All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 9, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
January 9, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's circus time, folks.
It's predictable as it can be.
The circus is started.
Senator Specter has now gaveled this prestigious committee to order and the Inquisition of Judge Sam Olido is underway.
Greetings, folks.
Great to be with you.
Great to have you here as we start a brand new week of broadcast excellence here on the one and only EIB network.
El Rushbow at 800-282-2882 of the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Here's what's going to happen for the next three hours.
Actually, the next three hours and 15 minutes.
These senators on a committee will each begin 10-minute opening statements.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.
And they will all wax eloquent about how concerned they are.
Well, the Democrats will.
This is so predictable.
I mean, everything they know, uh, everything they're going to do, we know.
It is so predictable.
Everything they're doing can be debunked.
Every lie that they're telling can be debunked.
I'll get started on doing a little bit of that today.
At 3 45 today, after a little break, um, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman will introduce Alito at four o'clock, Alito will be sworn in and make his opening statement.
So there really isn't going to be anything happening today in terms of uh fireworks back and forth.
Uh, but uh the the what will happen today is a constant camera shot on Alito's face.
And the attempt that will be made today by the Democrats as they are making their opening statements will be to cause Alito to look mean, to cause Alito to look sinister, to cause some kind of unwarranted facial expression as a reaction to whatever it is that uh that they are saying.
The uh the preparations for Alito probably have gone, uh I'm guessing pretty well.
I think people involved here are pretty confident.
You know, when you go back to the Roberts hearings, uh uh Roberts uh was is being called by some the anti-Bork uh hearings because he he had a posture that was exact opposite of Bork's in a paper trail that was hardly existent.
Uh and uh he gave them answers that they uh that they wanted to hear.
Uh Democrats realize how they were skunked on that, so they're out there saying, I'm not gonna put up with any of that kind of stuff this time.
He's gonna tell us everything we want to know.
If he doesn't answer these questions, it's too bad.
Somebody even asked someone, well, what about uh the Ruth Bader-Ginsburg answer?
Somebody asked uh Chuck Schumer.
What about the Ruth Vader Ginsburg answer?
I'm not gonna answer that.
That could come before the court.
That's not gonna fly here.
If he didn't open up, why we're gonna do this.
Schumer's out there threatening to filibuster.
They uh they know what's at stake here.
And and all their eggs have been rolled up here into one basket.
I found it humorous.
Well, by that I mean uh this is the Supreme Court for all this talk about prisons and spying and security and all that.
This is what they really care about.
The the Supreme Court uh, as you all know, we've discussed it in great detail on this program.
They can't win elections.
They cannot uh uh uh influence the American body politics sufficiently to win their votes, so they need the court system whereby their beliefs can be enacted as law bypassing the judicial process in this country.
Yesterday, Diane Feinstein, I think she was on Fox.
Yesterday, she said it is dangerous when one party controls the three branches of government.
And by that I mean the White House, the House and the Senate.
Now, some people say, well, wait a minute.
That's that's not the three branches of government.
Three branches of government are the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.
And clearly, Senator Feinstein called the three branches of government, the House, the Senate, and the White House.
Now, people saying, is she that stupid?
No.
I don't think she's that stu.
I don't think she's that ignorant, folks.
I think she thinks the American people are.
And I think that in that comment, she's trying to make it out like there's been a coup d'etat, and that the fact that the the Republicans own the government, the House, the Senate, and the White House is a bad thing.
And it all ties into their culture of corruption theme.
More about that and the spying issues as we unfold the program today.
Uh but you know, it's Interesting, it wasn't dangerous when the Democrats controlled all of Diane Feinstein's three branches.
Really, the way to analyze what Senator Feinstein said here, if she's if she says it's dangerous when one party controls the three branches, the White House, the House, the Senate, what she means is the American people are dangerous because they elected all three branches.
So Senator Feinstein is following whether she knows this or not.
The playbook, the American people can't be trusted.
It's the American people who are to blame here.
The American people put the Republicans in charge of all three branches of government, and that's not right, and that's not fair.
And that's why we've got to do something about this.
That's why they, by the way, have to control the courts as a check on the public's will, or as a check on the public's stupidity.
Since you, the public, elected Republicans to run all of her so-called three branches.
They have to control the courts to make sure your stupidity and ignorance is reined in.
Of course, when people elect liberal Democrats to run things why they're acting sensibly.
The American people are brilliant in those circumstances, but when the Republicans are elected to run all three branches, it's the result of slick marketing and packaging or other such BS.
I'm going to make abortion a big fact here, big issue.
And I have to say my sense is that uh abortion is simply not the number one issue on the minds of people anymore, and the number one issue, or these series of uh important issues that are uh at the top of most people's lists are those issues the Democrats miss the boat on time and time again.
For example, take a look at this spying business.
Mark Stein in the Chicago Sun Times had a great piece over the weekend.
And I'll paraphrase what he said.
Basically, if the Democrats get their way on this NSA spying program, Al Qaeda will have an immediate way to succeed with any operation in this country they want.
All they'll need to do is get an operative in the United States, and then get a phone call call going.
Any operative can call any other operative from this country to any other country and not be heard, because the Democrats will see to it in their in their uh in their zealous zealotry here to allow unfettered communications between the enemy and their controllers if they succeed in in uh in stopping this so-called spying program.
You know, the I mean the bottom line is on that that if the the administration would have been uh uh irresponsible had they not begun such a program, these attacks occurred in the United States.
But that's what I mean.
I think the American people understand full well, at least a great great percentage of you understand full well that if the Democrats get their way on this, that enemy combatants will be able to get into this country, and we know how open the borders are and how easy it is to get here, so they'll be able to get in and make phone calls to their superiors outside the country, and nobody will be able to monitor them.
And they'll be able to plan all kinds of people know this.
And that's what the Democrats, that's the position the Democrats have uh have staked out for themselves, once again appearing to be on the side of the uh of the enemy.
Uh the public's up to speed on the courts, the cup the public is up to speed now on the activism of the Democrats, uh, and they don't like it.
The public understands that uh every conservative nominee is not a monster now.
This is the thing that the Democrats haven't figured out.
They still live in their in their world where everything is a monopoly, there is no alternative media, they still get to blanket the country with their view, and they have failed to realize that with every phony ad that they run or lie that they state on television, like happened all weekend on the Sunday shows, that there is a media out there that will counterdict it, uh contradict it, and and uh expose it for what it is, an untruth.
Uh they used to be able to get away with characterizing every conservative judicial nominee as a monster.
They don't get away with that anymore.
Furthermore, I don't think the public likes the people that are running around throwing all the mud.
Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, these are not likable people.
These are not likable figures.
They act sactimonious, they act superiorist, and they are a condescending.
And it rubs people the wrong way.
The public doesn't like the media mouthpieces that are regurgitating all the lines that these people repeat, primarily from the ACLU, and the people are getting further and further fed up with the ACLU day in and day out.
So what you have here, the nomination of Judge Sam Alito today can Be set up this way.
It is the people versus Hollywood and the ACLU.
The people of this country versus Hollywood and the ACLU.
We've got memos.
We've got memos from these from the Judiciary Committee staff showing us that these groups own the Democrats.
These groups are radical leftist groups.
They're dictating even the questions that some of these Democrats ask, as was the case with Senator Feinstein when she was questioning Judge Roberts last time around.
We'll get into some specifics as the program unfolds.
And if I am told that some particular senator is actually a big fool of himself or something extra or saying something extraordinary, we'll jip it.
We'll jip the hearings, but I have other than that, we'll just wait for the highlights overnight, play you some stuff tomorrow, and tomorrow's going to be the big day when the questioning begins.
This is just the posturing today.
I think today would be well spent setting everybody up for what's coming in these opening statements and the questioning tomorrow.
You can get a good idea from looking at some of the moveon.org ads and other TV ads.
Example Democrats are actually going to try to make the American people believe that this nominee believes in strip searching ten-year-old girls.
They're actually going to try to make people believe that.
Quick timeout.
Back with more in just a second.
And I'm feeling doot glad all over.
Yes, um.
I know that's not the song is playing, but we had that song going before the show started.
Dave Clark 5, it's uh it's it's a bit infectious.
All right, welcome back.
Great to have you uh on the Rush Limbaugh program, the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchor man, America's truth detector, uh, America's Doctor of Democracy, Senator Leahy, Senator Pat Leakey Leahy, is now uh I you know I this is something that's always bothered me.
It's not just exclusive to this bunch of Democrats.
This this arrogant condescension, this pontificating as though they are the smartest people in the room, and all these nominees can run rings around these guys when it comes to the law and uh and and when it comes to the Constitution.
Uh and I know, I mean, they're the Senate, and by virtue of the Constitution, they are entitled to this role.
It's just the way they play it.
The sanctimony.
The sanctimony, and these people they just come across as unlikable.
Leahy, Durban, Kennedy.
I mean, at least with Clinton, at least with Clinton yet again, it might be fun to go to a ball game with and chase women afterwards.
It might be fun to hang around with a guy, but not these guys.
You know, these guys are just sticks in the mud.
I see Leahy and I see a guy sitting under his apple tree up in Vermont, and it, you know, the apples hitting him on the head and he's not even knowing it while he's reading up on the threats to democracy posed by all these judicial nominees.
Now the anti-Alito TV commercials are focusing on abortion and strip-searching ten-year-old girls.
Uh and of course, one way to look at that is these 10-year-old girls that the Democrats are all worried that Alito will allow to be swips uh strip searched.
At least they could be strip searched because if you leave it up to the Democrats, they wouldn't be alive.
They would have been aborted.
These are the little girls' liberals would just as soon have aborted, and there's nothing whatsoever in the record to show that Alito's in favor of strip searching ten-year-old girls.
Nothing whatsoever.
Here's a little review.
Meet the press.
Senator Schumer attacked uh attacked the judge, Judge Alito at length, and uh uh he he identified what he said were a number of elements that he saw in Judge Alito's record that he finds troubling.
Here's here's here's uh some of the just a couple of inaccurate statements that Schumer made.
Schumer said Alito was one of the very few justices.
Of course, he's not a justice yet, he's a judge.
But we'll let that pass, Senator Schumer just got confused, I'm sure.
Maybe it was a faux pas.
Alito was one of the very few justices to say that the federal government can't regulate a machine machine guns.
The federal government has regulated machine guns since the days of John Dillinger.
Well, the fact is Judge Alito has never said that Congress cannot regulate machine guns.
He's never said it.
In his dissent in in what's known as the Rybar case, Judge Alito actually said explicitly that Congress can regulate machine guns, and moreover, he set out a roadmap showing Congress how to do so.
Senator Schumer's comments suggest that Judge Alito addressed the whole issue of machine gun regulation uh writ large.
In fact, the case that Schumer's talking about, the Rybar case, regarded only the purely intrastate possession of machine guns, which is a very narrow slice of machine gun related activity, had nothing to do with interstate transportation or sale or use of machine guns.
So you keep a sharp eye on that.
The next one I've already alluded to.
Schumer.
He said, for instance, that a ten-year-old girl could be strip searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip searched.
This is a pure fabrication.
It is an utter misrepresentation.
And it is about a dissenting opinion that Alito wrote in the case Doe versus Grudy.
The issue over which the judges on the panel disagreed was precisely whether the search warrant did authorize the search of other persons in the drug dealer's house.
In Judge Alito's view, the search warrant incorporated the attached affidavit, which had been provided to the magistrate judge who issued the warrant, and that quite clearly sought permission to search others in the House.
Uh Judge Alito made the point, which is legally correct, that a warrant should be read in a common sense manner.
Moreover, the legal question in the case was whether the police officers should be personally liable for money damages for their conduct.
Judge Alito also expressed distaste for the search, but also frustration with the fact that drug dealers often misuse children implying their criminal trade.
And I could go on and on and on uh with here's another one then.
He said, this is Schumer, talking about Alito.
He has said, for instance, in the past, that one man, one vote.
Something that's accepted as a tenet of our democracy that you should not have one legislative district with 20,000 people and one with 300,000 people.
He said that was okay.
Once again, an utter lie and utter fabrication, astoundingly so.
Judge Sam Alito has never expressed disagreement with the principle of one person one vote.
In fact, it's been reported that he has told senators that he considers it a bedrock principle of constitutional law.
And you can't find anything that Alito has written or said anywhere that he would ever countenance such a grotesquely disproportionate apportionment.
And there these are the these are the I'm just warning you, you might think this is all gobbledygook, and it is.
It's all specious, it's all BS, and it may sound a little mundane, but I'm trying to get you prepped for what you're going to hear out of these guys' mouths as they go through their opening statements and they get into questioning.
Here's another thing that Schumer said.
In a speech before the Federalist Society in 2000, he said he believed in the unitary executive.
That means the executive has all the power.
It means you couldn't have an FTC.
It means you couldn't have a 9-11 commission.
It means that in a time of war relevant to today, that you could have warrants issued so you could go into somebody's home without going to a judge.
Well, now that that that is just patently absurd.
That's as that's as absurd as suggesting that Judge Alito believes you could strip search ten-year-olds.
Nothing in his jurisprudence, nothing in what anybody has been able to find in Alito's record, substantiates the allegation that he believes in or would vote for any of these outcomes.
Judge Alito has repeatedly ruled against executive interests where the law and facts supported the outcome.
Moreover, Judge Alito has expressed a healthy respect for the separation of powers.
Now, uh I'll tell you what's going to happen.
If the Democrats do follow through with these things, they're going to get stung and they're going to get bitten in the rear just like they did with John Rock Judge Roberts, because this guy is going to run rings around him.
He is going to have the facts at his disposal on his own rulings, on his own writings, and he's going to be able to point out how no Senator, you're wrong.
I never said that.
No, Senator, you're wrong.
I never wrote that.
These people are trying to get by with what they've gotten by with for the last 30 years, and that is just making things up about these people.
All under the rubric of their extremist out-of-the-mainstream kooks.
And that and so they're going to try to get away with this.
They hope they can intimidate the guy, like they hope they could intimidate Judge Roberts Into a facial expression that would betray something.
Remember, a lot of this is television, and a lot of it will be how somebody looks.
And that's why there's a split screen on Alito all day today.
And these guys know it full well.
And the Democrats, as they go through their opening statements, are going to be trying to get him to utter some something under his breath or to cause him to make a facial expression that makes him look sinister or uh dislikable or some such thing.
Right now he just looks bored.
And that's the best face that he could affect.
Senator Senator Leahy just finished, but it just pay attention, but just look bored.
Do not do it, you know, smile at the appropriate times.
Uh but but looking bored when these Democrats are going through all of this is uh probably not a bad strategy.
At any rate, lots more to do on the program today, plus get to your phone call soul.
Be patient.
The EIB network and L. Rushbow roll right on.
The phone number again will get to your call soon.
800 282-2882.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We are ditto camming today.
We have been since the outset of the program.
All three hours at Rush Limbaugh.com for enlightened members of uh Rush 24-7.
Uh some of the other ads that the uh these far left extremist groups are running out there.
One of the one of the uh lines in the ad accuses Alito of siding with the government X number of times.
Now that's funny coming from a bunch of big government types.
Isn't that what they would want?
I mean the government is the is the sole legitimate central force in our society, as far as these people are concerned, and then they're criticizing Alito for siding uh with them.
Now note Orin Hatch is now making his opening statement.
CNN has dumped out of the Republican opening statement to go to their legal analyst to explain to everybody what we just heard, I guess, from uh this happened the last time with Roberts.
There's Jeff Greenfield up there, too.
Uh so the bump out of the Republican opening statements.
And of course, you know what they would say?
Well, of course, we know what the Republicans are going to say.
Rush, I mean what the Republicans are gonna say does not move the story forward.
That that that's that's not the action line.
Of course, what the Republicans do is not the action line.
The action line in this story is how are the Democrats gonna kill this nomination?
And of course, what the Republicans say is irrelevant, and nobody cares what the Republicans are saying in that line in that regard.
And that's yet uh you have to you have to know what the media action line is, uh what it is that moves the story forward uh in in uh in any circumstance.
The other thing that one of the other lines in one of these uh commercials that the Democrats are saying, opposing Alito is that he he sided with the cops uh X uh X percentage of the time.
Well, now that I can understand, because they want all courts to side with the criminal, except when the criminal's name is delay, or the accused name is delay, uh, or I could mention a couple of other names as well, then they're all for the cops, but uh other than that, uh, cops have too much power uh and uh Alito represents a dangerous extension of the heavy foot of the jack booted thugs of the police.
So forth.
I i the whole thing is is is is comical uh in a way.
He's gonna he's going to end up be confirmed that their attempts to smear this man are gonna backfire on them like pretty much everything else that they do backfires on them in time.
Ted Kennedy took a whirl.
But have you heard Ted Kennedy's gonna write a children's book?
Ted Kennedy is going to write a children's book.
I wonder if he'll talk whether or not he thinks you can strip search a waitress.
Well, have yeah, yeah, yeah.
He's got a dog named Splash.
Now, you can name your dog whatever you want to name your dog.
I, you know, that's a free country.
Feel free.
Name your dog whatever you want to name it, but uh is he tone deaf.
Remember, we had we had uh video tape once back during the days of the TV show of Teddy Kennedy uh uh singing uh reading a song, a kid's book to uh to a bunch of school kids, it'sy bitsy spider, and uh so forth.
I guess that experience has launched him now to this new career, Wants to write a kid's book.
Wonder if he'll describe how you how you make a sandwich out of a waitress.
Uh like he and uh and Chris Dodd did.
Anyway, he had a piece uh Saturday in the what was it, the uh Washington Post.
And Ed Whalen, National Review Online has parsed the piece.
And he says Kennedy's attack is uh is a jumble of distortions, inventions, and non sequiturs.
In the interest of brevity, I'm gonna refrain from revisiting Kennedy's own credibility.
Here's a quick response to Kennedy's five stated areas of concern.
Number one, Alito's 1985 job application sets forth a classic statement of American principles.
This is what Alito wrote in 85.
I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values.
In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate, quote unquote.
That is flawless.
That is there's no more perfect classic statement of American principles on a job application you find anywhere.
Ted Kennedy finds this troubling, though.
And in his piece on uh Saturday in the Washington Post, he asserted without anything resembling an argument that those views raise serious concerns about Alito's ability to interpret the Constitution with a fair and open mind.
Now, you just heard me read his job app.
There's nothing that he wrote that would lead anybody to that conclusion.
Kennedy also claims that Alito tried to distance himself from those views by telling Ted Kennedy, well, when he met with it, well, though that was just a 35-year-old seeking a job.
Well, Ed Whelan says that a well-informed source told him that Ted Kennedy's quote is a concoction, that Alito has never tried to suggest that that 1985 essay was not a genuine statement of his views at the time.
So we have it here that Kennedy basically made it up, basically lied, said Alito said, Well, I he tried to excuse that, so it was just the rantings of a of a young 35-year-old.
And Alito said, never happened.
I didn't, I didn't make excuses for that.
I don't make excuses for it now.
What was the story a couple of weeks ago?
Ted Kennedy actually had another column that ran somewhere and quoted an event that was a total hoax.
It didn't happen.
And it was point it was it was he quoted a right.
Right.
He quoted, he quoted a student who claimed that he had been spied on by the government.
That's what it was, and it was a total hoax.
The whole thing was made up.
And when Senator Kennedy was informed it was made up, he did what liberals do.
He said, doesn't matter.
It could happen with these people in the White House, and it's still a fitting example.
So he stood by a hoax as a fact.
So we have documented evidence that Senator Kennedy will make it up and then stand by whatever he makes up.
He will lie and then stand by whatever he lies about in order to advance his principles or his cause.
Uh colon in normal Illinois.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
That'd be Collin.
Collins, sorry about that.
No problem.
I'd like to take exception to uh a comment you made earlier considering uh concerning uh terrorist activity in the United States and how uh we are unable to monitor it.
Um I believe there is an apparatus in place for warrants to be issued uh through a court to monitor any conversation in the United States.
Is that not true?
Uh depends on uh the the problem with warrants is the speed with which you need to issue them.
Yes, and but you see, the prop the problem with your argument on warrants is that oftentimes we don't know who it is that we are seeking.
We get a phone call, we hear that the computer mines the data, finds a phone call, may we get a phone number, but we don't know who to issue the warrant for.
But yet we've got the data that says, ooh, something's being plotted here.
So you gotta go to the court, you gotta get a warrant by the time you do that, the moment's passed.
Well, concerning the speed, I believe you're you're legally allowed to uh to tap the phone without a warrant and seek the warrant later.
Is that not true?
Uh not if you guys get your way.
That's the whole point.
Who is who is us guys?
You guys on the left.
I'm not on the left.
I'm not on the right.
I'm just, you know, I'm just here.
Oh, you're not you're not a liberal that says you're a liberal.
Did you do a call screener you're a liberal or not?
I did not.
You did not tell a call screener.
I simply stated a view policy.
Oh, call screener inferred it.
We apologize, sir.
We don't like labels on this program.
Labels, labels get in the way of our common humanity, don't you know?
Well, my point, my point being I feel that uh as a uh as a rule, you tend to present sort of a half-truth and uh leave out certain bits of information, such as there are apparatus in place to monitor calls within the United States.
And you know, Ray.
Have you heard of the case of of uh zakarius Massawi?
I have.
Yeah, well.
That's a case where we didn't get to find out what was on his computer, and we found out he was the 20th hijacker.
And we missed finding out what was going on beforehand.
The FBI wanted to know what was on his computer, couldn't get a warrant to do it from the Pfizer court.
They didn't like the way the procedures had been followed.
Bamo nine eleven.
They could have they could have done it without the warrant.
Could they not have?
I believe that's that's the law, and then you can seek the warrant afterwards.
Why didn't we follow that that procedure?
Uh because there was a wall.
The time this happened, this is 1999.
This is during the Clinton administration.
There's a wall that you couldn't share information.
One intelligence agency couldn't share it with another, so it wouldn't have done any good.
Oh, very well.
I just wanted to issue my uh my my feelings, and I'm I'm sure I'm not going to convince anybody, especially you, so I uh just thought I'd say my piece.
Well, you know, but the the thing that I'm talking about here is is you're you you want to start talking procedure here, and I'm talking philosophy.
Uh we we've got a we've we've got a big argument going in the country right now, uh, Colin, about the the culture of corruption.
Uh in the Republican Party.
The the Abramov scandal and the and the Democrats have been for the last six months or so trying to make hay out of this culture of corruption.
And I think that there is an even larger culture of corruption that we need to explore, and that's the culture of an ideology.
I think liberalism is corrupting America.
Liberalism, for some reason, has found itself on the side of our enemies.
Liberalism seeks to exploit weaknesses here at home.
The culture of liberalism is gotten so corrupt that it is hard to recognize it anymore.
So I'm talking about an overall philosophy.
You can sit here and make these these points about whether they could go get a warrant here after the fact or do whatever.
The fact is that you have nevertheless, by the position you've taken, you have supported a position that makes it more difficult for us to gather intelligence on known enemies in this country.
That is corruption of what you believe, whether you're a liberal or not.
Now, as Mark Stein wrote about this, and this was yesterday in the uh uh in the Chicago Sun Times.
This is a quote.
It's very hard to fight a terrorist war without intelligence.
By definition, you can only win battles against terrorists preemptively.
That's to say, you find out what they're planning to do next Thursday, and you stop it called on Wednesday.
Capturing them on Friday while you're still pulling your dead from the rubble is poor consolation.
If the Democrats have their way, all terrorist cells in Europe or Pakistan would have to do to put themselves beyond the reach of U.S. intelligence is get a New Jersey-based associate to place a bulk order for Verizon cell phones.
And then use them.
Because the way we're going about, we're not going to be allowed if the Democrats have their way in their effort here to get Bush, in their effort to impeach him, in their we're not going to be able to do any spying on anybody in this country, including the enemy where they are currently operating.
We fear.
I gotta run.
Quick timeout, we'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Well, Senator Kennedy just implied in his opening statement that Sam Alito is a racist, didn't use the words, but said he can't find anywhere in Olido's writings or history where he's opposed to um uh discrimination.
Uh you know, if this man had never been confirmed to the appellate court and previously to that, the circuit courts, the uh district courts, I I can understand some of this, but this guy's been confirmed.
He's an appellate judge now.
He's got the best rating possible from the American Bar Association, which is in the back pocket of the Democratic Party.
So these are these are pure desperation.
These are hand grenades, folks.
They're throwing a hand grenades, and I think they're for they're forgetting to take pins out.
Uh uh the the it's it's It's inexplicable, other than to say that it's it's from the same old playbook that they've used for time immemorial, and they've always gotten away with it, and they just simply have not adapted.
Now, our last caller, uh Colin, wanted to make the point that uh look, go ahead and spy and then and then get the warrants after the fact.
What's wrong with doing that?
Well, I look some things up here.
Uh first of all, you need probable cause for a warrant.
Uh and and what's the point of a warrant issued by a judge after an intercept has already occurred?
What's being protected?
What's the principle here?
If you've if you've intercepted something, it's worthwhile.
What do you need the warrant for?
If you don't get a warrant before the intercept, there's no judicial check on the fact that an intercept has occurred.
This is the whole thing is a is a is a bogus point.
But more importantly than that.
Uh if you look at the statute here, you find that this idea that all we gotta do is wait 72 hours and then go get the warrant before the FISA court.
Uh it's not simple, folks.
FISA applications are detailed and they require considerable time to repair.
And I have the requirements here, and I I don't have time to read all of this, but to get an after-the-fact warrant.
A submission by federal officer, approval of attorney general contents.
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title.
Each application shall require the approval of the attorney general based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in his subchapter.
It shall include one, the identity of the federal officer making the application, two, the authority conferred on the attorney general by the president and the approval of the attorney general to make the application.
Three, the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the surveillance.
Four, a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that A, the tar this goes on.
It's well, let me hold this up.
This is you can't see it.
I was too much too much light.
It it it would take 72 hours to go through all of the requirements here just to apply for the warrant.
It's it's it's absurd.
Or what are we supposed to do here?
Have scores of lawyers ready to undertake these ridiculous tasks to make sure terrorists and their friends in the U.S. aren't denied rights they don't have under the Constitution in the first place.
We're talking about enemy combatants on the ground in this country want to confer constitutional rights.
That's why it is being said by some that all the terrorists are going to have to do if the Democrats get their way is to come into this country, go into New Jersey or New York somewhere, get a bunch of Verizon cell phones and go to town.
It is clear that the people on the other side of this don't support capturing these people.
And and we don't know that for sure, but we do know that what they want to do is penalize George W. Bush for what he's been doing, even though it's been done by uh by previous presidents.
Uh quick timeout.
Well, let me grab this real quick.
Steve in Richmond, Virginia.
I think we got time squeeze you in here.
Hello, sir.
Good afternoon.
How are you?
Fine.
Uh my concern is uh Judge Alito's involvement with CAP, the concerned alumni of Princeton.
I I did a little research on it, and just from what I read on the internet, it seems that they advocate that for Princeton to have been successful, it needed to maintain at least an eighty percent uh white male uh enrollment.
Yeah.
Or rather they spoke out against it being any more than twenty percent by the minorities of women.
Yeah.
And that and that and that bothers me.
That does bother you?
Yes, it does.
Uh you think Alito believes in that.
I I can only go by what I read, and he did uh speak that he was a part of this group and very proud to be a member of this group.
And if you're do you know why he joined the group?
Well, no, I don't.
He joined the group because the group also took a position that said the ROTC on campus was to be permitted.
There were people at Princeton trying to keep the ROTC out.
That's why he joined.
That's why he's proud.
He wanted the ROTC to be kept on campus and so they could continue to recruit.
All this other stuff is liberal gobbledygook that you're reading.
They're trying to associate Alito with it, but he has no association with it.
Good try.
Back in just a second.
Okay, first hours in the can.
Much more broadcast excellence coming up from America's anchor man, America's truth detector, America's play by play man of the news, and America's news commentator.
Sit tight, folks.
▲
Export Selection