I got a terrific laugh out of that, and it helped.
It helped.
It was therapeutic to be able to laugh about something so outrageous that the enemies of this country would have constitutional rights.
Because I have a memory, when the Nazis tried to, when the Germans tried to infiltrate saboteurs into the United States in World War II, some of them landing out of submarines on little rafts in Florida, apprehended there by militant citizens, acting, by the way, as the Minutemen want to do on the border, picked up these Nazi saboteurs.
They were within months tried, convicted, and hanged by Franklin Roosevelt.
Tried, convicted, and hanged by a military tribunal identical to the one George Bush has set up with regard to these enemies of the United States and their equally unconcealed desire to murder Americans and destroy America.
For trying to protect us from that threat, George Bush has been going through hell at the hands of the liberals.
So I want to open a new front on the Gitmo discussion.
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a United States base from the Spanish-American War.
Cuba, of course, a prison run by a now Parkinson's afflicted leader named Fidel Castro.
Fidel, of course, in the progressive world, has a perfect regime of progressive thought, a regime where everyone can get an education, where everyone gets free medical care, free housing, free transportation.
Now, don't get too sick, and don't expect anything other than the 57 Buick on the transportation side, but it's free.
However, the one thing that is modern about Cuba is the prison system.
That's right.
Very near to Guantanamo Bay, there is a prison where the conditions are at Guantanamo inhumane.
Inmates are deprived of their right to religious worship.
They receive scant nutrition.
They suffer constant verbal and physical abuse from guards.
It's a humanitarian outrage.
It isn't the U.S. base, the one you've heard so much about.
It's Castro's Guantanamo Provincial Prison in Cuba, the prison across the fence from the U.S. Naval Base.
Fidel's lockup makes the U.S. prison look like a five-star tropical resort.
It is Club Gitmo compared to Fidel's prison.
I'm getting my information out of the Wall Street Journal, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, a while back in an op-ed piece.
She says torture, deprivation, and isolation of political prisoners at the other Gitmo or at any of the other Fidel gulags across the island are no secret.
They've been loudly denounced by prisoners' families and reported by Cuba's independent journalists, but foreign journalists have paid little attention.
Now, many of you in the advanced classes here at the Limbaugh Institute will refer back to the discussion about the leak of the secret prisons of the CIA around the world, where terrorists are kept and tortured and interrogated and put through hell by the bushies.
Now, no proof of any of that, of course, but it was fun.
It was a fun leak.
Oh, and by the way, of course, it was a leak in the interests of the Democrats, so those leaks don't count.
We don't have to investigate those leaks.
We don't want to know who leaked that.
We don't want to have Mr. Fitzgerald indict them.
No, no, no, no.
Those leaks are good leaks.
You've got to have an idea about this.
You've got to have balance.
You've got to have judgment.
You've got to know what leaks are good and what leaks are not good.
And you've got to know which gulag to ignore and which one to protest.
And you've got to know, as Senator McCain, just follow Senator McCain because he's a master at this.
Follow Senator McCain, whose outrage about torture never extends to Cuba.
Never said a word about it.
Never extends to North Korea.
It's just a criticism of the United States.
I invite him to inspect Guantanamo Bay and then go and ask Castro to inspect Guantanamo Castro style and then come back and tell us what a bad job we're doing as the prisoners at Guantanamo and the U.S. naval base have fresh Korans, prayer rugs, clean clothes, nutrition and food that they dictate.
This is all I can eat.
No pork, please, you know, and all that.
Treated with the absolute, I mean, this might as well be a four-star tropical resort.
It's funny because in comparison to Fidel's prison, it is Club Gitmo.
It's hard to make fun of, as Rush made us all laugh with Club Gitmo.
It's hard to do that when the truth is it is a club.
It is a tropical club compared to the real Gitmo tragedy.
So, Senator McCain, when are you going to go see the really bad Gitmo?
Here's Jennifer in Havelock, North Carolina.
Hi, Jennifer.
Hi, Roger.
Welcome to the Rush Show.
Thank you.
I have a first grader and three other kids in a Christian school for which I pay almost $10,000 a year.
This disgusting survey is a prime example of why I have to do that.
That would never, ever happen where my kids go to school.
And my first grader doesn't even know what sex is, and I don't believe that he should be discussing those kind of things, especially with strangers.
Can you imagine in a classroom with their peers and a stranger asking them about touching themselves and how they feel and all that crazy stuff I don't even want to get back into?
It was just outrageous, Jennifer.
I wouldn't even want someone talking to my high school daughter about that.
No.
That's something for me to talk to her about, not the school.
I just wanted you to know, and everyone listening to this audience, and this audience expects this kind of information, to know how far along the progressive left, the Jimmy Carter left, has come in perverting traditional American values.
It's outrageous.
Right, it is.
Our kids are not safe if they're out of our sight.
In fact, in traditional terms, what I just read to you and what has gone on in the Palmdale district and goes on in districts throughout this country is, in my opinion, child abuse.
It is.
Absolutely.
As far as I'm concerned, it opens them up to thoughts that along comes the inevitable pervert, the inevitable child abuser, and I think those kids are primed to it by these kinds of surveys.
My child would never even think about those kind of things if they weren't putting that in his head.
I think that's exactly right.
And I think it's my responsibility to protect them from that.
And unfortunately, I can't trust the public school to do that.
And that's why I have to put my kids in a Christian school.
Yep.
It's your responsibility, and it's your right as well, Jane.
And all I can say to you is God bless you for protecting your children.
That's the American way.
That's the kind of parent we need a lot more of, and a lot fewer of these school districts, and a lot fewer Judge Reinhardts, and a lot fewer progressive crazies who want to take parents out of the picture and raise these kids to be good progressives, you know, good Hillary Clinton.
It takes a village to raise a sex pervert, and by golly, we're going to do it no matter how long it takes.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rush, with much more to come.
Stay with us.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today and tomorrow, Walter Williams, on Friday.
We are holding up our end here as Rush takes a greatly deserved break.
And we wish him the best back on Monday, of course, with both barrels blazing as always.
I'm intrigued by the state of New Jersey now searching for a new slogan for their state.
The state is spending $260,000 on a, quote, branding campaign, unquote.
Now, we out West have different meanings for this word.
I don't know exactly what that means in advertising vocabulary, but out here it means something permanent on your backside there.
But I guess this is something different.
Branding campaign by global image consultants, $260,000.
Well, of course, people have been inundating New Jersey, with, of course, fun and frolicking versions of the proposed New Jersey state slogan.
Bada Bing Choose New Jersey was popular.
New Jersey, it always smells like this, was another one.
Of course, the Philadelphia Inquirer had that one.
But, you know, from old blue eyes to the boss, Jersey is singing your song.
It's long, but, you know, it gets into it.
I like that.
But my favorite is this one: New Jersey.
You got a problem with that?
See, that pretty much encapsulates it for me.
All right, to Jane in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Jane, welcome to the Rush Program.
Roger.
Hi.
I love you.
Thank you.
It's what you don't hear on the television.
I heard on, I'm a radio ficionado, I heard that this Stephen Reinhardt is married to the executive director of the Southern District of the ACLU, and it's his fifth marriage.
That's all I have to say.
Jane, thanks very much.
Thanks for watching.
Country laughs.
I'm telling you.
Thanks very much.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, it's never extreme.
When crazies in their personal life and their ideology are nominated to the federal bench, they are not criticized as being out of the mainstream of American thinking, which is applied to any Republican or conservative.
How out of the mainstream, how whacked is it to remove under God from the Pledge of Allegiance, legalize pot because you have a privacy right to smoke marijuana, but you don't have a privacy right to raise your own children.
How whacked is it to support the idea that the Constitution, while it doesn't say so, implies that you have a privacy right to kill your unborn child, but not to raise that child?
These guys have lost it in their extremism.
Joshua in Colorado, next on the Rush program.
Hi there.
Hey, I'm calling because I'm a progressive.
I'm definitely a progressive.
And I am just furious to hear about this ruling.
When I was 14 years old, my parents took me out of public school and homeschooled me because my great state of Colorado no longer requires parental permission to even take such sexual education courses.
I feel like it's absolutely a parent's right to censor what their children hear.
That sounds terrible to say censor, but that's what it is.
I mean, children are too young to understand the things that the public school teaches them.
The parents know.
Parents spend a lot of time with their kids.
They understand when they're ready to hear these things.
It's the parents' responsibility, not the public school.
Well, right on, Joshua.
Let me ask you, though, that doesn't sound very progressive.
It sounds pretty conservative.
What are you progressive about?
I'm more of an economic progressive, I guess you could say.
And really, you know, gay rights are great.
You should be able to live however you want.
But nobody should tell you how you have to live.
And I feel like that's what they're doing here, is they're telling me that I have to allow my children to do this, and I have to be okay with it.
Yeah, no, that's exactly right, which sounds more libertarian to me than that.
You sound more libertarian to me than progressive, because the progressives are mostly socialist, statist people who defend this kind of stuff.
I just don't see how anyway, morally, I can defend this.
You know, it's just outrageous.
It is outrageous, Joshua, but it's, you know, you know what?
It's outrageous, but it is the normal thing for the Ninth Circus.
They're just completely, completely gone, as far as I can see.
Here's Barry in Brooklyn, New York.
Hey, Barry, welcome to the Rush program.
How are you doing, Roger?
Good.
I'm a registered Democrat who, after paying closer attention to what's going on, realized more and more that I'm actually closer to being a Republican than I am a Democrat.
So if you could just bear with me for a second.
My question is: the topic today is that conservatives are up in arms about this sex education being taught in the public schools and not having the right to censor their child from being exposed to this talk about sexual education.
I just wanted to know: how is that any different from the recent happenings where the court said that it's okay to remove religious symbols from schools?
The liberals feel, certain liberals feel as though, I don't, you know, my child's not a Christian.
I don't want my child to be exposed to symbols of Christianity the same way that you oppose those parents censoring Christian symbols from the public school.
How is it any different from conservatives wanting to censor the sex talk from being taught?
Barry, you're going to have to watch it, man.
You're getting logical, and this is going to lead you to more doubt about Democrats.
You're getting way too logical.
Of course, there's no difference.
The fact is that you look, here's what I think you're saying: is that those folks who believe in raising their kids should have a right to have some say, and parents used to have the only say in what was exposed to their kids in education.
You should have a right to pick and choose what your child is.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Now, in the case of being exposed to symbols you don't agree with, maybe it's a swastika, maybe it's a cross, maybe whatever it is, you have the right to, it seems to me as a parent, to have a knowledge of when your kids are exposed to that symbol.
And by the way, out here in California, I don't know how crazy it is where you are, but out here in California, in the seventh grade, the kids are exposed to the Koran.
They have to dress like Arabs.
They have to take an Arab name.
They are exposed to the actual religious principles of Islam in a way that would never be allowed in terms of teaching, for instance, the Ten Commandments.
And they have to become Muslims for a week in order to understand what the Muslim world is like in a way that would be completely unacceptable if we were trying to make the same case for Christianity.
Even though I may not agree with it, that's just cultural awareness.
No, it's more than that.
It's indoctrination.
No, no, no.
See, because it's indoctrination, because if you were just exposing them and saying, okay, here's what Muslims believe, that's one thing.
And by the way, the same history book, and I've got a copy of it in my office, does not expose those students to any of the teachings of any other religion.
It's only Islam.
Okay, well, I do find a problem with that then.
Yeah.
I want you, Barry, to delve into this with a logical mind.
Because, first of all, the premise is parents should have the total control of their kids.
And they should know what's going on.
And when they disagree with what's going on in the schools, they ought to have a right to either pull their kid out of that particular class or have beyond notice that they have to balance at home what they heard in school, which I often had to do with my kids.
You know, look, they're going to be getting influences.
Why can't you just simply balance sex education?
You find out what was taught, and if there's anything you disagree in, and you tell them, look, you know, I understand that that's what they told you.
Absolutely right.
But, Barry, look, absolutely right.
But you didn't hear part, you didn't listen to the whole thing.
The Palmdale School District sent home this survey they were going to do of the kids and left the sex ed part out.
They deliberately did not notify.
As a matter of policy, they refused to notify the parents of what was coming before it happened.
Okay.
And I just don't think that's right.
A plain devil's advocate.
What I could say to that is parents are not usually notified when a Christmas tree is erected in the lobby of the school building, neither.
There's no Christmas trees in the schools out here.
When I was growing up, they had Christmas trees.
Have all kinds of Christian symbols around Christmas time in the schools.
Maybe not literally a Christmas tree.
However, they'd be all kind of religious symbols in the schools.
Yeah, man, we had Santa Claus.
We didn't have religious symbols.
We had Santa Claus.
The creche and all the rest of it was at church.
It was Santa Claus and reindeer at school.
Okay.
Right?
I mean, nothing wrong with that, is there?
Well, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with it.
You know, I don't have a problem with that.
The parents were involved in it.
The parents helped set it up.
So if there was a problem, if there was a Jewish kid that wanted to have his menorah up or whatever, they had that too.
Yeah, but see, the problem is that if I'm the Jewish kid, I'm made to feel uncomfortable about putting up a Christmas tree.
Oh, baloney.
You're uncomfortable, and this is your own problem.
Listen, if you're going to be, if you have a veto over my Christmas tree because you're uncomfortable, that's not in the Constitution.
No, no, no.
Hell, I'm uncomfortable, Barry, about a lot of stuff in this country.
I don't have any right to tear it down.
No, but see, what are you, the Taliban?
You know, the Taliban were uncomfortable.
Look, Barry, the Taliban were uncomfortable about the Buddha statue, too, so they blew it up.
You think that's right?
Look, do you have a constitutional right to blow anything up?
No.
Do you have a constitutional right to have religion separated from school?
Yes, you do.
I want to tell you, Barry, in my city, Barry, I want to tell you in my city, I have a judge right now saying that the cross that's incorporated into Mount Soledad National War Memorial in La Jolla must be taken down because it's unconstitutional.
We have a Taliban mentality in the progressive community.
We have a Taliban mentality on the judges.
These judges want to tear down religious symbols.
They want to blow that cross up, just like the Taliban wanted to blow up and did blow up the Buddha.
So that's not tolerance.
That's not diversity.
That's not multiculturalism.
That is tyranny.
And I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush After Dis.
A word now about Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele of Maryland, the first Republican for a long time in Maryland and the first black office holder, lieutenant governor in the history of that state.
That's right.
A black Republican is the lieutenant governor of Maryland.
He is running for the Senate seat.
Senator Sarbanes is retiring and not a moment too soon.
And Mr. Steele is running, and a lot of Kweasy Fume, former NAACP, former congressman, is running on the Democrat side, and Mr. Steele is running on the Republican side.
Queasy, I want that bumper sticker.
I'm queasy for queasy.
Anyway, this run got the Democrats disturbed because, of course, they take black voters for granted.
And they don't like it when blacks are seen to have opportunity in the Republican Party.
So what they have to do, of course, is, well, campaign against Mr. Steele on the basis of race.
Until recently, a liberal weblog run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker, according to the Washington Times, had a headline reading, quote, simple Sambo wants to move to the big house.
Now, if you called an African American in this country Sambo, under most circumstances, the progressive, enlightened, diversity-loving left would call that by its proper name, racism.
Now, if it's directed against a Republican black, the question is, is it racism?
If a tree falls in the forest and you're not there, is it still making a noise?
Is it still racism?
If, as when he appeared at Morgan State, a largely black college, Mr. Steele was pelted with Oreo cookies, is it still racism?
Because you know if Jesse Jackson had been, it would be.
Is it still racism if on that liberal weblog Mr. Steele is portrayed in a caricature drawing as a blackfaced minstrel when he's called Uncle Tom?
In other words, in short, Maryland voters, and particularly black voters, is racism in defense of liberalism no vice at all?
I'd like to hear from you.
I'm Roger Hedgecock at 1-800-282-2882 on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Let's take Paul in Atlanta next.
Paul, welcome.
Hey, Roger.
How are you doing?
Good.
Good.
Hey, I was calling to suggest that perhaps the rights of parents in that school district in California to change that sex survey or the practice of giving out sex surveys to young children is to go and elect themselves a new school board.
No question about it.
But I'll tell you what happens, Paul.
I don't know whether this happens in your community, but in our communities, here's what happens.
The teachers' union is now so powerful.
I mean, they defeated Schwarzenegger handily here in the last election.
The teachers' union is so powerful, has so much money that there is no school board in this state, I venture to say, and I might be wrong by one or two, of the hundreds of school boards we have in this state of 36 million people, there are no school boards that are not controlled.
They're all controlled by the teachers' union.
And the teachers' union is a leftist juggernaut of politically correct, progressive nonsense foisted upon our kids.
And I'm sorry, Paul, we're in the midst of a tsunami of this stuff out here.
Well, I understand that.
But, you know, I'm an attorney, and one of the things that's been really frustrating to me is this, and how it's not just, it's not just Republicans do this.
I think Democrats do it too.
It's this idea that we have a real problem in our court system of these activist judges.
And the thing that just really frustrated me to no end was this thing that happened a couple of months ago about this eminent domain.
Yeah, the Kilo case.
And that's an even clearer example than the school board issue of what did the states do after this decision came down?
They did what the Supreme Court invited them to do, which was go in and change the laws and say, in Alabama, for example, you can't do that anymore.
You can't take somebody's land just because you can find a more profitable way to use it.
Well, somebody have to do that.
They said the states have the choice to do it.
Yeah, Paul, some states did.
Some states did not.
And some states and localities are hard at work today.
There are hundreds of examples.
Are hard at work today stripping poorer people of their property to give it to richer people?
It's happening everywhere.
But why can't we let the state legislatures?
I thought that conservatives wanted the Supreme Court to stay out of the way of the state legislatures and let the state legislatures make decisions about what was good for their state.
True.
No, true.
And I thought, Paul, and I thought, and I thought, that liberals wanted protections for poor people to be constitutionally enforced.
In other words, if I have a right to privacy to kill an unborn child in my womb, don't I have the right under the amendment to the Constitution, which says the government can take private property for public use with just compensation?
A public use in the Kilo case was to strip these low-income homeowners of the only asset they have, their home, give them whatever money you thought was right to give them, and turn it into a parking lot for the Pfizer Corporation.
Liberals support that, Paul?
Well, I don't support it or not support it, but I don't think.
Paul, thanks for your call.
I can't get anywhere with a lawyer sometimes.
It's very frustrating.
As a recovering lawyer myself, I'm in a 12-step program.
Can't talk to lawyers too often, or it just brings back a lot of ugly members.
Roger Hedgecock here for Rush 1-800-282-2882 after this.
Need another example of these judges run amok?
The Manhattan Supreme Court, Justice Jacqueline Silberman, ruling yesterday that Governor Pataki in New York broke the law keeping convicted sex fiends in these dirty dozen perverts here in a mental hospital after they'd served their sentence for the underlying crime.
Even though the state law, as I understand it in New York, says that if two court-appointed psychiatrists determine that the fiends are mentally ill or pose a significant danger to themselves or others, they can be kept.
Well, of course they pose a danger to others.
These are people preying on our children.
And the liberals, quote unquote, want to liberate the fiends from the mental hospital and put them back out in your community.
That's just before they take away your house and give it to Pfizer for a parking lot.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
If that's liberal, if that's diversity, if that's a great position, you take that position.
That's not my position.
I'm with the Constitution.
▲
Export Selection